singaland

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Who is the Most Unproductive of Them All?

2010-03-08T16:25:00.000+08:00

"The Singapore government of course!"

Yes, we've been jawboned to be "cheaper, better and faster", but it is the government who should improve its productivity.

To run the various government ministries of the little red dot with a population of five million, the ministers are paid at least $1 million each. This is almost twice the salary of the U.S. President who governs the world's 1st economy with a population of about 300 million.

The three ministers without portfolios are even more unproductive. Despite having no ministries to take care of they are paid more than $2 million each.

But to top it all is the PM who despite being paid a gargantuan $3 million still needs 2 Senior Ministers and one Mentor Minister to hold his hands!

No Need to be Clever or Prescient, Just Do Your Work

2010-01-11T20:23:00.000+08:00

“Nobody, no matter how prescient, no matter how clever, would have been able to predict that this was what was going to happen,” he said.

That was what National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan defended himself for missing the price hike in HDB resale flats last year, a recession year.

By saying that our elite minister didn't seem to know he was telling everybody that he or his officers have not been doing his or their work.

HDB should have all the records of sale or resale of its flats. Those records would show, among other things, who were buying or selling and at what prices were those flats transacted. Had Mr Mah or his officers been monitoring the transactions, he or they would know that the prices were heading north and could take whatever actions needed.

Without a good understanding the current developments, one just wonders how is the National Development Minister going to chart the future development of the country.

A PR Blitz Gone Bad

2009-10-27T14:19:00.001+08:00

With a ”We'll agree to disagree” the PAP govt. beats a hasty retreat from a pr. blitz that has gone bad.

In an attempt to show its magnanimity, the PAP govt. announced in Sep. that some blocks of flat in the two opposition wards will get lift upgrading. But, alas, being so used to bulldozing its way, it wasn't able to capitalize on this image-enhancing opportunity effectively. It bypassed the two opposition mps and let its failed candidates to claim credit for procuring the upgrading plans.

Sylvia Lim and Low Thiang Kiang of the Workers' Party first took issue with the misstep which was subsequently picked up by many netizens.

This incident seems to show two things. One, despite its claim of having the best talents as its members, the PAP leaders are still stuck with the 3rd world mentality. The PAP govt. also forgets that it longer monopolizes the national narrative.

Straits Times, 17 October 2009
Lift upgrading: We will agree to disagree

I REFER to Ms Sylvia Lim’s letter on Thursday, ‘WP rebuts ministry’s reply on lift upgrading’, in response to the Ministry of National Development’s (MND) earlier explanations on the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) in Hougang.

As we have pointed out, the LUP is carried out and funded by the Government, not the local Member of Parliament. The Government tasks the local adviser to grassroots organisations to work with all interested parties, including the MP, to implement the LUP. This is not a matter of protocol, but because of the need to implement government programmes through persons and agencies answerable to the Government. Opposition MPs do not answer to the Government, and implementing the LUP is not one of their constitutional or legal duties.

We do not expect the Workers’ Party to accept these basic facts, and we will agree to disagree. In the final analysis, the people of Singapore will decide. In the meantime, the interests of Hougang residents are best served by concrete actions, not words.

The MND and HDB will continue to work with the grassroots adviser and other stakeholders in Hougang to implement the LUP in the constituency.

Lim Yuin Chien
Press Secretary to the Minister for National Development

2009-05-18T14:10:00.003+08:00

Single Worst Investment in History

This is to put on record that our extraordinary talents in Temasek Holdings have created world history with their extraordinary transaction: they lost 4.7 billion on their 5.7 billion investment in Merill Lynch/Bank of America

Video link: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1124895352&play=1

World Standard Government?

2009-04-21T20:36:00.000+08:00

In a letter sent to the media, National Environment Agency CEO Mr Andrew Tan wrote:

“When markets and hawker centres are being upgraded, grassroot organisations and their advisers can choose to have a temporary market which is not provided for under the Government’s Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme.

If so, they also carry the responsibility of keeping the temporary market clean to meet NEA standards. However, NEA will intervene if it assesses the need to do so in the interest of public health.

In the case of Geylang Serai Market, the Kampong Ubi Citizens Consultative Committee decided to build and manage the temporary market. Despite the best of efforts put in by the Temporary Market Management Committee in implementing its cleaning regime and in tackling the rat infestation problem, the problem had persisted.”

The above letter is disturbing in the following ways:

Firstly, persistence rat infestation is not considered threatening enough to public health for NEA to intervene.

Secondly, NEA seemed only too happy to cede its oversight duty to some ordinary laymen.

But worst of all, PAP is feared so much that no public agencies dare to censure any of its subsidiaries even if their action, or inaction as in this case, not only can harm but lead to loss of human life.

What happens to our world standard government?

'Bonus' Not a Dirty Word

2009-04-05T20:48:00.002+08:00

BONUS has become almost a dirty word in these times, with its meaning highly misunderstood, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Boon Heng said on Saturday.

Speaking at the launch of this year's Singapore Kindness Month, he noted that public anger arose in the United States over large bonuses paid to executives of failed American corporations because of the economic downturn.

'Nowadays, the word 'bonus' is almost a dirty word,' he said in his speech. 'There has been great misunderstanding over what the word 'bonus' entails. You have to understand that in today's context, companies' bonuses are part and parcel of the overall wage package.'

'We now operate differently from the past. So, let us not get overexcited whenever we see the word 'bonus' being used,' he added.

He said the uproar over bonuses paid by troubled firms like AIG was because the American public perceived these to have come from government bailouts.

But Mr Lim said people should not mistake a bonus as 'somebody getting something extra and undeserved and out of line with the current economic situation'.

He stressed that, with the downturn, it is even more important for Singaporeans to be kind and considerate towards others.

He also called on Singaporeans to be kind to foreigners living here, such as students from overseas.

Be kind and considerate towards others? Does that mean keeping an elegant silence when we learn of some Deputy General Manager and Senior Manager of some government agencies receiving 7 months bonus?

If the bonuses paid to executives of troubled U. S. firms did not come from government bailouts then could Mr Lim enlighten us where did the money come from?

So, for organising MM Lee's 80th birthday bash, Mr Lim deserves every cents of the millions he gets?

2008-11-03T18:48:00.000+08:00

The Bad Old Days Are Back!

Some time last year, we were told that we were in a golden period which could stretch out over many years. Instead of having a golden period which hopefully could lead to some kind of renaissance, recent events showed that we are heading back to the bad old days.

Those notorious financially-ruining and fear-instilling court cases are making a fast and furious comeback.

Just this year alone, MM Lee and PM Lee won two defamation suits, one against Dr Chee Soon Juan and the other against Far Eastern Economic Review.

The judiciary appears to miss the 3^rd world stage so much that it is now actively seeking out individuals as well as companies to bring them to court. One was charged and convicted for insulting the judge, others are being charged for peaceful protest. It has also taken and taking a series of contempt proceedings against critics like The Wall Street Journal Asia, Dow Jones, three activists who donned kangaroo t-shirts and Nair Gopalan for his articles in his blog.

It appears that our Golden Period has become our Dark Age prematurely, how sad!

Why the Goverment Hates Singaporeans

2008-08-26T16:27:00.001+08:00

I gained so much enlightenment after reading Ms Chua Lee Hoong’s profound article, “Why they hate Singapore ” that I’m able to demystify several mysteries in Singapore .

One of these is the government’s resistance to adjust the wages of Singaporean workers.

The wages of the bottom 30% of Singapore workers have fallen and those of the middle class nominally higher by 1%. Why would a self-proclaimed caring and inclusive government not allow Singaporean workers to be fairly remunerated? By Ms Chua’s doctrine it would be because the government hates Singaporeans. And our sin: for being non-talented. Don’t believe? Remember the reason given for the handsome pay rise for the already well paid top civil servants and the ministers? It was to retain and attract talents. By extension of that reason, hard working non-talented Singaporean workers don’t deserve any wage revision even if inflation is at all time high.

Another mystery was the opening of floodgate to foreign workers. Initially only foreigners who either possessed skills that Singaporeans didn’t have or were willing to do jobs shunned by Singaporeans were allowed in. Soon the door was thrown open to all and sundries.

Why does the government allow foreigners to not only depress the wages but to take away jobs from Singaporeans? Again according to Ms Chua’s doctrine it would be because the government hates Singaporeans and for the same sin of being average. Didn’t a Wee Shu Min episode where her MP father’s defense for her and the silence from his political colleagues gave some indication of the disdain the elite government has for the average Singaporeans?

Celebrate the Singapore Spirit

2008-08-12T18:58:00.001+08:00

The theme of this year national day celebration is “celebrate the Singapore spirit”. I really do not know what kind of spirit we have to celebrate. We’re all too busy eking out a living that we’re more like zombies with no life or spirit to talk about. The only spirit palpable is the Machiavelli spirit of the government.

The government has been refusing to adjust the wages of Singapore workers though many of us are taking home less pay, in real dollars, than 10 years ago. It claims that wage increment will stoke inflation and make us less competitive. The government however keeps increasing the already humongous salaries of its ministers.

Wage control is of course one of the strategies used by governments to control and manipulate their people. To appear to be a caring government, the PAP leaders will once in a while dish out little goodies like ‘growth dividend’ and ‘work income supplement’ to appease the people. Upon receiving such goodies, the people will be distracted of the real issues at hand and continue to be controlled and manipulated by the Machiavellian government.

Organ Trade Won't be Condoned

2008-07-06T15:56:00.000+08:00

Home > Prime News > Story
July 4, 2008
Judge warns: Organ trade won't be condoned
He gives two donors short jail terms, blaming syndicates for exploiting them
By Elena Chong, Court Correspondent
THE two poor Indonesians recently caught agreeing to sell their kidneys for over $20,000 each were given relatively light jail terms and fines yesterday.

The law will reserve a bigger punch for the shadowy syndicate that arranged the deal, said District Judge Bala Reddy.

Mere fines would not do for those running these syndicates, he said, adding: 'Longer custodial sentences should be reserved for the ringleaders and other major players in such syndicated offences who profit by exploiting the poor and disadvantaged.'

He said the duo knew they were breaking the law, but went ahead anyway because they needed the money.

Singapore law thus had to send a signal that commercial trade in human organs would not be condoned, and people must be deterred from trying to profiteer from the illegal sale of organs, he said.

The prosecution had sought a fine at the lower end of the spectrum for the two men, Sulaiman Damanik and Toni, on the illegal organ supply charges because their poverty had been exploited.

The prosecution had also recommended short jail terms for their having made false statutory declarations that they had not been paid for their kidneys and that they were related to the recipients.

Under the law, a transplant ethics committee (TEC) cannot give the go-ahead for a living donor organ transplant unless it is satisfied, among other things, that the intended organ donor had not entered into any contract to trade away his organ.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Nor'ashikin Samdin asked for a sentence that would deter individuals like Toni and others from trying to profiteer from the sale of their organs.

Toni, who successfully sold one of his kidneys for 186 million rupiah (about $29,390) in March, was to be paid again to act as runner for another prospective kidney seller.

This transaction involving Sulaiman, which would have brought a kidney to ailing C.K. Tang boss Tang Wee Sung, did not go through.

Soon after the TEC approved the application for Sulaiman to become Mr Tang's living donor, the two Indonesians were arrested at Lucky Plaza.

The DPP said Singapore, in its quest to promote medical tourism, would not hesitate to take all measures to protect itself from becoming an illicit transplantation hub.

The Indonesians' lawyer Mohamed Muzammil Mohamed said his clients had no complaints about the sentences.

He said he felt the court had been 'very fair', and noted that it had considered that his clients had not actively sought to sell their organs.

After the sentencing, Toni spoke to his wife on the phone briefly and consoled her.

Mr Kemal Haripurwanto, the minister-counsellor and head of protocol and consular affairs at the Indonesian Embassy, said that considering the maximum sentence the pair could have received, the sentence passed was light.

elena@sph.com.sg

I find the above news very disturbing. Why were only the sellers punished? What about the recipient, would-be recipient, the surgeon, the hospital and the TEC? I'm sure that just like the duo, the recipient, the would-be recipient and the surgeon knew very well that they were breaking the law but went ahead anyway because they needed the organ or the business. Are we again making the poor and "small men" as scapegoat and letting the rich and powerful go unscathed?

Democracy in Singapore

2008-06-28T22:05:00.002+08:00

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121443744095705301.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Democracy in Singapore
June 26, 2008; Page A14

Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore can rightly be proud of many achievements, but full democracy is not one of them. The city-state he founded in 1965 and led as Prime Minister until 1990 is economically prosperous and its citizens enjoy a range of freedoms. Political dissent is not among them.

Which makes a recent David vs. Goliath exchange between one of the country's few opposition politicians and Mr. Lee worth noting. The dialogue took place in a courtroom and is therefore privileged – which means we can report on it without risking a lawsuit, which Mr. Lee often files against critics. Audio files are available on the Singapore Democratic Party's Web site, and a partial transcript is available at Singapore Rebel, an independent blog.

The setting was a hearing to assess damages against Chee Soon Juan, head of the Singapore Democratic Party, and his sister and colleague, Chee Siok Chin. In 2006, the Chees lost a defamation suit brought by Mr. Lee and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, over an article they published in their party newsletter that was interpreted by the court to imply corruption on the part of the government. In last month's hearing, the elder Mr. Lee, who holds the title of Minister Mentor, was cross-examined by Mr. Chee, who was representing himself.

Mr. Chee is no orator, and on one level the dissident was no match for the eloquent Mr. Lee. But when the subject turned to the moral underpinnings of democracy – freedoms of speech, assembly and association – the debate went game, set and match to Mr. Chee.

Mr. Chee set out his philosophy while questioning Mr. Lee: "What I'm interested in is justice, the rule of law, because ultimately it is not about you, Mr. Lee. It is not about me. It's about the people of Singapore, it is about this country and everything we stand for. You and I will pass on, but I can tell you, the practice of the rule of law, the entire concept of justice, democracy – that is going to last for all eternity."

Mr. Lee didn't respond directly to those assertions, choosing instead to cite the International Bar Association's decision to "honor" Singapore by holding its annual conference there last year and noted a letter from the association's president saying "how impressed they were by the standards they found to obtain in the judiciary."

Elsewhere in the hearing, Mr. Lee defended his string of defamation suits against opposition politicians and the press: "They know me by now," Mr. Lee said, referring to the people of Singapore, "that if anybody impugns the integrity of the government, of which I was the prime minister, I must sue."

He went on: "There are various parts of this government which do not comply with Western practices, including the law of libel. But it is a system that has worked." Mr. Lee has never lost a libel suit. He and his son are currently suing the Far Eastern Economic Review, a sister publication of this newspaper, and its editor, Hugo Restall.

Our reading is that the Minister Mentor sounded more than a tad defensive – no less so than in his characterization of Mr. Chee, who has been bankrupted as a result of lawsuits by Mr. Lee and other politicians. He called Mr. Chee, a "liar, a cheat and altogether an unscrupulous man." Not to mention "a near-psychopath." Mr. Chee, for his part, referred to Mr. Lee as a "pitiable figure."

It's hard to know what Singaporeans make of all this. Mr. Lee is widely revered as the father of their country, and Mr. Chee is often scorned for his aggressive tactics. But at least, thanks to the Internet, they are able to read the exchange and make up their own minds.

So, too, in the case of Gopalan Nair, which is making its way through the courts now. Mr. Nair is a former Workers' Party candidate. He is now a U.S. citizen and online advocate for media freedom in Singapore. He traveled to the city-state to attend Mr. Chee's hearing last month and recorded his thoughts on his blog, where he expressed his contempt for the court proceedings and challenged Mr. Lee to sue him.

On May 31, he was arrested and interrogated. On June 2, he was charged with insulting Judge Belinda Ang, who presided over the Chee hearing, by email. He was released on June 5, six days after his initial arrest, and charged on June 12 with insulting another judge in a separate, 2006 email. Last week, the court changed the first charge and specified that the offending remarks about Judge Ang were made on a blog, not by email.

Mr. Nair's case is scheduled to go to court in mid-July. Meanwhile, Mr. Chee was just released from jail, where he served 11 days for "scandalizing" the court during his questioning of Mr. Lee. His sister served 10 days. The court has yet to set the amount of monetary damages in the defamation case. When it does, we'll know the price of political dissent these days in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore.

"There are various parts of this government which do not comply with Western practices, including the law of libel. But it is a system that has worked."

Since MM Lee has never lost a libel suit, isn't that an admission that the system has worked for him in getting rid of opposition politicians and shutting out of political dissent?

This seems to be the 2nd time MM Lee admitted to using the state apparatuses to perpetuate his rule. The first was when he revealed that HDB flat ownership scheme was implemented to prevent HDB owners (about 86% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats) from voting out his party.

MM Lee now seems to have no qualms in letting it be known the means he uses to cling on to power.

2008-06-02T14:14:00.003+08:00

BLOGGER ARRESTED FOR POSTING ALLEGEDLY RACIST COMMENTS ON

INTERNET

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,165378,00.html?

He says now:

I'm shocked that people read my blog

He claims he wrote only for friends, but says he will apologise online

By Liew Hanqing

May 22, 2008

AN online rant about a stranger on an MRT train has turned ugly for a local blogger.

The police have arrested the 24-year-old for a post he allegedly wrote on his blog that contained offensive comments targeted at a racial group.

A police statement issued late last night said the Chinese man was arrested at his Paya Lebar Way home around 9.45pm for posting contents in his blog which may wound the feelings of a person of another race.

A computer, believed to be used to post the suspect's blog, was seized for investigations, which are ongoing.

The police had received two reports on Monday complaining of the alleged post.

IRKED BY MRT RIDER

The post was apparently sparked off by the suspect seeing a man of another race sitting on the floor of an MRT train.

'There he sat, unaffected by his surroundings, smelling like he didn't showered (sic) in years and wore some really scary dirty clothes,' he wrote.

He went on to make allegedly offensive comments about that racial group in his tirade.

His post has drawn flak from local netizens, who labelled him a racist.

Though I don’t like or encourage racism the authorities seemed to have over reacted this time round. Such senseless rants are a dime a dozen in the internet. If they were to arrest all of them then very soon more prisons will have to be built!

Or does the arrest serve a bigger purpose? Like instilling fear in the cyberspace?

Anyway, I hope the 24-year-old will be released after a reprimand. Charging him in court will be equivalent to shooting missile at mosquito!

2008-05-22T16:04:00.002+08:00

Whom Should We Trust?
Sim Kwang Yang
17 Apr 2008
Malaysiakini.com

.....................

In the end, voters must get their heads in the right space. All political leaders and their political parties are but the instruments for the rakyat and history. In a meaningful democracy, the people must be the masters of their own nation. That means they have to learn to use politicians and political parties to further the interest of the rakyat, rather than being used by politicians to attain wealth, position, and power.

Certain amount of trust in public personalities and the institutions of state is definitely crucial for the survival of a nation state. Without that trust, there would not even be any social cohesion that allows law and order to exist.

But that trust must not be blind or unconditional. The trust of the people in the leading men and the laws of their land must always be conditional and tentative. The whole idea in the evolution of democracy in world history is precisely premised upon this mistrust for people in power.

That is why we have the doctrine of separation of powers, and other checks and balances within our political system. Again, to quote the often misquoted dictum of Lord Acton, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." Good political leaders will not demand blind uncritical trust from their followers, but will welcome all kinds of checks and balances to be applied to them in the most vigorous manner possible. They are supposed to have nothing to hide.

Therefore, the question is not so much whether we can trust Anwar Ibrahim or any other leading political figure. The question is about whether we can trust our good judgement, our wisdom, our instinct, and our collective strength in determining our own fate.

Though the article refers to Malaysia political scenario, it is applicable to all countries practicing democracy especially developing democratic countries such as Singapore.

Our brand of democracy is so twisted for so long that many of us have either forgotten or do not know that political leaders are to serve the people and not the other way round. We need not fear them or trust them blindly. We must insist that there are effective mechanisms for checks and balances to prevent official abuses and to ensure political growth for the future of the country.

First World Toilet

2008-04-23T21:54:00.000+08:00

Our terrorist detainee Mas Selamat was rumored to have died while under detention in Whitley Road Detention Centre. That rumor is not only naughty but utterly ridiculous. How could the authority allow him to die they gave him first world treatment!

Just look at the toilet. There are not only no bars or locks of a typical prison setting; the urinals are housed in stall with door. Where else can one get such privacy when doing the mundane task?

Good ventilation is also ensured by an exhaust and a generous obstruction-free ventilation window. And if Mas was still unhappy with the air quality inside the toilet, he was free to inhale the fresh air from outside. All he needed to do was to step up on the ledge thoughtfully provided just below the ventilation window. He could then bend his body over the ventilation window and breathe in all the fresh air he wanted!

So, would an authority that provides such 1^st world toilet allow its charges to die under its care? Highly unlikely!

1st World Democracy?

2008-04-13T16:45:00.002+08:00

I was really made speechless by what our two elite leaders said earlier this week.

PM Lee told our two mainstream media that as far as age is concerned none of the current cabinet ministers qualify to succeed him as PM. He thus will have to remain as PM for another 13 years as he looks for a successor.

I wonder if Singapore is practicing democracy or a dynasty where the emperor appoints his own successor.

But what is more appalling is his narrow-minded view on the prerequisite of a PM. He indicated that the PM must have 4As in his A Level Examinations.

No wonder Singapore never progress beyond a nanny state. It is ruled by a parochial and grade-obsessed school master!

In an interview with The Straits Times, MM Lee said Singaporeans are being complacent when they believe that the government will take care of all security matters. Is he trying to push the blame on Mas Selamat’s jail break to the people?

I’m dumbstruck that a leader of MM Lee’s statute would try to shirk responsibility. Doesn’t he always claim that we are a 1^st world nation? Shouldn’t 1^st world government take responsibility of its actions and mistakes and be prepared to be judged?

Maybe we do have the 1st world hardware but the software is still stuck in the 3^rd world!

2008-03-10T21:36:00.002+08:00

Caretaker Government

I was casually following the Malaysian 12^th General Elections when I made an interesting discovery. That a Malaysian opposition leader had tried to seek a court order to set up a caretaker government after the parliament was dissolved. Unfortunately I don't know the outcome of his application.

A caretaker government is one of the parliamentary innovations esp. in the British Commonwealth. Its principal task is to ensure that the outgoing ruling party will not make use of its’ previous hold on government machinery and public resources to further its interest in the coming elections.

Caretaker governments understandingly have been set up in many first world democratic countries like Italy, Austria and New Zealand. But to my surprise many non-first world and not-so-democratic countries like Palestine, Pakistan, Iraq and even Bangladesh have also adopted the system!

Maybe, PAP should consider adopting the system in future general elections, if not how can it justify its claim that Singapore is a first world country!

Climate of Fear Hurts Singapore?

2007-12-23T18:35:00.000+08:00

Climate of fear hurts Singapore: author
Suppression of criticism could lead to to its eventual declin, says author Catherine Lim.
Reuters, Dec 15, 2007

A climate of fear that stops citizens from speaking out against the government could eventually lead to the decline of Singapore, novelist Catherine Lim says.

Lim, Singapore's best-known writer, praised the government for its economic achievements but said its Achilles' heel could be its suppression of criticism, such as defamation suits against opposition politicians and bans on protests.

"A compliant, fearful population that has never learnt to be politically savvy could spell the doom of Singapore," Lim told Reuters in an interview.

Lim, 65, is one of few dissident voices in Singapore and has criticised the government in opinion pieces in the local press.

But her latest article, an open letter to the prime minister in which she pleaded for a political opening up, was rejected. She has posted it on her website www.catherinelim.sg

She said the worst-case scenario would be for a future leader to get away with corruption "because of the ingrained, unquestioning trust of a fearful, overly dependent people".

Another factor is that the current generation of young people are exposed to views from around the world and discussion on political freedoms on the internet, she said. Her latest article has generated a string of comments in Singapore's active political blogging community.

"You could have a case of younger Singaporeans creating unrest because they do not have an outlet," she said.

Lim also argues that the tight political control could hurt Singapore's aim of attracting the talent needed to retool its economy from manufacturing to a hub for research and services.

"What Singapore wants is managed creativity. So not only would those really creative people not want to come, but those who are here want to get out," she said.

....................

I don't think the suppression of criticism could be the Achilles' heel of the govt but its disconnection with the average Singaporean could be.

In the past few years the govt implemented several inconsiderate and ill-timed policies which caused severe financial hardship to the average Singaporean. Despite public outcries the govt appeared not too concerned and went ahead to implement those policies.

If the govt will to continue with its unilateral actions, Singaporeans could be pushed beyond their limits and forced to follow the footsteps of the Indians in Malaysia. The impoverished Malaysian Indians were so desperate that they took to the street to protest despite their govt's warnings and threats of arrest.

I certainly don't hope to see that day here.

2007-12-11T13:23:00.000+08:00

WSJ: Malaysia's 'Tectonic Shift'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119689168888514935.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

By ROSE ISMAIL
December 6, 2007

It's rally season in Kuala Lumpur. Last month, around 40,000 opposition parties, trade unions and non-governmental organizations braved thunderstorms and roadblocks to demand clean and fair elections. Two weeks ago, the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) demonstrated, demanding fair treatment for Malaysian Indians. A fracas broke out and some 200 people were arrested. [Art]

These rallies are clearly not for the faint-hearted, as each one has been preceded by stern statements from the government, which included warnings about invoking the Internal Security Act. But they have a deeper import, beyond the threat of jail: These protests indicate a tectonic shift in the way we exercise our democratic rights. Whether this will permanently alter our country's political culture remains to be seen. For the moment, the uppermost question for many observers is: Why now?

First, the eve of a general election is perceived as a good time to air public grievances. There is also the burgeoning public perception that the current government's grasp of policy issues is weakening. Over the last couple of years, Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi's administration has been weighed down by corruption in the police force; judicial probes into court decisions; tension over religious conversion cases; recent spikes in the cost of living; and a bunch of boisterous bloggers who refuse to remain silent.

The occasional public appearance of former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim -- who is planning a triumphant return to politics early next year, when his political ban expires -- is undeniably another source of annoyance for the current administration.

But more deeply, Malaysia's 50-year-old social contract, shined up in August by the Independence celebrations, may also be losing its gloss. The promises made in the 1957 constitution guaranteed that if we followed the rules laid down by leaders of the main ethnic communities and behaved ourselves we could be confident of an increasing quality of life and racial harmony. For the most part, the contract has worked, as Malaysia's steady economic growth demonstrates.

Yet it is racial discord that still drives cold fear into the hearts of most Malaysians. We are terrified of it. Yet, oddly enough, we read racial agendas into everything from policy formulation to court decisions, police arrests, hiring and firing as well as who gets their trash removed first.

Race relations and its many perplexing permutations have pulled us together and also widened the gulf between the different ethnic groups. This was demonstrated in last week's Hindraf demonstration, where protestors proposed to sue the British government for neglecting the rights of the Indian community at Independence, the majority of whom were brought in by colonialists as indentured laborers.

The organizers brought a claim of 14 trillion ringgit ($4 billion) in a petition to be delivered to the British High Commission in Kuala Lumpur -- meant, eventually, to be handed over to Queen Elizabeth II. Some protestors were reportedly angry that a 100-year-old Hindu temple had been demolished. Others demanded either the abolition of affirmative action -- which has largely benefited the Malays -- or inclusion in it.

Naturally, the non-Indians have not been too pleased. Rumors were rife last week that Malays in Kampung Baru (an inner-city enclave largely inhabited by Malays) were buying long knives to defend themselves against the Indians. Last Saturday, a full week after the event, the
usually mild-mannered Prime Minister Abdullah furiously condemned the group for appealing to the British government to send Malaysia to the World Court and the International Criminal Court for crimes against ethnic minority Indians. Hindraf had also alleged that government-backed Islamic extremists were committing ethnic cleansing -- an idea so shocking to the Prime Minister that he has offered to resign, should there be any evidence of such atrocities.

In the tangle of these issues, emotions and sometimes outlandish accusations, is there basis for the Malaysian Indian to be aggrieved? Compared to the other races which have advanced in proportion to the nation's economic progress, the Indian community -- roughly 10% of the population -- is far behind.

All "Indian problems" are relegated to the Malaysian Indian Congress, a component of the ruling alliance. Loud on rhetoric and soft on action, the party has been emasculated by internal succession issues, rather than addressing the very basic needs of its constituents. For the very poor, many quality-of-life improvements -- from school shoes to a place in university, a job in IT, or even a burial place for a loved one -- are painfully difficult to come by. To gain visibility,
the fight had to be re-oriented. The Queen of England, therefore, became the most fitting recipient of the petition, capturing media attention all over the world. Meanwhile, the MIC and other Indian groups are falling over themselves to address the Indian problem. A hotline has been set up to respond swiftly to all manner of grievances raised by Indians.

In the end, the petition never reached the High Commission but the Indian story will be remembered for two reasons -- as an extraordinary public relations exercise and, like the other rallies, a watershed event for political expression in Malaysia.

Ms. Ismail, a former editor with the "New Straits Times" and senior fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies, now heads a media consultancy in Malaysia.

I believe the Singapore government could be taking note of the recent developments in Malaysia. Despite two decades of tight control by the former autocratic PM and repetitive threats of arrest by the current leaders and police chief, Malaysians went ahead and took their first tentative step of citizenry activism.

Though there is no racial problem in Singapore there is enough social discontent that could push Singaporeans to follow the footsteps of their neighbour in the north if the government continues to ignore them.

Firstly there is the widening income disparity problem. While Singapore economy has performed better than expected, it has only benefitted the top 10% of the working population. Incomes of the majority workers have either increased marginally or stagnated. Wages of the lower income earners are even lower than 10 years ago!

With no real increase in income, the recent spike in inflation has inflicted considerable hardship on many Singaporeans.

Then, there is this simmering hostility towards foreign workers. Many Singaporeans feel that foreign workers take away their jobs and depress their wages. Male Singaporeans are also unhappy that their national service obligation has put them in unequal footing with the foreign workers in their search for employment.

Taxi Problem

2007-12-03T19:20:00.000+08:00

Mr. Han Songguang, a researcher with the Geography Dept of National University of Singapore, should be commended for his thorough and objective analysis of “The Taxi Situation” which appeared in The Straits Times on 21 Nov 2007.

Famous blogger, Mr. Alex Au has attributed 3 ills of Singapore to the taxi problem namely, elitism, over-regulation and protection of government-linked companies.

I think there is another factor; it is the government’s intentional control of the wages of Singapore workers and in this case, the takings of the taxi drivers.

After so many years of fare regulating the government should have a very good idea of how much the cabbies can make at any given fare rates. It probably thinks that as non-elite worker, taxi drivers have to put in at least 12 hours everyday if they want to earn more than $1,500 per month.

This control of wages is obviously for political reasons which sadly can even override morality and social responsibility.

Several years ago, there was a disturbing increase in road accidents involving taxi drivers and PTC (Public Transport Council) was tasked to look into it. PTC actually found that the main reason for the accidents was due to driver fatigue. Cabbies have to drive long hours to make ends meet and that impaired their driving performance. Despite PTC findings, the government stubbornly refused to help increase the cabbies’ takings and chose to impose fine on taxi companies to check accident rates. The findings of PTC were of course not made public until several years later.

As cabbies still need to put in long hours to earn a decent income, can we blame them for trying to work smart to maximize their earnings? Unfortunately this has only resulted in bad press for them!

Singapore's economic boom widens income gap

2007-11-18T19:03:00.000+08:00

Reuters
Singapore's economic boom widens income gap
Fri Nov 9, 2007 2:40am EST
By Melanie Lee

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Carol John, 27, doesn't own a bed. Every night she sleeps on thin mattresses which she shares with her three young children. Outside her one-room flat, a smell of sewage lingers in the common corridor.

Just a few kilometers away, on Singapore's Sentosa island, Madhupati Singhania relaxes on his $435,000 yacht berthed at the city-state's swanky One 15 Marina Club.

Income inequality is nothing new in free-market Singapore, but two years of blistering economic growth and a government policy of attracting wealthy expatriates have created a new class of super-rich, while a string of price increases for everything from bread to bus fares have made life harder for the poor.

"I can't save anything, it's so difficult for me," John told Reuters. John, who is unemployed, relies on her husband's S$600 (US$420) monthly salary and a S$100 government handout.

"We don't benefit at all from the economy. As far as I know, my husband's pay hasn't gone up," she said.

Singapore's economy is firing on all cylinders, with a booming construction sector, record tourist arrivals and a fast-growing financial sector all contributing to a gross domestic product set to grow nearly 8 percent in 2007.

But the rising tide is not lifting every boat.

The proportion of Singapore residents earning less than S$1,000 ($690) a month rose to 18 percent last year, from 16 percent in 2002, central bank data released late last month show.

At the same time, the proportion of those earning S$8,000 and above rose from 4.7 percent to 6 percent in the same period.

"When a country becomes richer, you tend to see a widening of income inequality. Over the last few years it has been worse," said econometrics professor Anthony Tay at SMU university.

Despite sporting a first-world GDP per capita of $29,000 -- second only to Japan in Asia -- Singapore has an income inequality profile more in line with third-world countries.

Singapore's Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, has worsened from 42.5 in 1998 to 47.2 in 2006, and is now in league with the Philippines (46.1) and Guatemala (48.3), and worse than China (44.7), data from Singapore's Household Survey and the World Bank show.

Other wealthy Asian nations such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan have more European-style Ginis of 24.9, 31.6 and 32.6.

FAST CARS, BIG BOATS

CIMB-GK Research economist Song Seng Wun believes that growth itself partly explains the widening income gap.

"In an environment where growth is huge, there are lots of opportunities for risk takers, and inevitably, you will get this widening (of the income gap)," he said, adding that those in stable jobs will also benefit, but to a lesser extent.

Opportunity is what attracted Singhania to Singapore. He intends to buy a new 47-foot yacht for $1.3 million.

"You've got everything you want in Singapore. You want to buy a fast car, you want to buy a big boat, you want to buy an aeroplane, whatever you need, you can get in this country."

Singhania, who runs a business consultancy firm, was originally from Mumbai but decided to move to Singapore and become a Singapore citizen, citing its first-world comforts.

The Asian Development Bank blames the widening income gap in Singapore and many other Asia countries partly on globalization, which it said favors the well-educated, and recommended policies to create more equal opportunities and wealth.

Singapore's government has made the reduction of the income gap a priority, but argues welfare should not be a crutch, and rules out unemployment benefits or a minimum wage.

While the ruling People's Action Party is in no danger of losing its stranglehold on parliament, the growing income disparity has hurt its credibility.

"There is definitely envy, but this is not enough for civil disturbance," said sociologist Ho Kong Chong at NUS university.

"These emotions of despair and desperation are missing in Singapore because of the government's housing policy and transfer payments," Ho said.

Singapore's extensive housing program provides owner-financed flats in government-built blocks and the state also provides modest income supplements to those in low-income jobs, although there are no unemployment benefits.

Carol John, who left school when she was 15, does not know much about support schemes. "In the years to come, I'll just leave it in God's hands, whatever he gives me, I'll take it."

($1=1.448 Singapore Dollar), ($1=.6894 Euro)

(Editing by Geert De Clercq and Jacqueline Wong)

Why does supposed 1^st world Singapore have a Gini Coefficient of the 3^rd world? It is because its government practices almost total capitalism.

Singapore government is not only protecting businesses but is actually running the country like a corporation. Unrestrained capitalism, an academic once warned, would allow the capitalists to embark on a total campaign to rape and pillage the middle and working classes of the country. It is therefore not surprising that Singapore’s lower income workers are worse off than their counterparts in the 1^st world as their governments do not turn them into utilities and consumers.

Pay and Pay

2007-09-16T20:41:00.000+08:00

Looks like the pay and pay culture is quite well entrenched here. And of course the Singaporean commoners are the ones paying whether they like it or not.

We pay fines and penalties to ensure that we obey whatever rules and orders impose on us.

We pay more GST to help the needy.

We would most likely be paying for those blessed with long life.

And if we are unfortunate enough we could even be paying for mistakes we do not make!

An extremely unlucky Mr Lock was ordered to pay court charges of $45,000 just because he went to Primary Dispute Resolution Centre (PDRC), which has no legal authority at all, to settle his traffic accident. It just makes one wonders who set up PDRC. And if the learned PDRC judge didn't know that he had no legal authority to issue any order would commoner Lock know any better?

http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_139845.html
Home > Free > Story
July 17, 2007
Awarded $188 in claim, he may now have to pay $63k
By K.C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent

A MOTORCYCLIST who was originally awarded $188 in an accident claim may end up paying $63,000 in court costs instead.

An appeal against these costs will be made on Friday after a judge deferred the case yesterday to give 35-year-old motorcyclist Jonathan Lock's lawyer time to prepare.

A High Court decision regarding the case has also thrown into doubt the enforceability of settlements made through the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre (PDRC).

The PDRC was set up by the Subordinate Courts to deal with minor accidents not involving personal injury or exceeding $1,000 in claims.

The case started simply enough last year as a dispute between Mr Lock and motorist Jessiline Goh, 31, over a minor traffic collision in 2004.

In the initial ruling at the PDRC, the district judge who helped settle the dispute decided that Mr Lock would get about $1,187, including costs.

This amount included various court charges as well as $188 for damage to his motorcycle.

But Ms Goh appealed to the High Court - after two losses in the lower courts - before winning a ruling in May that the decision of PDRC was invalid.

Ms Goh's lawyers from Assomull & Partners argued that the judge overseeing the mediation had no power to issue a court order since the settlement was not part of a court proceeding.

They contended that the PDRC - or e@dr Centre as it is now known - is not the equivalent of a court.

Justice Lai Siu Chiu agreed, and this triggered the landmark decision.

Costs totalling $63,000 were awarded to Ms Goh after an assessment last week by assistant registrar Dorcas Quek.

Yesterday, Mr Lock's lawyer, Mr Joseph Chen, sought to get the High Court to review its decision.

Justice Lai Siu Chiu agreed to postpone the case to Friday to allow Mr Chen to prepare his arguments.

Lawyer Madan Asomull, who represented Ms Goh, is not content either. He wants to cross-appeal for an upward revision of the $63,000, claiming it is unsufficient considering the amount of work done.

In her judgment, Justice Lai suggested that appropriate laws would have to be passed if the intention was for Court Dispute Resolution - the formal name for the mediation process - to run parallel to court procedures.

Her judgment in May sparked a move from the Subordinate Courts registrar to issue a directive, which held that all settlements reached through the PDRC would now have to be endorsed by the courts to give them the weight of a legal judgment.

Contacted yesterday, Mr Chen said he would be seeking a stay of the costs order, pending a review by an appeals court.

'The entire process defeats the objective of court-based mediation, which was meant to settle small claims at minimal cost,'' he said.

2007-08-27T16:58:00.000+08:00

Corruption of Values
Kelvin Ng. Sg_Review
Aug 21, 2007

Now that most of the dust from the NKF debacle has settled, most think it is time to forget the whole episode. I think not.

The issue at the heart of the whole matter has scarcely been dealt with, and now with our fast-paced mindset, we are thinking of putting it behind us.

The case has been dealt with legally, but the heart of the matter has little to do with law, but with what is right.

The former is the letter of the law but the latter is the spirit of the law. The heart of the matter has to do with values.

Values drive behaviour, and behavior can be judged legally, but the source and crux of the trouble is not behavior but values.

Therefore, I propose a mindset change in the way we perceive corruption. Corruption is now being rigidly defined as a matter of bribes and misuse of public funds.

However, the fact that we were outraged by the NFK has little to do with the legalities of corruption but with the corruption of values in an institution using public funds.

If we don't call this perversion of values corruption we can call it decadence, and it is no less reprehensible, and all institutions of public character must be under scrutiny for it.

It is an affront to common human decency for public institutions to subvert their values, such that they become bureaucratic self-serving places of decadence.

We need an active vigilant citizenry not afraid to speak up, a mass media not afraid to publish wrong-doing and a government that does care and listen and which investigates all credible reports and not sweep things under the carpet when it is convenient.

We have a long way to go on all three aspects.
Kelvin Ng

well said, well said!

ok let me do my part of an active vigilant citizenry.

Taking the previous NKF directors to court only distract the public from the failure of the various top government officials to perform their duty much less to justify their big fat pay.

The people need to know what kind of investigations were carried out or was there any investigation done at all when allegation after allegation of suspected impropriety were directed at NKF over the years.

With the government keeping mum and no high-ranking officials taking responsibility, criminal proceedings against former NKF directors merely allow the government to claim for the illusionary first world governance. It also perpetuates the culture that our top government officials run no risk of being blamed for anything that happens no matter how egregious.

City of Possibilities

2007-08-14T17:05:00.000+08:00

I just realized that the theme of this year National Day celebrations is "city of possibilities". A city of possibilities indeed, and I think it includes possibilities for absurdities and paradoxes.

Don't we allow the public transport companies which are making handsome profits to increase their fares almost annually while we persistently refuse to have a minimum wage? Wages of some of our low wage earners, like cleaners and laborers, have dropped to lower than what they were ten years ago.

Our labor chief said that to have a minimum wage was an "easy solution" that might not work and it was better for the workers to improve their productivity.

By offering the public transport companies a provision to adjust fares yearly are we not giving them an "easy solution" to increase their revenue?

With such an "easy solution" in place would the public transport companies have the motivation to improve their productivity or to scour for other avenues or ways to increase their revenue?

When Public Transport Council invites the public transport companies to submit their applications for adjustment of bus and train fares why are taxi fares not included? Isn't taxi part of the public transport system?

But of course the most unconscionable paradox is the 60% hike to the already gargantuan salary of our ministers while the government begrudged the elderly sick of three square meals a day.

Ours is a city of paradoxes!

If only Li Hongyi.....

2007-07-19T22:23:00.000+08:00

The recent Li Hongyi’s email saga has caused my imagination to run wild. I was imagining how blessed we would be if only Li was born a few years earlier and had served in the Public Service for his NS. We would then not have the NKF scandal and the escapade sequel.

The righteous and diligent Li would have conducted his own investigations when doubts were raised time and again by NKF volunteers and members of the public on NKF’s practices.

Even if he would like the story to end when National Council of Social Services revoked NKF’s IPC status (to be able to raise tax-exempt donations from public), he would have taken up the issue again when its IPC status was reinstated.

With his perseverance and high expectations for high ranking public officers, the righteous Li would prevent these officers from falling down on their jobs and thus able to rein in NKF before all hell broke loose.

Well, well, I am only indulging in wistful thinking!

Furthering the common good

2007-06-21T20:37:00.000+08:00

Furthering the common good
Chan Chee Khoon
May 30, 07 10:36am
Malaysiakini.com

On Feb 16, Indonesian Health Minister Siti Fadilah Supari informed senior World Health Organisation (WHO) officials that her country would continue withholding its bird flu virus samples from WHO’s collaborating centres pending a new global mechanism for virus sharing that had better terms for developing countries.

In breaking with the existing practice of freely sending flu virus samples to these laboratories, she expressed dissatisfaction with a system which obliged WHO member-states to share virus samples with collaborating centres, but which lacked mechanisms for equitable sharing of benefits, most importantly affordable vaccines developed from these viral source materials by patent-seeking commercial entities.

To consolidate regional support for this initiative, a meeting of Asia-Pacific developing countries was convened in late March to explore mechanisms for more equitable access to vaccines produced from virus sharing arrangements. The Indonesian decision elicited unease, but also sympathy from a cross-section of the global community, including an editorial from The Lancet.

On March 29, immediately following an interim agreement for Indonesia to resume sending flu virus samples to WHO, health ministers of 18 Asia-Pacific countries issued a Jakarta Declaration which called upon WHO “to convene the necessary meetings, initiate the critical processes and obtain the essential commitment of all stakeholders to establish the mechanisms for more open virus and information sharing and accessibility to avian influenza and other potential pandemic influenza vaccines for developing countries”.

These proposals were tabled at the 60th World Health Assembly in Geneva (May 14-23) as part of a resolution calling for new mechanisms for virus sharing and for more equitable access to vaccines developed from these viral source materials.

In the course of the deliberations, it emerged that WHO had violated the terms of the 2005 WHO guidelines on sharing of viruses which required the consent of donor countries before its collaborating centres could pass on the viruses to third parties such as vaccine manufacturers. Indeed WHO’s collaborating centres themselves, as well as third parties, had sought patents covering parts of the source viruses used in developing vaccines and diagnostics.

The Indonesian stand-off with WHO comes on the heels of Director-General Margaret Chan’s admonishment to the Thai public health ministry in February over the issuance of compulsory licences for HIV/Aids and heart medications. In the course of a visit to the National Health Security Office in Bangkok, she had publicly urged the Thai health authorities to seek instead a negotiated compromise with pharmaceutical companies over high drug prices. This perceived tilt drew strong criticism from health advocates in Thailand and elsewhere.

They pointed out that the Thai ministry “has been in regular contact with the industry over high prices of its drugs in Thailand, but these negotiations have led nowhere. The best price for originator's efavirenz is still twice the price available from Indian generic sources (US$500 per patient a year vs US$224). The best offer for originator's lopinavir/ritonavir is US$2,000 per patient a year, five times more than WHO's estimate of manufacturing costs. The Thai healthy ministry estimates that the price of clopidogrel would fall by over 90 percent if made generically. These are substantial price differences in a country where the average annual wage is US$1,400 a year”.

Implications for equity

It is unclear whether these episodes amount to tactical shifts, let alone a more fundamental re-alignment between WHO, member-states, corporate actors, and health activists on the issue of access to essential medicines. The ramifications are clear however for the interlinked concerns of global health equity and international health security.

The Indonesian government’s stance in particular was notable on three counts:

• It was explicitly a critique of WHO’s balance of pragmatism which it felt was overly accommodative of corporate priorities , to the detriment of the health and well being of a key constituency that WHO was mandated to defend, the under-served communities among its member states.

• It was an exercise of leverage by a source country of biological materials seeking to redress the inequities of access to what may be vitally important health inputs (avian flu vaccines) developed from these source materials.

• It was seeking equitable benefits from commercial developers not just for its nationals but for other communities as well who were likely to be sidelined by commercially-driven product development and distribution systems.

............................

I'm posting this article here for we are somehow never given a very good impression of our neighbour, the Indonesians.

Kudos to Indonesian Health Minister Siti Fadilah Supari for standing up against the all-powerful WHO!

Kindness Week

2007-05-21T18:46:00.000+08:00

As this week is Kindness Week, could the govt show kindness by considering ex-NMP, Steve Chia's 2006 appeal "to reduce some indirect taxation and fees on our people, and allow them to truly grow richer by their efforts – not just from government dividend handouts."?

Some of these indirect taxes include TV & Radio Licences, Water Conservation Tax and Foreign Domestic Worker Levy.

As revealed in Steve Chia's 2006 Budget Debate speech, these "other taxes, other fees and charges, and others” account for a substantial amount of revenue for the govt: S$4.36 billion in FY2004, S$3.87 billion in FY2005, and estimated S$3.97 billion for FY2006.

Budget Debate 2006, Steve Chia
Tue, Feb 28, 2006

[snip]

Table 6.2 of the Budget Highlights shows that “other taxes, other fees and charges, and others” account for S$4.36 billion in FY2004, S$3.87 billion in FY2005, and estimated S$3.97 billion for FY2006 respectively. These revenue receipts are higher than total GST collections of S$3.47 S$3.6 and S$3.75 billion respectively for each of the following years. Yet, they are all lumped together as “others” – together with stamp duties, foreign worker levies etc.

Can the government be more specific about the etc etc? These are not small peanut amount of money that the government collects. The total revenue from these “others” is bigger than the revenue collected from the 5% GST, and I think it is important for these others to be more clearly and transparently reflected.

From the appendix 7.1 again, we understand that the government expects to collect S$870 million from stamp duties, S$160 million in water conservation tax, and S$1 billion from “other taxes”, although it is not reflected what this ‘other taxes’ is about – that it can amount to a billion dollars. Is the S$111 million collected from the Radio and TV licences reflected in this $1 billion too?

The point I am driving is this Sir: That the government should scrap (or at least drastically reduce) the water conservation tax, the radio and TV licenses, and the Domestic Foreign worker levy. They can afford to, and they should.

Water is an essential constituent for life. Without it, we all die. Thus the message to conserve is important. But to impose a ‘water conservation tax’ from the first drop of water coming out from the tap is wrong. People should not be taxed for at least the first 15 cubic meter of water needed for daily necessities and living. Any taxes imposed on the excess water used above that amount will be reasonable. Not below it.

This is especially so since the technology to produce desalinated water is here, and water is no longer a limited resource, constantly threatened to be cut off by our Malaysian neighbors. With this new secured source of unlimted water supply from the sea, residents should be charged fair market rate from the provision of such water, and not be imposed such out-dated unfair taxes. I hope the Ministry of Environment and water resources will expedite their reviews and remove it soon.

As for TV and Radio license fees, it is not fair for residents to do national service, and subsidize our national objective of promoting local content developers. That economic objective should be funded by the government. The government can afford to subsidize more than the current S$5 million given for this fledging industry. License fee holders should not be asked to fund this government objective. This is an out-dated tax and should be reviewed and abolished soon. Only England, Ireland and some other commonwealth states continue to impose this license fees. Other developed nations like America no longer impose such fees to subsidize national broadcasters. I hope MICA will act on this soon.

The Government should also reduce the foreign domestic worker levy, so that the minimum pay of these migrant workers can be raised. It is incredible that the government earns more from its levies than the domestic worker herself. This is cruel, and profits excessively from the undue hardship of migrant workers. With better pay, Singaporeans can recruit more experience maids to look after their families – and not the fresh young maids coming here with adjustment problems, and no experience of working in a high-rise flat. The experienced ones are going Hong Kong and other countries leaving Singapore with new inexperienced workers. Looking at total government receipts, the government can well afford to be kinder.

Unveiling the ‘May 13' riots

2007-05-14T21:11:00.000+08:00

Unveiling the 'May 13' riots
Beh Lih Yi May 11, 07 12:52pm
Malaysiakini

[snip]
It has been almost four decades since the May 13 racial riots broke out.

What had prompted the worst riots in Malaysia's 50-year history that cost the lives of 196 persons (according to official records) however remained shrouded under a veil of secrecy, although there are several versions on the matter so far.

The 'official version' of it has always been the violence was triggered off by the Chinese-dominated opposition supporters' provocation in celebrating their electoral victory which saw the ruling Alliance Party suffered a major setback.

'Full of nonsense'

This version, however was consistently rebutted by the opposition group who claimed otherwise. Other theories also suggested that the riots was rather a planned attack to oust then premier Tunku Abdul Rahman.

The lack of accessible information in the public domain has been a stumbling block for those who intend to uncover the episode but a set of newly-declassified documents in London gave sociologist Dr Kua Kia Soong a thorough glimpse of the event.

Late last year, the principal of New Era College took a three-month sabbatical leave to the Public Records Office in London to study records and declassified documents on the May 13 incident after a 30-year secrecy rule over these documents lapse.

His findings based on the declassified documents - which have been compiled into a new book to be launched on Sunday - found the entire May 13 riots were by no means a spontaneous outburst of racial violence, as it has been portrayed to the Malaysian public.

"The (official) history of May 13 is full of nonsense, it doesn't reveal anything. It pins the blame on the opposition party which was not true, they were not the responsible party," Kua told malaysiakini in a recent interview.

"My book shows the responsible party were those ascendent state capitalist class (in Umno), elements within that gave rise and implemented this plan. There was a plan based on the people who assembled at the (Selangor) menteri besar's house.

"There are correspondences and intelligence reports which showed that. Official history has to reveal that truth and not to pin the blame on everybody around who are not to be blamed," the educationist and social activist stressed.

Kua maintained the May 13 incident was a coup d'etat against the Tunku by the then emergent Malay state capitalists - backed by the police and army - to seize control of the reign of power from the old aristocrats to implement the new Malay agenda.

A plot to oust Tunku

He opined the riots were works of "Malay thugs" orchestrated by politicians behind the coup.
For instance, he said the "group of hoodlums suddenly appeared from all over the place" on the day of May 13 to gather at Harun's residence and the questionable conduct of the police and army to just stood by and watch.

He added that documents showed less than a week after the riots, then deputy premier Tun Abdul Razak who headed the National Operations Council was already in full control of the country - an indication that there had been a plot.

On top of that, discussions for future plans had already been carried out.

"For example the National Cultural Policy (announced in 1971) burst in the 80s, it was already been thought of one week after (the May 13 incident)," Kua noted, referring to the controversial policy which placed emphasis on the 'indigenous culture' and Islam.

A secret document from the British cabinet office featured in the book showed that barely a week after the riots broke out, the Central Intelligence Agency had figured out what Tun Razak was planning - "to formalise Malay dominance, sideline the Chinese and shelve the Tunku".

The role of the security forces in the May 13 bloodshed was also questioned in Kua's findings.
"Even at that time, people in the diplomatic core (were wondering) how come the day the riot broke out, Razak met with the chiefs of the police and army but they did not do anything," he said.

Interestingly, Kua pointed out the Malaysian security forces had been tested and tried during the war against the communist insurgency between 1948 and 1960 and earned their reputation.
"They are one of the most effective in putting down the communist insurrection that is a far, far more difficult operation than putting down riot, but they could not put down (such riot) in 1969 for days, for weeks," he questioned.

It thus brought to Kua's conclusion: "The May 13 was a pretext for staging that coup... I am not the first person who said it was a coup d'etat but I am providing the documents to show how it was a coup d'etat."

Exact fatality number unknown

The declassified documents have included reports fielded by foreign correspondents who were in Kuala Lumpur at the time, dispatches by the British High Commission personnel who closely followed the event and various other confidential reports from the diplomat circle.

It is considerably the first time a complete recount of the tragedy is made available to the Malaysian public, as many foreign correspondent reports were previously banned while local documents are inaccessible.

However, what could not be established in the book is another secrecy, the real number of deaths.

Official figures said the May 13 riots claimed 196 lives, 180 were wounded by firearms and 259 by other weapons, 9,143 persons were arrested out of whom 5,561 were charged in court, 6,000 persons rendered homeless, at least 211 vehicles and 753 buildings were destroyed or damaged.

The declassified documents and international correspondents at the time nevertheless have calculated a much higher number of fatalities but an exact number could not be ascertained, although it was common knowledge the victims are majority ethnic Chinese.

Kua said it is his hope to smash two myths with the publication of the book.

"One is racial riot will occur when the Malays are not happy, that's why you need the New Economic Policy, affirmative action policy et cetera, otherwise the Malays will be unhappy and there will be riot.

"This is the first myth we should dismantle as documents showed some people were involved in making it (the May 13) happened with the connivance of the police and army," he stressed.

The second myth, Kua said, is academicians and pluralist theorists who uphold the views that riots and conflicts will occur naturally in multi-racial country.

"I am questioning this. The role of the state is very important at a particular historical conjuncture. Malays, Chinese and Indians don't suddenly decide to fight in conflict, it doesn't happen like that," he said.

Asked on whether there is any fear that the authorities might move to ban the publication of the book, as in the case of a recent ban slapped on a book about the Kampung Medan clashes, Kua responded:

"In the age of the internet, what does banning a book mean? We can put it on the Web, you can't do anything."

let's hope that the book will exorcise the ghosts not only in Malaysia but also in Singapore.

while UMNO like to bring up the 1969 May 13 tragedy when their authority is being challenged, the PAP-led govt use the violence to scare us into behaving in a desired manner.

MM: My job to look after those who built nation

2007-04-28T23:35:00.000+08:00

MM: My job to look after those who built nation

He pays tribute to S'poreans who did the 'hard and dirty work' for country

By Sue-Ann Chia
Apr 23, 2007
The Straits Times

MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had this message for Singaporeans who did the hard and dirty work to build the nation: I am here to look after you.
'I do not believe 50 per cent of Singaporeans can emigrate,' he said at the Young People's Action Party dialogue at the St James Power Station nightspot.
'So as a government, and personally for me and my colleagues, my responsibility is to look after those who cannot migrate.'
Paying tribute to them, he said: 'Without them doing the hard and dirty work, I would not have had a decent life, I would not have been a leader, my children would not have been educated.
'You would not have been educated, so I owe them a responsibility, an obligation.
'I've persuaded them to follow me, went into Malaysia, got kicked out from Malaysia, had to make a living for them.
'To make a living for them, I had to make a good living for the people on top by educating them and getting them into the modern economy, and bringing the modern economy to Singapore.'
He was responding to questions from participants about where their future lies, given the growing opportunities in other countries that are seeking talent, just like Singapore.
He said that while most Singaporeans could not leave, he is aware that the better-educated and talented ones could do so.
He noted that the top 20 to 30 per cent of educated Singaporeans have the skills and abilities to emigrate to anywhere in the world.
And many do, with about 150,000 Singaporeans working in companies, setting up businesses or living abroad.
'We are now into a globalised world where people who are well-educated, well-trained and especially English-educated have enormous options,' he said.
But his point to them was this: 'Can you leave with a clear conscience? I cannot.'
He urged them to think hard about what they owe the country. 'If we lose our top talent, then we will decline as a nation,' he said.
The key, he believed, was to inculcate a particular message in the young - especially those doing well in schools, colleges, polytechnics and universities.
'You are here, you are getting this education, you are getting these opportunities that make you mobile, that make you desirable because this mass of people had discipline, (were) hardworking, provided the stability, the base on which you mounted your career.
'Can you in good conscience say, 'Goodbye! Thank you very much'?'
sueann@sph.com.sg

I belong to the 50% of Singaporeans who cannot emigrate and I shudder at MM Lee's proclamation that the govt will look after us. Will that mean another round gst hike, from 7% to 10%? Remember not so long ago they said to help the poor they have no chioce but to raise the gst from 5% to 7%?

Or worst still, would they ask the women folks of the 50% Singaporeans not to be fussy but to work as maids for their beloved foreign talents? Haven't they told us many times that foreign talents are here to create jobs for singaporeans?

To MM Lee I would like to say, 'No thank you very much Sir, we can take care of ourselves, you just enjoy your retirement.'

Power Makes People Stupid and Insensitive

2007-04-16T15:51:00.000+08:00

i was extremely upset over the ministers pay hike until i read the below article emailed by a friend. i then realised it is human nature that given power, people would soon end up living large and acting like idiots.

The Rich Are More Oblivious Than You and Me
By RICHARD CONNIFF, Op-Ed Contributor, New York Times
Published: April 4, 2007

.........

Let’s begin with what I call the “Cookie Monster Experiment,” devised to test the hypothesis that power makes people stupid and insensitive — or, as the scientists at the University of California at Berkeley put it, “disinhibited.”

Researchers led by the psychologist Dacher Keltner took groups of three ordinary volunteers and randomly put one of them in charge. Each trio had a half-hour to work through a boring social survey. Then a researcher came in and left a plateful of precisely five cookies. Care to guess which volunteer typically grabbed an extra cookie? The volunteer who had randomly been assigned the power role was also more likely to eat it with his mouth open, spew crumbs on partners and get cookie detritus on his face and on the table.

It reminded the researchers of powerful people they had known in real life. One of them, for instance, had attended meetings with a magazine mogul who ate raw onions and slugged vodka from the bottle, but failed to share these amuse-bouches with his guests. Another had been through an oral exam for his doctorate at which one faculty member not only picked his ear wax, but held it up to dandle lovingly in the light.

........

The researchers went on to theorize that getting power causes people to focus so keenly on the potential rewards, like money, sex, public acclaim or an extra chocolate-chip cookie — not necessarily in that order, or frankly, any order at all, but preferably all at once — that they become oblivious to the people around them.

Indeed, the people around them may abet this process, since they are often subordinates intent on keeping the boss happy. So for the boss, it starts to look like a world in which the traffic lights are always green (and damn the pedestrians). Professor Keltner and his fellow researchers describe it as an instance of “approach/inhibition theory” in action: As power increases, it fires up the behavioral approach system and shuts down behavioral inhibition.

............

What a Filthy Week!

2007-03-25T00:50:00.000+08:00

this week there are so much filth in the mainstream media that i think i need to take a day or two to detoxify myself.

the most filthy of course goes to:
March 23, 2007
Top govt salaries far behind private sector's
PM discloses the wide gap and urgent need to retain talent in public sector

By Lydia Lim, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

TOP private-sector salaries have surged ahead of those in the public sector and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong revealed last night just how far the pay of ministers and civil service leaders has fallen behind.

A minister should be drawing $2.2 million a year or more, according to benchmarks approved by Parliament in 1994 to ensure competitive salaries for a competent and honest government.

But their actual salaries have fallen to 55 per cent of the benchmark, that is $1.2 million, and 'we have to close this gap', Mr Lee said last night.

.............

Speaking at the annual Administrative Service dinner, Mr Lee explained that salaries had to be reviewed so the public sector can keep its share of talented Singaporeans.

'This is an urgent problem. We have experienced on previous occasions the painful consequences of responding too slowly when the private sector surged ahead,' he said.

In the 1990s, this led to the Administrative Service, the key service from which most public sector leaders are drawn, losing entire cohorts of young and good officers.

the sole reason for 'talents' to leave the Admin Service is salary and nothing else.

...............

Also important is to review the salaries of ministers, judges and statutory appointment holders such as the Attorney-General and Auditor-General, said Mr Lee.

'It is even more critical for us to keep these salaries competitive, so as to be able to bring in a continuing flow of able and successful people to be ministers and judges.

'Unless there is a first-class political leadership and judiciary, the Civil Service, however capable and dedicated, will not be able to function properly,' he said.

'first-class' equal to high pay and not competence and dedication.

..............

First-class people are therefore needed to anticipate problems, come up with creative solutions and lead teams.

"anticipate problems"? what about the property bubble in mid 1990s?

He said 'first-class governance' which can be provided only by a top-grade public sector was a 'sustainable advantage' that Singapore should 'zealously uphold'.

how come we still have the NKF saga and Shin Corp debacle?

While public officers must serve from a sense of idealism and duty and not be motivated mainly by financial reward, they should not be expected to make 'unreasonable financial sacrifices' to be in public service, he added.

getting the world's highest pay and these public officers are still making 'unreasonable financial sacrifices'!

another filthy news is:
MAR 23 2007, Straits Times H4:

DURAI'S CRIMINAL TRIAL...DEFENCE TEAM SET TO ARGUE 'NO CASE'

someone who admitted to all charges of mishandling for public donations in a civil suit cannot be nailed by the government? why?

Upper Half of First World

2007-03-12T17:58:00.000+08:00

I nearly fell off my chair that day when MM Lee reportedly said we are moving “into the upper half of the First World. We can do this in the next 10-20 years.”

Does he really believe that Singapore is now already in the First World?

Maybe income wise some Singaporeans, and of course that includes the millionaire ministers, are in the First World.

But then:

Do any of the First World countries have as many elderly working as cleaners in food centres and toilets as Singapore?

Do any of the First World countries have as much as 40% of their households in income/expenditure deficit every monthly like we have here?

Did any of the First World countries need to deploy some 20 policemen to restrain the relatives of a brain-dead person while the hospital staff wheeled him out to harvest his organs?

Maybe the First World countries are not much different from Singapore. Maybe I'm ignorant and I hope I'm.

Heads to roll in CNA?

2007-01-21T20:07:00.000+08:00

Recently CNA was reported to have posted 2 politically-incorrect news articles on its website. Though the "mistakes" were rectified almost immediately it failed to prevent some of its ardent readers from discovering the gems and publicised them in some internet forums and blogs.

With 2 slip-ups within a week, would it be surprising that heads could roll?

1st politically-incorrect news:
Title : Middle class wage stagnation could lead to social instability
Date : 11 January 2007 1856 hrs (SST)
URL : http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stor.../251939/1/.html

SINGPAORE: Middle class wages have been stagnant in the past 5 years, according to economists, and this could lead to social instability

These concerns were shared at the annual Institute of Policy Studies Singapore Perspectives conference.

Economists believe a US economy slowdown in business and consumer spending may cause problems for Singapore, but as Singapore is tops in the ASEAN resilience index, it should be able to weather external shocks, thanks to a diversified economy and strong Asian demand.

They predict that growth going forward will be above 3 to 5 percent.

The long term growth speed limits for a mature economy was previously in the 3 to 5 percent range.

However, economists are asking who this growth is for. The income of the bottom 30 percent of the population has fallen. What is more worrying is the fact that the majority of Singaporeans in the middle class has only seen about a 1 percent increase in nominal income in the last 5 years.

It is not just Singapore - economists say stagnant wages is a global problem, and the chief reason for this is globalisation.

India and China are introducing a large pool of skilled and unskilled labour to compete with the labour forces of industrialised countries.

Singapore is susceptible to this because of its open economy.

123, 000 jobs were created last year and economists estimate some 70 percent of these jobs went to foreigners.

"With the rate of immigration even among unskilled and semi skilled labour at a rate twice of what we experienced in the 90s, at a rate fastest in the developed world, the question is does this dampen our real wages as we grow? Does the strategy itself dampen real wages and depress real wages at the low and middle end of the spectrums? They are sacred cows but we should step back and think about them," said Yeoh Lam Keong, Vice President, Economic Society of Singapore.

Another reason cited for middle class wage stagnation, is the move by the government to cut CPF employer contribution rates for older workers by 4 percentage points over the last 2 years.

"So if you were a worker in the 50-55 age group, you could have seen your wages fall as much as 10 percent over the last 3 or 4 years. Now with the economy improving, the government could bring that back, the increase is 1 or 2 percent. I'm in support of CPF tinkering but probably it happens far too often, but I think there's probably some justification to look back and think that the restructuring was a bit too aggressive on the CPF side and it has contributed somewhat to a very sandwiched middle class," said Chua Hak Bin, Director, Asia Pacific Econ & Market Analysis, Citigroup Global Markets Singapore.

The government is looking at increasing CPF by 1 to 2 percent in 2007.

Economists say workfare should become a more permanent pillar of the economy so as to cushion growing inequality.

Adding that long term middle class wage stagnation could lead to social instability. - CNA /dt

Amended version:

same report except for the following sentence:
124,000 jobs were created last year and economists estimate some 45 percent of these jobs went to foreigners.

2nd politically-insensitive article:

15-01-2007: S'pore PM: Temasek should be accountable for Shin deal

Singapore state investor Temasek should be held accountable if its controversial purchase of Thailand's Shin Corp doesn't work out, Singapore's Prime Minister said, adding that the deal was not a government matter.

Temasek -- headed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's wife Ho Ching -- led a US$3.8 billion (RM13.31 billion) acquisition of Shin from the family of former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra a year ago and has seen its investment more than halve in value.

The Temasek-led consortium is now sitting on a loss on paper of about US$2 billion, while one of Shin's units faces fines and damages of about US$2.7 billion due to a licence fee dispute with the government.

"It's a commercial proposition. If it doesn't work out, that's Temasek's fault and it has to answer for it," Lee said in an interview with Reuters at the annual summit of the Association of South East Asian Nations in Cebu last Sunday.

"It's their job to safeguard the resources and invest them optimally."

Temasek pays an annual dividend to its shareholder, the Finance Ministry, from the returns on its S$129 billion (RM293.28 billion) portfolio of investments.

Lee repeated the government's stance that the purchase of Shin was a commercial deal, not a government-led matter.

"We're not dealing with it. It's not a government issue. Shin Corp was an investment by Temasek; it was a commercial investment," said Lee.

Thaksin, who was ousted in a coup in September, is currently in Singapore on a private visit where he met with Deputy Prime Minister S Jayakumar over the weekend.

Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement that the ousted Thai premier had asked to meet Jayakumar, "who is an old friend".

"As the meeting is purely social and private, we have no further comment," the ministry said in a statement.

Temasek paid 49.25 baht (RM4.79) per share last January for the telecoms and media group. Shin shares traded around 23.60 baht by midday. Lee said it was premature to talk about losses on the Shin deal.

"When you make commercial investments there is a risk. And if you take no risk, you make no reward. So you have to make sure that across the portfolio, all the projects you have undertaken, overall you come out ahead," Lee said.

"That's what Temasek aspires to do. On each case, they are very careful to make sure that each investment is a good one, but as it affects results you have to look at the whole portfolio and decide whether it has been good."

Temasek's acquisition of Shin is currently under investigation in Bangkok for possible violations of Thailand's foreign ownership laws. A spokesman for Temasek said there were no updates on the investigation.

Lee said Temasek has "basically complied with the laws of the land" and will continue to comply with Thai laws and cooperate with the Thai government.

Temasek, which has also been a big investor in Chinese banks in the past two years, owns stakes in all the big companies in the city-state including Singapore Telecommunications Ltd, DBS Group Holdings and Singapore Airlines.

It has been trying to diversify its portfolio and improve its investment returns. - Reuters

Amended version:

except for the title, the whole article was withdrawn:

Temasek Holdings accountable if Shin Corp deal fails: PM Lee
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stor.../252644/1/.html
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Home ›

{cat_header} News »
{story_headgraphic}
{story_headgraphic_caption}
Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: {story_released}

{story_title}
{story_author}

{story_body}

{afp_copyright}

{copyright}

{story_title}
{story_author}

{story_body}

{afp_copyright}

{copyright}

Free Trade Agreements

2007-01-14T00:22:00.000+08:00

Malaysiakini
Q&A: Race to the bottom
Fauwaz Abdul Aziz
Jan 8, 07 1:55pm

Economist Charles Santiago delves into the political and economic implications of the proposed free trade agreement between the US and Malaysia and the failure of Malaysians to come to grips with these.

Malaysiakini: What is the FTA about? What issues should our government keep in mind in negotiations with the US?

Charles Santiago: A FTA is a preferential trade agreement between countries to enable market access and trade privileges. The first thing to note about US FTAs is they are not about promoting trade, but about controlling trade. These are two conceptually different ideas.

Why are the Europeans, Japanese and Americans interested? It's because talks on the Doha Development Agenda broke down last year. Of course, there is some attempt to restart the discussions, but I think the Americans feel that it has gone on for too long. Developed countries are going one-on-one with developing countries to get bilateral agreements - it's a far easier way of ensuring that their dictates are followed.

The US tells Malaysia that if we don't sign, we will lose out on foreign direct investments (FDI), that Malaysia is no longer investor-friendly, and that the FTA is crucial to regaining confidence.

Countries like Singapore have already signed on. If we don't do this with the US, will we lose out?

That is the government’s argument, but let's take it further. In 1990, a report by the United Nations Centre for Trade and Development said Malaysia was the 4th most attractive country for FDI - today, it is ranked 62. You have to bend over backwards to bring investors back. US investors, in particular, are saying that the FTA is a pre-requirement. Given their substantial investment, Malaysia's hands are tied. Premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi will argue that if we do not sign up, we will lose investments and jobs.

The government feels that Malaysia would lose its competitive edge if it does not follow Singapore and other Asean countries in signing FTAs with the US, and that it would be left behind in terms of leveraging the US market.

But is it true that the FTA will promote trade? Consider that 43.9 percent of our manufactured exports are to the US - electrical goods, machineries, and audio and television products - and that we import 57.3 percent of identical items from the US. It's mainly intra- and inter-company trade, a point made in the 2005 UN ‘World Investment Report’.

An interesting note is that companies from countries that do not have FTAs with the US are doing better. Singapore's trade deficit with the US increased by 200 percent in the first year of the FTA signed in 2004.

i only hope some Sg economists could shed some light on this!

But the point is this: trade is already taking place. We are exporting producer items to the US, there are value-added processes taking place there, and we have got this wonderful label that says 'Made in the US' or 'Made in Malaysia'. Why do you need a FTA?

This is not about trade, but about ensuring that investors' rights are protected and that they have legal recourse to take the government to court for compensation. There will be no arbitrary change of policies in those areas - that would constitute a safe haven for investors.

Ten years ago, we offered cheap labour, political stability. But now that is not enough. Now they want the government to sign over its rights and so they can say, 'We have control over your policies'. Now they want the government to be subordinate to them.

In the FTAs, developed countries are trying to bring back competition policy and investment, government procurement and trade facilitation - issues (thrown out by the WTO in) 1996 (on grounds that these could stifle) the developing countries' policy space.

Competition policy and investment, for example, tells you that you have to treat a foreign company on equal or no less favourable terms as a local company. Can you imagine General Motors or General Electric being given the same support as Proton?

It's like giving foreign nationals the same rights as citizens. The government will scoff at the idea, but it will become a reality if the FTA is put in place. They would not do it for migrant workers from Indonesia, for example, but they would do it for foreign companies that bring in the money.

With or without FTAs, Sg govt has been giving foreigners the same rights as its citizens.

In terms of intellectual property rights, those with patents will control products and processes. FTAs are seeking to extend the 20-year period accorded to countries in the Doha Round. The UN Human Development Report 2000 revealed that advanced countries such as the US hold 97 percent of all patents, and multi-national companies (MNCs) hold 90 percent of all technology and product patents.

On that note, how would the FTA lead to higher cost of medicines?

Once it signs up, Malaysia will retrospectively change its laws to accommodate the terms of the FTA. One of the things the US will push for is extension of the minimum patent protection period. It may move towards 25 or 30 years. It will restrain local generic production, which means local producers of (cheaper) medicine will be affected.

The US only promotes competition in sectors and markets where its MNCs want to increase investment opportunities. They are now ensuring through FTAs that economic partners face higher and more stringent requirements on intellectual property rights.

We will have to reduce tariffs, remove non-tariff barriers and technical barriers to trade, as well as harmonise standards, procedures, and regulations between trading partners. For example, Malaysian standards and customs, licensing, and import-export procedures will have to follow American or European standards.

So what can developing countries do about this?

The discourse has changed to where the market and MNCs will reign supreme. That is what happened in Thailand with the attack on the baht and reversal of capital controls imposition.

We are at the mercy of the markets, and governments are now pandering to investors. In the case of Thailand, it was Japanese and American money – to whom are these people accountable? Nobody. They're only accountable to their own profits and loss accounts. They can ravage economies, they can destroy millions of jobs, which they have done.

We have not reined them in, and this is what we have to do. That's exactly what we see in the FTAs, where governments' hands are increasingly being tied - today, finance rules. This is the context in which we should see FTAs.

The US is also really interested in the financial sector, in banks, telecommunications, government-linked companies (GLCs). On this point, we know that in the case of Malaysia, GLCs have a socio-economic role to play, but now, the US is saying, 'No, take it out, this is entirely on a commercial basis'. This has happened with GLCs in Singapore.

In Thailand and other countries, there have been huge protests against the FTA. Why don't we see similar outrage here?

Malaysians generally are the least politically aware people in the region. But I also know that a lot of non-Malays actually welcome the FTA, especially the non-Malay business community. They feel this is the only way to get the government to stop supporting its pro-bumiputera policy and the National Economic Policy. They can't do it through the ballot box and the democratic process. So if the Americans can do Malaysians a favour, hey, why not - this is their approach.

Singaporens are even worst, we have been brainwashed to treat FTAs as trophies to aim for!

I've talked to some Chinese Malaysian businessmen and business groups. After discussing the problems they face with the government, the bottom line is: ‘We want the government to stop helping the Malays’. I think what they're saying is wrong, because even non-Malays are going to get hit badly by the FTA. They don't realise this.

As a grocer, for example, your customers will no longer come to you (but will go to foreign-owned hypermarkets). You either close shop or you agree. So the issue is not whether you are Malay, Chinese, Indian or Kadazan...Malaysians are going to be unemployed and they are going to be in trouble. It's going to hit everybody.

The market is shrinking. The number of people in the market place are no longer following the competitive process where there are thousands of suppliers influencing prices, and so on.

The Chinese community and non-Malays generally support the FTA and think that it's time to rein in the government and Malays, but in the long run it's going to hurt all Malaysians. The single marker, rightly or wrongly, is to discipline the government in the way that it supports the Malays.

I think it's very sad...(to think that) somebody else is the problem. After 50 years, we have to wonder whether we are a nation or not. It has come to such a point where it has become difficult to organise around the FTA which is clearly is of concern (to all).

Yes, it is also very sad for Singaporeans. After 40 years, we're being treated as 2nd class citizens in our own country.

It's also the government’s failure not to have developed genuine bumiputera companies. We should stop supporting the big conglomerates and focus on Malay small and medium industries, which really need support. I think that's where the focus of investments and funding should go. It's (this sector which is) trying to eke out an existence but is unable to fight in the market place.

If you want to be competitive, you have to put your money into the development of new products and processes, and in the education system. Not the one we have right now, which is horrible, but a system that can produce creative and critical thinking people, support small and medium industries, develop infrastructure that lowers the cost of production and allows for faster movement of goods and services.

We have screwed things up royally. If we want to be competitive, we have to be serious and look at the areas of competition which we should improve. We need to re-examine ourselves and the way we run the economy.

Given the concerns, wouldn't the government have consulted civil society and private bodies? The international trade and industry ministry (Miti) said in a statement to the People's Anti US-Malaysia FTA Coalition that it had conducted a cost-benefits analysis and the necessary consultations.

If they have done a cost-benefit analysis, they should make it available for public scrutiny and for public discussion so that others can also comment on this. Miti called us for discussions a week before the first round of FTA discussions with the US. We questioned why they left it so late.

The Trade Investment Framework Agreement (Tifa) is actually a preparatory process you conduct before you go into FTA negotiations. It's where you sit and brainstorm whether you want to go into an agreement or not, and what should go into an agreement. From the American point of view, therefore, there is an implicit understanding that Malaysia is entering into formal negotiations.

It's also the degree and quality of consultation that took place. There must be an open consultation involving seminars, discussions, exchange of views, work by local as well as foreign experts in the area...

So before Malaysia conducted a proper Tifa process, it painted itself into a corner by going straight into negotiations?

After Tifa, they could have still said it’s too much for Malaysia and that citizens will cry foul. But, the government is now in a corner.

The process is already showing that it's a race to the bottom for workers. Last week, Human Resources Minister Fong Chan Onn said we have to change our laws so that companies can hire and fire workers more easily because this is what investors want.

Was there any coincidence that several PAP MPs were co-opted into our largest trade union, NTUC, recently? to prevent any unrest when workers are fired by investors wantonly?

(On Dec 21, the New Straits Times reported that the ministry is considering the proposal submitted by employers. A committee is to be set up to look into this and related issues, including a safety net for workers.)

A Challenge to the Government

2006-12-11T22:17:00.000+08:00

The bid for the 2nd integrated resort is finally over. This 2nd resort was said to be able to generate 30,000 jobs, add 2.7 billion or 0.8% to the economy per year. With all these positive factors, the government can be expected to reward its ministers with a handsome pay rise very soon.

I would like to throw a challenge at the government before it helps its million-dollar ministers realize their dreams of becoming billionaires. That it should reduce the % of households with a deficit in their monthly income-expenditure from 40% to 10% before granting the pay rise.

Two surveys by the Dept. of Statistics, Household Expenditure Survey 2003 and General Household Survey 2005, showed that 40% of Singapore households not only had declining incomes but were also unable to pay their monthly bills! This is an extremely troubling phenomenon considering we are supposed to be living in a 1st world.

Least that the government talks up the economic spin-off from the integrated resorts as a silver bullet to all our economic woes, it should be noted that the two surveys also revealed that since the millennium economic growth had not automatically lead to broad prosperity. Economic growth had only benefitted 20% of the work force. The remaining 80% either didn’t benefit at all or had their modest gains eaten up by rising prices.

A 1st world government would definitely not feel proud to govern a country where almost half of the households are unable to make ends meet!

Lame Duck Parliament

2006-11-14T21:12:00.000+08:00

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stor.../240522/1/.html

SINGAPORE: Instead of harping on what the Government can do to bridge the social divide, the spotlight in Parliament on Thursday fell on Singaporeans. And there were some home truths told, too.

"A nation of complainers" and "a society increasing reliant on the Government for help" were among the sadder - and harsher - labels mentioned. Member of Parliament for Sembawang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Dr Mohamad Maliki Osman started the ball rolling when he called for "reflection and soul searching" among Singaporeans. Dr Maliki noted Singaporeans had become increasing reliant on an "efficient system" that handles issues on the municipal and national level. He said: "When the lift landing of our flat is not clean … we call the town council; when there are mosquitoes in the neighbourhood, we call the NEA (National Environment Agency) … if things don't improve, we go to our MPs or tell the media."

While not advocating that the Government be taken out of the "equation", Dr Maliki hopes to see that the "responsibility to make the society work rests not only on those in the chamber", but also on "the collective interlocking hands of four million Singaporeans". For example, he wanted Singaporeans to reflect on what they, and not the Government, had done to strengthen resilience within their own families.

Isn't this rich? After 40 years of micro-managing us now the government expects us to solve our own problems!

MP for Marine Parade GRC Lim Biow Chuan called on Singaporeans to be more gracious and compassionate and said Singapore is fast becoming a nation of complainers. While the Government can set the tone, he urged Singaporeans to be "encouragers" - not only in encouraging fellow citizens, but also pushing the society to be an inclusive and cohesive one.

Singaporeans not compassionate enough? Didn't we donate about $500,000 to Mr Tan's family after he committed suicide. Didn't one out of three Singaporeans donate to NKF before the scandal broke out?

Singaporeans may be gullible but we never hesitate to help anyone, fellow citizens or foreigners(example victims of2004 Boxing Day Tsunami), afflicted by tragedy.

"What makes a country great? It is not just the laws … the efficiency or the beautiful buildings but the people that make it great," Mr Lim said.

Yes the laws and efficiency were indeed not great but ugly as showed in Mr Tan case. He was disqualified from social welfare and subsequently driven to suicide. Laws and efficiency are sterile without compassion.

East Coast GRC MP Ms Jessica Tan urged Singaporeans and the Government to also provide an environment where "people can run their own race". Using the example of a weekend running club, which she is a member of, Ms Tan said the encouragement from each other helps members to complete their runs. Likewise, she hoped that such encouragement would make "the journey much better" for all Singaporeans.

Our MPs should be reminded that Singaporeans pay each of them some $10,000 per month and in most cases lifelong pension, something which the majority of us don't enjoy, to solve problems and not to play the blame game. Moreover, in this era of daunting economic challenges we can ill afford a lame duck parliament!

A Thank You Note to Shu Min

2006-11-02T22:20:00.000+08:00

Thank you Shu Min for showing us what kind of MP we have in Parliament.

In trying to defend your uncultured rant, MP Wee has shown that he is not only out of sync with reality but also has no inclination to serve the people, which is the primary function of MP.

In his two so-called public apologies, MP Wee merely apologized for the insensitive words both of you used and displayed no signs of empathy, not to talk about compassion, for the people.

Age discrimination is a true fact, at least for the non elite, in Singapore. It is not an unsurmountable problem for the government to solve and MP can play a role here.

Shu Min, you can choose to be an uncaring elite for all we care, but as MP, Mr Wee does not have that luxury. He is first and foremost a representative of the people and has the duty to make things better for us. If he is not interested in helping people then he is not suitable to be an MP.

Also, Shu Min thank you for reminding us of the wise words of Theodore Roosevelt, ' .... to educate a person in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.'

Romance of Three Kingdoms

2006-10-05T12:37:00.000+08:00

Romance of Three Kingdoms
James Wong Wing On, Malaysiakini
Oct 4, 06 11:31am

So, Singapore’s minister mentor Lee Kuan Yew has written to Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to explain the context of his remark on the “compliant” status of Malaysian and Indonesian Chinese.

Whether one likes it or not, Lee has not retracted what he said. On the contrary, the annex to the letter dated Sept 29 conveys the message that he feels his reasoning is justified. The annex comprised Malaysian news reports that quoted Umno leaders pointing to the ‘marginalisation’ of Malays in Singapore.

Lee merely said he was “sorry” for causing Abdullah “a great deal of discomfort”. This was no apology in the sense of admitting to being wrong.

By also saying that his remark was “less than” what appears in his memoirs published in 1998, Lee postures himself as the more forgiving or magnanimous party.

Another noteworthy feature of the letter is that, although Lee repeatedly referred to former Malaysian premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, he avoided naming him. This suggests that Lee’s relationship with Mahathir, his peer in politics, is indeed very negative.

It follows quite naturally that Lee gives the impression that he enjoys more cordial relations with Abdullah. But is this good for Abdullah? The answer is not absolute.

Prevailing logic

The mere impression that Lee likes Abdullah better than Mahathir may indeed boost Abdullah’s standing in the eyes of Singaporeans and members of the international and regional community.

It may be seen as Lee viewing Abdullah as a statesman or a more mature politician who knows how to conduct modern inter-state relations.

It may even enhance Abdullah’s image among a segment of Malaysians who are either sympathetic to Lee’s controversial opinions, or who cherish better relations between Malaysia and Singapore.

However, it must not be ignored that, given the tumultuous bilateral relations since separation of the countries in 1965, as well as the dynamics of contemporary economic competition, the ‘logic’ of ‘the enemy’s friend is the enemy’ does prevail.

This ‘logic’ could be consciously promoted as a political strategy in the currently competitive relationship between Abdullah and Mahathir and their respective supporters.

Lee’s apparent contrast between ‘good guy’ Abdullah and ‘bad boy’ Mahathir may paradoxically help to weaken Abdullah’s position and strengthen that of Mahathir among a certain section of the Malaysian population that subscribes to this ‘logic’.

It is not too far-fetched to assume this could happen. Abdullah has been under fire over the last few months for being too soft or too nice to Singapore, to the point that Mahathir has accused him of ‘selling out’ the country to Singapore, especially by cancelling the construction of the crooked or scenic bridge.

Seen in this light, Lee may have wrongly estimated his standing or that of Abdullah in Malaysia’s fast-changing political landscape or mood.

However, the same cannot be said about Abdullah who seems to be acutely aware of the prevalence of the ‘logic’ in an economic competitor and has attempted to balance this against a proper approach to the letter.

It is not surprising that Abdullah is critical of Lee’s letter, saying he is “not impressed” by the “qualified apology” although he has “taken note” of it.

Abdullah further said: “We have to ensure such a statement should not be made again.”

The question in the minds of observers is whether Abdullah’s attitude is genuine or contrived.

This has added a new dynamic in the intra-party power struggle between Abdullah and Mahathir. The original one-to-one slug-out has turned into the Romance of Three Kingdoms.

Though Rustam Sani a former political sociology lecturer has advised that controversy such as that caused by MM Lee's remarks is a perennial thing, I still can't resist posting the above analysis.

I have always feel that MM Lee has an uncanny resemblance of Cao Cao of Romance of Three Kingdoms. Both are highly intelligent but very paranoid.

But this time round I think MM Lee is doing a "Paul Wolfowitz.” Just like Wolfowitz who had manipulated CSOs against Singapore govt. during the recent IMF/WB meeting, MM Lee has dragged Dr. Mahathir into the controversy to absolve himself.

Marginalisation

2006-10-03T21:38:00.000+08:00

Malaysiakini
That’s no apology, LKY!
Soon Li Tsin
Oct 3, 06 4:12pm

Was Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew sincere in extending an apology to Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi over the contentious remark that Chinese Malaysians are being marginalised?

Political commentators offer their take on his gesture.

James Wong Wing On, malaysiakini chief analyst

Lee Kuan Yew did indeed say sorry but he was smart as he did not retract what he said. In fact, he added some more issues in his letter involving (former premier) Dr Mahathir (Mohamed) and the half-bridge.
What he has said is, “Your politicians, including (Umno Youth deputy head) Khairy (Jamaluddin) and Mahathir, always talk bad about Singapore and the marginalised Malays there; all I did was to tell you what you’ve been doing.”

You must understand that the meaning of ‘sorry’ is not necessarily an apology. An apology normally comes with an expression of regret and remorse. Instead, Lee merely said the word ‘sorry’ and added more.

P Ramasamy, former political economy professor

To me the fact of marginalisation is obvious. It doesn’t matter if it comes from Lee or not. There are Malays and non-Malays who are marginalised in Malaysia. You can look at the Chinese, Orang Asli or Eurasians and to some extent the Malays - they have not enjoyed any benefits.

It is a fact and it must be accepted, rather than just complain about it. It has been going on for a long time. Who cares if it’s from Lee? It is a problem that we must address.

Don’t focus on what Lee said. We must ask, are Malaysians happy? Is there national unity and integration? He must have had his reasons for saying what he said.

Mahathir too has said so many bad things about Singapore and Singaporeans have never reacted. Why are Malaysians reacting now?

We should not blow this matter out of proportion. We should look at the marginalisation in our own backyard.

Rustam Sani, former university lecturer in political sociology

This type of controversy will come around every few years. Both sides use the other to garner support in their own country.

When Singapore feels weak, it will come down hard on the opposition. If Umno Malays need support, as seen during (former deputy premier) Anwar Ibrahim’s case when the government was weakened, they pointed fingers at Singapore in order to regain support.

He (Lee) was not saying ‘sorry’ for what he said. He justified what he is saying by claiming he was then speaking to foreigners. His justification was, ‘I have to do this because you Umno leaders have made statements before on the Malays in Singapore.’

Both countries practise this racist perspective and will apologise over and over again, but (such situations) will still come back.

That of course is not an apology for Abdullah didn't ask for one! Abdullah had been reported as saying that he would pen a letter to MM Lee asking him to explain his statement as he could not see the rationale behind it.

Marginalisation, not necessarily along the racial line, exists in every country. There are social, economical and political marginalisation.

In Malaysia and Indonesia if one asks the non-Malay/Indonesian millionaires, they will say that they have not been marginalised. In fact they get assistance from the ruling elite.

In Singapore don't the residents of all races in the opposition wards in Potong Pasir and Hougang get marginalised in the estate upgrading programme?

But the worst kind of marginalisation is the victimisation of the poor, weak and disabled in all races which all government should eradicate.

Greater Freedom of Expression!

2006-09-30T17:34:00.000+08:00

"My neighbours both have problems with their Chinese. They are successful, they're hardworking and therefore they are systematically marginalised, even in education.

"And they want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese - compliant,"

With these now famous words MM Lee uttered during an interview by Lawerence Summers, are Singaporeans seeing a watershed moment in their history?

Racial issues which we have been conditioned to think as a dangerous subject that could lead to a repeat of some ugly past events, are now ranted openly to an international audience.

Has the paramount leader suddenly gained enlightenment and believed that racial issues can be discussed openly and rationally without fear?

Or is he sufficiently tormented by the victimisation that he decided to bring it to world attention?

Whatever the reasons may be, let's hope that the new freedom with which one person, albeit one as eminent as MM Lee, enjoyed to express himself could be extended to all Singaporeans! We shall then say a big thank you to MM Lee.

Self-Inflicted Damage?

2006-09-19T16:33:00.000+08:00

Self-Inflicted Damage?
siew91
19 Sep 2006, sintercom

The rich and powerful World Bank President, Paul Wolfowitz has spoken. He said Singapore had self-inflicted enormous damage to its reputation by refusing entry to accredited activists who had been invited to attend the IMF/WB conference in Singapore from 13 to 20 Sep 2006.

Predictably, the following days many media, mainstream or otherwise, who are less than enamored with the Singapore government picked up the news and publicized it.

But is the damage really self-inflicted? I seriously doubt it.

Firstly, Singapore is placing utmost importance to the conference. It views the conference as an opportunity for it to project itself as an efficient and vibrant global city for business as well as work. It has spent some $135 millions organizing the meeting. It is therefore not logical for it to want to ruin its own reputation or image.

Secondly, Singapore is a tiny nation and it is unlikely to have the audacity to renege on any agreement with powerful and global institutions like World Bank and IMF.

Thirdly, I have my reservations on Paul Wolfowitz. Before he becomes the President of World Bank, he was the Deputy Secretary of Defense under Bush’s administration. He was reportedly a neo-con willing to use dishonesty to reach his ideological ends. An example was his use of unsubstantiated and even fabricated evidences to advocate the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Wolfowitz is also not known to be very concerned about democracy or human rights. He was the US Ambassador to Indonesia from 1986 to 1989 when Suharto was still the dictator of Indonesia. The head of Indonesian Human Rights Commission Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara once said “of all former US Ambassadors, he (Wolfowitz) was considered closest to and most influential with Suharto and his family, but he never showed interest in issues regarding democratization or respect of human rights.”

But after Suharto stood down in 1998 Wolfowitz said that Suharto was guilty “of suppressing political dissents, of weakening alternative leaders and of showing favoritism to his children’s business deals, frequently at the expense of sound economic policy.”

Wolfowitz should be well aware of Singapore’s hard line stance with protests and could have manipulated that to his advantage. He could be offering Singapore as a punching bag to those troublesome civil society organization activists.

yes, I don't trust Wolfowitz at all or anyone who can advocate war based on fabricated evidences!

I also don't like his manipulative way of fuelling the CSOs' fire at Singapore. He told the CSOs that "Enormous damage has been done... A lot of that damage has been to Singapore and it's self-inflicted," when he should have raised his concerns with Singapore government.

Local and Foreign Youngsters

2006-09-05T16:14:00.000+08:00

While waiting for my lunch in a self service restaurant yesterday, I saw a teenage girl whisper into her mother’s ear when asked what she would like to eat. The odd behavior of the teenager reminded me of the matured behavior of two Japanese teenage boys I met at a friend’s house.

The two boys were in Singapore under the school cultural exchanges program. Though they couldn’t speak a word of English, they were not deterred from interacting with others. With a combination of sign language, Chinese characters (han ji), postcards and picture-composite made specially for the trip, they were able to tell me and my friend’s family about their country and school life. According to my friend, the two teenagers would voluntarily communicate with everyone in his household including visitors, the maid and even his illiterate 80-year-old granny!

The two Japanese teenagers were also conscious of their usage of water and electricity and disposal of garbage. They also made bed every morning during their 3-day stay in my friend’s place and made it a point to leave their shoes pointing outward every time after they got in the house.

Actually I was told of the differences between local and foreign kids by a cabby sometime ago. He said that if you tried to make conversation with our local kids you wouldn’t be able to get very far. The youngsters would either give you monosyllabic answers or shrug their shoulders or simply retreat to their homes. The foreign kids, from PRC to ang moh, would be able to converse with you eloquently, and some of them were as young as four years old!

Initially I didn’t believe the cabby but after meeting the two Japanese teenagers, I think I believe him now.

Maybe it is time for us to reflect on the way we bring up our kids.

Judicial System

2006-08-24T16:48:00.000+08:00

Many Singaporeans may have the perception that Malaysia is not a terribly progressive country. Thus we may be surprised to hear that before its judicial crisis in 1988 it had the best judiciary east of India as the article below claims.

I wonder how our judicial system ranks.

Malaysiakini
Q&A: Disillusioned but not bitter
Aug 22, 06 8:24pm

The following is an abstract of the press conference called by former Lord President Salleh Abas at the National Heart Institute.

Why are you calling this press conference?

On the 17th of this month, the newspapers asked me for comments on the proposal by the Bar Council chairperson (Yeo Yang Poh) to reopen (investigation into) the judicial crisis that took place in 1988.

At that time, I was absolutely not aware (of it) because I have not read the papers. I can tell you, I haven’t read the papers in a long time - it’s difficult to get papers there (Bukit Payung, Terengganu). I don’t read the Malay papers because I cannot read fast enough so I struggle. It’s not easy to get English papers. I only read them when I get to town.

Anyhow, the newspapers have been pressing for a statement when I wasn’t even aware that such a statement was made by Yeo Yang Poh. Somebody showed me The Sun so I read it, but I still don’t want to make a statement.

So I’m making a statement now to put a rest to it and hoping that no more questions would be asked about my attitude or my comments. It’s all there in this three-page statement. I am prepared to answer questions only on this subject and not on any other subject. Don’t ask me questions beyond this subject.

On judicial review and ministerial power

The court at one time had power which we called judicial review dealing with the complaints by the rakyat against the wrongdoing of the executive. In England, and also in India, this particular provision is very well done, very healthy. More people go to court to contest the validity of government actions but in this country, no, you can’t do it. You can’t do it simply because the government doesn’t want to be tested as to the right and the wrong that the government is doing.

The Courts of Judicature Act was also amended to take away the power of the judiciary to have a judicial review, and also a number of legislations, there is always a provision to the effect that the decision of any minister with certain things shall be final and shall not be questioned in court. Finish. Where are you going to go?

The clear example is, of course, press freedom. If something happens, and the government doesn’t like it, legislation is passed and it’s there. You then want to appeal to the minister but the minister will make a decision which will be covered by that law and cannot be questioned in court.

Even in the Police Act, for example, if the people want to have, or hold, a meeting or a rally ... you have to apply for a permit. If the permit isn’t given - the OCPD would usually keep it to the last minute, or refuse altogether - there is a provision in the Police Act where you can appeal to the chief police officer but the officer can make a decision that it is final and cannot be questioned in court. Where is the freedom of expression?

In this country, we say we rule by law. There are three types of law that I was taught at my university - law of altruism, law of reciprocity and law of power. But today, I think the world is moving towards the law of power. Law of reciprocity - the benefit is mutual, the liability is also mutual. But when it comes to law of power, it is one-sided.

What is the best way to correct the 1988 judicial crisis?

The laws must be amended. We are not talking about how to reopen (investigation into) the judicial crisis yet. To me, if you really want to make this country to be governed democratically in accordance to the law, the laws must be looked into and be amended. Then we would be in line with all other democratic countries.

Do you have hope that the crisis will be reviewed?

After I got dismissed on August 8, 1988, I became absolutely disillusioned with the law. So much so that I never even encouraged my children or grandchildren to study law. I took my solace in being a simple gardener. But I keep praying to God that a day will arrive that the truth will come.

The truth is that my dismissal, and the suspension of my five colleagues, was a great fraud on the judiciary and you cannot recover the truth to something fraudulent. Somehow, things will emerge when you refer (to what happened) in my time, it will strain the record in the future. It will come out eventually. That is natural.

Would you like the investigation to the judicial crisis to be reopened?

I would like it reopened, of course. The law we had was twisted. This has cost the life of one judge, Eusoffe Abdoolcadeer, who was so disillusioned with the law.

If I’m called to give evidence, I would love to do it. But as it is, it is up to the government. It is a political decision. No matter how much the public wants this matter to be reopened, finally it’s the decision of the government; in what form and what manner.

Today, we still have a number of people involved in this crisis that are still alive ... George Seah who is very sick at the moment, Wan Hamzah (Wan Mohamed Salleh), (Mohamed) Azmi Kamaruddin, Abdul Talib (Othman), (Abdul) Hamid Omar - all these players are still here.

However, there is a statute of limitations (where legal proceedings are barred after a number of years). That if you were to go to court, it is too big for the court to decide. I think it’s two years against the government or public authority.

What was the catalyst of this judicial crisis?

I think it all started because of th two (Asian) Wall Street Journal reporters who made comments on certain things and their visa was withdrawn, or something like that. They took this to court. The late Harun Hashim, (who) was the judge at that time, made a very strong comment on the government on the withdrawal of the visa. From then (on), the government started to see that the judiciary was interfering with the executive.

The statement made by the former prime minister (Dr Mahathir Mohamad) against the judiciary all started from there. Some judges felt very unhappy about it. I don’t think I can go further than this because if I were to tell the story, it would take months and years to finish it. I even wrote a book on it, May Day for Justice.

Why have you not said anything before this?

Why should I say anything? Whatever I say, it would not be reported, I know that. That is why I think The Sun described me as media shy. Not without any reason.

I learned a great experience during my suspension that when I make statement, that statement got twisted and truncated that so much so an entirely different version came out. Because of that, I’m ‘very shy’. I have to be very careful. The reporters are very good but the decision-making is with the editors and the editors would cut and put their own version.

But now I think the press seems to be a little bit better. And even then I am very cautious. That’s why I did this statement. I don’t want to talk to the crowd because I know I cannot remember what I say and they would be quarreling (over) what I say or what you say is wrong. But now you cannot quarrel because this is all black and white here.

Do you see any positive changes from the present government compared to Mahathir’s government?

There is a certain amount of liberality in the present government. I think the press is a bit better and liberal now. We can see also there are few articles and incidents where the reports made are adverse to the government. In those days, this was not possible.

What do you think about the judicial system?

The judicial system is there. But they are limited and shackled. We still have the Federal Court, Court of Appeal, High Court and magistrates but their powers are limited.

Do you feel bitter about the whole episode?

I am not bitter. The first few months maybe a little disillusioned and unhappy, and then I got over it. After that I went to Australia to become a visiting professor of Monash and Melbourne universities. There, I taught Malaysian constitution and Malaysian law. They wanted me to continue with my work over there but you see, my roots are very strong in Malaysia ... I have children and grandchildren so I didn’t stay long.

How do you describe Tun Mahathir?

I have no comment. You know your own answer, don’t ask me.

How would you describe the judiciary now?

That I have no comment. I think you all know that one.

So Tun, can you tell us what your life is like now?

I go to the kebun (orchard) once a week. I live in Bukit Payung. It is 11 kilometres from the town centre in Kuala Terengganu. I live on a farm about three quarters of an acre where I built my house. Then I plant fruit trees and they are all fruiting now. I also build two cemented pools to rear fish. But I have never eaten the fish. I have plenty of them and I like to feed them. It’s a very soothing experience.

Do you agree with public perception the people have no recourse?

There are some recourse but not full recourse as there ought to be. Before the judicial crisis, we were the best judiciary east of India. India was very good. We were even better than Hong Kong. That’s why I describe that era really as a golden era for the judiciary. (This is) because of its integrity, competency and enjoyment of public confidence. The judges then were very highly respected.

Have the Police Become A Tool of the Executive?

2006-08-11T18:00:00.000+08:00

Police
Hitting a controversial patch
They regard some assault cases as civil disputes, raising public furore.
By Seah Chiang Nee, littlespeck.com
Aug 8, 2006

Not long ago, a gang of older girls beat up a 12-year-old girl in public, video filming the assault, and the tape was widely posted in the Internet.

The assailants were known, but the police said it would not act because nobody had lodged a report with them. It sparked questions about the responsibility of the police when public violence was committed.

Yesterday, another Singaporean wrote to the press to complain that her brother, a doctor in a Singapore hospital, was eating alone at a Geylang food-stall at night when he was approached by six to eight youths who accused him of staring at them

“When he denied doing so, they assaulted him, beating him in the face and abdomen,” said Ms Liew Sok Kuan.

According to Ms. Liew, he suffered multiple facial fractures and damage to one of his facial nerves. He had to undergo a three-hour operation, which included having two metal plates inserted around one of his eyes, she said.

“He suffered multiple facial fractures and damage to one of his facial nerves. He had to undergo a three-hour operation, which included having two metal plates inserted around one of his eyes,” related Ms. Liew.

They escaped in their motorbikes, but the victim noted two of the bikes’ numbers and rang up 999 and reported to them what had happened.

Despite the serious injury in what was clearly a criminal case, she alleged the police shockingly declined to go after the assailants, and instead asked him to lodge a report with the Magistrates' Court, and left

“They advised that this was a civil case and it was for the magistrate to decide if any action was to be taken.”

Ms Liew added: “It was only when an appeal was made that my brother's case was reclassified under Section 325 (from Section 323), 10 days after the incident, by which time witnesses would have dispersed and memories faded.

“Had the police acted promptly, especially when they were at the scene, they might have had a better chance of apprehending the culprits as there were witnesses around.”

It sparked off a debate about the role and the priorities of the police. Two questions immediately arose: -

* Do they regard violent crime as less important than political activism? A dozen anti-riot policemen carrying shields and batons recently were rushed to disperse four opposition party activists protesting peacefully in central Singapore.

* How many such public assault cases have been classified as civil cases? If it is a general policy, how has it affected the record of crime statistics in Singapore, since civil cases are not classified under ‘crime’. In other words, should crime statistics be higher than what is announced?

Public opinion was largely against the police in this case and I believe that a high-level public statement is needed to explain what the police role and responsibility is in the event of a public assault.

While the police ignored violent assault cases they acted zealously against four individuals for staging a peaceful request for transparency and accountability at Robinson Road. The quartet were interrogated and almost charged in court though they harmed no one nor violated any Singapore law.

They also thought it was necessary to question some of those who showed solidarity for mrbrown, the columnist sacked by the tabloid TODAY for his satirical article on the government policies, by appearing in brown t-shirt outside Singapore's City Hall underground station.

Have the police become a tool of the executive?

Have they forgotten that they are supposed to be independent and their first and foremost duty is to uphold law and order in the nation?

Albert Winsemius, 'founding father' of Singapore

2006-08-06T15:53:00.000+08:00

National day is round the corner. It is the time of the year that we are being bombarded by the media on how the founding members of the ruling party delivered Singapore from the 3rd world to the 1st. This national narrative is rather misleading as the article below shows. It was a foreign talent, Dr Albert Winsemius, who chartered our economic development and steered us to economic success.

Albert Winsemius, 'founding father' of Singapore
Thirty-five years ago, in the spring of 1960, Dr Albert Winsemius arrived in Singapore - soon to become his second fatherland -- for the first time in his life. He headed an international team of experts in the field of development economics. A year earlier the former British colony had become independent, and the government of the young nation had asked the United Nations to invite Dr Winsemius, the founding father of the Dutch post-war industrialization programme, to help them to find out which chances the future would offer to Singapore.

By Kees Tamboer

Dr Winsemius' first impression was anything but hopeful. "It was bewildering," he remembers. "There were strikes about nothing. There were communist-inspired riots almost every day and everywhere. In the beginning one has to very careful about passing any judgement - one does not know the country, one does not know the people, one does not know the men and women who are trying to steer this rudderless ship. But after a couple of months the pessimism within our commission reached appalling heights. We saw how a country can be demolished by unreal antitheses. The general opinion was: Singapore is going down the drain, it is a poor little market in a dark corner of Asia."
Within a year, on 13 June 1961, the Winsemius team offered Singapore a development plan. The final assessment was written by Winsemius personally: 'Expectations and Reality' was his motto. This was permeated with an emotional appeal for unity, a passionate warning that time was running out if Singapore was not to sink away into the mud. The gloom was not completely unrelieved, there was one bright spot on the horizon: "In our opinion", wrote Winsemius, "Singapore has the basic assets for industrialization. Her greatest asset is the high aptitude of her people to work in manufacturing industries. They can be ranked among the best factory workers in the world."

Shirts and Pyjamas
After delivering his development plan in the summer of 1961, Winsemius became the chief economic adviser to the Singaporean government. He held this function for almost twenty- five years, and at no time was there ever any written contract. The collaboration was based on mutual trust. Twice a year Winsemius flew to Singapore to spend about a fortnight there - one time it was to help drafting the plans for the coming year, the other time for checking and steering. Part of the deal was that he would come immediately should the government let him know that his help was needed at short notice, which was, for instance, the case in 1965.
"When we started with the implementation of the first development programme, Winsemius recalls, "I was convinced that a policy of protection of the home market would come to nothing, because there was almost no home market. I immediately advised them to try and form an economic federation with Malaya. As soon as this aim was achieved, I assumed, we would be able to move over to the next phase and try to conquer a position on the world market. Four years later Singapore was expelled from the Federation, and there were the signs of some initial panic in the state. In my opinion there was no longer any reason for such a reaction. On the contrary, this is the best day of my life, I told my friends in Singapore, for in those first years of development Singapore had proved that it was able to overcome internal antithesis and to work together to build up a manufacturing industry that would certainly be competitive in the long run."
Albert Winsemius distinguishes five main phases in the economic development of Singapore.
"The first step", he explains, "was to set up low-value industries, such as the production of shirts and pyjamas in factories in which women could work. The contribution made by the women during the initial years of industrialization has never really been properly studied. This contribution can easily be underestimated. It was the only manufacturing activity then with sufficient experience. The sewing machines could be rented, and the girls and women had experience in working with them. Therefore a very quick start was possible in the field of shirts and underwear. This aspect of early industrial development deserves more attention than it has received so far."

Upgrading
The Separation in 1965 marked the beginning of the second phase. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) started with an enormous building programme, under the leadership of Mr. Howe Yoon Chong. "This was very inspiring, people could see what was being achieved. On Sundays fathers and mothers showed their children in what kind of new dwellings they would live presently. In that same period we succeeded in interesting, just as had happened in Holland fifteen years earlier, big oil companies like Shell and Esso in establishing refineries in Singapore.
The third phase was that we started as soon as possible with the upgrading. Singapore became very active in promoting education for technical jobs, especially for the electronics industry. In the beginning it was quite a difficult job for me to convince people at the top of the big Dutch electronics company Philips to set up production plants in Singapore. I went to Eindhoven, where the headquarters of Philips are situated, to warn them: you have to hurry, I told them, otherwise there is a very real danger you will be too late and then you will be sure to miss the boat in the growing market of Southeast Asia. The result is that Philips is now one of the big investors in Singapore and is doing a very fine job there.

The fourth phase was to make of Singapore an international financial centre. Formerly the young state was bound to the English pound sterling. I knew a Dutchman who had lived and worked in Singapore; he was an employee of the Bank of America in London at that time. I visited him and told him we wished to transform Singapore into a financial centre for Southeast Asia within ten years. He told me it could be done in three or four years. He took a globe and showed me a gap in the financial market of the world. Trading, he explained, starts at nine o'clock in the morning in Zurich in Switzerland. An hour later London opens. When London closes, New York is already open. After closing time on Wall Street, San Francisco on the American west coast is still active. But as soon as San Francisco closes, there is a gap of a couple of hours. This gap can be filled by Singapore, should the government not shun taking some drastic measures - such as cutting its links with the British pound.

Container harbour
And the fifth and last phase was that we transformed Singapore into a centre of international traffic and transport. My advice was: build an airport where the biggest aeroplanes can land and let everyone know that they are welcome to land there. In other words, do not use landing-rights to protect your own Singapore Airlines. They followed this advice and it became a success. And thanks to this initiative Singapore has become a tourist centre too, especially for short stays. In the same vein, we started to construct a big container harbour. In Holland I had been chairman of a committee to advise the Dutch government on the problems to do with shipbuilding, so I had some knowledge about what was going on in that world. I saw the enormous growth of container transport between the United States and Europe, concentrated initially in the harbour of Rotterdam. So I advised the construction of a big container terminal in the harbour of Singapore, taking the risk of overcapacity and unoccupancy during the first years for granted. The advantage was evident: Singapore would be the only harbour in the region with container facilities. Nevertheless it was a hard job to convince the harbour authorities. Only after a small conversation with the minister the decision could no longer be postponed. Nowadays Singapore, after Rotterdam, has the second largest container harbour in the world. That surely is something of which to be proud."
"In my opinion", says Dr. Winsemius, "it would be next to impossible to transplant the Singapore wonder elsewhere. I have experienced it in other countries. I have given advices to the government of Greece and, for five years, to the government of Portugal. It is senseless to launch an economic development programme in a country which lacks political stability and does not have a government that sticks to that programme in the knowledge that, one day, it will be recognized and rewarded by the voters."

Kees Tamboer is the economic editor of the Dutch daily Het Parool

Who owns the Johor Causeway?

2006-07-26T12:21:00.000+08:00

Malaysiakini, News
Who owns the Johor Causeway?
Jun 14, 06 12:37pm

Former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad has been seeing red over the past months after his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi decided to scrap the ‘half bridge’ project.

The incensed Mahathir claimed that Malaysia has every right to build the bridge on its side and there was no need to pander to the objections raised by Singapore.

However, history books, according to an expert, suggested otherwise.

In a report today, national news agency Bernama said that credible evidence are found in historical documents to show that Malaysia might not have the absolute right to dismantle the causeway.

These documents include Hikayat Johor ke-2 (1951), published by Johor Government Printing Office and Sejarah Johor (1971) published by Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Zaaba Abdul Samad, a local historian who specialises in Johor history, said evidence gathered from the historical documents suggested that Malaysia might not be the sole owner of the causeway.

Vague question

"The question of ownership (of Johor Causeway) is still vague because there are historical documents which state that Singapore also paid the cost of constructing the road and sidewalk along the causeway.

"This is clearly stated in a book entitled Hikayat Johor ke-2. Page 244 of the book details the cost and construction of the railway line, road and sidewalk along the causeway," he said.

The book was authored by Mej Mohd Said Sulaiman, who was the private secretary of the then Johor ruler Sultan Ibrahim.

According to the book, construction of the Johor Causeway started on April 24, 1920. Originally, the causeway was only meant to cater for the railway line but later a road and sidewalk were added in.

The book states that the Johor government financed the railway line which cost RM12.285 million, but wanted Singapore to share the cost of the road and sidewalk which amounted to RM4.735 million.

The Sultan of Johor and Johor general advisor negotiated the matter with the Singapore government in London.

Johor finally agreed to pay RM3.178 million and the balance to be paid by Singapore before the causeway was declared open on July 24, 1924.

Another book entitled Sejarah Johor also throws into question the ownership issue of the Johor Causeway.

Its author Buyong Adil wrote that "the 3,456 foot-long causeway" took about four years to complete and both Johor and Singapore had legal rights to it.

Zaaba said although the books could not be regarded as a form of "valid agreement" between Johor and Singapore, they could still be used as evidence in the court of law if there were any dispute on the causeway's ownership.

I just received this email from a friend and thought it'll be a good idea to post it as a reference here.

UMNO Started May 13 Riots?

2006-07-23T14:58:00.000+08:00

Can students say Umno started May 13 riots?
Malaysiakini, News
Jul 19, 06 4:01pm

Can students in the ethnic relations class argue that it was Umno or Gerakan which caused the May 13, 1969 racial riots?

Can they quote the nation’s first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman who implied that certain elements in Umno were responsible for the incident?

Or can they cite the then Australian deputy high commissioner, WB Prichett, who noted: “...there can be no doubt that Umno was solely responsible for the riots. Its members ran the communal campaign or allowed it to happen.”

These were the questions raised by Parliamentary Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang in response to Higher Education Minister Mustapa Mohamed.

Yesterday, the minister, who defended a contentious book on the ethnic relations subject, said students who disagreed with the contents could debate it during class.

“Is Mustapa serious in suggesting that in the ethnic relations class, students will have full freedom to argue about who started the May 13 riots...?” asked Lim, a veteran DAP leader.

The book published by Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) had drawn flak for, among others, blaming DAP for the racial riots and the anti-social attitude of Indian youths as a contributing factor for the 2001 Kg Medan incident.

It also labelled a Chinese lobby group’s call for a non-discriminative affirmative action policy as being ‘extremist’.

Experts and concerned groups warned that the book would burn rather than build bridges among the various communities.

A jinxed post?

Lim also took the higher education minister to task for describing the book as a guidebook and not a textbook.

“It is the height of irresponsibility on Mustapa’s part to try and minimise the gravity of the issue by claiming that it was only a ‘guidebook’ ignoring the fact that it was sold to UPM students since the start of its semester this January for RM9 a copy, or RM6 for a photostated copy,” he said.

On a more sarcastic note, Lim wondered whether the higher education minister post was jinxed.

“Is the post jinxed where the minister easily loses independent judgment, national perspective and sense of right and wrong causing enormous embarrassment to the government, prime minister and nation in international academic circles?” he asked.

According to Lim, Mustapa had made the same mistake in five months which his predecessor Dr Shafie Salleh took more than a year to make - “to defend the utterly indefensible”.

The opposition leader noted that the minister took office with the highest hopes and best wishes from all those concerned about higher education.

“Mustapa should salvage his totally inept handling of the controversy before it is too late,” he warned.

Seditious claim

In a related development, DAP national chairperson Karpal Singh said it was wrong for the minister to insist that the government stood by its stand that the incidents listed in the book were correct.

“Blaming the DAP for the racial riots on May 13, 1969 is not only not factual, but is also clearly seditious,” he added in a statement today.

Karpal also urged the Inspector-General of Police Mohd Bakri Omar to direct one of his officers to file a report on the matter and probe the case.

He said the police must investigate if the book had contravened the Sedition Act.

So, the infamous May 13 racial riots were started and used/quoted frequently by some parties to gain political mileage!

Dr Mahathir Vs Prime Minister Abdullah

2006-07-21T15:22:00.000+08:00

Anwar: A plot to bring back Dr M
Arfa'eza A Aziz, Malaysiakini
Jul 18, 06 1:36pm

Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) adviser Anwar Ibrahim said the on-going attack against Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi could be a plot to bring former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad back to the helm.

“I don't preclude the possibility of a plan that this huge challenge is to bring back Mahathir...,” said the former deputy prime minister in an exclusive interview with malaysiakini.

“Remember, the whole basis of his (Mahathir's) criticism is not one or two policies but that the leadership has lost its focus.

“(Mahathir is contending that) the Malays cannot feel secure under the present leadership. He is contending that (under the current leadership) our (the Malays') interests are not protected and that interests have been sold to a foreign country and in particular to the Singapore.

“Certainly there is a racist connotation there or the message is that the Chinese (continue to be a threat)... and therefore you need a strong leader (Mahathir) to make amends and to chart a clear policy to protect the interests of this country before surrendering to whomever, and in this case, (deputy prime minister) Najib (Razak).”

However, Anwar conceded this could be an unlikely scenario as hurling criticisms against Abdullah would not be sufficient to bring about such a drastic outcome.

“I spoke to some of his (Mahathir’s) strong supporters or aides ... and they seemed very optimistic, encouraged by the resounding support given, including by some opposition leaders. But I think it is not really realistic to expect that Umno members are going to turn up in big numbers against Abdullah.”

Rough turbulence ahead

However, Mahathir nevertheless has the capacity to cause problems for Abdullah, whom Anwar predicts would be facing “rough turbulence” in months ahead.

“I think it is going to be a sustained and concerted effort on his (Mahathir's) part. And he has some supporters not only among the veterans but also at Umno's grassroots level. And they (Mahathir and his supporters) have the resources... they have hundreds and millions of ringgit at their disposal.”

Mahathir, who is currently on an overseas vacation until July 22, has been scathing in his criticism of the government for, among others, scrapping the ‘crooked bridge’ project to replace the Causeway to Singapore.

He has also questioned Abdullah's decisions pertaining to national car manufacturer Proton and the discrepancies in the issuance of Approved Permits. Mahathir had on one occasion wondered aloud if he had made the wrong choice in naming Abdullah as his successor.

Anwar however did not expect Najib to mount a challenge against Abdullah.

“He is never known to have strong views. We would probably have to consult (Najib's wife) Rosmah on her views too… but I don't foresee this sort of challenge,” he quipped.

But he said Najib's statements of support for the premier has been "far from convincing".

Racism against Singapore

In the two-hour interview last week at the malaysiakini office in Bangsar Utama, Anwar also alleged that Umno, which he was once part of, had amassed a cash horde of RM8 billion.

He said this was done through an opaque system of Umno-linked tycoons and companies holding the money on behalf of the party.

Anwar also noted that there was a tinge of racism in Mahathir's criticisms against the Singapore government, especially on the crooked bridge issue.

“This is Singapore, our neighbour - setting aside that it is a difficult neighbour - but still the subtle racist undertones to my mind is very irresponsible on his (Mahathir's) part,” said Anwar, who served as deputy prime minister for almost six years before he was unceremoniously sacked by Mahathir over allegations of corruption and sexual misdemeanour.

“Not only (he raised the issue of) nationalism but (he) also (spoke) against the Chinese and Singapore (whom he claimed are) trying to act tough against the Malay leadership and that they (the Chinese leadership in Singapore) should be taught a lesson.”

A friend emailed the above article to me which I think could explain Dr M's motive for bad-mouthing his successor.

Dr M could have kicked himself silly for not grooming his sons to succeed him and at the same time clinging onto power under some fancy titles.

An Intolerant Government

2006-07-10T15:28:00.000+08:00

The response of Ms K. Bhavani, Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, to Mr Brown’s article, "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!” is a poignant reminder that no one party should stay in power for too long (40 years is definitely too long) or be given absolute power.

After 40 years of almost absolute power, the PAP has become extremely allergic to criticism.

At first it was against the opposition from political opponents with different ideologies. When ideologies were no longer the issues, it then objected to the style of opposition - confrontational, hooligan-like, etc. Subsequently, it couldn’t even stand objective, rational and well-intentioned discourse on the public life of the nation. It said that there were sensitive areas which were out of bound, or alternatively known as OB markers. And now with the censuring of Mr Brown, it seems to be trying to pre-empt all forms of civic participation by Singaporeans.

The PAP should take note that if it continues to deny the people of any civic participation, they would lose their sense of ownership of the country. Some of them may leave the country while those who stay would not put in their best performance. This would undermine the nation and the PAP may eventually not have any nation to lead at all.

Have we lost our values?

2006-06-26T20:54:00.000+08:00

The recent case of "Trainee doctor entrapped for drug possession" (Straits Times, 9 Jun 2006) and a letter by Thomas Koshy, "free, yet faced with a mountain of debt" tend to show that in our frenzy pursuit for 1st World efficiency, we have lost our values and our appetite to right any wrong or injustice.

In the entrapment case where narcotic officer persistently tempted a trainee doctor to commit the crime of drug possession it seemed that narcotic officers were so anxious to meet their quota that they didn't bother if their means were ethical. They didn't seem bothered if their actions could ruin their targets' lives. They seemed to have forgotten that their first and foremost duty was to prevent loss of lives caused by drug abuse. And they could achieve this by arresting drug suppliers and traffickers and not by putting all drug users, even occasional ones, behind bars.

The letter, "free, yet faced with a mountain of debt" revealed that in Singapore it is possible for an entirely innocent person to be thrown into jail or be saddled with debt if he is unlucky enough. Such perverse justice happens because those people in the know don't have the appetite to upset the world class efficiency by advocating for a change of the status quos. During the 40 years of Singapore history, we do have many knowledgeable persons who could and should amend the criminal process to make it fairer to all but unfortunately nothing has been done.

Trainee doctor entrapped for drug possession
Straits Times, 9 June 2006, by Stephanie Yap

Passing time in an Internet chatroom one night, Adrian Yeo met a man called Joe. Over the following few days, Joe was quite persistent, sending him SMS messages asking if he had drugs, and if he wanted to meet up 'to have fun'.

According to Yeo's mitigation plea submitted in court, he refused the first few times. Eventually, the 26-year-old trainee doctor gave in and met Joe, and another man, Jacob, at a Hotel 81, on April Fools Day this year.

When he arrived at the hotel, he got a nasty surprise. Both men turned out to be undercover Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) officers, who found 0.16g of methamphetamine on him.

Arrested for drug possession, Yeo was sentenced to eight months in jail on Wednesday. The time in prison requires him to break a $400,000 five-year bond with the Government, and casts a shadow on his medical career.

CNB has often been known to employ the same methods it used to catch Yeo.

Said CNB spokesman Amelia Oh 'CNB is aware that drug offenders use various means to conduct their illegal activities and have come across instances of some of them using the Internet to do so.

'Based on intelligence gathered and feedback received, CNB will monitor channels of information, including chatrooms, to detect and apprehend drug offenders.'

Unlike countries such as the United States and Canada, where evidence gathered through 'excessive' entrapment can be thrown out of court, evidence obtained through any method of entrapment is lawful in Singapore.

Entrapment is often used when the authorities know an individual is committing an offence, but cannot catch him in the act, said retired police detective Lionel de Souza.

'It can be difficult to catch a person red-handed even if you already have information that he is breaking the law.

'In the case of drug possession, you can invite him to meet you and hope he arrives with drugs,' he said.

However, Yeo's lawyer, Mr Kertar Singh, argued that CNB officers overstepped a boundary.

'Yes, the whole exercise is not illegal, but in all fairness what was done by CNB was not appropriate.

'They went into the chatline and lured people in by saying certain things. An innocent, naive person might find himself in this kind of situation, then get caught,' he said.

According to Yeo's mitigation presented in court, he initially refused the undercover officer's requests to meet him. While he admitted to the officer he had drugs, he said they were for his own consumption only.

Yeo finally accepted an invitation to meet Joe and Joe's boyfriend for sex at the Bencoolen Street Hotel 81 on April 1. Joe told Yeo he had some Ecstasy, and asked if Yeo had drugs. Yeo said he would bring some.

While lawyers agree some entrapment is necessary for law enforcement, they say officers should not tempt an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime.

'I don't think officers should be encouraging people to commit offences. I'm very uncomfortable with that,' said Mr Peter Low, chairman of the Law Society's criminal practice committee.

Mr Subhas Anandan, president of the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore, agreed.

'Of course, a certain degree of entrapment should be allowed, otherwise you can't catch crooks. But they mustn't cross the line.'

CNB did cross the line, in Mr Anandan's opinion, in a 2003 case in which insurance agent Teo Ya Lin was pressed by an undercover CNB officer to obtain an Ecstasy pill for him, promising to buy a big policy from her in return. Teo got him a pill, for which she was sentenced to six years and three months in jail.

'This girl had no intention of selling drugs until she was repeatedly persuaded by the officer. She would not under normal circumstances be a trafficker. The temptation is put forward,' said Mr Anandan.

The veteran defence lawyer, who has personally seen three cases of excessive entrapment in the past year, believes it is a growing problem.

'It has come to a stage where people are talking about it. I can't give figures offhand, but the number is enough to be a little bit scary,' he said.

The Association of Criminal Lawyers plans to put the entrapment issue to the Government in a paper it is preparing, which Mr Anandan estimates will be ready in a month or two.

Mr Low said the Law Society is not currently looking into the issue as it is working on capital punishment reform.

'However, entrapment law reform would be timely,' he said.

Both lawyers point out that entrapment laws were revised in 2001 in Britain, on which Singapore models its legal system.

In an October 2001 landmark case, the House of Lords ruled that it was 'simply not acceptable that the state, through its agents, should lure its citizens into committing acts forbidden by the law and then seek to prosecute them for doing so'.

The case involved Spencer Grant Looseley, who was approached several times by an undercover police officer who tried to get him to sell drugs.

Reform in Singapore may take a while yet, but Mr Anandan suggested in the meantime, judges can indicate in their verdict their dissatisfaction with the current entrapment laws, in the hope of inspiring legislative change.

'Parliament must do something. For the judiciary, their hands are tied as the law is very clear.'

TODAY
5 Jun 2006
free, yet faced with a mountain of debt
It is high time that the law in Singapore on costs in criminal cases is reviewed

Thomas Koshy

On August 4 last year , when Jagatheesan Krishnasamy met Gunaprakash N Thuraisamy to collect on a loan, little did he know that Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) officers were watching and waiting to bust Gunaprakash the moment he delivered ecstasy pills to an undercover CNB officer, who had arranged a trap purchase.

Following his arrest, Gunaprakash claimed that Jagatheesan had supplied the drugs. Seemingly on the strength of Gunaprakash's word alone, Jagatheesan was arrested — even though he was not the target of the CNB operation and was never seen with any drugs.

So began Jagatheesan's nightmare, which culminated in his being convicted and sentenced to five years' jail and 10 strokes of the cane for drug trafficking.

On May 26 this year, Jagatheesan's ordeal finally ended when the appeal court quashed his conviction.

He was a free man — but not before having served months of imprisonment and being saddled with debts of tens of thousands of dollars for legal costs.

Should Jagatheesan be left to bear the crushing burden of debt from legal costs?

Although the High Court, after hearing appeals from the Subordinate Courts, has the power to order the prosecution to pay costs to a person who is acquitted, that power is practically never exercised.

The situation is worse in the trial court. The law only allows recovery of costs by a person acquitted after a High Court or District Court trial if the prosecution was "frivolous and vexatious", making the right to costs practically illusory.

The provisions relating to Magistrate's Court cases are even more archaic. The maximum amount that can be recovered upon acquittal is $50.

It is anomalous that the Singapore courts routinely award costs to successful defendants in civil cases, but never to successful defendants in criminal cases.

On the other hand, the law does not place any constraints on the power of the courts to award costs to the prosecution on conviction — no $50 limit or requirement that the defence was "frivolous and vexatious", for example.

In some cases, the courts have awarded costs of tens of thousands of dollars to the prosecution upon conviction of the accused person.

"If the prosecution can get costs on conviction then even more so it is only right that an acquitted person should be entitled to costs. After all, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," said leading criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan, who acted for Jagatheesan.

The position in Singapore contrasts sharply with that in England. The law in England states that if a person is acquitted, the court should normally make an order of costs in his/her favour unless there are positive reasons for not doing so.

It would further the cause of criminal justice in Singapore if this approach were adopted here.

Currently, many who are charged are reluctant to spend on legal costs to defend themselves when even a win means losing their savings.

The outcome of a trial may be uncertain, but that they have to pay their lawyers is for sure. So, knowing that they have no prospect of recovering their legal costs may very well cause innocent persons to plead guilty.

A person should not have to choose between a wrongful conviction and personal bankruptcy. There is no cogent reason why a person found innocent should have to bear the costs of his defence.

The risk that a person can be wrongly charged cannot be altogether eliminated. The question is who should bear that risk.

Surely, it is more apt for the state to do so. Since more than 95 per cent of cases end up in convictions, it is only in a handful of case that the state would have to bear such costs.

Allowing an acquitted person costs would also signal to the prosecution that putting an innocent person through a trial has cost consequences. This is bound to serve as a healthy check on the prosecution. It is high time that the law in Singapore on costs in criminal cases was reviewed.

Defence lawyers can take the lead by making more eloquent and forceful applications to the court when appropriate. But, ultimately, legislative changes are called for to make the criminal process more fair to serve us all.

After all, the presumption of innocence probably sounds like a hollow promise to a person who walks out of a courtroom with the pyrrhic victory of an acquittal earned at the cost of a mountain of debt and without any compensation for the ordeal he/she has been through.

The writer is a lawyer. This is his personal comment.

Overseas voting - Version PAP

2006-05-29T12:46:00.000+08:00

Overseas voting - Version PAP
Damaso G Magbual
May 25, 06 2:23pm
Malaysiakini

Overseas voting was introduced in April 2001 ‘to provide Singaporeans with strong links to Singapore to have their say through their votes’.

However, a cursory reading of the provision of the law on overseas voting will tell us that it does not enfranchise overseas Singaporean citizens as a whole but only those who have direct (government employees) or indirect (employees of international organisations of which Singapore is a member) affiliation with the government.

There definitely is merit in the observation of a student in Canada when he said that there is “…unequal rights to vote for all Singaporeans … who are not associated with any government or public agency” referring to himself and all Singaporeans who are similarly situated.

Voting is a basic human right and not a privilege, which the state grants to its citizens. When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights speaks of suffrage as universal, it means all citizens of a given state, who are not reasonably restricted by law, have the right to vote. A primary concern of the right of suffrage is participation and international norms favour expanding rather than restricting this right.

Principle of non-discrimination

Hence, Singaporeans who have no direct or indirect affiliation with the government staying overseas and are not allowed to vote are arbitrarily denied a basic human right. This violates the principle of non-discrimination in the treatment of voters’ eligibility, which is an essential characteristic of a free and fair election.

Some jurisdictions/democracies (India, Taiwan, Chile) do not grant their citizens residing outside the country voting rights. There are two basic reasons for this.

First, the setting up of systems and procedures on how the overseas citizens can vote on election day is in itself an administrative nightmare to the electoral body. Then there is the difficulty of designating the electoral district/constituency to which the votes will be assigned. Both reasons may not apply to Singapore. It is a known fact that the technological advance of Singapore is the envy of its Asian neighbours. Hence, setting up systems for overseas voting that will cover all Singaporeans should not pose any problem.

Secondly, the city/state has a limited number of districts/constituencies (23 SMCs and GRCs), unlike India, which is the biggest democracy in the world. Again, designating the district of an overseas voter should not present any problem given Singapore’s level of technological sophistication.

Some countries have certain restrictions on overseas voting but these restrictions are not on the right of citizens to vote. The restrictions are on their participation in a given election. France and the Philippines for instance, allow their overseas citizens to vote in some elections (national elections as against local elections) or for some positions (national versus local constituency). This avoids the difficulty of designating specific constituencies for the overseas votes.

Singapore restricts the rights of certain voters; the two examples cited restrict the type of election and the position to be voted upon. The former violates the basic principle of equality before the law and therefore discriminatory. The other two do not.

Discouraging support

The provisions of the Parliamentary Election Act that defines overseas voting is not only discriminatory to the overseas citizens but denies the political contestants who do not belong to the People’s Action Party a level playing field. Voting rights to overseas Singaporeans are limited to those with ties or affiliations with the government.

The PAP has been the dominant party - a virtual hegemony - since Singapore became independent. Those allowed to vote, since they are overseas by reason of their ties to the government are presumed if not expected to vote for the PAP. This certainly places the other parties at a distinct disadvantage.

The restriction on overseas voting to Singaporeans with ties to the government tends to confirm the perception that the PAP as the ruling party, has thrown at the opposition every possible obstacle to grow and develop as viable parties.

Too often changes in policies have almost always made it more difficult for opponents of the PAP to compete. The provision of block voting for the Group Representation Constituencies, the redrawing of political districts, and now the discriminatory provision of the overseas voting, all tend to confirm the impression that indeed the PAP has done everything to discourage support for the opposition.

The graduate student in Vancouver, Canada has a legitimate grievance in that the law is discriminatory. Hence, either the law allows all overseas citizens the right to vote or confine the right of suffrage only to citizens residing in the country. This is equality before the law!

DAMASAO G MAGBUAL is attached to the Bangkok-based Asian Network for Free Elections (Anfrel).

No wonder Singapore is the 83rd most democratic country in the world!

Exiled dissident Tan Wah Piow on Singapore elections

2006-05-19T21:14:00.000+08:00

Singapore: New regime, old authority?
Yong Kai Ping and Kuek Ser Kuang Keng
Malaysiakini
May 6, 06

Is Singapore opening up under the new administration of Lee Hsien Loong? Are the new casinos a sign of greater freedom? Will the Singapore elections promise any breakthrough for democracy in Singapore?

For one of Singapore's most renowned dissident, Tan Wah Piow, the new regime under Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is experimenting with a slightly more liberal agenda to counter the cynicism among the young, but party politics is still very much under strict control.

According to Tan, the whole political process in Singapore is so "sterile" that nobody will challenge the state's authority unless the state feels there is a need to loosen up a bit for their own interest.

"In Singapore, they will give you the basic rights if only when they feel is good for them," Tan told malaysiakini while visiting friends in Kuala Lumpur last week.

Tan's 'infamy' stems from his student activism heydays at the National University of Singapore (NUS) during the 70s where he was jailed eight months for "inciting riots".

Fearing for his safety, Tan fled Singapore in 1975 and sought asylum in United Kingdom. Later he was admitted to Oxford and studied law. Currently holding a UK passport, Tan is a leading human rights lawyer in London.

Tan spoke extensively on Singapore's coming general election which takes place today. The People's Action Party (PAP) was denied a walk-over victory as in previous elections and now having to contest for 47 out of 84 parliamentary seats, an unprecedented event since 1988.

Q: How do you view the new administration under Lee Hsien Loong?

A: I don't see anything new in terms of mindset. They have made it illegal to campaign via blogging and text messaging during the elections.

Lee Hsien Loong tries to look as though he is giving the opposition a fighting chance. But why they need to take that kind of action against Chee Soon Juan (who was bankrupted for defamation by the government and thus not eligible to contest) if they want to show themselves as being democratic?

The message that you sent to the population is "don't mess around with us." That is the most serious consequence to Singapore's political culture.

It is reported that Lee Hsien Loong wants to wipe out all the opposition in the coming elections to gain a stronger mandate.

Goh Chok Tong's lost four seats when he first led PAP into an election. The second time, he lost two. It is not a question of losing the elections, but the percentage of votes obtained. The benchmark Hsien Loong will be judged on is probably Goh's first elections.

I think he will have to win with less than four opposition seats. However people say that the PAP is now fielding more professionals and they have also implemented the group representation constituencies (GRC) system. To win one (constituency) is already very difficult for the opposition, let alone a GRC.

Probably what they are most afraid of will be the active cynicism, the attitude of "I don't care, you will get in but I will dissociate with you" among the younger generation.

You can praise your own regime by whatever way, people just 'switch-off'. It means the justification for nation building is difficult for them. They won't identify with the party and the state, if I have to leave, I will leave (through migration).

So you think the PAP can't capture the people's attention? But there have been efforts since the 80's to get the people to be involved.

What they are doing appears to be extremely progressive in getting more public participation. There are a lot of those institutions for the old and young but the underlying motive behind is still the hegemony of one party, which is what distorts the whole process.

If you challenge the decision of the state, you will be accused of all kinds of things. They will undermine you before you start. The moment they smell that you have the opposition tendency, they will mark you and if you are really an oppositionist, then you will get into serious problems. If you exist as an individual, they can tolerate you as a eccentric, tolerate in the sense that they won't put you in jail. The moment they sense (you are) organising, then you are in deep trouble.

You don't think the regime is more open now? They are allowing gambling.

That is the neo-liberal economic philosophy, which needs not necessary involve political liberalism. I hope people are not misinterpreting this.

They are experimenting a bit of this and that, but that absolute control is undeniable.

Do you think they are experimenting with political liberalism?

I can't say they are exactly the same as the Lee Kuan Yew's regime, they are experimenting a slightly more liberal agenda but the party politics is still under very much direct control and monitoring.

They will never cease using the Internal Security Department (ISD) to monitor the opposition. I think once an instrument of the state is used to monitor the opposition to serve the ruling party, and not for national security, you can't call such a system democratic.

But why?

They need to respond to the demand of the younger generation, to address the perception that they (PAP) are intolerant and so on. They need to demonstrate that the government is open-minded and tolerant of dissent.

I suppose that is why the senior Lee (Kuan Yew) wanted to test the younger generation's disappointment. The (televised) debate among Kuan Yew and the youths ended up as (a debate) on whether it is right to be disrespectful (to Kuan Yew), but that is not the issue.

So do you still pin the hope on the younger generation?

I think in every political process, they still need new ideas. The youths seem more distracted and show more concern for materialism than political ideals. Singapore wanted to use, although not overtly, Israel as a model to harden national consensus and the sense of national survival.

But I think that is a different context because Israel is very different from Singapore in terms of ethnicity, religion and so on. You can't copy the whole model, the idealism and the sense of nationalism, The urgency is not there.

The whole justification that Singapore can't have democratic space is that you are surrounded, and thus adopting a kind of 'under siege' mentality. You might get some support in the early period but not in this age. I can always pack up and go, then come back to Singapore as a visitor.

There is definitely a close political culture and historical link between Singapore and Malaysia. It is better for us to emphasise on our common destiny instead of differences. Is it by coincidence that the younger generation did not feel any affinity for Malaysia or is it the consequences of the way the Singapore state handles the relationship. I think Singaporeans will know more about Europe or Australia or those places where the culture is alien compared to Malaysia. We have to ask ourselves, is this healthy? Can Singapore's long term destiny be completely independent from Malaysia?

You think Malaysians have the same misunderstanding towards Singaporeans?

If you study in Britain, then you will know how people in the campus look at Singaporeans. There is the impression that they are arrogant, does not have that kind of maturity to understand the differences and disparity; and that they always think they are more sophisticated. In UK campuses, the 'kiasu' mentality is alive and kicking.

Malaysian Chinese may see Singapore as a heaven for career, and really, Singapore, I must say, is very well managed. (But) that cannot be a justification for the restraints in giving political rights. I think Singapore is effective because it has a powerful state intervention apparatus which is far better than any industrialised country.

Someone told me that the government is giving more publicity to the opposition. Apparently Lee Hsien Long is trying to appear to have a clean fight so that they can enjoy a more convincing win. And PAP will win convincingly again.

The whole political process in Singapore is so sterile that nobody will challenge the state's authority unless the state feels there is the need to relax a bit for their interest. In Singapore, they will give you the basic rights if only when they feel is good for them. That's why I can never agree with them.

PAP may be able to contain the opposition but it may not be able to deal with one enemy - that is, itself.

PAP has been in power for so long that it has become arrogant and thought it could do whatever it wants to the people. It forgets that time has changed and people are beginning to wake up to the reality of their circumstances.

PAP's habit of keeping Singaporeans "brain dead" could have backfired on the party. It has not been able to get members who can think critically and creatively. Most of its members are brilliant scholars but not real problem solvers. For quite a long time, these scholars have not been able to solve the structural unemployment problem in Singapore. And this is probably one of the main reasons for the dip in the votes for PAP.

"Open the windows, breathe the fresh air and at the same time fight the flies and insects"

2006-05-13T16:35:00.000+08:00

One of the things GE 2006 has shown is that almost everyone has changed/improved except the PAP.

The voters have matured a little and are less apprehensive in letting their displeasure with the ruling party be known. This is manifested in the increase in votes the opposition parties received.

The electorate has also become less materialistic as seen from its rejection of the 180 million upgrading carrot.

The opposition parties have become more sophiscated. Unlike previous GEs, they were better organised and able to avoid 3-corner fight. They have also become shrewd enough not to fall for the baits PAP dangled before them. The fielding of 6 rookies to fight against LHL in AMK is widely regarded as a masterstroke of the WP.

PAP, on the other hand, is still using the same tactics its has been using for the past 30 years. By sticking to the old strategies, PAP has shown itself to be much out of touch with rapidly changing reality. And this is likely the main cause for the dip in its votes, from 75.3% in 2001 to the current 66.6%.

The new generation leaders of PAP could well take heed of the advice of the former PRC Chairman, Deng Xiaoping, "Open the windows, breathe the fresh air and at the same time fight the flies and insects."

Chiam See Tong Rally at Potong Pasir

2006-05-06T20:38:00.000+08:00

On the eve of D Day, I went to the Potong Pasir rally to have a feel of the support Chiam See Tong gets in his home turf.

As I made my way across a field to the stage, I heard 2 men, standing at the entrance of the PAP RC centre, shouting "Shut up" towards the stage where a SDA candidate was speaking. I really find such behaviour rich.

Most of the SDA speakers, Sebastian Teo, Dr Vincent Yeo, Yip Yew Weng and even Chiam reiterated what they said in previous rallies, mainly on bread and butter issues and upgrading.

Steve Chia said that if Goh Chok Tong revealed Potong Pasir town council accounts to the media, Goh must also reveal PAP-run town councils acccounts and, if possible, the ministers' pay. He further said that Potong Pasir was no longer a contest between Chiam and Seetoh but Chiam and Goh Chok Tong and the $80 million upgrading. All these were not reported in our 3 online MSM.

The turnout was at least twice the size of the first rally held there.

Chiam was clearly adored by his residents especially the middle age and senior citizens. When he arrived they gave him a rousing welcome. Quite a few of them, including an old man who had difficulty walking, also presented him with garlands. When the rally ended a few hundreds of his supporters followed him on a mini procession. Well, Chiam seemed to have the support of his residents but would they be tempted by the upgrading? It is possible for these innocent residents have been unjustly punished for too long!

Of the 3 online MSM, CNA gave the briefest coverage on the rally with the article, "Political parties hold final rallies before Polling Day".

TODAY gave a gist of most of the speakers' speech in the article, "SDA rides on Chiam's personality, appeal".

STI reported mainly on Chaim's and Steve Chia's speeches in these 2 articles, "Chiam trusts voters are mature enough" and "SDA hits out at estate upgrading."

SDA Rally at Jalan Tenteram on 4 May 2006

2006-05-05T18:43:00.000+08:00

As I'm in Jalan Besar constituency, I went to listen to SDA GRC candidates at Jalan Tenteram again to help me decide on my vote.

The speeches were almost the same as those I heard on May Day, focusing mainly on high cost of living and the running of town council. Regarding the progress package one of the speakers, probably Sebastian Teo, said that most Singaporeans would get would be $1,200 which was only the minister's half day pay.

The turnout was ok and the response modest.

None of the 3 online MSM covered the rally except for the publication of Dr Vincent Yeo's speech in TODAY in the article entitled "Singapore Democratic Alliance".

WP Rally at Yishun

2006-05-04T16:40:00.000+08:00

Tried to attend the WP rally at Yishun last night, but, my God, the crowd was so huge that I couldn't even hear clearly from the loud speakers! Though I reached there a little late (at 8.30pm) because of work and rally-caused traffic congestion, I think I would still be on good time if I were to attend other rallies.

The crowd spilled over from the field to the open area in front of the HDB flats and to the corridors of the flats. The police had a busy time preventing people from standing on the road.

After spending a futile twenty minutes looking for a standing place where I could hear properly, I gave up and left the rally.

SDA Rally in the Park

2006-05-03T17:30:00.000+08:00

Last night I attended the SDA rally in the most pleasant rally site I've been to so far - Choa Chu Kang Park. I chose the rally because I would like to hear what Steve Chia has to say in the ward he would be contesting.

Steve Chia charmed his audience by seeking it's preference on the language/dialect(English/Hokkien) for his speech. Though not entirely proficient with Hokkien, he, nevertheless, was able to engage his audience well. He spoke mainly on job issues, high cost of living and high prices HDB charges on its flats.

As in all SDA rallies, Chiam See Tong, made a short speech. Last night he rebutted PAP charges that he is a poor judge of character and on his stand on streaming in primary school.

Steve Chia was quite a good speaker and the turnout was substantial considering this is a SMC ward.

Straits Times Interactive didn't cover this rally at all, while CNA and TODAY gave a fairly good coverage on it.

In the article, "SDA's Chiam rebuts PAP charges that he is a poor judge of character", CNA though published Chiam's rebuttal stopped short of naming the past crooks in PAP. TODAY named 2 (Teh Cheang Wan and Phey Yew Kok) out of the four (Teh, Phey, Wee Tung Boon and someone whose name I couldn't catch) in its article, "Chiam hits back".

TODAY also had another article, "Don't force Singaporeans to retire, says Chia" that covered Chia's speech on jobs and the profits HDB could have made on Duxton Pinnacle flats.

SDA Jalan Besar GRC Rally at Jalan Tenteram

2006-05-02T18:06:00.000+08:00

Attended another SDA rally at Jalan Tenteram on May Day. As I was held up by the rain, I missed the annoucement of the job-matching portal, www.unemployment.cpm.sg, set up by SDA Tampines GRC candidates; and the speech by Steve Chia.

Most of the speakers I heard focused on jobs and town council issues. The leader of the team, Sebastian Teo, also made it a point to tell the audience that they were not short of talents. He stressed that they have professionals and successful businessmen in their team.

The candidates spoke relatively well as compared with those SDA peakers at Potong Pasir rally on 28 Apr 2006. The turnout, though, was smaller than Potong Pasir's probably because of the heavy downpour.

Straits Times Interactive gave quite a good and balanced coverage to this rally, while CNA carried a short article, "Swipes & sarcasm galore at SDA rally" that spotlighted the jabs made on the PAP by the SDA speakers. TODAY did not mention anythng on the rally.

WP Rally at Hougang

2006-05-01T19:52:00.000+08:00

For a change, I went to the WP rally at Hougang last night.

When I reached there the rally had not started but the crowd was building up fast. By the time the rally started I was not able to see the field behind me as it was covered with people. The crowd was not only Singaporeans from all parts of Singapore but Hougang residents turning out as family units, father, mother and their teenage kids, to support their MP and his party. The whole family would clap and cheer their MP and his members whenever they heard something they could relate to.

It was a real shame that none of our 3 online MSM reported about the huge turnout and its enthusiatic support for the WP.

Except for Gopal Krishnan, Lee Wai Leng and Goh Meng Seng, the theme of the rally for the speakers that night was on how to keep the healthcare cost low. Krishnan spoke of the neglect Indians faced when Hougang was under PAP while Lee poked fun on our "1st world status". Goh gave a 5-point rebuttal to Lee Hsien Loong's claim that PAP always deliver what they promise. Of the 5, I can only remember 2 which were the restoration of CPF cuts and the building of a hospital at Yishun.

All the speakers have good oratory skills. Even the young AMK contestant, Lee Wai Leng, was able to draw much cheering from her audience.

SDA Rally at Baungkok

2006-04-30T15:20:00.000+08:00

Attended another SDA rally last night as it was at the most convenient place, outside the "white elephants" station.

SDA Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC team was campaigning there. Most of the candidates don't have great oratory skills except the leader of the team, Desmond Lim. Desmond spoken mostly on the bread and butter issues and his team experience in running a town council effectively.

At this rally my feeling of the strong support SDA's Chief, Chiam See Tong, gets from the people was confirmed by the loud cheering that greeted his arrival at about 9.30pm.

None of the three English online MSM reported on this rally, as probably there were more exciting rallies to cover.

SDA Rally at Potong Pasir

2006-04-29T19:14:00.000+08:00

Attended the SDA rally at Potong Pasir last night and could feel that Chiam See Tong, the genial politician, does have strong support from the people. Though I'm unable to guage the number of people attending the rally but I estimate that about 35% of them left after Chiam had spoken.

Of the three MSM, TODAY gave the rally , esp Chiam's speech, the best and truthful coverage. It mentioned about Chiam's struggles over the past 22 years to push through proposals in Parliament and cited two examples. It also reported the meaning of Potong Pasir to Chiam - bravery, courage and the daring spirit that voted for the opposition for 5 consecutive years when people were all voting for the PAP.

CNA gave the rally the briefest coverage with only a very short article entitled, "SDA's Chiam claims credit for scrapping streaming in schools".

Our 140th surprisingly gave the rally quite a good coverage. It, however, didn't report on Chiam's struggles in the Parliament. It chose to highlight on Chiam's call to voters to go for the 2-in-1 option, meaning if voters put an opposition in the Parliament, they would also get the services of the aspiring PAP candidate as he would do his best to win them over.

HDB Upgrading a Political Issue?

2006-04-18T21:37:00.000+08:00

I'm utterly disappointed that MM Lee, a politician of high stature, has also resorted to using upgrading of HDB flats as a tool to get votes.

To me, the PAP should not only not use upgrading as a political tool but should upgrade the HDB flats for free. The reasons are:

1) It was their skewed housing policies that caused rife speculation of property in the early 1990s. Property prices then spiralled to form a bubble. When the bubble finally burst in the late 1990s, many private property owners lost their properties and became mired in debts. Though HDB flat owners didn't suffer as much, their HDB flats nonetheless depreciated 20% to 30% which was contrary to the 100% asset appreciation promised by the PAP. But as it is impossible to devalue the prices of flats, the only way the PAP can make good their promise of asset enhancement is to the HDB to upgrade all the flats and HDB estates free of charge.

2) It is widely believed that the HDB makes around 100% to 200% from the sale of flats. With that kind of indecent profits the HDB can well afford to upgrade the flats without charging the owners.

3) If the oppositions with limited resources were able to upgrade some of the flats in their wards without charging the people, I see no reason why the deep-pocket PAP are unable to do so.

The Ideal MP

2006-04-09T00:07:00.000+08:00

Election
The ideal MP
A graduate, gifted at working with heartlanders, in Parliament fearlessly speaking up for his constituency. By Seah Chiang Nee of littlespeck.com.
April 1, 2006

Politics never stands still, not even in Singapore.

In the '50 and '60s, MPs in Singapore, PAP or Barisan Sosialis, emerged from the heartlands.

They were hawkers, bicycle shop owners, Chinese medicine sellers, with little education. But with silver tongues and the ability to work up a crowd, they won elections and kept their seats.

An example was a former classmate, Robin Sim Boon Woo, who disappeared from my life before the Senior Cambridge exam (now 'O' levels).

The next time I saw him, I was a reporter and he was speaking with adrenalin pumping in him at a PAP rally - in Tamil.

He campaigned in Malay, Mandarin and English. Robin was a PAP MP in a rural constituency for many years.

Years later, he told me of his frequent combats with the leftist Barisan Socialis. His constituency work involved things like driving a voter's sick wife to a 'sinseh' or attending marriages, funerals and birthdays.

'I knew every household in my ward by their names, how many children they had and where they studied and I made regular visits, election or not,' he said.

Was that necessary? 'Yes. My rival lived among the people and bonded with them. It was a powerful factor.'

I have not forgotten this dapper, street-wise guy, who truly represented his generation of politicians.

Voters today no longer care for these poorly-schooled grassroots workers, preferring graduate MPs.

The PAP went into self-renewal. Unless you were young, had a degree, you were not MP material.

But the pendulum may have swung too far. A new breed of MPs, comprising mostly scholars and the successful, has taken over.

They may run a town council well but may fare less well at interacting patiently with ordinary people.

For the ruling party, 'the good, qualified candidate' is both a winning formula and a vulnerable asset.

The wind of change, which blew out the heartland-type politician might again change direction and make them popular again one day.

The pre-election discussions have revealed a growing demand for more opposition MPs to provide alternative views and more active debate in Parliament. That is as it should be.

It remains to be seen if this is reflected in the polling outcome.

To the critics, today's Parliament is at worst a 'rubber stamp' and, at best, a polite discussion group that reinforces the official line.

The ruling party usually carries out a post-mortem after an election.

I hope this time it will include a review of its concept of 'a good candidate' - to see if it has moved too far from what voters want - and of the MP's role in a changing Singapore.

Some perceive the new PAP MP as intelligent and a capable problem-solver but a political lightweight who needs help from the big guns to be elected.

He is both a tower of strength and a political liability in the face of a changing electorate.

This is because voters want their MPs to firmly represent their interests and voice their concerns, not just to reinforce the party's position.

He's required to pursue a debate, challenge the Government if necessary, not merely ask a question then sit down.

This may require a loosening-up at a rate faster than what PM Lee Hsien Loong had promised.

We await to see how fast Parliament will change in this area.

Yes, the PAP has read the ground correctly that voters today want MPs who could empathise with them and voice their concerns. Most of its new candidates have extensive history in community works which should enable them to empathise with the ordinary people.

But I doubt it will allow the MPs to speak freely not to say to challenge its authority. It even reprimanded its MP and NMP for using inapproriate words. If I don't remember wrongly, Dr Amy Khor was reprimanded for using the word "betray" while a female NMP for muttering to herself the offensive word "shit". These public reprimands are more effective than the party whip in keeping its candidates in check!

A potential problem

2006-03-21T21:48:00.000+08:00

A potential problem
Survey shows 10% Indonesians justify suicide bombing, 40% want sharia laws.
Ridwan Max Sijabat, Jakarta Post.
Mar 18, 2006

Islamic conservatism is a growing force to be reckoned with across the country, with research indicating about 40 percent of citizens would support the replacement of state laws with sharia and one in 10 consider suicide bombings justified in some circumstances.

A survey conducted in late January by the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI) found 40 percent of respondents approved of adulterers being stoned to death, 34 percent did not want to see another female president and 40 percent accepted polygamy.

On a thief's hands being chopped off, 38 percent of respondents said the punishment fitted the crime.

The survey involved 2,000 respondents from different backgrounds nationwide.

In presenting the survey results on Thursday, a senior researcher at the LSI, Anis Baswedan, said it was clear that certain Muslim groups had already embraced sharia as a value system as evidenced by their support for conservative organisations, such as the Islam Defenders Front and the Indonesian Mujahidin Council.

On the whole, respondents were less acquainted with right- and left-wing extremist groups, such as the Eden sect, the Liberal Islam Network, Syiah, Hisbut Tahrir and Ahmadiyah.

Anis said, however, that despite the obvious support for conservative organisations, the majority of Muslims did not want to see the existing election system replaced, as was indicated by the results of the 2004 general election.

Muslim-based parties advocating the adoption of sharia did not fare well in the legislative election.

Likewise, the presidential candidates nominated by them did not get the support they were counting on from mainstream Muslim groups.

Yet, the majority of respondents saw eye to eye with the country's largest Muslim organisations -- Nadhlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah.

On the other hand, the survey also revealed that one in 10 people tolerate suicide bombing and other attacks on civilian targets in the name of Islam.

Anis said the strong support for conservatism and "radicalism" had much to do with what respondents called the negative influence of Western culture and the global injustice blamed on the US as a superpower representing the West.

Sixty two percent of respondents were of the opinion that Western influences had brought no good to Indonesian Muslims and between 22 and 49 percent held the US responsible for global injustice.

Amin Abdullah, rector of Sunan Kalijaga State Islamic University in Yogyakarta, said he was not surprised by the survey results as conservatism had long flourished in the country but, despite strong conservatism, Muslims did not want to replace the existing state ideology with an Islamic one.

"The majority of Muslims have been moderate and accepted pluralism because Indonesia - as the most populous Muslim nation - lies far from the centre of Islam, the Middle East, and this has made Islam in Indonesia rather different from that in Pakistan and Afghanistan," he said, adding that conservatism here had gotten stronger on the eve of the reform era in 1998.

Imam Prasodjo, a sociologist of the University of Indonesia, disagreed with the parameters the survey used to measure radicalism, saying they were relative.

"Women oppose polygamy, all communities dislike mixed marriages and all human beings are against terror acts," he said.

The two agreed that, despite the strong grip of conservatism, the "silent majority" supported the two largest Muslim organizations, which see themselves as tolerant of modern ways of thinking

Oh my, this is quite worrying especially for the SEA countries.

Looks like the US will have to work very hard to improve its image with the Muslims to pare the growing radicalism of Islam in Indonesia.

'Singapore should speak out'

2006-03-12T22:45:00.000+08:00

'Singapore should speak out'
It would be a mutual loss if other businesses would also be hurt, Thai academic.
The Nation.
Mar 11, 2006

Local economists on March 8 urged the Singaporean government and Temasek Holdings to break their silence before the simmering anti-Singaporean sentiment gets out of proportion, The Nation reports.

Sompop Manarungsan, an economics lecturer at Chulalongkorn University, suggested that the Singaporean government and state-owned Temasek Holdings should end their silence over the controversial sale of Shin Corp to Temasek, the deal that sparked the current political turmoil.

Temasek has to provide more information to the Thai public about its investment intentions in Thailand and its broader business strategy.

He said Temasek should also to make clear the Singaporean government's role in Temasek Holdings.

"The Thai public has questions about the transparency of Temasek and the Singaporean government," Sompop said.

He warned that public resentment against the Shin Corp deal could lead to a boycott of Singapore's interests beyond the Shin Corp empire.

"It would be a great loss if other businesses - in which both sides mutually gain - would also be hurt," said Sompop.

Somkiat Tangkitvanich, researcher at the Thailand Development Research Institute, said Temasek should consider selling off sensitive businesses such as iTV and other enterprises that use Thailand's limited resources New buyers have to be accepted by Thais, he suggested.

Somkiat agreed with protestors who are threatening to boycott products and services of Singaporean businesses to express their disapproval of the Shin Corp deal.

Aat Pisanwanich, economist at the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, said Thais felt that Singapore was using its financial clout to take advantage of the weaker Thais.

"A threat of boycott could be real and it will hurt AIS, the operator of largest mobile phone system [in the country] and part of the Shin Corp empire.

"A large numbers of academics and students in Bangkok who have joined the rally against caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra are currently customers of AIS," said Aat.

Moreover, the campaign against Thaksin will not end soon, and therefore Temasek faces higher risk, he said. Aat surmised that Temasek wanted to pull out of the deal.

An investment analyst from a research institution in Singapore told The Nation:-

"I am also worried about the impact this might have on bilateral relations going forward. Even after the saga ends, there may be some negative attitudes towards Singapore . . I hope that bilateral relations will withstand this unpleasant period."

Senator Kraisak Choonhavan predicted that Temasek Holdings might find it difficult to unload two problematic subsidiaries - Shin Satellite Plc and iTV Plc - because the two are not a good buy.

Many Thais have expressed concerns over the sale of the two companies that are deemed part of the national security.

Kraisak said at a meeting with foreign chambers of commerce that eventually Temasek would have to sell the two companies because under the foreign business law, foreigners are not allowed to hold a major stake in them.

For instance, foreigners can own only up to 20 per cent in a broadcasting business, which will directly affect Temasek's acquisition of iTV.

"The only legal sale in this deal is Advanced Info Service Plc," he said.

However, the other two companies are not a "profitable buy" because of their financial burdens. For instance, iTV still has an overdue concession fee of Bt450 million on its books.

The People's Alliance for Democracy has threatened to launch a campaign against Singapore on March 9 if it does not drop the Shin Corp deal.

Meanwhile, Lim Hwee Hun, Singapore's minister of state for finance and transport, on Tuesday met with Finance Minister Thanong Bidaya, who refused to say if they had discussed the Shin Corp-Temasek deal.

Now not only Singaporeans are asking Temasek to be transparent! And if I don't remember wrongly, South Korea had also called for GIC to be transparent last year.

A Great Leap Backward

2006-02-26T11:12:00.000+08:00

The 2006 Budget though packed with goodies actually revealed that the economic health of Singapore is not as rosy. Singapore has actually taken a great leap backward - from 2006 to 1970s.

The most telling sign is the decision to build 2-room flats for sale. The government had stopped building two- and three-room flats for sale in the 1980s as Singaporeans became well off and wanted to live in bigger flats. But in 2004 many of us lost our jobs and needed to downgrade to smaller flats, the government then started to build 3-room flats for sale. And now some of us can only afford a 2-room flat. Are we not back to the pre-1980s days?

The workfare bonus seems to suggest that the government is unable to create good jobs for the over 40-year-old. By offering bonus to all middle-age persons who worked for at least 6 months in 2005 and 2006, the government seems to be trying to get them to take up whatever job available, whether it is menial, low pay, part-time or without any CPF contribution. This isn't much of a difference from the 1970s where mainly unsecured low-paying jobs were available.

While getting the middle-aged to accept any job maybe good for the employment figure, it will not be beneficial in the long term, especially to the ruling party. This group of people may become disillusioned with the party and withdraw their support for the party.

History of PAP

2006-02-17T17:36:00.000+08:00

Thrasymachus of singaporegovt.blogspot.com has announced a 4-part series on the history of the ruling party and some key leaders of Singapore.

Part 1 is already out and I find it interesting. Do take a look at it.

Coming Soon: 4-Part Series on the History and Founding of PAP & the Old Guards of Singapore

The past articles of this blog focused mainly on the present and recent history of Singapore Politics, on PM Lee Hsien Loong, Third Generation Ministers and on recent Election issues. But no Singapore Politics would be complete without the history of PAP, its early founding and the tale of 6 men. As such, I will try to attempt on a new direction (more like reverse direction) in bring the past history of Singapore Politics to “blog space”. Thus this will be a 4 Part Series on the Histories and Leaders that would be featured in the coming month. Here are the synopses:

Part 1: History and the Founding of PAP
For those who have visited the PAP website, would know that they have a short concise history of the Party. As in most concise history, the details that they left behind are often the most important and interesting. Stories of their struggles, backstabbing, “politicking” and crisis made what PAP is today. This article will span from 1957 to the day of separation with Malaysia in 1965 and involved the lives of Seven Key Leaders that shaped the present day Singapore Politics. Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye, S Rajaratnam, Devan Nair, Lim Chin Siong and Lim Kim San. Aside from Lee Kuan Yew, who is well publicized to say the least, the 6 other leaders will be featured in separate articles.

Part 2: Old Guards and Leaders of Singapore I
True Founders of Singapore: Dr Toh Chin Chye and Dr Goh Keng Swee
Both men were the pioneering members of PAP and Deputy Prime Ministers of Singapore. One is the founding Chairman of the PAP, the other the true architect of Singapore’s success. In the confusion of Singapore’s sudden separation with Malaysia, PM Lee Kuan Yew wept on national television and withdraws to a government bungalow in Changi. But behind the scene was the stabilizing force of Dr Toh Chin Chye made the chaos orderly. Dr Toh also played a crucial role in the development of Science and Technology in industrialization of Singapore. As for Dr Goh Keng Swee, he is widely hailed as the true architect of Singapore’s success with his visionary leadership. He was first Defense Minister and practically transformed the swarm lands of Jurong into an industrial oasis.

Part 3: Old Guards and Leaders of Singapore II
Almost Prime Ministers: Lim Chin Siong and Devan Nair
Both men were said to be Communist and detained for several times for their beliefs. But if history has taken its turn, Lim Chin Siong would have become the Prime Minister of Singapore, or at least this was what Lee Kuan Yew said. Once, Lee Kuan Yew introduced Lim Chin Siong to David Marshall, “Meet the future Prime Minister of Singapore!” David Marshall laughed but LKY said, “Don’t laugh! He’s the finest Chinese orator in Singapore and he will be our next Prime Minister!” History has its own ironies with LKY himself being the PM. Devan, on the other hand, was the lifeline of PAP after the party split. Should he have joined Lim Chin Siong and not created NTUC, the power in office today would not have been the PAP. With the credit of bringing the union over to the PAP, he was later appointed President of Singapore only to unceremoniously resign from office.

Part 4: Old Guards and Leaders of Singapore III
Leaders Home and Abroad: Lim Kim San and S Rajaratnam
The HDB housing is probably one of the very rare cases of public housing gone right in the world. Where every other country failed and Singapore’s public housing succeeded due to one leader, Lim Kim San. Away from home, the Foreign Minister that steered Singapore into the Global map was S Rajaratnam. The investments we attracted, the foreign relations we built, the diplomacy that was forged when Singapore was not even on the world’s map, Rajaratnam made us a “country”. After independence, two main problems plagued Singapore: Housing and Jobs. Lim Kim San assured the housing and Rajaratnam brought in the foreign investors and made diplomacy our only defense when we do not have soldiers.

Disclaimer from singaporegovt.blogspot: The sources of this article can be obtained from Melanie Chew (1996), "Leaders of Singapore" and Lam Peng Er's "Lee's Lieutenants : Singapore Old Guard". Photos are obtained from National Archives Board Public Domain. For the other parts of "History of Singapore and Leaders", please refer to www.singaporegovt.blogspot.

Addicted to Regulation

2006-01-20T15:21:00.000+08:00

Singapore government is addicted to using regulation to solve or forestall problems. In recent months we saw the passage and reminder of a series of laws. Some of these are:

1) some schoolgirls were warned by police that they might break law if white elephant T-shirts were worn en masse. (To me, this really sound like bullying by the police.)

2) potential violent protestors, locals or foreigners, were reminded that they could be caned or jailed.

3) new law to punish Singaporeans who had sex with underaged girls abroad

4) tougher penalties for draft dodgers

5) possible jail term for bus and taxi fare cheats.

Regulation is addictive because:

a) it is a quick fix to solve or preempt problems

b) with all the fines and penalties it fattens the state coffers

c) it is probably gratifying for some to see the populace being prgrammed to become obedient and submissive subjects of the state .

However, like most addictions, it has its adverse effects:

1) the government would appear to be run by 3rd world leaders who typically are unwilling or unable to run the system by any other ways except through threats and the rule by fear.

2) those who find it too restrictive will leave the country, causing brain drain.

3) it leaves no room for flexibility and creativity, which means Singapore will be ill-prepared for the challenge of the 21st century: a race on ideas and innovations.

If the Singapore government is serious about building Singapore into a world-class city, then it should cure itself of its addiction.

Prestigious school not always the wisest choice

2005-12-13T20:48:00.000+08:00

Prestigious school not always the wisest choice
Dr Lee Wei Ling
Dec 5, 2005

I REFER to the article 'Help our less privileged kids to dream big, aim high' (ST, Dec 2).

Ms Laurel Teo worries that an academically outstanding student like Hamizah Nordin may limit her potential by not aiming for an elite school like Raffles Girls' School (RGS).

She speculates whether students from a less privileged background may not be aware of better opportunities in elite schools.

I beg to differ. I am glad Hamizah chose her friendly neighbourhood school. If her PSLE result is not a fluke, she will do well whatever school she chooses.

More important, she will have her feet kept firmly on the ground by mixing and studying with students who are not all academic high-flyers.

Our meritocratic system, and the fact that academic intelligence (some would call it IQ) is to a large extent genetically determined, has already allowed the cream to float to the top.

The vast majority of children from elite schools have parents who are professionals or wealthy businessmen. They mix among themselves without knowing there is a large section of society leading a different way of life, and often there is an element of snobbishness in making it to an elite school.

In the 1960s, the Nanyang primary and secondary schools I attended had a totally different student population from today. Many of my classmates came from the surrounding kampungs. Nanyang was anything but an elite school. Those of us who were stronger academically were tasked to tutor the weaker students. An experience that was valuable to both groups.

Today, Nanyang Primary is a highly desirable school to get into. Parents who can afford it, buy houses within the 1km radius to get priority for admission to Nanyang Primary. After entering, they mix with other children from upper middle class families who usually also do well academically.

Those who find difficulty coping academically are advised to get tuition, and when despite tuition, they cannot do as well as their peers, they develop psychological problems, especially low self-esteem and thinking themselves stupid when they are of average intelligence.

I benefited from the old Nanyang of the 1960s from mixing with children from all walks of life and all degrees of academic ability. I learnt there is more to a person than his academic performance.

After O levels, I moved to Raffles Institution not because it was an elite school. On the contrary, I chose Raffles because National Junior College (NJC) was at that time not only the elite school but also the favourite school of the Ministry of Education. I did not want the unfair advantage accorded to NJC in terms of facilities and teachers.

I left Nanyang not because its pre-university was not among the elite but because I wanted to do medicine and needed to study science subjects from textbooks written in English.

Again in the Raffles Institution of my day, students came from all walks of life. Many of my friends lived in HDB flats and took the bus to school. Again, I learnt about the real world in the Singapore of the early 1970s through my friends.

I did the medicine combination: biology, chemistry, physics and economics. Except for physics where I had an exceptionally enthusiastic teacher, I tackled the other subjects by self-study.

Often, right in front of the biology, chemistry or economics teacher's nose, I would be reading something else. Yet I topped Singapore in my A-level results for science students.

I say this not to boast but to prove the point that an academically capable student who knows the importance of self-study will do well academically in any school, elite or otherwise.

I did not aim for Cambridge, Oxford or Harvard. I am proud to say I graduated from the then University of Singapore. That I do not have a degree from a prestigious foreign university is not why I have not been as successful in conventional terms as my two brothers who both went to Cambridge.

I write this rambling account of my student life to show that going to a prestigious educational institution just because it is prestigious is not always the wisest choice.

I learnt more valuable lessons such as empathy for the less academically inclined, that there were other aspects of the human mind such as integrity, honesty, courage, generosity and compassion that are just as if not more important than academic ability.

At each stage where a decision about which educational institution to choose had to be made, I knew and had all my options. But I did not dream bigger or aim higher (or more accurately, I did not follow what the elite students of my cohort did), not because I was not aware of the other options but because being considered 'elite' was not important to me.

I wish Hamizah the best. Ten years from now, I am sure, barring any change in her character, she will do well even though she did not choose RGS.

I wonder if Dr Lee is aware that elitism has been created not only in Singapore education arena but also in the civil service and politic scene.

Singapore government officials and ministers are now mainly academic aces who are unable to understand the real world the majority of Singaporeans live in. They didn't understand why Singaporeans complained so much over what they considered as negligible increases in GST and transport fares. They also didn't understand that $600,000 is not an ordinary peanut to most Singaporeans who are earning less than $24,000 p.a.

Australia's unceasing drug flow

2005-11-21T15:37:00.000+08:00

Australia's unceasing drug flow
Trick is to stop its citizens bringing drugs into our region and then protesting about tough punishment when they're caught. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Nov 20, 2005

Unless the trend is reversed, Canberra could one day become a major supplier of drug traffickers for Southeast Asia that even its mandatory death sentence could not stop.

In the same way that Pakistan or Saudi Arabia are considered to be a source to produce Islamic militants to the world.

And heavens forbid if that should happen, Australian leaders would then have a busy time running around persuading the region's governments to go easy on criminals.

More important is the potential friction between Canberra, which bars capital punishment and countries like Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand etc, which have tough lasw against drugs, including mandatory death for trafficking.

Two facts make it a potentially explosive issue if the two sides were to handle it wrongly.

1. Many Australians have little faith in the courts and the administration of justice in Southeast Asia, and

2. They passionately believe that Australians should not be 'humiliated" or punished by developing countries who may be corrupt or inefficient. There is a widespread denial mood, arguing the accused are somehow the victims of circumstances.

Besides, the Canberra government and the people do not regard drug taking or trafficking as seriously as the their counterparts in Southeast Asia.

Explaining Australia's concerns, one Australian wrote:

"A factor contributing to concern about the death penalty in ASEAN is the failure of ASEAN governments to release information about judicial executions carried out in their countries. In several of the countries executions have been carried out in secret. The lack of official statistics means that the true number of executions remains unknown. There is also very little public information about prisoners currently on death row in the majority of the countries."

Ultimately, the problem lies in the rising number of Australians who deal in drugs or use them in the region. They are available and cheap. Some resort to traffic them in Australia or Europe.

One of them, naturalised Australian Nguyen Tuong Van, was caught in Singapore, admitted to the crime and was sentenced to be hanged on Dec 2.

Earlier a group known as the 'Bali Nine' was charged (with three facing death sentence) in Indonesia while two other Australian drug traffickers are on death row in Vietnam.

Other recent cases:

* A Bali court found Australian model Michelle Leslie guilty of using ecstasy and sentenced her to three months jail, a period of custody she has already served.

* Another Australian lady Schapelle Corby is serving a 20-year jail term for drug smuggling.

* Australian mine worker, John Michael Kelly, 45, arrested in East Kalimantan in September for allegedly using methamphetamine could spend the next five years in jail.

* Australian nurse has been arrested after allegedly trying to carry 3.2kg of heroin across the Swiss-Italian border.

* Former school teacher Graham Clifford Payne, 20, Adelaide, was arrested in Medan in August with a pouch full of methaphetamines and could be jailed for 20 years.

* A Sydney man, 30 arrived in Italy from Venezuela reported with 10 km of high-quality cocaine hidden in false bottoms of his luggage. He was arrested while preparing to board a flight to Turkey and faces 20 years in prison

At the moment 11 Australians are languishing in Bali jails on drug charges, yet as an Australian blogger says they are still doing it. He adds:-

"Any Australian who gets arrested in another country on drug related charges now, after the goings on in Indonesia in the past year, would have to be pretty damned stupid, and totally blind to the world happening around them, more specifically, the perils of being a drug-trafficker or user. It's ridiculous for anybody to think that Australian travellers aren't being scrutinised or singled-out by Customs in other countries.."

In a letter to Jakarta Post, Indonesian Y.Saputra said he hoped "the Australian government should do more to prevent its citizens from trafficking drugs to Indonesia".

Other, he added, Australians would continue to remain in jail or face the death sentence.

It will be better for the Aussies to control their drug problems than to keeping quarrelling with their neighbours whenever their drug-traffickers or users are caught.

Singapore's New Generation

2005-11-14T21:54:00.000+08:00

Singapore's
New generation
So tech-savvy and smart, yet so apathetic and dependent, an obstacle to building the future. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Nov 14, 2005

THE Singapore teenager can send messages via SMS with lightning speed, solve a Math problem faster than kids in most other countries - but is helpless without his maid.

He (or she) is well educated, computer and gadget savvy, travels more widely than his peers in other countries, but is naive about Internet predators or corruption or real poverty.

This MTV generation is also self-centred, materialistic, and probably knows the price of everything but the value of none, having grown up in an era of stability.

That means he will probably think nothing about spending S$4 on a latte, while his father, who supports him, spends only 70 cents on his teh tarik at the corner coffee shop.

The Singapore kid may know the name of the latest Japanese pop star but not his own Member of Parliament.

These instant-noodle children will likely change their mobile phone every two years or celebrate their high school graduation ceremony in a five-star hotel.

If the teenager here can be put in a stereotype box, these few paragraphs could best help do it.

In these youths, grandchildren of Singapore's baby-boomers, lie the country's future.

In the eyes of respected former civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow, the new generation has another flaw. "Many lack 'cultural DNA' due to educational neglect to teach history and literature," he said.

As a result, they're becoming too Westernised. "Without a sense of history, we will become a people lost in limbo."

Youths here are frequently placed under the social microscope in numerous studies to see what is wrong and how they can be improved.

Every society worries about whether its youths have the capabilities to build a better future. In the case of Singapore with no natural resources, the dependency on its youths is even greater.

The leaders and older citizens often fret that they may not have what it takes to achieve it.

After 40 years of independence, Singapore has raised youngsters who have powerful strengths and fundamental weaknesses.

In a New World in which countries compete on ideas as much as skills, Singaporean youths have a major shortcoming.

Some 40,000 youths were emerging annually from a school system that - until very recently - was based on grades, hard work and rote learning, rather than initiative and inventiveness.

The result is a workforce good in data knowledge but not very suitable for an economy that competes on entrepreneurship and ideas.

For years youths have shared a single objective: To acquire a degree that offers them the best job prospect, preferably a high-paying one in the government.

Singapore's brand of pragmatism doesn't always serve its people well. No want wants to venture out into the risky world of business when they can nestle securely in a secure job.

That puts them behind rivals like Hong Kong and Taiwan where becoming their own bosses is an ambition of many youths.

During the industrial era, Singapore prospered by producing obedient students and obedient workers.

Today, in the skills services that Singapore wants to develop, these qualities are far less crucial.

But the institutions are still producing risk-averse youths who shun taking the initiative.

Chief operating officers of foreign companies often complain that Singaporeans may have good grades but lack in enterprise and ideas. "They need hand-holding" is a frequent complaint, many content to wait for instructions rather than "make things happen".

A decade ago, the education system was intensively restructured from primary school to university in a rush to produce a new thinking and diverse workforce.

The schools have begun offering non-academic courses that range from music to the performing arts, from languages to sports. Many of them grade students for practical projects.

The polytechnics have also increased new studies to meet the changing economy, the latest being casino operations.

One weakness is harder to correct. Despite national service, the new generation is politically apathetic and has little interest in current affairs.

Critics attribute it to a top-down environment under an authoritarian government that controls many aspects of life. It's tough to get people to speak up or become creative.

A trait that doesn't augur well for a stronger future, youths today still prefer to leave things to the authorities for fear of invoking punishment if they make a mistake.
..........

Singapore's youths are indeed self-centred, materialistic and risk-averse. But they are the products of the ruling party's social engineering process.

For many years, Singaporeans have been indoctrinated with the idea that good life is the copious consumption of goods and services and that education is the means to good life. This narrow-minded view of education has caused Singaporeans to learn almost nothing in school except to pass exams.

Our education system has also never encouraged creative and independent thinking. It produces only obedient and subsmissive subjects of state, like worker ants. Though non-thinking, worker ants are desirable to the ruling party because they are efficient and would never think of subverting the control of the state.

2005-11-01T22:15:00.000+08:00

Rosa Parks, 92, Founding Symbol of Civil Rights Movement, Dies

New York Times
October 25, 2005

Rosa Parks, a black seamstress whose refusal to relinquish her seat to a white man on the city bus in Montgomery, Ala, almost 50 years ago grew into a mythic event that helped touch off the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's, died yesterday at her home in Detroit. She was 92 years old.

Her death was confirmed by Dennis W. Archer, the former mayor of Detroit.

For her act of defiance, Mrs Parks was arrested, convicted of violating the segregation laws and fined $10, plus $4 in court fees. In response, blacks in Montgomery boycotted the buses for nearly 13 months while mounting a successful Supreme Court challenge to the Jim Crow law that enforced their second-class status on the public bus system.

The events that began on that bus in the winter of 1955 captivated the nation and transformed a 26-year-old preacher named Martin Luther King Jr into a major civil rights leader. It was Dr King, the new pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, who was drafted to head the Montgomery Improvement Association, the organization formed to direct the nascent civil rights struggle.

"Mrs Parks' arrest was the precipitating factor rather than the cause of the protest." Dr King wrote in his 1958 book, "Stride Towards Freedom. "The cause lay deep in the record of similar injustices."

Her act of civil disobedience, what seems a simple gesture of defiance so many years later, was in fact a dangerous, even reckless move in the 1950's Alabama. In refusing to move, she risked legal sanction and perhaps even physical harm, but she also set into motion somthing far beyond the control of the city authorities. Mrs Parks clarified for people far beyond Montgomery the cruelty and humiliation inherent in the laws and customs of segregation.

That moment in the Cleveland Avenue bus also turned a very private woman into a reluctant symbol and torchbearer in the quest for racial equality and of a movement that became increasingly organized and sophisticated in making demands and getting results.

.................

On Montgomery buses, the first four rows were reserved for whites. The rear was for blacks, who made up more than 75 percent of the bus system's riders. Blacks could sit in the middle rows until those seats were needed by whites. Then the blacks had to move to seats in the rear, stand or, if there was no room, leave the bus. Even getting on the bus presented hurdles: If whites were already sitting in the front, blacks could board to pay the fare but then they had to disembark and re-enter through the rear door.

For years blacks had complained, and Mrs. Parks was no exception. "My resisting being mistreated on the bus did not begin with that particular arrest," she said. "I did a lot of walking in Montgomery."

After a confrontation in 1943, a driver named James Blake ejected Mrs. Parks from his bus. As fate would have it, he was driving the Cleveland Avenue bus on Dec. 1, 1955. He demanded that four blacks give up their seats in the middle section so a lone white man could sit. Three of them complied.

Recalling the incident for "Eyes on the Prize," a 1987 public television series on the civil rights movement, Mrs. Parks said: "When he saw me still sitting, he asked if I was going to stand up and I said, 'No, I'm not.' And he said, 'Well, if you don't stand up, I'm going to have to call the police and have you arrested.' I said, 'You may do that.' "

Her arrest was the answer to prayers for the Women's Political Council, which was set up in 1946 in response to the mistreatment of black bus riders, and for E. D. Nixon, a leading advocate of equality for blacks in Montgomery.

...............

While Mr. Nixon met with lawyers and preachers to plan an assault on the Jim Crow laws, the women's council distributed 35,000 copies of a handbill that urged blacks to boycott the buses on Monday, Dec. 5, the day of Mrs. Parks's trial.

"Don't ride the buses to work, to town, to school, or anywhere on Monday," the leaflet said.

...............

The boycott lasted 381 days, and in that period many blacks were harassed and arrested on flimsy excuses. Churches and houses, including those of Dr. King and Mr. Nixon, were dynamited.

Finally, on Nov. 13, 1956, in Browder v. Gayle, the Supreme Court outlawed segregation on buses. The court order arrived in Montgomery on Dec. 20; the boycott ended the next day. But the violence escalated: snipers fired into buses as well as Dr. King's home, and bombs were tossed into churches and into the homes of ministers.

I was wondering how come there wasn't any mention of Mrs Parks' death in the many blogs or political parties which clamour for civil rights. Though Mrs Parks was protesting against the cruel laws and customs of segregation, it was nonetheless a quest for civil rights for freedom, equality and dignity.

Mrs Parks was a courageous lady who refused to be treated as anything less than a full human being. She also carried out her act of civil disobedience all by herself and even persevered in the face of threat of being arrested.

As one of the very few people whose actions or conduct changed the face of a nation, Mrs Parks deserves to be remembered by us, esp those championing for civil rights.

Porn? No, blogs bug me more

2005-09-30T19:14:00.000+08:00

Porn? No, blogs bug me more
With inaccurate and inflammatory postings on the Internet, how do we keep kids from believing everything they read?
ST Life!, By Carl Skadian

THE past few weeks have thrown up another worry about children and the Internet, as if parents don't have enough on their hands.

I'm talking about blogs.

As a journalist, I'm naturally wary of blogs already, mainly because bloggers are wont to throw accuracy out the window.

That's because checking facts seems to be the last thing on bloggers' minds unlike, say, mainstream publications which, for the most part, do their darnedest to make sure what they publish is accurate.

For bloggers, saying what they feel like saying seems to be de rigueur, consequences be damned.

.....................

No, Mr Skadian, bloggers don't say "what they feel like saying" but say what they feel and think. What we say may not be profound but we're speaking for ourselves and not for anyone else. And we value this independence and are proud of it.

If Mr Skadian wants his kids to become one-dimensional beings, go ahead. I don't think any blogger will lose any sleep over it.

Arrest of 2 Racist Netizens

2005-09-13T18:42:00.000+08:00

The arrest make me rather sad for despite our progress, some of us have yet to evolve from the primitive level of existence. They use the anonymity in cyberspace to turn the cyber world into an anarchical virtual jungle, a free-for-all no-man's-land where ethics and morals are thrown to the wind.

We embrace the internet because it offers freedom of access and expression. But freedom of speech does not mean saying anything we like without any constraint. That would trivialise the noble idea of freedom. Freedom ought to open up channels to enhance understanding, build solidarity, bring truths to the light, expel ignorance, prejudice and hate.

Insight into political orientation of young Singaporeans

2005-09-12T21:06:00.000+08:00

Insight into political orientation of young Singaporeans
By Wayne Soon, TODAY
First published : 07 September 2005

SINGAPORE : I recently attended the Singapore International Foundation's International Student Symposium, where I gained some insight into the political orientation of young Singaporeans.

While some were engaged on issues ranging from the role of the arts to the state of the political opposition, the majority of the student audience either chatted among themselves or played with their mobile phones.

When asked if there would be more political pluralism in the next generation, a speaker replied that the next generation simply would not care enough to make a difference. This generated much laughter - probably of affirmation.

To encourage young Singaporeans to take a greater interest in our nation's affairs, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his Government have taken steps to engage them since his first National Day Rally speech last year.

There is the National Youth Forum, last August's Youth Consultation Exercise and the yearly Pre-University Seminars. But for these initiatives to have an impact, should they be expanded to embrace a larger, more diverse audience?

Youths today seem to have been depoliticised by the education system - which involves the learning of the official "inspirational form" of Singapore history; the discouragement of political discourse on campus; the absence of opportunities to study social science subjects such as sociology and politics at the O- and A-levels; and a set of prescribed "shared values" that emphasises consensual rather than competitive political participation.

Our education system is intentionally designed to depoliticise us for the ruling party believes that a politically apathetic populace is easier to control.

Young Singaporeans either tend not to think critically or feel that being critical results in unwanted consequences or has no purposeful outcome.

If a generation of Singaporeans grows up with only basic notions of political participation, can Singapore expect good political leaders in the future? Or, for that matter, to be a global and cosmopolitan city, a vision set out by Mr Lee in his recent National Day Rally speech?

In order to ensure that our future leaders have empathy for Singaporeans, passion for Singapore, knowledge of political history and the ability to manage a complex economy and society, our education system must place a greater emphasis on critical thinking.

The ruling party is not interested in nurturing real political leaders as it wants only academically brillant technocrats. Its version of global and cosmopolitan city is not one that is developed organically from the local community but one that springs up instantly with the importation of foreign talents and recreation.

S'pore: Consumer spending not central to economy

2005-08-26T17:12:00.000+08:00

A friend email the following to me:

Malaysiakini
S'pore: Consumer spending not central to economy
Robert Schwatrz
Aug 24, 05 11:30am

Writing about Singapore's economic outlook is boring. It's not that there is nothing to say, it's that there is nothing to say about Singapore itself.

In 2001, the trade and industry ministry published a paper that looked at the four primary long- term drivers of Singapore's economy. The number one influence was growth in the United States.

Number two? Growth in the economies of Indonesia and Malaysia. Third was global semiconductor sales. And rounding out the top four was domestic construction.

But wait, you might say, what about Singaporeans' love of shopping? Certainly that has to count for something? You're right it does.

The problem is that Singaporeans’ love of shopping is usually done someplace other than in Singapore. The fastest growing component of private consumption over the past decade or so has been Resident Expenditure Abroad.

Of the spending done in Singapore, the fastest growing type of retailer (by far) has been motor vehicle dealers. From 1997 to the third quarter of last year, dealership sales had increased by a total of nearly 260 percent, not including the effects of inflation.

The next fastest growing category was supermarkets, which grew by a total of nearly 32 percent. Overall, non-motor vehicle retail turnover grew, excluding inflation, by a total of 7.1 percent from 1997 through September 2004.

The key to Singapore's retail sector is not the average Singaporean. The key to retail in Singapore is the overseas visitor. If you want to get a handle on how well the sector is doing, look at the growth in visitor numbers. These have traditionally led the retail numbers.

No political voice

So again, where does this leave the people of Singapore? In their government housing units voting for the PAP every so often and that's about it. As far as making the economy move forward, the average Singaporean is a non-event. And as such, he or she has little say in the political environment. No economic clout =no political constituency = no audible political voice.

The consumer's share of Singapore's economy is around 42 percent. This compares to about 55 percent in Japan, a country notorious for saving, and close to 70 percent in the US. It is not coincidental that the average American, who is such a vital part of the US economy, has such a central role in the political sphere.

In fact, the average consumer in the US has more power over the direction of the Singapore economy than does the average Singaporean. It is the continually increased spending on ever more gadget-filled electronics equipment or on a new lifestyle drug done by a typical American that drives the sales which drive Singapore's production.

To be fair to the government, it knows that any money spent on boosting the consumption of average Singaporeans is money that will very quickly find its way to foreign shores. As such, the PAP has decided that it would prefer not to spend its hard-earned tax revenues boosting the local economies of Batam, Johor or Bangkok.

This is also why the government's interest in the domestic consumer economy is limited to construction. This is a section of the economy that can't be taken out of the country.

.................

No wonder we have been treated like 2nd class citizens by Singapore govt! We don't spend enough here to have the economic clout. So, ladies and gentlemen, if you want to be heard then start shopping like no tomorrow and make sure you do it here and not elsewhere.

Buzz

2005-08-08T20:26:00.000+08:00

Business Times - 05 Aug 2005
PM Lee reveals two regrets in interview
He says he would liked to have been a leader in the turbulent 60s
By NANDE KHIN

PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong wishes he had some experience of working in the private sector. And he would have liked to have been a key decision maker in Singapore in the tumultuous 1960s.

'I mean, in this world you have to understand economics, you have to understand business, you have to understand how deals are done, how contracts are made, businesses grow, prosperity is created,' Mr Lee said in an interview aired last night.

And even though Mr Lee, who is also the finance minister and a former chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, has 'looked after finances, taxes and incentives and training', he says that to 'have been on the other side, to have done something and made it grow' would have added 'something extra' to his experience.

To 'have really lived through rough times' is also something Mr Lee wishes he could have done.

He was referring to the 1960s, when Singapore threw off the yoke of colonialism, separated from Malaysia, fought communism, achieved independence in a 'struggle for existence and just survival'.

The prime minister said that reading about these times and living them as a child is different from living them as a leader.

He revealed his feelings in an interview in Washington with American TV journalist Charlie Rose.

In the interview, which took place last month, Mr Rose had asked if there was any experience 'in the wise exercise of power' that Mr Lee wished he had.

............

On the Singapore front, Mr Lee emphasised that it is not casinos but integrated resorts - of which casinos will be only a small part - that will create a 'buzz'.

And this 'buzz' is really about 'renewing the city, to make it different, to make it exciting, to make it have activities', so that Singapore can not only attract tourists but can also be a place where 'ambitious and talented' people who 'start new businesses or new projects or do research want to live'.

The government seemed more interested in copying and importing 'buzz' from abroad than cultivating it organically within its citizenry. Imported 'buzz' is ersatz 'buzz' as it is superficial and lacked soul.

It may attract foreigners to spend a vacation but not to stay on to start businesses, projects or do research. Ambitious and talented people are attracted to places that have distinct character where the people are interesting and passionate with life and work. The rigid control by the government, unfortunately, have rendered Singapore souless and stultified the imagination and imprisoned the innovative impulse of Singaporeans' minds.

Great Deficit of Conscience

2005-07-14T15:53:00.000+08:00

Many of us would feel vindicated now that Durai has finally admitted to what we all along suspected - mismanagement of public fund in a non-profit charity organisation. But what comes to mind is why do we have to wait for Durai to dig his own grave? Surely someone in NKF should know of the wrong doings and should have blown the whistle? Have the people there lost their sense of values? Or are they too fearful of Durai who could have become a tyrant after so many years at the helm?

And how about our high moral government? Suspicions of abuses in NKF did not appear overnight, they have been in circulation for several years. Are there no authorities that should look into those allegations esp. when they keep resurfacing? Have the government lost their conscience?

The dearth of conscience was again manifested when a member of the PTC (Public Transport Council?) revealed the real cause for the increased in accidents by cabbies. It is due to fatigue and not reckless driving. Sadly, neither the government nor the taxi companies are doing anything to prevent this senseless loss of lives and properties.

There is indeed a great deficit of conscience in Singapore!

Olympics 2012

2005-07-08T20:45:00.000+08:00

BBC SPORT
6 Jul 2005

Why London won the Olympics
By Francis Keogh and Andrew Fraser

London has dramatically beaten four rival cities to win the right to stage the Olympic Games in 2012.

Paris were long considered favourites, while Madrid, Moscow and New York also submitted bids.

But after an exhaustive two-year search to find the hosts, London won the hearts of International Olympic Committee members.

So what was it that brought the Games back to the UK for the first time since 1948?

THE COE FACTOR

Olympic legend Lord Coe provided a champion's touch and just the shot in the arm London needed after a slow start under original bid leader, American Barbara Cassani.

Coe, plain Sebastian when he claimed double Olympic 1500m gold in 1980 and 1984, expertly combined his athletics experience with political nous.

He was quick to address perceived bid weaknesses like London's creaking transport system.

Coe's team was commended by Olympic inspectors for a "very high quality" bid book, having being third of the five bidding cities a year earlier.

He travelled tirelessly, used his political experience well and his background and profile helped convince IOC members London should get their vote.

With the destiny of the Games on a knife-edge, and dark horses Madrid emerging as genuine contenders alongside favourites Paris, Coe delivered the coup de grace - his passionate final plea to the voters in Singapore.

While the French capital's final presentation was steady and Madrid evoked a sunny outlook, Coe turned to youth and his belief in the Olympic ideal.

London was allowed 100 representatives in the voting hall, and in a bold move, bid leaders made sure 30 of them were young people from the capital.

They were introduced to the audience as Coe drew on personal experience to speak of the Olympic movement's ability to inspire.

It was inspired all round.

............

London's surprised victory shows one thing - we're all concerned about the young people. We want to inspire them, we want them to achieve their full potential.

From this episode Singapore government should understand that inspiring people is the best strategy to win. To bring Singapore to the next level of progress it should try firing the spirit of the people rather than to artifically importing "buzz" to the city state.

READ! Singapore

2005-06-09T14:40:00.000+08:00

Year after year the National Library Board will launch its reading campaign to get Singaporeans to read more. I wonder if they have seriously looked into the actual causes for the low reading habit and are doing something to solve them.

I suspect one of the main reasons could be poor reading skill. An article in The Independent, "Kelly bows to pressure for teaching by phonics", revealed that the methods used in schools to teach reading did make a difference in the children reading ability. Under the current methods used in UK, one in five children were unable to read properly by the time they left primary school. In schools which experimented with synthetic phonics, the students were seven months ahead of fellow pupils after a year. A primary school teacher related that she started teaching her youngest son synthetic phonics when he was just three and a half and at 10 he was already an avid reader. She believed synthetic phonics had given the boy an advantage that was denied to his older siblings who learnt using other methods.

Therefore, in order to get Singaporeans, esp the children, to read more, we have to ensure that they have mastered the art of reading. And it is important to catch them young as once they become avid reader it is very likely that they will remain so.

Another culprit could be the TV. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, professor of psychology at Claremont Graduate University, said that "watching too much TV induces passivity, both at the level of neural functioning and of behaviour, and that it interferes with learning and reduces political and civic participation." Watching too much TV, thus, could slowly kill our mental capacity to sustain reading. Well, the next time NLB wants to launch the reading campaign they may want to consider this slogan: "Watch Less TV and Read More Books!"

What Philip Yeo Should Have Done .....

2005-05-17T15:16:00.000+08:00

Instead of threatening AcidFlask with defamation lawsuit Philip Yeo should have advised the govt t0 abolish National Service. Afterall didn't the good man said that only Singapore guys who have gone through NS gave him trouble but not the girls or foreign students? As girls and foreign students don't go through NS, isn't it logical to deduce that NS is the cause of all troubles? So just abolish NS and the benefits will be immediate and awesome. These are:

1) Philip Yeo will become the most popular civil servant
2) Singapore males will not become whiners
3) Singapore males will not break bonds
4) Singapore govt will not get adverse publicity for trying to stifle free expression, and most important of all
5) Singapore will not drive away her own talents.

What a Waste!

2005-04-20T15:26:00.000+08:00

The Independent

Unused food: What a waste
Britain throws away £20bn worth of unused food every year - equal to five times our spending on international aid and enough to lift 150 million people out of starvation
By Cahal Milmo

15 April 2005

.......

There's a nasty, smelly problem out there, and it's not getting any smaller. With the economy booming, we just keep buying things. And then throwing things away. And all the time a tide of rubbish is creeping closer to our front doors.

It stems from the boxes your trainers and your PC come packaged in, and the bottles holding your wine and the carton holding your pizza, and then from the trainers and the PC themselves when you get rid of them, as you soon and surely will, seeking newer and better ones to go with the newer and better decorations and furniture your sitting room requires.

Britain's throwaway society is consuming more than ever; it is also, as a consequence, creating waste faster than it has ever done before. Never mind industrial and commercial waste, there is a mushrooming mountain of domestic waste, the stuff that you and I produce at home.

Fifty years ago, the main contents of our dustbins was indeed dust, or in fact, ashes from domestic coal fires, upon which much household was burnt, thereby shrinking its volume enormously. Now we burn nothing at home. We load our bins with a steadily-growing pile of pizza cartons, drink cans, fast-food remnants, packaging of all kinds and mammoth piles of paper.

Figures now show that a fifth of the food we buy in supermarkets goes straight into the bin.

The throwaway society shows no signs of changing course: consumerism has us too firmly in its grip. But the waste mountain that leaves behind is now starting to spill out of its landfill sites ....

Though the above is about UK, it is relevant to all developing and developed countries.

As we become more affluent we tend to buy more things and food than we actually need and discard those we don't like or can't consume more freely. And in Singapore as the green light has been given to the opening of 2 integrated resorts more waste is to be expected.

It is high time we checked our senseless behaviour.

Hong Kong people have to decide what to make of its future?

2005-04-02T22:57:00.000+08:00

CNA
Hong Kong people have to decide what to make of its future: MM Lee
By Channel NewsAsia's Hong Kong Correspondent Roland Lim

HONG KONG : Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said the Hong Kong people had to decide what to make of its future and how to work with its new Chief Executive.

On a visit to Hong Kong, he said he believes the territory can work within the 'One Country, Two Systems' framework and thrive.

Mr Lee is a friend of former Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, and met him in private on Tuesday.

The inevitable question about Mr Tung's performance came up during a lunch where Mr Lee addressed a gathering of the business elite.

He said Mr Tung was too nice, not sufficiently young and nimble enough, and was not a street-fighter.

But that is the past - Hong Kong's future lies within the 'One Country, Two Systems' framework.

Mr Lee said: "Within those limits, you can thrive and prosper, as indeed, the Chinese leaders have shown that they are not unhelpful. When I was last here, all these changes - allowing your companies special permission to operate in China and tourists to come without hinderance, the economy was not as buoyant.

"Now property prices have gone up 40 percent, but please remember, the same tap that was opened, can be closed. I am not sure it is my job to tell the next Chief Executive how to be a street-fighter."

As for his assessment of Acting leader Donald Tsang, Mr Lee said he had a completely different personality compared to Mr Tung, younger and likely to learn from his predecessor's mistakes.

He noted Hong Kong had come a long way since the handover in 1997 and can thrive, provided it 'does not disturb the peace'.

Mr Lee said: "I said then if Hong Kong offered opportunities of growth, prosperity, business, I will stay but if it didn't, I would leave. Would you consider politics? I said 'no', it's a thankless job, you have a master in China, you have subsidiary masters in Hong Kong, and what Hong Kong was led to believe it wanted in the last few years of Chris Patten and Tiananmen, is what the leaders in Beijing cannot give.

"Beijing has no intention of allowing Hong Kong to be a pace-setter or trojan-horse, to try and change the system in China. Anything you do here in Hong Kong which does not disturb or can be an example what China should do, that they are prepared to allow."

MM Lee need not worry for the HK people as they are a group of innovative, self-motivated and highly adaptable people.

The rule by the British coloniser had ironically spawned a populace that is far more creative and entrepreneurial than an independent democratic country like Singapore. The main reason is probably because the colonial master had granted its people constitutional liberalism - protecting its people basic rights and administering a fair court system and bureaucracy.

The 156 years of liberal governance by the British had not only allowed the Hong Kong people develop their potential freely and fully but also made them more responsible, more accomodating to differences and disinclined towards violence.

U-turns

2005-03-15T21:00:00.000+08:00

I don't mind the govt making u-turns on policies for that mean they are reviewing and adjusting these policies. However, some reversals do reflect badly on the govt.

In Sep 2004 the govt had denied Chiam See Tong's request to carry out lift upgrading in his ward but now MM Lee has urged Singaporeans to vote for lift upgrading. This change of mind shown that the govt had abused their power - they had rejected Chiam's request solely because he was from the opposition.

In 2001 the govt suddenly decided to let the world know that they had opened up and were ready to accept gays. Since then gays parties were held annually until last Dec when a gay function was denied permit with no reason given. But now Dr Balaji maybe offering a reason. He told parliament that these parties might be the reason for 28 per cent spike in Aids cases last year. While he seemed to be doubting the wisdom of the initial decision, what is more worrying is how thoroughly are issues being discussed and debated upon before their implementations. Were some of the policies implemented as a fire-fighting tactic to meet short term goals rather than long term ones? I only hope that they would be more careful with the casino issue.

Straits Times or Shameless Times?

2005-03-14T23:52:00.000+08:00

ST March 11, 2005 NMP chided for bad language in House By Laurel Teo A FOUR-letter expletive and another impolite word blurted out in Parliament earned new Nominated MP Ong Soh Khim a stiff admonition yesterday for 'dishonourable conduct'. The mechanical engineering academic was apparently heard uttering the word 'shit' once and 'rubbish' several times at the close of a debate on the Education Ministry's budget on Tuesday. Her conduct was brought to the House's notice yesterday by Speaker Abdullah Tarmugi, midway through the seven-hour parliamentary session. Before debate on the Manpower Ministry's budget resumed after a tea break, a grave-looking Mr Abdullah rose to announce 'a matter concerning the conduct of an honourable member of the House'. He said he had received several complaints from MPs that Dr Ong had, towards the end of Tuesday's sitting, 'uttered certain unparliamentary words'. The 35-year-old had also interrupted Deputy Speaker Chew Heng Ching who was chairing the sitting then. 'Having considered the words unparliamentary, it amounts to dishonourable conduct. She has also breached the Standing Orders for interrupting the chair,' said Mr Abdullah sternly. Adding that she had 'agreed unreservedly to withdraw her remarks', he then called upon the NMP to make a statement. Looking discomfited, Dr Ong read out her apology tersely, from a prepared sheet. I have always wished that Straits Times could offer more balanced viewpoints and not just parroting PAP propaganda, however, latest developments showed that I could perish the thought! When PAP censured NMP Dr Ong for using "unparliamentary" words in the parliament sitting, Straits Times had a whale of time shaming Dr Ong. It had her photo splash across the front page. Its reporter sinisterly misled the readers into thinking that Dr Ong had uttered vulgar words by saying "a FOUR-letter expletive and an impolite word blurted out ..." when what Dr Ong said were just shit and rubbish. Straits Times really reminded me of the nefarious Gang of Four of the old communist China who went on the rampage of humiliating, persecuting and torturing countless number of their innocent people in the 1970s. It is sad and shocking to find that the only mainstream English papers in our "first world" democratic society could behave like the uninitiated third world. Straits Times has sunk into an abyss of shamelessness!

How we get indoctrinated

2005-02-21T14:32:00.000+08:00

Azly Rahman
Malaysiakini
14 Feb 2005

To understand how our consciousness is constantly being fragmented, and how the self is constantly deconstructed and reconstructed, and how ‘truth’ is an ever-changing ‘construct’ based on the intended and unintended designs of forces of economic and cultural production, we must understand what ‘indoctrination’ means.

A doctrine is a set of concepts produced from a particular point of view that is then packaged by the believers into a regime of truth that is then propagated via enabling technologies. Indoctrination then is a process of enforcing the doctrine that contains ‘truth-force’.

The believers of a doctrine often use the state apparatuses (the branches of government, the media, and the educational sector) to further promote the doctrine. Intellectuals that become promoters of ideology become the ‘intelligentsia’. Hence, at every epoch of human progress the intelligentsia is produced through whatever kind of political state that is established.

Let us look closer at how ‘truth-force’ works in the process of indoctrination. How might this force become brutish and violent in the way it shackles the human mind? How might ignorance be multiplied and becomes hegemonic?

There are many ways ‘truth-force’ can be funneled into the minds of the people for example, through education and the means of modern communication. ........

Truth-force and theocracy

The producers of truth may tell the people anything that may strike fear in their hearts, strip them off the necessity to think and to philosophsise.

“It is better to be feared than to be loved,” said Machiavelli.

The poor, ignorant, and the meek, as well as the sure and confused among us will all be saved in this grand design of the production of truth.

Why do we need to follow this and that law of the theocratic state when we sense that there is something oppressive about it? Why do we need to surrender our individuality to the dictates of a few theocratic leaders who came into power through a successful production, promotion, and propagation of the ‘truth-force’?

.............

The believers in a theocratic state live in a tight regime of truth. Higher truths become unattainable because the free will and freedom to philosophise is weakened and slowly destroyed.

..............

In a theocracy, people become afraid to think. Because, to question and to think means to subvert one's belief system. It is better to have all of the answers than some of the questions, say these people.

There is the fear of being drawn into polemics as well as into the complexities of things that make authoritarianism the best alternative. It is this feeling that makes those in power produce more and more ‘truth-polices’.

We must begin to become scientists and philosophers that will inquire into the practice and the future of theocratic states. We must engineer a ‘renaissance’ in the practice of statehood.

.............

Let us not be afraid to think, to question assumptions/status quo, to voice any dissecting views as Singapore doesn't belong to the govt or the elite few but to all Singaporeans.

Let us be the makers of our own history.

Is the Singapore govt suffering from megalomania?

2005-01-30T17:08:00.000+08:00

Straits Times
Jan 26, 2005

House approves increase in President's salary

PARLIAMENT approved an increase in the President's salary and other changes to the Civil List, which specifies his allowances and expenditure on the Istana and personal staff, for the fiscal year 2004.

The salary will be revised to $2,373,100, an increase of $247,100 from the estimated fiscal year 2004 expenditure.

As such, the total expenditure under Class 1 of the Civil List - which includes the President's salary, entertainment allowance and Acting President's allowance - will now be $2,492,700.

The pay raise for the Pres re-opened the old wound that Singaporeans suffered when the govt awarded itself a hefty pay raise to its already astronomical pay (12% to 14% on a salary range of $968,000 to $1.69 million) in Jun 2000.

What angered Singaporeans then was that while the govt officials had their pay freeze lifted, Singaporeans were told to be patient about having their CPF cuts fully restored.

In 2004, the govt again gave itself another pay raise. But this time it did nothing to the restoration of Singaporeans' CPF.

Both these govt pay raises were implemented at a time when many Singaporeans have either lost their jobs or taking home lower pay.

Is the govt suffering from megalomania and think that it is the only one that deserves the high pay and all the increases while its people should remain poor?

World Class

2005-01-30T15:07:00.000+08:00

A few days ago the Straits Times proudly proclaimed "Singapore water world class". This yet again showed Singapore govt's obsession with "world class" title. To thrive for world class is a good thing as it pushes one to keep improving to excel. However, if pursued blindly and relentlessly there will be serious consequences.

Firstly, after achieving a few "world class" it is very tempting to become self-conceited and arrogant. Countries such as Msia, Taiwan and PRC have already told Singaporeans that they were too arrogant.

Relentless pursuit of "world first" will also cause one to unknowingly become insensitive to the feelings of others. In this aspect we have sufficient complains from our neighbours like Msia and Indonesia.

The most undesirable consequences, however, is the impediment on the development of individuality. To attain "world first", esp undertaken by the govt, team work is necessary. That means those involved will have to curtail their individuality as they have designated roles to play. This probably explains why the more "world first" Singapore govt achieved, the less entrepreneurs it produces.

The Affordable Singapore

2005-01-17T15:42:00.000+08:00

Straits Times
Jan 14, 2005

Reforms in price, delivery of health care by Radha Basu

REFORMS in how health care is paid for, to the way it is delivered, will remain the top priorities for the Health Ministry, so that all Singaporeans can continue to enjoy high standards of affordable health care.

Straits Times
Jan 14, 2005

Steps to ensure affordable water supply

MANAGING the country's water sources will receive more emphasis this year, Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim said in an addendum to the President's Address.
In the addition, released yesterday, he said: 'We will also ensure affordability, service quality and reliability of our water supply, through adopting new technologies, improving operations, and facilitating public-private partnerships.'

I read with apprehension the above 2 news items. For in Singapore "affordable" is a precursor to price hike, if not an euphemism for high price.

From the enquiries on the prices of HDB flats, Singaporeans now know that the "affordable" prices charged are based not on the cost of building the flats but on whatever prices the HDB fancies which most often are more than double the cost.

It is not just the huge profits that is in question. It is about the insistence by HDB that it provides subsidized flats and makes every effort to ensure that they are affordable.

Singaporeans are getting quite annoyed with the continuous price hike of the various public services such as bus fare, GST, conservancy, etc, which were imposed at a time when they were facing either pay cut or retrenchment. Moreover, the justification for the increase: "price had not been revised for a few years", were plain economic idiocy.

Many Singaporeans now feel that the govt that had given them much prosperity no longer cares about them but is only interested in collecting revenue.

Are Singaporeans Really So Compassionate?

2005-01-17T15:08:00.000+08:00

Singaporeans should be commended for giving huge donations, both in cash and in kind, to the Boxing Day tsunami victims. Within 3 weeks, they have given almost US$19m in cash on top of medical and food relief. Many of them have also volunteered to help out in the tsunami affected countries.

Besides the tsunami catastrophe, Singaporeans have also donated generously to the seemingly never-ending fund-raising TV shows by the various local charity organisations such as NKF, Ren Ci Hospital, etc. In all these TV charity shows, the funds raised were well above the target amounts.

Nobody ought to doubt the compassion of Singaporeans. However, there is one campaign where Singaporeans seem not as giving. It is the Red Race Campaign by Singapore Blood Bank. It was started in Apr last year and aims to recruit 10,000 new blood donors. Ten months into the campaign, the Blood Bank is only able to recruit less than half of its target number of donaor!

Why are Singaporeans more willing to give money, time and effort rather than their blood? Do they still harbour the incomprehensible fear towards blood donation? Or are they so hard-hearted that they need to see the graphic images of people suffering before they could be moved to act? I really hope it is neither of these but a want of publicity for the campaign.

The China Factor

2004-12-08T20:38:00.000+08:00

Whether Singaporeans like it or not, China - her people, business and culture, is entering more and more into their lives. The PRC Chinese first came as ft and compete with locals for jobs. Then the "nightingales" threaten to disrupt their marital peace.

Not so long ago, there was that little PRC girl who captivated the hearts of Singapreans so much that they forgot about their distrust for the PRC Chinese and willingly parted considerable sum of money to her parents during her funeral.

PRC companies and stocks have also made much inroad into Singapore. About 10% of SGX total listings are PRC firms, some of which are darlings of the local investors. The Singapore govt loves the Chinese companies even more. It is actively wooing them to list in SGX and is prepared to be relatively lax in its monitoring of these companies. The current China Aviation Oil fiasco was believed to be partly due to the lax control by SGX.

The China phenomenon is here to stay, Singaporeans have to brace themselves for it and not be swept away.

Fairness for All?

2004-12-08T19:26:00.000+08:00

CNA
Monday December 6, 2:17 AM

PM Lee outlines vision for Singapore and PAP
SINGAPORE : Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said his vision for Singapore is a small but great nation, and a land of opportunity for all. He called on all Singaporeans to embark on this new national project together.
Mr Lee was speaking to party members in a rally to celebrate the People's Action Party (PAP) 50th anniversary.
Speaking for the first time as PAP's Secretary General, Mr Lee outlined his vision for the party and the nation.
Mr Lee said: "It should be a land of opportunity, a place everyone has full and equal opportunities to be educated to the limits of his ability.
"It would be a country where everyone is treated fairly regardless of race, language or religion...an economy where rewards depend on your ability and your effort...and for those people with drive, imagination, the ability, who can create something new - with some talent, the sky is the limit."
Mr Lee also referred to the recent Singapore Idol contest to stress his point.
"Taufik and Sylvester - a year ago no one knew them but they had talent and grit. They won Singaporeans' hearts and won contest, they were finalists.
"Taufik's mother is a cleaner and was not able to attend many performances as she worked long hours, but from that background and his ability and talent, Singaporeans recognised it and you can organise your friends to vote for your favourites. But in the end, the right man won...so Singapore must be a land of opportunity for all of us."

Everyone treated fairly? I doubt so. Ft and those who are rich and have connections are treated preferentially. I can give one classic example. A few years ago, a female ft lawyer was acquitted of causing the deaths of a family of 3, a mother and her two young children, in a car accident. Her defence? Something to the effect that the victims were in her blind spot. A very farfetched defence considering under Singapore traffic law, a motorist is deemed to have committed an offence if he knocks, injures or kills anyone regardless of the condition or situation in which the accident takes place. That means to say if a kid dashes out of nowhere to pick his toy and a motorist knocks onto him, the motorist is considered to be at fault. So, why was the ft lawyer acquitted?