Singapore Kopi Tok

Promising MP and Civil Servants - From Sex to Scandals to Stupidity

2012-01-27T00:42:00.000+08:00

Singaporeans were treated to sensationalism, sex and scandals over the Lunar New Year. First, there were rumours of WP Hougang MP Yaw Shin Leong going around the Internet, initiated by Temasek Review Emeritus, formerly known as Temasek Review. However, the name change did not change its sensationalistic tabloid style and agenda. Then Wanbao, the print cousin of TRE, ran news about the heads of the SCDF and CNB being investigated by the CPIB for corruption.

Supposed Scoundrels at Every Corner

More bits of the puzzle trickled out since then. MP Yaw Shin Leong chose not to comment on his supposed affair with a fellow female WP member who is also married. The WP also refused to comment on the rumoured Hougang MP's extra-marital affair and speculation is rife that this is tantamount to a confession of guilt. Reminds me of the Foo Mee Har allegations during her GE campaigning and that her refusal to sue or comment meant her flings were true. SCDF commissioner Peter Lim and CNB director Ng Boon Gay were involved with an unnamed IT executive and the cases appeared more to be about improper sexual relationships with women although speculation is still rampant on the details.

So there we have it. Sex and scandals. Where does the stupidity come in? Some might point to MP Yaw Shin Leong for being stupid to be involved in an extra-marital affair with someone from his party, assuming the rumours are true, jeopardising his personal and political life at one shot. There would be others who would say the SCDF and CNB heads were stupid to get sexually involved with a contractor.

However, the stupidity does not rest fully with MP Yaw Shin Leong, former SCDF chief Peter Lim or former CNB head Ng Boon Gay. The highest burden of stupidity lies with the people who jumped to clouded conclusions.

Setting the Records Straight

While it looked like MP Yaw Shin Leong had an extra-marital affair based on his reaction, what does it matter if he did? That is his personal life and however troubled it may be for his family, it does not necessarily impede his integrity as a politician or his party's effectiveness. Clinton was still a popular and relatively effective president despite being blown, and his ECA with an intern blown. Singaporeans should just learn to be mature and not be confused by revelations out to undermine Yaw Shin Leong's political ambitions. Under no circumstances should the thought of him stepping down and a by-election be entertained.

Similarly, many jumped to the conclusions that Ng Boon Gay and Peter Lim embezzled money and are CPIB's biggest aces since Teh Cheang Wan, Phey Yew Kok or Glenn Knight. Investigations are still in progress and there is no confirmation of taking bribes. Also while some jumped to the argument that it shows Singapore is full of corrupt civil servants, the very show that CPIB would catch big fish heads in MHA means that there is zero tolerance for any imagined or genuine corruption even.

This Lunar New Year variety show of sex and scandals just reminds us that we should be aware of the yapping jackals inside and outside the Internet.

Symbolism in Slashing Salaries and Lengthening Legitimacy

2012-01-05T02:32:00.000+08:00

The obvious sign that the PAP government is worried about the weakening social contract with the voters is the commitment to take up the recommendations of the salary review committee.

Make no mistake that the slashing of the salary is not a small amount, although the revised salary is still astronomical by any standard for any honest politician. According to The Guardian, despite the populist pay cut, PM Lee's pay is still three times that of Hong Kong chief executive, Donald Tsang, the world's next highest paid political leader in the world.

Slashing Pay by a Third and More

With the review, entry-level MR4 ministers, would get a 37% pay cut to about $935,000 to $1,100,00 if they just started off, while the PM would get a similar proportionate cut of 36% to $2,200,000. The formula for this distinction is that the PM's salary is pegged at twice the MR4 salary. MR3 ministers get the biggest cut of 39% in their salaries. However, the pay cut for higher grade ministers is generally less significant in comparison e.g. 35% cut for MR2, 33% cut for MR1 and 31% cut for DPM. The President, however, would get a more substantial pay cut of 51% to $1,540,000.

Also, contrary to what Leong Sze Hian in TOC wrote that the pay cut excludes bonuses to be paid, the Review Committee stated that after the recommended pay cut, ministers' salary for the entry MR4 grade with maximum bonuses of 7 months thrown in would reach $1,100,000 as the limit. Overall, the symbolism for the pay cut is there on the wall for all to see except the blind or the blindly anti-PAP. The symbolism of a deep cut of a about more than a third of the salary is a powerful one. A 30% cut is a potent attempt at reinventing quick legitimacy and to any rational observer it is not tokenism. Tokenism is when the salary is cut 3%. Would you the reader personally feel that it is a big deal if your salary is cut 30%?

Regaining Popularity

The salary slashing is sufficient symbolically as a first step towards a new social contract to the moderate observer. However it is expected that it is never enough for the hardcore PAP critic.

The slashing of the salaries is a good gesture, a shrewd move to show that the PAP is bothered to try forging a new social contract. It is weaved as part of the earlier populist package where rightly unpopular ministers like Raymond Lim, Wong Kan Seng and Mah Bow Tan were asked to step down even though they won their seats in the last GE. Similarly, the PAP need not have bothered to slash their salaries now, so soon after the GE and so far away from the next GE to score points. Yet, they did, to invest in political capital.

For both the PAP apologists and cynics, the timing of the commendable step towards a pay reduction actually shows that the PAP wants to listen, please and make amends, for now. Still, while appreciated, a hefty pay cut alone does not restore fully the PAP's legitimacy in our eyes. It was never really a matter of how much they pocketed, but what they did or didn't do in the context of the amount they earned.

The Anti-ISA Circus is in Town

2011-09-28T23:11:00.003+08:00

It is strange that when Najib decided to repeal the ISA in Malaysia clearly for his own political survival, it stirred this hornet's nest in Singapore. Suddenly, our NGOs start clamouring for something similar and ex detainees start demanding redress for their "wrongful" detentions years past. What's worst, the liberal media starts imagining that there are hundreds of thousands of oppressed Singaporeans willing to go Bersih-like and start demonstrating down the streets.

People Care about Housing, Transport, Healthcare, Education, Not ISA

The funny thing is that most Singaporeans actually do not care; they did throng the streets but for the carnival of the F1. Despite the efforts of the esteemed TOC and even the oft-reviled Straits Times to create some kind of groundswell for this ISA issue, Singaporeans are just not talking about it. James Gomez and his Singaporeans for Democracy imported two foreign talent politicians to talk about the issue and it reached the ears of a ground-shattering 50 people in a pub. There is simply no buzz.

This is something of a lesson here for NGOs and ex-detainees alike; rather than flog a dead horse, they should focus on issues of greater currency and relevance? Ms Teo Soh Lung should know and have learnt by now surely? If Singaporeans wanted to take on her baggage and fight for her "wrongful" detention, the people of Yuhua SMC would have simply voted her into Parliament when she stood for election in May 2011. She had the entire stage in her numerous rallies to convince and persuade Singaporeans to her case but did she win? Nope. Was it even close? Nope again. But are Singaporeans blind, nope, when articulated correctly, Singaporeans disposed of a reigning PAP Foreign Minister and delivered a GRC into the hands of the Opposition. Most Singaporeans, like the constituents of Yuhua, have some sympathy for Ms Teo but that's about all.

COI and Much Ado About Nothing

Civil society in Singapore must know what are the issues that nauseate Singaporeans and not just ape vacuous liberal ideas that have no relevance in Singapore. We could be a monarchy for goodness sake and people will still be happy if their needs are met in a relevant manner. Trying to drum up some kind of Jasmine or Arab Spring in Singapore via this ISA issue is just downright silly. There is no groundswell over this ISA issue and even less over the "wrongful" detention of Ms Teo in Spectrum. And now, even the pre-Spectrum detainees have jumped on the bandwagon and are demanding their cases re-opened in front of a COI.

May I ask the question that no one seems to have thought of since most of the minority think that they are innocent ie what if the COI finds them guilty again despite all the show and tell they are allowed in the COI?? Do you think the ex-detainees will than suddenly see the light and quietly plead guilty again? Fat hope. If so, what then is the true motive of this COI but for this 16 to turn the COI into another platform for them to whine about their deeds and hopefully create a groundswell since they have failed in their numerous books, on the Internet and in the electoral hustings to awaken Singaporeans to their "grievances".

In the end, Singaporeans are not stupid. For Ms Teo and her comrades, perhaps if you can get the thousands of people who have been detained by the ISA and CLTP to sign this blood oath with you and get another hundred thousand Singaporeans to march behind you than maybe you will get the redress you crave; if not, just do the simple thing and move on, there are more pressing issues which Singaporeans need a voice for from their politicians and their civil society.

Why I am not a “PAP die hard”

2011-09-01T18:15:00.003+08:00

Our recent presidential election (PE) had as much drama as any TV addict could hope for: four pre-qualified candidates (when all previous PEs after 1993 failed to produce even two!) and a recount that created a nation of temporary insomniacs.

Now it’s all over and the Net is awash with post-hoc analyses about why who got how many votes and so on. Much of it, however, lacks any real depth. (The only exception, perhaps, comes from Yawning Bread).

You see, I voted for TT; by some accounts, I am now labelled – along with 35% of my fellow voters – as a “PAP die-hard.”

I detest that label. I am not a PAP die-hard and had in fact voted opposition during the GE.

It was in fact a process of elimination.

First, as the president is an apolitical position, I tried to view each individual as such.

I could not in good conscience not vote for TKL because he appeared to be very much out of his depth. During the exchanges/debates, he was clearly outclassed by the other three candidates. He tried to be like a favourite uncle, but I was voting for a president, not an uncle.

I saw TJS as being divisive; sure, he had grand plans and promises, but the issues he raised are meant for Parliament. Given the role of the president as defined by the Constitution, I felt that there was a fundamental misfit between the person and the post.

I remained undecided between TT and TCB until polling day itself.

I did not buy TT’s claim that we need him as president because of the impending financial crisis. After all, in a fire, our best fire fighters should ideally be in the SCDF, not the Istana. Hence, he should have stayed in GIC. I also did not feel that he (or MINDEF) had adequately addressed the brouhaha over Dr Patrick Tan’s NS obligations.

TCB’s plan to boot the Prime Minister out of the Istana did not make sense to me. I did not see it as congruent with his claim that he would unify Singaporeans; after all, how can one unify a country if he feels he cannot stay and work in the same compound (and a very large one at that) as the Prime Minister?

My one vote was precious to me. I did my due diligence and thought over my decision carefully. I believe that many other voters likewise did not take their decision lightly. Those who are too quick to label voters as “die hard” fans (of either the PAP or anyone else) are guilty of shallow reasoning.

The Neutral, Non-Partisan and Natural Choice Tomorrow

2011-08-26T10:55:00.003+08:00

For those who are not voting Tony Tan and Tan Cheng Bock for their ties to the PAP, that leaves us with only Tan Jee Say and Tan Kin Lian.

Tan Kin Lian started off well in the race and would have lured the opposition and moderate votes away from the PAP camp. Then Tan Jee Say got into the game and like the mythological Siren, he seduced away voters from the former NTUC Income CEO. All is fair in love, war and politics. This is a game of high political and personal stakes - salary, responsibility, foot-in-the-door opposition influence, and the future of the form and function of the presidency. Everyone has to be "mature adults" about the competition in the presidential elections as Tan Jee Say mentioned during the TOC Presidential Face to Face forum and CNA's Meet the Candidates.

That Tan

From the way Tan Jee Say presented himself since Nomination Day when his supporters booed away the PAP proxy, Tony Tan, the PAP and the public would expect a confrontational populist president if he is elected into Office. Expect brinkmanship and the stubborn PAP ignoring whatever the SDP-backed candidate might advise from his seat in the Istana. For the Cabinet, to treat a former civil servant who joined the SDP camp as the president would be a humiliating slap in their face. Furthermore, frankly, Tan Jee Say does not appear to have the composure and class to be a president. He was visibly upset with Tony Tan during the TOC forum, and Goh Chok Tong's former Principal Private Secretary actually raised his voice and pointed his finger at Tony Tan. Also during his CNA debate, Tan Jee Say stumbled during his opening statement. Right from the start he dropped the ball, although to be fair, chastised by public opinion, he was not so easily angered by then compared to the TOC forum outburst.

Tan Jee Say boasted his illustrious private sector employment. However, his employment history was questioned and Tan Jee Say later clarified that he was not involved in the demise of Peregrine or AIB Govett. This explanation was just like he was not involved in the Marxist Conspiracy although he was the top aide to Goh Chok Tong, a DPM in 1987. Certainly the former civil servant who struck out on his own was scrutinised and there might have been deliberate falsehood against him as part of the campaigning. However, Tan Jee Say was oddly quiet about the allegations that he was managed out of Standard Chartered and that he was shunned by the banking industry since 2006.

The Only Tan

In contrast, Tan Kin Lian is more amicable and less confrontational. He smiles often, is more casual in his appearance and reasoning compared to his competition. He wore batik during the TOC forum, is often seen in his casual high-five tee to emphasis his people-oriented branding. He is more of the people's president rather than an opposition's president. He stressed during his campaigning that while it is not within his constitutional powers, he would suggest a state pension fund and an added HDB grant for NSmen i.e. he knows his limits and does not go into esoteric debates like disbanding Temasek or debunking the Marxist Conspiracy. He goes for the heartland issues right away. More down-to-earth, more to the heartbeat of Singaporeans uncertain of their lot in life under the PAP government.

He is more accommodating and although his feel of socio-political moods is not there as seen from the TOC forum, this is compensated by his eagerness to help. He seemed more grassroot in his style and that would be a plus. Nobody should forget that he stood up and spoke up during the Lehman crisis at Hong Lim Park for those who were burnt. It is only one incident, one instance, his critics might voice. Indisputable allegation, but it was his big intervention in being the voice. Where was Tan Jee Say or for that matter, Tony Tan or Tan Cheng Bock, then? That demonstrated that he was concerned about people's money being safe and not risked away.

Furthermore, Tan Kin Lian helmed NTUC Income for 30 years. Tan Jee Say is a job hopper in comparison, perhaps unfairly presented if we were in a non-election period but fair in an election, someone who is not sure of what he wants. The stereotypical government scholar who cannot survive outside of his cushy fast-tracked government sector as critics like to gossip about. During Tan Kin Lian's leadership of Income, the NTUC leader grew Income to the large cooperative it is today, like or loath his leadership style. While the president does not have the mandate to do with the reserves as he pleased, his track record of prudence in Income is assuring and he views the reserves as both insurance and investment. Not something for the opposition to bargain with the executive and legislative.

Come 27 August, nothing as changed and I'm still doing a high-five for one particular Tan.

Presidential candidate Tan Kin Lian said he encountered two low points in his race to Istana, and both of them involved fellow candidate Tan Jee Say.

Speaking at a news conference, Mr Tan said the first low point was when Mr Tan Jee Say applied for a certificate of eligibility to become a candidate in the presidential election.

This allegedly took place after he invited Mr Tan Jee Say to be part of his think tank.

The second low point was when Mr Tan Jee Say received his certificate of eligibility.

Mr Tan Kin Lian said one of the criteria to qualify for the certificate is that the individual has to head a company with at least $100 million in paid-up capital, and he says Mr Tan Jee Say did not qualify in this area.

Mr Tan Kin Lian also shared two high points in his campaign.

The first was when he found out that many people are supporting him in the election.

Another high point was when his strategic team came up with the message for his campaign, which is to be the voice of the people, and the five values of positive attitude, public service, courage, fairness and honesty.

The Election Dilemma and the President Idol

2011-08-18T06:23:00.000+08:00

In the recent general election, the majority of us did not vote for an MP. The GRC system meant that most of us actually chose between teams of MPs offered by the PAP and opposition parties.

The dilemma was that in some cases, to cast a vote for someone we wanted as an MP, we inevitably also had to support someone we would prefer not to see in Parliament. On the other hand, this could also drag his/her team down.

With the official nomination of the 4 Tans as presidential candidates, voters face a different dilemma at our upcoming presidential election.

Say you are firmly of the view that the president should be not be a former PAP MP or Minister, and would be happy to have either Tan Kin Lian or Tan Jee Say as president. You believe that a slight majority of Singaporeans share your view, and that the ideal outcome would be that either one of them wins the election.

But who would you vote for? As with the Prisoners’ Dilemma, you might want to take a stab at guessing how your like-minded citizens might vote. If the votes are split down the middle, it is unlikely that either candidate will win.

In a curious case of divine impartiality, the same applies to those on the pro-PAP camp.

Someone has suggested having two rounds of elections, the second being between the top two candidates in the first. While the proposal has its merits, it is clearly not going to happen on 27 August 2011.

To “neutralise” the huge difference in country audience sizes, SMS voters in the Asian Idol competition had to name two countries; it has been argued that Singapore’s Hadi Mirza won the title of Asian Idol not because he was the best singer, but because he was the “safe choice”.

It is not a close parallel, since voters for the Asian Idol were required to select two choices. Nonetheless, the “safe choice” theory suggests that the candidate who wins may not be the most-loved, but simply the least despised.

But this is not an ideal outcome for Asian Idol, and even less so for a presidential election.

Tan Kin Lian for President

2011-08-16T02:04:00.006+08:00

The inaugural contested presidential election is here. This Wednesday would be a milestone in Singapore's history. For too long the presidents have been selected by the PAP, even after the elected presidency was enacted in 1991. This time, still smarting from the humiliation in the GE months ago and the spirit of soul-searching still in the PAP psyche, the PAP turned away for once and let the Presidential Elections Committee do its job. Consequently, there are four individuals who would stand for elections this Wednesday. All Tans, all hoping to be president, all have their flaws, all have their strengths.

The Room for Independents

I've always thought that there is ample space for independents in politics. Not only because of the romantic appeal of the underdog especially in a PAP-dominated Singapore, but also because independents don't have the baggage of party politics and history trailing them. Tan Cheng Bock, Tan Jee Say and Tony Tan have all offficially left their respective parties but around their necks, I still see the faint signs that say - PAP, SDP and PAP respectively. That Tan trio can never truly distance themselves from their political roots. Tony Tan and Tan Cheng Bock would still be loyal to some of their former PAP comrades at least, if not to the PAP itself. And the same would be so for Tan Jee Say, who flew the SDP flag merely months ago too at the GE. If a former PAP member is elected as the president after 27 August, he would draw disdain from segments of the public. Similarly for the former SDP member as there would be those in the crowd who would prefer a PAP man over someone from the SDP camp.

Community, Ceremony and Constitution First, not Party Prejudices

The president in Singapore performs constitutional, ceremonial and community roles and should he be beholden to any political party, he cannot carry out those roles to the best of his abilities. Party prejudices would cloud the president's office and undermine the office in the eyes of the public. Furthermore, Singapore is a parliamentary system and the president's office should not be backdoor for opposition parties to sneak into parliament.

With a president who is not aligned with any party, the opportunities of gridlock brought about by party politics is significantly reduced. The PAP-dominated parliament would be more open to listen to an independent president, partly as a public relations demonstration of their growing openness to win the voters over in time for their next election. Furthermore, in the eyes of the PAP, it is best that their henchman becomes president. But in the end with the expected anti-PAP resentment still fresh after the GE, preferable that an independent they can reason with who sits at the Istana rather than a card-carrying member of the opposition intent on blocking anything because of party agenda.

The Path Ahead for an Apolitical Presidency

Hence, to apoliticise the presidency, and in the spirit of the elected presidents from Ong Teng Cheong to SR Nathan, the choice is clear to voters like me who want to see the assertion of the political independence of the president's office. From Ong Teng Cheong who was a minister and NTUC leader, to SR Natan who was a senior civil servant, the natural evolution in the apoliticisation of the elected president would leave us with Tan Kin Lian, someone from a cooperative. He is qualified with regards to his Income stewardship and has remained independent through the GE and has no political ambitions in that sense or else he would have joined the opposition. His critics spread that he is a former PAP member and thus tainted. However, he left the PAP in the early 1980s and that is a long time ago for him to retain party loyalties.

When Tan Kin Lian officially commits himself to the presidential race in a few days, he would get my vote.

Internal Politics and Knifing

2011-06-10T03:00:00.006+08:00

Fascinating to see political parties indulging in internal politics. During the GE, the parties were fencing with each other. Mostly gentlemanly except for the innuendos of gay agenda of a party by a minister and attacks on a bimbo politician who brandished a Kate Spade bag in a private photo. After the GE, the biting and scratching were not at other parties, but within parties. In particular, WP, NSP and PAP.

WP Tension

The tension within the Workers' Party was evident when Eric Tan who contested in the East Coast GRC, resigned after he was not offered the NCMP position. That coveted appointment, foot-in-the-door into parliament to showcase to voters in the next GE was given to Gerald Giam instead. Why Eric Tan, a veteran of the 2006 GE where he also stood in East Coast GRC, was not selected were for strategic reasons. Gerald Giam should be given the exposure in parliament as he has more years ahead of him. Disagree or agree, Eric Tan quit the party not 3 months later but immediately once the decision was public. The longer he delayed his resignation, the less he linked it with the NCMP chair passed to a younger inexperience candidate, and the less the damage to WP. Some called him petty and that he placed personal interests before party interests, the euphemism for "selfish". Not many emphatised with him and the fact that he was older, was around since the GE 2006 and thus had more experience to share in parliament compared to Gerald Giam.

The WP wanted to pander to the younger voters and Gerald Giam it was. Eric Tan's sense of betrayal was expected but the extent he was disappointed was unexpected. Would Eric Tan soon defect to another party to further show his resentment? Another party like WP which did well in the GE despite not winning any wards?

NSP Intrigue

Another post-GE internal politics fallout is based on rumours, but there is no smoke without fire as they say. NSP members, among them Gilbert Goh and Goh Meng Seng, supposedly met Joseph Ong who is an associate of the disreputable Temasek Review. Goh Meng Seng denied there was a meeting while someone else refuted the NSP secretary-general's denials. This someone called himself "NSP Insider" and added that Joseph Ong wanted to pay for the legal fees of NSP Nicole Seah to sue Shin Min, for reasons unknown. However Goh Meng Seng was against it.

The backstabbing here in NSP is that there might have been a meeting that Goh Meng Seng disallowed but Gilbert Goh and others had a Faustian deal with Joseph Ong behind the NSP leader's back. It was a symptom of a larger problem of a breakdown in party cohesion. NSP is not disciplined like the WP and some factions in NSP probably were unhappy with NSP's lacklustre performance in the GE and the way NSP was heading from now.

PAP Factions

With regards to where a political party is heading from now, and forgetting its proletariat roots, can be seen in the infighting in the PAP camp in the run-up to the presidential election. Tan Cheng Bock jumped into the race, to the surprise of his former comrades. Lim Boon Heng pulled the rug from under Tan Cheng Bock's feet by not giving him a clean bill of health as he doubted the former Ayer Rajah strongman's credentials. Fearing that popular Tan Cheng Bock would become like Ong Teng Cheong in asking uncomfortable questions in parliament, the PAP looked like they had to drag out Tony Tan from retirement to run for office as a counterweight to Tan Cheng Bock. Rather that retired Tan over the other retired Tan.

Just when political shadow boxing within the PAP cannot become any more complicated, George Yeo who earlier said after he was humiliated in Aljunied GRC that he did not have the temperament to be president, hinted that he might give it a shot too. The PAP would not have supported George Yeo as his about-turn on running for president made the PAP looked like they wanted a puppet president too obviously and without finesse. Abdullah Tarmugi was probably the original puppet for the PAP but Tan Cheng Bock and George Yeo ruined the opening game for the PAP. This public display of internal politics only means one thing - they know that Lee Kuan Yew is losing his hold over the party. His eventual demise might actually spark off a breakaway PAP faction as speculated.

PAP’s GE2011 Post-mortem

2011-05-18T22:47:00.003+08:00

Clearly, there must be, by now, a document with this title being circulated amongst PAP’s top cadre. The following is just my own stab in the dark – and if you’ve been (mis)led here by a keyword search, thinking it’s the real McCoy, I’m sorry. (And I’m not alone in saying so).

Traditionally, in Singapore politics, we can almost expect opposition politicians to trip up. In GE2001, it was Chee Soon Juan heckling the PM. In GE2006, it was the James Gomez saga. This year, we had Kenneth Jeyaretnam misquoting PM in a condolence letter.

Conversely, it was a given that PAP would roll a near-perfect score. Candidates with impeccable resumes would be trotted out; not all are eloquent but by-and-large, all generally somewhat likable. If all candidates were stripped of party affiliation, it would be a fair statement that the majority would chose the PAP candidates. Add the party’s huge resources, and every move is strategically-motivated and ably executed, leaving very little to chance.

But the tide seems to have turned in GE2011, with a 6.5% slip in votes and the loss of a GRC. Did the PAP play its cards wrongly this time? Or is the PAP’s new vulnerability a result of the shifting sands?

Let’s look at what I consider to be the three key mistakes in PAP’s GE2011 campaign.

[Note: Here, I define a “mistake” as something that – on hindsight – one wishes that one had not done; even so, I understand that you may not agree with what I consider a mistake, and if so, I’m sorry (again).]

Mistake 1: Fielding Tin Pei Ling. With the massive negative reaction following TPL’s introduction, the PAP could have shelved her candidature for one term; by their own admission, PAP has a slate of reserve candidates which included at least one surgeon. But, no, PAP chose to drive her into Parliament in the armoured convoy known as Marine Parade GRC. The convoy made it, but not without significant battle damage; SM Goh Chok Tong has announced his retirement from the Cabinet’ speculation is that it is linked to his GRC’s low share of votes.

Mistake 2: The Steve Tan faux pas. Clearly the PAP’s due diligence process is showing some cracks; perhaps there are some things that do not come up in polite conversation over a cuppa. In any case, Tanjong Pagar MP Baey Yam Keng was sent east to fill the ranks while overnight MP Dr Chia Shi-Lu got to walk(over) into Parliament as part of MM Lee Kuan Yew’s armoured convoy. (MM has since announced his retirement along with SM Goh, which makes one wonder if it has anything to do with his remarks on the Muslim integration or about Aljunied voters repenting).

The biggest mistake, IMHO, is to play for broke in Aljunied. With the GRC system, the nomination of candidates is akin to the game of Chinese poker. You can either spread out your chances or go for broke. It is not necessary a winning strategy – WP won both in Aljunied and Hougang; SPP lost both Potong Pasir and Bishan-Toa Payoh.

It was politically unfeasible to move FM George Yeo into a ‘safe’ ward. PM upped the ante in Aljunied with the announcement that MP Zainal Abidin would be Speaker of Parliament. Newbie (and touted 4G leader) Ong Ye Kung was probably sent there on account on his being more charismatic than the other new recruits. Still, this set proved no match for the WP’s A-team.

During the fog of the hustings, it was passé to praise but kosher to criticize. It was too easy to overlook the successes of the PAP administration over the past 5 years, especially during the Global Financial Crisis, where the introduction of Workfare and Jobs Credit effectively staved off unemployment, or new developments such as the Marina Bay area, Sentosa’s Resort World and the F1 night race.

In GE2011, PM Lee earned a mixed mandate. While PAP as a whole has lost points, PM’s Ang Mo Kio GRC enjoyed one of the strongest returns, providing him with moral authority that was not available to him in GE2006. The departure of MM Lee, SM Goh, Wong Kan Seng, Mah Bow Tan and Raymond Lim further heralds the possibility of changes, and the one clear message from GE2011 is that changes need to be made. Not only in the Cabinet, but also within the PAP itself.

GE: One Week Later

2011-05-15T04:36:00.004+08:00

Things are still falling into place about one week after the milestone 2011 election in Singapore's opposition history, besides other significant periods. 1968 and the irresponsible Barisan Socialis boycott and the chance for PAP to monopolise parliament until 1981. 1981 and the Anson By-election. 1984 and Anson and Potong Pasir. The breakthrough 1991 and 20 years later, 2011.

PAP Looking Ahead and Making the Right Sounds For Now

On the PAP front, the most startling and welcomed news is that MM Lee Kuan Yew and SM Goh Chok Tong are finally giving up their Cabinet positions, if the PM accepted their resignations. Finally, and it is about time. Looking at the recent political damage done by the two former PMs of Singapore to their own party especially, their departure from cabinet is long overdue. MM Lee's hard truths on the supposed lack of Malay integration which is perhaps partly true and partly false depending on perspective, did not sit well with politically correct Singaporeans. SM Goh also did his fair bit to provoke Singaporeans in October 2010 when he mused why he should continue to work for Singaporeans who felt that they didn't belong to Singapore. Nobody wanted him to work at all and for him to be paid millions if you asked me. The GE period recently also showed how these two old men managed to sabotage PM Lee's PAP's campaign which was already being shaken. MM Lee's repent ultimatum to Aljunied residents and SM Goh's desperate attempts to protect George Yeo at the expense of other cabinet ministers showed that PM Lee was not using the Whip enough, if at all.

The resignations suggested that the PAP has got it into their thick heads that Singaporeans are frustrated with retired PMs who are holding cabinet positions and getting million dollar salaries. Naturally if the two former PMs want to contribute, they can contribute pro bono or at an MP allowance which is what they are proposing to do now. It is assuring that the PAP is making quick moves to demonstrate that they are trying to win back Singaporeans, after winning the recent GE by one of the lowest winning margin in years.

WP is Already Ahead and Looking Good

Lots have been said on the WP and the WP is basking in its glory as it rightly should. They were good sportsmen when they won Aljunied, just like the PAP Aljunied team was also quite gracious when their faces were pushed into the mud. However, the Eric Tan debacle showed that while WP's pre-GE and GE discipline is exemplary, cracks are surprisingly beginning to show post-GE. Coldly calculated, the choice of Gerald Giam over Eric Tan as NCMP actually underlined WP's strategic view and its willingness to offend its key party members for the party's long term good. The whole of Singapore would be watching when WP sits in parliament soon and how WP is going to use not only the 6 MPs, but the 2 NCMPs as well. Former NCMP and now MP Sylvia Lim already left big shoes for her WP NCMP cadres to step into.

The Other Opposition Merely Looked Good

The other political parties are also coming to terms in their defeat in the 2011 GE. Some might have improved in their performance from GE 2006 but in a GE and as long as the opposition candidates were not elected into parliament, it does not mean anything significant despite anything consoling pundits say.

The Reform Party marched into the scene with much celebratory fanfare last year but its GE performance was horrible. Kenneth Jayaretnam has been relatively quiet on his loss so far. In contrast, Goh Meng Seng from the NSP was more forthcoming on his reflections of his defeat and he gentlemanly has taken full responsibility for it. He had a good team, made up of former Reform Party members but his party's branding was hijacked by the Nicole Seah phenomenon and this showed that he might have to crack his party whip on his members like Nicole Seah who looked like they have their own independent media campaigns.

SDP despite its rebranding and hooking of a former PPS to Goh Chok Tong and the eloquent Vincent Wijesingha also failed to win any seats. SDP's performance was actually disappointing as they had a strong new media campaign as well which surpassed that of the other parties including WP. However, in the end in SDP's case, there was a limit to how much Internet campaigning and popular culture branding worked in getting votes. SDP's Danny the Bear was also a novelty at best and a cheapening and trivialisation of SDP's political message at worst.

In contrast to the WP victories in Aljunied and Hougang, SPP's defeat in Bishan-Toa Payoh and Potong Pasir did mar Singaporeans' optimism in opposition strongholds lasting forever. What rubbed salt into the wound in Potong Pasir, albeit SPP did what they could to calm their people, was the petty petition by some Potong Pasir residents who insinuated there was unfairness and were in denial over PAP's win in their SMC. Those who participated in the petition were the proverbial sore losers and their incredulous reaction from their doubt mocked the entire voting system. SPP themselves accept the results and that should be the end of it. On SPP's rocky future, Lina Chiam accepted the NCMP offer. Looking at her dismal maiden debate among political peers during the CNA panel discussion last month, the chances of Lina Chiam standing tall and toe-to-toe with PAP MPs in parliamentary debates are horribly slim. From the quality of Lina Chiam as a poltician, that NCMP slot could have been controversially surrendered and offered to WP instead, although that is a politically naive move if SPP did that.

A Tale of Two Opposition Parties

2011-04-30T07:45:00.003+08:00

SDP Rally at Yuhua on 29.4.11 8pm

Workers' Party and Singapore Democratic Party. One is an old brand, the other is being rebranded. The former has a more substantial manifesto. The latter's manifesto is considerably weaker in content. One has entrenched itself in a SMC and is on the verge of winning a GRC. The other is trying to reclaim its lost glory days and get a seat in parliament. One is filled with good speakers who make sense. The other is filled with mediocre speakers at best, and of which some just have rally rhetoric and made little sense. This is my experience from comparing the WP rally on 28.4.11 and the SDP rally on 29.4.11.

A Class Apart

Between the two parties, WP is more likely to beat the PAP than SDP from the way the crowd behaved. I attended the WP party Hougang SMC rally on the 28th and there was chanting of "Workers' Party", cheering and clapping. Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim and the newcomer fresh off the plane Chen Show Mao had an electrifying hold over us. When Chen Show Mao appeared and greeted the crowd in Malay, Tamil, Mandarin and English, the crowd roared in approval. Low Thia Khiang wove his charismatic magic and it was clear that the crowd which numbered in the thousands that filled the field about 2-3 times a football field all backed him. I bet even the PAP supporters among them too. Especially when he said the WP as a figurative co-driver was there to slap the PAP in parliament if the PAP drove dangerously. Low also had a nice touch of formally introducing Yaw Shin Leong, ensuring a proper and official handover of Hougang.

The frenzy in the WP rally was not seen in the SDP Yuhua SMC rally on the 29th. At about 8pm on Friday night, the stadium where the SDP rally was held was sparsely populated. This was in sheer contrast to the Hougang experience where it was already packed one hour into the rally. None of the SDP speakers could move the crowd like how the WP candidates did. Ang Yong Guan from SDP tried his best to work up the crowd but his crass efforts were futile. Teo Soh Lung who was going to wrest the SMC from PAP's Grace Fu just appeared nice but she couldn't connect to the crowd particularly because of her poor command of Mandarin. One thing oddly different was also that in the SDP rally, only the speaker was on stage and everyone else was somewhere resting perhaps. Bad form. In contrast, in the WP's rally, the various candidates sat on the stage, behind the speaker, implying that they bothered to sit there, however uncomfortable it was, to try connect with the crowd and show support for their fellow candidates.

Hopes and Fat Hopes

Is the WP's A-Team going to take over Aljunied GRC at least? If the crowd reaction is any indicator, probably. No amount of upgrading promise can keep Aljunied residents voting for PAP. Unless the PAP becomes creative in its pork-barrel politics e.g. cheaper better faster childcare, elderly care and other services beside physical infrastructure.

Is SDP's A-Team going to win Holland-Bt Timah GRC? Judging from the crowd reaction and performance of the speakers, their chances are quite dismal, especially if the Holland-Bt Timah residents are confident that WP is taking over Aljunied anyway and why have an opposition like SDP in their turf?

My Fellow Bloggers...

2011-04-27T01:45:00.002+08:00

My fellow Singaporean bloggers

I am proud to be one of you.

In a sentimental mood (and blessed with some free time), I read through some of the blog postings written ahead of the 2006 GE, and compared them to our discussions in the blogosphere today.

By and large, the quality of our discourse has improved significantly. Name-calling has (mostly) given way to robust debates on hard issues. There is an increasing segment which supports a candidate or party on the strength of its ideas and policies, not its rhetoric and personality. Consequently, the online political conversation has become a lot more substantive.

We still know how to have fun, and this wit often reflects a deeper realities a la Animal Farm. Far more than just a song and dance, we use humour to mask hidden messages about the fundamental issues at stake. Or maybe we just enjoy making each other laugh.

In any case, I am convinced that we bloggers today have a bona fide role in national discourse.

Separately, I came across this quote by the late US senator Robert F Kennedy:

“Our gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud to be Americans.”

I would argue that a high GNP would actually help pay for our children’s education and healthcare. But otherwise, I think Senator Kennedy has effectively captured the essence of what Americans’ real priorities were. And they had little to do with numbers.

One of the issues that appears to be shaping our upcoming GE is whether we should have cheaper HDB prices or more national reserves. Another “hot button” issue is the influx of foreigners.

While both issues can be expressed in numbers, the real question that should be addressed is: “What makes life in Singapore worthwhile?” Is it worthwhile to have flats which are worth less in future in order to have more case in hand now (or for retirement)? Is it worthwhile to have more space (and jobs) for Singaporeans if it means slower growth as a whole?

The March of the Independents

2011-04-23T00:37:00.002+08:00

There were no independent candidates in the 2006 General Elections. However, in the 2001 GE, there was Tan Kim Chuang who stood in Bt Timah, faced off SDA and PAP and got the lowest percentage of the votes (4.92%) of the three candidates in the SMC. Independent candidate Ooi Boon Ewe in Joo Chiat who stared down Chan Soo Sen in Joo Chiat SMC, fared better as he garnered 16.45% of the votes. In 1997, Chia Shi Teck was in a 4-corner fight with PAP-DPP-NSP in Chua Chu Kang SMC and obtained 14.06% of the votes. Not bad for an independent.

1991 - The Promise and Pitfalls in the Independents' Political Aspirations

The 1991 GE, the first post-LKY GE and the spring of political change, had a relatively thriving independent movement. Independents stood in Bt Merah (Patrick Leong who collected 1.63%) Bt Timah SMC (Sani Jan, who obtained 1.68%), Chua Chu Kang SMC (Harry Baptist and Kwek Guan Kwee who obtained 7.61% and 23.95% respectively), Leng Kee SMC (GK Niddy who snatched 23.43% of the votes from the PAP candidate), MOuntbatten SMC (Eugene Yap who scored 22.05% of the votes) and Tanglin (Gnaguru s/o Thamboo Mylvaganam who obtained 1.23% of the votes). The 1991 GE results for the independents in the 6 SMC showed that independents can fare either relatively well (more than 20% of the votes) or dismally (less than 2% of the votes). Why the disparity? Nobody can really tell but it has a lot to do with cleverly tapping on voters' frustrations with both incumbents and the alternatives.

Independents Have A Good Chance in 2011

Can independents actually win a seat in a SMC, since independents presumably do not have the resources to compete in a GRC? The easiest answer is probably a "no". However, the possibility of an election result where an independent can do well enough to keep his deposit, earn enough reputation and credibility for his future professional and political life is not out of reach.

Independents can be seen as very much similar to NMPs in many ways to the matured voter who is cynical of the tiresome rhetoric of all the political parties, and rather let an independent who has no political flag and baggage to wave and carry to enter parliament. Imagine if people like Siew Kum Hong stood as an independent, there is a high chance he can re-enter parliament as a full-fledged MP this time. Furthermore, the public should reflect on the myth that independents are lost causes or basket cases. For example, independents do not have the monopoly of crackpots. SDP, PAP, SPP etc incidentally all have their own crackpots.

In the 2011 GE, former presidential candidate Andrew Kuan is back and might do well in Joo Chiat. He has gained enough reputation since he made a grab for the elected presidency in 2005. Similarly, chairman of the Stansfield Education Group Kannappan Chettiar, might also score reasonably well in Mountbatten SMC.

However, those media-shy and mysterious loners who expressed some interest in being independents would probably fare terribly as they didn't even bother to market themselves credibly when it is so vital to do so now especially when every potential candidate is putting their cards and wares on the table already as there is so little time left to win voters over.

Catering to the Younger Voters and their Defiant DIY Streak

Although independents have not done well since the 1997 GE, the 1991 GE demonstrated that independents are players best not underestimated. Independents are not shackled by the party whip and are very non-partisan in theory. Assuming they can have a good social media penetration, independent candidates can reach out to the younger voters who are jaded of the various parties' branding and more receptive towards political gungho mavericks who answer to no secretary-general. The very same younger creative DIY voters who use Youtube to showcase their own films and music, blogs to coordinate spree shopping or market their writing. The same young voters who might prefer independent films, music, comics, labels etc. The public is also probably matured enough to understand that NMPs are "independents" already and electing people like Andrew Kuan and Kannappan Chettiar as an MP is a very favourable option to consider. Also, it is better to vote them instead of spoiling the vote on polling day.

Pack Mule/Maid and the NSF Not Packing a Punch

2011-04-02T21:28:00.007+08:00

DARPA and the US army have the high-tech Legged Squad Support System, DSO and SAF have the low-tech maid.

The picture of the young chap in the SAF uniform, apparently trailed a maid carrying his field pack, has stirred debate on whether the SAF soldier has gone soft.

Analysts like Dr Bernard Loo and Dr Tan Ern Ser have come out to caution that this one case should not been seen as a reflection of the SAF. Others – like Dr Paulin Tay Straughan – suggest that the photo/article was unhelpful because it was not contextualized. For example, the soldier could have been tired or injured.

(MINDEF’s official response is that the SAF takes a serious view of the conduct of its servicemen in public; they will investigate the matter and take appropriate action.)

It cannot be doubted, however, that our rising affluence has afforded the current generation of enlistees with a very comfortable lifestyle. The TNP survey of 80 national servicemen found that 23 of them came from families who employed maids.

Doing the family laundry is a natural part of the maid’s job scope. 22 of those surveyed reported that their army uniforms are washed and ironed by maids, but only one admitted that he also had his army boots cleaned.

This suggests – thankfully – that by-and-large, our young national servicemen know where to draw the line.

But what demarcates this line?

The line is pride in one’s role in the SAF and by extension, his conduct, particularly while in uniform. And carrying one’s own field pack is one of many ways to reflect this pride.

Some online pundits suggest that the “outsourcing” of such menial tasks is not a reflection of the soldier’s ability and that one could in fact argue that the trait to make use of one’s “available resources“ is required for officer-hood.

Such views miss the bigger picture. In peacetime, the value of a military service resides largely in being able to serve as a sufficient deterrent to would be aggressors. Since its fighting capabilities are unproven, military watchers make assessments based on manpower, equipment and reputation for training and discipline.

Only when it appears imposing does a military serve to be a deterrent; to have to prove its abilities on the battlefield is to have failed in its primary mission, and would result in the loss of many lives.

For this reason, there are myriad regulations about how the uniform should be worn (e.g. wearing of headgear and fatigues), behaviour protocols while in uniform, as well as how we dispose of old uniforms.

This solider has done the SAF a disservice. It may be only one case, but it has damaged the reputation of the service, and all others who don the uniform with pride.

To all serving SAF national servicemen. Carry your own field pack and polish your own boots; a soldier’s pride demands no less.

Quality, not Quantity

2011-03-29T23:53:00.001+08:00

The state of Singapore's election candidates?

In recent weeks and months, Singapore’s various political parties have introduced a slew of new faces.

It is quite certain that unlike recent elections past, the PAP will not be returned to power Nomination Day. Opposition parties look set to contest every seat, and some constituencies are even likely see multi-cornered contests.

This promises that a generation of Singaporean virgin voters who have been living in “walkover constituencies” – many of whom are on the wrong side of 30 (or even 40) – would finally get to see a ballot box up close.

But is that all they really want?

In the words of Oliver Twist, please sir, I want more.

Whether from the PAP or opposition, I want to see candidates who:

(a) Have a track record of being interested and involved in local grassroots and community work. I have my doubts that anyone who has just flown in after spending years overseas is equipped (or committed) enough to serve as an MP..

(a) Can connect with the audience. Being fluent in local languages (and dialects) is nice, but that does not equate to having charisma, which IMHO is a more critical prerequisite for any would-be MP. In election rallies past, I have listened to several MP-wannabes (and some who got in!) who were sorely lacking in this department.

(c) Can critique and suggestion improvements to existing policies (for PAP candidates) or can present practical alternatives to policies they don’t agree with (for opposition candidates). Would-be MPs should not go in riding on coat tails (although this is sadly the case) but at the same time, cannot expect to make a career out of simply criticizing without having to present feasible alternatives.

I do not want to see candidates who:

(a) Base their entire campaign simply on the basis that they will provide an alternative voice in Parliament(for opposition candidates). They have to convince me that they are a *better* alternative. Singapore is not perfect, but things could be worse. Voting for them should not make things worse.

(b) Attacks or disparages a rival candidate on basis of age, gender, race/religion or education level. There is no room in Singapore for bigotry, much less in an MP.

(c) Would view the MP allowance as a “lottery strike.” Those who intend to give up similar or higher paying jobs to serve as full-time MPs win points. Ditto those who donate or use the allowance for the constituents.

Hopefully, we will see a good contest between quality candidates from all sides. Otherwise, I would rather stay home like a virgin (voter).

Pride, Prejudice and Politics: Hard Truths

2011-03-09T02:53:00.003+08:00

Prejudice

This was one of the comments by MM Lee Kuan Yew publicised in January that made angered the Malay-Muslim community especially,

"Be less strict on Islamic observances and say,'Okay, I'll eat with you.'"

When MM Lee made his cutting comment on such supposed hard truths, the Association of Muslim Professionals was among the first, if not the first, to put the first Prime Minister of Singapore in his place. Even PM Lee Hsien Loong realised from the furore that he had to correct his father delicately in public,

"But my own perspectives on how things are in Singapore based on my interaction with the Malay community, the mosque and religious leaders and the grassroots leaders, is not quite the same as MM's."

After that mini-storm died down, MM Lee returned to the scene and explained,

"I made this one comment on the Muslims integrating with other communities probably two or three years ago. Ministers and MPs, both Malay and non-Malay, have since told me that Singapore Malays have indeed made special efforts to integrate with the other communities, especially since 9/11, and that my call is out of date.

“I stand corrected. I hope that this trend will continue in the future,”

MM Lee Kuan Yew said he stands corrected for his remark that the local Malay-Muslim community in Singapore were not integrated into the larger society. As many have observed on the implications on the way he admitted his mistake, he did not say the usual neutral "I regret" or the semi-formal "I apologise..." or even the humble and contrite "I'm sorry..." regarding his remarks that caused quite a stir.

Pride

Why can't the elder statesman, with an undisputed record of dragging Singapore with his other first generation leaders into the First World from Third World as he described, be so insecure and not admit openly that he might be wrong occasionally? The simple and short answer, the hard truth, is pride.

To be frank, MM Lee did admit his mistake and it was probably difficult for a man like him to do so. The rational among us would not expect him to be Nipponese in his apology to the point of seppuku. But the way he explained that he was corrected, gave the impression that he might have been more sorry about everyone misunderstanding him, or the dink in his reputation because of his comments, rather than the consternation he caused with his typical bluntness on people being daft as an example. The closest remark in recent times on mistakes he made pertained to his and his government's Chinese language policy,

"A language is first listened to, heard and then spoken. It's not read or written - that follows later. (But) we started the wrong way. We insisted on spelling and dictation (in Chinese)."

Politics

Why did MM Lee re-open old wounds? The hard truth again is that it is probably because the PAP feared that they might lose the Malay-Muslim community's vote in the general election as a result of MM Lee's bluntness and misconceptions on Malay-Muslim integration with the other ethnic groups in Singapore. Others have also sensed the politicised timing of this need for closure. MM Lee needed to do the damage control himself for closure according to the plan. Despite that PM Lee and Minister Yaacob Ibrahim had already assured the ground that MM Lee's comments were his own personal views that the government did not agree with.

MM Lee's explanation of being corrected which was short of an apology might have harden sentiments instead among those who needed more excuses to dislike the statesman and his party. The magnanimous however would accept whatever MM Lee had mumbled reluctantly to rebuild bridges with the Malay-Muslim community. Which sentiment would dominate is unclear. What is clear is that if MM Lee had appeared more contrite and reined in his pride further, he and the PAP might have clawed back more credibility with the Malay-Muslim community. That community might forgive, but not forget since the wound is still fresh. That's another hard truth.

"Kingmaker" and "PAP-Breaker" - Political and Proud of It?

2011-01-12T09:29:00.004+08:00

On 3 Nov 2001, Singapore held its general election. A few months earlier that year, the milestone Sintercom website was approached by the authorities to register the website as a political one. Tan Chong Kee guessed correctly that from the vague terms and conditions on registering Sintercom as a political website, he was liable for civil and criminal action, regardless if comments in his website were not by him. Fast forward to 2011, it is deja vu because the authorities have gazetted The Online Citizen (TOC) as a political association on one hand so that it cannot get foreign donations, and as a political website under condition 4 of the Schedule to the Broadcasting (Class License) Notification’. So it is a pincer assault for the alleged kingmaker in opposition politics despite the rightly politically correct denials.

What is this Condition 4?

"An Internet Content Provider who is or is determined by the Authority to be a body of persons engaged in the propagation, promotion or discussion of political or religious issues relating to Singapore on the World Wide Web through the Internet, shall register with the Authority within 14 days after the commencement of its service, or within such longer time as the Authority may permit"

What is a Political Association? According to the Political Donations Act,

"political association" means —

(a) a political party or an organisation which has as one of its objects or activities the promotion or procuring of the election to Parliament or to the office of President of a candidate or candidates endorsed by the organisation; or

(b) an organisation (not being a branch of any organisation) whose objects or activities relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore and which is declared by the Minister, by order in the Gazette, to be a political association for the purposes of this Act;

Political Website Yes, Political Association Maybe

Without doubt TOC is a political website so MDA's intimidating request for it to register its team of citizen journalists should not come as a surprise to TOC or its readers. The contention is whether TOC is a political association simply because of declaration by a Minister via a gazette. "Light touch" pledge broken or not, MDA and MICA supposedly think so because TOC has dabbled in online activism e.g. from its public transport to anti-death penalty campaigns. Moreover, since the new leadership of TOC under Joshua Chiang and with the seminal Face to Face pow-wow of the major opposition players in December last year, there are signs that TOC is becoming more ambitious and we the public welcome its tentative crossover from online to offline presence.

Hence, TOC is a political website but not necessarily a political association depending on who is asked. Being branded as a political association ironically legitimises TOC further and enhances its credibility. So the new TOC under Joshua Chiang has to decide whether to reject this branding and implicit acknowledgment of TOC's effective activism and go to court where the outcome is rather clear, or to welcome it and be proud of the political signature which TOC has marketed since 2006. Be proud of being political. Some writers or editors in TOC might naturally feel the strain although hopefully they all reach consensus and register accordingly as dissent in the ranks would be a poor show of confidence in TOC's direction.

Stay Around They Lose or Go Away They Win

Responsibility in its opinions on political, racial or religious views is constantly seen in TOC's writings so the MDA political website leash has no effect. If they wanted to, they would have used it on TOC long ago. The authorities' paranoia of foreign funding in the case of TOC is most ridiculous and unless TOC has foreign funding currently or has plans to in the future, the Minister's gazette of the site would not affect TOC's existence anyway. Thus, TOC should stick around and accept the mantle and make a stand.

The alternative is for TOC to cease existence in its current form and like a phoenix from the flame...

Singapore Cyberattacked and Cyberspied On

2010-12-06T03:56:00.000+08:00

The Straits Times reported it during the weekend, and Yahoo has a more detailed story of how Singapore was cyberattacked during the APEC summit last year. The choice of the word "cyberterrorist" was misleadingly odd as the article was more "cyberespionage" and the theft of confidential information rather than the shutdown of critical national infrastructure through computer hacking.

No finger-pointing of those pulling the strings was made but one likely culprit could be the Chinese, the guys who brought down Google on a whim if the latest Wikileaks based on US assessments are accurate. From the comments in the Yahoo article, the Chinese had their Ghostnet going for some time before it was exposed last year and Singapore was probably one of Ghostnet's victims, especially since it was the host to APEC then. It was a good time to steal information from the organiser on what was happening with APEC and the meetings.

So espionage still exists in Singapore but I doubt it is the sensational level like that among the great powers. Who can forget that romanticised media hype on the Russian spy ring exposed this year in the USA and the Cold War era type of US-Russia spy exchange as a result of those FBI arrests.

The APEC cyberespionage case aside, Singapore is not new in the spying and spycatching game. Earlier this decade, the Australians accused Singapore of stealing Australian military secrets when Singtel hungrily eyed Down Under's Optus. Allegations of spying on Australia was the natural drum to beat in the context of encouraging nationalistic paranoia on a Singapore company buying into an Australian telco. The hilarious implication I found behind that allegation was that Singapore was spying on the Australian's military so that the PAP government can take back Christmas Island. Why else would Singapore care about the Australian's defence capabilities? Singapore also arrested spies working here before but we would never know the extent of other cases that went unreported or spies uncaught.

Cablegate and Singapore

2010-12-02T00:34:00.003+08:00

Since MM Lee Kuan Yew's frank opinions were revealed in Cablegate, what more will be revealed and just as interesting, what won't be revealed related to Singapore? Some Singaporeans saw MM Lee Kuan Yew's comments on the North Korean despot as ironic. Others had more perspective and saw that MM Lee still has some global political influence left. What next related to Singapore will the Wikileaks cabal of selected Western newspapers reveal next? Would the cabal reveal or not reveal opinions on Singapore leaders, the opposition and other issues on Singapore? Furthermore, while the context is not identical, this leak of confidential government papers for foreign policy ends reminded me of Singapore's release of official correspondence with Malaysia during the Mahathir era. This calculated leak by Singapore was over Malaysia's backtracking on bilateral matters and to show that Malaysia then didn't keep its word.

The US State Department was aware of the leaks much earlier and the four main European broadsheets plus the New York Times negotiated with the US on what should be released even, as implied by The Guardian's editorial on Sunday. The Washington Post has a story to tell on its East Coast rival New York Times i.e. the NYT got the leak from a leak from The Guardian as Wikileaks excluded the NYT in the latest round of leaks for its harsh stance on Assange in recent months. Despite this horseplay surrounding the leaks, what is interesting was whether the US had informed our Singapore MFA that the leaks were coming since the US claimed that they alerted their allies beforehand. If they did not, or if they did, it hints of how big Singapore is in the pond of global diplomacy in the US's eyes.

The recent themes on Cablegate were that diplomacy is exposed for its hypocrisy, historians are having a time of their life, asymmetric online journalism is alive and well, and leaks have gone on to a new levels of anarchy and transparency. Cablegate would last for a new more days or even a week or two before the novelty would wear off. For now, it is a good business ploy that is repeatable as Cablegate and the War Diaries have shown, until Assange is arrested since he is now an Interpol wanted man. For Assange, it is a game he started and raised the stakes with the release of the War Diaries, and the US is going to finish it for him.

Were Assange's leaks irresponsible? The jury is still out on this but common sense is that there is a limit to what information should be confidential and what should not. Lawyer-client and doctor-patient information, insider trading as illegal, and a country's military and security information are all different common sense examples that information is not a free-for-all show and tell, and that consequences to such disclosures are expected.

The SLA "Heist"

2010-11-21T09:52:00.003+08:00

How deep does the rabbit burrow go? Singapore Land Authority technology and infrastructure department staff Koh Seah Wee and Lim Chai Meng faced 302 and 309 charges respectively for their fraud worth about $12 million. Their fraud was simple - pretended to buy non-existent services from a few companies, faking invoices and pocketing the cash.

As more light shined into the burrow, five more people from three different companies were implicated in the SLA fraud. The authorities are digging and it would be unsurprising if more dirt is uncovered. Already, the finger-pointing is that Koh Seah Wee dishonesty' started years ago when he was in the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore in 2004. True to a proper witch hunting fashion, various officers in the chain of approval of the bogus purchases are now probably being grilled if their are accomplices to the biggest "heist" of the civil service in history as far as we know.

Financial Irregularities in all Shapes and Sizes

The civil service is a huge bureaucracy and potentially has tons of paperwork to hide fraud or unintentional use of public funds, in the name of documentation. In 2007, The Online Citizen had a shrewd observation of management lapses in public funds amounting to $6.2 million. No allegation of fraud was made then but with the paranoia surrounding public monies and the SLA case, this leak of money although explained does not inspire confidence in retrospect. Particularly when leaks in public funds is still a persistent problem in reality as there are so many ways to hide financial irregularities.

How to Detect Fraud Hidden in Paperwork? More Paperwork?

The government has focused so much on preventing corruption in the civil service and this campaign is largely perceived to be successful according to international rankings. However, embezzlement and fraud are also equally worrying ways that public officers can abuse the system and make a mockery of the honesty of the government.

Hearing how the civil service functions, how the problem of financial irregularities are to be prevented would likely be the implementation of more verification and approvals i.e. more paperwork up and down the chain when like buying new printer cartridges. Hence, with tons of even more paperwork, there would be more blind signing of documents that give a veneer of proper accountability and checks in the use of public funds. The problem does not go away, it grows away instead. In the annual European Union audit, accounts of mismanagement of funds becomes a yearly expectation, as it is tacitly understood that it is almost impossible to account for every Euro spent given the size of that bureaucratic monster.

Checks are useless if the checks are merely for show. Perhaps a more controversial solution is actually to tolerate a whistle-blowing culture. While personal vendettas and office politics would cloud the picture, it is not paperwork that would expose fraud, it is people's professionalism and reporting on their peers if the management looks the other way for whatever reason. At the end of the burrow, it is all about the good of the public.

Lau Peng Forgotten and Lau Peng Won't Forget

2010-09-04T15:41:00.004+08:00

"You should leave no man behind"

The National Day Rally did cause a stir with its pledge to give out all serving NSF and NSmen up to $9,000 to their CPF or even more for commanders. One installment would be for those when they finish their NS, another midway through their NSmen liability and the third and final installment would be when they complete their ICT cycles.

MINDEF and the PAP probably thought they had a perfect plan to over-run the opposition and win the hearts and minds of the people. However, to their shock, many are unhappy. Naturally those who just enter NS can look forward to virtual money or money in their CPF. But the lau peng, those who know the word ROD (not ORD), reservist (not NSmen), steel helmets (not the kevlar ones), 3-tonners (not the 5-tonners), those who had the black PT shoes (not the New Balance ones), they were conveniently forgotten and therefore insulted.

These were the lau peng who were around when there was fear in the 1970s that Vietnam would march all the way down to Sentosa and our national dish would become phoa instead of mee pok or mee goreng. These were the lau peng who were around in the 1980s when there were occasional threats to cut Singapore's water supply from the north. These were the lau peng who were around in the 1990s after the infamous 1991 Ex Malindo Darsasa and the Little Red Dot antagonism from the south. These were the lau peng who used the old no4, M16s and non-Gortex boots, old 20-round mag SBO pouches even when they did their ICT in the 2000s.

Looks like the PAP government wasted the perfect opportunity for pork-barrel politics. There was a chance to acknowledge gracefully and hook politically the lau peng's contribution and their support. Instead of support the PAP hoped, there is scorn towards the PAP instead. This is however a grouse that is understandable and substantiated. The lau peng were the raw human deterrence since 1965, imperfect but effective nonetheless, and yet no substantial reward was given to them.

Instead the carrot is offered only to the younger Singaporeans of tomorrow. Certainly the younger generation would benefit from the $9,000 handout and good for them just like they benefit from dragging the black duffel bag with roller wheels instead of carrying the thick rough green Ali Baba bag during BMT. We are all Singaporeans who have done NS or will do NS and lau peng should not be bitter towards the our sons and nephews. We should just be bitter towards the PAP. They left many behind.

Mr Brown got it right in the middle of the Figure 11. Please watch it if you have not done so.

Happy National Day Singapore

2010-08-08T14:45:00.007+08:00

In the Singapore story, we have come a long way because of the hard work by our forefathers and glorious "nation before self" first generation PAP leaders, who fended off the British masters, the communists and even Konfrontasi Indonesian commandos. These PAP leaders fought off poverty, subjugation by bigger neighbouring states and led Singapore to greater heights from 1959 to 1963 to 1965 onwards, significant years in our nation-building according to the stories.

Good stories to be told to children on the night before national day after a nice family dinner. The adults at the table can either smirk cynically or smile contentedly depending on one's political affiliation and general awareness of how history is the story of the victor, in this case, the PAP. Specifically, Lee's PAP not Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye or R Rajaratnam's.

Well, the SDP tells a different story to children at dinner time. The SDP video "The Young Ones" rightly challenged that the PAP government is crowding out school lessons with PAP history and that we might become uncritically supportive of everything the PAP says. A whole new generation of believers drawn from SDP family members perhaps.

Like that girl An Lyn in the video, who really looks like that girl from the Tak Boleh Tahan protests where SDP members and supporters dragged their kids along into the show, so as to gain public sympathy if the police roughed them up. Cunning move using kids as human shields and propaganda. Cunning move encouraging their kids from young to be aware of politics. Just like MM Lee Kuan Yew indoctrinated his son, and maybe even his grandchildren for all we know about FamiLee politics as they say in Sammyboy.

So the national day story to be told tonight, or tomorrow night while watching the parade on the telly, Singapore has indeed come a long way and the PAP played a part decades ago, but what about now? The coming election is something to be eagerly looked forward to but we have to beware of all the propaganda and promises the PAP, the SDP and the others throw at us to win our votes. Be cynical, be critical and be calculative of everything.

Are the kids in SDP's "Young Ones" video also among those in the Tak Boleh Tahan protest? The Chee vs Lee Family Feud

Alan Shadrake Self-Pwnage

2010-07-21T12:55:00.004+08:00

Alan Shadrake is now a popular name. He is being pictured as an opponent of the death penalty being persecuted by the regime. This is a clever presentation of facts as it wins more sympathy. People are more inclined to believe that the regime is intolerant of criticisms of its policies. Who can blame them? They are right in most cases. However, the regime's version is that Alan Shadrake is being charged with criminal defamation of the courts. So Alan is placed on the docks not because of his criticism of the capital punishment system, but the court system. In the regime's defence, they are right. Nobody ever was arrested for their views on the death penalty per se e.g. the good people from The Online Citizen.

What is old ground is this - the regime uses the letter of the law to its legal extreme in selective castigation of selected critics. So far, from FEER to Dr Chee Soon Juan, it always has been civil suits for defamation made against the regime's leaders. And this is where old ground gives way to new ground movements, shaking Western modern-day "missionaries" who want to come over and instigate the natives if the government's message is read correctly. Now the stakes of the game are higher with Alan Shadrake as a foreigner who is on Singapore soil, as the regime has decided to unsheath criminal defamation charges. Fines and jail terms, not monetary compensation is at stake here.

Although no criminal defamation charges were used then, the precedence was Gopalan Nair. Gopalan, a former Singaporean and a naturalised US citizen, who was dragged to court and sentenced to 3 months jail in 2008 for insulting a judge for the way the judge handled a defamation case involving Chee Soon Juan. When Gopalan visited Singapore, in reference to his earlier taunts to the regime and the court, he wrote in his blog "I am now within your jurisdiction… What are you going to do about it?"

Gopalan found out what the court would do about it. Just like Alan is getting a lesson on it now. Criticising the court is a no-go area for foreigners (I don't recall the local usual suspects being treated this firmly), especially if they are standing on Singapore terra firma. Just that some self-centred foreigners think they have this magic amulet that protects them from being arrested just because they are foreigners.

The Parental Leave Question from Sweden to Singapore

2010-07-03T19:04:00.004+08:00

Vivian got it right this time!

A few days ago, MCYS Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan mused that representing maternity leave as parental leave would be a step in the right direction. I don't think it would affect baby growth that much, but it would affect attitude towards employees who are new mothers. Ask around quietly and the cautious reply from supervisors at the office is that mothers with new babies invite potential productivity problems but it is politically incorrect to voice such views openly. However, if mothers or fathers of new born are allowed to take parental leave, then this sexist stereotype of new mums as productivity problems would be greatly diminished.

The current provisions for new mothers since October 2008 are 16 weeks instead of the previous 12 weeks maternity leave. The first eight weeks would be paid by the employer and the next eight weeks would be paid for by the government, capped at $20,000 or $40,000 including CPF depending on certain criteria. The second set of eight weeks also need not be taken right away, it can be spread out throughout the year after the birth of the baby, factoring in employers' concerns that a 16-week block absence might be a serious opportunity cost for the company. While it cannot stop employers from getting rid of new mums as they are a perceived temporary productivity risk, the company can be taken to task if the pregnant staff is dismissed in the last six months or retrenched within the last three months of her pregnancy.

So we are led to ask these questions. If parental leave is implemented where dads and mums can take leave, will dads also be protected from dismissal if they take leave after the new baby comes along? How would the parental leave be split between the parents?

The good idea about parental leave is that both married men and women are from then on perceived productivity risk where the employer is concerned. The burden of the stereotype on down-tools is no longer restricted to new mums. New dads are equally at risk on down-time. The employer has less excuse to be sexist with the evolution of the maternal leave to parental leave in Singapore. Furthermore, new dads can also have the opportunity to be with their new kids on paper, thus debunking the idea that only mums want to take care of their babies. Although some dads might use the leave to play 18-holes everyday instead in practice.

Sweden's approach towards parental leave is a shockingly liberal one with a huge burden on taxpayers but it is a good map for charting parental leave policies nonetheless. For instance, parents can have up to 480 days of parental leave which is paid by the state. The remuneration is not full but up to 80% of the salary depending on the length of the parental leave taken and the income bands of the parent. One parent, either mum or dad, however cannot take more than 420 days and the expectation is that parental leave is to be shared equally in their society where equality of the sexes is ingrained in law and culture.

Although Sweden's model might not fit into the Singapore context at this moment, it does give valuable insights on how parental leave should or should not be done. Parental leave is after all a good populist vote-winning policy when the election comes.

Muigai, Mugai, Why You Like That?

2010-04-30T17:56:00.006+08:00

UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary forms of Racism, Racial discrimination, xenophobia and Related Intolerance Githu Muigai might possibly has the longest UN title ever and his name card with a full title must be a curious sight to behold. It might even be A4-sized and not credit card-sized to fit the entire title in and certainly difficult to hold.

In his eight-day study trip to Singapore at the invitation of the Singapore government, Muigai met up with community leaders, politicians and even members of the group Singaporeans for Democracy, which actually looks like another United Singapore Democrats or friends of SDP incarnation from the composition of its members like Seelan Palay, Martyn See and Rachel Zeng. Nevertheless, it was a good demonstration of some openness by the government as even that bunch of activists can meet a UN representative.

The trip went well for Singapore but not as well as the government hoped - MFA's reaction and the need for a quick rebuttal was proof that the UN Rapporteur did not know exactly what he was talking about as far as the government was concerned. For example, the recommendation of affirmative action which goes against the grain on the value of meritocracy in Singapore.

However, I argue that the trip actually went well since Muigai had to give old tired arguments about freedom of speech constraints and the use of the Penal Code and Sedition Act in terms of regulating race relations. Going on a tangent on the limits of freedom of speech in Singapore is nothing new about the nanny government we have. Thus, for Muigai to pull that out of his sleeve is actually quite passe. Besides, Muigai had to say something critical and find policies that needs to be improved or else he would lose his UN job. He has to look good and be seen to be doing something.

OK remember what we agreed over beer earlier, you shoot off something, and then it is our turn to defend our policies, and then we both have a round of golf.

Compare Muigai's criticism with the recommendations on the USA in the last country visit that UN office had in 2008,

101. As a matter of urgency, the Government should clarify to law enforcement officials the obligation of equal treatment and, in particular, the prohibition of racial profiling. This process would benefit from the adoption by Congress of the End Racial Profiling Act. State Governments should also adopt comprehensive legislation prohibiting racial profiling.

102. To monitor trends regarding racial profiling and treatment of minorities by law enforcement, federal, state and local governments should collect and publicize data about police stops and searches as well as instances of police abuse. Independent oversight bodies should be established within police agencies, with real authority to investigate complaints of human rights violations in general and racism in particular. Adequate resources should also be provided to train police and other law enforcement officials.

Anybody can see that those criticisms reminiscent of the Rodney King Los Angeles race riots are more damning especially for a country that is steeped in the marketing and selling of human rights and democracy globally.

As a whole, the entire exercise of inviting Muigai over, allowing him to meet activists, letting him voice his criticisms and with the government giving a suspiciously quick response such that it suggests to the shrewd some stage management between the UN Rapporteur and MFA, it all bode well for Singapore's international image. The criticisms are nothing new and Singapore can say that it dared invite a UN envoy to scrutinise Singapore.

Pastor Rony Tan

2010-02-09T20:31:00.002+08:00

Lighthouse Evangelism pastor Rony Tan's incident has again put the spotlight on religious harmony in Singapore. After getting a call from ISD, he quickly issued an apology. Hot on the heels of the three youths who were arrested by the police for posting racist remarks on Facebook, some are asking why the "difference in treatment".

I've been following the discussions online and this is what I think that there is a difference: (By the way this post is NOT intended to defend the pastor for what he has done, but rather the possible thinking behind the actions taken against him).

The first one is farely obvious. In the case of the 3 youths, the police were involed. If you have any experience with our gahmen, you'll know that once official action begins, the government machinery invariably starts grinding base on its protocols. In the army this is known as the SOP (Standard Operating Procedure). So once the police gets involved, they will follow a prescribed course of action - investigate, identify, make an arrest if a law was broken (in this case the Sedition Act was used), pass on to the courts to decide the next course of action. In this case, bail was granted pending further investigations. Whether the 3 youths will be fined or let off with a stern warning we'll know in the weeks to come. (I personally think the 3 boys will get off with a warning and probably some counseling and community work).

In Pastor Rony Tan's case, it seems like ISD got wind of the incident (probably from all the chatter online) and decided to take direct action to prevent things from getting out of hand. The Pastor was probably given a stern warning from ISD and given an ultimatum to recant his words and apologise, or else. Obviously he chose to apologise. The police and official government machinery was never involved called upon.

Second is that the 3 youths were anonymous. Rony Tan was not. Although it doesn't make the pastor's actions less serious, it meant that he could be quickly contacted and given the ultimatum. In the case of the 3 youths, we were told that the police made "extensive enquiries to establish the identity of the suspects" (note the formal use of the investigation terminology). Again, once a police investigation has begun, the Justice system and the courts gets involved.

Lastly the 3 youths' case was racially motivated. Rony Tan's incident involves religion. Although both R's have the potential to ignite like tinderboxes, recent events probably made Religion a more sensitive issue that needs to be handled with extreme care so as not to further ruffle already ruffled feathers.

Nonetheless I think this is a good time for religious leaders and followers of all faiths to reflect on their behaviour in public and behind closed doors. In the course of our worship and proselytizing, are we spreading the religion's teachings and/or gaining enlightenment, or are we inadvertently doing the Devil's work?

Khan-not Enter

2009-08-19T10:51:00.005+08:00

Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan (SRK) was recently held up at a US airport for 2 hours, apparently because of his surname.

Perhaps SRK was mistaken for Abdul Qadeer Khan (AQK), the alleged nuclear weapons proliferator. However, there are subtle differences – aside from the rest of their names – which may have enabled US officials to tell them apart. SRK is Indian while AQK is Pakistani; SRK is a 43-year old Bollywood hunk whereas AQK is a 73-year-old nuclear scientist.

Nuclear Bomb Khan (top) and his identical evil twin, Bollywood Bomb Khan (bottom)

Consequently, some Indians have raised a ruckus, calling it a “national insult.”

But my point is not to poke at the US officials. Their watchlist of known or suspected terrorists probably runs into tens of thousands, and there must be several Khans in that list. The entry of any of these individuals could have significant repercussions for the US homeland, which may include a second 9/11. In this context, we should not begrudge them the few hours it may take to clearly satisfy themselves that SRK is not a terrorist.

Chaka Khan - I Feel for You...You're Next!

Some of the criticism leveled against the US officials is that they should have known that SRK was a “world figure.”

This would indeed be the case if customs and checkpoint officers spent their tea breaks going through the entertainment and gossip magazines. Personally, I’d feel better if they spent their time becoming more acquainted with the modus operandi of smugglers and terrorists.

Another Bollywood director Kabir Khan (another Khan!) was quoted as saying that what happened to SRK was “a clear case of fear psychosis” and was only noticed because it involved a superstar.

In other words, he was suggesting that more Indians (and south Asians?) were being detained at US airports.

I think there is likely to be some truth in the latter. One would imagine that the US watchlist will have a significant number of Arab/Asian names, while travelers from south Asia and the Middle East will include a disproportionate number of Husseins and Osamas. Statistically, we should expect that some groups of travelers are more likely to be stopped for further checks.

But to label this as “fear psychosis” is to miss this point altogether.

When rooted in sound logic and processes (like interviewing or making further checks), profiling/discrimination is not such a dirty word. Everyone benefits from the additional security which the checks provide (at some inconvenience to a minority). As a whole, queues would also be shorter and planes are not delayed.

The bottom line is that immigration and security regulations must apply to all travelers. Inevitably, some people – whether by their profile or name – would be subject to greater scrutiny. IMO, the fact that a Bollywood star gets stopped at a US airport is a sign that the system is working as it should.

Would Brad Pitt be subject to a strip search at an Indian airport? If it were that one of the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks in November 2008 was known only as “B. Pitt”, the very least that an Indian immigration officer should do is to give him a second glance.

Luckily for Kublai, no such profiling back then

Pearls before Swine (flu)

2009-05-07T11:39:00.002+08:00

Recent reports suggest that the threat of the swine flu pandemic is on the decline. There is also reason to suggest that swine flu is not as deadly as initially feared. Outside of Mexico, only 2 people have died from the virus. Most victims reportedly only suffered mild symptoms.

The measures by various governments to contain the outbreak, which were seen as prudent, now appear to be overreactions. The quarantine of the Metropark Hotel in Hong Kong, the cancellation of flights from Mexico in various countries, and even Singapore’s sudden imposition of visas on Mexican nationals.

I do not purport to question these difficult decisions, which were taken out without the luxury of complete information or much time.

Nonetheless, it may be time to carry out an analysis of costs and benefits of these actions, such that better decisions can be taken during future pandemic threats or other crises.

Let’s take a look at it from the Singapore perspective.

On the “cost” side, some items we should include would be:
- Cost of medical supplies (stockpile of Tamiflu, thermometers, masks etc)
- Screening measures (including thermal scanners at buildings & checkpoints)
- Quarantine-related costs (including cost of blocking the Aloha chalets)
- Costs of medical and security personnel
- Research into vaccines and screening kits
- Business continuity operations
- Other opportunity costs (time lost for above measures, loss of revenues from Mexican tourists etc)

On the “benefits” side, we would have:
- Saved X number of lives
- Prevented Y number of people from becoming ill (saving $Z in man hours)
- (Possibly) avoided Singapore becoming a “H1N1 affected” country and it implications on tourism/travel etc.

Taking the analysis down to its core elements, we spent a lot of money (say $50 million, a number pulled out of the hat) to save a small number of lives (say 5, now that it appears that the current strain of flu was not exactly lethal). Using these assumptions, one can say that we spent $10 million to save each live which swine flu would have taken.

Was it worth it?

From a moral/philosophical perspective, some would say that human lives are priceless.

But the reality is that resources are finite and like it or not, lives would be lost elsewhere for want of the $10 million spent on fighting swine flu. For example, spending $10 million on seat belts on buses used to ferry school children would likely save more than 1 live. What about an additional $10 million on kidney dialysis, or on cancer research?

A responsible government always needs to remain calm and methodically consider the costs and benefits of each move, even in the face of a crisis like the swine flu outbreak.

In the Name of Christianity

2009-05-05T22:25:00.003+08:00

The media and blogosphere was awash with reports of the coup by Josie Lau and some of her fellow members at the Church Of Our Saviour (COOS) to take over AWARE. Notably, AWARE’s EGM on 2 May was at one stage to be held at the Singapore Expo, where COOS and several other churches so-called coincidentally staged a conference. Moreover, Wayangparty.com reported that COOS pastor Derek Hong has urged the women in his audience to support the new Exco, saying that “there’s a line that God has drawn for us, and we don’t want our nation crossing that line.”

The adverse reaction to the new AWARE Exco and COOS is not just from pro-gay community but from a much larger segment who believes that the COOS members have crossed the line in making AWARE a battleground for their own fundamentalist agenda.

By some accounts, the AWARE EGM was a proxy showdown between COOS' Pastor Derek Hong and Thio Su Mien, and those who feel differently – comprising old AWARE members, other Christians, gay and pro-gay community, and all others who are sufficiently annoyed by Josie and the pussycats. The plot to use Christianity as a rallying cry fortunately failed this time. Reason and respect prevailed instead. However, the fundamentalists would see it as their righteous duty to try again and lead all to salvation. Hence, vigilance is still needed.

This episode has tarred Christians in general and (other) members of COOS in particular. What must be said is that a number Christians (possibly including some COOS members) have spoken up to express disgust with the approach that the new Exco has taken. Even as they may share values concerning homosexuality etc, they also recognize that in a pluralistic society such as Singapore, the secularity of the public space is (ironically) sacred.

I believe that the overwhelming majority of Christians in Singapore (of whichever denomination or church) would subscribe to this. But as with Islamic fundamentalism/extremism, it only takes so few, whether they are in parliament or in AWARE, to spoil the reputation of the whole.

Fellow members of COOS should also take their brethren to task. This is the time that the moderate Christian majority should continue to stand up and be counted.

The Year of Online News Competition?

2009-04-13T12:32:00.006+08:00

2008 was the year of the blogger-activist. The Online Citizen was in everyone's minds when one mentions blogger-activist. But what would 2009 be for the blogger? We have not even reached mid-2009 and already blogging dynamics have shifted powerfully. There is a new player, Wayang Party, which has added an unstable balance of seriousness and sensationalism to alternative news in the Internet.

Wayang Party and The Online Citizen are moving away from commentaries on news carried in the mainstream media, to making their own news to rival SPH and CNA's produce, and even carrying news that the incumbents would follow through with. Coming full circle, it was the bloggers who dogged the mainsteam news media but now there are occasions when it is the other way around. By themselves, The Online Citizen and Wayang Party are turning some of the more experienced hands "old school" and even obsolete. The new school political watchtowers would nicely fit the mainstream tastes of the Internet crowd. However, it is still far to go to appeal to the fans of the esoteric in terms of consistent intellectual depth; the vacuum created by Singapore Angle's lack of updates is yet to be filled.

Mirroring Mainstream Media

Since 2008 and especially from 2009, the two key news blogs are mirroring the mainstream media more and more. There is now more coverage on human interest stories, rather than merely political events. The Online Citizen's news on migrant workers and their plight, a non-populist news focus since local unemployment is a bigger concern, and its attempts to move into "Wisdom from the Streets" with the Uncle Kwok story, underscores the Home pages of this citizen journalist blog. Nonetheless, human interest hooks are not restricted to the lives of the marginalised, but also cover crime, violence, and conspiracy, no sex yet though.

Wayang Party and The Online Citizen are exploring the occasional sensational tabloid reporting in getting the ratings, the former particularly. The NTU don and Widjaja alleged stabbing drama marks how citizen journalism is at the precipice. In the rush to counter Straits Times' bias and dubious reporting, Wayang Party and The Online Citizen adopted the Widjajas' point of view to an extent with their own exclusives. Both asked conspiracy theory questions about the inconsistencies and one-sidedness in ST's coverage of the death.

Both The Online Citizen and Wayang Party rush for the news presentation and market dominace in a way which mirrors the niche rivalries between, for example, Today, the ST, My Paper and the New Paper all together. Singapore news is basically local news and there is only so much what and how one can report. Not only do the Wayang Party and The Online Citizen mimic the news taxonomy in ST etc. both sides also reflect each other's tactics to bring more comprehensive reporting. The Online Citizen has a TOC International while Wayang Party has its Chinese section. With regards to thought-provoking opinion features, one has the mysterious Brotherhood while the other has the enigmatic Farquhar. Both news sites have videos of street interviews and try to outdo each other with exclusives and writer grabs. However, Wayang Party's entertaining scoops are more spectacular to the point that any discerning reader would be sceptical of the "news" e.g. missing whisle blower Johnlaw, the Po the Panda incident . In the rush to find and make news, quality could have been sacrificed. In a way, the online news media might fall into the same pit of low journalistic standards as ST as claimed by critics of the nation-building press.

Competitive Rivalry (is there any other kind?)

Assuming that trends remain unchanged, 2009 would be the year of the online alternative news rivalry rather than the blogger-activist. Now, not only is there rivalry between the offline and online media, there is also intra-online media competition developing. With Wayang Party rushing into the scene with its gamut of content from the trivial to the knowlegable, and rightly so wary of monopoly by The Online Citizen, it pushed The Online Citizen to stay on top of the game. Competition is always good for the market and consumers benefit from the fight to gain market dominance. There are more Internet news and opinion options for us to choose now. The guess is what will these alternative news giants think of next to outwit, outlast and outplay each other. Will there be forums next for The Online Citizen and Wayang Party like how ST and CNA have their own forums?

Not Keeping Mum at MOM

2009-01-14T12:20:00.001+08:00

Just a few days ago, the premises of the Ministry of Manpower was yet another venue for grouses. This time it was not Chinamen about their wages, but 2 peaceful citizens standing up for their Burmese friends who are bearing the brunt of the government's relatively justified wrath. The police arrested the duo but not the China workers.

Legal Protest Alternative Scorned

In 2007, members of the Burmese community here staged several protests against the SPDC. The government in its typical intolerance of any political demonstration by locals or foreigners, bid its time to lessen any political fallout and decided to indirectly expel the supposed Burmese trouble-makers styled as the Overseas Burmese Patriots only recently. No forced expulsion, but just letting the Burmese activists' visas expire without them being renewed.

It is hard not to sympathise with the Burmese in their condemnation of their junta. But the Burmese probably knew that their public show of defiance in Singapore would cost them, especially when the government offered them indoor protests as legal alternatives to more visible and vocal outdoor but illegal protests.

Similarly, Seelan Palay and Chong Kai Xiong had legal alternatives to stage their protest but they deliberately planned to brush off the government in the spirit of civil disobedience. Instead of bringing their case to Speakers' Corner, they challenged the law that protests can only be held in that little patch of Singapore. This resulted in the MOM protest and a subsequent high profile arrest. Like the Burmese activists they want to represent, birds of a feather indeed flock together. All had legal alternatives to advance their cause but they chose an illegal and therefore publicity-getting option.

Activism Through Law-Breaking

By the way, is law-breaking the means to an end, or is it the end in itself? It does seem so with some activists. There is a subtext to the MOM protest and arrest. The whole idea of lawful and unlawful protests is being contested at one point, but at another point from the activists' perspective, the decision to choose either a lawful or an unlawful protest depends on publicity possibly generated. Activism is to promote a cause. Publicity helps in that promotion. Connection to the SDP, a brush with the law and the taste of forbidden fruit are tried and tested means of publicity. Singaporeans can expect more calibrated law-breaking activism from the likes of Seelan Palay and Chong Kai Xiong.

Win some, lose some

2008-11-23T22:56:00.003+08:00

I disagree with Sai Kor’s diatribe on how Town Councils invest their funds.

First, we should understand why Town Councils have large amount of funds. While many expenses are regular and routine (e.g. pay cleaners and gardeners, lift maintenance fees), there are bigger ticket items that come only once in a longer period (e.g. painting, re-paving) as well as ad hoc (some upgrades, repair costs).

To accommodate the latter, part of the conservancy fees are proportioned into sinking funds. Good planning requires that you set aside a regular saving towards each major predictable expense.

For example, to plan for a 100k expense in 10 years (say for repainting a building), the Council would have to set aside 10k a year.

The thing is, with inflation, the cost of the repainting, which is budgeted at 100k today would cost more, possibly 150k. But at the same time, the 10k being set aside each year would amount to more than 100k if it is put in the bank, possibly more than 150k if it is invested.

Just a year ago, everyone’s concern was that inflation far exceeded the fixed deposit rate. The 10 year scenario would be that the accumulated funds (say 120k) would fail to meet the 150k cost, and the funds would need to be topped up. At some point, the difference would need to come from the residents.

In this scenario, I can imagine residents referring Council members to the Parable of the Talents in the bible, and imply that they are irresponsible stewards if they do not invest to ensure that the funds are not eroded by inflation. In these turbulent times days, however, “invest” and “gamble” have an overlapping connotation.

But what is the alternative?

Win some, lose some, I say.

DBS retrenchments – Broken social contract or misplaced loyalty?

2008-11-21T08:59:00.002+08:00

The media is awash with reports and commentary on the recent retrenchment of 500 DBS staff in Singapore, and the blogosphere/grapevine is that other local banks are similarly wielding the axe, albeit more discreetly.

DBS’ management has attracted criticism from many quarters, including a Minister, no less, for their approach. (Some have pointed that that as advisor to the DBS staff union, the Minister Lim had a vested interest/obligation to do so, but that’s a separate story).

Few cried foul when Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Citibank announced their cuts – people understand that foreign banks have to meet their bottom lines and consequently, it is almost expected that jobs in those establishments will come and go. On the other hand, local banks – and DBS in particular – appear to be bound by an unwritten social contract.

This “social contract” implies there should be some degree of loyalty between employee and employer. Companies are expected to look after their employees’ interests, and in this environment, job security probably tops the list.

In any contract, there is quid pro quo, and employees are likewise expected to return that loyalty and consider the company’s interests i.e. not simply jump ship any time a better offer comes along.

In reality, however, employer/employee loyalties are guided not by social contract but driven by dollars and cents, and people in the finance industry should be particularly enabled to make such distinction. Many had jumped ship/ changed employers (to and from local banks as well) in the preceding bull run. I think it safe to assume that most enjoyed higher salaries with each move. Little mention was made of this social contract then.

Logically, therefore, employers – including the local banks – are likewise not obliged to adhere to this “contract”.

IMO, by offering one month salary for every year of service, DBS has actually reinforced the concept of the social contract. Long-serving (and therefore by definition, loyal) DBS staff who got retrenched get a golden handshake (some of whom I understand were quite happy with their retirement package). However, those who had joined DBS mid-career (hence breaking their social contracts with their previous employers?) would be short-changed.

Gambling in the Town Councils?

2008-11-18T12:02:00.002+08:00

I am shocked to realise that Holland-Bukit Panjang and Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Councils invested and probably lost a combined S$12 million in the failed Lehman Brothers products. And who knows, that is only the tip of the iceberg. Would Town Councils share the fate of the Titanic, sinking because of lack of diversification and uneducated assessment in a product that was mis-sold?

Conspiracy Theories Abound

With conspiracy theory in mind, the reason becomes crystal clear on why the government perhaps showed its hand and pushed DBS to have a compensation plan for those burnt by minibonds. That is because they knew since September that the Town Councils which gambled in the minibonds were in trouble and DBS had to be squeezed to return the money in some form, or else the peasants would get angry.

But only in the past few days was the severity of the damage revealed by our nation-building press. If there were no pleas to whistle-blow, would the Town Councils, behaving like GLCs, have come forward and be honest? Or would they have tried to salvage their Titanic wreck quietly behind the scene, all the while simultaneously piously openly berating DBS for mis-selling. They were not acting for the retired uncles and aunties as a priority, the government and the town councils might have acted to protect their loses.

Looking the Other Way

The astute observer would point out the likely double standards in this mini-Temasek saga over the Lemon products. If Potong Pasir or Hougang Town Council had invested in minibonds and lost the money, you bet the media would have went to town about gambling and squandering of the residents' sinking fund. As it is now, the reporting is a boring matter of fact without the character assassination of high profile council members.

What other skeletons are still in the closet? Let the truth prevail.

Et Tu Brute?: Ravi and Betrayal

2008-08-21T20:13:00.002+08:00

Betrayal in politics is not unexpected as self-preservation in the play for power is the priority. Decisions on alliances based on mutual interests are secondary. The PAP and the communists warily allied with each other in the 1950s in the anti-Colonialist struggle in a cautious dance of who would betray each other first. Chiam See Tong was betrayed by his protege and SDP in the 1990s and was forced to leave the party he created in 1994. The PAP felt that they were betrayed by the late President Ong Teng Cheong when he questioned the PAP about the state's reserves. In the latest drama of betrayal among political allies, SDP deserted their loyal lawyer-supporter, M Ravi, after his recent arrest.

M Ravi appeared in SDP's circle in the past few years. In 2006 when M Ravi was suspended for one year, SDP stood by him, just as he had stood by SDP and gave speeches at SDP rallies during the Election that year. In their own words, M Ravi was "a dear friend of the SDP". Ostensibly with the support of SDP, the human rights lawyer was also an intern with the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats in 2007.

Ravi's Madness, not Method

Ravi was recently arrested for disrupting mosque prayers and the PAP-controlled media almost predictably insinuated that he is mad. However, SDP confirmed that his mental health is in question when they conceded that

"There is no escaping the fact that Mr Ravi needs medical attention and rest to recuperate."

With that politically unwise candour when silence was astute, SDP strapped up M Ravi in the straitjacket and left him out alone by confirming his questionable frame of mind. In retrospect, M Ravi's mental condition is more unfortunate fact than PAP fabrication and signs of him cracking under the pressure was seen in 2006 when the Falun Gong members he was defending doubted his sanity and he was even admitted into the Institute of Mental Health.

Betrayal and a Replacement Lawyer

Ling How Doong a SDP member and lawyer has not represented the Chee siblings in recent memory, and no lawyer besides esteemed JB Jeyaretnam has the conviction to defend SDP until M Ravi came along. With M Ravi only just seen more as a political liability than an asset considering his bouts of mental instability, SDP needs a new lawyer in their plans. An unstable M Ravi would not do for their already fragile image as a credible activist group and his continued association with SDP was more harm than help. Seeing his frequent presence at SDP events, Chia Ti Lik might be the one to replace M Ravi as SDP's de facto lawyer.

But for M Ravi, SDP's explicit statement that he needs medical help dooms his fate as a reliable lawyer and activist. What would the hapless M Ravi think?

Et tu Chee?

$1 Million Bounty For Capture Of Mas Selamat – Why The U-Turn?

2008-07-23T00:49:00.004+08:00

I am left pondering the rationale behind the seeming government endorsement of the $1 million cash reward (supposedly from two anonymous businessmen) for anyone with information that leads to the capture of terror fugitive Mas Selamat Kastari.

If you may recall, a private company had earlier made news sometime this year for putting out a reward of $50K for the capture of the escaped terrorist. Several other individuals and local companies had also offered rewards in an attempt to help the authorities track down the fugitive.

Yet, a spokesman for the government had stressed at that time that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) did NOT think Singaporeans needed the incentive of a reward to help the country for a matter as serious as this.

So why the about-turn now?

Surely, cash offer or not, many Singaporeans have indeed been offering suggestions to the authorities and reporting suspicious Mas Selamat look-alikes.

My view is that the offer of cash reward is more sophisticated than ensuring continued public awareness and vigilance to offer assistance to the authorities.

It not only tempts Mas Selamat’s harbourers, but more importantly, it poses questions into the suspicious mind of Mas Selamat that he can no longer be sure that whoever is harbouring him at the moment (assuming that someone is indeed providing assistance to evade arrest) will not turn him in.

It forces Mas Selamat to be on the move and ultimately leaves footprints for authorities to hunt him down.

Therefore, key to the hunt of the fugitive is the continued tight security at all checkpoints and the continued vigilance of all Singaporeans to spot Mas Selamat.

However, with the announcement of the bounty, the authorities must seriously address some utterly embarrassing situations:

1) What if the informer, who is now coming forward to offer information, had all this while been sympathetic to the fugitive’s situation?

2) What if the informer had provided assistance to the fugitive in one way or another to evade arrest?

3) What if the informer is a family member of Mas Selamat and ultimately the cash reward goes back to Mas Selamat?

4) What if the informer is linked to the JI or other regional terrorist groups and part of the broker to turn Mas Selamat in is that the cash reward goes to the terrorist grouping?

The above scenarios are just some of the possible knotty ones that the government must seriously think through. If you may recall, sometime in April 2008, MHA had put across the strong message - Do NOT even think of harbouring Mas Selamat; anyone caught aiding him will face imprisonment for life, or a jail term.

Should the harbourer-turn-informer be rewarded for his assistance to the Police? Or should he not be arrested and prosecuted for harbouring the fugitive?

BEHOLD THE SILENT MAJORITY

2008-07-11T19:32:00.005+08:00

It seems that these days, any government policy or decision draws a barrage of criticism.

-- ERP gantries (and rates) go up. We have to pay more but it doesn’t solve the problem of congestion.

-- Laws against organ trading. If there is a willing buyer and a willing seller, so should we prohibit something that can save one person’s life and improve another’s.

-- Proscribing criticism against the government i.e. the Chees getting sued into (further) bankruptcy, and Gopalan Nair getting arrested (more than once). Why is the PAP government taking such a harsh approach towards its critics?

There are good reasons for criticizing each of the above issue, and over the blogosphere (and perhaps *because* of the blogosphere), we have heard many voices giving reasoned, compelling arguments why this and that government policy or decision should not have been implemented.

From anecdotal observations (with no statistical credence whatsoever to back this), it appears that the voices on the Net supporting government policies seem to be far fewer. Perhaps it seems that those who do voice support for government positions often get branded as “PAP lackeys”. (I too have been given the label on occasion even though I honesty try to be objective).

I am not defending or critiquing any of the above policies/decisions today. My point is simply that each policy has its beneficiaries, along with those who would suffer because of it. And that unpopular as they may seem, there could be a silent majority who actually support them.

Increased ERP rates benefit several groups of people e.g. those who cross few, if any, gantries (since they enjoy lower road taxes), those who have transport allowances provided by their employers and those too rich to give a damn (since some roads would be less congested for these lucky buggers, if only for awhile).

Organ trading laws give legal clout to a moral issue which is also high on the religious agenda – the sanctity of human life. There is probably a great majority who do not know anyone who requires an organ transplant, and would support such laws on moral/religious grounds. That does not necessarily make it right or good, but these views should also taken into account.

Criticism of the government is sensitive ground. I think that everyone should be allowed to criticize government policies. Even government leaders should and must be criticized where warranted. Like MP Wee Siew Kim who initially defended the remarks on his daughter’s blog as the “rantings of an 18-year-old amongst friends” and also saying that “her privacy has been violated”.

But slandering a government official a la Gopalan Nair’s blog about Belinda Ang is simply not the done thing in our local context. It may be “fair comment” in the US or other Western countries, but here in Singapore, it is rude … and stupid. If you show a printout of Gopalan’s blog to a group of heartlanders and ask what the chap should get, I believe many would suggest the rotan.

The views of the vocal few are important, but let’s not forget about those of the silent majority.

All the Minister's Men

2008-06-27T19:10:00.000+08:00

The Ministry of Home Affairs has made the news for the wrong reasons again. Following a slip-up by an ICA officer at Changi Airport, a 61-year-old Singaporean traveled to Vietnam on his son’s passport.

In bowling parlance, this incident can perhaps be considered the “turkey” strike; the 1st two strikes being Mas Salamat’s escape in Feb and then the Subcourts escape earlier this month.

Wong Kan Seng said that he is “totally appalled and flabbergasted”, noting that his reminder of the need for vigilance is obviously not sinking in deep enough. He added that Home Team heads of departments would directly take charge and step up checks to ensure vigilance on the ground at all levels and “leave no room for complacency.”

3 incidents in less than 6 months suggests that we have a serious problem. Complacency may be the issue; notwithstanding MSK’s escape (which should have heightened alert levels at all checkpoints), this incident has occurred.

Aside from complacency, the issue of accountability is (once again) awash across the blogosphere, with calls on Wong to do the symbolic hara-kiri and resign. Others – fewer, admittedly, but apparently including the PM – seem to be of the view that the Minister is quite indispensable, and that his resignation would be a loss to the country/government.

My view is that no one is indispensable. Or at least no one should be indispensable. Perhaps DPM Wong has become quite adept as his role, having been the Home Affairs minister since 1994. But on the other hand, one could argue that new blood is needed. Personally, I would not be averse to his resignation.

But it would simply be a political solution to a problem which is really not political.

A full investigation must be held to identify the cause of the slip-up. Was the ICA officer briefed properly? Had he/she been working long hours beyond the usual/extended shifts? Or was he/she simply bo-chap i.e. complacent? Are there any back-up checks? I notice that passports/boarding passes are scrutinized at least 4 times (while checking in, entering the immigration zone, and the immigration checkpoint, and at the boarding gate); does that mean that at least 3 other people also slipped-up? Are there any other systemic issues?

An objective investigation is needed to answer these questions. If it is human error, those involved must be held accountable (including the Minister, if it comes to that). If there are procedural or systemic problems, they must be fixed. Otherwise, these security lapses will continue.

On a wider basis, all Home Team agencies (or even all government departments?) should likewise carry out a review of their existing processes, using independent audits/inspections where applicable. Just as companies use consultants, and retail stores use “mystery shoppers”, government departments should also proactively seek to improve, instead of waiting for problems to surface before they react.

So by all means, the Minister can (be asked to) resign. But that will not solve the problem.

A (Predictable) Game of Political Chess

2008-06-04T19:25:00.004+08:00

The current judicial brouhaha surrounding the Lees, the Chees, and new entrant Gopalan Nair reminds me of once of those chess games where players use set moves at the opening game.. and is therefore entirely predictable to a point.

White move 1: During campaigning 2006 elections, SDP makes allegations against the Lees for political mileage.
Black move 1: MM Lee/PM Lee threatens a lawsuit/asks for a retraction/apology.

White move 2: Other SDP-mates back off but Chee siblings refuse.
Black move 2: MM Lee/PM Lee make good on threats to sue.

White move 3: Two years later, Chees use court action to promote their own agenda/grievances (but do not give evidence to substantiate earlier claims). Also ridicules Court officers/system.
Black move 3: Court sends Chees to jail for contempt. The Chees will lose really big on the libel suit.

White move 4: A Chee supporter/blogger writes a blog which sullies the reputation of the judge & the Court. (It is possible that the blogger, being a former Singaporean and now a US ctizien, felt he was unlikely to be brought to task).
Black move 4: The blogger -- who was in Singapore -- is arrested.

To quote a line from the Desiderata, we should "Know that the world is evolving exactly as it should."

The Lees/PAP have a fierce reputation of protecting their reputation through libel suits. Our Courts cannot afford to let anyone, even (or perhaps especially) opposition parties and civil activists to challenge their reputation for "fairness".

There was no other way this scenario could have played out and everyone who is involved knows it.

What we should ask ourselves is why.

The PAP's agenda is clear enough. They can 2 birds with one stone -- protect their own reputation while bringing down the Chees, a political inconvenience, down another rung. But what do the Chees and Nair want out of this? How will the Queen's Gambit (Accepted) play out?

Political Obstinacy adds to Human Tragedy

2008-05-10T21:06:00.002+08:00

I think it is tragic that the Myanmar Embassy in Bangkok can close on a public holiday when aid workers are rushing to provide humanitarian aid.

Given that tens of thousands hae lost their lives and many thousands more are at risk, one would think that the least the Myanmar bureaucrats could do is to work overtime. One suspects that they are closely guided by their political masters in Yangon, or rather mystical Naypyidaw.

Indeed, one wonders why the Myanmar leadership does not simply announce a temporary visa waiver for aid workers during this period.

After all, if my house was on fire, I doubt I'd be asking the firemen at the door for their identity cards and verifying them with the fire service before letting them in.

Cyclone Nargis may have blown the roofs of buildings, but has apparently not moved the junta's political baggage one inch.

The COI Report - Simultaneously Fair and Frustrating to Singaporeans

2008-04-22T11:36:00.003+08:00

These were the questions I laid out on the table previously. I will do a quick run-down on whether Minister Wong Kan Seng in his parliament speech had satisfied to a large extent our need for openness and transparency. The question of accountability is still unresolved though as the government appears defensive. So, the COI report is transparent as promised but the government's behaviour is less than satisfactory still.

1) The detailed sequence of events that led to the toilet escape.

Actually there was so much information that I have almost totally lost confidence at the competence of those on the ground. Those on duty who did not feel something was amiss when Mas Selamat took his time in the toilet - haven't we watched enough movies to know that the prisoner is always up to no good when his toilet break is taking longer than it should.

2) Who was responsible for the escape?

From the COI report which seemed transparent and detailed, those responsible for the escape were those on duty in escorting Mas Selamt during his family visit. I think this is fair to a large extent. If they were vigilant, all this circus would not have happened. Hence they shoulder the burden of the escape. For example, in a drink driving accident, blame is on the drunk driver, not the one who built the car, designed the road, the pub owner etc. The one behind the wheel is always the one most responsible.

3) Was it negligence, complacency, conspiracy?

Minister Wong Kan Seng said it was not an inside job and CID investigations confirmed it. He blamed the whole escape on complacency, an argument that MM Lee Kuan Yew set a few weeks ago. The whole thing about complacency subtly actually took centrestage since then. Note that the central argument in the escape was not about competence or complicity, other equally worthwhile controversial angles to understand the incident, but complacency.

4) Was the escape planned and did Mas Selamat have help from the outside?

Mas Selamat did not have help from the outside but he did rehearse his escape. Rehearsed his escape and the COI report was frank enough to state this. This is terrifying as it meant that it was not a fluke prison break, but one that was hatched with time. Back to the argument of complacency and the guards not carrying out their responsibilities well. The implication in this revelation on the planned rehearsed escape is that the government did not have to share this as it made them look all the more worse, but they curiously did. If we put aside our cynicism, the government actually took the promise of transparency seriously here. Let's see if the results of transparency would turn around and bite them back.

5) Could the escape have been prevented?

Without a doubt the escape could have been prevented and prevented easily at that. Murphys' Law ruled that the most inept were on duty that day. The window was not grilled. The guards allowed Mas Selamat privacy. The fence could be scaled. The CCTV was not recording as it was being upgraded.

6) What recommendations are made?

The most sensible recommendation is that ISD's detention and rehabilitative facilities would be shifted to Changi Prison. Nevertheless, this sort of recommendations is typical of those with the benefit of hindsight. If the Mas Selamat escape did not happen, ISD would have said that in all its history its current system had served it well and why change something that is working perfectly? Nevertheless the escape did happen, unfortunately for Singapore, and this recommendation to tap on prison's resources and experience is a sound one.

7) How will the government make those responsible accountable for the escape?

The Home Affairs Minister only said that disciplinary action would be taken. On whom and what we don't know yet. We can wait and watch and hold our judgement on the fairness of it all and let's hope that there are no scapegoats.

8) How much responsibility the government is going to shoulder for the escape rather than push the blame to us?

Obviously the government should be held responsible. Some agencies more than others, some personnel more than others. But as a whole, the government is to be responsible for the escape. To make a tangent that Singaporeans are to be blamed for the escape is too much.

9) What is the status on the manhunt now?

Not much new information here and Minister Wong Kan Seng repeated that the search is still on. One thing for sure, Mas Selamat is not inside his cell and that is the only confirmed information on the JI leaders' whereabouts. He could be overseas and back in Indonesia, and politically Singapore has to offer sweeteners to make the Indonesians cooperate and send him back again. If he is in Indonesia in the first place and not holed up in some HDB flat's bomb shelter.

The government also gave an account of what it did immediately after the escape to address the concerns of those who were focusing on the four-hour delay between the escape and a public alert. From what the government shared assuming that it is accurate, the processes were well in place despite what the cynics suggest.

10) What is the cost of the escape to Singapore's reputation, economy and security?

This was not dealt with explicitly but the government cannot run away from the fact that Singapore's reputation as a state which treats security threats seriously has been dented immensely. The government at least had a hope of redemption if they captured Mas Selamat but they couldn't, so now they have to live with this scar.

I rate the capture and escape of Mas Selamat as one of the most significant national security incidents in Singapore's modern history. It sits in the annals, but with a different moral to the story, alongside the Macdonalds house bombing and the hanging of the Indonesian commandos behind it, and the Laju hijack and government officials who volunteered themselves for the hostage exchange.

COI Findings: Will the Government be Honest?

2008-04-20T00:13:00.000+08:00

Come Monday, the Home Affairs Minister will face Parliament and disclose the findings of the Committee of Inquiry (COI) into the escape of Jemaah Islamiyah member Mas Selamat. The Minister mentioned soon after the escape of the JI leader that the COI would leave no stone unturned (read no cover-ups and excuses) and an "independent inquiry" would get to the bottom of the matter. I previously laid out that we wait for the COI report before we set loose the lynch mobs. We won't have to wait long now and by Tuesday we would know whether we have need of the tar and feathers.

Unanswered Questions

The government promised that they would belatedly release details of the escape - a burning question we had from day one, but not other parts of the report which infringes on national security. We shall see if the ministry in-charged of the ISD and police would keep its end of the bargain and give details. Here is a checklist of what I want to be revealed when Minister Wong Kan Seng submits his COI findings to Parliament.

1) The detailed sequence of events that led to the toilet escape.
2) Who was responsible for the escape?
3) Was it negligence, complacency, conspiracy?
4) Was the escape planned and did Mas Selamar have help from the outside?
5) Could the escape have been prevented?
6) What recommendations are made?
7) How will the government make those responsible accountable for the escape?
8) How much responsibility the government is going to shoulder for the escape rather than push the blame to us?
9) What is the status on the manhunt now?
10) What is the cost of the escape to Singapore's reputation, economy and security?

* questions 9 and 10 are probably not related to the COI per se but as elected leader, the Minister should earn his pay and give us an overview of the "security lapse" including its implications.

The subtext of these questions pertain to the government's transparency, accountability, responsibility, and competence. How honest the government is in admitting its mistakes is an indicator of whether it is fit to lead Singapore in the coming years. The trick question is this. If the government is honest in admitting its incompetence, how fit is it to lead Singapore in the coming years anyway? The government has got themselves between a rock and a hard place.

LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF FREE SPEECH

2008-03-31T00:33:00.001+08:00

Dutch politician Geert Wilders released on the Internet a film called 'Fitna' which is critical of Islam and warnings that it could spark protests and riots are spreading.

This is reminiscent of the Danish cartoon controversy where a Danish newspaper published several cartoon caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad. The newspaper announced that it was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship, but when examples of the cartoons were reprinted in other countries, it led to protests and violence around the world which led to more than 100 deaths.

In 2004, Dutch film director Theo van Gogh received death threats and was subsequently murdered for "Submission", a 10-minute film about violence against women in Islamic societies. Further back in 1988, Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses earned him a fatwa from the Iranian Ayatollah calling for him to be killed. (He's still alive and even got knighted in 2007 for his "services to literature.")

Now, it seems that another Dutch politician is working on a film project along the same lines.

What's with these Dutch people anyway?

In the Netherlands and many other Western countries, freedom of speech is an "inalienable right." The idea is that in open debate, the people would recognized untruths and bad ideas as such, and would drop them and discredit their sources. There is also a general view that freedom of speech is a right which will be used in a responsible manner.

In other societies (Singapore included), freedom of speech is not an inalienable right. In Singapore, such liberties are considered subservient to a greater need to maintain social harmony and preventing any possibility of a rehash of the 1969 riots. Other countries may have their own reasons.

But with the Internet, it is not just a cliché that boundaries are being torn down.

These days, with a combination of blogs, photoshop and digital video, anyone can aspire to join the ranks of Theo van Gogh and Rushdie (minus the knighthood; that's might still be quite difficult).

The very fact is that anyone -- American, Danish, Dutch or not -- can say anything they want, damn the consequences.

But the fact is we live in a world where there are extremists who believe that God has sanctioned them to kill others, and certain actions on the part of non-believers will only agitate them further, and may draw more others who are more moderate into the extremist fold.

IMO, whatever is said and whoever says it, there is simply no excuse for violence. As we used to say when we were children, "sticks & stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Any fatwa which demands that somebody be physically hurt or killed is simply wrong.

That said, if the proponents of free speech are indeed after the complete package of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", they would do well to think twice before posting potentially inflammatory content on the Internet which may put lives at risk. If you get killed or get death threats, "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" becomes quite moot or at least rather more difficult to attain.

Even if you are willing to pay the price personally, you should be considerate enough to avoid the possibility that others who share your nationality, race or religion and living space, might somehow suffer, in return for your right to shoot your mouth off. For example, Dutch nationals in Muslim countries may be attacked, and Dutch businesses can probably expect boycotts.

So, when exercising your inalienable right to freedom of speech, please take a minute to consider that the rest of us have a right to peace and the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

The Logic of Rewards

2008-03-14T18:50:00.001+08:00

Two weeks on and Mas Salamat has yet to be found. Much has been said in the media about offering a reward for information leading to his capture. Home affairs minister Wong Kan Seng said that it’s not the police’s policy to give out rewards. An MHA spokesman was quoted in today’s ST as saying that “we do not think Singaporeans need the incentive of a reward to help the country for a matter as serious as this.”

Still, the spokesman reportedly added that it would “consider seriously” suggestions by the public to offer a reward. Possibly a sign of growing desperation?

Private sector companies made the first move. 2 weeks ago, security company Metropolis Security has offered its 250 security guards $1,000 if they can provide information leading to the JI leader’s arrest. Crime Library is offering $5,000 (which presumably applies to all members of the public). It was reported today that a labour-supply company Aasperon Manpower has offered a county of $50,000 … perhaps the first meaningful offer.

Publicity gimmick? Maybe. Even assuming it is done with the best intentions, the issue of offering money in the case is contentious.

Some argue that the reward sends out the wrong message, that responsible Singapore citizens (and the non-citizens as well) should report any sighting of the fugitive, reward or no. Others see no harm in offering an added incentive. With each day that Mas Selamat continues to elude search efforts, however, I think public opinion tips further in favour of offering a hefty reward.

We should put moral issues aside and consider the matter in more practical terms.

I am not thinking of the issue of money. The direct costs of an ongoing search compounded with the indirect costs of delays caused by stepped-up checks at the checkpoints and airports etc would already be quite considerable. In this context, even a $1,000,000 reward would be small price to pay, if it can effectively reduce the time it takes to capture Mas Selamat by even one day.

Rather, we should consider whether logically, a reward might actually hinder, rather than help, the efforts to locate him.

The first question: would a reward lead to more calls to the Police?

I think so. People would be more motivated to report sightings. Suddenly, the guy across the street just seems to be limping doesn’t he? And he does seem to be 1.6m tall … give or take 20 cm. He may, or may not be, Mas Selamat. But why not just call it in? After all, with the possible reward, it’s like getting a free Toto ticket.

There leads us to the second question: Would it lead to more “high confidence” reports? I think not. I believe that most people who confidently believe that they have seen the fugitive will make a report.

(Note: By “high confidence”, I mean those type of sightings where the witness is quite sure that it *could* be the fugitive, as opposed to “low confidence” cases where the witness is just whacking in the dark.)

To date, the police have apparently received more than 1,000 calls and emails reporting sightings of this chap. If even 5% (i.e. 50) of these reports were actual sightings of the JI leader, and enough of them were made in a sufficiently timely manner, I would assume that our boys in blue (or green or whatever) would have caught him by now.

Clearly, every report needs to be investigated and followed-up. That takes time and manpower. And every man chasing a lead is one man less searching for him somewhere else.

I am not against bona fide or high confidence reports, even if many of them turn out to be false leads later. If someone feels strongly enough about a sighting, he/she definitely should report it. If there are enough high confidence reports, one (or more) will eventually strike the nail on the head.

But IMO, offering a reward simply increases the number of “low confidence” reports; those made with the hope of striking lottery. These would take up valuable resources, which are probably be better deployed elsewhere.

NEW DAWN, PERFECT STORM OR SIMPLY BN TAK BOLEH

2008-03-10T13:48:00.002+08:00

8th March 2008 was an auspicious date for newbies seeking enter Malaysian politics. Nurul Izzah unseated 3-term incumbent Minister Shahrizat Jalil to win Lembah Pantai while blogger Jeff Ooi unseated Gerakan in a 3-way fight in Jelutong. Meanwhile, established figures like Works Minister Samy Vellu and Penang MB Dr Koh Tsu Koon lost their jobs.

The Star called it a political tsunami while Anwar heralded the results as a new dawn … well, for him, at least.

(His wife and daughter are both in Parliament, which probably means that he’ll be getting up earlier to prepare their breakfast. There is talk, of course, that Nurul Izzah is just warming the seat, and will step down to allow the former DPM re-enter Parliament by-election after his ban in politics is up next month.)

Yes, it was a clear sign of dissatisfaction with BN and the status quo – corruption, mismanagement of racial & religious issues, and an economic blueprint that has yet to see results. DAP’s Manoharan Malayalam grabbed almost 70% of the votes against his BN opponent in Kota Alam, even though he spent the entire campaign period under ISA detention. Goes to show that shaking hands and kissing babies is not a key requirement in politics?

But while the Opposition celebrates, they should also recognize that they were largely the beneficiaries of weak leadership and infighting in the BN camp, just as BN had benefited from a un-united Opposition in 2004 … perhaps what goes around, comes around?

My point is, the votes were not Opposition votes per se. They were votes aimed at bringing in fresh ideas, new blood and the political energy to overcome the inertia. The problem is, the Opposition is still a minority, and a divided one at that. It is unlikely that a shared coherent approach to the challenges facing Malaysia today will emerge from this side of the fence.

Hence, the call for change will have to be answered by UMNO – which is really all that’s left of BN now that other component parties are pretty much wiped out. As PM Abdullah grapples with calls to step down, he must also realize (by now, at least) that the current generation of voters are those who have not fully bought into Dr M’s version of reasons for Anwar’s sacking & imprisonment, and are more likely to read Malaysiakini than the NST.

The good news for BN? At least the accusations of election rigging should be silenced for awhile.

Will Reason ever Prevail?

2008-03-04T11:00:00.002+08:00

The Commission of Inquiry was set up for at least two reasons. One is to get to the bottom of the escape and two, to show that the government is fairly sincere about getting to the bottom of the escape. The government could have achieved the first action without the show and tell, but the show and tell was necessary because of the severity of the situation. A circus it might be for the ever lurking cynics and critics, but as the show has not started yet, the reasonable among us would think it impatiently ungracious to call for blood yet.

The Commission of Inquiry (COI) is not unprecedented. In April 2004, a Committee of Inquiry was set up with regards to the Nicoll Highway collapse which tragically claimed 4 lives. In September that year, the Committee issued its first interim report. The Committee was made up of 3 people - SDJ Richard R Magnus, A/Prof Teh Cee Ing (Head, Div of Geotechncial & Transportation Engineering. Sch of Civil & Env Engineering NTU) and Mr Lau Joo Ming (Director, Building Technology Dept, HDB). Looking at the current Commission which is made up of retired High Court judge Goh Joon Seng, now a member of the Council of Presidential Advisors, former Commissioner of Police Tee Tua Ba, who is now Singapore's Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, and Dr Choong May Ling, Deputy Secretary (Security and Corporate Services) of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the government has stuck to its 3 Wise Men framework of a member of the judiciary, an expert and a government representative so that there is balance and direction in the form of questioning presumably.

Rage clouds Reason

Mr Wang made a valid observation that in the current COI, the MHA representative only serves to cast doubt on the independence of the independent commission and that a non-MHA face would basically sell koyok better. He might be right, but to be honest, any government official regardless of ministry sitting on that commission would be argued as a government plant. In fact, the other two can also be deemed as government plants if we extend the cover-up theory that far and damn the commission even before they start.

Which brings me to the important argument stressed by bloggers over the recent hysteria on whether The Online Citizen, or at least one of its members, is a PAP plant. In defence of the TOC, the convincing argument laid out was that emphasis on credibility and objectivity should be placed on the content of the message and not who wrote it. Hence, the eventual report of the COI would be the measure of its credibility. With this in mind, that effectively gives the COI breathing space and subtle pressure that the public expectations of balance in their findings without fear or favour must be met.

Cynics lambasted that the COI need not take one month to release an explanation for the escape as it is an open and shut case. They are right if they want a witch hunt. However, as the weight of the findings is like a White Paper, the COI probably needs to scrutinise the escape - who is to blamed how much, recommended improvements in the system etc and it is a thesis in its intended detailed approach. One month for a thesis is reasonable depending on its scope, assuming that it turns out to be a thesis which we expect and not a last minute term essay handed in for the sake of handing in.

So that brings us to the contentious issue of responsibility and blame in the escape. We each have our own solid prejudices and preconceptions on the sharing of blame and penalties. Nevertheless, let the bureaucrats put forth their arguments and attempt at transparency and accountability before any mob lynching is meted out.

HOW TO NAB MAS SELAMAT KASTARI?

2008-02-29T15:16:00.002+08:00

When was the last time we saw a Minister (let alone one as senior as DPM Wong Kan Seng) apologise in Singapore Parliament? Practically unheard of.

I think the message is clear: the authorities in charge of Mas Selamat Kastari’s detention had fouled up big time. The prison break of the JI leader in Singapore is a most serious (and embarrassing) security lapse, especially for Singapore, which has prided itself for its excellent security track record.

Although DPM Wong explained in Parliament that the JI detainee had escaped from a toilet from the family visitation room, I am left wondering how a situation as surreal as this could actually happened.

Accountability calls aside, many fellow bloggers are clamouring for more details - where were the guards minding him? Was it an inside job? etc…

Surely, it cannot be one man’s failure, but a failure of many factors.

However, the point now is NOT about pointing fingers and asking for resignations. My own sense is that the focus must be on rectifying the situation, on damage control, i.e. nabbing the escaped fugitive.

The longer he is not apprehended, the greater the danger he poses to society. Lest anyone forgets, this terrorist chap had plotted retaliatory attacks against Singapore while he was on the run after the detention of JI members in 2001. There is nothing to suggest that he won’t revisit such plots. Does he not want blood?

While the authorities have shown that no efforts will be spared in nabbing Mas Selamat Kastari, I am not sure cordoning Whitley Road and its adjacent vicinity and stepping up border security would suffice. Instead, more stakeholders, no in fact, the whole populace must be brought in to assist with the apprehension of the fugitive. This calls for a national endeavour.

Everyone, including taxi drivers, road commuters, shop owners, park-goers, young and old etc, can be the ‘eyes and ears’ for the law-enforcement agencies. And key to this would be the provision of more details to the public to better assist with more accurate tip-offs while we leave the actual arrest to the authorities.

Some details that could perhaps help include: Mas Selamat Kastari’s latest photos; his height and size (How tall is he? How thin or fat is him? A full-length photo could be helpful); his attire (What was he last known to be wearing?); while he is said to be walking with a limp, is it a left leg limp or right one?; is he alone or known to be in the company of others?

I think for us bloggers, we could step-up our online pamphleteering campaign, perhaps a coordinated Manhunt site. We could include the fugitive’s pictures and along with typical objective commentaries, suggestions, and information about possible sightings and hiding places.

For the safety of our children, loved ones and fellow countrymen, all of us have to join hands with the authorities to create a national cordon and nab this terrorist before he strikes.

Why taxis are not “Public Transport”

2008-01-14T20:54:00.000+08:00

I met with a taxi driver relative of mine over the New Year. He shared that his income had dipped significantly (abt 25%) in the weeks following the fare increase; he added that while each fare now paid more, he spent much more time cruising around for passengers. He agreed (only grudgingly) that this was probably a knee-jerk reaction and that when taxi commuters got used to the overall increase, his income would likely increase.

It would appear therefore that the objectives of the fare hike, i.e. to increase the income of taxi drivers, and the supply of taxis in the city area and during peak hours, would probably be met.

My taxi driver relative continued to argue nonetheless that the new fares were too high, and that the poor – who would therefore not have cars – would find taxis unaffordable. Taxis, he felt, were public transport and should therefore be affordable to all.

I had another point of view. While public transport should be affordable for all, I think we need to examine whether – in the Singapore context – taxis should really be considered as “public transport.”

A taxi takes a person(s) from point A to B comfortably in an air-conditioned vehicle. Waiting time can usually be limited to 10-15 minutes if one makes a booking. On the road, the taxi occupies as much space as any other car. The only difference is that it would not require a parking lot at its destination, but would instead go off to serve another passenger.

With telephone bookings and mobile phones (so ubiquitous these days), the convenience of having a car – vis-à-vis using taxis – has been eroded. There are also the in-between options e.g. car-sharing.

Therefore, the taxi commuter enjoys the same utility as a car owner – he even gets the services of a driver in addition to using the car. The exception might be that a car owner might enjoy some pride in car ownership.

My point is that taxis – in the Singapore context at least – are not public transport. Taxis users take up the same resources (vehicle, petrol, road space) as car users and then some (manpower). The taxi user should be compared to the car user, not the bus or MRT commuter. Based on average/similar commuting habits, therefore, the cost of using taxis should rightfully exceed that of owning a car.

One could argue that certain segments of the population really need taxi services e.g. the disabled. In such cases, a subsidy aimed at these users would be more appropriate, instead of simply suppressing all taxi fares on the basis that it is “public transport.”

Great Expectations

2007-12-07T11:52:00.000+08:00

Much has been said in recent days about the rising cost of living in Singapore.

Still, I think a new graduate today is far more fortunate as compared to when my peers and I when we drew our first paychecks about 10 years ago.

Food in general has become more expensive, while computers and electronics are far cheaper (and of course, better) then those we had when. Spa treatments were pretty unheard of, and while regional trips were quite affordable, we did not have the option to traveling on budget airlines.

A fresh graduate with an Arts degree could expect about $1,700 in 1996. Today, I think he can expect around $2,400 (up 40%).

In 1996, the only new car most new graduates could afford (if at all) was the Fiat Uno, a 1-litre hatchback with a dodgy reputation for reliability. It cost around $65,000. A 1.6 litre Japanese sedan was much pricier, at about $90,000. Today, the latter comes for about $70,000 (down 30%)

In 1996, a friend bought a new two-bedroom leasehold condo in Upper East Coast for nearly $700,000. I imagine that the same could be had for less then $600,000 today, even following the recent property boom (down 15%). A 5-room flat in Tampines was going for over $500,000.

Simply put, most young couples could not afford a car. A HDB flat application usually meant a 4-year wait for a unit at Sengkang or Punggol 21 – which did not have MRT at the time – unless you were willing to pay the premium for a resale flat.

The cost of living may be going up, but young graduates really have very little to complain about.

Past Careless Talk, Now New Finance Minister

2007-12-04T13:07:00.000+08:00

In 1994, Tharman Shanmugaratnam was charged under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) for endangering the secrecy of classified documents and was fined $1,500. Then AG Chan Sek Keong, now the Chief Justice, was the man tasked to make a point about the OSA, MAS high flier or not. Tharman was then MAS' economics director and he disclosed to the Business Times the official flash estimates of the economic growth of 2nd quarter 1992. Among the five in that OSA case, Tharman got off the lightest as the other four received a $2,000 fine in the leak. Very odd, I should think, that the person who leaked official information actually did not shoulder the most responsibility while the journalists who received the information and subsequently published the information were held more accountable. The other four probably assumed that the information given to them was fit for public release or why else would it be shared with them?

A person prosecuted for leaking official information to the media is now Singapore's Finance Minister. What do you make out of it?

Will you be there in the morning?

2007-11-18T15:42:00.000+08:00

At times, it can be an intolerable experience to follow politics and current affairs (International or otherwise). Weeding through thick layers of political doublespeak and maneuvering through layers upon layers of hypocrisy can be trying. These accumulated frustrations, and the particularly galling behaviour of clueless individuals, has sparked this blog entry.

The individuals in question are a group of international students from NUS who have announced their intentions to hold a protest outside the venue of the ASEAN summit on 19 Nov.

Before I look at their intentions, allow me to postulate the likely outcome of their actions. Police officers at the site will advise them to disperse as their actions could possibly pose a public order threat within stipulated “protected areas”. They will naturally refuse (what self-respecting “activist” wouldn’t?). This could lead to their arrest, which would be lapped up by international media representatives.

This is of course where the real ideological onslaught begins. Critics will have more fodder to label us as authoritarian, no better than the Junta. Singapore official will scramble their spin doctors to emphasis security trumps freedom of expression. Ultimately, we become audience to a dance where both parties are cognizant of each others steps and take turns to lead. And the Junta cracks a wry smile and gains some desperately needed respite.

Wind back the clock a year or so and you will see what I mean.

I vividly remember Paul Wolfowitz, former President of the World Bank, criticising Singapore as “authoritarian” and asserted that “enormous damage” had been done to Singapore’s image. for restrictions on activists during the IMF/WB meetings in Sep 06.

Alas, we all are familiar with the embarrassing revelations that subsequently transpired. Perhaps more troubling than Wolfowitz’s public denial of running such an important international institution as his personal fiefdom (isn’t that the very definition of authoritarianism?), was the fact that the Bank’s thumb-twiddling board was only jolted into action by media exposure of their inaction. Ironically, these events have tarnished the reputation of his former organization that so aggressively promoted personal integrity and clean government in the developing world.

And what about accusations of our handling of the event like a police state. Naturally, the image of thick wire fencing surrounding Suntec City comes to mind. But wait a minute, have we forgotten the “Great Wall of APEC”? In fact, security was so high that a 3 German tourists were asked by police to delete digital photographs of the fence that placed Sydney in near total lockdown.

These serve as a poignant reminder of the swelling amounts of hypocrisy that permeates much of what we see and read from international governments, bodies and groups. Who appointed these people as agents of progress anyway? And what entitles them to pontificate in so shameless a way when there are injustices and rights abuses in their own country?

In light of the political wrangling over the crisis in

Myanmar

, it is remarkably disingenuous for embodiments of the one-world system, a system that has artfully glazed economic and cultural hegemony as democracy, to claim moral authority over atrocities that they are to an extent culpable for perpetuating.

That brings us back to the planned protest by International students from NUS, whom in my opinion embody all the above traits of hypocrisy and self-righteousness.

I know it comes across as a harsh dismissal, but how else am I to understand their actions which are designed to derail processes (albeit baby steps, but steps nonetheless) in order to:

1) Peacefully demonstrate their solidarity with the Burmese people --- While the thought is rather sweet, we have reached a juncture where concrete actions or processes are far more urgent. The Myanmese already know the world, at least most of it, is united in solidarity in condemning the current situation. Candle vigils are fashionable these days. But like all fashion statements, they are seasonal. What we need is organized institutions or groups that can engage the Junta in dialogue. They already know what Ms Suu Kyi looks like.

2) Respond to recent violent crackdowns and the subsequent lapse in international media attention. --- This statement implies that the majority of the world is unaware of the authorities and is indebted to this groups for highlighting them. They must have had their heads buried in the sand all this while. Awareness has already reached saturation point, what we need know is political action.

3) Respond to the news that the member states will be signing the ASEAN Charter which is to include clauses on human rights. –-- This threw me off for a bit. Are they upset that ASEAN members are engaging the Junta? Are they dissatisfied with the drafting of the charter?

While the Singapore government’s position with regards to regime change in Myanmar can be at times confusing, it is apparent to me that the Humans Rights Charter that ASEAN member states are embarking on is an integral piece of a larger strategy to that effect. While “constructive engagement” has almost become a dirty word, the alternatives are far less appealing.

Or is it as plain as it reads: the cameras are on, we will be there.

But will they be there after the smoke has cleared? Probably not.

International students are notorious for exploiting scholarship loopholes to absolve themselves from serving out their local bonds; an uncomfortable truth that is exacerbated by recent debates over foreign student numbers and how more resources meant for locals are channeled to them.

One of the basic tenants of human rights is the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression. Perhaps in this case, these international students are being wasteful with their freedoms and privileged lives.

Why Deny HDB Windfall?

2007-11-03T10:29:00.001+08:00

Donald Aw lamented in the Young PAP Blog that the prices of HDB flats in some matured estates were "absurd" and asserted that "if the purpose of the HDB housing programme is to provide affordable public housing, then there is a need to re-look at the way the resale market is structured." Donald concluded that "we should send a clear signal that those who stay in these public housing in mature estate are privileged and not that only those who are financially privileged can stay in these public housing."

I agree with Donald that a key tenet of HDB would be to provide affordable public housing. But aside from being a roof over our heads, the HDB flat is also, for many Singaporean families, a major component of their financial assets. The value of the HDB flat can be realized only if it is sold on the resale market (although more recently, it can also be used as collateral for the reverse mortgage/annuity schemes).

As with all assets, prices sometimes rise, and they sometimes fall. Traditionally, no resale flat would be priced lower than the amount for which it was purchased from the HDB. In the past 10-15 years, however, with the economic swings, rising HDB direct-sale prices etc, there are people who have lost money (whether on paper or otherwise) even if they had bought their units directly from HDB. This would apply to a greater proportion of those who bought resale units.

Now that prices have risen (in the mature estates at least), some HDB flat owners have chosen to cash-out, whether to upgrade to private property or realize some profit. They are generally not speculators; direct-sale or 1st time buyers who used the CPF grant would have stayed in their home for a minimum of 5 years before selling – one of the many anti-speculation measures in place for HDB flat buyers. Is it so undesirable that some lucky ones are able to enjoy a windfall?

To be fair, Donald's concern appears to be focused on young couples who cannot afford to live near their parents.

But the simple matter is that location (and distance to amenities etc) and flat type/size are the major price determinants. Other factos include the floor/level, view and facing (west sun is generally a no-no), whether it is on a lift landing floor, whether there is "O$P$" splashed on the walls of the block etc.

It is inevitable that some flats will command a premium over others. When times are good and buyers are flush with cash (whether from en bloc sales or Toto winnings), this premium will increase; and the gap will narrow when times are bad. Just because a buyer has the means and is willing to pay a premium for a HDB unit does not make him any less a "genuine buyer."

After all, if *all* HDB flats are only for meant for the less financially privileged, then HDB should start evicting all residents whose household incomes have risen above $6,000 or $8,000 or whatever the cap for that flat size may be. Judging from the marques I see at many HDB car parks these days, there will be a lot of people pushed to the streets … and quite possibly living in expensive cars ;-)

HDB does provide affordable public housing, done primarily via the direct sales channel. Some units (albeit limited) are in mature estates and others are in very nice (if somewhat ulu) new estates. Young couples who buy a resale unit near have an added incentive of a larger CPF grant.

But ultimately, resale HDB flat prices should be determined by market forces. Why deny HDB flat owners the occasional windfall?

Is Singapore FOR or AGAINST?

2007-10-15T01:00:00.001+08:00

I am puzzled.

Is the Singapore Government for or against the movement to change the junta regime in Myanmar?

Some signs that suggest that they are FOR:
1. Issued statement as ASEAN Chair expressing revulsion at the protests in Myanmar
2. MM says "dumb" Myanmar generals will not last indefinitely; Singapore ambassador says Myanmar should be suspended from ASEAN
3. Allowed "peace for Burma" activities organized by students at the universities; allowed a gathering of Myanmar nationals at a hotel

Signs that suggest they are AGAINST:
1. Police presence to discourage petition/vigil organized by SDP outside Myanmar Embassy; arrest of 5 SDP members for protesting outside the Istana
2. PM says that sanctions against Myanmar won't help; Singapore allegedly provides Myanmar with arms etc.
3. PM defends providing junta leaders with medical treatment; otherwise Singapore would be doing "petty indignities"

Some observers suggest that with the tide of international opinion rising against the junta, Singapore authorities are finding the cost of siding with them too high and are thus moving away.

But I would posit that these "mixed" signals existed from almost Day one of the Myanmar crisis. If anything, several of the AGAINST signs actually came later.

MM's comments to Tom Plate were made on 27th September. I think the "revulsion" statement came out the same day. On the other hand, the enforcement activities against SDP and PM's remarks on the sanctions only came later in early October.

I guess the diplomats call this sort of positioning "nuanced." I call it "confusing."

Protestors or Pedestrians?

2007-10-10T00:20:00.000+08:00

Somewhere in the midst of all the reports on protest activity (yes! Even in Singapore!) was this picture of expatriate women in Singapore wearing red. Supposedly, they were wearing red as part of global action Friday to support the Myanmar protests.

Some bloggers are questioning if the Singapore authorities were practicing double standards, especially since 5 SDP were arrested yesterday recently for protesting outside the Istana.

Taking sides on this issue will either make one looks like an apologist for the boys in blue, or a die-hard government critic. So I will do neither.

What I did, however, was take a closer look at the picture, and I found several clues to suggest that the ang moh ladies may not have been protestors at all.

At least four of the ladies appear to be wearing name tags. One of them is carrying a bottle of water while another – the Asian woman in the center – has a small camera in a pouch. More important perhaps is what they are *not* carrying. I don’t see any placards or flyers.

The “leader” appears to be reading from a text while the rest listen passively. Nobody appears to be chanting or saying anything.

I am not sure of the location but it is likely to be somewhere in Singapore since that looks like a HDB block in the background, and the building in the foreground in reminiscent of restored heritage buildings that have become quite common. If one were to protest against the Myanmar or Singapore governments, surely there would be better places e.g. along Orchard Road, in front of City Hall, outside the Embassy or Istana?

My guess is that the ladies were members of a tour group. If so, why were they decked in red/pink/orange? It is plausible that some of them decided to wear red(dish) as a sign of solidarity with the Burmese (assuming the picture is recent), but there could be other explanations as well.

Just goes to show that we can’t take what we see at face value … even if it comes the jpeg format.

Dear Transport Minister

2007-10-09T00:38:00.001+08:00

I take cognizance of your urging Singaporeans not to link politicize issue of bus fare hikes.

However, it goes without saying that any cost of living issue *is* a political issue. The populace votes for a party or candidate in the hope that their choice will help improve (or at least not reduce) their standard of living, which includes issues like security and safety, how much they earn, and have to spend.

I will grant that your point about transport fares and operators' costs going "full circle" makes sense. We get what we (tax payers or users) pay for.

But the suggestion by the unnamed Thomson Division resident is a valid one.

Allowing such transport fare increases once every 4 years is not unthinkable. I seriously doubt if our transport operators are operating on a hand-to-mouth basis (a scenario which applies to some of their users). Moreover, when costs are reduced (e.g. when fuel prices fall, more efficient buses are used, better route planning etc), we also don't see fares coming down. Obviously, there must be some surplus which operators enjoy.

Now, the unnamed Thomson Division resident has actually gone a step further to ask that the price increases (if any, presumably) be made *before* the general election.

I imagine that this would be a tough pill for the ruling PAP to swallow. It takes some chutzpah for a politician to increase prices, taxes etc (i.e. essentially screw them), and then ask voters for their support. (And I have earlier admitted that cost of living is a political issue).

A fairer solution would be to allow public transport fare increases on a fixed date only once every three years, say on 1 Oct. If there incredible circumstances (e.g. doubling or tripling of fuel prices) which really require intervention to save transport companies from going under, the government should step in with some help from our carefully guarded coffers. Fares for public transport should not be allowed to rise willy nilly.

This way, price hikes might sometimes happen before an election, and sometimes after. In any case, we would have somewhat divorced the issue from politics from bus fare hikes.

October 8, 2007 Monday
MINISTER EXPLAINS WHY BUS FARES CANNOT REMAIN UNCHANGED
By Yeo Ghim Lay

Transport Minister Raymond Lim yesterday commented for the first time on the bus fare hike this month, urging Singaporeans not to politicise the issue.

Doing so would over time, cause the service standard to suffer, he said at a dialogue.

A resident of Thomson Division suggested that fares be reviewed every four years before the general election.

He was highlighting the latest bus fare hike of 1 to 2 cents on Oct 1, just a year after the last increase when fares of buses and trains were raised by 1 to 3 cents.

Replying, Mr Lim said if fares were frozen for four years, people tend to ask for it to be extended again.

Other countries' experiences have shown that when governments succumb to such pressure, service standards would deteriorate.

The reason: bus companies, unable to afford new buses, will have a shrinking fleet, resulting in overcrowding.

As the situation worsens, people will complain to the government, which will feel compelled to raise fares.

'But the people say: 'How can you raise the fare if the buses are so crowded, so lousy the service?'

'It goes one full circle,' said the minister.

So while, politically, the freezing of fares would be a popular move, that would not be a responsible thing to do, he added.

The resident had also asked why public transport companies like SBS and SMRT are publicly listed, resulting in them looking out for the interests of their shareholders, not commuters.

Mr Lim said experience elsewhere shows that if government were to take over, costs will still rise eventually. Fares then have to rise. But if commuters resist, fares have to
subsidised and this subsidy has to be borne by taxpayers. So, either the user or tax- payer pays, he noted.

The minister also defended the Public Transport Council (PTC), noting that its decision to disallow train fares to rise was ignored by people.

Arguing that fare charges was best left to the independent PTC, he said it was unfair to brand it pro-public transport operators.

'They are doing a very difficult job, (it is) very easy to say these things but they're already trying to take into account the public interest to ensure that at the end of the day, you have a public transport service that is good,' he said.

Free Myanmar

2007-10-04T09:46:00.000+08:00

Political Opportunity amidst the Human Tragedy

2007-10-02T23:45:00.000+08:00

What is happening in Burma/Myanmar is a tragedy. Unofficial reports suggest that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of protestors – including many Buddhist monks – have paid the ultimate price in their fight for freedom from Myanmar’s military regime.

The news, pictures and videos of the atrocities in Myanmar which appeared on the Internet quite liberally in the first few days appears to have slowed to a trickle. Other reports are more disturbing (but perhaps not too surprising) i.e. that soldiers are arresting those recording these images with cameras and handphones.

In the absence of corroborative information, we can only pray that our fellow netizens who have bravely shared these images and stories with us are safe from harm.

Indeed, many groups here in Singapore have turned to the divine for intervention. Buddhist worshippers have reportedly gathered by the thousands at a temple near Balestier, and I understand that some Catholics also held a service to pray for peace.

The less religiously inclined have resorted to petitions and some even – heaven forbid here in Singapore – protests!

It was reported that the Singapore Democratic Party staged a protest in front of the Myanmar embassy. A youtube video features some rather hapless plain-clothes policemen advising the protestors – who had stuck notes on the embassy’s gate – to leave, and subsequently being jeered.

Personally, I find it appalling that Dr Chee and company are leveraging on the situation in Myanmar to bring attention to their own vendetta against the Singapore government.

Sure, all is fair in love and war (and some say politics) but getting Myanmar nationals – who are genuinely worried for their own relatives and friends back home – involved as proxy participants in issues what fall between SDP and PAP, is unfair to them, and also belittles the cause for which the Burmese people are fighting for.

Pray, petition and protest but please, leave out the politicking.

Otto – 1; MOE – 0

2007-09-11T15:25:00.000+08:00

I found RI science teacher Otto Fong’s ‘coming out’ blog touching and well-written. Unsurprisingly, it has attracted support from several netizens, including former students.

Most of them agree that there is nothing wrong with having a gay teacher. Being gay does not equate to being promiscuous, or a pedophile. Yet, the general assumption is that Otto is risking his teaching career with his post.

There are already indications that such fears may be realized. Otto was asked by MOE to take his post down, and he has compiled.

One question is whether MOE will be taking further action against Otto. Will he be fired? How will his career be affected?

A more important question, however, is what Otto really hope to achieve with his ‘coming out’ post.

It is not a personal announcement, since Otto had already ‘come out’ to his family and friends. Instead, the post seems calculated to force MOE to shows its hand – i.e. if you fire me, it shows you have an anti-gay policy (despite what MM Lee has said); if you don’t fire me, it means you condone having teachers who are openly gay.

Coming as it does in the wake of the Alfian Sa’at case – and coupled with other information from some bloggers that Otto may already have been planning to leave teaching – it is quite clear that Otto has a deeper agenda.

At this point, it would seem that Otto has come out ahead. His post will arguably attract far more eyeballs now that MOE has asked him to take it down (and since his post has also been replicated on sites such as Tomorrow and Fridae which have a much larger following).

As with the Alfian case, MOE is stuck between a rock and a hard place. I don’t think MOE has any issue with gay teachers per se. The problem, from MOE’s perspective, would be gay teachers who decide to push the envelope.

You see, MOE also has the unenviable task of accounting to parents. Responses to Otto’s post suggest that some parents have no problems with their children being taught by gay teachers, but we cannot assume that 100% of parents feel this way. So, while the trait of honesty is to be admired, when a teacher openly declares that he/she is homosexual, he/she leaves MOE with a PR headache.

(Lest I be misconstrued as an anti-gay, pls see this earlier post)

My own guess is that Otto will soon leave the teaching service on his own accord, and this is probably something that he has been preparing for. His post was meant to gather maximum mileage to sensationalize the gay issue and put pressure on the establishment, and we should see it in this light.

Why Johor, Pak Lah?

2007-07-02T22:28:00.001+08:00

There has been talk in the media and blogosphere that Malaysian PM Abdullah may call for early elections, possibly later this year.

For Abdullah, the Iskandar Development Region (IDR) will serve as his political power tool for the upcoming election, much as Mathathir had his mega-projects in the 1990s. It is ideal in a sense that the first fruits can only be seen long after the votes have been counted.

One questions, however, why Abdullah picked Johor as the site for his own "mega project" (and possible swan song).

Wasn't it not so long ago that he was caught between a rock and a hard place (i.e. the Singapore govt and Johor UMNO), and left with little option but to backtrack on his earlier comments and cancel the controversial bridge project?

With the IDR still in its shrink-wrap stage, Abdullah is already facing heat from the Johor ground over the proposed Malaysia-Singapore joint ministerial committee and the concessions to non-bumis.

On one hand, the anti-Singapore sentiment on the Johor ground is justified.

Underneath the rhetoric about win-win situations is the fact that the IDR would, in reality, compete with Singapore. Some argue that it is not a zero-sum game, and that both countries stand to benefit symbiotically from cooperation and joint projects in the IDR. But at this point, it is obvious that if the IDR is anywhere as successful as touted, there will be a significant downside for Singapore.

The IDR is not meant to be another Vietnam or Cambodia, whose manufacturing industries would complement, even boost, Singapore's status as a financial, services and trading hub. The IDR aims to build a medical hub, an education hub, a logistics hub etc i.e. pretty much similar to Singapore's own blueprint. But really, how many hubs can really survive (and thrive) within a radius of less than 100km? Is there really enough talent in this region to drive world-class projects in both Singapore and the IDR? Are there enough customers? It would be naïve to think that the powers-that-be in Singapore sincerely want the IDR to succeed.

But back to Pak Lah and Johor.

The political pundit's view is that the support of the Johor constituency, an UMNO-stronghold, is critical to his political survival. From a development perspective, it is possible that some research indicated that Johor's infrastructure and population etc provided the best chance of success as compared to the other states.

The fact is, no matter how much money and political support the federal government invests in the IDR, it will come to naught if the people on the ground do not want it for themselves. The IDR would fail miserably and at tremendous cost, and go down in history as a pipe-dream which won Abdullah a second term.

Does Singapore gain from America’s pain?

2007-05-13T01:50:00.001+08:00

Scholarboy and Astroboy have at The Intelligent Singaporean discussed what went wrong with the US-led war in Iraq, prefacing with a recent statement from PM Lee espousing Singapore's support for US efforts in Iraq.

Many a book (and blog) has been written on the US' decision to invade Iraq and continued engagement. One can blame CIA's intelligence failures, Bush's personal or political motives, but ultimately, it appears that any rational reasons for going to war (if they exist) probably remain hidden deep within the archives of an intelligence agency somewhere. Supporting the continuation of the US campaign in Iraq has done is also challenging and hugely unpopular.

Yet PM Lee did. Why?

Less charitable commentators attribute this to simple diplomatic bootlicking.

Scholarboy and Astroboy claimed their piece would "explore what long and disturbing shadows the Iraqi campaign will cast against countries in South East Asia" (although I see no such discussion).

Perhaps they are concerned that Singapore's support for US foreign policy could one day hurt Singapore. We may be ostracised by our Muslim neighbours, or attacked by Islamic militants.

One could also argue that the democrats, who have taken over Congress, would also soon take over the White House, and such posturing would then count for naught.

Perhaps. But does US' continued engagement in Iraq hold any benefits for Singapore?

One. Security. As PM Lee mentioned, Southeast Asia's security will be affected if if US were to leave Iraq. The reason is simple. One extra jihadist in Iraq or the Middle East means one less in Southeast Asia. Some would argue that the Iraqi campaign *breeds* extremists but we should remember that it was *success* in driving the Russians from Afghanistan that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and his cohort of terrorists. The Iranian revolution in the late 1970s also won new converts the Shii cause. Basically, if the extremists *fail* in Iraq, no one would join their cause; if they succeed, we are doomed.

Two. Oil. US interest in the Middle East provides a geo-political check-and-balance in the region and beyond. Peace does not come easily to the Middle East and some stability is needed to ensure that the rest of the world is able to get the black gold that is fuelling development everywhere else. As a net importer, the Singapore economy gets screwed every time the price of oil increases. Until feasible alternative energy sources are available, we have a vested interest in the US' continued presence in Iraq & the ME.

Three. ASEAN. US foreign policy is currently low on the popularity stakes even amongst it traditional allies. But this provides a window of opportunity where new friends will find easier acceptance. I'm not just talking about Singapore, but more of ASEAN as a whole. PM Lee's efforts in engaging US interest in the region and Southeast Asia betrays a diplomatic marketing strategy that Singapore Inc. planners know only too well. US' continued interest – politically and economically – in this region is a prerequisite for ASEAN countries' development, and for Singapore's survival within and outside this region.

The lesson to be learnt is that everyone says (and does) what is in their own best interests, not just because something sounds morally right or clever.

Right to be Gay

2007-05-08T11:09:00.001+08:00

Yvonne Lee has posited that “Decriminalising homosexual acts would be an error”. She argues that laws criminalizing homosexual acts are not unconstitutional because the right to equality does not apply if it impairs community interests and violates the rights of others. Lee also explains that the Singapore Constitution does not prohibit all forms of discrimination.

On the latter point, I have no disagreement. There is (and always will be) discrimination in our society. Men, but not women, have to do national service. Chinese restaurants hire more (or all) Chinese waiters. Lingerie chains prefer to hire as sales personnel attractive 20-somethings as opposed on my 68-year-old uncle. Our Constitution and laws can only do so much.

But does this mean that we cannot decriminalize homosexual acts?

Under Penal Code Section 377A, oral and anal sex (aka unnatural sex) acts between heterosexuals and lesbians will be allowed while the same acts between two males would remain an offence.

Lee gives several reasons for supporting this stand, which I understand as follows: One, homosexual acts are inherently unhealthy and threaten public health. Two, it would clash with “fundamental liberties” such as free speech and religious liberty. Three, homosexuality would become an “alternative lifestyle.” Homosexual activists would campaign to alter the public mindset and to gain legal and social endorsement of a gay lifestyle. Four, homosexuality is offensive to the majority of citizens.

Homosexual acts are inherently unhealthy and threatens public health – There might be truth in this although I think that a medical doctor (preferably one who is dealing with sexual diseases) would be better qualified to make this claim. One would also need to control for the number of partners (unless another assumption is that homosexuals are by nature more promiscuous). If it is indeed true, we should also consider if these same acts amongst heterosexuals and lesbians are any less unhealthy. Otherwise, this is no basis for opposing the decriminalization of homosexual acts.

Homosexuality clashes with “fundamental liberties” such as free speech and religious liberty – This argument simply does not make sense. Religions clash with one another, almost by definition. Each purports to have its own way to heaven. But that does not mean that different religions cannot co-exist, or that we cannot allow new religions. The proviso, of course, is that the practice of religion must not cross certain boundaries. For example, a Christian is free to proselytize – provided he does not do so in a manner which offends other religions. I don’t foresee homosexuals going around asking others to be gay, just because homosexuality is decriminalized. Unless you are telling me that I can no longer go around making gay jokes, how does homosexuality curtail my fundamental liberties?

Homosexuality as an “alternative lifestyle” and homosexual activists campaigning to gain legal and social endorsement of a gay lifestyle – This is exactly what is happening now. But how does it impair community interests or violate the rights of others? Perhaps seeing gay couples give some the “ee-urh” feeling, but others might feel the same way seeing a young-old couple or a mixed couple, but that is not a sufficient excuse for something to be made criminal. There are already obscenity laws that are in place to guard against displays of affection that are too public, and these (I believe) apply to all regardless of sexual orientation.

Homosexuality is offensive to the majority of citizens – This is Lee’s strongest argument. Yet, she does not provide any figures or survey data. Can we say with certainty that more than 50% of our population find homosexuality offensive? If this is to be the only basis on which we want to continue the criminalization of homosexual acts, there should be at least a statistically rigorous poll done to ensure that we are not unnecessarily curtailing the freedoms of a minority.

To paraphrase Voltaire, I am not gay, but I would fight for your right to gay (but only if you really want it).

A Conundrum of Money

2007-04-13T15:58:00.000+08:00

Dai Kor’s reference to NMP Siew Kum Hong’s distinction between Ministers who “lead” and civil servants (Administrative officers too) who “manage”, got me thinking about the ruckus regarding Ministerial and Administrative officer’s salaries.

“Sorry ah, dun mind if I ownself add 400K to my paycheck can?”

To be honest, such issues are never easy. PM too got emotional while talking about his moment of truth today. Inspirational? Maybe. But in reality, hey, not everyone cherishes nor strives for such awareness. We’ve never heard of a CEO asking his thousands of employees and shareholders for permission to raise his paycheck, but, we know of the CEO whose pay check is decided and voted by his Board of Directors (BODs). There are BODs who are from the company’s top echelon, and there are BODs who are independent of the company but are appointed by the company. The Government is like the former and that’s how they appear to have conducted their decision-making mechanism regarding their paycheck.

It seems to me that most in the blogosphere (and beyond) feel a little tired and let down by the whole debate that has been going on in Parliament. Debating Ministerial pay hikes, the benchmarking to top earners in the private sector and the lot was not really an opportunity for us to give feedback. It was, as Minister Teo Chee Hean rebutted, an opportunity for the Government to show the people some semblance of transparency in its decision to increase its own paycheck. Question is, was it just that? A motley parade of opinions for an already foregone conclusion.

I think many people share Low Thia Kiang’s sentiments that the emotional roller-coaster is too much of a high and has run the risk of becoming a circus show to “pacify the people”. As a result, there have been many criticisms. For one, I do not think that having and publicising higher salaries for our Ministers and Administrative officers is an invitation for more “unsuitable” people to step forward. I’m reminded of a forum letter (I apologise for not being able to find an online copy of it) a while ago asking if there was a “pathway” that one could take to become an MP. By asking such a question, was he demonstrating his insincerity? Or merely highlighting the fact that political talent is always identified and groomed by others and requires time and continuity. If at all our political leaders were “unsuitable” mercenaries, the fault lies in individual judgement and in the criteria used in identifying a ‘political leader’.

While I agree that entry-level civil service salaries should be increased, I also sympathise with KTM that the Government has not provided compelling reasons to justify higher salaries for Ministers and Administrative Officers. For brevity, lets assume that only scholars are allowed into the Administrative Service (which is not the case) and an average service term of 4yrs in a high-office Government appointment. With some 250 scholarships given out every year, and some 78 high-office appointments (total number of Ministries and Statutory Boards) with service terms of 4yrs, that works out to 1,000 scholars competing for 78 positions. On top of that, with the emphasis on leadership renewal in the civil service, one can naturally expect a decent resignation rate from our scholars. I can only suspect that the crucial junction of 30-something is not enough to ascertain the potential contribution a scholar can make to the civil service. So how? We lose them just like that after their bond? But this is only an analogy whose subjects are scholars. Yet it is perplexing that the mechanisms for identifying talent pool in the civil service have evolved into such a precarious state.

“My mudder always say is right under your nose”

Back to the point. I disagree that the circus show is all we have to console ourselves with. One thing that has emerged out of this salary ruckus has been the suggestions on ways to refine the decision-making process of Ministerial and Administrative officers paychecks. In particular, the idea by MPS Alvin Yeo and Ho Geok Choo to have an independent panel review the benchmark that pegs our Ministers salaries to the pay of top earners in the private sector. Such an idea may be new in Southeast Asia, but its not among some Commonwealth countries. The UK has a Review Body on Senior Salaries which provides advice on the remuneration of salaries to Ministers, senior civil servants, judicial office holders and other public appointment holders. So to do the Australians with their Remuneration Tribunal. Not too surprisingly, both are staffed by civil servants and/or appointed by the Executive and are at liberty to engage professional consultants in their evaluations.

Such a suggestion can go a very long way in taking off from the starting line redrawn by PM Lee’s question of what kind of government Singaporeans want.

Managers vs Leaders

2007-04-11T18:10:00.000+08:00

NMP Siew Kum Hong made an excellent speech in Parliament regarding civil service salary revisions. He made the distinction between Ministers and other civil servants (including Administrative Services officers) by saying that the former *leads* Singapore while the latter *manages* the country. For the most part, Siew appeared to suggest that open-ended salary benchmarks for Ministers would erode the moral authority they require.

Therein lies the dilemma. The Government’s point is that if being a Minister paid too little, not enough of the able would step forward. Siew (and I believe many of the rational in the blogosphere) are making the point that if Ministers are paid too much, unsuitable candidates (i.e. those who are materialistic etc) would step forward. They would probably also be further out of touch with the populace given the lifestyles they can afford.

PM Lee announced today that he would donate his pay increment for the next 5 years to charity. This is an adroit political solution, since 5 years will bring him past the next election, and Singaporeans could vote him out then if the pay issue is so critical. I suspect that some other senior Ministers (e.g. MM and SM) may follow suit.

While this side-steps the current we-just-vote-you-in-now-you-go-pay-yourself-more dilemma, it will not address Siew’s point that those who serve need to do so more for love of country than love of money. Benchmarking against the top earners is simply not the way to do. I would reiterate my earlier suggestion that Ministers’ salaries be pegged to the median income.

As for other civil servants, I agree with Siew that they would essentially view the public and private sectors as alternative career paths, and they can work for whoever offers a better package, whether in pay/pensions, stability, career prospects or other intangibles. The government, on the other hand, should also view its employees in this light. Just pay what you need to get who you need. Do you need an Administrative Services scholar at $360,000 for the job? Or can a regular graduate at a fraction of the cost perform the same role? Admittedly, there will be some roles which have greater requirements than others. So just find the right person for each role and pay them accordingly.

Buy low, sell high – Building links with Iran

2007-04-04T21:47:00.000+08:00

A few weeks ago, Saikor wrote a piece on Iran. The latest UNSC sanctions and Iran’s capture of 15 British soldiers lately brings the scenario he painted about the possibility of war in Iran a couple of steps closer to reality.

At this time when Iran is increasingly being portrayed as a pariah nation, it is interesting to note that Singapore is building up links with Iran, as SM Goh Chok Tong’s recent visit would indicate. As a former PM and Chairman of MAS, the signature of SM Goh’s visit demonstrates Singapore’s economic interest in Iran.

And why not? While per capita income may be low, Iran is a wealthy country (ranked abt 19th in GDP terms) thanks mainly to rich oil resources. With the government trying to diversify the economy and stem unemployment, there is much that a recently rapidly developing economy like Singapore could offer in terms of consulting services and trade.

This brings to mind the scenario in the 1960s, when Singapore sought Israel’s help in building up its defence capability. I was not around then, but it must have been a edgy decision. Israel was embroiled in its own difficulties in its part of the world (and perhaps very much still is). Singapore was surrounded by stronger and much larger Muslim countries, who might have responded with economic sanctions or worse. As it turned out, it was a fortuitous decision.

At this point, Iran’s stock is low. There are relatively few competitors for Singapore businesses, although Japan, China and several other countries have long-standing economic links with Iran. As per the adage to “buy low and sell high,” Singapore is clearly looking to invest – economically and/or politically – in Iran at a low point, and hopefully cash out at a high. It might seem to go against better judgment to be seen hobnobbing with the Iranians at this point, but Singapore clearly has a history of abhorring diplomatic common sense in favor of national interests when the two collide.

The Ministers' Salary Brouhaha

2007-03-26T14:59:00.000+08:00

Ministerial salaries are in the news again. The PAP government has the practical problem of paying (themselves) enough to attract the best talent without (further) removing themselves from the plight of the everyman. The Opposition can be expected to (again) take advantage of the situation to accrue some political mileage and pour a little cold water on the PAP’s fire of popularity.

After all, to the Singaporean resident who earned a *median* monthly income of $2,410 in 2005, the amount a Minister gets is simply mind-boggling, and probably contributed to pushing the *average* income to $3,500. (The gap between the average and median incomes illustrates the income gap, which is a topic for another day).

A recent ST article pointed out a suggestion from Workers Party’s Low Thia Kiang (prior to 2006 GE if I recall correctly) that ministers be paid a multiplier of 100 times the average income of the lowest 20%. The idea was that this was approximately already what Ministers were making, but would motivate them to ensure that the poorest 20% did not get left behind.

Politically, this was a very astute move. With one fell swoop, Low made himself the champion of the poor while clearly illustrating the wide gap between the (PAP) ministers and the lower classes.

Politics aside, this idea of pegging Ministers’ salaries to the income of the everyman does merit consideration. The current formula pegs Ministers’ salaries to the top earners in various professions like law and banking.

Fair enough, one can buy the argument that Ministers should be well paid. Using either staff strength or budget as a guide, a typical Minister would bear responsibilities greater than most CEOs and managing directors.

We can contest, however, what Minister’s salaries should be pegged against. Top earners have income from various sources – aside from earned income, most would have stock gains & dividends, overseas assets, rental income and other financial instruments etc. PM Lee has taken some pains to explain clearly how the formula has been adjusted to deal with some of these elements. The fact remains, however, that the average Singaporean enjoys a far less exciting remuneration package, but one that can go up and down nonetheless.

My suggestion is this: To motivate our Ministers to work the best interests (financially anyway) of the people, we should consider pegging their salaries – not to the top few or the bottom 20%, but to the median or average wage earners in Singapore. It would be a fairer approach.

Why War with Iran is an Increasing Reality

2007-03-08T23:08:00.000+08:00

The relationship between the US and Iran has grown increasingly weary and tense over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Iranians are generally supportive of it, but the US doesn’t like it. On top of that, the war in Iraq has led the US down further suspicion that Iran is either providing assistance to Iraqi Shia insurgents, or is blithely ignorant to the flow of assistance to Iraqi insurgents from/through Iran. A spiral of attacks in Iraq culminating in the January 2007 attacks in Karbala, Iraq, definitely did not help. Several US dead soldiers later and allegations began flying that Iranian agents had trained the perpetrators. US President Bush has ordered a 2nd aircraft carrier group to be deployed in the Persian Gulf and according to the February edition of Newsweek, a 3rd carrier group is also scheduled for gulf duties soon. That’s a lot of ships steaming Iran’s way.

In addition, a strategic map of offensive (defensive?) bombing sorties has been planned out by the US and the UK, just in case. The option for military action is definitely on the table and surprise, a poll conducted by the LA Times in January this year found that 57% of US citizens favoured military action if Iran continued with its nuclear development programmes.

Like most people living outside of Iran and the US, I do not want to see a 3rd protracted conflict emerge in the Middle East; Iraq and the Palestinian territories suffice for the moment. But the indications are clear that Bush is sending in the military muscle for another round of ‘shock and awe’. While many people do not want to believe it, the Bush administration is not going to give up on the Middle East. With Afghanistan largely in NATO’s hands, Iraq is the US’s only other major on-going conflict theatre. Simplistically, that means more resources and more time.

But apart from its military exhibition in the Gulf, has the US laid the groundwork for/in Iran? The Bush administration has poured money on direct broadcasts of Iranian exiled dissidents into Iran in an attempt to rouse the lay Iranian spirit. According to BBC News, one such fellow is Ahmad Baharloo, who has been quaintly dubbed “The Iranian Larry King”. Another Iranian academic, Abbas Milani, has also been busy ‘advising’ senior Bush officials from his base in Stanford University. It is also publicly known that the US has been funding (for how long?) militant ethnic separatist groups within iran to raise the domestic pressure. The official Washington response has been denial, but at least one former US State Department official has admitted to US efforts in supplying and training Iran’s ethnic minorities to destabilize the regime. Even worse, there are suspicions that other Iranian groups and terrorist groups with an anti-Iranian agenda might be roped in. We may see more of the Mujahidin al-Kaqh. Sound familiar?

That’s because the hands laying the pre-emptive groundwork in Iran now, are the same hands that laid the foundations for regime change in Iran 54 years ago. Back then, the US and the UK orchestrated a covert geo-political ops to oust then Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Known as ‘Ops TPAJAX’, influential Iranian figures were bribed, ‘strategic’ reports were planted in newspapers, and undercover agents incited street violence in Iran (Stephen Kizner’s “All the Shah’s Men” is worth a read)

Lets pause for a moment. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories since linking events separated by half a century amounts to just that. But the evidence is sometimes just too good (no thanks to the buffet of memoirs by former XXX agents). When Bush bravely announced during his State of Union address (and to the world) in 2002 the ‘who’s who’ of the ‘Axis of Evil’, he must have had his reasons, and more importantly, a plan for doing so. Saddam Hussein is out of the picture and US bases are firmly in Iraq. With this, the US is ideally positioned to further its goals in the Middle East. Next, North Korea has finally capitulated. Chris Hill is set to resume talks with the North Koreans who had indicated that they will cease all nuclear development activities at Yongbyon plant within 60 dsya starting 13 Feb this year. Whether they go the 1990 way of German reunification will be another interesting development worth any front row seat. (with kimchi)

Bush would surely like to bring his trilogy of evil axes to a close and Iran is the final act. The North Korean development will no doubt pile on the pressure for Iran. For if Kim can see the light, the US is one step close to Iran and Ahmadinejad will need more than national pride to resist mounting global pressure. Though the EU nations have been consistent in pressing for a diplomatic solution with Iran, they have also been equally firm in backing UN Security Council resolutions for further sanctions. US and Israeli officials have begun talks to discuss ways of cutting Iran’s business ties to the world and key European financial institutions are feeling the pinch and have re-evaluated their business relationships with Iranian banks and companies. When such efforts gather momentum, an isolated Iran may force the US and the world to confront another North Korean debacle. Only this time, no more sneaky underground nuclear tests for Ahmadinejad. It is certain that the US and the world is painfully aware that this is a tune nobody wants to sing again.

Ultimately, US military action in Iran will be shaped by events in the Iraq, as it is in Iraq that the US will find reasons for a protracted war, as opposed to a bombing campaign to knock out nuclear facilities for a simple violation of UN resolutions. As it is, members of the Non-Aligned Movement have publicly supported Iran’s nuclear programme and have asked the UN Security Council to remove the nuclear bit from its agenda. The US will need Iraq to supply reasons for military action against Iran if it wants to mitigate condemnation. For if there is evidence (and there are certainly indications) that Iran is involved in supplying or aiding the conflict in Iraq, you can be very sure that the entire gamut of state-sponsored terrorism-Hizbollah-Lebanon charges will be thrown at Iran. Top this off with a suspicious nuclear ambition and a leader who wants to wipe Israel off the map, there will be little left to stop the war machine. I’m sure Ahmadinejad would have been piqued at George Bernard Shaw’s wry observation that we learn from history that we never learn anything from history.

Why pity older workers?

2007-03-07T11:18:00.000+08:00

Seah Chiang Nee wrote an interesting piece about growing old in Singapore. He notes that “despite economic prosperity, more and more elderly Singaporeans past retirement age are working as cleaner or toilet attendants, instead of playing with grandchildren.”

The anecdotal examples from Seah’s column suggest that many elderly Singaporeans are working because (1) the cost of living in Singapore is too high and (2) they have not saved enough to retire. It is easy to jump in and agree with Seah’s conclusion, but a more objective study suggests otherwise.

A 2005 cost of living survey puts Singapore as (only?) the 34th most expensive out of 144 cities. (Admittedly, in other countries, if you find the city expensive, you have the option of retiring in the countryside). Data from ADB indicate that Singapore actually enjoys one of lowest inflation rates amongst Asian countries. (Here, you would have to factor in that Singapore, as a city-state country with no significant oil/agriculture resources, would actually be more prone to inflationary costs than most other Asian countries). So when put into context, the argument that the cost of living in Singapore is high is actually quite weak.

I would agree with the second point. For whatever reasons, there are definitely a group of elderly Singaporeans who have not saved enough for retirement. There are individuals who have not saved enough for their retirement. It may be because they are low-skilled workers who had always found it difficult to make ends meet. They could include the middle classes who sought short-term gratification (car, private property etc) at the expense of their retirement plans. There might also be some who have fallen victim to addictions (like gambling) or illnesses.

Hence, unless they have savings or children to provide for them, many will have to go on working.

Is this necessarily a bad thing? I am of the view that working keeps one healthy. Seah himself, from his picture in The Star, appears to be well into his 60s and still maintains his column and blog. I hope to be like him when I am at his age.

However, not everyone has Seah’s talent for writing. Some will be taxi drivers, some will be tour guides, and some will be toilet cleaners (restroom enhancement specialists if you like). There is no shame in any of these jobs.

I come across elderly cleaners around my home and at my work place. I have spoken to them. The work is not always easy or pleasant, and the pay is meager. Some work is made easier with the right tools (carts and extensions – so they don’t need to bend, vacuums, cleaning aids etc). When I greet them, they reply with smiles and the usual jiak pa buay (have you eaten)?

Elderly workers need not be pitied. With a little help from their employers and the rest of us, working past 62 can be enjoyable.

Singapore in Thailand – enemy or victim?

2007-01-31T11:31:00.000+08:00

Singapore and Thailand have enjoyed close ties for many years. Bangkok, Phuket, Koh Samui and Chang Mai are popular vacation destinations for many Singaporeans. In the 2004-2006 period, Singapore was Thailand’s third largest foreign investor (and the biggest amongst ASEAN countries). Government-to-government ties were excellent – Singapore NSmen train in Kanchanaburi, and Singapore and Thai civil servants had an exchange programme.

Thai-Singapore ties first began to sour in March 2006 after it was reported that Singapore’s Temasek Holdings had bought a large share of Shin Corp which was owned by then-PM Thaksin’s family. Some politicians (predominantly from the anti-Thaksin camp) and media complained that Thaksin was selling away a strategic asset. The September 2006 military coup which displaced Thaksin put in place a military government which – while not necessarily predisposed against Singapore, since they had welcomed Singapore’s soldiers for many years – realized that, politically, they would have to keep Singapore at arms length.

So when Thaksin visited Singapore in January 2007 and met with DPM Jayakumar (who was apparently an old friend), the Thai junta went ballistic. Aside from canceling the bilateral civil service exchange programme and rescinding an invitation to Singapore’s foreign minister, the Thai government (notably coup leader Gen Sonthi) has more recently issued statements that Singapore was eavesdropping on calls between Thai military leaders made through the AIS network (which is owned by Shin Corp). Singapore and Shin Corp officials have both denied this.

Beneath the bluster, I have tried to analyze why some Thais are angry with Singapore. So far, I have come up with:

Temasek should not have purchased Shin Corp shares. It should have realized that the sale of such an asset to foreign owners would be cause for instability in Thailand.
Singapore is out to spy on Thailand, and had bought into Shin Corp for this reason.
Singapore showed no respect for Thailand by allowing Thaksin to visit, meet with DPM Jayakumar, and give interviews to CNN.

On 1, I agree. I think we can assume that the shares are worth less today than what was paid for them. Thaksin’s political troubles, the military coup, actions against AIS by the Thai government and their recent economic faux pas etc are all reasons why Temasek should not have purchased Shin Corp shares. Someone in Temasek had probably underestimated the political reaction and felt it was worth the risk. It was a bad investment, period.

I can understand claims that Singapore is out to spy on Thailand; after all, all countries are interested in acquisitions by other military services. But to suggest that Singapore has bought Shin Corp in order to listen to Thai military secrets is ludicrous. I can almost hear the conversation between the Singapore military chief and the PM*.

“Sir, we can get access to Thai military secrets if we buy over Shin Corp.”

“That’s a great idea. How much would it cost?”

“Just US$1.88 billion, sir. I guess we’ll just have to hold off buying our aircraft carrier until next year.”

* Pls note that this is absolutely a figment of my imagination. My SingTel shares do not give me access to these conversations.

Reason 3: Thaksin, as an enemy of the Thai state (or of the Thai junta at least), should also be persona non grata in Thailand’s friends, and some Thai media pundits have alleged that Singapore showed no respect for Thailand by allowing Thaksin to meet DPM Jayakumar and also give interviews to CNN.

However, Thaksin, who has not been charged for any crime, has the same rights as any other Thai national visiting Singapore. He can meet who he wants and go where he wants. These pundits, often the same who harp on Singapore’s lack of press (and other) freedoms, must at least be consistent. Maybe DPM Jayakumar should not have agreed to meet Thaksin. Would you meet an old friend who lost his job (and probably has a lot of colouful tales to share), or yield to the prevailing sentiment in Thailand. That was for him to decide.

It is obvious that the Thai junta is using Singapore as a convenient distraction to avert the attention of the Thai people from the very real economic and security challenges they face. Thaksin’s visit to Singapore came shortly after economic policy announcements had stirred up insecurities amongst foreign investors, and the New Year’s Eve bombings in Bangkok. While Temasek only has itself to blame for making a bad investment in Shin Corp, the current rift in bilateral ties is clearly a result of the Thai junta’s domestic agenda.

Terrorism in 2006

2007-01-19T14:30:00.000+08:00

2006 has turned out to be a pretty eventful year for terrorism. While Indonesia took a well-deserved respite since the killing of Azahari, the rest of the world (and its terrorists) has gone on with their business of bombing anything and anyone it doesn’t like.

The religion of peace has been a keen compiler of the 2006 statistics on terror. According to them, in 2006, there were 2,281 terror attacks all over the world and if one excludes Afghanistan and Iraq, the number is almost halved to 1,102 attacks. If we suspend our disbelief and skepticism on how the numbers were compiled for one moment, 2006 actually saw a 5-fold decrease on global attacks from 2005. The latter, according to the US State Department, saw 11,111 attacks.

Again according to the US State Department, if we subtract the 2005 number of non-fatal attacks, the number would be about 5,500. This still augurs well for the 2006 statistic, but sadly, doesn’t translate as automatic progress for the world nor the men and women involved in fighting terrorism. Why? Because despite the 5-fold drop in attacks in 2006, 15,235 people died compared with 14,600 in 2005. A lot less attacks, but still more deaths.

In February 2006, terrorists unsuccessfully attacked the Abqaiq oil facility in Saudi Arabia. And the oil industry in the Muiddle Eats gained worldwide attention as a target of attack by Islamist terrorist. Though Iraqi oil pipelines had been attacked as early as 2004, and though oil companies and staff members had been the victim of earlier terrorist attacks, the Abqaiq attack was indicative of a bold attempt to attack a major centre of the global oil industry. A successful attack would have had profound economic and symbolic impact on the world. Some say that they have heeded Osama bin Ladin’s call to bleed them (the West) till bankruptcy. Yet Osama had earlier cautioned against the targeting of oil, believing that the resource would bring much benefit to the Muslim ummah. It seems he has changed his mind and in December 2004, called on aspiring terrorists to “stop the greatest theft in history” and to focus their attacks on oil productions in Iraq and the Gulf region.

Public transport in 2006 also took continued beating as terrorists sought “maximum kill” on human lives. The Mumbai train bombings in July 2006 which killed 180 people was followed by another train bombing in West Bengal in November 2006. Some attacks in 2006 were foiled and publicly announced. Their targets were varied but all were planned with a vision comparable to September 11. For example, the UK airline plot uncovered in August 2006 envisioned exploding 10 airplanes in mid-air. The Manhattan/NY subway plot envisaged blowing up subway trains while traveling under the Hudson River in the hopes that the explosions below would cause the river to flow into the tunnels and unleash an flood in Lower Manhattan and Wall Street. In Southeast Asia, Azahari’s compatriot Noordin Mohd Top had planned to attack a power plant in Indonesia. But that was in late-2005 and the plan was foiled not by the authorities, but apparently due to a lack of resources.

Away from the high-profile nature of these foiled and successful attacks, innocent people, soldiers and militants continue their mutual destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. Each soldier that the “Baghdad sniper” kills will contribute in local legend to as the Iraqis (the terrorists at least) hastily construct their own Vassilli Zaitsev.

Against the publicity of ‘home-grown’ terrorism, terrorist manuals circulating on the internet and fragile race and religious relations in most of the world, the latest announcement by US President George Bush to beef up troop strength in Iraq must have caught some by surprise; especially the outline of his faith in the willingness of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to shoulder responsibility (and success) for the Iraqi 2007 plan. It certainly did with most Democrats and they will be trying their hardest to block funding in Congress. Pelosi has already made it very clear that Bush’s Iraq war account will face very harsh scrutiny in Congress.

Well, I believe that Bush is doing the right thing since to pull out from Iraq in 2007 would be both irresponsible (for the mess at least) and politically premature. Looking at the way terrorism has turned out in 2006, there doesn’t seem to be compelling reasons that US presence in Iraq is the major contributor of global terrorism. Aspiring terrorists will go anywhere to chalk up experience (remember Ambon? And the fears of south Thailand?) While terrorists cite US/Iraq as their reason for attacks, they also cite other reasons, some of which are tied to the domestic policies of their own governments. Afterall Ayman Zawahiri was an Egyptian and had started out in the Egytian Islamic Jihad fighting against the Egyptian government (no doubt against its pro-Western foreign policies and corruption scandals of Anwar Sadat, who in turn, had earlier fought against British colonial rule and was duly imprisoned).

But that’s another story. I hope that Bush’s 2007 Iraq plan will in some way trickle down into positive awareness that after one takes away the guns, the bullets, the turbans, the uniforms and the manuals, you still have to talk to one another. All this in 2006.

Blogs 2006 - Citizen Journalism or Dystopia

2007-01-09T01:49:00.000+08:00

Blogosphere in 2006 – One man’s brave new world of citizen journalism is another’s dystopia?

Congratulations! ‘You’ have been picked by Time magazine as its Person of the Year. ‘You’, the “digital native” (as coined by Marc Prensky), have made Internet an integral part of life.

Indeed, one can’t live without the marvels of new media. The disruption to communications (as a result of the Taiwan earthquake) at the end of December 2006 was a timely reminder on the extent of reliance on the Internet that I have grown to be.

I enjoy my online shopping, gaming, and of course, YouTube. (Remember Funtwo, the Korean guitarist and Hong Kong’s Bus Uncle, and many other characters made famous / notorious by YouTube.)

And I love the blogosphere as an avenue to share my thoughts on issues, trivial or otherwise.

There are already millions of bloggers on the Internet, and the number is fast rising. Apparently, Technorati keeps track of at least 50 million blogs worldwide. and one more blog is born every half a second.

Is the burgeoning number of blogs a positive sign of citizen journalism?

Undoubtedly, there are a lot of frivolous chatter, half-truths and misinformation in the Internet and we bloggers have been criticised for making a magnum opus out of our mundane life events.

A study by Pew Internet & American Life Project released in July 2006 found that 37% of American bloggers (that’s about 12 million of them) only writes about life experiences. Only 11% cites politics and government as a primary topic. In Singapore, a survey of international bloggers by Singapore Internet Research Centre (SIRC) at Nanyang Technological University in 2004 found that 73% of blogs are online diaries or personal journals.

Yet, there are some shining examples of citizen journalism that have embraced the importance of ordinary citizens taking part in the news-gathering and reporting process.

In the US, Gawker Stalker collects sightings of celebrities around Manhattan reported via email and instant messages by its readers. OhMyNews in South Korea has performed commendably, combining both professional and amateur reporting. China’s daqi.com is popular with those working in media.

In Singapore, the General Election (GE) in May 2006 was the first since blogs exploded on to the scene. During the nine-day election campaign, blog articles reportedly averaged over 190. Although a post-GE survey done by the Institute of Police Studies (IPS) in Singapore found that only 33% of the electorate cited the alternative Internet media as important in shaping their decision, the indications are clear that the Internet discourse will grow more powerful politically in time to come.
(Singapore Patriot’s thoughtful review of the significant events in ‘The Politics of Singapore’s New Media in 2006’ is a recommended read. See also Clarissa’s ‘GE 2006 & The Internet’.)

But as blogosphere flourishes, there are also signs that it faces challenging times ahead.

Some government authorities have expressed their alarm at the potential of blogosphere to shape opinions and have attempted to challenge the sanctity of free expression on the Internet.

China is a case in point. While the country jumps on the Internet bandwagon (China has reportedly over 17.5 million bloggers and is the world’s second-largest Internet user population after the US), its government appears to be trying to tame Internet activities almost at its onset. In 2000, Beijing introduced State Council Order No 292, barring nine types of content from websites, online bulletin boards and chat-rooms that might “harm state interests” and “disturb social order”. In February 2006, Google, Yahoo and other prominent Internet companies were accused of alleged complicity in human-rights abused by the Chinese government. More recently, Beijing announced in October 2006 its intention to make registration of bloggers’ real names mandatory.

In India, Internet regulators reportedly blocked several websites in July 2006 following the Mumbai train bombings and heavily restricted the flow of online information. The Department of Telecommunications was reported to have ordered Internet Service Providers to close more than 15 sites (mistakenly or otherwise) that purportedly published hate speech against Muslims, Hindus and the caste system in India.

In Malaysia, a recent Microsoft MSN survey found that only 3% of respondents were involved in citizen journalism but this small group is highly visible because it dares to discuss sensitive issues avoided by mainstream media. This trend has forced the Information Ministry to issue warnings on crackdowns on divisive sites (reportedly two cases in the past three years) and to consider compulsory registration.

In Singapore, there are evidently regulations governing Internet activities. I understand that any website/blog that promotes or discusses domestic politics must be registered with the Media Development Authority; and any discussion that might subvert racial-religious harmony crosses the OB markers.

However, the approach of late in Singapore has somewhat been one of constructive engagement.

In his National Day Rally speech in August 2006, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong underscored his government’s commitment to adopt a ‘lighter touch approach’ and to ride the digital wave to get its message across.

Foreign Minister George Yeo began blogging on his encounters, both overseas and in Singapore. (Catch his interview with Channel News Asia blogtvsg on his thoughts about blogging.) And a group of new People’s Action Party Members of Parliament (MPs), born after Singapore’s independence, came up with their P65 blog to share their personal side.

Clearly, the way forward for governments around the world in response to the digital age has to be one of engagement than heavy-handed control – and the Singapore government appears to be getting it right. The best one to deal with half-truths and distortions in the Internet is to counter them with truths and facts rather than blacking them out.

As the populace becomes more informed and technology-savvy, the new media is a growing sphere and an important avenue to reach out to the people.

The future augurs well for blogosphere in 2007, I’m sure…

What Ails Biomedical Research in Singapore

2006-11-10T01:47:00.000+08:00

I read with interest Dr Lee Wei Ling’s Straits Times comments on “What Ails Biomedical Research in Singapore” while having coffee on a Sunday morning. I was fascinated by her consistent suggestions to research on medical areas such as hepatits B and head injuries which were “relevant to Singaporeans” and where we had a “competitive advantage”. The move to carve a niche in the bio-medical industry was clearly a well-calculated business-positioning and branding project and I was fascinated by her arguments, especially on the pitfalls of chasing the international spotlight, on how best to augment the corporate ethic in this bio-medical project.

To belabour a truism, Singapore is a developed country situated in a region that has been designated by everyone else (i.e. the UN for simplicity) as developing. This makes us visibly different and obvious. Ask any Indonesian businessperson and they’ll tell you that they knew someone who flew into Singapore for surgical procedure. If you’re lucky, they’ll tell you the last time they were here for surgery and recommend you the doctor. Foreign patients have been flocking to Singapore in the last 10-15yrs when their numbers encouraged the privatisation of hospitals like Mount Elizabeth. Happily, they liked our services and between 2004 and 2005, there was an increase in 39%. Raffles Medical Group posted an increase of S$11.4 million in profits at the end of 2005, boosted no doubt by foreign patients.

Our geo-political position qualifies us with a strategic leverage on both secondary and tertiary healthcare; the very stuff of specialist consultancy for your liver or vanity, as well as surgical work. (see Indonesian businessman). And our geographical position warrants urgent expertise in pandemic diseases, bacteria and viruses. Though there have been no confirmed reports of human-to-human transfer of the bird flu virus, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia and Indonesia have reported human fatalities. SARS was our case in point. This more than doubles the urgent need for top-notch research in infectious diseases. Add to this the prospect of another natural disaster in the region and the potential for cross-border consequences are naturally there.

It is disheartening to see that at the heart of Dr Lee’s argument, lies a cautious mindset steeped in an untenable conservatism. It was even more surprising to see her use of British medical researcher Simon Schorvon as an example of the dangers of foreign talent coming in with their own sneaky agenda. Simon Schorvon previously held medical appointments in Singapore. During his stint in Singapore, he manipulated patient records in order to conduct unauthorized research and it was said, according to Dr Lee, that he “treated Singaporeans as subjects from a Third World country”. Though his prejudice is sadly misplaced, it is not the issue and most certainly was not responsible for his manipulation and gross medical misconduct. In fact, her example does not suggest a strategic oversight in the poaching of foreign talent, but an administrative one. Simon Schorvon did what he did because he thought and was indeed able to get away with it up to a certain point, and not because he saw Singaporeans as “subjects from a Third World” and thought to himself “why the hell not.” The two are separate; one to do with vision, and the other to do with implementation and regulation. To use Simon Schorvon as reason for casting aspersions on foreign talent would also be, ironically, a foolhardy oversight.

By investing millions of dollars in bio-medical research, one is preparing the foundations for medical discoveries and innovations that will ultimately be “relevant to Singaporeans” and more. Like Dr Lee, the returns are very uncertain but its success will be directly dependant on the mindset of the medical researchers and the creative environment available. Afterall, a gamble for a prominent scholar in the ‘hard sciences’ seems to me a better bet than in political theory. One gets more money and happy people in return.

On Haze, Al Gore, and Green Cars

2006-11-08T01:20:00.000+08:00

I have been highly irritable for the past month, as the Pollution Standards Index (PSI) crept towards the unhealthy zone. “Runny nose, eye irritation, sore throat, dry cough…”, my doctor read out. And delivering the final blow, “stay indoors!”, he bellowed.

Woe, adieu to my usual outdoor activities, with all credit to the haze.

There’s indeed some truth in the so oft-heard dictum that we only treasure something when it’s gone. One can’t help but agree to the suggestion that Singaporeans have taken the clean and green environment here for granted.

It is during this time each year that we are reminded of the need to do the environmentally-friendly right stuff.

So when former US Vice President Al Gore’s award-winning documentary premiered in Singapore, I thought it was so fitting and timely to catch “An Inconvenient Truth”. Not that I was convinced by the documentary’s anti-Bush bashing (subtle or otherwise), but the ‘go green’ messages resonated well, especially as the haze reminded how the quality of my life is dependent on Mother Nature.

I read that Singapore’s level of particulate mater less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) has exceeded standards set by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The message is clear: what you can’t see doesn’t mean that it’s not there! Apparently, high levels of PM2.5 pose health risks as the particles can penetrate deep into the respiratory system. And all this is not due to the forest fires in Indonesia alone.

Instead, diesel vehicles here reportedly contribute half of the PM2.5 in the air.

Hence, the initiatives by the Singapore Government to have more ‘green’ cars are laudable. Diesel vehicles with 70% less PM2.5 are now readily available in the market. Car makers are also promoting more ‘hybrid’ cars. More people are encouraged to car pool or take public transport. And the Transport Minister, Raymond Lim recently came out to say that “my other car is a bus”.

To quote Tabitha Wang, “I’d assumed that breathing clean air was my right but I was wrong; it was a privilege”. Well, the sunshine seems to be back, let’s keep it that way…

Bumi Equity – (don’t) Show me the money!

2006-10-21T12:33:00.000+08:00

I have hesitated to comment on the recent hullabaloo over the discrepancy between the findings by ASLI and the EPU-reported figures on bumi corporate equity.

This is because my understanding of accounting issues is limited to what I have in my wallet (which unfortunately is not very much). Hence, I was very happy to come across the equivalent of a Dummies’ Guide at Screenshots which has an explanation for the difference between market and par values that anyone can understand.

This issue is clearly quite divisive. ASLI’s figures suggest that bumis own nearly half of Msian equity. If this is true, what need is there for NEP or affirmative action?

The Abdullah administration will either have to come up with a really convincing explanation (even if the EPU’s methodology was probably inherited from the previous administration), or apologize and start making some serious changes and concessions.

More importantly, however, does that mean that there are no poor Malays in Malaysia? Obviously not.

There are not only poor Malays, but also poor Chinese and poor Indians. Whether bumis own 20% of 45% of equity is not important to them (or me). Do we really care whether the towkay sitting behind the tinted windows of that S-class outside Bukit Bintang is Malay, Chinese or Indian.

What is important is that all our children have ample educational opportunities, and that each of us earns a fair living wage. Social infrastructure must also be put in place to ensure that no one goes hungry or in need of medical aid. It is critical that we bring pressure to bear on our Government to ensure that such a framework exists.

Having them be upfront about other things (like market and par values) would be a nice plus, but really, it is not that important.

WISHFUL THINKING

2006-09-28T21:15:00.000+08:00

Straits Times Interactive - Prime News
Sept 28, 2006 Thu

KL AND JAKARTA ASK FOR EXPLANATION FOR MM'S REMARKS
By Carolyn Hong, Malaysia Correspondent In Kuala Lumpur and Azhar Ghani, Indonesia Bureau Chief In Jakarta

MALAYSIAN Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has written to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew seeking an explanation for his recent comment that Malaysia and Indonesia marginalised their Chinese citizens.

Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar told The Straits Times yesterday that the letter was sent a few days ago, through the two countries' foreign ministries.

'It seeks an explanation, and pointed out that this sort of statement is not welcome. It is sensitive and dangerous. We are very unhappy,' he said.

Singapore's High Commissioner to Malaysia T. Jasudasen will be summoned today, and will meet the foreign ministry's secretary-general, he added.

In Jakarta, Singapore's Ambassador Ashok Kumar Mirpuri was asked for an explanation by the foreign ministry on Tuesday.

The foreign ministry has also instructed its embassy in Singapore to lodge a protest, said its director for East Asian and Pacific affairs, Mr Yuri Thamrin, yesterday. He said: 'The ambassador was called in to help clear the matter.

'It's an old story. We are seeking clarification from the Singaporean side and we are still waiting for it.'

An official with the Singapore Embassy in Jakarta said yesterday that the Republic would respond to Indonesia through appropriate channels in due course.

MM Lee had made the comments while answering a question at a dialogue for good governance in Singapore on Sept 15.

He said that the attitude of Indonesia and Malaysia, which 'systematically marginalised' their ethnic Chinese minorities, shaped the way they treated ties with the Republic.

He added that the two countries 'want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese - compliant'.

Over the past week, leaders in Malaysia, including the prime minister, have spoken out against the comments.

In Indonesia, the issue surfaced on Tuesday after The Jakarta Post ran a report on two legislators criticising MM Lee and demanding an apology.

The paper also noted that almost 10 years after the passage of anti-discrimination laws, there were still
reports of minorities experiencing difficulties in obtaining birth certificates, identity cards, family cards and citizenship certificates.

Yesterday, the Koran Tempo daily ran an editorial which said Indonesia had got rid of many discriminatory laws and regulations since Mr Suharto stepped down in 1998.

It cited the new citizenship law passed in July this year, which exempts Indonesian Chinese from having to produce proof of citizenship or undergo the naturalisation process if they were born to Indonesian parents.

The editorial also noted that while there are still some 60 laws and regulations that are racially biased, this did not mean that Indonesia would continue to 'systematically oppress' its Chinese citizens.

carolynh@sph.com.sg
azhar@sph.com.sg

This comes as no surprise.

My win-win scenario was that Lee would explain/apologize without being asked (wishful thinking I know) and that Malaysian government would take the opportunity to engage the population in an open, honest and fruitful debate on the issue (which is even more wishful). (Can’t comment on Jakarta’s reaction as I know precious little about the Indonesian angle).

That the Malaysian government is seeking an “explanation” only suggests that they are in denial. Politically, however, one can see how they are left with little choice, what with the ongoing rift (and hence competition for support) within UMNO.

Seah Chiang Nee provides an interesting take on Lee’s comments, suggesting that Lee wants to remind the new (Singapore) generation that being small doesn’t mean Singapore must be compliant to its bigger neighbours.

Given that the Lee’s remarks were apparently made off-the-cuff during a Q&A session, Seah may be giving Lee a little more credit than is due, but the logic is sound nonetheless. Singapore political and economic survival does require a careful balance of amity and rivalry with its neighbours.

But back in Malaysia, Lee’s remarks could be seen as:

A wake-up call which in the longer term might lead to debate and reform which ultimately brings Malaysians of all races closer (wishful thinking again); or
A “naughty” statement (as DPM Najib puts it) which is divisive, and causes (further) unhappiness amongst the minorities in Malaysia.

Lee would have his own interests and agenda with regards to what he wants to tell Singaporeans and the international community. But it is up to the Malaysian government and media to decide how his remarks are viewed, and will impact upon Malaysia.

I think it is time we all did some wishful thinking.

Lee Kuan Yew’s remarks – A painful truth?

2006-09-26T15:01:00.000+08:00

Looks like MM Lee has shot his mouth off again. Some years ago in 1997, he mentioned in an affidavit (against opposition politician Tang Liang Hong) that Johor had a high crime rate. Just recently, he was quoted at an IMF/WB sidelines forum that Malaysia and Indonesia had marginalized their Chinese populations, drawing reactions, including from PM Abdullah and DPM Najib (discussed in Jeff Ooi’s Screenshots).

Media reports suggest that Malaysia is likely to send a formal protest note, possibly seeking an apology or explanation. Should Lee apologize? An elder statesman such as he should know better. No doubt about it, Lee should apologize for making statements which are:

Undiplomatic? Perhaps.

Insensitive? Probably.

Honest? Definitely.

Let’s face it. Lee’s remarks/observations are not a secret to anyone living in this part of the world. Any honest commentator on socio-politics in Malaysia or Indonesia would have said the same. But that’s a long story for another day.

In 1997, after his Johor crime remarks were publicized, Lee made a public apology (and explaining that the remarks in the affidavit were not intended for the public).

Yet now – almost ten years later – if the reports in recent years of snatch robberies and car thefts in Johor are anything to go by, Lee’s comment “that place is notorious for shootings, muggings and carjackings” does not seem so libelous after all. To the residents and visitors of Johor, the apology is of little value.

What is important here is that we Malaysians must prove Lee is wrong this time. Apology or no apology, let’s not kid ourselves. Failure to redress our discriminatory policies will have an even greater impact on our future than the crime situation in Johor.

Global Malaysian or Ultra Malay?

2006-09-07T02:01:00.000+08:00

There have been a few interesting developments since I briefly discussed Khairy Jamaluddin’s ambitions to become PM.

First, Khairy was featured in the media, wearing an arm sling, leading a large crowd, protesting to Condi Rice on the Israeli-Lebanon conflict. This is the sign of a true politician … or politician wannabe. Broken arm or not, he would be with his people on the ground. No ivory tower career for this Oxbridge grad!

Personally, as a Chinese Malaysian, I was happy to see someone like Khairy appear on the political scene. I know that we will not see a minority-race Malaysian PM in my lifetime, and a global, intellectual and moderate Malay is just what we needed. So what if he is young? He’ll have more time to learn about his people, and about leadership.

Then it was reported that Khairy had been given a multi-million-dollar “loan” to buy stock in ECM Libra, where he is a director. So what? As long as the money did not come from tax payers dollars or corruption, he can go ahead. After all, if the stock price should fall (and it did), he would lose money.

As Jerry Seinfeld once suggested, you don’t want to get onto a plane where the pilot is making minimum wage and worrying about making ends meet. Likewise, we don’t want the people piloting your economy to be broke! The amount we pay our politicians is probably less than what the average tout-taxi driver plying the KLCC-KLIA route gets. (At RM500 a pop, it is not hard to see why).

But I digress. Back to Khairy. I am no longer a fan.

Khairy’s recent remarks have disappointed me tremendously. He is reported as saying at an UMNO Youth branch meeting (in the context of stressing the importance of party unity) that non-Malays would take advantage of a weak UMNO. MCA and Gerakan have responded, but Khairy has refused to apologise. His reason is that “we need not apologise to anyone in our struggle for our religion, race and country.”

Maybe he does not owe anyone an apology. But I think the least he could do is explain. Malaysia’s fight for independence, development and excellence is fought by all its component races and religions.

So when he refers to “our” struggle, I hope he is not only referring to Malays and Muslims. Otherwise, I would never want him to be our PM.

It is a good thing he is so young … he still has a lot to learn.

Singapore's Pro-Immigration Policy - We have to reach outward to build within

2006-09-02T15:33:00.000+08:00

Here's my 2-cents worth on PM Lee's National Day Rally speech about the importance of a pro-immigration policy to boost the talent pool here.

Well, the Government's valid point of view is to augment our country's competitiveness especially when we need to stay relevant to the burgeoning economies in China and India and to stay ahead of fast-growing competitors in our neighbourhood. What is critical in this push to attract foreigners to take up Singapore citizenship is that these immigrants will "top up" the talent pool here.

PM Lee mentioned Mustafa's Mr Mustaq Ahmad in his rally speech. Surely, more Mustafa shopping centres in Singapore will be nice. =)

The net gain of increasing the foreign talent pool to the well-being of our economy is said to be beneficial. (Top economists In the US have contended that immigration has been a net gain for American citizens. See the Independent Institutean "Open Letter on Immigration" signed by top economists and addressed to George Bush and members of Congress)

At the end of the day, the Government's intention is benign - It’s about making sure Singapore grows bigger, be it in terms of population or economic size. (see Kway Teow Man's thoughtful discussion at Singapore Angle)

Yet, whether it's packaged as 'pro-immigration', 'attracting foreign talents', or 'immigrants - not enough', any suggestion that Singapore needs to be more open to immigration have drawn and will continue to attract much flak.

The concern here appears to be simple and clear - attracting more foreigners will have serious implications on one's rice-bowl (livelihood), thus increasing the fear of retrenchment. To quote a concerned Singaporean who expressed his views on ST Forum, "the lesson to be learnt here is that Singaporeans have to compete with foreign talents in their quest for a job and the competition will intensify with more foreign talents". (ST Forum Online 29 Aug 2006) The opposition political party National Solidarity Party (NSP) has also jumped into the fray and argued for strict quotas on the number of talented foreign professionals allowed into Singapore. (See NSP press release on 22 Aug 2006)

Certainly, the concerns are not unique to Singaporeans. Around the world, immigration has become a hot political potato for politicians and voters in oft-said advanced democracies. In the US, critics are arguing for stricter immigration regulations to curb the rising influx of illegal immigrants. In Germany, millions of Turks continued to be called 'Gastarbeiters' or 'guest workers' without citizenship, despite many of them were born and bred in Germany. In the UK, public fears of migration are putting pressure on the government to impose control amid revelation that almost 600,000 Eastern Europeans have moved to the country to look for work. Furthermore, British authorities are realising the pitfalls of immigration laxity and are taking action against preachers of religious hatred who have not only fail to integrate into the local community, but have made use of years of lenient immigration and asylum policies to advocate racial-religious strife and violence against the nation-state.

Here's how I see it - the problem do not just boil down to jobs / bread-and-butter issues. There are serious nation-building considerations to be mindful of.

On one level, while Singapore celebrates ethnic and cultural diversity, the task of helping 'new citizens' integrate into the local community is an arduous challenge.

I stand corrected that no quantifier can accurately measure something as abstract as assimilation and patriotism. As top civil servant Chiang Chie Foo puts it, "there isn't a programme where you go through and you become transformed and integrated". For sure, how the 'new citizens' perceive events in their 'motherland' would have considerable implications for their successful assimilation into Singapore's local community.

On another level, anti-immigration views expressing the insecurities of the people cannot be ignored but has to be carefully managed. Xenophobia directed at foreigners or (in general) at people different from one’s self, can result in political campaigns for cultural purification and worse, aggression against the aliens (both 'new citizens' or otherwise).

Around the world, the anti-immigrant populist message of far right political parties continue to find resonance among the electorate, notwithstanding that it's more than half a century since the fascists inflicted much bloodshed with their murderous deeds during WWII.

Here in Singapore, we can ill-afford to have the Jean-Marie Le Pens and Pauline Hansons to tear the social fabric of our society that we have painstakingly nurtured over the 40 odd years of nationhood.

Undoubtedly, it takes more than a stroke of luck for the pro-immigration policy to work. Instead, the cohesion of our nation is a deliberate man-made endeavour. I understand that there are existing organisations such as the Hua Yuan Association which was set up to help new immigrants from China, to adapt to the nuances of local community.

Yet, while we demand new immigrants to blend in with society, Singaporeans have to also adopt an open heart to accept these new immigrants. The importance of grassroots activities cannot be overstated.

Indeed, while we reach outward to attract more 'new citizens', it must be noted that the task of 'building within' is an important ongoing challenge.

It’s my party and I’ll keep it dry if I want to …

2006-08-16T19:34:00.000+08:00

"Dissent off the agenda in Singapore" in Singabloodypore...

16,000 delegates from 184 countries will converge on Singapore to attend the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings next month. Held outside Washington once every 3 years, the meetings are usually held against the background of noisy (sometimes violent) protests and street demonstrations.

Singapore authorities, however, have indicated that they would not brook such actions. In February, the Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng warned that public protest may attract severe punishment, including caning and imprisonment. In March, a group of civil society activists wrote to PM Lee Hsien Loong to ask the government to permit the "traditional" protests. (Apparently, they have yet to receive a reply). On the other hand, Peter Stephens of the World Bank (Singapore office?) has assured activists that it is working with the IMF and the Singapore government "to ensure that civil society voices are very much heard."

In July, the Straits Times reported that accredited activists would be permitted to express their views in a special area within the convention centre, and must abide by police regulations which include bans on wooden/metal poles to hold up placards.

Not much of a party there.

Have you ever thrown a party? The kind where people dance, drink alcohol, and sometimes mess up the bathroom? It can be argued that if you did not wish to have let people have drink and have fun, you have no business hosting a party in the first place.

I'm sure the Singapore government must have had *some* idea of what happens at IMF/WB meetings. Then why offer to host it? Against the glitz and glamour, publicity, tourism dollars, and golden opportunity to position Singapore as the premier MICE destination of Asia, the cost of security measures and rubbing some civil society groups (who already do not like them) is probably a very small price for the Singapore government to pay.

But the question is: does Singapore have any business throwing this IMF/WB party if it is going to insist on such stringent rules? Invite your friends and tell them to check in the beer at the door?

This is subjective, but it can also be said that it is the responsibility of the host to look after his guests' protection in addition to their palates. If someone in the party is getting rowdy, you need to calm him down and make sure he does not hurt anyone else (and your belongings!). If you *know* someone has a tendency to become rowdy, it is probably a better idea not to invite him in the first place.

In this context, perhaps, Singapore’s rules for the IMF/WB meetings make sense.

It should be noted that the IMF/WB organizers -- who must likewise also have been aware of Singapore authorities' tolerance for protests, demonstrations, strikes, and illegal (and other non-productive) gatherings, or lack thereof - had given their blessings. Perhaps they too harbor a secret desire to meet and for once not have beer bottles thrown at them?

LTTE Crises

2006-08-16T16:15:00.000+08:00

For many and for some, the revival of the conflict in Sri Lanaka harks a sad but unsurprising moment for those familiar with ideas of how nation-states are formed. For others who have travelled to Sri Lanka, the names of towns like Trincomalee, Jaffna and Kilinochi must resonate somewhat all too familiar.

In the period after the 2002 Norweigian-brokered ceasefire agreement between the Sri Lanaka government and the LTTE rebels, I travelled to Sri Lanka. Motivated by stories of unspoilt beachs and Kandyan kings, and a school-boy curiosity in seeing the effects of a country plagued by civil war, the 'pearl of the Indian Ocean' was undeniably in gestation.

During a bus journey to the histroical town of Polonnarumwa, and in-between qeustions of whether I was was a journalist (apparently being one gets you everywhere), I was asked by a school teacher if there would be peace in Sri Lanka. He begged to differ with my answer and said with a smile, "Do you believe me, the LTTE are preparing for another war". One would have thought that the interim ceasefire in 2002 could have provided political space for Sri Lanka to negotiate the incommensurability of the Sinhalese and Tamil national projects. With the recent revival of Sri Lanka's war, I was sadly reminded of what the school teacher said. It seemed that the only space opened up was a military one to re-arm, re-supply, and re-consolidate.

One reason why the Sri Lankan conflict has dragged on for so long is that ethnic nationalism has become so embedded in the political thinking of the Sinhalese-majority and the Tamil-minority that their claims to statehood and nation-building cannot move beyond categories of ethnicity. To some extent, racialisation of politics in Sri Lanka was an inheritance of the governing institutions and mechanisms laid down by her British colonial masters since the mid-1700s. The British, and not the Dutch, were afterall the last arbitars of Sri Lanka's colonial heritage. In their efforts to devolve governance, the British were also mindful of the necessity to protect the interests of the minority Tamils for fear of violence in her colonies. India, at that time, was also undergoing her own transformation led by Ghandi. Many commentators have observed that, not surprisingly, these conditions further reinforced whatever perceived notions the Sinhalese had of the Tamils as the "favoured group of the colonial masters".

As a consequence, ethnicity became and has become the only framework in the process of Sri Lankan nation-building. And in this framework, all other factors crucial to nation-building had to fit in. One such factor is how nation-building processes demarcate boundaries within and between its people. How should the line be drawn for Tamils living in Sinhalese regions and vice versa? When the pieces don't fit, the nation-building process becomes increasingly convoluted for both the Sinhalese and the Tamil national projects. In Mar 2004, led by Colonel Karuna, commander of the LTTE's Eastern province, the LTTE factionalised in front of the world. Why? According to Colonel Karuna, the LTTE cadres living in the East had been neglected, and significantly, there were no LTTE cadres from the East who could count among the ranks of the main LTTE leadership. Colonel Karuna evidently believed that the main LTTE Tamil leadership was neglecting the LTTE Tamils in the East. How should the line be dranw for Tamils living in the East and Tamils living in the North? According to media reports in Jul 2006, Colonel Karuna has formed his own group called the "Tamil Freedom Panthers" and he is very much a part of the current conflict.

In her book "On Violence", political philosopher Hannah Arendt (1969) observed that power and violence were two qualitatively distinct entities. She pointed out that it was not violence, but power that formed the essence of governments. Violence can destroy the old power, she said, but it can never create the authority to legitimate the new. In a sense, the LTTE movement is not so much a violence to legitimate the new, as it is a violence to 'restore' Tamil rights and institutions, something not so new. The very same rights and institutions which were there from the time of the British, and also the very same rights and institutions which were contested and fought over with the Sinhalese since the time of the Indian epic the Ramayana, which tells the story of the conquest of Lanka in 3000BC by Rama, an incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu. Let us hope that the Sri Lankan government's willingness to resume peace negotiations resume hold of the tiger's gaze.

Straits Times Interactive - Asia

Aug 14, 2006 Mon

JAFFNA CUT OFF AS HEAVY FIGHTING RAGES

COLOMBO - SRI Lanka's northern Jaffna peninsula has been cut off from the rest of the island as hundreds of residents try to flee heavy fighting in the area, military officials have said.

A senior Tamil Tiger rebel official denied government claims that the rebels had offered to renew peace talks, saying negotiations were impossible amid increased military attacks and the most intense fighting in four years.

Fighting that started on Friday and continued over the weekend has cut off the main road connecting government-held regions of the peninsula with the mainland.

The Defence Ministry said 36 troops and 150 Tamil rebels have been killed in the fighting on the peninsula and near Jaffna city, which the rebels controlled as their capital from 1990 to 1995.

The main airfield of Palaly has also been shut down, with private airlines ordered to halt flights there after the area took several artillery hits on Friday.

'There is a daytime curfew in Jaffna in addition to the night curfew in the high-security zones,'' a military official said. 'But we have reports of civilians moving out of their homes and taking shelter in public buildings.''

The bulk of supplies and troops to Jaffna are sent by sea from the north-east port of Trincomalee, which also came under artillery attacks.

'The army pulled back from some of the defensive positions because of heavy artillery attacks,'' a military source said. 'Troops are now in the process of re-establishing the bunkers they lost on Friday.'

The pro-rebel Tamilnet.com website said the guerillas had breached military defences in the Muhamalai area at the southern entrance to the government-held area of Jaffna.

The Tigers said they launched the latest attacks in defence against a government military onslaught. The Defence Ministry, however, denied the charge and blamed the rebels for initiating the latest fighting.

The upsurge in violence came amid reports of an offer of talks by Tamil Tiger rebels. The government said it received a message from the Tigers through ceasefire monitors on Friday, hours before fighting erupted on the Jaffna peninsula.

But Seevarathnam Puleedevan, a senior rebel official has denied making any peace overtures. He demanded the government stop their military offensives to allow some 50,000 displaced people to return home before considering a return to peace talks.

Justice is Very Much Alive in Singapore – The Case of M. Ravi Versus Justice Woo

2006-08-10T02:13:00.000+08:00

Not so much a ‘Hallelujah’ but a big ‘Huh?’ was my first reaction to Justice Woo Bih Li’s eyebrow-raising act of disqualifying himself from presiding over defamation suits against Opposition politicians, Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin, who are represented by counsel, M. Ravi.

This must be the first time that a judge in Singapore disqualified himself from a case, moreover one with such political undertones. (Refer to Vignes Mourthi case in 2003 for background to Ravi’s claims of bias). It is usually the case that the application for the judge to be disqualified is based on bias against the litigant, not the solicitor. Justice Woo’s move thus comes as a surprise.

Ravi’s allegation of perceived bias is, in my opinion, a mere sideshow to a more fundamental concern. What is underlying the legal case is a far more disconcerting question of whether the Singapore Judiciary is at all independent.

For sure, the Judiciary in Singapore is not without its critics.

Asia Forum for Human Rights and Democracy, for one, censures the “use of the Judiciary by the government to repeatedly constrict opposition politicians by imposing heavy fines and jail terms”. (See Asia Forum for Human Rights and Development, “A Shadow on Singapore’s Judiciary: Use of Defamation and Contempt of Court on Government Critics”) Former Opposition politician, Francis Seow has also made condemning remarks about the ‘politics of judicial institutions’ in Singapore. (See article, “The Politics of Judicial Institutions in Singapore”) The US State Department had in Mar 2006 questioned the independence of the Judiciary in defamation cases targeting opposition leaders. In Jun 2006, the Singapore courts came under scrutiny in a case in Canada (EnerNorth Industries asked the Ontario Court of Appeal if legal decisions made in Singapore are fair and impartial enough to meet Canadian standards of justice; the appeals court reserved judgement after hearing the case.) In its Jul/Aug 2006 publication, FEER carried a write-up “Singapore’s Martyr, Chee Soon Juan”. FEER alleges that “Singaporean officials have a remarkable record of success in winning libel suits against their critics”. It questions, “How many other libel suits have Singapore’s great and good wrongly won, resulting in the cover-up of real misdeeds?”

Despite the criticisms, Singapore has, for long, pride itself on having an independent and impartial Judiciary. The Chief Justice and other judges of the High Court are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. They are appointed for life and transcend the political fortunes of the government-of-the-day.

I do not doubt that justice is very much alive in Singapore. One recent case best exemplifies this – Opposition politician James Gomez was hauled up by the police after his election form fiasco in May 2006 and the buzz was that the ruling government would once again employ scare tactics against the Opposition and Gomez would be charged in court. This would have happened if the Judiciary was under the direct control of the executive.

However, as it turned out, Gomez was only rapped with a “stern warning” for using “threatening words” against a civil servant and allowed to return to work in Sweden. One may quibble over whether Gomez was liable of wrongdoing. But I am certain that the decision was the right one, in view of evidence in the case and taking into consideration mitigating factors. Justice is certainly not blind to anyone who is deemed to be an adversary of the incumbent government. As the declaration in the Magna Carta dictates, “to no one will we refuse or delay right or justice”.

My understanding is that the Judiciary is an important bulwark of democracy and bastion of civil liberties. It checks and balances other pillars of state power, namely executive and legislature (trias politica or separation of powers as coined by Montesquieu). But in order for the Judiciary to perform its role as the protector of the people against any abuse of state powers, judges must conduct themselves and be seen to conduct themselves to deserve the trust of the people.

The personal backgrounds, opinions and attitudes of judges will increasingly come under public scrutiny even as people’s understanding of the judges’ role does not correspondingly increase. All this makes it more likely for people to believe that judges are not as impartial as they are supposed to be, especially when it comes to decisions on controversial issues. One way to remove this misperception is for judges to explain their decisions.

Indeed, Justice Woo’s act in the interests of justice is, without doubt, laudable. He had come forth to explain his decision regarding Ravi’s claims of bias - he had performed the necessary to assure Ravi that he would not be biased against the lawyer but also accepted that the public’s perception had to be taken into consideration. Such transparency can only bolster the impartiality of the judicial system in Singapore.

At the end of the day, ‘justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done’.

Light at the End of the Tunnel

2006-08-09T21:23:00.000+08:00

It looks at there will be some light at the end of the tunnel (or along in pathway in this instance) for Potong Pasir residents after all. MP Chiam See Tong is now trying to build a lighted covered walkway.

This comes after some weeks of darkness, and a few days during which the spotlight (metaphorically speaking) was put on Chiam and defeated PAP candidate Sitoh Yih Pin as to who would fix the lights which the latter had installed.

Sitoh had leased the land from LTA in early 2005 to set up the 8 solar-powered lights costing $20,000. Recently, six lights had been vandalized and the fixing them would cost about $5,000 according to Sitoh. Sitoh put the onus of providing amenities on the elected town council (headed by Chiam) while Chiam noted that the lights were Sitoh’s baby, and it was illegal for the town council to fix the lights as it (the leased land) was not under his control.

Now that elections are over, Potong Pasir residents no longer have $2 abalone porridge and extra meet-the-people (with a PAP representative no less!). However, they should be grateful to Sitoh – and not just for the abalone porridge consumed previously – for several months of free lighting, and more importantly, for keeping Chiam on his feet and paying attention to his constituents.

Sitoh never had any obligations to the people of Potong Pasir and has no obligation now. Call him a sore loser, but it was and continues to be Chiam’s job to ensure that Potong Pasir residents have the amenities they need. As the MP for over two decades, Chiam should be aware of his residents’ needs, and proactive in trying to meet them. He is now trying to build a covered walkway. Would this have happened if Sitoh had not put up the lights in this first place?

Conversely, it must be said that the same argument should also apply in the PAP wards. In this regard, I wonder if $2 abalone porridge will be on the menu for Aljunied’s residents soon.

----

Straits Times Interactive – Singapore

AUG 8, 2006 TUE
DAMAGED LIGHTS IN POTONG PASIR - CHIAM SEEKS TO BUILD NEW WALKWAY WITH LIGHTS

SOLUTION UNCOVERED?: The question of who should repair the damaged lights will become redundant if the town council gets approval to build a covered walkway, said Mr Chiam

THE saga of who is to repair some damaged solar lights along a pathway in Potong Pasir constituency took a new turn last night.

Its MP, Mr Chiam See Tong, is now seeking to build a covered walkway with lights for residents walking home from the Potong Pasir MRT station.

He told The Straits Times that he applied to the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) last week for permission to build the linkway to connect the MRT station to the town centre in Potong Pasir Avenue 2.

This new development follows a dispute between Mr Chiam and the People's Action Party candidate, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, who lost the contest for the ward in the May General Election.

Earlier, before the election, Mr Sitoh had installed eight solar lights along a concrete pathway from the MRT station to Block 147, Potong Pasir Avenue 1. He had obtained the lease of the land from the SLA.

Six lights were vandalised. Mr Sitoh declined to repair them, saying the land's lease would run out on Oct 31. Mr Chiam, on the other hand, said it was illegal for his town council to use its funds for the repairs because the land in question was not under the council's jurisdiction.

He said in an e-mail last night: 'In the case of building a covered linkway, we shall have to apply for permission before we can...construct a facility. We are now applying to the SLA to do that.'

His town council will also apply to use its sinking funds to pay for the covered walkway, he said. Mr Chiam also rebutted a comment made over the weekend by Mr Lim Boon Heng, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office. Mr Lim had said that as MP for Potong Pasir, Mr Chiam was responsible for repairing the lights.

Said Mr Chiam: 'Mr Lim Boon Heng should know that permission was granted to Mr Sitoh to build the solar lamps. Therefore, it is his duty to repair the lamps.'' He added the issue would become redundant if the town council was allowed to construct the covered walkway.

Israel-Lebanon Crisis – Is there justice in war?

2006-08-04T00:04:00.000+08:00

'War is the continuation of policy by other means' – Carl von Clausewitz

What autrocity. That was the first thought that flashed through my mind as I read, with distress, news of an Israeli attack in the Lebanese village of Qana that killed over 50 people and more than half of them were children.

I was left thinking... What plausible reason can justify the shelling of residential buildings in Qana? Does not international law and conventions attempt to protect the innocent young lives that were cruelly cut short in the Qana attack?

For sure, war is a brutal enterprise that has remained central to human society, for all its humanity. Is war not a barbaric slaughter, an act of violence (to quote von Clausewitz) intended to compel the enemy to fulfill one’s will? Or can war be fair, sensible and rational? Is war just? Is Israel waging a just war?

‘Just war’ tradition has a long distinguished pedigree, including the likes of St. Augustine, Cicero, Hugo Grotius… (Refer to bbc’s discussion on the ethics of war) There are three key considerations in a ‘just war’: jus ad bellum – the justice of resorting to war in the first place; jus in bello – the justice of conduct within war; and jus post bellum – the justice of peace agreements and termination phase of war. (Refer to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I do not doubt that the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Hizbollah or by Palestinian militants is an act of aggression against the Israeli society. It necessitates an act of self defence. International law indeed guarantees the right of political sovereignty and territorial integrity. An aggression that violates this right permits a violent resistance from the Israeli forces.

The question, however, is whether Israel’s conduct is ‘right’ (‘just’) in the midst of battle when it has responded to the kidnappings with much ferocity. Clearly, what has become a point of contention are the attacks on civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, whether accidental or intended. The Beirut airport was closed by Israeli attacks, and similarly bridges, roads, power stations and ports are shut down under Israeli firepower. Some 400 people, including civilians, have been killed in Lebanon and the death toll is expected to rise.

What’s for sure, the easy criticism is to say what cannot rightly be done – i.e., direct attacks against civilian targets. However, it can be expected that the Israeli forces will over time exhaust the set of targets in Lebanon that are clearly linked to Hizbollah. This is especially so when Hizbollah elements hide amongst civilian populace in Lebanon. One fears that Israel may well fall prey to ‘agitprop’ methods employed by Hizbollah and overreact with excessive force. This may lead to the portrayal of the Israeli-Lebanon conflict as a “Zionist-crusader conspiracy” and fuel further escalation of the conflict, especially when each attack generates a collateral damage in civilian deaths.

Well, the challenge therefore is how then Israel can conduct its offensive against Hizbollah without further escalating the conflict. My take is that Israel may want to consider making the ‘prevention of war’ rather than ‘winning the war’ its defence doctrine. Surely, fire-power alone does not guarantee lasting peace in the long term. It is important to note that dislodging Hizbollah from its stronghold in southern Lebanon does not annihilate the threat of terrorism posed by Hizbollah (or other like-minded groups) to Israel and Israeli interests. Surely, there are other Hizbollah elements that will emerge elsewhere like a hydra-headed monster. Paul Rogers’ “Lebanon: the world’s choice” argues how the first two weeks of August will be decisive in determining whether Lebanon war escalates further or can be contained. A cease-fire is necessary and perhaps also the involvement of international peacekeepers. But the role of international community to affirm strongly the importance of peaceful solutions cannot be understated.

Looking for the Next Better Player

2006-07-27T08:54:00.000+08:00

The ongoing rift between Tun Mahathir and PM Abdullah has all the ingredients needed to keep conspiracy theorists awake a little longer each night. Aside from the two key actors, we have three PMs-in-waiting (Najib, Anwar and Khairy), and four Malaysian corporations (Proton, Petronas, MAS and Gerbang Perdana) against a backdrop of issues ranging from approved permits, sale of MV Augusta, the (non) bridge and sale of sand to Singapore.

The cover story is that Mahathir and Abdullah have differing visions for Malaysia. Looking into the past, many observers uncover clues as so why this rift was inevitable -- different approach to fiscal policies, different groups of loyalists within UMNO. The less polite would simply point out that Mahathir was unhappy that Abdullah's failure to continue with the mega projects meant that Mahathir's biggest fans would suffer financially.

I think we should look forward instead. This is the window during which the future premier of Malaysia will be decided. Until recently, Najib was the heir apparent. Anwar was out of jail, but also mostly out of town. Khairy -- for all his apparent intellect and oratorical skills -- is still way too young.

The traditional view was that Najib belonged to Mahathir's camp. (Actually, the traditional view was that Mahathir and Abdullah were in the same camp ... but look how things have changed). Now Najib -- and the rest of the Cabinet and anyone else who matters -- has to take sides. Najib, albeit not vigorously, has publicly sided with Abdullah. Not surprising since there is very little that Mahathir can do for him now.

Anwar has apparently been back in town and taking pot shots at both sides, so much the better to bolster his image of being independent and uncorrupted. There was little doubt that he had enough charm left in him to make a re-entry into UMNO when he wanted -- Opposition politics is never an option if you want to be PM -- but the ongoing exercise in (re-) alignment of loyalties by UMNO members might provide an even more promising context for Anwar.

Khairy may stand a chance of being PM if Abdullah were to serve two terms; he would still be rather young, being slightly south of 40, but it is not unthinkable if his stars are in alignment. However, Abdullah may not serve out two full terms. If media appearances are anything to go by, he seems rather unenergetic since the death of his wife, Endon. It might well be that his response of ""elegant silence"" to Mahathir's remarks reflect a lack of fight rather than strategic spin control. If this is so, Khairy will need to build an alliance with either Anwar or Najib if he harbours the big office in Putrajaya someday.

Straits Times
July 22, 2006 Sat
WILL MAHATHIR RETURN TO MORE GOVT BASHING AFTER HOLIDAY?
Big welcome expected at airport; ex-PM to give public talk in opposition-held Kelantan next Friday

KUALA LUMPUR - AFTER a three-week vacation, Tun Dr
Mahathir Mohamad will return home this morning amid
widespread expectations that he will pick up from where
he left off in attacking the Abdullah administration.

The 80-year-old former prime minister is slated to give
a public talk in Kelantan next Friday in a move that
will set tongues wagging because he is following in the
footsteps of rebel politicians who head to the east
coast state to gain support.

Kelantan is the only Malaysian state that is ruled by
the opposition and is often used as a test bed when
trying to gain the hearts and minds of Malays in times
of political trouble.

In 1998, after then Prime Minister Mahathir sacked his
then deputy, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the latter went
to Kelantan. There, he received an indication of the
popularity of his cause when more than 30,000 people
listened to his speech at the Kota Baru stadium and
shouts of 'reformasi' were heard.

'Kelantan is where Umno is weakest and the Malays are
more willing to hear alternative views. The culture of
rebellion is strong,' said a leader of Parti Islam
SeMalaysia (PAS), which rules the state.

The return of Tun Dr Mahathir today is expected to bring
on a show of force by his supporters.

A group calling itself Gen M, or Generasi Mahathir, is
organising the homecoming via SMS and e-mail. It said it
expects between 300 and 500 people to be at the airport
in Subang.

Some expect even more people to turn up.
'I heard a lot of Umno guys are going on their own as
obviously this is not sanctioned by the party,' said an
Umno Youth official.

A rough indicator of how hot the issue has become is
this: A Gen M leader said its website, which advertised
free 'I support Dr M' T-shirts, has received 9,000
requests. It has sent out 300 T-shirts and will give out
another 300 today.

Holding welcome ceremonies at airports is a long-held
Umno tradition for top leaders who return from abroad.
In times of crisis, these are often turned into a show
of force.

Supporters of Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi turned out
in force when he returned from Australia last Saturday.
More than 2,000 thronged the Subang air force base in
Selangor with banners and buntings showing they were
behind him.

Many will therefore be watching how big a crowd will
gather for Tun Dr Mahathir's return today.

But more than this, his plan to speak in Kelantan is
worrying Umno leaders as it could expand his views of
current issues outside Kuala Lumpur and its suburbs.
Besides the public talk at a hall that can hold 700
people organised by a group of Umno veterans, several
hundred people are said to have been invited to attend a
dinner that same night.

Tun Dr Mahathir has claimed the mainstream media was
selective in giving him coverage or had portrayed him as
an angry old man when it did report on him.

So, the Kelantan visit makes sense as he wants people
there to be able to listen directly to his views.

Helping him circumvent the mainstream media are several
bloggers, who have been at the forefront of giving his
views maximum publicity.

Additionally, VCDs of his talk at a private club in
Selangor last month have started appearing. The two-set
VCDs do not have a broadcast permit, usually found on
political speeches given by opposition leaders.

'The talk gave interesting insights into what the media
left out,' said one Madam Nor, who bought the RM10
(S$4.30) VCD titled Krisis at a stall outside a mosque
in Kuala Lumpur last week.

Such views worry the government. Especially since there
is talk that if the Kelantan visit goes down well, more
Mahathir road shows may be held in other states.

reme.ahmad@gmail.com

More good money chasing bad?

2006-05-24T10:36:00.000+08:00

New NKF seeks over S$12m in damages from Durai, four others
By Rita Zahara, Channel NewsAsia
Posted: 22 May 2006 1659 hrs

SINGAPORE : The new National Kidney Foundation (NKF) management is seeking more than S$12 million in damages in a civil suit against its former chief, three former directors, and a business associate.

Lawyers explain that several unquantifiable claims, upon assessment before the courts, could tip the scales beyond S$12 million.

All the claims were detailed in an 85-page statement to the High Court on April 24, and NKF lawyers Allen & Gledhill say unquantifiable ones make up a substantial portion of it.

The new NKF claims it suffered losses not only through improper payments, but also in its credibility, resulting in a drop in donations and support from volunteers and agencies.

The charity alleges that the loss of its reputation and goodwill in the eyes of the public has resulted in a drop in donations from existing donors as well as those who had cancelled regular donations.

Projects such as the charity shows were also affected and there has been a drop in the number of volunteers and support from medical, government agencies and corporations, both within Singapore and abroad.

It was therefore seeking compensation for breach of duty from the five defendants, TT Durai, Richard Yong, Matilda Chua, Loo Say San, and Pharis Aboobacker.

Said defence lawyer K Shanmugam, "Part of it is quantified; part of it is unquantified. Some parts of it, NKF has put a dollar claim -- what is the claim amount -- and some part of it is a matter for the court to make an assessment after hearing evidence as to how much is the damages."

The quantifiable claims alone amount to:
- S$2.1 million in salaries, bonuses and other benefits "improperly" paid to Durai;
- S$4.08 million for loss of donations in the form of Lifedrops income;
- Over S$556,000 in legal costs incurred when Durai and the old NKF brought a defamation suit against Singapore Press Holdings;
- And S$5.28 million paid to three companies linked to Pharis Aboobacker.

Mr Pharis, a friend of Durai, is in India where relevant authorities are in the process of serving him the writ of summons.

He is the last of the five defendants to be informed that he is being sued by the new NKF.

Durai has been given additional two weeks, till May 31, to file his defence.

Richard Yong and Loo Say San filed their defence last Friday while Matilda Chua filed hers late Monday.

Failure to file by the stipulated time would allow lawyers for the new NKF to apply for judgment against the relevant defendants.

Channel NewsAsia understands the trial is expected to begin in six to nine months.

Meantime, the criminal cases against Durai, Yong, Chua, Loo, and former NKF staff Ragini Vijayalingam will be mentioned again on June 19 at the Subordinate Courts.

At the pre-trial conference on Monday, the defence asked the prosecution for more documents pertaining to the charges.

The New NKF is suing Durai and the old NKF team for over $12 million. This includes:
(a) $2.1 mil in salaries/bonuses/benefits
(b) $4.08 mil for loss of donations
(c) $556k in legal costs incurred when Durai tried to sue SPH; and
(d) $5.28 mil paid to companies owned by Pharis Aroobacker, a friend of Durai who is in India.

I have no sympathy for anyone who would fly 1st class (even at biz class prices) or install gold taps using money from primary school kids hawking donation cards who thought that their endeavours were meant to help kidney patients.

Still, I'd doubt it is possible (or even logical) to sue for donations lost because of the scandal, which I'm sure Durai really, really didn't want either! Salaries and benefits? Well, unless he took the money via illegal means, how can you justify asking for money back from an employee? Football players don't return salaries paid out earlier just cos they don't score. At worse, they lose any extra monies that are forthcoming. Even seeking the $556k in legal costs may be tough. Durai would probably argue that the costs were incurred in trying to defend the (old) NKF's reputation. And indeed it was. It just didn't work out the way Durai had hoped!

The most convincing portion of the claim is probably the $5+ million paid to Durai's pal. If it can be proven that the goods and services were not delivered, one can make a case for the $$$ to be returned. However, this Aroobacker is in India, and short of him writing the new NKF's lawyers a cheque, I wonder if anything can be done to get the money back even if our courts agree that he should.

So is this a case of more good money chasing bad? Perhaps not.

Perhaps the strategy is go for the sky, and this might motivate Durai to return some of the money. (I understand from my lawyer/police friends that this is a common approach). Perhaps the new NKF's lawyers are working pro-bono (or will only claim fees if the claims are actually paid). Or perhaps it is just part of the continuing exercise to appease (ex?) NKF donors who feel they have yet to extract their pound of flesh unless Durai and co are either bankrupted or imprisoned.

Let the chase begin (again).

Is the vote secret?

2006-05-22T21:55:00.000+08:00

Siew Kum Hong's article in Today "Voting must be seen to be secret" appears to suggest that while votes are secret, serialised ballot slips, recording of serial numbers and allocated voting lanes (perhaps in tandem?) create the impression that they are not secret. And this fear had in the past caused his civil servant friend to vote against her conscience (presumably this means for the PAP).

Is the vote secret? There are two ways to look at it.

First, I think it is safe to assume that your INDIVIDUAL vote is secret. Your ballot slip (with serial numbers) get put in a box together with (probably) hundreds others. The boxes are unsealed and counted on polling night, with agents from both parties present. Theoretically, there's a tiny window of opportunity for someone present who knows your serial number to look out for your number, but this is not realistic. Now, after the results are out, the ballots get sealed in the boxes again and put with the Courts for 6 months, after which they are incinerated. So in these 6 months, someone could conceivably take out the boxes and sift out your ballot slip (assuming again he knows your serial number, which I believe most voters themselves would not remember unless they were planning to buy 4D). For this to happen, however, we would also need some level of corruption in the system (may be a low-level guard to take the box out; or at a higher level, some court/government official to authorize access to the boxes. It just seems like too much trouble in any case. If I wanted to know how person A voted, I could ask his friends, his family (or even person A himself) and probably get a pretty clear idea.

However, it is well known that politicians know how specific precincts or smaller parts of estates (possibly a block?) have voted, since each group is allocated a voting lane (and hence their votes go into the same box). So conceivably, an observant counting agent could tell what percentage of Blk 123X voted. So, your COLLECTIVE vote is not secret.

So why not get rid of serial numbers and voting lanes and make voting more fuss (and fear) free for all? The simple answer is that it is not in the interests of the ruling party. Why? Amongst the voters would be some who (a) would vote for the Opposition but are fearful that their vote may be found out and it would impact their job, HDB application etc; and (b) some who would vote PAP but want to make a statement against this not-so-seemingly-secret voting process. Everyone else -- lets call them group (c) -- is indifferent to the voting procedure, as long as the number in group (a) outnumbers those in group (b), it is in the interests of the PAP to maintain the status quo. Doing anything else simply benefits the Opposition.

Unfair? Probably. But why would they want to do otherwise? Hence, it fell to Opposition figure such as Low Thai Khiang to use their air time assure everyone that their vote was secret (or secret enough, anyway).

The Da Vinci Fallout – Much ado about nothing?

2006-05-22T21:08:00.000+08:00

Christians should be infuriated after watching the movie, the Da Vinci Code. That’s what a forumer so strongly urged. Because it’s about all lies and it’s “insulting to Christianity”.

Well, the highly controversial movie opened in Singapore against a backdrop of protests. The Catholic Church has written a strongly worded letter to the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) about the film ban. The National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS), which represents the Protestant denominations, has also requested MICA to ban the film. Despite these attempts, the authorities in Singapore decided that it’s okay to pass the unedited version of the movie but restrict its audience to those at least 16 years in age.

It’s clear that Dan Brown’s novel contained historical fallacies and should be read as an intriguing fiction. Everyone loves a piece of conspiracy theory, don’t you?

So what’s all the fuss about? Especially when the movie falls short of the hype it had generated in my opinion.

Rather, Da Vinci Code brings to mind religious sensitivities that have to be handled with much care.

I generally agree with the Media Development Authority (MDA)’s explanation that the film “can be shown but at a higher rating as only a mature audience will be able to discern and differentiate between fact and fiction”. Note, the key word here is ‘discern’.

What is especially worrying however are the callous references made by forumers and bloggers that should such insults be made to other religions, the response of the believers would not be just “talking”. We have some forumers referring to the “Salman Rushdie” t(h)reatment and the burning of flags. Hey, the ensuing verbal dog-fights and inflammatory expletives against another religious faith could very well undermine the harmony of our society.

The Da Vinci saga is worrying because inflammatory postings on the Net can be the beginning of worse things to come. We may well be riding the slippery slope towards religious tension and conflict.

IMHO, we should have a low tolerance threshold for religious bigots. Equally important is maintaining a certain decorum in our postings and replies in cyberspace and steer clear of callous remarks that ridicules another’s sacred beliefs.

Update

Da Vinci Coded at Tomorrow

The Bilahari Email

2006-05-17T20:04:00.000+08:00

I think the exchange between Gayle Goh and MFA Perm Sec Bilahari Kausikan will mark an important juncture in how the government engages the public, and young Singaporeans in particular. More important than the issues raised (which -- at the risk oversimplification -- boils down to whether Singapore should take a nicer and less selfish approach in its foreign policy) is the fact that a senior government officer is willing and able to have a candid exchange with a JC student, and to have these views published for public scrutiny. The much-touted "e-government" should be about such exchanges ... and not just whether you can renew your road tax online.

In Bilahari's email to Gayle, he says that he prefers disagreement to indifference, and that "those who have advised you (Gayle) to 'be careful,' tone down your criticisms or lie low have given you bad advice and do yourself, the government and Singapore no favours."

Such words are comforting (esp for bloggers), but one must also realise that the people/context Gayle describes do exist in Singapore. I believe that Singaporeans don't want to write to the government only to receive a cookie cutter reply, or worse, mildly-disguised criticism (or even worse, a lawsuit). It's good to see a 17-year-old with the cojones (figuratively speaking), intellect and writing ability to engage a prominent government official. It is even better to see said government official reply in a forthcoming and sincere manner.

IMHO, Singapore could benefit from a few more Gayle Gohs, and more than a few more Bilahari Kausikans.

Singaporeans should not be alarmed in JB?

2006-04-11T20:25:00.000+08:00

The New Paper, 10 APRIL 2006

M'SIAN HIGH COMMISSIONER REPLIES: 'NO CAUSE FOR ALARM, SECURITY TO BE TIGHTENED'

It was interesting that on 2 Apr, The Sunday Times and The New Paper on Sunday simultaneously carried lengthy reports and an editorial (The Sunday Times) on car thefts in Johor.

It was unfortunate that these reports over-exaggerated the actual situation on the ground and at the same time portrayed four major shopping malls in Johor Bahru (Holiday Plaza, Plaza Pelangi, Aeon Tebrau City and Giant Plentong) in a rather bad light.

The immediate and strong reaction to these reports could certainly have been anticipated.

The Johor State Government, the Johor Police authorities, the Johor Bahru Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Malaysia Shopping Complex Management Association (Southern Region), among others, were swift in their response.

State Tourism and Environment Committee Chairman, Mr Freddie Long, in a press conference convened on 3 Apr, clearly articulated the serious concerns of the state, including the repercussions that such adverse reports might have on the state's economy, tourism flows from Singapore to Johor, as well as on the image of the State.

Questions were also raised on whether there was a 'hidden agenda' behind these reports. It would be useful first to establish the facts. From statistics compiled by the Johor Police authorities, in recent years car thefts involving Singapore-registered cars have been negligible.

In 2004, of the 1,381 cars reported stolen in Johor, only 33 (2.39 per cent) were Singapore-registered cars. In 2005, of the 1,394 cars reported stolen, 52 (3.7 per cent) were Singapore-registered cars. In January and February 2006, of the 264 car thefts reported, only 3 were from Singapore.

Looking at these statistics, the outcry in the Singapore media that Singapore cars are targets of car thieves in Johor really does not make sense. It only serves to fuel unnecessary speculation that there is more to these reports than meets the eye.

Singaporeans should rest assured that the Johor state government is constantly taking steps to reduce criminal activities, including car thefts, and improve public safety, both for its people as well as for visitors to the state, including our neighbours from Singapore.

To deter robberies and car thefts, the police authorities in Johor have just announced that an additional 100 men and 45 patrol cars would be deployed. Closed-circuit TV cameras linked to the state police headquarters are also being installed at strategic locations. The Johor state government would also soon hold discussions with the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Bakri Omar, to look into measures to further improve security in the state.

Johor-bashing should stop. The sooner, the better. We should not stand in the way of forging more and even closer interactions between Johor and Singapore in the days ahead.

Dato' N Parameswaran
High Commissioner of Malaysia to Singapore

___

I have just read an excellent book titled Freakonomics. It basically shows how available data can be used to logically disprove commonly-held assumptions. Let me try to apply some of its precepts to a current bilateral bone of contention -- how Malaysian car thieves appear to be targeting Singapore-registered cars.

It was alleged in a Singapore media article that Singapore cars were preferred targets because of their comparatively low mileage and generally better condition. The Malaysian High Commissioner, has rebutted that the outcry does not make sense, citing (probably official) statistics that only 3.7% (or 52) of the cars reported stolen in Johor last year were from Singapore.

To put things into proper perspective, we would need to know (or guess) what proportion of cars in Johor (at any given hour) were from Singapore. A NST article dated 5 Apr 2006 quotes traffic consultant Dr Tai Tuck Leong as saying that about 20,000 foreign cars drive into Johor each day. I think we can assume that almost all the non-Malaysian cars in Johor would be from Singapore -- the number from Thailand is probably not significant. Let's further assume that each Singapore car would typically remain for about 6 hours on average. If so, we can induce that at any given time, the number of Singapore cars somewhere on Johor roads (or car parks) would be about 5,000.

I couldn't find any direct reference to the number of cars in Johor, but various sources suggest that Malaysians have 1 car for every 2 people, Johor's population of 2.8 million would suggest that there are about 1,400,000 cars in the state (not too surprising given that Johor covers an areas of almost 20,000 sq km).

Based on these assumptions, there are about Singapore cars 5,000 cars sharing Johor's roads with 1.4 million local cars at any given time. In other words, Singapore cars make up just under 0.36% of Johor's car population.

Since 3.7% of the cars stolen in Johor were from Singapore, this indicates that a Singapore car is about 10 times as likely to be a target of a car thief in Johor as compared to a Johor/Msian car.

Perhaps someone (like Dr Tai perhaps?) would like to do a more rigorous study to support or dispute this?

Women in Politics: Hear Us Roar Soon

2006-04-09T09:15:00.000+08:00

Straits Times

April 8, 2006 Sat

WILL GE BE A MILESTONE FOR WOMEN IN POLITICS?

By Li Xueying

HUMAN resource manager S.H. Lee is 'intrigued' by Workers' Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim.

'She is a woman and an opposition leader to boot,' says Miss Lee, 26. 'That makes it doubly hard, doubly brave and doubly foolhardy.'

While Miss Lee, who lives in Aljunied GRC where Miss Lim is expected to contest in the coming election, has not decided who she will vote for, she adds: 'I'm more willing to listen to what she has to say.'

With such attitudes, it is perhaps not surprising that the People's Action Party's (PAP's) Mrs Lim Hwee Hua has been spotted working the ground there too.

Pundits observe that it is a canny electioneering strategy: for the PAP to pit its highest-ranking woman against Miss Lim, to counter any gender appeal Miss Lim may have with women.

This year's general election is shaping up to be one in which gender plays a role.

Institute of Policy Studies research fellow Jeanne Conceicao says that women candidates - especially new ones - have an edge in bringing in women's votes. So far, on the PAP side, six new women candidates have been made public so far. As for the WP, expect two or three women candidates, Miss Lim says. This is a change indeed. For 14 years in the 1970s and 1980s, there were no women in Parliament.

Why is there a bumper crop of women candidates this time? Will the coming election be a milestone for women in politics? And will a woman finally become a full minister?

xueying@sph.com.sg

I was told that the Miss Singapore Universe beauty pageant this year had, among its midst, contestants with remarkable education qualifications - degree holders, Master’s students, and an aspiring PhD candidate (not at all surprising, given the academic excellence that we ladies have achieved). Beauty pageants are increasing a celebration of the females’ beauty and brains. Or are they?

The age-long debate will continue on how beauty is subjective and that academic excellence does not guarantee one successes in life. What I wish to instead highlight here is that the highly educated and (presumably) beautiful females are stepping forward to represent the country as its ambassador at the world stage.

But can the same be said about women entering politics?

Regrettably, despite the reported increase in the number of female members of parliament (see Straits Times article, More Women Willing To Enter Politics, 3 Apr 06), I’m afraid the situation is far from ideal.

To highlight the dire situation, the percentage of women in parliament in Singapore is 16% (15 out of 94) which places the country at joint 66 out of 187 countries (as of 28 Feb 06; statistics and ranking by Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU): Women in National Parliaments).

Sadly, the percentage of women in government and politics does not correspond to our percentage of the population and falls short of the 30 to 35 % that the UN deems necessary for women to make an impact in policies.

Astoundingly, there are hitherto no female ministers in Singapore. The highest ranked female politician in the history of Singapore, I stand corrected, was former Acting Minister Seet Ai Mee.

So why the miserable 16% female representation in Singapore’s parliamentary process?

OnlineWomen offers its explanation that the low representation of women in Singaporean politics “reflects the highly Confucian nature of the Singaporean society, which is very paternalistic”. It echoes the view of local NGO, Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) that the “patriarchal system puts pressure on men to perform regardless of their ability and circumstance, and limits the potential of women regardless of our ability and circumstance”.

Also, the arduous balance between work and family led to many women to choose the latter, according to a Miss Singapore Universe contestant who was asked for her opinion on whether women found it difficult to become CEOs and Presidents of companies.

I do not agree that systemic factors (real or perceived) prevent the participation of women in politics. Indeed, there is no legal bar to the participation of women in politics. Women in Singapore enjoy the same legal rights as men in most areas, including political representation.

What matters, however, is the courage for women to step forward to serve society and the belief that we can make a difference. We women can only take it upon ourselves to represent women’s issues and interests.

Ministers of State Lim Hwee Hua and Yu-Foo Yee Shoon are currently among the more prominent female parliamentarians. Several women are also Nominated Members of Parliament (NMP, ie not elected) and they too are playing an important role in policy formulation and review. In addition, a law lecturer at a local polytechnic is chairperson of the opposition party, the Workers’ Party. Outside of politics, Chief Executive of local Temasek Holdings, Ho Ching ranks 30th in Forbes’ list of most influential or “powerful” women in the world.

They are role models for other women. They demonstrate that the efficient and capable can do many things (career, family and national duties) and gender is in no way an obstacle to their achievements.

This forthcoming election in Singapore promises more women politicians. I applaud the ruling political party, the People’s Action Party which has named 6 new women candidates, on top of the 10 existing female MPs so far. The opposition is also likely to field several women candidates.

The signs are indeed encouraging…