LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF FREE SPEECH

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

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

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?

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?

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”

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

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

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

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

Political Opportunity amidst the Human Tragedy

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

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?

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?

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

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

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.