Lau Peng Forgotten and Lau Peng Won't Forget

"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

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

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

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?

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

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

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)

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

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?

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

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

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?

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?

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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.