The March of the Independents

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

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

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

Independents Have A Good Chance in 2011

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

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

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

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

Catering to the Younger Voters and their Defiant DIY Streak

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

Pack Mule/Maid and the NSF Not Packing a Punch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what demarcates this line?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quality, not Quantity

The state of Singapore's election candidates?

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

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

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

But is that all they really want?

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

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

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

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

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

I do not want to see candidates who:

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

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

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

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

Pride, Prejudice and Politics: Hard Truths

Prejudice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Pride

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

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

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

Politics

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

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

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

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

What is this Condition 4?

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

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

"political association" means —

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

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

Political Website Yes, Political Association Maybe

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

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


Stay Around They Lose or Go Away They Win

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

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

Singapore Cyberattacked and Cyberspied On

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

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

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

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

Cablegate and Singapore

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

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

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

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

The SLA "Heist"

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

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


Financial Irregularities in all Shapes and Sizes

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


How to Detect Fraud Hidden in Paperwork? More Paperwork?

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

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

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

Lau Peng Forgotten and Lau Peng Won't Forget

"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.