Psychological Warfare Tactic

Like clockwork, the mainstream media rushes in to defend / justify / rationalize (whichever stance is required) any potentially controversial move by the Government (which is in itself a form of psychological warfare).

The latest controversial move in question is the issuance of a million dollar bounty on the head of Mas Selamat. Although the cash reward is supposedly put forward by 2 businessmen who wish to remain anonymous, the contention lies in the fact that the ministry of home affairs will be operationalizing the bounty on their behalf.

Don’t get me wrong, I acknowledge the merits of this form of psychological warfare. Such actions indeed have the potential to play on the minds of the fugitive, his collaborators, his sympathizers and neutrals; to varying degrees.

Will it suddenly lead to new ground breaking information? Probably not, but the mistrust, suspicions and opportunism that is can generate might in time lead to some form of success in tracking him down.

Recognizing these benefits, one must then wonder why the authorities, as clarified by Wong Kan Seng, as a policy do not offer cash rewards for information on fugitives and unsolved crimes.

Naturally there are the moral hazard issues with incentivising public spiritedness and vigilance. Do we really want the first reaction of Singaporeans – upon hearing the news of lets say an unsolved murder case – to be… “reward how much ar?”.

Furthermore, if the Government makes a habit of operationalizing independent offers of rewards for information, we would see the ‘white horsing’ (army euphemism for unequal treatment for a certain elite class) of justice. Surviving relatives of for example murder victims from elite circles could offer rewards in the millions while the lower classes would have to rely on altruistic freebies. These are the kinds ethical issues that the Government does not want to burden themselves with.

But of course, nothing operates in a vacuum. So I feel the million dollar reward would complement other efforts nicely. My only beef is with this flip-flopping rational that goes something like this: we don’t approve of such actions….. but if you want to do it we wont stop you…actually it is a very good action….. many Singaporeans think it is a good idea…..

You've been AG-ed

Glad to see that the Auditor-General's Office is keeping the ministries and stat boards on their toes.

Previous irregularities can be found here and here.

July 22, 2008
Govt property vacant for years
Auditor-General's annual report raps agencies for not 'maximising usage' of state-owned buildings
By Liaw Wy-Cin

GOVERNMENT chalets left to go to seed and unleased for over 14 years and other buildings and tracts of land left empty for years on end - these have come to light in the Auditor-General's annual report.

Mr Lim Soo Ping has taken to task some ministries and statutory boards for letting this happen to properties under their charge.

In his latest report released yesterday, he urged these agencies to manage their properties better 'to maximise their usage for the public good'.

He also recommended a review of how government properties pending development are allocated and reserved.

'This is to minimise the opportunity cost arising from unnecessarily long holding and reservation,' he said.

Among the buildings his office found under-utilised were staff apartments belonging to statutory boards, left vacant for four to 10 years. Some had vacancy rates as high as 80 per cent.

In his report, Mr Lim also took the Singapore Tourism Board to task for spending $1.51 million over seven years on feasibility studies, maintenance and reinstatement works to turn Capitol Theatre into a performing arts venue, only to find that it was not a viable project.

The building stood vacant until it was returned to the Singapore Land Authority last year. Mr Lim reckoned the rental revenue foregone to exceed $280,000 a year.

The report also highlighted the lack of transparency in the calls for tender bids and irregularities in payment.

One such irregularity was serious enough to have been referred to the police for investigation.

Acting on an anonymous tip-off alleging favouritism in the awarding of contracts to redevelop the Singapore Discovery Centre (SDC), the Auditor-General's Office found irregularities in 92 per cent of the contracts awarded to one contractor and another company with links to the contractor.

As the SDC - which promotes national education here - is related to the Ministry of Defence, Mindef referred the matter to the police in April.

Contacted last night, Mindef said investigations were still underway.

Asked to comment on the loss of rental revenue from buildings left standing empty, director of research and consultancy at real estate company Knight Frank, Mr Nicholas Mak, said that if the vacancy rate is high, the agency overseeing the building should consider marketing it better 'or maybe it should relook at whether it really still needs the apartments'.

But Mr Mak said the solution was less clear-cut in the case of redeveloping a building for commercial use, such as the Capitol Theatre.

'If you are talking about renting it out, sometimes, you have to wait for the right time to enter the market. Or you have to do a lot of upgrading first to redevelop it,' he added.

wycin@sph.com.sg

... there will be others (response to Andrew)

Charities are back in the news as the case of financial misappropriation by the Ren Ci hospital heats up. Dirty linen hung to dry so far are questionable million dollar loans drawn from the charities coffers, fraud and a 2 million dollar apartment that god only knows how a venerable abbot is meant to afford.

It would have to take chronically sick minds to profit off the chronically sick don’t you think?

In light of this development, Andrew over at TOC maintains the need for faith in such institutions and said “many charity organisations in Singapore who are doing selfless work in helping the needy, the sick and the poor. Thus, it would be sad and inappropriate to tar all these organisations with the failings of the few”. I have to disagree here.

Andrew makes a reasonably sounding argument but isn’t that the same line of reasoning used to defend top ministers when their underlings fail?

The mishandling of funds in nonprofit/charitable organizations is a systemic problem that rears its ugly head when (ironically) such organizations become too successful. We see the same problems with mega churches such as City Harvest and FCBC.

I believe all these organizations are formed with the best of intentions. But ultimately success gets to the heads of their creators who begin to believe they are deserving of lets say a high salary that is proportionately small to the amount of donations/funds brought in; sounds like ministerial salary hike justification doesn’t it.

Andrew further states “the heads of these institutions may have failed and abused the trust of the public but let us not forget that when we give or donate to these organisations, it is the needy, the sick and the poor that we are thinking of.”.

Yes we give in the knowledge or at least hope that our donations reach these needy, sick and poor. But when the majority of our contributions go to the fattening up of a few men and their cronies, faith in the goodness of man becomes blind faith in the ignorance of man.

The 146th: Being Charitable with Figures

I often find myself baffled by the statistics and figures presented in the press. Today I find another good example.

According to the CNA:

Last year, charitable donations to non-profit organisations (Institutions of Public Character) increased by more than 50 per cent to S$280 million.

While ST reported:

CHARITIES here pulled in a record $820 million last year - a jump of more than 50 per cent from 2006…………… Despite some charity scandals in recent years, Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs) - or charities authorised to receive tax-deductible donations such as the NKF - received $820 million last year.

Both reported a 50 percent increase from 2006 to 2007. Both are referring to donations received by Institutions of Public Character (IPCs). How is it then that the amount tallied differ so greatly (280 to 820 million)?

MM's Press Sec misrepresents facts

Yeong Yong responds to Chee's assertation in toady's Today paper. My brief comments are below.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CHEE LIES AGAIN: MM’S PRESS SEC
Friday • July 4, 2008
Yeong Yoon Ying
Press Secretary to Minister Mentor

In a letter to Today, Madam Yeong Yoon Ying, the press secretary to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, responds to opposition politician Chee Soon Juan’s call forMr Lee or his counsel to produce part of a transcript from last month’s court hearing to assess damages arising from the libel suit against Dr Chee.

YOUR report “Nothing to do with political freedom” (3 July 2008) refers to my letter to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and toDr Chee Soon Juan’s response published on his website.

In my letter to the WSJ, I said that in the recent defamation cases, Dr Chee had called Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew ‘murderers, robbers, child molesters’ and ‘rapists’ in open court.

Dr Chee alleged that I had lied, and challenged me to produce the relevant transcript.

I enclose p. 115 of the verbatim court reporting transcript of the hearing on28 May 2008. Line 11 onwards reads:

Mr Davinder Singh: “ ... And to conclude on Dr Chee’s submissions, he says that he doesn’t wish Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong ill. In that same breath, he says he stands by The New Democrat article, which alleged that they are ‘criminals, corrupt, and covered up matters in the NKF’. And under his breath he’s now just said ‘murderers and robbers’.”

--->>>It reads that he stands by what was written in the newsletter. So in the eye of the law, standing by a previous statement is in effect uttering it again??

Dr Chee: “And rapists, too, you might as throw it in, you know, right? Child molesters”.

--->>>Obviously heavily laced with sarcasm

Mr Singh: “And this is the man who says “I don’t wish them ill”.

Dr Chee has once again lied to Singaporeans.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The press sec is correct that the sentiments were reinforced ("criminals", "corrupt") and the words uttered (rapist, molesters). But her claim that Chee said all these in open court are losing the case is actually a misrepresentation of the facts.

Firstly, the case was afterall about allegations of government corruption made in an SDP newsletter. Hence the matter of the words used were brought up.

Secondly, the statements were not made after he had lost the case; something the Press Sec had said to make Chee appear petty. Quote:

"Having lost, Dr. Chee in open court then called the Singapore leaders "murderers, robbers, child molesters" and "rapists.""

Lastly, the sentiments/words were reinforced/uttered but the process of their delivery were manipulated by MM's Press Sec rather clumsily. She, working under the man, should realise how important one's words are.

Why doesn’t Chee Sue MM?

SDP chief Dr Chee Soon Juan had recently been found guilty of defamation over allegations of government corruption made in an SDP newsletter ahead of general elections in May 2006. He and his sister were also found guilty of contempt of court.

The saga however continues outside of the court room, over the presses. It centers on a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) op-ed piece titled “Democracy in Singapore” in which the journal painted a less then flattering picture of a paranoid statesman’s use of defamation suits to quash freedom of speech.

In response, the Press Secretary to Minister Mentor issued a clarifying note, “Two Views of Freedom of Speech and Law in Singapore”, to the WSJ online. She stressed that “the case had nothing to do with political freedom” and that “it was for defamation arising from the Chees' false claims that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kuan Yew are criminals and corrupt”.

The interesting twist is that she claims Dr Chee had in open court, “called the Singapore leaders "murderers, robbers, child molesters" and "rapists."; a charge Dr Chee has publicly come out to deny.

If this is indeed so, wouldn’t this amount to defamation on the part of MM Lee? Why doesn’t Chee sue?

Chee has also been previously accused of treasonous actions whilst in the employ of unnamed foreign enemies of Singapore. Why doesn’t he challenge the Lees to produce evidence?

The Lees had lambasted Chee for not providing evidence of their alleged corruption and instead used the court proceedings to push for his other campaigns of political freedom. Now would be a great chance for Chee to bring MM back into court and similarly challenge him to produce evidence that he had made those remarks and that he was under the employ of foreign entities.

One may reason that the courts are biased against the Chees and he wouldn’t get a fair trial anyway.
But I feel this is an opportunity too good to miss. My only caution is that he threads carefully and not over extend his bite.