Simply Gab

Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign Message

2011-03-24T09:40:00.002+08:00

Just helping to spread the word.

My personal view is that drugs destroy families and lives. The trafficking of drugs is not a small matter, but mandatory death penalty sentences coupled with an uphill task to prove reasonable doubt for innocence is a dicey combination.

Will we see the day where a moratorium (suspension) of all death penalty sentences will be enacted in Singapore?

======================================
22 March 2011

The Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC) wishes to express our utmost disappontment at Shah Alam High Court's decision to sentence Noor Atiqah M. Lasim to death for drug trafficking.

Noor Atiqah, a 27 year old single mother of a 6 year old girl from Singapore, was found in possession of 342.1 grammes of heroin and 30.3 grammes of monoacethyl morphine at the Low Cost Carrier Terminal (LCCT) on Jan 5, 2009. According to her statement as reported by the media, she claimed that the bag containing the drugs did not belong to her.

We will like to reiterate our stand against the use of the death penalty as a punishment against crimes. We implore the High Court of Shah Alam to look into this matter again, especially so when the result of the sentencing will be irreversible, leaving a young child without her mother.

Thank you.

Rachel Zeng,
Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC)

March 18, 2011 14:14 PM

Death For Singaporean Single Mother For Drug Trafficking

SHAH ALAM, March 18 (Bernama) -- The Shah Alam High Court today sentenced a Singaporean single mother to death for trafficking in drugs at the Low Cost Carrier Terminal (LCCT), two years ago.

Judge Noor Azian Shaari delivered the sentence on Noor Atiqah M. Lasim, 27, after the defence failed to establish reasonable doubt on the charge under Section 39B (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.

The accused, who worked as a legal assistant in the republic, was alleged to have trafficked in 342.1 grammes of heroin and 30.3 grammes of monoacethyl morphine at the LCCT on Jan 5, 2009.

When delivering the decision, Noor Azian said the prosecution had proven a prima facie case against Noor Atiqah.

After evaluation of the facts and statement, the court found the accused had custody and control of the drugs and called for her defence.

According to Noor Azian, the defendant's statement that the bag containing the drugs belonged to another person was difficult to believe and unreasonable.

Noor Atiqah, mother of a six-year-old girl, was represented by counsel Mohaji Selamat while Wan Zuraida Wan Nawan was deputy public prosecutor.

-- BERNAMA

Year in Quick Review - 2010

2011-01-03T10:02:00.003+08:00

Since this is is the start of a fresh new year, though i might try to summarize that main happenings that had coloured 2010.

Of course, it should ideally cover a whole array of incidences, but perhaps with an eye on the GE this year, i thought it would be useful to look at the hiccups faced by the incumbent government.

But then i realized i didn't need to as an old article (below) pretty much summed it up.

Just need to add to the list the lost of our faith in the teaching community (with all the sex offenses and child porn) and our general lose of face :)

Confidence in public sector shaken this year: experts
By Alicia Wong – December 20th, 2010

From the bumpy hosting of the Youth Olympic Games (YOG) to the Orchard Road floods, confidence in the public sector may have been shaken this year, according to some political observers.

And in the year ahead, Singaporean residents will continue watching the government closely, in particular its measures toward housing and immigration.

Yahoo! Singapore spoke to several political observers, as they took stock of this year’s significant events and shared their expectations for 2011.

One highlight was the inaugural YOG hosted in Singapore in August. While it was a celebrated event for some, the event was marred by a string of issues ranging from food poisoning to an over-blown budget.

Senior Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Dr Terence Chong, termed the YOG a “bittersweet event”. It celebrated youth and sports but triggered doubt over the government’s strategy of using“mega events” to distinguish Singapore as a global city when the YOG received poor international attention.

“I don’t think (the YOG) turned out the way the Government had hoped for it to be,” commented another political watcher and law lecturer Eugene Tan. He questioned if the plan to showcase Singapore to the world and excite young Singaporeans “backfired”.

“It was a tremendous success to all those involved but to the average Singaporean, the price tag of close to half a billion SGD was perhaps a bit too much for most Singaporeans,” he pointed out.

Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Viswa Sadasivan also highlighted events that collectively ”jolted public confidence” in the public sector usually touted for its efficiency.

He cited, the floods, SMRT’s train graffiti, the S$12m Singapore Land Authority fraud saga, gang violence and the revelation of Mas Selamat Kastari’s escape.

Mr Tan also felt public confidence has been “dented but not severely affected”. Since the government prides itself in being effective and efficient, this dent is “of course a significant setback”, he said.

He acknowledged, Singaporeans could have unrealistically high expectations that will have to be managed going forward.

But former NMP Zulkifli Baharudin disagreed public confidence was affected this year.

“All these events, to me, reinforces the fact that Singapore is vulnerable,” said Mr Zulkifli, citing vulnerability in the country’s physical and social make-up.

He said, Singapore must do things well because it lacks natural resources, but mistakes are inevitable. “The key is to learn from mistakes and not repeat them.”

He urged Singaporeans not to be “armchair critics” but to “do something about it”.

On the bright side, 2010 was also a year of highs in other areas.

The Republic’s economic growth surged an estimated record-breaking 15 per cent.

The land swap deal between Malaysia and Singapore provided closure to a “decades long thorny issue” and paved the way for “deeper trust and substantive cooperation”, said Mr Viswa.

Watchers highlighted the launch of the integrated resorts (IRs), Marina Bay Sands and Resorts World Sentosa, as significant in boosting tourist arrivals and tourist dollars. Yet, the IRs have also given cause for concern for social ills such as problem gambling, they cautioned.

Dr Chong also pointed to the public censure of Christian pastor Rony Tan’s insensitive remarks about Buddhism in February indicating a “self-regulatory mechanism at work in society”.

Going forward, observers predicted immigration, housing and cost of living will continue to be hot topics in 2011 and key issues in the General Election, due by February 2012.

This year, escalating property prices and immigration policy drew some of the hottest debates, prompting the government to introduce property cooling measures. In 2009, the government signalled a slower intake of immigrants.

Mr Viswa cautioned, it would be difficult for the government to “adequately satisfy the ground” even if HDB prices rise at a slower pace as this is an emotional issue.

He added, top civil servants’ salary is likely to be “a hot-button issue” linked to many other concerns as there appears to be a “diminishing tolerance for mistakes by (the) government.” It is a case of being a victim of its own success, he noted.

Mr Zulkifli also predicted some structural adjustments in the economy, for instance, as Singapore looks toward exporting to China, rather than selling mainly to the West.

“We saw terrorism of a different kind (this year),” he said, referring to WikiLeaks. “That is something that may also occupy our time.”

Mr Tan, who expects the GE to be in the 2nd quarter of 2011, and the Presidential Election to be in August, said next year should see “new levels of political excitement”.

“Immigration and the associated issues of high property prices, sense of over-crowdedness and increased competition in schools and at work will feature in the GE,” he said.

Added Mr Tan, “The PAP (People’s Action Party) government has sought to assure that Singaporeans do come first but a deep sense of unease persists. If that unease gets heightened in the GE, we could expect the PAP to pay a price.”

What the WikiLeaks documents fail to tell

2010-12-02T16:26:00.002+08:00

A good article that puts the Cablegates controversy in some perspective. But I don't think the Americans will place much weight on articles coming out from the great white north.

==============================================================
Siddiqui: What the WikiLeaks documents fail to tell
December 02, 2010

We didn’t need WikiLeaks to tell us that Moammar Gadhafi likes his “voluptuous blonde” Ukrainian nurse. He doesn’t hide it or his posse of young sexy female bodyguards. A courtier in Tripoli once told me that he found our prurience over his leader’s female company puzzling, given that the West is so soaked in sex.

The leak of 251,287 cables from America’s 274 diplomatic posts spills no military secrets and doesn’t really endanger anyone’s life. It only makes explicit what was implicit in many instances. It offers titillating tidbits about world leaders, and exposes their hypocrisy of saying one thing in private and another in public.

But even the embarrassment factor is not all that high. Governments, politicians and diplomats routinely lie. Those they deal with know. They all understand each other, which explains the uniformity of reaction to the leaks. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said exactly the same thing as Hillary Clinton, David Cameron, Lawrence Cannon, et al: The leaks won’t affect anyone’s relations with anyone.

The more intriguing thing is this: How come all the cables advance the American geopolitical agenda, with nary a negative comment or the slightest doubt?

Read the rest here: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/900100--siddiqui-what-the-wikileaks-documents-fail-to-tell

Ming Yi: Bad taste is never out of style

2010-12-02T16:18:00.003+08:00

The lavish dinner party (see below) welcoming Ven Ming Yi return from prison for misappropriating temple funds is reminiscent of AIG swanky conference/retreat just 2 weeks after receiving a massive $85 billion bailout by Uncle Sam.

Seems like bad taste is never out of style.

================================================================

Why is Ven Ming Yi still a monk?

The Buddhist community is abuzz with questions surrounding Venerable Ming Yi's status as a monk.

Singapore's top buddhist organization, the Buddhist Federation, received many complaints from the Buddhist community in the past two weeks.

The federation's secretary-general, Venerable Kwang Phing said many voiced their unhappiness after a dinner was held by Foo Hai Chan Monastery in Geylang in honour of Ven Ming Yi's 20 years of service.

He told the Straits Times that many wanted to know, "'How can he do this?', 'Why is he still a monk?', 'Why isn't the federation doing anything?''

The dinner, organised by the monastery, was held at the Pan Pacific Hotel and reportedly cost $200,000.

The local newspaper reported that the dinner touched off an emotional debate among Buddhists even as devotees of the Foo Hai Chan Monastery called the celebration a 'sheng zuo dian li', or 'rise to power' ceremony; they said they wanted to celebrate Ven Ming Yi's return to the temple.

Senior Buddhists in Singapore - Ven Kwang Sheng, the federation's president, and Ven Kwang Phing - were absent from the dinner although they had been invited.

Ven Ming Yi - founder and former chief executive of Ren Ci Hospital was convicted of fraud, falsifying documents, misappropriating funds and giving false information to the Commissioner of Charities last October.

He was jailed in May this year and released in September.

The Buddhist Federation wants Ven Ming Yi to voluntarily step up to the plate and take responsibility for his actions.

If he does so a temporary disciplinary committee of five or more monks will be set up to demote him.

If he chooses to stay at large, other monks may be advised to shun him.

Mr Lim Bock Guan, the head of the Singapore Buddhist Lodge told the local newspaper that a monk being honoured for his service with a $1,000-a-table dinner in a top hotel has never been heard off.

MSK saga - what we need now

2010-11-23T14:29:00.007+08:00

The Singaporean community has once again reignited its interest in a story that will not go away anytime soon. Like a bad movie, we learn of more and more of the lapses at each stage of the journey that saw alleged JI leader Mas Selamat escape from Whitely Detention Center to Malaysia and back again.

Though we can live in hindsight and nitpick on every mistake that now seems so obviously avoidable, we shouldn’t be entirely surprised by this latest revelation that Mas Selamat sought shelter at his brother’s house and the assistance provided by his brother’s family helped him evade detection. Afterall, what did we really expect to learn?

Or rather, were we actually expecting a story that would be so mind-blowing in its complexity, that it would be deemed acceptable? A story of escape that we could digest and accept that there is no more blame to go around?

TOC writer Mohammad Hydar's article Lipstick Jungle: Why we might have helped Mas Selamat escape is as thought-provoking as a cereal box, but at least it did end with a sensible statement:

In order to curb more public speculation and prevent a possible decline in trust towards our security agencies, I urge Mr Shanmugan and the relevant authorities to disclose more information on the current investigation of Mas Selamat’s escape.

Vindication?

Let us not kid ourselves. Mas Selamat’s escape, no matter what evidence is surfaced over time, was a lapse on multiple levels. We knew this from day one and we, and the ministers, should not be under any illusions that any evidence will be vindictive in nature.

That said, it is also not in our hopes, nor interest, that the apparatuses of government fails as we are the ones to suffer in the end. It is however in our interest that they learn from their mistakes, take remedial actions, and make damn sure they don't make that mistake again.

What I believe we would like (and need) to see now, is someone stepping forward to acknowledge that there were failures, and to take ultimate responsibility for those failures.

One man or organization cannot be blamed for everything and having one or two fall guys will not make things better. But it will at least be a gesture that if nothing else, gives us the assurance that no one is infallible or too big to fail (to borrow a catch phrase form the credit debacle over the last 2 year).

Baby Steps

This parliamentary speech by Minister Shanmugen, in my opinion at least, is a good (but baby) step towards accomplishing this. The Ministry of Home Affairs could have easily swept this piece of information under the carpet and persist with the posture that Mas Selamat is not cooperating and his accounts are unreliable and unverifiable; and we wouldn’t be the wiser.

The fact that they likely knew they would attract more flak for this and went ahead anyway with the information release, at least shows to me that they want to be accountable and answerable to the public.

In the end, it is the trust that needs rebuilding; because disappointment works both ways.

Stop the harrassment of Dr Joseph Ong

2010-10-11T10:05:00.004+08:00

Having previously worked with Fung Chee Yuen of Singapore Enquirer and briefly with Eugene Yeo of Temasek Review, I can't help but feel this crack down on Joseph Ong is a tad bit vindictive (as evident in the personal attacks on the forums).

To be honest, I too was never sure who i was dealing with in Wayang Party, SG Enquirer or Temasek review, but it did not matter to me then and now. I never met them face-to-face so for all i know, Dr Joseph Ong could be all of them.... heck, he could even be Santa Claus. But i knew his anonymity allowed him to do and say many things.

To this i end with an article from SDP voicing support for Temasek Review and Dr Joseph Ong.

SDP: Stop harrassment of Temasek Review
Sunday, 10 October 2010

Singapore Democrats

The report in The New Paper (TNP) about the Temasek Review and Dr Joseph Ong Chor Teck is a desperate attempt by the authorities to shut down the popular website and to curb growing dissent on the Internet.

Temasek Revew, or TR, has been gaining traction among netizens who find the website a channel for them to bring up issues and discussions that would otherwise not see print or broadcast in the state controlled media. The portal has in the recent past become a centre for breaking news in the socio-political sphere to the extent that the mass media has been forced to cover sensitive stories.

It also carries analyses and opinion pieces of writers who remain largely anonymous. This anonymity allows a wide range of articles to be published which are crtitical of the ruling regime, often focusing on matters that are embarrassing for members of the PAP and the cabinet.

Obviously, the Goverment is beginning to feel the heat of the growing discontent of Singaporeans who are turning to the Internet for news and bypassing the traditional media. Theouting of Dr Ong is the PAP's way of curbing online dissent. The leaking of the information and the front-page story run by TNP is a clear sign of nervousness of the ruling party.

The move must be seen in the light of the coming general elections where more Singapreans are expected to turn to cyberspace for the "other side" of the story.

The newspaper also revealed that Dr Ong has been questioned by the police for posting up unflattering flyers of PAP MP Lee Bee Wah who had attracted much scorn from the Internet community for her involvement and remarks over the Singapore Table-Tennis Association saga a few months ago. TR says that Dr Ong is not part of its editorial team.

The Internet is the latest and boldest frontier which Singaporeans are using to resist the authoritarian control of the PAP. The ruling clique is busily trying to figure out how to contain the growing influence of e-samizdat. The police questioning of Dr Ong and leaking of the information to the press is but the latest sign of the Goverment's effort.

Given the nature of the beast the PAP will not succeed in stopping discussion of issues on the Internet. The hydra-like qualities of the technology, coupled with the increasing frustration of Singaporeans in wanting to see a transaparent and accountable government, will see more pro-democracy portals be set up. For every TR the authorities manage to close down, ten more will emerge.

In this day and age where free speech is crucial to progress, suppression of free and open debate in cyberspace must be resisted.

To this end, the Singapore Democrats call on the authorities to leave Dr Ong and TR alone regardless of whether they are related or not.

Disappointed that NOT ALL NSmen are being recognized

2010-09-01T11:56:00.003+08:00

The stability of our nation is by no accident. It is by the blood and sweat spilled by loyal citizens that served without recognition and reward for too long.

This oversight looks to continue as the Government seeks to reward only new citizens and current serving NSFs with little acknowledgment of those that have dutifully served and sacrificed longer and for much less.

We do not begrudge the benefits enjoyed by the new recruits into the army, but lament this new example of the blatant and persistent disregard for the sandwich generation whose welfare always seem to fall into the blind spots of scholarly-instituted policies.

Please join and invite your fellow NSmen to join this FB group (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=149730328380572)

Politician's Salaries: Leaders of the Fee World

2010-07-07T11:03:00.004+08:00

Jul 5th 2010

ON MONDAY July 5th Raila Odinga, Kenya's prime minister, rejected the pay increase he was awarded by the country's parliament last week. MPs had granted Mr Odinga a rise to nearly $430,000 a year, while giving themselves a 25% increase to $161,000. This boost would place Mr Odinga among the highest-paid political leaders in the world. More worryingly, his salary would be some 240 times greater than the country's GDP per person (measured on a purchasing-power parity basis).

Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister of Singapore, tops our list of selected leaders' salaries. He is paid more than 40 times the city-state’s GDP per person. At the other end of the scale, Manmohan Singh, the prime minister of India, reaffirms his reputation for saintliness by taking a modest sum from Indian taxpayers.

Source: http://www.economist.com/node/16525240?story_id=16525240&fsrc=rss

CHC: Greed & Faith is a powerful combination

2010-06-14T15:34:00.005+08:00

Abraham Lincoln - “You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”

Without excessive prejudice and prejudgment, the investigation into City Harvest Church by the Commercial Affairs Department of Singapore is a timely reminder to all observers that the law always catches up on you one day. But that’s where the good news ends I’m afraid.

Searching through Wikipedia, I found a list of Christian evangelist scandals dating from the 1920s to present. Though hardly comprehensive, it illustrates the first point in Lincoln’s quote that some people do get fooled all of the time.

In an ever changing world that has witnessed civilizations and dynasties come and go, there seems to remain two constants; Greed & Faith. By ‘Greed’ I refer to the human condition to clamor for more wealth and power and by ‘Faith’ I refer to the blind trust we bestow to both the material and ethereal.

The Faith we place on people blinds us to their Greed and their flaws. When it comes to issues pertaining to religion, human flaws are often overlooked and quickly buried under the blankets of divine trials that are meant to test the resolve of the faithful. A case in point is a City Harvest member that issued a call for arms to fight the oppressors (Government).

Elsewhere, a former City Harvest go-er, blogger Terence Lee, has also been accused for not being objective by what I suspect are die-hard City Harvesters.

A full house City Harvest congregation over the weekend and the almost inconspicuous presence of Pastor Kong Hee, the man in the center of this controversy, is testament to the resolve and absolute faith the City Harvest followers have despite the probe into financial irregularities.

The actual charge on him or his cadre is still not known, but there is a far more important issue to ponder.

If charges are eminent, how far should a person’s faith in his/her God be transfixed onto a group of individuals? Does the allegiance of the City Harvest member go beyond Kong Hee whom is notorious for describing City Harvest as his church as opposed to God’s church?

In many of my conversations with Christians of numerous denominations, the answer I usually get is that their faith transcends the institutions (i.e. even if leaders stray from the righteous path, the faith remains). As with the other high profile financial fraud cases in Singapore’s recent history (e.g. NKF, Ren Ci …) the institutions involved underwent a major PR exercise to divorce themselves from the misconduct of a few. It remains to be seen if City Harvest can do the same.

I am rather confident that the support for Kong Hee & co will remain, unless the CAD unearths massive criminal misappropriation of funds for personal gain. However, I am less confident that justice will prevail as the lack of corporate governance and accountability is not crime in the legal sense. Furthermore, the City Harvest corporate machine is probably so well oiled that every expense can be apportioned to a “mission” or “evangelical” fund of some sort. Therefore, if funds are siphoned to fund Sun Ho’s music career for example, they could label it as funds to support her missionary work in the US. And all those involved in this chain of deceit are so ingrained to realise they are part of what could become the biggest financial fraud case in Singapore involving a religious group/charity; making Durai’s $20,000 and Ming Yi’s $50.00 real peanuts.

In the end the real losers are the faithful who lap of this divine creative auditing and continue to feel obligated to continue with this financial support regardless of the case outcome. And trust me, there will be many of them that will form the people that are fooled all of the time.

SDP Acquittal Recinded -- the very definition of poor judgment

2010-04-21T16:33:00.000+08:00

My thoughts are after the article……

Apr 21, 2010
ILLEGAL PROCESSION
SDP group fined

They were convicted after a rare Govt appeal against their acquittal
FIVE leaders and supporters of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) have each been fined either $500 or $600 for taking part in an illegal street procession in 2007.

They are SDP chairman Gandhi Ambalam, assistant secretary-general John Tan, central executive committee member Chee Siok Chin and party supporters Yap Keng Ho and Chong Kai Xiong.

District Judge John Ng sentenced them on Monday, with Tan, Chee and Chong each fined $500 or five days' jail in default. Gandhi and Yap were each fined $600 or six days' jail in default.

The five applied for time and were given until May 14 to pay the fines. They had faced fines of up to $1,000 each under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.

Earlier this month, High Court Judge Choo Han Teck allowed a rare appeal by the Government against their acquittal last October by the district court, and convicted the five.

He also sent them back to District Judge Ng for sentencing.

Read the full story in Wednesday's edition of The Straits Times.

In Sep last year, District Judge Ng probably didn’t realize the ripples his initial judgment would have caused. Only in Singapore would the proverbial ‘butterfly wing flaps’ of an impartial protection of constitutional rights cause a cyclone to rip through the fabric of society.

Judge Ng stunned observers by acquitting the leaders of the SDP as he judged that their procession on 16 Sep 07 “did not cause inconvenience to the public, affect traffic flow or make noise which disturbed the public peace.”

Key to his decision was the absence of the definition of what constituted a “procession” under the law as the legality of the walk hinges upon this definition. He concluded: "I am fortified in my views when I consider that the principal [Miscellaneous Offences] Act and the Rules were meant to relate to offences against public order, nuisance and property. The walk which had taken place did not impede or cause any disruption to the flow of vehicular traffic or the movement of pedestrians."

As the Appended article above indicates, High Court Judge Choo Han Teck allowed a rare appeal by the Government against their acquittal and convicted the five. Justice Choo’s reasoning was that dictionary definitions (of the word “procession”) must be read in the context of local law, as the word ‘procession’ has ‘long defied exact legal definition’. He also added that “whether an event may cause public disorder, it was a risk for the police to assess, not the organizers” and “disorder may result not necessarily from the organizers, but from the members of the public observing the event.

I take issue with 2 points raised by Justice Choo:

[1] “context of local law” – What context is he referring to? At the time of the incident, the Miscellaneous Offences Act forbade the gatherings of 5 persons or more. Justice Choo’s reading of the incident was that even though the SDP members were not walking in groups of 5, they could easily coalesce into one.
Or was he actually referring to the political context of law whereby gatherings (of whatever number) for a “political cause” would inherently result in law and order problems? The non-issuance of permits for the Workers’ Party’s cycling event in 2007 comes into mind.

[2] “whether an event may cause public disorder, it was a risk for the police to assess, not the organizers”

This statement by itself is perfectly fine as the police are tasked to make such judgments and to bring offending parties to the courts for prosecution. However, the courts are in turn charged with the responsibility of assessing if these judgments are indeed valid and not accept them as status quo. Hence if Judge Ng was “fortified in my views” (as he put it) that the walk which had taken place did not impede or cause any disruption to the flow of vehicular traffic or the movement of pedestrians, then the police’s initial assessment should – as it originally was - be overthrown.

So what grounds did the Government have for its appeal of the decision? What new evidence was considered? There seems to be none.

From the latest outcome, it reads as the act itself was deemed illegal as no permit was attained and Justice Choo disagrees with Judge Ng's assessment. And although the 'procession' (if you could define it as such) did not cause law and order issues, it could have, and as such, a permit should have been sought.

Now with hindsight, Judge Ng’s initial acquittal could therefore be seen as the ‘butterfly wing flaps’ that set in motion a hasty legal code reworking to prevent such impartial and independent readings of the law. The resulting ‘cyclone’ was the amendments to the Public Order Act slightly more than a month after.

As we have it, a good judgment was superseded by two massively poor ones.

Election Fever

2010-04-08T22:41:00.000+08:00

I've haven't had to time to do a proper analysis of the current shifts in oppositional politics in Singapore but from my cursory scans, it does seem to me that Alternative Party spokespersons are getting far more "official" airtime than years back.

Not all of this coverage may be faltering, e.g the revival of the Chee vs Chiam spat over who ousted whom, but there definitely seems to be a softer approach to oppositional campaigning. Take for example the following:

Sometime back there was also one on the NSP signaling intentions to run in the the Tampines GRC.

Few days back we had a story of the Workers' Party bumping into AMK GRC MP Inderjit Singh while walking around Ang MO Kio.

Then we had a story of the SDP doing rounds in the Bukit Panjang GRC while the Reform Party together with the SDA visited the Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC.

And today, we have another profile of Kenneth Jeyaretnam, which also references the Reform Party's visits to the West Coast GRC (i've attached that article here for posterity).

There is a fever sweeping across Singapore and its not World Cup fever or Youth Olympic Games fever. With Skyrocketing prices (ranging from car Coes to HDBs, Cigarettes to Tuition Fees) and a virulent unease perpetuated by an increasing Foreign Worker component that is seen as the cause of the rising cost of living and underemployment, you can't help but feel that this GE could be a real game changer.

As a long-suffering Liverpool FC fan, hope always springs eternal.

I am my own man: Kenneth Jeyaretnam
05:55 AM Apr 08, 2010
by Loh Chee Kong

It has been almost a year since Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam was persuaded to take over the leadership of the Reform Party, following the death of its founder - his father JB Jeyaretnam (JBJ). The 50-year-old former hedge fund manager, who gave up his job to focus on politics full-time, says that at the time the Opposition party was a "drifting, rudderless empty vessel".

While Mr Jeyaretnam sees his work as a continuation of his father's lifelong mission, he also wants to be seen as "his own man" with his own brand of "economically-competent" politics. And perhaps having witnessed firsthand his father's costly legal battles, he recently told LOH CHEE KONG that he wants the Reform Party to steer clear of legal minefields.

'I've got nothing to hide'

Why did you enter politics? Was it what your father expected of you? And is the JBJ legacy a boon or a bane to your own political career?

My father had always hoped that one of us (Kenneth or his younger brother Philip Jeyaretnam) would follow him into politics ... My father's legacy is not really an issue any more because I'm seen as my own man.

When we did our walkabout with the Singapore Democratic Alliance last Sunday, I was sitting with my members at a table (at the void deck of a block of flats) and a guy at the next table said: "Hi Kenneth, how's it going?" People do come up and approach me now.

You had previously kept a low profile. Were you prepared for the media scrutiny?

I'm ready for any scrutiny - I've got nothing to hide. Obviously, it's an uphill struggle to get your message across in the mainstream media. But because of the rise of the new media, we've been getting our message across ... but we have to be in control of the content.

One of the things I'm concerned about is that we don't put out anything that is potentially libellous, inflammatory or seditious, that could lead to potential legal problems.

You have spent a large part of your life overseas. Will that count against you getting elected? Can you relate to the average Singaporean?

Let's get it straight: Do you think that I left Singapore by choice? I couldn't get a job here.

I had a "double first" (first-class honours in two separate subjects) from Cambridge. After I graduated in 1983 - which was two years after my father was elected into Parliament - I wanted to return to Singapore.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore rejected my application after one round of interviews. A lot of financial institutions and banks also rejected my applications.

Anyway, I'm not here to whine. I've succeeded in London. I've built a successful career in the financial sector and in hedge fund management. It has given me a perspective of seeing how an open, democratic society operates.

People find me approachable, proactive, capable - even though some people say I speak with an English accent.

'The party was in a bad state'

It's been almost a year since you took over leadership of the Reform Party. What was the experience like?

When I was elected as secretary-general, it was actually a bit of a shock because I found the party was in quite a bad state. It was like a drifting, rudderless empty vessel. Morale had dwindled, the number of members had decreased and there hadn't been central executive committee meetings for about four or five months ...

But since then, the responses I've gotten have been much more than I expected. We've definitely created a watershed in Singapore politics. For the first time, you've got an Opposition party that is perceived as economically competent, credible, and proposing alternative policies that could really make a difference or change Singapore.

With your brand of politics, are you trying to appeal to the intelligentsia?

We appeal to all sections of Singapore. I went on a house-to-house visit in West Coast GRC recently in a low-income area. We got a very enthusiastic response there ... there haven't been elections there for 20 years.

We appeal to the professional classes because of our economic policies and perceived economic competence. We definitely appeal to most Singaporeans who think there should be more opposition in Parliament - that we need to move towards a two-party system.

Rising property prices is one area that the Reform Party is concerned about. How would the party do things differently from the Government?

There's a conflict of interest in the Government's role as the owner of 79 per cent of the land and the provider of housing ... they have a vested interest in seeing property prices rise. We've said that we would like to see more private sector competition with the HDB in the provision of low-cost housing.

I don't think this would lead to lower quality because first, you have a regulator to ensure that standards are maintained. Second, competition usually leads to higher quality.

If you get into Parliament, do you see yourself as a full-time Member of Parliament? What would your priorities be?

I'm already a full-time politician and I'll certainly devote the major part of my time. Being an MP is not the ultimate objective, because every political party's objective should be to get to be the government and that's what I'll be working for.

The PAP may be against the two-party system but it's inevitable, as we have seen in Korea, Taiwan and Indonesia. The problem with the one-party system is not corruption - at least not in Singapore because the Government is not corrupt - but it leads to a society closed to new ideas, with too many "yes men".

'We are fairly united'

What is your take on the state of Opposition unity here?

You can't force Opposition unity but I think it will definitely happen. That's the basis of our purported alliance with the SDA (Singapore Democratic Alliance) - it would not be to just fight an election but to coordinate our actions in Parliament.

We don't all have to agree on exactly the same policies, but we all have the same objective, so it would be wrong to talk about Opposition disunity. We are fairly united.

If you team up with the SDA's Chiam See Tong to contest a Group Representation Constituency, wouldn't you find yourself in the shadow of a veteran Opposition figure?

Mr Chiam is much-loved and respected by his constituents. He has done a great job in Potong Pasir. But let's be frank: In a democratic country, if a party has failed for 25 years to expand its base beyond one seat in Parliament then I think the leaders would have been voted out.

Mr Chiam and I share the same view that the purpose of a political party is to form a government. He has spoken many times about the Opposition forming, not at the next General Election but by the election after that, to be in a position to be seen as an alternative government - which is something the Reform Party has also said.

I can't comment on our election strategy. It's completely shocking that we haven't seen the boundaries ... that is grossly unfair to the Opposition.

What do you hope Singaporeans see Kenneth Jeyaretnam as?

I hope that I'll be seen as somebody who transformed Singapore politics - I hope that doesn't sound too arrogant - and who made (participating in politics) seem like a normal and patriotic duty, rather than something to be shunned or avoided out of fear. cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

The writer is a freelance correspondent.
http://www.todayonline.com/Print/Singapore/EDC100408-0000062/I-am-my-own-man--Kenneth-Jeyaretnam

US lawmakers seek action on Internet freedom

2010-03-10T10:39:00.001+08:00

US lawmakers seek action on Internet freedom
(AFP) – 3 hours ago

WASHINGTON — US lawmakers from the two major parties on Tuesday issued a joint call for government action to ensure Internet freedom overseas amid alarm at China's cyber-censorship.

Democratic Representative David Wu and Republican Representative Chris Smith announced they were inviting lawmakers into a bipartisan Global Internet Freedom Caucus to help push forward legislation.

Wu, a Chinese American from Oregon, said he was introducing legislation to set up a government-backed Internet Freedom Foundation to award competitive grants for researchers to develop technology to circumvent censorship.

"While the spread of digital media technology is a tremendous force for good, it also faces a number of threats from those who seek to control information, quell dissent and censor non-violent free expression," Wu said.

"In an ever-changing digital world, we must work together to appeal to the better angels of our nature and strive not just for prosperity, but for freedom," he said.

Smith is the author of another bill being considered by Congress, the Global Online Freedom Act, that would prohibit US firms from assisting in cyber-censorship overseas.

If approved, employees of IT companies could face prison in the United States if they knowingly give information to a foreign government that causes a person to be harmed for peacefully expressing political or religious beliefs.

"It's become very clear -- and Google's recent difficulties in China underline this -- that IT companies are not powerful enough to stand up to repressive governments," Smith said.

"Without US government support, they are inevitably forced to play a role in the repressive government's censorship and surveillance," the New Jersey congressman said.

Google in January said it would no longer cooperate with China and consider pulling out of the fast-growing market after discovering attacks against dissidents' email accounts.

Being sensitive to our over-sensitivity

2010-02-09T20:33:00.007+08:00

When I read about the news of another Christian Pastor in Singapore apologizing for insensitive comments, my first instinct was to look out for what I thought was now becoming the omnipresent hidden hand of the Thios (Would you blame me, considering the rather recent surreptitious overtaking of AWARE and clandestine near-launch of SingaNews?)

The debate over whether Pastor Rony’s comments were deplorable is not contested. They are indeed insensitive and to feign ignorance of its possible reading by other parties would be disingenuous. Naturally netters are up in arms. (see here and here)

That being said, I began wondering if we have all become victims of our own prejudices when we react to highly charged issues of race and religion. It is almost as if we have been inbuilt with this unbearable urge to be politically correct and take offense at the slightest gibe.

Have we – in the pursuit of sensitivity – become too sensitive in the process?

As I have argued in an earlier article on SingNews, it is not just a simple polemic battle between pro-homosexual and pro-heterosexual camps. In this case, it too should not become a Christians versus the Buddhists as once again we will ignore the real bone of contention; the surfacing of hidden agendas.

With AWARE there was a clear hidden hand and the same can be said for SingaNews. So the real question here is what was Pastor Rony’s intent?

Netters have been fast to draw comparisons with Pastor Rony’s case and the Christian couple what was charged under the sedition act for mailing banned Chick Publications' material. The natural question for this comparison is why were the two charged for sedition while Pastor Rony escapes with the proverbial slap on the wrist?

As with the hidden hand argument, it really boils down to the intent of the actions rather than the magnitude of the repercussions.

While you could argue over the offensiveness of the tracts (the object), their act of distributing them directly to Muslims (the action) signaled the couple's clear intent to proselytise via religious denigration.

Pastor Rony probably intended to use the ex-Buddhist testimonials (the object) as a ‘positive’ example for his flock to perhaps convert their Buddhist friends, but the mass distribution of the video (the action) was done by a third party.

Hence you could argue that while both objects reek of intolerance, the actions taken to spread that message were clearly different. Perhaps that was taken into account as well; leading ISD to step in instead of the police.

Alas, the optimistic contrarian in me wants to believe that actions taken against both cases were unnececesary. But the pessimistic realist voice says otherwise. That said and done, are we done with this sorry state of affairs or will it be settled with a “sorry” or two or maybe three. Or is sorry simply not enough, “still must explain”?

**********************************
UPDATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your reaction to the insensitive remarks made by Pastor Rony Tan?
05:55 AM Feb 10, 2010
Deputy PM and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng:

What Pastor Rony Tan said and did at his evangelism sharing sessions was clearly offensive to Buddhists and Taoists. In fact, it has angered even Singaporeans who are not Buddhists and Taoists.

I am glad to note that Pastor Tan has realised his mistake and has met up with the Buddhist and Taoist leaders today to personally apologise for his actions.

This is the right thing to do.

I am also heartened to learn that the Buddhist and Taoist leaders, while understandably upset with the incident, have accepted Pastor Tan's apology and have urged restraint on the part of their religious communities.

This is also the right thing to do.

When there is a problem, we must resolve it rationally and constructively.

The Government cannot allow anyone to exploit and escalate any issue to whip up emotions and tensions on the ground between our ethnic and religious communities.

Mutual respect, tolerance and restraint are critical to maintaining communal peace and harmony in our multi-ethnic, multi-religious society.

Religious leaders especially, must lead and set the right example in this regard.

While each of us is free to propagate our religious beliefs, it must never be by way of insulting or denigrating the religious beliefs of others.

This is a fundamental OB marker that we must all steer by in Singapore."

Why were the three youngsters on Facebook treated differently from Pastor Rony Tan?
Deputy PM & Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng: It is a very serious matter if anyone were to be hauled up and investigated by ISD. It is not less serious than getting investigated by the Police.

I assure you that it is not.

The bottom-line in such cases is that we must ensure that the OB markers are clear and that transgressions are dealt with in a balanced and professional manner. Our agencies must be allowed to exercise their professional judgment on how best to achieve this outcome.

In the case of the Facebook incident, a complaint was made to the Police of an offence. The Police are investigating it and will refer it to the Attorney-Gerneral's Chambers who in turn will determine the appropriate conclusion to the matter.

We should let this Police investigation take place without interference or prejudging or speculating what that outcome will be or should be.

URL http://www.todayonline.com/Hotnews/EDC100210-0000104/What-is-your-reaction-to-the-insensitive-remarks-made-by-Pastor-Rony-Tan
Copyright 2010 MediaCorp Pte Ltd | All Rights Reserved

Singapore: "Textbook Example" of Repressive State

2010-01-21T16:43:00.000+08:00

From Human Rights Watch (www.hrw.org)

Singapore: "Textbook Example" of Repressive State
20 Jan 2010

New York) - As Singapore begins to emerge from the international financial crisis and focuses on elections that are likely to be held later this year, the government should act to improve its poor human rights record, Human Rights Watch said in its World Report 2010, released today.

The 612-page report, the organization's 20th annual review of human rights practices around the globe, summarizes major human rights trends in more than 90 nations and territories worldwide. Its chapter on Singapore says the government fails to meet human rights standards in a number of critical areas, including freedom of expression, association, and assembly. While Singapore has touted its prowess as a leading economic nation in Southeast Asia, it continues to falter in respecting the rights of its own population, Human Rights Watch said

"Singapore remains the textbook example of a politically repressive state," said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "Individuals who want to criticize or challenge the ruling party's hold on power can expect to face a life of harassment, lawsuits, and even prison."

Freedom to express views publicly continues to be largely limited to the tiny Speaker's Corner in the city-state, while any procession or assembly for a "cause-related activity" must have prior police approval under the Public Order Act of 2009.

Draconian laws such as the Internal Security Act (ISA), Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLA), Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), and Undesirable Publications Act remain available to the government to muzzle peaceful critics. In December 2009, three long-time government critics-Dr. Chee Soon Juan, Chee Siok Chin, and Gandhi Ambalam-were convicted of distributing flyers critical of the government. After refusing to pay fines, all three were sentenced to short prison terms.

But appearance-conscious Singapore sometimes forgoes criminal prosecution in favor of other forms of harassment, such as defamation suits seeking punitive damages that snagged the Wall Street Journal and the Far Eastern Economic Review, restrictions on publication licenses under the longstanding Newspaper and Printing Presses Acts, and enforcement actions limiting rights.

Human Rights Watch called for the repeal of laws allowing corporal and capital punishment, noting that the penal code authorizes caning for about 30 offenses, and sets out more than 20 drug-related offenses for which capital punishment is mandatory. Singapore resists all calls to rescind arbitrary detention without trial, refuses to recognize that caning constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, and insists on maintaining mandatory death penalties for offenses such as drug trafficking that are contrary to international human rights standards, Human Rights Watch said.

Human Rights Watch criticized Singapore's continued legal ban on private and consensual sexual relations between men and called for it to be overturned.
"As Singapore looks to its future and new elections, the time is long overdue for it to abandon its stubborn defiance of international human rights standards," Robertson said. "Singapore should have the confidence to trust its people with full freedom of expression, assembly, and association, and recognize that their participation is critical for the country's continued prosperity.

Is this the end of the cyber cold war?

2010-01-18T10:56:00.003+08:00

Last week, while watching one of the US New channels – can’t remember which one now – I came across a speech by Senator Dodd who was announcing his retirement from the U.S. Senate. Sen. Dodd served 35 yrs in politics and is the current U.S. banking committee chairman that has helmed highly televised senate testimonial hearings surrounding the financial meltdown.

What struck me was his calm dignity and honesty when he declared “I am a Democrat and very proud of my party’s contributions to the vitality and strength of America”. But that was not the line that really resonated with me. Halfway through his speech he affirmed “I believe in bipartisan solutions, but I also believe you can only achieve those results with vibrant, robust and civil partisan debate”.

Then I began to think of Singapore. But I wasn’t thinking about how partisan debate has evolved but rather how the Government’s attitude towards alternative opinions and viewpoints emanating from new media sources has changed. Which naturally leads to the question: “Are netizens still automatically viewed as engaging in partisan debate every time a critical comment on a government initiative is made?”

Let’s look at some pivotal events in the last 3 years. Recall the Brown-Bhavani saga in 2006 where the government’s threshold of tolerance was tested when a semi-anonymous blogger “crossed the line” by bringing satire into mainstream media. The response was unbendingly harsh and forced the removal of Mr Brown from the TODAY team.

The key statement in Bhavani’s diatribe was this: “If a columnist presents himself as a non-political observer, while exploiting his access to the mass media to undermine the Government's standing with the electorate, then he is no longer a constructive critic, but a partisan player in politics”. The bottom-line was a warning to all to stay within your own realm whereby you cannot affect public opinion.

However, this implicit drawing of a cyber OB marker proved to be only a temporary truce. In 2007, rather than risking an all out open war, the PAP opted to rebut anti-establishment views by putting up postings anonymously online. It was as if the Brown-Bhavani saga, and the failed attempt to ban political videos during the 2006 general elections, was analogous to World War I & II. The next phase announced by then Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen, represented a Cold War of sorts, where enemies are known but not clearly defined and propaganda is the name of the game. As MP Baey Yam Keng infamously put it, “The identity is not important. It is the message that is important.”

So with some help from the PAP Internet Brigade, the Internet would be left to self-regulate itself. But as with the real Cold War, there were periods of prolonged calm and of high tension. The calm was encapsulated in a 2007 paper by the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS). The paper, entitled “Engaging New Media – Challenging Old Assumptions”, signaled a promising paradigm shift in relations between warring factions of anonymous critics (whom were increasingly identifying themselves)and Government spokespeople (whom were increasingly anonymising themselves).

But high tension is never far away, and the Government broke its “silence” in early 2009 (after tucking their heads between their thighs for the Mas Selamat Fiasco, Town Council Loses, CDC bonuses, Government lapses ... etc). Seizing on an event that had nothing to do with “online critics” in the first place, then Senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) and current acting “Minister of Propaganda”, Lui Tuck Yew chided netters for not policing comments that voiced elation over the assault of MP Seng Han Thong by one of his constituents.

He went on to say:

"I do not think the community itself has done enough to rebut some of these unhelpful comments delivered by fellow netizens.

'It is a squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation. It would have been an example of the genesis, of the first steps, towards a more responsible, greater, self-regulatory regime.

'But many of those responses were not rebutted or answered, and I think it is not healthy for some of this to remain on the Net unchallenged, unquestioned and unanswered.'

So we blew it; at least in the eyes of the PAP we did. But even a seasoned PAP minister, our Foreign Minister no less, struggled to engage in a less traditional platform. Naturally, 2009 shaped up as a tension filled year, with 2010 promising much of the same.

So imagine my surprise when in the turn of new year, NTUC’s Deputy Secretary-General and PAP MP Madam Halimah Yacob wrote in to Temasek Review to civilly clarify what she felt was inaccuracies in an article on a speech she had made. You can read more about it here.

Did this gesture signal the end of the Cold War and a thawing of hostility between new media agents and Governmental officials? Before I could answer that, the cynic in me questioned whether this engagement was sanctioned or a mere PR slip by an MP eager to protect her good name? If the former, then we should hope to see a future of vibrant, robust and civil debate over alternate media platforms. If the latter, well, MP Halimah should be expecting a call to tea sometime soon and we best prepare for more of the same.

Dr Lim Hock Siew Speaks

2009-11-18T11:31:00.001+08:00

POA Showcase

2009-11-04T09:47:00.003+08:00

Let the showcase begin....

APEC meeting first event to be gazetted under new Public Order Act
03 November 2009 1805 hrs (SST)
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1015617/1/.html

SINGAPORE : The APEC meeting in Singapore is the first major event to be gazetted as a "Special Event" under the amended Public Order Act introduced earlier this year.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told local and international media that he does not expect disruptions from civil society groups. He said that unlike the IMF World Bank meeting, APEC does not engage such groups.

Still, security is a concern.

Mr Lee said the new Public Order Act was passed in time for APEC so that Singapore will have "adequate powers to ensure law, order and security".

Police have the power to stop and search, request reasons for entry and deny entry to the gazetted areas.

"We can gazette certain areas and within that area, we can instruct people to move along and not dawdle and attempt to do something which is disruptive. And if they don't, we can take action against them," said Mr Lee.

"When we had a meeting in Sydney two years ago, (the Australians) spent $300 million building a fence surrounding the whole of the centre of Sydney and declared a public holiday, so all Sydney-ans could leave the town and leave us in solitary splendour. We're not going to do quite that but we hope to have a smooth and peaceful meeting," he added.

Three years ago, when Singapore hosted the International Monetary Fund-World Bank meeting, the authorities objected to 28 foreigners - all of whom had a history of taking part in violent protests or disruptive activities at previous meetings - from being allowed into the country.

During that period, civil society organisations were allowed to protest in a space provided within the Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre. - CNA /ls

Copyright © 2008 MediaCorp Pte Ltd

--------------------------------------------------------------------
A recall of the key features of the Public Order Act
http://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=MTM5OQ%3D%3D-3BtUG%2B2xe3A%3D

Consolidated Permit Regime

5 Currently, cause-related activities are regulated together with recreational, social and commercial activities under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA) and Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (MOA). Under the POA, the relevant portions of these two regulatory regimes will be consolidated for cause-related assemblies and processions. Specifically, this will mean that cause-related activities will be regulated by permit regardless of the number of persons involved or the format they are conducted in. This rationalises the current approach of regulating groups of five or more under the MOA and groups of four or less under the PEMA, (where there is public entertainment).

6 Under the POA, there will be different penalties to distinguish between first-time and repeat or recalcitrant offenders. The jail term for first time offender in the present penalty schedule has been removed. Penalties for repeat offenders on the other hand have been enhanced.

Enhancing Security during Major Events

7 Major international events are trophy targets for terrorists. As Singapore increasingly plays host to major international events and continues to promote the business of Singapore as an international meeting and convention hub, our priority must be to ensure the safety and security of the delegates and our people during such events.

8 To do so, our security forces cannot afford to be distracted from their security deployment or allow the level of security measures in place on site to be diminished by the disruption of political activists, militants or mischief-makers seeking to exploit the media and political attention attending the event. The POA comprises provisions to enhance security during such major events. Under the POA, Minister will be able to declare via gazette a certain event as a special event which will then allow Police to exercise powers to preserve public order and safety of the individuals involved in the event. Within the special event area where typically the security-threat level is higher if not highest, Police can exercise enhanced powers such as prohibition of items, stop and search, arrests, security screening, request reasons for entry from suspicious persons, and denial of entry. Persons who refuse to comply with Police orders or interfere with the conduct of the event will be committing an offence. This is the result of careful study of Australia’s APEC 2007 laws and the Australia Capital Territory’s Major Events laws.

Move-On Powers

9 The POA will broaden the repertoire of Police powers in dealing with public order incidents. Currently, in the face of an illegal assembly or march, Police will have to either prosecute after the offending action is over or arrest to prevent an escalation of the incident. A move-on order, gives the Police an additional intervening instrument to engage the offender and give him a chance to stop his unlawful activity without involving arrest. It allows Police to de-escalate an activity which can potentially cause significant law and order threats by ordering the person to leave. If the person complies, there will be no arrest and the threat will be removed.

10 To enhance internal accountabilities, the move-on orders will be issued by a police officer of or above the rank of sergeant on the explicit authorization of a senior Police officer. It will be in the form of a written notice that will state the area, and the time period (up to 24 hours) within which the subject is prohibited from re-entering. Unlike the Australian model, we have scoped the application of our move-on orders narrower so that our move-on powers can be used only in cases where the Police assess that the person’s behaviour fits within certain specified criteria as appended below:

a) interferes with trade or business at the place by obstructing, hindering or impeding someone entering, at or leaving the place;
b) is or has been disorderly, indecent, offensive, or threatening to someone entering, at or leaving the place;
c) is or has been disrupting the peaceable and orderly conduct of any event, entertainment or gathering at the place; or
d) shows that he is just about to commit an offence or has just committed or is committing an offence.

Order on Filming

11 There are specific practical situations where the recording of an on-going incident can potentially jeopardise the success of security operations or the safety of the officers. For instance, in a counter-terrorism operation, real time coverage of the storming operation can expose the special forces and the hostages to great risks as it can undermine the element of surprise critical to such missions. There are also other instances whereby the identities of an officer carrying out such sensitive covert operations can be compromised by the dissemination of video-recording of the operation.

12 The POA empowers law enforcement officers to prohibit persons from filming, communicating and exhibiting films of law enforcement activities which if exhibited will either endanger the safety of officers or prejudice the effective conduct of an operation. It will be an offence if a person willfully disobeys the prohibition order given to him. [3]

PAP Convention: Quote of the Quotes

2009-11-02T11:45:00.005+08:00

Keeping this article for posterity sake. Some of the key quotes:

DPM Teo Chee Hean: "We must be open to ideas and open to people. So long as they subscribe to our party ideals, our values "

PM Lee: "This leadership for Singapore can only come from the PAP" ..... "we must produce such a line up by the next General Elections - 2011 or 2012.""

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some promising PAP candidates identified for next election: PM Lee
01 November 2009 1200 hrs (SST)
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1015089/1/.html

\SINGAPORE : Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said the People's Action Party (PAP) has identified some candidates, including potential office-holders, for the next General Election due by February 2012.

They are mainly in their thirties and forties. Mr Lee, who is also the PAP's Secretary-General, was the main speaker at the party's convention on Sunday.

He highlighted why Singapore's next General Election will be crucial, as it must produce leaders who can take over his generation of Cabinet colleagues.

Mr Lee said: "We have made progress, we have got people who will be part of this team, but we do not have a complete team and we must produce such a line up by the next General Elections - 2011 or 2012."

By then, Mr Lee believes Singapore will have a new slate of leaders who can instil confidence among investors and Singaporeans and lead the country for the next 20 years . Mr Lee said:

"We have kept clean, resolutely against corruption, in the Party in the society, in the government, at the grassroots. "If there is a case we will investigate; if a wrong has been done, we will act on it...If you do not keep the party clean, you are finished."

The PAP brought in 24 new Members of Parliament during the last General Election. On the new candidates, Mr Lee said they grew up in the years of prosperity and did not experience turbulence and hardship.

But he believes they are just as committed as the earlier generations of MPs. Mr Lee said: "This leadership for Singapore can only come from the PAP, and if the PAP lets Singapore down, we are all in big trouble, not only PAP but (also) Singapore.

Therefore, the PAP must never let Singapore down; (we must) make sure when we press the button, things work." He added that the new MPs have done well and have established themselves with voters.

Mr Lee also told his audience of party activists that the new office-holders have made significant contributions as well, and have gained confidence in presenting and defending policies in Parliament and on the ground. Prime Minister Lee also reminded the party convention that

Singapore will be amending the Constitution, which will result in more Non-Constituency MPs, smaller Group Representation Constituencies and more Single Member Constituencies. That means there would be more contests in the next General Election.

So Mr Lee's message to the party activists is: never assume that your division will get a walkover. Party activists asked questions about the selection process of candidates after Mr Lee's speech.

Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, who is also Second Assistant Secretary-General of the PAP, said: "If you look at our party, we have got a successful blend between people who have come up from the ground and people who have come in from outside the party, and come in as MPs in the last elections; we have several who have come from the ground.

"Lim Biow Chuan and Sam Tan were branch secretaries, so we have people who have come from the ground and who are able to hold their own in Parliament and represent the people. "But we also need to make sure that we bring in talented people from outside.

We must be open to ideas and open to people. So long as they subscribe to our party ideals, our values and want to do well for Singapore and Singaporeans, we should be prepared to accept them." The PAP leaders stressed that the party's success formula is to ensure that it gets its politics right so that it can attract good people to enter politics. - CNA/so/ms

Copyright © 2008 MediaCorp Pte Ltd

APEC - Showcase for POA

2009-11-02T11:45:00.000+08:00

With APEC Leaders Week fast approaching, the showcast event for asia pacific might turn out to be a showcase for Singapore's new Public Order Act.

As a refresher, amendments to Public Order Act was passed in April 2009 in what many saw as an update to the law with APEC in mind. The new guidelines state that cause-related activities will be regulated, regardless of the number of persons involved. This is a move away from the previous definition of an illegal assembly (5 or more people).

The SDP has on numerous occasions in the past gathered in groups of 4 or even one to demonstarte the uneven application of this law. Obviously, the new definitions can be seen as a means to curb their campaigning. Lets not forget the standoff between police and the SDP during the IMF/WB meetings in Sinagpore on September 2007.

Expect more arrrests and detentions in days to follow....

SINGAPORE: With two weeks to go before heads of state gather for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit here, Singapore is wary about allowing the entry of well-organised civil groups and disruptive individuals bent on derailing the talks or championing their causes.

Two Falungong followers, a Malaysian and an Indonesian, were reportedly denied entry into Singapore at Changi Airport last week.
According to the Epoch Times, the sect's publication, the pair tried to enter the country separately on Oct 19 and Oct 22. The report also said the pair had previously made frequent trips to Singapore. Falungong, a religious sect, was banned in China in 1999 after it was accused of fanning social unrest.
Though it is not outlawed in Singapore, several of its followers here have been arrested for holding illegal assemblies.

When MediaCorp cited the Falungong example and asked if Singapore was keeping out individuals who might pose law-and-order problems, a spokeswoman from the APEC Singapore 2009 organising committee said all requests to enter the country would be treated fairly. "All sovereign nations have the prerogative to decide who cross their borders. Singapore is no exception," she said. "This is especially so in the current security climate, where we have a duty to ensure the safety and security of the public."

Security analyst Dr John Harrison from the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies was not surprised with the entry ban related to APEC. "The (Singapore) government will get a variety of information in from all sources - open and classified - from partners in the region and around the world," he
said. "It will try and mitigate threats and risks as early as possible."
Apart from the task of keeping out people with backgrounds tied to terrorism, the authorities would have their eye on individuals who could use the event to carry out violent protests, Dr Harrison said.

Three years ago, when Singapore hosted the International Monetary Fund-World Bank meeting, the authorities objected to 28 foreigners - all of whom had a history of taking part in violent protests or disruptive activities at previous meetings - from being allowed into the country.

Then, civil society organisations were allowed to protest in a small corner 0f the meeting venue at Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre; large-scale protests were confined to the Indonesian island of Batam.
Observers say that unlike the IMF event to which many civil society groups were
invited, APEC's broader platform is not likely to warrant the same level of involvement and, hence, numbers of activists

Town Council Reviews: Where is the Green?!

2009-09-24T10:39:00.005+08:00

I was actually quite pleased when it was first announce that a regular and systematic review of town council performances would be instituted. With the revelations of heavy Town Council loses due to what can only be described as irresponsible and excuberant risk taking, more accountability and transparencey indeed sounded sound.

Alas, the reality will not live up to the promises; at least for the near-term.

The half-yearly review will focus almost entirely on grading the cleanliness of one town council against another. Really, what is this fascination with clean and green? The 80s are long gone. And as one concerned resident noted, wouldnt this desire to out do each other just lead to higher conservancy charges, and ultimately more wastage?

And what is missing is the detailed breakdown of sinking fund usage. This will not be included in the grading system for now, as the ministry said that it wants to focus on bread-and-butter aspects for a start.

So while they try to preoccupy us with bread-and-butter, the use of our hard-earned jam and marmalade will continue to be mystery to us.

------------------------------------------------------------

Half-yearly grading of town councils starting soon

They will be graded on how well they maintain their estates' cleanliness and facilities. -myp Thu, Sep 24, 2009, my paper
By Rachel Chan

FROM next month, town councils will be inspected more systematically.

They will be graded on how well they maintain their estates' cleanliness and facilities, including lifts, and manage conservancy charges in arrears.

Using a checklist, Housing Board officers will inspect towns under the 16 town councils every six months, for defects like litter, leaky pipes and damaged playground equipment.

They will grade each council's performance in cleaning and maintenance based on the number of defects found. For example, a town council would get the best grade for maintenance if each of its blocks has fewer than two defects on average.

Currently, inspections are done on an ad-hoc basis.

The town councils have to submit their rates of lift breakdowns and lift automatic-rescue device failures, and conservancy charges in arrears to the HDB.

The results will be published by the town councils every six months from middle of next year.
The grading is expected to spur town councils to raise their standards.

Mr Inderjit Singh, who chairs the Ang Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang Town Council, said: "Residents will get a chance to see how their town council is performing, with respect to the others."

He added that the grading will compel town councils to improve their performance, so as to at least match one another, if not do better.

Mr Ang Mong Seng, who chairs Hong Kah Town Council, said that he would instruct his staff to conduct more frequent maintenance checks on public amenities.

The Ministry for National Development announced last December that a system to assess town councils' performance would be set up, after it came to light in Parliament that eight People's

Action Party-run town councils invested $16 million in troubled structured products.

But their use of sinking funds will not be included in the grading system for now, as the ministry said that it wants to focus on bread-and-butter aspects for a start.

Senior Minister of State for National Development and Education Grace Fu said yesterday: "This is something that we're looking to incorporate, perhaps, at the later stage."

Ubi resident David Ng, 35, a quality-assurance engineer, expressed concern that higher efficiency would translate into higher conservancy charges.

He also hoped that the sixmonthly report could include a simple statement on the use of his town council's sinking funds.

He said: "Laymen like me just need to know whether there's a profit or a loss. It's our money they're investing after all."

rachchan@sph.com.sg

Copyright ©2007 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Co. Regn. No. 198402868E. All rights reserved.
Privacy Statement Conditions of Access Advertise

SingaNews: Divine intervention or distraction?

2009-09-23T11:37:00.003+08:00

I was reading a Kent Ridge Common feature article on the controversy surrounding the new news website SingaNews.com and could not help but feel disturbed at the direction the debate has taken.

The article’s title, “Why a pro-family program should rise above sexual issues”, immediately made my hair stand as it set the article up to miss the point entirely.

Firstly, it is not just a simple polemic battle between pro-homosexual and pro-heterosexual camps. To paint it as such is to ignore the real bone of contention; the very real possibility of a hidden agenda.

We have all been distracted with this mainstream family values debate, that everyone seems to have forgotten to ask this question: “What business is it of a news portal to have a pro-family/procreation agenda?”. And to use Kent Ridge Common’s words, “why is a news portal having a pro-family program anyway?”.

If the people behind SingaNews were really interested in promoting the “heterosexuality of a couple with a view to procreate”, shouldn’t they start an outreach program or a pro-family council that counsels and assists families in all areas that affect family planning? How would having a news portal help with this?

Well, since no one wants to say it, I will. They need SingaNews as a propaganda tool for a whole load of agendas, pro-family included. While I agree with Sam that there is nothing inherently wrong with having an agenda and that SingaNews will add to discourse variety, I get rather annoyed with double speak, orchestrated misdirection and hypocrisy.

It is plainly obvious that there is a Christian agenda that has been purposefully watered down and made more palatable with the “mainstream values” tagline. Lets not forget that SingaNews CEO Mathew Yap introduced the site in a soft launch in church on 9 Sep 2009. The event was organized by ATRIA (Apologetics Through Rich Internet Applications), a New Media Group (NMG) project that focuses on empowering Christian bloggers and New Media publishers in various forms of “e-vangelism”. He also shared the stage with Thio Li-ann, vocal critic agains the repeal of section 337A and daughter of Thio Su-Mien, self-styled Feminist Mentor that orchestrated the hostile takeover of Aware not too long ago. The site is also funded by Christian donors.

Yet with all the writing on the wall, Mathew Yap maintains that SingaNews has no Christian agenda. And in an effort to drill home this point, we have some netters trying to paint the debate as pro-family vs gays when it is more than that.

In itself, I fully support pro-family values, but that doesn’t mean I want a news portal to craft stories with a focus on promoting it. That said, there seems to be an orchestrated effort to make it seem that if you are pro-family, you are in turn pro-SingaNews; a direction the Kent Ridge Commons is trying to take.

The power of propaganda is the persistent drilling of a desired message through both subtle and not so stubtle message delivery. The Chrisitan evangelical community have power and influence within their own circles, but have realised they are losing the propaganda battle over both the MSM and new media channels. The formations of ATRIA and SingaNews are testiment to this and their renewed desired to expand their clout. It also seems that they are roping in bloggers to help distract the netter community as well.

While they have every right to push an agenda, their actions thus far have won them few friends, and i suspect will eventually prove to be their downfall. Which is too bad really, considering that an alternative news site with a who's who of ex-journalists would have dramtically expanded the local discourse.

~~ The road to hell is paved with good intentions ~~

Be Warned but Don't Be Fooled

2009-09-10T06:45:00.002+08:00

Some thoughts on Minister Lui's remarks during a dialogue at Singapore Press Club.

While the MSM in media will likely, and for the foreseeable future, maintained its position as the dominant source of information, it no longer holds the monopoly in truth and breadth of coverage.

Bloggers and alternative new media sources have never set out to replace the MSM role and neither has anyone set out to conduct themselves as the pure adversary seeking to undermine the integrity and public confidence in public institutions; although they are often viewed and portrayed as such.

Minister Lui’s comments are not earth shattering as we have always understood the Government’s unease with regards to alternative and unregulated media. But they are nonetheless disappointing and betray a continued unease in dealing with dissident voices.

The fact that they were uttered by the acting - and no doubt future - Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, demonstrate a heavy lack of enlightenment and does not bode well for the maturity of the new media sector in Singapore.

It probably is also timed to forewarn that during the impending general elections, a light touch approach and easily be calibrated into a crushing hammer response in the defense of national interests.

So be warned but don't be fooled.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Singapore's mainstream media holds ground as dominant source of info
By S Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 09 September 2009

SINGAPORE: Singapore's mainstream media continues to hold its ground as the dominant source of information, despite developments in the new media scene.

That's the view of Lui Tuck Yew, Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts. He was speaking during a dialogue with members of the Singapore Press Club on Wednesday.

Keeping up with developments in the new media scene is an on-going challenge, especially with websites emerging daily, said Rear-Admiral(NS) Lui.

He said: "I certainly don't have an army to go and ask who all these people are; they use pseudonyms and are largely anonymous, and may they remain that way.

"There were only three occasions when the police had to step in to take action because the racial remarks that were made were so inflammatory that the police had to come in."

Despite the speed with which websites mushroom, RADM(NS) Lui said surveys showed that Singapore's mainstream media remains the preferred choice. In fact, the Nielsen Media Index of 2008 showed that 75% of people polled selected newspapers as their preferred source of news.

RADM(NS) Lui said: "Unlike some foreign newspapers, the media here in Singapore has not gone for aggressive journalism; they have not gone for aggressive campaigning. They have taken the position that they will investigate thoroughly before they publish.

"If there are good grounds for them to take a certain position, which may be detrimental to the interests of an establishment or an institution, they are prepared to do so and they do so from a point of view of responsibility."

But RADM(NS) Lui added that the established media cannot escape the speed and immediacy of the new media.

Temasek Staff to get No Bonus or Less Bonus?

2009-07-30T11:18:00.003+08:00

The ST should be careful on how they report their facts. Lest they become even more unreliable and independent.

The title of the article states unquivocally that "No bonuses for Temasek staff". Now there is nothing unclear about "No bonuses" is there? Well when you read on you will discover that a Temasek employee's bonus is drawn from a pool that is paid out over a number of years. When the company does well, the pool gets bigger and the individual's share along with it.

Hence when Ho Ching announced "negative bonuses" it could either mean each employee will get no money from the pool, or the value of the overall pool shrinks. With the latter, negative bonuses means less bonuses and not no bonuses.

The reason why i think it is more likely to be the latter is because of Ho Chings own words: "It is a tough challenge to share negative bonuses". You can't share zero but you can share less.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 30, 2009
No bonuses for Temasek staff
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_410035.html

THE entire staff of Temasek Holdings are taking personal financial hits, with annual bonuses likely to be slashed in the wake of the investment firm's losses over the past year.

Part of every Temasek employee's bonus goes into a pool that is paid out over a number of years rather than at the end of each year.

When Temasek meets its internal performance benchmarks with higher-than-targeted returns, the pool of bonuses to be distributed grows and each employee gets a bigger slice.

But when it fails to do so, employees get 'negative bonuses': They get no money from the pool, or the value of the overall pool shrinks.

This compensation structure is based on a key principle of having staff 'share in the institution's performance, both for positive and negative results', said chief executive Ho Ching yesterday.

In her speech at the IPS Corporate Associates Lunch, she said: 'We share gains and pains alongside our shareholder. This is in essence having an owner's approach to our business and operations.'

Temasek came in below its targets last year as well as this year, which means staff get 'negative bonuses'.

'From CEO to office attendants, all our staff were allocated negative bonuses last year, and will be allocated more negative bonuses this year,' said Ms Ho.

If Temasek achieves above-target returns, known as Wealth Added and reported in the annual Temasek Review, it will have gains to share with its staff.

'It is a tough challenge to share negative bonuses...it is even tougher to deliver a positive Wealth Added every year,' she said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other related stories:

AG Report - MDA Conflicts of Interest & Financial Mismanagement

2009-07-20T10:50:00.005+08:00

Media reprint

GOVT AGENCIES' RESPONSE TO AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT
MDA backed mentors' stakes in start-ups

By Nur Dianah Suhaimi
July 19, 2009

It was no secret.

The Media Development Authority (MDA) was fully aware several of the mentors it appointed to recommend interactive and digital media start-ups for funding held stakes in the companies they rooted for.

The mentors had declared their stakes before funding was approved. In fact, MDA not only approved the funding, but it also viewed the mentors' stakes in the companies favourably.
MDA revealed this when asked to comment on the Auditor-General's (AG) report released last week, which faulted the way MDA handled the Microfunding Scheme.

The scheme allows MDA to disburse $40 million to start-ups in the interactive digital media (IDM) sector over five years, as part of the Government's drive to boost the industry. Each approved start-up can get up to $50,000 each.

The AG report noted how four start-ups which got grants were founded and co-owned by their mentors. There was also a conflict of interest in the evaluation of applications for funding.

In 10 approved cases, one of the three experts appointed by MDA to evaluate the applications was either a shareholder of the company he evaluated or a business partner of the mentor.

Responding to the report, Mr Michael Yap, the agency's executive director for the IDM research and development programme office, said MDA's efforts over the last two to three years have focused on encouraging experimentation and supporting young start-ups and entrepreneurs in their innovations.

'Critical to their success is matching them with more experienced incubators, that is mentors, who can value-add, provide networks and advice on their growth,' he said.

'This being a young industry, the pool of incubators is small and it is common for incubators to have ownership in start-ups. This can help further the growth of the industry as it gives them a stake in the success of the IDM ventures.'

On the four start-ups in question, 'the incubators had fully declared their involvement with the start-ups during the application process', he said. 'Their applications were approved on their own merits and the participation of the incubators was viewed as positive.'

MDA said it will be strengthening its application procedures and will also require the evaluation panel members, who are volunteers, to declare their independence.

The Microfunding Scheme is expected to benefit some 750 to 1,000 projects over the next five years. So far, 200 start-ups have received funding from MDA. The mentors, or incubators as they are referred to, get $10,000 for each project for providing services such as mentoring, legal guidance and matchmaking with venture capitalists.

According to the scheme's website, there are nine mentors, including NUS Enterprise and Singapore Infocomm Technology Federation.

These mentoring companies are usually represented by their heads.

Lapses by MDA filled nine pages in the 40-page AG report. Other salient lapses included overcollecting $6.06 million in radio and TV licence fees from some 684,000 households since 2005. The money has yet to be refunded.

It did not collect $844,600 in licence fees from a broadcaster and almost $10 million of sales revenue from films it co-invested in.

MP Zaqy Mohamad, Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) chairman for Information, Communications and the Arts, declined to comment on the matter as he was part of the Public Accounts Committee.

The committee, comprising eight MPs, pores over financial statements of government agencies and the AG's annual report, and seeks written explanations from agencies concerned.

The GPC's vice-chairman, Mr Baey Yam Keng, said the approval process in the Microfunding Scheme should be fine-tuned such that mentors are not put in the position that they are able to recommend their own interests.

However, he does not think the funds which have been disbursed to the four start-ups should be returned.

'Ultimately, the whole purpose of the scheme is to look out for good start-ups. So if the companies are really deserving of funding, then it's fine,' he said.

On MDA's failure to collect $10 million in revenue from the films it invested in, Mr Baey said MDA has probably not fine-tuned this process as the programme started only some years back. He was less forgiving on the agency's overcollection of some $6 million in radio and TV licence fees.

He said: 'MDA has been collecting licence fees for many years. There is no reason why the system is not robust enough to prevent this from happening. By now, there should not be any problems with this simple task.

'MDA should really look into how it can close the gaps.'

Are our Friendly Skies ... Safe?

2009-07-03T10:53:00.006+08:00

UPDATE: ST Aerospace President Tay Kok Khiang has responded to my query on the legitmacy of the claims. Here is his response (emphasis are mine):

Thank you for your interest and feedback.
You are assured that the allegations being made by the wfaa are untrue. We have the highest regard for safety of our products and would notcompromise that. Our customers are also fully aware of our exacting qualitystandards and are with us.
Have a good day.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In lieu of the tragic Air France and Yemeni air crashes, aircraft safety is very much in the foreground of our thoughts as we embark on holidays or send love ones of at the terminal.

When I spoke of my concerns to a relative that was flying off to London, she confidently replied that if iwas scared I should just pay more and fly SQ. I felt reassured then, but now I am not so sure.

In an age of globalisation, the only thing that spreads across national borders faster than information and goods, is greed and incompetence.

I saw the article attached below in the 3in1kopitiam Forum and needless to say i was dissappointed. In a nut shell, aircraft mechanics, yes the ones supposed to do the safety checks, were being 'imported' into the US by companies that are subsidiaries or direct entities of ST Aerospace, a company of ST Engineering. And in order to cut costs and maximize margins, their qualifications, such as their ability to read the english instruction manuals, are being overstated.

I am not well informed enough to known the level of direct involvement of ST Aerospace in this hiring policy, but I do think they have a responsibility to respond and clarify their position.

I will be sending this post to the ST Engg management, Our Labour Chief and to The Press

==========================================================
Aircraft repair jobs sold to foreign workers, resumes not important
02:12 PM CDT on Wednesday, July 1, 2009
By BYRON HARRIS / WFAA-TV

A News 8 investigation found that hundreds of aircraft mechanics have been brought into the United States to work at aircraft repair facilities.

Insiders say the companies that are importing the mechanics are so eager to save money, they’re overstating their qualifications. The result may be a threat to safety, abetted by lax enforcement of immigration law.

At daybreak any morning at San Antonio Aerospace, hundreds of workers amble through the gates for the day shift. They repair big jets like Airbuses, Boeing 757s and MD-11s. But, despite the fact that it's a huge facility in the middle of the San Antonio International Airport, a large number of the mechanics are only temporary workers from foreign countries.

News 8 found they’re from Mexico, the Philippines and Chile, among other places. They have been brought specifically to the United States to work for San Antonio Aerospace (SAA). News 8 followed a special bus San Antonio Aerospace, used to pick up foreign workers every morning. Workers riding on the bus were from the Philippines. The workers, who wouldn’t say how much money they make, are part of a stream of imported mechanics brought to this country at cut-rate wages, according to several sources familiar with the business.

Jada Williams used to work for one of the contracting companies, Aircraft Workers Worldwide (AWW), based in Daphne, Alabama. AWW supplied workers for two facilities, Mobile Aerospace Engineering (MAE) in Mobile, Alabama and San Antonio Aerospace, which are both controlled by ST Aerospace. San Antonio Aerospace is a division of ST Aerospace, the largest aircraft repair company in world.

"They’ve employed over 200 since I left,” said Williams, who said she was unfairly fired by the contractor last fall. "And I know we had over a hundred when I was in there, just in Mobile.”
She said in San Antonio, AWW supplied 600 workers. The workers stay in the United States and come from various countries because of the different kinds of visas available in those places.

San Antonio Aerospace uses several contracting companies to supply it with workers. It can be a high-profit business for the contractors. They can make $3 to $12 an hour for every worker hired by SAA, contractors say.

The drive for profits is so big, Williams and other insiders said, that the contractors often falsify the qualifications of the imports.

"We had two,” she said. “One of them was a female. She was about 16. It was a brother and a sister. One guy was a grocery bagger, one was a security guard in Puerto Rico. Their ages were between 18 and 22.”

Their ages are important because it takes years of experience or schooling to learn how to repair a big jet, experience they couldn’t have had.

"There had been padded resumes at SAA before,” said an administrator at another contractor. “That’s why another contract house was kicked out (of SAA).”

One former SAA mechanic, who spent years learning his trade before being laid off, said foreign workers got their training on the job from the Americans they worked with.

"The more experienced mechanics, we would get paired up with either one or two of these guys,” he says. “And they would watch us for a month or so. And that’s how they would get their training.”

Williams is suing her former boss, Daniel Harding, for unlawful termination and racial discrimination. She has a computer full of company documents that were acquired accidentally when AWW got new computers for its office and gave her an old one. Spreadsheets, resumes and payrolls revealed many company practices, from interviews, to trips to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City for visas, charts marked the progress of Mexican workers to the United States. Documents also showed workers were charged $3,500 each by AWW to get into the United States.

Williams also has an e-mail trail from AWW president Harding to Moh Loong Loh, the President of San Antonio Aerospace. He described one candidate as having “ 25 percent English skills.” Workers need English to communicate with their supervisors and to read repair manuals, so this is a key safety issue. American SAA workers said many imports cannot speak English at all.

In another e-mail, Harding described a group of imported workers from Mexico, just like a commodity.
“I hope to be able to bring increments no larger than ten at a time,” he wrote to Loh.
While this was happening, SAA former wokers said they got laid off.

WFAA-TV The companies involved may face serious questions, said a former judge.
“I feel like we are being betrayed in our own country,” said one who was terminated. “And I feel it is not right.”

“These big layoffs of 20 to 30 people would go out,” said the contract administrator. “The very next Monday, 30 or 40 [imports] would be coming in.”

Williams said in Mobile the numbers were even bigger. She said she picked up a group of 60 people from Puerto Rico at Mobile Regional Airport last February. Since Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, its residents are U.S citizens. For the contractors, this is a bonus because they can pay the Puerto Ricans low wages without having to deal with foreign immigration requirements.
When the FAA came to inspect San Antonio Aerospace, the company got a one-hour warning, said a former employee.
“And a lot of guys who were not able to read English, they would hide those guys or send them home for the evening," the former employee said.

News 8 submitted written questions to both SAA in San Antonio and MAE in Mobile. The questions asked how many foreign workers they employ and what they are paid. The response from each said “we are an equal opportunity employer.” Another question was whether AWW is owned by ST Aerospace. The terse answer was no, “AWW is an independent contractor.”
AWW did not respond to questions. An attorney retained by the company and Daniel Hardin said “Mr. Hardin is a responsible businessman who has greatly benefitted his community and his country.”

In Dallas, former judge David Finn, now in private practice, told News 8 that all the companies involved may face serious questions.

“Federal prosecutors would probably look at making false statements, material false statements," he said. "That’s a federal offense, a felony ... Mail fraud, wire fraud, there are any number of statues on the books that would apply to a situation like that.”

Losing touch and sense of proportion

2009-06-21T11:09:00.000+08:00

While Temasek is losing its investment touch, Alvin Foo of the ST is losing his sense of proportion and reality (as you will see from his article attached below). With great conviction it is declared that Temasek out performed nearly very index and person worth noting (Buffet no less), but it comes with a caveat: "assuming the value of its portfolio remained unchanged since November last year".

What value is there in making a comparison for a 10 yr period that ends in March 2009 when the data is only updated to November 2008??

It is also quite convenient that the period of comparison ended at march 2009; a period that many analysts consider to be the bottom of this economic downcycle. Temasek's recent investment disasters were offload either prior to or during this period. This meant that they did not benefit from the vicious rebound since the march lows to date. Would Temasek still beat the street if the months of april to june were included? It probably would if you continue to only consider their holdings as of Nov 2008.

The first 3 months of 2009 were torrid times for ALL investors, including Buffet that earnestly came out and declared he had make big investment mistakes in late 2008 and apologised to his sharehlders.Did Mdm Ho make such public apologies for her countless blunders? No. She had no regrets and picked up an award for it.

We must also understand that Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway is unlike Temsasek which has constant captial injection (tax payers money). This naturally puts Temasek at an advantage as we all know the market moving power of big money. And without fear of losing this captial injection, Temasek can basically throw caution to the wind and place their bets at the roulette table knowing full well that their chips will be replenished every month at a rate of 33% of gross salary.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_392459.html
SINGAPORE investment agency Temasek Holdings may have taken a hit recently on some of its high-profile banking investments, but over the longer term it has outperformed key global benchmarks.

Figures obtained by The Straits Times show that over a 10-year period to March this year, Temasek outgunned several closely-watched equity indexes.

It also beat other notable long-term investors such as Berkshire Hathaway, a top US investment company headed by billionaire Warren Buffett.

Temasek's performance has come under scrutiny in recent months after it suffered significant losses earlier this year on investments in Western banks Barclays and Bank of America (BoA).
The state investment house delivered an annualised total shareholder return by market value of 5.4 per cent from March 1999 to March this year, assuming the value of its portfolio remained unchanged since November last year. That is the date of the last available update of the value of its investments.

This compares with a return of 4.5 per cent in the same period for the MSCI Asia Pacific excluding Japan index, 3.1 per cent for the MSCI Singapore index, and -3 per cent for the MSCI World index, according to figures obtained by The Straits Times.

MSCI indexes are key indicators commonly used by institutional investors to see how well they are doing relative to the market.

Temasek's main investments are in stocks, with the bulk of its assets in Singapore and Asia, so these indexes are regarded as a useful gauge of its performance.
Temasek's returns were also better than that of long-term investors like Swedish investment firm Investor AB, which delivered 3.7 per cent, and Berkshire Hathaway, which yielded 0.7 per cent.

Last month, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam told Parliament that Temasek has performed 'respectably' compared to relevant market indexes and reputable institutional investors.

Temasek Losing Its Touch?

2009-06-04T10:31:00.003+08:00

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the Tianamen massacre. Today also brought a news update of yet another massacre; a financial massacre.

It was announced that Temasek Holdings sold its stake in British banking giant Barclays in December and January, at an estimated loss of between 500 million pounds (S$1.2 billion) and 600 million pounds.

Guess we can’t be too shocked by this news as the MSM was preparing us for it by softening the sentiment with ‘good’ news the day before:

Once again thanks to ‘astute’ investment timing, Temasek chose to offload its stake just as the stock hit its lowest levels since 1985. It is rumoured that this round of panic selling was over fears that Barclays could be nationalised. That didn’t happen in the end but they would argue that at that time, it was a very real threat. With that said, shouldn’t then GIC be worried about its investment in CitiGroup? Or will the excuse be that the investment thesis changed as it did for its investment in Merril?

There are ways to divest can still make a profit. Just look at the Abu Dhabi government which unlike Temasek, made a killing in its Barclays investment. It invested into Barclays last October sold out for a US$2.5 billion profit only last month.

Jeremy Warner of The Independent questions if Temasek is losing its touch. He adds “Temasek's loss on a similar investment in Bank of America was an even more jaw-dropping $3bn. If they haven't been already, someone, somewhere, is going to get fired.”

If there were a silver lining to be found, perhaps the decision makers at Temasek would be more cautious before they run head in and dump millions into another company laden with financial woes and uncertainty. Ooopss ... spoke too soon. Now they are looking at AIG.

My Thoughts on NMP Siew Kum Hong's Police Report

2009-05-20T13:27:00.001+08:00

NMP Siew Kum Hong has come under attack recently for his role a 'legal advisor' for the Aware Old Guard at the last EOGM. More recently, a slew of accusations have perpetuated in online forums, insinuating that he had received foreign funding from a Swedish politician (who allegedly funds the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), and is somehow the SDP's representative or "mole" in Parliament.

Siew has unequivocally denied these allegations and has filed a police report and requested the removal of said posts.

First, I would like to clearly state that i have a tremendous amount of respect for Mr Siew. This respect was formulated from his performance in parliament and his genuine interest in serving society and providing a voice for the disempowered.

Second, I do not, nor have ever, condoned nor encouraged irresponsible and inflammatory comments under the cloak of anonymity on the Net.

Having established these two points, I am slightly perturbed by the potential ripple effects that his legal actions may have. I hate the "slippery slope" argument but unfortunatley, things always have a way of escalating.

Although Alex at yawningbread.org fully supports Siew's actions, he did note that "those who put themselves in the public eye should be more tolerant of public discussion of their activities and motives than truly private citizens." This is just something I hope Mr Siew and other public figures will keep in mind.

I have to date refrained from taking any legal action in response to the lies and falsehoods that have been levelled at me. But this latest attack goes beyond anything that a reasonable person could possibly perceive as being a valid or legitimate exercise of the right to free speech, and I certainly will not tolerate the latest rounds of character assassination from cowards hiding behind the perceived anonymity of he Internet. -- Siew Kum Hong

Although I am sympathetic to Mr Siew - no one should be subject to the concerted attacks on his person - I do have doubts over a move to track down anonymous netters when and no action was taken against the real life agents of the former Aware New Guard when they operate in the light of day and accuse him of abusing his position as NMP to further a Gay-agenda.

Obviously both are lies and as Alex has noted, the burden of proof (in libel law) lies on the person making the allegation.

While we are on the subject of libel, there are some cases to bear in mind:

1) The Lee's defamation suit against the publisher and editor of FEER
http://www.aseanaffairs.com/page/singapore_pm_ups_stakes_in_libel_case

2)The use of defamtion against CSJ
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA36/010/2001/en/dom-ASA360102001en.html

3) Libel suit against Gopalan Nair http://cpj.org/2008/06/singapore-detains-us-blogger-over-libel-commentary.php

Obviously these cases are different from Siew's curretn predicament, but they serve as reminders that what is deemed fair comment is often skewed by those with the power and money to sue.

When the little guy has to watch every single word he uses in fear of being accused of at best innuendo, and at worst libel, the only form in which free speech can take place is ironically in the shape of anonymity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also read: http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=3072

Temasek and Bank of America - Are we missing something?

2009-05-17T15:49:00.001+08:00

Published first at http://singaporeenquirer.sg/?p=3762

In December 2007 – the nascent and uncertain times prior to the eventual global credit meltdown – Temasek Holdings placed a strategic US$4.4 billion bet on troubled US investment bank Merrill Lynch. As markets continued to unravel from the subprime crisis and credit squeeze Temasek nearly doubled down with an increased stake of US$ 3.4 billion in July 2008.

In justification of this tremendous capital injection in uncertain times, and perhaps to calm nervy Singaporeans, Temasek declared “great confidence” in then Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain.

MP Lim Hwee Hua – Singapore's minister of state for finance – announced in parliament that “Because our reserves are invested with a long-term horizon, this long-term orientation will keep us from selling in panic in a market downturn” and that “The downturns also offer opportunities for our agencies to invest in good quality assets at prices that are attractive from a long-term perspective.”

History is cruel and unforgiving as less than a month later, Lehman Brothers went bust; setting off a chain of events threatening to take down giant insurers, banks, motor companies, … etc down with it.

Having already suffered heavy loses on initial investments, optimism sprung eternal when Bank of America bought over Merril Lynch to prevent it from going bankrupt.
The conversion of Merril into Bank of America shares promise some long term recovery given that Bank of America is a much bigger franchise.

Had Temasek sold its stake after the Bank of America takeover in Sep 2008, it could have gained US$1.5 billion, according to an estimate by Ilian Mihov, an economics professor at graduate business school INSEAD in Singapore. The stock price of Bank of America ranged from US$26 – US$37 per share in Sep 2008.

Perhaps Temasek believed in its mantra of having a long term investment horizon and sought to retain the Bank of America stock to earn more than what to them was a measly potential 20% return on investment.

That resolve, or foolishness, was short lived and today it was confirmed that Temasek had sold its entire stake by 31 Mar 09. Choosing instead to increase investments in emerging markets and reduce exposure to developed economies.

Market timing is clearly not a strong suit of Madam Ho Ching. Since the end of March, when Temasek completed the sale (at an average price of US$6.73), Bank of America stock has risen 66 percent (presently it is US$11.31).

US$11.31 is not much compared to the US$37 it could have made in Sep, but its obviously much better than US$6.73.

I’m not an economist but I am well aware of the shortcomings of attempting to time markets. It is often described as a fool’s quest and I therefore can appreciate the long term investing philosophy. So why the sudden abandonment of this philosophy? We will probably never know the real reason.

Meanwhile, we continue to reward incompetence over and over, AND over again.

Am I missing something?

--------------------------------

Also read: http://wayangparty.com/?p=9407

Update: Temasek explains BoA sale - http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_380131.html

2009-05-08T10:45:00.000+08:00

I will not begrudge the series of self-back-patting that will commence from here on. We as Singaporeans demanded that MSk be recaptured and the authorities have delivered in this.

MSK's recapture will now provide the real accounts of his escape and this will be put side by side with the COI report to be check for disprepencies. If there are more loopholes in the system, now is the time to identify them and rectify them.

Mas Selamat’s rearrest a good lesson — Zuraidah Ibrahim
Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com

MAY 8 — To the paranoid, Singapore’s Internal Security Department, or the ISD, is omnipresent. To many others, it is an organisation to be feared, respected and admired for its ability to keep Singapore safe from any untoward incident that threatens the peace here. But mostly, it is to be feared.

It knew the country's business and, if it needed to, it knew your business. So, it was with great incredulity that the public received the news on Feb 27 last year that the organisation had let one of its biggest catches escape.

That sultry afternoon, the wily Mas Selamat Kastari went into a Whitley Road Detention Centre toilet and out into the wilderness — using nothing more than his wits and the indolence of officials on his watch as his escape kit. That, plus a baju for a change of clothing.

When details of the escape emerged in dribs and confusing drabs over the immediately following days, Singaporeans were dismayed that it was complacency that had created the lax conditions that enabled Mas Selamat to bolt. For a while too, Singaporeans wondered and debated whether complacency had indeed set in to taint their national psyche.

Then, there were the conspiracy theories that abounded about how he must have been re-arrested and then beaten to death in detention. By then too, the baju had become a burqa. Hands up those of you who did not receive an e-mail with a photoshopped picture of Mas Selamat wearing a tudung.

Amidst all this, a wan-looking Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng had to tackle questions in a parliamentary debate that was less wrathful than the mood of the public, but no less intense.

He was under severe pressure and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stepped in to say that he had full confidence in Wong and the ISD chief. There was no need for Wong to resign, as was being demanded by some quarters, said PM Lee.

Since then, even as Wong and others have consistently said that they had not given up hope that Mas Selamat would be found, many other people were sceptical.

When The Straits Times' senior regional correspondent Leslie Lopez called to tell me about his scoop which we reported on today's front page, my first reaction too was of sheer doubt. Mas Selamat caught in Johor Baru? Within sneezing distance of Singapore? Not in some remote corner of Indonesia or the Philippines?

It didn't help when he said that Mas Selamat was caught on April 1. Too late for that April Fool's joke, I told him.

But his thorough checks across the region proved solid and we decided to go with the story.

So, it would appear that Mas Selamat was good, but not that good. This is the third time he has been caught while on the run. Security analysts say that fugitives eventually slip up and try to resume contact with the people they know. The challenge for security operatives is to know whom the fugitive knows and be unrelenting in connecting the dots to find a trail.

Sources said that it was the Singapore ISD that gave the Malaysians the lead on Mas Selamat's trail. If so, the department, which has come under the heaviest fire, has redeemed itself.

The recapture will clear the stain that his escape had left. Indeed the ISD had up to then been doing credible work in the arrest of suspected militants. After the first and second wave of arrests of Jemaah Islamiah (JI) members in Singapore in 2001 and 2002, the department had beavered away at finding out about others who escaped the two dragnets.

In the past five to six years, a check of published reports found that it had managed to reel in more than a dozen who had been on the run overseas. This is work that should have enhanced its reputation, but has been largely forgotten in the aftermath of the Mas Selamat episode.

Security analysts have often remarked at the high degree of cooperation among regional intelligence agencies that do their work diligently and are unswayed by the political temperature of bilateral and regional cooperation.

That the Singapore and Malaysian security agencies work closely is well-known. Mas Selamat's capture is yet another affirming signal of how such cooperation can pay dividends and how such ties must continue to be ring-fenced from the politics of the times.

The Home Affairs Minister and the ISD have reason to be satisfied and relieved. With the arrest, they have brought some closure to an embarrassing episode.

But this is not to say that there are no more questions to be asked. Once further details of his capture are released, a lot more will be asked about how it all happened.

How did he manage to get out of Singapore? Just how porous are Singapore's borders? Can there be steps taken to make them impenetrable without encumbering freedom of passage for law-abiding citizens? Did Mas Selamat have accomplices who were aiding and abetting him here? What other steps are being taken to close whatever loopholes his arrest have exposed? What punishment awaits him?

Meanwhile, if nothing else, Singaporeans may have learnt from Mas Selamat's escape the costs of complacency. His recapture should teach us the value of patience and persistence. — Straits Times

CDC Bonuses: Take it Back

2009-03-18T23:02:00.000+08:00

First published in Singapore Enquirer.

It has been a year since Bear Stearns, one of the largest global investment banks and trading firms went under in dramatic fashion, sending global financial markets and economies into a seemingly never-ending tailspin. The massive capitulation expected from another spectacular failure of a globally interconnected institution forced the U.S. Government to step in and rescue AIG, the world’s biggest insurer, with a US$85 billion bailout in September last year.

Six months on from the dramatic bailout of AIG, details of bailout money use are made known but are far from being transparent. We now know that US$53 billion went to paying off its debts to foreign banks. Controversially, AIG felt compelled to pay US$165 million in bonuses to its staff in the financial products division – the very division that sunk the conglomerate, and the rest of the world with it, to its knees.

In the grand scheme of things, US$165 million is peanuts compared to the billions that have been poured into economic stimuli, rescue plans and t-loans. But the principle of the matter cannot be overstated. When individuals take unprecedented risks and are later rewarded for their failures through bailouts form the average citizens who do not have the luxury of such safety nets and exorbitant payouts, we are effectively rewarding incompetence and greed. The Merril Lynch bonus fiasco is another case in point.

I have written previously that when taxpayers’ monies are involved, we as taxpayers rightfully are entitled to some amount of accountability and transparency. I harp on this topic again as controversies across the Pacific Ocean are rearing their ugly heads in Singapore.

We have now learnt that two Northwest CDC staff were allegedly given 7 months of bonus and 1 month of AWS for their 2008 performance. We were also informed that only staff at the lower-end of the salary range who will receive a higher performance bonus range. If this were true, then perhaps the majority of us would be able to accept a structure that compensates for lower wage with more varying bonus structures. But alas, the Government and government-linked individuals are once again using their text-book “everything is aboveboard”, “this is not an NKF” reasoning, only to be found wanting later.

Eugene Yeo of the Wayangparty Blog has exposed the fact that the recipients of these bonuses were in fact senior managers; thus altering the structure from sensible to downright excessive.

CDCs are quasi-governmental bodies with the primary role of initiating, planning and managing community programmes to promote community bonding and social cohesion. No doubt some of their work is commendable; but they are ultimately responsible for managing the use of public taxpayer money to finance their activities such as community events and the dispersement of financial aid to the needy. Therefore, their key performance indexes should correlate with their bonuses and be the tied to the efficacy and accessibility of their social safety nets that they provide (i.e. public assistance, comcare…etc). Excessive reward for senior management that concoct elaborate schemes which are increasingly difficult to qualify for let alone survive on is ludicrous and has to be put to a stop.

President Obama is looking into legal options to rescind the bonus payouts of AIG. I hope our own President Nathan or PM Lee would do the same. Can we really do that? I say, in the spirit of Obama, yes we can!

The AIG staff had pre-existing contracts (prior to bailout) that mandated the payment of bonus. But so too did the U.S. auto workers that had to renegotiate their terms all in order to ensure they have an industry to return to after collecting their bonuses and pay checks. Similarly, CDC staff were paid for performances in 2008. But given the severity of the recession we find ourselves in, wouldn’t a larger reduction in the bonus pool and a lower cap for senior management be more prudent? Could the savings in 2008 bonus payout be then channeled into community programmes for the truly needy and these self-sacrificing servers of the community be judged and rewarded on how they alleviate the financial strains of the pre-existing poor and newly created poor? Otherwise taxpayers are made to fund these projects and salaries during booming times and even more so during trying times.

J B Jeyaretnam Memorial Service

2008-12-18T19:15:00.002+08:00

Event: In Memory of J B Jeyaretnam
Date: Saturday, January 3, 2009
Time: 5:00pm - 6:30pm
Location: St. Andrews Cathedral
City/Town:Singapore, Singapore

Contact Info
Phone: 6591461976
Email: kjeyaretnam@gmail.com

Facebook Event page: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=40370782985

Video interview with Singaporeans from three different constituencies on their views of Town Councils’ loss of sinking funds

2008-11-24T22:17:00.002+08:00

Video interview with Singaporeans from three different constituencies on their views of Town Councils’ loss of sinking funds - Posted by wayangparty on November 23, 2008

Presented by the video production team, The Singapore Enquirer

Street interviews with:

Bukit Panjang residents (Part 1) on 19 Nov 2008

Bukit Panjang residents (Part 2) on 19 Nov 2008

Ang Mo Kio residents on 20 Nov 2008

Whampoa residents on 22 Nov 2008

Read the rest here.

Teo Ho Pin: Still proud to vote for him?

2008-11-20T20:47:00.000+08:00

I wonder if Yaw Shin Leong will retract his endorsement of Teo Ho Pin after the revelations of town council fund mismanagement.

====================================================
Be thankful to Dr Teo Ho Pin for illustrating the PAP’s hubris and arrogance

by Ng E-Jay
20 November 2008

According to an article entitled “Dr Teo says ‘be thankful’” which was published in the TODAY newspaper on 19 Nov, Dr Teo Ho Pin, MP for Holland-Bukit Panjang, says residents should be thankful that their Constituency’s funds have grown under the Town Council’s watch.

He was referring to earlier revelations in Parliament that eight PAP Town Councils have about $16 million invested in troubled structured products, of which the lion’s share of $8 million is from Holland-Bukit Panjang.

Dr Teo was quoted by TODAY newspaper as saying that the potential $8 million loss suffered by Holland-Bukit Panjang Town Council “should be viewed in the context of the $24 million in investments generated over the past six years“, and that “if the Town Council had invested all its funds in low-risk investments, it would have earned only $5 million.”

My opinion is that rather than giving our thanks to Dr Teo Ho Pin, who is incidentally Coordinating Chairman for all the 14 PAP Town Councils, for generating positive returns for Town Council funds over the past six years, we should instead be grateful that he has beautifully illustrated the sheer level of hubris and arrogance of the PAP.

Read rest of article here

====================================================

SM Goh should send Teo Ho Pin to learn from Hougang Town Council to keep PAP MPs on their toes

By Eugene Yeo
19 Nov 2008

On 26 July this year, SM Goh urge PAP members to play the role of an “effective opposition” in his speech at the Hougang National Day Dinner at Hougang Community Club:

“In Hougang, let us keep Mr Low Thia Khiang on his toes. He is responsible for running the Hougang Town council. But unlike Parliament, town councils do not have open meetings where members from other political parties can question their performance.

So, in Hougang, you have to be creative to be an effective opposition. Amongst the things you can do, I suggest you study the annual accounts of the town council to ensure that the funds are properly used. Check whether the arrears for S & C charges are piling up, and eating into their reserves. Make sure that enough money is put aside for cyclical maintenance.”

Now who has been playing the role of a watchdog on PAP - managed Town Councils ?

Read the rest of the article here.

Responses to Chua Sheng Yang's Forum Letter

2008-11-19T10:58:00.008+08:00

==================================================
My response to the ST letter “Questions on investment products rally” - November 18, 2008
Written by Ng E-Jay

This is my response to a Straits Times forum letter penned by Mr Chua Sheng Yang published in the print edition on 18 Nov.

Entitled “Questions on investment products rally”, Mr Chua claims that “too many people are taking advantage of the situation to get back money from what they knew was a risky investment“. He was referring to the recent rallies organized by Mr Tan Kin Lian at Speaker’s Corner to help investors seek redress over their failed investments in structured products.

Mr Chua sounds like a toy-sized replica of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew who also assumed that “investors had no case” and that they went in “with their eyes open”. Like the Minister Mentor, isn’t Mr Chua also jumping to conclusions without any substantial facts, and even before the investigations have been completed? Who is he to assert that investors are taking advantage of the situation and that they knew it was a risky product?

Read the rest of E-Jay's letter here

==================================================
Phone interview with Mr Chua Sheng Yang
By Eugene Yeo, Senior writer

Mr Chua Sheng Yang wrote a letter to Straits Times forum today - ”Questions on investment products rally” in which he appeared to question Mr Tan’s motives for organizing the minibond rallies. He also insinuates that Mr Tan had employed similar sale tactics during his stint as NTUC INCOME Chief which infuriates many netizens.

At 11pm on 18 Nov, the Wayangparty Club made an open appeal here for any reliable information of Mr Chua Sheng Yang. Thanks to an alert reader who emailed us his contacts, I was able to contact him to conduct a 20 minute interview.

Read the interview here

==================================================
Character Assasination! Target 1: TKL - 18 Nov
By the Blockhead

In my previous post, I was blogging about how some people from you-know-where will start doing character assasination. Today in the Straits Times, it happened.

Mr Chua Sheng Yang has decided to give the 1st target Tan Kin Lian a shot below the belt.

Read the rest of the article here.

==================================================

MAS and Stat Boards invest in credit-linked notes as well

2008-11-19T10:06:00.008+08:00

The ST article below highlights comments by Finance Minister Tharman regarding stat board investment exposure to credit-linked notes.

He did not reveal the identity of the 5th stat board, except to admit after questioning from NMP Siew Kum Hong that, "a fifth unnamed statutory board had financial products linked to CDOs and CDS, aside from credit-linked notes"

I think everyone would also like to know the name of that 5th stat board. Whats there to hide afterall? Because of this secrecy, I am left to speculate its either the CPF board, Public Transport Council, HDB or People's Association.

Thats the real problem with this whole crisis; too much secrecy.

Yes, yes, the 4 stat boards invested in credit-linked notes but these were not the ones that have experienced a "credit event". Should I be happy for them?

Just because they have yet to experience a "credit event" does not make them sound investments in the first place, as recent history suggests. But rather then to nitpick on investment choices and say "you should have known better", I have a feeling that everyone who is directly or indirectly affected by bad decisions and advice are more upset over the overall secrecy shrouding the issue.

Nov 19, 2008
5 stat boards' investments
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_304115.html

THE Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) - Singapore's central bank and financial regulator - was among five statutory boards that invested in complicated credit-linked notes.

But none of the statutory boards - including the MAS - invested in notes that have now become worthless, such as DBS High Notes 5 and Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 LinkEarner Notes.

The central bank had invested only 0.1 per cent of its portfolio in such investments, which in fact made a net gain over the past year.

A Ministry of Finance (MOF) spokesman, who revealed this to The Straits Times yesterday, did not give the actual size of the investment.

He was responding to queries after Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam told Parliament that five statutory boards had invested in credit-linked notes, but only named four: Singapore Civil Service College, Singapore Land Authority (SLA), Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) and Professional Engineers Board.

Mr Tharman had emphasised in Parliament that the four boards had invested in credit-linked notes, but not the ones which have gone into default or suffered credit events that have caused their value to plummet to zero and triggered early redemption.

The notes that have suffered this fate include Lehman Minibonds, Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 LinkEarner Notes, DBS High Notes 5 and Morgan Stanley Pinnacle Series 9 and 10 Notes.

Although he did not provide the actual amount invested by each of the four named statutory boards, he said that the exposure as a percentage of their total combined investment portfolio was only about 0.05 per cent.

These investments are currently suffering paper losses of about 14 per cent over the past year, he added.

'On a mark-to-market basis, these credit-linked notes held by the four statutory boards have not performed very differently from the performance of global markets generally this year,' he said.

'The four statutory boards are nevertheless monitoring the situation on all their investments, and will take the necessary steps to minimise any losses in these investments.'

MOF later told The Straits Times that the four statutory boards have had positive returns on their overall investment portfolios this year, averaging about 2 per cent.

And for the past three years, the average annual return on their investment portfolios had averaged 3 per cent.

Mr Tharman was responding in Parliament yesterday to questions from Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim, who asked whether statutory boards had invested in risky structured products which were linked to bankrupt United States investment bank Lehman Brothers.

Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong also wanted to know if those investments were linked to collateralised debt obligations (CDO) or credit default swaps (CDS), which are both complex investment products at the centre of the global credit crunch.

It was in response to Mr Siew's question that Mr Tharman revealed a fifth unnamed statutory board had financial products linked to CDOs and CDS, aside from credit-linked notes.

'These products comprise around 0.1 per cent of the statutory board's portfolio, and have in fact made a net gain over the year,' he added.

On how and why these statutory boards invest, Mr Tharman explained that all of them keep some surpluses for 'future capital expenditures and as a buffer against unanticipated spending needs or budget shortfalls'.

'They manage and invest these funds in financial assets to earn an appropriate return within acceptable risk limits, after taking into account their cashflow and liquidity needs,' he added.

According to Mr Tharman, statutory boards also have to ensure they have appropriate investment management structures for proper oversight of its financial investments with prudent risk management.

Town Council Revelation - let's stop throwing good money after bad

2008-11-18T10:44:00.004+08:00

In Parliament yesterday, it was revealed that 8 town councils (TC) run by the People's Action Party have about 16 million invested in troubled structured products; 12 million of which belongs to Holland-Bukit Panjang TC (8 million) whose chairman is incidentally the coordinating chairman for all the 14 PAP TCs.

Naturally, Dr Teo Ho Pin has defended the TCs' investment strategy as being prudent by quoting the often used financial term “diversified”. His strategy may very well be diversified, but an averaged return of 3% per annum in the last six years before the debacle of this mini-bond saga those make you wonder if the investment choices were sound in the first place.

According to Dr Teo, Holland-Bukit Panjang has 8 million is invested in Minibonds and Jubilee notes, which works out to 6.7 per cent of its investible funds. And, it has another $3 million in the potentially-troubling Pinnacle Notes Series 6 arranged by Morgan Stanley.

Therefore, his TC had invested about 9% of its investible portion in structured instruments which are worth close to nothing now.

But wait a minute, while we know how much went into these bad investments, we do not know the total amount invested in what he described as deposits, securities and other financial products.
We do know that the proportion of investible funds are limited to 35%. Since 8 million is 6.7% of this portion, we know that Holland-Bukit Panjang TC alone has about 340 million in sinking funds. Therefore according to the rules, approx 119 million is available to Holland-Bukit Panjang TC for investments.

How much money do the TCs have?

Dr Teo further added that 16 million is 0.8 per cent of all their funds available for investment. Thus, all the TCs combined have 2 billion apportioned for investments. As he limited to the investible portion is 35% of the total sinking fund, TCs have about 5.7 billion! Yes, billion.

But that’s not all. As the sinking fund is distinct from the operating fund for short-term expenses, the amount can only go up. Conservative estimates would probably put the figure between 6 – 7 billion.

Crappy returns

Even if you can get pass this excessive hoarding of public monies for who knows what purpose, don’t you think an Investment strategy that returned an average of 3 per cent a year during an extend bull-run - and even before the fiasco this September involving Lehman-linked products – is simply crap!

Especially when an average 2.9% return on 10-year Singapore Government Securities bonds was scoffed in the hope of earning a measly 0.1% more.

And to rub salt to Division 1/hand-picked /future leaders/A team/PAP-ministars, Hokkien Low’s (Thia Khiang) Hougang TC investment returns averaged 6 per cent a year.

Personally, I question the need for quasi-governmental institution to hoard such large amounts of money. For one thing, they often do not know what to do with them and as a result they turn to “financial experts” whom as far as we know could be their nephews, grassroots leaders and what-not.

Don’t believe such corruption / graft is possible? When there is money on the table, greedy hands are soon to follow.

Two things I would like to see

Firstly, my worry is that as these worthless structured products were once considered conservative and safe options based on guidance from rating agencies. Add in the fact that no one throws all their eggs into a single basket (at least I hope) and a diversified portfolio includes both low and high risk investments, I have to wonder what other products made up the entire portfolio for Holland-Bukit Panjang TC.

If these mini-bond notes were considered low risk at that time, what were the high risk items that were purchased with the remaining investible portion of the sinking fund? I hope the TC will be more transparent about its investment portfolio.

And secondly, I hope that in light of the performance of the MPs involved, their year-end bonuses would be withheld and pumped back into replenishing that was lost due to their poor leadership and oversight. Let's not reward mediocrity with good public money. Afterall, we are already running a budget deficit 3 times more than expected.

Other readings:
No Bonuses for Top Executives at UBS
Goldman execs choose to forgo 2008 bonuses

Lock n Load! - PAP Platoon move out!

2008-11-17T11:49:00.002+08:00

I read with bemusement Fang Zhi Yuan’s (chief editor of Wayangparty.com) op-ed on why the PAP will win the next election with an increased majority. His piece was in response to rumours of an early election following the news that Election Department has already begun to select and train election officials.

The ‘rumour’ was in fact confirmed yesterday when PM Lee came out to say that Budget Statement 2009 will be brought forward a month to January 2009. In addition, he announced that electricity charges would drop in that same month and might be lower than the levels at Oct this year.

These promises to stimulate the economy, support jobs and reduce the cost of living were however accompanied with a thinly-veiled caveat: “the country is much better off with one dominant party, as long as the PAP provides clean and good government, and the lives of Singaporeans improve.”

The venue of these announcements is also noteworthy. They were not made on the sidelines of community event but as keynotes at the People's Action Party conference. The underlying message to PAP activists, it’s our time to shine!

Back to my bemusement at Zhi Yuan’s piece. While I was initially stumped by his level of pessimism over the hopes of the opposition at the next election, I can see clearly how, as he put it, I had “grossly underestimated the well-oiled election machinery of the PAP”.

For the past 5 years, Singapore has enjoyed economic growth and prosperity following major crises from 1997 to 2003. But ironically, ‘goods times’ only spell ‘bad times’ for the PAP, as financial worries are replaced by aspirations for political plurality, press freedoms, civil rights and so on.

Take the 1997 elections for example. This was held in Jan and thus it was still during a period of prosperity and economic growth. The PAP only managed to garner 65% of the vote.

Then the Asian Financial Crisis hit at the tail end of 97 and was followed by another seminal event, the bombing of the WTC in Sep 11, 2001. The PAP swiftly called for an election in Nov of 2001 and won 75% of the electoral vote.

The poor vote return won by PM Lee (66.6%), which was achieved during a period of economic ascendance following the slowdown brought about by SARS, could perhaps be partly attributed to the testy ‘transitional vote’ which was mirrored in Goh’s poor performance In 1991 (61%) after taking over the reigns from Lee Kuan Yew.

In fact, Goh’s only real mandate was achieved during economically trying times. Hence it would not be surprising for PM Lee to bring forward the next GE as soon as possible to ride on these uncertain times.

The PAP is not stupid. They are well-aware that they are clueless in preparing for greater political participation and dealing with a citizenry that is more vocal and politically aware. They do not know how to deal with the foreign press apart from suing for defamation. They do not know what to do with the growing instances of civil disobedience and greater expression .... but one thing they do know is how to spin economic uncertainty in their favour.

They will dangle carrots galore during the early budget statement. They will announce a stimulus package to (as they will tell us) make sure we can keep our jobs and maintain our standards of livings. They might even give us some cash to ride out the year till their plans that effect.

They will also above all make it clear that without a mandate from the people, they will not be able to follow through with these measures. This is just the beginning.

Habeas Corpus is not dead

2008-11-10T10:42:00.002+08:00

Definition: The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. The writ is "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action."

Malaysian blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin, fondly known as RPK, was release last week after the Malaysian High court granted his habeas corpus application and ruled that the Home Ministry had acted outside of its powers.

But RPK trials are not over and his Sedition hearings continue today.

Nonetheless, the ruling was a victory for Malaysian society as a whole as it sends a strong message that the government does not hold absolute power. The ruling may also mark the beginnings of a successful movement to abolish the ISA once and for all. Such a move may have ripple effects on our shores.

Blogger Raja Petra freed
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Saturday/National/2396279/Article/index_html
By : Rita Jong
8 Nov

SHAH ALAM: The High Court yesterday ordered the immediate release of Raja Petra Kamarudin from his two-year detention under the Internal Security Act.

This followed the decision of judge Datuk Syed Ahmad Helmy Syed Ahmad to allow the Malaysia Today editor's habeas corpus application, which was filed on Sept 31.

Syed Ahmad held that the home minister had issued the order outside the scope of Section 8(1) of the Internal Security Act 1960.

He also allowed the application by Raja Petra's counsel, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, to order that he (Raja Petra) be brought from the Kamunting detention centre to the Shah Alam court before 4pm for his release.

Syed Ahmad said he found there was no merit for the applicant's counsel to state that Section 8 was unconstitutional, as it fell within the ambit of Article 149 of the Federal Constitution.

(Article 149 allows action to be taken against anyone who threatens national security even if it violates his fundamental liberties.)

"But in issuing the order, the minister can only do so based on grounds provided under the ambit of the act. The minister cannot simply detain someone. He must be confined to the circumstances stated."

He said based on the grounds given by the minister for the detention, "I found that it did not fall within the scope of Section 8 (1) of the ISA."

On the grounds that the order was made in bad faith, he said that this was not a matter for review by the court as "mala fide is not procedural and non-compliant."

Raja Petra was arrested on Sept 12 as he was deemed a threat to national security and the order to detain him under the ISA was issued on Sept 22.

He was detained on the grounds that he:

- owns and operates the Malaysia Today website;

- intentionally and recklessly published his articles as well as readers' comments on Malaysia Today that were critical of and insulted Muslims, the purity of Islam and the personality of Prophet Muhammad; and,

- that he published his articles concerning national leaders that were defamatory and false with the intention of undermining confidence and inciting public hatred against the government, which could affect public order and prejudice national security.

In filing the habeas corpus application, Raja Petra named the home minister as the respondent.

Senior federal counsel Abdul Wahab Mohamad and Dusuki Mokhtar appeared on behalf of the minister. Malik Imtiaz was assisted by Azhar Azizan Harun, Ashok Kandiah, J. Chandra, Sreekant Pillai and H.K. Neoh.

After Syed Ahmad delivered his decision, Raja Petra's supporters clapped with joy, only to be ticked off by the judge who reminded them that they were in a court of law.

Raja Petra's wife, Marina Lee Abdullah, and their two daughters, Suraya and Sarah, were in tears.

Later, Marina said: "No words can describe how I am feeling right now. I am just glad everything went the way I hoped. This is fantastic."

Raja Petra arrived at the court in a white van, escorted by five warders, at 3.15pm to a hero's welcome.

When he got out of the van, the blogger, clad in a brown T-shirt and jeans and looking tired, gave the thumbs-up sign as some 100 supporters chanted "RPK! RPK!" He hugged and kissed his wife.

He was then led into the courtroom and Syed Ahmad ordered his release at 3.20pm.

After the court stood down, a supporter placed a garland on him.

"I am quite surprised that I am released.

"Not many people who challenged the ISA detention succeeded. So I didn't give it too much hope."

He added that the fight to abolish the ISA must continue.

Raja Petra had to jostle his way past some 50 photographers to get into a maroon-coloured Rolls Royce with Marina, before leaving the court compound at 3.35pm.

Changi Airport Corporatisation: from the hand that swipes the ass to the hand that digs the nose

2008-10-08T19:51:00.003+08:00

It was recently announced that Changi Airport will be ‘corporatised’ by July next year in a bid to boost its status as a leading aviation hub. In this move, “a new company will undertake the operational functions of managing Singapore's airport, including its emergency services and investments in foreign airports.”

These functions are currently handled by entities that are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS). CAAS, the regulator of the aviation industry, is a statutory board under the Ministry of Transport.

In this ‘corporatisation’, we will see the creation of two entities – a regulator and an airport operations company.

Notice I keep using air quotes for the term corporatisation. I do this because this development seems more like governmental restructuring rather than corporatisation as is generally understood (the transfer of the running of state apparatuses to the private sector). I say this because:

a) This “new company” is in fact a segment of the business that has changed ownership from a statboard (CAAS) to a sovereign wealth fund (Temasek) whose sole shareholder is the Minister for Finance.

b) Soon, the company that manages the airport and invests in foreign airports will be fully owned by a company (Temasek) that is the parent company of Singapore Airlines.

c) The current chairman of CAAS (Mr Liew Mun Leong ) will move across to helm this “new company”.

d) Taking his place will at CAAS will be Mr Lee Hsien Yang (brother of our Prime Minister who recently stepped down from his post at Singtel). He is also the brother-in-law of Temasek head, Ho Ching, who now owns the company that has split from the regulator.

e) The Government assures all that these steps are not part of a cost-cutting measure. “Instead of lay-offs, the combined entities will be hiring more staff. Furthermore, one key reason for corporatisation is to allow the company greater flexibility in paying its top talents more.”

So all-in-all what really has changed?

The company was moved from the left to the right hand of the government. Perhaps there are more conflicts of interests now, not to mention nepotism rearing its ugly head again. Oh and of course, potentially million dollar salaries for these million dollar talents.

Can someone tell me how are these moves going to improve our status as a leading aviation hub?

In Memory of JBJ

2008-10-02T16:10:00.000+08:00

Great man don't come by often. And when they come, they often go too quickly.

He was the epitome of resilience and steadfastness. A titan of man whose return to the political fray brought such optimism, and whose passing leaves so much grieving.

Our prayers are with this family.

Share your thoughts, give your tributes and post your messages on this Facebook group set up to honour the man who taught us tenacity, perseverance and compassion.

Join the “In Memory Of JB Jeyaretnam” group.

Lawyer by training, he was a former district judge and graduated from the University College London with Bachelor of Laws. He was widowed when his wife Margaret Cynthia Walker passed away in 1980, and has two sons of which the elder, Kenneth, is a successful hedge fund manager who has worked in London, Tokyo and Hong Kong and recently returned to Singapore and the younger, Phillip, is a Senior Counsel, former President of the Law Society Singapore and author of various novels.

New Media more than blogs

2008-09-19T10:23:00.006+08:00

The Malaysian experience with politician entry into the New Media realm is somewhat echoed in the Singapore cyber-scape. Notwithstanding the fact that the Malaysian opposition's Internet strategy is far more robust than Singapore's, many of points brought up in this article, and others, are very relevent to your situation.

Thursday September 18, 2008
New Media more than blogs
Wikimedia
By OON YEOH

The Internet has become such a key component in the political battleground that any party which ignores its importance is likely to find itself handicapped.

RIGHT after the March general election, there was a sense of urgency amongst Barisan Nasional politicians to get aboard the New Media bandwagon.

There was talk of requiring current and aspiring MPs to set up their own blogs.

But harnessing the power of New Media takes more than just setting up blogs. It requires a sound understanding of how public opinion is shaped through online means and how political news and views are disseminated in cyberspace.

“The Barisan’s attitude towards bloggers, blogging and the blogosphere has been reactionary, erratic and inconsistent,” says political analyst Ong Kian Ming, who recently did a study comparing the use of New Media by Barisan and Pakatan Rakyat.

Barisan did get off on the right footing after the election, Ong notes. Information Minister Shabery Cheek declared that the Government would engage with bloggers and he even went as far as to invite some bloggers to appear on a TV interview show.

One of the first online personalities on this programme was none other than Raja Petra Kamarudin, whose website, Malaysia Today, was subsequently banned and then later reinstated.

Currently, he’s being detained under the dreaded ISA for stuff found on his website. “RPK’s case demonstrates the schizophrenic nature of the Barisan Government’s attitude towards bloggers,” says Ong.

Six months after the election, how much have the Barisan representatives responded to the call to set up their own blogs?

Not much, says Ong who found that of the 85 Barisan MPs in Peninsular Malaysia, only 13 of them currently have their own blogs (15%).

In contrast, 59 out of the 79 Pakatan MPs from the peninsula (almost three quarters of them) have their own blogs.

Note that he did not include independent MP Ibrahim Ali in his survey as he is neither with Barisan nor Pakatan.

Nor did he include East Malaysian MPs in his survey because blogs are not so important there.

In the past, the Barisan could rely on the mainstream media not to report or under-report any offensive remarks that may have been made by a Barisan politician.

Now, it is likely that such remarks would be picked up by online news sites or observant bloggers. Once such news leaks into cyberspace, the fallout is instantaneous.

And the mainstream media, which has already been emboldened since the election, will pick it up too. We’ve seen this phenomenon of blog scoops trickling into mainstream news happen in the United States and now it’s starting to happen here.

The Barisan is not used to playing the role of the underdog in the political sphere. But it is clearly outmanned and outgunned in cyberspace.

The number of independent blogs which can be categorised as anti-Barisan significantly outnumber the blogs which are supportive of the Barisan, says Ong, who adds: “It’s hard to name a single influential blogger who can be categorised as pro-Barisan.”

Barisan cannot overcome this disadvantage in cyberspace by throwing money at the problem. Even if it paid a whole army of bloggers to set up pro-Barisan blogs, it wouldn’t work as their credibility would be suspect straight away.

Mercenary bloggers just can’t match the passion of the ones who do it as a labour of love, who do it as a matter of personal commitment.

This is not to say that New Media is a lost cause for the Barisan. Even if it can’t get the blogosphere to support it immediately, it can set a good example by having its MPs and senior leaders maintain good websites or blogs.

They can start by emulating DAP stalwart Lim Kit Siang who began embracing the Internet in the mid-90s.

He even bothered to learn HTML just so his party could have its own website and was one of the key drivers in continuously upgrading the party website, publishing the press statements and also encouraging its MPs to start blogs of their own.

Anwar Ibrahim’s website is very comprehensive and it has sections where one can make financial contributions, request Anwar to speak at events and view his past speeches and op-eds.

He also has a blog which has his public schedule, YouTube videos, related news items as well as press releases.

Even Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has joined the blogosphere with over six million visits to date, a remarkable achievement by any standards.

In stark contrast, no senior Barisan leader can claim to have the same kind of Internet presence or traffic.

The most vilified person in the Malaysian blogosphere, Khairy Jamaluddin, does have his own website and it includes a blog.

It will take more than having his own online presence to counter all the negative postings about him but Khairy did garner some attention recently when he criticised the MCMC’s decision to block access to RPK’s website.

Perhaps other Barisan MPs can follow his lead and be willing to express their views frankly and openly through blogs.

The online advantage that Pakatan enjoys does not guarantee them electoral success.

There is no replacing the ‘offline’ activities that are part and parcel of what political parties and politicians need to do – the constituency servicing, the face-to-face meetings, the ceramahs, and so on, says Ong.

“But the Internet has become such a key component of the political battleground that any party that ignores its importance is likely to find itself handicapped,” he adds.

Reporters without Borders on Gopalan's Sentence

2008-09-19T10:23:00.002+08:00

Blogger Gopalan Nair gets three months in prison for insulting judge

Reporters Without Borders condemns the three-month prison sentence which a Singapore court imposed yesterday on blogger Gopalan Nair for insulting a high court judge in a blog entry. A Singaporean lawyer who became a US citizen in 2005, Nair plans to file an appeal on 20 September, the day he is due to begin serving his prison sentence.

“This sentence is disproportionate,” Reporters Without Borders said. “Nair was given the severest sentence possible under the criminal code for insult. We urge the judicial authorities to be reasonable and to reverse this decision to send a blogger to prison.”

Nair’s trial under article 228 of the criminal code began on 10 September. He defended himself.

During the first hearing, Nair denied allegations that he had sent emails to Belinda Ang, the high court judge he was accused of insulting, and to another judge. “What I wrote on my blog is addressed to the whole world,” he said. He also accused the police of taking his notebook containing the password to his email account and blog.

Nair, 58, was arrested in Singapore on 31 May under article 13 (d) of the Miscellaneous offences Act) and was charged four days later with “sedition” (http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/) for criticising Ang and another judge, Lai Siew Chiu, for their handling of a defamation case that resulted in Chee Soon Juan, the head of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party, spending 12 days in prison (and his sister, Siok Chin, spending 10 days in prison).

Nair was freed on bail on 5 June pending trial. His blog is still accessible in Singapore.

How Good News Becomes Bad Press

2008-09-16T11:08:00.003+08:00

A recent Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) survey has place Singapore as having one fo the best judicial systems in Asia; only second to Hongkong.

If only we could say the same about our press.

This is the article as found in the CNA website.

HK, Singapore voted having best judicial systems in Asia
Posted: 15 September 2008 0334 hrs

SINGAPORE: Regional financial centres Hong Kong and Singapore have the best judicial systems in Asia, with Indonesia and Vietnam the worst, a survey of expatriate business executives showed.

The judiciary "is one of Indonesia's weakest and most controversial institutions, and many consider the poor enforcement of laws to be the country's number one problem," said the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC).

Some court rulings in Indonesia have been "so controversial that they have seriously hurt confidence of foreign companies," said PERC, without giving specific examples.

In the PERC survey, Hong Kong's judicial system topped the vote with a score of 1.45 on a scale that has zero representing the best performance and 10 the worst.

Regional rival Singapore was in second place with a grade of 1.92, followed by Japan (3.50), South Korea (4.62), Taiwan (4.93) and the Philippines (6.10).

Malaysia was in seventh place with a grade of 6.47, followed by India (6.50), Thailand (7.00) and China (7.25). Indonesia got the worst score of 8.26 after Vietnam's 8.10.

The Hong Kong-based consultancy said 1,537 corporate executives working in Asia were asked to rate the judicial systems in the countries where they reside, using such variables as the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) and corruption.

Transparency, enforcement of laws, freedom from political interference and the experience and educational standards of lawyers and judges were also considered.

"Year after year our perception surveys show a close correlation between how expatriates rate judicial systems and how they rate the openness of a particular economy," PERC said.

"Better judicial systems are associated with better IPR protection, lower corruption and wealthier economies."

The less favourable perception of China's and Vietnam's judicial systems are rooted in political interference, PERC said, adding that the Communist Party "is above the law in both countries."

Despite India and the Philippines being democracies, expatriates did not look favourably on their judicial systems because of corruption, PERC added.

Malaysia's judicial system has suffered a "serious reputation damage due to political interference", while expatriates in Thailand "have serious doubts" that moves to expand the judiciary's powers will be good for the country, it said.

PERC noted the survey involved expatriate business executives, not political activists, so criteria like contracts and IPR protection were given more weightage. - AFP/de

Now these are the closing paragraphs that was conveniently left out by CNA.

"This bias is possibly most obvious in Singapore," it said, noting that the city-state's top rating in the survey is not shared by political activists, who have criticised the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) for using the judiciary to silence critics.

"In Singapore, the general perception of expatriates is that local politics has not compromised the way commercial and criminal law is conducted," PERC said.

Source: http://asia.news.yahoo.com/080914/afp/080914181252business.html

There you go. In terms of business protection and fostering a stable business environment, we are top notch. And in the view of big business, as long as the impartial dispense of justice vis-a-vis political opponents is concerned, they don't really care as long as it does not effect their business.

No wonder the PAP always repeats the point that the economy will crumble when they go. Blaaa

For another point of view on Singpaore's judiciary and press freedoms, you can download the report by the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI).

P.s. At least I’m glad to say that the Today paper has far more editorial integrity than their big brother press. The above closing paragraphs were included in their website.

Two Hats, Same Story

2008-09-10T11:31:00.002+08:00

Why WP didn't get permit for event
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_276601.html

I REFER to last Thursday’s letter by Mr Tan Ghee Gay, ‘Why ‘no’ and ‘yes’?', regarding police decisions with respect to the Workers’ Party’s (WP) proposed mass cycling event last year, and the carnival on Aug 31.

Police do not issue permits for outdoor political events in public places due to the potential for disorder and unruly behaviour. This applies to events organised by all political parties. For this reason, police rejected WP’s application to hold a mass cycling activity in East Coast Park, to commemorate its 50th anniversary in September last year.

The event on Aug 31 was very different. The permit was issued after taking into account the organiser and the nature of the event. It was organised by the PAP Community Foundation, which is a registered charity and not a political party. The event was not assessed to have the potential for disorder and unruly behaviour. It was a carnival that involved children and families from various kindergartens and educational institutions. The Prime Minister, as guest of honour, and a few other guests, made their entrance by cycling a short distance. During the event, a sum of $664,000 (which had been raised earlier) was distributed to 17 charities, including Beyond Social Services, Children’s Aid Society and Chung Hwa Medical Institution.

DSP Paul Tay
Assistant Director (Media Relations)
Singapore Police Force

This latest public relations announcement is frustrating to read.

In essence, the response is that events organized by political parties will promote disorder and attract unruly behaviour, therefore all such events will be denied permits. This is an excuse we are now all familiar with.

Our instinctual response then would be to wonder why PAP events get special concession. Reason is, since the PAP is the incumbent government, all their outdoor activities, no matter how obviously party-related, are rewarded permits on the basis that they are wearing their ‘government hat’ and not their ‘party hat’. Or better yet, they are merely invited guests to ‘non-political’ outdoor events.

I understand the rationale for taking into account the organisers’ antecedence when considering permits. Groups (political parties, NGOs, charities… etc) known to be rowdy or aggressive in their campaigning should rightly have their subsequent requests for permits rejected. But to issue a blanket ban on political groups from organizing outdoor events (other than rallies during election time), is absolutely ridiculous.

Does that mean opposition parties (who apparently have only one hat – the ‘trouble-maker hat’) have no chance of organising outdoor events beyond the confines of the ‘yellow-boxed’ Speakers’ Corner?

One Country, Two Hats, Two systems indeed.

P.s
Let us not forget:

Banned National Day Pink Picnic
Banned Indignation Pink Run
Disrupted Tak Boleh Tahan protest
Approved 5000 strong Case Consumer Rights Day protest march on 16 March 2008.
Approved Expatriate Women gathering for Myanmar

Tokens or Lemonade

2008-08-26T10:09:00.006+08:00

To update on an earlier post, the clarifications on the revised use of Speakers' corner for public protests were announced yesterday (see below).

I shall not comment on the rules as they sound fine and dandy at first glance. The true test of any rule/guideline is of course the actual administration and enforcement of them.

I am however slightly disappointed with Alex Au's response**. In a CNA interview, Alex said: "I would not dignify this tokenism by organising anything there. It will have to be at a proper place like here at Raffles Place or down a major street, or nothing."

I have a great deal of respect for Alex and I understand in essense his rejection of token handouts. However his remarks do come across as being critical for criticism sake. Surely if the government were to announce a new speakers' corner in Raffles Place, one could argue "what about orchard road?".

In fact, he should have argued that there should be no restrictions on demonstration locations. Or alternately, a trade-off could be made for such freedoms (demonstrations virtually everywhere) by listing more restrictive guidelines (e.g. no effigies, placards...).

There is a saying, "When given lemons, make lemonade".

**I must however add that its very likely his comments were taken out of context, knowing how our first world press operates.

Singaporeans can demonstrate at Speakers' Corner from Sep 1
By Imelda Saad, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 25 August 2008 1411 hrs

SINGAPORE: Banners, placards and effigies will be allowed at the Speakers' Corner when the site is opened for public demonstrations from September 1.

For Singapore citizens, there is no longer a need to apply for a police permit.

The new rules came about as the government seeks to open up the space for political engagement and activism in the country.

It is Singapore's version of London's Hyde Park. Hong Lim Park in central Singapore was designated as a site for public speaking on September 2000, but interest has waned over the years. However, with the new rules, things may change.

From September 1, Singapore citizens can organise demonstrations at the Speakers' Corner without a police permit.

All they need to do is register online at the National Parks Board website at www.nparks.gov.sg, which takes over the management of the Speakers' Corner from the Police.

Anyone who registers can immediately carry out his demonstration. Online registration begins on August 30.

Singapore Permanent Residents, though, will require a police permit to organise demonstrations.

But citizens and PRs can participate in assemblies without having to register.

Current rules for foreigners remain and they have to apply for a police permit for any activity there.

And all groups, even those that run counter to the establishment, will be allowed to demonstrate. These include gay rights groups and even the Falungong.

Other changes include self-powered amplification devices like loud hailers, which will be allowed in the area between 9am and 10.30pm. Police said the restriction is to minimise noise pollution in the area.

Activities can also be carried out at any time of the day. Currently, activities are restricted to between 7am and 7pm.

However, basic rules will still remain. Topics cannot touch on issues like race and religion. Content that promotes violence or are lewd in nature will also not be allowed.

Even with a light touch approach, there will still be some police presence at the Speaker's Corner.

Wong Hong Kuan, Director, Operations, Singapore Police Force, said: "Generally if there are no issues of concern, there won't be any overt police presence there all the time and we will manage it just like other places in Singapore."

NParks said that demonstrators are free to do what they want as long as they do not damage surrounding trees and property. There will not be any cosmetic changes to the site, even though some have asked for more benches and shelter.

Dr Leong Chee Chiew, chief operating officer, National Parks Board, said: "If we were to plant more trees, you actually have less space. So there's a trade-off."

Work is underway to build a mound, so speakers do not have to bring their own soapboxes to speak and be seen. - CNA/vm

PM Rally Speech: Men-in-White or Men-in-Grey?

2008-08-19T12:07:00.001+08:00

Amongst the usual pro-family, pro-integrated society policy tweaks we are used to hearing, it was quite surprising to hear PM Lee announce the lifting of the ban on political pod/vodcasts during election campaigning periods. More surprising was the easing up of restrictions governing the use of the speakers’ corner; allowing for future public demonstrations the location.

Even more surprising was the promise of a light touch in regulating the use of the space. Significantly, the police would hand over management of the site to N Parks.

Of course, as with many PAP policies, there are ambiguities and grey areas which somehow always seem to hinder dissenting voices whilst protecting others.

For example, videos that are “purely made-up material, partisan stuff, footage distorted to create a slanted impression” remain prohibited. PM is probably referring to those smear campaign commercials which are rampant during US presidential elections. But to expect political videos, originating form parties or non-partisan individuals, not to have some sort of slant, is a bit naïve. We shall have to see how consistent the ‘regulators’ are with categorizing videos that emerge during the period. We wouldnt want a situation whereby only pro-PAP videos pass the 'censors'.

Alas, the move to allow for public protests could be a means to plug the apparent hypocrisy with regards to “government-linked” demonstrations (ala CASE). A lack of use of the facility (due to poor location..etc) would also give the PAP more political fodder to declare a happy citizenry not opting to demonstrate although allowed to. And of course here comes the caveat. This ‘privilege’ only remains “as long as the demonstrators adhere to basic rules of law and order, and stay away from issues of race, language or religion.” – a huge grey area if you ask me.

Why should the PAP have the monopoly to discuss issues of race, language or religion? -- This among all other areas is where an easing in restrictions is required.

Singapore to ease ban on political videos, public demonstrations
By Imelda Saad, Channel NewsAsia

SINGAPORE: Political engagement in Singapore is set to change with the advent of new media.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong acknowledged this as much and said the government will have to adapt, get used to it, and turn it to positive effect.

Hence, the government will ease up on the ban on political videos and outdoor public demonstrations, he said at his National Day Rally on Sunday night.

The new-generation Singaporeans, weaned on the likes of Facebook and YouTube, are getting news off websites and discussing issues online.

"By the next GE (General Election), 5 years will have passed. Cyber years are like dog years. One year in cyberspace equals to 7 years in real life," Mr Lee said. "That's the pace at which things change. So 5 years times 7 means 35 years in the real world."

Mr Lee even conceded that his National Day Rally has become a multi-media event.

To show this, he took out a mobile phone and proceeded to film the audience before him in the auditorium. Behind him, on a giant screen, the audience saw themselves featured on the Web page of the Prime Minister's Office - live.

"There you are, simple as that. I've just made our first non-political video," he said to laughter from the audience.

And since anyone can do this anytime, anywhere, Mr Lee said an outright ban on party political films is no longer sensible.

But there will still be safeguards.

"Some things are obviously alright - factual footage, documentaries, recordings of live events. But I think some things should still be off limits... (for instance) if you made a political commercial so that it's purely made-up material, partisan stuff, footage distorted to create a slanted impression," he said.

Unlike the last General Election, podcasts, videocasts and election materials will be allowed. But those who upload such material online will have to maintain accountability and responsibility.

The Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society - led by former Singapore Press Holdings editor-in-chief Cheong Yip Seng - will set out its recommendations on these issues later this month.

The restriction remains for outdoor demonstrations, but Mr Lee said the government needs to find ways to allow Singaporeans to express themselves safely.

He said Singapore will allow outdoor public demonstrations at the Speakers' Corner, a public space for free speeches. This is as long as the demonstrators adhere to basic rules of law and order, and stay away from issues of race, language or religion.

The government will manage the liberalisation with a light touch, said Mr Lee. So there is no need for the Police to be involved. In fact, the NParks will manage the Speakers' Corner, instead.

Mr Lee said: "The overall thrust of all these changes is to liberalise our society, to widen space for expression and participation. We encourage more citizens to engage in debate, to participate in building our shared future.

"We will progressively open up our system even more. If you compare today with 5 years ago, 10 years ago, it's much more open today."

Even then, Singapore cannot progress just by copying others. Mr Lee said the country must find the right path for itself. - CNA/ir

Oh hear the patriotic drum

2008-08-11T10:15:00.002+08:00

*First Concerto
Chief Maestro taps is wand subtly.

Reflecting on the Beijing Olympic opening ceremony, MM Lee commented that “even a biased foreigner will know that these are very determined people with the capability and the potential. It must mean they will end up on the top table.”

Any observer of political-speak and soft-power aggression, would tell you that MM is not just talking about the Olympic medal table. No my friends, he is posting a warning that China is determined not to be held down by a globally coordinated attempt to derail their progress in the world stage of economics, and eventually politics. The Olympics was their coming out party, and the Chinese plan to do it their way.

He is also reminding the world that Singapore is a China miniature, or maybe a blueprint. Afterall, no matter how aggrieved one may feel about the lack of civil liberties and independent intuitions, Singapore’s economic development continues to baffle disbelieving proponents of free-market liberalism and political pluralism as models of development.

*Second Concerto
The orchestrator signals in his star soloist.

In steps Political Editor Chua Lee Hong for her solo "Why they hate Singapore”.

Chua describes how Singapore is very much like modern China today – a target of jealously from green-eyed western liberal democracies. She reasons that Western countries are unable to stomach the possibility that economic development, educated citizens and world-class talents could possibly emerge under authoritarian regimes. Yes, she begrudgingly described Singapore as an Authoritarian State. And what will these liberal western democracies hate more? Emerging superpowers like China and Russia adopting our model.

*Third Concerto
The orchestrator signals in the rest of the orchestra.

According to the script, letters of national pride will pour into the Mainstream press forum pages. The statement being we are proud of our uniquely Singapore model.

I myself don’t believe in a universal model of governance that is equally applicable to all societies. Hence I too scoff at self-righteous political evangelism by Western systems built on centuries of warmongering, slavery, pillaging, economic tyranny…etc.

But as we come to grips with the biased and hypocritical assumptions of others, we should be careful not to be lost in our own.

Psychological Warfare Tactic

2008-07-23T11:03:00.004+08:00

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

2008-07-22T10:56:00.003+08:00

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)

2008-07-16T11:04:00.004+08:00

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

2008-07-08T10:13:00.001+08:00

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

2008-07-04T11:33:00.005+08:00

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?

2008-07-03T12:03:00.007+08:00

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.

5 more years of mistakes could also ruin Singapore

2008-06-26T10:53:00.003+08:00

Sounds like MM wants to secure another 5 year tenure for the PAP before he himself becomes incapacitated.

We have heard him weave this doomsday prognosis for an opposition-ruled Singapore before. But what struck me was his comment that our "existence depends on performance" and his heavy emphasis on good leaders.

Knowing this, MM should realize that a vote for an opposition candidate will not be out of, as he put it, boredom or fickleness. If anything, it is an evaluation on the performance and capability of the PAP leaders. Should this performance not be up to the mark, or citizens are left realing over mistakes by incapable leaders (you know who), believe you me, the vote is anything but fickle.

The tough decisions, for which we are supposed to trust the government o make, should not be limited to how much and when to raise the price of ERP, GST, Utilities, HDBs...etc.

If the PAP is serious about defending their turf, political will is needed. Political will to weed out under performers is necessary because 5 more years of mistakes could also ruin Singapore.

June 26, 2008
MM LEE ON FREAK POLL RESULTS
5 Years all it takes to ruin Singapore
'I know how we got here and I know how we can unscramble it,'
he says
By Lydia Lim

ONE freak election result is all it will take to wipe out Singapore's
success in building up the city state, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew warned last
night.

This could happen if voters became bored and decided to give the
'vociferous opposition' a chance - out of 'light-heartedness, fickleness or
sheer madness'.

'In five years, you can ruin this place and it's very difficult to pick up
the pieces,' he told 650 participants of a dinner forum at the Shangri-La Hotel.

Mr Lee was responding to a Bangladesh delegate who asked if Singapore would continue to thrive in his absence. The delegate also expressed sorrow at the news of Mrs Lee's illness, and Mr Lee thanked him.

In his reply, Mr Lee returned to themes he has spoken on often - the need for a system to ensure good leaders emerge, and the danger that voters plumping for more opposition MPs might end up with an unintended change of government.

Larger countries rich in resources can survive such a freak outcome, but not Singapore, he said.
'When you're Singapore and your existence depends on performance - extraordinary performance, better than your competitors - when that performance disappears because the system on which it's been based becomes eroded, then you've lost everything,' he said.

'I try to tell the younger generation that and they say the old man is playing the same record, we've heard it all before. I happen to know how we got here and I know how we can unscramble it.'

He said a country needed three elements to succeed.
First, a government that people have confidence in and will trust when tough decisions need to be taken.

Second, leaders who are above board, who make decisions based on necessity, not how they will personally benefit. He said Singaporeans know they have such leaders because, over the years, 'we have not got richer, Singapore has'.

Third and most importantly, a country needs able men in charge.

The problem with popular democracy, he said, is that during elections, candidates are not judged on how well they can govern, but on their persuasive power.

The forum, chaired by Mr Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, was a highlight of the first World Cities Summit and International ater Week.
In his opening remarks, Mr Lee spoke for 20 minutes off the cuff, recounting his 40 years of striving to build up Singapore's independent water supply. He was determined because as long as Singapore was totally reliant on its neighbours for water, it would remain a 'satellite'.

During a 30-minute question-and-answer session, participants from around the world probed him about water management and political leadership.

He also presented the first Lee Kuan Yew Water Prize to Dr Andrew Benedek, a pioneer in the field of membrane technology for water treatment.

A key outcome of several sessions held yesterday was the setting up of an informal network of 16 countries - comprising the Asean 10, China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand - to share ideas and expertise on how to go about pursuing sustainable development.
And the World Bank announced plans to set up in Singapore a regional hub for training urban planners, which will draw on the Republic's success in city development.
lydia@sph.com.sg

Malaysia BN's creative tactics

2008-06-23T11:13:00.003+08:00

Taken from Malaysiakini - "The Barisan Nasional leadership is so worried that some of their members of parliament in Sarawak and Sabah will leave or cross over to Pakatan Rakyat (PR) that they have packed them off to go on official visits overseas."

So much for the recently announced cost cutting package. So instead of going on vacation, they are now called "official visits overseas".

And with a no confidence vote looming, the numbers below make sense dont they? If you are not around, how do you vote? Clever.

Monday June 23, 2008
137 MPs to reject no-confidence motion against PM

MINGGUAN Malaysia has claimed that 137 Members of Parliament have pledged
to reject any attempt to table a no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister.

Deputy Backbenchers’ Club president Datuk Bung Moktar Radin said he had also directed its members to get ready and arm themselves with “facts” to defend the Prime Minister if ever such a motion saw the light of day at the Dewan.

“However, as of now, we have not received any information about the tabling of such motion. Tomorrow’s (Monday’s) proceedings will go on peacefully and there will be no extraordinary event,” he said.

Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) president Datuk Yong Teck Lee had on Friday
announced that its supreme council had endorsed a no-confidence motion against
Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as Prime Minister.

Escape Blunder - No not Singapore, but UK

2008-06-20T10:57:00.003+08:00

2008 will be remembered as the year of the great escapes.

We have had the MSK Toilet Escape, the Moroccon Prison Escape, the Taliban Prison Escape, and now we have 7 illegal immigrants escaping from a dention centre in the UK.

While not of the same magnitude of escaped terrorists, the damage to image and egos is very evident. First world, developing world, under developed world.... we all make mistakes, so lets not pretend we are infallable.

For those keeping score: Asia - 1, Mideast - 1, Africa - 1, Europe - 1

Escape blunder as Jacqui Smith launches immigration crackdown
By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent Last updated: 8:37 PM
BST 19/06/2008
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, faced embarrassment today after seven illegal immigrants broke out of a detention centre on the day she unveiled a new crackdown on immigration.
Miss Smith revealed a "tough" strategy for tackling offenders and launched it by meeting with police officers carrying out dawn raids on alleged bent solicitors and bogus colleges.
But within hours, news had emerged of a security breach at the Campsfield detention centre in Oxfordshire. Three men who were facing deportation are on the run tonight
Opposition leaders hit out at repeated, "unacceptable" blunders at Campsfield and said the timing of the incident, coinciding with the new policy launch, was "sadly appropriate".
In a raft of new measures, Miss Smith announced that the UK Border Agency would "name and shame" employers who hire illegal immigrants, that those who were convicted and sentenced to a year or more faced "automatic deportation", and launched a crackdown on illegal immigrants obtaining British driving licences.
In the London raids, police arrested at least eight men and women linked with companies they believe helped illegal immigrants to settle in the UK.
Officials believe the firm of solicitors at the centre of the inquiry was issuing false education certificates to them, which they would then use to "enrol" at one of four bogus colleges across London and fraudulently apply for student visas.
Only later did the break-out emerge. Four of the escapees were recaptured by police shortly after the alarm was raised at 4 am, including one, a Libyan with a criminal record, who was found eating tomatoes at the Botanical Gardens in Oxford. The other three remain on the run, Thames Valley Police said.
The break-out happened just five days after a fire at the 215-man Campsfield detention centre, during which around 20 detainees staged a rooftop protest.
There was a riot at the centre last December and 26 detainees escaped from the centre in a mass break-out months before.
Dominic Grieve, Shadow Home Secretary, said: "It is sadly appropriate that a serious and dangerous incident at an immigration detention centre should coincide with the Government's latest attempt at talking tough on immigration. "
Announcing yet another reorganisation of the UK Borders Agency and putting names on a website is no substitute for real action. Naming and shaming is no substitute for catching and convicting.
"All of this shows why we need an integrated Border Police Force bringing together the police with immigration and customs, to make our borders safer and the immigration system less chaotic."
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: "This is the fifth major disturbance at Campsfield in little over a year and the second in a week. It raises serious questions about the wisdom of mixing foreign national ex-prisoners with immigration detainees.
"The frequency of fires and escapes suggests there are significant problems with either the Home Office system or the management of Campsfield itself."
Story from Telegraph
News:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/2158121/Escape-blunder-as-Jacqui-Smith-launches-immigration-crackdown.html

Fairprice moving towards fairer prices?

2008-06-20T10:44:00.004+08:00

I believe this is probably the only good piece of news i have heard this entire year. NTUC will be reducing the prices of their housebrand rice from today onwards due to savings both current and projected.

These days it seems prices only positively correlate to rising resoure/commodity prices yet some how negatively correlate to price drops. With inflation in singapore hitting record 25 year highs, some forms of inflationary easing are always welcomed.

Could the Government or NTUC do more to ease these costs? You bet. But you take what you can when you can.

FairPrice cuts housebrand prices, a sign of rice getting cheaper?
Loh Chee Kong cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

AFTER three months of soaring rice prices, consumers can afford to breathe
a little easier for now.

From today, the prices of eight types of NTUC FairPrice’s housebrand rice will be reduced by between 5 and 12 per cent, Singapore’s largest supermarket chain announced yesterday. This marks the first time FairPrice is cutting the prices of its housebrands since rice prices shot up in March.

A 5kg bag of its Thai Fragrant White Rice will cost $7.45, down from $8.50,
while its Thai White Rice (picture) — the cheapest type — will be sold at $6.95
for a 5kg bag, instead of $7.50. Although global rice prices peaked about three weeks ago, the price of rice had been expected to fall in recent months, as major producers in South-east Asia braced themselves for harvesting bumper crops.

But CIMB-GK economist Song Seng Wun was circumspect on whether the price of
rice would continue to drop across the board, pointing out that the initial spike was triggered by unpredictable factors such as inclement weather and panic-buying.

“At least for now, there is more stability for rice, a staple food here,” he said. “But having said that, the price of rice is still significantly higher than that of a year ago.”

On Wednesday, a survey by the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) provided the first indications of a respite for consumers when it revealed that the prices for a handful of imported rice brands, such as Golden Peony and Royal Umbrella, had dipped. But the survey also showed that prices of housebrands had risen in the last month.

FairPrice group chief executive Tan Kian Chew added that the company was “still clearing the existing stock of rice bought at a higher price”.

Mr Tan said: “Due to our prudent buying strategy, we have managed to secure new shipments of rice at a lower price. Although the new shipments will arrive only in end July ... FairPrice is committed to pass on the anticipated savings to our customers.”

Today was unable to reach the other supermarket chains at press time, but Case executive director Seah Seng Choon said that FairPrice’s competitors might
follow suit “if they were concerned with competition”.

Still, Mr Seah added: “In the short run, there would be price rigidity and prices might not go down as much as consumers want to see. But the prices shouldn’t be going up.”

Attempted Subordinate Court Escape: Better Humans not Systems

2008-06-15T17:48:00.004+08:00

“It shouldn’t have happened” and “human error” have become popular phrases by high level ministers these days. We first heard them from Wong Kan Seng after the Mas Selamat escape and now from K Shanmugan after the attempted escape by 2 individuals charged with robbery.

Unlike Mas Selamat’s escape, the foiled subordinate court escape was apparently not due to poor systems/procedures. I guess I can accept that point. After all, there was nothing wrong this time with the CCTV cameras or the physical structures of the lock-up at the courts. So yes, it was largely down to human error. This view is of course only based on what I know of the incident as reported.

Limiting the movement of accused individuals at the Subordinate court, as proposed by Shanmugan, sounds like a good idea as long as this does not deny them the right to have their case heard in a manner that is not prejudicial to them. Just like flights risk individuals should not be denied medical treatment. If the treatment is not in a public hospital then the standards in a secured facility should not be lacking in quality.

But limited movement is movement nonetheless and thus there will always be opportunities for lapses to occur once again.

Will adding more procedures or systems be the cure-it-all? It really depends as more steps can actually further complicate things and result in confusion or an over reliance on these systems to prevent human error. Each individual may start to rely on another cleaning up potential lapses. Thankfully there was some semblance of system effectiveness in reacting to the attempted escape.

But those that have been to the army will know that no amount of SOP, guidelines or rules can prevent shit from happening. As long as humans are left in charge of executing them, there will always be the chance for mistakes. And this can sometimes be due to “negligence” or “acts of God” beyond our control. Personal errors are not always due to “complacency” as the state-funded press will have you believe.

This is where our million dollar ministers earn their pay check. Apart from formulating strategies and systems of conduct, they also need to invest heavily in proper training and motivation of personnel under their charge. A system is only as good as the sum of all its parts and if the just one component fails, the whole system crumbles.

Malaysia's cost-cutting package: When not enough is dangerous

2008-06-10T11:04:00.005+08:00

If there is anything we learn from watching politics in Singapore, it is that if you look beyond the shiny gloss surface, you might see an ugly reflection. And this is even more so for our neighbours up north.

Malaysia announced a 2.0-billion-ringgit ($612-million) cost-cutting package aimed at softening the blow after an unpopular 41 percent fuel price increase. A component of this cost-cutting package is a 10% reduction in Minister allowances. Not exactly a major sacrifice if you consider that it is only their entertainment allowances are affected. As their vacations will also be limited to domestic and ASEAN destinations, I am assuming that the state pays for their vacations.

Now I am assuming that 10% of minister allowances and the savings from their travel expenses would not amount to more than a few millions of dollars per year. If it did amount to a larger than proportionate share of the cost savings then perhaps they should be looking at the other 90%. But assuming it doesn’t, these small personal ‘sacrifices’ are operating in tandem with monumental sacrifices from the people of Malaysia as the major component of this cost-cutting package is the deferment of major infrastructure projects.

Unfortunately, while saving the Government millions, such projects like upgrading public transportation and building low-cost housing would in fact help the poor reduce their dependency on private vehicles and rising house prices (due to rising material costs brought about by rising fuel). Therefore, such cost cuttings would only amount to a short term fix and in fact make Malaysians less able to tackle rising costs in the future.

And what about the revenues from rising crude prices? Last year, Malaysia's fuel subsidies cost the state about US$12.44 billion. At that time, crude oil prices hover around US$100 a barrel. However, as a net oil exporter, Malaysia gains from high oil prices, reaping US$77.6m a year in revenue for every US$1 rise in crude prices. Prices of crude has since risen by roughly US$30 and simple projections would mean an increase in revenue of approximately US$2 billion. Can this be channelled to the poor instead? Apparently not as the newly restructured fuel subsidy system (even after the reduction) is expected to cost US$14bn this year (US$2 billion more than last year).

Thus, if a 41% increase is fuel price is a direct result of a reduction in fuel subsidy, there is essentially no increase in revenue the government can play with as the government is essentially spending the same amount as last year while the people are spending more at the stations and left to face rising inflation.

The major source of funding for this relief package is thus coming from a public spend; public spending which would have been more effective in providing relief in the long run. A seeming in ability to manage the economy would definately open the door for the Opposition. We all know the power of bread and butter issues to swing opinion.

My Response to Mr Udders

2008-05-26T18:02:00.006+08:00

In response to this.

Blogs are the personal sphere/domain of bloggers. If journalists were to engage bloggers on the web in their professional capacity, their actions might be construed as harrassment/bullying. At the same time, print newspapers are the spheres/domains of journalists. Surely their decision to comment on issues in their own domains/spheres cannot be faulted?

I don’t see how leaving some comments in a blog on a personal capacity can be construed as harassment/bullying. She herself wrote of how you and Joel amicably addressed the issue. It would in fact be a sign of humility rather than maintaining the status quo power relations between press and citizen.

Joel could have made his thoughts known at the neutral platform of the talk, but perhaps they were afterthoughts. Would writing to the papers be a reasonable avenue for him to share these afterthoughts? Lynn on the other hand could have easily left a comment on his blog to correct his ‘misconceptions’.

In any other circumstance it would have been more than ok for a journalist to use the print media to express him/herself while an ordinary citizen uses what is accessible to them. But the context is of a journalist writing about how proponents of MSM and NM can actually come together can happily co-exist. By doing what she did, she only maintained the distance between the two.

I hope the ideal for you isn't one where bloggers are quoted all the time in the mainstream media? I'd be even more ashamed to read The Straits Times if Xiaxue/Dawn Yang became the authoritative voices on all and sundry.

I think you misunderstood my statement. I am not calling for more referencing of blogs. I am merely stating that the recognition that something exists is not the same as being inclusive.

Your blog post ("online chatter") is in response to the journalist's column("mainstream media stories"), no? So I don't think it's a question of resource gathering per se but one of discussion - which medium provides the most reaction/responses for debate: online or offline? My guess is the latter.

No it is not. She mentioned somewhere in the article that: “self-professed media pundits…. seem to be forgetting two things: one that a large chunk of what they write about comes from initial reporting done by the daily mainstream media….”. This was her retort for those that claim alternative media trumps the mainstream media. If this is not a defensive statement I don’t know what is.

I think the journalist's point was that MSN and NM can be happy bedfellows and share the process of information dissemination. BTW, "to offer alternative readings of news" IS to be an "alternative news source", if you take the definition of news in its broader sense.

Yes, I agree with you.

Actually, the journalist did. But you... misread, I'm afraid. Read the article again and this time, read it with the mindset that the journalist is not slamming NM... The journalist is very supportive of NM that is rational, not rash.

I did not say she was slamming or belittling NM. Neither did I call for her to defend/ champion NM. The essence of my post was that her actions (medium) run counter to her calls (message) for inclusion, co-operation, mutual respect and maturity.

Appreciate your remarks though :)

The Reason Why Old and New Media Remain Strange Bedfellows

2008-05-23T11:45:00.002+08:00

There was an interesting ST article today titled “Old and new media don’t have to be strange bedfellows” by journalist Lynn Lee. I do not subscribe to the online version of the paper and therefore am unable to republish the article in full.

The reason I found it so interesting was that the article, not so much the contents of it but rather the article as an object, was symptomatic of the estranged relationship between the old and new media as is experienced in Singapore. To borrow Marshall Mcluhan’s “the medium is the message”, the decision by the ST journalist to ‘engage’ a blogger through the national press demonstrated why there remains a divide between the old and new media advocates.

Before I confuse everyone further, let me briefly provide the context.

The incident that triggered the article was a talk conducted by two ST journalists on “Journalistic Integrity” at a JC. The invited journalists took issue with a blog entry of the event by an attendee of the talk, one Joel Tan. I wont get into the details of his blog entry as it can be read here.

The journalists were upset with the blogger for unfairly dismissing them without asking where they stood on specific issues and accused him of misquoting them and taking their comments out of context.

The journalist was critical of the blogger for not directly engaging them during the Q&A portion of the talk. A fair enough point if you ask me. But what proved to be puzzling was that instead of engaging the blogger on his blog, the journalists chose to instead write an article on the national broadsheet.

This decision surely runs counter to her self-righteous claim that the mainstream media is being more “more inclusive of alternative media” and seeks to “coexist and work” with alternative media. Admitting that there are alternative voices and haphazardly citing them from time to time is NOT being inclusive.

And as for her assertion that much of online chatter is reactive to mainstream media stories, its nothing much to boast about considering the resources they have at their disposal, not to mention that its their job. It would be like a nationally-funded professional bodybuilder scoffing at the attempts of ordinary folks working out in a gym. And lets not forget that they readily admitted that they thrawl through online forums to gather scoops.

When will journalists realize that it is not our intention to rival them in news gathering? We cite mainstream media articles not to claim ownership of news stories but to offer alternative readings of news. It is NOT an attempt to be alternative news sources.

But let us put aside this childish bickering over who is more credible, objective and what not and go back to my point about the “medium being the message”. The reason old and new media advocates are strange bedfellows is due to the fact that both parties do not wish or are unable to engage each other in their respective platforms. Lynn Lee had a chance to cross that bridge but she chose not to; making her article an insincere monologue.

One Nation Under Lee

2008-05-20T10:12:00.003+08:00

A very concise alternate reading of Singapore history presented by local activist Seelan Palay.

Although the film lacks the production values of PAP-sanctioned national education documentaries, it is a sincere attempt to capture a darker reality of Singapore we dare not acknowledge; at least not openly.

Critics will probably argue that it is heavily skewed towards promoting the SDP's campaign of civil disobedience. And that certain images or quotations were taken out of context and misrepresented.

What i would say to such people is that that is exactly what freedom of speech is all about. When we have access to the products of freedom of speech, we will naturely be presented with information from opposing poles. But there can be no true objectively without full-blown subjectively.

More Govt Lapses

2008-05-09T10:03:00.002+08:00

This latest revelation of public fund mismanagement is strangely reminiscent of the MSK debacle.

This Public Accounts Committee (PAC) reminds me of the Committee of Inquiry (COI) set up by the MHA to investigate into MSK’s escape. The PAC comprises a group of Members of Parliament that acts like the "Audit Committee" of the Government.

“Acts” is the operative word as it really has no real authority or expertise to conduct audit checks. In fact, they merely consider the Auditor-General's Report, and examine the Government Financial Statements and other accounts which are presented to the Parliament.

This is of course not the first time we are hearing of this committee.

It is really uniquely Singapore for government watchdog groups comprising of ruling party members.

In the first revelation of public fund mismanagement, it was positively constructed as lapses caught in time and corrected. For MSK, it is lucky that his escape uncovered lapses due to Singaporean’s complacency, and this is duly corrected as well.

End of the day, we are still left wondering if there were more alarming lapses that have not been revealed. We all remember how some golden taps unmasked sordid misappropriation of charitable contributions at the NKF.

Will glass panels be the downfall of the supreme court?

$1.5m of govt fund mismanagement uncovered by public accounts
panel
By Valarie Tan, Channel NewsAsia Posted: 08 May 2008 2354 hrs

SINGAPORE: The Health Ministry overpaid nearly S$180,000 of financial
aid to people without realising they had died.

This was one of public fund lapses uncovered, according to a six-page
report by the Public Accounts Committee, a parliamentary watchdog which
scrutinises the annual financial statements of government bodies.

The report highlighted the various lapses of three government ministries, a
statutory board and the Supreme Court.

The Health Ministry was particularly cited for overpaying S$178,150 of financial aid to beneficiaries who had died. After being informed of the lapse, the ministry said it had since recovered S$85,200.

However, the rest remains unclaimed since the policy is not to recover payouts made up to 3 months of a person's death.

The ministry said it will review its policy of allowing a grace period, and
has since agreed to work with the Ministry of Home Affairs to obtain death
records of beneficiaries on a monthly basis.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was also found to have S$1.56m of unclaimed medical bills. These were incurred since 2003, during three overseas missions. The Ministry says it is currently filing the claims to its insurance company.

The report also uncovered unnecessary expenditure of S$30,789 by the Supreme Court for replacing glass panels. Administrators have since recovered the amount from the contractors.

The Manpower Ministry was also found to have made excessive advances to a building management agent. The ministry said the law does not allow it to claim interest on the excessive advances paid.

However, a new contract, effective 2006, states that payments can only be
made after works are carried out by contractors. Other safeguards, such as a
banker's guarantee, are also in place to make sure advances to contractors can
be recovered.

The InfoComm Development Authority was found to have mismanaged cash surpluses.

Under the current legal system, not all government bodies are required to be inspected by the Auditor-General.

But the latest report recommends an expansion. So the Auditor-General will
look into 18 statutory boards in the coming financial year, an increase from the
previous 13. - CNA/ir

Malaysian Politicians Blogging for Blogging Sake

2008-04-24T10:09:00.005+08:00

Have they not learnt from our PAP's pathetic attempts at blogging (e.g. George Yeo, P65, Ypap blog... )

The reason why they dont work and why the BN will also fail miserably is because political blogging is more than just owning a blog.

It is about no holds barred, but respectful, engagement with anyone on cyberspace.

It is about putting yourself out there to criticisms and alternative thoughts.

It is about leveling the playing field between agents of disparate status and power.

It is where ideas and thoughts have more currency than position.

It is most definately NOT about just creating a new channel meerly to propagate your message - another podium for you to speak and be heard.

If there is no engagement, there can be no enlightenment.

April 24, 2008
UPFRONT
BN turns to blogging in a belated turnaround
By Hazlin Hassan

KUALA LUMPUR - MALAYSIA'S political leaders are rushing to set up blogs and increase their postings on existing ones after recent polls showed how effective the Internet has been.

Those joining the bandwagon include former Selangor menteri besar Khir Toyo, Malacca Menteri Besar Ali Rustam and former health minister Chua Soi Lek of the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA).

The move signals a dramatic turnaround because until recently, senior political leaders dismissed bloggers as rumour-mongers and even described some as 'stupid' and 'monkeys'. The authorities have also detained some bloggers for allegedly libellous or seditious postings.

Many of Malaysia's popular blogs - such as rockybru.blogspot.com by prominent blogger Ahiruddin Atan, jeffooi.com by well-known blogger-turned-politician Jeff Ooi, rantingsbymm.blogspot.com by former premier Mahathir Mohamad's daughter Marina, and several others - contain critical commentary on the government.

Some have been blamed for the unprecedented losses of the Barisan Nasional (BN) government in the March general election, which also saw blogger Jeff Ooi being elected to Parliament on an opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP) ticket.

Critics accused BN and its politicians of being out of touch with voters, particularly the young, most of whom seem to rely on the Internet for information these days.

After the election, blogging has been made mandatory for Umno Youth candidates contesting national posts, and the mainstream media and some bloggers have been publicising some of the new blogs.

Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan, secretary-general of the youth wing, told The Straits Times: 'We have to accept now that as far as the younger generation is concerned, they are very much suspicious of the mainstream media. This is one way to tackle that. Better late than never.'

He has a bilingual blog, www.mpkotabelud.blogspot. com, in Malay and English, and updates it three times a day.

Deputy Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin started his website, www.rembau.net.my, before the election. Now he also has an active Facebook profile and there is one for his father-in-law, Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, as well.

Another new face in cyberspace is former Selangor strongman Dr Khir, who lost his seat and his state to the opposition.

But instead of wooing much-needed support for Umno, one of the first things he did on his blog was to urge Datuk Seri Abdullah to step down.

The Prime Minister 'must be brave enough to accept the facts and create an exit plan', Dr Khir wrote on his Malay-language website www.drkhir.blogspot.com. 'This transition can be done in the near future or in a longer period.

However, it should not take too long because this could jeopardise the administration and the preparations of the party for the next election.'

On average, he receives a couple of hundred comments on each entry.

Ms Tricia Yeoh, director of the Centre for Public Policy Studies, an independent research institute in Kuala Lumpur, said: 'Although initially critical of blogging as a tool of dissidents, the BN politicians now realise the importance of open, honest, rational dialogue and conversation between leader and voter.'

But it may be too late for the ruling coalition. Opposition DAP leader Lim Kit Siang has been blogging since 1997 at blog.limkitsiang.com and his Facebook profile has more than 2,000 'friends'.

De facto opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim's Facebook site is even more of a hit and he has more than 4,000 online friends.

Another politician who has taken to the Internet is Datuk Chua, who resigned after a sex DVD scandal. He has started a bilingual blog in Chinese and English at drchua9.blogspot.com and has been blogging almost every day. He has an online survey asking visitors to say if it is fair for a leader to step down after a bad loss in the general election.

Not everyone has that kind of time, though.

Malacca Menteri Besar Ali Rustam logs on only about once a week. And he has disabled the comments section of his blog after receiving hundreds of reactions online following a comment he made on the need to clean up pig farms in Selangor.

His remarks provoked a flood of criticism, mostly for 'playing up racial sentiments'. Malay Muslims shun pigs on religious grounds.

Sceptics complain about the quality of blogs though, with one saying that 'the mainstream blogs are just as bad as the mainstream press'.

Editor of New Media at The Star newspaper A. Asohan wrote in a Sunday editorial about the move: 'As a cranky and cynical journalist, it is my duty to burst this bubble. It's not going to work.

'You want to counter all that criticism on the Net? Easy: don't give people any ammunition. Don't say stupid things, don't release ill-conceived statements, don't contradict yourself, don't harp on issues that only you seem concerned about,' he said.

Political analyst James Wong, however, believes that the technology should not be ignored. 'We are now dealing with a mass society, it's no more walking around your kampung, talking face-to-face,' he told The Straits Times.

'We have to address the crowds in an everyday sense. The BN totally misunderstood blogging and blogs before the election. The question of whether blogging is good or bad is like saying television is bad. Technology is neutral.'
hazlinh@sph.com.sg

A Toilet With A View - COI Report on MSK Escape

2008-04-22T00:17:00.002+08:00

The COI report is out and Wong Kan Seng has delivered his statement in parliament this afternoon. I’ve looked through the speech and I must say that im shocked, dumbfounded and stupefied. Here are some of snippets of the speech and my reactions to them.

A Toilet with a view

Para 23 – […] ISD had instructed the vendor to install grilles for all windows. But when the renovation works were carried out in 2007, this toilet ventilation window was not grilled up. This arose due to a difference in understanding between ISD and the vendor over exactly which windows were to be secured with grilles.

If the instructions were for ALL windows to be grilled, how can there be a misunderstanding over exactly WHICH windows?? This calls into question the Government’s tendering processes and selection criteria. Were the contractors the cheapest tender? Have they been used for other installations of national interest?

How many guards does it take to knock a door?

Para 16 to 17 – […] After a few minutes, the guard felt that Mas Selamat was taking too long. He alerted the other guard standing outside the toilet, who then turned to the Special Duty Operative who was outside. The Special Duty Operative, who is female, subsequently asked Mas Selamat’s male Assistant Case Officer to check on Mas Selamat as he was in a male toilet.

The COI correctly pointed out that the guards failed in their duties. But even I can tell you that! The first gurkha should have knocked to ask why was he taking so long (he did not). The second gurkha should have asked the first gurkha to do that (he did not). The female officer should have asked the gurkhas to do that (she did not). How many guards does it take to knock a door? Apparently the answer is 4.

Now you see it, no you don’t

Para 31 is rather long so I shall just summarize it as: there were 2 cctv cameras mounted where Mas climbed out. But there was no recording or active monitoring. But they are very good cameras because they were being upgraded with motion-detectors. But they were not fixed yet.

I really have to question the Ministry’s budget allocation. Equipping cctv cameras with motion detectors most definitely does not come cheap. But this is money well spent if they are turned on wouldn’t you think. What really bugs me is that if you are already spending so much to upgrade the surveillance systems, why be stingy with backups or redundancy systems. Couldn’t the old systems remain active while testing new ones?

The buck stops with you, not me

Para 55 – […] The COI observed that no one individual had full control to bring
about the confluence of the material factors at the time of Mas Selamat’s
escape.

I completely disagree with this point. If anyone, the superintendent had the control to prevent the escape from happening. He may not have been the guard who lost his line of sight of Mas Selamat, but he as the ‘CO of the camp’ (using SAF terminology as it was mentioned that he held a rank equivalent to an Lieutenant Colonel), would be responsible for setting up the centre’s S.O.Ps and ensuring that the physical security (grilles, fences, cctvs..etc) are shipshape.

Para 66 – […] I have asked Director ISD to examine the roles not only of the
WRDC junior officers but also to go up the chain of command and include the
supervisory and management levels of WRDC as well…

I’m glad that junior officers will not be the only ones singled out for blame. As mentioned above, out of all identified, surely the superintendent would have a ‘helicopter’ view of the entire centre.

A titan of a man is back in the game

2008-04-18T21:14:00.000+08:00

2008 seems to be building up as the year of the underdog.

We have seen our brothers across the causeway dramatically shake up Malaysian politics by bringing 5 states under opposition control.

We see growing optimism and desire for change in the US presidential elections where i believe we might see the first woman or black US president.

And now we see the return of JBJ into political life. Well, the paper work is done anyway.

Lets beat the drums as we approach 2011. Lets make it our year.

Opposition figure JB Jeyaretnam registers his new Reform
PartyBy Channel NewsAsia Posted: 18 April 2008 1935 hrs

SINGAPORE: Opposition figure JB Jeyaretnam submitted an
application on Thursday to register the new Reform Party as a political
party.
Speaking to reporters on Friday, the 82-year-old said he has
submitted 10 names - which is the minimum number required to form a political
party.
He said the application would take two months to process and he
does not foresee any difficulties in getting his application approved. Mr
Jeyaretnam added he will assume the role of the Reform Party's
secretary-general.
He made political history in 1981 when he became the first opposition politician elected to parliament. He was then secretary-general of the Workers' Party.
A lawyer, he was disbarred when he was declared a bankrupt in 2001 after failing to pay libel damages to members of the PAP, including former prime minister Goh Chok Tong.
He emerged from bankruptcy in May last year, after paying off S$233,255 in damages from defamation lawsuits filed by Singapore's leaders. He was also reinstated to the Bar and has resumed legal practice.
Being solvent again makes him eligible to run in elections. -
AFP/vm

Monday is judgment day for Wong Kan Seng

2008-04-18T20:53:00.000+08:00

Tick tok tick tok.

Monday will indeed be an interesting day. Wong Kan Seng will be delivering the findings of the COI in parliament.

I dont recall such heavy anticipation since the NKF scandal broke and we were all clamouring for the sordid details.

I hope the Minister will be forthcoming with the case details and not whitewash them away.

We shall see what happens on monday. But whatever is said, i will have a blog on the ready to tear at every sentence... muahahaha *lame i know

Welcome to the Gab Shack

2008-04-18T20:32:00.000+08:00

Hello World! Hello Readers!

Welcome to the Gab Shack, a place i can call my own.