Impact of Bersih 3.0

History has repeated itself, again. Looks like PM Najib had his balls fried. He should really start planning his long vacation as the future of Barisan National appears rather bleak. BERSIH 3.0 showcased the banal Malaysian government is not simple. Today, they say apple. Tomorrow they will say durian. Next week they declare no such fruits existed. Malaysian political arena is like a cock-fighting match. Full of drama, colourful and twisted.

Summary of Bersih 3.0

On 28 April 2012, BERSIH 3.0 has met with another vile finale. Aside from the unnecessary razor wires around Dataran Square which was a banned venue, the Malaysian police had used water canons and tear gas to disperse crowds.  The Malaysian police has made a fatal mistake and caused public furore. There were contradicting reports between the Malaysian government and the Bersih organisers. Bersih organisers claimed that it was a peaceful sit-in protest until it was hijacked by agent provocateurs at Dataran Merdeka. If we were to look at how Bersih had managed to galvanise rallies in 35 countries and 85 locations,  this was indeed successful. On the other hand, the Malaysian government claimed that BERSIH 3.0 participants broke the law as they breached the barricades and attacked policemen. After every BERSIH rally, each generation, people are becoming more emboldened to challenge the police as the stand-off continues. One thing’s for sure, the opposition should stay away from influencing the outcome of electoral reform.

Era of Social Movements

                                      

Role of civic societies have made people engage, interact and involve in decision making process in public affairs with the hope that change can occur before the elections. Civic awareness in Malaysia has unquestionably influence BERSIH rally and represent a profession. Through social movements it shows there is a growing voice in public affairs and people push forward their agenda and demand political legitimacy from the Malaysian government. The mass protest worked and has been capable of galvanising massive collective action peacefully throughout the world. The main demand for BERSIH is simply to call for a clean and fair elections for the people and the country.

About 40,000 people attended the BERSIH 1.0 rally on November 10, 2007, and the number of participants for the BERSIH 2.0 rally on July 9 last year increased by 10,000 people, even after the police had sealed the city. It showed that BERSIH has enhanced its capacity to mobilise. It was reported some 80,000 participants had taken part in BERSIH 3.0 last Saturday at Dataran Merdeka alone.

BERSIH 1.0, was a flashpoint as it created an impact in subsequent rallies. The demographic made up of unanimous people from all walks of life. In BERSIH 2.0, there was an impasse between the people and the government. The Malaysian government had declared that BERSIH was illegal. Water canons and tear gas were used to disperse the crowds in 2010. In BERSIH 3.0, initially the Malaysian government appeared eager to repair the image of the government through several policy changes. Home Minister, Datuk Hishammudin had given his word that BERSIH sit-in demonstration will go on as planned as it would pose no security concern to the government.

Tattered image of Barisan National

The image of the ruling coalition have been charred after BERSIH 3.0. The Malaysian government will have to follow the people’s choice. Reluctance to electoral reform may cause a disadvantage to the ruling coalition. Electoral reform is very important in building a culture and society. So, this is how the future of the world will be. People will demand for more transparency and they will dabble into government's affairs as ultimately their lives wil be affected by these policies. Seems like Najib’s government will need to postpone the election again to a later date. 

Impact of Bersih on Singapore

The use of the social media in proletarian movements permits the public to redefine the venerable adage of strength in numbers. Most importantly, it emboldens the people to be engaged citizens, blind to distance and colour. However, many argue that "soft protest" is an anemic replica of the commitment required on the ground, along with its prospective risks. However, BERSIH have proven that online protests can be easily translated into action, thanks to the mighty digitial pen.

Cynicism towards the “old guard” is mounting, especially amongst young voters who have grown impatient at the mainstream media bias and marginalisation throughout their lives. If the demands of the younger generation are not met, they will retaliate and throw their antics around like a spoiled-brat until the authority relent or gives up. We have witnessed Arab and Malaysian Spring, Singapore’s turn has yet to come.

Freedom of Assembly in Singapore

This Saturday 28 Apr 2012, BERSIH SG 3.0 will gather opposite Sultanah Aminah Hospital in JB at 1.30pm since the permit for Hong Lim Park picnic was rejected. Hong Lim park is just like any other parks in our neighbourhood with a lost purpose. The Speakers’ Corner is will soon be converted into a playground or a row of BBQ pits. Come to think of it, wouldn’t it be more plausible for a bunch of Malaysians and Singaporeans to gather in a picnic setting at Hong Lim Park rather than knowingly allow them to march into JB in yellow tops? At least we know such an event is happening in designated location in Singapore which can be easily curtailed by the government if security is the main concern.

BERSIH, meaning ‘clean’ in Malay language, is a march for free and fair elections with a firm anti-corruption stance. It is a common knowledge that such events will not be celebrated and encouraged by the Singapore government no matter how ‘peaceful’ as it disturbs law and order. Despite the venue ban, thousands are expected to sit-in Dataran Merdeka Kuala Lumpur Duduk Bantah on 28 April 2012, a much anticipated event will take place concurrently worldwide including Singapore.

Many Singaporeans were alarmed and disturbed to see ‘outsiders’ conduct their peaceful assemblies and demonstrations in Singapore so as not to leave the impression Singapore supports foreign anti-government practices.  The incumbent has claimed to be a world-class government, so they must walk-the-talk and be receptive to peaceful assemblies and ‘picnics’. The society is made up of thinking generation who are not afraid to fight for their rights and freedom of expression. If you don’t play along with the game, the government will lose support from the masses just like what is happening now in UMNO, and a near-miss in the last GE2011. Malaysian government is trying to break away from rigidity as seen in their recent policy tweakings and gradual leniency in freedom of expression. Maybe Singapore should follow suit and take some lessons from BERSIH 2.0 and 3.0.

Lessons from Bersih 2.0

The enthusiasm was also felt here as Malaysians who live and work in Singapore have identified themselves as BERSIH 2.0 Singapore planned a picnic gathering at Hong Lim park on 9 Jul 2011, a mirrored event alongside other major countries worldwide. They called themselves “guests in Singapore and have no wish to do anything that is not within the confines of Singapore law”, turned up in yellow tops to show solidarity and lend their support to fellow friends in KL. There were no speeches and demonstrations. 

After a messy man-handling during BERSIH 2.0, Malaysian Home Affairs Minister, Datuk Hishammuddin recently released a statement indicating the Malaysian government is slowly embracing democracy and freedom of expression for BERSIH 3.0. Hishammuddin professed that peaceful public assemblies was not a security concern as long as demonstrators abide to the regulations. He also announced that there will be an increase  in police presence to administer the assembly. Malaysian government have learned well from their over-reaction during BERSIH 2.0 in KL. Despite many denials, the Malaysian government was directly responsible for the escalation and brought the Malaysians to this deadlock.  

Likewise, the Singapore government has taken the view that this freedom of assembly should be curtailed for the fear of disruption. The fact that we are still fearful of racial riots after 40 years clearly shows the backwardness of thinking and our inability to let go of the past. However, Singapore government has not close its door entirely to all peaceful assemblies. In the past, Free Burma Protest and PinkDot.sg have demonstrated that there is a possibility of public assembly and demonstration with strict adherence to regulations. 

More than 10,000 supporters for the Freedom to Love campaign turned up in pink tops at Pink Dot 2011 picnic and concert at Hong Lim Park on 18 June 2011.  It was a success whereby the public were invited to attend but non-Singaporeans and non-PRs are not allowed to be within the dot formation when the time comes. They were however, invited to watch the formation from a designated observation area. In another case, some 40 Burmese citizens gathered at Hong Lim Park to call for boycott of the elections in 30 Oct 2010 “No To Burma’s Sham Elections” organised by the Free Burma Campaign Singapore (FBCSG). 

Why Singapore should allow peaceful assemblies? 

The UN Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the general assembly in 1948 declares "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers". 


An assembly should be deemed peaceful if its organizers have professed peaceful intentions and the conduct of the assembly is non-violent from a number of individuals in a public place for a common expressive purpose. The term “peaceful” should be interpreted to include conduct that may annoy or give offence, and even conduct that temporarily hinders, impedes or obstructs the activities of third parties. People can gather peacefully for a cause.  Just like how the Christians attend church mass and Muslims congregate for prayers on Fridays. All these are peace assemblies with a purpose to render support for the respective inclination. The right to assemble peacefully, together with freedom of expression and freedom of association, rests at the core of any functioning democratic system. 

Let’s take a look at the GE2011 rallies. Thousands of Singaporeans flocked the designated public spaces. Those were large-scale public gatherings with no disruptions to the law and order. Everyone were there for a same purpose and show support for the respective parties. A series of peaceful assemblies with everyone in safe and sound. 

Despite PM Lee Hsien Loong's call to promote increased political awareness, in reality it is still moving vapidly and unyielding towards new challenges. An open and mature society should have an equally open and mature government. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLINE SINGAPORE STYLE

For those of you who are unaware, Google processes most of the requests under local laws. They may decide to take down the content entirely or if the law is localized they may restrict access to the material by local IP address blocking.

The highest number of requests to remove content was from Britain with 93,518. Google said it removed 93,360 items in response to a request from Britain's Office of Fair Trading as part of a crackdown on fraudulent ads. Oh my..poor Brits. Watch out Duchess of Cambridge!

What will Google release to the governments? Google can be required to turn over essentially all account information on receiving a subpoena. That can include a user’s email address, access history, and any details the user has supplied to Google. For folks using free Google services, that might be next to nothing, but for folks who pay Google (or earn money from Google programs like AdWords) it can be a lot more, including a name, address, phone number, and other billing information. No search warrant is required.

Oh My, Singapore.
Between Jan-Jun 2011, 106 user data and 126 users/accounts requests were made by the Singapore Police to Google, and 75% of these were complied. Hold on there, don’t be fooled. If we were to compare these numbers against our small population (5.18 million now, no?), Singapore can easily be topping the charts.
According to Google, the statistics reflected the number of requests by the law enforcement agency for information at Google and YouTube, the percentage of requests that we comply with (in whole or in part) and the number of users or accounts specified in the requests. I guess Singapore government has to start thinking out of the box; Google and Youtube are not the only platforms that people use now days.

Table: Singapore User Data Requests

Noted the increasing trend, and the figure had doubled from 62 to 106 within a year (Jul2009-Jun 2010). Also, Google complied with 88% of 118 requests for content removal from Jul-Dec 2010 alone. The figure dropped slightly, and so was the number of requests complied (75%).

The Singapore government is fully aware and is ultra watchful over the increasing internet influence on its citizens. You can see the increasing number of requests made by the government. But therein lays the issue of privacy and rights of the people. Just what kind of offences would the police ask Google for details of user accounts? Also what laws are used to solicit the details from Google? Sure there are legitimate cases like maybe child porn, illegal sale of drugs and fraud but there are also many dumb laws in Singapore that make even the most meaningful of social action becomes a prosecutable crime. Would Google agree to just about any request from the police? Like Gary Yue Mun Yew who charged for inciting violence when he superimposed Wong Kan Seng photo on a man that was about to be executed by a soldier on Facebook? How many corporations are willing to stand up to government for inconsequential beings like you and me?
Internet is transparent.

It’s common to assume that only people who have something to hide have a reason to be worried. However, it’s important to remember that wanting to keep aspects of one’s life private is not the same thing as doing something illegal, and government’s track record for using information they obtain under ‘lawful’ purposes isn’t all that great. How many people have been barred from flying or detained for long hours at checkpoints because their names appear for no reason on some watch list or another? When we place our information in other people’s hands, the bottom line is that it is out of our hands. And, as Google’s transparency reports show, governments seem to be asking for it more and more.

p.s. yes blogspot belongs to google =O

SDP Acquittal Recinded -- the very definition of poor judgment

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

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

Being sensitive to our over-sensitivity

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

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?

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.

APEC - Showcase for POA

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?!

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?

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

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.

AG Report - MDA Conflicts of Interest & Financial Mismanagement

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?

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

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.