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.

Dr Lim Hock Siew Speaks

POA Showcase

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

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

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