Local Politics and Meet the MPs Session In his comments to the Nanfang Yuelu, a communist party publication in Guangdong, China, PM Lee contended that the Meet the MPs session were very important in maintaining a link between political leaders, Members of Parliament (MPs) and their constituents. The municipal and personal affairs of ordinary Singaporeans possess a sense of direct outlet to political power, very much like the changing patterns of petition of ordinary citizens to the local magistrates on issues in Imperial China. In contemporary Singapore, such relations are maintained by a sense of political obligation and political longevity, as PM Lee implies, points out rather than simply by money or altruism. To what extent though are Meet the MPs session important? I would argue that they are extremely important but to who is the far more important question. Do the auxiliary services and the private sector sustain the popularity of the PAP in local areas? Are local issues such as whether there are enough bus services (notice that provision of bus services as opposed to the actual price of public service are far more important), enough MRT services, good lighting, cheap food (coffeeshops aplenty), religious sites of worship (temples, churches and mosques) and cleanliness of the estates more important to national issues of economics and politics? Yet does this mean that local politics dominate, and that municipal affairs are then more important than national issues? By extension, isn’t the Meet the MP session important then? It depends. It is unlikely that more than 20% of residents in a area would ever attend or volunteer at a Meet an MP session and maybe slightly more participate in RC activities. There are no incentives to broaden the Meet the MP session as manpower and resources are limited. One should also remember that Meet the MPs session are conducted by opposition Members of parliament. It was a PAP invention, but one could probably trace the important of municipal affairs to the 1950s election of local majors and municipal councils where multiparty elections, a limited free press and freedom of assembly were present. Hypothetically, I have emphasized in my other posts that it takes only roughly a 10% swing against the PAP in the next election for many seats to fall to the opposition. But who knows whether the presence (and absence) of Meet the MPs session would affect this group of voters? In opposition wards…. the lack of upgrading (and some say upkeep) in their constituencies have definetly undermine some support for its incumbent, but then again isn’t it true that the incumbent in these wards have more to offer to its supporters and consitutents than good managers of town councils? Perhaps the danger to the PAP is that if its MPs are stuck with the label of becoming good managers of estates rather than active MPs fighting for their consituents, a downtown in municipal upkeep, “minor” things like lack of public transport provision (only 1 bus to the interchange), and the reduction in cleaning of estates from 3 to 2 times per week might disproportionally affect the PAP more than the opposition. Japan and Singapore and the Homeless Being in Japan has been a great adventure for me, especially since I am learning a lot from just being in Japan. It was quite an interesting sight to observe the juxtaposition of everyday politicking (there was a group that wanted to petition for justice with regards to some protesters being locked up or beaten up unfairly) in Shibuya, a busy shopping district in Tokyo (think Lost in Translation movie) and the relentless mills of shoppers moving in and out of popular shopping centers like Tokyu. The civil nature in which politics was conducted on a daily basis in Tokyo is definitely not a “given” in a historical context, but it is interesting to see how in Singapore, business and politics are usually separated in the rhetoric (not necessarily in reality) while in Japan, it is tied together even in the everyday sense. Yet I find the poverty in Tokyo particularly striking - I stumbled upon a cardboard city under the bridges of Shibuya where many homeless people live in cardboard boxes. According to my friend, there are charity groups that provide basic necessities to them but my empathy goes out to them in the current extremely hot and humid heat of the Tokyo summer.To an extent of sounding a little politically incorrect, it appears to them that the conditions of the homeless is extremely acute in Japan (comparable to the homeless in big US cities) but I wonder if the Singaporean homeless (there was an excellent article on this issue recently by Brema Mathi, former NMP and current ST journalist) are faring any better even though they have some amenities of the void deck (reminds me of an interesting discussion of the void deck by 2 ST forum writers - what are void decks used for?). To me, void spaces are rare in Japan so spaces below bridges provide the social space in which the homeless congregate, and the everyday shoppers are forced to confront them in sights, sounds and smells. The homeless in the void decks, ironically since few Singaporeans hang out in the void decks, present themselves as a secondary  thoughts that compete with pressing issues. In other words, the ordinary Singaporean who go to work and return home would be preoccupied with their work to really care about the poor.  In Japan, shopping districts are areas where people relax, and the contrasting force of “shopping” versus “homelessness” becomes more striking. Is it no wonder that people are not particularly open to people selling tissues, sleeping “homelessly”, and singing at suburban MRTs in Singapore because of the above reasons, while those who present themselves with similar activities at Orchard and other shopping areas recieve somewhat more interest? Shadow Home Secretary of Britain Resigns over Detention without Trial Updated: Videos of the debates and the votes While most British commentators and politicians across the spectrum have ridiculed the shadow home secretary decision to resign over the Labour government’s aims at extending detention without trial to 42 days, most British people in newspapers and BBC forums seem surprised and delighted at David Davis decision to resign over the issue. Who is short term then? Are the British people who support David Davis practicing short-termism over an issue that is unlikely to be changed with his resignation? Are the journalists right in arguing that by resigning, David Davis has completely lost his chance to be the home secretary (or home affairs ministers in s’pore terminology) and thus remove the opportunity to remove the detention? Or did Mr. Davis feel that when the Conservatives win power (it is their election to lose), the issue might not be revisited anyway so why not force the issue early on? Will the lack of support of David Davis fuel the cynical beliefs of voters that politicians are simply out to win elections? Was his decision a foolhardy one created to force the hand of his Conservative leader, David Cameron, to recognize the importance of civil liberties as well to force Labour to contest in its constituency ? P.S. There are rare moments of support of David Davis by political pundits, but they are few and far between. P.S.S. See his speech outside the House of Commons announcing his resignation. He looks extremely frustrated…at something. The Next Vice-President of the United States? Thank You Hillary Clinton “I will be not taking any decision tonight” - Senator Hillary Clinton The end of the road is clear for Hillary Clinton tonight as Barack Obama clinches the nomination for the Democratic Party with delegates in South Dakota (which Hillary Clinton won) bringing him over the threshold. Hillary Clinton reflects on her campaign on her speech tonight, focusing on the voters, and her pet issue universal health care. She invited supporters to go to her website and advise her what she should be doing. She did not concede the election, resulting in some MSNBC analysts arguing that she is positioning herself to be a VP candidate in exchange for an endorsement for Obama (and conceding the race). Hillary still could win if superdelegates decides to switch from Obama to Clinton (as a dozen or more have done from Clinton to Obama) but chances are small. Her tenacity in this election, admist a less than friendly press, sexism and repeated calls for her to quit the race is admirable. Her enormous grasp on policy issues, and her focus on health care should give the other two candidates food for thought. Her ability to come back time and time again in Ohio, Penn, Texas, Indiana, Puerto Rico and South Dakota helped focus the Democratic message to the voters. She has made in easier for women to run for the President the next time round. How would Clinton 18 million supporters vote in the General Election. With John McCain and his surrogates praising Hillary Clinton left and right, right and more right (pardon my strong pun), would voters who switch from Hillary to McCain? Can Obama win the general election for the Democratic Party? A useless conterfactual or food for thought? Quote of the Day in Chee Versus Lee & Lee as reported in Todayonline: Another question from Dr Chee [to Mr. Lee Kuan Yew]: Isn’t it presumptuous that “without this entire government, we would not be here” when in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea “people thrive without you and your system”? Liang Qichao’s writings in Chinese I found a website for all of Liang Qichao’s writings in Chinese. Pretty Cool for anybody interested in one of the key intellectuals during the 1890s reform era till the early Republican years in China. http://www.yifan.net/yihe/novels/classic/lqcwj/lqc.html Quote of the Day: 民族自由与否，大半原于政治，故此二者其界限常相混。 - 梁启超在论自由（1902年5月8日、22日） Whether a nationality (or people) are free, largely depends on Politics (or Politicking), thus it is no wonder that these two elements' boundaries are often blurred. - Liang Qichao on "Discussing Freedom" (May 8th, 22 1902) Could America have a first Asian Vice-President in its history? Will John McCain choose the unexpected candidate in terms of Bobby Jindal? Will an Indian-America shatter the glass ceiling in American politics by becoming John McCain’s running mate? Bobby Jindal was awarded one of the most influential people of 2007 by Times Magazine Newsweek was speculating this decision a while ago! McCain Hopes to Fill Ticket, 3 people steps up By ADAM NAGOURNEY Senator John McCain of Arizona is set to meet with at least three potential running mates at a gathering at his ranch this weekend in Arizona, suggesting that he is stepping up his search for a vice-presidential candidate as the Democratic contest heads toward a conclusion, according to Republicans familiar with Mr. McCain’s plans. Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and a onetime rival for the Republican nomination, have all accepted invitations to visit Mr. McCain at his ranch in Sedona, Republicans said. After a week of campaigning, Mr. McCain is heading home on Friday for three days without a public schedule. His campaign described this as a social weekend that would include 10 couples, and — as has been its policy — declined to discuss any aspect of the vice-presidential search. “We don’t talk about the V.P. selection process,” said Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser. Some of Mr. McCain’s associates said on Wednesday that while these would not be formal interviews, the weekend would provide Mr. McCain a chance to know some of his potential running mates in a social context. He is known as a social and gregarious candidate and senator, and his associates said personal chemistry would be a crucial consideration in his choice. The identities of the potential running mates who have been summoned to Sedona are not a surprise. And even encouraging the perception that they are under consideration might be more a matter of appearance than political reality: the mere impression that Mr. McCain is considering a running mate from Florida, for example, could help him in a critical state where he campaigned on Wednesday. Still, the timing — coming as Senator Barack Obama of Illinois appears to have all but nailed down the Democratic nomination — suggested a new focus on a selection process that several Republicans said could prove critical to Mr. McCain’s success in this tough environment. Mr. McCain, arguably more than most presidential candidates in recent elections, has a lot riding on making a choice for running mate that could provide a boost to his candidacy in a tough atmosphere for Republicans. In addition to Mr. Crist, Mr. Jindal and Mr. Romney, the McCain guest list includes some of his top political counselors, among them Charlie Black, a senior strategist, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, his frequent traveling companion and probably his closest colleague in the Senate. Also on hand will be at least one senior business executive prominent in Mr. McCain’s circle, Frederick W. Smith, the chairman of FedEx. Mr. McCain himself has said his choice of a running mate would draw particular scrutiny from voters given Mr. McCain’s age; he is now 71, or “as old as dirt,” as he likes to joke, while quickly adding that he is in good health. More than that, with Mr. Obama’s selection as his party’s nominee now almost assured, Mr. McCain is contemplating a contest against an energized Democratic electorate after a campaign that has highlighted race and gender issues. The meeting, which was not disclosed publicly, is taking place on a weekend after Mr. McCain releases his health-care records. The release of those records on Friday is itself a high-profile event that could — by design or not — draw attention away from the gathering. Mr. McCain said this month that he had assembled a list of about 20 potential running mates. He said he had not decided when he would make a decision; his aides made clear that he would keep the process as closely held as possible. Among the other potential running mates are Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, and Rob Portman, the former director of the Office of Management and Budget who had been an Ohio congressman. Mr. Crist, a fairly popular first-term governor, has been included on various lists of potential running mates for Mr. McCain, whom he endorsed shortly before Florida’s January primary, which effectively helped Mr. McCain claim the nomination. Mr. Crist said Wednesday that he and Mr. McCain had not discussed the prospect, not even at a fund-raiser in Miami that the two attended Tuesday night. The McCain campaign, Mr. Crist said, has not solicited the kind of personal information typically requested to vet possible running mates. As governor of Florida, Mr. Crist, 51, would bring obvious assets to the Republican ticket, beginning with his popularity in a state that is almost always an electoral battleground — and where Mr. Obama appears to be struggling. Mr. Crist’s relative youth could also be an asset for Mr. McCain, who has made clear that age will be a consideration in his search for a running mate. In Florida, Mr. Crist has long been known for his affability and a campaign skills. Instantly recognizable because of his perpetual tan and striking white hair, Mr. Crist, who was Florida’s attorney general before being elected governor in 2006, has also acquired a reputation as something of a hard-liner on law and order issues. He supports the death penalty, largely opposes restrictions on the rights of gun owners, early on earned the nickname “Chain Gang Charlie” because he favored allowing convicts to be used in road work, and has described himself as a “pro-life and pro-family” candidate. Mr. Romney, the former chief executive who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination in 2008 and who was born in Michigan, has made no secret of his desire to join Mr. McCain’s presidential ticket. Mr. Romney’s M.B.A. skills, and business background — including running the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games — could address concerns about Mr. McCain’s ability to manage a struggling economy. Mr. Romney has also proven himself as a prolific fund-raiser, though he spent enormous sums of money during his campaign and still could not beat Mr. McCain. Mr. Jindal, who was born in Baton Rouge, La., to a family that had just arrived there from the Punjab area of India, took office in January after serving three years in the House of Representatives. In a race with four candidates, Mr. Jindal, who was born a Hindu but converted to Roman Catholicism as a teenager, won 54 percent of the vote after campaigning as a social conservative, opposing human embryonic stem cell research and abortion in any form, and favoring teaching “intelligent design” in schools as an alternative to evolution. Julie Bosman, Larry Rohter and Kevin Sack contributed reporting. Is the Democratic Race over? Hillary speaks after her Kentucky Win Gender Issues lives on as Clinton’s Hopes Dim “She’s likeable enough” - Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton “How do we beat the bitch?” - Someone asking John McCain at a campaign event Excellent article in the NY Times on sexism in  this rancorous Democratic primary- I wonder if Singapore will ever see a women Prime Minister or a non-Chinese PM? Gender Issue Lives On as Clinton’s Hopes Dim By JODI KANTOR With each passing day, it seems a little less likely that the next president of the United States will wear a skirt — or a cheerful, no-nonsense pantsuit. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now in what most agree are the waning days of her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. To use her own phrase, she has been running “to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling” in American life, and now the presidency — even a nomination that once seemed to be hers to claim — seems out of reach. Along with the usual post-mortems about strategy, message and money, Mrs. Clinton’s all-but-certain defeat brings with it a reckoning about what her run represents for women: a historic if incomplete triumph or a depressing reminder of why few pursue high office in the first place. The answers have immediate political implications. If many of Mrs. Clinton’s legions of female supporters believe she was undone even in part by gender discrimination, how eagerly will they embrace Senator Barack Obama, the man who beat her? “Women felt this was their time, and this has been stolen from them,” said Marilu Sochor, 48, a real estate agent in Columbus, Ohio, and a Clinton supporter. “Sexism has played a really big role in the race.” Not everyone agrees. “When people look at the arc of the campaign, it will be seen that being a woman, in the end, was not a detriment and if anything it was a help to her,” the presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin said in an interview. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is faltering, she added, because of “strategic, tactical things that have nothing to do with her being a woman.” As a former first lady whose political career evolved from her husband’s, Mrs. Clinton was always an imperfect test case for female achievement — “somebody’s wife,” as Elaine Kamarck, a professor of government at Harvard and a Clinton supporter, described her. Still, many credit Mrs. Clinton with laying down a new marker for what a woman can accomplish in a campaign — raising over $170 million, frequently winning more favorable reviews on debate performances than her male rivals, rallying older women, and persuading white male voters who were never expected to support her. “She’s raised this whole woman candidate thing to a whole different level than when I ran,” said Geraldine Ferraro, a Clinton supporter and the first woman to be the vice-presidential nominee of a major party, contrasting her own brief stint as a running mate in 1984 with Mrs. Clinton’s 17-month-and-counting slog. Ms. Goodwin and others say Mrs. Clinton was able to convert the sexism she faced on the trail into votes and donations, extending the life of a candidacy that suffered a serious blow at the Iowa caucuses. Like so many women before, she was heckled (in New Hampshire, a few men told her to iron their shirts) and called nasty names (“How do we beat the bitch?” Senator John McCain was asked at one campaign event). But the response may have been more powerful than the injury. In the days after Mrs. Clinton was criticized for misting up on the campaign trail, she won the New Hampshire primary and drew a wave of donations, many from women expressing indignation about how she had been treated. And Mrs. Clinton seemed to channel the lives of regular women, who often saw her as an avenging angel. Take Judith Henry, 67, for whom Mrs. Clinton’s primary losses stirred decades-old memories of working at a phone company where women were not allowed to hold management positions. “They always gave us the clerical jobs and told us we didn’t have families to support,” she said. At a rally last month in Bloomington, Ind., she sat with her daughter Susan Henry, 45, a warehouse worker, who complained that her male colleagues did less work and made more money than the women did. Decades after the dissolution of movement feminism, Mrs. Clinton’s events and donor lists filled with women who had experienced insult or isolation on the job. Moitri Chowdhury Savard, 36, a doctor in Queens, was once asked by a supervisor why she was not home cooking for her husband; Liz Kuoppala, 37, of Eveleth, Minn., worked as the only woman in her mining crew and is now the only woman on the City Council. Ms. Kamarck, 57, the Harvard professor and a longtime adviser to Democratic candidates, said she was still incredulous about the time her colleagues on Walter F. Mondale’s presidential campaign, all men, left for lunch without inviting her — because, she later discovered, they were headed to a strip club. Janet Napolitano, the Democratic governor of Arizona, said the world was different now, especially the political world, thanks in part to Mrs. Clinton. “I never heard anybody say she can’t be elected because she’s a woman,” said Ms. Napolitano, who supports Mr. Obama and like many of his supporters saw less sexism in the race than Mrs. Clinton’s backers. “That’s a different deal than we’ve heard before in American politics.” But as others watched a campaign that starred two possibly transformative figures, they felt a growing conviction that the contest was unfair. Mrs. Clinton’s supporters point to a nagging series of slights: the fixation on her clothes, even her cleavage; chronic criticism that her voice is shrill; calls for her to exit the race; and most of all, the male commentators in the news media who, they argue, were consistently tougher on her than on Mr. Obama. Some even accuse Mr. Obama of chauvinism, pointing to the time he called Mrs. Clinton “likeable enough” as evidence of dismissiveness. Nancy Wait, 55, a social worker in Columbia City, Ind., said Mr. Obama was far less qualified than Mrs. Clinton and described as condescending his recent assurances that Mrs. Clinton should stay in the race as long as she liked. Ms. Wait said she would “absolutely, positively not” vote for him come fall. Ms. Ferraro, who clashed with the Obama campaign about whether she made a racially offensive remark, said she might not either. “I think Obama was terribly sexist,” she said. Cynthia Ruccia, 55, a sales director for Mary Kay cosmetics in Columbus, Ohio, is organizing a group, Clinton Supporters Count Too, of mostly women in swing states who plan to campaign against Mr. Obama in November. “We, the most loyal constituency, are being told to sit down, shut up and get to the back of the bus,” she said. Whatever barriers Mrs. Clinton may have smashed, she left some intact for future contenders to try themselves against. She seemed uncertain how to reconcile her sex with her political persona. Though she projected an aura of authority, said Robert Shrum, a Democratic consultant unaffiliated with any candidate, she variously cast herself as a victim of male domination, a warm girlfriend type and, at the end, an indefatigable warrior. She even made contradictory statements about whether sex should be a factor in the race. Mrs. Clinton ran into trouble with some of the classic hurdles that women who are politicians face, historians and sociologists said. “It was the same conversations we’ve been having since the ’70s,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. Take the need to project toughness and warmth simultaneously. The test is unfair, many say, because men are not subjected to it as harshly and because it is nearly impossible not to err on one side. Still, some say Mrs. Clinton went overboard on toughness. “The idea that you have to talk about eradicating Iran — that’s all, to me, the voices of people advising her,” said Patricia Schroeder, a former Colorado congresswoman and Clinton supporter who considered seeking the Democratic nomination in 1987. And yet Mrs. Clinton may not have passed the commander in chief test. In New York Times/CBS News polls conducted this winter, voters rated Mr. Obama’s potential in that area more highly than they did Mrs. Clinton’s, though neither served in the military or has much experience directly handling international crises. Perhaps participants had many reasons for preferring Mr. Obama, but they followed the long-standing pattern of finding women less plausible military commanders than men. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, many women say with regret, did not inspire a deep or nuanced conversation between men and women, only familiar gender-war battles consisting of male gibes and her supporters’ angry responses. Mr. Obama, who sought to minimize the role of race in his candidacy, led something of a national dialogue about it, but Mrs. Clinton, who made womanhood an explicit part of her run, seemed unwilling or unable to talk candidly about gender. Mrs. Clinton, for example, declined a New York Times request earlier this year for an interview about the gender dynamics of the race; an aide said the topic would be impossible for her to address in a frank way.. The conversation Mrs. Clinton spurred among women, however, seemed newer and more surprising. Her candidacy split Democratic women, not to mention prominent feminists. (Last week, the abortion-rights group Naral Pro-Choice America endorsed Mr. Obama, setting off protest from other women’s groups.) The cleft was largely along generational lines, with older women who had waged their own battles showing more solidarity and younger ones arguing that voting for a male candidate over a female one was itself a sign of progress and confidence. “The most important contribution she has made is to show that women candidates are just like men candidates,” said Joan Scott, a historian at the Institute for Advanced Study. “You have to judge them not on the basis of their gender but their character.” Over the course of the campaign, Jennifer Rogers, a film producer in Los Angeles, came to agree. She voted for Mrs. Clinton, in part because she hoped to see a female president, but she recently lost enthusiasm over what she called a lack of truthfulness on the candidate’s part. “Her problems are about who she is and not her gender,” said Ms. Rogers, 28. Amy Rees, a 35-year-old stay-at-home mother in San Francisco, agrees — most of the time. She said she agonized between the two choices, finally voted for Mr. Obama and did not regret it. Mrs. Clinton lost on the merits, Ms. Rees said. Still, every so often, she feels a flicker of worry about whether that is entirely so. Referring to Mr. Obama, Ms. Rees said, “He still looks more like every other president we’ve ever had than she does.” Unpacking Yaw Shin Leong’s Choice - Treading the Collaboration Line WP organizing secretary Yaw Shin Leong revealed that he voted for MP Teo. Thinking broadly, it might appear to be a good strategy by Yaw to explain his decision. In fact, it might not be something altogether new. Mr. Low Thia Khiang does vote with the government on issues in parliament, and he has mentioned repeatedly that the role of the opposition is to be a watch dog and not to be a mad dog that “opposes for opposing sake.” However, could the issue of Yaw’s decision to reveal his voting choice be one of that of a absence of context to the public? Yaw’s vote for Teo is different from Low’s vote for a PAP introduced bill - the former could be seen as an electoral decision that encapsulates broad (if not vague) manifestos, while the latter is a specific bill for specific purposes. Yet, some would argue in the context of the larger WP’s strategy, his vote makes sense because it contributes to the longstanding notion in recent years that the WP could move to the political center to try to capture the 10% swing vote that will propel WP to electoral victory. This is underpinned by the P-R that WP has done over the year, blending a fiery past which appeals to the liberal (think JBj and Francis Seow) and a semi-collaboration path with the PAP to appeal to the moderates and conservatives. Yet, this decision by Yaw might prove ultimately to be divisive because the context is made unclear. Yaw chose to delink the notion that the sum of individual interests equals to national public interests. Rather, Yaw chose to argue that in the spirit of the limited public interests (as to that of Bukit Panjang), the PAP candidate was a better choice. By transcending partisanship (even though he calls himself a partisan), Yaw could have been trying to present himself along the general lines of the WP’s image - a party that is semi-collaborative to the ruling regime that focuses squarely and firmly on the policy issues. The historical irony too might emerge in this debate. Did the PM not argue that people were voting for parties, rather than individual candidates after he was interviewed by reporters after the AMK GRC results were out? I am not sure the WP, or for that matter, SDP or SDA would disagree with the PM. Some political analysts disagreed, saying the people voted for individual candidates, which technically is not wrong either. This ambiguous relationship between voting for a party and for a local candidate has served Singapore political parties well. Yet in this incident, by not leaving room for the alternative, could Yaw be going against the nationalization of issues undertaken by Sylvia Lim (recall she said, this is not a local election, but a national one + the overall WP’s decision to have one stadium rally instead of SDA’s traditional strategies of having multiple venues)? Of course, Singaporeans’ memories are short, but the debate over whether one votes for a party or a candidate based on national or local issues would not go away, as long as we have elections in Singapore Yet, how many Singaporeans would understand their contextualized strategies, and how explicit can the WP be without sounding too earnest? The reports of the mainstream press and the sammyboy forums could have work better in the realm of nuances, but the emotionality of the collective guilt and hopes of Singaporeans could not be helped by their descriptions. By purging the body politic of the greys, the purity of the alternative vision will rise like a phoenix from the ashes of our collective and instrumental past. Would Yaw become the ash ? More interestingly,Yaw brings up the PAP’s dictonomy of pro versus anti-Singapore, that is the transcendental public interests (akin to the constitutional dilemmas of Modern China) matters more in politics. Politicking and partisanship should be limited in view of the wider interests of the imagined community. Is it a direct repudiation of the SDP’s strategy of community politicking in the forms of semi- demonstrations (versus the apparent neutrality and connotations of unity in the form of “walkabouts”)? My sympathies lie more perhaps with Mr. Low and Miss Lim as well as PAP MP Teo. For Low and Lim, how to sound democratic, a little distancing from Yaw and still pursue this middle of road strategy in parliament in a big question in the coming days. For Teo, a WP’s vote may sound flattering, but his position with the PAP will change - either he will be lauded as the new moderate PAP or criticized internally as the new softies. On Immigration in America Two interesting remarks coming out for pro-immigration and immigration reforms in America. Quite refreshing to hear Gov. of California and the NYT as contrast to the Lou Dobbs of CNN. May 15, 2008 New York Times Editorial No Rebates for You Immigrant restrictionism is stiffing hundreds of thousands of American citizens and legal residents out of their tax-rebate checks. Hard-liners were so intent on keeping the cash out of the hands of undocumented workers that they restricted the rebate to people with Social Security numbers. An Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, issued by the Internal Revenue Service to people who pay taxes but do not qualify for Social Security numbers, will not do. If a married couple files jointly, and one spouse is not eligible for the rebate, neither gets the money. This hurts all manner of people who are working and paying taxes: American soldiers stationed abroad who happen to have married foreigners; high-tech immigrants in Silicon Valley and other places whose spouses are not authorized to work or have not yet had their paperwork processed. These are people who are perfectly legal, economically vital and politically inconvenient. The government should fix the law so spouses get their money. It is a technical repair that even this Congress should manage. But why shouldn’t undocumented immigrants with taxpayer numbers get the cash too? The checks are not rewards for good behavior; they are taxes returned as a means to an end. Illegal immigrants constitute about 5 percent of the work force and earn much less than the native-born. They are just the sort of group the stimulus should be aimed at, if the purpose is to get the most economic bang for every rebate dollar. Arguments like that do not fly in the polluted atmosphere of immigration politics, which has produced toxic byproducts so extreme that they make the rebate glitch seem like a mere annoyance. Industries across the country are suffering and crops are rotting for lack of workers. Congress is debating a national right-to-work system that could mistakenly ensnare countless Americans and seriously overburden the Social Security bureaucracy. Federal agents and local police officers around the nation are rounding up the usual immigrants. Such crackdowns have forced thousands of harmless people into a fast-growing, secretive detention system that is shockingly deficient in basic rights and decent health care. In a disturbing article, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that the United States government had injected hundreds of undocumented foreigners with mind-altering drugs to render them docile while they were being deported. This practice violates every imaginable standard of decency, not to mention a few international laws and treaties. Smart efforts to minimize the ill effects of illegal immigration die political deaths, meanwhile, like putting the undocumented into New York State’s motor-vehicle database, registered and insured instead of anonymous and unaccounted for. That was also the fate of the Dream Act, a modest bill to ease the way to college for the guiltless children of illegal immigrants so they would not be condemned to dead-end jobs. A model identity-card program in New Haven, hailed for lowering crime, is under legal attack from nativist groups. Efforts at deliberate, proportionate and responsible immigration reform provoke paralysis, but restrictionist tactics are greeted with exuberance. The itch to do something about illegal immigration is being scratched. Note to country: Scratching never cured anything. Interview with LA Times: Schwarzenegger: I get a lot of requests from the chamber and from businesses to push for immigration reform. And we get a lot of push about, you know, the problem that if we don’t have immigration reform, and we are very tough on the border - which we are in California, we have the National Guard there - and because of that, it reduced the crossings. But because of that, a lot of businesses are suffering now. So what everyone likes is not to have illegals working for them; but what they like is to have the chance to go and hire these people legally. But they don’t get the visas because there’s a cap on that … so it’s a very frustrating system, and it’s not good for anybody. It’s not good for the Mexicans, it’s not good for us, it’s not good for our businesses, and especially with the chaos of the students’ visas. We have students that are studying from all over the world, and then the next day they have to go home. I think it’s crazy for them not to have a visa so they can stay a few years and so we can use their brain power that they actually got in California or in the United States and use them here for a few years and then let them go home. They want to stay here and we need them. That’s one of the most common complaints in Silicon Valley. So we really need immigration reform, and it’s really - it’s a disaster in Washington. There was such hope when [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi went in; they thought that all those things would be changed, and there would be, finally, they would get things done. Nothing is getting done. The Public and Chinese Popular Music Recently, I have become interested in the relationship between popular Chinese/Asian music and the notion of a Chinese/Asian “public space.” One of the things that people laugh at, including many journalists and academicians, is that Asian popular music and its political, societal and leisure implications is a topic actually worth studying. Considering that millions of East Asians, from Indonesians to Vietnamese to China to Japan to Korea sing karaoke and take part in singing competitions everyday, and that politicians have become apt at singing many of these popular songs to win votes, I don’t know how long journalists and academicians can laugh at this “trivial, similar and  subaltern culture”. Also many young Asians grow up with a favorite idol and many of them would actually sacrifice their daily lives to chase these idols across space and time when they are growing up. What did it mean to grow up with popular idols? How does the transnational nature of Chinese music unite or divide the Chinese and its diaspora? What did it mean to belong to a “fan club”?  How is popular musicians and music used by politicians (recall Zhang Hui Mei’s ban from Mainland China after she sang the Taiwan’s national anthem) to promote their own agenda? Why have popular musicians, with their huge following, remain largely apolitical or have chosen to support the ruling regime? How have musicians be co-opted into the political system? These issues deserve some serious thinking and research.  Clearly these young people in their millions are not necessarily engaging in a public discourse within a Habermas’s public sphere in terms of their interests in popular Asian music, but something is going on that is beyond the control of the state.  For e.g., A ban of certain artists in Malaysia, Singapore, China, Vietnam, Indonesia has never fail to draw the people’s criticism or support towards the ruling authority. To digress, it is interesting to see Sun Yan Zi’s song “我不難過” (I am not upset) being sang by so many different artists, predominately Taiwanese singers. The transnational nature of Chinese popular music can indeed be reproduced in many ways. For a lighter amd normative question, who do you think sang better? Original: Cheers to a liberal arts education My college featured in the Straits Times The Straits Times (Singapore) April 30, 2008 Wednesday Cheers to a liberal arts education BYLINE: Sandra Davie, Senior Writer LENGTH: 1009 words WITH her A-level results, Raffles Junior College student Nazish Zafar could have easily attended any big-name American university. But she surprised friends and family by choosing Carleton College in Minnesota. The liberal arts college is consistently ranked among the top five in the United States, but is not a familiar name here. ‘Why is it called a college, not a university?’ some asked her. But Ms Zafar, 24, who graduated last year with a Bachelor of Arts majoring in sociology and anthropology, is glad she stuck with her choice. A generous four-year scholarship from Carleton was a reason she went there, but she was also sold on the broad-based curriculum and intimate learning environment promised by the college. And Carleton did not disappoint. Her courses ranged from Russian language, culture and society to Middle Eastern social theory, and women and the Islamic construction of gender. She did courses in computer science, qualitative thinking, statistics, and video production and editing. It all added up to a grounding in varied disciplines and taught her to see issues from various perspectives. Her invigorating undergraduate experience is what liberal arts colleges are known for, and Singapore will be offering the same brand of education through a liberal arts college of its own. She says she liked the fact that her courses traversed two or three discipline areas, showing students the connections across different areas of knowledge. For example, National Identity In Israeli And Palestinian Literature - a course she did in her first year - meant reading novels and poetry, watching documentaries, and analysing articles expressing views from both sides of the conflict. ‘It gave me a refreshingly nuanced, multi-dimensional understanding to the region,’ she recalls. In Year 2, she visited Moscow for three months, living with a Russian family. Her Russian language skills improved by leaps and bounds. She added two months to that trip to be a volunteer at a community of foster families caring for orphans. In her final year last year, she and a college mate won a $10US,000 ($13S,600) grant to launch a health education project in Fortaleza, Brazil. Their Napkin Project aimed to educate women on the benefits of breastfeeding through messages printed on napkins handed out by street vendors. Ms Zafar, who hopes to work in the social-humanitarian field, says the six-month stint gave her valuable on-the-ground experience. After a stint as a relief teacher in a primary school here, she is now working at the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports before starting her doctoral studies at Johns Hopkins University. Singapore wants a liberal arts college too, but it will not be an independent private institution as in the United States. The committee studying the expansion of university places here is concerned that the low teacher-student ratios and extensive interaction between faculty and students and among students can drive up tuition fees, to as high as $43US,000 a year. It feels that Singapore students and parents unfamiliar with the benefits may not be willing to pay so much. Hence the suggestion for a liberal arts college set up as an affiliate of a larger university, to leverage on the resources of its parent institution and keep fees affordable. Liberal arts graduates Tan Shin Bin, 24, and Alexander Lim, 26, say whatever the form, Singapore could do with a liberal arts college. Ms Tan, a former Hwa Chong Junior College student, went to Wellesley College in Massachusetts, where almost all classes were discussions or seminars attended by between three and 15 students. ‘Because there were so few of us in a class, you are forced to participate. My education in Wellesley taught me to speak up and take a stand on issues,’ says Ms Tan, who now works for a statutory board. Mr Lim, who went to Carleton, says: ‘You are constantly challenged on your beliefs and assumptions by your professors as well as classmates.’ Taken aback initially, he soon learnt to deliver intellectual punch for punch. He feels there is a need to educate parents, students and employers here on the benefits of a liberal arts education. The former Anglo-Chinese Junior College student says he gets quizzed about liberal arts colleges at interviews. ‘Very different from the US where it is a big deal to be a graduate of a liberal arts college as they are super selective,’ he says. American liberal arts colleges have a history going back to the 1800s. The education they espouse has been questioned, with more Americans opting for a more career-relevant education. But, by any measure, the liberal arts colleges have been a success story. The last comprehensive study done on graduates of liberal arts colleges was 10 years ago but the findings still hold true. It found that only 3 per cent of American college graduates attended residential liberal arts colleges, but their alumni accounted for 8 per cent of Forbes magazine’s listing of the nation’s wealthiest CEOs, 23 per cent of Pulitzer Prize winners in drama, 19 per cent of the winners in history, 18 per cent in poetry, 8 per cent in biography, and 6 per cent in fiction from 1960 to 1998. They were also over-represented among recipients of prestigious scholarships. Famous alumni include former president Woodrow Wilson, author Dan Brown, former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, news anchor Diane Sawyer, actress Meryl Streep and Senator Hillary Clinton. And should Mrs Clinton become the next US president, she will boost the tally of 19 per cent of US presidents with a liberal arts education. sandra@sph.com.sg NO REGRETS Ms Nazish Zafar’s courses at Carleton College included: YEAR 1 Russian Culture And Society Elementary Russian Women And The Islamic Construction Of Gender YEAR 2 Biology Of Conservation Introduction To Video Production Middle Eastern Social Theory YEAR 3 Introduction To Statistics Sociological Thought & Theory Art Of Oral Presentation Qualitative Thinking YEAR 4 Orphanages: A Cross Cultural Studies Analysis Elementary Chinese Class, Power And Inequality In America Hillary Clinton’s victory speech at Penn Her victory speech after winning Penn with a 9 points victory over Senator Obama:  3 Quick Musings - Wong, Clinton & SDP What surprises me not the most are the calls (and counter-calls) for Minister Wong to resign over the MKS incident but more that PM Lee actually actively pursue that line in parliament. By even rhetorically mentioning it, does it only show that PM is trying to actively quell the online cries?  Or could it also be a rhetorical form of (hidden transcripts of) power struggle within high politics in Singapore? How can we read between the lines unless a PAP insider spills the beans? Also, LTK’s silence, while interpreted by PM Lee as an assent to the point that WKS should not resign, was quite indicative as usual. The silence speaks volumes of the contradictions within the very viable opposition Workers’ Party (will my calling for resignation set a precedent for the WP to resign if we do badly in the future)? Clinton’s convincing victory at the polls in PA have not be celebrated much by the American press. The NYT downright criticized her negative tones and columnists have been hinting that she should go. Quite a wonderful representation of what the press would be when she becomes President or when Obama becomes the nominee. “Hail McCain and Obama, the two honest maverick independent candidates that would restore America’s greatness!” Says the CNN, foxnews and MSNBC. Now, that’s scary. The SDP’s revamp of its website in terms of design and accessibility is really quite good for a political party. Almost comparable to my favorite political website of the British Conservative Party (But their standards seem to also have decline quite a bit) Maybe the PAP and the NSP needs to up their web design skills a bit? Home School Education and The Reach of the State Random Thoughts on Home School Education & Reach of the State I read with fascination on the phenomena of home schooling as reported in the Straits Times today. Home schooling, as with many things in Singapore, have their own share of critics and myths. Home schooling often does not entail merely studying at home - in America, home schoolers often form their own community, with group activities stressed even as individuals study at home. Many home schoolers attend enrichment classes such as piano and not surprisingly many of them are involved in community and political outreaches to broaden their social circles. The church often becomes a focal point for home school kids - and considering that many students today do not consider their friends in school as the people they necessarily hang out with (think stereotypical church kids, temple kids, street kids, arcade kids, sports kids, gyms kids, game kids, hang out at the mall and waste time kids) ,I wonder how problematic will it be for a Singapore kid about not going to a formal school in light of the former situation. And the advantage of being a home schooler in Singapore is that unlike suburban America, Singapore is a place where it is very compact, forcing individuals to interact with each other on a daily basis. Of course, this doesn’t mean that home schoolers will interact with their neighbors and street kids, but this is based on the assumption that all home schoolers are introverts because of their educational socialization, which I am not sure whether it is true. With rising concerns of social problems in our education system, I wonder if more Singaporeans will home school their kids. Yet, the most interesting piece of information for me in the ST article was this section: “They are also required to clear the National Education quiz, a test of their knowledge of Singapore’s history and the challenges facing it.” It really opened my eyes to the idea of burden of citizenship. While many people will argue that the burden of citizenship includes paying taxes or serving the nation service, in actuality, the burden of citizenship begins with formal education, where students are supposed to imbue the qualities of a model Singaporean citizen.  It is akin to working on a blank slate. And even home schoolers cannot escape the everyday levels of “orthodoxing” in formal schools. Despite not investing in the same common space in schools, they are subjected to the state’s discipline. They have to internalize the party-state discourse of the past and “the challenges facing it.” They have to become model economizing citizens in their studies and while the state allows the citizen to perform private acts of education upon their sons and daughters, they realize that these home schoolers might forget they are Singaporeans. For education, just as freedom can be stretched and appropriated in Singapore, but please, please, for the sake of Singapore, remember to take your NE pills before heading to the age of 13. Question of the day: Does a PSLE student knowing the answers to an NE quiz makes them more of a Singaporean than one who has not taken it? PM Kevin Rudd’s Amazing Chinese in his interview with CCTV Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s interview with Chinese CCTV before he was elected as PM. His Chinese is quite fantastic - will put many Singaporeans to shame. The interviewer behaves quite strangely though -what do you think? Annual State Department Report on Singapore’s Human Rights Practices See the full 2007 report just out here: Two interesting quotes: “The government demonstrated a strong commitment to children’s rights and welfare through well-funded systems of public education and medical care, and access was equal for all children. Six years of public (or government-recognized private) education is compulsory for all children. Virtually 100 percent of children were enrolled through grade six, and the dropout rate for secondary school was low. The Children and Young Persons Act created a juvenile court system and established protective services for orphaned, abused, and “troubled” children, and those with disabilities. The Ministry of Community Development, Youth, and Sports (MCYS) worked closely with the National Council for Social Services to oversee children’s welfare cases. Voluntary organizations operated most of the homes for children, while the government funded from 50 to 100 percent of living expenses and overhead, as well as expenses for special schooling, health care, and supervisory needs.” “The PAP completely controlled key positions in and out of government, influenced the press and courts, and limited opposition political activities. Often the means were fully consistent with the law and the normal prerogatives of a parliamentary government, but the overall effect (and many argued the ultimate purpose) was to disadvantage and weaken political opposition. Since 1988 the PAP changed all but nine single-seat constituencies into group representational constituencies (GRCs) of five to six parliamentary seats, in which the party with a plurality wins all of the seats. According to the constitution, such changes are permitted to ensure ethnic minority representation in Parliament; each GRC candidate list must contain at least one Malay, Indian, or other ethnic minority candidate. These changes made it more difficult for opposition parties, all of which had very limited memberships, to fill multimember candidate lists. Although political parties legally were free to organize, they operated under the same limitations that applied to all organizations, and the authorities imposed strict regulations on their constitutions, fundraising, and accountability. There were 24 registered political parties in the country; however, only six of these were active. Political parties and organizations were subject to strict financial regulations, including a ban on receiving foreign donations. Government regulations hindered attempts by opposition parties to rent office space in government housing blocks or to establish community foundations. In addition government influence extended in varying degrees to academic, community service, and other NGOs.” GIC invests in Italian company More money poured into Benetton Fascinating Taiwanese political ads I am beginning to understand why the DPP despite being painted by some segments of the media as being ineffective, corrupted and possessing few ideas still managed to hold its support among segments of the Taiwanese people. One of the reasons could be due to the really interesting ads put up by the DPP. The ads (see my previous post too) for the DPP are quite witty, straightforward and cutting edge. The ads cleverly juxtapose the increased welfare under a DPP’s government with the need for people to take care of themselves, thus reducing the image of DPP as a tax and spend political party.  In contrast, the KMT ads may appear to less effective with their generic and “nationalistic” ads to the younger Taiwanese. Which party do you think has more effective ads? DPP ads: KMT ads: Which party do you think has more effective ads? Taiwan’s election ads - Quite Insightful and Interesting The election ads for the Democratic People’s Party (DPP 民进党)  and the Nationalist Party (KMT  国民党 ) are really interesting. The DPP ad focuses on the gains in democracy gained by DPP activists over the last few decades, juxtaposing the past with the recent past to show that DPP is the true bearer of democracy in Taiwan. More importantly, it uses a little element of fear to remind young Taiwanese of the importance of democracy as they would not have remembered living under the former regime’s autocracy. By moving between the imagined past and present youth, it invokes simultaneous feelings of anxiety, support and forwardness. The KMT’s ads are slightly different, with a strong focus on an essentalist “moral-ess” state that Taiwan has become under the DPP. They are also much more focused on economic issues and the specter of “future progress.” Also the KMT is banking more on their main hero - Ma Ying Jiu - to attract voters’ attention. Which ad do you think was more effective in changing voters’ opinions? Malaysian Opposition Makes Big Gains in Elections This is the year of unexpected ups and downs in politics - First, Hillary Clinton comes back from the dead to seize the agenda in the American election, stalling the Obamanian machinery. Second, John McCain trailing in the polls in the beginning of the year emerged from the pack to beat 6 other candidates who were leading.  Third, Minister Wong’s liberalization of overseas voting was overshadowed by the sudden Mat’s escape from prison. Fourth, now the unexpected gains by the Malaysian opposition in the general election, even defeating some heavyweight ministers. To be honest, I never predicted such an advance by the opposition, given the the media reports showed that Malaysian voters were “apathetic”, “contented” despite some riots by ethnic Indians and “more free under Badawi as compared to Dr. Mahathir.” (Sounds familiar to a certain country we know and love) One wonders three things: 1) Did Dr. Mahathir’s criticism of Abudullah over the last few years resulted in a weaken UMNO machinery that used to be so reliable? 2) If Anwar had become the PM after Dr. Mahathir, won the BN do so poorly this time? In retrospect, Anwar, when he was talking in Singapore recently, wasn’t boasting about his chances, he geninuely thought that the opposition would do better. In addition, PAS’s dropping of an Islamic state reference in its manifesto must have helped to boost the overall secular and progressive image of the opposition parties. 3) Did the DAP’s longstanding involvement in peaceful street demonstrations help change the views of Malaysian voters? Malaysia Opposition wins big, defeating the BN in Kedah and Penang for the first time since independence. The opposition retains Kelantan and might win Selangor too. Will these results affect politics across the causeway? Malaysian ruling coalition suffers poll debacle Sat Mar 8, 2008 10:38pm IST By Clarence Fernandez KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - Malaysia’s opposition was set on Saturday to hand the ruling coalition its biggest upset ever, claiming wins in at least four states and putting the prime minister’s political future at risk. The multi-racial National Front coalition was almost certain to get a majority and form the government at the federal level, but the two-thirds majority in parliament it has held for most of its five-decade-long rule was looking shaky in early returns. The Chinese-backed Democratic Action Party (DAP) won Penang, a manufacturing hub that is home to many multinational firms. The opposition Islamist party PAS claimed shock victories in the northern heartland states of Kedah and Perak and crushed the ruling coalition in PAS’ stronghold in northeastern Kelantan state. The opposition was also gaining in Selangor state surrounding Kuala Lumpur, the state news agency Bernama said. “This is the biggest defeat ever since our (party’s) founding 40 years ago,” Penang Chief Minister Koh Tsu Koon said. “I feel sad and surprised. I urge all National Front members to stay calm and not to take any action that could jeopardise peace and security in the state.” The shock defeat in Penang stirred memories of the last time the ruling coalition failed to win a two-thirds majority, in 1969, when deadly race riots erupted between majority ethnic Malays and minority Chinese. Abdullah said he accepted defeat “in some areas” and urged people to remain calm, the Star newspaper’s text message service reported. Police officials vowed to use tough internal security laws against anyone spreading rumours and banned victory processions after the results, one of which had triggered the 1969 violence. REFERENDUM ON ABDULLAH “This looks like a revolution,” said Husam Musa, vice president of a hardline Islamist opposition party. “The people have risen and are united. The message to government is, ‘Enough is enough’”, he told reporters. The poll, called before it was due in May 2009, was widely seen as a referendum on Abdullah’s rule, and Malaysians took the opportunity to administer a stinging rebuke over price rises, religious disputes and concerns over corruption . “I think the PM will potentially have to resign,” said Bridget Welsh, a Malaysia specialist at Johns Hopkins University in the United States. “This is unprecedented. The only other time this happened was in 1969 and that’s why everybody is very nervous now because of the uncertainty.” Works Minister Samy Vellu, chief of the Malaysian Indian Congress, one of the parties in the ruling National Front coalition, lost the seat he had held for nearly 30 years, because many Indians thought he was out of touch with their concerns. Detained ethnic Indian activist and lawyer M. Manoharan delivered another slap in the face of the government, winning a parliamentary seat despite being held under internal-security laws for organising a major anti-government protest last year. Chinese and Indians account for a third of the population of 26 million and many complain the government discriminates in favour of Malays when it comes to education, jobs, financial assistance and religious policy. The final result is unlikely to be clear until early on Sunday. About 70 percent of Malaysia’s 10.9 million eligible voters had cast ballots, the country’s top poll official said. Opposition rallies drew big crowds, especially Chinese and Indian voters unhappy with Abdullah’s Malay-dominated coalition. “This clearly shows Malaysians want an alternative. Going forward Malays, Indians and Chinese all have to work together and make a formidable pact,” opposition figure Anwar Ibrahim told reporters. Barisan held 90 percent of the seats in the outgoing federal parliament. Political experts had predicted Abdullah’s continued leadership could be in jeopardy if his majority fell back below 80 percent, or around 178 seats, in the new 222-seat parliament. The economy grew 6 percent last year but inflation and a likely U.S. economic slowdown have fueled worries. (Additional reporting by Mark Bendeich, Jalil Hamid and Liau Y-Sing) Malaysia Ruling Coalition Suffers Losses By VIJAY JOSHI – 1 hour ago KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — Malaysia’s ruling coalition suffered its biggest electoral upset in nearly four decades Saturday, losing control of two state governments in a show of frustration over racial tensions, crime and corruption. It was a humiliating defeat for the National Front coalition, which has governed Malaysia since independence in 1957, and raised questions about political future of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. At the federal level, however, the coalition was expected to keep its control of the 222-seat Parliament. It has so far won 68 seats, according to partial results from the Electoral Commission. Final results were expected Sunday. “We suffered a lot of losses tonight,” Abdullah’s son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin told reporters. “But we are going to fight on. We are not going to quit. It is not the end of the world and we are going to get through this.” For the first time since 1969, the National Front lost control of the assembly in northern Penang, the only state where ethnic Chinese are a majority. The defeat in Penang was like “a tsunami coming in,” said Chang Ko Youn, vice president of Gerakan party, which belongs to the ruling coalition. “Nobody expected it to be so bad. I am a bit worried for the future of our party and our country.” Malaysia’s ethnic Chinese and Indians have long complained about discrimination, particularly an affirmative action system that gives the majority Muslim Malays preference in jobs, business and education. The program was designed 37 years ago to help the majority Malay catch up with the wealthier Chinese. But minorities complain the program continues despite rising standards of livings for Malays. Malays make up 60 percent of Malaysia’s 27 million people, while Chinese account for 25 percent and Indians 8 percent. Each ethnicity is represented by a party in the National Front, a power-sharing arrangement designed to keep racial tensions at bay. The coalition’s election losses underscore not only anger over racial inequities but frustration among all Malaysians over rising prices, corruption and crime. While the National Front was expected to keep its parliamentary majority, the opposition was expected to gain seats. Such an outcome would be seen as a rebuke for Abdullah, who has lost much of the goodwill he enjoyed when he replaced longtime leader Mahathir Mohamad in 2003. Abdullah led the Front to a landslide victory in 2004, taking 91 percent of the seats in Parliament. In Penang, the Chinese-based Democratic Action Party and its allied People’s Justice Party won a simple majority in the 40-member assembly, said Chow Kon Yeow, the top Democratic Action official in Penang. Election officials did not release final figures, but monitors from political parties see the results before they are announced. The People’s Justice Party also won a majority of seats in the Kedah state legislature, while the opposition Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party kept its control of the assembly in Kelantan — the only state where the opposition had already been in power. “It’s a people’s revolution. People are waking up and sending a clear message to the government that enough is enough,” said Husam Musal, vice president of the People’s Action Party. Associated Press writers Sean Yoong, Julia Zappei and Hrvoje Hranjski in Kuala Lumpur, and Eileen Ng in Kelantan contributed to this report. Change in Upgrading forms, but no change in political underpinnings? “Last year, I visited a resident who was injured by fallen concrete slabs due to spalling in the kitchen of his flat. As the flats continue to age, spalling concrete can become an issue of safety. Unless the Minister thinks that the safety of residents living in HDB flats in Hougang is of a lesser concern than those in the PAP wards, it is only right for the Minister to shorten the waiting time required for HIP to be implemented in the opposition ward.”- Opposition MP Low requests for upgrading at Hougang. The longstanding issue of upgrading emerged again in the budget where the current MUP programs would be changed to other acronyms. While current issues are being overshadowed by the alleged terrorists’ escape incident, other issues deserved to be aired by the media such as unexpected budget surplus and the upgrading issue. Notice Minister Fu’s reply to Low, what do you think of her reply? I don’t even know if she really answered the questions being asked? Hillary Clinton fights back - Analysis of her big night Credit: MSNBC Latest News: Clinton makes a big comeback with wins in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island. When critics were writing her off, I predicted that her performances at her debate, her commitment to attend the State of the Black Union, her tenacity and composure despite hostile media speculations and her building up of herself as a credible and experienced candidacy will pay off slowly but surely at the end. I think one of the reasons why she won at Texas and Ohio could be that the turnout for college students were less than dependable. As the work piles up in the March for college kids and staff, not that many of them might want to turn out to vote or to caucus. However, the elderly, especially those who are retired can afford to wait a few hours of caucusing before casting their choices. In both Ohio and Texas, the amount of people above 65 who voted were significantly larger than that of those below 25. Also, the news media tend to cover the elderly less, because well they are not as sexy as beautiful college students passionately supporting Obama in rallies, roadshows, offices and other places. This might have underrepresented the older voters’ potency in an election. In addition, the American news media, by shifting to a more neutral coverage of the election in the last 3 days, might have tilted the views of the voters towards Hillary. Also, the persistent of the Rezak case as well as the intriguing leak of the Canadian memo suggests that Obama’s rhetoric of change might just have been devalued in the eyes of some. Yet, there is no reason to argue that Obama would do poorly in the next few races. He is a wonderful candidate that truly believes that politics can transcend the pettiness of everyday negotiations. However, I just worry that his constant appeal to young voters (He mentioned in tonight’s speech - “those who are young and young at heart” should believe in change or something like that) might have alienated the core bases of the Democratic party if he goes on to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. In the general election, he should ask himself, “Who are the people that are going to vote?” The older voters has always historically been the most reliable voters that actually turn out to vote. Look at what happen to Palm Beach county eight years ago. Would college students come out to vote in November 2008 where they are having so much work, partying, exams and commitments?  Third Update: With 25% of votes counted in Texas, Clinton finally overtook Obama. Second Update: Clinton wins Rhode Island. She is leading in Ohio. In Texas, the early lead by Obama has vanished. Obama is currently leading Clinton 50-49. Update: Clinton appears to be doing well among late deciders! In the midst of insane amount of work, I am also hooked on the CNN political ticker. It is interesting that so many blogs from Singapore support Obama. For example, this and that. Latest in from the Nytimes blog: It is too close to call in Ohio, which appears to be really bad news for Clinton. Stay tuned. A really good speech by Hillary Clinton at the State of Black Union Relaxation of Overseas Voting - Fostering Participation or Creating Pipedreams? Broadening overseas voting participation has been a longstanding passion for me as seen in my article and letter to the newspaper. I am extremely glad and applaud the government for moving in the right direction on the issue. The government may have decided that increasing pluralistic participation would mean that more Overseas Singaporeans would take a keener interests on home politics and society. The enthusiasm of Overseas residents (especially Americans, Japanese, Filipino and Koreans) in Singapore might have affected the ministry’s decision to hope for a similar effect among overseas Singaporeans. The reduction from 2 out of 5 years to the “30 day rules” will still mean exiled political dissidents definitely cannot vote, but I sure that would not bother the majority of Singaporeans. How would political parties reach out to Overseas Singaporeans? It is interesting what the Singapore government has recently been doing has some clear resonance with what the Chinese government tried to do starting a century ago with its overseas emigrants to Southeast Asia - that is to reach out to its diaspora there in multiple ways. However, they are doing it through contemporary mechanisms such as setting up state-sponsored Overseas Singapore Clubs as well as fostering voter participation (albeit in a limited way). Btw, look out for a quote in the article =) Relaxed – rules for overseas voting Move to give Singaporeans abroad greater stake in country’s political proces Loh Chee Kong cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg FOLLOWING the baby steps taken in the 2006 General Election — which saw Singaporeans casting their votes from foreign shores for the first time — the Government has moved to relax the rules in the hope of giving Singaporeans abroad a greater stake in the country’s political process. Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng said yesterday the Government would “liberalise the criteria to enable more overseas Singaporeans to qualify to vote, while maintaining the spirit of the law that only those who continue to maintain their links back home should be entitled to vote”. Previously, overseas voting was open only to citizens and their families who are sent abroad to work or study by the Government or approved international agencies, or who have lived in Singapore for an aggregate of two out of the five years before the cut-off date for voter registration. These rules — criticised by some as favouring those who are more likely to vote for the incumbent — have been scrapped. In their place is an encompassing rule that allows an overseas Singaporean to vote so long as he or she “has resided in Singapore for an aggregate of 30 days” in the three years preceding the prescribed date, which is usually be the first day of the year in which elections are called. There are no official estimates on how the changes could expand the pool of overseas voters. Still, Mr Wong said it was “reasonable” to expect them to visit their families and friends for at least 30 days over a three-year period, as most would have about 21 days of annual leave. “We expect that they will spend at least half of their leave at home in Singapore.” Under the changes, which will kick in before the next elections due by 2011, Singaporeans on foreign electoral registers will no longer be barred from voting.As more countries seek to automatically register residents as voters, retaining the rule would disqualify citizens included involuntarily, said Mr Wong. Previously, registration application had to be submitted by hand or registered mail; now it can be done online using SingPass. New York City was also added to the previous list of eight polling stations in major cities in the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Japan and Australia. While the committee had deliberated on adding more, Mr Wong said several factors had to be considered, including the need for a critical mass of Singaporeans living in that area and the manpower available. Of the estimated 150,000 Singaporeans working and living overseas, it is not clear how many were of voting age in 2006. Only 1,017 had registered to vote, with slightly more than half eventually getting the chance to vote as they lived in contested constituencies. In the end, 335 made it to the polling stations, with 81 per cent of their votes going to the People’s Action Party. Describing the changes as being “in the right direction”, Mr Wayne Soon, 25, a student at Carleton College in Minnesota who voted from the US in 2006, suggested the Government use postal ballots to spare overseas voters the hassle of travelling to the assigned polling station. The right to vote, he added, would go a long way in encouraging citizens abroad, especially younger ones, “to take a keener interests in politics and society of Singapore”. Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim suggested letting overseas voters cast their ballot earlier, so that their votes can be tallied with the rest of the votes instead of several days after. This would protect their anonymity. Mr Wong said such a move had “many implications” and would not be practical, including the fact that it would deprive overseas voters the chance to follow developments throughout the campaigning period. explaining the do’s and don’ts Administrative improvements and more public education are in store to ease the election process for both voters as well as candidates and their election agents. During the election period, brochures explaining the “dos” and “don’ts” of the voting process will be mailed to every household. Educational videos will be broadcast on television and online, and distributed at the grassroots level. Besides a new 24-hour hotline for election queries – catering to both overseas and local citizens – prospective voters can check on their voting eligibility and assigned polling stations via email or SMS. The Election Department will also improve its “customer interface” with candidates and election agents by publishing a guidebook and enhancing online services for certain transactions and downloading of relevant forms. Without citing examples, Mr Wong said that going by feedback and enquiries received at previous elections, “it is apparent that some candidates and agents are not clear about certain rules and procedures”. In the 2006 GE, Workers’ Party candidate James Gomez found himself at the centre of a political storm, after he failed to submit his minority-candidate form but insisted he had done so. The procedures and workflow for “accepting and tracking submissions” from candidates and elections agents will be “tightened”. And to cater to crisis situations such as “adverse weather or bomb hoax”, the laws may be changed to enable the Returning Officer to respond to such contingencies. Clinton 08 or Obama 08? Source: CNN  Hillary Clinton ends with a stronger note in tonight’s debate, which should help her chances in Texas and Ohio. In addition, she seemed to have the upper hand on the health care debate against Obama. However, her border’s fence comment (and support for that previously) might hurt her among Hispanic voters, who have been backing her as opposed to Obama much more strongly in the Democratic primaries and caucuses In any case, it appears that Obama was right in his own perspective when he refused to debate with Hillary last week. It would have lost him some points in the Wisconsin primaries if she had appeared to do better. Would people chant “Hillary is back” just as they did with John McCain (Mac is back) when the latter put off a political miracle with his win in New Hampshire and beyond? It is still far too early to rule out Hillary Clinton. From CNN: Schneider: Clinton ends on a strong note Posted: 09:51 PM ET AUSTIN, Texas (CNN) — The audience loved Clinton’s first response when asked about a time she had been tested – a deliberately vague answer that drew a knowing laugh from many in the audience. She then laid out a very eloquent response, essentially saying that her crises are nothing compared to the problems average voters confront. It’s one of the few debate answers to get a standing ovation. – CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider Stagflation hits Singapore An interesting commentary from Bloomberg News:  Quote of the day: “Singapore’s Gini coefficient, a widely used measure of income concentration, overtook that of the U.S. in 2006 and rose further last year to 0.485, a very high level of disparity for a society with an educated workforce.” Stagflation Hits Singapore as Inequity Grows: Andy Mukherjee Commentary by Andy Mukherjee Feb. 18 (Bloomberg) — Stagflation has come to Singapore. The entire focus of the government’s annual budget, announced Feb. 15, was on dealing with the perils of slowing growth and accelerating inflation, a deadly combination as less fiscally robust governments than Singapore’s may soon discover. Of the two, the bigger threat is clearly the 4.4 percent rate at which consumer prices rose from a year earlier in December, the quickest pace in a quarter century. It’s quite natural then that the word “inflation” appears 43 times in this year’s budget statement. Last year, it wasn’t even mentioned once. To be sure, the authorities in the city-state are entering the combat zone from a position of strength, and not only because they have accumulated budget surpluses in most years for four decades now. For two straight years, people in every income bracket have taken home bigger paychecks. Not just that. If the consumer-price index is any reflection of the true cost of living in the city-state, then even the poorest 10 percent of non-retiree households — with a per-capita income of just S$180 ($127) a month — have had real gains in purchasing power. However, the rich have fared much better. Starting in 2000, inequality has widened a little every year. Singapore’s Gini coefficient, a widely used measure of income concentration, overtook that of the U.S. in 2006 and rose further last year to 0.485, a very high level of disparity for a society with an educated workforce. Recession Risk And this inequity may now become a problem because the growth momentum has suddenly collapsed as the much-expected “decoupling” from the troubled U.S. economy has — at least so far — failed to materialize. On an annualized basis, gross domestic product contracted almost 5 percent in the final three months of last year compared with the previous quarter. If there’s another fall in GDP in the current quarter, then Singapore would technically be in recession. It’s one thing to have an unequal society where the workforce is, for all practical purposes, at full employment and income growth is outpacing inflation for everyone, albeit more quickly for the rich than for the poor. A somewhat lopsided income distribution is only to be expected in a city that wants more rich people to come here to live, work and play. It now takes just a week to register a hedge fund from scratch in Singapore, many times faster than in the rival financial center of Hong Kong. A couple of casinos will open by 2010, and an annual Formula One night race starts this year. Helping Hand When it comes to helping the poor, the island-state generally eschews consumption subsidies, except in education, basic health care and for public housing, the biggest source of wealth creation for the average Singaporean. However, Singapore has mechanisms in place for transferring the government’s fiscal surpluses to the poor in bad years and ensuring that they can get by even on monthly wages that wouldn’t buy a meal for two at My Humble House, a restaurant that isn’t exactly what its name suggests. What Singapore has resolutely shied away from is giving its citizens any handout that may dissuade them from seeking work. Unemployment insurance, an idea that was discussed following the 2001 recession, remains a no-no. That may be a prudent strategy, especially in a fast-aging society that’s trying hard to retain competitiveness as cheaper locations in China and India become more sophisticated producers of almost everything that Singapore makes. Prudent Versus Popular Nonetheless, a prudent course may not be a very popular one in an environment of stagflation. When people start losing their jobs while their electricity bills keep going up, there may be resentment against the rich, many of whom are foreigners. Singapore is too pragmatic to want to use tax policies to fashion a more egalitarian society. Even this year’s budget gave a bonus to the rich by scrapping estate duty. The move is aimed at getting wealthy individuals around the world to shift their assets to Singapore, where there are no levies on capital gains and the top rate for personal income tax is 20 percent. To make sure that the poor don’t fall further behind, the emphasis of the government’s budget this year is on returning S$5.4 billion worth of fiscal surplus to the people, especially low-income households and the elderly. As a small, open economy of 4.6 million people, Singapore can’t do much to escape stagflation. As a prosperous nation — average household income from work last year was the equivalent of $50,000 a year — it is going to be under increasing pressure to shield its vulnerable from economic forces over which the city’s authorities have no control. For now, the government has been proactive in responding to the challenge. If the economy slows more than the current official forecast of at least 4 percent expansion this year, or if the cost of living becomes more unbearable, the helping hand may have to extend its generosity further. (Andy Mukherjee is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.) Will politics here throw up an Obama? A most interesting article in the Straits Times. Also see SDP’s letter to Obama. Obama actually talked about Singapore education system much earlier, as seen in my March 06 2007 post on a video of Obama talking about this issue. Also, it appears that Obama has slowly become a metaphor of political change in Singapore. Feb 16, 2008 Will politics here throw up an Obama? By Lynn Lee BY 2030, will Singapore have a Barack Obama, the presidential-hopeful seen by backers in the United States as an agent of change? It’s possible, but such an individual will come from outside the ruling People’s Action Party, according to Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong. His reasoning last night: ‘It comes back to the PAP’s style of leadership renewal. It’s a controlled process, they look for certain traits. If you’re charismatic, it’s a bonus, but not a requirement.’ He was speaking at a forum on Singapore politics, where a student asked if a politician with the charisma of Senator Obama would ever surface. The question was in keeping with the forum’s theme - Singapore in 2030 - and was a follow-up to an Institute of Policy Studies conference this month, where issues like the future political landscape and challenges to continued economic growth were raised. The six panellists touched on these topics during a three-hour session. But in responding to the nearly 300 students present, they also shared their concerns about the values and sense of identity that would prevail among Singaporeans two decades from now. For instance, NUS researcher Karyn Wang felt that people’s apathy was a problem that had to be solved. The lack of engagement would hinder them from taking an active part in national issues and helping shape Singapore’s future. Writer Catherine Lim said the current political environment - where economic development is prized over political openness - was dampening young Singaporeans’ sense of identity. ‘If their loyalty is to the good life, then it can also shift with the good life, and it will not stay with the country,’ she said, echoing a point she also made at a Singapore Management University talk earlier in the day. Indeed, media academic Cherian George noted that today’s youngsters - who form the core pool of voters in 20 years - will have different political values from the older generation. For instance, they would have more of a ‘can-do’ spirit, shaped by their exposure to a growing culture of civil society here. Constitutional law academic Kevin Tan’s main concern was how Singapore was transforming too rapidly, and physically becoming almost unrecognisable. The challenge was in creating a sense of ownership, through a freer exchange of different views: ‘Because the concept of citizenship is not only about making money or living well, it’s about living meaningfully. And for that, we have to have a stake in Singapore.’