Nationalism should not be exclusive 20 March 2008 0745 hrs (SST)http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/analysis/view/336173/1/.htmlSINGAPORE: The price of global city status is an enlarging overseas Singaporean community, which has profound repercussions for a nation-state of only 3.5 million citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs).According to recent revelations, the country loses about 1,000 educated Singaporeans each year. In addition, there are an estimated 150,000 Singaporeans working or studying abroad, a good slice of whom will not be returning.The inescapable truth is that the overseas Singaporean community, per capita, is one of the highest in the world and will get bigger.So, the Singapore government has imported foreign workers, not just to replace departing Singaporeans, but also to meet industry demands.By offering a conducive environment for work, family, arts consumption and the odd topless cabaret, the idea is to turn the little island into one giant Baskin Robbins — you are bound to find a flavour you like.Singapore welcomed 14,600 new citizens last year, a 10-per-cent increase from 2006. To put it in perspective, 2001 to 2004 saw an average of 8,000 new citizens per year. Applications for PR status have also been increasing. In the first nine months of last year, 46,900 foreigners were granted PR status, compared to a total of 57,300 in 2006.Quite clearly, the flight of educated Singaporeans, economically speaking, poses no short-term problems for Singapore. For every person who leaves, 14 others come to permanently take his place. As a solutions-oriented approach, the open-door migration policy is a resounding success.Still, emigrating Singaporeans are framed as a problem, and the government's response has, so far, been either to woo them back or, in the not-too-distant past, to demonise them.In wooing them back, the government takes a pro-active approach to reach out through organisations like Contact Singapore and the Singapore International Foundation, and with "soft power" vis-à-vis Singaporean-theme festivals in major cities around the world.This is getting more play with the set-up of the Overseas Singaporean Unit, which is trying to connect the Singapore diaspora through its portal (www.overseassingaporean.sg) and initiatives such as Overseas Singaporean clubs.When it comes to demonising Singaporeans, labels like "quitters" and people who are "rootless" were at one time bandied about with ease.If one accepts that this overseas community is here to stay and will grow, then there is a need to re-examine our concept of nationalism in the global city.Labels like "quitters" are designed to arouse Singaporeans' sense of nationalist indignity. They suggest a betrayal or abandonment, and mobilises nationalist sentiments against the emigrants.But if we are willing to accept into the national fold PRs who have not yet forsaken their original citizenship, there is no reason to exclude overseas Singaporeans, both of the quitting and rootless variety.Why embrace PRs who straddle two societies while cold-shouldering Singaporean "quitters" whose memories will always be rooted to this "little red dot"? The time has come to rescue nationalism from exclusivity.Scholars are already talking about the "long-distance nationalism" of ethnic and religious diasporas that still hold political and cultural influence over their country of origin from afar.Perhaps, Singaporeans should start thinking of a "situational nationalism" that accepts that nationalist sentiments are ephemeral.A situational nationalism describes how nationalist sentiments are dynamic, never constant, and articulated as the subjective experience of the individual.For example, it describes how Singaporeans overseas tend to be more patriotic than those in Singapore. It describes how this patriotism fades when they return and fall into the rhythm of local life. It accommodates PRs who proclaim a great fondness for Singapore without wanting to give up their citizenship.Until the exclusivity and authorship of nationalism can be fragmented, we will find it hard to accept new citizens.Foreigners take up citizenship not because they love the land (or lack of) or because of childhood memories, but because they love the green environment, the political stability, the economic opportunities and the family-friendly conditions. New citizens love the "Singapore System", while Singaporeans born and bred have more intimate ties to the land. To prevent this from being a discriminating factor, the exclusivity of nationalism has to be eradicated.Situational nationalism also addresses the subjective interpretation of national events. For example, the National Day Parade can fill some Singaporeans with unbearable pride and others with utter cynicism.Situational nationalism does not make you feel guilty for tuning out the ceremonial fireworks and other grand displays of public affection for the nation.Situational nationalism is the most democratic form of nationalism because it is subjective and refuses to adhere to definitions by governments and the cultural elite.It is the only way Singapore emigrants may remain Singaporeans and new Singaporeans can become nationalists.The writer is a research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.- TODAY/so Wind of change in Malaysia The Malaysian people have chosen. http://elizabethwong.wordpress.com/I am disappointed that our fellow Singaporean citizens however have fallen asleep. Instead of asking more questions about important issues like implementing annuities, Advanced Medical Directive and the great (unbelievable) escape of Mas Selamat, the population has decided to 'buzz' a little and then shut up again. Say NO to CPF 60k and comulsory annuity http://www.petitiononline.com/annuity/petition.html Robbery conducted in broad daylight A robbery took place in broad daylight in a sunny island on the southern tip of a peninsula. As a result, many persons on the scene developed bizzare behaviour.According to the local law enforcers, many eye-witnesses were present but no one intervened or help the victims. 66% of the eye-witnesses claim that they had no idea but cheered the crime anyway. The rest felt helpless and resorted to wearing black to mark their shame.Many present at the scene of crime suffered from post-trauma illusions after witnessing the incident. According to doctors, patients admitted at a local hospital could not recall the details of the incident. Many arrived penniless and could not remember when they lost their money. After interviewing the patients, a panel of experts arrived at the conclusion that the patients displayed the following symptoms:Could not recall whether they were victim or onlooker.Did not remember why their money was missing.Had the distinct impression that the robber(s) was someone familar but could not remember who.Held the robber(s) in awe and agreed that he was from an exceptional family.Had the impression that there might be more that one robber. One was an old man with a rat-like demeanour and a younger man in a pink shirt.Empathised with the robber(s) and agreed that the crime was justified.Post-trauma IQ test on the patients (many were highly educated individuals holding local degrees and worked in MNCs) suggest all were short on the CS (common sense) quotient.After release from the hospital, observers claim that many developed sheep-like attributes that including excessive head-nodding and requesting for haircut. Govt's call for greater civic role has clear limits ST Forum > StorySep 1, 2007Govt's call for greater civic role has clear limitsI REFER to the reports on the parliamentary sitting on Aug 27. The responses of both Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew and Senior Minister of State (Law and Home Affairs) Ho Peng Kee suggest that the Government's calls for greater diversity and inclusiveness stop short of allowing genuine political debate and contestation.Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui's reply to questions on why the Ministry of Education (MOE) rejected playwright Alfian Sa'at as a relief teacher was disappointing. While he may have been right to say that Parliament is not the right forum to discuss the personnel issues of any one individual, for him to suggest that Mr Alfian 'engage MOE directly' is inappropriate.Anyone who has followed the online discussion on this knows that MOE has consistently refused to give Mr Alfian the real reason for its decision.Unlike most developed democracies, Singapore does not have a Freedom to Information Act that requires a government to provide information to individuals who seek it unless doing so is against the public interest.In the absence of such a legal requirement, our governance system is dependent on individuals and institutions making decisions that can stand up to public scrutiny.Without external checks on the Government, the virtues of integrity, transparency and objectivity have to be imposed from within and practised by all public officers. If not, what assurance do we have that officials do not make arbitrary decisions, or decisions that serve only narrow party interests rather than the public good?Associate Professor Ho's reply on why the Workers' Party was not given a permit to hold an outdoor event also stretched the incredulity of thinking Singaporeans.Even if we gave Prof Ho the benefit of doubt and assumed the worst of Singaporeans - that open-door political events increase the risks of conflict - one must seriously question whether the strategy of avoiding conflict might not stunt society's maturation.Both responses by the ministers show that the Government's call for greater civic engagement and participation has clear limits.While the Government subscribes to economic openness and liberalism, its distrust of and discomfort with real political contest means that it will try to keep Singapore politically conservative.Low Tzer Kai See you there *080907* 8th September 2007 4pm at Centrepoint Shopping CentreSee you there!There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now,orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be ontheir way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation,words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and forthose who will listen, the annunciation of truth. And the truth is, there issomething terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice,intolerance, and depression. And where once you had the freedom to object,think, and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems ofsurveillence coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How didthis happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsiblethan others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, ifyou're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why youdid it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? Corruption of Values By Grey Steppenwolf(Letter rejected by ST forum)http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=545Now that most of the dust from the NKF debacle has settled, most think it is time to forget the whole episode. I think not. The issue at the heart of the whole matter has scarcely been dealt with, and now with our fast-paced mindset, we are thinking of putting it behind us.The case has been dealt with legally, but the heart of thematter has little to do with law, but with what is right. The former is the letter of the law but the latter is the spirit of the law. The heart of the matter has to do with values. Values drive behavior, and behavior can be judged legally, but the source and crux of the trouble is not behavior but values.Therefore, I propose a mindset change in the way we perceive corruption. Corruption is now being rigidly defined as a matter of bribes and misuse of public funds. However, the fact that we were outraged by the NFK has little to do with the legalities of corruption but with the corruption of values in an institution using public funds.If we don't call this perversion of values corruption we can call it decadence, and it is no less reprehensible, and all institutions of public character must be under scrutiny for it. It is an affront to common human decency for public institutions to subvert their values, such that they become bureaucratic self-serving places of decadence.We need an active vigilant citizenry not afraid to speak up, a mass media not afraid to publish wrong-doing and a government that does care and listen and which investigates all credible reports and not sweep things under the carpet when it is convenient. We have a long way to go on all threeaspects.Grey Steppenwolfgreysteppenwolf[at]yahoo[dot]com Compulsory Annuities Dear Singapore Government,I protest. You want more money? Tell us where our CPF is. Human live gone like this and kids made motherless http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCr1ZoC_qYE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsingaporemind%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2FWhile our ministers are collecting top pay and dancing hip hop, it seems that all the bureacracy has made Singapore a place with no heartware. Press Release - Responsibility and Social Repercussions of Escape of Ex-NKF Chairman Escape Wed, Jun 06, 2007The National Solidarity Party (NSP) shares the frustration of the public over the NKF issue which has dragged on for more than a year. The high public expectation in extracting justice ended in the incredible jaw-dropping development where Richard Yong, a key player in the NKF saga, fluidly escaped the gazes of the authorities, and fled Singapore while owing a huge sum of public money to NKF whilst being declared a bankrupt.We are outraged over how “a matter of hours” of lapse by the authorities has practically brought down 4 decades of efforts in cultivating a public spirit of spontaneous charity. The social repercussions from a collapse of public trust in institutions meant to safeguard their social interests are simply immeasurable.It is a total disaster when a defaulter of public funds slips through the tight law-enforcement net without undergoing the due punishment. Every such ‘success’ story emboldens more law-breakers to test the authorities, and impose further duress on the security of the nation.The repulsive event further deteriorates what remaining sense of generosity there was in Singaporeans when the NKF incident first came to light. It also inevitably erodes public confidence in the ability of the relevant authorities to execute their duties diligently and responsibly.The lapse is all the more lamentable considering that the defaulter had a few months earlier divested his private properties for a personal gain of $7.5million, and attempted to dodge the authorities by not reporting his whereabouts. Despite the cues, the authorities had not taken tighter precautions.The frivolous approach of the authorities is inexplicable, considering how the authorities have the track record of freezing assets of defendants in sensitive legal cases even before their convictions.The incident has made a complete mockery of the nation’s proclamation of good governance, further strengthening the case for the need of checks and balances, and more transparency in matters of grave social concerns.On behalf of the indignant public, the NSP would like to know what measures the authorities are going to take to satisfactorily remedy the situation, and recoup the public’s hard-earned money donated through an innocent sense of trust. The authorities owe the public a thorough and convincing explanation for the “extraordinary” oversight.Until the necessary justice is administered, public cynicism will gain in strength to threaten the precarious social coherence. Together with Singaporeans, the NSP is keen to see an acceptable closure to the saga, and nothing less will do.Central Executive CouncilNational Solidarity Party Future not so rosy for working-class S'poreans Jun 04, 2007The Straits TimesMANY Singaporeans must be celebrating at the moment, with the buoyant economy, high employment, higher salaries and, for private home owners, skyrocketing property prices and 'en bloc' frenzy.However, is the current state of the economy and future as rosy as it appears for most working-class Singaporeans?According to data published in a report on the wealthiest cities in the world by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) on March 11, Singapore ranks 36th out of 70 cities based on gross domestic product (GDP) in 2005.A look at the rankings will reveal that, apart from Singapore, all the cities in the bottom half are in Second and Third World countries.Singapore's GDP of US$129 million (S$197 million) pales beside other Asian cities such as Tokyo (US$1.19 billion), Hong Kong (US$244 million), Seoul (US$218 million) and Shanghai (US$139 million). In fact, we are only slightly ahead of Mumbai (US$123 million).These rankings are arrived at by using purchasing-power- parity exchange rates.However, unlike Singapore, our Asian counterparts in Hong Kong seem to have more to look forward to. The projections for city wealth in the year 2020 show that Hong Kong is likely to rise to 14th position, while Singapore is likely to decline to 40th.The study (taking into consideration deduction of taxes and social-security contributions) reveals that net salaries in Asian cities such as Tokyo, Dubai, Seoul and Taipei will surpass Singapore.However, these sobering statistics apply only to the average Singaporean citizen. The top bracket of earners in professions such as medicine, law, banking and, of course, within the ranks of the Government, will earn as much, if not more, than some of their counterparts worldwide.What do these figures tell Singaporeans? We can conclude that even though we pay a relatively low rate of personal income tax, the net amount of wages we take home leaves us in the bottom half of the 70 cities in the PWC report.Edmund Khoo Kim Hock EDB's refusal to disclose lost UNSW money is an outrage Well, this matter shows that intellectuals with a conscience have no place in our society. Mandarins always have the last say.---http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articleUNSWclose1.htmlMedia ReleaseEDB's refusal to disclose lost UNSW money is an outrage24 May 07The Economic Development Board (EDB) has stated that it will not reveal how much money it has lost over the closure of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) campus in Singapore.In case it has forgotten, its funds come from the toil and sweat of Singaporeans, not money it has privately earned. Its refusal to make a full and public disclosure of the money lost is outrageous and unacceptable.Moreover, that a multi-million dollar project can fail so spectacularly and in so short a time signals incompetence and an appalling lack of foresight at the highest levels. But will there be an inquiry into what went wrong and who the responsible decision-makers are? Given the PAP system, hell will freeze over first.With the plastering over of past government failures – including the embarrassing Suzhou Industrial Park debacle, the careless acquisition of Shin Corp by Temasek bordering on the criminal, and the endorsement of the NKF by ministers despite the corruptness of Mr T T Durai and company just to name a few scandals – why should anyone expect anything different over the present UNSW crash?Yet, Singaporeans must not accept the status quo. A people who are fearful or indifferent to public affairs encourage corruption and abuse by the State. It is hugely important for citizens to not only be aware of what our Government is doing, but also to register our voices of displeasure. The clearer and louder the better.Apart from the lack of transparency from the EDB, there is also the question of the PAP's strategy of trying to lure foreign academic brains to Singapore.First there was Warwick University and the London School of Economics which turned down the EDB's invitation to set up shop here. Then there was the controversy over British drug scientist Dr Simon Shorvon and his subsequent departure resulting in the loss of millions of investment dollars. And now the UNSW collapse.All this wasted time and resources can be avoided if we concentrate on developing our very own Singaporean talent of which is not in short supply. The only thing that is holding back our institutions of higher learning is the refusal of the PAP to allow academic freedom in this country.In the world of academia, minds need the freedom to clash, prod and play. Only then can a culture conducive to research develop. And only when research flourishes can our universities attain the stature and reputation we seek.But the PAP system is anathema to the development of academia. Dictatorial systems that brook no dissent and research minds that thrive on questioning authority are sworn enemies.The PAP tries to get around this problem by buying academic (and subservient) talent from overseas. Throwing money to entice academic "stars" while keeping an authoritarian lid on society is like trying to light a candle in a thunderstorm.The continued PAP arm-lock on Singapore is hurting this country and the future of the people. The current UNSW mess is but a minor symptom of a much bigger disease that afflicts this country.Chee Soon JuanSecretary-GeneralSingapore Democratic Party University of New South Wales Singapore campus to shut in June By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia Posted: 23 May 2007 1715 hrsSINGAPORE: The University of New South Wales(UNSW) will close its campus in Singapore next month.The announcement came less than two months after its grand opening.The school said it was facing a financial shortfall of $15 million a year due to lower-than-anticipated student enrolment numbers.Its target was 300 students in its first semester.But it only got 148 students, 100 of whom are Singaporeans.If it were to continue building its campus in Changi, it would have to borrow $140 million.The school said both factors led to an unsustainable financial burden and it decided to call it quits in Singapore.Students have already paid their fees, which range between S$26,000 and S$29,000 a year.UNSW says these students will be offered a place at its home campus in Sydney.There will also be scholarships to help with the cost of travel and accommodation.UNSW has already invested over S$22 million (A$17.5 million) in its Singapore campus.It was invited by Singapore's Economic Development Board in 2004 to establish what would have been the first private comprehensive university in Singapore.The EDB had said the school was expected to contribute at least $500 million a year to the economy in direct spending.The EDB refuses to reveal how much it invested in the school.The episode is clearly damaging to Singapore's aim to be a global schoolhouse.But the EDB, which drives the global schoolhouse initiatives, believes it will still reach its target of attracting 150,000 international students by 2015.There are currently 80,000 foreign students in Singapore.Aw Kah Peng, EDB's Assistant Managing Director, said: "The learning point is that we have to continue working very hard. Truly, with every institution, it will be different. With each one, we have to put everything we can to think about all these issues of whether we can make it work, how long it will take for us to make it work, what will it take for us to make it work. We will then have to step forward on that basis."UNSW says it would have stayed on in Singapore if it has been allowed to scale down its student enrolment numbers to 2,000 students by 2012.But this would be quite far from the original bargain with the EDB which had set a target of 15,000 UNSW students by 2020.The UNSW closure does not mean that the EDB will no longer work with the school.The EDB says there are many areas of cooperation between UNSW and Singapore which are mutually beneficial.These include foundation schooling for university entry, research collaborations, University of New South Wales school competitions and joint programmes with Singapore institutions.EDB says it will continue to pursue these areas and strengthen its relationship with UNSW. - CNA/ir GIC board members holding political office don't get director's fees: PM By S Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia Posted: 21 May 2007 2009 hrsSINGAPORE: Board members who sit on the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and hold political office do not receive any director's fee. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong clarified this in a reply to a question for written answer in Parliament. He added that political office holders who are employed as GIC's staff also do not get director's fees. F1: govt should take stake in S'pore GP or levy fee on it Published May 18, 2007LETTER TO THE EDITORF1: govt should take stake in S'pore GP or levy fee on itI WOULD like to question the structure of the Singapore Formula One deal.As I understand it, Ong Beng Seng has incorporated a company, Singapore GP Pte Ltd, which will have the exclusive rights to promote and run the event here in Singapore. This company will earn revenue (ticket sales, TV rights, merchandising, etc) as well as incur costs (fees to F1, security, marketing, general and administrative expenses) and, of course, try in the end to make a profit. It is a commercial transaction between Mr Ong and F1 - and there is nothing wrong with that.However, the structure of the deal poses two major problems.First, the government should be charging Singapore GP for the use of public roads and required services during the event, such as police, fire, safety and ambulance services. It's only fair that the company - which is a private, profit-maximising entity - pay for the use of the public roads and services for the event. This could be in the form of a flat fee, a fee as a percentage of the company's revenue, or a tax on the company's profits. But the government is charging nothing for the use of roads and services. This is effectively a gift from government coffers to Mr Ong. So it's a great deal for him, but not so good for citizens.Second, not only is the government not charging Singapore GP for public services, it is, through the Singapore Tourism Board (STB), paying 60 per cent of the cost of staging the F1 event each year and proposing to charge an additional tax on hotels which stand to benefit from the event. That does not seem right. If we go down that road, why not impose additional taxes on any industry that benefits, like restaurants, taxis, buses, airlines, bars, etc? The argument is that the F1 event will help the economy. Sure, of course it will, but so will any event and any business. For a direct comparison, let's look at the integrated resort (IR) projects. Las Vegas Sands has the exclusive right for the project in Marina Bay. But the government does not just let Sands use the land for free. The government also does not pay 60 per cent of Sands' expenses and neither does it impose a new tax on businesses or industries that stand to benefit from the IR.What the government should do in the F1 case is to be either a shareholder of Singapore GP (but instead of providing equity, it would provide the use of public roads and services) or it should simply levy a tax/fee on Singapore GP for the use of public roads and services. And there should not be an additional tax on other businesses that benefit from the event.James Chan Singapore The economic gains from F1 Published May 18, 2007COMMENTARYThe economic gains from F1Government's next task is to take the message to the publicBy SAMUEL EEHERE'S the $90 million question: why is the government spending so much to help race promoter Ong Beng Seng stage a Formula One car race?Your mileage may vary: While Singapore is expecting tourism revenues of $100 million from F1, Kuala Lumpur reaps in around US$100 million.That's what seems to be bugging some Singaporeans ever since the announcement on next year's Singapore Grand Prix was made - that the government is using taxpayers' money to co-fund what is seen as a private entrepreneur's business deal.Last Friday, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) announced that it will pay 60 per cent of the estimated $150 million cost - or $90 million.In return, the government expects the race to generate incremental tourism receipts of $100 million a year, part of which will be paid by hotel guests in the form of a special F1 cess on the hotels lining the 5.2 km route.STB believes that F1, with all its hype and hundreds of millions of television viewers, will add lustre to the name of Singapore, with the resulting branding leading to intangible benefits for the island's image, tourism and business.This point has been strongly emphasised, but some still maintain that as a businessman, Mr Ong is in it for the money, and yet he somehow managed to convince the government to foot the bulk of the cost.But this is too simplistic a conclusion to make, given the complicated nature of the F1 business mechanism.There are several issues at work here. One is whether the government could have sealed the F1 deal without Mr Ong, who is a personal friend of F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone. Mr Ecclestone said no; he would not have signed on the dotted line if not for Mr Ong.Two: Does Mr Ong stand to make a bundle of money by getting the government to take such a huge stake? He said no. Given his low profile, we may never know that. But from past experience in other countries, race promoters don't break even, and hence need government support to make the whole thing work. So the conclusion here is that Mr Ong did not want to over-extend himself financially, and would have withdrawn entirely if not for the government's support.Three: Why even go into something like this when nobody makes any money, and an event like the F1 is so disruptive to those living in the host country? Three reasons: Prestige, prestige, prestige. Conclusion? Prestige at all costs.Given the reluctance of all parties to clarify the figures involved - which are bound by confidentiality agreements - perhaps the next best way to look at this matter would be to examine Malaysia's experience with F1.Compared to Singapore, Malaysia is a veteran. The 'set up' is similar - it's a joint venture between the Malaysian government and the Sepang International Circuit (SIC), which, without the government involvement, would run an annual deficit. Yet the SIC will mark its 10th race next March, six months before Singapore's five red lights get a chance to go out next September or early October.The Malaysian government has been behind F1 since the first Grand Prix race in 1999. Putrajaya underwrites it as a national project and will continue to do so because it is the country that benefits, and the money is recouped through various corporate taxes. And as part of a larger motorsports policy, the SIC's permanent track - as opposed to Singapore's street circuit - allows other events like the Moto GP, Japan GT Championship and Merdeka Endurance race to attract tourists all year round.But even with government help, the organisers have to work hard to gain maximum mileage from F1. Just getting the fans to turn up and buy a ticket isn't enough. In addition to watching the race, they have to be convinced to stay on for ancillary events like live concerts and mega street parties.Of course, all this doesn't mean that Singapore's experience will be exactly the same. But to help allay people's concerns, the government and/or Mr Ong may do well to shed light on how they derived the figures that they have thrown up.For example, while Singapore says it will cost $150 million to stage F1 here, the corresponding figure across the Causeway is said to be about US$70 million to US$75 million - roughly $106 million to $114 million at today's exchange rates. And although Singapore is said to expect tourism revenues of $100 million, Kuala Lumpur is understood to enjoy around US$100 million.Perhaps these variations could be easily explained by the fact that a debut race on a street circuit at night will cost more, and the tourism receipts are just a conservative estimate by the government.Notwithstanding the arguments for and against financial help, or the figures, what is certain is that the Singapore government must have been convinced of F1's bigger economic gains after witnessing Malaysia's success. And that is why it is supporting Mr Ong. Now it just needs to convince the public. Increase 2.5% CPF interest rate Business Times - 19 Dec 2006LETTERS TO THE EDITORIncrease 2.5% CPF interest rateI REFER to NTUC's proposal to reduce the CPF contribution for lower-income workers and put 40 per cent of the Workfare bonus to CPF.On the one hand, we are putting more of the Workfare Bonus cash payout to worker's CPF, but on the other, we are cutting their CPF contribution so that they can have more cash for living expenses.Since both Workfare and the CPF contribution cut are for lower-income workers, are these not contradictory? For example, if the employee's CPF contribution is lowered from 20 to 10 per cent, and the proposed 40 per cent of Workfare is channelled to CPF, for a worker earning $600 a month, his or her take-home pay would increase by only $20 a month ($600 multiplied by 10 per cent, minus Workfare - $1,200 multiplied by 40 per cent, divided 12).This is an increase in disposable cashflow of only 3.3 per cent. In contrast, if the Workfare bonus is left unchanged as a fully cash payout, the increase in cashflow would be $60, which is three times more. For those whose monthly HDB flat mortgage repayment is $120 or more, the CPF and Workfare changes may not improve their cashflow at all, as the net cash disposable income of $100 or lower would be less than the existing $100 Workfare cash per month.It may also be counter-productive to use Workfare to top up workers' CPF, and then pay them a lower interest when they retire.In the past, those who had less than the CPF Minimum Sum (MS), and chose not to withdraw half their account balance allowed, were paid 4 per cent on their entire CPF account balance. Now, those who turn 55 with less than the MS, currently $94,600, who choose not to withdraw half of their CPF balance, as the other half will be transferred to the Retirement Account (RA) which earns 4 per cent, are now only paid 2.5 per cent.Why is it that Singaporeans are not allowed to keep as much of their CPF as they like, to earn 4 per cent interest, when they retire? For richer Singaporeans who have more than double the MS, which is $189,200, they will be paid 4 per cent on the entire MS of $94,600. Hence, the current policy pays the rich more and the poor less.To further illustrate this unfairness, a rich man with $189,200 will get 4 per cent on $94,600, whereas a poor man with $94,600 will get 4 per cent on $47,300 and only 2.5 per cent on the other $47,300.According to the Department of Statistics' (DOS) General Household Survey 2005 (GHS), there were 106,384 households with no working persons, presumably most of which are retirees. With the rapidly ageing population, Singaporeans who are risk adverse or not investment savvy, may have a dire need for their CPF after the age of 55 to earn 4 instead of 2.5 per cent.Leong Sze HianSingapore Freeze fees for basic amenities Business Times - 14 Dec 2006LETTER TO THE EDITORFreeze fees for basic amenitiesI REFER to media reports that the government has spelt out the fees to be frozen for one year after the Goods and Services Tax (GST) hike, in fulfilment of its pledge to offset the burden of higher GST.Fees not set by the government are excluded from the list as any changes are determined by market or other forces.These include utilities charges, polyclinic and hospital charges, phone bills, university fees, HDB flat prices, foreign maid levy, vehicle and road taxes, and service and conservancy fees.I find it somewhat puzzling that the excluded list includes polyclinic and hospital fees, foreign maid levy, vehicle and road taxes, and HDB flat prices.Are these not under the ministries of health, manpower, transport and national development, respectively?Have these fees not always been set by the ministries concerned?How have 'market forces' ever been the determinant of such fees?Can we have some elaboration as to what are the 'other forces' that determine these fees?I find it quite disappointing that most of the fees that will be frozen are not those for basic amenities, and those not frozen are mainly basic necessities which may impact the lower and middle-income more, like polyclinic and hospital charges, university fees, public transport cost, water and electricity bills, telecoms bills, foreign maid levy, etc.The explanation that service and conservancy fees are not frozen because these are decided by town councils, is a somewhat weak rationalisation, because aren't town councils, particularly the GRCs, headed by several Members of Parliament?Since there are only two opposition MPs, isn't all the rest part of the government?Leong Sze HianSingapore A MAN WHO NEVER GAVE IN The nation's last political prisoner speaks outBy Andrea Hamilton / SingaporeHE HAD SPENT MORE than 22 years in jail - much of it in solitary confinement - and nine and a half more under orders limiting where he could live and travel, what he could say and do, with whom he could associate. He was never charged with a crime, or brought to trial. On Nov. 27, without warning, the government lifted the remaining restrictions on former opposition MP Chia Thye Poh, 57, some 32 years after his arrest and detention under draconian internal security laws.In a statement, the Home Affairs Ministry noted that Chia seemed unlikely to "engage in activities prejudicial to Singapore's security." Still, it warned: "Should Chia re-involve himself in such activities, he will be dealt with firmly under the law."Chia was 25 when he was arrested, along with 22 others, on Oct. 29, 1966, under the colonial-era Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows for detention without trial for indefinitely renewable two-year periods. Chia had been elected to Parliament earlier that year with the Barisan Sosialis, or Socialist Front, a breakaway faction of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP). Shortly before his arrest, Chia recalls, the Front had resigned their seats en masse. Although he has never been officially charged, Chia says the government accused him of engaging in communist front activities by way of justifying his detention. The other 22 people detained were eventually released. Chia was not because he refused to renounce violence and sever alleged ties with the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) To have done so, he always maintained, would have been tantamount to admitting guilt.In 1985 the then-minister for home affairs and law (now Minister of Law and Foreign Affairs), S. Jayakumar, publicly accused Chia of being a communist. Chia then - as now - flatly rejected the accusation. "I sent a protest note to the minister, [saying] that I'd never been a member of any communist party, that my past activities were constitutional and legal," Chia says forcefully.He remained in prison until May 1989, when he was transferred to a government house on the resort island of Sentosa adjacent to Singapore's main island. He was allowed to receive (non-political) visitors and to make day trips into town, subject to a curfew. In 1992, Chia was permitted to return to the city. Last year, he was allowed to take up a fellowship in Germany. From the day of his arrest until his sudden release, however, Chia had been barred from making public statements, addressing public meetings, belonging to or assisting in the activities of any organization, taking part in political activities, or associating with other former detainees without written government approval.Asked if he is bitter about his treatment, Chia smiles wanly and shrugs. "The best part of my life is gone," he says. Required until 1996 to get government approval to find a job, he scrapes by doing translation work. Chia now lives in his parents' sparsely furnished flat in one of Singapore's oldest public housing estates. His octogenarian mother is not well. "She's had three strokes," he confides. "She has no memory left."Chia himself is frail; he had a prostate operation two months ago. But the mild impression belies the fortitude of a man who for more than 32 years refused to cave in to the authorities' demand that he publicly confess to being a communist. "If the government had the evidence," Chia insists, "it should have tried me in open court."Immediately after being informed the restriction order was being lifted, Chia issued a statement condemning the ISA. "The Internal Security Act is a law that tramples on human dignity and strikes fear into the mind of the people," he said. Chia argues that as far back as 1955, the PAP, then in opposition, called for the end of Emergency Regulations because excessive powers of arrests and detention hinder democracy. (Those laws were later replaced by the ISA.) Now, Chia argues, the act is even less relevant. His comments apparently touched a nerve. On Nov. 30, the government reiterated its justification for his treatment. "Chia was arrested for his involvement in the CPM communist united front and to avert widespread unlawful demonstrations and violence." Chia snorts in response.Singapore's longest-held political prisoner does not expect life to revert suddenly to normal. Over the course of a 90-minute visit the first day of his "freedom," his phone rang constantly with calls from journalists and supporters. He assumes the authorities will continue to keep an eye on him. "Wherever I go, they are there. I have to get used to it. I can't make them go away," he says, relating numerous examples over the years when he was shadowed by security agents to meetings with journalists or diplomats. Nonetheless, when asked to outline his plans as a free man, Chia grins: "I don't know yet. Now I can live the normal life of a citizen." A bachelor nearing his 58th birthday, it is about time. MediShield paid $1,438 of $50,000 hospital bill Nov 28, 2006The Straits TimesALL citizens who have contributed to Medisave qualify for health insurance, in the form of MediShield. This is so that, with rising health-care costs, they have insurance to fall back on when they are taken ill. However, what happened to my mother-in-law recently proved unsettling. My mother-in-law was admitted to Gleneagles Hospital following a heart attack and the specialist there recommended that she undergo a bypass immediately. Unfortunately, she died without regaining consciousness. Now we are laden with medical bills of more than $50,000. As my mother-in-law was covered under MediShield, we expected at least a small portion of the bills to be taken care of by the insurance. However, after a long wait, the Central Provident Fund Board has granted us a payout of only $1,438, less than 3 per cent of the total bill. How is the payout determined? By subscribing to MediShield, we expect that it would help us to cover some of our medical costs but it is not of much help when the payout is so little. I hope the authorities will look into this issue. We are not asking for welfare - just a reasonable payout from MediShield. Chew Kai Hwa (Ms) Minister ponders nominee amnesty Thursday October 19, 2006The Bangkok PostTemasek would also be let off the hookPOST REPORTERSThe Commerce Ministry could offer an amnesty to foreign joint ventures in violation of the Foreign Business Act in order to resolve problems with the use of nominees, according to Commerce Minister Krirk-krai Jirapaet. Authorities plan to review the Foreign Business Act and other laws to close loopholes and modernise regulations. An amnesty, meanwhile, would give joint ventures that currently use nominee vehicles time to restructure their indirect holdings to fully comply with the law. ''If it is necessary to [offer amnesties] due to economic reasons, and it does not violate the principle of law, then we will look at it,'' the newly appointed minister said yesterday in an interview with the Bangkok Post. Such an amnesty would include the telecom giant Shin Corp, which is the subject of a criminal investigation over whether Singapore's Temasek Holdings used nominee vehicles to violate the 49% foreign shareholding limit, he said. ''What is necessary is necessary, and we have to abide by the principles, and if that means that we have to give amnesty to [Temasek] then we'll have to do it, because we have to treat them in the same manner as everybody else,'' said Mr Krirk-krai, who ranked the nominee and Temasek issues as his fourth priority after farm products, retailing, and exports. Temasek controls 42% of Shin directly through wholly owned Aspen Holdings, and also has an indirect stake through Cedar Holdings, which holds another 54.5% of Shin. The Business Development Department earlier submitted a report to police investigators that Shin violated the 49% foreign limit due to the use of illegal nominees, an offence punishable by jail, fines or even dissolution of the business. Mr Krirk-krai said it was time for the nation to move on and try to differentiate between political and economic problems. ''If there's something that is not right about the structure, then we'll adjust it, but if we try to mix politics and business together then we will be stuck, and in this case the biggest loser will be the economy and the investors' confidence in the Thai economy,'' he said. Mr Krirk-krai added that the ministry under his guidance would look to amend various laws to suit the needs of the investors and the free-market economy. ''On the issue of nominees, we have to look at ways to sort it out. Once we have the laws ready, then we'll discuss it. For example, if the 49% gives way for nominees, and your aim is to seek help in development of the country, especially in sectors in which we cannot compete, then why don't you give them 51%?'' he asked. While companies that have nominee structures would be allowed to maintain the status quo, those set up in the future would have to follow any new regulations that would be put in place. The market has welcomed the minister's views, saying they were a positive step for the country and would help restore lost confidence. ''If you ask me, this is great news as deals have remained low as foreign investors have shied away from investing in Thailand,'' said an investment banker at one of Thailand's leading brokerages. Fund managers and lawyers also said Mr Krirk-krai's proposal was positive and that funds would likely start to flow in the future once policies were clearer. ''This is definitely very positive for the country,'' said Lance Depew, investment manager at Quest Capital, which manages $240 million in assets in Thailand. The legal changes would bring the government's policy in line with reality as in the past the governments had turned a blind eye to the shareholding structures of companies, he added. ''The devil would be in the details, although I must say I support it wholeheartedly if the government can do it,'' added Supavud Saicheua, a managing director with Phatra Securities. ''It will be a very positive step for Thailand if the government can set the right framework for the future.'' It is estimated that 13,000 companies have nominee structures and fears of consequences arising from the Shin-Temasek investigations have prompted many investors to put decisions on hold. IMF-World Bank meetings a PR nightmare for Singapore September 17, 2006Singapore (ANTARA News) - Singapore's moment in the spotlight as host of the IMF and World Bank meetings has turned into a public- relations nightmare for a city-state that had invested so much in the prestigious gathering.Critics denounced Singapore as a "police state" out of step with the international community after it blacklisted 27 foreign activists accredited by the International Monetary Fund and the Bank.After intense pressure from the two institutions, Singapore agreed to admit 22 of them but the damage had been done and the last-minute gesture failed to appease non-governmental organizations (NGOs).Singapore was hoping to exploit the week-long meetings attended by finance ministers, central bank governors and other members of the global financial elite to market itself as a vibrant tourism and investment haven.Instead, Singapore's grimmer reputation as a rich but politically regimented society that suppresses dissent, hangs criminals and canes social troublemakers may have been reinforced by its handling of the NGO issue."How do you expect to become a financial centre, a global hub ... and yet be so repressive?" said Chee Soon Juan, an opposition politician prevented by police from staging a tiny protest march Saturday to the conference venue.A senior marketing executive with a leading European company told AFP that Singapore is "not really used to these kinds of international standards when it comes to freedom of expression.""Their standard is that it's their way or the highway," he said.The IMF-World Bank conference, expected to draw 16,000 people, is the biggest international conference ever held in Singapore and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said last month that "our reputation is on the line" during the gathering.It launched a "Four Million Smiles" campaign, asking the population to contribute cheery digital photos which were stitched together into murals and newspaper advertisements welcoming all visitors.But as delegates and a few NGO representatives began trickling in, a different face emerged.Singapore, invoking the danger of "terrorism", began stopping and deporting a number of activists, triggering indignation in the highest ranks of the IMF and World Bank.It also stood firm on a longstanding ban on outdoor demonstrations, saying no exceptions would be made for foreigners. Police set aside a section for indoor protests in the conference venue.Anti-globalisation activists decided to meet instead in the nearby Indonesian island of Batam, an hour away by ferry and part of a special industrial zone funded by Singaporean capital.Enormous damage to its reputation This former British colony's attempt to ban foreign activists and quash protests came as no surprise.It has been ruled by the conservative People's Action Party since 1959.Local media are closely regulated and opposition politicians and foreign publications have been hit by costly defamation suits for criticizing Singaporean leaders.Ironically, it took World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, a prominent American right-wing figure, to force Singapore to relax its hardline stance, saying the host country had caused "enormous damage" to its own reputation.Wolfowitz, the former Pentagon number two, publicly criticized the local organizers for allegedly reneging on an earlier commitment to let in activists accredited by both groups, and asked Singapore leaders to scrap the blacklist.But the IMF and World Bank also came under withering criticism for deciding to hold their meetings in Singapore in the first place."The two institutions must be held accountable for their roles in the shocking events of the past two weeks," said activist group Focus on the Global South, accusing the organizations of hypocrisy. (*)Copyright © 2006 ANTARA Govt harassment begins: Police steal flyers from activists http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articleWBIMF19.html9 Sep 06A bunch of police officers tried to intimidate activists who were handing out leaflets to alert the public to the Empower Singaporeans Rally and March on 16 September 2006.Three officers approached Ms Chee Siok Chin and Mr Charles Tan at Raffles City Shopping Mall and warned the two that they were committing an offence.When asked what offence was being committed, the police could only say that it was a "seizable offence." Pressed to be more specific, one officer said that his superior would inform them.The officers also said that they would have to seize the flyers and quickly grabbed the bag of leaflets sitting on the ground.When Dr Chee Soon Juan appeared another bunch of police officers told him that he had to stop distributing the flyers."Under what section of the law is it an offence?" Dr Chee queried."It is a seizable offence," came the exasperating reply."You haven't answered my question. What Act says that it is an offence to distribute leaflets? If you cannot tell me which specific law I am breaking, how can you tell me to stop doing what I am doing?" Dr Chee continued.Quickly changing the subject, the officer said, "I have to take the flyers." He reached out to grab the leaflets which Dr Chee was holding."If you want to seize the flyers then take me as well. We go together," Dr Chee suggested.The police officer retracted his hand.At this point there were at least six police cameras lurking in the various corners recording the encounter."I can come with you right now if you want me to. Where is your car?" Dr Chee offered again. "If you say I am committing an offence, then let's go to the police station. Otherwise please move aside as you are blocking my way."The bunch withdrew into the crowd and hung around the shops, looking from afar.The activists continued distributing whatever pamphlets they had left. When they ran out, they approached the police officers to ask them to give back the flyers they had stolen.But as soon as the activists got close to the officers who were all in civilian wear, they dispersed in different directions like suspects fleeing the scene of the crime.One, Senior Staff Sergeant Lee Hong Chee, who pretended to be a shopper looking at a window display whilst sipping on an ice-blended coffee, was not quick enough. When asked where his colleagues were he said, "I don't know.""Do you know it was wrong to take our pamphlets when you haven't told us what offence we had committed?" Dr Chee asked.Sgt Lee searched for an answer but could only play back the pre-recorded message, "I don't know.""Where are the flyers?" Dr Chee asked again."They are with my colleagues.""Where are your colleagues?""I don't know...""You're not a very competent officer, are you?" Dr Chee continued."I don't know...Thank you," the sergeant stammered, and quickly walked away.Seeing two more officers sitting in the distance, the activists sought their assistance. As before the two quickly scuttled away. But Dr Chee called them back and after asking them to produce their warrant cards, one was Senior Staff Sgt Zaihir Shan s/o Syed and the other was Sgt Andrew Ong, he asked them for the confiscated pamphlets.Almost simultaneously the two officers' cellphones rang and they both pretended to be engaged in deep conversation while quickly walking away.These officers were not behaving the way our men-in-blue should – with dignity and professionalism. Instead, when asked they could not cite the law they were supposed to enforce and they behaved like a group of suspects who quickly dispersed when confronted.First World Government? Yeah, right. IMF and World Bank rebuke Singapore http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d29328d2-3f32-11db-a37c-0000779e2340.htmlBy John Burton in Singapore and Shawn Donnan in JakartaPublished: September 8 2006 13:16 | Last updated: September 9 2006 02:07The International Monetary Fund and World Bank on Friday issued an unprecedented rebuke to Singapore over a ban on accredited activists invited to attend the annual meetings of the two financial institutions next week.The IMF/World Bank suggested that Singapore had violated the terms of its agreement to host the event by blocking the entry of 19 civil society representatives, who allegedly posed a security threat."Singapore had promised to faciliate the entry of accredited representatives under the memorandum of understanding with us," a World Bank official said. The IMF/World Bank was only informed this week of Singapore's plans.The crackdown is part of tough security measures that Singapore will implement during the September 11-20 meetings. The government will also ban all outdoor demonstrations and has warned it will shoot at violent protesters, citing the threat of terrorist attacks.The incident represents a setback to the IMF/World Bank, which has sought to improve relations with non-governmental organisations that have accused them of conducting policies that have ignored the plight of the world's poor. A record 500 NGO representatives are accredited to attend this year's meeting."This is a major blow to the credibility of the IMF/World Bank. It's terribly embarrassing since the World Bank had adopted good goverance as the theme of this year's meeting," said Antonio Tricarrio with Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale, who was one of those banned.Mr Tricarrio said he was "astounded" at Singapore's decision since his group was a widely-respected organisation that had never been associated with violent activities.Some NGOs alleged that the IMF/World Bank, which holds its annual meetings outside Washington every three years, had selected Singapore as the venue for this year's meeting because of its authoritarian reputation. Previous IMF/World Bank meetings have been marred by violent protests.Among those banned by Singapore were representatives from the UK-based World Development Movement, Thailand's Focus on the Global South, the Freedom from Debt Coalition in the Philippines and the Forum on Indonesian Development (Infid).The IMF/World Bank said these "individuals have been cleared to attend the annual meetings by their respective governments and we have accredited them according to our standard procedure.""We strongly urge the Singapore government to act swiftly and reverse their decision on entry and access to the meetings for these representatives," the IMF/World Bank said in a joint statement.The Singapore police force said this week that it had compiled a list of potential "troublemakers" who would be denied entry to the city-state. “Every country reserves the right to determine whether a foreigner would be eligible for entry into the country,” said the Singapore police on Friday.Some NGOs had planned to hold rallies on the neighbouring Indonesian island of Batam because of the security measures in Singapore. But they were told this week by the local police that the protest would be banned because foreign groups were involved in violation of the law.The chief of Indonesia’s national police, Sutanto, told reporters that NGOs would not be allowed to hold protests on Batam, although authorities would let them meet. “Seminars are welcome,” he said. “But there should be no political agenda, let alone rallies, because this could make foreigners think Indonesia is not safe for investment.”Additional reporting by Alan Beattie in London and Taufan Hidayat in JakartaCopyright The Financial Times Limited 2006 Senate panel finds no prewar Iraq-Qaeda link http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060908/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc_3By David MorganFri Sep 8, 4:31 PM ETSaddam Hussein had no relationship with al Qaeda, including Iraq-based guerrilla Abu Musab al Zarqawi, despite claims by President George W. Bush and other administration officials, a Senate report released on Friday said.The report, one of two newly declassified reports released by the Senate Intelligence Committee, drew on a previously undisclosed October 2005 CIA assessment as Americans prepared to mark the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the United States by al Qaeda.The reports quickly became part of a political battle on Capitol Hill where Democrats and Republicans are wrestling over national security issues before congressional elections in November.The other report said the administration chose to provide funding to the Iraqi National Congress, or INC, exile group in 2002 over a warning by the Defense Intelligence Agency that the INC had been penetrated by "hostile intelligence services" and was intent on influencing U.S. policy toward Saddam.The documents, part of the Senate panel's probe of prewar Iraq intelligence, were issued as Bush seeks to address flagging public support for the Iraq war he views as a central front in the U.S. war on terrorism. They were the latest in a series of investigations into the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which Bush launched to counter a threat of weapons of mass destruction that were never found.Democrats said the data showed that top administration officials, including Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, misled the public to drum up support for war in Iraq by alleging a link between Saddam and the militant network."Today's reports show that the administration's repeated allegations of a past, present and future relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq were wrong and intended to exploit the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks," said Sen. John Rockefeller (news, bio, voting record) of West Virginia, the panel's ranking Democrat.'UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS'The committee's Republican chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record) of Kansas, accused Democrats of presenting their own misleading views."The additional views of the Committee's Democrats are little more than a rehashing of the same unfounded allegations they've used for over three years," he said in a statement.Roberts also expressed misgivings about the 208-page INC report, saying its conclusions were not always supported by underlying fact.Critics of the 2003 Iraq invasion have long argued the administration used flawed information from the INC to bolster their case for war, while ignoring contradictory intelligence.Roberts said there was no evidence the INC knowingly provided false information to the administration and described the exile group as having "a minimal role" in prewar U.S. judgments.Another Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, used the report to accuse Bush himself of making a false statement about ties between Saddam and Zarqawi, the one-time al Qaeda leader in Iraq who was killed by U.S. forces in June.Bush asserted as recently as an August 21 news conference that Saddam had links with Zarqawi."The president's statement, made just two weeks ago, is flat-out false," Levin said.Bush administration officials pointed to supposed links between Saddam and al Qaeda to help justify their case for war before the war.The CIA report's assessment was similar to the conclusion reached by the bipartisan 9/11 commission, which found in 2004 there had been no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam and al Qaeda.(Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro)This a perfect example of how power can be mis-used by select few individuals. Shocking arguments made by the Lees http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articlenkflawsuit17.html14 Aug 06Judicial decisions made in other countries have no bearing in Singapore. This is the shocking argument that the Lees' are making in their push for summary judgement which will be heard on Wednesday, 16 Aug 2006.Realising that the law is stacked against them, the Lees in their desparation to avoid a public trial now state that the decisions in other common law jurisdictions “are decisions borne of the special circumstances in England, Australia and New Zealand and which have no relevance in Singapore.”Are the Lees attempting to rewrite the principle upon which common law is derived and developed? For decades countries which have adopted the English system of jurisprudence have valued the decisions made by learned judges which lawyers refer to as “authority” and “precedence”.Such guidance by past cases is still very much in practice today – yes, even in Singapore. This is because decisions by judges are scrutinised by their brethren judges and legal professionals all over the world, and the judicial wisdom derived from such scrutiny allows the law to develop into a mature tool.But now the Lees say that all this is hogwash. What the rest of the world thinks doesn't matter; this is Singapore – land of the strongman.Summary judgement in the worldSo what does common law state about summary judgement hearings in defamation suits?Halsbury Laws of Malaysia maintains that “The procedure by way of application for summary judgement is not appropriate in cases which involve lengthy argument by counsel on difficult questions of fact and law.”London Supreme Court Practice avers: “The court should not on Ord 14 [summary judgement] applications determine points of law which may take hours or even days and the citation of many authorities...”Halsbury's Laws of Hong Kong insists: “The procedure by way of application for summary judgement is not appropriate which involve lengthy argument by counsel on complicated issues...[and] for the resolution of complex issues or disputes arising out of conflicting professional opinions.”In a nutshell, summary judgements are inappropriate where there are complex issues of fact and law.This is what the Chees' lawyer, Mr M Ravi, has submitted on and provided the authorities to buttress his argument. And what do the Lees say about this? “This is not the law in Singapore. On the contrary, it has been held in Singapore that an application for summary judgement will be entertained and judgement entered even if the issues of law to be determined are complex.”But why, in the eyes of the world's judiciaries, are complex issues not suited for summary judgement hearings? For the simple reason that that complex issues require witnesses, expert testimony and cross-examination of the various parties so that the judge can get a comprehensive picture of the entire matter (or one as close to it as possible) before rendering his judgement.For example, the plaintiffs could have made assertions or false statements that need verification and refutation. A case in point was the PAP's lawsuit against Mr Tang Liang Hong in 1997. Although it was MM Lee who had released the police report made by Mr Tang to the media, it was asserted that it was Mr Tang himself who had made public the report. This lie was uncovered and corrected only when Mr Goh Chok Tong was grilled by the defence counsel, the late George Carmen, in the witness box.This is what natural justice is all about. Whether it is Singapore or Kalamazoo, the law of natural justice, which states that anyone accused of an offence must be given the right to defend him/herself in an public trial where witnesses are called and the accusers cross-examined, must apply.And this is essentially what the Chees are asking for – that there be a trial where they can have the means to defend themselves.But the Lees have said no, there can be no trial.This much we know. It is the reasoning offered by the Lees that is shocking. They have not sought to argue that the present case is not complex but instead insist that even if the case is complex the judge can award the case to them without the help of witnesses and cross-examinations – and in the privacy of the judge's chambers to boot.The local media as a benchmark for judgesIf you're shaking your heads, hold on to your seats because it gets worse.The Defence had cited two cases (one in Australia and another in New Zealand) where qualified privilege (the protection of comment especially under cases of special circumstances eg. journalists, whistleblowers, oppositionists, etc. ) were upheld by judges. Rejecting these as precedence, the Lees contend that it would be “completely inconsistent with the political construct and the well defined role of the media in Singapore for any of [the judges' decisions] to be imported into this country.”No, your eyes are not playing tricks on you. The Lees actually cited the local media as a yardstick on which Singapore's judges must base their decisions. They went on to re-tell the lie that the media's role in Singapore is “one which Singaporeans have come to accept as being appropriate for our purposes.” Ironically, it is such bald-faced assertions that need to be tested under cross-examination.It may be argued, as dictators often do, that countries like Australia and New Zealand are too democratic and therefore – by some contortion of logic - erroneous. But the Lees even rejected the fact that Malaysia (whose political and media systems resemble Singapore's) abides by some of these decisions: “The fact that the Malaysian courts appear to have adopted [some of these decisions] is completely irrelevant.” Anything, it seems, that pere et fils don't agree with is irrelevant. This rejection of court rulings in Malaysia signals nothing but desperation.Imagine this: If Mr T T Durai had cited this not-relevant-in Singapore proposition and successfully applied for summary judgement against the Straits Times, how would all the shenanigans in the NKF have been uncovered? It was only during the trial when Mr Durai was cross-examined by – and this is where it gets weird – Mr Davinder Singh (the Lees' lawyer) that the decadence within the NKF was revealed.Without the Straits Times being given a proper trial and the subsequent revelations by Mr Durai elicited during cross-examination, injustice of the highest order would have been committed. In such a scenario, the biggest losers would not have been the Straits Times but the people of Singapore.Similarly without a public trial, how are the Chees going to cross-examine the Lees and call for witnesses to uncover crucial facts which may lead to an implosion and collapse of the Lees' case, just as it happened with Durai's? Again, without a trial, the biggest losers will not be the Chees but Singaporeans.Mixing the political and the judicial systemsLegal experts and Queen's Counsel that SDP spoke to were astounded that the Lees would even dare go for summary judgement. In fact there is so much dispute over law and fact that legal documents submitted by both sides are stacked feet high and whose pages run into the thousands.Yet, come Wednesday, the Lees are pressing the judge to make a decision without the benefit of witnesses and cross-examinations.The Lees may argue that Singapore is Singapore and that we have our own (read: PAP) way of doing things. But that's in the realm of politics where autocrats will say anything to justify their hold on power. But to apply this notion to the judicial system is another – and much more dangerous – matter altogether.It has taken years for the judiciary to develop a legal system that is in sync with the rest of the world. To now negate everything by decreeing that “This is Singapore” is to turn back the clock and destroy the last vestiges of human decency in this country.The crashing sound you hear is Singapore hitting rock-bottom. God help us. Let Mr Brown speak by Eric Tan Heng Chong I am very sad and disappointed to learn that Today suspended Mr. Brown’s column. I felt he had not done anything wrong. If anything else, he brought out a lighter side of life in Singapore. In this age of stress he gave us relief and made us laugh. He even taught us to laugh at ourselves. Singaporeans resonated with his views and creative sense of humor earning him popularity. As people can identify with his column, the government should value it as good feedback.In the business world we treat a complaint as a gift, as it gives us an opportunity to improve. We never belittle a gift and so the government if they value feedback should do likewise. Especially since they have often mentioned they want an open society and not "yes’ men.In Mr. Brown’s case we did not see any evidence of an open society. Today suspended his column shortly after the MICA letter as though he has done something wrong. Mr. Brown never attacked any one personally in his article. Yet MICA rebutted Mr. Brown on a personal level, bringing up his autistic child hinting that he had vested interest. However for those who read his article you would know that was not the case. He was prepared to pay for the increase. I quote from the article he wrote, ‘We can afford it, but we do know many families who cannot, even those that are making more money than we are, on paper.’ Their response is simply unbecoming of a ‘first world’ ministry of information. Don’t get me wrong, we uphold MICA’s right to rebut him but they should do it logically and with dignity. In the same breath, we uphold Mr. Brown’s right to reply, which sadly in this case he was not given the opportunity. He should have been allowed to respond and to let the public decide the truth.Further more, I do not agree with MICA that Mr. Brown has to provide an alternative policy. Mr. Brown is not part of a political party and is simply a Singaporean on the receiving end of the government’s policies. On the other hand MICA being a service provider and the government is obliged to do so. I am a member of the Workers Party and we are obliged to give an alternative. This is similar to a customer complaining to a bak chor mee hawker that the noodles are bad. In such a case the bak chor mee man does not expect the person to offer an alternative recipe.Mr. Brown reflects the feelings of the people resulting in his popularity. He gives the government valuable feedback. The government can do two things with this feedback. They can either regard his views irrelevant i.e. ignore him or otherwise take them on board and change. But he should not be belittled or punished for expressing his views. He is just a Singaporean who loves his country and wants to make it better for his fellow Singaporeans. This is evident in his pod cast "I am a Singaporean" produced in the spirit of National Day.So I appeal to the government to be more receptive to feedback and to Today to reinstate his column. Let Mr. Brown continue to speak.The article that started it all http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2006/07/today_sporeans_.html#moreResponse from MICA ... so much for pretending to call for diverse and open society http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2006/07/letter_from_mic.html Household incomes up; bottom third's wages down Southwest CDC Mayor Amy Khor noted that the effects of the Government's recent efforts at helping the lowest income earners had not been felt yet.'Some of the schemes, like the Workfare bonus, are quite recent. We came up with them in the last one, two years, so it takes time to see their effects, whether they really work, whether they need to be refined,' she said.Some people got no heart. So poor folks at the bottom rung of the ladder can afford to wait 2 years for some poorly conceived scheme to be tested? How about deferring utilities expenses for 2 years too?By Aaron Low , Ken KwekJun 29, 2006The Straits TimesMOST Singapore households enjoyed more income in the past five years, but those in the bottom third of households saw their earnings decline over the same period.The overall picture of positive growth, coupled with the more sobering reminder of the income gap continuing to widen, emerged from the latest General Household Survey announced yesterday.The once-in-a-decade survey done last year and released by the Department of Statistics (DOS) yesterday, showed that average monthly household incomes here rose from $4,940 in 2000 to $5,400 last year. After accounting for inflation, the rise amounted to an increase of 1.1 per cent per year.The gains cut across all ethnic groups, with all races enjoying bigger pay packets. Indian households scored the biggest rise in average monthly income, from $4,560 in 2000 to $5,170 last year.Over the same period, the Chinese saw average monthly household wages grow by $410 to $5,630, while the incomes of Malay households rose from $3,150 to $3,440.The report also noted that the strong economic performance of 2004 pushed wages higher, with the middle income group benefiting most.This group had the biggest wage jump, between 3.7 per cent and 6.9 per cent from 2004 to last year, compared to between 3.3 per cent and 3.8 per cent for the highest 20 per cent of earners. In that one year, the incomes of the bottom third of households also grew, on average between 0.8 per cent and 2.6 per cent.But overall, the gap between rich and poor, which has preoccupied policymakers, continued to widen.Households in the 11th to 20th percentile based on income saw their average monthly earnings shrink from $1,470 to $1,180 from 2000 to last year. This is a decline of about 4.3 per cent a year.In contrast, the average income of the top 10 per cent of households grew by 2.8 per cent a year, rising from $14,360 to $16,480.The Gini coefficient - a statistical tool used to measure income inequality - also rose from 0.490 to 0.522. The larger this figure, the more unequal is income distribution.Explaining that the drop in wages for the lowest income groups was due to an ageing population, the DOS said there were now more households with more retired persons and, hence, no income.It pointed out that, in 2000, 8.7 per cent of households had no wage earner, and this increased to one in 10 households last year.The drop in wages for the 11th to the 20th percentile group could also be explained by higher unemployment last year than in 2000, said the report. It also noted that the figures did not take into account the Government's cash help for the poor, including the $2.6 billion Progress Package.MPs were not surprised by the survey findings, noting that these reflected the effects of globalisation.Northwest Community Development Council (CDC) Mayor Teo Ho Pin expected the widening income gap to be an ongoing trend but was more concerned with the smaller wages of the bottom households.'One area we must focus on is children and education, as they are the ones who can lift the families from the lowest 20 per cent,' he said.Southwest CDC Mayor Amy Khor noted that the effects of the Government's recent efforts at helping the lowest income earners had not been felt yet.'Some of the schemes, like the Workfare bonus, are quite recent. We came up with them in the last one, two years, so it takes time to see their effects, whether they really work, whether they need to be refined,' she said.aaronl@sph.com.sgkenkwek@sph.com.sg Media Release: Chees apply to court to stop summary judgment by Lees Media Release: Chees apply to court to stop summary judgment by Lees22 Jun 06Singapore DemocratMr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong have confirmed that they will apply for summary judgment in their lawsuit against Ms Chee Siok Chin and I. Such an act is appalling in two respects:First, as leaders of Singapore the Lees are showing that they are unwilling to put their claims to public scrutiny. They have made very serious allegations against the defendants and told the world that they stand ready to be cross-examined in the witness box in order that their claims can be tested.But when we call their bluff and challenge their lawsuit, they now try to hide behind a summary judgment. Such cravenness and flip-flopping cannot be the hallmark of Singapore's future leadership.There are questions that need to be asked and issues to be examined. The only way that the matter can be resolved in the public's mind is for both sides to submit themselves to cross-examination and to present witnesses. Ms Chee Siok Chin and I state again that we are willing to undergo this process. The Lees must not make themselves appear even more foolish than they already have. They need to face us in court like individuals that they claim they are.Second, summary judgment will make a mockery out of the legal process. Simply put, the Lees have said that they were defamed in The New Democrat article while we have stated that they were not. Should not there be a trial where evidence from both sides can be presented and the truth ascertained in a public and transparent manner?A summary judgment will render this impossible because the case will be decided in chambers behind closed-doors where Ms Chee and I will not be able to cross-examine the Lees and adduce evidence from crucial witnesses. It is like accusing someone of committing murder but not allowing him to call witnesses and produce evidence in his defence. Is this what we want to see in our legal system? What kind of legal precedence are we setting?All we are seeking is a fair and open trial. Surely this is not too much to ask. To this end, we are applying for the courts to prevent the Lees from going for summary judgment (see below).Chee Soon JuanSecretary-GeneralSingapore Democratic Party Why partisan upgrading strategy should go June 16, 2006FRIDAY MATTERSBy Chua Mui Hoong, DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR RECENT comments over the votes-for-upgrading issue from government leaders are confusing to voters, but suggest there is more ambivalence to the issue.It's not surprising that the signals have been so mixed, because it is one issue which is politically beneficial to the ruling party from a party-political point of view, but which is pretty indefensible on any other grounds.The issue throws into sharp relief the dilemma the People's Action Party Government faces: between its desire as a political party to engage in partisan moves that help assure it of political longevity, and its desire to be a government for all that aims to be 'inclusive', bringing non-partisan elements to advance the country together.Those who read political tea leaves think they discern different strands of thought on this issue among PAP leaders.Some espy in Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong glimpses of a potential 'reformer' or at least change agent.Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is viewed as someone steeped in party battles of the past, who would not allow the PAP to embark on a path that may weaken its grip on power.Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong is known as a master tactician. He was, after all, the one who implemented the votes-for-upgrading strategy which helped the PAP stave off the slide of votes to the opposition for a decade.In the recent election, he and PAP candidates revived the strategy for Hougang and Potong Pasir, promising $180 million of upgrading projects if voters tossed out the opposition there and voted in the PAP. Voters did not bite the carrot offered.But while individual PAP leaders may appear to have slightly different, nuanced, positions on this issue, the truth is more likely to be that they were all in broad agreement over the votes-for-upgrading strategy in the 1997 and 2001 elections.And if General Election 2006 was anything to go by, probably some top PAP leaders are by now ambivalent about the strategy.PM Lee said after the election the PAP had to review its strategy in opposition wards and rethink how to win them back.SM Goh praised Hougang and Potong Pasir voters for loyally sticking with their opposition incumbent MPs rather than 'chasing after every goodie which we offer them'.Has the votes-for-upgrading strategy come to the end of its time?The strategy has attracted controversy since it was first announced in 1992. This was when then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong served notice that wards which supported the PAP would be given priority for the then-highly popular programme to upgrade, or improve, Housing Board estates using government funds.The announcement met with a negative response, and died down. In the 1997 General Election, however, it was revived and became a central plank of the PAP strategy.Vote for the PAP, and your constituency will get ahead in the upgrading queue - was the message to voters. On the eve of Polling Day in 1997, Mr Goh went one step further, saying the Government would look at voting patterns by precincts (each precinct is a cluster of about 10 to 20 HDB blocks) in deciding which neighbourhoods to upgrade first.The votes-for-upgrading strategy was used in the 1997 and 2001 elections, helping the PAP romp home with 65 and 75 per cent of the votes respectively.Never popular, it has drawn more intense criticism this time round.As Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim notes, reflecting the view of critics of the policy, the Government is using taxpayers' money for partisan purposes.Another writer to The Straits Times Forum page this week argued that the Government is mixing up its fiduciary duty as a government to all citizens, with its interest as a political party.Criticism of the strategy can be summed up thus: It's unfair as it deprives opposition voters of benefits from government funds which should be available to all; and it's partisan as the Government is using taxpayers' money for party-political ends.The PAP's argument has been to retreat to realpolitik. The line from a succession of National Development ministers, including Mr Mah Bow Tan in an interview with The Straits Times last week, has been consistent: Funds are limited; allocation has to be on some criteria; support for the PAP's programme has to be one such criterion.As MM Lee said in April during a television forum with young journalists when the issue was discussed: 'Look, ask yourself - does any government help the opposition to displace itself?'You mean to tell me in America or Britain they gave benefits to all constituencies equally? At the same time or, worse, favour the opposition? No, you favour your supporters because you want to retain them as your supporters.'The issue has arisen again, after Mr Mah's statement last week that all wards will get their lifts upgraded by 2015 - but that PAP wards will still go first.MPs new and old have also spoken up on the issue, defending the PAP's line that resources have to be allocated, and there is nothing wrong with allocating resources by partisan means.But if you take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, Singapore will become a truly horrific country indeed.After all, all government resources are finite. Will the PAP Government one day decide to ration, say, health care, or education, on the basis of support for the PAP?Imagine the arguments thus: The health budget is finite. Resources to build new hospitals have to be allocated, and will be given to PAP wards first henceforth.Or for education: New schools will be built in PAP wards first, and opposition wards will be last in the queue. (Question: Has any new school been built in Hougang in the last 15 years, or in Potong Pasir in the last 22, since they fell to opposition hands?)Or maybe the arguments will go down to the micro level: Hospital beds are finite in number, and PAP supporters will get priority.You can just imagine the howls of outrage and cries of 'unfair!' from voters.I'm not for one moment suggesting the PAP will go down that road any time soon, or even ever. I raise these extreme examples to make the point that it's necessary to go back to first principles to debunk the votes-for-upgrading strategy.In other words, the PAP Government should stop using this as an election strategy, not because it no longer works in winning votes - but because it is based on an unsound principle in the first place, and sets a dangerous precedent for allocating government resources.In reviewing the votes-for-upgrading tactic, the PAP has to think less as a political party, and more as a national government.The strategy may have been helpful to PAP the political party through the 1990s and early 2000s. But the upgrading strategy, like the creative redrawings of election boundaries in the past, has aroused some cynicism among younger voters about the electoral process.Word has it the PAP is spending the next six months in party huddles to post-mortem GE 2006 and lay the groundwork for its strategies for GE 2011.When it does so, it would be wise to rise above its partisan interest as a political party, to consider the impact of its decisions on the nation as a whole.muihoong@sph.com.sg