Do you support the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking? How does the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking work?Under Singapore law, if it's been proven that you've been trafficking in a controlled drug, and the amount of drugs involved crosses a certain threshold, you will be sentenced to death. The threshold varies according to the drug, and these thresholds are all set out in the Second Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act. The threshold for diamorphine, for example, is 15 grammes. If you've been trafficking in more than 15 grammes of diamorphine, you will be sentenced to death.The word “mandatory” means that the judge has no discretion to award you a lesser sentence. Even if your case has extenuating circumstances and the judge rightly takes pity on you, the judge has no choice but to sentence you to death. This is unlike most other criminal law provisions, which allow the judge to award more calibrated sentences, taking into account the moral culpability of the offender, his age, social background, whether he has prior convictions, etc.Do you support the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking? Here are some things you should consider in making your decision:1. Crimes are all serious. Does the punishment fit the crime?You may think that drugs are a serious social evil, and that drug trafficking should therefore be punished severely. But this does not mean we we must necessarily use the most severe punishment available. We can, for example, imprison drug traffickers for life instead. If we really want to impose the death penalty, we must ask if drug trafficking really such a heinous crime. Is it as serious as murder? Does the punishment fit the crime? Or, is our response blown out of all proportion?2. Does the death penalty “work”?You may think that imposing the most severe penalty we have will deter people from trafficking in drugs. But there is no evidence that imposing the death penalty actually deters people from trafficking in drugs. Following the introduction of the death penalty for drugs in 1975, drug offences did indeed decrease in frequency. But around the time there was also an increase in the amount of resources put into catching drug offenders. So, which strategy worked — the death penalty, or better policing? We can't be sure. In the 1990's and 2000's, while the death penalty was firmly in place, figures for drug offences have just see-sawed up and down, revealing no discernible trend. Bottom-line: we really don't know if the death penalty works in deterring people from committing drug offences in Singapore.While we don't have proper statistics for drug trafficking in Singapore, we do have statistics for murder. The available evidence shows us that the death penalty probably does not have any significant effect on reducing rates of murder in Singapore. Studies done in other parts of the world also say the same thing. If the death penalty doesn't work to deter murder, is it likely that it would deter drug trafficking? Are we justified in hanging people when we're so unsure of all these things?3. Is the trial process fair? Are the people we hang really guilty?Consider also the presumptions in the Misuse of Drugs Act that affect the trial process. Earlier I wrote about the prosecutor “proving” you were trafficking, but this is often unnecessary. Trafficking can often be proved indirectly, by means of a series of presumptions.For example, if you hold the keys to a cupboard containing drugs, you are presumed to have been in possession of the drugs, even if, let's say, somebody put them there without you knowing (section 18(1)). The onus is now on you to prove your own innocence.You are also presumed to have known that the drugs were indeed drugs (section 18(2)). Say for example that you hold the keys to a cupboard with some white powder inside. You are presumed to have known that the white powder was diamorphine, and the onus is on you to prove that you didn't really know.If the drugs you were in possession of cross the threshold amount, you will be presumed to have been trafficking (section 17). For example, if you hold the keys to a cupboard containing 15 grammes of diamorphine, you will be presumed to have been trafficking in the drug. The onus is now on you to prove your own innocence.This is just a sampling of the problems in the trial process. There are others, which are not specific to the Misuse of Drugs Act. For example, in all criminal cases, the police can rough you up and make you write a statement confessing to something you might not have done, and that statement can be admitted in court as evidence. The onus will then be on you to prove that you made the statement under police pressure, and that you didn't really do what you had confessed to doing.With all these problems, the trial process shifts further away from the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ end of the spectrum and closer toward the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ end of the spectrum, so that at the end of the day, we can't say with much confidence that the person we hanged was really guilty of drug trafficking. We might just have hung some people for no rhyme or reason. In this sense, the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking could be little more than a scheme for arbitrarily murdering some random people every once in a while.4. Can't we be merciful when it is called for?Many of the drug traffickers sentenced to death have so little money that they can't afford to pay for lawyers to defend them (the lawyers usually do it for free). This means that the drug traffickers we're hanging aren't making big bucks from their trafficking, and were probably forced into doing it for other reasons, just like how prostitutes are often forced into prostitution. We can't really say that the people we hang are monsters. In fact, it looks like we hang the small fry, while the big fish who really make money from the drug trade get off scot-free. This being the case, shouldn't judges have the discretion to be a little bit more merciful in deserving cases?Also, don't people deserve a second chance? Instead of hanging people, wouldn't it be better if we locked them up for 20 years, following which they could come out and, having realised the error of their ways, become contributing members of society?What can you do about it?Ultimately, we as citizens bear responsibility for the people we hang. When they are hanged, it is in your name and mine. My purpose here is not to convince you that the mandatory death penalty is or is not a good idea. All I want you to do is think about whether your stand on the matter is a defensible one. If you support the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking, and you can sleep peacefully at night, good for you. If you can't, maybe it's time you spoke out against the injustice being perpetrated in your name. You could join a Facebook group, sign a petition, tell your MP how you feel or just discuss the issue with your friends and family. Whatever you need to do, to clear your conscience.For more information on the death penalty in Singapore, click here.Tweet this! Dream I hardly ever have dreams, and when I do, I hardly remember them. I had one today, and I remember it quite vividly, so I decided to write it down here. Like most of the dreams I remember, it's utter rubbish.Dream04/02/10, c. 1900-2000h.After lunch, I walked past the Marriott’s leaf-bounded pond and darkwood doors, happily munching out of a blue bag of Oreo’s. I stopped at the end of Ngee Ann City, at the bottom-left corner of a traffic junction. As I waited to cross the road, toward the top-left corner, the arm of a man standing high above me swooped down, demanding that I surrender my bag of Oreo’s. Stunned, I obeyed. But then I felt he was wrong to deprive me of my bag of Oreo's, so I reached up and snatched it back, the red rubber band bunching its mouth shut still intact. The arm swooped down again, this time with a giant sword that penetrated half-deep into my right index finger. The three people around me flinched; I sensed it. I stifled my sobbing and, like them, stared straight ahead, soundless. The cut was clean: no blood, looking like just a scratch, a paper-cut. I worried that I would not be able to play the piano again. When the light turned green we crossed, andante, eyes front, and I was on the top-right corner, opposite the Museum, on SMU ground. I ran up a cream-coloured marble stairway and bent down, pretending the fat vertical baluster columns under the handrail would hide me.  When my fear had subsided, I climbed down through a narrow hole in the staircase, so narrow that my spectacles got scratched. Waiting for me at the bottom was Greg. We walked together, past the SMU building, still in a straight line from the Museum. I told him how this had happened to me before, twice. Once, a man had flicked his fingers against the back of my head. We cut through a petrol station, then turned right, walking against the traffic on Lornie Road, till we came to a bus stop. I wanted to go home, but the bus wouldn’t come. Better statistics for the 377A debate? During the public debate on 377A some years ago, there were no proper statistics on what public opinion on the issue actually looked like. Many participants, for example, cited the study done by Benjamin H. Detenber, which found that Singaporeans generally have negative attitudes towards gay people (see "Singaporeans’ Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men and their Tolerance of Media Portrayals of Homosexuality"). But the fact that someone has a negative attitude towards a particular practice does not always indicate that he/she also wishes that practice to be made the subject of a criminal offence. The Detenber study did not set out to gauge public opinion on the latter question, and those who cited it in support of their (usually anti-repeal) stance were really taking no more than a stab in the dark on that question.Recently, however, Tan Seow Hon has published the results of a survey which could provide a more reliable indicator of public opinion on the issue (see "Law School and the Making of the Student into a Lawyer: Transformation of First Year Law Students in the National University of Singapore"). She asked about 200 first-year students who were reading law at NUS whether "sexual acts... between consenting adults of the same gender should continue to be a criminal offence". 20.1% said yes, and in a follow-up survey done a year later, on the same group of students, the figure went down to 15.8%.The data is not entirely without problems. First, the question was prefaced by quoting section 377 of the Penal Code, and her actual question was "Do you think sexual acts of this nature between consenting adults of the same gender should continue to be a criminal offence" [emphasis mine]. The phrase "of this nature" could have had some bearing on the participants' interpretation of the question and on their answers, since the phrase refers to the conduct proscribed by 377, which at that time included intercourse with animals and used the words "against the order of nature".A second potential problem is that university students, and those reading law in particular, are often said to be much more liberal in their political views as compared to the general public. Whether there is actual empirical evidence for this, I do not know. If it is true that university/law students are more liberal, my hunch is that it is not the case that people with more liberal views are more likely to apply to or get into university/law school. Rather, the connection is probably that university/legal education makes one more liberal. If the latter is true, its effect can only account for the 4.3% drop in anti-repeal responses between the first and second surveys. It cannot account for the initial low figure of 20.1%, which was obtained within the first week of the first year of law school, when almost zero university/legal education had taken place.In any case, Tan's statistics are probably the most relevant and reliable ones that we have on the issue, at the moment. And, they are telling, aren't they?Tweet this! Statements on the Mandatory Death Penalty The serious opposition parties have both released pretty good statements on the mandatory death penalty:SDP repeats call to abolish mandatory death penaltyThe Reform Party Calls For Abolition of Death Penalty for Drug TraffickingIf you haven't been following the Yong Vui Kong case, read about it here. Scholar Bias in Public Service PSC Chairman Eddie Teo said [PDF]:They will get a good university education in NUS, NTU and SMU and their degrees will not hold them back if they perform well in their career, in or outside the Public Service. In all my years in Public Service, I have never witnessed anyone being promoted or not promoted on account of his university background.Strictly speaking, this might be true: which university you went to does not have a direct impact on your career advancement in the civil service. But the concern that many people have is that it has an indirect impact: if you went to NUS, NTU or SMU, this means you weren't an overseas PSC scholar, and your career advancement will automatically be slower than the scholars' career advancement.When I was interning at the AG's Chambers in 2008, I made it a point to ask the people there if this policy indeed existed. I didn't get any straight answers at all. Everyone I asked either gave ambiguous replies or just dodged the question entirely.People say things are changing, etc. But nobody seems to know for sure. For many of the top minds at local universities, this uncertainty is great enough to make joining public service an unwise option, at least in the early stages of their careers. Bridging the Gaps: Approaches to Hate Speech in the US, Canada and Singapore Abstract: When it comes to hate speech prohibitions, the US and Canada are often seen as being on opposite sides of a great divide. This paper attempts to cast that dichotomy as a blurred one, by showing that the discourse on hate speech regulation in both jurisdictions is guided by the same two principles of human dignity: (1) all lives have equal inherent value, and (2) each individual must be allowed to pursue his own conception of a successful life. This paper also blurs the US-Canada dichotomy by showing that while both jurisdictions have seemingly different legal rules, their actual operation is likely to yield similar results in similar cases. Lastly, the paper turns to Singapore. It argues that the discourse on hate speech prohibition in Singapore is driven primarily by public order considerations that are overblown, and that this has negative effects. An attempt is made to locate the two principles of human dignity in Singapore’s constitutional documents, and it is argued that these principles should form the basis of a new approach to hate speech prohibition in Singapore.Click to read paper [PDF]. Killing the dream alive The controversy surrounding Ris Low, which has culminated in her resignation from the Miss World pageant, centers around two issues: her prior criminal conviction and her poor English. I am not so sure that these two grounds provide sufficient reason for arguing that she should not be allowed to represent Singapore.Why is her prior criminal conviction even an issue? Is an ex-criminal who has realised the error of her ways always necessarily a bad role model? If her conduct has already been condemned by the courts and she has already been meted out punishment, do we really need to condemn and punish her for the very same act, all over again, outside the courtroom?Why do we also object to her poor English? It cannot be that we think her standard of English is unrepresentative of Singaporeans: I find instead that the median standard of English in Singapore is roughly that of Ms Low's. If all we want to do is fool the international community that Singaporean English standards are higher than that, then we are just being hypocrites.Are our criticisms based on nothing rational? Are they driven purely by our feeling that she embarrasses us? That is nothing short of animus.Ris Low had a dream: a dream for herself, and a dream for Singapore. Have we mercilessly killed that dream with our unadulterated animus? New Anti-Gay News Portal A group of Christians is spearheading a new online news portal whose agenda is avowedly anti-gay: it is to be guided by "mainstream family values", which means "a man, his wife, with a view to procreation". They already have S$90,000 in funding, the source of which remains secret.Read all about it here. Spin when you're losing Now that Thio is no longer going to NYU, the spinners get to work.According to The Christian Post, Thio cancelled her visit "due to intolerance", and conveniently leaves out the fact that her classes had super-low enrolment, and that this was one of the reasons for her cancellation. But according to Thio, the low enrolment is connected to the intolerance. She wrote in her resignation email: "As you know, the ireful campaign against me has negatively affected class enrolment". An entirely untested proposition that betrays the quality of her scholarship, which might have been the cause of her low enrolment figures.And then William Donahue (conservative who is on the faculty at NYU) writes that he was disturbed to read that Thio was "intimidated into withdrawing".Hello? What intimidation? If intimidation simply means not agreeing with your views and countering them with superior logic, then yeah she was intimidated. But I really don't think that's how people generally define intimidation. What 'debate' and 'diversity of views' did you want to have if you can't deal with opposing views at all? Were you expecting to just sail in and have everyone worship every word that comes out of your mouth?Donahue also writes that part of his concern over this matter is driven by his interest in "securing a campus environment in which Catholics, and other people of faith, can thrive without animus".As far as I'm concerned, there has been no animus towards Thio, unless mere disagreement counts as animus. In 2007, Thio declared in Parliament that "Diversity is not license for perversity," calling all gay people perverts. That's animus.Also, there having been no intimidation, and Thio having withdrawn of her own accord, there has been no loss of academic freedom (unless you buy her 'horizontal chilling' nonsense). So quit whining about it, people.And then, there is the classic anti-gay lobby tactic: when you're losing, whip out a death-threat: "Friends and colleagues have also expressed serious concerns about my safety and well-being." Oh, come on. Time to think about anti-discrimination law? This is the second letter I've ever written to the ST forum, and the second to get rejected also. haha. So my rejection rate is still 100%. Unlike my first letter, I didn't spend much time on this one. I typed most of it, except the citation, on my phone while waiting for a friend who was 20 minutes late. That also makes this my tech-iest post ever. haha. Anyway, posting this here so I don't lose it in the labyrinthine depths of my computer.Time to think about anti-discrimination law?9 July 2009Recent comments by Mr K Shanmugam have initiated an important debate about affirmative action for Malays in Singapore.I would like to add to this debate by pointing out a possible alternative solution for Singaporeans to consider: anti-discrimination law.Essentially, anti-discrimination law makes discrimination by private parties illegal in certain situations. In the US, for example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for employers to refuse to hire applicants simply because of their race, religion or other irrelevant classification. An aggrieved applicant can therefore sue the errant employer for compensation.Most developed countries, including Australia, Canada and the UK, have laws of this type. Singapore, however, does not. We do have some guidelines, such as the Tripartite Guidelines on Non-Discriminatory Job Advertisements, but these do not carry any legal sanction and are therefore often disregarded by employers.How is anti-discrimination law different from affirmative action? While anti-discrimination law ensures that the process of competing for jobs remains on a level playing field, affirmative action is more suited to achieving particular results that are unlikely to be achieved even if the playing field is level. In this way, anti-discrimination law seeks to solve a more basic problem.And an acute problem it is, too. In a 2006 survey of 1,500 local job applicants, 19% reported having experienced discrimination on the basis of their race (see "When black and white doesn't help", TODAY, 29 December 2006). Given that minorities make up about 25% of our population, and that race discrimination is likely to target them more than majorities, the figure is a significant one.Aside from solving these problems, another significant advantage of anti-discrimination law is that it is less of a political hot potato than affirmative action. While affirmative action may be necessary in the long run, it is probably better to exhaust our less controversial options first.Also, anti-discrimination law could potentially be a broad-based solution to problems other than the Malay dilemma. It could, for example, deal with the myriad other types of discrimination that job applicants complain about, such as discrimination on the basis of age, nationality or even national service status.All in, the introduction of anti-discrimination law will, I think, push us closer to an ideal Singapore in which everyone is treated as an equal.Mohan Gopalan Is there a right to privacy after death? I am quite irked that the contents of David Widjaja's computer are being spilled out in the press. How many of you would approve of your computer files being made public after your death? Should people be allowed to know who you sent emails to, what you googled, what you said to who on MSN, whom you stalked on Facebook, what kind of porn you surfed? And how many of you would want to have your suicide note, meant for a handful of loved ones, read by half the nation?I don't know. Racial and Religious Hate Speech in Singapore: Reclaiming the Victim's Perspective (With great pleasure, I announce:) New on SSRN: Racial and Religious Hate Speech in Singapore: Reclaiming the Victim's Perspective, by Zhong Zewei.Abstract:In this essay, I argue that the rationales offered by the Singapore Government for restricting racial and religious hate speech are not only constitutionally unsound, but also not without serious moral and social costs. I start off identifying two main rationales offered for the existing restrictions, namely (1) the maintenance of public order, and (2) the promotion of an ethic of intercultural tolerance. These twin rationales are buttressed by a literalist (and flawed) judicial interpretation of the right of free speech under Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution. Drawing on hate speech decisions from the U.S., Canada and Europe, I advance a more faithful reading of Article 14 which affords greater constitutional protection for hate speech as 'political speech'. I next trace how the Singapore Government's regulation of hate speech is rooted in its avowedly Asian-style 'communitarianism'. The 'public order' and 'tolerance' rationales, however, fail to recognize that race and religion are constitutive aspects of our individual flourishing and self-respect, which hate speech attacks. The present legislative regime is therefore guilty of self-contradiction. Lastly, I sketch a different, victim-centred justification for Singapore's hate speech laws which is responsive to the profound injury inflicted upon individuals targeted by racial and religious vilification. This victim-centred perspective, it is suggested, finds a comfortable textual home in Article 152(1) of the Singapore Constitution, which requires the Government to care for the interests of racial and religious minorities in Singapore. More OMG again Neither could I. Jenica Chua, quoted in Today:“The person who sent the threat said he has joined a jihadist group and ... will find ways to harm my loved ones,” said a visibly upset Ms Chua. “And all I did was join a women’s association. I couldn’t sleep for many nights.”When you wrote all the crap you did two years ago, arguing for the law to continue perpetuating its violence against my loved ones, I couldn't sleep either. Josie asks the question she dodges. From CNA:The new president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), Josie Lau, has questioned the intentions of veteran members who are unhappy that newcomers have swept most of the executive committee seats in the organisation's recent annual election. In a statement to the media, she challenged these members to disclose their motives and objectives fully and honestly. Their motive, Josie, is to make YOU disclose, FULLY AND HONESTLY, what YOUR MOTIVES AND OBJECTIVES ARE. Josie and DBS's HR Policy I may not agree with Josie Lau's politics, but I think there is something not very right about what DBS is doing either.Campaigning for justice on behalf of fellow citizens is, to me, one of the fundamental obligations of being a citizen (it doesn't matter that her conception of justice may be different from mine). If she can handle Aware and her DBS job well, at the same time, who is DBS to say that she needs approval to do this? DBS might fire her if she doesn't perform well; that might be justifiable. But to require prior approval? I'm not sure that's right. In any case, I hope she doesn't get fired just for breaching the "code of conduct". Some comments on the Aware thing. I see a number of comments in the blogosphere to the effect that Aware's 'old guard' did not achieve anything and were "just sitting there, getting fat". I think this is a very misinformed opinion. Aware has done a lot over the years, from campaigning against the Graduate Mother Scheme and quotas for female students in medical school; they've even gone so far as to table legislation in Parliament. I can't remember their other achievements off the top of my head, but see Diane K. Mauzy & R.S. Milne, Singapore Politics Under the People’s Action Party (London: Routledge, 2002) at 60, 159; Lenore Lyons, A State of Ambivalence [:] The Feminist Movement in Singapore (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004); and Lenore Lyons, “Internalised Boundaries: AWARE’s Place in Singapore’s Emerging Civil Society” in Michael D. Barr & Carl A. Trocki, eds., Paths Not Taken: Political Pluralism in Post-War Singapore (Singapore: NUS Press, 2008) 248.If you're wondering why Aware has done so much but you haven't heard of it, the answer has to do with the way civil society groups work in Singapore. You campaign for what you want, but only until the Government starts listening to you and realising that you're right. Then you back off and let the Government implement your proposals in the way they see fit. Then you let the Government take all the credit. The moment you start getting all media-whore-y and high-profile, your relationship with the Government is screwed. And you might even begin worrying about worse things (think 1987). Keep your head down, and you might just get more of what you want. These are the unwritten rules of engagement.This is the reason why you don't hear about the successes of many other civil society groups either: The Nature Society, for example - see Cherian George, “The Nature of Politics and the Politics of Nature” in Singapore: The Air‐Conditioned Nation at 139‐143; and Suzaina Kadir, “Singapore: Engagement and Autonomy Within the Political Status Quo” in Muthiah Alagappa ed., Civil Society and Political Change in Asia (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2004) 324 at 337‐341.Lots of people are also asking about what GLBTQ politics has to do with Aware. The answer: although sex between consenting women is not illegal in Singapore, the retention of 377A is a barrier to many other rights that lesbian women need to have - to marry, have kids, access social benefits, etc. It is also untrue that Aware has never taken a position on issues of homosexuality: Aware advocated repealing 377A in 2006, in a position paper on the proposed Penal Code amendments (which I can no longer find on Aware's website).Lastly, people are saying that GLBTQ people are just being "sour grapes" and that the takeover was done legally etc etc. I don't think anyone is really being "sour grapes". People are just anxious, and feel that they might potentially be disappointed, because so many GLBTQ people have contributed to Aware in the past, and to see that it might all go to waste...well.But the fight goes on. It always does. Anti-gay lobby hijacks AWARE This is going to be rather interesting. For some time now I've been thinking that civil society groups in Singapore tend to leverage on their links with other civil society groups. Or at least that their members, or the people who volunteer with them, are a rather fluid lot who move from one group to another on a very ad-hoc kind of basis. That, at least, has been my (very limited) experience with civil society groups here. I started out doing some work for Aware (coincidence), and from there various people pulled me into doing work for various other groups. It seemed that there were familiar faces in every new group I moved to. It has also been my experience that civil society people generally tend to be liberal. It will be interesting to see, therefore, whether Aware will continue to be able to leverage on its networks, or whether it will continue to succeed without being able to do so.The takeover is also interesting because civil society groups, some argue, are meant to act as a bulwark against the power of the state. Do the anti-gay lobbyists see themselves as being in opposition to the state? If so, then one can maybe draw some conclusions about where the anti-gay lobbyists think the government stands on this issue. And one can also think about whether these lobbyists see themselves as being in the majority or the minority among Singaporeans. The answer to that question, of course, will determine whether the arguments they usually put forward can be defeated on their own terms.For more on this, see this blog post by Sam Ho, which has links at the end.Straits Times, April 10, 2009Unknowns knock out veterans at Aware pollsCaught off-guard by big turnout, longtime members lose to fresh facesBy Wong Kim HohSINGAPORE'S best-known women's group, the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), has seen a dramatic changing of the guard - which some members are describing as nothing short of a leadership grab.When Aware held its annual general meeting on March 28, everyone expected the usual: No more than 30 or 40 members would turn up at its Dover Crescent centre, and a prepared slate of candidates would be voted into office easily.Instead, more than 100 people came, the majority of whom had joined Aware only in recent months.And when the election of office bearers began, almost every position was challenged by new faces, who won by wide majorities.In the end, nine out of 12 executive committee spots went to the newcomers.One older member who won without a contest was Mrs Claire Nazar, a former corporate counsel nominated to be president by outgoing Aware chief Constance Singam.But barely a week into her new term, and before making her first statement as president, Mrs Nazar quit suddenly this week.She confirmed that she had resigned, but declined to say any more when reached by The Straits Times.It is not known who will now become president.Longtime members took two other positions: Chew I-Jin as assistant honorary treasurer and Caris Lim Chai Leng was elected a committee member.The election results have left longtime Aware members in shock.Former president Tan Joo Hymn, 38, told The Straits Times the big turnout at the AGM surprised her.'I arrived at the meeting late and found out that I was No. 100 on the attendance list. I've been a member for 10 years, and never before has there been such a turnout,' said the former lawyer who is now a full-time mother.Another former president, writer Dana Lam, 57, said: 'There were many faces I had not seen before, and I found that very strange.'In previous years, even if there were new members, they would be known to one or more of the older members.'The first indication that something was afoot came when Ms Chew, an Aware veteran, was challenged and defeated handsomely by new member Charlotte Wong Hock Soon for the post of vice-president.Ms Chew was later elected unopposed as assistant honorary treasurer.'It was alarming,' said Ms Lam. 'How could a new member who had just joined for a couple of months, and whom we knew nothing about, be picked over someone who has been with Aware for more than 15 years?'Some of the older members immediately began checking the attendance list.Ms Tan said: 'We found that about 80 of the 102 who turned up were new members who joined between January and March this year.'Aware, a feminist group that has prided itself on being 'all inclusive', has never vetted the people who apply to be members.Men can join too, as associate members.As it dawned on them that a leadership grab was imminent, some older members at the AGM tried asking the newcomers who they were, what they stood for, and why they wanted to be in charge.They got only the briefest answers, they said.Ms Lam said she tried suggesting that new members serve a stint on Aware's various sub-committees before standing for election to leadership positions.But such suggestions went unheeded as the election proceeded, with more newcomers winning executive committee positions by landslide margins.Ironically, the old guard at Aware had been working towards changing their Constitution to make it a rule that only those who have been members for at least a year would be eligible to join the ex-co.There is currently no rule to bar a brand new member from seeking office, and that was what happened at the AGM.Ms Tan said: 'We were simply outnumbered. Technically, they got in legitimately.'She added that the way the election proceeded was so unusual, it was hard to imagine that the takeover was not a planned effort.'It could not be pure coincidence,' she said.But little is known of Aware's new leaders, aside from the fact that they include women from the corporate sector, lawyers, company directors and academics.Older members said the newcomers spoke well but would not elaborate on their plans for Aware.'When asked if they believed in equality, they kept repeating they were there to support women and to make sure they got ahead and got all the opportunities given to them,' Ms Lam said.Older members were keen to know if the newcomers shared Aware's vision and values, including equality for all regardless of race, religion or sexuality.But one outspoken new member from the floor, who identified herself as Angela Thiang, said questions about the new office bearers' religion and their stand on homosexuality were not relevant.Former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Braema Mathi, a two-term president of Aware, told The Straits Times that she, like many other members, was concerned.'If you are keen to serve, you don't challenge every position. We do not know who they are,' said the former journalist who is now in Bangkok doing consultancy work for international women's group Unifem.'It is very troubling, more so because I've heard the new president has resigned.'Almost a fortnight into their new roles, the new leaders of Aware were not entertaining calls from the media this week.New honorary secretary Jenica Chua Chor Ping told The Straits Times a press release would be issued 'in a few days' and added that until then, the committee would not answer any questions.A check showed that some of those at the AGM and on the new committee have appeared in The Straits Times Forum Page.Ms Chua, Ms Thiang and Dr Alan Chin, a male member of Aware who attended the AGM and supported the newcomers, all wrote letters to this newspaper between August and October 2007.In a letter on Oct 17 that year, Ms Chua said NMP Siew Kum Hong had overstepped his non-partisan role and advanced the homosexual cause by tabling a petition in Parliament to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises homosexual sex between consenting men.In another letter on Oct 25, she took issue with a Straits Times report which said NMP Thio Li-Ann had been 'visibly distraught' when she opposed Mr Siew's petition vigorously.Ms Chua said Ms Thio had dealt with several points succinctly, with humour and passion.Dr Chin and Ms Thiang both wrote letters to caution against the risks of promoting the homosexual lifestyle.Meanwhile, news of Aware's AGM has spread among older members who did not attend the meeting, as well as civil society groups.The most frequently-asked questions: Who are the new women in charge, why do they want the leadership, and what are their plans for Aware?Ms Mathi said: 'The building of an institution takes many years; building its value system is even harder.'Why can't they come in and be part of the process, and build it together and in a more evolutionary manner? That way, the comfort level will be high for everyone.'Former newspaper editor and media consultant Peter Lim, a longtime associate member of Aware, said he was very surprised to learn what had taken place.Asked why he thought a group of newcomers would want to take control, he said he did not know if it was an orchestrated effort.But he thought Aware would be attractive to those seeking to be in charge of an established institution. Setting up a new outfit would take too much time and trouble.'Aware has built up its credentials over the years and achieved more than a few things,' he said.Three former Aware presidents - Ms Claire Chiang, Dr Kanwaljit Soin and Ms Mathi - have served as NMPs.'Aware is a brand name and most people regard it as the leading voice of the feminists and modern women in Singapore,' said Mr Lim. Yvonne Lee sends V-day thank-you's to international anti-gay lobby group On 14 Feb 09, Yvonne C.L. Lee of the NUS Law Faculty wrote to MassResistance, an international anti-gay lobby group, thanking them for the work they have done, some of which she had cited in her latest article.Read all about it here. Singapore Communitarianism and the Case for Conserving 377A New article from Yvonne C.L. Lee: "'Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up': Singapore Communitarianism and the Case for Conserving 377A" [2008] Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 347.Abstract: A rare parliamentary petition which sought the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code that criminalises acts of gross indecency between male adults, was presented and debated in Parliament in October 2007. This article critically examines the constitutional law dimension and issues in relation to the 377A debate in Singapore. It highlights the primary jurisprudential thrust of the competing arguments and assumptions. It advances and defends the communitarian case for preserving 377A which the author argues is both normatively desirable and empirically reflective of existing Singapore law and policy. With particular regard to the Singapore context, it reflects on how democratic societies should address questions of law and profound moral disagreement, the importance of civil debate, and whether the legislative or judicial forum is most appropriate for making decisions on morally controversial questions. Click here for the full article [PDF]. Binker by Alan Alexander MilneBinker - what I call him - is a secret of my own,And Binker is the reason why I never feel alone.Playing in the nursery, sitting on the stair,Whatever I am busy at, Binker will be there.Oh, Daddy is clever, he's a clever sort of man,And Mummy is the best since the world began,And Nanny is Nanny, and I call her Nan-But they can't See Binker.Binker's always talking, 'cos I'm teaching him to speakHe sometimes likes to do it in a funny sort of squeak,And he sometimes likes to do it in a hoodling sort of roar...And I have to do it for him 'cos his throat is rather sore.Oh, Daddy is clever, he's a clever sort of man,And Mummy knows all that anybody can,And Nanny is Nanny, and I call her Nan -But they don't Know Binker.Binker's brave as lions when we're running in the park;Binker's brave as tigers when we're lying in the dark;Binker's brave as elephants. He never, never cries...Except (like other people) when the soap gets in his eyes.Oh, Daddy is Daddy, he's a Daddy sort of man,And Mummy is as Mummy as anybody can,And Nanny is Nanny, and I call her Nan...But they're not Like Binker.Binker isn't greedy, but he does like things to eat,So I have to say to people when they're giving me a sweet,"Oh, Binker wants a chocolate, so could you give me two?"And then I eat it for him, 'cos his teeth are rather new.Well, I'm very fond of Daddy, but he hasn't time to play,And I'm very fond of Mummy, but she sometimes goes away,And I'm often cross with Nanny when she wants to brush my hair...But Binker's always Binker, and is certain to be there. Far East Org and Focus on the Family I recently sent an email to Far East Organization asking for details of their dealings with Focus on the Family. This is the reply I got:Thank you for your email.Focus On The Family (FOTF) Singapore is one of several community and charity causes supported by Far East Organization.Specifically pertaining to FOTF Singapore this year, we have contributed to a charity golf tournament and a family flag day – where participants raised funds with their kin as a group.We have also worked together to hold seminars for our staff which focused on work-life balance, stress management and communication tools for families.The understanding with FOTF Singapore is that we will have to agree as to how our sponsorship sums are to be used: and these must align with our organization’s aims and values which are about developing family ties and communication.In this vein, we have also supported MILK (Mainly I love Kids), St John’s Home for Elderly Patients, Tan Tock Seng Hospital Community Charity Fund, the Yellow Ribbon Fund, among others.We appreciate your taking the time to write in to us, and we hope that this answers your query.I replied, requesting for more information. Specifically, I asked (1) whether FarEast was aware of FOTF's anti-gay politics; (2) whether FarEast was aware that FOTF was part of an international network of anti-gay lobby groups; (3) whether FarEast would monitor its donations so as to ensure that its money does not go towards these non-charitable and purely political causes; (4) what FarEast's general stance was on homosexuality. Their reply was as follows:Thank you for your e-mail and we appreciate the concerns that you have brought up.We decided to support FOTF Singapore on the basis that they want to help families thrive. Their programmes are ostensibly based on research and data, and are aimed to help participants become better fathers, mothers, daughters and sons – taking a moment out of fast paced lives to acknowledge and communicate with loved ones.This was ideal as we at Far East Organization also believe in inspiring better lives, and strong families can help in that goal. FOTF Singapore is a Singapore-registered charity so funds that it raises must be used in Singapore rather than supporting any organization outside this jurisdiction.As part of our agreement, we also must be consulted on how our funds are used in their activities. And there have also been no attempts to proselytize divisive views at the seminars we have been a partner of so far.At Far East Organization, we do not condone discrimination in any form.Again, thank you for writing in and we hope that this, again, answers your queries. BT article on DBS-FOTF tie-up BT has picked up the news as well. In this article, the DBS spokesperson is clearly trying to distance the bank from FOTF's politics, which indicates that DBS's choice of charity was really an honest mistake. This BT article is also more explicit than ST's in describing FOTF's true agenda.Business Times - 05 Dec 2008Online campaign leads to rethink at DBSBank removes ad references to controversial outfitBy SIOW LI SEN(SINGAPORE) DBS Bank has removed all references to Focus On The Family (FOTF) in its advertising, after its credit card promotion supporting the evangelical Christian organisation provoked some angry reactions.Since the bank's Nov 13 credit card promotion where DBS said that it would donate money to FOTF, 'a charity dedicated to helping children and families thrive', members of the gay and lesbian community have called for a boycott of the bank.FOTF in Singapore is an affiliate of a US-based organisation of the same name founded in 1977 by evangelical Christian James Dobson who campaigns against gay rights.Last month, FOTF in the US retrenched some 200 staff after it spent US$600,000 to defeat marriage equality in California. Mr Dobson has also railed against US President-elect Barack Obama, who has countered that Mr Dobson 'makes things up'.DBS spokeswoman Karen Ngui said that it was never the intention of the bank to alienate any particular group. 'DBS supports children and learning in Asia . . . it's the cause that we are supporting and not FOTF, and or what it stands for,' she said.She added that DBS believes in diversity and inclusion.'We have since removed all references to FOTF in our advertising . . . however, we still support the cause . . . and thus will be contributing a small amount to their New Learning Centre for children with learning disabilities, due to be opened in March 2009.'The bank's earlier move had sparked an online campaign. Jean Chong, a gay activist with People Like Us, said that to date, 1,063 people, including non-gays, had signed up with a Facebook group attacking the bank's support for an FOTF cause.While some gay activists concede that DBS may not have known about the anti-gay agenda of FOTF, they felt that it still should not give to the charity because the donation could indirectly benefit its cause.'It is my view that unfortunately, DBS did not realise that FOTF has a lot of baggage. It is also unclear how by funding one part of an organisation's activities, how much you also indirectly help another of its activities because money is fungible,' said Alex Au, People Like Us gay activist.Ms Ngui has said that its credit card team checked on FOTF and proceeded as they are endorsed by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports and National Council of Social Service (NCSS). 'Going forward, the bank will conduct more extensive background checks,' she said. DBS goes ahead with FOTF tie-up As I alluded to in my previous post, DBS wasn't entirely clear on what they were actually doing, but they seem to have confirmed to ST that they are going ahead with the Focus on the Family tie-up anyway. Note, however, that they have pledged to conduct better background checks the next time. Also note that FOTF has (very predictably) accused us of successfully intimidating Singapore's largest bank. The language used by its spokesperson is also very characteristic of the Singaporean and international anti-gay lobbying network. That pretty much confirms that FOTF takes its anti-gay agenda very seriously, and that it is not merely a "charity".Straits Times, Dec 5, 2008DBS' charity tie-up draws flakSome cardholders don't agree with charity's anti-gay, anti-abortion stanceBy Grace ChuaDBS Bank's selection of Focus on the Family as its charity for the holiday season this year has attracted a backlash from some customers unhappy with its choice.Now, it has withdrawn the promotion from its website, following complaints that the charity's United States parent organisation, and its Singapore arm, are anti-gay, anti-abortion and pro-abstinence. But it will still be donating a sum to the charity's educational centre for learning-disabled children, it said.'Focus on the Family is a voluntary welfare organisation endorsed by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, and the National Council of Social Services,' said a DBS spokesman.'We will still be supporting the cause of children and learning by contributing to the building of the children's learning centre.'Under the tie-up, customers who spend above $300 after Nov14 on their DBS cards at some malls could redeem a pair of teddy bears.DBS would then donate a sum to Focus on the Family.But at least 10 customers have complained, writing in to say they may cancel their cards and close their accounts.Playwright and poet Ng Yi-Sheng, 28, formed a Facebook group online last Thursday night opposing DBS' charity choice and urging its more than 1,000 members, not all of whom are DBS customers, to write in to the bank.Miss Chan Sze-Wei, a 28-year-old student who wrote to DBS, said: 'I thought the charity tie-up was an inappropriate choice. Even if it reflects the beliefs of some of DBS' management or staff, it does not necessarily reflect the beliefs of customers.' She said that group's stance and beliefs, and close affiliation with its US parent group did not jibe with her values.Focus on the Family Singapore's president Joanna Koh-Hoe said: 'We are deeply concerned that a small group of activists has successfully intimidated a major financial institution like DBS in such an unwarranted fashion that maligns a well-intended collaboration for the cause of children and families.'In the US, the organisation conducts family life education from a Christian standpoint. Evangelical activities, however, are not in its charter here, according to the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports' list of registered charities.'We function akin to other faith-based organisations such as the Thye Hua Kwan Moral Society and Care Corner Family Service Centre in Singapore, or World Vision and YMCA internationally,' said Ms Koh-Hoe.The charity here conducts marriage and parenting seminars and sex education programmes in schools. While it says it is not overtly Christian, it is conservative.Its sex education website for teens - noapologies.sg - is pro-abstinence. It also publishes educational materials such as Straight Talk, a booklet on homosexuality aimed at teens. These were distributed through family service centres, schools, libraries and churches.Eight out of 10 other DBS card holders The Straits Times contacted did not know about the charity scheme, while nine had not heard of Focus on the Family.One who had, 25-year-old civil servant Andrew Tan, said he did not mind the tie-up.The DBS spokesman added: 'It was never the intention of the Bank to discriminate against any group by supporting the cause of children and learning in Asia - DBS believes in diversity and inclusion. Going forward, we will be conducting more extensive background checks.' Reflections on the DBS-FOTF faux-pas Some initial reflections, which might be premature, since the whole thing doesn't appear to have settled down yet.I. Did we do the right thing?When I told one of my friends about DBS's tie up with Focus on the Family and showed him the 'Boycott DBS' Facebook group, his reaction was something like "Does 'Focus on the Family' just mean charity for children?" I understood the concern because I had similar feelings too, although I'd known all along about FOTF's anti-gay agenda. The nagging thought in my mind was that this was an organisation that's registered as a "charity", and charity is not something you try to stop, because the word itself carries connotations of doing good.Eventually, however, I clicked the 'join' button on the Facebook group. I did it because I realised that FOTF was not really a "charity" to me. To me, there are two ways in which people do good. They either contribute in resources or kind to those less well-off than them, or they campaign for the eradication of injustices suffered by others. The first of these I call "charity", and the second I call "politics". The problem with FOTF, to me, was that it seemed to be a mix of both (in fact, a lot of "charities" probably are).A quick look at their website changed that perception for me. Most of their activities and programmes seemed to carry a participation fee, and one which isn't cheap at that. Also, their activities were mostly centred around promoting specific values and beliefs, rather than focussing on people in need of resources. For me, these things took FOTF firmly out of the charity sphere.Whatever little charity there was in FOTF was certainly overpowered by their anti-gay agenda, so, to me, FOTF was firmly on the "politics" side of the line. The significance of the difference between charity and politics, to me, is this. While I would squirm about trying to bring down a charity, I would certainly have no qualms about voicing my disapproval of political groups, because other people's political values and beliefs are not things I always have to agree with.II. What effect did we produce?I think there were three main ways in which people reacted to DBS's faux-pas. They either sent complaint emails to DBS, blogged their disapproval or joined the Facebook group. DBS's response to the public reaction can be broken down into three phases. Their initial email responses were mostly a denial of FOTF's politics. Their second batch of emails made it clear that they had intentionally removed all references to FOTF from their website. Their third batch of emails announced that they were "removing" the campaign.The need for a third batch of emails was clear. People were worried that DBS was continuing to support FOTF, only without the publicity ("under the table"). Merely saying that they were "removing" the campaign, however, has done little to dispel that fear. First, the word "removing" is awkward when it refers to a "campaign". Second, given the public's worry, DBS could have come out more explicitly to say that they were no longer supporting FOTF.I think, however, that we ought to give DBS the benefit of the doubt, because they bothered to generate a third set of emails that was different from the second. That, to me, indicates that they had changed their position. And to me, "removing", although in this case somewhat awkwardly used, probably means "completely pulled out of". I think, therefore, that we ought not to doubt DBS's good faith on this issue, and support the stand they have taken.Even if DBS has not pulled out of the deal completely, I think their public statements are more than what one could hope for. Companies don't do charity out of the goodness of their hearts (they have none); they do it to generate good publicity that in turn generates profits. The publicity, therefore, is key. If DBS has given up on the publicity aspect of this charity campaign, they're just throwing their money away, which I think is not an easy thing for them to decide to do, because overall they'd make a loss. Furthermore, DBS is probably locked into a contract with FOTF, which might mean they still have to make some contribution to FOTF or negotiate their way out of the deal. Either way, DBS loses money. The bottom-line is this: there's very little DBS can do to make money from this campaign anymore. That means that after this year, DBS is likely to be doubly careful when choosing charities, which is already something to be very happy about.III. Did we do things the right way?A friend of mine commented that we've put "unfair pressure" on DBS, and that we're no different from the Thai protesters holding two airports hostage. I understand his reaction because this is what people with an anti-gay agenda have tried to make everyone so afraid of: that gay people and their supporters will use pressure tactics take over the world.I think this overestimates what we did by a lot. The number of people who joined the Facebook group has not yet hit 1,000, and when DBS sent out its second batch of emails, I think that number was closer to 500. DBS could not have received more email complaints than that. If you count people who've expressed their displeasure by blogging, I'd say there are maybe 20, at most 30. Many of these people weren't even customers (myself, for example), so DBS couldn't really have been worried about their bottom-line. Also consider that DBS has the financial clout of being Singapore's largest bank and it has 4,500,000 potential customers in Singapore alone. Given all of this, I think that we didn't really have much say in the matter. We also didn't take any physical action, like blocking access to DBS ATMs or waving banners outside their offices. I think we put extremely little pressure on DBS, if at all we did.I think that to assert that DBS has backed out of this deal due to "pressure" is also unfair to DBS. It undermines the independence of DBS's decision-making, making them look like a bunch of spineless people swaying in the wind. In fact, DBS's emails have emphasised their commitment to non-discrimination, diversity and inclusion. If they were merely responding to pressure from us, they wouldn't have had to make those statements.IV. Why, then, did DBS back down?I'm guessing that DBS's of choice of "charity" was a mistake in the first place, and that they had not done their due diligence. There are probably two reasons why DBS backed down. First, they may have realised that supporting FOTF was going to tarnish their corporate image, especially in the international market, since FOTF is internationally notorious for its anti-gay agenda. We may have brought this to their attention, but that hardly amounts to pressure.Given the tone of their emails, however, I'd like to credit DBS with more than mere commercial astuteness. I think DBS did what they did simply because they believed it was the right thing to do. And for that, I say yay for DBS. DBS replies. About a week ago DBS announced that it was supporting Focus on the Family, a notoriously anti-gay lobby group, as part of a Christmas "charity" programme. This is an email from DBS to me, indicating that they are no longer going ahead with their FOTF tie-up.Dear Mr XXX (me)We thank you for your feedback and appreciate your concerns.In line with DBS' corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts that are geared towards supporting children and learning, several welfare organisations that support similar causes were short-listed.It was never the intention of the Bank to discriminate against any group through this initiative. Nevertheless given feedback received, to demonstrate that DBS believes in diversity and inclusion, with immediate effect we will be removing the Christmas charity campaign.DBS will continue to play its part to support the community at large, and we hope to have your kind understanding and support.Yours sincerelyXXXAssistant Vice PresidentCustomer Care & Feedback ManagementConsumer Banking Group Singapore Don't use your DBS card this Christmas... ...unless you want to spread hate, instead of love.That's right: for every $300 charged to your DBS credit card this season, DBS will make a contribution to Focus on the Family, a notoriously anti-gay "charity".What'll it be for you this Christmas? Love or Hate?Click here to make your choice clear.[UPDATE (3 Dec 2008): looks like DBS is not going ahead with this anymore. Click here to read their email to me.] S'pore copies HK HK has had this technology since God knows when and I've always thought we should have it too but now I think I'd actually rather have the $12.7m returned to us than have it spent on something that's not strictly necessary. And does this thing really cost $12.7m? Seems like a LOT to me. After all, the location of the trains relative to the station is already known, since the stations get announced all the time, so not much technology cost there. We're not talking about installing a new GPS tracking system or something like that. All that has to be done is fix on some LED lights and a map and do some wiring. $12.7m? hmm.Active map for trains: A waste of moneyI REFER to last Saturday's article, 'MRT trains to get active map system'. The new map will feature a light for each train stop to show travel progress and a flashing light will indicate approaching stations.The new map system will cost SMRT $12.7 million. This is a waste of money for something so unnecessary.Currently, commuters can already hear announcements of approaching stations. And until recently, they could also see the station name on signs at each station. But now, these signs are obscured by advertising panels across the top portion of each window panel on many trains.I suggest SMRT simply remove the advertising panels and save the $12.7 million. Otherwise, commuters will once again have to bear the cost with an increase in fares.As a commuter, and in these hard times, I prefer to be able to see the station name on arrival, rather than pay higher fares for some extra blinking lights on a map system that is perfectly adequate. This is the kind of marginal increase in commuter experience low-income Singaporeans can do without.Monica Cheang (Ms) Hope over fear. Unity over division. Those OMG moments just keep coming...