A Change of Address Those who have followed my blog would know that I had spent a month from July-Aug'06 experimenting over at Wordpress.com before returning to Blogger. I was still fiddling with my Wordpress blog while I was blogging over here. I guess I couldn't get it off my system. I've decided to go back to my Wordpress blog to give it another go. ;-)Please point your links & feeds to this URL: http://pseudonymity.wordpress.com/At present I've not updated my Wordpress blog with new posts but I will be doing so very soon. I'm just doing some cleaning-up & updating over there.I would like to thank the people who have "switched" back & forth with me for their understanding & patience. Sorry for any inconvenience caused okay people!! And welcome to future readers who stumble upon or get referred to my blog. :-)25 Nov@7.52pm update: Heads-up folks!! I've started blogging over at my wordpress blog. I've started over there with a bit of sex in the city and a video message by Chee Soon Juan from prison. ;-) Light a candle for innocent victims of online child pornography There's a 4yr old girl in my block whom I see almost everyday. She plays in the corridor. She's chubby, cute and very friendly. Whenever she sees me she'll give a smile that can warm any heart.One day I saw her sitting on the steps looking dejected. I sat next to her and asked why she looked so unhappy. And she told me, Blossom had left the Powerpuff Girls. She was obviously distressed. So I told her to watch the next episode 'cos I believed Blossom will get back with Bubbles & Buttercup. She felt a bit better after that.But I was also very worried and concerned for her 'cos whenever I see her she's playing alone outside her house. Out of sight from her mom. I found that very disturbing as it only takes a blink of an eye for a kid to disappear either on his/her own or taken by somebody else. So whenever I see her I tell her to be very careful and not stray far from her house.I thought about this incident when I came across this campaign for innocent victims of online child pornography. Click the banner below......................... Watch CNN report on LEEs vs FEER I didn't catch this CNN report recently so my thanx to t3htarik who posted this on YouTube. Its about the defamation lawsuit brought against the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) by Singapore's first & current Prime Ministers, father & son, Lee Kuan Yew & Lee Hsien Loong. Refer to FEER Saga in the sidebar on your right about this case. For now here's the CNN report......... S'pore ranks 105th in the world in terms of income equality Singapore's tax proposals add to worries over its great divideBy John Burton in Singapore, Financial TimesPublished: November 15 2006Plans by Singapore to raise its sales tax while lowering corporate taxes have added fuel to a debate over an income gap that is becoming the city-state's biggest economic and political problem.Although Singapore is Asia's richest country after Japan on a per capita basis, it ranks 105th in the world in terms of income equality, based on United Nations data.The income disparity poses a political threat to the long-ruling government of the People's Action party, which lost votes in the last election in May over the issue.Singapore has long resisted introducing a full-scale social welfare system, saying it would sap workers of initiative. "But it has got to the stage where they realise that they need to build a secure social welfare net. That's a breakthrough," said Manu Bhaskaran of the Centennial Group, an economic consultancy.Lee Hsien Loong, prime minister, this week said Singapore would increase its sales tax from 5 per cent to7 per cent to help finance more government spending for the poor while suggesting corporate tax rates would be cut to enhance the country's competitiveness in attracting foreign investment.The proposals have not gone down well with the public, judging by postings on the internet, the main forum of local debate given Singapore's state-controlled media. A frequent complaint is that an increased sales tax would hit low-income groups the hardest."A consumption tax is regressive," said Song Seng Wun, regional economist with CIMB-GK Research in Singapore. "Inflation is higher for the bottom 20 per cent of the population, at 2.2 per cent against the Singapore average of 0.5 per cent."But Mr Bhaskaran believes that the government might try to tailor social welfare spending to minimise the impact of the tax on the poor. "It depends on what offsets the government offers," he said.Mr Lee said the government would "tilt the playing field in favour of low-income groups" by offering education and housing grants, and wage subsidies.The government blames the growing income disparity on the effects of globalisation affecting its open economy. The income gap is now at its widest since independence in 1965, with a noticeable deterioration since the late 1980s. There are worries the gap could widen further due to an ageing population and Singapore's low birth rate.Pay for low-skilled workers has fallen. Singapore does not have a minimum wage or comprehensive unemployment insurance and a large influx of temporary foreign workers has put downward pressure on wages. The government says its stance is necessary to keep Singapore competitive against low-cost countries in the region.Most welfare costs are taken care of by a mandatory savings scheme that pays for mortgages and healthcare as well as pensions. But workers who contributed to the system when wages were low are finding it difficult to survive in retirement as living costs have risen sharply.Mr Lee said Singapore could not afford to adopt a Scandinavian-style welfare system because it would drive up costs and "no investments will come".Instead, Singapore is expected to adhere to its current model of combining targeted government welfare support with efforts by private charities to provide additional aid to the needy.The government believes continued economic growth will eventually benefit low-income groups. "I don't see the income gap widening forever," said Mr Lee.But some economists ask whether a higher sales tax may harm efforts to attract more tourists, since prices tend to be higher already than neighbouring Malaysia or Thailand.Opposition groups say Singapore can afford to spend more on its poor since the government's financial reserves are among the largest in the world when measured against gross domestic product. Each day is a struggle I've not been blogging much lately as much as I would like to. Not that there isn't anything to blog about. Man that would be the day!!! :-)But I still keep up with the news and goings-on from several sources. Be it the Internet especially local blogs, et.al. and as usual I "cautiously" read and watch the local news. I say "cautiously" 'cos the local news media being what it is, in bed with the ruling party, and the bias stinks like shit especially its coverage of domestic politics, etc, etc.I've mentioned before I'm an average joe....wait...make that a below average Singaporean trying to survive each day as best I can. I don't go out much. Heck, I haven't stepped into a cinema in ages!! Except for those obscenely highly paid ruling party ministers; the rich "elite" and those who generally have money to burn, most Singaporeans will agree that stepping out of the house can pretty quickly burn a hole in your pocket!! Unless of course you're just going to the park or beach or even downstairs your neighbourhood for a walk or something. Come to think of it, even then you still spend some money!! :( :)With each day a struggle to get by, I'm just too exhausted physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually.Doesn't mean I'm gonna stop blogging or anything. Well, my apologies if this is too depressing a post but I thought of just sharing my thoughts. ;-) Web's love affair with blogging Blogosphere sees healthy growthBBC News OnlineNov 8, 2006The web's love affair with blogging shows no signs of abating according to the latest report from blog tracking firm Technorati.Every day 100,000 new blogs are created and 1.3 million posts are made, it found during its quarterly survey.Postings intensify around significant events such as the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in the summer.There has also been an increase in the number of blogs being written in the Farsi language.Farsi - a Persian language spoken in Iran and Afghanistan - has moved into the top ten languages of the blogosphere for the first time."It indicates that blogging continues to play a critical role in debates about the important issues of our time" said David Sifry, the founder of Technorati.Technorati is now tracking more than 57 million blogs, of which it believes around 55% are 'active' - updated at least every three months.While the daily figure of 100,000 new weblogs is down on the 160,000 total from June 2006 it does not indicate a slowdown in growth rates.It just means that more spamblogs or splogs - fake blogs used for promotion of affiliated websites - are being filtered out of the index.Technorati ranks blogs depending on how many sites link to it. The blogging elite - weblogs which have more than 500 other blogs linking to them - number about 4,000.Many of these blogs have been in existence for several years and tend to have new posts at least twice a day."Some of these are fully-fledged professional enterprises that post many, many times per day and behave increasingly like our friends in the mainstream media. The impact of these bloggers on our cultures and democracies is increasingly dramatic," said Mr Sifry.English and Japanese remain the two most popular languages in the blogosphere. Despite problems for bloggers in China, Chinese remains at number three.While the above report is about the blogosphere as a whole, here's an abstract from a paper written by James Gomez about democracy and the Internet in Singapore.............Although the issue of political expression by ordinary internet users in Singapore has received the attention of some scholars, very little has been specifically written on the impact of their use during general elections in the city-state.Since the arrival of the internet in Singapore in 1995, the People’s Action Party (PAP) government has actively sought to control the supply of political content by internet users during election time.This paper looks at how online political expression and the regulations to control it have shaped up during the last three general elections in 1997, 2001 and 2006. In absolute electoral terms there seems to have been no impact over the last three general elections.However, as a supplementary medium for alternative information during elections, the internet has made some headway. It remains to be seen if this headway will have an impact on the absolute electoral results in future elections or become the target of more control.....continue reading In his own words - WP member's resignation Goh Meng Seng, who was part of the Workers' Party's Aljunied GRC team which contested in the 2006 General Election, has resigned from the party. The news of his resignation is not on the scale of Donald Rumsfeld's but nevertheless I was quite surprised.What follows is Goh Meng Seng's reasons for his resignation in his own words. In his clarification, he refers to two reports by TODAY & Straits Times who are part of the pro-PAP govt news media. Nonetheless for the benefit of readers, I've re-produced both the reports below......My Resignation from Workers' PartyI did not expect to write this so soon as I wanted to wait until the present parliamentary sitting is over before I make any public statement on my resignation which I think is not news worthy at all, but may be a distraction to Sylvia Lim's maiden speech in parliament.Anyway, for some reason, the ST reporter got to know about it sooner than I desire. I granted the interview with the view that it is better to make it clear right from the start rather than allowing the reporter to write with all sorts of speculations in mind.The following are just some facts that I need to clarify:1) I resigned from Workers' Party on the day when the misinformation of I threatening to sue an internet forummer was reported in Today. This is due to my private assessment on the damage done to WP's public image despite the fact that I have clarified the facts on the matter to the Today's reporter. I guess Today will never make any reports on misinformation about any PAP MPs or ministers with their clarifications put side by side. Well, this is life in Singapore.2) For some reasons, ST chose not to report the specific reason I gave them about the damage done by the Today's report on the misinformation (though with my clarifications by the side).3) Neverthless, damage has been done on WP's image. I have talked about the importance of accountability for all my adult life and I think in view of the situation then, I will have to practice what I preach. It is a matter of personal integrity to me. If I do not practice what I preach, on what moral grounds do I stand when I question the ruling party about accountability in their governance?4) This is the reason that I resigned. The speculation proposed by the ST reporter that I quit because I am unhappy about the rules which are going to be implemented (over internet engagement) is totally unfounded. It is only healthy that people have diverse views about anything in a political party. The most important thing is that, at the end of the day, we will come to a consensus and move on from there. It would be a total disaster for a political party to have members agreeing 100% on everything everytime.5) None of the CEC members have requested me to resign over this matter. In actual fact, some has tried in private to convince me to stay on. My heart felt thanks to them but I think it is an important political point to be made.6) For those people who like to speculate all sorts of things and come up with all sorts of conspiracy theory, they will be very disappointed. This is a simple resignation over a simple reason.The most common reaction from people is that I am quitting politics altogether. Some will be relieved and some will be disappointed to learn that this is definitely not the case. ;)My political vision and dream is to work towards an alternative political system for Singapore, to initiate positive change or reform to Singapore's political system. Joining a political party to provide meaningful political competition to the ruling party is merely one of the many ways or possibilities in achieving this goal.I have written in this blog about the delimma between the choices of partisan politics and NGO's role of creating more political awareness among the populace. In order for the reform to the political system to be successful, it will need the backing and support of Singaporeans. This could only achieve when the political consciousness and awareness of our citizens are raised to a certain level.Beside exploring the idea of forming or joining NGO, I have even explored into the possibilities of forming an independent alternative private think tank for all alternative parties. Political parties need policy research capabilities in order to perform their duties effectively. PAP, as the ruling party, has the support of the government funded think tanks to provide them this policy research capabilities. Alternative parties are deprived of such much needed resources.I could even help out any political parties in various areas so to help the system grows. There are so many other ways one could contribute to the ultimate aim of reforming the political system beside standing in the frontline as a candidate during GE.Of course, I may not discount the possibility of joinging any political party again or even form my own political party in future, but I think there are so many options available for anybody who want to do their part in initiating changes to the political landscape!Goh Meng SengAn update: An intense debate & discussion is taking place here at Sammyboy.com.**********Workers' Party netiquette comes under fireTODAY, Wednesday • October 25, 2006Tor Ching Lichingli@mediacorp.com.sgSOME Workers' Party members have recently become entangled in an Internet forum "brawl", with mudslinging and name-calling aplenty — to the extent of sparking a thread on the Young People's Action Party online forum entitled "WP members being complained (sic) on internet forums". This has garnered more than 80 postings since Oct 14.One netizen, Mohammad Razari — who claims to be a third-year Singapore Polytechnic electrical engineering student residing in Hougang Ave 1 and says he is a former participant in WP's outreach programmes — sent a complaint letter to WP chairman Sylvia Lim and secretary-general Low Thia Khiang, citing what he thought to be unacceptable online conduct by WP members such as party webmaster Goh Meng Seng.He said Mr Goh, a computer retail businessman, was narrow-minded to have called a forum participant "scheming" and "lacking in integrity" after "losing an argument". He also thought Mr Goh had threatened to sue another forum participant for implying that Mr Goh visited the www.sggirls.com forum.In general, WP members were accused of being "argumentative", attempting to "sow discord" between various party supporters and even of taking the guise of online "clones" — or posting replies under alternative usernames — to "influence perception".These online rumblings are reflected on Sammyboy threads called "Complaint letter to WP Central Executive Committee" and "Any respond (sic), follow up from Sylvia and WP?" with more than 40 and nearly 200 postings respectively.When approached by Today for a response, Mr Goh clarified he had "categorically said (he) will not sue" the forum participant for his misinformed statement. He explained the SG Girls forum shared the same database as www.sgforums.com, and that he does not frequent the former site.As for his harsh words used on the forum participant, Mr Goh said: "What I said could have been harsh but you have to look at it in context. People who argue with me will find me argumentative. But since his agenda is questionable, I am not going to engage him in discussions any more."Mr Goh, who has been active in the forum scene since 2003, said he still thinks Internet forums are a good venue to answer critics and eventually win them over. Nevertheless, he added that postings on such freewheeling forums "have to be taken with a pinch of salt".As with all things online, not every posting can be taken at face value. WP Youth Wing president Perry Tong recently filed a police report after someone impersonated his identity on the Sammyboy online forums — also on Oct 14, coincidentally.In the impersonated posting, "Perry Tong" sent WP member "Melvin Tan" a message that read: "We must keep 'forumers' here constantly updated about WP activities. Keep clear of mudslinging and personal attacks. I have already instructed Meng Seng and Andrew to stop."In an email response to Today, WP chairman Ms Lim said: "We are aware that there is activity in the Sammyboy forums involving WP members. Such communications are engaged in the personal capacity of the members concerned as we have not appointed any official spokesman for Internet communications. The official position of the party is to be found on our website and official statements issued."Ms Lim added the party is reviewing some existing "general guidelines" for office bearers regarding Internet communications, "with a view to issuing some guidelines to all members".In view of the online backlash to WP's presence, Internet observer Siew Kum Hong said: "One really has to be very disciplined and restrained when participating in such forums. If one engages long enough in such a medium, it is inevitable there will be a backlash from the community. It's then a question of how one deals with it. This is probably why you don't see the PAP MPs engaging in such Internet forums."In channels such as blogs or websites — which are employed by PAP MPs, such as the www.p65.sg site — one can control one's message and how one chooses to engage the public, he said.Nanyang Technological University Associate Professor in Political Science, Prof Ho Khai Leong believes both extremes — that of the MPs' aim to "reach, teach and preach" and the netizens' mission to "analyse, scrutinise and criticise" — will help mould cyberspace.He said: "Both these approaches, in their extreme forms, will no doubt invite criticisms, which I think is healthy. As political blogs and bloggers and forumers mature and become more mundane — as we are seeing in many blogs — the more serious and thoughtful blogs and forums will make the more absurd and outlandish ones irrelevant in our everyday discourse of politics in cyberspace."**********Senior WP member quits over Net fracasSenior Workers' Party member Goh Meng Seng takes responsibility for tarnishing the party's reputation by making critical remarks against online forum participantStraits Times, Wednesday, November 8, 2006By Peh Shing Huei & Ken KwekSenior Workers' Party member Goh Meng Seng has quit the party, taking responsibility for Internet postings he said had tarnished the WP's reputation."I need to be accountable for it," said the 36-year-old, who was part of the WP's Aljunied team in the last polls.However, sources say he was also unhappy with impending party guidelines to curtail members' postings on the Internet, a claim he denied.Mr Goh, an active netizen, had attracted brickbats recently on online forums for harsh language, calling a forum participant "scheming" and "lacking in integrity."A netizen even fired a letter to party chairman Sylvia Lim, complaining about WP members' online behaviour.Mr Goh told The Straits Times yesterday: "It has created a bad image for the party and the party must come first. Someone must be accountable."He stressed that he was not pushed out of the party and that his comrades had asked him to stay.His resignation two weeks ago came as a shock to party members. He was a central executive committee (CEC) member and part of the WP's "A team" led by Ms Lim, which claimed 43.9 per cent of the valid votes in Aljunied GRC during May's General Election.Mr Goh, who joined the WP in 2001, said it was not an easy decision to quit. "I may not be a veteran who has been with the party for over 40 years. But there is still an emotional attachment," he said."I have no regrets," he said repeatedly, adding in Mandarin: "Tian xia mei you bu san zhi yan xi." The Chinese proverb he quoted states that there is no banquet in this world that lasts forever.He said he has not thought of joining another opposition party and will still help out with WP activities.Ms Lim told The Straits Times last night the party is "always sad to lose people."Added WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang: "I have to respect his choice. I respect the individual's choice, and he has made his contributions to the party in the past." He did not want to elaborate on the reasons behind Mr Goh's departure.On the party's Internet guidelines, he said: 'There was some feedback from younger members of the party who are active on the Internet, that perhaps we should have certain "netiquette.""Since it's something from the ground that younger members would like to see, the CEC will take it up and see what is the best we can come up with." Defendants boycott trial in kangaroo court Media Release: Defendants boycott trialSDP8 Nov 2006This statement was read out by Mr Gandhi Ambalam in court today.We, the Defendants, wish to make the following statement:Under Article 12 of Republic of Singapore Constitution, citizens are entitled to a fair trial and equal treatment under the law. In this trial you, Judge Eddy Tham, have ruled on dozens of occasions that our questions to Prosecution witnesses irrelevant. This has prevented us from adducing evidence to establish our defence on two fronts:One, that the police have acted at the behest of the PAP to victimize us for our election activity on 22 April 2006. By preventing us from cross-examining the police witnesses on this matter, we are unable to show that we have been discriminated against and victimized by the PAP.Two, that the police have no intention to grant a permit on any occasion for outdoors political speeches. Thus we cannot be accused of not having a permit. By disallowing our questions to elicit information from the police about this matter, the Judge has effectively undermined our defence and passed a guilty verdict.These and other decisions and actions by Judge Eddy Tham clearly show that we are not receiving a fair trial. We have no reason to expect that an appeal will make any difference.In the circumstances, we are left with no choice but to boycott the rest of the trial. We will therefore not participate in the remainder of the proceedings and will remain silent to protest our treatment in this Court.Signed,Gandhi AmbalamChee Soon JuanYap Keng Ho8 November 2006 Depeche Mode: Going strong after more then 25 years It was the beginning of the 1980s when I first heard the music of Depeche Mode. I've been hooked ever since!! They've been around now for more then 25 years. Back then not many people thought they'll last this long. But they did. And thank god for that!! ;-)Recently, Depeche Mode won Best Group at the MTV Europe Music Awards 2006. Here are a selection of their music videos I would like to share with current & new fans-in-the-making. You can view many others over at YouTube.The first song is a live version of Everything Counts which introduced me to DM. Its followed by A Question of Time; Personal Jesus; and I Feel You... Police Sergeant says there's no difference between the PAP and Government Police shocker: No difference between PAP and GovernmentSDP6 Nov 2006Sergeant Kenny Quek raised eyebrows in court today when he told the Judge that there was no difference between the PAP and the Government.This comment was made under questioning from Mr Gandhi Ambalam who, together with Dr Chee Soon Juan and Mr Yap Keng Ho, are charged with speaking in public without a licence on 22 Apr 06 during the 2006 general elections in May.Sgt Quek said that he saw the Defendants "conveying a message to listeners for a period of time" on the said morning and decided to warn the Defendants for committing an offence.He added that he also heard Mr Ambalam say that he was not going to "apologise to the Government" over the NKF article published in The New Democrat, the SDP's newspaper.(This was obviously not true as the Government had not demanded any apology from the SDP over the said article. It was PAP leaders, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong, who had sued the SDP, not the Singapore Government).Mr Ambalam then asked the police witness whether he knew the difference between the PAP and the Government, to which the officer replied that there was none. This drew an audible chuckle from those present in the courtroom."That's the kind of education system we have here," Mr Ambalam lamented.Dr Chee then picked up the point during his cross-examination and told Sgt Quek that since the witness was a police officer, he was also a Government servant. By extension, Sgt Quek would see himself as a PAP servant since he saw no difference between the Government and PAP.The witness then quickly retracted his statement and corrected himself, insisting that the PAP and the Government "were two different matters."Even the Judge had to ask the witness to clarify his statement as he had recorded earlier that the witness had said that the two entities were one and the same.Based on this Dr Chee then proceeded to question the witness on whether the police would have taken action if it had been someone else instead of SDP members who carried out the activity on 22 Apr.The Judge repeatedly ruled the question irrelevant and refused to allow Dr Chee to adduce evidence that the police had acted in a discriminatory fashion."This is especially significant given the fact that Sgt Quek felt that the PAP and the Government are the same political entity," Dr Chee argued.It would not be an exaggeration to say that the police, under the instructions of the PAP, decided to take action against the SDP in order to cripple its election effort, Dr Chee pointed.Under the Constitution, he continued, citizens should all be treated equally under the law and the police had an obligation to be even-handed.The event had taken place with the elections as a backdrop and that the SDP had wanted to campaign on the sensitive NKF scandal.The Judge, however, remained adamant in refusing to allow Dr Chee to pursue this line of questioning."If that's the case, then I have no further questions," Dr Chee concluded.An update on Nov 8@1420hrs: A little fish finding her way in the world has two posts about the differences between government and a political party: What is in a government? and Speechless. Economic might has allowed Singapore to slip under the world's human rights radar Spotlight on Singapore: Money talks, silences human rightsby Bernadette Radford with inputs from Shipra DingareHuman Rights Features, 2-6 Oct’06Weekly series for the UN Human Rights CouncilSouth Asia Human Rights Documentation CentreThe annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in Suntec City, Singapore, revealed the jarring contrasts of the wealthy city-state. On the one hand, Singapore's affluence and modernity was on parade, with lush new landscaping and newly renovated bridges and flyovers, traversed by the world's most powerful financiers and businessmen in over 800 limousines and BMW sedans. Simultaneously, Singapore banned outdoor demonstrations so as not to detract from the pageantry, and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng asserted in January 2006 that protestors breaking the law would face full penalties including caning for those who engage in violence.Indeed, Singapore managed to assert its authoritative muscle, denying anti-poverty activists entry to the main venue, leading even the IMF and the World Bank to record their disapproval of such strong arm measures. This state of affairs reflects the attitude of Singaporean authorities: economic progress has first priority, with human rights a distant second.Democracy is also not a high priority in Singapore; the recent celebrations marking Singapore's 41st year of independence simultaneously marked the 41st year of rule by the authoritarian People's Action Party (PAP). Citizens are not permitted to circulate newspapers, make broadcasts, hold demonstrations or even speak to a public audience without prior government authorisation. The treatment of opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, arrested in March 2006 for questioning the independence of the Singaporean judiciary and summoned to court in May for speaking publicly without a permit, attests to these realities. Migrant workers are particularly vulnerable in Singapore and are frequently subject to physical abuse and exploitation.So why is the international community so reluctant to speak out in the face of so much oppression? The answer is simple. The economies of the world's most powerful voices are tightly intertwined with commercial interests in Singapore. The European Union (EU) and the United States have substantial business interests in Singapore, which would be compromised if they were to condemn the oppression perpetrated by the Singaporean government.A vital trade and business linkThe IMF-World Bank meeting was a premier opportunity for Singapore to present itself as a world convention and exhibition centre, as well as an international hub for business and banking. As a small city-state with few primary resources, Singapore's development strategy has of necessity focused outward, relying on external investment and trade. In this it has been notably successful. After borrowing from the World Bank in the 1960s and 70s, loans ceased by 1980 and Singapore remained resilient during the East Asian Crisis of the 1990s. Since then it has hosted IMF and World Bank seminars on crisis prevention and management. Currently, over 7,000 multinational corporations from the US, Japan, and Europe are invested in Singapore. Businesses take advantage of low tax rates and tariff barriers as well as liberal investment laws.Singapore is also a crucial actor in world trade. The port of Singapore is one of the busiest in the world, facilitating total trade of 716 billion Singapore dollars (about US$438 billion) and trade growth of 14 percent in 2005, with future growth expected at seven to nine percent. Singapore is also a member of the ASEAN Free Trade Area and has concluded bilateral free trade agreements with countries including Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Jordan, India, and Panama, among others. The US, the EU, Japan, China and Malaysia all have important trade links with Singapore. The US and the EU each receive 10 to 13 per cent of Singapore's exports annually and each provide between 12 to 14 percent of its imports.Singapore is Europe's largest trading partner among the ASEAN countries and the 11th largest importer from the US. Malaysia is Singapore's primary trade partner and has offered no criticism of human rights abuses in Singapore. This is not unexpected, given Malaysia's own human rights record.However, the silence of countries that profess great concern for human rights issues is somewhat more conspicuous.Why the US and the EU need SingaporeIn 2004, the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (USSFTA) came into force, marking the first free trade agreement between the US and an Asian nation. Two years later, US and Singaporean government officials applauded the 13 percent growth in trade between the two countries since the agreement came into force. The USSFTA particularly aims to increase the trade in services, of increasing importance to both countries. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the "strong economic ties" are broadening into new sectors, such as information technology, health, and education. But the US has more to gain from Singapore than bilateral trade benefits. Economically, it is hoped that the USSFTA will provide a springboard for further trade agreements which will lead to "a network of FTA's in the region" and better trading relationships with countries like Indonesia. Strategically, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs views US-Singapore relations as increasingly "multi-faceted," encompassing not only economic but also defence interests. It should also be noted that increased cooperation between the US and Singapore has arisen out of the global campaign against terrorism.In its determination to cement relations with Singapore, the US has essentially ignored Singapore's human rights record. While the US State Department's human rights country reports annually acknowledge violations there, including infringements on freedom of the press and abuse of foreign workers, the deliberations of the US Congress subcommittee on commerce, trade and consumer protection on the USSFTA featured little anxiety regarding Singapore's human rights record.The statement of Thea M Lee, chief international economist of the American Federation of Labour and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), urged Congress to reject the USSFTA, highlighting its effective failure to commit the parties to international labour standards. However, the legislation passed easily in both the House and the Senate.The EU appears similarly determined to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in Singapore. In an overview of relations with Singapore, the EU describes the country as "an important trading partner" and emphasises its strategic position for facilitating trade between Europe and Asia. The 2003 launch of "A New Partnership with South East Asia" described Singapore as crucial for the sound implementation of the programme. Growing recognition of mutual economic interests led to the establishment of Singapore-EC Consultations (SECC) in 2000, which led to joint development projects in the region. Recently, Singapore has been urging the EU to forge a bilateral free trade agreement. There are hopes on both sides that relations will embrace common endeavours in transport, intellectual property, and research and development.Clearly, the governments of the EU and the US have given priority to strong economic relations with Singapore rather than human rights issues. In this, the influence of the business community is readily apparent.Singapore's responseSingapore's reaction to peaceful protests fits the pattern of past responses to criticisms on human rights issues. The Singaporean government has masked abuses with the flawed ‘Asian values’ discourse. Censorship measures, authoritarian governance and laws governing freedom of speech and freedom of assembly have been excused as the "Asian way." Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew claimed that Asians have "little doubt that a society with communitarian values, where the interests of society take precedence over that of the individual, suits them better than the individualism of America." When Reporters Sans Frontières' Annual Press Freedom Index ranked Singapore 147th, Information Minister Lee Boon Yang insisted that Singapore did not operate according to "Western" values. He said that journalists in Singapore do not have an "adversarial role" and instead contribute to "nation building." After a recent visit to Australia and New Zealand, Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong expressed the view that rule by a single party was more efficient and better for Singapore.Break the silenceThe parade of power and wealth in September 2006 demonstrated that human rights abuses in Singapore continue to be tolerated by the international community. It shows that economic might has allowed Singapore to slip under the world’s human rights radar. The new beginning epitomised by the Human Rights Council must be used to ensure that such States receive the attention and censure they deserve.TextboxGood for corporations, bad for human rightsWHILE the World Bank has taken to professing concern for human rights issues, its concern was clearly not an obstacle to the choice of Singapore as a meeting venue. The World Bank and IMF could not have been unaware that Singapore would place restrictions on the right to protest.In a case decided late last year, the Singapore High Court refused to uphold this constitutionallyguaranteed right and stated that the police could legitimately disband peaceful protesters, even if they numbered only four.That human rights are not a prerequisite to being a top business destination appears to be the consensus in the business community. According to the World Bank ranking of 155 countries, Singapore is among the easiest places to do business, second only to New Zealand.Singapore is also renowned for labour laws that are favourable to employers. The negative impact these laws have on workers is less well known. There are few restrictions on a corporation's ability to hire and fire and no minimum wage. Furthermore, there is a large pool of domestic foreign labourers who are virtually unprotected by Singaporean law and are frequently subject to exploitative work conditions.Although Singaporean courts are known to support the government’s agenda of silencing critics of the regime through defamation actions, the Hong Kong based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy recently named Singaporean courts the best in Asia. Such assessments highlight efficiency but leave other important issues ignored, such as judicial independence or the role of the courts in perpetuating unfair governmental restrictions. For all current and new James Bond fans I've been a huge James Bond fan for god knows how long!! I've watched every one of the 20 Bond movies many times over and never tire of it!! So one can imagine how excited I am about Casino Royale, with Daniel Craig as agent 007!!In anticipation of the release of the 21st Bond movie in Singapore on 16 Nov, here are a couple of videos for all Bond fans (and new fans in the making!!) out there. The first is a trailer for Casino Royale. The other two are documentaries about 30mins each. Enjoy!! ;-) "We're Winning This Thing" in Iraq Here's a video from Vanity Fair about the Iraq war. It maybe short but it sure as hell makes its point loud and clear!!Also from Vanity Fair.....As Iraq slips further into chaos, the war's neoconservative boosters have turned sharply on the Bush administration, charging that their grand designs have been undermined by White House incompetence.In a series of exclusive interviews, Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, David Frum, and others play the blame game with shocking frankness.Target No. 1: the president himself.......continue to read Vanity Fair's exclusive Now They Tell Us Controlling what you hear & see - A voice from the past Since my post on the TODAY saga, I've been trying to recall where i've read about an incident which happened a few years ago that exposed our pro-PAP govt media.But I couldn't put my finger on what that incident was. An online search led me to what took place 6yrs ago.A local radio journalist with 93.8FM (its called 938Live now) went on-air to voice her displeasure with the radio station's management on the morning of Dec 11, 2000 and Think Centre, a local human rights NGO, exposed; pursued and publicised the incident.In a report on that same day, Think Centre wrote "At 9.30am, the radio presenter announced that News Radio 93.8 FM’s management was unhappy with the earlier report and has asked that only a re-edited version of the programme be aired. The re-edited version took away any mention of JB Jeyaretnam and his letter to PM Goh. UN’s Kofi Anan’s Human Rights message was also excluded.......The programme ended with the presenter once again announcing that the second airing of International Human Rights Day report was re-edited on the request of News Radio 93.8 FM’s management."You can read a fuller account of this over at Think Centre's Radio Programme Re-edited.It was truly a Uniquely Singapore moment! ;-) S'pore is a leading surveillance society says Privacy International study Click to enlarge mapI'm not surprised. Back in Aug'06, I wrote a post titled Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? - Privacy in a Police State. I'm bringing this up 'cos Privacy International has released a study today in which Singapore is ranked one of the world's leading surveillance societies.Known as the Privacy and Human Rights Global Study, Singapore fares badly in practically every category: Constitutional protection; statutory protection; privacy enforcement, visual surveillance, etc, etc. Its overall score is one of the worst at 1.4 which is considered an "endemic surveillance society".You can view the full results in this ratings table. And read the country report on Singapore from page 44. Both documents are in PDF. Bringing TODAY to its knees Firstly, I would like to thank the anonymous individual who alerted me to this by leaving a comment in my last post. He/she referred me to a message posted over at Sammyboy.com's Alfresco Coffeeshop.Before getting to that message, I think a bit of background is in order to put the message in context and give readers a clearer picture of what this is all about.As TODAY archives its report after awhile, I'm posting this report here in full. I'm no conspiracy theorist but I had my suspicions when I read this report..........Key changes at MediaCorpMoves in line with aim to become Asia's top media companyWednesday • November 1, 2006AS THE world neatly folds into one long, connected information superhighway, homegrown media conglomerate MediaCorp yesterday announced key structural and management changes to position itself as Asia's top media company.Said Mr Lucas Chow, CEO of MediaCorp: "As digital technology brings about greater media convergence, we ourselves are forging our own media platforms more closely together. The changes we're implementing capture that spirit of convergence."Among the key changes announced yesterday was the company's move towards providing the consumer with more choices of where and how to consume their news, with an aggressive plan to merge its news operations across television, radio, print, the Internet and mobile devices.Said Deputy CEO (News, Radio, Print) Shaun Seow, who will lead the integration charge for MediaCorp: "The aim is to serve audiences better by tapping on the strengths of the different media, and creating a seamless experience for the consumer. We want to be the leading English news provider for Asia, and we believe that it is an achievable target."A committee is looking at the integration initiative, which will lead, among other things, to a "newsplex" housing all the different newsrooms under one roof in MediaCorp's new premises at Bukit Batok.Mr Murali Subramaniam will leave his position as Today's Associate/Day Editor to take up appointment as VP (Editorial Operations) to assist in the integration efforts from Jan 1, 2007.MediaCorp's efforts to raise the bar will also come from the recruitment of experienced staff such as Mr P N Balji, ex-Editor-in-Chief of Today, who has rejoined MediaCorp as its Editorial Director. He will assist Mr Seow to improve editorial standards across the board.With Mr Mano Sabnani resigning his editorship, Mr Balji will be devoting a significant part of his time to growing Today. He will be assisted by Mr Walter Fernandez, fresh from helming Channel News-Asia's International desk.Mr Fernandez assumes the newly-created No 2 position of Managing Editor at Today, and has set his sights on establishing a vibrant electronic presence for one of Singapore's fastest growing newspapers. Mr Fernandez will work closely with Mr Rahul Pathak, who will continue to be Today's Associate/Night Editor.Mr Chow said: "By increasing the bench strength of our journalists, we will strive to become Asia's premium brand for news — whether it's in the form of video, audio or text. I am especially proud of the strides made by Today, which has just been pushed up to the No 2 position in Singapore after just six years. Everyone in Today, past and present, has contributed to its success, and I would like to wish Mano well in his future endeavours, even as I welcome Balji back to MediaCorp."Added Mr Balji: "There is a new leadership at MediaCorp. The statements that have come from this new leadership excite me. As the media undergoes deep and dramatic changes, there is a great opportunity to unify and exploit the different platforms to provide a real information highway."Today, the print arm of MediaCorp, can become an integral part of this highway and show that print can survive in a fast-changing media jungle."Mr Sabnani, who leaves the company after more than three-and-a-half years at the helm as mananging director (MD) and Editor-in-Chief of Today, said he was pleased with the progress the newspaper had achieved during his tenure."When I came on board in 2003, there were still questions asked of whether the newspaper would survive or fail," he said. "In our last financial year, we made $5.8 million in profits and we just moved ahead of Lianhe Zaobao as Singapore's second best read newspaper. I am very proud of the team that made this happen and wish Today all the best in its future growth."Mr Philip Koh, who is concurrently MD of MediaCorp Publishing, the magazines subsidiary, will oversee Today's publishing and business development functions.MediaCorp is also confident the move will provide synergistic opportunities for its newspaper and magazine publishing.Reporters Without Borders, in its latest World Press Freedom Index 2006, ranked Singapore's news media 146 out of 168 countries.In the section on Singapore, RSF wrote "....when it comes to domestic politics Singapore’s press, still controlled by associates of Lee Kuan Yew, is in the grip of a rigorous self-censorship. The government threatens journalists, foreign media and opposition with defamation suits seeking dizzying amounts in damages."Here's the message I referred to at the beginning of this post. It is difficult to verify it 'cos no whistleblower's going to go public if its true. On the other hand, I wouldn't dismiss it offhand either given the state of our local news media.....Source: From ManoSabnani at Sammyboy.comHello everyoneI registered this nickname a little more than a week ago after I heard that there were parties inside Mediacorp who were making a move to sack Mano Sabnani as Today's chief editor. Little did I know how ugly it would become.On the surface, the corporate communications machine of Mediacorp will present everything as very nice and orderly. What you read here will be a reasonably accurate account related to me of what actually happened and not what you will read in Today, Channel News Asia, Straits Times or Business Times.I had waited until I got a clear picture from my contact before I post this, therefore there was bit of a delay.Mano is not a bad person. He may be dull and unexciting, even a coward before the civil servants who oversee him, but he was treated as pariah by his peers.On Oct 31, Today had a senior editors' meeting which Shaun Seow presided. Mano lost his editorial independence not during the recent Mr Brown affair, but some years earlier, during the Val Chua affair. For those of you not familiar with the matter, just do a Google search on Val Chua, Mano Sabnani and you will find a lot of material on the Net. Since the Val Chua affair, Mano had to report to Shaun within the Mediacorp stable. All reports involving cabinet ministers must be vetted by Shaun and his team at Mediacorp HQ, not at Today.There are no real editors at Today, they are all a bunch of word processors. They send good reporters like Derrick Paulo and Ansley Ng to cover political happenings, then censor and rewrite everything to suit their political masters.In fact, Derrick Paulo mounted a campaign within the Today office to protest the newspaper's suspension of Mr Brown. He got many of his colleagues to wear brown on a day when Shaun was to give a talk to the staff there. What he did not know was that had severely undermined Mano, who was already being pushed out by the other senior people in Mediacorp. They saw how weak Mano was in front of Derrick and took full advantage of the situation.Shaun is a former president scholar and his entire career is scripted to perfection. As long as he serves his political masters, his career will be smooth. Even the conviction of Zahara Latif for maid abuse within the Seow household did little more than embarrass him. Goh Chok Tong wrote a letter to support Zahara during her mitigation hearing.During the Oct 31 meeting, Mano was not able to speak because his ex-gratia payment was held back unless he played ball. Shaun humiliated Mano by paying lip service to his contribution and saying how the newspaper will move ahead without him. Most of the editors were too afraid for their jobs and kept generally quiet as they watched Mano run to the ground and abused. This coming from Shaun, was no surprise, for like Zahara, he is an abuser. Shaun is many years younger than Mano and behaved like an arrogant brat wielding too much power for his own good.Worse was to come. After a polite round of applause for Mano's three years in the newspaper, they proceeded to the newsroom where Mano's resignation was announced to all the staff. All of Today's staff gathered outside Mano's room. Shaun announced the changes and talked about new directions, while Mano sat inside his room (glass walls) in full view to all the staff, with his face buried in his hands in front of his computer screen.Somebody in the crowd interrupted Shaun when he felt that Shaun had gone too far. He asked for the real reason why Mano was leaving. Shaun then said that there are many confidential things that cannot be publicised.Slowly there was a pair of hands clapping, then more and more. They wanted Mano to come out and address them. Mano came out, and keeping in mind that his payment has been withheld, said he had nothing to say. They wouldn't let him go and kept clapping. Mano had no choice but to respond. So he said to the staff that they should not worry about him and move on. His voice was shaking, then he went back into his room a sad and broken man, humiliated and traumatised.Led by Shaun and director Philip Koh, Today brought back PN Balji, who was the founding editor of the paper. Balji is a much more colourful character than Mano but is of questionable character. Balji is closely tied to TT Durai, the disgraced head of the former National Kidney Foundation. The auditor's report into the NKF fraud and deception showed that Balji was one of the parties who flew first class with Durai. Together with Durai and his gang, they abused the charity's funds, but while Durai is now in the docks, Balji has gotten away scot free because he knows how to butter up his political masters.More worrying for many of the Today staff is that a new guy named Walter Fernandez was brought in from Channel News Asia where he was a faithful lap dog of Shaun Seow to oversee Today's day-to-day operations. Walter is a scholar and another spineless idiot who is where he is only because he knows how and whose balls to carry.I will update further when I hear of more developments. Calling All Bloggers Back in May, I posted on this blog information on Amnesty International's Irrepressible campaign. This campaign is heating-up and just yesterday the human rights NGO issued a call to bloggers..........Free speech online 'under threat', Oct 27, BBC NewsBloggers are being asked to show their support for freedom of expression by Amnesty International.The human rights group also wants web log writers to highlight the plight of fellow bloggers jailed for what they wrote in their online journals.The organisation said fundamental rights such as free speech faced graver threats than ever before.The campaign coincides with the start of a week-long UN-organised conference that will debate the future of the net.Watching words"Freedom of expression online is a right, not a privilege - but it's a right that needs defending," said Steve Ballinger of Amnesty International. "We're asking bloggers worldwide to show their solidarity with web users in countries where they can face jail just for criticising the government."Mr Ballinger said the case of Iranian blogger Kianoosh Sanjari was just one example of the dangers that some online writers can face. Mr Sanjari was arrested in early October following his blogging about conflicts between the Iranian police and the supporters of Shia cleric Ayatollah Boroujerdi.Amnesty wanted bloggers to publicise cases such as this, said Mr Ballinger, and to declare their backing for the right to free speech online.The human rights group is also taking its campaign to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) - a group set up by the UN to act as a debating body for national net policies. The first big meeting of the IGF takes place in Athens from 30 October to 2 November."The Internet Governance Forum needs to know that the online community is concerned about free expression online and willing to stand up for it," said Mr Ballinger.Many governments were using technology to suppress the free flow of information among their citizens, said Mr Ballinger."People have been locked up just for expressing their views in an email or a website," he said. "Sites and blogs have been shut down and firewalls built to prevent access to information."Hi-tech firms such as Yahoo and Google have been criticised for the help they have given to nations such as China which works hard to monitor online discussion.In May 2006, Amnesty International started a campaign that aimed to expose the ways that governments use the net to quash dissent. Co-ordinated via the Irrepressible.info website, the campaign asks websites to use an icon displaying text from censored sites.Pledges gathered from those backing this campaign will be presented at the IGF.And that's not all folks! Take part in a 24-hr International Cyber-Demonstration from 11am (Paris time) on 7 Nov'06 to 11am on 8 Nov'06 (SGP time - 6pm on 7 Nov'06 to 6pm on 8 Nov'06) as Reporters Without Borders issues another call..... Reporters without borders urges internet users to join in 24-hour online demo against internet censorshipNo one should ever be prevented from posting news online or writing a blog, but they are in the 13 countries singled out by Reporters Without Borders for a 24-hour online protest against Internet censorship.Worldwide, 61 people are currently in prison for posting “subversive” content on a blog or website. Reporters Without Borders is compiling a list of 13 countries whose governments are “Internet enemies” because they censor and block online content that criticises them. The Internet scares. Censors of every kind exploit its flaws and attack those who pin their hopes on it. Multinationals such as Yahoo! cooperate with the Chinese government in filtering the Internet and tracking down cyber-dissidents.The defence of online free expression and the fate of bloggers in repressive countries concern everyone. So Reporters Without Borders is offering Internet users tools to campaign against Internet predators and is calling on them to participate in an INTERNATIONAL CYBER-DEMO.Everyone is invited to support this struggle by connecting to the Reporters Without Borders website (www.rsf.org) between 11 a.m. (Paris time) on Tuesday, 7 November, and 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 November. Each click will help to change the “Internet Black Holes” map and help to combat censorship. As many people as possible must participate so that this operation can be a success and have an impact on those governments that try to seal off what is meant to be a space where people can express themselves freely.Protests will also be staged by Reporters Without Borders bureaux around the world to condemn Internet censorship and ethical misconduct of the Internet giants when operating in one of these countries.Reporters Without Borders will publish the list of the 13 Internet enemies on 7 November and at the same time will launch its blog platform, rsfblog, and an Arabic-language version of its press freedom website.The agency Saatchi & Saatchi has created an Internet ad calling on the entire Internet community to take part in the 24-hour campaign. All media, websites and blogs that want to support this large-scale protest are invited to get in touch with Cédric Gervet at +33 1 4483-8474. Freedom of expression is not a luxury. It is everyone’s right! Firefox 2.0 burnin' down the house!!! One of the first things i did this morning was to download & install the much anticipated upgraded version of Firefox called Firefox 2!!Man i haven't been this excited since 2002 when i first began using Firefox!! :-)Here's a post titled Firefox - Moving the Internet Forward by Mozilla CEO, Mitchell Baker, on today's official release of Firefox 2. Ho Ching must step down as head of Temasek Media release from SDP.......Mdm Ho Ching must step down as head of Temasek20 Oct 06Given the revelations of the scandalous deal between Temasek Holdings and Shin Corp which continue to trickle from Bangkok, it is impossible for Singaporeans not to take notice.The transaction has not only provoked outrage among the Thai people, leading to the souring of relations between Singapore and Thailand.This reinforces the Singapore Democrats' stand that the Government has to get out of being directly involved in business as it arouses, not without reason, suspicion in the countries in which it makes deals.In addition, with the questionable performance of the Temasek-linked companies and some high profile debacles, including- The sinking of Micropolis which cost Singaporeans $630 million- The ill-advised acquisition of Optus by SingTel which stands to face a write-down of between $5 billion to $8 billion,- And the present eruption of the Shin Corp deal in which due diligence was not exercised which may yet incur a loss of up to $3 billionIt is clear that Madam Ho Ching, wife of PM Lee Hsien Loong, has failed as head of Temasek. Her decision to buy into Shin Corp has even provoked a criminal investigation into the deal in Thailand.And while Mr Thaksin Shinawatra and his family are laughing all the way to the bank, Temasek has lost the hard-earned money of Singaporeans which now looks unrecoverable.While all these developments have taken place, the Government and the company continue to remain tight-lipped apart from the few platitudes offered by the Prime Minister that serve no purpose or have any meaning.In light of all this the SDP calls on Madam Ho Ching to resign as chief executive of Temasek Holdings.In addition, in the interest of transparency and accountability Singapore should hold its own public inquiry into the affair and have Temasek come clean about all the related matters. There are reports that the non-transparent deal was influenced by members of the Lee family.If Temasek is indeed a commercial entity that adheres to the corporate code of conduct, then it will make itself transparent to its shareholders, that is, Singaporeans.Singaporeans must be given all the information to determine for themselves if there were any wrong-doings by all the players involved.Chee Soon JuanSecretary-GeneralSingapore Democratic Party S'pore PM slams foreign media for exposing PAP govt's dirty tricks First here's a Oct 16 press release from FORUM-ASIA........Singapore denies fundamental freedoms: Detained civil society activists suffer 'soft torture' before deportationThe Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) strongly condemns the Singapore government’s detention and deportations of civil society activists during the recent International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank annual meetings in the country. This denial of the fundamental freedom of expression is a cause for serious concern.FORUM-ASIA raises concerns about the harsh and intimidating treatment of activists and speakers from civil society organisations.First-hand testimonies from some of the deportees have indicated blatant practices of 'soft torture' disproportionate to the situation and station of these activists and speakers. Most of them had travelled to or transited through Singapore to attend the International People’s Forum meetings in Batam, Indonesia, an event parallel to the IMF-World Bank meetings. A number were also going to attend smaller-scale civil society meetings in Singapore.These detentions came after an official blacklist of 27 activists or speakers already accredited by the IMF-World Bank were made known to these two institutions. When the detentions and deportations occurred from a period lasting from 13-18 September, it was then made known that the Singaporean authorities also had unofficial blacklists of dozens, if not hundreds, of other civil society activists and speakers.The blacklists resulted in these actions: about two dozen activists and speakers were detained and deported; a number of them were detained for up to 38 hours before being deported. Some had their personal equipment such as cellphones confiscated; most were not allowed to contact anyone such as their family, friends, colleagues or employers. All were questioned, put in holding cells with harsh white fluorescent lights turned on continually, and closely monitored including trips to the restrooms; all have had their luggage ransacked; and only those with longer hours of detention were provided with the bare minimum of food and water. Those holding valid visas had them cancelled by the Singaporean authorities. Most or all of the detainees did not have access to the consuls or embassies of their home countries.We draw attention to the Singaporean government's practice and culture of denying fundamental freedoms to those in their custody. By detaining and deporting these individuals, the Singaporean government has shown that they do not respect international human rights laws.As a member of the United Nations (UN), Singapore has contravened Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. By its actions, the government has also contravened Articles 1, 5, 8 and 12 of the UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.Furthermore, by blacklisting and preventing civil society activists to participate in events related to development, the Singapore government has also violated Articles 2 and 8 of the UN Declaration on the Right to Development.Fundamental human rights are indivisible and non-derogatory; individuals; groups and governments are not allowed to degrade anyone's fundamental human rights. With the above violations and ‘soft torture’ practiced, internationally-recognised rights, freedom of expression, assembly, association and access to information, were undermined in one broad sweep. The Singaporean government's restriction on and treatment of these activists is not acceptable and the authoritarian mindset giving rise to this behaviour must not be encouraged.The Singapore government should allow and encourage its citizens and all civil society activists to exercise their fundamental rights, not trample and violate them. Civil society activists and dissenters who express different opinions and views are human beings with rights. When there are doubts one should resolve the issue in favour of expression rather then suppression.The Singapore government should set priorities to remove outdated policies, laws and restrictions on public speech, gatherings and assembly. These outdated policies and practices only exist to darken Singapore's image as a developed nation with opportunities for all.FORUM-ASIA deplores deeply the actions of the Singaporean government during the period 13-18 September 2006. We hope that the Singaporean authorities will not repeat this sort of behaviour during future international or regional meetings that it hosts. It should also reform its practices for future events that may involve foreign civil society actors, such as during the forthcoming ASEAN Summit in 2007.And PM Lee has got the cheek to say with a straight face that the foreign media had an "agenda".........Singapore PM criticizes foreign press "agenda"AFPOct 19, 2006Foreign journalists had an "agenda" to make Singapore open up during recent World Bank-IMF meetings in the city-state, local newspapers quoted Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong as saying.He was commenting on extensive reporting by foreign press of Singapore's reluctance to admit 27 activists accredited by the World bank and International Monetary Fund for a formal dialogue during the institutions' September meetings.Singapore initially said it had security concerns about the 27, but then agreed to admit 22 of them after World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz said his hosts had caused "enormous damage" to their own reputation."The foreign media had another agenda -- they wanted Singapore to open up, to conform to their standards, their norms," the Today newspaper quoted Lee as saying."Whatever line we drew, they wanted to push us, to go a little bit further. But we had to decide where the line was, and stick to it."Lee was speaking at an event to thank volunteers who helped out at the IMF-World Bank gathering.Singapore's approach to free speech also came under attack during the international meetings from local pro-democracy activist Chee Soon Juan.Chee -- who was protesting against poverty and restrictions on free speech -- engaged in a three-day standoff with police who stopped him from marching to the conference venue.Despite appeals from the World Bank, Singapore refused to waive its long-standing restrictions on outdoor protests during the meetings.Police defended their strict security measures, saying Singapore was a high-profile terrorist target."The IMF-World Bank wanted us to be a bit more open, and we tried our best to accommodate. But in the end, we were responsible for the safety of the delegates and we could not shirk the responsibility of whom to let in," Lee was quoted as saying.Singapore prides itself on its image as an efficiently-run, regional commercial hub that is one of Asia's wealthiest nations.But Wolfowitz, in his remarks during the IMF-World Bank meetings, suggested the way Singapore handled the activist issue was worthy of a less-developed authoritarian state.Lee, in a speech to editors earlier this month, said that in Asia, "the countries which have been most successful at improving the lives of their people do not always have the most aggressive media ... Each country will have to evolve its own model of the media that works for it."Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in May placed Singapore 140th out of 167 countries in its World Press Freedom Index for 2005, due to the "complete absence" of independent media in the city-state.Singapore ranked below Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Russia, Sudan and Yemen. To Nanyang Chronicle: Don't do a disservice to your fellow students I first saw this over at SDP's website.In its current issue, the Nanyang Chronicle published a piece titled Protest or performance art? by Daniel Ong. (You can access the PDF version of the Chronicle here. The article is on pg.26)The writer practically regurgitated whatever has been published & broadcasted through our pro-PAP govt media. It was like reading bias propaganda bullshit from the Straits Times. In fact, I might not be too far off the mark 'cos one of the Chronicle's "teacher advisors" is Ben Nadarajan, a Straits Times journalist.According to its website, the Chronicle is "a student-run campus newspaper published by the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, on a bi-monthly basis. The Chronicle started publication in July 1994 with the aim of providing timely campus news and information as well as being the voice of the campus population. The paper also provides practical training for undergraduates who are keen to work in the field of journalism after graduation."I wouldn't have blogged about that inane piece if not for the fact that its published in an educational institution and targeted at students. Nationally, they're already exposed to such bullshit & propaganda from the bias local media, day in & day out, year after year.The SDP asked ".....would an alternative view be allowed to be published?". Unfortunately, I don't think any would be published.Nevertheless, here's a request to the editors of the Chronicle: Surprise me by answering SDP's question in the affirmative and publish an alternative view. You'll be doing a disservice to your fellow students by not doing so. Thank You to Lee Kuan Yew & Lee Hsien Loong I've not been able to blog for the past few days even though my head is filled with a few things to write about. I'm unwell. Furthermore, life is a constant struggle trying to make ends meet. Hey i'm a below-average joe in sunny Singapore.....wait a sec...make that hazy Singapore!! :( :)I noticed Mr Wang and Singabloodypore have highlighted the fact here & here that some local blogs have been mentioned in the court filing by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in his case against the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER). (See FEER Saga on your right)Lee's son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, is also suing FEER. Lee Jr's court filing also mentions the same blogs as in Lee Snr's court filing. In fact, Junior's is practically a cut & paste job. Talk about father & son spending quality time together! Sheesh!! :) (See pages 10-12 in their court papers in PDF here & here)My blogs are among those mentioned in their court papers. A few months ago, I took a short break from Blogger to just experiment over at Wordpress.com with Pseudonymity. I posted the FEER article, which inspired father & son to spend "quality time" together in their favourite hobby of suing the crap out of people for defamation, in both blogs.There's nothing like being mentioned in court papers filed by a tinpot dictatorship. My thanks to the Minister Mentor & Prime Minister for bestowing such an honour on me. I couldn't have done it without you two. No, seriously, I couldn't have. :) Funds Parked in Singapore Belongs Mainly to Embezzlers Funds Parked in Singapore Belongs Mainly to Embezzlersby Padjar Iswara and Ewo RaswaTEMPO InteractiveOct 12, 2006Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) suspects that a large part of the Rp506.8 trillion in funds parked in Singapore is owned by former embezzlers of state and private national banks.Teten Masduki, the Coordinator of ICW, said that there were in fact some law-abiding Indonesians who have assets and save their funds in Singapore.However, the amount of these funds is relatively small compared to that of former embezzlers.“It’s a pity to see they still save their money there,” Teten told Tempo.His remark was in response to the result of Merrill Lynch and Capgemini’s survey which reported that one-third of 55,000 Singapore’s rich people are Indonesians.The number reaches a total of 18,000 and their status is that of permanent residents (foreigners who have permanent stay permits) in Singapore.The global financial organization estimates that the amount of assets of Indonesian people in Singapore is S$87 billion, or around Rp506.8 trillion.According to Teten, embezzlers prefer to deposit their funds in Singapore because they feel safe there although the origin of the funds is illegal.The reason for this is that Singapore does not have a Money Laundering Law nor is it yet willing to sign an extradition agreement with Indonesia.Through such an agreement, Indonesia can force Singapore to surrender bad debtors, including return of assets and funds.Teten acknowledged that Indonesians also save funds in Singapore because of other factors, for example business.This is because the business and investment climate in Singapore is very attractive.“In addition, legal certainty is also good, far better compared to in Indonesia,” he said.Sofjan Wanandi, Head of Indonesia Entrepreneurs Association, made similar comments.A lot of Indonesians save their money in Singapore because the investment climate is extremely interesting.The country’s government provides facilities including tax and business credit allowances.“Singapore also provides legal certainty to investors.” Worried Temasek ready to pay fine and reduce holding in telecom firm to 49% DAMAGE CONTROLThe NationOct 12, 2006S'pore urges talks to save Shin buyoutWorried Temasek ready to pay fine and reduce holding in telecom firm to 49%A top-level official in Singapore has approached Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont to discuss the controversial Shin Corp deal in the hope of resolving ownership issues in an amicable manner, a government source said yesterday.Surayud is likely to assign his deputy MR Pridiyathorn Devakula, who is also the finance minister, to look into the matter, the source said."One likely recommendation from the Thai government is that Temasek Holdings of Singapore should comply with the Thai foreign ownership law by quickly reducing its stake in Shin Corp, which is estimated at 96 per cent, to below 49 per cent," he said.Temasek got itself into hot water with its Bt140-billion takeover of Shin Corp, which was owned by the Shinawatra and Damapong families.The Commerce Ministry's Business Registration Department has found that Temasek relied on nominees to skirt a legal ban on foreign companies owning more than 50 per cent of a telecom business.A Singapore investment banker said he had overheard that Madame Ho Ching, the CEO of Temasek, had been following political developments in Thailand very closely and had expressed her willingness to seek a compromise."Temasek, from what I have heard, is willing to pay a fine or make other concessions in order to end the controversy rather than allow the issue to drag on," he said.If Temasek reduced its holding in Shin Corp from 96 per cent to 49 per cent by selling some 1.5 billion shares, it would suffer a huge loss. It paid Bt49.25 a share, for a total of Bt140 billion-Bt150 billion, but now Shin Corp is trading on the stock market at Bt28.25 a share.The Thaksin Shinawatra government and Temasek had been sitting on the nominee investigation, hoping the issue would go away after Thaksin staged a comeback with an election victory. But the September 19 military coup has sent Thaksin into exile in London.With a fresh government installed, the probe into the Shin-Temasek scandal has taken on a new life.Besides, Singapore faces public outrage here over its perceived attempt to dominate Thailand's businesses involving national security."The Thai government is expected to tell the Singapore government and Temasek that current anti-Singapore sentiment needs to be dealt with quickly," the source said."There is a lot at stake for Singapore and Thailand relations, depending on a compromise on the Shin deal."Of particular concern are Shin Satellite and iTV, both listed subsidiaries of Shin Corp. They are considered politically sensitive state concessions while the cellular service business of Advanced Info Service, Shin Corp's flagship unit, is in a more liberalised industry.It is widely believed that under close scrutiny many foreign-invested Thai companies would fall afoul of the foreign ownership law, which has been criticised as vague and subject to abuse.Noted economist Ammar Siamwalla said the Thai government must enforce the rule of law in all the nominee cases by doing away with all the violations.The government could offer clemency to all foreign companies, giving them three years to cure the ownership or nominee structure to comply with the regulations, he said.Within 10 years, Thailand should be in a position to enforce the law strictly regarding foreign ownership."But we need to state clearly which businesses we would like to protect for national security reasons and which businesses we would like to free up. I don't care if they want to liberalise all businesses. But we have to spell it out and stick to the enforcement," Ammar said."The government must uphold the spirit of the law, instead of interpreting it in the srithanonchai [tricky] way," he added. Singapore - A safe haven for the rich and crooked? Back in July'06, I posted an article "Singapore none too fussy about the source of wealth in its financial sector" by Michael Backman. Its worth reading again (or for those who haven't read it before) in light of the staggering figures cited in the Reuters report below........YOU are an Indonesian businessman. You've bribed a state bank official to give you a $US200 million ($A265 million) loan without sufficient collateral, or a risk assessment, for a business venture you know won't get off the ground.The authorities have found out and you're facing arrest. You need somewhere to go where authorities can't touch you. So where do you go? The answer is Singapore . Why? Because it is a half-hour flight from Jakarta , or 45 minutes by ferry from the Indonesian island of Batam , and, most importantly, it does not have an extradition treaty with Indonesia.....click here to continueTake note the figures in this Reuters report are in US$............A third of Singapore's rich are Indonesians - MerrillBy ReutersTuesday October 10SINGAPORE (Reuters) - A third of Singapore's high net worth individuals are of Indonesian origin, according to a report by Merrill Lynch and Capgemini.At the end of 2005, Singapore had an estimated 55,000 high net worth individuals, holding assets worth $260 billion, the report said.A third of these individuals were Indonesians with permanent resident status in Singapore -- 18,000 in all -- with assets worth $87 billion."Singapore has a very open immigration policy to attract talented foreigners and that has also attracted a lot of high net worth individuals from Indonesia," Tho Gea Hong, market director for Merrill Lynch Global Private client, told a news conference.High net worth individuals are defined as people who have net financial assets of at least $1 million.Tho said the number of high net worth individuals in Singapore has risen 13.4 percent from 2004. A total of 1.3 percent of these individuals are ultra-high net worth individuals, with assets exceeding $30 million.Kong Eng Huat, Market Managing Director, South Asia, for Merrill Lynch Global Private Client, said Asia-Pacific excluding Japan would need 10,000 bankers to serve a million high net worth individuals, compared with an estimated 5,000 bankers now.He said Merrill expects its Singapore headcount to increase by 20 to 25 percent over the next few years because of strong growth in the wealth management business in Asia. Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? - Privacy in a Police State I’ve been working on this piece for quite sometime. Never got around to completing it ‘cos I had to look for all the raw information, sources, etc, etc. After all, I’m just an average citizen. Not some researcher or academic. Citizen journalist?? Maybe. Anyway, that’s not the point here.As I was saying, I finally got around to completing this piece after reading a recent Straits Times report “Green light for portable phone numbers”. The report was about the IDA’s decision to allow mobile phone users to keep their existing numbers while switching service providers. But what got my attention in the report was this paragraph which said “The telcos may also have to pay fees to access a centralised database of phone numbers. By January, the IDA will appoint a firm to set up and run this database, estimated to cost about $5 million.” Especially those phrases in bold.Two things sprang to mind when i read this report and an earlier Straits Times report Hundreds more cameras on streets to bolster security. One was the phrase "Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?" which is Latin for "Who guards the guardians?". The second was the recent incident during the elections with regards to the minority candidates certificate.Of course, the local media being what it is, will not raise the issue of Who guards the guardians? which i will get to after you read the May 22 report.... Hundreds more cameras on streets to bolster security Apart from a check against terrorism, new CCTV schemes are aimed at crime,traffic problems by Goh Chin Lian, May 22, 2006, The Straits Times HUNDREDS of new electronic eyes will be watching the streets of Singapore, under three new police and transport authority projects to be completed by next year. The Land Transport Authority will install closed circuit TV (CCTV) cameras to monitor 67 traffic junctions and the Singapore Police Force will put up another 91 in the Raffles City area, where the International Monetary Fund and World Bank conferences will be held in September. The third project, also by the police, will link traffic cameras to a new system at police headquarters that could eventually be smart enough to spot unlawful and suspicious acts, from theft to a person planting a hidden explosive. The cameras will also record events, allowing the authorities to review street scenes for security checks, in the event of, say, a terrorist attack, as was the case in the London subway bombings in July last year. Details of the three projects were spelt out in government tender documents obtained by The Straits Times. The new moves follow the success police have had in reducing crime in CCTV-monitored areas such as Boat Quay, Newton Hawker Centre, Little India and Geylang. Buses and trains here could be next to have electronic eyes, going by the experience of several major cities like London, where the network of 500,000 cameras helped track down perpetrators of the terror attacks. For now, the LTA’s new cameras will monitor traffic junctions in the northern and eastern parts of Singapore, as well as on the outer ring of roads that bypass the city, the LTA told The Straits Times. This includes a stretch of the Central Expressway from Moulmein Road to Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5, parts of Upper Serangoon Road, as well as streets in Tampines and Bedok. The cameras, to be installed by the third quarter of next year, will complement cameras in place at 109 junctions, mostly within the Central Business District and roads close to the city.Traffic controllers at a remote centre in River Valley Road use the cameras to monitor and keep traffic moving smoothly. Since last August, they have also used the cameras - which can zoom in on a vehicle’s licence plate - to police motorists who park illegally, wait along major roads or in the yellow boxes. They have caught more than 400 motorists with the cameras so far at three hot spots - Orchard Link, Bideford Road and Woodlands Centre Road. These cameras, as well as those overlooking expressways, will be linked wirelessly to police headquarters. This is part of a new video management system that aims to integrate the CCTV systems of the MRT, airports, checkpoints and key buildings, according to police tender documents calling for contractors to install the systems. The police intend to have a system smart enough to detect abnormal events, including loitering vehicles and suspicious gatherings. They also want it to guard against false alarms, such as adapting to changes in lighting and the cyclical movements of water fountains and escalators. And alarms are expected to sound as soon as a suspicious person leaves behind a parcel and disappears, to allow authorities to pre-empt any explosion. Police also hope the system will link images from cameras mounted on police vehicles or portable outposts to the central police system. The new cameras at the Raffles City area will be mounted mostly on lamp posts or new poles. The area to be monitored includes Suntec City, Marina Promenade, Ritz-Carlton, Fullerton Hotel and One Fullerton. Also on the list are the Golden Mile Complex taxi stand at Beach Road, the back lanes of Circular Road and Lorong Telok near Boat Quay, and towards Club Momo from Solomon Street. The existing CCTV systems at Boat Quay and Little India will also be integrated with the Raffles City network so it can be easily monitored by the surveillance operators.I recall reading the Latin phrase in James Gomez’s book titled Internet Politics: Surveillance & Intimidation in Singapore which was published in 2002. You don’t really find books on such topics being published often in Singapore by a Singaporean author. In Chapter 3 of the book, titled The Modern Police State, it explains why Singapore under the ruling party can be understood as a police state. Here are some excerpts: “The existence of “the police”, a separate force designed entirely for enforcing the criminal law, is a product of modern urban society. The establishment of a metropolitan police force in London in 1829 is usually seen as the single most important event in this development. The existence of a police force, by its very nature, raises several related political issues. The oldest is summed up by the Latin question, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?” (Who guards the guardians?). That is, given the capacities and force of arms which the police must have to do their job, to whom are they accountable and how can they be prevented from abusing their position.” “A police state is one in which the executive uses the police and other instruments of the state from the bureaucracy, judiciary and other agencies and tools at its disposal to monitor and control civil and political activities of its citizens and others on its territory and even beyond. The police are used to limit civil and political liberties in accordance with legislation introduced by the ruling regime. Such policing goes beyond politics and intrudes also into economics and social life.” “What characterises Singapore’s political system is the constant query, worry and anxiety among the majority of the citizens, foreigners and observers that individuals and groups will get into trouble with the police and the political authorities for challenging the political status quo. Such anxiety is based on repeated examples of political challengers consistently being found guilty of contravening the system of tight and restrictive laws that govern people in the city-state.” “In Singapore, those who show the potential for political action against the ruling regime are treated as possible threats to the state and are heavily monitored and policed. It is a system where resistance to the ruling party is controlled by policing political opponents using very restrictive legislation. Laws are constantly modified whenever space is found for political expression, mobilisation and action. The ruling party’s domination of parliament allows for the passage of new laws as well as continual amendment of the constitution so that the legal environment can be constantly revised to serve the ruling party’s needs.”I couldn’t have said it more eloquently. A major concern is an individual’s privacy in a police state. I’m all for number portability & efforts to enhance our safety and security. At the same time, given the nature of our political system and the immense power the ruling party wields, how can we be sure that the system will not be misused or abused by those who are managing it? Who are they accountable to? Where are the checks? The safeguards? Do we take the PAP government’s word for it that it won’t be misused or abused and how can we be sure of that?This brings me to the incident i mentioned at the beginning. The ruling party and the local media went stir-crazy over a trivial incident involving Gomez. (The link to an article by yawning bread will fill you in on what the incident was all about) Instead, i’ll cut to the chase.Singapore’s Elections Department released CCTV footage and voice recordings of Gomez’s interactions with department staff. According to the department, they did so “in order to leave no doubt about the integrity of the electoral process”.The incident was over the submission of a form. Initially, Gomez said he did submit the form. Later on, he realised his oversight and apologised in front of a crowd of thousands at a rally. Mind you, this was not CCTV footage of the London subway bombings or even a bank heist!But the ruling party went berserk with conspiracy theories with the local media all over it. Furthermore, all this during the 9 day campaigning period allowed for the general election. I believe a statement from the department would have sufficed because the media would surely have run the story as they were salivating over it since it first broke!The Elections department is not an independent entity as one would expect if it was an Independent Elections Commission. Instead, the department is under the Prime Minister’s Office. To be more specific, its directly under the charge of the Minister for Home Affairs. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs who is also the Deputy Prime Minister are from the ruling party.If the CCTV can be used in such a manner over a trivial incident, one can imagine how it can be misused or abused. As I’ve said before, i’m all for efforts to allow technology to benefit consumers or protect the people and society. At the same time, there needs to be an independent mechanism to guard the guardians as well so that the system will not be abused and used to secure the ruling party’s hold on power. "A color revolution for Singapore" - FEER talks to Chee Soon Juan Singapore’s ‘Martyr,’ Chee Soon Juanby Hugo RestallFar Eastern Economic Review July/August 2006 editionStriding into the Chinese restaurant of Singapore’s historic Fullerton Hotel, Chee Soon Juan hardly looks like a dangerous revolutionary. Casually dressed in a blue shirt with a gold pen clipped to the pocket, he could pass as just another mild-mannered, apolitical Singaporean. Smiling, he courteously apologizes for being late—even though it is only two minutes after the appointed time.Nevertheless, according to prosecutors, this same man is not only a criminal, but a repeat offender. The opposition party leader has just come from a pre-trial conference at the courthouse, where he faces eight counts of speaking in public without a permit. He has already served numerous prison terms for this and other political offenses, including eight days in March for denying the independence of the judiciary. He expects to go to jail again later this year.Mr. Chee does not seem too perturbed about this, but it drives Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong up the wall. Asked about his government’s persecution of the opposition during a trip to New Zealand last month, Mr. Lee launched into a tirade of abuse against Mr. Chee. “He’s a liar, he’s a cheat, he’s deceitful, he’s confrontational, it’s a destructive form of politics designed not to win elections in Singapore but to impress foreign supporters and make himself out to be a martyr,” Mr. Lee ranted. “He’s deliberately going against the rules because he says, ‘I’m like Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi. I want to be a martyr.’”Coming at the end of a trip in which the prime minister essentially got a free ride on human rights from his hosts—New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark didn’t even raise the issue—this outburst showed a lack of self-control and acumen. Former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, the man who many believe still runs Singapore and who is the current prime minister’s father, has said much the same things about Mr. Chee—“a political gangster, a liar and a cheat”—but that was at home, and in the heat of an election campaign.Mr. Chee smiles when it’s suggested that he must be doing something right. “Every time he says something stupid like that, I think to myself, the worst thing to happen would be to be ignored. That would mean we’re not making any headway,” he agrees.But one charge made by the government does stick: Mr. Chee is not terribly concerned about election results. Which is just as well, because his Singapore Democratic Party did not do very well in the May 6 polls. It would be foolish, he suggests, for an opposition party in Singapore to pin its hopes on gaining one, or perhaps two, seats in parliament. He is aiming for a much bigger goal: bringing down the city-state’s one-party system of government. His weapon is a campaign of civil disobedience against laws designed to curtail democratic freedoms.“You don’t vote out a dictatorship,” he says. “And basically that’s what Singapore is, albeit a very sophisticated one. It’s not possible for us to effect change just through the ballot box. They’ve got control of everything else around us.” Instead what’s needed is a coalition of civil society and political society coming together and demanding change—a color revolution for Singapore.So far Mr. Chee doesn’t seem to be getting much, if any traction. While many Singaporeans don’t particularly like the PAP’s arrogant style of government, the ruling party has succeeded in depoliticizing the population to the extent that anybody who presses them to take action to make a change is regarded with resentment. And in a climate of fear—Mr. Chee lost his job as a psychology lecturer at the national university soon after entering opposition politics—a reluctance to get involved is hardly surprising.Why is all this oppression necessary in a peaceful and prosperous country like Singapore where citizens otherwise enjoy so many freedoms? Mr. Chee has his own theory that the answer lies with strongman Lee Kuan Yew himself: “Why is he still so afraid? I honestly think that through the years he has accumulated enough skeletons in his closet that he knows that when he is gone, his son and the generations after him will have a price to pay. If we had parliamentary debates where the opposition could pry and ask questions, I think he is actually afraid of something like that.”That raises the question of whether Singapore deserves its reputation for squeaky-clean government. A scandal involving the country’s biggest charity, the National Kidney Foundation, erupted in 2004 when it turned out that its Chief Executive T.T. Durai was not only drawing a $357,000 annual salary, but the charity was paying for his first-class flights, maintenance on his Mercedes, and gold-plated fixtures in his private office bathroom.The scandal was a gift for the opposition, which naturally raised questions about why the government didn’t do a better job of supervising the highly secretive NKF, whose patron was the wife of former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong (she called Mr. Durai’s salary “peanuts”). But it had wider implications too. The government controls huge pools of public money in the Central Provident Fund and the Government of Singapore Investment Corp., both of which are highly nontransparent. It also controls spending on the public housing most Singaporeans live in, and openly uses the funds for refurbishing apartment blocks as a bribe for districts that vote for the ruling party. Singaporeans have no way of knowing whether officials are abusing their trust as Mr. Durai did.It gets worse. Mr. Durai’s abuses only came to light because he sued the Straits Times newspaper for libel over an article detailing some of his perks. Why was Mr. Durai so confident he could win a libel suit when the allegations against him were true? Because he had done it before. The NKF won a libel case in 1998 against defendants who alleged it had paid for first-class flights for Mr. Durai. This time, however, he was up against a major bulwark of the regime, Singapore Press Holdings; its lawyers uncovered the truth.Singaporean officials have a remarkable record of success in winning libel suits against their critics. The question then is, how many other libel suits have Singapore’s great and good wrongly won, resulting in the cover-up of real misdeeds? And are libel suits deliberately used as a tool to suppress questioning voices?The bottling up of dissent conceals pressures and prevents conflicts from being resolved. For instance, extreme sensitivity over the issue of race relations means that the persistence of discrimination is a taboo topic. Yet according to Mr. Chee it is a problem that should be debated so that it can be better resolved. “The harder they press now, the stronger will be the reaction when he’s no longer around,” he says of Lee Kuan Yew.The paternalism of the PAP also rankles, especially since foreigners get more consideration than locals. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund will hold their annual meeting in Singapore this fall, and have been trying to convince the authorities to allow the usual demonstrations to take place. The likely result is that international NGO groups will be given a designated area to scream and shout. “So we have a situation here where locals don’t have the right to protest in their own country, while foreigners are able to do that,” Mr. Chee marvels. Likewise, Singaporeans can’t organize freely into unions to negotiate wages; instead a National Wages Council sets salaries with input from the corporate sector, including foreign chambers of commerce.All these tensions will erupt when strongman Lee Kuan Yew dies. Mr. Chee notes that the ruling party is so insecure that Singapore’s founder has been unable to step back from front-line politics. The PAP still needs the fear he inspires in order to keep the population in line. Power may have officially passed to his son, Lee Hsien Loong, but even supporters privately admit that the new prime minister doesn’t inspire confidence.During the election, Prime Minister Lee made what should have been a routine attack on multiparty democracy: “Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I’m going to spend all my time thinking what’s the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters’ votes, how can I solve this week’s problem and forget about next year’s challenges?” But of course the ominous phrases “buy votes” and “fix them” stuck out. That is the kind of mistake, Mr. Chee suggests, Lee Sr. would not make.“He’s got a kind of intelligence that would serve you very well when you put a problem in front of him,” he says of the prime minister. “But when it comes to administration or political leadership, when you really need to be media savvy and motivate people, I think he is very lacking in that area. And his father senses it as well.”However, the elder Mr. Lee’s death—he is now 82—is a necessary but not sufficient condition for change. Another big factor is how civil society is able to use new technologies to bypass PAP control over information and free speech. The government has tried to stifle political filmmaking, blogging and podcasting. Singapore Rebel, a 2004 film about Mr. Chee by independent artist Martyn See, was banned but is widely available on the Internet.Meanwhile, pressure for Singapore to remain competitive in the region has sparked debate about the government’s dominant role in the economy. Can a top-down approach promote creativity and independent thinking? The need for transparency and accountability also means that Singapore will have to change. That is the source of Mr. Chee’s optimism in the face of all his setbacks: “I realize that Singapore is not at that level yet. But we’ve got to start somewhere. And I’m prepared to see this out, in the sense that in the next five, 10, 15 years, time is on our side. We need to continue to organize and educate and encourage. And it will come.”He doesn’t dwell on his personal tribulations, but mentions in passing selling his self-published books on the street. That is his primary source of income to feed his family, along with the occasional grant. As to the charge of wanting to be a martyr, once he started dissenting, he found it impossible to stop in good conscience. “The more you got involved, the more you found out what they’re capable of, it steels you, so you say, ‘No, I will not back down.’ It makes you more determined.”Perhaps it’s in his genes. One of Mr. Chee’s daughters is old enough that she had to be told that her father was going to prison. She stood up before her class and announced, “My papa is in jail, but he didn’t do anything wrong. People have just been unfair to him.”Mr. Restall is editor of the REVIEW.Mr Brown and the case of Rights vs Rice Singapore Democratic PartyJuly 11, 2006For those who wonder why the SDP spends so much time and effort talking about human rights, your answer came in the form of the Mr Brown episode.In materialistic Singapore, many question the wisdom of championing for human rights and whether these values resonate with the average Joe. Can you eat civil liberties? How does freedom of speech bring you the next paycheck? Can protests make you rich? – are some of the cynicism expressed whenever the idea of democratic freedoms are raised.Such political myopia has gotten many a society into trouble.With the economy running away with the rich leaving the poor poorer, people want desperately to voice out their hardships and rectify the imbalance. But through what avenue? The elections are designed to let the PAP tell the people how powerless they are, civil society is all but dead, and the media…well, just ask Mr Brown. The writer’s essay touched a raw nerve in the Government because it expounded on familiar kitchen-table issues albeit in a manner with tongue firmly in cheek. The Government swiftly responded with its routine one-two counter-punch. One consisted of the usual rebuke that politics should be left to wise men in the PAP and two was the more lethal move of removing the writer’s and/or dissident’s means of communication.The upshot is that there will be no more discussion, or in this case fun-poking, of the cost of living in Singapore in the press. It was like plucking out the only blade of grass that grew out of the hot, dry desert sand.But this is PAP at its vintage worst. It deprives society of the means to discuss and debate issues that reflect the views of the people. Once this is done it proceeds to paint the picture it wants the people to see – in this case Singapore as a veritable island of milk and honey, no matter how far removed this is from reality.Can you see now how freedom of speech fits into the equation? Without political rights, including freedom of the press and the right to free expression, Singaporeans cannot talk about issues that directly affect their everyday lives. Without these rights how do Singaporeans like Mr Brown draw attention to the unfairness of the PAP’s economic policies and perhaps change them?It is true that pocket-book issues are usually the main factors that go into deciding which party voters pick. But this makes sense only in a democratic system where votes really count. In an undemocratic society, talking about pocket-book issues are meaningless when free speech and a free press don't exist.Look at it this way: In a nomadic, agrarian society that practices subsistence farming, people are constantly foraging for food and shelter. To them political rights don't matter very much. In modern societies, however, one doesn't just up and go to another spot to set up camp and grow crops. People depend more and more on systems and community organization for their livelihoods.In such societies, there will inevitably emerge a ruling class that will seek to dominate those around it. For the dominated, remaining focused on food and shelter to the exclusion of protecting their right to have a say in how society is run is to invite exploitation and, ironically, eventual deprivation of one’s basic necessities.Wanting financial security without protecting one’s political rights is like wanting to eat rice without having the fire to cook it. Seen this way, does it make sense to say that rice is more important than fire? Would the cynics, having seen the latest Brown-out, continue to insist that human rights are just airy-fairy concepts that don’t affect our lives?While we may not be able to eat democracy, the rights that it brings will put the meaning of human into “human beings” and, in the process, keep us alive. What in god's name is a blog??? I wrote this post originally on Nov 9, 2006.I'm not an expert on blogging but one thing bloggers must not forget is the fact that there are alot of people out there who don't know what a blog is all about. Especially those who don't go onto the Internet often. And even if they do, do so for specific reasons. I still get people asking me "What's a blog???" or "What's it all about???", etc, etc.It doesn't surprise me though that people ask me these questions 'cos in many countries the mainstream media, or MSM, remains their main source of news & information. But blogs play an important role in countries such as Singapore where the local media is heavily controlled & influenced by the ruling party. So I thought it'll be good for those readers who visit a blog for the first time to at least have some basic knowledge about blogs.Blogs mean different things to different people. I was looking for a kind of springboard to a better understanding of blogs. Here's Blogging Basics from Technorati. ;-)