VIDEO: Burmese Say NO To Constitution Outside Burmese Embassy In Singapore Related posts: PHOTOS: Burmese Nationals Protest Constitution In Singapore No voting NO: Burmese embassy staff contrive to disenfranchise voters Affluent Singapore Feels Pinch Of Inflation At 26-year Highs by Martin Abbugao, AFP, 27 Apr 2008 SINGAPORE (AFP) - From taking fewer taxi rides to eating out less and shortening shower time, residents of affluent Singapore are trying to cope with inflation, which has soared to 26-year highs. Rising costs of housing, food, and transport have eaten into family budgets of Singaporeans as well as the large number of expatriates working in the city-state, consumers and analysts said. Except for the ultra-rich, the impact of the sharp price increases has cut across social classes in one of Asia’s wealthiest nations, they said. Government figures show Singapore’s annual inflation was at 6.7 percent in March, the highest since 1982, boosted by higher costs of food, transport, communications and housing. The figure is more than double the inflation rate in Malaysia and higher than that of the Philippines, Hong Kong and Australia. Unlike bigger countries in the region, Singapore imports most of its needs. “When the inflation rate is high, it affects everybody,” said Serena, a businesswoman who lives near the prime Orchard Road shopping and would only give her first name. Serena said even affluent families like hers have had to adjust to the rising costs by eyeing grocery prices more closely, using the car less and eating in fancy restaurants only on special occasions. “You have to differentiate between needs and wants, what is necessary and what is not necessary. If you can get something cheaper, you don’t have to go for branded (luxury) items,” she told AFP. While soaring inflation in developing countries, amid a global food crisis, has left many struggling to feed their families, Singaporeans are dealing with the impact of price hikes in their own ways. For Janice Tan, 35, who works at a travel agency, the soaring prices have forced members of her family to shower only once a day to cut their water bill. Water used to rinse vegetables is recycled to flush the toilet. To reduce the electric bill, Tan said she told her maid to iron only office clothes — and just the parts that are visible. “It’s a big deal for Singapore in that we have never had inflation higher than three percent,” said Euston Quah, head of the economics division at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University. “It hits the poor badly because the poor spend maybe 40, 50 percent of their income on food,” he said. Quah sees inflation eventually easing to around 4.5 to 5.5 percent this year, while the government has forecast 2008 economic growth forecast of 4.0 to 6.0 percent. Amin Sorr, 65, who works with a shipping firm, said life has become harder, especially for those earning less. With a monthly salary of 3,000 Singapore dollars (2,200 US), Sorr said he can cope, but friends pulling in 2,000 dollars or less are struggling. “I know a lot of friends who have problems with their water bills… and even personal credit lines.” Local charities say rising food prices are also driving more Singaporeans, especially poor senior citizens, to join queues for free meals. Salamah Salim, 40, who runs a food stall on the fringes of the business district, said: “Our expenses on food and rice have more than doubled over the past year. Rice and oil have risen tremendously.” Even expatriate professionals, particularly those with less generous housing allowances and other benefits, have been hit. As apartment rents surged, some moved their families from condominiums that come with swimming pools, gyms and barbecue pits to cheaper government-built flats without such resort-style amenities. “They raised our rent by 150 percent after our contract expired late last year,” said a Filipino computer engineer, who transferred from a gated condominium to a government-built high-rise in the suburbs. “I know several friends who have also made similar moves or are planning to move out once their leases expire,” he said, requesting anonymity. Dee Pritchard, who works at the Australian International School, said that except for being more careful with the grocery shopping and giving the children fewer treats, nothing much has changed in her lifestyle. “I’m lucky I’m not in the lower income (group) which would be suffering a lot more than I do really. But at the end of the week, the cash is less. There is less savings.” PHOTOS: Burmese Nationals Protest Constitution In Singapore Myanmar nationals protest constitution in Singapore, 27 Apr 2008 SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Hundreds of Myanmar nationals, many wearing red or t-shirts with the word “No”, gathered outside the Myanmar embassy in Singapore on Sunday to protest against the country’s proposed new constitution. Myanmar nationals queue to vote, outside the embassy of Myanmar in Singapore April 27, 2008. Hundreds of Myanmar nationals gathered outside the embassy in Singapore on Sunday as they waited for their turn to vote in the country’s constitutional referendum. REUTERS/Vivek Prakash Public protest is rare in Singapore, where all outdoor demonstrations are banned and a public gathering of more than four people requires a permit. According to Myanmar nationals outside the embassy, citizens living in Singapore can this week vote on whether to accept or reject a constitution written by the country’s military leaders. But they said most of them were turned away because they lacked documentation such as a form certifying that they had paid their taxes. “We are here to cast our votes. We will wait until we can vote,” said one of the waiting crowd, who said he was a student called James. A female companion with him, who declined to be named, said the organizers provided the red t-shirts as well as drinks and snacks to people waiting outside the embassy. The group, which at one point raised their Myanmar passports in the air to demonstrate their nationality, was well-organized, and largely peaceful, following instructions from the Singapore police to make way for passing traffic and clearing rubbish from the ground. Police officers stand outside the gates of the embassy of Myanmar in Singapore. REUTERS/Vivek Prakash Myanmar nationals hold up their passports outside the embassy of Myanmar in Singapore. REUTERS/Vivek Prakash Some monks were seen walking through the crowd. An official from the Myanmar embassy declined comment when contacted, while Singapore police on the ground declined to speak to Reuters. “We have the impression they don’t want us to vote,” said an organizer of the event who identified himself as William Thein. “People are very sure the junta will cheat. We can only wear these caps and t-shirts to show that the people are overwhelmingly against this unfair referendum.” Myanmar’s opposition National League for Democracy has called for a rejection of the constitution, drafted over the last 14 years by an army-picked committee. Other underground opposition groups are also pushing for the former Burma’s 53 million people to reject the charter. At least 60 people have been arrested in Myanmar for wearing t-shirts urging people to vote “No” in the May 10 constitutional referendum. Toa Payoh tak boleh tahan lah!! Sign the Tak Boleh Tahan! petition on May Day in WKS’s constituency, Singapore Democrats, 24 Apr 2008 As announced, the SDP will be in Toa Payoh to commemorate International Workers’ Day on 1 May 08. The May Day event is part of the Tak Boleh Tahan! campaign against rising costs in Singapore. We will be asking residents of Toa Payoh to sign a petition calling on the Government to do something about the unbearable cost of living and to stop the exploitation of Singaporean workers. Singapore Democrats and friends will be at Toa Payoh Central (next to the Toa Payoh Community Library) from 11 am to 6 pm next Thursday. We will encourage Singaporeans to support the campaign by signing the petition (see below). The SDP will also visit the kopitiams and talk with residents about their difficulties in coping with the horrendous increase in prices. We will also be distributing flyers showing how the ministers, all multi-millionaires, continue to make use of cheap foreign labour to suppress the wages of locals so that they can squeeze yet greater profit and revenue to feed their opulent lifestyles. We will also be selling Tak Boleh Tahan! t-shirts and buttons. The aim is to turn the campaign into a national effort to stop the PAP from continuing its rapacious policies. Dr Chee Soon Juan’s books will also be on sale. All in all, the occasion will be a meaningful one where we hope to raise the voice of Singaporeans so that the PAP will sit up and listen. There is also the added factor that Toa Payoh is the constituency of Mr Wong Kan Seng. It is opportune to let the Government know that the Home Affairs Minister must be held accountable for his failures. Whatever your reason, come down to Toa Payoh Central on 1 May to support the campaign and tell the Government: “Tak boleh tahan!” The Tak Boleh Tahan! Petition To: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong We, the undersigned, call on the Government to help the ordinary citizen cope with the crushing cost of living which is making life unbearable. The slew of price hikes over the past several months and the increase of the GST has caused inflation to sore to record levels. Coupled with decreasing wages, many of our workers can’t even afford three square meals a day. Some can’t afford to pay for water and electricity. Many are homeless. Given the dire circumstances, we call on you to: 1. Show that you understand our plight by not increasing your salary to such an exorbitant amount of $3.8 million a year. This works out to be more than $10,000 a day! Many of us will take a year just to make what you earn in a single day. Such an attitude is making the rich like you richer and the poor like us poorer. 2. Be more judicious in allowing foreign workers into Singapore. Our society and economy cannot sustain the indiscriminate influx of the so-called foreign talent. We cannot live on the kind of wages that foreigners can because, unlike them, we have to raise our families here. 3. Remember that many of our male Singaporeans have to serve National Service and thereafter return for reservist training for many years. Yet the foreign nationals, who do not have to make such sacrifices are getting all the jobs. 4. Release our hard-earned CPF savings. We are the biggest savers in the world and yet, we have the lowest retirement incomes compared to other countries. This is because you keep the HDB prices unaccountably high and then use all sorts of schemes to retain the little that is left in our savings. Compulsory annuity plan is the latest scheme. 5. Make public the information of the billions of our dollars that you conduct your businesses with through the GIC and Temasek. While you invest for the “long-term” many of us cannot afford to live decent lives and afford the soaring healthcare costs. In veiw of these, we urge you to govern democratically and return to us our economic and political rights. Your policies are not benefiting us, the people. We say to you: “Tak boleh tahan!” and call on you to make things right. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Should Singaporean Youths be Allowed to Vote at 18?, Workers’ Party Youth Wing, 21 Apr 2008 The Workers’ Party Youth Wing is pleased to invite you to participate in the first of our YouthQuake Forums and partake in a discussion on how youths in Singapore can be encouraged to adopt and carry forward a refreshing new agenda on voting age. This forum session seeks to educate, empower, and unite young people to bring youth-centric issues into the forefront of public discourse. It aims to provide an opportunity for youths to share their insights and opinions on promoting a vote @ 18 agenda in Singapore. In order to assist us in the organisation of this forum, kindly confirm your attendance by emailing the Workers’ Party Youth Wing @ youthwing@wp.sg by 1st May 2008 (Thursday). Date: 3 May 2008 (Sat) Time: 1400 hrs – 1600 hrs. Please be seated by 1345 hrs Venue: 216-G Syed Alwi Road #02-03 {216-G Syed Alwi Road is near Farrer Park MRT (NE8). At the MRT station go to Exit G, walk 550 metres along Kitchener Road (turn right) and walk another 100 metres along Townshend Road. It is also relatively nearer to Lavender MRT (EW11). From the MRT station, exit opposite SIR building. Walk 450 metres diagonally across towards Jellicoe Road, French Road, King George Ave, Maude Road, Townshend Road. For those who drive, carpark lots are plentiful which consist of URA lots and a nearby HDB multi storey carpark. - I copied these directions from the old WP website: Pseudo} The speakers for this event are: 1. Choo Zheng Xi: Zheng Xi will be speaking on the pros and cons of a vote @ 18 agenda. 2. Bernadette Tan: “A vote @18 agenda is more than a political issue. It’s a core social issue.” 3. Khairulanwar Zaini: Khairulanwar will be touching on the double standards adopted in Singapore of doing national service @ 18 while voting @ 21. Speaker profiles: Choo Zheng Xi is a second year student at the NUS Law Faculty. He was the youngest speaker to make his case at the Speaker’s Corner, taking to the soapbox in 2000 at the age of 14. His activism has since refined but he is no less passionate about youth involvement in the public sphere. Zheng Xi organized Myanmar Peace Awareness Day on all local campuses on August 2007. This involved public forums, red ribbon and armband distribution, and public petition signing. He is also the owner and Editor of TOC, a local online news and social commentary website with an established readership. He is currently involved in a blogger’s project to craft a position paper on deregulation to be submitted to the government. He looks forward to a day when youth involvement in public discourse will be the norm rather than the exception. Bernadette Tan is 17 this year. Formerly from Methodist Girls’ School (MGS), she is currently in her first year at Anglo-Chinese Junior College (ACJC). In MGS she represented the school in a variety of debating competitions. Now in ACJC she has continued her career as an orator, having already represented the school in the National Forensics League, an American oratory competition. She is the eldest daughter of Eric Tan, the WP East Coast candidate in the 2006 General Elections. Khairulanwar Zaini is willingly defending the nation although he would be glad to be deprived of the honour for the next remaining ten months. He remains a silent sideline observer of the socio-political landscape in Singapore, sporadically becoming outraged at certain political developments and even more sporadically writes about opposition development at http://burningrepublicstate.wordpress.com. A liberal at heart, he awaits the day a Singaporean politician will campaign on themes of hope and love. For Singapore To Maintain Mas Selamat Is Still In The Country Only Adds To The Embarrassment: Terrorism Expert Singapore’s most-wanted still at large two months after escape, AFP, 23 Apr 2008 SINGAPORE (AFP) - Two months after an alleged Islamic militant leader escaped from custody, Singapore is the object of ridicule and admits the country’s reputation has been damaged by its failure to capture him. Despite a massive manhunt, Southeast Asia’s most technologically advanced nation has been unable to track down Mas Selamat bin Kastari since he escaped by climbing out of a toilet window on February 27. Observers say the incident has embarrassed the country that prides itself on rigorous anti-terrorist measures. Coordinating minister for national security S. Jayakumar has called the escape “a dent in Singapore’s reputation.” The government accuses Kastari of plotting to hijack a plane in order to crash it into Singapore’s Changi Airport in 2001. He was never charged, but was being held under a law that allows for detention without trial. Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng told parliament on Monday that security agencies believe Kastari is still in Singapore, the smallest country in Southeast Asia with a population of 4.6 million. But terrorism expert Clive Williams thinks otherwise, suspecting Kastari is somewhere in the vast archipelago of Indonesia, whose nearest islands are clearly visible from Singapore. Williams, from the Australian Defence Force Academy, said that for Singapore to maintain Kastari is still in the country only adds to the embarrassment. “It’s been a long time now and I would think that they would’ve searched every place that he’d likely be in Singapore,” Williams told AFP. “It’s not a good reflection on the internal security system, is it?” He called for an independent review of Singapore’s entire terrorism-related security structure. The government has drafted in counter-terrorism units, the military and paramilitary Nepalese Gurkhas to search for Singapore’s most wanted man, whose face stares out from wanted posters on public buses, the walls of buildings, petrol stations and the subway system. “Here we are seeking one man everywhere, and we can’t still find him,” J.B. Jeyaretnam, of the new opposition Reform Party, said with a smile. Internet commentators responded with mocking humour to a government statement this week that the alleged Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) leader fled through an unsecured toilet window as guards stood outside the door. Authorities blame JI for a string of regional attacks including the 2002 bombings on the Indonesian resort island of Bali which killed 202 people. Wong described Kastari as “a key figure in the terrorist network” and warned that if he could link up with other JI leaders they could plan an attack on the city-state. Singaporeans do not seem so worried, but say his escape has shaken their faith in the country’s security system. Tan Soo Eng, 32, a research associate, said the security lapse “shows that we are not really as safe as we think we are.” Tan Hui Ching, an account executive, thinks Kastari has fled Singapore but adds: “Maybe Singapore is not that safe after all.” The Straits Times reported that opposition member of parliament Low Thia Khiang asked Wong about “speculation that Mas Selamat died” inside the Whitley Road Detention Centre where he was held. Wong replied that he saw no point in giving credence to such speculation, the newspaper said. A committee of inquiry found that Kastari, who walks with a limp, escaped through the window of a bathroom where he was taken before a regular visit by his family. Surveillance cameras that were not working, and a slow reaction from guards, contributed to Kastari’s flight, Wong said. The report prompted much derision on the Internet, where popular Singapore blogger Mr. Brown posted pictures of toilets perched on a tricycle and motorised carts, saying he had thought Kastari might have escaped on something similar. “But I was wrong. It was nothing THAT sophisticated,” he wrote. The home affairs ministry has said Kastari fled Singapore in December 2001 following an Internal Security Department operation against JI. He was arrested in Indonesia in 2006 before being handed back to Singapore. “Just as we found him the last time… so we will eventually again track him down, arrest him and detain him,” Wong vowed. SDP Calls For Wong Kan Seng’s Resignation Media Release: Mr Wong Kan Seng, resign, Singapore Democrats, 22 Apr 2008 The SDP has hitherto refrained from calling for Mr Wong Kan Seng’s resignation in the wake of the Mas Selamat fiasco even though a strong case could be made for it. We were waiting to see if Mr Wong showed any contrition for the debacle. But the Minister has ducked, parried and done everything except assume responsibility for what happened. With the release of the Committee of Inquiry (COI) report and his utterances in Parliament, calling for Mr Wong’s resignation is now imperative. We present the SDP’s case against the Minister and his top officers: With the partial revelation of the security arrangements at the Whitley Road Detention Centre (WRDC), it is clear that there was systemic failure within the operational structure of the facility. It was not just missteps on the part of lower-ranking police officers but rather wholesale negligence at the most senior levels. If the COI report is to be believed, the junior officers should not be the only ones to bear responsibility of Mr Mas Selamat’s alleged escape. For example, security fixtures such as the installation of window grilles is the responsibility of administrative planners, not Gurhka officers or Special Duty Operatives. Likewise, the effective and fail-safe operation of the CCTV system is beyond the control of officers charged with the day-to-day guarding of the detainees. Similarly, the guards cannot be responsible for the “cement ledge” that enabled Mr Selamat to climb out of the toilet or for the positioning of the so-called “weak perimeter fence.” Such physical structures can only be put in place by planners and administrators of the Centre. Who in the Singapore Police Force is responsible for the installation, design or construction of the WRDC’s features? The Director of the Internal Security Department and his superior the Commissioner of Police, of course. They, and not just those handling Mr Selamat, must be held accountable. There is no wriggle room here: Commissioner Koh Boon Hui and his ISD chief are culpable of the security meltdown. Their resignation is a must. What about their political boss, Minister Wong Kan Seng? It may be argued that Mr Wong cannot be in charge of the minutiae of the running of the WRDC. It must be pointed out, however, that the “security lapses”, to use Mr Wong’s words, were not fleeting moments of distraction. The structural weaknesses within the ISD Centre were yawning holes waiting to be exploited. For instance, how can the Minister-in-charge of prison security not tell his subordinates what must be the ABCs of prison security: Secure all windows and doors so that prisoners cannot run, walk, or crawl out through them to escape. And didn’t he give a directive that surveillance cameras had to be working 24/7? He wouldn’t allow the CCTV cameras outside his own residence to be left unmonitored or the security personnel not guarding his home for any period of time, would he? But this is not the end of Mr Wong’s culpability. His personal handling of the saga right from the get-go had incompetence written all over. It took 49 seconds for Mr Selamat to escape, 11 minutes for the prison staff to realise this, but a whole four hours for Mr Wong to sound the alert to the public. It took another week before his Ministry told people what the escapee was wearing. Then Mr Selamat was walking with a “distinct limp”, then that the limp was obvious only when he ran. Again this came only days after the escape during which time the prisoner could have already made his way to the North Pole. One would have thought that within minutes after he was alerted of the escape, Mr Wong would have gathered his top security officials, collate data of the situation giving priority to the description of Mr Selamat and his possible whereabouts, and disseminate them to the public. This could all have been done within the first hour of the breakout. But instead of acknowledging his own misjudgments and making a genuine effort to get to the bottom of the mess, the Minister cocks a snook at the public by appointing, or at least agreeing to the appointment of, his subordinate Deputy Secretary Dr Choong May Ling and former subordinate and police commissioner Mr Tee Tua Bah to sit on the three-member COI. Has the Minister no self-respect to at least insist that the COI be not only independent of his influence but also seen to be so? As a result the COI report, or the little that has been revealed, has been lampooned and ripped to shreds for its contradictory, incomplete and poorly explained findings. It raises more questions than answers. The last straw for the Singapore Democrats is Mr Wong casting blame on the junior officers while not-so-subtlely exonerating himself. Mr Wong announced that junior officers “all the way up” to the supervisory and management levels of the WRDC will be disciplined and penalised. He unabashedly avoids mentioning his own role in the episode. This is the hallmark of a man without honour and pride in his work and his responsibilities. When things go wrong leaders – true leaders – step up and take responsibility. They don’t make fall guys of their subordinates to save their own skins. In truth Mr Wong’s reputation is in tatters. He has demonstrated beyond doubt that he is unfit to continue with his job. Mr Wong Kan Seng, the SDP calls on you to stop passing the blame. Enough is enough. It is not the officers, it is not the window, it is not the toilet. It is you. Now do the right and decent thing: Resign. Chee Soon Juan Secretary-General Singapore Democratic Party COI Report Raises More Questions Than It Gives Answers A Tour de Farce, Singapore Democrats, 21 Apr 2008 First, the Government appoints former civil servants and even a subordinate of Mr Wong Kan Seng to conduct an inquiry into the escape of suspected terrorist Mr Mas Selamat. The Committee of Inquiry, or COI, then takes more than a month to conduct its work in secrecy. It then writes a report that Mr Wong, who is responsible for Mr Mas Selamt’s escape in the first place, “agrees with and accepts.” The farce continues… The COI finds that the limping detainee is able to climb through a toilet window in a maximum security facility, climb down a water pipe, run 20 metres, scale another building and jump over a perimeter fence – all in 49 seconds. For good measure, it just so happens that no one was monitoring the – not one but two – surveillance cameras during the time of the escape. In addition, no one was watching the detainee change out of his prison garb into his own clothes. In a regular prison, prisoners are made to change under the watchful eyes of the guards. In addition, every time a prisoner leaves the cell for yard, he needs to strip bare for inspection. Yet, all this was not done at the ISD Centre. That’s not all. A packet of seven toilet rolls were found. (Why would Mr Mas Selamat or his fellow JI detainees, being Malay Muslims, need toilet paper?) Also, a close examination of the Straits Times photograph shows two urinals with no space for a latrine. Why would there be toilet paper in a cubicle without a latrine? And if there are only urinals, why would Mr Mas Selamat have to remove his trousers instead of just pulling it down like all males do when they urinate? There doesn’t even seem that there is a tap in the cubicle. How did the detainee turn on a non-existent tap and leave it running? The toilet paper, the COI tells us, could have been used by the prisoner to break his fall as he jumped out of the window. The SDP is surprised that the COI didn’t also report finding a ladder in the cubicle. Let’s put things together: 1. The guard neglects to watch the prisoner as he changes out of his prison clothes. 2. Toilet rolls were left in the toilet which has no latrine and the prisoners don’t use them. 3. The guard sees the detainee “flipping” his trousers over the top of the door and doesn’t find it strange, and hears tap water running when there doesn’t seem to be a tap in the cubicle. 4. The prisoner knows exactly where to run to, scale a fence, climb a walkway and jump to freedom in less than one minute when he doesn’t have a clue as to the surroundings. 5. Two cameras are either not working or no one paid any attention to them during the escape. What are the odds of the above all coming together at the same imperfect moment to facilitate Mr Mas Selamat’s escape? This Government must think that Singaporeans all just graduated from nursery school. Let’s get real. Even if it is to be believed that two of the surveillance cameras were not being monitored, surely there must have been the tapes. What did they show? Did the COI not look at these? Even if these two cameras were not monitored, or working, at the time of escape, there are other cameras within the detention centre which will capture the movement of the security officers immediately after the alert went out. What did these show? Did the COI question doctors and medical professionals who attended to Mr Mas Selamat? If no, why not? If yes, what were their reports of the prisoner just prior to his escape? When did they last observe the detainee? What was his physical condition then? Can the COI confirm that reports show that Mr Selamat was still alive on or before 27 Feb 08? It is even more bizarre that through all this, there is not any press report about what the detainee’s family think and feel. One would imagine that Mr Selamat’s parents, siblings or spouse who have something to say especially now that he has disappeared under the most mysterious of circumstances. And yet, there is only silence. What about the foreign press? Have they been prevented to interview the family? This COI report raises more questions than it gives answers. There is just so much farce that people can take. Now tell us the truth. Militant Escaped Without Trousers, Remains In Singapore By Melanie Lee and Daryl Loo, Reuters, 21 Apr 2008 SINGAPORE (Reuters) - A suspected Islamic militant fled without his trousers from an unlocked toilet window at a Singapore detention centre, but is thought to be still in the city-state two months after his escape, the government said on Monday. Urinal cubicle with ventilation window opened: Photos for Ministerial Statement from MHA. Click here for executive summary section of COI report. Click here for comments by Director of CID. Singapore’s deputy prime minister, Wong Kan Seng, told parliament Mas Selamat bin Kastari could strike the city-state if he managed to hook up with the Jemaah Islamiah network, blamed for the 2002 nightclub bombings in Bali that killed 202 people. Kastari, the suspected leader of the Singapore cell of al Qaeda-linked JI, flipped his trousers above the toilet cubicle door before escaping through a window, Wong said in a briefing to parliament on the investigation into the escape. “The guard had assumed that the urinal cubicle was a secure facility and that Mas Selamat could not escape from it. This assumption was wrong,” he said. He said the two guards who escorted Kastari to the toilet had “failed in their duties” and the officers responsible would be “replaced”. The government has apologised for the security lapse but has not announced the dismissal of any senior officials. “In my view, the security weakness of this window is the single most crucial factor which enabled Mas Selamat to escape,” said Wong, who was grilled for more than two hours by parliamentarians. Wong said Kastari had planned his escape “over time”. Kastari had changed into a yellow baju kurung, or tunic-like Malay traditional dress, and trousers for a meeting with his family at the detention centre, but could have taken his detention clothes with him during the escape, Wong said. Rear of family visitation block He said he was not sure how Kastari, who has a limp, managed to get over the double perimeter fence at the centre, but said he could have “exploited a weakness” in the fencing. Increased Risk Kastari was being held for allegedly plotting to crash a plane into Singapore’s airport, but had not been tried. Wong said he was still in Singapore and could attack the country. “Throughout the search in the last seven weeks there were some findings or information that led to our security agencies believing that he is in Singapore,” Wong said. Some experts have said that Kastari could try to return to Indonesia. If that happens, Wong said Singapore could face an increased risk of an attack. “If he could leave Singapore and connect back with his JI friends, they could well launch some plans to attack Singapore.” Kastari’s escape sparked a massive manhunt on the tiny city-state that saw Nepali Gurkhas combing forests and a global security alert from Interpol. Wong said that the investigation into Kastari’s escape concluded that he received no help from the centre’s guards or staff and was not assisted by someone from the outside. The escape was seen by some experts as highly embarrassing for Singapore, which prides itself on tight security. Wong said the authorities were considering building a new detention centre inside a prison. Singapore, a strong U.S. ally and a major base for Western businesses, sees itself as a prime target in the region after it said it foiled JI plots in 2001 to attack its airport and other sites, including the U.S. embassy and the American Club. ************* Singapore details terror suspect escape, Gillian Wong, AP, 21 Apr 2008 SINGAPORE (AP) — An unsecured bathroom window and complacent guards allowed a top terror suspect to flee a high-security prison in February, Singapore’s deputy prime minister said Monday. In announcing the results of a probe into the embarrassing escape, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng said Mas Selamat Kastari, who allegedly once plotted to hijack an airplane and crash it into the city-state’s international airport, had planned his Feb. 27 escape over time. Speaking in Parliament, Wong said Mas Selamat climbed out of a ventilation window of a toilet cubicle before a scheduled weekly visit with his family. The window did not have a grill on it, Wong said. “In my view, the security weakness of this window is the single most crucial factor which enabled Mas Selamat to escape,” Wong said. Wong said there was no video recording of the escape since closed-circuit television coverage of the area was being upgraded to add motion detectors. The escape triggered a monthlong nationwide manhunt in which police, special operations officers, elite Gurkha guards and soldiers combed the island nation’s forests. Border security was tightened. Wong said the probe found no evidence suggesting that it was an inside job, but said the guards should have kept Mas Selamat in sight by preventing him from closing the cubicle door. “Complacency, for whatever reason … had crept into the operating culture” at the detention center, Wong said. Wong said the officers responsible for Mas Selamat’s escape would be disciplined, penalized and replaced. Security breaches are rare in tightly controlled Singapore, an island nation of 4.5 million people that is a 45-minute boat ride from Indonesia where Mas Selamat is alleged to have links with the Jemaah Islamiyah terror network, blamed for a series of attacks that have killed more than 250 people since 2002. In response to lawmakers’ questions, Wong said authorities believed Mas Selamat had not managed to flee the country, and that there is a risk the fugitive would launch a retaliative attack on the city-state. “We consider him to be a key trigger in the terrorist network,” he said. “If he could leave Singapore and connect back with his (Jemaah Islamiyah) friends, they could well launch a revenge attack.” Mas Selamat is said to be the former commander of the local arm of the Jemaah Islamiyah. No LIVE Broadcast By CNA Of COI’s Findings On Mas Selamat’s Escape Parliament will be sitting in less then half an hour according to the Order Paper. The highlight of today’s Parliament sitting are the ministerial statements: Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, Wong Kan Seng, on the Committee of Inquiry (COI) Findings on Mas Selamat Kastari’s Escape AND Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Government Responsibility. Channel News Asia (CNA), Singapore’s local pro-govt broadcaster, isn’t airing a LIVE broadcast of these two important statements in Parliament. Budget statements are broadcast LIVE every year. Even the statement on the controversial casino issue was broadcast LIVE. Television reaches out, instantly, to many people. Therein lies the reason. Being Singaporeans, most of us know how CNA kisses-up to the PAP govt in its many reports. So its hardly surprising that CNA isn’t airing it LIVE so as not to embarrass our “great leaders” who can do no wrong. Our pro-govt local media is well-known in bending over backwards in order not to portray our “great leaders” in a negative light. Cartoon from my sketchbook We deserve better but unfortunately we’re pretty much stuck with propagandists masquerading as journalists. An update: Click here to read the Executive Summary. Its 6 pages and in PDF. Click here to read DPM Wong Kan Seng’s statement. Its 21 pages and in PDF. Singapore Is Materially Rich, Spiritually Poor by Luqman Suratman, AFP, 18 Apr 2008 SINGAPORE (AFP) — Singapore is materially rich but spiritually poor - and the government is partly to blame, one of the city-state’s most prominent authors says. Catherine Lim, also a political commentator, is one of a very few to publicly criticise the government in Southeast Asia’s most economically advanced society. Lim said that while Singapore is consistently ranked high in various surveys on material measures, such as business friendliness and economic achievement, the standings are reversed when other factors are considered. “Press freedom, happiness and even love life and romance and so on, Singapore is ranked very low,” Lim said in an interview with AFP. “Maybe it leads to some questions. Are we achieving all this material prosperity at the cost of something? Soul, spirit, heart, senses, whatever you want to call it?” She said the government’s tight political control is partly to blame for a lack of happiness among the city-state’s 4.6 million people. “If there were less of a climate of fear… we would be a happier society,” she said. Singapore is one of the most politically stable countries in the region and has become the base for thousands of foreign firms. The country’s leaders say its tough laws against dissent and other political activity are necessary to ensure such stability which has helped it achieve economic success. It is illegal, for example, to hold a public gathering of five or more people in Singapore without a permit, meaning demonstrations seldom occur. Singapore’s leaders maintain that Western-style liberal democracy is not suitable for the tiny, multi-racial nation which has been ruled by the People’s Action Party since 1959. Lim said the government is doing much better than others in helping to deal with “material issues”, including rising global food prices. “This is a very pro-active government… a very pragmatic, problem-solving leadership,” the Malaysian-born Lim, 66, said. “The problem is in the other areas, political and social liberties that we don’t hear much of here in Singapore.” Lim, who has lived in the city-state since 1967, spoke to AFP on the sidelines of a conference on The New Science of Happiness and Well-being, where she was invited to speak, and which ended Thursday. Paris based media watchdog Reporters Without Borders ranked the city-state at 146 out of 168 nations, lower than Zimbabwe at 140, on a global index of press freedom released last year. Singapore has also placed at the lower end in global surveys of sex frequency and satisfaction. A recent poll by advertising firm Grey Group found that nine in 10 people living in Singapore said they were stressed. Singaporeans are not “unhappy in the real sense of the word as in poverty-stricken countries”, Lim said, but they seem to feel something is missing to complete their happiness. “We need more time to relax. Singaporeans are always talking about pressure. We make money, but hey, we don’t have the leisure to spend our money.” Lim has written more than nine collections of short stories, five novels and a book on poems. Her works have been published internationally. Last year she also turned to the Internet, after the pro-government Straits Times refused to publish one of her commentaries, her website says. The newspaper had, for 13 years, published her commentaries even though they were critical of the government, she wrote on the website. But in September it rejected one on “the need for a political opening up”, the website says. The Today daily also refused to publish it, forcing her to go online, she says on the website. Direct criticism of the government is rare in Singapore’s mainstream media, forcing dissatisfied Singaporeans to resort to the web to express their views. VIDEOS: Reform Party Ng Teck Siong, Chairman of the new Reform Party, introducing the party at a press conference on Friday, 18 Apr 2008, at the Quality Hotel at Balestier Road JBJ talks on Reform Party’s action plan and constitution Q & A - Part 1 Q & A - Part 2 Cartoon from my sketchbook New party vows to fight Singapore ‘enslavement’, AFP, 19 Apr 2008 SINGAPORE (AFP) - - A tough-talking new political party vowed on Friday to fight what it called the “enslavement” of Singapore after nearly half-a-century of rule by the People’s Action Party (PAP). “Our people have been enslaved all this while,” J.B. Jeyaretnam, 82, interim secretary general of the Reform Party, told a news conference. He said Singaporean society has been “castrated” and its people left powerless by an executive that holds “absolute power.” For Jeyaretnam, a rare voice criticising the PAP over the past decades, the party’s formation marks his full return to politics after emerging from bankruptcy and being reinstated as a lawyer. “We now in the Reform Party are not going to play pussy-foot with the PAP,” he told reporters at the close of a lengthy address which outlined what he sees as the country’s social, political and economic problems. “I think it’s time now to ask questions and hold the PAP to account,” he said. Party officials said they held the news conference a day after filing documents to register their party. The opposition plays only a marginal role in Singapore but Jeyaretnam made political history in 1981 when he became the first opposition politician elected to parliament. He was then secretary general of the Workers’ Party. The lawyer was disbarred when he was declared bankrupt in 2001 after failing to pay libel damages to members of the PAP, including former prime minister Goh Chok Tong. During his bankruptcy, he was reduced to hawking his self-penned books outside city subway stations. Last year Jeyaretnam paid 233,255 Singapore dollars (now 172,578 US) to clear his bankruptcy, which had prevented him from running for political office, after help from friends and his prominent lawyer son. He was also reinstated to the bar and has resumed legal practice. On Friday, Jeyaretnam said he did not care whether Singapore’s “obedient press” reported his comments — which continued for 80 minutes. “Some things have to be said,” he stated as he began the speech. He said Singapore, which prides itself on having ‘First World’ status, faces a widening gulf between rich and poor. Government leaders earn millions but many families survive on one or two thousand dollars a month (605-1,1210 US), yet nobody speaks up, he said. “There is, I don’t have to tell you, a fear culture in Singapore,” Jeyaretnam said. “It’s a total enslavement of the people.” He said the party’s registration documents contained the names of only 10 people — and even attracting that many was not easy. “People are still afraid,” he said. Asked whether his news conference in a hotel meeting room was being monitored by police, he replied: “I’m sure that it is.” Jeyaretnam said he hopes not only to reform the structure of the Singapore system but also people’s way of thinking, to rouse them from a PAP-induced “slumber.” Jeyaretnam said that, if he is physically able, he will stand as a candidate in the next general election due by 2011. He called for a complete overhaul of the electoral system, which he said places opposition parties at a disadvantage. The PAP won all but two seats in last year’s polls for the 84-member parliament. The country’s leaders say its tough laws against dissent and other political activity are necessary to ensure the stability which has helped it achieve economic success. Thousands of foreign firms are based in Singapore, one of the most politically stable countries in the region. The leaders dismiss criticisms from human rights groups who have said the government uses libel laws to silence critics, saying they have to protect their reputations. Jeyaratnam spoke at a table with two other party officials beside him. To their left stood a white board which carried only two words in blue ink: “Reform Party.” Singapore Opposition Veteran Says His New Political Party Will Fight To Empower The People By Gillian Wong, Associated Press Writer, 18 Apr 2008 SINGAPORE - A veteran Singapore opposition figure said Friday his new political party will press for more help to the city-state’s poor and strive to empower citizens by raising awareness of their rights. Joshua B. Jeyaretnam, who turned 82 in January, also said that he will contest the next parliamentary election, due by 2011, if his health permits. “If I’m still here, if I’m still fit - of course,” he said when asked if he planned to run in an election. “I thank God that I’m still able. I don’t suffer from any major illnesses, diabetes, or asthma, or anything.” In 1981, Jeyaretnam became the first opposition politician elected to Parliament since Singapore’s independence from Malaysia in 1965. He was declared bankrupt in 2001 when he failed to pay more than S$600,000 (US$367,000; euro308,500) in damages to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Lee’s predecessors Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong, and others. Jeyaretnam emerged from bankruptcy last year after paying off damages from defamation lawsuits filed by the country’s leaders. Being solvent again makes him eligible to run in elections. He told reporters he submitted an application Thursday to register the Reform Party as a political party and that it would take up to two months to be approved. The new party would first reach out to Singaporeans to remind them of their political rights, of which Jeyaretnam said they have been deprived by the ruling People’s Action Party, or PAP, in the tightly controlled city-state. “The battle plan is to try and energize our people, to rouse them from this slumber into which the PAP has led them,” Jeyaretnam said, while pledging to press the ruling party on a number of issues affecting the poor. The PAP, which came to power in 1959, holds 82 out of 84 elected seats in Parliament. He said the party will ask the government to remove a sales tax for basic necessities, including some foods, medicine and schoolbooks; improve the public health care system; and question the million-dollar salaries of Cabinet ministers, among other issues. “I think it’s time for us to ask the questions and hold the PAP to account,” he said. The party currently comprises ten members, the minimum required to register a political party, but would recruit more after it is registered, Jeyaretnam said. He acknowledged that finding the first ten members just to register the party had been a challenge, which he attributed to a fear of joining the opposition. “It’s not been easy, let me tell you, because simply that people are still afraid,” he said. “You can’t scoff at this idea of fear in Singapore. It’s very real, I know it.” Singapore says its political system has democratic features, including elections, but that it does not seek a freewheeling, Western-style democracy that could foment tension and even chaos. Authorities tightly restrict speech and assembly, saying such controls provide the stability that has helped turn Singapore into a global economic powerhouse. Longer Queues For Free Food In Wealthy Singapore AFP, 14 Apr 2008 SINGAPORE (AFP) - Rising food prices are driving more people in Singapore, the wealthiest economy in Southeast Asia, to join the queue for free meals, charities said Monday. Thirty percent more people are turning up daily to fill their stomachs at the Singapore Buddhist Lodge, which serves free vegetarian meals, the temple’s president Lee Bock Guan said. During weekends the figures are even higher, when about 5,000 people arrive for the free food compared to 3,000 three months ago, he told AFP. “Food prices have gone up and for them, their wages have not gone up as much,” he said, adding the needy are coming from all walks of life. “Their income is not enough to cope with the higher food prices.” Lee said donations from some of the temple’s wealthiest members are still strong, allowing it to handle the rising demand. The Care Corner Seniors Activity Centre, which serves free breakfast, lunch and afternoon tea, said inflation has led 10 percent more elderly citizens to turn up for meals, compared with two months ago. Some of them have started to take more food at lunch and bring the extra home for their dinner, said a centre worker who declined to be named. The Young Women’s Christian Association, which cooks meals and delivers them to the needy, said it is operating at peak capacity serving 200 people each day - despite a drop in rice donations. “One of the possible reasons could be the increasing price of rice,” programme executive Han Shin Hui said, adding donations of other food items such as biscuits have increased. She said the organisation has had to use its own funds to cover the drop in rice donations. Singapore is an island state that imports virtually all its food needs. Consumer price index inflation reached 6.6 percent in January-February, up from 0.8 percent in the first half of last year, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) said last week. MAS announced it had tightened monetary policy in a bid to address the price rises. ************** The different faces of Singapore, Seah Chiang Nee, Insight Down South, theStar, 12 Apr 2008 The top 10% of the population are the rich, who live in wealthy districts, while the bottom 20% are the languishers who have difficulty coping with a high cost structured life. The third is the large middle class. A SINGAPOREAN couple walked into a Lamborghini showroom and bought two units – his and hers – for US$650,000 (RM2.04mil) each. “It’s amazing; young kids coming in and spending S$2mil (RM4.7mil),” the manager told a journalist. “I don’t think they were even 30 years old.” Last year, 29 of these crème de la crème models were sold countrywide, beating Ferrari (26 cars). In 2007 a total of 320 luxury cars including Rolls Royce, Bentley, Lotus, Aston Martin and Maserati, were sold to Singapore’s new rich. As the nouveau riche basks in their newfound glory, more Singaporeans from the poorer quarters are approaching the government for food aid. A growing number of homeless can be seen sleeping in void decks of buildings and, pressed by high living costs, more elderly citizens are working as toilet cleaners or collecting used cans for recycling. Singapore remains largely a middle class society. The high number of shopping plazas attests to it. But the group may be decreasing as a result of globalisation and runaway prices. The city-state of 4.7 million people has two – perhaps three – faces. On the top 10% are the rich, who live in wealthy districts, own yachts and blow S$10,000 (RM23,209) on a single meal. At the bottom 20% of the population are the languishers who have difficulties coping with a high cost structured life in an international city. The third is the large middle class. Take the case of Carol John, 27. She doesn’t own a bed, sleeps every night on thin mattresses with her three children. Hers is a one-bedroom flat that reeks of urine smell from the common corridor outside. “I can’t save anything, it’s so difficult for me,” John, who is unemployed, told a reporter. She relies on her husband’s S$600 (RM1,392) monthly salary and S$100 (RM232) government handout. She is luckier than others who are homeless – elderly and even entire families - who sleep at void decks or the beach and bathe at public restrooms. In perspective, Singapore is the second richest country in Asia next to Japan, with a per capita GDP of US$48,900 (RM154,141). Homeless cases are few, nowhere comparable in number to Osaka’s army of vagabonds or New York’s ‘bag ladies’. In fact, nine out of 10 poor people in Singapore have their own home, and usually a phone and a refrigerator. But in the local context, it is a potential minefield of unrest. The proportion of Singaporeans earning less than S$1,000 (RM2,320) a month rose to 18% last year, from 16% in 2002, according to central bank data. The bad part is that life is often worse for the unemployed – compared to other countries - because Singapore has no safety net and no rural hinterland to cushion their suffering. Unlike in Malaysia or Thailand, a jobless person who cannot cope with the global market has no countryside to retreat to so that he can live off the land. The problem will get worse. In other words, the rich will get richer and the poor, poorer with the middle class remaining more or less stagnant. The state’s Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, has worsened from 42.5 in 1998 to 47.2 in 2006, which makes it in league with the Philippines (46.1) and Guatemala (48.3), and worse than China (44.7) according to the World Bank. Other wealthy Asian nations such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan have more European-style Ginis of 24.9, 31.6 and 32.6 respectively. This is one of the worst failures of the modern People’s Action Party, despite its ‘democratic socialism’ principles. It was with these that its first generation leaders were able to turn a poor squalid society into a middle class success story. Economists attribute the major blame to globalisation, which benefits the skilled citizens and the rich but makes it hard for the unskilled, the aged and the sick. Even the highly educated are not spared. The use of new instruments like company restructuring, relocation or out-sourcing of workers – unheard of before – is widening the gap and creating more income inequality. For example, while the proportion of lower income rises, those who earn S$8,000 (RM18,570) or more increased from 4.7% to 6%. This rising inequality could eventually undermine the bedrock of society - the broad middle class. Some economists say that the feared erosion of Japan’s middle class, first enunciated by Japanese strategist Kenichi Ohmae, may already be happening here. His country was emerging into a “M-shape” class distribution, in which a very few middle class people may climb up the ladder into the upper class, while the others gradually sank to the lower classes. These people suffered a deterioration in living standard, faced the threat of unemployment, or their average salary was dropping, he said. Gradually, they can only live a way the lower classes live: e.g. take buses instead of driving their own car, cut their budget for meals instead of dining at better restaurants, spend less in consumer goods. And, Kenichi said, all this might take place while the economy enjoyed remarkable growth and overall wages rose. However, the wealth increase may concentrate in the pockets of the very few rich people in the society. The masses cannot benefit from the growth, and their living standard goes into decline. The Singapore government, which relies on the middle class vote to remain in power, has vowed to make economic gap-levelling its top priority – for survival, even if nothing else. “Young Chinese Have No Sympathy For Tibet” China’s Loyal Youth, Matthew Forney, Opinion, New York Times, 13 Apr 2008 Many sympathetic Westerners view Chinese society along the lines of what they saw in the waning days of the Soviet Union: a repressive government backed by old hard-liners losing its grip to a new generation of well-educated, liberal-leaning sophisticates. As pleasant as this outlook may be, it’s naïve. Educated young Chinese, far from being embarrassed or upset by their government’s human-rights record, rank among the most patriotic, establishment-supporting people you’ll meet. As is clear to anyone who lives here, most young ethnic Chinese strongly support their government’s suppression of the recent Tibetan uprising. One Chinese friend who has a degree from a European university described the conflict to me as “a clash between the commercial world and an old aboriginal society.” She even praised her government for treating Tibetans better than New World settlers treated Native Americans. It’s a rare person in China who considers the desires of the Tibetans themselves. “Young Chinese have no sympathy for Tibet,” a Beijing human-rights lawyer named Teng Biao told me. Mr. Teng — a Han Chinese who has offered to defend Tibetan monks caught up in police dragnets — feels very alone these days. Most people in their 20s, he says, “believe the Dalai Lama is trying to split China.” Educated young people are usually the best positioned in society to bridge cultures, so it’s important to examine the thinking of those in China. The most striking thing is that, almost without exception, they feel rightfully proud of their country’s accomplishments in the three decades since economic reforms began. And their pride and patriotism often find expression in an unquestioning support of their government, especially regarding Tibet. The most obvious explanation for this is the education system, which can accurately be described as indoctrination. Textbooks dwell on China’s humiliations at the hands of foreign powers in the 19th century as if they took place yesterday, yet skim over the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and ’70s as if it were ancient history. Students learn the neat calculation that Chairman Mao’s tyranny was “30 percent wrong,” then the subject is declared closed. The uprising in Tibet in the late 1950s, and the invasion that quashed it, are discussed just long enough to lay blame on the “Dalai clique,” a pejorative reference to the circle of advisers around Tibet’s spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama. Then there’s life experience — or the lack of it — that might otherwise help young Chinese to gain a perspective outside the government’s viewpoint. Young urban Chinese study hard and that’s pretty much it. Volunteer work, sports, church groups, debate teams, musical skills and other extracurricular activities don’t factor into college admission, so few participate. And the government’s control of society means there aren’t many non-state-run groups to join anyway. Even the most basic American introduction to real life — the summer job — rarely exists for urban students in China. Recent Chinese college graduates are an optimistic group. And why not? The economy has grown at a double-digit rate for as long as they can remember. Those who speak English are guaranteed good jobs. Their families own homes. They’ll soon own one themselves, and probably a car too. A cellphone, an iPod, holidays — no problem. Small wonder the Pew Research Center in Washington described the Chinese in 2005 as “world leaders in optimism.” As for political repression, few young Chinese experience it. Most are too young to remember the Tiananmen massacre of 1989 and probably nobody has told them stories. China doesn’t feel like a police state, and the people young Chinese read about who do suffer injustices tend to be poor — those who lost homes to government-linked property developers without fair compensation or whose crops failed when state-supported factories polluted their fields. Educated young Chinese are therefore the biggest beneficiaries of policies that have brought China more peace and prosperity than at any time in the past thousand years. They can’t imagine why Tibetans would turn up their noses at rising incomes and the promise of a more prosperous future. The loss of a homeland just doesn’t compute as a valid concern. Of course, the nationalism of young Chinese may soften over time. As college graduates enter the work force and experience their country’s corruption and inefficiency, they often grow more critical. It is received wisdom in China that people in their 40s are the most willing to challenge their government, and the Tibet crisis bears out that observation. Of the 29 ethnic-Chinese intellectuals who last month signed a widely publicized petition urging the government to show restraint in the crackdown, not one was under 30. Barring major changes in China’s education system or economy, Westerners are not going to find allies among the vast majority of Chinese on key issues like Tibet, Darfur and the environment for some time. If the debate over Tibet turns this summer’s contests in Beijing into the Human Rights Games, as seems inevitable, Western ticket-holders expecting to find Chinese angry at their government will instead find Chinese angry at them. Matthew Forney, a former Beijing bureau chief for TIME, is writing a book about raising his family in China. SDP Website Wins Hitwise Public Popularity Award For Politics Click here to see the Hitwise media release (PDF) on the 2007 winners. SDP’s website won the award for “Politics” under “Lifestyle”. Here’s what SDP had to say……. SDP website wins public popularity award, Singapore Democrats, 4 Apr 2008 The Singapore Democrats were awarded the Hitwise Singapore Online Performance Award for 2007 for our website. Hitwise, an Australian-based company, informed the SDP of the results in March this year. The organisation announced that the award was a recognition of No. 1 websites across a variety of industries in Singapore. It said: “This unique awards program recognises excellence in online performance through public popularity.” The award was given based on internet usage of approximately 1.5 million Singapore Internet users visiting over 9,300 local websites during 2007. Hitwise added that it measured “the largest number of websites and local Internet users of its kind throughout the course of the year.” Its methodology is audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The award ceremony was held yesterday. The SDP thanks all of you for your support. We hope you will continue to do this by helping us publicise this website with your family and friends. You can start by clicking on the “email” icon on the top right corner and sending this message to as many of your relatives, colleagues and friends as possible. Help us spread the word of democracy and awaken the people of Singapore. This award means nothing to us if we cannot further our cause of speaking up for our fellow citizens. NUS Student Magazine Censors Interview With Chee Soon Juan Singapore Democrats, 3 April 2008 National University of Singapore (NUS) The Ridge magazine, a student union journal, has declined to publish an interview one of its writers did with Dr Chee Soon Juan. Mr Kelvin Lim, a student reporter for The Ridge, wrote to Dr Chee in January this year for an interview for the magazine when the Singapore Democrats held its public forum on election reform. We reproduce the unpublished interview below: The Ridge: Are you satisfied with the turnout of the forum? Dr Chee: Yes, I am. But organising a forum is the easiest thing to do in this process because it’s not the number who turn up at a forum that is going to reform our election system. It’s really those who dedicate themselves to the work in the months and years ahead that are ultimately going to mean whether we have free and fair elections or whether we continue to live in a one-party state. The Ridge: Do you think this forum has achieved the original intention of “kick-start a national effort to address and rectify an election system”? Dr Chee: Whether the reform effort is ultimately successful or not depends on whether Singaporeans are willing to come forward and serve the cause. My role is to persuade and encourage Singaporeans, especially youths such as yourselves, to take up the challenge and push for change. The fastest way for anything to fail is for people to wait for other people to do the work. We need leaders – real leaders, not those who call on others to make all the sacrifices and then demand that they be paid millions in salaries. We need Singaporeans who not only have the vision and foresight, but also those who have the guts to come out and fight for what they believe in. For every 100 historians, researchers, analysts, and commentators, there is one activist out there with sweat on his brow, pushing the boundaries and working for change. It would be nice if the numbers were reversed. The Ridge: What are the immediate future plans after this forum? Dr Chee: We have called for a meeting where we will make plans to form a committee, identify the tasks ahead, and assign work. If you or anyone of your readers are interested, please contact us at speakup@yoursdp.org. Remember, it’s our future and our nation that we are talking about. If we Singaporeans don’t care, no one else will. The Ridge: By and large, the Singapore Democratic Party has not been very popular among Singaporeans. Being at the forefront of this movement, would you view this as an impediment? Dr Chee: I remember talking with Kim Dae-jung in the 1990s when he had still not yet become the president of South Korea. Kim was imprisoned for six years for his role in fighting for democracy in Korea and had survived a couple of assassination attempts. He had lost several elections and at one point was very unpopular among his fellow citizens, especially those from other provinces. This was because the military government relentlessly painted him as one who was soft on the communists in North Korea. You needed a strong military government, albeit a dictatorial one, to stand up to the communist North, the generals said. A democracy would weaken South Korea and invite the North to invade. Kim said that it hurt him deeply when his fellow citizens criticized him but he believed in what he was doing and would not stop working for a democratic South Korea. He persevered and won his people over. Similarly, democracy activists in Taiwan were unpopular during the martial law years. In Indonesia the opposition could muster no more than a quarter of the votes during the Suharto years. Yet when democratic change came, when free and fair elections were held, the tables turned. When there is not a free media and when we don’t have a free and fair election system, let us not just do what is popular. Instead, let us have the honesty and courage to do what is right. Popularity in an undemocratic system is like the wicked queen and her mirror on the wall. It is based on deception and vanity. This is what the situation with the PAP is. The opposition must not fall into the same trap. In truth it is not the lack of popularity that is an impediment to the reform of elections in Singapore, rather the craving of it. The Ridge: In the face of an apparent polarization of political views among opposition parties, do you think it is possible for reconciliation or compromise to a common ground? Dr Chee: If you are referring to ideology or platform, it is perfectly all right for political parties, even those in the opposition camp, to differ. Problems of society (and their solutions) are too complex for things to be neatly compartmentalized into just two views: government or opposition. But if you are talking about democratic change and reform of an unfair and unfree elections system, I don’t understand why opposition parties cannot band together. Look at PAS and the DAP in Malaysia. They have very disparate ideologies and appeal to very different segments of the electorate. And yet when it came to the recent protest for free and fair elections, they were arm-in-arm. It is to this end that the SDP will continue to reason with and persuade all opposition parties to see that in this one issue of electoral reform, we need to put aside our own interests and work together for the good of Singaporeans. Pride and prejudice will destroy not just our parties, but also Singapore. The Ridge: In your speech, you suggested raising awareness among university students, NGOs, academics as one of the concrete action towards election reform. However, would ordinary Singaporeans such as heart-landers be engaged in this process? Dr Chee: Yes. How? Through university students, NGOs and academics. As I mentioned, Singaporeans need to stop waiting for others to make the change. The SDP can’t do it alone. The committee that is going to be formed can’t do it alone. What we need to do, and will do, is to get more Singaporeans to actively participate in the process. The operative word here is “actively.” If the people we meet say “Yes, I know its important that we reform our election system” and yet choose to do nothing while waiting for the next person to do the work, then we will be talking about change for a very long time. We need to reach out to the heartlanders, there is no doubt about that. But when I say “we” I don’t just mean the SDP. Get on board and let’s get busy. The Ridge: An incessant preoccupation with the financial pursuits has left most Singaporeans politically disengaged. How would you seek to convince the politically apathetic to be more interested or involved? Dr Chee: By reaching out to those who are not. Change always comes from the minority – the thinking and engaged minority. It always has and always will. When we show leadership and courage, others will follow. I remember what Shih Ming-teh, a Taiwanese dissident jailed for 25 years who is now an influential political figure in Taiwan, once said: “In every era, there are always those who will struggle for freedom. These people play a difficult role, their paths are paved with pain and loneliness. These freedom fighters plod along a narrow path. But in the end, those who follow will widen the path into a broad avenue.” Don’t worry about the politically apathetic. Don’t look at them and say if they’re not interested, why should I do anything. Instead, take that first step even when others are either too afraid or seemingly apathetic. It’s called leadership. You’ll be surprised how many minds you will change from your act of courage and leadership. The Ridge: Finally, as a parting note, what do have to say to NUS students? Dr Chee: My colleagues and I will be coming down to your campus as well as the campuses of the other universities. I hope to be able to talk to you about the reform effort and discuss with you about setting up a student campaign for electoral reform. Better yet, it would be good if one of your unions or clubs could organise a forum for us to discuss this. In the meantime, visit our website www.yoursdp.org to keep abreast of political matters in Singapore. Singapore Democrats’ New Look Its not an April Fools Day joke. Welcome!, Singapore Democrats, I April 2008 …to our new home. You can even smell the fresh paint, can’t you? We’re really pleased and excited to present to you our new website. As you can see, we’ve enhanced existing features and introduced new ones to make your visits here just that little bit more worthwhile. Our top priority of bringing you important political news and analyses remains. The enhanced aesthetics is icing on the cake or, in more homely terms, the chai por on the chwee kueh. Equally important is that the website remains easy to navigate. All in, we hope you like it. As with all good hosts, allow us give you a quick tour around the place. Our top menu carries the regular features of the party, our manifesto, archived material, etc. Please note that on the left, you can access the page for financial contributions. For a party to grow we need funds. We need to keep our operations going and the only way that we can do this is if our supporters chip in. Please give generously. We thank those of you who have given in the past but the truth is that we need more finances just to cover our basic operations. We’d also like to bring your attention to a new feature called Perspectives. This segment contains the more serious discussion pieces in our Vantage and Special Features sections as well as light-hearted snippets in Political Hors D’oeuvre. We’ve also added Feature Blogs where we will highlight well-argued essays from our talented blogging community. We’ve also got a new Gallery section to house our photographs and videos that are multiplying by the week. For those who are nostalgic, our Classics I and II will take you back to the older versions of the website. There’s much archived material there for those of you doing research. For our younger readers, we encourage you to visit our Young Democrat page. In there you will find the YD’s Facebook. Come on in and be a friend. Several of you have asked that we provide a News Feed service where you can be updated on SDP’s news and events. So here it is (bottom of the left column). And if you wish to email a post to a colleague or friend, print it, or save a PDF format just click on one of the icons on the top right corner. And what about leaving a comment at the end of each post? Mi casa su casa. (Pseudo: That’s spanish for “my house is your house”) Enough already! We’ll leave you in peace to explore the website. Just one last word: Our new address is www.yoursdp.org. Please bookmark this and tell as many people as you can about us. This website is our only line of communication with Singaporeans (unless Dr Tony Tan has a change of heart). Our new email address is speakup@yoursdp.org. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it although the old one still works. Thanks for your support all these years. We press on. Again, welcome. First-Hand Account Of Tight Security At Whitley Road Detention Centre Singapore’s great escape by Jufrie Mahmood, Singapore Democrats, 27 Mar 2008 It is exactly one month today since Mas Selamat Kastari escaped from the Internal Security Department (ISD) Whitley Road Detention Centre. While we await the findings of the Government appointed “independent” Committee of Inquiry. I have not stopped wondering how the escape could have taken place. It is next to impossible for any detainee at the centre to escape. And I am saying this from personal experience. I was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) sometime in 1979 for an offence I did not commit. I was then a translator attached to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). Prior to my transfer to the CID I was serving in the same post in the ISD. I was unceremoniously transferred to the CID after being accused of having pro-opposition sentiments. I had privately voiced out my disagreement towards certain government policies which I felt was discriminatory and against the spirit of multi-racialism. I was only being honest about my disgust for such policies. I was, of course, found not suitable for the ISD and thus transferred to the CID. Not long after working in the CID, I was arrested and detained without trial. The authorities said that they had “found” some anti-government petition circulated to many organizations. The petition, I was told, was some sort of protest against the detention of a group of university students and had contained information about the ISD. The Government’s immediate response was to arrest me. They thought I was responsible for drafting and circulating the petition. Actually the petition was drafted and circulated by a colleague, a fellow translator in the CID, who got so worked up over the detention of some of his friends, many of whom were university undergraduates. Among those rounded up was Mr. Ahmad Khalis Abdul Ghani, an ex PAP MP who stepped down during the last GE. The ISD found out after I was already detained that the author of the petition was indeed my colleague, now deceased, and that I was not aware of its existence because it was drafted and circulated while I was on leave and absent from the office. Nevertheless, I was charged under the Official Secrets Act for revealing ISD operational methods to the my colleague and sentenced to nine months imprisonment. After some two months in Whitley Road Detention Centre I was moved to Queenstown Remand Prison. I was released after six months for good conduct. So as I had said, I am giving a first-hand account about the tight security at the detention centre. All movements in the centre are closely monitored. When a detainee needs to move from one station to another within the compound for further interrogation or for other purposes, he is physically escorted. The gurkha guards will hold the detainee’s hands tightly while moving from one station to another. When he goes for a toilet break the guards would stand guard outside the toilet entrance. And since toilets are not situated near or abutting the perimeter wall/fencing, escape is practically impossible. That being the case I can think of three possible reasons that could have led to the escape – that is, assuming the escape really took place: 1. Some party or parties were in cahoots with, and assisted, Mas Selamat in staging his escape. If this is the case there seems to be a breakdown in the system of screening security personnel. This is indeed a very serious development. 2. For reasons only known to the powers that be Mas Selamat was deliberately let loose. 3. Mas Selamat has magical powers which he may have acquired through long hours of meditation during his solitary confinement. In the meantime the Minister-in-Charge Mr Wong Kan Seng should take full responsibility for this embarrassing episode. I do not detect any signs of regret in his demeanour when making public statements concerning the case. He appears to be as cocky as ever. Ministers who are quick to claim credit for Singapore’s achievements must also be as quick in taking the blame for any shortcoming. The economic costs resulting from the delays and traffic jams at the causeway will easily run into tens of millions of dollars. Thus far the response by our security officials have been less than assuring and lacks professionalism. If the government is to be believed, Mas Selamat is a very dangerous individual. He is not a petty thief. But the immediate response to his escape smacks of a tidak apa (the devil may care) attitude. If I remember correctly it took the authorities four hours before they decided to inform and engage the public, one whole week before telling the public what clothes Mas Selamat was wearing and another few days to release information that his limp would only be obvious when he runs. I wonder at what point of time was the Home Affairs Minister informed of the “escape”, and having been informed, what his first reaction was and what directions he gave to his officers. This is very important because Singaporeans need to know the true quality of their leaders which is only evident in times of crises. After all, we citizens have been forced to accept the argument that our ministers are world class and should be paid handsomely. I would like to suggest that the Minister for Home Affairs volunteers to have his pay cut by $1,000 for every day that Mas Selamat is not caught. And since the cabinet claims to take collective responsibility, other cabinet ministers can join him and have their pay cut as well. The longer Mas Selamat remains free, the more money will be accumulated which can then be used to help the poor. This can also serve to mitigate PAP policies where the Poor Also Pay. Yes that has always been the PAP philosophy - the Poor Also Pay. Coming back to Mas Selamat, if he is rearrested the Government should put him on trial. Let the world hear his side of the story. Let him defend himself in court. If after due process of law the evidence shows that indeed he is guilty, then let the law take its course. In my opinion it is not that simple to seize a plane, pilot it over a distance and crash it into a building. According to information supplied by the authorities Mas Selamat is only a trained mechanic. Since when can a mechanic, acting alone, pilot a plane without first undergoing any formal or informal training. If the authorities have information on Mas Selamat’s flight training lessons, they have not told the public. We only keep hearing the mantra that “Mas Selamat tried to crash a plane into Changi Airport”. The people who crashed the planes into the world trade centre on 9/11 underwent months of training to learn to fly the planes. Let Singaporeans hear the truth - on how he managed to do the impossible of escaping from the Whitley Detention Centre, the whole truth - including how he was going to fly a plane to crash into Changi Airport, and nothing but the truth - from the man himself and not some Committee of Inquiry. Mr Jufrie was an opposition candidate in the 1988, 1991 and 1997 general elections. Quick To Kiss China’s A**! The Singapore government has been quick to support China on its handling of the recent unrests in Tibet. I’m not surprised coz its pretty much the same here even when the protests are peaceful. The most recent example of course is the tak boleh tahan protests. As for the unrests in Tibet, the Singapore government’s rush to support China without actually knowing what happened, especially what triggered the recent events, is quite pathetic, to put it mildly. Even then, blindly supporting China’s handling of the unrests, and Tibet in general, without acknowledging the underlying causes and roots of Tibetans’ anger, makes the Singapore government look like one of China’s biggest ass-kissers! We do know what the Tibetans are generally frustrated, upset and pissed-off about as these series of videos show…… 20 Mar 2008 5 Aug 2007 13 Mar 2008 15 Mar 2008 16 Mar 2008 17 Mar 2008 How Sovereign Wealth Funds Were Left Nursing Multibillion-Dollar Losses by Richard Wray, The Guardian, 22 Mar 2008 · Investments in banking stock rapidly go sour · Singapore group pours £9bn into leaking coffers The financial crisis enveloping the world banking sector has left the sovereign wealth funds, controlled by governments from Singapore and China to Abu Dhabi and Kuwait, nursing multibillion-dollar losses after helping to bail out major western banks. In recent months, banks including Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and UBS have turned to investment funds, including the Government of Singapore Investment Corp (GIC), its sister fund, Temasek, and China Investment Corp, for funding that western investors were unwilling to give as stockmarkets plunged. But the dramatic fire sale of the US investment bank Bear Stearns and subsequent stockmarket run on HBOS this week have depressed banking stocks further and deepened the climate of fear in the world’s stockmarkets. Singapore’s GIC, for example, which with funds of more than $330bn (£166bn) is one of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds, spent more than £5.5bn on a 9% stake in UBS last year. Shares in the Swiss bank are down 46% so far this year. It spent a further $6.88bn in January as part of a $14.5bn funding round for the embattled US bank Citigroup, Two months before, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA), which with assets estimated at up to $900bn is reckoned to be the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, invested $7.5bn in Citigroup bonds that will convert to shares in 2010 and 2011 at prices from $31 to $37. But since then Citigroup has become one of the most high-profile casualties of the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US, and its share price has plunged as low as $20 - nearly 40% lower than when the ADIA made its investment. The pain shows no sign of letting up. Two months ago, Citigroup announced it had plunged into the red over the past three months of 2007 and sliced its dividend almost in half as it wiped more than $18bn off the value of its assets because of exposure to sub-prime mortgages. But Wall Street analysts reckon the firm could record a further $15bn write-down for this financial quarter. China Investment Corporation’s investment in Morgan Stanley, made just before Christmas, is also facing a significant loss. The securities it picked up for $5bn will convert to stock at $48 to $57 a share in two years’ time. At present, however, Morgan Stanley’s share price is closer to $42. Another Beijing-backed money manager, China Development Bank, has also suffered as the stake in Barclays it bought in July has plunged in value. When it acquired the 3.1% shareholding, the bank’s shares were trading at about 680p each. On Thursday, they were at 429p. The Singaporean fund Temasek is also nursing losses on the 2.1% Barclays stake it bought last year, although its investment in the London-listed bank Standard Chartered has fared better. The bank, which has little involvement in the US sub-prime crisis, has weathered the storm better than many of its peers. The losses sustained by sovereign wealth funds are relatively insignificant when compared with the $3.2tr they are believed to have at their control. Morgan Stanley reckons that with the price of commodities such as oil set to remain high, this amount will balloon to $12tr by 2015. But the losses may dampen their appetite for further involvement in bailing out western banks. Western politicians are increasingly concerned about the power of sovereign wealth funds in their markets. Earlier this week the US government agreed voluntary principles with ADIA and Singapore’s GIC to regulate their investments. VIDEOS: Al Jazeera’s “The War In America” Five years on from the start of the war in Iraq Al Jazeera visited the USA to guage public mood towards the conflict. In a special four part documentary we talked to, among others, grieving mothers, politicians and the man widely regarded as coining the phrase “axis of evil”, who still supports the war. Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Al Jazeera English news report - Iraq war enters sixth year Treated Like Common Criminals For Peacefully Exercising Their Constitutional Rights Below are passages I have selected from a 2005 book by Kevin Y.L. Tan (one of Singapore’s leading public law scholars and legal historians) titled An Introduction to Singapore’s Constitution. Its a bit of background about the Constitution and especially for this post about the Tak Boleh Tahan protest last Saturday with regards to Freedom of Assembly. “Although many people have heard the words ‘constitution’, ‘constitutional’ and ‘constitutionalism’, few know what they mean….Today, we use it to refer to the most important and basic rules concerning a country’s government and legal structure. It is the supreme law of the land and is superior to all other laws. Put another way, the Constitution is the Mother of All Laws since it is the basic legal foundation of any society.” “Peoples all over the world have struggled to place government on a more democratic footing and to hold them accountable for their actions. That is why we have constitutions.” “In the modern state, government is large and the state possesses vast powers of coercion. As individuals, we worry that the state may become so overwhelming and powerful that we end up living under tyranny. We worry that those who govern us will succumb to Lord Acton’s axiom ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’. This is why we draft constitutions to break up and divide these powers between different branches of government and subject them all to the law.” “Ideally, a constitution must organize, separate and control the arbitrary exercise of power. Given the political realities of a single-party dominant system of government in Singapore, the limiting powers of the Constitution are weak indeed. Other than the sovereignty provisions under Part III and the elected president provisions - which require a two-thirds majority in a national referendum - everything and anything in the constitution is amendable by a two-thirds majority in Parliament. This special majority has been easily obtained since 1968 when the PAP secured an almost hegemonic grip on power….This allows the ruling party to change the Constitution almost at will and the ease with which the amendments are constantly made erodes its sanctity as the supreme law and its legitimacy as the nation’s legal beacon of light….if Singaporeans are looking to their Constitution to help control and limit government, they will come away disappointed for they will discover that control on government is not achieved through the haloed words of a sanctified and revered national document or the activist intervention of the courts.” “Article 14(1)(b) guarantees that all citizens ‘have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms’. This is subject to Article 14(2)(b) which allows Parliament to restrict the right in the interest of the security of the country or public order….Restrictive legislation exists in the form of: the Penal Code (unlawful assembly); the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (empowering the Minister to make rules regulating public meetings and processions in public places); the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act (regulating the licensing for public entertainment including lectures, talks, addresses, debates and discussions in a public place); the Societies Act ( which renders a meeting of an unlawful society an offence) and the Public Order (Preservation) Act and the Preservation of Peace Act (which gives the authorities power to disperse assemblies in gazetted areas in the interest of public order).” Here are accounts, from participants of the protest, of what happened when they were brought to the Police Cantonment Complex…… Part 3 of Confessions of a Protester World Consumer Rights Day, Chia Ti Lik, SGpolitics.net, 17 Mar 2008 The earlier process of surrendering personal items into a transparent bag took some time. There was also some delay due to Siok Chin and Dr. Chee’s firm exchanges with the police. At one stage, there was also so much tension that they placed 3 guards within the lock up cell with us. Station Inspector Tan Kok Ann was uncomfortable about us grouping in a circle to talk. He entered the lock up and insisted on standing amongst us when Dr. Chee refused his suggestion to sit down on the bench. All that took up some time such that by the time we were settled down people were then taking turns to go to the toilet. Accompanied of course. I also went to the toilet under guard. I had to pass through a total of 4 or so gates. Each one was locked. I was accompanied all the time by a police officer. The toilet bowl squarely faced the door. If the policeman stood at the door, there was no way I could get out of his sight. I approached the cubicles only to find that they were bathing cubicles. I did not see any urinals. There was only one cistern and flush and one washbasin. These were in a single straight line from the door. There were no windows. No side doors. No trapdoors. Nothing. The Policeman remained there. I passed my urine under police guard. After that i was led back to the cell. This was repeated with each and everyone of us under guard. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Part 4 of Confessions of a Protester World Consumer Rights Day, Chia Ti Lik, SGpolitics.net, 17 Mar 2008 “I am exercising my constitutional rights.” “I am responsible for my own actions.” “I myself will answer for what I did.” It came statement taking. I was amongst the first to be called. I was led to another room where I would sit down facing an officer in front of a PC. The Officer taking my statement was polite. He revealed that he would be asking me a number of questions. He told me that I could decline to answer them. I must say frankly that I co-operated with the police. I answered the questions the best that I could. However, any questions that turned towards pinning blame on other persons, I declined to answer. Each time I was faced with a difficult question, I repeated my position to the Police officer. I am exercising my constitutional rights. I will take responsibility for my own actions. There were of course attempts by the officer to allude persuasion and instigation by persons within the SDP persuading people to take part in the protest. Honestly since I was there to support a valid course. I answered that I was there on my own accord. I will answer for my actions. The Officer then asked why i was there. I told him that I was there to protest against price hikes. I was there to speak on behalf of Singaporeans. I was asked whether I went to the protest because of SDP’s encouragement and instigation. I told them that i went on my own accord. I was asked how I came to know about the protest. I named the Sammyboy forums. [Samsters can feel really proud this time!] I was asked if I knew of SDP’s website, of course I did but I realised that I did not really know SDP’s website very well. Seriously, I did not have time to surf around. Therefore even sammyboy forum’s access was done through saved links and not by way of typing the address. I was asked who I went there with. How I got there. All these I declined to answer. After signing my statement, the officer questioned me on my personal belongings. He then told me that he would have to confiscate my phone and my camera. I told him of private photos in my camera which I would have to delete, of course in his presence and that I would only surrender them if I was allowed to delete them.The officer claimed that the IO would decide whether it could be done. We waited some time after he contacted the IO. The answer was no. I explained the need to have certain private matters kept confidential. I asked again the relevance of private matters for the offences being investigated. The answer again was no. I told the officer that I was resisting and picked up my bag of belongings and tucked them under my arm. I stood up and made my way to the door. The officer ordered me to sit down. He told me that this was a lock up and asked me where did I intended to go? I thought of Kastari. But I was missing a limp. I then decided to reason it out with the senior officer when he came. A total of 4 officers came to my room. Station Inspector Tan Kok Ann and the officer taking my statement gave me their gentleman’s word that my personal data would not be messed around with. After I extracted the promise and assurance from both of them, I surrendered my Tak Boleh Tahan shirt, my phone and my camera. I was then given a yellow T-shirt in exchange with compliments from the Singapore Police Force. I was then led to a smaller lock up. There I found Ghandi and Dr. Chee. Soon thereafter the rest followed. I thought I was tough but I soon found out that though 4 officers were needed for me to surrender my stuff, 5 were needed to forcibly pry John’s Tak Boleh Tahan shirt off. When we were in the smaller cell. We heard Siok Chin’s raised voice arguing with the police. To be continued in part 5 &&&&&&&&&&&&&& Police behaviour away from public eye, Singapore Democrats, 17 Mar 2008 Far from the good guys that they try to portray of themselves, police behaviour on 15 Mar 08 was despicable. For one they treated Mr John Tan, SDP’s assistant secretary-general, without regard for his safety. As Mr Tan had difficulty getting into the police vehicle several officers, thinking that they were away from the public eye, dragged him in a very rough manner (see video). Inside the police van, despite being told that Mr Tan was suffering from a frozen shoulder, they forced his hands behind his back to handcuff him. Mr Tan turned pale with pain. In the meantime, one of the protesters kept shouting that Mr Tan was diabetic and asked the officers to take it easy. When he arrived at the station, Mr Tan was obviously in need of medical assistance. The officer who arrested Ms Chee Siok Chin got ahold of her finger and bent it. Ms Chee cried out “You’re breaking my finger! You’re breaking my finger!” which was recorded on video. Another protester was treated in a similarly shameful manner. Mr Seelan Palay fell over as he was led to the police vehicle. The officers proceeded to drag him by the arms into the van, causing him to hit his head against the steps of the van. Mr Chong Kai Xiong, another one of the protesters who was arrested, had three of his left fingers sprained when an officer grabbed and twisted them during the arrest. At the police station, the police demanded that the protesters remove their “Tak Bolen Tahan” T-shirts and hand them over for investigation. In the first place, did the police not have enough video footage and photographs showing the protesters wearing their T-shirts? Secondly, could they not have taken photographs of those arrested while they were in custody? Why the insistence that the shirts be seized? Mr John Tan asked to call lawyer Mr M Ravi for legal advice first to see if the police had the right to seize the T-shirts. The Investigating Officer refused and called in four of his colleagues, who proceeded to pin Mr Tan against the wall and literally ripped the shirt off. As a result, Mr Tan sustained scratches to his arm. The police also demanded that the protesters hand over their cellphones. When Mr Chia Ti Lik initially refused, four officers were called in. But there was one officer who stood out in his utter lack of respect for the uniform he wore. Station Inspector Tan Kok Ann, a stout man with a crew cut, was flippant as he was dishonest. When the protesters were standing around and talking with each other in the holding celling, SI Tan insisted that everyone had to be seated. Dr Chee Soon Juan asked that the officer leave the cell as they were in the midst of a private conversation. But SI Tan refused and stood right in front of the group. Later in the evening, the Station Inspector came in and told the group that everyone was free to leave after bail was posted. All except Ms Chee Siok Chin whom he said was being held back for further investigation. Upon hearing this, the group decided not to post bail in order to remain in the police station with Ms Chee. They asked to see her as she was kept separate from the men. Officer Tan Kok Ann turned down the request as, according to him, those arrested could not communicate with each other. This was obviously a fabrication as all the male protesters were kept in the same room and were freely talking among themselves. In addition, when Ms Chee was arrested in September last year over the Burmese issue and was taken to the Tanglin Police Division, she was allowed to communicate with Mr John Tan, Mr Gandhi Ambalam, and Dr Chee who were also arrested. However, after hearing that the rest would not post bail if they did not get to see Ms Chee first, Officer Tan quickly returned and told the group that everyone, including Ms Chee, would be released together. As if pleased with himself for his great performance that day, SI Tan Kok Ann did a little jig in front of those in the holding cell. Yes, in full uniform. Chee Siok Chin To Police: Produce Evidence Or Retract Statement Police forcefully removing Chee Siok Chin. For more photos & reports, see my posts here and here Chee Siok Chin to police: Produce evidence or retract statement, Singapore Democrats, 18 Mar 2008 The allegation made by the police that I had “tried to bite a female police officer when the latter tried to arrest her” and that I had “attack(ed)” her is a serious one. It is also a lie. The statement made it look as if I had resisted arrest by trying to bite one of the police officers as they were leading me to the police van. The numerous clips that have been posted on the Internet have proven that this never took place. The press statement issued by the police is malicious. Its intent is obvious. If the police have evidence that I had attacked or even attempted to attack an officer, then they should produce it. Otherwise they must retract the slanderous and scandalous statement, failing which I shall consider taking action against them. Chee Siok Chin CEC Member Singapore Democratic Party PHOTOS: More Of Tak Boleh Tahan! Here are more photos of the events that transpired on 15 Mar 2008. Read the Singapore Democrats’ response to the statement by the police. The protesters arriving at Parliament House while the media take pictures Gathering in front of Parliament House Arranging the grocery items which symbolise the rash of price increases and the rising cost of living which Singaporeans have had to put up with. Addressing the media. The second photo shows the cameraman from the local pro-government news media, Channel News Asia (CNA). Frankly, I don’t know why they bother to record what’s happening because they will either show a few seconds of what went on along with a bias report OR nothing at all. Family, friends and supporters standing under the shade near the group. These four photos show plainclothes policemen video recording. The first and second photos are quite obvious. In the third, the two chaps on the right are policemen. And in the fourth, its the two guys away from the crowd. Gathered together for a group photo. Yap Kheng Ho aka Uncle Yap, in a blue cap and red T-shirt, a supporter of the SDP, video recording while the plainclothes policemen video record him and the rest of the group. Protest placards arrive. And there’s CNA again as you can see in the fourth photo. Sheesh. Police officers approach the group and tell them to disperse saying that its illegal. While CASE gets away with it. Sheesh…and double sheesh! The protesters listen to the police officers but continue to peacefully walk followed by the media, family, friends, supporters, etc, etc. They are again told to stop and disperse. Protesters crossing the road. They are stopped again by the police in front of Funan shopping mall. The two guys on the extreme right are from CNA (yep them again!) and the two next to them are the police. These 8 photos show the police surrounding the peaceful protesters before making the arrests (and that’s putting it mildly!). Dragged away into waiting police vans. People outside Funan watching. The chap carrying the placards away is a policeman. Forcefully removed and dragged away into police vans with the eyes of the people and the media on them. PHOTOS: Singapore Police Manhandle & Drag Away Peaceful Protesters These are some of the photos I took today of the Tak Boleh Tahan! Protest. More photos and reports on the way. For now, I want to show you these photos in which the peaceful protesters were manhandled and dragged away like wild animals into waiting police vans. It was a sickening display of the use of force by the police on people who were protesting peacefully. 16 Mar update: For more photos, click HERE Parliament House. 10mins past 2. Tak Boleh Tahan protesters arrive. They are surrounded by the media. Taking a group photo in front of Parliament House along with protest placards. The groceries in front of the group symbolises the rash of price increases Singaporeans have had to put up with. After Parliament House, the protesters proceed to walk peacefully but are stopped by the police, who are mostly in plainclothes, in front of Funan shopping mall.. The chap in white, facing Chee Soon Juan, is a senior police officer. Female police officers arrive. Yap Kheng Ho aka Uncle Yap being forcefully removed into a waiting van at Funan taxi stand Yap is followed by Chee Siok Chin, John Tan, Seelan Palay & Chia Ti Lik of SG Human Rights, Chee Soon Juan and other individuals from the group of peaceful protesters. About 10 individuals were dragged away and bundled into the waiting police vans at Funan’s taxi stand. Crowd of onlookers watching events transpire. Media Release: A peaceful protest abruptly stopped, Singapore Democrats, 15 Mar 2008 Today is World Consumer Rights Day. The Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) is organising a special event tomorrow (16 March 2008, Sunday) to “promote the basic rights of all consumers”, and to “raise the profile of the consumer rights movement in Singapore”. True to the cause championed by CASE, the SDP also organised a peaceful “Tak Boleh Tahan!” protest today, similarly fashioned to last year’s CASE event during which crowd wearing specially designed T-shirts congregated in front of the Parliament House, holding various placards in their hands, then walked around the Singapore River, etc. There were about 20 odd people participating in today’s event, wearing the red T-shirts with the words “Tak Boleh Tahan” in white. In addition, there was a contingent of children holding red balloons, walking side by side with the grown-ups or being pushed along in their baby strollers. In front of the Parliament House, the group also highlighted the recent price hikes by displaying an array of consumer goods which included a loaf of “no-frilled” bread, a pack of rice, a tin of Milo, instant noodles, biscuits, condense milk and cooking oil, etc. The atmosphere was pleasant and joyful until the police showed up to give the protesters their warnings, and asked them to disperse or risked being arrested. Apparently uneasy with those images and messages prominently featured on the placards, the police tried to seize them from the protesters. As the group proceeded towards the Funan Centre, plain-clothes police surrounded the protesters and started making their arrests. While the protesters locked their arms together to safeguard their properties, the police picked the first protester, forcefully pulled him out from the tightly inter-locked group, and swiftly dragged him to one of the police vans parked nearby. Then they went back to work on their 2nd victim. Making their arrests one by one, it took the police several rounds of spectacles in front of a big crowd of onlookers gathered around to finish their most important job of the day. Finally, about 15 protesters, including Ms Chee Siok Chin were bundled into the police vans and sent to the Cantonment Police headquarters. Later on, when some family members of protesters went to the police HQ and tried to find out more about the list of people getting arrested and their charges, the police refused to give any information. Meanwhile, lawyer M Ravi is representing the group when the protesters continued to be held up for holding a peaceful protest until they were abruptly stopped by the police by force. For videos and other photos, read TOC’s Protesters arrested for World Consumers Rights Day Event Police Statement on unlawful assembly on 15 March 2008 VIDEO: Riz Khan Talks To Anwar Ibrahim & Lim Kit Siang Congratulations To Malaysia’s Opposition Parties On Their Wins AND Denying BN The Two-Thirds Majority!! Malaysia Opposition Win Shows Power Of Cyberspace Tak Bolek Tahan!! Protest This Saturday Tak bolek tahan!, Singapore Democrats, 12 Mar 2008 Event: Tak Boleh Tahan! Protest Rally Date: 15 Mar 08, Saturday Time: 2:00 pm Place: Parliament House beside Singapore River Attire: Red top Contact us at: speakup@singaporedemocrat.org Tak boleh tahan! Loosely translated: “I can’t take it anymore!“ That’s the theme for the protest rally this Saturday. If you feel the way we do and you don’t want to take it lying down anymore, put on a red T-shirt and join us at Parliament House by the Singapore River. The prices of basic foodstuff like rice, cooking oil, bread, milk powder, sugar, etc have all shot up. Bus, MRT and taxi fares have all gone up. Fuel prices have skyrocketed. The Government’s raising of the GST to 7 percent and its setting up of ERP gantries all over the island have all contributed to the inflation rate that is at its highest in a quarter of a century. The result is that the crushing burden on working folks gets even more unbearable. Our elderly poor continue to break their backs just to eke out a miserable existence. Many cannot even afford three square meals, some even having to live off scraps on hawker centre tables. The PAP’s young, arrogant, and heartless ministers then tell them that they should forget about retiring. What about our workers? They are made to work harder and longer, and for less pay. Many of them have to sign contracts that don’t allow medical leave, no bonuses, and demand 72-hour-work weeks. They have no unions to speak for them as the NTUC is headed by a PAP minister. The problem is worsened by the indiscriminate taking in of foreign workers to compete with Singaporeans to suppress wages. Despite all of this, the ministers brazenly help themselves to an 85 percent increase in salaries last year with the prime minister paying himself more than $300,000 a month! The PAP is like a grotesque monkey on our backs, keeping Singaporeans bent and strangulated. We know many of you are incensed. We know you cannot take this anymore. Tak boleh tahan! As citizens you don’t have to keep quiet. You can demonstrate your anger in a peaceful manner at Saturday’s rally. If fact it is your duty to stand up and speak out. At the same time, the Singapore Democrats are launching our Campaign Against Repression and Exploitation of Singaporeans 2008 (CARES ‘08). The Tak Boleh Tahan! protest rally will kick-off the SDP CARES ‘08. As consumers of many of the Government’s services, we have the right to demand fair prices, and to put a stop to the exploitative price hikes of the PAP Government. There comes a time when we have to stop talking and start doing. Remember, we reap what we sow. Related articles from SDP: SDP applies for protest rally on World Consumer Rights Day, 7 Jan 2008 Ravi wants reason from police for permit rejection, 1 Feb 2008 Chee Soon Juan to Wong Kan Seng: Take your ministerial oath seriously, 13 Feb 2008 SDP urges Wong Kan Seng to respond to appeal, 21 Feb 2008 Wong Kan Seng says no to rally against price hikes but SDP to proceed, 10 Mar 2008 “It Is Time For Burma’s People To Decide How To React To The Junta” Al Jazeera English 10 Oct 2007 - Part 1 Junta’s Snub Signals Failure of Gambari’s Mission, Wai Moe, The Irrawaddy, 10 March 2008 Burma’s military junta has spoken: there will be no role for the United Nations in determining the course of the country’s political transition to what it calls a “disciplined democracy.” This is the message that the ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) sent to the international community and the Burmese people through its treatment of the UN special envoy to Burma, Ibrahim Gambari. The Nigerian diplomat, who has just completed his fifth visit to Burma, proposed a more inclusive process of political change in the country, and offered to send monitors to ensure that the outcome of the junta’s planned referendum on a draft constitution is accepted as legitimate. The junta said no to both suggestions. Gambari met with National League for Democracy (NLD) leader Aung San Suu Kyi twice during his five-day trip, but was denied a meeting with the junta’s supreme leader, Snr-Gen Than Shwe. Instead, he met with members of the regime’s “Spokes Authoritative Team,” consisting of Information Minister Brig-Gen Kyaw Hsan, Foreign Minister Nyan Win and Culture Minister Maj-Gen Khin Aung Myint. There were also brief meetings with other NLD leaders, representatives of ethnic groups, and officials from the pro-junta Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) and National Unity Party (NUP). As he did during Gambari’s last visit to Burma in November 2007, Kyaw Hsan used the occasion of his latest meeting with the UN representative to send a clear message that the junta does not appreciate international interference in its affairs. The state-run mouthpiece, The New Light of Myanmar, published the full text of Kyaw Hsan’s indignant reaction to Gambari’s role in releasing a statement from Aung San Suu Kyi following his last visit. “Sadly, you went beyond your mandate,” said the information minister in his carefully worded reproach. “Some even believe that that you prepared the statement in advance and released it after coordinating with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi,” he added. He went on to accuse the UN envoy of trying to “frame a pattern desired by western countries.” Kyaw Hsan also took issue with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s calls for a more inclusive constitution-drafting process, pointing out that the NLD walked out of the National Convention two years after it first convened in 1993. The constitution, finally completed last year, is in no further need of revision, insisted Kyaw Hsan. “The majority of the people do not demand to amend it,” he told Gambari. But analysts say that most of delegates at the convention were handpicked by the junta and only a few representatives from political parties were allowed to attend the convention. Before the NLD walked out of the National Convention in November 2005, only 99 of the 702 delegates were elected officials. After meeting with Kyaw Hsan’s team, Gambari met with a member of the commission responsible for holding the referendum, Thaung Nyunt, who flatly rejected a proposal for international monitoring of the forthcoming referendum in May. “U Thaung Nyunt replied that holding the referendum for the constitution is within the State sovereignty. Besides, there were no instances of foreign observers monitoring events like a referendum,” said a report in The New Light of Myanmar. U Lwin, secretary of the NLD, told The Irrawaddy on Saturday that Gambari explained to his party that he came to Burma with a mandate from the UN Security Council. “He also told us about his meetings with the regime officials on previous days,” said U Lwin, who declined to provide any further details. Meanwhile, observers in Burma said that the junta’s snub of Gambari showed that the generals were not interested in listening to the international community. “It is very clear that they [the junta] will do everything their own way. No matter what the international community says, they negate all voices,” said a Burmese political observer in Rangoon, adding that the chances of a national reconciliation talks taking place now are non-existent. “It is time for Burma’s people to decide how to react to the junta,” he added. Other observers said it was time for the international community to send a stronger message to the junta through a UN Security Council resolution. Aye Thar Aung, an Arakan leader, told The Irrawaddy on Saturday that the military junta will only cooperate with proposals which support their stands. “Dialogues between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the junta official, Aung Kyi, were just a kind of cosmetic approach under pressure from Burmese people and the international community,” he said. “The UN Security Council should really do something,” he added. Larry Jagan, a British journalist who specializes in reporting on Burmese issues, also said that the junta has clearly demonstrated its indifference to international opinion. “It is clear from Kyaw Hsan’s lecture that the regime is little interested in the international community’s concerns,” Jagan told The Irrawaddy on Saturday. “The UN is not being imaginative enough to try and expand a UN role around Mr Gambari. So I think the UN role in Burma in the area of mediation is effectively finished,” he said. “What they would be worried about is the Burma issue will be raised again in the United Nations Security Council,” Jagan added. Al Jazeera English 10 Oct 2007 - Part 2 UN’s Burma role runs out of steam, Jonathan Head, BBC’s East Asia correspondent, 10 March 2008 The mission of the UN special envoy to Burma, Ibrahim Gambari, which began with high hopes nearly two years ago, is now over. That much is clear after this, his fifth visit since May 2006. After a break of almost a year, Mr Gambari returned to Burma last September, armed with the full weight of the international community’s revulsion over the scenes of unarmed demonstrators being gunned down by Burmese soldiers on the streets of Rangoon. His mission was backed by all UN member states, even China, which has long rejected putting outside pressure on the military government. It is hard to imagine a stronger mandate. Mr Gambari had three main objectives. The first was to get a dialogue going between the generals and opposition figures, especially Aung San Suu Kyi who has been kept in complete isolation in her home in Rangoon since 2003. This, he hoped, would eventually lead to a more credible process of democratisation than the military’s tightly-controlled Seven Stage Roadmap to Democracy. He also pushed for the release of all political prisoners, including those detained during the September uprising, and he asked for the UN to be allowed to set up a joint poverty alleviation drive with the government. Short-lived optimism Reeling from the blast of international outrage, the generals appeared to be willing to accommodate Mr Gambari at first, designating the admittedly low-ranking Labour Minister Aung Kyi to liaise with Ms Suu Kyi, and releasing some detainees. But this conciliatory mood lasted less than a month. On his next visit in late October, Mr Gambari was shunned by Senior General Than Shwe, the key decision-maker in the ruling military council. It was a bad sign. The meetings between Aung San Suu Kyi and the labour minister went nowhere, and then stopped altogether. Mr Gambari remained upbeat, and said he had been given a promise by the generals that he could return to Burma anytime he chose. But for the next four months they stonewalled him. And now we know why. The Seven Stage Roadmap, which, with no timetable, had always seemed like a military-fabricated illusion, suddenly got one. Without warning, the government announced that there would be a general election by 2010, with a referendum on the new constitution it has spent the past 14 years drawing up no later than May this year. This was unexpected. And it left Mr Gambari with no hand left to play when he was finally allowed back this month. Critics were quick to point out the obvious flaws in the military’s plan. The constitution was drawn up by about 1,000 appointed delegates, who were confined to a purpose-built convention centre during the long drafting process. The public had no input, and details of the constitution were still unclear even when the referendum was announced. What is known is that the charter will reserve 25% of the seats in a new parliament for the armed forces, and that Aung San Suu Kyi will be specifically barred from holding government office because she was once married to a foreigner. Criticising the draft constitution is punishable by up to 20 years in prison; criticising the referendum could get you three years behind bars; and about 2,000 political prisoners remain in captivity. It is impossible to conceive how a free vote could take place in such conditions. Pariah regime But that hardly matters to Than Shwe and his colleagues. Now the government has something it can flourish in the faces of those who insist it takes concrete steps towards democratic rule. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon gamely urged the generals to make their roadmap to democracy and its constitution more inclusive, but over the weekend they threw his suggestion back in Mr Gambari’s face. “It is impossible to review or rewrite the constitution,” said Information Minister Kyaw Hsan, who is usually the mouthpiece for the more hard-line thinking inside the government. He then went on to accuse Mr Gambari of bias, lashing out at him for carrying out a letter from Aung San Suu Kyi last November. The diplomat who was supposed to represent the will of the international community was being publicly scolded by a pariah regime. It was a telling sign of how little clout the UN envoy now carries. His proposals to include the opposition in the political process, and to have international observers monitor the referendum, were instantly rejected. Despair and resignation This could well be Ibrahim Gambari’s last visit. It is hard to see why he would wish to put himself through such humiliation again. So what will happen in Burma? After miscalculating the results of the 1990 election, which they lost by a huge margin to Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy, the generals are unlikely to leave much to chance this time. The date of the referendum will only be announced 21 days beforehand. There will be no discussion of the constitution’s merits. There will be heavy mobilisation in support of it by the military’s political wing, the USDA. They may even make identifiable boxes for yes and no votes at the polling stations, to intimidate opponents. Then they have two years in which to prepare for the election - two years in which the opposition will continue to be harassed and jailed. Some opposition figures are now debating whether it is worth continuing to confront the military, at such high cost. They argue that perhaps the best option is to use the generals’ willingness to embrace change, however limited, and try to push a little further. There is a sense of despair and resignation, after the brief euphoria last September. There is of course always the possibility of unexpected events interfering with the military’s plans - a power struggle at the top, or another mass uprising driven by economic desperation. But recent history will have taught the Burmese people that they cannot count on such miracles. WP Press Release: Escape Of Mas Selamat Escape Of Mas Selamat, Workers’ Party, 11 Mar 2008 Two weeks have elapsed since the escape of Mas Selamat Kastari from the Whitley Road Centre. Since the occurrence, the immediate priority has rightly been placed on his recapture. Our security forces have been hard at work in an island-wide manhunt, and Singaporeans too have put up with various inconveniences at checkpoints and other areas to facilitate this massive operation. Many questions have been raised about how this incident could have taken place in a country which prides itself on safety and security. In seeking to reassure Singaporeans, the Minister for Home Affairs has established a Committee of Inquiry under the Prisons Act “to discover how the escape occurred and to recommend appropriate actions to prevent such an incident from occurring again”. (MHA letter to media dated 7 Mar 08). As Whitley Road Centre is gazetted by law as a prison, the government’s decision to convene the inquiry under the Prisons Act is not wrong. The problem is that the Prisons Act states that such inquiries shall not be open to the public. The Committee will submit its report to the Minister, and no part of the proceedings may be released to anyone except with the Minister’s written permission. This raises important questions as to how much the public will eventually be told, since the Minister retains the discretion to release the findings as he sees fit. In a matter of such high public interest as the escape of a high-risk terror suspect from a government-run facility, what assurances or checks are there that the public will be given full information? In the interest of transparency, other governments have conducted public hearings into sensitive matters such as intelligence failures. One option is for the President to appoint a Commission of Inquiry under the Inquiries Act. He can do so when he considers that having a Commission to inquire into any matter would be for the public welfare or in the public interest. This regime will allow the inquiry to proceed in public as the President shall direct. If there is concern that release of certain sensitive information will jeopardize the national interest, the President may direct that certain information not be made public. Moreover, since Singaporeans have been marshalled to assist the authorities to hunt for Mas Selamat, the least the government could do is to keep us fully informed of the inquiry and its findings. Sylvia Lim Chairman 11 Mar 2008 Malaysia Opposition Win Shows Power Of Cyberspace By Bill Tarrant KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - Malaysia’s weak opposition was up against a hostile mainstream media and restrictive campaign rules, but it can chalk up much of its stunning success in Saturday’s election to the power of cyberspace. Voters exasperated with the unvarnished support of the mainstream media for the ruling National Front furiously clicked on YouTube and posted comments with popular bloggers about tales of sex, lies and videotapes in the run-up to Saturday’s election. Jeff Ooi, a 52-year-old former advertising copywriter who made his name writing a political blog, Screenshots, won a seat in northern Penang state for the opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP). Elizabeth Wong, a human rights activist and political consultant who runs a blog, won a state assembly seat in the central state of Selangor. YouTube, the phenomenally popular video Web site, did as much damage as any opposition figure could hope to inflict, after netizens uploaded embarrassing videos of their politicians in action on hot-button issues. One YouTube video in January showed ruling party MP Badruddin bin Amiruldin causing a ruckus in parliament over whether Malaysia was an Islamic state. “Malaysia is an Islamic state”, he declared. “You don’t like it, you get out of Malaysia!” Muslim Malays form the majority in multi-racial Malaysia, but ethnic Chinese and Indians account for a third of the population and they deserted the ruling National Front in droves, partly in outrage over the religious debate. Sex, Sleaze, Corruption Another YouTube video that got wide distribution shows a rambling and incoherent Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin, in a live interview with al-Jazeera, excitedly defending a police crackdown against peaceful protesters calling for changes to the electoral process in November. Zainuddin was one of several “big guns” in the National Front that fell to the opposition’s onslaught. Sex, sleaze and corruption were election issues and they all had video soap operas on Web sites. Malaysia’s health minister resigned in January after admitting he and a female friend were the couple in a secretly filmed sex video uploaded on YouTube. That cost some votes. “We were concerned about the morality of our leaders,” said Maisarah Zainal, a 26-year-old teacher in Kuala Lumpur. “It didn’t help that Chua Soi Lek was involved in a sex video.” Loh Gwo Burne, who secretly videotaped a phone conversation, allegedly showing a high-profile lawyer trying to fix judicial appointments with Malaysia’s former chief judge, was elected to a seat in parliament from a seat in suburban Kuala Lumpur. The grainy video hit a nerve in Malaysia, whose judiciary has been under question since the late 1980s. Malaysia’s blogging community offer alternative views in a country where the government keeps a tight control on mainstream media. The government said last year it might compel bloggers to register with the authorities to curb the spread of malicious content on the Internet. Government backers doubt whether bloggers turned opposition politicians could make their presence felt. “Beyond the major cities like Kuala Lumpur and Penang, there’s not much the bloggers can really hope to accomplish,” says Mohamad Norza Zakaria, a leader in Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s UMNO party . The Chinese-backed DAP, by contrast, appointed blogger Ooi to head the party’s “e-campaign”. Even a barely literate 89-year-old grandmother running for parliament with little money and only a bicycle to get around on, hopped the cyberspace bandw