Yong is the best example of anti-drug Yong Vui Kong faces the death penalty, which is carried out by hanging, after he was convicted in 2008 of trafficking 47 grams (1.65 ounces) of heroin into Singapore. Both Malaysia and Singapore have tough anti-drug laws and rarely seek clemency for nationals facing drug charges in the other country. Singapore human right lawyer M Ravi, describe that Yong Vui Kong comes from poor family, and being illiterate and deceived, he lost his way and ended up facing death penalty for drug trafficking. He said that Yong has acknowledged his wrongdoing, but hasn't given up on life. Though behind bars, he studies language and turns to Buddhism. Ravi urged Singapore government to give Yong a second chance for life. SDP's National Day Message 2010 - The Young Ones http://yoursdp.org What kind of a society are we building for our young ones?... Shadrake case highlights Singapore censorship battle By Rachel Harvey - South East Asia correspondent, BBC News The title of Alan Shadrake's book leaves little room for doubt as to the tone of the content. "Once A Jolly Hangman - Singapore Justice in the Dock" is a critique of the way the death penalty is applied in the city state. It alleges double standards and a lack of impartiality. "Certain restrictions are necessary to ensure harmonious living amongst different communities in Singapore” Abner Koh People's Action Party That has prompted Singapore's attorney general to charge the 75-year-old Briton with contempt, arguing that passages of the book "scandalise the Singapore judiciary" and "undermine the authority of the courts". Mr Shadrake faces a possible jail sentence and a hefty fine if found guilty. He is also under investigation for criminal defamation. Open defiance The case has highlighted not just the use of capital punishment in Singapore, but also the broader issue of freedom of speech in a country where dissent is rare. Human rights groups say the Singaporean authorities too often resort to the courts to silence their critics. Alan Shadrake, however, shows no signs of staying quiet. He entered Singapore's High Court building for his first hearing holding up two fingers in a "V for victory" salute. "Freedom and democracy for Singapore," he shouted, as he waited to walk through the security scanners. Blog activist Seelan Palay has been sentenced to 12 days in jail for unlawful assembly Singapore is not used to that kind of open defiance. This tiny state prides itself on being one of the most stable and prosperous nations in Asia. Gleaming high-rise office blocks nestle with pristinely maintained colonial buildings. Traffic flows freely. Healthcare is among the best in the world. The air is clean. In fact, everything is clean. Movies are censored. Littering is unheard of. There is no doubt that, compared to many of their regional neighbours, Singaporeans enjoy a high standard of living. But critics say there is a price to be paid. People are expected to conform. "Singapore would be much better if people started speaking up and standing up for what they believe in” Seelan Palay Blogger, Singapore It is as if there is an unspoken but clearly understood deal between citizen and state: the system will look after you, as long as you do not question it. That system has largely been designed by Singapore's founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, and managed by the People's Action Party, the PAP, which has been in power since independence in 1965. Lee Kuan Yew has formally handed over the premiership to his son, Lee Hsien Loong, but retains the title of "minister mentor". The government declined the BBC's request for an interview. But Abner Koh was willing to talk. He is a member of the youth wing of the PAP. Over Chinese tea at a riverside restaurant, he made the case for strong leadership and clear rules. "We have to bear in mind that Singapore is a multi-racial and multi-religious society," he said. "Certain forms of restriction are definitely necessary to ensure harmonious living amongst the different communities in Singapore. 'Speaking up' But other young Singaporeans are beginning to question the status quo. Seelan Palay is a blogger, film-maker and political activist. He has just started serving a 12-day prison sentence for unlawful assembly. But speaking before he began his sentence, he said he had no regrets. "I think life in Singapore would be much better if people started speaking up and standing up for what they believe in," he said. But doesn't the prospect of a jail term deter you, I asked? "No, it does not," Mr Palay replied without hesitation. "Many others have gone to prison for what they believe in before me. Some of them have been detained without trial for 20 years, 30 years. "I'm only going to do a 12-day sentence. And I have 10 other open cases which I may also have to go to prison for, so I'd better get used to it." Mr Palay is a staunch supporter of Alan Shadrake, even going so far as to post the author's bail. Mr Shadrake's case has now been adjourned to allow his defence more time to prepare. The charges could possibly be dropped if he acceded to the prosecution's request for an apology. But there seems little chance of that. "I didn't do this to chicken out and say sorry and grovel to them like most Singaporeans have to do, to live a normal life," he told me as he left the High Court. And somehow it no longer feels like this is just Alan Shadrake's fight. He has become a proxy for Singapore's own internal battles. News 5 Tonight - Alan Shadrake News 5 Tonight - Alan Shadrake Video - Save Vui Kong See this post from The Death Penalty in Singapore blog for details about this event. Visit the facebook event page here. Till then, please sign the online petition here. High Court reserves judgement on judicial review application Download Mr M Ravi’s submissions here. Download the Attorney General’s submissions here. Wisma Putra pleads for Sabahan on Singapore death row Save Vui Kong       Updates: Yong Vui Kong’s counsel, Mr M Ravi has filed in the Judicial Review in High Court on 21 July 2010. The hearing is scheduled for today, 28 July 2010 at 10am at the High Court of the Republic of Singapore. Wednesday 28th July 2010 - 11160 Signatures - Sign the Petition Please.   Save Vui Kong This is a call to the people of Singapore and Malaysia to stand up for Yong Vui Kong, a teenager and drug mule who was caught in Singapore and sentenced to death for trafficking 47g of heroin in 2007. He is currently on death row in Changi prison.   Sign the Petition for Yong Vui Kong All Malaysian, Singaporean and Concerned citizens around the world that care about death penalty. Please sign your name to make a difference. The Date-Line of the petition : 26 August 2010 (The last day for Yong to file petition for clemency. After which he will be hanged at anytim e) Save Vui Kong Campaign http://www.petitiononline.com/SaveVK/petition.html To: The President of the Republic of Singapore, Mr S.R Nathan We, the undersigned, appeal Your Excellency to exercise the powers conferred upon you pursuant to Article 22P of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (“the Constitution”), to grant pardon to Yong Vui Kong, a young Malaysian who has been convicted and sentenced to death. 1. We understand Singapore, like Malaysia, has a strict policy against drug trafficking which carries a mandatory death penalty. However, given that the Constitution allows clemency plea for persons sentenced to death means that no sentence of capital punishment is by default excluded from reconsideration for a second chance. Singapore as a country that upholds the importance of due process and whose economic success is built on this principle nust therefore ensure that every plea of clemency by person sentence to death must be duly considered. After the honourable Law Minister K Shanmugam’s controversial comments on the case, Singapore’s reputation for abiding legal process is now in question. 2. We believe granting Yong clemency is in line with Singapore’s interest including the strict policy against drug trafficking. His receiving clemency will not encourage more young persons to engage in the drug trade, as the honourable Law Minister suggests. Yong is a changed person after his imprisonment. Finding a faith in Buddhism, he is using the remaining days of his life to counsel fellow inmates and also educate the general public on how drugs destroy life. Your Excellency’s decision on his clemency plea is therefore a judgment on whether more lives can be saved by ending one life or by allowing him the second chance to make good for the damage he has caused to society. 3. We urge Your Excellency to consider the character of Yong in assessing the good he may assist in Singapore’s war against drug trafficking. Yong is an honest person and owned up to what he had done. He even withdrew his appeal against the conviction and death sentence when it was first handed down by the High Court, on the false belief that by appealing, he has to lie in court. And when Yong was finally given the leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, he chose to appeal only against the sentence and not the conviction. Granting him clemency will therefore not hurt the credibility of Singapore’s Judiciary or its anti-drug trafficking policy in anyway. 4. We urge Your Excellency to also consider his family background, not on the grounds that anyone who has lived a hard life deserves special consideration, but on the grounds that he can connect with those with similar life experiences that drug-trafficking is not the way out. He was brought up in poverty and had taken on odd jobs at an early age of 10. He received very little education and was left alone without any real guidance. These have eventually led him to the path that damages others’ lives. He now wants to live on so that he can tell others not to take the same wrong path and destroy others’ lives. We sincerely appeal Your Excellency to grant Yong Vui Kong clemency to stop more people from taking his path. Death sentences of previous convicts had not prevented him from doing so. Yong telling the lesson he has learned with his life may. We appeal for a second chance for Yong and earnestly hope that Your Excellency would consider our heartfelt plea for clemency. The undersigned, Sign the petition Lawyer seeks access to British author arrested in Singapore UPDATE: Alan Shadrake is being released now. He's been detained over 39 hours. An activist is on his way to post bail. Amount unknown. The British author will be charged in court tomorrow. Charges unknown. Purchase - Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock 2010-07-19 17:08 By Philip Lim SINGAPORE, Monday 19 July 2010 (AFP) - A human rights lawyer on Monday said he was urgently seeking access to a British writer arrested in Singapore after launching a book on executions and the justice system in the city-state. Alan Shadrake, a 75-year-old freelance journalist, is suffering from medical problems, said his lawyer M. Ravi, who sent a request to the police hours after the writer's arrest on Sunday on defamation and contempt of court charges. "They have not called my office, and they have not responded to my fax," the Singaporean lawyer said. "They need to allow me access to him." A spokesperson from the British High Commission in Singapore said in a press statement that it had been informed about the detention of Shadrake and was "providing consular assistance" to the writer. Shadrake was arrested at his hotel a day after the launch of his book "Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock" in which he alleged double standards in Singapore's use of the death penalty. He divides his time between neighbouring Malaysia and Britain and is listed as a regular member of the Foreign Correspondents Association of Singapore. Singapore carries out capital punishment by hanging, a practice which goes back to British colonial rule. The death penalty is meted out to people convicted of murder, drug trafficking and treason. In the letter sent to the police Criminal Investigation Department, Ravi implored the authorities to grant him immediate access to Shadrake. "We humbly and urgently request access to our client... Kindly expedite our request as our client is 75 years old and has medical conditions," he wrote. Ravi said he was worries for Shadrake's health, as the Briton had recurring colon and hernia problems as well as high blood pressure. "His condition can worsen if he is under intense pressure... It doesn't help that if he's under constant pressure, it might aggravate his conditions," Ravi stated. The 219-page book contains a profile of Darshan Singh, the former chief executioner at Singapore's Changi Prison who, according to the author, executed around 1,000 men and women from 1959 until he retired in 2006. It also features interviews with local human rights activists, lawyers and former police officers on various cases involving capital punishment. A spokeswoman from the censorship body Media Development Authority (MDA), which filed the complaint that led to Shadrake's arrest, said the book "has not been prohibited" in Singapore. But a check by AFP showed that the book was not available in major bookstores and libraries. Despite criticism from human rights activists, Singapore officials have maintained that the death penalty has been a key factor in keeping a low crime rate in the island-state, widely regarded as one of Asia's safest countries. Amnesty International said in a statement last year that Singapore was "estimated to have one of the highest per capita execution rates in the world." "The city-state... has executed at least 420 people since 1991," it added, but stated that the number was probably higher as "not all sentences and executions are reported publicly." Singapore officials consistently refuse to disclose any figures on executions. The Associated Press - Alex Kennedy SINGAPORE — Singaporean police said Monday they arrested a British author as part of a criminal defamation investigation related to his book on the ... BBC News Telegraph.co.uk Aljazeera.net - Ex-political prisoner speaks out in Singapore [Banned by Singapore Govt] Ex-political prisoner speaks out in Singapore [Banned by Singapore Govt] Wednesday, July 14, 2010 Martyn See complies with MDA's order but video goes viral Yesterday, I was ordered by the Media Development Authority (MDA) to "to take down all digital copies of the film that you have uploaded onto youtube and your blogsite". Therefore, as of now, the banned video "Ex-political prisoner speaks out in Singapore", or "Dr Lim Hock Siew" as stated in my submission to the censors, has been deleted from youtube, and you will not be able to view it here. Yesterday, at the time of the first press release announcing the ban, the viewership registered at 44,165. At 2359 hours 12 July 2010, it had increased to 49,903 I have received notices that the film has been downloaded by anonymous netizens who have already or are in the process of uploading it to various video sites such as this. Although I remind all that it is criminal offence (to the tune of a maximum $10,000 fine or two years imprisonment) to possess or distribute the film, I have no wish, nor the means, to hinder the viral spread of the video. As such, I hereby declare that the film is no longer in my possession, and its ownership will from now on be given to all citizens of the Republic of Singapore. Meanwhile, read what other bloggers and news sites have to say : Transcript of Dr Lim Hock Siew's speech on the ISA. Why censorship is evil Thank you PAP for promoting Dr Lim Hock Siew! Dr Lim Hock Siew video is now banned Why ban Lim Hock Siew's footage? Singapore Outlaws The Film Dr Lim Hock Siew Dr Lim Hock Siew banned by Censors A month of barring and banning - Joshua Chiang Singapore government bans Martyn See’s film ‘Ex-political prisoner speaks out in Singapore’ BREAKING NEWS: MDA bans See’s film on ISA detainee Here we go again - Govt bans another Martyn See's film   From Martyn See The Singapore Government has banned my video recording of a speech by former political prisoner Dr Lim Hock Siew. The prohibition will take effect on Wednesday 14th July 2010. In a letter and an accompanying press release (see below) delivered to my home by two men at 4.50pm, it stated that the film has been banned under Section 35(1) of the Films Act. This section gives the Minister broad discretionary powers to ban any film he deems to be "contrary to public interest". This is the second film to be banned under Section 35. The first, Zahari's 17 Years, was an interview film directed by me. Made in 2006, it was officially banned in 2007. In an exact carbon copy of the reasons for the film, the government's press release alleged that film 'gives a distorted and misleading portrayal of Dr Lim's arrests and detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in 1963. Dr Lim was detained during Operation Coldstore in 1963 and was held for 19 years, a record second only to Dr Chia Thye Poh. The film, which I had labelled "Dr Lim Hock Siew", was submitted to the Board of Film Censors in February 2010. Since then, it had been undergoing review by the Political Films Consultative Committee (PFCC), a seven-member advisory panel set up to criminalise "party political films", an offence under Section 33 of the Films Act. Since the PFCC has never communicated with me, I have no idea what the committee had thought of the film. A moot point now, as RADM Lui Tuck Yew, the Acting Minister for Information, Communications & the Arts, has now decided to ban the film outright. The letter also stated that I should take down all digital copies of the film on youtube and on this blog. So watch it now while it is still online, or you may download it using the following websites. http://keepvid.com/ http://download-youtube-videos.org/ http://www.getvideomp3.com/ Censors ban Martyn See's film on Dr Lim Hock Siew By Claire Huang | Posted: 12 July 2010 1745 hrs SINGAPORE: Censors have banned the film "Dr Lim Hock Siew" by filmmaker Martyn See Tong Ming, with effect from July 14 under the Films Act, saying it is against 'public interest'. A statement from the Information, Communications and the Arts Ministry said the film "gives a distorted and misleading portrayal of Dr Lim's arrests and detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in 1963." It added that the government "will not allow individuals who have posed a security threat to Singapore's interests in the past, to use media platforms such as films to make baseless accusations against the authorities." Neither will it allow such individuals to use films to give a false portrayal to exculpate their guilt, or undermine public confidence in the government. The film, banned from July 14, has also not been granted a certificate for its exhibition. Under the Films Act, possession and distribution of a prohibited film is an offence. An offender is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both. Last September, censors passed "Singapore Rebel," a film by the same filmmaker which features opposition figure Chee Soon Juan. It passed with an M18 rating - four years after it was banned. It became the first political film to make the cut after the Films Act was amended in March to relax the rules on such films. - CNA/al/jm Just How Wealthy is the Singapore Government? The government of Singapore is at rank 25. in 2007 Stumbled upon an interesting article [World's Stocks Controlled by Select Few] that refers to an even more interesting piece of research by J. B. Glattfelder and S. Battiston using social network analysis [Backbone of complex networks of corporations]. The abstract is included below as well as the conclusions drawn from the study. We present a methodology to extract the backbone of complex networks based on the weight and direction of links, as well as on nontopological properties of nodes. We show how the methodology can be applied in general to networks in which mass or energy is flowing along the links. In particular, the procedure enables us to address important questions in economics, namely, how control and wealth are structured and concentrated across national markets. We report on the first cross-country investigation of ownership networks, focusing on the stock markets of 48 countries around the world. On the one hand, our analysis confirms results expected on the basis of the literature on corporate control, namely, that in Anglo-Saxon countries control tends to be dispersed among numerous shareholders. On the other hand, it also reveals that in the same countries, control is found to be highly concentrated at the global level, namely, lying in the hands of very few important shareholders. Interestingly, the exact opposite is observed for European countries. These results have previously not been reported as they are not observable without the kind of network analysis developed here. Following is a top-ten list, comprised of the company’s name, activity, country the headquarter is based in, and ranked according to the number of times it is present in different countries’ backbones: Capital Group Companies – investment management, US, 36 Fidelity Management & Research – investment products and services, US, 32 Barclays PLC – financial services provider, GB, 26 Franklin Resources – investment management, US, 25 AXA – insurance company, FR, 22 JPMorgan Chase & Co. – financial services provider, US, 19 Dimensional Fund Advisors – investment management, US, 15 Merrill Lynch & Co. – investment management, US, 1 Wellington Management Co. - investment management, US, 14 UBS – financial services provider, CH, 12 Next to the dominance of US American companies they found: Barclays PLC – GB, AXA  – FR UBS – CH, Deutsche Bank – DE Brandes Investment Partners – CA Société Générale – FR Credit Suisse Group – CH Schroders PLC – GB Allianz – DE in the top 21 positions. The government of Singapore is at rank 25. HSBC Holdings PLC – HK – GB , the world’s largest banking group, only appears at position 26. In addition, large multinational corporations outside of the finance and insurance industry do not act as prominent shareholders and only appear in their own national countries’ backbones as controlled stocks. For instance, Exxon Mobil, Daimler Chrysler, Ford Motor Co., Siemens, and Unilever. Urgent Action Needed for Malaysian Citizen in Singapore   Yong Vui Kong, a 22 year old Malaysian will perhaps see his life end short, what with his immediate risk of execution in Singapore for trafficking drugs or to be precise, 47 grams of heroin in the country. Yong who was only 19 during the arrest which took place outside of the Meritus Mandarin Hotel in Singapore three years ago on June 13. He was then convicted on 14 November 2008 for drug trafficking under what is said to be Singapore's extremely draconian and unjust drug laws - followed by the death sentence which was supposed to have taken place last year on the 4 of December. http://www.klik4malaysia.com Singapore wants British man extradited over vandalism Singapore authorities want to extradite Lloyd Dane Alexander for allegedly spray-painting a subway carriage Adam Gabbatt and agencies guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 June 2010 10.13 BST Singapore is seeking to extradite a British man accused of spray-painting a subway carriage last month. A court has issued an arrest warrant for Lloyd Dane Alexander for allegedly breaking into a train depot and vandalising a subway carriage on 16 May with Oliver Fricker, a Swiss national, the Singapore police force said today. Singapore has a reputation for meting out severe punishments for relatively minor crimes. Vandalism carries a maximum fine of SG$2,000 (£980) or up to three years in jail, in addition to three to eight strokes of a wooden cane. Police said Alexander has fled Singapore and authorities will seek to extradite him, depending on the extradition treaty Singapore has with the country where he is eventually located. Officers did not give details of Alexander's age, profession or possible whereabouts. The Straits Times reported that the Briton had left the country for Hong Kong before the incident was reported to police on 19 May. Fricker, 33, was charged with trespassing into a protected place and two charges of vandalism on Saturday. He is currently on bail, with a preliminary hearing set for 21 June. The two men are alleged to have cut through the fence of the SMRT rail depot before spray-painting graffiti on one side of a train. Singapore caned American teenager Michael Fey for vandalism in 1994 – ignoring pleas for leniency by then US president Bill Clinton – in a case that drew international attention to the country's harsh punishments. SMRT C151 047-048 Graffiti Drawing - Departing Kembangan Looks good to me - they should commission him to re-design every train image. Give the place a bit of life. A Swiss man has been arrested in Singapore on suspicion of breaking into a high-security subway depot and spray-painting graffiti on a train, an offence punishable by caning, police said Friday. "We confirm that a 33-year-old Swiss male national has been arrested in relation to the case," a spokesman for the Singapore Police Force told AFP. No further details were available pending the investigation into the incident, which took place in May. The Swiss embassy in Singapore had no immediate comment. Subway operator SMRT said it was helping police with the investigation, but gave no further information. The train has been scrubbed clean but a clip on video-sharing site Youtube -- still visible athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CV4JYKBEQo -- shows the vandalised train as it left a suburban station. The Straits Times newspaper reported Friday that the suspect was believed to have cut his way into the depot, a restricted zone surrounded by fences topped with barbed wire. Singapore, a close US ally, considers itself a prime target of Southeast Asian extremists and lists the train system among possible points of attack, along with the airport and US-linked establishments. Vandalism is punishable in Singapore by three to eight strokes of the cane as well as jail terms of up to three years and a maximum fine of 2,000 Singapore dollars (1,424 US). An American teenager, Michael Fay, garnered global headlines in 1994 when he was jailed and caned in Singapore after he was found guilty of vandalising several cars. Fay was caned despite a US appeal for clemency. http://www.mysinchew.com/node/39990 In desperation and fear, they censor www.yoursdp.org Thursday, 27 May 2010 Singapore Democrats The Government has barred Mr Vincent Cheng from speaking about his detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA). Mr Cheng was arrested in May 1987 together with more than 20 Singaporeans and detained for up to two years. They were accused of conspiring to violently overthrow the Government through a network that advocated Marxist principles. Mr Cheng, a Catholic church worker, was accused of being the ringleader. He was detained without trial and beaten and tortured into confessing what Mr Lee Kuan Yew accused him of. Twenty-three years later, the ex-detainee wants to reveal all at a talk at the National Library. He was scheduled to speak at a forum on 4 Jun 10 organised by the National University of Singapore (NUS) History Society. But the Government won't allow him. (See also Martyn See's blog) Why is the PAP so afraid of what the ex-detainee has to say? A church worker, Mr Cheng was studying and working with the poor in Singapore to help alleviate their crushing burden. The PAP felt threatened perhaps because there was indeed a growing layer of underclass in Singapore even at that time. It accused him willy-nilly of heading a Marxist conspiracy. On 21 May 1987, the ISD rounded up 22 citizens, including Mr Vincent Cheng. Among them were social workers, lawyers, and artists. Save for Mr Cheng, the prisoners were released in late 1987. The Government declared that the detainees had been treated well and were not tortured in any way, and that the confessions were all voluntary. Unable to contain their anguish at the injustice and the taunting that the PAP was dishing out, several of the detainees issued a statement refuting the Government's claim that they were not tortured:  During our detention, we were subjected to treatment which should never be meted out to any person under investigation. Following our sudden arrests, we were subjected to harsh and intensive interrogation, deprived of sleep and rest, some of us for as long as 70 hours insides freezing cold rooms. All of us were stripped of our personal clothing, including spectacles, footwear and underwear and made to change into prisoners' uniforms.Most of us were made to stand continually during interrogation, some of us for over 20 hours and under the full blast of air-conditioning turned to a very low temperature. Under these conditions, one of us was repeatedly doused with cold water during interrogation. Most of us were hit hard in the face, some of us for not less than 50 times, while others were assaulted on other parts of the body, during the first three days of interrogation. We were threatened with more physical abuse during interrogation. We were threatened with arrests, assault and battery of our spouses, loved ones and friends. We were threatened with INDEFINITE detention without trial. (emphasis original) Chia Thye Poh, who is still in detention after twenty years, was cited as an example. We were told that no one could help us unless we "cooperated" with the ISD. They were re-arrested the following day. Then deputy prime minister Mr Goh Chok Tong promised that there would be a commission of inquiry to look into the allegations. In the meantime, ISD officers worked the detainees over and again threatened them with indefinite detention unless they recanted their statement. Under the circumstances, the prisoners relented and did as ordered. Triumphant, the Government pronounced that the detainees were indeed not tortured and there was, therefore, no longer any need for the commission of inquiry. Save for a few publications that have told the detainees' side of the story such as To Be Free by Dr Chee Soon Juan and That We May Dream Again edited by Fong Hoe Fang, things have been kept under wraps all these years. In That we May Dream Again, Mr Cheng, who was finally released in 1990, wrote: I still feel angry at the injustice of the whole incident, and that the perpetrators have not been brought to account. 'Operation Spectrum' was political rape. I cannot forget nor forgive, the harsh treatment meted out to me in prison to extract information – the freezing room, the slapping and the beatings, including the blow to my abdomen. With the barring of Mr Cheng speaking at the National Library it looks like the PAP is desperate to continue to keep its shameful record from Singaporeans. But right-thinking citizens should not allow this to happen. With the Internet, this seamy side of Singapore's politics must be exposed. More important, it must not be allowed to happen again. Yong Vui Kong to be Hanged From Amnesty International -----PLEASE RESPOND IMMEDIATELY. SINGAPORE:  22-YEAR-OLD DUE TO BE HANGED A Malaysian man is at immediate risk of execution in Singapore. On 14 May, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against a mandatory death sentence, which violates fair-trial rights. Yong Vui Kong was sentenced to death in January 2009 for trafficking 47 grams of diamorphine (heroin), a crime committed when he was 19 years old. Singapore's Misuse of Drugs Act makes the death penalty mandatory for trafficking more than 30 grams of heroin, leaving judges no discretion to consider issues such as mitigating circumstances or to hand down alternative sentences. The law presumes trafficking in all cases involving the possession of over 2 grams of heroin, which shifts the burden of proving that no trafficking was involved from the prosecution to the defendant. This violates the core human right to be presumed innocent of a crime until proven guilty. The President of Singapore rejected Yong Vui Kong's petition for clemency on 1 December 2009. On 2 December 2009, the High Court postponed Yong Vui Kong's execution (which had been set to take place on 4 December) to allow the Court of Appeal time to hear an application for a stay. PLEASE WRITE IMMEDIATELY in English or your own language * urging President Nathan to reconsider Yong Vui Kong's clemency petition and commute his death sentence; * calling on the president to introduce an immediate moratorium on all executions, with a view to complete abolition of the death penalty; * reminding Law Minister Shanmugam, that the Misuse of Drugs Act violates international human rights law and standards concerning fairness of prosecutions and trials; * urging the Law Minister to recommend that Parliament revoke the mandatory death penalty for drug-trafficking and all other offences. PLEASE SEND APPEALS TO: His Excellency SR Nathan  Office of the President Orchard Road, Istana Singapore 0922  Fax:   011 65 6735 3135 Email:  s_r_nathan@istana.gov.sg Salutation:  Your Excellency Minister for Law: The Honourable K Shanmugam Ministry of Home Affairs New Phoenix Park  28 Irrawaddy Road  Singapore 329560  Fax:   011 65 6258 0921 Email:  k_shanmugam@mlaw.gov.sg Salutation:  Dear Mr Minister AND COPIES TO: His Excellency Yong Guan Koh High Commissioner for Singapore c/o Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tanglin Singapore 248163 Fax:   011 65 6474-7885 E-mail:  yong_guan_koh@cpf.gov.sg Editor-in-Chief The Straits Times 1000 Toa Payoh North News Centre  Singapore 318994  Fax:   011 65 6319 8282 Email:  stonline@sph.com.sg ADDITIONAL INFORMATION In a 2007 drug-trafficking case, Singapore executed a young Nigerian, Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi. UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, Philip Alston, condemned the sentence on human rights grounds: "Singapore's decision to make the death penalty mandatory keeps judges from considering all of the factors relevant to determining whether a death sentence would be permissible in a capital case." On 9 May, Singapore's Minister for Law, K. Shanmugam, claimed that the mandatory death penalty is a deterrent that has saved thousands of lives, according to The Straits Times. Speaking with respect to Yong's case, he said, "You save one life here, but ten other lives will be gone." Amnesty International opposes the imposition of the death penalty in all circumstances and irrespective of claims of utility. The organization considers the death penalty a violation of the right to life and the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Urgent Action Office   Amnesty International Canada    1992 Yonge St, 3rd floor   Toronto, Ontario M4S 1Z7 (416) 363 9933 ext 325   /   Fax (416) 363 3103   / www.amnesty.ca/urgentaction Yong Vui Kong: Mandatory death penalty constitutional, says court From The Online Citizen The Court of Appeal today declared that the mandatory death penalty is constitutional. In a landmark ruling for the case of Yong Vui Kong, who had appealed his mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong affirmed the decisions of previous courts. He ruled that Article 9 (1) of the Singapore Constitution neither preclude ‘inhuman punishment’ nor embrace customary international law that prohibits the mandatory death penalty. A fuller report will follow tonight. Khairulanwar Zaini So Long and Thanks for all the Fish! So Long and Thanks for all the Fish! ASEAN human rights commission stumbles at first hurdle   30 March 2010 AI Index: IOR 64/001/2010 Amnesty International has expressed disappointment at the refusal by the ASEAN Inter-governmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) to look into complaints brought by victims, families and civil society organizations of human rights abuses in ASEAN member states. Amnesty International calls upon the Commission to reverse its decision and apply its mandate, which includes protection of human rights, in line with international law and standards. Otherwise AICHR risks reducing itself to an irrelevant and futile exercise in public relations. According to a press release by Solidarity for Asian Peoples’ Advocacy Task Force on ASEAN and Human Rights (SAPA TF-AHR), Noemi E. Parcon, the widow of one of the 32 Filipino journalists killed in Ampatuan, Maguindanao in November 2009 said: “I appeal to the Commission to help our families to seek justice,” adding that “the Philippines government is not responsive to our petition. We, therefore, come here to appeal to the AICHR.” However, on 29 March 2010 during the AICHR’s meeting, a Commissioner reportedly met Noemi E. Parcon, other victims of human rights violations and representatives of civil society, only to inform them that the Commission will receive thematic reports on human rights issues, but not individual complaints, and therefore no further action will be taken on any petitions. The fact that the Commission decided, in its very first official meeting, that it cannot help victims of the deadliest single attack on journalists in history to seek redress clearly does not bode well for its future. The Commission’s mandate clearly calls for it to ‘develop strategies for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms’. Investigating complaints is an essential strategy, applied widely by regional and international human rights bodies all around the world. The Commission should meet individuals and groups who wish to submit complaints of human rights abuses within ASEAN, be they individual complaints; complaints relating to national laws, policies or practices violating human rights; cross-border human rights issues; or regional ones. It should study each of these complaints thoroughly, including by communicating with relevant governments and, where needed, carrying out further research, and make every attempt to put an end to the violations reported. Background The ASEAN Inter-governmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) was launched in October 2009, in accordance with Article 14 of the ASEAN Charter. It is formed of ten government representatives, one from each member state. It works under Terms of Reference agreed by ASEAN’s member states, which describe AICHR’s key purpose as “To promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of the peoples of ASEAN.” This month, AICHR is holding its first official meeting in Jakarta. Public Document **************************************** For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 or email: press@amnesty.org International Secretariat, Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW, UK www.amnesty.org   Malaysia arrests migrants as crackdown continues Those arrested face protracted detention in overcrowded immigration detention centres © Amnesty International 28 March 2010 Malaysian authorities have arrested some 140 migrant workers in the past week, according to media reports, soon after Amnesty International released a report documenting police abuses and exploitation of migrants by employers.  The arrests are part of an announced crackdown on migrants, many of whom come from Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Nepal, who live and work in Malaysia without authorization, reports said. Malaysian authorities have arrested hundreds of migrants since the crackdown began at the end of February, according to news reports.  Those arrested face protracted detention in overcrowded immigration detention centres.  Migrants who are found to have violated the immigration laws are subject to substantial fines, imprisonment and in some cases caning.  "These immigration raids sweep up documented as well as undocumented workers," said Michael Bochenek, the report author and director of policy at Amnesty International. "Regardless of immigration status, nobody should be subjected to arbitrary arrest or appalling detention conditions." Employers routinely demand that workers turn over their passports, meaning that migrants who have authorization to work in Malaysia often have only photocopies of their passport and work permit. Authorities frequently do not accept photocopied documents as proof of lawful status.  Untrained volunteers with the People's Volunteer Corps (Ikatan Relawan Rakyat or RELA) often participate in immigration raids. These volunteers are often unfamiliar with the documents they are examining, but they enjoy broad powers to enter private homes without warrants, question suspects, and make arrests. Refugees, including from Myanmar, who hold cards issued by the local office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) are among those caught up in the immigration sweeps this month. Malaysia does not recognize refugee status, but authorities had recently committed not to arrest and detain those holding UNHCR cards.   The detention of refugees in this month's round-ups was a step back from that positive policy development, Amnesty International said. Police and RELA agents both subject migrants to acts of harassment, extortion and violence, but RELA agents are responsible for the most rampant abuses against migrants, the Amnesty International report found. Senior immigration officials assured Amnesty International in July 2009 that RELA no longer had a role in immigration enforcement.   Nevertheless, Amnesty International continued to receive reports of arrests and abuses by RELA agents throughout 2009 and the beginning of 2010. On March 21, an Amnesty International representative observed about 40 RELA agents checking immigration documents in the area of Kuala Lumpur's central market.  Judges can and often do impose caning on migrants convicted of illegal entry. Nearly 35,000 migrants were caned between 2002 and 2008, the Malaysian government has confirmed.  Known as "whipping" in Malaysia, this punishment involves up to six strokes of the rotan, a thin wooden cane.   It leaves deep welts on the buttocks that take days to heal and is profoundly humiliating.   The practice violates the international prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Amnesty International has sought meetings with the Home Affairs and Human Resources ministries to present its findings and recommendations. To date, neither ministry has confirmed a meeting.  After the release of Amnesty International's report, Minister of Home Affairs Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein announced in an interview with The Star (Kuala Lumpur) that his ministry would act against those who exploited and abused migrant workers.   Trapped: The Exploitation of Migrant Workers in Malaysia documents widespread abuses against migrant workers from eight South Asian and Southeast Asian countries who are lured to Malaysia by the promise of jobs but are instead used in forced labour or exploited in other ways. Minimum wage and productivity take centre stage at forum Singapore Democrats Economic concerns such as the issue of foreign workers, income inequality and falling productivity took centre stage today at the public forum organised by the SDP. A panel of five speakers comprising of Messrs John Tan, Jufrie Mahmood, Sylvester Lim and Gandhi Ambalam were on hand to present the SDP's proposals in the various areas of our economy.  The audience repeatedly brought up these subjects during the discussion period and highlighted that the influx of foreign workers were causing wages to be depressed and that this had an adverse effect on productivity. The forum was organised to discuss the Democrats' alternative economic programme. The full programme can be read here. Facts, figures and solutions Mr John Tan spoke of the problem of the non-transparency and the non-accountability of the GIC and Temasek. To remedy the problem, he proposed the prohibition of government leaders and their relatives from assuming positions of control at the two corporations. Mr Tan also presented the Norwegian model of managing a sovereign wealth fund which is well-managed, transparent and democratic. Most of all the fund is competitive, earning high returns. The GIC and Temasek should model their operations on the Norwegian example. The second speaker, Mr Jufrie Mahmood, dealt with the causes of low labour productivity in Singapore. He cited the continuing exodus of Singaporeans as one such cause. The PAP's solution of replacing these Singaporeans with foreigners has led to a decline in productivity because these foreigners have been brought in as cheap labout rather than for their talent. The bribe-taking, sex hungry Singapore policemen Published: 28/03/2010 at 10:50 AM Not only does Candy take full advantage of the Thai women, but certain personnel in the Singapore Police do as well. All of the Thai women interviewed claim that Candy pays a monthly bribe to the police. The policeman he pays is a former head of the Woodlands branch who is now working elsewhere. Some of the girls believe that Candy's best friend, Ah Pooee, contributes half of the bribe and Candy often refers to the S$4,000 (92,000 baht) a month they pay the police. In return Candy is forewarned of any raids which are going to take place. Ah Pooee, also a Malaysian Chinese, is the main drug dealer in the Woodlands industrial area. He is a ya ba user and supplies all kinds of drugs from his unit at a factory where he works as a foreman. The drugs are kept under his bed. The Thai girls believe Ah Pooee must contribute to the bribe with Candy, due to the openness with which he is allowed to conduct his business. One night in January a local po liceman in uniform arrived at the tents unannounced. The girls fled. The policeman used a knife to cut up all of the mattresses and he left a message with the tent minder for Candy: ``You are paying the wrong police.'' According to the girls Candy was furious. In a rage he phoned ``his'' policeman and he later told the girls that ``his'' policeman would take care of everything. The girls never heard or saw the knife-wielding policeman again and Candy later told them that he had been transferred. But one local policeman, who calls himself Jack, has become Candy's enemy number one. In the first instance, Jack and two fellow policemen wearing matching police polo shirts arrived at the tents late on the night of Jan 24. All but one girl, Bam, who was half-way through seeing a customer, fled. Jack threatened to arrest her for working without a work permit, but he offered to let her go in exchange for a free sex session. Jack had sex with Bam and was followed by a dark-skinned officer. A third officer refused to participate. Police officer Jack and his friends have in recent months been regularly visiting the tents trying to catch some girls. Candy has a male Thai worker manning each tent. They put up the tent at the start of the evening and collect all the money. They also sort out any problems but now must try and look out for Jack and his mates and shout a warning to the girls. Despite this, Jack has been enjoying taking advantage of his position in the police force to obtain free sex. But two weeks ago things escalated. A team of police, led by Jack, raided the only tent not controlled by Candy. Again the police made no arrests, nor did they demand free sex. Instead, according to the girls working there, the police went through all of their belongings and stole seven mobile phones, about 12 baht in weight of gold (worth nearly 200,000 baht) and more than S$12,000 in cash. Amnesty International; Singapore/Malaysia/Brunei Notes To: Singapore/Malaysia/Brunei Network Dear Friends, Once again, I send you brief notes on developments of the past three months. Much has happened.  Please take these notes as reported information, not necessarily validated by Amnesty International, though  part of the larger picture.   Any further information or corrections are most welcome. AI has just launched a major report on migrant workers in Malaysia, describing the horrrifying situation so many find themselves in.  I expect soon to have campaigning material from the International Secretariat, and no doubt I will be contacting you for action.    Anwar Ibrahim continues to face challenging moves against him -- but key sectors in several countries are speaking out and he is refusing to to dampen his campaigning in Malaysia and abroad.  For us in Canada,  it is heartening to see  former Prime MInister Paul Martin's article of support in Canada's coast-to-coast newspaper, the Globe and Mail, and the important support from our High Commission in Malaysia. Singapore's opposition leaders and activists  continue to campaign impressively for their rights, despite their repeated terms of imprisonment.   Singapore is also meeting with increasing opposition to its use of the death penalty and to its frequent  lawsuits against critical foreign media. With every good wish, Margaret John Coordinator for Singapore and Malaysia     Employ Singaporeans First! Dear Fellow Singaporeans,   With your kind support, the online petition "Employ Singaporeans First!" has collected 405 signatures to date after it was launched on 7 Mar.   We are thankful for the many Singaporeans who sign hoping for a change in the employment scene. Many Singaporeans continue to be displaced by foreigners at their work places despite the much improved economy.   We also wish to solicit your support again to forward the peition to as many people as possible so that we can hit our target of 1000 signatures before we forward them to the Prime Minister Office. We can do it if we all unite together and  forward to at least ten of our friends on our email list.   Singapore for Singaporeans! Cheers.   Regds Gilbert Goh Online Petition organiser Reporters Without Borders: Martyn See Open letter to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong Prime Minister’s Office Orchard Road Istana Singapore 238823 Paris, 25 March 2010 Dear Prime Minister, A foreign news organisation has yet again been forced to apologise to you and your father and pay you a large sum of money for publishing an article you did not like. This time it is the New York Times Co. that is a victim of this double punishment because of a compliant judicial system that always rules in favour of you and your family in all the lawsuits you bring against foreign news media. Before the New York Times Co., you succeeded in punishing the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER), FinanceAsia.com, The Economist, International Herald Tribune and Asian Wall Street Journal for their coverage of the political and economic situation in your country. Threatened by a trial, the New York Times Co. apologised to you and your father, Lee Kuan Yew, for the article “All in the Family,” written by Philip Bowring and published in the 15 February issue of the International Herald Tribune. As well as an apology, this US media company had to pay 114,000 US dollars in damages. Your lawyer, Davinder Singh, said Bowring’s article violated an “agreement” between your family and the International Herald Tribune, which was sentenced in 1994 to pay a large sum in damages for an article entitled “The claims about Asian values don’t usually bear scrutiny.” The now defunct Far Eastern Economic Review agreed last November, after a long legal wrangle, to pay you and your father 290,000 US dollars in damages. Despite a lack of evidence, Singaporean judges ruled in favour of your family both in the original trial and on appeal without a thought for media freedom. Reporters Without Borders condemns the judicial harassment which you and your father have practiced for years in order to prevent foreign news media from taking too close an interest in how you run your country. It does serious and lasting harm to press freedom in Singapore. Your government has repeatedly displayed a disturbing inability to tolerate foreign journalists. Last October, for example, Benjamin Bland, a British freelancer who strings for The Economist and The Daily Telegraph, was denied a visa and permission to cover an APEC summit in Singapore. “I was forced to leave Singapore after the government refused to renew my work visa without any explanation,” Bland told Reporters Without Borders. But the censorship has above all affected local media and local artistic production. In October 2009, for example, the ministry of information, communication and arts upheld a ban on a documentary by Singaporean filmmaker Martyn See about government opponent Said Zahari. Watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOI2... In response to the publication of the Reporters Without Borders 2009 press freedom index, in which Singapore was ranked 133rd out of 175 countries, your law minister, K. Shanmugam, described it as “absurd” and “disconnected from reality.” Unfortunately, the facts show that we are right. In the six years since you became prime minister and said you favoured an “open” society, we have seen very few improvements in the situation of free speech. We therefore think your government should take the following measures as a matter of urgency: 1. Put a stop to the libel actions which you and your relatives have been bringing against Singaporean and foreign media that cover Singaporean developments in an independent manner. As the UN special rapporteur for freedom of expression recently said, the prime minister, his minister and high officials must refrain from suing journalists over their articles and comments. 2. Amend the criminal code so as to abolish prison sentences for press offences. 3. Amend the press law, especially the articles concerning the granting of publication licences. The current restrictions are preventing the emergence of independent media. The film law should also be relaxed. 4. Reform the national security law so as to abolish administrative detention, which allows the authorities to imprison people because of what they think. 5. Reform the Media Development Authority so that it is no longer able to censor and can solely make recommendations about TV programmes and films. 6. Allow government opponents and civil society representatives unrestricted access to the public media. 7. Guarantee the editorial independence of all the media owned by Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and Media Corporation of Singapore (Mediacorp). 8. Transfer the money that your family has obtained in damages from foreign and Singaporean news media to a support fund for imprisoned journalists that Reporters Without Borders proposes to set up. We regret that you, the members of your government and your father keep citing the need to guarantee Singapore’s stability as grounds for controlling the media and maintaining its draconian laws. Countries that show the most respect for press freedom, such as Finland and Norway, are peaceful and prosperous democracies. Freedom of expression is not a source of political unrest. Quite the contrary. You have perpetuated your father’s legacy by continuing to harass and intimidate news media. As a result, aside from a few websites specialising in Singapore, no news outlet can publish independent news and information about issues affecting the political situation in your country. We would be very honoured to be able to meet with you in order to talk about our observations and our proposals for guaranteeing press freedom in Singapore in person. Respectfully, Jean-François Julliard Secretary-General Amnesty International urges Malaysia to protect foreign labourers The Star KUALA LUMPUR: Migrant workers are lured to Malaysia by promises of high salaries but often end up being exploited and abused, Amnesty International says in a report that urged the government to better protect foreign labourers. “Migrant workers come to Malaysia to escape poverty and to provide for their families. Once they arrive, however, many workers toil in conditions that amount to labour exploitation,” the London-based rights group said in a report released Wednesday. Malaysia depends heavily on foreign labourers, who make up more than a fifth of the country’s work force and fill jobs at construction sites, factories, restaurants, households and palm oil plantations. But lower-than-promised wages, unsafe working conditions, and arbitrary arrests and extortion are common, said Amnesty. An Amnesty team visited Malaysia in July 2009 and interviewed more than 200 workers - both legal and illegal - for the 100-page report titled “Trapped - The Exploitation of Migrant Workers in Malaysia.” Malaysia’s Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam denied foreign workers faced discrimination, saying they had the same rights as Malaysian workers. He said they could bring complaints of mistreatment to the Labour Department, which solved most cases speedily. “The system of bringing in foreign workers is a well established legal system ... It is fair to everybody,” he told The Associated Press. “We offer the same kind of protection to foreigners (as to locals)... We don’t protect employers who exploit workers.” In its report, Amnesty urged Malaysia to increase workplace inspections and step up prosecution of those who mistreat workers. It also called on the country to amend laws to guarantee better conditions and to stop employers or recruitment agents from holding workers’ passports, which restricts their ability to move about. “The government of Malaysia has a responsibility to prevent ... abuses, which can include exploitation, forced labour, and trafficking in persons. Too often, the state fails to do so,” Amnesty said. “Much of Malaysia’s approach to migration is effectively to criminalise it, even though the country could not function without migrant labour.” Amnesty said it found that migrant workers, brought to Malaysia by agents, are often deceived about their pay, the type of job _ some don’t even get work - and their legal status in the country. Some workers are also held at their workplace by threat or violence, the report said. Three women from Myanmar, working as tailors, recounted how their employers called gangsters to intimidate and force them to work throughout the night. About 2 million foreigners work in Malaysia legally, and an estimated 1 million more work illegally. Most come from poorer Indonesia. Others are from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Myanmar, the Philippines and Vietnam. They mostly fill jobs shunned by locals in this relatively wealthy Southeast Asian nation. Amnesty said authorities indiscriminately stop those looking “poor and foreign” under the guise of checking their papers but often these are “moneymaking ventures, nothing more than opportunities for extortion.” -- AP All in the Family The offending article... By PHILIP BOWRING HONG KONG — Are political dynasties good or bad ? Election time in the Philippines is a regular reminder of the roles that feudal instincts and the family name play in that nation's politics. Benigno Aquino, son of the late President Corazon Aquino, is the front runner to succeed President Gloria Arroyo, daughter of Diosdado Macapagal, a president in the 1960s. Senate and Congressional contests will see family names of other former presidents and those long prominent in provincial politics and land-owning. But the Philippines is not unique. Dynastic politics thrives across Asia to an extent found in no other region apart from the Arabian peninsula monarchies. The list of Asian countries with governments headed by the offspring or spouses of former leaders is striking: Pakistan has Prime Minister Asif Ali Zardari, widower of Benazir Bhutto, herself the daughter of the executed former leader Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Bangladesh has Sheikh Hasina, daughter of the murdered first prime minister, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman . In Malaysia, Prime Minister Najib Razak is the son of the second prime minister, Abdul Razak. Singapore's Lee Hsien Loong is Lee Kuan Yew's son. In Kim Il-sung's son Kim Jong-il commands party, army and country and waiting in the wings is his son Kim Jong-un. In India, the widow Sonia Gandhi is the power behind the technocrat prime minister, Manmohan Singh, and her son Rahul is showing political promise and being groomed in the hope of leading the Congress party and eventually filling the post of prime minister, first occupied by his great grandfather Jawaharlal Nehru. In Japan, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama is the scion of a Kennedy-like political dynasty: His father was a foreign minister, and his grandfather was a prime minister. Indonesia's last president, Megawati Sukarnoputri, is the daughter of its first, and family ties could well play in the next presidential election when the incumbent, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, must retire. In Myanmar, the durability of the opposition to the military owes much to the name of Aung San Suu Kyi's independence-hero father as well as to her stoicism. Thailand lacks obvious political dynasties but that is likely because there is already a monarch. South Korea's rough and tumble democracy would seem to leave little scope for dynasties but even there, the political career of Park Chung Hee's daughter, Park Geun Hye, has benefited much from her father's reputation. With the exception of North Korea, Asian dynasties are a phenomenon of countries that are more or less democratic. In China, family connections help immensely but the party is still a relatively meritocratic hierarchy. Vietnam is similar. In the Philippines, it is easy to blame dynastic tendencies for the nation's stark economic failures. But its problems go much deeper into the social structure and the way the political system entrenches a selfish elite. It is a symptom not the cause of the malaise. In India, the Gandhi name has been an important element in ensuring that Congress remains a major national force at a time when the growth of regional, caste and language based parties have added to the problems of governing such a diverse country. In Bangladesh, years of fierce rivalry between Sheikh Hasina, daughter of one murdered president and widow of another, have been a debilitating factor in democratic politics. But their parties needed their family names to provide cohesion and without them there could have been much more overt military intervention. Ms. Megawati was a poor leader but just by being there helped the consolidation of the post-Suharto democracy. Dynasties can be stultifying too. In Malaysia, the ruling party was once a grassroots organization where upstarts like former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad could flourish but over time it has become a self-perpetuating patronage machine. Too many of the key players are the offspring or relatives of former leaders. There are more fundamental problems, too. Most current Asian dynasties trace themselves to the post-1945 political transformation. In that sense they have become a crutch, reflecting a failure to devise systems for the transfer of power to new names, faces and ideas. Dynasties are a poor commentary on the depth of democracy in their countries. Without parties with a coherent organization and a set of ideas, politics becomes about personalities alone and name recognition more important than competence. Parties run by the elite offspring of past heroes easily degenerate into self-serving patronage systems. So dynastic leadership in Asia's quasi-democracies can provide a focus for nations, a glue for parties, an identity substitute in countries that used to be run by kings and sultans. But it is more a symptom of underlying problems than an example to be followed. New York Times pays damages to Singapore's leaders Read the offending article here SINGAPORE Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:58am EDT Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong speaks during Standard Chartered's 150th anniversary dinner in Singapore February 19, 2009. Credit: Reuters/Vivek Prakash SINGAPORE (Reuters) - The New York Times Co apologized to Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew on Wednesday and paid S$160,000 ($114,000) in damages for an article about Asian political dynasties. An apology in the opinion section of the New York Times' website said that any inference that Lee Hsien Loong "did not achieve his position through merit," was unintended. The article, entitled "All in the Family," was published on February 15 in the International Herald Tribune (IHT), the global edition of The New York Times. Lee Hsien Loong is the son of independent Singapore's first leader, Lee Kuan Yew. The New York Times also apologized to Goh Chok Tong, who succeeded the older Lee as prime minister. Davinder Singh, the lawyer acting for the leaders, told Reuters that the IHT's publisher, editor of global editions, and the article's author, Philip Bowring, also agreed to pay damages of S$60,000 to Lee Hsien Loong, and S$50,000 each to Goh Chok Tong and Lee Kuan Yew, as well as pay their legal costs. Singh said the article was "libellous" and the Singapore leaders had demanded an apology, damages and costs. He said it was in breach of an undertaking made by both the publisher of the IHT and Bowring in 1994 that they would not make further similar defamatory allegations to those made in an article by Bowring in the IHT in that year called "The Claims about Asian Values Don't Usually Bear Scrutiny," for which the IHT and Bowring also paid damages and costs to the three leaders. A spokesman for The New York Times Co declined to comment beyond the apology, while Bowring did not respond to a Reuters query for comment. Singapore's leaders have in the past sued and won damages, or out-of-court settlements, from opposition politicians and foreign media including the International Herald Tribune, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and The Economist. Singapore, considered to have the lowest political risk among Asian nations by many risk consultancies, is a hub for manufacturers, banks and expatriates, who value its stability. The ruling People's Action Party (PAP) has governed for 50 years. Singapore was ranked 133rd among 175 countries in the World Press Freedom Index 2009 by Reporters Without Borders. (Reporting by Neil Chatterjee in Singapore and Tiffany Wu in New York; Editing by Nick Macfie and Raju Gopalakrishnan) In Singapore, productivity at all costs Opposition leader Sylvia Lim of the Workers' Party cautioned earlier this month that as Singapore pursues fast economic growth and productivity gains, the average citizen must also feel the gains. She cited an article by Centennial Group economist Manu Bhaskaran which noted that almost half of national profits went to foreign companies and queried whether the majority of Singaporeans have benefited from a rising gross domestic product. Megawati Wijaya Asia Times Online As Singapore's trade-geared economy contracted sharply amid the global economic downturn, the government fired up its fiscal engines to drive short-term growth and job creation. Now, buoyed by recovery, the People's Action Party (PAP)-led administration is shifting fiscal gears by dedicating billions of state funds to improve long-term economic productivity. The recently passed S$46 billion (US$33 billion) budget reaffirms Singapore's commitment to state-led economic development and signals an ambitious investment plan that aims to keep the increasingly service sector-driven economy one step ahead of its regional competitors. The new budget dedicates S$5.5 billion to boost overall annual productivity gains over the next 10 years to 2% to 3% , which if successful would represent a significant boost from the 1% achieved annually over the past decade. Part of the package will be allocated to companies and individuals in the form of tax benefits, grants and training subsidies. About S$1.5 billion will go over a five-year period towards the promotion of research and development, and another S$450 million to boost public-private sector collaborations. It further allocates more than $500 million to build corporate competitiveness, including by upgrading local companies' staff and capabilities. A new high-level state body, the National Productivity and Continuing Education Council, will be created to oversee all the state-led, productivity-enhancing initiatives.