Organ Trade Won't be Condoned Home > Prime News > StoryJuly 4, 2008 Judge warns: Organ trade won't be condonedHe gives two donors short jail terms, blaming syndicates for exploiting themBy Elena Chong, Court CorrespondentTHE two poor Indonesians recently caught agreeing to sell their kidneys for over $20,000 each were given relatively light jail terms and fines yesterday.The law will reserve a bigger punch for the shadowy syndicate that arranged the deal, said District Judge Bala Reddy.Mere fines would not do for those running these syndicates, he said, adding: 'Longer custodial sentences should be reserved for the ringleaders and other major players in such syndicated offences who profit by exploiting the poor and disadvantaged.'He said the duo knew they were breaking the law, but went ahead anyway because they needed the money.Singapore law thus had to send a signal that commercial trade in human organs would not be condoned, and people must be deterred from trying to profiteer from the illegal sale of organs, he said.The prosecution had sought a fine at the lower end of the spectrum for the two men, Sulaiman Damanik and Toni, on the illegal organ supply charges because their poverty had been exploited.The prosecution had also recommended short jail terms for their having made false statutory declarations that they had not been paid for their kidneys and that they were related to the recipients.Under the law, a transplant ethics committee (TEC) cannot give the go-ahead for a living donor organ transplant unless it is satisfied, among other things, that the intended organ donor had not entered into any contract to trade away his organ.Deputy Public Prosecutor Nor'ashikin Samdin asked for a sentence that would deter individuals like Toni and others from trying to profiteer from the sale of their organs.Toni, who successfully sold one of his kidneys for 186 million rupiah (about $29,390) in March, was to be paid again to act as runner for another prospective kidney seller.This transaction involving Sulaiman, which would have brought a kidney to ailing C.K. Tang boss Tang Wee Sung, did not go through.Soon after the TEC approved the application for Sulaiman to become Mr Tang's living donor, the two Indonesians were arrested at Lucky Plaza.The DPP said Singapore, in its quest to promote medical tourism, would not hesitate to take all measures to protect itself from becoming an illicit transplantation hub.The Indonesians' lawyer Mohamed Muzammil Mohamed said his clients had no complaints about the sentences.He said he felt the court had been 'very fair', and noted that it had considered that his clients had not actively sought to sell their organs.After the sentencing, Toni spoke to his wife on the phone briefly and consoled her.Mr Kemal Haripurwanto, the minister-counsellor and head of protocol and consular affairs at the Indonesian Embassy, said that considering the maximum sentence the pair could have received, the sentence passed was light.elena@sph.com.sgI find the above news very disturbing. Why were only the sellers punished? What about the recipient, would-be recipient, the surgeon, the hospital and the TEC? I'm sure that just like the duo, the recipient, the would-be recipient and the surgeon knew very well that they were breaking the law but went ahead anyway because they needed the organ or the business. Are we again making the poor and "small men" as scapegoat and letting the rich and powerful go unscathed? Democracy in Singapore http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121443744095705301.html?mod=googlenews_wsjDemocracy in SingaporeJune 26, 2008; Page A14Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore can rightly be proud of many achievements, but full democracy is not one of them. The city-state he founded in 1965 and led as Prime Minister until 1990 is economically prosperous and its citizens enjoy a range of freedoms. Political dissent is not among them.Which makes a recent David vs. Goliath exchange between one of the country's few opposition politicians and Mr. Lee worth noting. The dialogue took place in a courtroom and is therefore privileged – which means we can report on it without risking a lawsuit, which Mr. Lee often files against critics. Audio files are available on the Singapore Democratic Party's Web site, and a partial transcript is available at Singapore Rebel, an independent blog.The setting was a hearing to assess damages against Chee Soon Juan, head of the Singapore Democratic Party, and his sister and colleague, Chee Siok Chin. In 2006, the Chees lost a defamation suit brought by Mr. Lee and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, over an article they published in their party newsletter that was interpreted by the court to imply corruption on the part of the government. In last month's hearing, the elder Mr. Lee, who holds the title of Minister Mentor, was cross-examined by Mr. Chee, who was representing himself.Mr. Chee is no orator, and on one level the dissident was no match for the eloquent Mr. Lee. But when the subject turned to the moral underpinnings of democracy – freedoms of speech, assembly and association – the debate went game, set and match to Mr. Chee.Mr. Chee set out his philosophy while questioning Mr. Lee: "What I'm interested in is justice, the rule of law, because ultimately it is not about you, Mr. Lee. It is not about me. It's about the people of Singapore, it is about this country and everything we stand for. You and I will pass on, but I can tell you, the practice of the rule of law, the entire concept of justice, democracy – that is going to last for all eternity."Mr. Lee didn't respond directly to those assertions, choosing instead to cite the International Bar Association's decision to "honor" Singapore by holding its annual conference there last year and noted a letter from the association's president saying "how impressed they were by the standards they found to obtain in the judiciary."Elsewhere in the hearing, Mr. Lee defended his string of defamation suits against opposition politicians and the press: "They know me by now," Mr. Lee said, referring to the people of Singapore, "that if anybody impugns the integrity of the government, of which I was the prime minister, I must sue."He went on: "There are various parts of this government which do not comply with Western practices, including the law of libel. But it is a system that has worked." Mr. Lee has never lost a libel suit. He and his son are currently suing the Far Eastern Economic Review, a sister publication of this newspaper, and its editor, Hugo Restall.Our reading is that the Minister Mentor sounded more than a tad defensive – no less so than in his characterization of Mr. Chee, who has been bankrupted as a result of lawsuits by Mr. Lee and other politicians. He called Mr. Chee, a "liar, a cheat and altogether an unscrupulous man." Not to mention "a near-psychopath." Mr. Chee, for his part, referred to Mr. Lee as a "pitiable figure."It's hard to know what Singaporeans make of all this. Mr. Lee is widely revered as the father of their country, and Mr. Chee is often scorned for his aggressive tactics. But at least, thanks to the Internet, they are able to read the exchange and make up their own minds.So, too, in the case of Gopalan Nair, which is making its way through the courts now. Mr. Nair is a former Workers' Party candidate. He is now a U.S. citizen and online advocate for media freedom in Singapore. He traveled to the city-state to attend Mr. Chee's hearing last month and recorded his thoughts on his blog, where he expressed his contempt for the court proceedings and challenged Mr. Lee to sue him.On May 31, he was arrested and interrogated. On June 2, he was charged with insulting Judge Belinda Ang, who presided over the Chee hearing, by email. He was released on June 5, six days after his initial arrest, and charged on June 12 with insulting another judge in a separate, 2006 email. Last week, the court changed the first charge and specified that the offending remarks about Judge Ang were made on a blog, not by email.Mr. Nair's case is scheduled to go to court in mid-July. Meanwhile, Mr. Chee was just released from jail, where he served 11 days for "scandalizing" the court during his questioning of Mr. Lee. His sister served 10 days. The court has yet to set the amount of monetary damages in the defamation case. When it does, we'll know the price of political dissent these days in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore."There are various parts of this government which do not comply with Western practices, including the law of libel. But it is a system that has worked."Since MM Lee has never lost a libel suit, isn't that an admission that the system has worked for him in getting rid of opposition politicians and shutting out of political dissent?This seems to be the 2nd time MM Lee admitted to using the state apparatuses to perpetuate his rule. The first was when he revealed that HDB flat ownership scheme was implemented to prevent HDB owners (about 86% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats) from voting out his party.MM Lee now seems to have no qualms in letting it be known the means he uses to cling on to power. BLOGGER ARRESTED FOR POSTING ALLEGEDLY RACIST COMMENTS ON INTERNET http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,165378,00.html? He says now: I'm shocked that people read my blog He claims he wrote only for friends, but says he will apologise online By Liew Hanqing May 22, 2008 AN online rant about a stranger on an MRT train has turned ugly for a local blogger.The police have arrested the 24-year-old for a post he allegedly wrote on his blog that contained offensive comments targeted at a racial group. A police statement issued late last night said the Chinese man was arrested at his Paya Lebar Way home around 9.45pm for posting contents in his blog which may wound the feelings of a person of another race. A computer, believed to be used to post the suspect's blog, was seized for investigations, which are ongoing. The police had received two reports on Monday complaining of the alleged post. IRKED BY MRT RIDER The post was apparently sparked off by the suspect seeing a man of another race sitting on the floor of an MRT train. 'There he sat, unaffected by his surroundings, smelling like he didn't showered (sic) in years and wore some really scary dirty clothes,' he wrote. He went on to make allegedly offensive comments about that racial group in his tirade. His post has drawn flak from local netizens, who labelled him a racist.Though I don’t like or encourage racism the authorities seemed to have over reacted this time round. Such senseless rants are a dime a dozen in the internet. If they were to arrest all of them then very soon more prisons will have to be built! Or does the arrest serve a bigger purpose? Like instilling fear in the cyberspace? Anyway, I hope the 24-year-old will be released after a reprimand. Charging him in court will be equivalent to shooting missile at mosquito! Whom Should We Trust?Sim Kwang Yang17 Apr 2008Malaysiakini.com.....................In the end, voters must get their heads in the right space. All political leaders and their political parties are but the instruments for the rakyat and history. In a meaningful democracy, the people must be the masters of their own nation. That means they have to learn to use politicians and political parties to further the interest of the rakyat, rather than being used by politicians to attain wealth, position, and power.Certain amount of trust in public personalities and the institutions of state is definitely crucial for the survival of a nation state. Without that trust, there would not even be any social cohesion that allows law and order to exist.But that trust must not be blind or unconditional. The trust of the people in the leading men and the laws of their land must always be conditional and tentative. The whole idea in the evolution of democracy in world history is precisely premised upon this mistrust for people in power.That is why we have the doctrine of separation of powers, and other checks and balances within our political system. Again, to quote the often misquoted dictum of Lord Acton, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." Good political leaders will not demand blind uncritical trust from their followers, but will welcome all kinds of checks and balances to be applied to them in the most vigorous manner possible. They are supposed to have nothing to hide.Therefore, the question is not so much whether we can trust Anwar Ibrahim or any other leading political figure. The question is about whether we can trust our good judgement, our wisdom, our instinct, and our collective strength in determining our own fate.Though the article refers to Malaysia political scenario, it is applicable to all countries practicing democracy especially developing democratic countries such as Singapore. Our brand of democracy is so twisted for so long that many of us have either forgotten or do not know that political leaders are to serve the people and not the other way round. We need not fear them or trust them blindly. We must insist that there are effective mechanisms for checks and balances to prevent official abuses and to ensure political growth for the future of the country. First World Toilet Our terrorist detainee Mas Selamat was rumored to have died while under detention in Whitley Road Detention Centre. That rumor is not only naughty but utterly ridiculous. How could the authority allow him to die they gave him first world treatment! Just look at the toilet. There are not only no bars or locks of a typical prison setting; the urinals are housed in stall with door. Where else can one get such privacy when doing the mundane task? Good ventilation is also ensured by an exhaust and a generous obstruction-free ventilation window. And if Mas was still unhappy with the air quality inside the toilet, he was free to inhale the fresh air from outside. All he needed to do was to step up on the ledge thoughtfully provided just below the ventilation window. He could then bend his body over the ventilation window and breathe in all the fresh air he wanted! So, would an authority that provides such 1st world toilet allow its charges to die under its care? Highly unlikely! 1st World Democracy? I was really made speechless by what our two elite leaders said earlier this week. PM Lee told our two mainstream media that as far as age is concerned none of the current cabinet ministers qualify to succeed him as PM. He thus will have to remain as PM for another 13 years as he looks for a successor. I wonder if Singapore is practicing democracy or a dynasty where the emperor appoints his own successor. But what is more appalling is his narrow-minded view on the prerequisite of a PM. He indicated that the PM must have 4As in his A Level Examinations. No wonder Singapore never progress beyond a nanny state. It is ruled by a parochial and grade-obsessed school master! In an interview with The Straits Times, MM Lee said Singaporeans are being complacent when they believe that the government will take care of all security matters. Is he trying to push the blame on Mas Selamat’s jail break to the people? I’m dumbstruck that a leader of MM Lee’s statute would try to shirk responsibility. Doesn’t he always claim that we are a 1st world nation? Shouldn’t 1st world government take responsibility of its actions and mistakes and be prepared to be judged? Maybe we do have the 1st world hardware but the software is still stuck in the 3rd world! Caretaker Government I was casually following the Malaysian 12th General Elections when I made an interesting discovery. That a Malaysian opposition leader had tried to seek a court order to set up a caretaker government after the parliament was dissolved. Unfortunately I don't know the outcome of his application. A caretaker government is one of the parliamentary innovations esp. in the British Commonwealth. Its principal task is to ensure that the outgoing ruling party will not make use of its’ previous hold on government machinery and public resources to further its interest in the coming elections. Caretaker governments understandingly have been set up in many first world democratic countries like Italy, Austria and New Zealand. But to my surprise many non-first world and not-so-democratic countries like Palestine, Pakistan, Iraq and even Bangladesh have also adopted the system!Maybe, PAP should consider adopting the system in future general elections, if not how can it justify its claim that Singapore is a first world country! Climate of Fear Hurts Singapore? Climate of fear hurts Singapore: authorSuppression of criticism could lead to to its eventual declin, says author Catherine Lim. Reuters, Dec 15, 2007A climate of fear that stops citizens from speaking out against the government could eventually lead to the decline of Singapore, novelist Catherine Lim says.Lim, Singapore's best-known writer, praised the government for its economic achievements but said its Achilles' heel could be its suppression of criticism, such as defamation suits against opposition politicians and bans on protests."A compliant, fearful population that has never learnt to be politically savvy could spell the doom of Singapore," Lim told Reuters in an interview.Lim, 65, is one of few dissident voices in Singapore and has criticised the government in opinion pieces in the local press.But her latest article, an open letter to the prime minister in which she pleaded for a political opening up, was rejected. She has posted it on her website www.catherinelim.sgShe said the worst-case scenario would be for a future leader to get away with corruption "because of the ingrained, unquestioning trust of a fearful, overly dependent people".Another factor is that the current generation of young people are exposed to views from around the world and discussion on political freedoms on the internet, she said. Her latest article has generated a string of comments in Singapore's active political blogging community."You could have a case of younger Singaporeans creating unrest because they do not have an outlet," she said.Lim also argues that the tight political control could hurt Singapore's aim of attracting the talent needed to retool its economy from manufacturing to a hub for research and services."What Singapore wants is managed creativity. So not only would those really creative people not want to come, but those who are here want to get out," she said.....................I don't think the suppression of criticism could be the Achilles' heel of the govt but its disconnection with the average Singaporean could be.In the past few years the govt implemented several inconsiderate and ill-timed policies which caused severe financial hardship to the average Singaporean. Despite public outcries the govt appeared not too concerned and went ahead to implement those policies.If the govt will to continue with its unilateral actions, Singaporeans could be pushed beyond their limits and forced to follow the footsteps of the Indians in Malaysia. The impoverished Malaysian Indians were so desperate that they took to the street to protest despite their govt's warnings and threats of arrest.I certainly don't hope to see that day here. WSJ: Malaysia's 'Tectonic Shift' http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119689168888514935.html?mod=googlenews_wsjBy ROSE ISMAILDecember 6, 2007It's rally season in Kuala Lumpur. Last month, around 40,000 opposition parties, trade unions and non-governmental organizations braved thunderstorms and roadblocks to demand clean and fair elections. Two weeks ago, the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) demonstrated, demanding fair treatment for Malaysian Indians. A fracas broke out and some 200 people were arrested. [Art]These rallies are clearly not for the faint-hearted, as each one has been preceded by stern statements from the government, which included warnings about invoking the Internal Security Act. But they have a deeper import, beyond the threat of jail: These protests indicate a tectonic shift in the way we exercise our democratic rights. Whether this will permanently alter our country's political culture remains to be seen. For the moment, the uppermost question for many observers is: Why now?First, the eve of a general election is perceived as a good time to air public grievances. There is also the burgeoning public perception that the current government's grasp of policy issues is weakening. Over the last couple of years, Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi's administration has been weighed down by corruption in the police force; judicial probes into court decisions; tension over religious conversion cases; recent spikes in the cost of living; and a bunch of boisterous bloggers who refuse to remain silent.The occasional public appearance of former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim -- who is planning a triumphant return to politics early next year, when his political ban expires -- is undeniably another source of annoyance for the current administration.But more deeply, Malaysia's 50-year-old social contract, shined up in August by the Independence celebrations, may also be losing its gloss. The promises made in the 1957 constitution guaranteed that if we followed the rules laid down by leaders of the main ethnic communities and behaved ourselves we could be confident of an increasing quality of life and racial harmony. For the most part, the contract has worked, as Malaysia's steady economic growth demonstrates.Yet it is racial discord that still drives cold fear into the hearts of most Malaysians. We are terrified of it. Yet, oddly enough, we read racial agendas into everything from policy formulation to court decisions, police arrests, hiring and firing as well as who gets their trash removed first.Race relations and its many perplexing permutations have pulled us together and also widened the gulf between the different ethnic groups. This was demonstrated in last week's Hindraf demonstration, where protestors proposed to sue the British government for neglecting the rights of the Indian community at Independence, the majority of whom were brought in by colonialists as indentured laborers.The organizers brought a claim of 14 trillion ringgit ($4 billion) in a petition to be delivered to the British High Commission in Kuala Lumpur -- meant, eventually, to be handed over to Queen Elizabeth II. Some protestors were reportedly angry that a 100-year-old Hindu temple had been demolished. Others demanded either the abolition of affirmative action -- which has largely benefited the Malays -- or inclusion in it.Naturally, the non-Indians have not been too pleased. Rumors were rife last week that Malays in Kampung Baru (an inner-city enclave largely inhabited by Malays) were buying long knives to defend themselves against the Indians. Last Saturday, a full week after the event, theusually mild-mannered Prime Minister Abdullah furiously condemned the group for appealing to the British government to send Malaysia to the World Court and the International Criminal Court for crimes against ethnic minority Indians. Hindraf had also alleged that government-backed Islamic extremists were committing ethnic cleansing -- an idea so shocking to the Prime Minister that he has offered to resign, should there be any evidence of such atrocities.In the tangle of these issues, emotions and sometimes outlandish accusations, is there basis for the Malaysian Indian to be aggrieved? Compared to the other races which have advanced in proportion to the nation's economic progress, the Indian community -- roughly 10% of the population -- is far behind.All "Indian problems" are relegated to the Malaysian Indian Congress, a component of the ruling alliance. Loud on rhetoric and soft on action, the party has been emasculated by internal succession issues, rather than addressing the very basic needs of its constituents. For the very poor, many quality-of-life improvements -- from school shoes to a place in university, a job in IT, or even a burial place for a loved one -- are painfully difficult to come by. To gain visibility,the fight had to be re-oriented. The Queen of England, therefore, became the most fitting recipient of the petition, capturing media attention all over the world. Meanwhile, the MIC and other Indian groups are falling over themselves to address the Indian problem. A hotline has been set up to respond swiftly to all manner of grievances raised by Indians.In the end, the petition never reached the High Commission but the Indian story will be remembered for two reasons -- as an extraordinary public relations exercise and, like the other rallies, a watershed event for political expression in Malaysia.Ms. Ismail, a former editor with the "New Straits Times" and senior fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies, now heads a media consultancy in Malaysia.I believe the Singapore government could be taking note of the recent developments in Malaysia. Despite two decades of tight control by the former autocratic PM and repetitive threats of arrest by the current leaders and police chief, Malaysians went ahead and took their first tentative step of citizenry activism.Though there is no racial problem in Singapore there is enough social discontent that could push Singaporeans to follow the footsteps of their neighbour in the north if the government continues to ignore them.Firstly there is the widening income disparity problem. While Singapore economy has performed better than expected, it has only benefitted the top 10% of the working population. Incomes of the majority workers have either increased marginally or stagnated. Wages of the lower income earners are even lower than 10 years ago!With no real increase in income, the recent spike in inflation has inflicted considerable hardship on many Singaporeans.Then, there is this simmering hostility towards foreign workers. Many Singaporeans feel that foreign workers take away their jobs and depress their wages. Male Singaporeans are also unhappy that their national service obligation has put them in unequal footing with the foreign workers in their search for employment. Taxi Problem Mr. Han Songguang, a researcher with the Geography Dept of National University of Singapore, should be commended for his thorough and objective analysis of “The Taxi Situation” which appeared in The Straits Times on 21 Nov 2007. Famous blogger, Mr. Alex Au has attributed 3 ills of Singapore to the taxi problem namely, elitism, over-regulation and protection of government-linked companies. I think there is another factor; it is the government’s intentional control of the wages of Singapore workers and in this case, the takings of the taxi drivers. After so many years of fare regulating the government should have a very good idea of how much the cabbies can make at any given fare rates. It probably thinks that as non-elite worker, taxi drivers have to put in at least 12 hours everyday if they want to earn more than $1,500 per month. This control of wages is obviously for political reasons which sadly can even override morality and social responsibility. Several years ago, there was a disturbing increase in road accidents involving taxi drivers and PTC (Public Transport Council) was tasked to look into it. PTC actually found that the main reason for the accidents was due to driver fatigue. Cabbies have to drive long hours to make ends meet and that impaired their driving performance. Despite PTC findings, the government stubbornly refused to help increase the cabbies’ takings and chose to impose fine on taxi companies to check accident rates. The findings of PTC were of course not made public until several years later.As cabbies still need to put in long hours to earn a decent income, can we blame them for trying to work smart to maximize their earnings? Unfortunately this has only resulted in bad press for them! Singapore's economic boom widens income gap ReutersSingapore's economic boom widens income gapFri Nov 9, 2007 2:40am ESTBy Melanie LeeSINGAPORE (Reuters) - Carol John, 27, doesn't own a bed. Every night she sleeps on thin mattresses which she shares with her three young children. Outside her one-room flat, a smell of sewage lingers in the common corridor.Just a few kilometers away, on Singapore's Sentosa island, Madhupati Singhania relaxes on his $435,000 yacht berthed at the city-state's swanky One 15 Marina Club.Income inequality is nothing new in free-market Singapore, but two years of blistering economic growth and a government policy of attracting wealthy expatriates have created a new class of super-rich, while a string of price increases for everything from bread to bus fares have made life harder for the poor."I can't save anything, it's so difficult for me," John told Reuters. John, who is unemployed, relies on her husband's S$600 (US$420) monthly salary and a S$100 government handout."We don't benefit at all from the economy. As far as I know, my husband's pay hasn't gone up," she said.Singapore's economy is firing on all cylinders, with a booming construction sector, record tourist arrivals and a fast-growing financial sector all contributing to a gross domestic product set to grow nearly 8 percent in 2007.But the rising tide is not lifting every boat.The proportion of Singapore residents earning less than S$1,000 ($690) a month rose to 18 percent last year, from 16 percent in 2002, central bank data released late last month show.At the same time, the proportion of those earning S$8,000 and above rose from 4.7 percent to 6 percent in the same period."When a country becomes richer, you tend to see a widening of income inequality. Over the last few years it has been worse," said econometrics professor Anthony Tay at SMU university.Despite sporting a first-world GDP per capita of $29,000 -- second only to Japan in Asia -- Singapore has an income inequality profile more in line with third-world countries.Singapore's Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, has worsened from 42.5 in 1998 to 47.2 in 2006, and is now in league with the Philippines (46.1) and Guatemala (48.3), and worse than China (44.7), data from Singapore's Household Survey and the World Bank show.Other wealthy Asian nations such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan have more European-style Ginis of 24.9, 31.6 and 32.6.FAST CARS, BIG BOATSCIMB-GK Research economist Song Seng Wun believes that growth itself partly explains the widening income gap."In an environment where growth is huge, there are lots of opportunities for risk takers, and inevitably, you will get this widening (of the income gap)," he said, adding that those in stable jobs will also benefit, but to a lesser extent.Opportunity is what attracted Singhania to Singapore. He intends to buy a new 47-foot yacht for $1.3 million."You've got everything you want in Singapore. You want to buy a fast car, you want to buy a big boat, you want to buy an aeroplane, whatever you need, you can get in this country."Singhania, who runs a business consultancy firm, was originally from Mumbai but decided to move to Singapore and become a Singapore citizen, citing its first-world comforts.The Asian Development Bank blames the widening income gap in Singapore and many other Asia countries partly on globalization, which it said favors the well-educated, and recommended policies to create more equal opportunities and wealth.Singapore's government has made the reduction of the income gap a priority, but argues welfare should not be a crutch, and rules out unemployment benefits or a minimum wage.While the ruling People's Action Party is in no danger of losing its stranglehold on parliament, the growing income disparity has hurt its credibility."There is definitely envy, but this is not enough for civil disturbance," said sociologist Ho Kong Chong at NUS university."These emotions of despair and desperation are missing in Singapore because of the government's housing policy and transfer payments," Ho said.Singapore's extensive housing program provides owner-financed flats in government-built blocks and the state also provides modest income supplements to those in low-income jobs, although there are no unemployment benefits.Carol John, who left school when she was 15, does not know much about support schemes. "In the years to come, I'll just leave it in God's hands, whatever he gives me, I'll take it."($1=1.448 Singapore Dollar), ($1=.6894 Euro)(Editing by Geert De Clercq and Jacqueline Wong)Why does supposed 1st world Singapore have a Gini Coefficient of the 3rd world? It is because its government practices almost total capitalism. Singapore government is not only protecting businesses but is actually running the country like a corporation. Unrestrained capitalism, an academic once warned, would allow the capitalists to embark on a total campaign to rape and pillage the middle and working classes of the country. It is therefore not surprising that Singapore’s lower income workers are worse off than their counterparts in the 1st world as their governments do not turn them into utilities and consumers. Pay and Pay Looks like the pay and pay culture is quite well entrenched here. And of course the Singaporean commoners are the ones paying whether they like it or not.We pay fines and penalties to ensure that we obey whatever rules and orders impose on us.We pay more GST to help the needy.We would most likely be paying for those blessed with long life.And if we are unfortunate enough we could even be paying for mistakes we do not make!An extremely unlucky Mr Lock was ordered to pay court charges of $45,000 just because he went to Primary Dispute Resolution Centre (PDRC), which has no legal authority at all, to settle his traffic accident. It just makes one wonders who set up PDRC. And if the learned PDRC judge didn't know that he had no legal authority to issue any order would commoner Lock know any better?http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_139845.htmlHome > Free > StoryJuly 17, 2007 Awarded $188 in claim, he may now have to pay $63kBy K.C. Vijayan, Law CorrespondentA MOTORCYCLIST who was originally awarded $188 in an accident claim may end up paying $63,000 in court costs instead.An appeal against these costs will be made on Friday after a judge deferred the case yesterday to give 35-year-old motorcyclist Jonathan Lock's lawyer time to prepare.A High Court decision regarding the case has also thrown into doubt the enforceability of settlements made through the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre (PDRC).The PDRC was set up by the Subordinate Courts to deal with minor accidents not involving personal injury or exceeding $1,000 in claims.The case started simply enough last year as a dispute between Mr Lock and motorist Jessiline Goh, 31, over a minor traffic collision in 2004.In the initial ruling at the PDRC, the district judge who helped settle the dispute decided that Mr Lock would get about $1,187, including costs.This amount included various court charges as well as $188 for damage to his motorcycle.But Ms Goh appealed to the High Court - after two losses in the lower courts - before winning a ruling in May that the decision of PDRC was invalid.Ms Goh's lawyers from Assomull & Partners argued that the judge overseeing the mediation had no power to issue a court order since the settlement was not part of a court proceeding.They contended that the PDRC - or e@dr Centre as it is now known - is not the equivalent of a court.Justice Lai Siu Chiu agreed, and this triggered the landmark decision.Costs totalling $63,000 were awarded to Ms Goh after an assessment last week by assistant registrar Dorcas Quek.Yesterday, Mr Lock's lawyer, Mr Joseph Chen, sought to get the High Court to review its decision.Justice Lai Siu Chiu agreed to postpone the case to Friday to allow Mr Chen to prepare his arguments.Lawyer Madan Asomull, who represented Ms Goh, is not content either. He wants to cross-appeal for an upward revision of the $63,000, claiming it is unsufficient considering the amount of work done.In her judgment, Justice Lai suggested that appropriate laws would have to be passed if the intention was for Court Dispute Resolution - the formal name for the mediation process - to run parallel to court procedures.Her judgment in May sparked a move from the Subordinate Courts registrar to issue a directive, which held that all settlements reached through the PDRC would now have to be endorsed by the courts to give them the weight of a legal judgment.Contacted yesterday, Mr Chen said he would be seeking a stay of the costs order, pending a review by an appeals court.'The entire process defeats the objective of court-based mediation, which was meant to settle small claims at minimal cost,'' he said. Corruption of ValuesKelvin Ng. Sg_ReviewAug 21, 2007Now that most of the dust from the NKF debacle has settled, most think it is time to forget the whole episode. I think not.The issue at the heart of the whole matter has scarcely been dealt with, and now with our fast-paced mindset, we are thinking of putting it behind us.The case has been dealt with legally, but the heart of the matter has little to do with law, but with what is right.The former is the letter of the law but the latter is the spirit of the law. The heart of the matter has to do with values.Values drive behaviour, and behavior can be judged legally, but the source and crux of the trouble is not behavior but values.Therefore, I propose a mindset change in the way we perceive corruption. Corruption is now being rigidly defined as a matter of bribes and misuse of public funds.However, the fact that we were outraged by the NFK has little to do with the legalities of corruption but with the corruption of values in an institution using public funds.If we don't call this perversion of values corruption we can call it decadence, and it is no less reprehensible, and all institutions of public character must be under scrutiny for it.It is an affront to common human decency for public institutions to subvert their values, such that they become bureaucratic self-serving places of decadence.We need an active vigilant citizenry not afraid to speak up, a mass media not afraid to publish wrong-doing and a government that does care and listen and which investigates all credible reports and not sweep things under the carpet when it is convenient.We have a long way to go on all three aspects.Kelvin Ngwell said, well said!ok let me do my part of an active vigilant citizenry. Taking the previous NKF directors to court only distract the public from the failure of the various top government officials to perform their duty much less to justify their big fat pay.The people need to know what kind of investigations were carried out or was there any investigation done at all when allegation after allegation of suspected impropriety were directed at NKF over the years.With the government keeping mum and no high-ranking officials taking responsibility, criminal proceedings against former NKF directors merely allow the government to claim for the illusionary first world governance. It also perpetuates the culture that our top government officials run no risk of being blamed for anything that happens no matter how egregious. City of Possibilities I just realized that the theme of this year National Day celebrations is "city of possibilities". A city of possibilities indeed, and I think it includes possibilities for absurdities and paradoxes.Don't we allow the public transport companies which are making handsome profits to increase their fares almost annually while we persistently refuse to have a minimum wage? Wages of some of our low wage earners, like cleaners and laborers, have dropped to lower than what they were ten years ago.Our labor chief said that to have a minimum wage was an "easy solution" that might not work and it was better for the workers to improve their productivity.By offering the public transport companies a provision to adjust fares yearly are we not giving them an "easy solution" to increase their revenue?With such an "easy solution" in place would the public transport companies have the motivation to improve their productivity or to scour for other avenues or ways to increase their revenue?When Public Transport Council invites the public transport companies to submit their applications for adjustment of bus and train fares why are taxi fares not included? Isn't taxi part of the public transport system?But of course the most unconscionable paradox is the 60% hike to the already gargantuan salary of our ministers while the government begrudged the elderly sick of three square meals a day.Ours is a city of paradoxes! If only Li Hongyi..... The recent Li Hongyi’s email saga has caused my imagination to run wild. I was imagining how blessed we would be if only Li was born a few years earlier and had served in the Public Service for his NS. We would then not have the NKF scandal and the escapade sequel. The righteous and diligent Li would have conducted his own investigations when doubts were raised time and again by NKF volunteers and members of the public on NKF’s practices. Even if he would like the story to end when National Council of Social Services revoked NKF’s IPC status (to be able to raise tax-exempt donations from public), he would have taken up the issue again when its IPC status was reinstated. With his perseverance and high expectations for high ranking public officers, the righteous Li would prevent these officers from falling down on their jobs and thus able to rein in NKF before all hell broke loose. Well, well, I am only indulging in wistful thinking! Furthering the common good Furthering the common good Chan Chee KhoonMay 30, 07 10:36am Malaysiakini.com On Feb 16, Indonesian Health Minister Siti Fadilah Supari informed senior World Health Organisation (WHO) officials that her country would continue withholding its bird flu virus samples from WHO’s collaborating centres pending a new global mechanism for virus sharing that had better terms for developing countries. In breaking with the existing practice of freely sending flu virus samples to these laboratories, she expressed dissatisfaction with a system which obliged WHO member-states to share virus samples with collaborating centres, but which lacked mechanisms for equitable sharing of benefits, most importantly affordable vaccines developed from these viral source materials by patent-seeking commercial entities. To consolidate regional support for this initiative, a meeting of Asia-Pacific developing countries was convened in late March to explore mechanisms for more equitable access to vaccines produced from virus sharing arrangements. The Indonesian decision elicited unease, but also sympathy from a cross-section of the global community, including an editorial from The Lancet. On March 29, immediately following an interim agreement for Indonesia to resume sending flu virus samples to WHO, health ministers of 18 Asia-Pacific countries issued a Jakarta Declaration which called upon WHO “to convene the necessary meetings, initiate the critical processes and obtain the essential commitment of all stakeholders to establish the mechanisms for more open virus and information sharing and accessibility to avian influenza and other potential pandemic influenza vaccines for developing countries”. These proposals were tabled at the 60th World Health Assembly in Geneva (May 14-23) as part of a resolution calling for new mechanisms for virus sharing and for more equitable access to vaccines developed from these viral source materials. In the course of the deliberations, it emerged that WHO had violated the terms of the 2005 WHO guidelines on sharing of viruses which required the consent of donor countries before its collaborating centres could pass on the viruses to third parties such as vaccine manufacturers. Indeed WHO’s collaborating centres themselves, as well as third parties, had sought patents covering parts of the source viruses used in developing vaccines and diagnostics. The Indonesian stand-off with WHO comes on the heels of Director-General Margaret Chan’s admonishment to the Thai public health ministry in February over the issuance of compulsory licences for HIV/Aids and heart medications. In the course of a visit to the National Health Security Office in Bangkok, she had publicly urged the Thai health authorities to seek instead a negotiated compromise with pharmaceutical companies over high drug prices. This perceived tilt drew strong criticism from health advocates in Thailand and elsewhere. They pointed out that the Thai ministry “has been in regular contact with the industry over high prices of its drugs in Thailand, but these negotiations have led nowhere. The best price for originator's efavirenz is still twice the price available from Indian generic sources (US$500 per patient a year vs US$224). The best offer for originator's lopinavir/ritonavir is US$2,000 per patient a year, five times more than WHO's estimate of manufacturing costs. The Thai healthy ministry estimates that the price of clopidogrel would fall by over 90 percent if made generically. These are substantial price differences in a country where the average annual wage is US$1,400 a year”. Implications for equity It is unclear whether these episodes amount to tactical shifts, let alone a more fundamental re-alignment between WHO, member-states, corporate actors, and health activists on the issue of access to essential medicines. The ramifications are clear however for the interlinked concerns of global health equity and international health security. The Indonesian government’s stance in particular was notable on three counts: • It was explicitly a critique of WHO’s balance of pragmatism which it felt was overly accommodative of corporate priorities , to the detriment of the health and well being of a key constituency that WHO was mandated to defend, the under-served communities among its member states. • It was an exercise of leverage by a source country of biological materials seeking to redress the inequities of access to what may be vitally important health inputs (avian flu vaccines) developed from these source materials. • It was seeking equitable benefits from commercial developers not just for its nationals but for other communities as well who were likely to be sidelined by commercially-driven product development and distribution systems. ............................I'm posting this article here for we are somehow never given a very good impression of our neighbour, the Indonesians. Kudos to Indonesian Health Minister Siti Fadilah Supari for standing up against the all-powerful WHO! Kindness Week As this week is Kindness Week, could the govt show kindness by considering ex-NMP, Steve Chia's 2006 appeal "to reduce some indirect taxation and fees on our people, and allow them to truly grow richer by their efforts – not just from government dividend handouts."?Some of these indirect taxes include TV & Radio Licences, Water Conservation Tax and Foreign Domestic Worker Levy.As revealed in Steve Chia's 2006 Budget Debate speech, these "other taxes, other fees and charges, and others” account for a substantial amount of revenue for the govt: S$4.36 billion in FY2004, S$3.87 billion in FY2005, and estimated S$3.97 billion for FY2006.Budget Debate 2006, Steve ChiaTue, Feb 28, 2006[snip] Table 6.2 of the Budget Highlights shows that “other taxes, other fees and charges, and others” account for S$4.36 billion in FY2004, S$3.87 billion in FY2005, and estimated S$3.97 billion for FY2006 respectively. These revenue receipts are higher than total GST collections of S$3.47 S$3.6 and S$3.75 billion respectively for each of the following years. Yet, they are all lumped together as “others” – together with stamp duties, foreign worker levies etc.Can the government be more specific about the etc etc? These are not small peanut amount of money that the government collects. The total revenue from these “others” is bigger than the revenue collected from the 5% GST, and I think it is important for these others to be more clearly and transparently reflected.From the appendix 7.1 again, we understand that the government expects to collect S$870 million from stamp duties, S$160 million in water conservation tax, and S$1 billion from “other taxes”, although it is not reflected what this ‘other taxes’ is about – that it can amount to a billion dollars. Is the S$111 million collected from the Radio and TV licences reflected in this $1 billion too?The point I am driving is this Sir: That the government should scrap (or at least drastically reduce) the water conservation tax, the radio and TV licenses, and the Domestic Foreign worker levy. They can afford to, and they should.Water is an essential constituent for life. Without it, we all die. Thus the message to conserve is important. But to impose a ‘water conservation tax’ from the first drop of water coming out from the tap is wrong. People should not be taxed for at least the first 15 cubic meter of water needed for daily necessities and living. Any taxes imposed on the excess water used above that amount will be reasonable. Not below it.This is especially so since the technology to produce desalinated water is here, and water is no longer a limited resource, constantly threatened to be cut off by our Malaysian neighbors. With this new secured source of unlimted water supply from the sea, residents should be charged fair market rate from the provision of such water, and not be imposed such out-dated unfair taxes. I hope the Ministry of Environment and water resources will expedite their reviews and remove it soon.As for TV and Radio license fees, it is not fair for residents to do national service, and subsidize our national objective of promoting local content developers. That economic objective should be funded by the government. The government can afford to subsidize more than the current S$5 million given for this fledging industry. License fee holders should not be asked to fund this government objective. This is an out-dated tax and should be reviewed and abolished soon. Only England, Ireland and some other commonwealth states continue to impose this license fees. Other developed nations like America no longer impose such fees to subsidize national broadcasters. I hope MICA will act on this soon.The Government should also reduce the foreign domestic worker levy, so that the minimum pay of these migrant workers can be raised. It is incredible that the government earns more from its levies than the domestic worker herself. This is cruel, and profits excessively from the undue hardship of migrant workers. With better pay, Singaporeans can recruit more experience maids to look after their families – and not the fresh young maids coming here with adjustment problems, and no experience of working in a high-rise flat. The experienced ones are going Hong Kong and other countries leaving Singapore with new inexperienced workers. Looking at total government receipts, the government can well afford to be kinder. Unveiling the ‘May 13' riots Unveiling the 'May 13' riotsBeh Lih Yi May 11, 07 12:52pmMalaysiakini[snip]It has been almost four decades since the May 13 racial riots broke out.What had prompted the worst riots in Malaysia's 50-year history that cost the lives of 196 persons (according to official records) however remained shrouded under a veil of secrecy, although there are several versions on the matter so far.The 'official version' of it has always been the violence was triggered off by the Chinese-dominated opposition supporters' provocation in celebrating their electoral victory which saw the ruling Alliance Party suffered a major setback.'Full of nonsense'This version, however was consistently rebutted by the opposition group who claimed otherwise. Other theories also suggested that the riots was rather a planned attack to oust then premier Tunku Abdul Rahman.The lack of accessible information in the public domain has been a stumbling block for those who intend to uncover the episode but a set of newly-declassified documents in London gave sociologist Dr Kua Kia Soong a thorough glimpse of the event.Late last year, the principal of New Era College took a three-month sabbatical leave to the Public Records Office in London to study records and declassified documents on the May 13 incident after a 30-year secrecy rule over these documents lapse.His findings based on the declassified documents - which have been compiled into a new book to be launched on Sunday - found the entire May 13 riots were by no means a spontaneous outburst of racial violence, as it has been portrayed to the Malaysian public."The (official) history of May 13 is full of nonsense, it doesn't reveal anything. It pins the blame on the opposition party which was not true, they were not the responsible party," Kua told malaysiakini in a recent interview."My book shows the responsible party were those ascendent state capitalist class (in Umno), elements within that gave rise and implemented this plan. There was a plan based on the people who assembled at the (Selangor) menteri besar's house."There are correspondences and intelligence reports which showed that. Official history has to reveal that truth and not to pin the blame on everybody around who are not to be blamed," the educationist and social activist stressed.Kua maintained the May 13 incident was a coup d'etat against the Tunku by the then emergent Malay state capitalists - backed by the police and army - to seize control of the reign of power from the old aristocrats to implement the new Malay agenda.A plot to oust TunkuHe opined the riots were works of "Malay thugs" orchestrated by politicians behind the coup.For instance, he said the "group of hoodlums suddenly appeared from all over the place" on the day of May 13 to gather at Harun's residence and the questionable conduct of the police and army to just stood by and watch.He added that documents showed less than a week after the riots, then deputy premier Tun Abdul Razak who headed the National Operations Council was already in full control of the country - an indication that there had been a plot.On top of that, discussions for future plans had already been carried out."For example the National Cultural Policy (announced in 1971) burst in the 80s, it was already been thought of one week after (the May 13 incident)," Kua noted, referring to the controversial policy which placed emphasis on the 'indigenous culture' and Islam.A secret document from the British cabinet office featured in the book showed that barely a week after the riots broke out, the Central Intelligence Agency had figured out what Tun Razak was planning - "to formalise Malay dominance, sideline the Chinese and shelve the Tunku".The role of the security forces in the May 13 bloodshed was also questioned in Kua's findings."Even at that time, people in the diplomatic core (were wondering) how come the day the riot broke out, Razak met with the chiefs of the police and army but they did not do anything," he said.Interestingly, Kua pointed out the Malaysian security forces had been tested and tried during the war against the communist insurgency between 1948 and 1960 and earned their reputation."They are one of the most effective in putting down the communist insurrection that is a far, far more difficult operation than putting down riot, but they could not put down (such riot) in 1969 for days, for weeks," he questioned.It thus brought to Kua's conclusion: "The May 13 was a pretext for staging that coup... I am not the first person who said it was a coup d'etat but I am providing the documents to show how it was a coup d'etat."Exact fatality number unknownThe declassified documents have included reports fielded by foreign correspondents who were in Kuala Lumpur at the time, dispatches by the British High Commission personnel who closely followed the event and various other confidential reports from the diplomat circle.It is considerably the first time a complete recount of the tragedy is made available to the Malaysian public, as many foreign correspondent reports were previously banned while local documents are inaccessible.However, what could not be established in the book is another secrecy, the real number of deaths.Official figures said the May 13 riots claimed 196 lives, 180 were wounded by firearms and 259 by other weapons, 9,143 persons were arrested out of whom 5,561 were charged in court, 6,000 persons rendered homeless, at least 211 vehicles and 753 buildings were destroyed or damaged.The declassified documents and international correspondents at the time nevertheless have calculated a much higher number of fatalities but an exact number could not be ascertained, although it was common knowledge the victims are majority ethnic Chinese.Kua said it is his hope to smash two myths with the publication of the book."One is racial riot will occur when the Malays are not happy, that's why you need the New Economic Policy, affirmative action policy et cetera, otherwise the Malays will be unhappy and there will be riot."This is the first myth we should dismantle as documents showed some people were involved in making it (the May 13) happened with the connivance of the police and army," he stressed.The second myth, Kua said, is academicians and pluralist theorists who uphold the views that riots and conflicts will occur naturally in multi-racial country."I am questioning this. The role of the state is very important at a particular historical conjuncture. Malays, Chinese and Indians don't suddenly decide to fight in conflict, it doesn't happen like that," he said.Asked on whether there is any fear that the authorities might move to ban the publication of the book, as in the case of a recent ban slapped on a book about the Kampung Medan clashes, Kua responded:"In the age of the internet, what does banning a book mean? We can put it on the Web, you can't do anything."let's hope that the book will exorcise the ghosts not only in Malaysia but also in Singapore.while UMNO like to bring up the 1969 May 13 tragedy when their authority is being challenged, the PAP-led govt use the violence to scare us into behaving in a desired manner. MM: My job to look after those who built nation MM: My job to look after those who built nation He pays tribute to S'poreans who did the 'hard and dirty work' for country By Sue-Ann Chia Apr 23, 2007 The Straits Times MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had this message for Singaporeans who did the hard and dirty work to build the nation: I am here to look after you. 'I do not believe 50 per cent of Singaporeans can emigrate,' he said at the Young People's Action Party dialogue at the St James Power Station nightspot. 'So as a government, and personally for me and my colleagues, my responsibility is to look after those who cannot migrate.' Paying tribute to them, he said: 'Without them doing the hard and dirty work, I would not have had a decent life, I would not have been a leader, my children would not have been educated. 'You would not have been educated, so I owe them a responsibility, an obligation. 'I've persuaded them to follow me, went into Malaysia, got kicked out from Malaysia, had to make a living for them. 'To make a living for them, I had to make a good living for the people on top by educating them and getting them into the modern economy, and bringing the modern economy to Singapore.' He was responding to questions from participants about where their future lies, given the growing opportunities in other countries that are seeking talent, just like Singapore. He said that while most Singaporeans could not leave, he is aware that the better-educated and talented ones could do so. He noted that the top 20 to 30 per cent of educated Singaporeans have the skills and abilities to emigrate to anywhere in the world. And many do, with about 150,000 Singaporeans working in companies, setting up businesses or living abroad. 'We are now into a globalised world where people who are well-educated, well-trained and especially English-educated have enormous options,' he said. But his point to them was this: 'Can you leave with a clear conscience? I cannot.' He urged them to think hard about what they owe the country. 'If we lose our top talent, then we will decline as a nation,' he said. The key, he believed, was to inculcate a particular message in the young - especially those doing well in schools, colleges, polytechnics and universities. 'You are here, you are getting this education, you are getting these opportunities that make you mobile, that make you desirable because this mass of people had discipline, (were) hardworking, provided the stability, the base on which you mounted your career. 'Can you in good conscience say, 'Goodbye! Thank you very much'?' sueann@sph.com.sgI belong to the 50% of Singaporeans who cannot emigrate and I shudder at MM Lee's proclamation that the govt will look after us. Will that mean another round gst hike, from 7% to 10%? Remember not so long ago they said to help the poor they have no chioce but to raise the gst from 5% to 7%? Or worst still, would they ask the women folks of the 50% Singaporeans not to be fussy but to work as maids for their beloved foreign talents? Haven't they told us many times that foreign talents are here to create jobs for singaporeans? To MM Lee I would like to say, 'No thank you very much Sir, we can take care of ourselves, you just enjoy your retirement.' Power Makes People Stupid and Insensitive i was extremely upset over the ministers pay hike until i read the below article emailed by a friend. i then realised it is human nature that given power, people would soon end up living large and acting like idiots.The Rich Are More Oblivious Than You and MeBy RICHARD CONNIFF, Op-Ed Contributor, New York TimesPublished: April 4, 2007.........Let’s begin with what I call the “Cookie Monster Experiment,” devised to test the hypothesis that power makes people stupid and insensitive — or, as the scientists at the University of California at Berkeley put it, “disinhibited.”Researchers led by the psychologist Dacher Keltner took groups of three ordinary volunteers and randomly put one of them in charge. Each trio had a half-hour to work through a boring social survey. Then a researcher came in and left a plateful of precisely five cookies. Care to guess which volunteer typically grabbed an extra cookie? The volunteer who had randomly been assigned the power role was also more likely to eat it with his mouth open, spew crumbs on partners and get cookie detritus on his face and on the table.It reminded the researchers of powerful people they had known in real life. One of them, for instance, had attended meetings with a magazine mogul who ate raw onions and slugged vodka from the bottle, but failed to share these amuse-bouches with his guests. Another had been through an oral exam for his doctorate at which one faculty member not only picked his ear wax, but held it up to dandle lovingly in the light.........The researchers went on to theorize that getting power causes people to focus so keenly on the potential rewards, like money, sex, public acclaim or an extra chocolate-chip cookie — not necessarily in that order, or frankly, any order at all, but preferably all at once — that they become oblivious to the people around them.Indeed, the people around them may abet this process, since they are often subordinates intent on keeping the boss happy. So for the boss, it starts to look like a world in which the traffic lights are always green (and damn the pedestrians). Professor Keltner and his fellow researchers describe it as an instance of “approach/inhibition theory” in action: As power increases, it fires up the behavioral approach system and shuts down behavioral inhibition............. What a Filthy Week! this week there are so much filth in the mainstream media that i think i need to take a day or two to detoxify myself. the most filthy of course goes to:March 23, 2007Top govt salaries far behind private sector'sPM discloses the wide gap and urgent need to retain talent in public sectorBy Lydia Lim, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENTTOP private-sector salaries have surged ahead of those in the public sector and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong revealed last night just how far the pay of ministers and civil service leaders has fallen behind.A minister should be drawing $2.2 million a year or more, according to benchmarks approved by Parliament in 1994 to ensure competitive salaries for a competent and honest government.But their actual salaries have fallen to 55 per cent of the benchmark, that is $1.2 million, and 'we have to close this gap', Mr Lee said last night..............Speaking at the annual Administrative Service dinner, Mr Lee explained that salaries had to be reviewed so the public sector can keep its share of talented Singaporeans.'This is an urgent problem. We have experienced on previous occasions the painful consequences of responding too slowly when the private sector surged ahead,' he said.In the 1990s, this led to the Administrative Service, the key service from which most public sector leaders are drawn, losing entire cohorts of young and good officers.the sole reason for 'talents' to leave the Admin Service is salary and nothing else. ...............Also important is to review the salaries of ministers, judges and statutory appointment holders such as the Attorney-General and Auditor-General, said Mr Lee.'It is even more critical for us to keep these salaries competitive, so as to be able to bring in a continuing flow of able and successful people to be ministers and judges.'Unless there is a first-class political leadership and judiciary, the Civil Service, however capable and dedicated, will not be able to function properly,' he said.'first-class' equal to high pay and not competence and dedication...............First-class people are therefore needed to anticipate problems, come up with creative solutions and lead teams."anticipate problems"? what about the property bubble in mid 1990s?He said 'first-class governance' which can be provided only by a top-grade public sector was a 'sustainable advantage' that Singapore should 'zealously uphold'.how come we still have the NKF saga and Shin Corp debacle? While public officers must serve from a sense of idealism and duty and not be motivated mainly by financial reward, they should not be expected to make 'unreasonable financial sacrifices' to be in public service, he added.getting the world's highest pay and these public officers are still making 'unreasonable financial sacrifices'!another filthy news is:MAR 23 2007, Straits Times H4:DURAI'S CRIMINAL TRIAL...DEFENCE TEAM SET TO ARGUE 'NO CASE'someone who admitted to all charges of mishandling for public donations in a civil suit cannot be nailed by the government? why? Upper Half of First World I nearly fell off my chair that day when MM Lee reportedly said we are moving “into the upper half of the First World. We can do this in the next 10-20 years.”Does he really believe that Singapore is now already in the First World?Maybe income wise some Singaporeans, and of course that includes the millionaire ministers, are in the First World.But then:Do any of the First World countries have as many elderly working as cleaners in food centres and toilets as Singapore?Do any of the First World countries have as much as 40% of their households in income/expenditure deficit every monthly like we have here?Did any of the First World countries need to deploy some 20 policemen to restrain the relatives of a brain-dead person while the hospital staff wheeled him out to harvest his organs?Maybe the First World countries are not much different from Singapore. Maybe I'm ignorant and I hope I'm. Heads to roll in CNA? Recently CNA was reported to have posted 2 politically-incorrect news articles on its website. Though the "mistakes" were rectified almost immediately it failed to prevent some of its ardent readers from discovering the gems and publicised them in some internet forums and blogs. With 2 slip-ups within a week, would it be surprising that heads could roll? 1st politically-incorrect news: Title : Middle class wage stagnation could lead to social instabilityDate : 11 January 2007 1856 hrs (SST)URL : http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stor.../251939/1/.htmlSINGPAORE: Middle class wages have been stagnant in the past 5 years, according to economists, and this could lead to social instabilityThese concerns were shared at the annual Institute of Policy Studies Singapore Perspectives conference.Economists believe a US economy slowdown in business and consumer spending may cause problems for Singapore, but as Singapore is tops in the ASEAN resilience index, it should be able to weather external shocks, thanks to a diversified economy and strong Asian demand.They predict that growth going forward will be above 3 to 5 percent.The long term growth speed limits for a mature economy was previously in the 3 to 5 percent range.However, economists are asking who this growth is for. The income of the bottom 30 percent of the population has fallen. What is more worrying is the fact that the majority of Singaporeans in the middle class has only seen about a 1 percent increase in nominal income in the last 5 years.It is not just Singapore - economists say stagnant wages is a global problem, and the chief reason for this is globalisation.India and China are introducing a large pool of skilled and unskilled labour to compete with the labour forces of industrialised countries.Singapore is susceptible to this because of its open economy.123, 000 jobs were created last year and economists estimate some 70 percent of these jobs went to foreigners."With the rate of immigration even among unskilled and semi skilled labour at a rate twice of what we experienced in the 90s, at a rate fastest in the developed world, the question is does this dampen our real wages as we grow? Does the strategy itself dampen real wages and depress real wages at the low and middle end of the spectrums? They are sacred cows but we should step back and think about them," said Yeoh Lam Keong, Vice President, Economic Society of Singapore.Another reason cited for middle class wage stagnation, is the move by the government to cut CPF employer contribution rates for older workers by 4 percentage points over the last 2 years."So if you were a worker in the 50-55 age group, you could have seen your wages fall as much as 10 percent over the last 3 or 4 years. Now with the economy improving, the government could bring that back, the increase is 1 or 2 percent. I'm in support of CPF tinkering but probably it happens far too often, but I think there's probably some justification to look back and think that the restructuring was a bit too aggressive on the CPF side and it has contributed somewhat to a very sandwiched middle class," said Chua Hak Bin, Director, Asia Pacific Econ & Market Analysis, Citigroup Global Markets Singapore.The government is looking at increasing CPF by 1 to 2 percent in 2007.Economists say workfare should become a more permanent pillar of the economy so as to cushion growing inequality.Adding that long term middle class wage stagnation could lead to social instability. - CNA /dtAmended version:same report except for the following sentence:124,000 jobs were created last year and economists estimate some 45 percent of these jobs went to foreigners.2nd politically-insensitive article:15-01-2007: S'pore PM: Temasek should be accountable for Shin dealSingapore state investor Temasek should be held accountable if its controversial purchase of Thailand's Shin Corp doesn't work out, Singapore's Prime Minister said, adding that the deal was not a government matter.Temasek -- headed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's wife Ho Ching -- led a US$3.8 billion (RM13.31 billion) acquisition of Shin from the family of former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra a year ago and has seen its investment more than halve in value.The Temasek-led consortium is now sitting on a loss on paper of about US$2 billion, while one of Shin's units faces fines and damages of about US$2.7 billion due to a licence fee dispute with the government."It's a commercial proposition. If it doesn't work out, that's Temasek's fault and it has to answer for it," Lee said in an interview with Reuters at the annual summit of the Association of South East Asian Nations in Cebu last Sunday."It's their job to safeguard the resources and invest them optimally."Temasek pays an annual dividend to its shareholder, the Finance Ministry, from the returns on its S$129 billion (RM293.28 billion) portfolio of investments.Lee repeated the government's stance that the purchase of Shin was a commercial deal, not a government-led matter."We're not dealing with it. It's not a government issue. Shin Corp was an investment by Temasek; it was a commercial investment," said Lee.Thaksin, who was ousted in a coup in September, is currently in Singapore on a private visit where he met with Deputy Prime Minister S Jayakumar over the weekend.Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement that the ousted Thai premier had asked to meet Jayakumar, "who is an old friend"."As the meeting is purely social and private, we have no further comment," the ministry said in a statement.Temasek paid 49.25 baht (RM4.79) per share last January for the telecoms and media group. Shin shares traded around 23.60 baht by midday. Lee said it was premature to talk about losses on the Shin deal."When you make commercial investments there is a risk. And if you take no risk, you make no reward. So you have to make sure that across the portfolio, all the projects you have undertaken, overall you come out ahead," Lee said."That's what Temasek aspires to do. On each case, they are very careful to make sure that each investment is a good one, but as it affects results you have to look at the whole portfolio and decide whether it has been good."Temasek's acquisition of Shin is currently under investigation in Bangkok for possible violations of Thailand's foreign ownership laws. A spokesman for Temasek said there were no updates on the investigation.Lee said Temasek has "basically complied with the laws of the land" and will continue to comply with Thai laws and cooperate with the Thai government.Temasek, which has also been a big investor in Chinese banks in the past two years, owns stakes in all the big companies in the city-state including Singapore Telecommunications Ltd, DBS Group Holdings and Singapore Airlines.It has been trying to diversify its portfolio and improve its investment returns. - ReutersAmended version: except for the title, the whole article was withdrawn: Temasek Holdings accountable if Shin Corp deal fails: PM Leehttp://www.channelnewsasia.com/stor.../252644/1/.html Tuesday, January 16, 2007 Home › {cat_header} News »{story_headgraphic}{story_headgraphic_caption} Time is GMT + 8 hoursPosted: {story_released}{story_title}{story_author} {story_body}{afp_copyright}{copyright}{story_title}{story_author}{story_body}{afp_copyright}{copyright} Free Trade Agreements MalaysiakiniQ&A: Race to the bottomFauwaz Abdul AzizJan 8, 07 1:55pm Economist Charles Santiago delves into the political and economic implications of the proposed free trade agreement between the US and Malaysia and the failure of Malaysians to come to grips with these.Malaysiakini: What is the FTA about? What issues should our government keep in mind in negotiations with the US?Charles Santiago: A FTA is a preferential trade agreement between countries to enable market access and trade privileges. The first thing to note about US FTAs is they are not about promoting trade, but about controlling trade. These are two conceptually different ideas.Why are the Europeans, Japanese and Americans interested? It's because talks on the Doha Development Agenda broke down last year. Of course, there is some attempt to restart the discussions, but I think the Americans feel that it has gone on for too long. Developed countries are going one-on-one with developing countries to get bilateral agreements - it's a far easier way of ensuring that their dictates are followed.The US tells Malaysia that if we don't sign, we will lose out on foreign direct investments (FDI), that Malaysia is no longer investor-friendly, and that the FTA is crucial to regaining confidence.Countries like Singapore have already signed on. If we don't do this with the US, will we lose out?That is the government’s argument, but let's take it further. In 1990, a report by the United Nations Centre for Trade and Development said Malaysia was the 4th most attractive country for FDI - today, it is ranked 62. You have to bend over backwards to bring investors back. US investors, in particular, are saying that the FTA is a pre-requirement. Given their substantial investment, Malaysia's hands are tied. Premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi will argue that if we do not sign up, we will lose investments and jobs.The government feels that Malaysia would lose its competitive edge if it does not follow Singapore and other Asean countries in signing FTAs with the US, and that it would be left behind in terms of leveraging the US market.But is it true that the FTA will promote trade? Consider that 43.9 percent of our manufactured exports are to the US - electrical goods, machineries, and audio and television products - and that we import 57.3 percent of identical items from the US. It's mainly intra- and inter-company trade, a point made in the 2005 UN ‘World Investment Report’.An interesting note is that companies from countries that do not have FTAs with the US are doing better. Singapore's trade deficit with the US increased by 200 percent in the first year of the FTA signed in 2004.i only hope some Sg economists could shed some light on this!But the point is this: trade is already taking place. We are exporting producer items to the US, there are value-added processes taking place there, and we have got this wonderful label that says 'Made in the US' or 'Made in Malaysia'. Why do you need a FTA?This is not about trade, but about ensuring that investors' rights are protected and that they have legal recourse to take the government to court for compensation. There will be no arbitrary change of policies in those areas - that would constitute a safe haven for investors.Ten years ago, we offered cheap labour, political stability. But now that is not enough. Now they want the government to sign over its rights and so they can say, 'We have control over your policies'. Now they want the government to be subordinate to them.In the FTAs, developed countries are trying to bring back competition policy and investment, government procurement and trade facilitation - issues (thrown out by the WTO in) 1996 (on grounds that these could stifle) the developing countries' policy space.Competition policy and investment, for example, tells you that you have to treat a foreign company on equal or no less favourable terms as a local company. Can you imagine General Motors or General Electric being given the same support as Proton?It's like giving foreign nationals the same rights as citizens. The government will scoff at the idea, but it will become a reality if the FTA is put in place. They would not do it for migrant workers from Indonesia, for example, but they would do it for foreign companies that bring in the money.With or without FTAs, Sg govt has been giving foreigners the same rights as its citizens. In terms of intellectual property rights, those with patents will control products and processes. FTAs are seeking to extend the 20-year period accorded to countries in the Doha Round. The UN Human Development Report 2000 revealed that advanced countries such as the US hold 97 percent of all patents, and multi-national companies (MNCs) hold 90 percent of all technology and product patents.On that note, how would the FTA lead to higher cost of medicines?Once it signs up, Malaysia will retrospectively change its laws to accommodate the terms of the FTA. One of the things the US will push for is extension of the minimum patent protection period. It may move towards 25 or 30 years. It will restrain local generic production, which means local producers of (cheaper) medicine will be affected.The US only promotes competition in sectors and markets where its MNCs want to increase investment opportunities. They are now ensuring through FTAs that economic partners face higher and more stringent requirements on intellectual property rights.We will have to reduce tariffs, remove non-tariff barriers and technical barriers to trade, as well as harmonise standards, procedures, and regulations between trading partners. For example, Malaysian standards and customs, licensing, and import-export procedures will have to follow American or European standards.So what can developing countries do about this?The discourse has changed to where the market and MNCs will reign supreme. That is what happened in Thailand with the attack on the baht and reversal of capital controls imposition.We are at the mercy of the markets, and governments are now pandering to investors. In the case of Thailand, it was Japanese and American money – to whom are these people accountable? Nobody. They're only accountable to their own profits and loss accounts. They can ravage economies, they can destroy millions of jobs, which they have done.We have not reined them in, and this is what we have to do. That's exactly what we see in the FTAs, where governments' hands are increasingly being tied - today, finance rules. This is the context in which we should see FTAs.The US is also really interested in the financial sector, in banks, telecommunications, government-linked companies (GLCs). On this point, we know that in the case of Malaysia, GLCs have a socio-economic role to play, but now, the US is saying, 'No, take it out, this is entirely on a commercial basis'. This has happened with GLCs in Singapore.In Thailand and other countries, there have been huge protests against the FTA. Why don't we see similar outrage here?Malaysians generally are the least politically aware people in the region. But I also know that a lot of non-Malays actually welcome the FTA, especially the non-Malay business community. They feel this is the only way to get the government to stop supporting its pro-bumiputera policy and the National Economic Policy. They can't do it through the ballot box and the democratic process. So if the Americans can do Malaysians a favour, hey, why not - this is their approach.Singaporens are even worst, we have been brainwashed to treat FTAs as trophies to aim for!I've talked to some Chinese Malaysian businessmen and business groups. After discussing the problems they face with the government, the bottom line is: ‘We want the government to stop helping the Malays’. I think what they're saying is wrong, because even non-Malays are going to get hit badly by the FTA. They don't realise this.As a grocer, for example, your customers will no longer come to you (but will go to foreign-owned hypermarkets). You either close shop or you agree. So the issue is not whether you are Malay, Chinese, Indian or Kadazan...Malaysians are going to be unemployed and they are going to be in trouble. It's going to hit everybody.The market is shrinking. The number of people in the market place are no longer following the competitive process where there are thousands of suppliers influencing prices, and so on.The Chinese community and non-Malays generally support the FTA and think that it's time to rein in the government and Malays, but in the long run it's going to hurt all Malaysians. The single marker, rightly or wrongly, is to discipline the government in the way that it supports the Malays.I think it's very sad...(to think that) somebody else is the problem. After 50 years, we have to wonder whether we are a nation or not. It has come to such a point where it has become difficult to organise around the FTA which is clearly is of concern (to all).Yes, it is also very sad for Singaporeans. After 40 years, we're being treated as 2nd class citizens in our own country.It's also the government’s failure not to have developed genuine bumiputera companies. We should stop supporting the big conglomerates and focus on Malay small and medium industries, which really need support. I think that's where the focus of investments and funding should go. It's (this sector which is) trying to eke out an existence but is unable to fight in the market place.If you want to be competitive, you have to put your money into the development of new products and processes, and in the education system. Not the one we have right now, which is horrible, but a system that can produce creative and critical thinking people, support small and medium industries, develop infrastructure that lowers the cost of production and allows for faster movement of goods and services.We have screwed things up royally. If we want to be competitive, we have to be serious and look at the areas of competition which we should improve. We need to re-examine ourselves and the way we run the economy.Given the concerns, wouldn't the government have consulted civil society and private bodies? The international trade and industry ministry (Miti) said in a statement to the People's Anti US-Malaysia FTA Coalition that it had conducted a cost-benefits analysis and the necessary consultations.If they have done a cost-benefit analysis, they should make it available for public scrutiny and for public discussion so that others can also comment on this. Miti called us for discussions a week before the first round of FTA discussions with the US. We questioned why they left it so late.The Trade Investment Framework Agreement (Tifa) is actually a preparatory process you conduct before you go into FTA negotiations. It's where you sit and brainstorm whether you want to go into an agreement or not, and what should go into an agreement. From the American point of view, therefore, there is an implicit understanding that Malaysia is entering into formal negotiations.It's also the degree and quality of consultation that took place. There must be an open consultation involving seminars, discussions, exchange of views, work by local as well as foreign experts in the area...So before Malaysia conducted a proper Tifa process, it painted itself into a corner by going straight into negotiations?After Tifa, they could have still said it’s too much for Malaysia and that citizens will cry foul. But, the government is now in a corner.The process is already showing that it's a race to the bottom for workers. Last week, Human Resources Minister Fong Chan Onn said we have to change our laws so that companies can hire and fire workers more easily because this is what investors want.Was there any coincidence that several PAP MPs were co-opted into our largest trade union, NTUC, recently? to prevent any unrest when workers are fired by investors wantonly?(On Dec 21, the New Straits Times reported that the ministry is considering the proposal submitted by employers. A committee is to be set up to look into this and related issues, including a safety net for workers.) A Challenge to the Government The bid for the 2nd integrated resort is finally over. This 2nd resort was said to be able to generate 30,000 jobs, add 2.7 billion or 0.8% to the economy per year. With all these positive factors, the government can be expected to reward its ministers with a handsome pay rise very soon. I would like to throw a challenge at the government before it helps its million-dollar ministers realize their dreams of becoming billionaires. That it should reduce the % of households with a deficit in their monthly income-expenditure from 40% to 10% before granting the pay rise.Two surveys by the Dept. of Statistics, Household Expenditure Survey 2003 and General Household Survey 2005, showed that 40% of Singapore households not only had declining incomes but were also unable to pay their monthly bills! This is an extremely troubling phenomenon considering we are supposed to be living in a 1st world.Least that the government talks up the economic spin-off from the integrated resorts as a silver bullet to all our economic woes, it should be noted that the two surveys also revealed that since the millennium economic growth had not automatically lead to broad prosperity. Economic growth had only benefitted 20% of the work force. The remaining 80% either didn’t benefit at all or had their modest gains eaten up by rising prices.A 1st world government would definitely not feel proud to govern a country where almost half of the households are unable to make ends meet! Lame Duck Parliament http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stor.../240522/1/.htmlSINGAPORE: Instead of harping on what the Government can do to bridge the social divide, the spotlight in Parliament on Thursday fell on Singaporeans. And there were some home truths told, too."A nation of complainers" and "a society increasing reliant on the Government for help" were among the sadder - and harsher - labels mentioned. Member of Parliament for Sembawang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Dr Mohamad Maliki Osman started the ball rolling when he called for "reflection and soul searching" among Singaporeans. Dr Maliki noted Singaporeans had become increasing reliant on an "efficient system" that handles issues on the municipal and national level. He said: "When the lift landing of our flat is not clean … we call the town council; when there are mosquitoes in the neighbourhood, we call the NEA (National Environment Agency) … if things don't improve, we go to our MPs or tell the media."While not advocating that the Government be taken out of the "equation", Dr Maliki hopes to see that the "responsibility to make the society work rests not only on those in the chamber", but also on "the collective interlocking hands of four million Singaporeans". For example, he wanted Singaporeans to reflect on what they, and not the Government, had done to strengthen resilience within their own families.Isn't this rich? After 40 years of micro-managing us now the government expects us to solve our own problems!MP for Marine Parade GRC Lim Biow Chuan called on Singaporeans to be more gracious and compassionate and said Singapore is fast becoming a nation of complainers. While the Government can set the tone, he urged Singaporeans to be "encouragers" - not only in encouraging fellow citizens, but also pushing the society to be an inclusive and cohesive one.Singaporeans not compassionate enough? Didn't we donate about $500,000 to Mr Tan's family after he committed suicide. Didn't one out of three Singaporeans donate to NKF before the scandal broke out?Singaporeans may be gullible but we never hesitate to help anyone, fellow citizens or foreigners(example victims of2004 Boxing Day Tsunami), afflicted by tragedy. "What makes a country great? It is not just the laws … the efficiency or the beautiful buildings but the people that make it great," Mr Lim said.Yes the laws and efficiency were indeed not great but ugly as showed in Mr Tan case. He was disqualified from social welfare and subsequently driven to suicide. Laws and efficiency are sterile without compassion. East Coast GRC MP Ms Jessica Tan urged Singaporeans and the Government to also provide an environment where "people can run their own race". Using the example of a weekend running club, which she is a member of, Ms Tan said the encouragement from each other helps members to complete their runs. Likewise, she hoped that such encouragement would make "the journey much better" for all Singaporeans.Our MPs should be reminded that Singaporeans pay each of them some $10,000 per month and in most cases lifelong pension, something which the majority of us don't enjoy, to solve problems and not to play the blame game. Moreover, in this era of daunting economic challenges we can ill afford a lame duck parliament! A Thank You Note to Shu Min Thank you Shu Min for showing us what kind of MP we have in Parliament. In trying to defend your uncultured rant, MP Wee has shown that he is not only out of sync with reality but also has no inclination to serve the people, which is the primary function of MP. In his two so-called public apologies, MP Wee merely apologized for the insensitive words both of you used and displayed no signs of empathy, not to talk about compassion, for the people. Age discrimination is a true fact, at least for the non elite, in Singapore. It is not an unsurmountable problem for the government to solve and MP can play a role here. Shu Min, you can choose to be an uncaring elite for all we care, but as MP, Mr Wee does not have that luxury. He is first and foremost a representative of the people and has the duty to make things better for us. If he is not interested in helping people then he is not suitable to be an MP. Also, Shu Min thank you for reminding us of the wise words of Theodore Roosevelt, ' .... to educate a person in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.' Romance of Three Kingdoms Romance of Three KingdomsJames Wong Wing On, MalaysiakiniOct 4, 06 11:31am So, Singapore’s minister mentor Lee Kuan Yew has written to Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to explain the context of his remark on the “compliant” status of Malaysian and Indonesian Chinese. Whether one likes it or not, Lee has not retracted what he said. On the contrary, the annex to the letter dated Sept 29 conveys the message that he feels his reasoning is justified. The annex comprised Malaysian news reports that quoted Umno leaders pointing to the ‘marginalisation’ of Malays in Singapore.Lee merely said he was “sorry” for causing Abdullah “a great deal of discomfort”. This was no apology in the sense of admitting to being wrong.By also saying that his remark was “less than” what appears in his memoirs published in 1998, Lee postures himself as the more forgiving or magnanimous party.Another noteworthy feature of the letter is that, although Lee repeatedly referred to former Malaysian premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, he avoided naming him. This suggests that Lee’s relationship with Mahathir, his peer in politics, is indeed very negative.It follows quite naturally that Lee gives the impression that he enjoys more cordial relations with Abdullah. But is this good for Abdullah? The answer is not absolute. Prevailing logicThe mere impression that Lee likes Abdullah better than Mahathir may indeed boost Abdullah’s standing in the eyes of Singaporeans and members of the international and regional community.It may be seen as Lee viewing Abdullah as a statesman or a more mature politician who knows how to conduct modern inter-state relations.It may even enhance Abdullah’s image among a segment of Malaysians who are either sympathetic to Lee’s controversial opinions, or who cherish better relations between Malaysia and Singapore.However, it must not be ignored that, given the tumultuous bilateral relations since separation of the countries in 1965, as well as the dynamics of contemporary economic competition, the ‘logic’ of ‘the enemy’s friend is the enemy’ does prevail.This ‘logic’ could be consciously promoted as a political strategy in the currently competitive relationship between Abdullah and Mahathir and their respective supporters.Lee’s apparent contrast between ‘good guy’ Abdullah and ‘bad boy’ Mahathir may paradoxically help to weaken Abdullah’s position and strengthen that of Mahathir among a certain section of the Malaysian population that subscribes to this ‘logic’.It is not too far-fetched to assume this could happen. Abdullah has been under fire over the last few months for being too soft or too nice to Singapore, to the point that Mahathir has accused him of ‘selling out’ the country to Singapore, especially by cancelling the construction of the crooked or scenic bridge.Seen in this light, Lee may have wrongly estimated his standing or that of Abdullah in Malaysia’s fast-changing political landscape or mood.However, the same cannot be said about Abdullah who seems to be acutely aware of the prevalence of the ‘logic’ in an economic competitor and has attempted to balance this against a proper approach to the letter.It is not surprising that Abdullah is critical of Lee’s letter, saying he is “not impressed” by the “qualified apology” although he has “taken note” of it.Abdullah further said: “We have to ensure such a statement should not be made again.”The question in the minds of observers is whether Abdullah’s attitude is genuine or contrived.This has added a new dynamic in the intra-party power struggle between Abdullah and Mahathir. The original one-to-one slug-out has turned into the Romance of Three Kingdoms.Though Rustam Sani a former political sociology lecturer has advised that controversy such as that caused by MM Lee's remarks is a perennial thing, I still can't resist posting the above analysis.I have always feel that MM Lee has an uncanny resemblance of Cao Cao of Romance of Three Kingdoms. Both are highly intelligent but very paranoid.But this time round I think MM Lee is doing a "Paul Wolfowitz.” Just like Wolfowitz who had manipulated CSOs against Singapore govt. during the recent IMF/WB meeting, MM Lee has dragged Dr. Mahathir into the controversy to absolve himself. Marginalisation MalaysiakiniThat’s no apology, LKY!Soon Li TsinOct 3, 06 4:12pm Was Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew sincere in extending an apology to Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi over the contentious remark that Chinese Malaysians are being marginalised?Political commentators offer their take on his gesture.James Wong Wing On, malaysiakini chief analystLee Kuan Yew did indeed say sorry but he was smart as he did not retract what he said. In fact, he added some more issues in his letter involving (former premier) Dr Mahathir (Mohamed) and the half-bridge.What he has said is, “Your politicians, including (Umno Youth deputy head) Khairy (Jamaluddin) and Mahathir, always talk bad about Singapore and the marginalised Malays there; all I did was to tell you what you’ve been doing.”You must understand that the meaning of ‘sorry’ is not necessarily an apology. An apology normally comes with an expression of regret and remorse. Instead, Lee merely said the word ‘sorry’ and added more.P Ramasamy, former political economy professorTo me the fact of marginalisation is obvious. It doesn’t matter if it comes from Lee or not. There are Malays and non-Malays who are marginalised in Malaysia. You can look at the Chinese, Orang Asli or Eurasians and to some extent the Malays - they have not enjoyed any benefits.It is a fact and it must be accepted, rather than just complain about it. It has been going on for a long time. Who cares if it’s from Lee? It is a problem that we must address.Don’t focus on what Lee said. We must ask, are Malaysians happy? Is there national unity and integration? He must have had his reasons for saying what he said.Mahathir too has said so many bad things about Singapore and Singaporeans have never reacted. Why are Malaysians reacting now?We should not blow this matter out of proportion. We should look at the marginalisation in our own backyard.Rustam Sani, former university lecturer in political sociologyThis type of controversy will come around every few years. Both sides use the other to garner support in their own country.When Singapore feels weak, it will come down hard on the opposition. If Umno Malays need support, as seen during (former deputy premier) Anwar Ibrahim’s case when the government was weakened, they pointed fingers at Singapore in order to regain support.He (Lee) was not saying ‘sorry’ for what he said. He justified what he is saying by claiming he was then speaking to foreigners. His justification was, ‘I have to do this because you Umno leaders have made statements before on the Malays in Singapore.’Both countries practise this racist perspective and will apologise over and over again, but (such situations) will still come back.That of course is not an apology for Abdullah didn't ask for one! Abdullah had been reported as saying that he would pen a letter to MM Lee asking him to explain his statement as he could not see the rationale behind it.Marginalisation, not necessarily along the racial line, exists in every country. There are social, economical and political marginalisation. In Malaysia and Indonesia if one asks the non-Malay/Indonesian millionaires, they will say that they have not been marginalised. In fact they get assistance from the ruling elite.In Singapore don't the residents of all races in the opposition wards in Potong Pasir and Hougang get marginalised in the estate upgrading programme?But the worst kind of marginalisation is the victimisation of the poor, weak and disabled in all races which all government should eradicate. Greater Freedom of Expression! "My neighbours both have problems with their Chinese. They are successful, they're hardworking and therefore they are systematically marginalised, even in education."And they want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese - compliant," With these now famous words MM Lee uttered during an interview by Lawerence Summers, are Singaporeans seeing a watershed moment in their history?Racial issues which we have been conditioned to think as a dangerous subject that could lead to a repeat of some ugly past events, are now ranted openly to an international audience.Has the paramount leader suddenly gained enlightenment and believed that racial issues can be discussed openly and rationally without fear?Or is he sufficiently tormented by the victimisation that he decided to bring it to world attention?Whatever the reasons may be, let's hope that the new freedom with which one person, albeit one as eminent as MM Lee, enjoyed to express himself could be extended to all Singaporeans! We shall then say a big thank you to MM Lee.