The first fruits of civil disobedience Seelan Palay: Noticed the "opening up" of Speaker's Corner to demonstrations on the front pages of papers today. Here are excerpts from what I consider to be the best response to it.The first fruits of civil disobedienceBy Alex Au, Yawning BreadThings got a little crazy Monday afternoon. I received so many calls from reporters that my cellphone battery was completely flat by 6 pm. This had never happened before.The reason? The Home Ministry held a press conference in the morning in which they provided details of the new regulations pertaining to demonstrations at Hong Lim Park. Reporter after reporter, from as far away as Australia, wanted a reaction from me.There was a certain pattern in local reporters' questions, and as the day wore on, the repeated direction of the interviews began to seem too familiar.I could see that all of them were angling the story in way flattering to the government. The changes were presented as a big step ("Don't you think this is a really significant liberalisation?") and an act of magnanimity from almost out of the blue ("Did you expect them to go this far?")Other questions suggested it would be churlish of citizens to spurn the government's offering and not quickly plan some demonstrations, as if demonstrations can be whipped up on demand like so many trade shows, divorced from the tidal forces of social and political issues.One reporter whom I was on the way to meet for an interview tried to be helpful, messaging me in advance so that I could formulate my answers in good time: "Please think of possible assemblies, demos, parades you can organise."She (and perhaps other reporters too) seemed somewhat taken aback when I refused to laud the changes. They are nowhere near what I consider satisfactory, or in any substantial way respectful of our civil rights, I emphasised. They are as small as a pea. What's the point of taking a magnifying glass to marvel at the icing on a pea?To all of them, I kept repeating that the freedom to demonstrate is meaningless unless it is applicable to all of Singapore. For more of my views, just read what I wrote in Demonstrations to be allowed in Hong Lim playpen.The two words "civil disobedience" were nowhere to be found in any of the questions. Yet, if a journalist wants to do justice to the news, this aspect should be central to the story. The government's retreat, not only over demonstrations, but also over the question of political films, podcasting and vodcasting during elections, cannot be understood without acknowledging the recent history of civil disobedience.The victory belongs to Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin this coming 1st September when the rules are set to change. They stood their ground for about 5 days and nights when the police tried to bundle them out of Hong Lim Park in October 2006 during the World Bank Summit, generating heaps of bad press for the Singapore government. Reporters trying to record opposition leader Chee Soon Juan's words while he was surrounded by policemen to prevent him from continuing his march, October 2006. More police officers ring Chee Siok Chin at Hong Lim Park, October 2006.I am convinced that the so-called "liberalisation" was simply to give the government a bit more manoeuvering room the next time something similar happens. Why am I sure? Just consider this: Did anybody ask for the right to demonstrate at Hong Lim Park? If there was no outstanding request, then who was the government trying to please by making this move?Read the complete article at Yawning Bread. Burmese activists hold press conference on being denied visa renewals in Singapore Seelan Palay: I was present at this press conference where local Burmese activists were trying to publicize the plight of 6 of their compatriots who have had the renewal applications for their PR re-entry permits, employment passes, work permits, or social visit passes turned down.The case that disturbed me the most was that of Hlaing Moe, who was a part-time student at Ngee Ann Polytechnic, studying for a Diploma in Technology (Mechanical) with exams on 14 – 24 August 2008. He appealed for an extension of his Social Visit Pass to enable him to complete his exams, but this appeal was rejected, also without any reason. If only he was allowed to stay on for 2 more weeks, he could have finished his exams.The Burmese have already suffered so much under the Junta. Must they suffer even more under the Singaporean authorities?I find the Overseas Burmese Patriots in Singapore a highly inspirational group of people who have defied the restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly here to show their solidarity with the righteous Burmese struggle. They set an example for all Singaporeans.Here are links to longer, more detailed reports on the press conference by other attendees:Singapore shows Burmese dissidents the door (Yawning Bread)Burmese citizens hold press conference on being denied visa renewals in Singapore (SG Politics)Buddies-in-autocracy: Singapore helps junta in victimising activists (SDP)Burmese citizens denied renewal of visas in Singapore (The Online Citizen) Hindu Temples & Crematoriums To Be Phased Out Of Kuala Lumpur? More than 120 temple representatives present at a meeting organized by Malaysia Hindu Sangam at the Dewan Tan Sri K R Soma, KL yesterday were shocked that their temples and 2 existing Hindu Crematoriams were not identified at the master Plan of City of Kuala Lumpur by 2020.What is of great concern to the community leaders is whether there is a plan to erase off hundreds of Hindu Temples and 2 crematoriams at Jalan Loke Yew and Sentul by the year 2020.There was a feeling of disappointment and disgust when they were briefed on the Master Plan. They were informed that they have to send their note of protest using the appropriate DBKL Form by 30th August 2008. About 100 forms were distributed at the meeting.Briefings were made by MHS President Datuk A.Vaithilingam, IT Consultant Mr. Chin Meng Sun, MHS Temples Advisor Ir Ariathavaratnam, MHS Temples Affairs Committee Chairman Mr. G.gunaraj and Bukit Jalil Social worker Mr. Thiagarajan. All those who are not able to obtain the DBKL Master Plan Books are requested to go online and visit www.klcityplan2020.dbkl.gov.my and try and identify the location of their temple. It does not matter whether the temple is registered with ROS or with our MHS or is said to be illegal and of the temple is not identified in the plan please get the forms from DBKL or ring 012-392 5995 (Mr. Gunaraj), 012-328 7823 (Mr.Chin), 016-3674304 (Mr. Thiagaraj) or 016-277 1495 (Ir. Ariathavaratnam) for advice or on how to obtain the forms.All temples are advised to immediately submit their protests to DBKL and send a copy of the protest form to Malaysian Hindu Sangam at No. 67, Jalan PJS 1/48, Taman Petaling Utama 7, 46150 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Fax 03-77847304.All protests must reach DBKL by 30th August 2008.Dated 20th August 2008.Datuk A VaithilingamPresidentMalaysia Hindu Sangam One Nation Under Lee to premiere in Malaysia Source: singaporerebelOne Nation Under Lee, seized by Singapore censors during a private screening this year, will make its official premiere in Malaysia's Freedom Film Festival in Kuala Lumpur. Directed by local artist and activist Seelan Palay, the 45 minute documentary will then proceed to make its rounds in Johor, Sarawak and Penang. Three months after its seizure, the Board of Film Censors has yet to certify the film, which means it is effectively prohibited from public screening in Singapore.Previous Singaporean works screened in FFF included Martyn See's Singapore Rebel, Zahari's 17 Years and Speakers Cornered, Tan Pin Pin's Singapore Gaga and Moving House, and Asia Witness Production's I Love Malaya.Film : One Nation Under LeeDir : Seelan PalayDate : Saturday 6 Sept 2008Time : 4.30 pmVenue : Central Market Annexe, Kuala LumpurClick here for the full program of Freedom Film Festival.Read about and watch One Nation Under Lee at http://one-nation-under-lee.org/ PM Lee’s National Day Rally: Protests ok in Speaker’s Corner Written by Ng E-Jay18 Aug 2008(A more complete summary of PM Lee’s National Day Rally speech will be provided later. These short notes are my critique of various key points raised in his speech.)PM Lee said in his National Day Rally speech that those who want to hold outdoor demonstrations will soon be allowed to do so, but only at Speakers’ Corner. Currently, Hong Lim Park is only designated as a place for people to make public speeches.In announcing the move, he joked, “I think we’ll still call it Speakers’ Corner. No need to call it Demonstrators’ Corner.” He added, “Our concern is law and order, and security. It comes back to race and religion, because one incident could undermine our racial harmony, and confidence in Singapore.”Also, the management of Speaker’s Corner will be taken off the police and handed over to the National Parks Board.My view is that the “concession” for protests at Hong Lim Park is pathetic.The government should realize that Singaporeans are granted freedom of assembly and expression under Article 14 of Part 4 of the constitution.The government shows disrespect for our constitution by willfully enacting subsidiary legislation that takes away our constitutional rights, and by using the state machinery of the police and judiciary to punish peaceful protesters.The “concession” for Speakers’ Corner protests are no concession at all if you realize that our fundamental freedoms are still being taken away.It is not the job of the government to decide where and when Singaporeans should be granted civil liberties and fundamental freedoms. Those are enshrined in our constitution, applying to all citizens at all times and at all places.It is the job of government to promote lawfulness by active cooperation with peaceful protesters, not to use the machinery of the state to silence dissent under the guise of promoting lawfulness.Visit sgpolitics.net to read E-Jay's other responses to the PM's speech. Lawyer M Ravi sent to IMH for assessment Seelan Palay: I can't believe this is happening, but it is. Below is an excerpt from a news article on the issue, followed by an excerpt from Uncle Yap's personalized account on Ravi's mistrial.Lawyer M Ravi, who's alleged to have disturbed a group of worshippers praying in a mosque earlier this month, has been taken into remand.He'll be sent to the Institute of Mental Health for psychiatric assessment after District Judge Carol Ling granted the prosecution's request the second time around.Deputy Public Prosecutor Toh Shin Hao's first request was dismissed by the judge.Explaining her decision to grant the request this morning, the Judge said she found few instances where Mr Ravi was unsound.She also said that Mr Ravi seemed lucid in court.Full article at 93.8 LiveFrom Uncle Yap's blog:As simple as any layman will understand, it is a mistrial today at court for M Ravi's hearing regarding AGC's re-application to commit him to remand in Institute of Mental Health.Mr. Ravi discharged his council Mr. Chia Ti Lik at the very beginning of the trial in open court at court 9, the trail went on for the entire morning with Mr. Ravi only representing himself without any other council. Under the law's very basic providence, any person on trial have the rights to council, however, the deputy public prosecutor went on the hearing asking the court to commit Mr. Ravi to IMH, as the accused Ravi who is supposedly of unsound-mind DID NOT HAVE ANY COUNCIL. And the presiding judge still let this application and argument went on for entire morning session.Any layman of law will be able to simply understand that an accused person should not be defending in person without any council, against an application to commit himself to remand in mental hospital for having UNSOUND MIND. How can a person of UNSOUND MIND be able to represent himself? How can a court accept to hear an application in such a seriously unfair and prejudiced condition? How can this be right under any kind of law or legal system?Click here and read his full account, including news on Gopalan Nair. Activists go back to court to continue fight for change Sunday, 17 August 2008Singapore Democrats The activists who have been charged with taking part in an unlawful assembly and procession on 15 Mar this year are due back in court tomorrow for another pre-trial conference (PTC). The group of 18 were given till 18 Aug 08 to look for lawyers.All have pleaded not guilty to the charges. This is because the PAP Government has no right to deny citizens their Constitutional rights to freedom of assembly laid out in Article 14 which states that "every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression" and "all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms."It is obvious that the Government is worried about the growing interest in the TBT campaign which takes aim at the greed of the ministers and escalating cost of living in Singapore. This message will resonate even more as the economy slows down, retrenchments pile up and prices remain high.Singaporeans resent the high pay of the ministers even as the number of hungry and homeless increase. On 15 Mar, the TBT activists decided to act on this.Click here and read the full article. Saakadai & Sathai - Two edgy local Tamil plays I attended this great double bill of plays by Ravindran Drama Group on Saturday night. Very edgy, raw and confrontational works which I highly recommend, 17 Aug is the last day so catch it if you can. Performance Date : 15 (8pm) & 16 August 2008 (3pm & 8 pm)Tickets $19 Call RDG Hotline 91940941 or 6100-2005This production is rated RA (18 ) for Course Language and presented in Tamil.Synopsis of Saakadai (Filth)The play explores the disgusting nature of people where the words they speak, emit the stench of feces; the sights they see, direct to the residence of vulgar; the things they do, shock and cripple one’s comprehension on the way some people can live their lives... lives of sewer. Rather than inching and kissing on the subject matter, Saakadai devours on the stinking societal issues that are happening right before our very own eyes yet regarded transparent as if it never existed. Was that the intention? Or has it become a norm one has become comfortable with? If that’s the case, come! Let’s get comfortable in filth.Synopsis of Sathai (Flesh)Flesh attempts to break social boundaries set within the community for personal gain. The play is positioned within a complex barter trade practiced in society where sex is the commodity. Are women victims of lust, objects of desire, heartbreakers, emotionalists, feminists and manipulative? On the other hand, are men impulsive, horny, reckless, and chauvinistic? These questions tread further in the play to unfold a story that takes you to the darker realms of the human mind. Flesh explores the reality of human behavior being taken as a product of interest. Sexual satisfaction is juxtaposed as flesh trade. This concept is triggered from the recent influx of media programmes, where sexuality was used as a commodity to satisfy a global demand.TrailerRavindran Drama Group Time to tolerate political diversity By Cherian GeorgeS'pore has handled diversity well in realms like race and religion, so why not politics?A running theme in the story of Singapore has been the progressive embrace of diversity. Singapore in the 19th century was a city of tribes. Today, multiracialism is treated as a national value. Even if racial prejudices linger, we know where our society should be heading: towards greater tolerance and understanding.Attitudes towards different political beliefs and practices remain immature and intolerant. Singaporeans seem not to have learnt from the way our society has handled diversity in other realms and become richer for it.Similarly, Singapore's religious diversity is increasingly celebrated at major national events. Singaporean secularism is not about banishing various religions from public view to preserve a myth of homogeneity, but about keeping the state insulated and equidistant from each faith.Attitudes towards differences in individual ability have also shifted. The polarising obsession with exam-defined success is giving way gradually to a more rounded understanding of talent, recognising that a meritocratic society should appreciate different kinds of merit.One welcome result of this shift is that people with disabilities are today held up as part of the Singapore family, in a way that you would not have witnessed 10 years ago.Differences in wealth have become more pronounced. But our society is resisting the feudal mindset that is all too prevalent through much of Asia.In Singapore, being rich does not confer a licence to abuse the poor. And being poor does not mean limitless indignity: Our social norms dictate that nobody here should be homeless or have to beg.Behind these various social attitudes towards people who are different, there appears to be a widely shared belief in the principle of fairness, as well as the pragmatic attitude that every citizen ought to matter - if for no other reason than that there are so few of us.There is one area of life, however, that has yet to follow this national narrative. Politics. Attitudes towards different political beliefs and practices remain immature and intolerant. Singaporeans seem not to have learnt from the way our society has handled diversity in other realms and become richer for it.No group is spared this culture of intolerance. In some circles, joining an opposition party brands you as a dangerous element, and about as welcome in Singapore as dengue-bearing mosquitoes and H5N1-infected chickens. But, in other Singaporeans' eyes, if you enter the ruling party's ranks you must be a self-serving sell-out, consumed by ambition and craving patronage.Work as a civil servant, and some will assume you must be rigid and reactionary, resistant to changing anything in Singapore. On the other hand, if you get involved with a civil society group, some will conclude that you must be mindlessly apeing the West and pushing agendas that are, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, destabilising.It seems that the only escape from this careless stereotyping is to retreat entirely from public affairs. Abject apathy is the only ideological stand that is immune to Singaporeans' political bigotry - even though it is the most anti-social and the most deserving of criticism.Of course, the thing about stereotypes is that they are always grown from a grain of truth. It would not be hard to find an example or two who fit the mould of the opposition wild-man or the cravenly careerist People's Action Party (PAP) member. However, in dealing with ethnic diversity, Singaporeans are learning that it is wrong to apply racial stereotypes to entire communities. Perhaps, then, it is not too much to ask that we should stop imprisoning individuals of whatever political persuasion inside the cages in our mind.Sometimes, these cages are recreated outside of our heads and built into the frameworks of actual politics: The PAP has fashioned rules of engagement that are premised on the assumption that dissenters are dangerous.But it does not stop there, because intolerance tends to be reciprocated.The resulting political culture may have hurt the PAP itself. There are many reasons for the chronic difficulty it faces in getting the ablest Singaporeans to serve in politics, but surely one of them is their reluctance to enter an arena that they perceive as lacking in civility.In this regard, politicians could learn from religious leaders. Respectful inter-faith dialogue among leaders of the world's major religions is not aimed at erasing doctrinal differences, but is instead largely motivated by self-preservation. Surrounded by secularism, astute religious leaders know that they cannot protect the communal interests of their respective faiths unless they protect the status of Religion as such.If they do not build a culture of tolerance towards people of other faiths and collectively highlight the good that religion can do for society, the ground will slip away beneath them. Similarly, partisanship in politics needs to be tempered by a collective investment in shared civic values.If people who are engaged in public affairs from whatever angle sow intolerance instead, they will reap cynicism and apathy from the wider public. Nobody should be surprised when either bully talk by those with power or histrionics by those without leave the broad middle ground turned off.In Singapore, the culture of political intolerance does not encourage youth engagement with public affairs. There is that well-known fear of taking positions that can be construed as anti-government. But there are also talented young people who feel embarrassed about joining the Government because their peers scorn such a path as lacking in idealism.There is a practical reason it is worth working for a culture of mutual respect between political outsiders and insiders. Chances are that both will prove equally vital to any major national enterprise. History shows us that societies do not make great strides by everyone marching along a single, predictable path, to the beat of a single drum. National independence movements, environmental successes or equal rights for women, for example, all depended on a mix of people working for change within the system, and others pressing from the outside. Only in hindsight is it ever apparent which routes and methods are most productive, but invariably all have a part to play.Singapore, facing its own challenges, would be foolish to put all its eggs in one basket. We need to judge people by their ability, passion and sincerity, not by the different paths they take.The country needs many able men and women of conviction and conscience to continue joining the Government because there is simply no better avenue to achieving large changes quickly. Partly as a result of the late 20th century turn away from big government, the public sector is not seen as an avenue for changing the world - despite having the greatest wherewithal to do so.No other organisation has the resources and power of the state, and individuals who step forward to help the state use that power for society's benefit deserve our support, not our contempt.However, Singapore also needs some good people to join the opposition, as a long-term insurance policy for the day it needs an alternative government. Theirs is a lonely enough path; they do not need stones thrown at them.Not all worthy causes are vote-winners, though, so Singapore also needs talented civil society activists who are prepared to push on without any pretensions of winning power.Then, there are those who prefer to pour their passion into the intangibles. Singaporeans - who are practical-minded to a fault - should be glad of this, because history again tells us not to underestimate the importance of the poets, philosophers and public intellectuals. They can do a better job than any official scenario planner or strategist in highlighting inconvenient truths essential for the future.Singaporeans have been accustomed to asking ourselves whether we can afford to tolerate political differences. Our experience in dealing with other types of differences - ethnic and class - should give us hope that we can try. Our complex and unclear future tells us we cannot afford not to.The writer is an assistant professor at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological Universitycherian@ntu.edu.sg SDP calls on activists not to exploit Ravi's situation Tuesday, 12 August 2008Singapore DemocratsThe Singapore Democrats are concerned about the arrest and prosecution of Mr M Ravi yesterday. There is no escaping the fact that Mr Ravi needs medical attention and rest to recuperate.Mr Ravi is a capable lawyer with a heart of gold. He is a compassionate individual who looks out for the little guy. He campaigned rigorously against the death penalty in Singapore when it was still unfashionable to do so. He has also discharged his duties as counsel for the SDP admirably and in a manner expected of a lawyer of the highest professionalism and dedication.Mr Ravi stepped into the breach to help the SDP defend itself against Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong in the recent hearing when few lawyers were willing to do so. He held his own against the Lees' lawyer, Mr Davinder Singh, and refused to be rail-roaded. Mr Ravi is a one-man legal firm while Mr Singh is the chief of Drew & Napier, a law firm of more than 150 lawyers. In that hearing Mr Ravi applied himself with distinction.The Singapore Democrats wish to record our thanks to Mr Ravi.What Mr Ravi needs presently is rest and medical care. In this light, we call on the authorities to view this matter in perspective and we hope that Mr Ravi will be treated appropriately.We also call on activist bloggers to refrain from exploiting this matter by posting inaccurate statements about Mr Ravi's situation and stoking sentiment against the authorities, including the police.The Singapore Democrats will not be deterred from speaking out when our law enforcement agencies detract from their rightful duty and protect the interests of the ruling party instead of the public's. But we will also not hesitate to caution against misguided actions and statements of individuals that inaccurately and unnecessarily portray the police in a negative light. Updated: Lawyer M Ravi arrested and charged with disturbing mosque prayers Channel NewsAsia - Tuesday, August 12SINGAPORE : Singapore lawyer M Ravi was charged in court on Monday for disturbing a religious assembly.The lawyer, who has represented the Singapore Democratic Party in previous civil cases, was allegedly disrupting evening prayers at the Jamae Chulia mosque on August 3 at about 7.30pm.He is said to have been shouting and interrupting the religious proceeding and when approached by devotees, is alleged to have verbally abused them.According to the police, this is not the first time the lawyer has behaved this way.They said he is known to have behaved violently and abusively at places of worship, shops, the Subordinate Courts, and other public areas.Bail has been set at S$8,000.Police say behaviour that undermines racial and religious harmony will not be tolerated, especially when the provocative act takes place in a place of worship while prayers are being conducted. — CNA/msHe is now out on bail.Arrested M Ravi had no food at police station and charged before investigation completedSource: Uncle YapYesterday in Court 26, after he was charged with the 2 aboves, Mr. M Ravi told the judge that he had no food since the night before, and was not given any food nor drink at Cantonment Police Complex where he was arrested and detained, he had been hungry all the way until he was in court. The lock-up's mata gave him a tea after that.Mr. Ravi told the judge that the famiLEE LEEgime mata first took only a short statement (which have a special police formal document type number) and then soon he was charged and made to sign the charge sheet already, before the long statement (which have a very different police formal document type number) was taken. That is to say that he was charged so quickly before any formal investigation process was completed. That is a wrong matter in law.It thus very obvious that the charges are being INSTRUCTED UPON the Investigation Officers, who were just rushing to complete their task to bring Mr. Ravi to court before the court's day's end. Court 26 was already in the night court mode when I left. This is the sign that the charges are not the result of a normal police investigation process, and the result had been determined before the very short process was rushed to meet the court's hours.Why so? Because they wanted Mr. Ravi in IMH before dark and not want him in Cantonment Police Complex.Mr. Ravi spoke very well in court yesterday, and rebuked the prosecutor's KIND OFFER to have him checked and examined in Institute of Mental Health which prosecutor said was MEANT FOR HIS (Ravi's) OWN GOOD. Mr Ravi said he has his own doctor who is very professionally qualified who treated him in 2006 at Adams Road Hospital, and he does not need the KIND OFFER of prosecutor.Mr. Ravi spoke very clearly as he personally addressed the court for about 20 minutes, with profound knowledge of law & police procedures. The judge was convinced that it is not necessary to commit M Ravi to any mental remand. Varumaiyin Niram Sivappu Seelan Palay: A scene that has affected me deeply. Tak Boleh Tahan! on National Day Seelan Palay: I will be there. Come down and chat if you're free. Date: National Day (9 Aug 08), Saturday Time: 12 noon - 3 pm Place: Toa Payoh Central, Blk 190 (outside the KFC restaurant)Activity: Distributing flyers, balloons and walkabout (SDP dinner tickets available)Dress: Tak Boleh Tahan! t-shirt HINDRAF - Behind The Revolt The documentary analyzes and highlights the chronology of the events that has led Malaysian Indians to the street protesting on the Nov 25, 2007. Viewable in 3 parts. JBJ's interview with Malaysia's Star Armed for a fresh battleBy NELSON BENJAMIN, 27 July 08At 82, Singapore’s veteran opposition politician J.B. Jeyaretnam has overcome the odds and a bankruptcy suit to continue his battle. Armed with a new party, his political convictions are as strong as ever.VETERAN Singapore opposition figure J.B. Jeyaretnam created history in 1981 when he became the first opposition MP in the island republic. The former magistrate, regarded now as Singapore's old political warrior, has paid a high price for his political convictions: he has had to sell off his properties and peddle his books along five-foot ways to help raise over S$1.5mil (RM3.45mil) to pay for at least a dozen defamation law suits against him during his 30-year political career.The 82-year-old has now formed a new party, the Reform Party, and he hopes to continue with what he is doing as long as he is strong and healthy. (Note: See here and here about the Reform Party)You were prohibited from active politics between 2001 and last year due to a defamation suit against you. How was it for you during this period?I was angry, I suppose. The reason was obvious, as the reason for commencing bankruptcy procedures against me was to take me out of Parliament. I tried to resist but I did not succeed. As a bankrupt I was not allowed to leave the country without getting permission from the official assignee. Even to come to Johor Baru over the weekends, I had to make an application. So there was a complete restriction on my travel. Apart from that, there were all the other little things, like you cannot have a bank account when you are a bankrupt. I was not even allowed to assist other candidates in the elections. They said I was not to go anywhere near an election rally. I was not allowed to go and speak. I was not to go and even assist any candidate because they said that was election activity and as a bankrupt I cannot do that.How did you raise the final amount to settle your defamation suit?In the end my two sons bailed me out. The lion's share came from them. There were some small sums from others. This is because Singaporeans, for some reason or other, are frightened to give any money. Because of the climate of fear, Singaporeans did not give me much money although many sympathised with me. Most of the sales of my two books went towards my living expenses. My first book titled Make it right for Singapore is a compilation of all my speeches in parliament. The other, The Hatchet Man of Singapore, was after the 1997 elections. These books kept my body and soul together; they gave me something to do as besides writing them, I also sold them by the five-foot way in several areas three times a week together with a friend who has been with me since my time in the Workers Party.Many Singaporeans were hoping you would contest in the 2006 elections. How much were you short of settling your bankruptcy amount?That was my desperate hope. If the courts had agreed to fix the amount, I could have raised it. This is why I was disappointed with the courts. If the courts had fixed the amount and I knew what I had to raise, then I might have raised it through my sons. I do not know for sure whether it was a delaying tactic.Have you started practising since the bankruptcy order was lifted?I am doing one or two civil cases at the moment. I am operating on my own from my office off South Bridge Road. The person who was selling books is working with me now. I am here (Singapore) during weekdays.The first thing you did after paying up your bankruptcy amount was to register a new party, the Reform Party. What was the main aim behind the formation of the party?The main thing is to restructure the way we are governed in Singapore. Call it a “system” if you like. At the moment, the way we are governed is we have the executive (the ruling People's Action Party) at the top. And it's a law unto itself. The executive makes decisions and policies without any consultation with the people. And what is worrying is that there's no check on the executive, partly because Parliament is in the control of the PAP.And even now, with just two opposition members in parliament, Parliament passes laws and abrogates the powers of the court. The courts cannot enquire into the merits of anyone detained without trial. A number of decisions made by ministers are kept outside the courts' jurisdiction, especially decisions affecting peoples' lives. So the courts are not protecting the rights of the citizens.There is this question of freedom of speech in assembly. The constitution grants it, but government says no. Elections in Singapore are not free and clear, as there is no election commission in Singapore. Parliament is no longer a body that is separate, independent and able to control the executive. This is what I think is the urgent priority for Singapore.Many people retire by the age of 82 but you seem to be eager to get back in parliament this year. Why?I do expect to get back in parliament. But it's not for personal power but because I genuinely feel sorry for the people in Singapore. I am talking about the dispossessed, the underprivileged people, which make up a huge number. I am not talking about our bankers and wealthy people who are perhaps not interested in human rights. There is quite a bit of poverty in Singapore, even though the world does not seem to think so because of the propaganda machinery of the Government.So you have no plans to retire soon?It depends on my health, but I thank God for giving me health and strength. In that sense I owe it to Him to do something.Are you not tired of being in politics since you started in 1971 with the Workers Party (WP)?At times I feel tired and say to myself: “Don't you think you should give up now?” But that is only momentary. It is followed by the thought that if I have started on a job and as long as I have the health and strength, I will have to go on with it. And there are people who look to you especially when you walk the streets of Singapore. It is just my conviction that when things are wrong, and if there is anything I can do to put them right, then I should do that. I think every citizen should feel like that. It is a citizen's duty.Being in the opposition in Singapore all these years has cost you dearly and you even had to sell off your properties. Any regrets?I did not have many properties but I had to sell a bungalow in a very fashionable area in Singapore to pay the judgement obtained by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. Having sold that, three years later I bought a small apartment, and then I had to sell that too. All in, I had easily about 12 to 13 suits to pay off. Some people say I was a fool. All I can say is I do not regret it because, to me, life is not all about making money and acquiring wealth. Life is doing something for the people around you.What do you think about the recent political tsunami in Malaysia?It is good that there is a strong opposition in Parliament. This is what I am standing up for in Singapore. I want that for Singapore too.Do you think such a political tsunami is possible in Singapore?You never know, especially if Singaporeans take to heart what has happened in Malaysia. It is good to have a strong opposition.As you can see, former Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is widely regarded as the person who united the opposition. Are you planning to play the same role?This talk about uniting the opposition parties in Singapore is not new. It has been talked about for many years. When I was in the WP, we managed to unite the Barisan Sosialis and another political party into one party. But before you can unite into a group, you must have similarities in ideals, objectives and values. And as I have said, even the WP now does not share my objective. Neither do the other opposition parties. So I do not see how we can really talk about coming together as one party.In the Malaysian elections, blogs, SMS, and the Internet played an important role in getting the message across to the voters. What do you think?It goes without saying. We cannot ignore the value and importance of the Internet in Singapore. If you access the blogs in Singapore, you will see the debate that is being carried out. So, of course, it will be foolish of us if we do not resort to the Internet to convey our messages to the people.Many Singaporeans feel that the PAP has developed the country and, as such, there is no need for an opposition. What do you think about this?Those who say this have swallowed the PAP's propaganda. No government, anywhere in the world, can be so good that there is no need for an opposition. It is only in dictatorships where one man rules the country without an opposition. And I differ (from the view) that PAP has done a lot for Singapore.When you come to measure a country, you do not just look at the roads, the buildings, and the services provided. What you will be looking at is the quality of the peoples’ lives, whether they are allowed to live as human beings with dignity.Singapore ranked at the bottom in a survey carried out to rank peoples’ happiness. The quality of life is poor. It is no good boasting about your efficiency, boasting about your airport, or boasting about anything else when the people are not happy.Many say you are in constant loggerheads with the PAP and especially with the Lee family maybe because you have a personal grudge against Lee Kuan Yew.This is a load of nonsense. I am opposed to the PAP policies not because I have something against Lee personally. But he happens to be the head of the PAP, so people try and equate my dissatisfaction with the PAP with some personal animosity against Lee Kuan Yew. I am clearly opposed to all that the PAP stands for. I am against the system, not the person.Are your sons into politics?No. They are not joining me and they have not joined any political party. But that does not mean they are not interested in political affairs and at the moment, I do not hope for them to succeed me. Stampede at Hindu temple kills 145 in India Sun. Aug. 3 2008CTV.ca NewsAt least 145 people have died following a stampede of pilgrims during a religious festival at a mountaintop Hindu temple in India.R.N. Dhoke, a senior police officer, said Sunday that authorities have taken the bodies to a hospital in the neighbouring state of Punjab. Autopsies will be performed there.The disaster happened Sunday at the Naina Devi Temple, which is about 250 kilometres northeast of New Dehli, India's capital.C.P. Verma, deputy police chief of the Bilaspur District in Himachal Pradesh state, said the stampede resulted from too many pilgrims trying to squeeze into a small area.One news report said more than 3,000 worshippers had gathered at the temple to pray to a Hindu goddess as part of an annual festival.State police Chief S.R. Mardi contradicted that view, saying the stampede occurred when a railing collapsed on the path leading up the mountain.Rescue workers used a cable car at the temple to help remove the wounded from the mountaintop.S. Vankat Narayan of ITN London told CTV Newsnet on Sunday from New Delhi that it's currently the rainy season in India.The area where the disaster occurred is in the foothills of the Himalaya Mountains, he said.He suggested some people were trying to rush downhill to avoid inclement weather while others were trying to push up to the temple. All this put pressure on the railing that gave way.Large crowds and a "certain amount of chaos" are a normal occurrence in India, which is home to more than 1.1 billion people, he said.This becomes worse during religious festivals, Narayan added. S'pore: Where racism is normal By Constance SingamToday online, 02 August 2003 ARE you a racist? We are kidding ourselves if we think we are not. Let's admit it. We are all racist. That's the first step towards change.In Singapore, racism is institutionalised and we don't even challenge that. It is "normal".However, racism is a learned social phenomenon. Children learn it from their families, through education, religion, the law and the media.I recall an incident in which two children, four and six at that time, thought it was fun to mimic a language they didn't understand while watching an Indian programme.Their father reprimanded them for being rude. "What do you think you are?" he asked them. They were surprised to discover that they were Indians.Another little boy I know, who must have been four at the time, discovered the notion of race when he was told that he was Indian and that his friend was Chinese.He then wanted to know what race his friend's brother was!By the time children go to school, they would have learnt what it means to be "different". They learn it from their parents; they learn it in the playground.A young mother related a heart-rending experience that her two year-old son faces every time he goes out to play in the playground of her HDB block.Other mothers in the playground warn their children against playing with this little boy because of his "difference".Once in school, they learn it in their "mother tongue" classes. They learn it from their teachers. They learn it when they fill forms.By the time they reach Primary Six, their identity card would forever confine them to their racial group, labelling their "difference" and depending on their experiences, they would have learnt to celebrate that "difference" or be ashamed of it.A child told her mother recently that she wanted to kill herself because of her dark complexion.A principal of a school that a little girl I know attended is known for her racial biases. Some of the teachers, as an exercise in empowerment, taught the Indian girls an Indian dance for a school concert.While the students proudly displayed their skill, the principal's comment was: "They can shake, shake. But they can't study."In such an environment, they would have difficulties with their studies. Low self-esteem and internalised acceptance of the myth of racial inferiority or superiority are the consequences of racism.So, we should not be surprised by the results of the recently-published study by the National Institute of Education which revealed that children of different races are not mixing with one another.But it doesn't end there at the school level. A young woman, proficient in Mandarin and English, was not picked for a job because she was not Chinese.She applied for the job at a career exhibition, the requirement of which matched the qualifications she had, including proficiency in Mandarin.But she was told that the company was looking for a Chinese. These examples may be countered by the argument that that there is racism in every country — which is true.But racism is racism wherever it takes place. It threatens humanistic values and undermines the moral development of the whole society.The biggest problem we face in Singapore is that racism has been normalised. It is normal to describe people in terms of race, for instance.It is normal for the media to identify people in terms of race; it is normal to compare the achievement of various groups (for instance, examination results) of school children along racial lines; it is normal to divide people in HDB housing estates according to their ratio in the population; it is normal to limit the learning of language to "mother tongue".These practices are racist and the tendency towards sticking together and preferring the values and personal beliefs of one's own group perpetuates racism.And so, a society may live in peace together but they do so in a state of mutual isolation, suspicion and incomprehension. And no wonder! In our system we are taught "racial harmony" with a narration of the history of racial riots.That is "normal".Yet, there are signs of tolerance everywhere.For instance, there could be a Chinese funeral in one void deck while a Malay wedding is celebrated in another. Churches and temples stand side by side, in amicable co-existence.The Buddhist temple, the Christian church and the Sai Baba Centre located next to each other in Moulmein Road, is an amazing testimony to this high degree of tolerance.The most positive affirmation of the triumph of a common humanity is seen in the ever increasing number of inter-racial marriages.And who among us has not experienced the wonder of cross-cultural friendships, occasions of kindness and generosity across racial and, sometimes, even language barriers?My own experience in civil society supports my optimism in the ability of Singaporeans to suspend their individual prejudices, racial and class differences, and work towards common values and goals.However, for all that optimism, the level of racism will not diminish if we continue to assume that group differences are biologically determined and, therefore, inherently unchangeable.We will then remain a nation of racists. Study finds children of different races are not mixing. Should we be surprised? OH! (A play on local social and political issues) By Singapore's most controversial playwright, Elangovan. Please attend and support this weekend. Tickets sold at the door. I will be attending on Saturday, Aug 2nd.OH!presented by AGNI KOOTTHU (THEATRE OF FIRE)written & directed by ELANGOVANperformed by Ahamed Ali Khan, Dew M. Chaiyanara, Gillian Tan, Hemang Yadav, Lee Gao Ju, Max Ling & Shaiful Risanmusic by Lee Gao JuProduction Manager: S ThenmoliSat 2 & Sun 3 Aug 2008 8 pm $20 Guinness Theatre, The SubstationTickets available at the door from 7 pmR 18 (Adult Themes / Strong Language)Extract:Tung-tung chiang. Tung-tung-chiang. I saw the police and all the RC members They lined up to welcome the new chief. I also joined the line. Nobody noticed me in the crowd. It was so exciting. Everyone thought I was also an official. The chief was shaking everyone's hands. When he shook my hand, I kneeled and kissed his hand. He was shocked but appreciated my gesture. I then asked him, "Boss, how do you feel about getting three million dollars when the rest of us are struggling to make ends meet?" He stared at me and said, "Oh! It is a honest mistake. What to do? We'll talk about it. Don't forget to vote for me in future." He is sincere. I sure vote for him. Tung-tung-chiang. Tung-tung chiang. Tung-tung-chiang.Writeup:I love Singapore. It is an honest mistake. What to do?Do you think I, a magician have gone mad? You belief you are normal because you think you are mentally organized? You are proud that you are cultured and refined as your behaviour is deemed socially acceptable by other monkeys around you? You have joined the tribe that listens, thinks and excretes the same and forms the majority segment of this society? You are sane and only your dominant group will define insanity for those like me who dance to a different beat? What will happen to your world when I get an opportunity to re-define your sanity with my magic wand at a convenience store? Have you ever been possessed by a chatty ghost before? Have you ever helped your senile mother to slice her jugular vein? Have you heard voices ringing non-stop in your head telling you to terminate those who: - do not sing the national anthem because it is the language of a race you can't stand; switch off the life-support system of the local braindead soldier for organ transfer to save a foreign dictator; blackmail and molest the pizza-delivery boy for being late; interrogate the idealistic reporter for telling the truth; stab any foreign talent for refusing to appreciate your magic at the hawker centre? My home-visit is due. I tak boleh tahan (cannot take it) anymore. Can I, a schizophrenic, I mean an 'urban shaman' kill someone with kindness please?ELANGOVAN, bilingual poet, playwright-director, screenwriter, literary editor, transcreator, and pioneer of modern Tamil poetry and Tamil experimental theatre in Singapore, obtained a BA (Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts) and a MA (Middlesex University, UK) in Theatre Directing. Soaring Prices Hit Singapore's Poor (Al-Jazeera) Goh Chok Tong’s remarks on role of opposition raises many alarm bells Written by Ng E-Jay, SG Politics27 July 2008Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong’s recent remarks on the role of the opposition in Singapore are certainly thought-provoking. But in my mind, they also raise many alarm bells which concern me deeply.Goh Chok Tong was speaking about the role of the opposition at a National Day dinner in Hougang SMC on Saturday night (26 July). The following excerpts are taken from a CNA report entitled “SM Goh confident PAP will eventually win back Hougang” published online on the same night as well as a Straits Times article entitled “SM: Tweaks to system yes, but the core must remain” published on 27 July. My own comments follow each excerpt.Goh Chok Tong said that Singapore’s political system must change to keep pace with an evolving society, yet there are certain things that must not change. “Whatever the refinements we may make to our political system down the road, some core principles must remain the same,” he said.So what are those core principles that must remain constant? Goh Chok Tong said, “One, any changes must be fair to all parties and give them an equal chance to contest and win; two, they must not lead to democratic chaos and politics of division; and three, they must not put Singapore’s unity and harmony, growth and prosperity and long-term interests at risk.”On the surface, Goh Chok Tong’s statement appears very reasonable. But let’s dig slightly deeper.Firstly, is the current political system fair to the opposition? My answer is a firm NO. While the GRC system is ostensibly created to give minority candidates a level playing field, in reality it has put the opposition at a disadvantage because the opposition does not have the same kind of access to resources and manpower as the PAP. Over the years we have seen the GRCs get bigger and bigger, and now there are even monster 6-member GRCs. This is blatantly unfair for the opposition.The Elections Department is still under the Prime Minister’s Office, and the PAP can redraw electoral boundaries at their own discretion. Electoral deposits have also increased to as high as $13,500 per candidate, which imposes a financial burden on opposition candidates who have to raise large amounts of funds just to contest in elections.If the electoral system is to be made fair to all parties, then it must undergo serious reform.Secondly, what does Goh Chok Tong mean when he says that political changes must not lead to chaos and politics of division? That to me is a very loaded statement.Who defines what is chaos and politics of division? Is it the PAP themselves? If Singapore is to become a real democracy, then there must be open debate about political issues, and opposition parties must be free to contest and free to provide a robust challenge to the ruling party. Who decides what is fair debate, and what is divisive politics? It cannot be the ruling party that decides. It must be the people who decide through the ballot box as well as by speaking up individually.It is high time that the PAP stops insinuating that free debate and competition has the tendency to degenerate into chaos and divisive politics.More importantly, we should recognize that some amount of conflict will arise in an open society where people are free to debate on any issue, and this is not necessarily bad for the nation. If Singapore is to be a mature democracy, it must learn to handle such conflicts as they arise in a manner that does not involve repression or discrimination. The PAP must stop babysitting the nation if we are to grow up politically. More pertinently, the PAP must stop using babysitting as an excuse to further entrench its monopoly on political ideology.Goh Chok Tong noted that the opposition parliamentarian for Hougang SMC since 1991, Low Thia Khiang, believes his job is just to ask questions and check the ruling party, but not to offer solutions to problems. The Senior Minister said this is a rather narrow view of the role of an opposition.He also said, “Ideally, our political system should facilitate the emergence of a strong, effective government after every election and a responsible, constructive opposition. But no matter how you design it … there is no guarantee because it depends on whether good, honest and competent people come forward to stand for elections and the wisdom of the electorate when they cast their ballot.”Again, this statement looks reasonable on the surface, but the question remains: Has the PAP been walking its talk?There has been a gradual de-politicization of the electorate since Singapore’s independence, no thanks to the PAP’s repressive and authoritarian style of government that discourages free and unfettered dialogue about political issues and criticism of the PAP. To this day, the PAP Government is still winning defamation suits against political opponents, has a monopoly on the mainstream media which it uses to its advantage, and uses repressive laws that restrict the freedom of the people to assemble in public or speak freely. In this oppressive culture, the growth of the opposition is hampered, and people entering opposition politics sometimes have to pay a heavy price.A responsible, constructive opposition is necessary if there is to be political plurality in Singapore. But the PAP’s definition of what is responsible and constuctive opposition is at odds with my own. The PAP’s notion of a constructive opposition is one that works within the system and always speaks with a moderate voice. This to me is not a constructive opposition, but a sham opposition.A constructive opposition to me is one that dares to challenge the system where the system is flawed, and speak out vociferously against laws and rules that are manifestly unjust. An opposition that merely works within the system is one that will support the system rather than change it.The sad reality is that the PAP Government has been slowly indoctrinating in the people its own notion of what constitutes a good opposition. But the PAP’s own idea of a good opposition is one that will merely provide token resistance to its policies, and further entrench its own power and preserve its political hegemony. Singapore needs political opposition that will challenge, not preserve, the PAP’s grip on power.Goh Chok Tong also warned that democracy does not guarantee an effective Parliament. Citing Taiwan as an example to bolster his point, he said, “Taiwan’s democracy is more liberal than ours. But it has divided the society.”My view is that Singapore has been economically successful, not because of the lack of liberal democracy, but in spite of it. There is no guarantee that state of affairs will last forever, and that is why liberal democracy has to be advanced in Singapore, so as to give Singapore citizens the right to self-determination and the ability to peacefully vote out an incompetent incumbent.Democracy in itself will not bring economic success or cultural maturity to a nation. But we should stop attempting to pursue these at the expense of democracy, because it is unjustified in principle and increasing untenable in practice in the age of the Internet.SGpolitics.net Reflections on Black July in art, literature and theatre TamilNet, Thursday, 24 July 2008Artists and writers in different parts of the world reflect through various ways on Black July 1983, the state-sponsored pogrom against Tamils in Sri Lanka, marking its 25th year. Citing some of the aesthetic expressions, a play in English to be staged in Canada on Saturday is based on the post-pogrom phenomenon of refugee hearing. While an ongoing art exhibition in Colombo documents life after 1983 in the eyes of a Sinhala photographer, a novel that comes from Australia bases itself on the psychological scars of the pogrom.'What if the Rain Fails,' a play written by R. Cheran, a poet and a University professor in Sociology, and directed by Dushy Gnanapragasam, will be staged in three shows on Saturday at Young Centre for the Performing Arts, Toronto, by Asylum Theatre Group in association with Canadian Tamil Congress. The central character of the play, K. Rasarathnam, is an actual survivor of Black July."As a child I walked down the main street of my home town Panadura, in southern Sri Lanka, with my mother. Then a day dawned in July 1983, which changed the familiar routine and the landscape completely. The landscape of main street, Panadura had changed. I met people who didn't have a place they called home. Most of them were Tamils. I have listened to their stories and to many other similar stories. I have documented their lives during the last 17 years," says Photographer Anoma Rajakaruna.Anoma's photo exhibition is on display from July 18 to 24 in Colombo at the Alliance Francaise, Colombo. It will be organised at Alliance Francaise, Kandy, from August 8 to 14.Dr. N.S. Nadesan, a veterinary surgeon in Melbourne, Australia, bases his novel on family life marred by bipolar depression as a result of Black July encounters. The novel, "unaiyea mayal ko'ndu," a first of its kind in Diaspora Tamil literature, delves into seldom touched intricacies of man-woman relationship against the backdrop of pursuing hangovers of a violence-affected society. It came out this May as a publication of Mithra Arts and Creations Private Limited, Chennai.Anoma's photo exhibit at display in Colombo.Image of her artist's statement Indian Government Wins Confidence Vote By Anjana PasrichaNew Delhi, 22 July 2008India's Congress-Party led coalition government has won a confidence vote, paving the way for it to go ahead with a civilian nuclear deal with the United States. But as Anjana Pasricha reports from New Delhi, the vote was interrupted by allegations that government supporters had bribed lawmakers to win the vote. At the end of a raucous two-day debate, the government won the confidence vote Tuesday by a wider than expected margin. It got the support of 275 lawmakers - 19 more than the opposition, and many more than most had expected. Ten lawmakers abstained from voting.The confidence vote was called after communist parties pulled back support from the government, saying they would not allow it to proceed with a civilian nuclear deal with Washington that would give India access to global nuclear commerce.A happy Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said he had won a convincing victory. He also indicated that he is now ready to press ahead with the nuclear deal."This will send a message to the world at large that India's head and heart is sound, that India is prepared to take its place in the comity of nations," said Manmohan Singh.But the government's victory was marred by allegations of vote buying.Lawmakers of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party brought bags stuffed with bundles of cash into parliament mid-way through the debate, and waved the money in the air claiming they were paid bribes by a government ally.Parliament was thrown into confusion as opposition lawmakers demanded the prime minister's resignation. They did not allow him to make a speech in parliament.The Congress Party says it has won a clean victory, and the allegations of bribing lawmakers were deliberately planted by their opponents because they were set to lose the vote.For days, New Delhi has swirled with reports the Congress Party and the opposition have been offering hefty bribes and other political favors to lawmakers to win their support.The nuclear pact with the United States was at the heart of the two-day debate that preceded the vote. Government supporters defended the deal, saying the country desperately needs alternative sources of energy to help it overcome the huge shortfall facing the nation.Opponents said the deal will bring India under greater influence of the United States, and compromise the country's nuclear weapons program.The nuclear deal still has to be approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the U.S. Congress. India is barred from getting nuclear technology because it has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Indian Government's Confidence Vote Due Today Indian Government Prepares for Crucial Confidence VoteBy Anjana PasrichaNew Delhi, 11 July 2008There is hectic political lobbying in India, where the Congress-led coalition government is preparing to face a vote of confidence later this month. The government opted to hold the vote after angry leftist parties took back their support to protest a civilian nuclear deal with the United States. Anjana Pasricha has a report from New Delhi.The Congress-led coalition government says a special session of parliament will be convened to hold the confidence vote.The government, which controls only 225 lawmakers in the 545 lower house of parliament, lost its majority earlier this week when communist allies took back their support.The communist parties have vowed to do everything they can to stop the government from finalizing a civilian nuclear pact with the United States. The deal will give New Delhi access to civilian nuclear technology, from which it is barred, because it has not signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.The government says that it will only conclude the nuclear deal after proving that it has parliamentary majority.Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said in New Delhi Friday, that the government is confident of passing the test in the lower house of parliament, known as the Lok Sabha."Parting company with the left is sad, but sometimes in politics it happens," said Mukherjee. "There is no bitterness among us. But at the same time we shall have to accept this challenge, with our courage and conviction which we are going to do. Everybody is prepared to face the vote of confidence in Lok Sabha."But the Congress Party is taking no chances, and is busy trying to cobble together parliamentary support to ensure its survival.Party managers were closeted in meetings with small political parties on Friday to enlist the support of as many lawmakers as possible.The Congress Party-led alliance has already secured the vital support of a regional group, the Samajwadi Party. But it needs the backing of more lawmakers to ensure that it can win the confidence vote. There are also worries that some lawmakers of the Samajwadi party may rebel.Both the fate of the nuclear deal with the United States and the government will depend on the outcome of the crucial confidence vote.If the government loses the vote, it will have to call early elections. It will also not be in a position to move ahead with the civilian nuclear deal with the United States.But a confident government says that will not happen.The government has already taken the first step toward implementing the deal by submitting a draft plan for inspections of its civilian nuclear reactors by the International Atomic Energy Agency.That move has further angered India's leftist parties and other opposition parties, who say a government without a majority should not move ahead with an internationalagreement.The communist parties say the nuclear pact will bring New Delhi too close to Washington. The Indian government says it needs the deal to ensure future energy supplies for the country. P. Uthayakumar refuses to attend ISA rehabilitation programme HINDRAF, Mon, 21/07/2008P. Uthayakumar refuses to attend ISA rehabilitation programme by Police Special Branch which is in violation of Article 95 of the U.N standard Minimum Rules.Mr. P. Uthayakumar was on 10/07/08 requires to attend a rehabilitation programme organized by the Police Special Branch and to be conducted by Associate Professor Dr. Mohammad Agus bin Yusof of the National University of Malaysia (UKM). On two previous occasions last month and again this month a Police Special Branch Acting Commissioner of Police (ACP), Superintendent of Police and a DSP wanted to rehabilitate Uthayakumar but Uthayakumar refused to meet them. Uthayakumar's position is that this is in violation of Article 95 of the United Nations (U.N) Standard Minimum Rules for the treatment of prisoners which provides that prisoners without charge are not to be subjected to Rehabilitation.Further Uthayakumar's detention is in violation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948 of which Malaysia is a signatory, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1976, Article 3, 10, 11(1) of the U.D.H.R specifically provides that there shall be no detention without trial, provides the right to personal liberty and to a fair trial and that a person is innocent until proven guilty.Especially after having studied law and practiced law for sixteen years and also an active legal practitioner and himself a human and civil rights Lawyer Mr. Uthayakumar is unable to accept any form of sentence to imprisonment for a term of two years and continuing indefinitely at the pleasure of the Executive without trial and not having been found guilty by a court of law. What more to be rehabilitated after the Judgment of Prime Minister Badawi of Malaysia who acted as Judge, Jury, Prosecutor and Executioner.Mr. Uthayakumar's struggle is against the marginalisation, discrimination, oppression, suppression, equality and inequal opportunities and the permanent colonialisation of the ethnic minority Indians in Malaysia through lawful and peaceful means. Badawi and the UMNO controlled government of Malaysia refused to even reply to the hundreds of letters, memorandums, and protest notes and running into thousands of pages scores of civil suits, it would appear that it would be a crime to champion equality and equal opportunities, Malaysian Bar Resolutions, hundreds of police reports etc. and when having exhausted all these avenues over a period of sixteen years of peaceful campaigning Uthayakumar organised a 100,000 Hindraf peaceful assembly at the Kuala Lumpur City Centre on 25/07/2007. The Badawi regime took this as a threat to their authoritarian rule especially so in view of the then imminently impending general elections which we believe had to be postponed to 08/03/2008. Badawi's excuse was that Uthayakumar and the three other Hindraf lawyers were threat to "national security". Badawi's reason for not having them prosecuted in an open court of law was their said detention was based on "intelligence information" which could not be tendered in open court, meaning there is no credible evidence and/or Uthayakumar and Hindraf has an avalanche of evidence as the aforementioned thousands of pages of documents and photographs which the Badawi regime can not or would not be able rebut.Thus Uthayakumar and the other 3 Hindraf lawyers have now been detained for eight months now.P. Uthayakumar's and Hindraf's legal and peaceful struggle would continue irrespective until the rule of law is observed and justice is served. People power "Makkal Sakthi" will prevail one day.Thank you,P. Waytha MoorthyChairman Raising The Bar Friday, 18 July 2008The EconomistA rare slip-up in court by Singapore's elder statesman, Lee Kuan YewMembers of Singapore's government are notorious sticklers for legal exactitude. So it has been interesting to watch the reaction after the country's elder statesman, Lee Kuan Yew—a British-trained lawyer before he became a politician—gave inaccurate testimony in the trial of two opposition leaders.In May Mr Lee testified in a hearing to decide damages against Chee Soon Juan, the leader of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), and his sister, Chee Siok Chin, for defaming the former prime minister and his son, Lee Hsien Loong, who is now prime minister himself.Mr Lee senior claimed that after the London-based International Bar Association (IBA) held its annual conference in Singapore last October, its president sent a letter to the Law Society of Singapore praising the country's justice system. It has since emerged that there was no such laudatory letter.Mr Chee (who along with his sister was briefly jailed for contempt for accusing the judge in his case of bias) tried unsuccessfully to have the hearing reconvened in the light of Mr Lee's incorrect testimony. Mr Lee's counsel, Davinder Singh, wrote to the court on July 9th admitting that his client was wrong about the letter but noting that the IBA's president, Fernando Pombo, had praised Singapore's "outstanding judiciary" in a speech at the start of the conference. Mr Singh argues that what matters is that the IBA did praise Singaporean justice, not whether it did so in a speech or a letter. Mr Chee says there is a difference: the speech was made before the conference, where criticisms of the justice system were aired. Mr Lee was claiming, in effect, that the IBA was still impressed after this.By coincidence, on July 9th the IBA's Human Rights Institute issued a report criticising the use of defamation suits by the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) to silence the opposition and the press, and expressing concerns about the independence and impartiality of Singapore's judges. The law ministry has rejected the IBA's report, pointing out that Singapore's legal system has won excellent ratings in other international surveys. Indeed, in cases not involving the country's leaders, there is no dispute about its quality. As for the IBA's worries about cases involving PAP figures, the law ministry claims that the IBA failed to substantiate its "grave" allegations with evidence, though its report does discuss several worrying cases.America's State Department, which is in rather less danger of being sued by the PAP than are the opposition or newspapers, has expressed concern about judicial independence in political cases in Singapore. In its latest human-rights report, in March, the department noted that the PAP's consistent success in defamation suits against critics "led to a perception that the judiciary reflected the views of the ruling party in politically sensitive cases."According to the Straits Times newspaper, Mr Lee on July 11th accused human-rights organisations of "a conspiracy to do us in". He said that they saw that Russia and China had been studying Singapore's success, and hence regarded it as a threat. Mr Lee and the government argue that doing things their way has made Singapore prosperous, orderly and corruption-free, and has earned international respect. The threat of defamation proceedings may make opposition politicians weigh their words more carefully than they do elsewhere. But Singaporean voters continue to buy the PAP's argument that such constraints are a price worth paying—so far. The Dark Side of Paradise Sholto Byrnes Published 17 July 2008 The dreamy, white-sand beaches of south-east Asia will welcome millions of western tourists this summer. From the west coast of Thailand, excursions will head to Ko Tapu, the island made famous as the lair of the Bond villain Scaramanga in The Man With the Golden Gun. Others will be lured by the clifftop kecak dances on Bali, where flames illuminate the tales of the Ramayana, performed in an 11th-century Hindu temple as the sun sets on the Lombok Strait. Cultural visitors will head to the ancient royal capital of Angkor in Cambodia, while the South China Sea is heaven for divers. But cast your mind back to the beginning of this year, and there is another picture that speaks to a somewhat darker truth about the region than the paradisiacal vistas painted by tourist brochures suggest. As General Suharto lay dying in a Jakarta hospital in January, western commentators bemoaned the failure to bring the former Indonesian dictator to justice. A "tyrant", they called him, a man responsible for murdering up to half a million of his countrymen in a purge of communists in the late 1960s, accused of stealing as much as $35bn from the state during his 31-year rule (which ended in 1998) and who held the dubious honour of being declared the most corrupt leader of all time by the NGO Transparency International. None of this stopped a string of local luminaries coming to pay their respects. Mahathir Mohamad, prime minister of Malaysia for 22 years; Singapore's founding father, now minister mentor, Lee Kuan Yew; the sultan of Brunei: all visited as Suharto fought his last battle. "I feel sad to see a very old friend with whom I had worked closely over the last 30 years, not really getting the honour that he deserves," said Lee, who came to full power in 1965, two years before Suharto. Dr Mahathir held the old dictator's hand and shed a tear. Even the leader of East Timor, José Ramos-Horta, had kind words for the man who ordered the invasion and subsequent repression of his country in 1975, and he asked the Pope to pray for him. After his death, the west was unanimous in its condemnation of his rule. "Suharto's legacy speaks for itself. We regret that, on this occasion, we must write harshly of the dead. Very harshly," concluded a New Statesman leader. Yet closer to home, different sentiments were expressed. The president of the Philippines, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, praised Suharto's promotion of regional unity, while Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono eulogised the "many great services" he had done for the nation. The truth is that, surprising - even repugnant - as outside observers may find this seeming indulgence of a man they considered a brutal despot, it was only to be expected that his death would be marked more generously in the region. For although in some respects Suharto may have been an exception, in many others he was the rule. Most tourists continue to be blissfully unaware of the region's internal politics. Few larking about in the water park on Singapore's Sentosa Island turn their thoughts to Chee Soon Juan, the long-standing opposition leader who has been bankrupted by defamation suits, banned from standing for elections and frequently imprisoned - all for actions and campaigns that would be taken for granted in a liberal democracy. Nor does it seem likely that many who visit the Shoe Museum in Manila, home to Imelda Marcos's footwear collection, reflect for long on how it was that her late husband, the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, managed to turn the Philippines into a nation of "40 million cowards and one son of a bitch", as a US official put it. Yet, as the balance of power and wealth moves inexorably east over the course of what China's Deng Xiaoping and India's Rajiv Gandhi predicted would be the "Asian century", governments and businesses need to know more about the group of countries to the south-east of "Chindia". Skyscraper cities are the visible evidence of decades of growth (5.7 per cent across the region in 2008, according to the Asian Development Bank; down from 6.5 per cent in 2007, but still buoyant compared to the 1.8 per cent the OECD estimates for the UK this year). Individually, the members of Asean (the Association of South-East Asian Nations) may not be big players, but collectively they are a part of what Fareed Zakaria, in his book The Post-American World, refers to as "the rise of the rest". And at a time when Islam's place in the world and the extent to which liberal democracies should either accommodate or confront it is the subject of constant debate, not to seek a greater understanding of an area with more Muslims than the entire Arab Middle East would be foolhardy in the extreme. Asian valuesChief among the lessons that need to be learned are the historical reasons why liberal democracyhas been so absent from the region, and why one should not expect its imminent arrival. The western powers will have to accept that their future partners - and they must act towards them as partners, shedding any lingering superiority to their former imperial possessions - may be part of the growing club of nations where an authoritarian "guided democracy" holds sway. Indeed, proponents of the "Asian values" school of thought reject the suggestion that modernisation should be accompanied by liberalisation. As Lee Kuan Yew put it in a speech in Tokyo, in 1992: "With few exceptions, democracy has not brought good government to new developing countries . . . What Asians value may not necessarily be what Americans or Europeans value. Westerners value the freedoms and liberties of the individual. As an Asian of Chinese cultural background, my values are for a government which is honest, effective and efficient." Put bluntly, liberal democracy has no historic roots in the Asean countries; and after independence (all were colonised apart from Thailand) there were plenty of reasons why more authoritarian forms of government swiftly became the norm. These were states, but not nation states in the classic 19th-century European sense. Some owed their very creation to European empires. The boundary between Malaysia and Indonesia, for instance, corresponds to the early 19th-century division of influence agreed by the British and the Dutch. Singapore was a swampy island populated by a few fishermen until it was founded as a city state by Sir Stamford Raffles in 1819. The Philippines never existed as a unit prior to rule by the Spanish and then the Americans (400 years of convent, 50 years of Hollywood, as the saying goes). They, and many other neighbouring states, faced not only battles to maintain territorial integrity on independence, but also struggles to forge national identities. Far from aiding this process, experiments with democracy in the 1940s and 1950s suggested it was a system that gave too free a voice to separatist tendencies and stoked racial tension. After 17 different cabinets in 13 years, President Sukarno introduced "guided democracy" in Indonesia in 1957. Five years later, the military took over in Burma, ending democracy for good. No one disputes the countless atrocities the generals have since inflicted on that unfortunate country. At the time, however, many were sympathetic to the move. "If they hadn't stepped in, the country would have disintegrated," one diplomat then stationed in Rangoon told me. The lack of homogeneity caused serious problems. Did the large Chinese diaspora, which held levels of wealth disproportionate to its size in many countries, owe its allegiance to the new states, or did it look to the home country? It was an important question during the decades of the domino effect, when first Vietnam, then Cambodia and Laos, fell under communist rule. Singapore grip Stability became the goal. And the means to achieving it - removing dissent from the public sphere, building up institutions such as the monarchy in Thailand and the army in Burma - were presented as being both necessary and true to local values and customs. To adat, the system of customary law ingrained in the culture from Malaysia, across Indonesia, to the Muslim south of the Philippines, and to compadrazgo, the network of client-patron kinship in the rest of that country; to Confucianism in the Chinese communities; drawing on the passivity and fatalism of Buddhism in the northern countries, and on the essentially conservative nature of the Muslim south. Why is all this relevant today? The answer lies in the fact that there is still not one functioning liberal democracy in south-east Asia. Burma's tragic story is well known. Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos are only beginning to recover from the decades when communists of various shades, supported by both China and the USSR, wreaked havoc throughout Indochina; Vietnam and Laos are still nominally communist today, while Cambodia's prime minister is a former member of the Khmer Rouge. Thailand continues its well-worn pattern of oscillating between tentative democracy and army-led coups, with the monarchy playing a stabilising, moderate role. Singapore's elections are a byword for predictability, not least because any party other than the ruling PAP faces huge obstacles to getting on to the ballot. The rigidity of Malaysia's political system has been highlighted recently by the response of the governing coalition to the prospect of losing power for the first time, provoking a crisis in which the opposition leader has been framed for sexual assault. And in the Philippines and Indonesia, both supposedly democracies since the falls of Marcos and Suharto, respectively, elections are so marred by corruption and vote-rigging that it would be a joke to suggest they merit the description "free and fair". If they paused to consider the political repression in the region, it would seem intolerable to the tourists jetting in to the airports of south-east Asia. But those shiny new temples of commerce, many of which put Heathrow or Charles de Gaulle to shame for space, convenience and cleanliness, are symbolic of why revolution is not around the corner, and why the citizens of many of these countries accept more authoritarian forms of government. It has been those governments that have kept the order necessary for growth. Such cultural factors should also call into question the levels of demand for western-style liberal democracy. The Thai people showed that there was something more important to them than democracy when they accepted the coup against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in 2006 because it was thought to be sanctioned by the king. There is at least some truth to those Asian values that Lee Kuan Yew talked about. Dr Mahathir put it another way in 2003: "In some countries sleeping naked on the beach as a sign of protest is considered democracy - if that is democracy then this is not needed." That "not needed" may sound chilling to Europeans baking in the tropical sun this summer. Should they be lucky enough to enjoy lengthy interaction with local people, however, they may be surprised to find that many are not bothered by such remarks. The west had better wake up to the fact that other parts of the world don't necessarily share its values. In the age of the Asian century, it's time we stopped being surprised. The Asean nations Brunei Population: 380,000. GDP per capita: $32,167. Religion: 67 per cent Muslim, 13 per cent Buddhist, 10 per cent Christian. Absolute monarchy. Legally, the sultan "can do no wrong" personally or officially. Burma Population: 55 million. GDP per capita: $239. Religion: 89 per cent Buddhist. Brutal military dictatorship since 1962. Cambodia Population: 14 million. GDP per capita: $600. Religion: 95 per cent Buddhist. Faltering - some say failing - democracy. Indonesia Population: 237 million. GDP per capita: $1,925. Religion: 86 per cent Muslim. Dictatorship until 1998; shaky democracy. Laos Population: seven million. GDP per capita: $656. Religion: 65 per cent Buddhist, 33 per cent animist. One-party communist state. MalaysiaPopulation: 25 million. GDP per capita: $6,948. Religion: 60 per cent Muslim, 19 per cent Buddhist, 9 per cent Christian, 6 per cent Hindu. Democracy, although ruling coalition has never lost a general election.Philippines Population: 93 million. GDP per capita: $1,625. Religion: 81 per cent Roman Catholic, 5 per cent Muslim. Chaotic, corruption-ridden democracy since fall of the dictator Marcos in 1986.Singapore Population: five million. GDP per capita: $35,163. Religion: 43 per cent Buddhist, 15 per cent Muslim,15 per cent Christian, 9 per cent Taoist. Democracy in name; opposition parties face obstacles to getting on to the ballot. ThailandPopulation: 65 million. GDP per capita: $3,737. Religion: 95 per cent Buddhist. Alternates between tentative democracy and coups. Vietnam Population: 86 million. GDP per capita: $818. Religion: 85 per cent Buddhist. Communist state moving towards market economy. Research by Alex Iossifidis Nature Worship in Hinduism Seelan Palay: I am not religious but I am a pagan sympathizer. Below is the beginning of an article on nature worship in Hinduism.Hinduism has always been an environmentally sensitive philosophy. No religion, perhaps, lays as much emphasis on environmental ethics as Hinduism. The Mahabharata, Ramayana, Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Puranas and Smriti contain the earliest messages for preservation of environment and ecological balance. Nature, or Earth, has never been considered a hostile element to be conquered or dominated. In fact, man is forbidden from exploiting nature. He is taught to live in harmony with nature and recognize that divinity prevails in all elements, including plants and animals. The rishis of the past have always had a great respect for nature. Theirs was not a superstitious primitive theology. They perceived that all material manifestations are a shadow of the spiritual. The Bhagavad Gita advises us not to try to change the environment, improve it, or wrestle with it. If it seems hostile at times tolerate it. Ecology is an inherent part of a spiritual world view in Hinduism.Read the full article here. Singapore's Lee sees human rights conspiracy Seelan Palay: Same old stuff from Lee Kuan Yew, except this time its a conspiracy! When they say things like "we have Asian values", do they include or exclude India? I don't think India has had these supposed "Asian values".Singapore's Lee sees human rights conspiracyAFP - Saturday, July 12SINGAPORE, July 12, 2008 (AFP) - Singapore is the target of a conspiracy by human rights groups which criticise the country's governance, founding father Lee Kuan Yew said in a newspaper report Saturday."There is a conspiracy to do us in. Why?... They see us as a threat," Lee, 84, was quoted as saying in The Straits Times.The perceived threat arises because Russians and Chinese have been coming to Singapore to study the small country's success, he said in a dialogue with the Economic Society.Lee's comments came after an association of global lawyers last week said that, despite its impressive economic development, Singapore fails to meet international standards for political and human rights, and there are concerns about the independence of its judiciary."Who are they? Have they ever run a country, created jobs for community and given them a life? We have and we know what it requires," Lee said, without specifically referring to the report by the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute.But during his dialogue, Lee was asked whether Singapore needed a Western-style liberal democracy to succeed."Different people have different cultures and forge different consensus and seek different solutions to their problems," said Lee, who holds the influential rank of Minister Mentor in the cabinet of his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.Singapore's leaders say the country's tough laws against dissent and other political activity are necessary to ensure the stability which has helped it achieve economic success. Reform Party: We shall liberate the people Seelan Palay: Seeing JBJ's motivation even at his age last night at the Reform Party dinner was quite moving. The Reform Party also requested a photograph to be taken with leaders of the other opposition parties in Singapore, which is posted below.For a report and video of the event, visit The Online Citizen. Bush's farewell joke falls flat at G8 summit Bush's farewell joke falls flat Source: Asia OneUS PRESIDENT George W. Bush, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended his final Group of Eight summit this week with the words: 'Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter.'He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present, including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, looked on in shock, reported The Telegraph newspaper yesterday.Mr Bush, whose second and final term ends this year, then left the meeting at the Windsor Hotel in Hokkaido, Japan, where the leaders of the world's richest nations had been discussing new targets to cut carbon emissions.'Everyone was very surprised that he was making a joke about the US' record on pollution,' the newspaper quoted an official who had witnessed the extraordinary scene as saying afterwards.It was a defiant farewell from the President over his refusal to accept global climate change targets, said the Independent newspaper.Mr Bush had given some ground at the summit by saying he would 'seriously consider' a 50per cent cut in carbon emissions by the year 2050.