Black or White

Nationalism should not be exclusive

2008-03-24T15:30:00.002+08:00

20 March 2008 0745 hrs (SST)
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/analysis/view/336173/1/.html

SINGAPORE: The price of global city status is an enlarging overseas Singaporean community, which has profound repercussions for a nation-state of only 3.5 million citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs).

According to recent revelations, the country loses about 1,000 educated Singaporeans each year. In addition, there are an estimated 150,000 Singaporeans working or studying abroad, a good slice of whom will not be returning.

The inescapable truth is that the overseas Singaporean community, per capita, is one of the highest in the world and will get bigger.

So, the Singapore government has imported foreign workers, not just to replace departing Singaporeans, but also to meet industry demands.

By offering a conducive environment for work, family, arts consumption and the odd topless cabaret, the idea is to turn the little island into one giant Baskin Robbins — you are bound to find a flavour you like.

Singapore welcomed 14,600 new citizens last year, a 10-per-cent increase from 2006. To put it in perspective, 2001 to 2004 saw an average of 8,000 new citizens per year. Applications for PR status have also been increasing. In the first nine months of last year, 46,900 foreigners were granted PR status, compared to a total of 57,300 in 2006.

Quite clearly, the flight of educated Singaporeans, economically speaking, poses no short-term problems for Singapore. For every person who leaves, 14 others come to permanently take his place. As a solutions-oriented approach, the open-door migration policy is a resounding success.

Still, emigrating Singaporeans are framed as a problem, and the government's response has, so far, been either to woo them back or, in the not-too-distant past, to demonise them.

In wooing them back, the government takes a pro-active approach to reach out through organisations like Contact Singapore and the Singapore International Foundation, and with "soft power" vis-à-vis Singaporean-theme festivals in major cities around the world.

This is getting more play with the set-up of the Overseas Singaporean Unit, which is trying to connect the Singapore diaspora through its portal (www.overseassingaporean.sg) and initiatives such as Overseas Singaporean clubs.

When it comes to demonising Singaporeans, labels like "quitters" and people who are "rootless" were at one time bandied about with ease.

If one accepts that this overseas community is here to stay and will grow, then there is a need to re-examine our concept of nationalism in the global city.

Labels like "quitters" are designed to arouse Singaporeans' sense of nationalist indignity. They suggest a betrayal or abandonment, and mobilises nationalist sentiments against the emigrants.

But if we are willing to accept into the national fold PRs who have not yet forsaken their original citizenship, there is no reason to exclude overseas Singaporeans, both of the quitting and rootless variety.

Why embrace PRs who straddle two societies while cold-shouldering Singaporean "quitters" whose memories will always be rooted to this "little red dot"? The time has come to rescue nationalism from exclusivity.

Scholars are already talking about the "long-distance nationalism" of ethnic and religious diasporas that still hold political and cultural influence over their country of origin from afar.

Perhaps, Singaporeans should start thinking of a "situational nationalism" that accepts that nationalist sentiments are ephemeral.

A situational nationalism describes how nationalist sentiments are dynamic, never constant, and articulated as the subjective experience of the individual.

For example, it describes how Singaporeans overseas tend to be more patriotic than those in Singapore. It describes how this patriotism fades when they return and fall into the rhythm of local life. It accommodates PRs who proclaim a great fondness for Singapore without wanting to give up their citizenship.

Until the exclusivity and authorship of nationalism can be fragmented, we will find it hard to accept new citizens.

Foreigners take up citizenship not because they love the land (or lack of) or because of childhood memories, but because they love the green environment, the political stability, the economic opportunities and the family-friendly conditions. New citizens love the "Singapore System", while Singaporeans born and bred have more intimate ties to the land. To prevent this from being a discriminating factor, the exclusivity of nationalism has to be eradicated.

Situational nationalism also addresses the subjective interpretation of national events. For example, the National Day Parade can fill some Singaporeans with unbearable pride and others with utter cynicism.

Situational nationalism does not make you feel guilty for tuning out the ceremonial fireworks and other grand displays of public affection for the nation.

Situational nationalism is the most democratic form of nationalism because it is subjective and refuses to adhere to definitions by governments and the cultural elite.

It is the only way Singapore emigrants may remain Singaporeans and new Singaporeans can become nationalists.

The writer is a research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

- TODAY/so

Wind of change in Malaysia

2008-03-11T13:34:00.002+08:00

The Malaysian people have chosen. http://elizabethwong.wordpress.com/

I am disappointed that our fellow Singaporean citizens however have fallen asleep. Instead of asking more questions about important issues like implementing annuities, Advanced Medical Directive and the great (unbelievable) escape of Mas Selamat, the population has decided to 'buzz' a little and then shut up again.

Say NO to CPF 60k and comulsory annuity

2007-09-02T11:13:00.002+08:00

http://www.petitiononline.com/annuity/petition.html

Robbery conducted in broad daylight

2007-09-01T11:31:00.001+08:00

A robbery took place in broad daylight in a sunny island on the southern tip of a peninsula. As a result, many persons on the scene developed bizzare behaviour.

According to the local law enforcers, many eye-witnesses were present but no one intervened or help the victims. 66% of the eye-witnesses claim that they had no idea but cheered the crime anyway. The rest felt helpless and resorted to wearing black to mark their shame.

Many present at the scene of crime suffered from post-trauma illusions after witnessing the incident. According to doctors, patients admitted at a local hospital could not recall the details of the incident. Many arrived penniless and could not remember when they lost their money. After interviewing the patients, a panel of experts arrived at the conclusion that the patients displayed the following symptoms:

Could not recall whether they were victim or onlooker.

Did not remember why their money was missing.

Had the distinct impression that the robber(s) was someone familar but could not remember who.

Held the robber(s) in awe and agreed that he was from an exceptional family.

Had the impression that there might be more that one robber. One was an old man with a rat-like demeanour and a younger man in a pink shirt.

Empathised with the robber(s) and agreed that the crime was justified.

Post-trauma IQ test on the patients (many were highly educated individuals holding local degrees and worked in MNCs) suggest all were short on the CS (common sense) quotient.

After release from the hospital, observers claim that many developed sheep-like attributes that including excessive head-nodding and requesting for haircut.

Govt's call for greater civic role has clear limits

2007-09-01T11:23:00.000+08:00

ST Forum > Story
Sep 1, 2007
Govt's call for greater civic role has clear limits

I REFER to the reports on the parliamentary sitting on Aug 27. The responses of both Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew and Senior Minister of State (Law and Home Affairs) Ho Peng Kee suggest that the Government's calls for greater diversity and inclusiveness stop short of allowing genuine political debate and contestation.

Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui's reply to questions on why the Ministry of Education (MOE) rejected playwright Alfian Sa'at as a relief teacher was disappointing. While he may have been right to say that Parliament is not the right forum to discuss the personnel issues of any one individual, for him to suggest that Mr Alfian 'engage MOE directly' is inappropriate.

Anyone who has followed the online discussion on this knows that MOE has consistently refused to give Mr Alfian the real reason for its decision.

Unlike most developed democracies, Singapore does not have a Freedom to Information Act that requires a government to provide information to individuals who seek it unless doing so is against the public interest.

In the absence of such a legal requirement, our governance system is dependent on individuals and institutions making decisions that can stand up to public scrutiny.

Without external checks on the Government, the virtues of integrity, transparency and objectivity have to be imposed from within and practised by all public officers. If not, what assurance do we have that officials do not make arbitrary decisions, or decisions that serve only narrow party interests rather than the public good?

Associate Professor Ho's reply on why the Workers' Party was not given a permit to hold an outdoor event also stretched the incredulity of thinking Singaporeans.

Even if we gave Prof Ho the benefit of doubt and assumed the worst of Singaporeans - that open-door political events increase the risks of conflict - one must seriously question whether the strategy of avoiding conflict might not stunt society's maturation.

Both responses by the ministers show that the Government's call for greater civic engagement and participation has clear limits.

While the Government subscribes to economic openness and liberalism, its distrust of and discomfort with real political contest means that it will try to keep Singapore politically conservative.

Low Tzer Kai

See you there 080907

2007-08-24T10:32:00.001+08:00

8th September 2007
4pm at Centrepoint Shopping Centre

See you there!

There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now,
orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on
their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation,
words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for
those who will listen, the annunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is
something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice,
intolerance, and depression. And where once you had the freedom to object,
think, and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of
surveillence coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did
this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible
than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if
you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you
did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be?

Corruption of Values

2007-08-23T10:42:00.000+08:00

By Grey Steppenwolf
(Letter rejected by ST forum)
http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=545

Now 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 thematter 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 behavior, 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 threeaspects.

Grey Steppenwolf
greysteppenwolf[at]yahoo[dot]com

Compulsory Annuities

2007-08-23T10:38:00.001+08:00

Dear Singapore Government,

I protest. You want more money? Tell us where our CPF is.

Human live gone like this and kids made motherless

2007-07-11T11:57:00.000+08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCr1ZoC_qYE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsingaporemind%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F

While our ministers are collecting top pay and dancing hip hop, it seems that all the bureacracy has made Singapore a place with no heartware.

Press Release - Responsibility and Social Repercussions of Escape of Ex-NKF Chairman Escape

2007-06-08T12:57:00.000+08:00

Wed, Jun 06, 2007

The National Solidarity Party (NSP) shares the frustration of the public over the NKF issue which has dragged on for more than a year. The high public expectation in extracting justice ended in the incredible jaw-dropping development where Richard Yong, a key player in the NKF saga, fluidly escaped the gazes of the authorities, and fled Singapore while owing a huge sum of public money to NKF whilst being declared a bankrupt.

We are outraged over how “a matter of hours” of lapse by the authorities has practically brought down 4 decades of efforts in cultivating a public spirit of spontaneous charity. The social repercussions from a collapse of public trust in institutions meant to safeguard their social interests are simply immeasurable.

It is a total disaster when a defaulter of public funds slips through the tight law-enforcement net without undergoing the due punishment. Every such ‘success’ story emboldens more law-breakers to test the authorities, and impose further duress on the security of the nation.

The repulsive event further deteriorates what remaining sense of generosity there was in Singaporeans when the NKF incident first came to light. It also inevitably erodes public confidence in the ability of the relevant authorities to execute their duties diligently and responsibly.

The lapse is all the more lamentable considering that the defaulter had a few months earlier divested his private properties for a personal gain of $7.5million, and attempted to dodge the authorities by not reporting his whereabouts. Despite the cues, the authorities had not taken tighter precautions.

The frivolous approach of the authorities is inexplicable, considering how the authorities have the track record of freezing assets of defendants in sensitive legal cases even before their convictions.

The incident has made a complete mockery of the nation’s proclamation of good governance, further strengthening the case for the need of checks and balances, and more transparency in matters of grave social concerns.

On behalf of the indignant public, the NSP would like to know what measures the authorities are going to take to satisfactorily remedy the situation, and recoup the public’s hard-earned money donated through an innocent sense of trust. The authorities owe the public a thorough and convincing explanation for the “extraordinary” oversight.

Until the necessary justice is administered, public cynicism will gain in strength to threaten the precarious social coherence. Together with Singaporeans, the NSP is keen to see an acceptable closure to the saga, and nothing less will do.

Central Executive Council
National Solidarity Party

Future not so rosy for working-class S'poreans

2007-06-04T21:37:00.000+08:00

Jun 04, 2007
The Straits Times

MANY Singaporeans must be celebrating at the moment, with the buoyant economy, high employment, higher salaries and, for private home owners, skyrocketing property prices and 'en bloc' frenzy.

However, is the current state of the economy and future as rosy as it appears for most working-class Singaporeans?

According to data published in a report on the wealthiest cities in the world by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) on March 11, Singapore ranks 36th out of 70 cities based on gross domestic product (GDP) in 2005.

A look at the rankings will reveal that, apart from Singapore, all the cities in the bottom half are in Second and Third World countries.

Singapore's GDP of US$129 million (S$197 million) pales beside other Asian cities such as Tokyo (US$1.19 billion), Hong Kong (US$244 million), Seoul (US$218 million) and Shanghai (US$139 million). In fact, we are only slightly ahead of Mumbai (US$123 million).

These rankings are arrived at by using purchasing-power- parity exchange rates.

However, unlike Singapore, our Asian counterparts in Hong Kong seem to have more to look forward to. The projections for city wealth in the year 2020 show that Hong Kong is likely to rise to 14th position, while Singapore is likely to decline to 40th.

The study (taking into consideration deduction of taxes and social-security contributions) reveals that net salaries in Asian cities such as Tokyo, Dubai, Seoul and Taipei will surpass Singapore.

However, these sobering statistics apply only to the average Singaporean citizen. The top bracket of earners in professions such as medicine, law, banking and, of course, within the ranks of the Government, will earn as much, if not more, than some of their counterparts worldwide.
What do these figures tell Singaporeans? We can conclude that even though we pay a relatively low rate of personal income tax, the net amount of wages we take home leaves us in the bottom half of the 70 cities in the PWC report.

Edmund Khoo Kim Hock

EDB's refusal to disclose lost UNSW money is an outrage

2007-05-24T23:07:00.000+08:00

Well, this matter shows that intellectuals with a conscience have no place in our society. Mandarins always have the last say.

---

http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articleUNSWclose1.html
Media Release

EDB's refusal to disclose lost UNSW money is an outrage
24 May 07

The Economic Development Board (EDB) has stated that it will not reveal how much money it has lost over the closure of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) campus in Singapore.

In case it has forgotten, its funds come from the toil and sweat of Singaporeans, not money it has privately earned. Its refusal to make a full and public disclosure of the money lost is outrageous and unacceptable.

Moreover, that a multi-million dollar project can fail so spectacularly and in so short a time signals incompetence and an appalling lack of foresight at the highest levels. But will there be an inquiry into what went wrong and who the responsible decision-makers are? Given the PAP system, hell will freeze over first.

With the plastering over of past government failures – including the embarrassing Suzhou Industrial Park debacle, the careless acquisition of Shin Corp by Temasek bordering on the criminal, and the endorsement of the NKF by ministers despite the corruptness of Mr T T Durai and company just to name a few scandals – why should anyone expect anything different over the present UNSW crash?

Yet, Singaporeans must not accept the status quo. A people who are fearful or indifferent to public affairs encourage corruption and abuse by the State. It is hugely important for citizens to not only be aware of what our Government is doing, but also to register our voices of displeasure. The clearer and louder the better.

Apart from the lack of transparency from the EDB, there is also the question of the PAP's strategy of trying to lure foreign academic brains to Singapore.

First there was Warwick University and the London School of Economics which turned down the EDB's invitation to set up shop here. Then there was the controversy over British drug scientist Dr Simon Shorvon and his subsequent departure resulting in the loss of millions of investment dollars. And now the UNSW collapse.

All this wasted time and resources can be avoided if we concentrate on developing our very own Singaporean talent of which is not in short supply. The only thing that is holding back our institutions of higher learning is the refusal of the PAP to allow academic freedom in this country.

In the world of academia, minds need the freedom to clash, prod and play. Only then can a culture conducive to research develop. And only when research flourishes can our universities attain the stature and reputation we seek.

But the PAP system is anathema to the development of academia. Dictatorial systems that brook no dissent and research minds that thrive on questioning authority are sworn enemies.

The PAP tries to get around this problem by buying academic (and subservient) talent from overseas. Throwing money to entice academic "stars" while keeping an authoritarian lid on society is like trying to light a candle in a thunderstorm.

The continued PAP arm-lock on Singapore is hurting this country and the future of the people. The current UNSW mess is but a minor symptom of a much bigger disease that afflicts this country.

Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-GeneralSingapore Democratic Party

University of New South Wales Singapore campus to shut in June

2007-05-24T10:31:00.000+08:00

By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia Posted: 23 May 2007 1715 hrsSINGAPORE: The University of New South Wales

(UNSW) will close its campus in Singapore next month.

The announcement came less than two months after its grand opening.

The school said it was facing a financial shortfall of $15 million a year due to lower-than-anticipated student enrolment numbers.

Its target was 300 students in its first semester.

But it only got 148 students, 100 of whom are Singaporeans.

If it were to continue building its campus in Changi, it would have to borrow $140 million.

The school said both factors led to an unsustainable financial burden and it decided to call it quits in Singapore.

Students have already paid their fees, which range between S$26,000 and S$29,000 a year.

UNSW says these students will be offered a place at its home campus in Sydney.

There will also be scholarships to help with the cost of travel and accommodation.

UNSW has already invested over S$22 million (A$17.5 million) in its Singapore campus.

It was invited by Singapore's Economic Development Board in 2004 to establish what would have been the first private comprehensive university in Singapore.

The EDB had said the school was expected to contribute at least $500 million a year to the economy in direct spending.

The EDB refuses to reveal how much it invested in the school.

The episode is clearly damaging to Singapore's aim to be a global schoolhouse.

But the EDB, which drives the global schoolhouse initiatives, believes it will still reach its target of attracting 150,000 international students by 2015.

There are currently 80,000 foreign students in Singapore.

Aw Kah Peng, EDB's Assistant Managing Director, said: "The learning point is that we have to continue working very hard. Truly, with every institution, it will be different. With each one, we have to put everything we can to think about all these issues of whether we can make it work, how long it will take for us to make it work, what will it take for us to make it work. We will then have to step forward on that basis."

UNSW says it would have stayed on in Singapore if it has been allowed to scale down its student enrolment numbers to 2,000 students by 2012.

But this would be quite far from the original bargain with the EDB which had set a target of 15,000 UNSW students by 2020.

The UNSW closure does not mean that the EDB will no longer work with the school.
The EDB says there are many areas of cooperation between UNSW and Singapore which are mutually beneficial.

These include foundation schooling for university entry, research collaborations, University of New South Wales school competitions and joint programmes with Singapore institutions.
EDB says it will continue to pursue these areas and strengthen its relationship with UNSW. - CNA/ir

GIC board members holding political office don't get director's fees: PM

2007-05-21T22:08:00.000+08:00

By S Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia Posted: 21 May 2007 2009 hrs

SINGAPORE: Board members who sit on the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and hold political office do not receive any director's fee. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong clarified this in a reply to a question for written answer in Parliament. He added that political office holders who are employed as GIC's staff also do not get director's fees.

F1: govt should take stake in S'pore GP or levy fee on it

2007-05-18T13:57:00.000+08:00

Published May 18, 2007
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
F1: govt should take stake in S'pore GP or levy fee on it

I WOULD like to question the structure of the Singapore Formula One deal.

As I understand it, Ong Beng Seng has incorporated a company, Singapore GP Pte Ltd, which will have the exclusive rights to promote and run the event here in Singapore. This company will earn revenue (ticket sales, TV rights, merchandising, etc) as well as incur costs (fees to F1, security, marketing, general and administrative expenses) and, of course, try in the end to make a profit. It is a commercial transaction between Mr Ong and F1 - and there is nothing wrong with that.

However, the structure of the deal poses two major problems.

First, the government should be charging Singapore GP for the use of public roads and required services during the event, such as police, fire, safety and ambulance services. It's only fair that the company - which is a private, profit-maximising entity - pay for the use of the public roads and services for the event. This could be in the form of a flat fee, a fee as a percentage of the company's revenue, or a tax on the company's profits. But the government is charging nothing for the use of roads and services. This is effectively a gift from government coffers to Mr Ong. So it's a great deal for him, but not so good for citizens.

Second, not only is the government not charging Singapore GP for public services, it is, through the Singapore Tourism Board (STB), paying 60 per cent of the cost of staging the F1 event each year and proposing to charge an additional tax on hotels which stand to benefit from the event. That does not seem right. If we go down that road, why not impose additional taxes on any industry that benefits, like restaurants, taxis, buses, airlines, bars, etc? The argument is that the F1 event will help the economy. Sure, of course it will, but so will any event and any business. For a direct comparison, let's look at the integrated resort (IR) projects. Las Vegas Sands has the exclusive right for the project in Marina Bay. But the government does not just let Sands use the land for free. The government also does not pay 60 per cent of Sands' expenses and neither does it impose a new tax on businesses or industries that stand to benefit from the IR.

What the government should do in the F1 case is to be either a shareholder of Singapore GP (but instead of providing equity, it would provide the use of public roads and services) or it should simply levy a tax/fee on Singapore GP for the use of public roads and services. And there should not be an additional tax on other businesses that benefit from the event.
James Chan Singapore

The economic gains from F1

2007-05-18T13:53:00.000+08:00

Published May 18, 2007
COMMENTARY
The economic gains from F1
Government's next task is to take the message to the public
By SAMUEL EE

HERE'S the $90 million question: why is the government spending so much to help race promoter Ong Beng Seng stage a Formula One car race?

Your mileage may vary: While Singapore is expecting tourism revenues of $100 million from F1, Kuala Lumpur reaps in around US$100 million.

That's what seems to be bugging some Singaporeans ever since the announcement on next year's Singapore Grand Prix was made - that the government is using taxpayers' money to co-fund what is seen as a private entrepreneur's business deal.

Last Friday, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) announced that it will pay 60 per cent of the estimated $150 million cost - or $90 million.

In return, the government expects the race to generate incremental tourism receipts of $100 million a year, part of which will be paid by hotel guests in the form of a special F1 cess on the hotels lining the 5.2 km route.

STB believes that F1, with all its hype and hundreds of millions of television viewers, will add lustre to the name of Singapore, with the resulting branding leading to intangible benefits for the island's image, tourism and business.

This point has been strongly emphasised, but some still maintain that as a businessman, Mr Ong is in it for the money, and yet he somehow managed to convince the government to foot the bulk of the cost.

But this is too simplistic a conclusion to make, given the complicated nature of the F1 business mechanism.

There are several issues at work here. One is whether the government could have sealed the F1 deal without Mr Ong, who is a personal friend of F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone. Mr Ecclestone said no; he would not have signed on the dotted line if not for Mr Ong.

Two: Does Mr Ong stand to make a bundle of money by getting the government to take such a huge stake? He said no. Given his low profile, we may never know that. But from past experience in other countries, race promoters don't break even, and hence need government support to make the whole thing work. So the conclusion here is that Mr Ong did not want to over-extend himself financially, and would have withdrawn entirely if not for the government's support.

Three: Why even go into something like this when nobody makes any money, and an event like the F1 is so disruptive to those living in the host country? Three reasons: Prestige, prestige, prestige. Conclusion? Prestige at all costs.

Given the reluctance of all parties to clarify the figures involved - which are bound by confidentiality agreements - perhaps the next best way to look at this matter would be to examine Malaysia's experience with F1.

Compared to Singapore, Malaysia is a veteran. The 'set up' is similar - it's a joint venture between the Malaysian government and the Sepang International Circuit (SIC), which, without the government involvement, would run an annual deficit. Yet the SIC will mark its 10th race next March, six months before Singapore's five red lights get a chance to go out next September or early October.

The Malaysian government has been behind F1 since the first Grand Prix race in 1999. Putrajaya underwrites it as a national project and will continue to do so because it is the country that benefits, and the money is recouped through various corporate taxes. And as part of a larger motorsports policy, the SIC's permanent track - as opposed to Singapore's street circuit - allows other events like the Moto GP, Japan GT Championship and Merdeka Endurance race to attract tourists all year round.

But even with government help, the organisers have to work hard to gain maximum mileage from F1. Just getting the fans to turn up and buy a ticket isn't enough. In addition to watching the race, they have to be convinced to stay on for ancillary events like live concerts and mega street parties.

Of course, all this doesn't mean that Singapore's experience will be exactly the same. But to help allay people's concerns, the government and/or Mr Ong may do well to shed light on how they derived the figures that they have thrown up.

For example, while Singapore says it will cost $150 million to stage F1 here, the corresponding figure across the Causeway is said to be about US$70 million to US$75 million - roughly $106 million to $114 million at today's exchange rates. And although Singapore is said to expect tourism revenues of $100 million, Kuala Lumpur is understood to enjoy around US$100 million.
Perhaps these variations could be easily explained by the fact that a debut race on a street circuit at night will cost more, and the tourism receipts are just a conservative estimate by the government.

Notwithstanding the arguments for and against financial help, or the figures, what is certain is that the Singapore government must have been convinced of F1's bigger economic gains after witnessing Malaysia's success. And that is why it is supporting Mr Ong. Now it just needs to convince the public.

Increase 2.5% CPF interest rate

2007-01-12T19:35:00.000+08:00

Business Times - 19 Dec 2006
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Increase 2.5% CPF interest rate

I REFER to NTUC's proposal to reduce the CPF contribution for lower-income workers and put 40 per cent of the Workfare bonus to CPF.

On the one hand, we are putting more of the Workfare Bonus cash payout to worker's CPF, but on the other, we are cutting their CPF contribution so that they can have more cash for living expenses.

Since both Workfare and the CPF contribution cut are for lower-income workers, are these not contradictory? For example, if the employee's CPF contribution is lowered from 20 to 10 per cent, and the proposed 40 per cent of Workfare is channelled to CPF, for a worker earning $600 a month, his or her take-home pay would increase by only $20 a month ($600 multiplied by 10 per cent, minus Workfare - $1,200 multiplied by 40 per cent, divided 12).

This is an increase in disposable cashflow of only 3.3 per cent. In contrast, if the Workfare bonus is left unchanged as a fully cash payout, the increase in cashflow would be $60, which is three times more. For those whose monthly HDB flat mortgage repayment is $120 or more, the CPF and Workfare changes may not improve their cashflow at all, as the net cash disposable income of $100 or lower would be less than the existing $100 Workfare cash per month.

It may also be counter-productive to use Workfare to top up workers' CPF, and then pay them a lower interest when they retire.

In the past, those who had less than the CPF Minimum Sum (MS), and chose not to withdraw half their account balance allowed, were paid 4 per cent on their entire CPF account balance. Now, those who turn 55 with less than the MS, currently $94,600, who choose not to withdraw half of their CPF balance, as the other half will be transferred to the Retirement Account (RA) which earns 4 per cent, are now only paid 2.5 per cent.

Why is it that Singaporeans are not allowed to keep as much of their CPF as they like, to earn 4 per cent interest, when they retire? For richer Singaporeans who have more than double the MS, which is $189,200, they will be paid 4 per cent on the entire MS of $94,600. Hence, the current policy pays the rich more and the poor less.

To further illustrate this unfairness, a rich man with $189,200 will get 4 per cent on $94,600, whereas a poor man with $94,600 will get 4 per cent on $47,300 and only 2.5 per cent on the other $47,300.

According to the Department of Statistics' (DOS) General Household Survey 2005 (GHS), there were 106,384 households with no working persons, presumably most of which are retirees. With the rapidly ageing population, Singaporeans who are risk adverse or not investment savvy, may have a dire need for their CPF after the age of 55 to earn 4 instead of 2.5 per cent.

Leong Sze Hian
Singapore

Freeze fees for basic amenities

2006-12-14T20:37:00.000+08:00

Business Times - 14 Dec 2006
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Freeze fees for basic amenities

I REFER to media reports that the government has spelt out the fees to be frozen for one year after the Goods and Services Tax (GST) hike, in fulfilment of its pledge to offset the burden of higher GST.

Fees not set by the government are excluded from the list as any changes are determined by market or other forces.

These include utilities charges, polyclinic and hospital charges, phone bills, university fees, HDB flat prices, foreign maid levy, vehicle and road taxes, and service and conservancy fees.

I find it somewhat puzzling that the excluded list includes polyclinic and hospital fees, foreign maid levy, vehicle and road taxes, and HDB flat prices.

Are these not under the ministries of health, manpower, transport and national development, respectively?

Have these fees not always been set by the ministries concerned?

How have 'market forces' ever been the determinant of such fees?

Can we have some elaboration as to what are the 'other forces' that determine these fees?

I find it quite disappointing that most of the fees that will be frozen are not those for basic amenities, and those not frozen are mainly basic necessities which may impact the lower and middle-income more, like polyclinic and hospital charges, university fees, public transport cost, water and electricity bills, telecoms bills, foreign maid levy, etc.

The explanation that service and conservancy fees are not frozen because these are decided by town councils, is a somewhat weak rationalisation, because aren't town councils, particularly the GRCs, headed by several Members of Parliament?

Since there are only two opposition MPs, isn't all the rest part of the government?

Leong Sze Hian
Singapore

A MAN WHO NEVER GAVE IN

2006-12-01T19:21:00.001+08:00

The nation's last political prisoner speaks out
By Andrea Hamilton / Singapore

HE HAD SPENT MORE than 22 years in jail - much of it in solitary confinement - and nine and a half more under orders limiting where he could live and travel, what he could say and do, with whom he could associate. He was never charged with a crime, or brought to trial. On Nov. 27, without warning, the government lifted the remaining restrictions on former opposition MP Chia Thye Poh, 57, some 32 years after his arrest and detention under draconian internal security laws.

In a statement, the Home Affairs Ministry noted that Chia seemed unlikely to "engage in activities prejudicial to Singapore's security." Still, it warned: "Should Chia re-involve himself in such activities, he will be dealt with firmly under the law."

Chia was 25 when he was arrested, along with 22 others, on Oct. 29, 1966, under the colonial-era Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows for detention without trial for indefinitely renewable two-year periods. Chia had been elected to Parliament earlier that year with the Barisan Sosialis, or Socialist Front, a breakaway faction of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP). Shortly before his arrest, Chia recalls, the Front had resigned their seats en masse. Although he has never been officially charged, Chia says the government accused him of engaging in communist front activities by way of justifying his detention. The other 22 people detained were eventually released. Chia was not because he refused to renounce violence and sever alleged ties with the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) To have done so, he always maintained, would have been tantamount to admitting guilt.

In 1985 the then-minister for home affairs and law (now Minister of Law and Foreign Affairs), S. Jayakumar, publicly accused Chia of being a communist. Chia then - as now - flatly rejected the accusation. "I sent a protest note to the minister, [saying] that I'd never been a member of any communist party, that my past activities were constitutional and legal," Chia says forcefully.

He remained in prison until May 1989, when he was transferred to a government house on the resort island of Sentosa adjacent to Singapore's main island. He was allowed to receive (non-political) visitors and to make day trips into town, subject to a curfew. In 1992, Chia was permitted to return to the city. Last year, he was allowed to take up a fellowship in Germany. From the day of his arrest until his sudden release, however, Chia had been barred from making public statements, addressing public meetings, belonging to or assisting in the activities of any organization, taking part in political activities, or associating with other former detainees without written government approval.

Asked if he is bitter about his treatment, Chia smiles wanly and shrugs. "The best part of my life is gone," he says. Required until 1996 to get government approval to find a job, he scrapes by doing translation work. Chia now lives in his parents' sparsely furnished flat in one of Singapore's oldest public housing estates. His octogenarian mother is not well. "She's had three strokes," he confides. "She has no memory left."

Chia himself is frail; he had a prostate operation two months ago. But the mild impression belies the fortitude of a man who for more than 32 years refused to cave in to the authorities' demand that he publicly confess to being a communist. "If the government had the evidence," Chia insists, "it should have tried me in open court."

Immediately after being informed the restriction order was being lifted, Chia issued a statement condemning the ISA. "The Internal Security Act is a law that tramples on human dignity and strikes fear into the mind of the people," he said. Chia argues that as far back as 1955, the PAP, then in opposition, called for the end of Emergency Regulations because excessive powers of arrests and detention hinder democracy. (Those laws were later replaced by the ISA.) Now, Chia argues, the act is even less relevant. His comments apparently touched a nerve. On Nov. 30, the government reiterated its justification for his treatment. "Chia was arrested for his involvement in the CPM communist united front and to avert widespread unlawful demonstrations and violence." Chia snorts in response.

Singapore's longest-held political prisoner does not expect life to revert suddenly to normal. Over the course of a 90-minute visit the first day of his "freedom," his phone rang constantly with calls from journalists and supporters. He assumes the authorities will continue to keep an eye on him. "Wherever I go, they are there. I have to get used to it. I can't make them go away," he says, relating numerous examples over the years when he was shadowed by security agents to meetings with journalists or diplomats. Nonetheless, when asked to outline his plans as a free man, Chia grins: "I don't know yet. Now I can live the normal life of a citizen." A bachelor nearing his 58th birthday, it is about time.

MediShield paid $1,438 of $50,000 hospital bill

2006-11-30T00:29:00.000+08:00

Nov 28, 2006
The Straits Times

ALL citizens who have contributed to Medisave qualify for health insurance, in the form of MediShield.
This is so that, with rising health-care costs, they have insurance to fall back on when they are taken ill.

However, what happened to my mother-in-law recently proved unsettling.

My mother-in-law was admitted to Gleneagles Hospital following a heart attack and the specialist there recommended that she undergo a bypass immediately. Unfortunately, she died without regaining consciousness.

Now we are laden with medical bills of more than $50,000.

As my mother-in-law was covered under MediShield, we expected at least a small portion of the bills to be taken care of by the insurance.

However, after a long wait, the Central Provident Fund Board has granted us a payout of only $1,438, less than 3 per cent of the total bill. How is the payout determined?

By subscribing to MediShield, we expect that it would help us to cover some of our medical costs but it is not of much help when the payout is so little.

I hope the authorities will look into this issue.

We are not asking for welfare - just a reasonable payout from MediShield.

Chew Kai Hwa (Ms)

Minister ponders nominee amnesty

2006-10-19T12:47:00.000+08:00

Thursday October 19, 2006
The Bangkok Post
Temasek would also be let off the hook

POST REPORTERS

The Commerce Ministry could offer an amnesty to foreign joint ventures in violation of the Foreign Business Act in order to resolve problems with the use of nominees, according to Commerce Minister Krirk-krai Jirapaet. Authorities plan to review the Foreign Business Act and other laws to close loopholes and modernise regulations. An amnesty, meanwhile, would give joint ventures that currently use nominee vehicles time to restructure their indirect holdings to fully comply with the law.

''If it is necessary to [offer amnesties] due to economic reasons, and it does not violate the principle of law, then we will look at it,'' the newly appointed minister said yesterday in an interview with the Bangkok Post.

Such an amnesty would include the telecom giant Shin Corp, which is the subject of a criminal investigation over whether Singapore's Temasek Holdings used nominee vehicles to violate the 49% foreign shareholding limit, he said.

''What is necessary is necessary, and we have to abide by the principles, and if that means that we have to give amnesty to [Temasek] then we'll have to do it, because we have to treat them in the same manner as everybody else,'' said Mr Krirk-krai, who ranked the nominee and Temasek issues as his fourth priority after farm products, retailing, and exports.

Temasek controls 42% of Shin directly through wholly owned Aspen Holdings, and also has an indirect stake through Cedar Holdings, which holds another 54.5% of Shin.

The Business Development Department earlier submitted a report to police investigators that Shin violated the 49% foreign limit due to the use of illegal nominees, an offence punishable by jail, fines or even dissolution of the business.

Mr Krirk-krai said it was time for the nation to move on and try to differentiate between political and economic problems.

''If there's something that is not right about the structure, then we'll adjust it, but if we try to mix politics and business together then we will be stuck, and in this case the biggest loser will be the economy and the investors' confidence in the Thai economy,'' he said.

Mr Krirk-krai added that the ministry under his guidance would look to amend various laws to suit the needs of the investors and the free-market economy.

''On the issue of nominees, we have to look at ways to sort it out. Once we have the laws ready, then we'll discuss it. For example, if the 49% gives way for nominees, and your aim is to seek help in development of the country, especially in sectors in which we cannot compete, then why don't you give them 51%?'' he asked.

While companies that have nominee structures would be allowed to maintain the status quo, those set up in the future would have to follow any new regulations that would be put in place.

The market has welcomed the minister's views, saying they were a positive step for the country and would help restore lost confidence.

''If you ask me, this is great news as deals have remained low as foreign investors have shied away from investing in Thailand,'' said an investment banker at one of Thailand's leading brokerages.

Fund managers and lawyers also said Mr Krirk-krai's proposal was positive and that funds would likely start to flow in the future once policies were clearer.

''This is definitely very positive for the country,'' said Lance Depew, investment manager at Quest Capital, which manages $240 million in assets in Thailand.

The legal changes would bring the government's policy in line with reality as in the past the governments had turned a blind eye to the shareholding structures of companies, he added.

''The devil would be in the details, although I must say I support it wholeheartedly if the government can do it,'' added Supavud Saicheua, a managing director with Phatra Securities.

''It will be a very positive step for Thailand if the government can set the right framework for the future.''

It is estimated that 13,000 companies have nominee structures and fears of consequences arising from the Shin-Temasek investigations have prompted many investors to put decisions on hold.

IMF-World Bank meetings a PR nightmare for Singapore

2006-09-19T15:18:00.000+08:00

September 17, 2006

Singapore (ANTARA News) - Singapore's moment in the spotlight as host of the IMF and World Bank meetings has turned into a public- relations nightmare for a city-state that had invested so much in the prestigious gathering.

Critics denounced Singapore as a "police state" out of step with the international community after it blacklisted 27 foreign activists accredited by the International Monetary Fund and the Bank.

After intense pressure from the two institutions, Singapore agreed to admit 22 of them but the damage had been done and the last-minute gesture failed to appease non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Singapore was hoping to exploit the week-long meetings attended by finance ministers, central bank governors and other members of the global financial elite to market itself as a vibrant tourism and investment haven.

Instead, Singapore's grimmer reputation as a rich but politically regimented society that suppresses dissent, hangs criminals and canes social troublemakers may have been reinforced by its handling of the NGO issue.

"How do you expect to become a financial centre, a global hub ... and yet be so repressive?" said Chee Soon Juan, an opposition politician prevented by police from staging a tiny protest march Saturday to the conference venue.

A senior marketing executive with a leading European company told AFP that Singapore is "not really used to these kinds of international standards when it comes to freedom of expression."

"Their standard is that it's their way or the highway," he said.

The IMF-World Bank conference, expected to draw 16,000 people, is the biggest international conference ever held in Singapore and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said last month that "our reputation is on the line" during the gathering.

It launched a "Four Million Smiles" campaign, asking the population to contribute cheery digital photos which were stitched together into murals and newspaper advertisements welcoming all visitors.

But as delegates and a few NGO representatives began trickling in, a different face emerged.

Singapore, invoking the danger of "terrorism", began stopping and deporting a number of activists, triggering indignation in the highest ranks of the IMF and World Bank.

It also stood firm on a longstanding ban on outdoor demonstrations, saying no exceptions would be made for foreigners. Police set aside a section for indoor protests in the conference venue.

Anti-globalisation activists decided to meet instead in the nearby Indonesian island of Batam, an hour away by ferry and part of a special industrial zone funded by Singaporean capital.

Enormous damage to its reputation

This former British colony's attempt to ban foreign activists and quash protests came as no surprise.

It has been ruled by the conservative People's Action Party since 1959.

Local media are closely regulated and opposition politicians and foreign publications have been hit by costly defamation suits for criticizing Singaporean leaders.

Ironically, it took World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, a prominent American right-wing figure, to force Singapore to relax its hardline stance, saying the host country had caused "enormous damage" to its own reputation.

Wolfowitz, the former Pentagon number two, publicly criticized the local organizers for allegedly reneging on an earlier commitment to let in activists accredited by both groups, and asked Singapore leaders to scrap the blacklist.

But the IMF and World Bank also came under withering criticism for deciding to hold their meetings in Singapore in the first place.

"The two institutions must be held accountable for their roles in the shocking events of the past two weeks," said activist group Focus on the Global South, accusing the organizations of hypocrisy. (*)

Copyright © 2006 ANTARA

Govt harassment begins: Police steal flyers from activists

2006-09-12T09:11:00.000+08:00

http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articleWBIMF19.html
9 Sep 06

A bunch of police officers tried to intimidate activists who were handing out leaflets to alert the public to the Empower Singaporeans Rally and March on 16 September 2006.

Three officers approached Ms Chee Siok Chin and Mr Charles Tan at Raffles City Shopping Mall and warned the two that they were committing an offence.

When asked what offence was being committed, the police could only say that it was a "seizable offence." Pressed to be more specific, one officer said that his superior would inform them.

The officers also said that they would have to seize the flyers and quickly grabbed the bag of leaflets sitting on the ground.

When Dr Chee Soon Juan appeared another bunch of police officers told him that he had to stop distributing the flyers.

"Under what section of the law is it an offence?" Dr Chee queried.

"It is a seizable offence," came the exasperating reply.

"You haven't answered my question. What Act says that it is an offence to distribute leaflets? If you cannot tell me which specific law I am breaking, how can you tell me to stop doing what I am doing?" Dr Chee continued.

Quickly changing the subject, the officer said, "I have to take the flyers." He reached out to grab the leaflets which Dr Chee was holding.

"If you want to seize the flyers then take me as well. We go together," Dr Chee suggested.

The police officer retracted his hand.

At this point there were at least six police cameras lurking in the various corners recording the encounter.

"I can come with you right now if you want me to. Where is your car?" Dr Chee offered again. "If you say I am committing an offence, then let's go to the police station. Otherwise please move aside as you are blocking my way."

The bunch withdrew into the crowd and hung around the shops, looking from afar.

The activists continued distributing whatever pamphlets they had left. When they ran out, they approached the police officers to ask them to give back the flyers they had stolen.

But as soon as the activists got close to the officers who were all in civilian wear, they dispersed in different directions like suspects fleeing the scene of the crime.

One, Senior Staff Sergeant Lee Hong Chee, who pretended to be a shopper looking at a window display whilst sipping on an ice-blended coffee, was not quick enough. When asked where his colleagues were he said, "I don't know."

"Do you know it was wrong to take our pamphlets when you haven't told us what offence we had committed?" Dr Chee asked.

Sgt Lee searched for an answer but could only play back the pre-recorded message, "I don't know."

"Where are the flyers?" Dr Chee asked again.

"They are with my colleagues."

"Where are your colleagues?"

"I don't know..."

"You're not a very competent officer, are you?" Dr Chee continued.

"I don't know...Thank you," the sergeant stammered, and quickly walked away.

Seeing two more officers sitting in the distance, the activists sought their assistance. As before the two quickly scuttled away. But Dr Chee called them back and after asking them to produce their warrant cards, one was Senior Staff Sgt Zaihir Shan s/o Syed and the other was Sgt Andrew Ong, he asked them for the confiscated pamphlets.

Almost simultaneously the two officers' cellphones rang and they both pretended to be engaged in deep conversation while quickly walking away.

These officers were not behaving the way our men-in-blue should – with dignity and professionalism. Instead, when asked they could not cite the law they were supposed to enforce and they behaved like a group of suspects who quickly dispersed when confronted.

First World Government? Yeah, right.

IMF and World Bank rebuke Singapore

2006-09-09T11:26:00.000+08:00

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d29328d2-3f32-11db-a37c-0000779e2340.html
By John Burton in Singapore and Shawn Donnan in Jakarta

Published: September 8 2006 13:16 | Last updated: September 9 2006 02:07

The International Monetary Fund and World Bank on Friday issued an unprecedented rebuke to Singapore over a ban on accredited activists invited to attend the annual meetings of the two financial institutions next week.

The IMF/World Bank suggested that Singapore had violated the terms of its agreement to host the event by blocking the entry of 19 civil society representatives, who allegedly posed a security threat.

"Singapore had promised to faciliate the entry of accredited representatives under the memorandum of understanding with us," a World Bank official said. The IMF/World Bank was only informed this week of Singapore's plans.

The crackdown is part of tough security measures that Singapore will implement during the September 11-20 meetings. The government will also ban all outdoor demonstrations and has warned it will shoot at violent protesters, citing the threat of terrorist attacks.

The incident represents a setback to the IMF/World Bank, which has sought to improve relations with non-governmental organisations that have accused them of conducting policies that have ignored the plight of the world's poor. A record 500 NGO representatives are accredited to attend this year's meeting.

"This is a major blow to the credibility of the IMF/World Bank. It's terribly embarrassing since the World Bank had adopted good goverance as the theme of this year's meeting," said Antonio Tricarrio with Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale, who was one of those banned.

Mr Tricarrio said he was "astounded" at Singapore's decision since his group was a widely-respected organisation that had never been associated with violent activities.

Some NGOs alleged that the IMF/World Bank, which holds its annual meetings outside Washington every three years, had selected Singapore as the venue for this year's meeting because of its authoritarian reputation. Previous IMF/World Bank meetings have been marred by violent protests.

Among those banned by Singapore were representatives from the UK-based World Development Movement, Thailand's Focus on the Global South, the Freedom from Debt Coalition in the Philippines and the Forum on Indonesian Development (Infid).

The IMF/World Bank said these "individuals have been cleared to attend the annual meetings by their respective governments and we have accredited them according to our standard procedure."

"We strongly urge the Singapore government to act swiftly and reverse their decision on entry and access to the meetings for these representatives," the IMF/World Bank said in a joint statement.

The Singapore police force said this week that it had compiled a list of potential "troublemakers" who would be denied entry to the city-state. “Every country reserves the right to determine whether a foreigner would be eligible for entry into the country,” said the Singapore police on Friday.

Some NGOs had planned to hold rallies on the neighbouring Indonesian island of Batam because of the security measures in Singapore. But they were told this week by the local police that the protest would be banned because foreign groups were involved in violation of the law.

The chief of Indonesia’s national police, Sutanto, told reporters that NGOs would not be allowed to hold protests on Batam, although authorities would let them meet. “Seminars are welcome,” he said. “But there should be no political agenda, let alone rallies, because this could make foreigners think Indonesia is not safe for investment.”

Additional reporting by Alan Beattie in London and Taufan Hidayat in Jakarta

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006

Senate panel finds no prewar Iraq-Qaeda link

2006-09-09T09:52:00.000+08:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060908/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc_3
By David MorganFri Sep 8, 4:31 PM ET

Saddam Hussein had no relationship with al Qaeda, including Iraq-based guerrilla Abu Musab al Zarqawi, despite claims by President George W. Bush and other administration officials, a Senate report released on Friday said.

The report, one of two newly declassified reports released by the Senate Intelligence Committee, drew on a previously undisclosed October 2005 CIA assessment as Americans prepared to mark the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the United States by al Qaeda.

The reports quickly became part of a political battle on Capitol Hill where Democrats and Republicans are wrestling over national security issues before congressional elections in November.

The other report said the administration chose to provide funding to the Iraqi National Congress, or INC, exile group in 2002 over a warning by the Defense Intelligence Agency that the INC had been penetrated by "hostile intelligence services" and was intent on influencing U.S. policy toward Saddam.

The documents, part of the Senate panel's probe of prewar Iraq intelligence, were issued as Bush seeks to address flagging public support for the Iraq war he views as a central front in the U.S. war on terrorism. They were the latest in a series of investigations into the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which Bush launched to counter a threat of weapons of mass destruction that were never found.

Democrats said the data showed that top administration officials, including Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, misled the public to drum up support for war in Iraq by alleging a link between Saddam and the militant network.

"Today's reports show that the administration's repeated allegations of a past, present and future relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq were wrong and intended to exploit the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks," said Sen. John Rockefeller (news, bio, voting record) of West Virginia, the panel's ranking Democrat.

'UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS'

The committee's Republican chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record) of Kansas, accused Democrats of presenting their own misleading views.

"The additional views of the Committee's Democrats are little more than a rehashing of the same unfounded allegations they've used for over three years," he said in a statement.

Roberts also expressed misgivings about the 208-page INC report, saying its conclusions were not always supported by underlying fact.

Critics of the 2003 Iraq invasion have long argued the administration used flawed information from the INC to bolster their case for war, while ignoring contradictory intelligence.

Roberts said there was no evidence the INC knowingly provided false information to the administration and described the exile group as having "a minimal role" in prewar U.S. judgments.

Another Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, used the report to accuse Bush himself of making a false statement about ties between Saddam and Zarqawi, the one-time al Qaeda leader in Iraq who was killed by U.S. forces in June.

Bush asserted as recently as an August 21 news conference that Saddam had links with Zarqawi.

"The president's statement, made just two weeks ago, is flat-out false," Levin said.

Bush administration officials pointed to supposed links between Saddam and al Qaeda to help justify their case for war before the war.

The CIA report's assessment was similar to the conclusion reached by the bipartisan 9/11 commission, which found in 2004 there had been no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam and al Qaeda.

(Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro)

This a perfect example of how power can be mis-used by select few individuals.

Shocking arguments made by the Lees

2006-08-15T11:32:00.000+08:00

http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articlenkflawsuit17.html
14 Aug 06

Judicial decisions made in other countries have no bearing in Singapore. This is the shocking argument that the Lees' are making in their push for summary judgement which will be heard on Wednesday, 16 Aug 2006.

Realising that the law is stacked against them, the Lees in their desparation to avoid a public trial now state that the decisions in other common law jurisdictions “are decisions borne of the special circumstances in England, Australia and New Zealand and which have no relevance in Singapore.”

Are the Lees attempting to rewrite the principle upon which common law is derived and developed? For decades countries which have adopted the English system of jurisprudence have valued the decisions made by learned judges which lawyers refer to as “authority” and “precedence”.

Such guidance by past cases is still very much in practice today – yes, even in Singapore. This is because decisions by judges are scrutinised by their brethren judges and legal professionals all over the world, and the judicial wisdom derived from such scrutiny allows the law to develop into a mature tool.

But now the Lees say that all this is hogwash. What the rest of the world thinks doesn't matter; this is Singapore – land of the strongman.

Summary judgement in the world

So what does common law state about summary judgement hearings in defamation suits?

Halsbury Laws of Malaysia maintains that “The procedure by way of application for summary judgement is not appropriate in cases which involve lengthy argument by counsel on difficult questions of fact and law.”

London Supreme Court Practice avers: “The court should not on Ord 14 [summary judgement] applications determine points of law which may take hours or even days and the citation of many authorities...”

Halsbury's Laws of Hong Kong insists: “The procedure by way of application for summary judgement is not appropriate which involve lengthy argument by counsel on complicated issues...[and] for the resolution of complex issues or disputes arising out of conflicting professional opinions.”

In a nutshell, summary judgements are inappropriate where there are complex issues of fact and law.

This is what the Chees' lawyer, Mr M Ravi, has submitted on and provided the authorities to buttress his argument. And what do the Lees say about this? “This is not the law in Singapore. On the contrary, it has been held in Singapore that an application for summary judgement will be entertained and judgement entered even if the issues of law to be determined are complex.”

But why, in the eyes of the world's judiciaries, are complex issues not suited for summary judgement hearings? For the simple reason that that complex issues require witnesses, expert testimony and cross-examination of the various parties so that the judge can get a comprehensive picture of the entire matter (or one as close to it as possible) before rendering his judgement.

For example, the plaintiffs could have made assertions or false statements that need verification and refutation. A case in point was the PAP's lawsuit against Mr Tang Liang Hong in 1997. Although it was MM Lee who had released the police report made by Mr Tang to the media, it was asserted that it was Mr Tang himself who had made public the report. This lie was uncovered and corrected only when Mr Goh Chok Tong was grilled by the defence counsel, the late George Carmen, in the witness box.

This is what natural justice is all about. Whether it is Singapore or Kalamazoo, the law of natural justice, which states that anyone accused of an offence must be given the right to defend him/herself in an public trial where witnesses are called and the accusers cross-examined, must apply.

And this is essentially what the Chees are asking for – that there be a trial where they can have the means to defend themselves.

But the Lees have said no, there can be no trial.

This much we know. It is the reasoning offered by the Lees that is shocking. They have not sought to argue that the present case is not complex but instead insist that even if the case is complex the judge can award the case to them without the help of witnesses and cross-examinations – and in the privacy of the judge's chambers to boot.

The local media as a benchmark for judges

If you're shaking your heads, hold on to your seats because it gets worse.

The Defence had cited two cases (one in Australia and another in New Zealand) where qualified privilege (the protection of comment especially under cases of special circumstances eg. journalists, whistleblowers, oppositionists, etc. ) were upheld by judges. Rejecting these as precedence, the Lees contend that it would be “completely inconsistent with the political construct and the well defined role of the media in Singapore for any of [the judges' decisions] to be imported into this country.”

No, your eyes are not playing tricks on you. The Lees actually cited the local media as a yardstick on which Singapore's judges must base their decisions. They went on to re-tell the lie that the media's role in Singapore is “one which Singaporeans have come to accept as being appropriate for our purposes.” Ironically, it is such bald-faced assertions that need to be tested under cross-examination.

It may be argued, as dictators often do, that countries like Australia and New Zealand are too democratic and therefore – by some contortion of logic - erroneous. But the Lees even rejected the fact that Malaysia (whose political and media systems resemble Singapore's) abides by some of these decisions: “The fact that the Malaysian courts appear to have adopted [some of these decisions] is completely irrelevant.” Anything, it seems, that pere et fils don't agree with is irrelevant. This rejection of court rulings in Malaysia signals nothing but desperation.

Imagine this: If Mr T T Durai had cited this not-relevant-in Singapore proposition and successfully applied for summary judgement against the Straits Times, how would all the shenanigans in the NKF have been uncovered? It was only during the trial when Mr Durai was cross-examined by – and this is where it gets weird – Mr Davinder Singh (the Lees' lawyer) that the decadence within the NKF was revealed.

Without the Straits Times being given a proper trial and the subsequent revelations by Mr Durai elicited during cross-examination, injustice of the highest order would have been committed. In such a scenario, the biggest losers would not have been the Straits Times but the people of Singapore.

Similarly without a public trial, how are the Chees going to cross-examine the Lees and call for witnesses to uncover crucial facts which may lead to an implosion and collapse of the Lees' case, just as it happened with Durai's? Again, without a trial, the biggest losers will not be the Chees but Singaporeans.

Mixing the political and the judicial systems

Legal experts and Queen's Counsel that SDP spoke to were astounded that the Lees would even dare go for summary judgement. In fact there is so much dispute over law and fact that legal documents submitted by both sides are stacked feet high and whose pages run into the thousands.

Yet, come Wednesday, the Lees are pressing the judge to make a decision without the benefit of witnesses and cross-examinations.

The Lees may argue that Singapore is Singapore and that we have our own (read: PAP) way of doing things. But that's in the realm of politics where autocrats will say anything to justify their hold on power. But to apply this notion to the judicial system is another – and much more dangerous – matter altogether.

It has taken years for the judiciary to develop a legal system that is in sync with the rest of the world. To now negate everything by decreeing that “This is Singapore” is to turn back the clock and destroy the last vestiges of human decency in this country.

The crashing sound you hear is Singapore hitting rock-bottom. God help us.

Let Mr Brown speak

2006-07-15T09:17:00.000+08:00

by Eric Tan Heng Chong

I am very sad and disappointed to learn that Today suspended Mr. Brown’s column. I felt he had not done anything wrong. If anything else, he brought out a lighter side of life in Singapore. In this age of stress he gave us relief and made us laugh. He even taught us to laugh at ourselves. Singaporeans resonated with his views and creative sense of humor earning him popularity. As people can identify with his column, the government should value it as good feedback.

In the business world we treat a complaint as a gift, as it gives us an opportunity to improve. We never belittle a gift and so the government if they value feedback should do likewise. Especially since they have often mentioned they want an open society and not "yes’ men.

In Mr. Brown’s case we did not see any evidence of an open society. Today suspended his column shortly after the MICA letter as though he has done something wrong. Mr. Brown never attacked any one personally in his article. Yet MICA rebutted Mr. Brown on a personal level, bringing up his autistic child hinting that he had vested interest. However for those who read his article you would know that was not the case. He was prepared to pay for the increase. I quote from the article he wrote, ‘We can afford it, but we do know many families who cannot, even those that are making more money than we are, on paper.’ Their response is simply unbecoming of a ‘first world’ ministry of information. Don’t get me wrong, we uphold MICA’s right to rebut him but they should do it logically and with dignity. In the same breath, we uphold Mr. Brown’s right to reply, which sadly in this case he was not given the opportunity. He should have been allowed to respond and to let the public decide the truth.

Further more, I do not agree with MICA that Mr. Brown has to provide an alternative policy. Mr. Brown is not part of a political party and is simply a Singaporean on the receiving end of the government’s policies. On the other hand MICA being a service provider and the government is obliged to do so. I am a member of the Workers Party and we are obliged to give an alternative. This is similar to a customer complaining to a bak chor mee hawker that the noodles are bad. In such a case the bak chor mee man does not expect the person to offer an alternative recipe.

Mr. Brown reflects the feelings of the people resulting in his popularity. He gives the government valuable feedback. The government can do two things with this feedback. They can either regard his views irrelevant i.e. ignore him or otherwise take them on board and change. But he should not be belittled or punished for expressing his views. He is just a Singaporean who loves his country and wants to make it better for his fellow Singaporeans. This is evident in his pod cast "I am a Singaporean" produced in the spirit of National Day.

So I appeal to the government to be more receptive to feedback and to Today to reinstate his column. Let Mr. Brown continue to speak.

The article that started it all http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2006/07/today_sporeans_.html#more

Response from MICA ... so much for pretending to call for diverse and open society http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2006/07/letter_from_mic.html

Household incomes up; bottom third's wages down

2006-06-29T23:58:00.000+08:00

Southwest CDC Mayor Amy Khor noted that the effects of the Government's recent efforts at helping the lowest income earners had not been felt yet.

'Some of the schemes, like the Workfare bonus, are quite recent. We came up with them in the last one, two years, so it takes time to see their effects, whether they really work, whether they need to be refined,' she said.

Some people got no heart. So poor folks at the bottom rung of the ladder can afford to wait 2 years for some poorly conceived scheme to be tested? How about deferring utilities expenses for 2 years too?

By Aaron Low , Ken Kwek
Jun 29, 2006
The Straits Times

MOST Singapore households enjoyed more income in the past five years, but those in the bottom third of households saw their earnings decline over the same period.

The overall picture of positive growth, coupled with the more sobering reminder of the income gap continuing to widen, emerged from the latest General Household Survey announced yesterday.

The once-in-a-decade survey done last year and released by the Department of Statistics (DOS) yesterday, showed that average monthly household incomes here rose from $4,940 in 2000 to $5,400 last year. After accounting for inflation, the rise amounted to an increase of 1.1 per cent per year.

The gains cut across all ethnic groups, with all races enjoying bigger pay packets. Indian households scored the biggest rise in average monthly income, from $4,560 in 2000 to $5,170 last year.

Over the same period, the Chinese saw average monthly household wages grow by $410 to $5,630, while the incomes of Malay households rose from $3,150 to $3,440.

The report also noted that the strong economic performance of 2004 pushed wages higher, with the middle income group benefiting most.

This group had the biggest wage jump, between 3.7 per cent and 6.9 per cent from 2004 to last year, compared to between 3.3 per cent and 3.8 per cent for the highest 20 per cent of earners. In that one year, the incomes of the bottom third of households also grew, on average between 0.8 per cent and 2.6 per cent.

But overall, the gap between rich and poor, which has preoccupied policymakers, continued to widen.

Households in the 11th to 20th percentile based on income saw their average monthly earnings shrink from $1,470 to $1,180 from 2000 to last year. This is a decline of about 4.3 per cent a year.

In contrast, the average income of the top 10 per cent of households grew by 2.8 per cent a year, rising from $14,360 to $16,480.

The Gini coefficient - a statistical tool used to measure income inequality - also rose from 0.490 to 0.522. The larger this figure, the more unequal is income distribution.

Explaining that the drop in wages for the lowest income groups was due to an ageing population, the DOS said there were now more households with more retired persons and, hence, no income.

It pointed out that, in 2000, 8.7 per cent of households had no wage earner, and this increased to one in 10 households last year.

The drop in wages for the 11th to the 20th percentile group could also be explained by higher unemployment last year than in 2000, said the report. It also noted that the figures did not take into account the Government's cash help for the poor, including the $2.6 billion Progress Package.

MPs were not surprised by the survey findings, noting that these reflected the effects of globalisation.

Northwest Community Development Council (CDC) Mayor Teo Ho Pin expected the widening income gap to be an ongoing trend but was more concerned with the smaller wages of the bottom households.

'One area we must focus on is children and education, as they are the ones who can lift the families from the lowest 20 per cent,' he said.

Southwest CDC Mayor Amy Khor noted that the effects of the Government's recent efforts at helping the lowest income earners had not been felt yet.

'Some of the schemes, like the Workfare bonus, are quite recent. We came up with them in the last one, two years, so it takes time to see their effects, whether they really work, whether they need to be refined,' she said.

aaronl@sph.com.sg

kenkwek@sph.com.sg

Media Release: Chees apply to court to stop summary judgment by Lees

2006-06-22T13:01:00.000+08:00

Media Release: Chees apply to court to stop summary judgment by Lees
22 Jun 06
Singapore Democrat

Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong have confirmed that they will apply for summary judgment in their lawsuit against Ms Chee Siok Chin and I. Such an act is appalling in two respects:

First, as leaders of Singapore the Lees are showing that they are unwilling to put their claims to public scrutiny. They have made very serious allegations against the defendants and told the world that they stand ready to be cross-examined in the witness box in order that their claims can be tested.

But when we call their bluff and challenge their lawsuit, they now try to hide behind a summary judgment. Such cravenness and flip-flopping cannot be the hallmark of Singapore's future leadership.

There are questions that need to be asked and issues to be examined. The only way that the matter can be resolved in the public's mind is for both sides to submit themselves to cross-examination and to present witnesses. Ms Chee Siok Chin and I state again that we are willing to undergo this process. The Lees must not make themselves appear even more foolish than they already have. They need to face us in court like individuals that they claim they are.

Second, summary judgment will make a mockery out of the legal process. Simply put, the Lees have said that they were defamed in The New Democrat article while we have stated that they were not. Should not there be a trial where evidence from both sides can be presented and the truth ascertained in a public and transparent manner?

A summary judgment will render this impossible because the case will be decided in chambers behind closed-doors where Ms Chee and I will not be able to cross-examine the Lees and adduce evidence from crucial witnesses. It is like accusing someone of committing murder but not allowing him to call witnesses and produce evidence in his defence. Is this what we want to see in our legal system? What kind of legal precedence are we setting?

All we are seeking is a fair and open trial. Surely this is not too much to ask. To this end, we are applying for the courts to prevent the Lees from going for summary judgment (see below).

Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

Why partisan upgrading strategy should go

2006-06-16T23:44:00.000+08:00

June 16, 2006
FRIDAY MATTERS
By Chua Mui Hoong, DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR

RECENT comments over the votes-for-upgrading issue from government leaders are confusing to voters, but suggest there is more ambivalence to the issue.

It's not surprising that the signals have been so mixed, because it is one issue which is politically beneficial to the ruling party from a party-political point of view, but which is pretty indefensible on any other grounds.

The issue throws into sharp relief the dilemma the People's Action Party Government faces: between its desire as a political party to engage in partisan moves that help assure it of political longevity, and its desire to be a government for all that aims to be 'inclusive', bringing non-partisan elements to advance the country together.

Those who read political tea leaves think they discern different strands of thought on this issue among PAP leaders.

Some espy in Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong glimpses of a potential 'reformer' or at least change agent.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is viewed as someone steeped in party battles of the past, who would not allow the PAP to embark on a path that may weaken its grip on power.

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong is known as a master tactician. He was, after all, the one who implemented the votes-for-upgrading strategy which helped the PAP stave off the slide of votes to the opposition for a decade.

In the recent election, he and PAP candidates revived the strategy for Hougang and Potong Pasir, promising $180 million of upgrading projects if voters tossed out the opposition there and voted in the PAP. Voters did not bite the carrot offered.

But while individual PAP leaders may appear to have slightly different, nuanced, positions on this issue, the truth is more likely to be that they were all in broad agreement over the votes-for-upgrading strategy in the 1997 and 2001 elections.

And if General Election 2006 was anything to go by, probably some top PAP leaders are by now ambivalent about the strategy.

PM Lee said after the election the PAP had to review its strategy in opposition wards and rethink how to win them back.

SM Goh praised Hougang and Potong Pasir voters for loyally sticking with their opposition incumbent MPs rather than 'chasing after every goodie which we offer them'.

Has the votes-for-upgrading strategy come to the end of its time?

The strategy has attracted controversy since it was first announced in 1992. This was when then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong served notice that wards which supported the PAP would be given priority for the then-highly popular programme to upgrade, or improve, Housing Board estates using government funds.

The announcement met with a negative response, and died down. In the 1997 General Election, however, it was revived and became a central plank of the PAP strategy.

Vote for the PAP, and your constituency will get ahead in the upgrading queue - was the message to voters. On the eve of Polling Day in 1997, Mr Goh went one step further, saying the Government would look at voting patterns by precincts (each precinct is a cluster of about 10 to 20 HDB blocks) in deciding which neighbourhoods to upgrade first.

The votes-for-upgrading strategy was used in the 1997 and 2001 elections, helping the PAP romp home with 65 and 75 per cent of the votes respectively.

Never popular, it has drawn more intense criticism this time round.

As Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim notes, reflecting the view of critics of the policy, the Government is using taxpayers' money for partisan purposes.

Another writer to The Straits Times Forum page this week argued that the Government is mixing up its fiduciary duty as a government to all citizens, with its interest as a political party.

Criticism of the strategy can be summed up thus: It's unfair as it deprives opposition voters of benefits from government funds which should be available to all; and it's partisan as the Government is using taxpayers' money for party-political ends.

The PAP's argument has been to retreat to realpolitik. The line from a succession of National Development ministers, including Mr Mah Bow Tan in an interview with The Straits Times last week, has been consistent: Funds are limited; allocation has to be on some criteria; support for the PAP's programme has to be one such criterion.

As MM Lee said in April during a television forum with young journalists when the issue was discussed: 'Look, ask yourself - does any government help the opposition to displace itself?

'You mean to tell me in America or Britain they gave benefits to all constituencies equally? At the same time or, worse, favour the opposition? No, you favour your supporters because you want to retain them as your supporters.'

The issue has arisen again, after Mr Mah's statement last week that all wards will get their lifts upgraded by 2015 - but that PAP wards will still go first.

MPs new and old have also spoken up on the issue, defending the PAP's line that resources have to be allocated, and there is nothing wrong with allocating resources by partisan means.

But if you take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, Singapore will become a truly horrific country indeed.

After all, all government resources are finite. Will the PAP Government one day decide to ration, say, health care, or education, on the basis of support for the PAP?

Imagine the arguments thus: The health budget is finite. Resources to build new hospitals have to be allocated, and will be given to PAP wards first henceforth.

Or for education: New schools will be built in PAP wards first, and opposition wards will be last in the queue. (Question: Has any new school been built in Hougang in the last 15 years, or in Potong Pasir in the last 22, since they fell to opposition hands?)

Or maybe the arguments will go down to the micro level: Hospital beds are finite in number, and PAP supporters will get priority.

You can just imagine the howls of outrage and cries of 'unfair!' from voters.

I'm not for one moment suggesting the PAP will go down that road any time soon, or even ever. I raise these extreme examples to make the point that it's necessary to go back to first principles to debunk the votes-for-upgrading strategy.

In other words, the PAP Government should stop using this as an election strategy, not because it no longer works in winning votes - but because it is based on an unsound principle in the first place, and sets a dangerous precedent for allocating government resources.

In reviewing the votes-for-upgrading tactic, the PAP has to think less as a political party, and more as a national government.

The strategy may have been helpful to PAP the political party through the 1990s and early 2000s. But the upgrading strategy, like the creative redrawings of election boundaries in the past, has aroused some cynicism among younger voters about the electoral process.

Word has it the PAP is spending the next six months in party huddles to post-mortem GE 2006 and lay the groundwork for its strategies for GE 2011.

When it does so, it would be wise to rise above its partisan interest as a political party, to consider the impact of its decisions on the nation as a whole.

muihoong@sph.com.sg

PAP policy belies 'Staying Together, Moving Ahead'

2006-06-16T23:39:00.000+08:00

June 13, 2006
Straits Times Forum

IN THE wake of General Election 2006, various senior People's Action Party (PAP) leaders pledged to respect voters' choice.

At the Cabinet swearing-in ceremony on May 30, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong pledged that his Government would work with all Singaporeans, including those who voted for the opposition.

Singaporeans who hoped that the PAP would therefore remove its votes-for-upgrading strategy got a lightning bolt of reality with the Minister for National Development's statement over the weekend that, basically, nothing has changed.

Minister Mah Bow Tan's main argument was that the Government had to be fair to those who had voted for the PAP on its promise to upgrade PAP wards. But the bigger question on voters' minds is a very simple one - whether such a promise is a legitimate use of taxpayers' monies. To state the obvious, everybody pays taxes, whether they live in PAP or opposition wards.

Mr Mah had previously said that he could not 'look PAP MPs in the eye' if he gave the same priority in upgrading to opposition wards. But how, then, does he look these taxpayers in the eye?

No one living in an opposition ward expects special treatment, that is, to jump ahead of PAP wards with older blocks. But, all things being equal, it should not matter whether a PAP or an opposition MP is the incumbent.

The same objections apply to how the public funds entrusted to his ministry under the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) for estate improvements are disbursed.

Further, to say that disbursing CIPC funds through the citizens' consultative committees is not political because they are made up of residents, makes as much sense as saying that residents' committees are politically neutral when they are heavily mobilised to help PAP candidates campaign.

On this vexed question of selective upgrading, the recent conflicting messages from the PAP are telling. For instance, the day after Polling Day, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong praised Potong Pasir and Hougang residents for having loyalty towards their MPs, which was a 'better (characteristic) than for them to be chasing after every goodie which we offer them'.

After this dose of honesty from SM Goh, what kind of values is the PAP promoting by continuing with its votes-for-upgrading policy?

The overarching theme of the PAP's 2006 Election Manifesto is 'Staying Together, Moving Ahead'.

As a Singaporean who decided to stand with the Workers' Party, I look forward to the day when election campaigns will be fought by all parties over long-term national policies which affect Singaporeans' lives deeply.

Let Singaporeans reflect and decide elections on these questions, which are surely far more important for the nation's future than the selective use of public funds to ensure that the PAP stays in power.

Sylvia Lim Swee Lian (Ms)
Non-Constituency MP (Elect)
Chairman, Workers' Party

Is politics all about pursuit of party interests?

2006-05-16T09:54:00.000+08:00

From The Straits Times May 16, 2006
GENERAL ELECTION 2006
Is politics all about pursuit of party interests?

IN HER letter, 'All MPs get a hearing in Parliament' (ST, May 13), Miss Irene Ng wrote that 'the ultimate aim of an opposition party is to replace the governing party' and that 'the opposition seeks to check and oppose the Government's policies and actions in a bid to eventually convince the electorate that it should unseat the ruling party'.

Miss Ng has a regretfully uncharitable view of all political parties apart from her own.

I cannot see why the ruling party should be construed as acting in the best interests of Singaporeans while other parties have, as their ultimate aim, the selfish goal of unseating the People's Action Party (PAP). It is time we stop dealing low blows to political opponents, be it intentional or otherwise.

I have read the manifesto of the Workers' Party; its stated aim is to be an alternative government but it hardly follows from this that it would therefore seek to 'oppose the Government's policies and actions in a bid to eventually convince the electorate that it should unseat the ruling party'.

Perhaps, apart from the PAP, the Workers' Party might also have the best interests of Singaporeans as its ultimate aim, and is working to be an alternative party that could serve Singaporeans even better than the ruling party. It could do this by proposing superior policies and performing better at the grassroots level.

As to whether it seeks to undermine the good work of the ruling party and aggrandise its own achievements to get into power, must the ruling party undermine the good work of alternative parties and aggrandise its own achievements to stay in power?

If Miss Ng is right that 'opposition politics' is fundamentally about opposing the ruling party and seeking to replace it, then, by her own reasoning, 'ruling-party politics' is fundamentally about crushing opposing parties and seeking to stay in power.

On what basis does Miss Ng make this serious and derogatory claim of alternative parties, and what exempts her own party from her apparent view of politics as ultimately the pursuit of party interests?

Is politics ultimately about the pursuit of party interests, with the interests of citizens being incidental?

Jason Phan Shiaw Hwa

Why 'people's hero' lost the hearts of 33% of voters

2006-05-10T10:40:00.000+08:00

May 10, 2006
The Straits Times

SINGAPORE'S history of nation-building is nothing short of spectacular. The PAP should be the people's hero, yet it lost the hearts of 33 per cent of voters, even in the Prime Minister's own GRC. Why?

The PM inadvertently revealed the dark side of the PAP when he said his focus would be to 'fix' the opposition and figure out how to 'buy' his support if the opposition won 10 or more seats, though he did subsequently say that his choice of the word 'fix' might have been too strong, and offered his apology if it had offended anyone.

However, it affirmed for many their uneasiness over the political tactics of the PAP over the years:

# The morphing of the original GRCs from three MPs intended to guarantee minority representation to super-GRCs of up to six MPs (perceived as creating a barrier to entry for the opposition with their cartographical contortions and as a means of bringing in new, untested PAP candidates under the air cover of ministerial heavyweights).

# The lawsuit (intended to safeguard the integrity of debate) seemed to have become extended into an ever-ready weapon of political dare-and-do. The PAP-Workers' Party dare-you-to exchange was especially grating to voters hungry for higher political discourse.

# The conversion of HDB upgrading (one of our secrets for social stability) into the spectacle of which PAP MP can offer more money to their voters ($80 million here, $300 million there but to the almost-total exclusion of the candidate's own positions on national issues).

It is not that the voters take the good work of the PAP for granted. Travel the world and you will know how much the PAP has done and is still doing for Singapore. The PAP deserves better. But only if it tears itself away from its dark electoral insecurities and rises to its historical role of nation-building.

The PAP, as a political party, is not obliged to hand over its seats to the opposition. However, the PAP, as the Government, is a steward of our political process and it owes itself and Singapore, as the founding party and only governing party, to shepherd the political development to greater and more open political participation and not to political atrophy.

Some suggestions for the PAP Government:

# Eliminate super-GRCs and return to the original three-MP GRCs, not all of which need to be minority-represented if the 'minimal quota' is already reached. Smaller GRCs reduce the charge that GRCs are a means of letting in 'backdoor' MPs.

# Maintain greater stability in electoral boundaries. While population shifts may necessitate changes, the PAP should stop the practice of moving wards around as jigsaw pieces to reconfigure weak GRCs/ SMCs and carve out new SMCs. With greater electoral stability, the opposition has a better chance to nurture their chosen constituencies with their more limited resources.

# Stop focusing on individual-constituency HDB upgrading as the primary election platform of MPs. Today it seems we conduct town-council elections and get a national parliament as a by-product.

It is the national policies of the PAP that have raised resource-scarce Singapore to First World standards. Let them be the PAP electoral showcase instead.

# Lawsuits should be served when slander or libel is committed. They should not be part of the political lexicon of campaigning thrust-and-parry.

The PAP has done so much for Singapore. It should be more confident of itself that it will continue to win the support of voters on its track record even when it loosens its grip on the political process. Indeed it will be more heartily supported.

Jacob Tan Teck Lee

Stronger wish for audible opposition

2006-05-10T10:27:00.000+08:00

May 9, 2006
The Straits Times

MEMBERS of the People's Action Party (PAP) have been quoted as saying that this election cannot be compared with that in 2001, and that the party has actually received a strong mandate despite a drop of over eight points.

However, I get the feeling that the desire for an audible opposition in Parliament is growing stronger. In fact, this desire is so strong that fully one third of Ang Mo Kio residents were willing to sacrifice the Prime Minister, no less, for the Workers' Party (WP)'s young, inexperienced but passionate Team C.

The James Gomez issue may have played a role in this. To many voters, the WP's refusal to be dragged into a war of words with the PAP made the latter appear petty and vindictive and it seems that the strategy to discredit Mr Gomez backfired.

The PAP's traditional strategy of self-righteousness and taking the moral high ground may have finally found a match in WP's (even higher) moral standing, sincerity and, most importantly, humility.

I do not think the PAP is deliberately trying to be arrogant. Neither do I think that WP is out to deceive anybody.

However, this election demonstrated the importance of a professional and credible image and it is heartening to see that the political parties generally appeared to be more organised, and better able to stand up to scrutiny.

This is a sign that the political scene is maturing, and that can only be good for our country.

Siow Tian Rui

Strong mandate? I beg to differ

2006-05-09T11:02:00.000+08:00

May 9, 2006
The Straits Times

I AM not alone in wanting to beg to differ that it was a strong mandate that was given to the ruling party. Being in denial that there is genuine unhappiness and discontent among Singaporeans with regard to policies, cost of living, health care, disbursement of funds, etc, will only sway more voters to favour the opposition in the next election.

For every vote that was lost represents a voice that is asking for accountability, for answers, for checks, for changes, for help and, perhaps, more transparency.

The fact that voters in the opposition wards of Hougang and Potong Pasir rejected the ruling party's $180 million offer linking ward upgrading to the election of its candidates proves that votes cannot be 'bought'.

Let's not forget that regardless of which ward they come from, each and every one of them is a taxpayer and deserves the same amenities and packages lined up for the PAP wards. The ruling party has a duty of care to all Singaporeans young and old, pro-PAP or otherwise.

Such calculated measures should have no place in a First World nation that strives to produce a gracious society. When integrity has been made to be synonymous with the name PAP, then it should be applied in this aspect as well.

I also hope that the minority-candidate-form saga would be closed for good. There are far more important issues.

The ruling party has encouraged open and serious debate and though the country may have progressed and moved forward, very little improvement has been made to help Singaporeans with the high cost of living.

There is a wide gap between the party members and the people simply because while the party members have made big leaps in this race to get us forward, the people themselves continue taking small steps to catch up.

There seems to be only one set of opinion that is allowed and I felt stifled reading the papers and watching the broadcast media in the past nine days.

Voters have evolved dramatically over the years and they should be given a choice in every aspect, for the good of this nation.

Phyllis Christe (Ms)

AP Supporters - You are NOT ALONE!

2006-05-05T02:26:00.000+08:00

Picture of WP's AMK rally

Posted by 'psview' on sammyboy

You are not alone!

2006-05-04T02:58:00.000+08:00

Picture posted by 'hotbotz' on sammyboy

We all know who is really interested to tackle the issues.

Singaporeans not getting the opportunities they deserve: SDA's Steve Chia

2006-05-04T02:31:00.000+08:00

04 May 2006
ChannelNewsAsia

Talented Singaporeans are not getting the opportunities they deserve, says Steve Chia of the Singapore Democratic Alliance.

The party's candidate for Chua Chu Kang Single Member Constituency also paid a former People's Action Party MP an unexpected compliment.

Mr Chia said: "Is it true that there are no talents in Singapore? No, it's only true that many of us Singaporeans do not get the opportunity. So if you emphasise a Singaporeans first policy than more people will get the opportunity to get good jobs, meaningful jobs, jobs that you like and you enjoy.

"I will conclude by quoting a PAP MP. This MP is my idol. You know who is he? Tan Soo Khoon. It's sad that he is no longer inside(Parliament) because he dares to speak. He said one thing during the transport fare hike debate. After the 2001 election, everything goes up - public transport fares go up, refuse collection fees goes up, carpark charges goes up. He said: remember the people will not forget."

Speaking at a rally on Wednesday, SDA chief Chiam See Tong says that it is the PAP's fault that lifts do not stop on every floor in HDB blocks.

Residents, he says, are paying for that mistake now.

Mr Chiam said: "Given the chance to build those flats, I'll make sure that lifts stop at every floor. Do you know now they're talking about upgrading so that lifts stop at every floor. In the first place, it is the government's mistake. 20 to 30 years ago when they build those flats, they could not foresee that residents will get old, cannot walk. So, it is they who are wrong...they build flats with lifts that do not stop at every floor."

He also rebutted PAP leaders' claims that the Potong Pasir Town Council does not have the funds for lift upgrading.

He said: "Our statement of account (shows) we've a profit of about $8 million...they say now the rules have been changed to make it very strict, to make it very difficult for opposition. If you want to upgrade the flats for your residents, you can only take 10 percent of the sinking funds, or about $800,000."

"In Lorong 8, Toa Payoh, we built 29 lifts for only $2 million. When we reported our upgrading of flats to the HDB, they say impossible, you can't build with $2 million, at least $4 million needed. You see HDB, PAP prices are very high. So from our estimates, we can build lifts for 8 blocks of flats, instead of for four."

The SDA has also accused the PAP government of not delivering on its promises.

SDA candidate Yip Yew Weng, who is contesting Yio Chu Kang SMC, asked if the PAP had delivered its promises why were Singaporeans not enjoying a Swiss standard of living.

He said: "Do you want to live under a one-party system with no checks and balances, ask yourself... Do you want to live with high costs of living. Or do you want to live with uncertainty, in terms of job prospects?

"PM Lee Hsien Loong has recently said that the PAP has delivered most of the promises made. If that's the case, we would have been enjoying a life with the so-call Swiss living standard but it's not. If that's the case, we would have been enjoying a life without fear, without worrying whether we'll have to face all sorts of unemployment problems."

Speaking at a rally in Yio Chu Kang on Wednesday, SDA candidate for Jalan Besar, Dr Vincent Yeo, zoomed in on the needs of disabled children, saying the government can do more for the disabled.

He said: "But some of these children are suffering from a syndrome - autism, autistic kids. They need help. There's only one place. A place called Pathlight - a school for autistic kids. The only place they have. Now children with learning disabilities, the treatment at private clinics and hospitals are very expensive because you need a speech therapist like occupational therapist, they charge a $100 an hour. What I am trying to tell you is that there're not enough resources in there." - CNA/ch

WP says it will not drop Gomez from Aljunied GRC

2006-05-04T02:06:00.000+08:00

03 May 2006
By Lynlee Foo, ChannelNewsAsia

SINGAPORE : On the campaign trail across Singapore, the James Gomez issue again became the talking point.

Despite the controversy, the opposition Worker's Party says its campaign will not be thrown off-kilter and that its image is intact.

The WP is standing its ground.

Despite the controversy stirred up by one of its candidates - Mr James Gomez - the opposition party has refused to drop him.

This was a challenge thrown down by several of the People's Action Party (PAP) leaders.

Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo says: "You will enter the ballot paper but the party can say, "We will, after the elections, remove him from the party" or they can do it now. Then he can't enter Parliament and he can't take the oath of office. I think its best if the Workers' Party were to drop him."

Mr Gomez had claimed to have applied for a minority certificate at the elections office - when in fact he had not.

The certificate is required for candidates looking to fulfil the minority requirement in Singapore's Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs).

PAP leaders have since called Mr Gomez a "liar" and challenged the WP to sue the PAP leaders over their attacks.

Ms Sylvia Lim, Chairman of WP, says: "Not at this point, because suing takes time and money, and we do not have that at this point.

"So that's the reality and even though we feel there has been some affront to the reputation of James and perhaps even to some of us, at this point we're focused on the elections, because our time and energy is limited, so we need to focus on what's important now.

"Anyway there's always the time bar for suing, there's a six-year time bar, so we could think about it after the elections, if necessary."

The man at the centre of the storm, however, has remained relatively tight-lipped.

Mr Gomez says: "My response is to remain focused and calm. Being in the centre of the storm, I will proceed with the election campaign."

The WP has maintained that the PAP is making a mountain out of a mole-hill. - CNA/de

Pictures of Worker's Party's rallies

2006-05-03T01:15:00.000+08:00

Picture posted by 'woodlandshoo' in sammyboy

The persistently non-political podcast no. 6

2006-05-03T00:21:00.000+08:00

Jeff Lopez and the Bak-Cho-Mee seller

(Click here)

Mr Brown's blog

Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew slams foreign media criticism

2006-05-01T01:32:00.000+08:00

Raising his voice, Lee cut off the journalist in the middle of a follow up question.

"I'm telling you the reply before you finish the question, so please consider carefully what else you're going to make, what other slurs you're going to imply. You're not going to intimidate me, ever."

Senior statesman or insecure hooligan?

Saturday April 29, 3:54 PM
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/060429/1/40g74.html

"Singapore's iron-willed founding father Lee Kuan Yew has said he will not allow the foreign media to tell his country what to do on domestic issues.

Speaking to the Foreign Correspondents Association late Friday, Lee said the tiny but affluent Southeast Asian city-state cannot fully emulate the political practices of other developed western countries.

"We're not going to allow foreign correspondents or foreign journalists or anybody else to tell us what to do," the 82-year-old former prime minister said.

"There are very few things that I do not know about Singapore politics and there are very few things that you can tell me or any foreign correspondent can tell me about Singapore," said Lee, who has successfully sued several media critics for libel.

Lee, whose son Lee Hsien Loong is the current prime minister, is admired worldwide for transforming Singapore into one of Asia's wealthiest nations in just over 30 years despite its lack of natural resources and limited manpower.

However, the government has also been criticised by human rights groups and the media for clamping down on dissent as well as curbing press freedom and other political rights.

Only one party, the People's Action Party (PAP), has ruled the country since independence in 1965. Opposition leaders have been crippled by financially draining defamation suits filed by PAP stalwarts.

But Lee, who holds the advisory post of minister mentor in his son's cabinet, said the system worked well for Singapore, and dismissed opposition candidates contesting the May 6 general elections for having no credible alternative program.

During the question-and-answer session, Lee also dressed down a Singaporean journalist working for a foreign news agency who had asked why it was difficult to get data on the salaries of cabinet ministers.

"Oh come off it, it's in the budget," Lee snapped. "I'll have none of it. You cannot pay the ministers without a proper budget," he said.

"I will not put up with any slur that we are trying to hide our salaries. It's rubbish, plain rubbish and as a Singaporean you ought to know that."

Raising his voice, Lee cut off the journalist in the middle of a follow up question.

"I'm telling you the reply before you finish the question, so please consider carefully what else you're going to make, what other slurs you're going to imply. You're not going to intimidate me, ever."

Lee told another Singaporean foreign correspondent she was "talking like an ignorant voter" when she asked why constituencies who had voted for the opposition are left out in government improvement projects."

Asian Dialogues interviews Miss Chee Siok Chin of SDP

2006-04-28T17:24:00.000+08:00

25 April 2006
www.asia247.tv

"General Election of Singapore

This week, we have the rare opportunity to talk to Executive Director of the Alliance for Reform and Democracy in Asia (ARDA), Ms Chee Siok Chin, to tell us about the democractic space and political opression in Singapore."

'Serious and false allegations' made against PM

2006-04-24T13:12:00.000+08:00

Lawyer's letter to Chee says articles suggest PM Lee is dishonest

By Laurel Teo
April 22, 2006
The Straits Times

THE Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) newsletter articles suggest that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is dishonest and unfit for office, his lawyers said.

In a letter of demand issued yesterday to the SDP's secretary-general, the People's Action Party leaders took issue with the allegedly defamatory remarks that were in three articles carried in The New Democrat's first issue for this year.

These were an English-language article titled 'Govt's role in the NKF scandal', a similar article in Chinese, and a captioned picture of four SDP members protesting outside the Central Provident Fund (CPF) building in Robinson Road, dressed in T-shirts with the words GIC, HDB, CPF and NKF printed on them.

Noting that Mr Lee had won previous defamation suits against Workers' Party member Tang Liang Hong, the letter said the defamation in this instance involved 'serious and false allegations, among others, of corruption, nepotism and criminal conduct against our client'.

Senior Counsel Davinder Singh from Drew & Napier is representing PM Lee, as well as Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who is taking similar action against Dr Chee.

Besides Dr Chee, the same letters of demand have been served on the remaining 11 members of the SDP's central executive committee, the SDP itself, and Melodies Press Company which printed the newsletter - 14 parties in all.

Each of them has been given up to 10am on Tuesday to apologise and pay damages to the two PAP leaders.

Notices of apology would have to be published in the newspapers on April 27, which is Nomination Day.

If they fail to do so, legal action would be taken against them, warned the letter.

The high-profile National Kidney Foundation (NKF) case last July brought to light the pay and perks of its former chief T.T Durai and raised questions about NKF's transparency and accountability.

Drawing parallels between this and the way Singapore is run, the SDP article in English said that GIC, set up and chaired by MM Lee, was not accountable to Parliament in the way it invested the national reserves and 'operates in secrecy'.

Noting that the NKF had been run in an autocratic manner, with power concentrated in the hands of Durai, the article added that power was concentrated 'around one party, if not one individual' in Singapore.

The letter said the SDP reports suggested that PM Lee was corrupt and had perpetuated a corrupt political system for the benefit of the political elite.

They implied and alleged that PM Lee and his Government knew about the NKF's wrongdoings but corruptly concealed and covered up the facts to avoid criticisms, said the lawyer's letter.

The articles also alleged that PM Lee made use of defamation suits to suppress allegations and cover up these wrong-doings, and not to protect his reputation.

If these allegations were true, the lawyer's letter said, Mr Lee would be guilty of corruption, nepotism, criminal conduct, a cover-up and of advancing the interests of the Lee family at the expense of Singapore's needs.

In the case of the captioned photo, by drawing an association between the NKF and government bodies such as the Central Provident Fund, Housing Board and the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, it alleged there was corruption in these organisations and that PM Lee knew and condoned it, said the lawyer's letter.

This despite a High Court ruling that linking these institutions to the NKF's problems would tarnish their reputation and standing.

Taken together, these allegations amounted to PM Lee being dishonest and unfit for office, the letter added.

huei@sph.com.sg

政客不了解 “公道自在人心”

2006-04-22T12:56:00.000+08:00

"There is no policy too sensitive to question, and no subject so taboo that you cannot even mention it."

DPM Lee Hsien Loong, Straits Times, 17 Jan 2000

PM Lee, MM Lee demand apology from SDP for NKF remarks
By S Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia, 22 April 2006

Grassroot supporters led minister away from resident who had much to complain about

2006-04-22T12:39:00.000+08:00

April 22, 2006
The Straits Times

I refer to the report "When 6 kids turned up at Meet-the-People session" (ST, April 19). Minister Raymond Lim was quoted as saying that what matters most to people are bread-and-butter issues rather than greater freedom and self-expression.

This notion was also implied by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in his televised dialogue "Why my vote matters" with young Singaporeans, and it was echoed by some readers who wrote to the Forum.

It appears that Mr Lim, MM Lee and the letter writers were making the assumption that freedom of expression and sustenance are two mutually exclusive issues.

I want to put forth that such an assumption is erroneous. The two are separate and orthogonal issues. We do not have to forgo one in order to have the other. Many nations have achieved both. What is preventing us from having them too?

Next, I want to focus in the same report which implied that Mr Lim learnt about what he thought the people wanted through his house-to-house visits.

I live in Block 183 Bedok North Road, which was one of the flats Mr Lim came calling a few months ago. Part of his entourage went ahead of him to knock on doors and alert residents of his arrival.

Upon finding out that I had much to complain about, they suddenly gave the excuse that Mr Lim had an urgent matter and would have to cut short his walkabout. After they left my door, I found them still going on their rounds.

I have since heard from friends who are involved in grassroots organisations that this was the usual modus operandi used by some MPs.

John Tan Liang-Joo

Forum with MM Lee was meant to provoke

2006-04-22T12:33:00.000+08:00

By Lee Ching Wern, TODAY
20 April 2006
ChannelNewsAsia

A few days ago, my father was having dinner at a coffeeshop near our home when he overheard this conversation between two middle-aged uncles about me.

“You got watch the Lee Kuan Yew programme on TV or not? That girl say PAP hao lian (arrogant). How can?! Those youngsters have no respect for elders,” said the first one angrily in Hokkien.

His friend replied: “Bo dua bo suay (too big for their shoes). How do their parents teach them?”

And the other day, on my way to work, I spent the entire cab journey listening to some “experts” on a Chinese radio programme slam us for being rude, lacking in public decorum and Asian values.

These views are echoed in a number of scathing letters written to me as well as to the newspapers (mostly by Singaporeans in their mid-30s and 40s) in the days following the telecast of Why My Vote Matters - the forum with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew that I participated in together with nine other young Singaporeans.

Apart from saying we were rude, some people accused us of trying to impress our friends. Some even questioned our upbringing.

I am deeply puzzled and disturbed by the reactions.

This backlash shows not only the vast gulf that exists between the generations, but also how far Singapore is from opening up and how close-minded many still are.

Did we question Mr Lee the way we did on TV because we are a bunch of disrespectful ingrates who are blind to his contributions to Singapore?

If you thought so, consider this: All television programmes are produced with a determined angle and style.

Perhaps you were expecting something akin to the forum that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had with Singaporeans recently, which was a lot “milder”.

But was the dialogue with the Minister Mentor meant to be the same? Ask yourself, why were there so many journalists on the selected panel?

Was it, perhaps, meant in the first place to be a more provocative, vigorous and spontaneous exchange that touched on the “unspeakables”?

If you had watched BBC’s infamous HARDtalk programme, you would have seen its former host Tim Sebastian accusing, snarling at, interrupting and pointing fingers at political leaders from all over the world — Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong included.

Was Mr Sebastian week after week attacked personally for having no decorum and respect for these great people? No. And not because of his Western upbringing either, but because the show and its reputation was built on just such an approach.

The show’s guests knew what they would be in for - if they didn’t want the nasty debate, they would not have gone on it.

That is not to say our forum last week was anything like HARDtalk. And we are obviously no Tim Sebastians. But the principle is the same.

If MM Lee wanted to give us this leeway to “speak back” to him on national television, and if we were encouraged to be uninhibited and not to cower when he pointed out our ignorance - who is to say we behaved inappropriately?

To those viewers whose criticisms of us participants were motivated by their deep personal respect for the Minister Mentor, I ask: Is it not MM Lee’s prerogative how he wishes to engage us?

Certainly, we had no intention of showing MM Lee any disrespect, but should we have censored ourselves so as not to offend viewers?

To those of you who felt we raised issues that were both unrealistic and unrepresentative, for goodness’ sake, this forum had a specific scope.

We were not the ones who initiated the dialogue. We did not decide the rules of play. But it seems to me now that some people have chosen to penalise us for participating.

If you ask me, I think it was a great forum.

Not because our arguments were flawless or the answers were perfect, but because, suddenly, every Singaporean - young and old, including those who never did care about politics - is talking about it in the coffeeshops, on the MRT, in schools and on the Internet.

Isn’t that precisely what we set out to achieve?

V for Vendetta Quotes

2006-04-13T01:55:00.000+08:00

V
* (Upon meeting Evey Hammond) Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-à-vis an introduction, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.

(In simpler words) Behold! Before you is a humble performer, cast, against his will, by fate, to the roles of both victim and villain. The face you see now is not just some mere facade of pointless theatrics. It is a remnant of the people's voice, which has since gone and disappeared. However, this past annoyance stands courageously reborn and has sworn to conquer the evil and corrupt, who promote greed and the violent suppression of free will. The only way to do this is with a war of retribution. It will not be a fruitless revenge, for the importance and self-evidence of this quest shall exonerate the open-minded and righteous. But in truth, this thick soup of words is becoming too excessive. So, let me simply finish by saying that it's my very good honor to meet you, and you may call me V.

* Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security, the familiar, the tranquility, repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat.

There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the annunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance, and depression. And where once you had the freedom to object, think, and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillence coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myraid of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence.

Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.

* Fear became the ultimate tool of this government.

* Those who are responsible will be held accountable.

* Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof.

* But if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

* Evey, please. . .there is a face beneath this mask, but it's not me. I'm no more that face than I am the muscles beneath it, or the bones beneath them.

Sylvia Lim, a law lecturer, shares her thoughts

2006-04-12T13:30:00.000+08:00

Sylvia Lim, a law lecturer, shares her thoughts and experience on joining the opposition. She contends that, "The real service is rendered not by the critic who stands aloof from the contest, but by the man who enters it and bears his part!!"

You should have seen the horrified faces of some of my friends when I told them that I had joined the Workers' Party. "You better start sorting out your assets"; "Any skeletons they can dig up?" "Are your income tax returns in order?"

I am not by nature a political animal but I do believe that having opposition political parties and opposition Members of Parliament is important for Singapore. I suppose the natural instinct of lawyers is to value diversity of opinion and to question propositions. We believe that a hearing will achieve better results if there are two views fully canvassed by opponents who are equally resourced; when sometimes a court hearing proceeds only with one party's views aired, the law requires that party to be fully frank and to disclose all points even if detrimental to its case, so that the court will make a decision which is, at least, somewhat informed.

During my life-time, one Party has dominated Parliament. Passing laws and amendments to the Constitution is quite easily done. The Constitution is a fundamental document; one of its key roles is to define the limits of State power over the people. Amendments to the Constitution should be carefully scrutinised and in some countries such as Switzerland, the Constitution can only be amended by a referendum where the people have to vote. Compare that with the situation here. Since 1984 when I first encountered the Constitution in university, this document has grown about three-fold in thickness due to numerous amendments. One advantage arising out of this is that if one looks at the history of some of the amendments under The Government and The Legislature, one has a good idea of when our Presidential and General Elections were held!

Many of our laws are widely drafted so as to give much administrative discretion to our civil servants in their implementation. This is dangerous for us. I recall a Parliamentary debate in 1995 over a law which would make it an offence for a person to appear nude either in a public place or even in a private place if exposed to public view. It was suggested in Parliament that the law should be drafted to include words showing that only a person who deliberately exposed himself would be punished. The government refused to make the amendments, saying that the good sense and discretion of the police and prosecuting authorities would ensure that persons who were exposed inadvertently would not be prosecuted. Question: can you trust good sense and discretion in the face of wide powers? True enough, 2 years later, I was engaged to defend a man who was charged under this law even though, according to the prosecution's own version, he was exposed by someone else. It was frustrating - and thankfully the presiding judge apparently remembered the Parliamentary debates and acquitted my client. But he need not have undergone the trauma of being arrested, charged and tried, and of risking his reputation, not to mention having to pay some legal fees which were not reimbursed by the State! Moral of the story - rely on good laws for your rights rather than rely on good people to make up for bad laws!

A respected friend recently told me, "The good thing about the PAP is that it is inclusionary in its policy making". He was probably thinking about the multitudes of Committees and sub-committees going about economic review and remaking Singapore, in which he was involved. I wondered aloud if we were happy living in a system where the ruling party in practice determines when and what we can discuss, and from whom they are willing to hear.

Immediately after the 1997 General Elections, I was in court when I heard from some lawyers that Mr JB Jeyaretnam, veteran opposition politician, had been issued with about 8 writs of summons by 11 Plaintiffs over a statement made at an election rally concerning his then fellow candidate Mr Tang Liang Hong's police reports. These suits made me write to him and I came to know him on a cordial level. During my occasional visit to his office, I saw the spectacle of literally piles of applications and affidavits coming in from various big-name law firms, while he and his lone faithful secretary valiantly attempted to respond to them. Due to some other defamation cases, Mr Jeyaretnam now sells his book almost daily in a crusade to get himself out of bankruptcy, at the age of 77. And dare anyone make a documentary about that?

The scarier question about Singapore to me, however, is not about the government but about our people.

After the last General Election 2001, a friend of mine lamented that Singaporeans were so obedient that the people even followed the government's endorsement or otherwise of opposition candidates. Hence, he said, Steve Chia of the Singapore Democratic Alliance was the highest loser with 34% votes, as he was praised by our Prime Minister for "speaking like a PAP candidate"; whereas Dr Poh Lee-guan of our Party got 26%. Could this analysis be right - that the people go by what PM says is good opposition?

Together with my Party mates, I have been selling The Hammer at various locations in Singapore. As expected, public reactions to us have been mixed, but noticeably many of the younger generation (say those below 21) seemed totally unaware and / or unconcerned about political or even national affairs. Some probably do not recognise our Party logo, and I suspect that some may perhaps not recognise the PAP's either! In contrast, the older generation, particularly those in or near retirement years, seemed very interested to read what we had to say. Probably the recent decades of one-party rule have de-sensitised many younger Singaporeans to the importance of the political process.

Perhaps this is a symptom of a greater evil - have you noticed that Singaporeans communicate less in general with the person next to them? In his book, A Fortune Teller Told Me (1998, Flamingo), the Italian journalist Tiziano Terzani who worked in Asia for 25 years compares Singapore in 1990s with Singapore in 1971. In a chapter "An Air-Conditioned Island", he noticed a contrast from before - when he went into a lift, nobody spoke! I guess it is true - we are not as friendly as in the past! Urban living has probably contributed to this. Another upshot of urban living appears to be the reliance on public authorities to solve problems. I mean, how many calls do people make to the police to tell their neighbour to reduce their noise levels? Why can't we speak to our neighbour ourselves and let our officers in blue attend to more serious matters?

Have we also become "soft"? While cooling down after jogging at East Coast Park one evening, I spotted a Nepalese gathering of about 10 families having a barbecue. It started to rain and the locals including me instinctively headed for shelter; the Nepalese continued what they were doing - the men were dancing to the Spice Girls, the women fed the babies while the older children took the piping hot meat in their bare hands and ate. Amazing, I thought; no wonder the Nepalese get to guard the Prime Minister's residence!

Paranoia about speaking on political matters or to being sympathetic to the opposition is pernicious and pervasive. I was myself encumbered by this to varying degrees at different times. In 1991, I had the luxury of voting in the General Election in Ulu Pandan constituency. At that time, I was on the brink of entering the police service. Paranoid about the serial numbers on the voting slip and that I would not get the post I applied for, and for no other reason, I voted for the PAP. Thinking back now, it seems so stupid. After all, who was I - an insignificant cog whose vote was unlikely to be of such interest to the PAP anyway. If a professional like me could be this paranoid, what of the rest? Or, should the question be the other way - are we going to rely on the professionals in our country to take the "risks"?

Since that time, my desire to help the opposition cause has been slowly taking root. The last straw was after the last General Election 2001 and the 75% votes for the PAP. I decided it was time for me to do my part - no point wishing for a strong and credible opposition if one is not prepared to do anything. I met the "street-fighter" Mr Low Thia Khiang on 13 November 2001 and got myself "enrolled". The first evening when I made my way to the Party office for a meeting, my heart was beating like crazy and I kept looking around to see if anyone was following me!! That fear has now largely passed. It gets easier each time and what is important is taking that first step to put away our self-inflicted fears.

Teddy Roosevelt, the great former President of the United States, wrote the following stirring words in American Ideals about 1897:

"It is not the man who sits by his fireside reading his evening paper, and saying how bad our politics and politicians are, who will ever do anything to save us; it is the man who goes out into the rough hurly-burly of the caucus, the primary, and the political meeting, and there faces his fellows on equal terms. The real service is rendered not by the critic who stands aloof from the contest, but by the man who enters it and bears his part?."

Of course, the above needs modification in the Singapore context!

"It is not the man who sits in his home or office reading the New Paper or Wan Bao and complaining about the government or a weak opposition who will ever do anything to save us; it is the man who goes into the face-off of opposition politics, the surveillance, the ever-changing electoral boundaries, the Constitution and Parliamentary Elections Act, Internal Security Act, Political Donations Act, Films Act, Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, Public Entertainment and Meetings Act, and there faces the Ruling Party on unequal terms. The real service is rendered not by the critic who stands aloof from the contest, but by the man who enters it and bears his part!!"

Join the Workers' Party - overcome the fear! The Workers' Party has a history that is as long as the independence of Singapore and was in the forefront of the struggle for independence. The party has also perservered through the years, in a dfficult political environment, to serve the electorate.

Beware the pitfalls of a one-party Parliament

2006-04-05T01:24:00.000+08:00

April 4, 2006
The Straits Times

As the general election looms, I am heartened to note that there is an apparent increase in the variety of opinions being represented in our print media.

This is in stark contrast to the not-so-distant past when so-called "dissident" discussions were confined to coffee shops and office tea-rooms.

An old theme has also resurfaced. This is that it might not necessarily be bad if the PAP had a clean sweep. Implicit in this thought is that the Non-constituency MPs and Nominated MPs have made the opposition MP's election redundant.

Attractive as this argument may seem, there are serious flaws. The main one is that a monopoly would be detrimental to all in the long run. Any economics student will tell you that a monopoly is a "market failure" as demand and supply are not invoked and the consumer pays more than he should. Most of us will no doubt remember how much more goods and services cost before market liberalisation.

The short term benefits of speedier passage of legislation and less need for meddlesome scrutiny in Parliament will be negated by complacency and its effects in the long term.

The latter would inevitably creep in as few MPs would be willing to think out of the box for innovative solutions which go against conventional wisdom.

If the cabinet or senior party leaders espouse a certain cause, would any PAP MP be foolhardy enough to object strongly to it?

After a clean sweep in the elections, it is not inconceivable to imagine Parliament becoming like a tidy jig-saw puzzle with every piece snugly in place but immovable.

Whoever tries to move and advocate change will be labelled a maverick who rocks the boat unnecessarily and a spoiler out to win glory for himself. He will be reminded that we are already the envy of the world. What is there to improve? Group think will become the norm.

The effect on the people will be no less drastic. Cynicism will again rear its ugly head and despondency turn into apathy and self-interest. The more affected will vote with their feet and succumb to the brain drain benefitting only the developed economies.

The opposition parties will revert to taking non-constructive pot-shots from time to time as they are unable to attract able, idealistic men and women who by now know the score and feel that the rules of the game are not playable.

We can only hope that the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy will be entrenched here and that the playing field continues to be levelled.

Only the cut and thrust of politics will ensure that the best gets to represent the people. Unsuitable and undesirable people will be found out and the more deserving ones be chosen to replace them. The people will then be the ultimate winner. That is what counts.

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

V for Vendetta

2006-04-04T01:28:00.000+08:00

http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
The Official website for the motion picture V for Vendetta.

http://www.shadowgalaxy.net/Vendetta/vmain.html
V for Vendetta Shrine, a tribute to the comicbook by Alan Moore and David Lloyd.

Movie Synopsis
Set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain, V For Vendetta tells the story of a mild-mannered young woman named Evey (NATALIE PORTMAN) who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked man (HUGO WEAVING) known only as “V.” Incomparably charismatic and ferociously skilled in the art of combat and deception, V ignites a revolution when he urges his fellow citizens to rise up against tyranny and oppression. As Evey uncovers the truth about V’s mysterious background, she also discovers the truth about herself – and emerges as his unlikely ally in the culmination of his plan to bring freedom and justice back to a society fraught with cruelty and corruption.

Warner Bros. Pictures presents, in association with Virtual Studios, a Silver Pictures production in association with Anarchos Productions Inc., NATALIE PORTMAN in V For Vendetta, starring HUGO WEAVING, STEPHEN REA and JOHN HURT. Directed by JAMES McTEIGUE, the film is produced by JOEL SILVER, THE WACHOWSKI BROTHERS and GRANT HILL from a screenplay by THE WACHOWSKI BROTHERS, based upon characters appearing in magazines published by VERTIGO. The executive producer is BENJAMIN WAISBREN. The director of photography is ADRIAN BIDDLE, B.S.C.; the production designer is OWEN PATERSON; the editor is MARTIN WALSH, A.C.E.; and the music is composed by DARIO MARIANELLI.

V For Vendetta is a United Kingdom-Germany co-production.
V For Vendetta will be released by Warner Bros. Pictures, a Warner Bros. Entertainment Company.

Don't use public resources to win votes

2006-03-31T22:23:00.000+08:00

March 28, 2006
The Straits Times

THE article, 'The gathering storm' (Insight; ST, March 25), cast much light on the valiant struggle of opposition MPs and the plight of their constituents.

Residents of Potong Pasir should be saluted for their long suffering, paying the price of voting in the opposition for over 20 years. Perhaps the time has come for other wards to step forward to take its place, and give residents of Potong Pasir a break to enjoy the enviable privileges that PAP wards enjoy.

No doubt when that happens, we will witness a complete metamorphosis of the estate. The prodigal son has returned. Slaughter the fattened calf, bring in new kindergartens, bus services and hawker centres, landscape the gardens, and install lifts on every floor. The PAP will use Potong Pasir to showcase the difference a PAP MP can make.

But which ward will volunteer to vote in the opposition? Will the response be: We must have opposition in Parliament, but can they come from other wards, please? Think about it. It may not be a total tragedy if the opposition wins in your ward. Snub the ruling party for one term, suffer a little, and you get a reversal of fortune many times over in the next term when you bring it back. You will be doubly wooed by the PAP as you play hard to get. Wards with walkovers or guaranteed PAP victory, like mine, enjoy no such courtship.

If the Senior Minister succeeds in uprooting the opposition MPs in Hougang and Potong Pasir, the only two tried-and-proven opposition candidates will be thrown out of Parliament. If the opposition fails to win other wards, we end up with a singular voice in Parliament (with some orchestrated and measured debates).

Whether the ruling party will then become more arrogant is anyone's guess. Are we wrong to believe that it was the steady growth of the opposition that led to a more humble and consultative style of government? With the opposition in Parliament, no matter how weak they may be, we still have an extra check on the Government.

I hope the coming election will not degenerate into the kind of electioneering in Latin America, where candidates woo voters by promising new shoes or a football field.

Public resources should not be used as carrots by political parties to win votes. It was fear that this would happen that the Elected Presidency was established. Hence, community development council and Community Improvement Projects Committee funds should not be disbursed contingent upon election choice.

Also on my wish list for the election is the neutrality of apolitical organisations - unions, grassroots organisations, bus companies, HDB, SMRT and other service providers. If the NTUC is allowed to officially endorse the PAP, then the Law Society or pilots' union should also be allowed to support the opposition if they so want, without the Government coming down hard on them.

The whole election experience can be an educational exercise in responsible citizenry. Political parties should pursue the higher ideal of promoting electorate maturity towards nationhood. Singaporeans should never one day decry the election process because we have lost faith in it.

Seto Hann Hoi

Unfair to discredit Chiam's good work

2006-03-31T22:22:00.000+08:00

March 28, 2006
The Straits Times

I READ the article, 'The gathering storm' (ST, March 25), with interest.

Besides the challenge from Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong who is 'storming into Potong Pasir and Hougang to win them back for the People's Action Party', opposition MPs probably face another obstacle: dismissive press reports.

Even though the article tried to highlight some of the good that Mr Chiam See Tong has done for Potong Pasir, it did more to cast a disparaging shade on the work done by him.

For example, because of its tranquillity and rustic charm, Potong Pasir was referred to as a 'dead town' that even the dead forsake, after they were 'exhumed from their century-old home'. For all that Mr Chiam has done in the past 22 years, Potong Pasir was described as a 'laid back' ward and the writer found it 'logic-defying' that the residents refused to be enticed by the PAP carrots.

Despite 97 per cent of the residents polled expressing that they were 'happy living in the ward', the writer expressed his reservations and summed up the work done in Potong Pasir as stop-gap measures: 'life in Potong Pasir during non-election season is hardly the stuff of fireworks'.

The use of rhetoric was most sarcastic: 'Sports facilities? Not even a park to jog in, unless you count Bidadari Cemetery's pavements' as fitting.

The fate of Potong Pasir was then decisively sealed: 'Mr Chiam is so old' and 'Toa Payoh Lorong 8 looks the worse for wear and suffers the curse of being compared' to a newer-looking ward across the road. And there is also the younger MP of the ruling party who is wielding the 'PAP's lightning bolt' and the keys to unlock funds to deliver upgrading.

I am not sure why most of the upgrading works in the 'PAP-held Lorong 6' were completed recently or what impact an article like this, with its uncanny timeliness and telling diction, has on the election outcome, but I think it is rather unfair, and even misleading, to dismiss Mr Chiam's hard labour in his ward.

I would like to point out the following with regard to the article:

# Bus service No. 142 is not the sole service in the ward; others include service nos. 8, 13, 26, 31 and 151.

# The Lorong 8 market was upgraded within the last five to six years and the playgrounds had also been upgraded.

# No parks, but sporting facilities such as basketball courts had been constructed.

# Residents can give feedback and suggestions for improvements to their MP via an online channel named 'Your Voice' in the Potong Pasir Town Council website, besides the Meet-the-People sessions.

# Community events, including festive celebrations, have been organised, albeit without the sea life-unfriendly $1 shark's-fin soup.

# Some towns, especially those in the western parts of Singapore, look equally, if not more, 'sleepy'. On the other hand, Potong Pasir contains an old-world charm, away from the maddening crowds.

# In Melbourne, my friends and I sometimes travelled two hours to get to malls and cinemas from the suburbs. The 'plight' of Potong Pasir residents is nowhere compared to this.

In conclusion, one should note the absence of a level playing field for Mr Chiam as the Ministry of National Development channels Community Improvement Projects Committee funds for town improvements only to grassroots advisers who are all PAP leaders. Opposition MPs also do not have access to the community development council funds for community assistance.

I think it is ironic that the Potong Pasir residents pay taxes but are excluded from the good these funds bring. Supporting an opposition MP is no excuse for this.

The revolver might be old but the shots can still hit the right spots. Perhaps Potong Pasir residents should stick to their guns.

Lena Soh Kwee Kim (Ms)

PAP MPs can't perform the role of true opposition in Parliament

2006-03-31T22:18:00.000+08:00

March 31, 2006
The Straits Times

I refer to the article "PAP's man in Hougang could play opposition role in House" (ST, March 27). It proposes the idea of a PAP MP acting as a "replacement opposition MP". The suggestion is unworkable.

Can an institution check itself? The idea goes against the principles of audit and transparency

The purpose of an opposition in Parliament is to provide a checking mechanism not unlike an independent director on the board of a company. Now and then, he has to question the chairman or CEO's decision in the running of the company.

A PAP MP cannot act like an independent director even if the whip is lifted in Parliament.

Singaporeans do not want every MP to be wearing white. They want their concerns to be expressed by a real opposition MP in Parliament.

Acknowledging the strong desire of these Singaporeans, the PAP has not fielded a popular and high calibre minister against a credible opposition candidate like Mr Low Thia Khiang in Hougang and Mr Chiam See Tong in Potong Pasir because it knows that there is a possibility of losing to the opposition.

Loo Fook Kay

The 59 Q&A:

2006-03-30T14:44:00.000+08:00

Temasek document discusses StanChart intentions
By Steven Irvine | 29 March 2006

A revealing Temasek document with 59 questions and answers outlines its position on the acquisition of the Khoo family stake in Standard Chartered and related issues about the government-owned agency.

A Temasek document, entitled "2006-03 Taurus Q&As" - which was designed to help its executives answer media enquiries on its 12% stake in Standard Chartered - was yesterday sent as an email attachment to some journalists instead of another file.

The document contains 59 questions and answers and was prepared by staff to anticipate questions that might arise from the acquisition. Given that Temasek has rarely done Q&As with the media, the exercise represents a somewhat unique insight into what the Singapore state investment agency currently perceives its perceptional issues are and its own stance on these issues. In what follows we have reproduced the entire Q&A section. It is unedited, except to state in square brackets where
answers were left blank:

Q&As

On rationale for investment and plans for Standard Chartered

1. Why have you invested [x] % stake in Standard Chartered? What is Temasek's ultimate objective?

Investing in Standard Chartered is consistent with our focus on Asia and on its financial services sector. Standard Chartered will add to our portfolio of investments, and will be an important part of our portfolio.

We are also impressed with Standard Chartered' Board and professional management team. They have successfully developed a distinctive strategy, delivered a growth record and created shareholder value.

2. How much did you pay for the [x]% stake?

The terms of this transaction are private.

3. Why did you take a [x]% stake and not less?

We evaluate each opportunity on its merits. We are prepared to buy, sell or hold, depending on the relative merits of the various investments and opportunities.

4. Do you intend to take over Standard Chartered/ make a bid?
[Answer left blank]

5. Does Temasek intend to increase its stake in Standard Chartered?

It is not appropriate for us to comment on this. As a financial investor, we keep all our options open and will evaluate each opportunity on its merits.

6. Standard Chartered has always been a potential takeover target. Do you think Temasek's investment in Standard Chartered would trigger a competitive bid for Standard Chartered?

That possibility is a matter for others to evaluate (the merits of a competitive bid).

It is not appropriate for us to comment on this. As a financial investor, we keep all our options open and will evaluate each opportunity on its merits.

7. Do you intend to counter bid if there is a bid by another party?

It is not appropriate for us to comment on this. As a financial investor, we keep all our options open and will evaluate each opportunity on its merits.

8. We understand that you have gotten in touch with Standard Chartered Board and management. Was that a preliminary approach to the company on a possible bid?

It was a simple matter of courtesy to inform the Board and management of our investment.

9. Why is Standard Chartered not under Asia Financial Holdings, which you have said is your financial services investment holding company?

Decisions regarding structuring of our investments are internal arrangements.

10. DBS has not been very successful in its overseas acquisitions, and so far Temasek has not been able to take significant controlling stakes in banks outside Singapore. Are you investing in Standard Chartered with the intention of merging it with DBS?

Both DBS and Standard Chartered are listed companies with significant minority interests. All investment and business decisions of either of the banks are taken independently by their respective Board and management with the aim of maximizing value for all shareholders. We play no part in their investment decisions or commercial operations. If investments are such that shareholders approvals are required, then the banks will have to convene a shareholders' general meeting. In
such a situation, we will exercise our shareholder's rights according to the commercial merits of the case from a shareholder perspective.

As for the Standard Chartered investment, it is consistent with our interest and focus on Asia and the emerging markets. It has an outstanding management team who are best positioned to continue to drive growth and deliver shareholder value, as they have done the last few years.

11. How about merging Standard Chartered with any of your other banking investments in Asia to form a pan-Asian bank?
[Answer left blank]

12. Do you plan to break up Standard Chartered and merge parts of it with your existing banking investments?

This is not an appropriate question. The future of Standard Chartered is in the hands of its Board and management.

We do not involve ourselves in the investment or commercial decisions of our portfolio companies, including Standard Chartered, unless it is an issue in which shareholder approval is specifically required under The Company's Act.

13. You have invested in many financial institutions across Asia. Would this hamper Standard Chartered's ability to expand or continue with its business in some countries?

We do not see this as a problem.

All the companies in our portfolio, including Standard Chartered, are independently managed with responsibilities to their respective board and shareholders. They are each run by capable management teams.

We do not involve ourselves in the investment or commercial decisions of the companies, unless it is an issue in which shareholder approval is specifically required under The Company's Act.

On Role of Temasek

14. Temasek has always positioned itself as an active shareholder and investor. How will Temasek support Standard Chartered's growth?
[Answer left blank]

15. Standard Chartered is already doing very well. How else can Temasek value add to Standard Chartered?

Should Standard Chartered require our support, we will be happy to discuss this matter with the Board and management with an open mind, at the appropriate time.

On the board and management of Standard Chartered

16. Did Temasek discuss this purchase with the board and management of Standard Chartered prior to the investment? If not, why not?

No, it was not appropriate for us to do so prior to the investment.

We informed key members of Standard Chartered's board and management shortly before we made our announcement.

17. Would Temasek seek any representation on Standard Chartered' board?

This is something that we will discuss with the board and management of Standard Chartered when it is appropriate and useful to the company.

18. Do you plan to make any changes to the management of Standard Chartered?

This is for their Board to decide.

Having said that, the management team of Standard Chartered has been instrumental in its success today. We admire their strong capability and keen sense of business.

19. What is Temasek's assessment of the reaction of the management of Standard Chartered to Temasek's purchase of its stake in Standard Chartered?

This question is better answered by Standard Chartered.

20. Standard Chartered' board and management have on many occasions commented publicly that they would like to remain an independent company. What is your reaction to this?

We see ourselves as a stable shareholder, committed to supporting Standard Chartered's continued growth as a unique franchise.

On regulatory approvals

21. Has Temasek consulted the FSA on the purchase of its stake?

We have initiated the process of consultation with the FSA and other regulators to seek the relevant approvals and support.

22. Does Temasek foresee any problems with regulatory approvals in some of the markets which Standard Chartered operate in?

We have taken appropriate advice and will fully cooperate with the relevant authorities to comply with the regulations.

23. When will the conditions be satisfied/ when will you obtain the necessary regulatory approvals?

Timing is for the regulators but we will fully cooperate with them to comply with the regulations and obtain the necessary approvals.

On Funding

24. How is Temasek funding this investment?

We have the necessary funding for this investment.

25. Does Temasek have sufficient funds? Were the proceeds in the recent sale of SingTel shares used to fund this acquisition?

We have the necessary funding for this investment.

26. Does Temasek need to issue another global bond soon to fund its acquisitions?
[Answer left blank]

27. Will you be selling down more stakes in your portfolio to fund your acquisitions?

We are satisfied with our liquidity situation.

Others

28. You have invested in many banks in the region. Do you foresee any conflict of interests with Standard Chartered? How do you manage that?

All the companies in our portfolio, including Standard Chartered, are independently managed with responsibilities to their own board and shareholders. They are each run by capable management teams. We are not involved in their commercial decisions or day-to-day operations.

In instances where we have stakes and board representatives in two or more competing entities, we will ensure that the commercial confidentiality between the entities is preserved.

29. There is a rise of nationalistic sentiments in some of the recent investments like DPW's acquisition in P&O, and your own investment in Thailand's Shin Corp. How does Temasek plan to minimize the impact of such sentiments on its investments? Are you concerned that Temasek's investment in Standard Chartered will spark off similar sentiments?

Every investment opportunity comes with its own set of risk-reward trade-offs. There may be country, market, political, operational, regulatory, financial or execution risks.

Whether in investments or divestments, we are mindful that there can be social or political sensitivities.

We will do our best to address the various stakeholder concerns where we can, and mitigate these risks appropriately.

[For UK audience – We are just a modest shareholder in Standard Chartered and will play our role as a stable shareholder, committed to supporting Standard Chartered's continued growth as a unique franchise. We have also enjoyed strong relationships between the people of Singapore and UK at many levels, including those between
businesses, friends and students in both countries. UK is Singapore's largest investor, with S$45.7 billion from 2000 companies at the end of 2004.]

30. Does Temasek coordinate its investments with GIC?

We operate completely independently from GIC.

We are a shareholder of a globally diversified portfolio of companies, while GIC is a fund management company with focus on the capital markets.

31. The Singapore Government is Temasek's only shareholder. How can Temasek make investments based purely on commercial principles? Surely the shareholder can and do impose its non-commercial agenda onto Temasek?

All our investment and business decisions are taken independently by our own board and management, based on commercial considerations. The Singapore Government is not involved.

A majority of our board members are prominent business leaders from the private sector. We have one nominee director from our shareholder on our Board. He is one amongst a group of very experienced, steady, and thoughtful directors.

All Board decisions are made on a commercial basis.

32. Is this part of Singapore's strategy to extend its influence to UK and globally?

The Singapore Government, as a shareholder, is not involved in our investment decisions and business operations.

All our investment and business decisions are taken independently by our own board and management, based on commercial considerations.

We are guided by an independent board, of which a majority of our board members are prominent business leaders from the private sector.

33. Your CEO is also the PM's wife. The PM is also the Minister for Finance, heading MOF which is your shareholder. Is her appointment politically motivated? Wouldn't there be conflicts of interest?

We are not here to discuss politics since we are not politicians or a political organization.

Our CEO is accountable to the Board of Directors, who is headed by an independent Chairman, just like any other commercial organisation.

Country specific questions

34. What are some of the regulatory issues in each market that you have encountered? How are you dealing with it?

As a Singapore institution, we seek to comply with the applicable laws and regulations in all our investment activities in each of the markets.

We abide by each country's laws and regulations at all times.

35. Do you intend to change any branding of Standard Chartered's companies in overseas markets, or their products and services?

We think Standard Chartered is a great brand, but this question should rightly be addressed to their board and management and is not appropriate for us to answer.

36. Would this investment affect any of the operations of your existing banks under your portfolio?

All the companies in our portfolio are independently managed with responsibilities to their respective board and shareholders. They are each run by capable management teams. We are not involved in their commercial decisions or day-to-day operations.

37. Please prove to us that the BODs [Boards of directors] of your portfolio companies are independent.

All directors on boards are fully aware of their fiduciary duties.

Out of our 34 significant TLCs, our management staff constitutes only 4% of all directors on the boards of these companies, as of 31 March 2005. Our management nominees are expected to fulfill their fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of their respective companies and all shareholders.

The members on these boards are men and women of experience, integrity and considerable reputation, including 26% who are non-Singaporeans. These would include outstanding business leaders such as Sir Brian Pitman, the former chairman of Lloyds Bank and Mr John Ross, formerly of the Bank of New York and also Deutsche Bank. 68% of these board members are independent.

[As at Mar 2005, the overall composition of directors on these boards was as follows -
Independent - 68%
Non-Singaporean - 26%
Female - 7%
Temasek Management - 4%]

38. Please prove to us that the BODs of your portfolio companies in the banking sector are independent.

Appointments to our portfolio companies in the banking sector are governed by the regulatory requirements of the respective jurisdictions.

[To refer to Director list of TH Investee Banks ]

UK/Hong Kong/Australia

39. The Standard Chartered management has indicated that Temasek's investment could pose problems for some of Standard Chartered's operations in Asia, which could impact on Standard Chartered's financial health going forward. What's Temasek's response to that?

We will work closely with our advisors and the relevant authorities to comply with the laws and regulations in the markets where we have investments. We abide by each country's laws and regulations at all times.

As a financially stable AAA shareholder, we can be a reliable institutional investor for our portfolio companies.

All the companies in our portfolio are independently managed with responsibilities to their respective board and shareholders. They are also each run by capable management teams and we endeavour to protect commercial secrecy at all times.

40. Temasek's investment in Standard Chartered will effectively turn Standard Chartered into a Singapore government-owned/linked entity. This is not something that is desirable from our perspective. What is Temasek's comment on this?

The Singapore Government, as a shareholder, is not involved in our investment decisions and business operations, much less in the businesses of our portfolio companies We are guided by an independent board, of which a majority of our
board members are prominent business leaders from the private sector. We have one nominee director from our shareholder. He is one amongst a group of very experienced, steady and thoughtful directors.

We are an Asia investment house, with a responsibility of delivering sustainable long term value. About [49]% of our portfolio value is invested in Singapore, with [30]% in the developed or OCED economies, and the balance of [21]% in the rest of Asia and the emerging economies.

About 20% of our staff are non-Singaporeans, coming from countries like Canada, China, India, Indonesia, Lebanon, Malaysia, South Africa, UK, US and Vietnam.

Our investment in Standard Chartered will not change its position as a unique franchise in Asia and the developing economies.

From Temasek Review 2005, pg 42, 43:
Likewise, our companies are managed by their respective management teams and supervised by their boards. We do not involve ourselves in their commercial or operational decisions.

Our key effort to add value to our portfolio companies is to promote good corporate governance by supporting and constituting high quality, commercially experienced, diverse and international boards to complement outstanding business leadership and dedicated staff.

We generally refrain from appointing our management staff onto the boards of our portfolio companies. Instead, we work actively with our companies to identify suitable independent board candidates from a wide variety of backgrounds and nationalities to complement, rejuvenate or expand board capability and quality. Where appropriate, such candidates are introduced to the respective nominating committees
of boards for their consideration and decision.

On 31 Mar 2005, our direct and deemed shareholdings in 34 significant Temasek-linked companies ranged from 17% to 100%. The overall composition of directors on these boards was:

• Independent – 68%
• Non-Singaporean – 26%
• Female – 7%
• Temasek management – 4%

China

41. Would your investment help Standard Chartered expand further into the China market, especially with your existing relationship with the regulators?

This is not an appropriate question. The future of Standard Chartered is in the hands of its Board and management.

We will support the board and management as a stable shareholder.

42. As part of China's banking reforms, its banks are actively looking at attracting foreign investors. Do you have plans to introduce Standard Chartered to be a strategic investor to the other 3 Chinese banks that you currently have invested?

This is for the Board and management of Standard Chartered to decide.

We will support the board and management as a stable shareholder.

43. How do you plan for Standard Chartered and the 3 banks that you've invested in to leverage on each other's network, knowledge, products?

This will be up to the respective banks to decide if there is value for them to work together.

We do not involve ourselves in the commercial decisions or day-to-day management or operation of the companies.

As with the companies under our portfolio, we will leave it to each company to determine if there are areas of strategic cooperation which may be value-enhancing for the companies involved. All the investment and business decisions are taken independently by the companies' respective boards and management.

44. You have invested in 3 of China's main banks, and now a foreign bank operating in China. Would there be conflicts of interests?

We are a professional and institutional shareholder interested in sustainable returns.

All the companies in our portfolio, including Standard Chartered, are independently managed with responsibilities to their respective boards and shareholders. They are each run by capable management teams.

We are not involved in their commercial or day-to-day operations. In instances where we have stakes and board representatives in two or more competing entities, we will ensure that the commercial confidentiality between the entities is preserved.

45. By taking a stake in Standard Chartered, Temasek would indirectly own another Chinese bank, in addition to Standard Chartered's operations in China. Previously there have been concerns raised that Temasek could threaten China's financial security. What is Temasek's reaction to this and what do you intend to do?

The Chinese government continues to hold significant controlling stakes in the banks in China. We are a small minority shareholder along with other such shareholders in the banks with no commercial conflicts of interest.

Thailand

46. Your investment in Shin Corp is still very much discussed in Thailand and there are still talks about boycotting Singapore companies and goods. Are you concerned that this investment will further fuel criticisms?

Our investment in Shin Corp reflected our confidence in Thailand's long-term growth. Similarly for Standard Chartered, the investment reflects our confidence in Standard Chartered, and Asia as a whole.

47. With your investment in Shin Corp, you are already controlling a strategic asset in telecommunications. Now with Standard Chartered, you are seen as taking over Thailand's financial services sector as well. Isn't this politically motivated?

Our investment in Shin Corp reflected our confidence in Thailand's long-term growth. Similarly for Standard Chartered, the investment reflects our confidence in Standard Chartered, and Asia as a whole.

48. What other sectors are you interested in investing in Thailand?

As an active investor, we are open and will evaluate each opportunity on its merits.

49. Under the Financial Master Plan, which stipulated the "Single Presence Rule" to be observed by foreign banks and foreign investors who own stakes in Thai banks, you are violating the rule given your stake in Standard Chartered and its shareholding in a Thai bank (SCN) and your shareholding in DBS, which has a 16% stake in Thai Military Bank (TMB). Please comment.

We have entered into an agreement to acquire equity in an overseas listed and incorporated entity. We have taken appropriate advice and will fully co-operate with the relevant authorities to comply with the regulations.

Both Standard Chartered and DBS are managed independently and as separate entities, which are the responsibilities of their own boards and management.

Under each entity, they only have one Thai banking operation. In addition, DBS only owns 16% of TMB, a public listed company, and does not have significant influence or control of the bank.

We will work closely with our advisors and the relevant authorities to comply with the laws and regulations in the markets where we have investments.

We abide by each country's laws and regulations at all times and our investment will be subjected to the necessary regulatory approvals.

Indonesia

50. You are already a majority shareholder in 2 major banks in Indonesia. What is your intention with the country's financial services sector, now with your expanded network of banks?

As with our other investments, we will continue to support the board and management as a stable shareholder. At the same time, we hope to participate and contribute to the growth and development of the economy through the financial services sector.

In instances where we have stakes and board representatives in two or more competing entities, we will ensure that the commercial confidentiality between the entities is preserved.

51. As controlling shareholders of Danamon and BII, would this investment affect what you are currently doing in these 2 banks? Would you be restricted and scaling down on your current partnerships in these 2 banks? If not, would there be conflict of interests?

We will work closely with our advisors and the relevant authorities to comply with the laws and regulations in the markets where we have investments.

All the companies in our portfolio are independently managed with responsibilities to their respective boards and shareholders. They are each run by capable management teams.

We are not involved in their commercial decisions or day-to-day operations. In instances where we have stakes and board representatives in two or more competing entities, we will ensure that the commercial confidentiality between the entities is preserved.

We will continue to play our role as a stable shareholder. As with our other investments, we will support the board and management as they seek further growth.

52. The Indonesian government has announced that it plans to implement a "single presence policy" where a foreign investor cannot own substantial stakes in more than one Indonesian bank. What are your comments to this? Do you foresee any problems with your investment in Standard Chartered?

It is not appropriate for us to comment on the proposed "single presence policy" as the details have not been announced.

We will work with our advisors and the relevant authorities to comply with the applicable laws and regulations in the various markets where we have investments.

All the companies in our portfolio, including Standard Chartered, are independently managed with responsibilities to their respective boards and shareholders. They are each run by capable management teams.

We are not involved in their commercial decisions or day-to-day operations. In instances where we have stakes and board representatives in two or more competing entities, we will ensure that the commercial confidentiality between the entities is preserved.

Korea

53. Would this investment hamper either your own or your TLCs' efforts to acquire other financial institutions in Korea?

We will work with our advisors and the relevant authorities to comply with the applicable laws and regulations in the various markets where we have investments.

All the companies in our portfolio are independently managed with responsibilities to their own board and shareholders. They are each run by capable management teams.

We are not involved in their commercial decisions or day-to-day operations.

54. The Financial Supervisory Commission in Korea has said that Temasek is classified as a non-banking group in Korea which means its ownership in any domestic bank is limited to 10%. You already own close to 10% in Hana Bank. Won't this be a problem for Temasek in Korea? Does Temasek need to seek the Korean regulator's approval to
invest in Standard Chartered?

We will work with our advisors and the relevant authorities to comply with the applicable laws and regulations in the various markets for all our investment activities.

As a shareholder, we are not involved in the commercial decisions or day-to-day operations of our companies. They are independent entities guided by their respective boards and management.

55. Temasek is considered an industrial group. According to Korean regulations, "Chaebols" or industrial groups are not allowed to own more than 30% in banks. Do you see a problem arising in future for Temasek?

There are three points we wish to highlight:

i) We are taking a direct minority stake in a PLC (UK) company, which in turn owns the Korean asset. We do not have a direct stake in the Korean asset.

ii) We do not have any board and management influence in Standard Chartered, as well as in the Korean asset.

iii) Our shareholding is below the 30% level stipulated for "Chaebols" or industrial groups under the regulations.

Further, we have always worked with our advisors and the relevant authorities to comply with the applicable laws and regulations in the various markets in all our investment activities.

We abide by each country's laws and regulations at all times and our investment will be subjected to the necessary regulatory approvals. We will fully co-operate with the relevant authorities to comply with the regulations.

56. Are you merging Hana with Standard Chartered's Korean assets?

We do not have any board and management influence in Hana.

Hana is independently managed with responsibilities to their own board and shareholders. The bank is run by a capable management team and we are not involved in the day-to-day operations.

Malaysia

57. Given your existing investment in Alliance bank, are you planning to merge the operations of Alliance bank with Standard Chartered. If not, how would you address any conflict of interests?

As a shareholder, we are not involved in the day-to-day operations of our companies. They are independent entities guided by their own boards and management. Both are public-listed entities and are accountable to all shareholders. Any decision will be made subject to the board's recommendation and shareholders' approval.

In instances where we have stakes and board representatives in two or more competing entities, we will ensure that the commercial confidentiality between the entities is preserved.

58. According to BAFIA, approval from Bank Negara is required to commence negotiations for any takeover of a Malaysian bank. Have you obtained approval to proceed?

We have entered into an agreement to acquire equity in an overseas listed and incorporated entity. We have taken appropriate advice and will fully co-operate with the relevant authorities to comply with the regulations.

We will work with our advisors and the relevant authorities to comply with the applicable laws and regulations in the various markets where we have investments.

We abide by each country's laws and regulations at all times and our investment will be subjected to the necessary regulatory approvals.

India

59. You already have an investment in ICICI Bank. Your subsidiary AFH has invested in the majority of the equity of a non Bank Finance Company - First India Credit (formerly Dove Finance). Will these not present any conflict vis a vis Standard Chartered investment?

We are a passive portfolio investor in ICICI Bank, under the FII guidelines of Govt of India. We are not involved in the day-to-day operations of Standard Chartered. We expect Standard Chartered to be governed by its Board and management. We do not see any conflict here with our investment in Standard Chartered.

Copyright FinanceAsia.com Ltd

Singapore Inc on the nose

2006-03-27T14:47:00.000+08:00

March 27, 2006
The Sydney Morning Herald

Singapore's Temasek is rich, powerful and on the prowl. But it didn't count on the latest backlash from Thailand, Eric Ellis reports.

IF IT looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck, as goes the old axiom.

And as effigies of Singapore's leaders burning in the streets of Bangkok suggest, millions of grumpy Thais haven't needed a zoology degree to work out that Singapore's Temasek Holdings is a government-owned duck.

Temasek's $3 billion deal to buy Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra out of his family business, Shin Corp, has precipitated Thailand's most serious political crisis in more than a decade.

Thais have poured into the streets demanding "Asia's Berlusconi" resign his five-year rule and pay taxes from the deal on his way out. Thailand's baht wobbles - its collapse prompted Asia's 1997 financial crisis - and worries economists, while deals are put off. The twitchy Thai military stays in the barracks, for now, while Thaksin toughs out this high-stakes game of brinkmanship versus the people.

But what of Temasek, Singapore's self-styled paragon of transparency whose opaque deal making has precipitated South-East Asia's latest economic crisis?

One of the world's most powerful investors, boasting an $US80 billion ($110 billion) portfolio, its Thai adventure is looking increasingly like a spectacular misjudgement for its boss, Madame Ho Ching. She's the wife of Singapore's Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, whose family's authoritarian 50-year rule of Singapore inspired the inner autocrat in Thaksin that could now prove his undoing.

Temasek's tactic is to effect an air of "Crisis? What crisis?" and deny it has anything to do with Official Singapore. Indeed, its descent to duckdom is never more absurdly displayed as when its army of immaculately groomed spinners demand the world's press and market analysts stop referring to it as "Singapore government-owned" and call it instead an "Asian investment company".

But Thais simply join the dots: Temasek is 100 per cent owned by Singapore's Ministry of Finance. Singapore's Finance Minister is its Prime Minister, Mr Lee, and his wife is Temasek's chief executive.

Thais would probably be furious with whoever did such a backroom deal with Thaksin. But every insistence by either Singapore side that they have nothing to do with the other simply further ignites the Thai touchpaper.

"Come on," says Professor Thitinan Pongsudhirak of Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University. "We Thais aren't idiots."

Indeed, as Asia moves to wind back government involvement in the private sector, Thais view with alarm what they see as Thaksin's sell-out to the Singapore Government of their economy: hotels, banks, airlines, property and, now, the main telephone company, a strategic communications satellite and a popular television station. Notes one columnist in the Thailand's The Nation newspaper, "Singapore might change Bangkok's Sathorn Road into Orchard Road and declare it a bubble-gum-free zone".

Sometimes Temasek is its own worst enemy. As Thais raged, a placatory Temasek presented its "managing director, investments," Mr S Iswaran, as the go-to guy to explain the Shin deal.

As a veteran Singapore civil servant, Iswaran was once responsible for Singapore's negotiations at the World Trade Organisation and APEC. He is also the Parliament's deputy speaker and a loyal lieutenant of the Lee family-led People's Action Party. A more faithful flack of the ruling clique would be hard to find.

Singaporeans aren't Thais but they know a good deal when they see one, and many would like to see Temasek out of Singapore's economy too, where government companies control as much as 60 per cent of the action.

They privately question what in fact it was that Ho brought to Temasek in 2001, apart from a powerful husband they already knew. She was hired in 2001 to enliven Temasek's sluggish returns but, in Bangkok at least, the value she purchased for Singapore disappears by the day as protesters vote with their pockets by cancelling subscriptions to Shin's main asset, Thailand's leading mobile phone company, AIS.

Shin shares have fallen 25 per cent since Ho's deal. Her stewardship of Temasek since she became CEO - an appointment her spinners insisted was on merit - has been unremarkable, with some big misses offsetting a handful of medium successes.

Many of Temasek's deals have a strong whiff of national interest about them and Temasek's forays abroad come as Singapore's political leaders worry their developed but tiny economy is maturing, exhorting its business community to secure the city-state's future offshore.

In Jakarta, influential politicians want the Singapore Government to exit its two-year-old investment in one of Ho's better deals, the communications giant Indosat, particularly as another Temasek company, Singapore Telecom - owner of Australia's Optus - already has half of Indosat's competitor Telkomsel. That's too much strategic telecommunications in Singapore hands for their taste and Jakarta has offered Temasek $1.2 billion to buy back the Indosat stake.

But as dissent simmers with the threat of political sanction hanging over it, Temasek has so far refused to sell.

In Beijing too, bureaucrats are questioning last year's wisdom of allowing Temasek a $2.5 billion stake in the Bank of China, believing it might have got it too cheap while wondering what Singapore brings to the table apart from cash.

In New Delhi, the Indian Government recently denied Temasek approval to buy into mobile operator Idea Cellular, India's fifth largest, because SingTel already part-owns another, Bharti, the largest.

Temasek struggles too in the US. It paid $US250 million in 2003 for 62 per cent of ailing cable operator Global Crossing, believing it got a bargain for a fibre optic network that cost $15 billion to build. But the company has since been dogged by one disaster after another and Global Crossing lost $US600 million in 2004-05.

There have also been setbacks in Australia, where Canberra recently denied Temasek's 57 per cent owned Singapore Airlines access to the lucrative route between Sydney and Los Angeles.

Surgery is needed at home too. Temasek-controlled DBS Bank recently took an unexpected $700 million charge on its Hong Kong operation, the former Dao Heng Bank.

Its wafer business, Chartered Semiconductor, has been a headache on Ho's watch, accumulating losses of more than $1 billion, while its share price has fallen 90 per cent since 1999.

Temasek's own figures described shareholder returns of just 1 per cent over the five years to March 31, as against the gain in Singapore's Straits Times index of 2.7 per cent over the same period.

Still, at least Singaporeans now know what's happening to their money. Notoriously secretive, Temasek only first publicly revealed its accounts in 2004.

Says Thai academic Pongsudhirak: "This is the last straw. Temasek has underestimated the political fallout here. This deal has not been transparent, everything has not been fully accounted for. Whether they like it or not, Temasek has made itself a player in Thai politics and that puts its investment at risk."

Meanwhile, Asia looks on with a bemused combination of mild concern that Thailand's worries could again spill outside its borders as in the late 1990s but more Schadenfreude at Singapore Inc's discomfort. As many in the region tactfully like to say, wealthy Singapore is admired by its neighbours if not necessarily always loved.

Eric Ellis is Fortune magazine's South-East Asian correspondent.

Physical distance should not decide right to vote

2006-03-21T16:25:00.000+08:00

March 21, 2006
The Straits Times

DURING his walkabout in Serangoon Gardens on Saturday, Foreign Minister George Yeo was asked about ongoing plans to let Singaporeans who are overseas vote.

He was quoted as saying that 'we must make sure that those who vote are ... familiar with the conditions in Singapore and do not, from a long distance, having lost track with what's happening here, affect the political process' as voting is 'a very serious business'. I cannot agree more.

According to a recent Straits Times survey, there are Singaporeans living in Singapore who have no idea which constituency they are in and who their MPs are. Are these Singaporeans any more in touch with what is happening in the country than a Singaporean living overseas, who keeps track of developments in Singapore via the Internet and other sources?

I think it is time we move away from the idea that physical distance from Singapore affects whether a Singaporean is in touch with the country or not, especially when Singapore is so wired.

Any Singaporean overseas who needs information about Singapore need only walk that short distance to the computer. Keeping in touch depends on a Singaporean's will, not his/her whereabouts.

Agnes Sng Hwee Lee (Ms)
Bucharest, Romania

Govt far richer than it makes itself out to be, says Steve Chia

2006-03-01T11:28:00.000+08:00

March 1, 2006
By Sue-Ann Chia
The Straits Times

THE Government is misleading Singaporeans on the true state of its finances, charged Non-Constituency MP Steve Chia yesterday.

It is actually far richer than it has made itself out to be, he said, continuing the opposition's attack on the Government's fiscal policy.

His accusation comes a day after opposition MP Low Thia Khiang pressed the Government to be more transparent in its Budget accounting.

At issue is the way the Government classifies revenue.

Its definition of revenue does not include capital receipts such as from one-off sale of land and capital goods. Nor does it include all net investment income (NII).

This conservative accounting practice has led economists to argue that Singapore's fiscal position is actually much stronger than it appears.

Mr Chia pointed out that up to half the NII can be used within a government's five-year term, while the other half has to be locked away as long-term reserves.

But the Government decided to use only 33 per cent. 'Why did it not use up all the 50 per cent allowed?' he asked.

The Government had projected a Budget deficit of $2.86 billion this year, after giving away $2.6 billion in dividends and bonuses to Singaporeans.

But Mr Chia argued that when capital receipts and 50 per cent of net investment income are included, the Government actually enjoys a surplus of $5.1 billion this year.

When capital receipts and NII are included, the total surpluses chalked up over the last few years is an 'obscene total' of at least $19 billion sitting in the Consolidated Fund, waiting to be transferred to the national reserves.

'That is a lot of money. More importantly, that money has not been reflected in the Budget. It gives a misleading picture of our Government's fiscal position,' he said.

He noted that the Finance Ministry had previously explained that these capital receipts were 'lumpy and uncertain' and hence should not be counted on to fund regular expenditure.

But not reflecting such big amounts in the Budget was more misleading to the public than reflecting it, he argued.

'I had been misled. The public had been misled. Everyone had been misled to think the Government had been very tight these last four years, and we will enter FY2006 with a huge deficit. But that is not true at all.'

The $19 billion surplus should be put to good use, he said. 'The Government should scrap - or at least drastically reduce - the water conservation tax, the radio and TV licence fees, and the foreign domestic worker levy. They can afford to, and they should,' he argued.

But People's Action Party MPs were swift to rebut Mr Chia, the secretary-general of the opposition National Solidarity Party.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Jurong GRC) said: 'I heard with amazement Mr Chia's call to abolish and lower taxes, and at the same time, advocating more and more giveaways and freebies.

'Now, who will pay for all this? Without sufficient taxes and revenues, such things cannot be sustained. It is, in my mind, a recipe for disaster.'

Dr John Chen (Hong Kah GRC) also took issue with Mr Chia's Budget analysis. He reiterated the Government's position that the proceeds from government land sales should go into long-term reserves.

'Otherwise, a rogue government, with the election promise to give away money, can come in easily to sell land and give the money to people,' he pointed out, adding: 'I think either Mr Chia does not understand what constitutes reserves and the protection of it, or he is indeed misleading the people himself.'

Giveaways like military assault: Opposition

2006-03-01T11:25:00.000+08:00

March 1, 2006
SHORT-TERM TACTIC?

They are massive and precisely targeted to win votes, it claims
By Aaron Low

THE opposition yesterday accused the Government of using this year's Budget to dole out billion-dollar giveaways to win votes.

The $2.6 billion promised to Singaporeans is 'mind-boggling' and exceeds the amount set aside for health, national development, environment and water resources, transport, or trade and industry, said opposition MP Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir).

Most of the money will be given to low-income and older Singaporeans. This, conceded both Mr Chiam and Non-Constituency MP Steve Chia, would win the People's Action Party (PAP) a considerable number of votes.

Mr Chiam noted that after several years of belt-tightening, Singaporeans welcomed any monetary help from the Government.

'The Government knows this fact and the use of the Budget this time round for election purposes is fully exploited.

'The tactic is awesome. The tactic used is like a military assault, massive and precisely targeted,' he said.

So successful will the billion-dollar giveaways be that the PAP will certainly get more votes, said Mr Chia.

'We, especially the new faces and non-incumbent members of the opposition contesting this GE, will be wiped out,' he lamented, adding that this might be his last Budget speech.

Mr Chia entered Parliament as best-loser among opposition candidates in the 2001 General Election, under the NCMP scheme. The scheme, introduced in 1984, allows the top opposition loser in a General Election to have a seat in Parliament if fewer than three opposition MPs are elected.

He added: 'I can place my bet the GE will be called within 30 days from May 1 - after the people have collected the money.'

Singaporeans can collect the growth dividends of $200 to $800 from May 1.

Both Mr Chia and Mr Chiam accused the PAP Government of using every means at its disposal - especially this year's Budget - to win electoral support. With so much in its favour, Mr Chia pressed the PAP to 'play fair' in the coming election expected this year.

He called on the Prime Minister to shrink the size of group representation constituencies from the current five or six, to three. This would create more single wards, and encourage electoral contest.

More Singaporeans will then get to exercise their right to vote and 'society will be better off and richer for this experience', Mr Chia said, adding that his National Solidarity Party might not be able to contest in the five-member Jalan Besar GRC as planned earlier, as it was short of a candidate.

In similar vein, Mr Chiam urged the PAP to 'level the playing field' in politics. He cited one example of unfair advantage: the disbursement of constituency upgrading funds through the Community Improvement Projects Committee which channels the money only to PAP MPs, leaving out opposition MPs.

But even as he criticised the Government, Mr Chia acknowledged the Budget was a good one and singled out the Workfare scheme as a 'brilliant policy' as it used a 'small' amount of $400 million to help hundreds of thousands. 'Returning money to the people is always good, albeit for the wrong motives.'

aaronl@sph.com.sg

Radical Budget sets bad precedents

2006-03-01T11:21:00.000+08:00

Feb 28, 2006
FROM THE GALLERY

By Chua Mui Hoong
Deputy Political Editor

This is a Budget that risks setting precedents both welcome and worrisome, as Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah) alluded.
As a few - too few - MPs noted on Day 1 of the parliamentary debate on the Budget yesterday, there are some questions raised by the Government's fiscal policy as demonstrated in Budget 2006, which have to be addressed.

The last time massive giveaways were doled out was in 2001, when $2.7 billion in New Singapore Shares was given out to adult Singaporeans. It was part of an off-Budget package totalling $11.3 billion - announced three weeks before the November 2001 general election, which sent the Budget for that year into a $4 billion deficit.

Like Budget 2001, the deficit for Budget 2006 will be financed from past years' surpluses within the five-year term of Government, a point Mr Lee made in his Budget speech.

So is Dr Wang right, and has the Government moved away from balancing its books every year, to a policy of balancing its books every five years? If so, will there be a big-bang Budget to spend all the accumulated surpluses every five years - which just happens to be before each election? Is the Government, in other words, moving away from a save-as-you-earn policy to one where it is okay to spend-as-you-earn?

When Mr Lee responds to MPs tomorrow, this is surely one issue he has to address.

The second radical thing about Budget 2006 is the way it breaches the co-payment principle of past Budget handouts.

Previous bonuses had been given to Singaporeans' Central Provident Fund accounts, and those who want it had to contribute at least a token $50. This time round, as Dr Wang noted, there's no pretence that the so-called 'growth dividends' of $200 to $800, given to all adult Singaporeans, are anything other than a direct handout.

It is given out as cold cash, and there is no need for you to put in anything first.

Question: Whatever happened to the principle of co-payment and self-effort?

In contrast, the workfare bonus - given to older, low-wage workers - is given only to those who have put in effort to get work. At least it demands labour - sweat equity - in return for a cash bonus.

muihoong@sph.com.sg

Opposition MP Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) criticised the lack of transparency in the Government's Budget statements...

2006-03-01T01:21:00.000+08:00

Opposition MP Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) criticised the lack of transparency in the Government's Budget statements, which do not include all the income it earns

28/02/2006
The Straits Times

Although he did not specify the sources of such income, he might have had in mind the Government's revenue from land sales and other one-off sales of assets, which it does not include when calculating its annual Budget balance.

Mr Low said of this practice: 'The current Budget does not include the Government's other income. So even if there is a Budget deficit, it does not mean that the Government is having financial difficulties. And when there is a Budget surplus, the surplus could be much more.'

WORKERS' Party (WP) chief Low Thia Khiang attacked the Government yesterday for its vote-getting Budget.

INCONSISTENT?: Contradictory signals on deficits, says Mr Low.

The opposition MP, speaking in Mandarin, pointed out that after years of declaring that budget deficits are 'monsters and disasters' and accumulating surpluses relentlessly, the Government has now done an about-turn.

He saw the giveaways as an election ploy, noting that in giving $2.6 billion, it is incurring its largest deficit in recent years: $2.86 billion.

This, he said, does not gel with what Finance Minister Lee Hsien Loong had said when there was a $1.2 billion deficit in 2003. Then, Mr Lee had said deficits could be tolerated in times of hardship. But when times are good, the Government should accumulate surpluses.

Since the economic projection for the year ahead is good, Mr Low argued, it was odd to present a budget with a deficit.

Raising his eyebrows at the cash giveaways, the Hougang MP contrasted it with the New Singapore Shares (NSS) dished out in 2001, days before the General Election on Nov 3. He said he could understand the NSS gift as it came after years of surpluses that added up to $15 billion. 'Distributing the shares cost the Government just $2.4 billion,' he said, before adding sarcastically, 'which is just peanuts'.

He then accused the Government of repeatedly giving out money before elections, only to take it back after the polls, echoing a charge he made in 2001 when he called the off-Budget measures to fight the recession an election ploy. For example, he said, after distributing the NSS, the goods and services tax was raised from 3 to 5 per cent. The GST went up on Jan 1, 2004, about a couple of years after the NSS was distributed.

Mr Low also suggested that the Government was inconsistent, saying that while it did not seem perturbed by the deficit, it would issue stern warnings whenever the opposition asked for more help for the people on education and health, arguing that such moves could bankrupt the nation.

Nonetheless, the lower-income group deserved the money they will receive on May 1, he said.

However, he added that the PAP Government's 'strategy of giving a bonus every five years is only a temporary way of alleviating Singaporeans' burdens'.

'I need to remind the Government that what the people are really concerned about is the perennial rising cost of living.'

Too much of a good thing?

2006-03-01T01:13:00.000+08:00

MPs hail Budget goodies but fear unhealthy expectations
Christie Loh
christie@newstoday.com.sg
TodayOnline

Members of Parliament (MPs) have applauded the Government for drawing up a "compassionate" Budget aimed at helping low-income and older workers. But in the same breath yesterday, several aired concerns that the billion-dollar handouts will breed unhealthy expectations in subsequent years.

In the Budget debate in Parliament, Dr Wang Kai Yuen was the first MP from the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) to voice such fears.

The Bukit Timah MP began by lauding the $2.6-billion "progress package" for the way it gave more cash bonuses and rebates to the poor than the rich, saying it was an improvement from the previous approach of "equal sharing regardless of need". While Dr Wang believed the generous payouts would "render the ground sweeter for the ruling party in the coming General Election (GE)", he wondered if such largesse has set the stage for great expectations before every future GE.

"I believe that from this year onward, every future government would be tempted to reap political dividends through a people-oriented 'progress package' at the end of its term, thus starting a new cyclical trend known as the 'election-year Budget'," Dr Wang said.

In a similar vein, Hong Kah MP Amy Khor warned the House many Singaporeans were already hoping the Workfare bonus would continue indefinitely, despite official announcements that the cash payout for low-income workers was a one-off and tied to the economy's good performance.

She said: "We should monitor the impact of the workfare bonus and other related initiatives, and weigh the pros and cons carefully, before deciding if more Workfare bonuses are warranted in future Budgets."

Still, she hailed the Budget as "heartwarming" in its attempt to ensure no Singaporean fell behind.

But to Mr Low Thia Khiang, Hougang MP and secretary-general of the Workers' Party, the bag of goodies was no more than a vote-winning tool by the PAP. He contended that the latest "impromptu one-in-five-years bonus sharing" exercise would only temporarily assuage the people's financial burdens.

And if the Opposition were to ask for more public spending on say, education, the Government would retort that such extravagance would result in a deficit and even bankrupt the coffers, he said.

Now that the 2006 Budget will incur a deficit of $2.86 billion, Mr Low wants the Government to itemise revenue sources currently omitted from the Budget as they go towards financing its shortfall.

"Otherwise, is this in keeping with the principle of transparency?" he asked.

Mr Tan Cheng Bock, the MP of Ayer Rajah since 1980, expressed surprise that the Government had more than $13 billion in capital receipts — through sale of land, for example — between 2002 and 2005. These will cover the Budget deficit.

"Why is it (capital receipts) are not in the Budget? I'd be the first to queue up for the funds for lift upgrading," said Mr Tan.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will, in his capacity as Finance Minister, reply to the comments during the wrap-up.

Media 'too timid' in election coverage: Panellist

2006-02-27T00:56:00.000+08:00

Feb 26, 2006
The Straits Times

THE way the mainstream media covers elections came under fire yesterday at a forum on politics at the National University of Singapore (NUS).

Mr Viswa Sadasivan, chairman of TV production company The Right Angle Group, suggested that journalists today are more timid than they need be.

'There is so much room to manoeuvre. I don't think we need to be looking over our shoulders all the time. The media needs to play less safe,' he said.

Mr Viswa, a former current affairs producer with the then-Singapore Broadcasting Corporation (SBC), took to task today's journalists and editors.

Unlike their predecessors, he said, they fail to push the envelope. He contrasted this to his own efforts when he was in charge of elections coverage at SBC in the 1980s. He pushed for and saw through the broadcast of a debate between the People's Action Party and opposition party leaders, he said.

Mr Viswa, whose company's clients include government agencies, also chairs the Feedback Unit's political development group and sits on the Media Development Board.

Of today's journalists, he said: 'The media does not have enough strong leadership, enough people willing to take a stand.'

'The media could do with a lot more guts,' he added.

He also accused the press of not giving the opposition fair coverage.

He said that, in reporting on the Workers' Party manifesto, they had focused on the Government's labelling of four of its proposals as 'time bombs'. He claimed that many points in the manifesto were not captured in media reports, a point that Nominated MP Geh Min later agreed with.

With Mr James Gomez of the Workers' Party looking on, Mr Viswa accused the media of having a habit of making opposition politicians look bad by taking photographs of them from a low angle and in dim light.

'You don't have to make opposition members like James look like bicycle thieves,' he quipped.

He said he hoped to see 'a lot more critical commentaries' during the next general election.

Several NUS students also raised issues of online freedom and expressed concern about the charges brought against three racist bloggers under the Sedition Act.

Dr Gillian Koh, of the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), said young bloggers should not worry about expressing themselves freely as the racist bloggers constituted an extreme case of hate speech online.

Commenting later on Mr Viswa's comparison of the political reporting of the past with that of today, IPS acting director and veteran media watcher Arun Mahizhnan said: 'In terms of the space offered to political views, I have to say that a lot more is available now compared to the 1970s and 1980s.

'There is also a much greater diversity of views expressed, particularly in the print and new media like the Internet.

'I don't see the same diversity in the broadcast media, perhaps due to constraints in the medium or programming philosophy.'

By UncleYap

2006-02-20T10:00:00.000+08:00

Nearly 2.16m Singaporeans eligible to vote in coming general election

2006-02-17T20:54:00.000+08:00

17 February 2006 1951 hrs (SST)
ChannelNewsAsia

Nearly 2.16 million Singaporeans are eligible to vote in the coming general election.

Their names are listed in the Registers of Electors which have been certified by the Elections Department on Friday.

Registers for the 23 electoral divisions are now open for inspection.

This can be done at the Elections Department in Prinsep Street and 104 Inspection Centres located in community centres and clubs.

Singaporeans can also check the registers on-line via the Elections Department website at www.elections.gov.sg.

The registers contain a total of 2,158,439 names.

Among them, 857 are registered as overseas electors.

They will be able to vote at eight Overseas Polling Stations located at the Singapore diplomatic missions in Canberra, Beijing, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo, London, Washington and San Francisco. - CNA/ch

Varsity fee hike: Tell me why

2006-02-16T19:44:00.000+08:00

Be more transparent about operating costs Why not find ways to cut costs instead?

TodayOnline
Thursday • February 16, 2006
Letter from Darius Chan Xiaohui
Letter from Ye Zhanrong

I am an undergraduate at the National University of Singapore (NUS) and I read with interest the report about the university raising its tuition fees for the second time in two years, "Pay more for higher studies" (Feb 15).

The fees payable by NUS undergraduates are relatively low compared to overseas institutions and this should not be taken for granted.

Furthermore, any fee increment could sharpen NUS' competitive edge in attracting and retaining top-notch academia that I have had the privilege of learning from.

But the key issue here seems to be the lack of the transparency in the justification of both fee increments.

In this regard, the NUS administration has distributed a circular to its students citing an increase in operating costs. I have yet to see an explanation of the operating costs in the circular or in its annual report.

While the NUS administration's commitment to increasing financial aid is to be lauded, this begs the question of whether the additional funds for these schemes can defray any increase in costs and ultimately benefit the entire student community.

While I remain confident that any checks and balances within the NUS administration will ensure the absence of extravagant expenditure, the provision of information on how fees are deployed is an exercise in good corporate governance.

One student interviewed about the fee hikes agreed with the increase, but I must say that this is not the view of the general NUS student population.

As an undergraduate, I find it hard to convince myself that the increase is just.

First of all, there are many ways to balance the books and it is not always by increasing the fees paid by the end-consumer. There are many local corporations that manage to cut costs effectively without increasing the burden on consumers.

If the budget is tight, why do I keep seeing new buildings that I rarely visit?

How many students have been to the University Cultural Centre more than twice a year? How many people have been to the spanking new University Hall? Why are there ongoing renovations to seemingly new structures?

If the budget is tight, shouldn't the authorities cut salaries? There has been no news that such a measure has been resorted to to keep costs low.

Similarly, air conditioning is everywhere: in empty lecture halls, empty seminar rooms and open corridors. Is there a need for such extravagance?

Students are already paying a lot of extra money to supplement our studies in NUS. We pay for our textbooks, the printing of our notes, buying tools, our lodging, transportation — and the list goes on.

I do not understand why I pay nearly 50 times more than I did in JC to do 10 times more of the work I used to do.

And I find it an irony that the school is putting aside $3 million for grants and bursaries for needy students. What is the use of increasing the fees in general and then subsidising a minority?

Most of the foreign students I know receive such grants.

Some people are complaining about the growing foreign student population at NUS. From the casual talk I hear, they assume the fee hike has gone to "importing" more of this foreign talent.

Perhaps it's the uncertainty of the whole affair that makes me reluctant to accept the hike in fees. Can NUS provide hard evidence to justify the increase in fees?

Can the Ministry of Education step in to pacify the student population?

After all, the issue affects tens of thousands of non-working students.

Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.

A nation of naive citizens?

2006-02-14T15:17:00.000+08:00

Star, Malaysia
February 12, 2006

Insight Down South By Seah Chiang Nee

ARE Singaporeans naive? No, this is not a flippant question and there are good reasons for it.

One of those who believes that Singaporeans are gullible when it comes to a sob story is Prof Lee Wei Ling, the daughter of Minister Mentor. She wasn’t referring to the National Kidney Foundation scandal, in which the former management misled hundreds of thousands into donating millions for needy people requiring expensive dialysis treatment

The director and senior consultant of National Neuroscience Institute, Lee – speaking in a private capacity – was talking about well-intentioned people donating money indiscriminately to questionable causes.

She referred to four recent cases in which people opened their wallets to help children to undergo complex surgeries that created complications for some of the aid takers.

In one case, the separated conjoined Nepalese twins never fully recovered but left behind unceasing costly follow-up treatments and misplacing of the funds by their parents, who kept coming for more money.

Then when young Huang Na, a little girl from China was murdered here, sympathetic Singaporeans forked out a small fortune to the girl’s mother, who promptly went back to refurbish her home in China, thank-you-very-much.

“I am disappointed with my fellow Singaporeans’ gullibility,” said the sister of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. “What good is that money to Huang Na who has died?

Not every one agrees with the professor. Charity is in the eyes of the beholder.

She would have made a strong case if she had also warned contributors to beware of officially sanctioned charities, including NKF, as well as to ensure their money is well spent.

Actually, the act of giving charity always involves an element of risk of being taken for a ride since no one can guarantee that every taker is one hundred per cent truthful.

“If one has to check up on every beggar’s financial background first, no one will ever give alms,” exclaimed a church worker, who disagrees that charity is worthwhile only if it is officially sanctioned.

At any rate, donating not only helps the acceptor, but emotionally benefits the giver, too.

But Lee is not wrong to say that Singaporeans are naive, especially those who handed over large sums (reportedly tens of thousands of dollars) to a foreigner mother just because her child was murdered here. What about other death victims?

Today’s Singaporean is painted as a well-informed, sophisticated person able to cope with the modern world, but for every such person, there is another who is less savvy.

This is, of course, not surprising. Most countries wear two faces – or more.

Cosmopolitan but with half the population poorly educated, Singapore is often smart and terribly green at the same time, at least a portion of it, anyway.

People have simple-mindedly handed over money to people they have never met on the vague promise of a “sure-thing” stock investment or a “well-paying” job in Singapore or overseas. Even savvy investors are known to have been cheated of millions by Nigerians, or Africans, whom they often look down as less smart than them. The exact number is unknown since some victims are too ashamed to report it.

So far, the police have arrested more than 20 foreign fraudsters who arrived to collect. People say there’s a fool born every minute. The majority are victims of greed and naivety, succumbing to a more sophisticated breed of crooks using the Internet and easy transfer of funds.

An insurance agent was strung along for three weeks over the Web before he was cheated of S$330,000, some of it borrowed from friends. It began with an e-mail (the type all of us get dozens of times) that promised him a chance to earn an easy S$13mil. It was from a “Anya Duruoha”, supposed manager of the “Diamond Bank of Nigeria”.

He spun the tale of a rich Nigerian killed in a road accident, who had left behind US$25mil without will or kin. Since the Nigerian government pockets any inheritance not claimed in five years, our man was asked to pose as a relative. He was promised a 30% cut, or about S$13mil, but he had to wire lawyer’s fees that would lead to more demands incrementally.

Despite the worldwide publicity, five Singaporeans were cheated of S$2mil in 2003. In 2004, seven people lost between S$1000 and S$30,000 each.

Another con declares the victim a winner of a rich prize in a foreign lottery, which requires payment of a “handling fee” to collect.

A ridiculous scheme, I agree. How could they win the top prize when they never bought any overseas lottery? Yet by March 2003, at least 50 Singaporeans were taken for a total of S$150,000.

People are so naive or unable to look after themselves that many laws have to be passed to protect them from being cheated.

The very young and the very old are the most vulnerable. Thefts of mobile phones have become one of the worst crimes here, thanks to careless teens who think the world is as safe as home. Naive teenage girls fall prey to sexual ICQ predators posing as students.

Senior citizens are swindled by fake meter readers no matter how often they’re warned, as well as by “magic stones” tricksters or bomohs, who claim they can cure every sickness under the sun.

Politically? Well, that too.

Renowned author Catherine Lim calls Singapore “a nation of politically naive citizens” that can threaten its own survival. She said it was time the Government taught politics and independent thinking to its people.

o Seah Chiang Nee is a veteran journalist and editor of the information website littlespeck.com

The nudge that matters

2006-02-02T18:32:00.000+08:00

Opposition MP Chiam has been doing this to the PAP for the last 20 years

Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@newstoday.com.sg

The knives were quickly out when he won by less than 5 per cent of the votes in the last election, his slimmest winning margin ever.

Critics say the aggressiveness that has served him so well over the years has muted. Some even suggest he is "over the hill".

But Mr Chiam See Tong, arguably the unofficial leader of the Opposition in Singapore, is far from ready to throw in the towel.

"There is no reason why I should give up politics," the gritty 69-year-old former teacher turned lawyer and veteran opposition politician told Today.

"If you really want a truly democratic country, you must have an Opposition. Of course, the Opposition must be constructive, sincere and responsible to build up Singapore.

"I think the PAP, whatever you say of them, whether they are doing a good job or not, they still need somebody occasionally to tell them: 'Hey, you may not be going exactly in the right direction'. A nudge here and there — I think they want that situation."

Mr Chiam has been providing these nudges for 20 years as the Member of Parliament for Potong Pasir, one in a handful of single-seat constituencies remaining in what has become a political landscape of GRCs or Group Representation Constituencies.

He popped up in politics in 1976 as an independent candidate at Cairnhill in the general election that year. He did not win the seat but caused quite a stir with his earnest speeches and the distinctive red Volkswagen that he used as his campaign vehicle.

He moved to Potong Pasir for the 1979 by-election, again as an independent, but again failed to get into Parliament.

The following year, he formed the Singapore Democratic Party and unsuccessfully contested the 1980 general election, but finally won the Potong Pasir seat in the 1984 general election.

Mr Chiam has been in politics for nearly 30 years and he reckons his work has become all the more important because Singapore, faced with growing regional competition, needs to find a new creativity and sense of enterprise.

"What we have to do now is to depend on our own talents to develop high value-added goods. We are not prepared for this kind of business because our people have been treated like children for the last 40 years. They can only act when somebody tells them to," he said.

"So now we are stuck. We don't have entrepreneurs, innovators, inventors and creative people. In that sense, the Opposition was right. The Opposition has been advocating that we should have a more open, creative and innovative society — in other words, more democracy and more openness."

It's been said that Mr Chiam is the kind of opposition politician the ruling People's Action Party would have been happy to have among its ranks. Does Mr Chiam think he might have been able to do more for the people if he'd joined the PAP? He shakes his head firmly.

"The reason why I didn't join the PAP is because of their style. Even now, it is an elitist party," he said.

"I think it was the 1984 election, during one of the rallies at Fullerton, when Lee Kuan Yew asked, 'Who is this Chiam See Tong? We looked up his record and he has only got six Cs in his school certificate.'

"This sums up the PAP thinking. Do you think I want to join a party that runs down people like that? I would never.

"The most important thing is that you have to respect an individual — whether he's got six Cs or six As and whether he's a brain surgeon or a dustman. I think we should give him the same respect. If you don't give respect to your own citizens, I think you condemn them forever."

Mr Chiam says he is very grateful to Potong Pasir residents for supporting him for 20 years.

"In the last elections, the Government was using the MRT station as a 'threat' which really affected the residents since transport is one of the necessities people need, but the more they were threatened, the more defiant they were."

Yesterday, he showed that an opposition MP can deliver the goods to voters. He unveiled a $2-million lift-replacement programme for high-rise housing blocks in the Potong Pasir ward. The programme will be paid for from the Town Council's sinking fund.

"The Town Council is not charging the residents any money at all. There are no co-payments and you will get the brand new lifts free of charge," he said, to loud cheers from his supporters.

What lies ahead for Mr Chiam?

He believes Singapore needs a two-party political arena, and the Opposition thus needs to be united. He hopes to help bring about this united Opposition with the Singapore Democratic Alliance, which he formed in 2001.

He welcomes the prospect, suggested by Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng in Parliament last week, of Potong Pasir being pulled into a GRC in the next election.

"We welcome the contest, provided that Potong Pasir is not split up and divided into other GRCs," said Mr Chiam.

One challenge, he concedes, is to get not just more people but better people to join the Opposition, But he is hopeful.

"I think the climate has changed. Nowadays, the ministers are also quite young. For some of them, you might know them personally, so it's like, 'If so-and-so can be a minister, so can I'. There are equally bright Singaporeans around.

"I think the situation has relaxed perceptibly. I've often told people that my contribution to politics is that at least I have opened up a bit of Singapore and reduced the fear factor among the people," he said.

"I have shown that any Singaporean can stand for elections under the constitution and get elected. Not only was I elected but was also re-elected subsequently. People who voted for the opposition have not been victimised. This is my contribution."

Unsold HDB flats: Questionable to say there's 'little' impact on resale market

2006-01-13T00:38:00.000+08:00

Jan 12, 2006
The Straits Times Interactive

I refer to the letter 'HDB resale flats: Little impact on market' by Kee Lay Cheng (ST Jan 10).

Firstly, I am glad that Ms Kee admits that there will be an impact on the resale market. The definition of 'little' in the headline is questionable.

As they say, one death is a tragedy, ten thousand is but a statistic. Where does the line end? When my flat depreciates by $1,000? $10,000? What is the acceptable limit?

Secondly, Ms Kee stated that the 400 flats to be released is but 1.6 per cent of total resale applications recorded. This is extremely skewed. Who uses the entirety of the resale market which encompasses the whole of Singapore to compare with the approximately 200 flats released in totality in the Jurong area?

This is an unfair basis of comparison and I am extremely disappointed that it was used.

Thirdly, based on the HDB website on resale transactions, the total number of five-room and executive flats sold in October 2005 to December 2005 for the Jurong East and Jurong West vicinity is 244.

The 200 unsold flats are to be released over nine months. Doing a simple calculation, that works out to about 67 per quarter. This is not 1.6 per cent. This is a whopping 27.5 per cent extra flats flooded into the market.

Yes, the HDB has the obligation to dispose of unsold flats. Yes, demand has dropped significantly because of the crisis. But this still doesn't give the HDB the right to protect its own interest at the expense of others, especially when property is the main asset of many Singaporeans.

Who would have anticipated the economic crisis? No one. Yet, anyone with prudence would understand that you don't put all your eggs in one basket.

So many flats just in Jurong? If I am not wrong, there are in Punggol and Sengkang as well. Punggol 21 didn't really materialise. Now Jurong is saddled with so many unsold flats.

The HDB has calculated wrongly, so at least admit the mistake.

Mervyn Song Chee Khin

Singapore not an open society: George Soros

2006-01-13T00:29:00.000+08:00

"In response to Mr Soros's remarks, a Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts spokesman told Today: "If we were not an open society, George Soros would hardly be able to make the comment at an open forum in Singapore, and be reported in the Singapore media."

Wed Jan 11, 12:44 PM ET
Yahoo! News

Singapore is not an "open" society, US billionaire financier George Soros said, urging the government to stop using financially damaging libel suits against political opponents.

"Obviously, Singapore does not qualify as an open society," Soros said to loud applause from a packed audience of hundreds of students and academics.

He was speaking at a forum during which he expounded on his foundation's mission to improve political freedom and freedom of speech worldwide as part of his so-called open society.

"But Singapore is a prosperous society and prosperity and open society go together. So I hope that Singapore will become an open society.

"I think there is now a desire for greater openness, and I think that there is an enlightened leadership... I am hoping that this leadership will be great enough to take that next step in development."

Soros was responding to a student who asked him whether he thought Singapore, Southeast Asia's most advanced economy, was open or closed.

Without mentioning names, Soros referred to a local politician who he said was "in trouble in Singapore because he has been sued for libel and he's been bankrupt and would not be able to stand for parliament."

It was an apparent reference to opposition politician J.B. Jeyaretnam, who was declared bankrupt in 2001 for failing to pay defamation damages awarded to leaders of the ruling People's Action Party, including former prime minister Goh Chok Tong.

Bankrupts in Singapore are barred from running for public office.

Critics of the government have accused the PAP of using defamation suits to silence the political opposition, whose members already have their activities curbed by strict laws against rallies and little access to the mainstream media.

PAP leaders have said libel suits are necessary to defend their reputations.

But Soros said "the use of libel and financial penalty can be a tremendous hindrance to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

"So if I have to select one particular spot where Singapore could take a step forward, it would be in not using that method to suppress freedom of expression."

Soros is founder and chairman of the Open Society Institute, a network of philanthropic organizations active in more than 50 countries.

Indonesia to keep pushing for extradition treaty with Singapore

2006-01-12T02:41:00.000+08:00

12 January 2006
The Jakarta Post

JAKARTA (AP): Indonesia will keep pushing for an extradition treaty with Singapore so it can bring corrupt business tycoons and their embezzled funds back to the country, Attorney General Abdul Rahman Saleh said Wednesday

He said a treaty that was supposed to be signed last month on the resort island of Bali fell through after Singapore asked that it be signed in tandem with a security pact.

He said he was disappointed but not ready to give up. Without an extradition treaty "it's very difficult to catch the corruptors (and) many are living in Singapore," Rahman said at a news conference in Jakarta.

"It's also very difficult to bring back the money," he said, adding that he still hoped a deal would be signed "soon."

Indonesia has long said an extradition treaty was necessary to bring to justice corrupt businessmen and politicians who allegedly took advantage of Singapore's strict bank secrecy laws to stash away billions of dollars during the 1997-98 Asianfinancial crisis.

Rahman would not say how many fugitives were believed to be in neighboring Singapore, or how much money may have been stashed away in the city state's banks.

Singapore has hinted in the past that it would want security-related offenses - including suspected terrorists - to be included in any extradition pact with Indonesia. (**)

Man with disability fined $400 for parking car in disabled lot

2006-01-12T02:27:00.000+08:00

Singapore: All the hardware but not the heartware.

11 January 2006
ChannelNewsAsia

SINGAPORE : A man with a walking disability was fined $400 in court on Wednesday for parking in a lot meant for the handicapped.

Edwin Eio had polio from a young age and can never walk normally. In one leg, his calf muscle is wasted. And the other leg is shorter.

He did not apply for a disability parking sticker until three years ago, but his application was rejected.

Edwin said: "Previously I was much younger, being young, you are a bit arrogant, and as a handicap person you want to show you are good.

"Three years back I decided to apply because my bones are getting old. I applied to NCSS (National Council of Social Service) and all I got was a reply that said you are not applicable, you are not wheelchair bound.

"I called NCSS and asked why is it I was rejected without even an interview? Where do people like us who are the in-between people, they say you are not in wheelchair, so you are not handicapped enough. Where do we go from here?"

Edwin said the parking problem is a perennial one.

He explained: "It affects a lot of people like me who are not wheelchair bound but need help. But having said that, how many people who are wheelchair bound drives a car? It costs a lot of money in Singapore for the wheelchair bound people to modify their cars to their needs."

Then just about a year ago, Edwin parked his car in a lot meant for the handicapped.

He was promptly slapped with a $50 fine from the Urban Redevelopment Authority.

Insisting he is handicapped, he refused to pay and the case went to court.

The judge said even if Edwin could prove that medically, he should be categorised as a handicapped person.

The point was Edwin did not get permission from the URA car park superintendent to use the parking lot for the disabled.

When Edwin argued he does not need a sticker to be considered handicapped, the judge pointed out that Edwin was not quibbling over his disability.

Instead he noted that Edwin's argument was that the fine was too high. Edwin was eventually given a compounded fine of $400.

Another polio victim Tommy Tng does not have this problem.

"I got the stickers 10 years ago from the National Council of Social Service because of my condition as a polio victim. I got the sticker pretty easily.

"The parking warden will be more interested to see on the windscreen that there is a disabled parking label. If it is not, then even though the person is disabled, he might not have this privilege extended to him."

But what made the two cases so different when it came to getting the NCSS sticker that says the driver is disabled?

The NCSS said Edwin was unable to support his application with medical proof that he requires the use of a mobility aid, while Tommy could.

The NCSS eligibility criteria states that the applicant must have a mobility problem requiring the use of mobility aids, such as wheelchairs, crutches, walking sticks, orthosis or prosthesis as certified by a medical doctor.

A Disability and Mobility Form completed by a medical doctor is to be submitted together with the application.

NCSS said the criteria had to be used consistently across the board for all applicants, to be fair to all.

Generally in Singapore, one lot is provided for the handicapped for every 50 lots in a car park.

And according to the Automobile Association of Singapore, 1,840 car park stickers for the disabled have been issued so far. - CNA/de

Is this why consumer debt and media reports about loan shark activity have reached record levels in Singapore?

2006-01-07T20:39:00.000+08:00

7 January 2006
The New Paper

ACCORDING to the Department of Statistics newsletter of September last year, the average monthly household expenditure (AMHE) of the bottom 20 per cent in 2003 was $1,259.

The average monthly household income (AMHI) for this group was $795.

How do these households survive with only $795 to cover an expenditure of $1,259?

From 1998 to 2003, this group's income fell by 3.2 per cent per year, against a drop in expenditure of 0.2 per cent per year. So, income fell by 16 times more, relative to expenditure.

For the next 20 per cent of households, the AHME was $2,100, and AMHI $2,059.

Income from 1998 to 2003 fell by 0.6 per cent per annum, and expenditure rose by 0.5 per cent per annum.

Does the above mean that 40 per cent of households had cashflow problems?

The lower-income group's problems may be compounded by their Consumer Price Index rising by 1.6 per cent, compared with the highest 20 per cent's decreasing by - 0.6 per cent.

To help lower income Singaporeans, rebates in 1998 and 2003 included those on rent and utilities for HDB flats. Economic Restructuring Shares of $27 and $25 monthly per capita were given to the lowest 20 per cent household income group and the second quintile group respectively.

In contrast, the third and fourth 20 per cent of households had rebates of $25, and the highest $26.

Is this why consumer debt and media reports about loan shark activity have reached record levels in Singapore?
- Leong Sze Hian

High court judge dismisses lawsuit charging government with suppressing free speech

2006-01-06T18:45:00.001+08:00

SEAPA/IFEX

Country/Topic: Singapore
Date: 23 December 2005
Source: Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
Person(s):
Target(s):
Type(s) of violation(s): legal action
Urgency: Threat

(SEAPA/IFEX) - The Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) has expressed alarm over the recent ruling by a Singaporean High Court judge to dismiss a lawsuit which charged the country's public institutions with trampling the rights of their citizens to free assembly and free speech.

SEAPA is concerned that "this ruling will have implications for the rights of Singaporean citizens to free assembly and free speech, as the ruling signals that Singaporean citizens cannot express their concerns over the government and its policies even through peaceful protest, though this right is supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution," SEAPA noted.

According to the opposition Social Democratic Party's E-newsletter of 21 December, Judge V. K. Rajah said in the ruling, delivered two weeks earlier, that Singaporean citizens cannot stage public protests because these undermine "the singularly stable and upright stature Singapore has managed to uphold."

In dismissing the case, Judge Rajah described the protest as "incendiary," and stated that it amounted "to a grave attack on the financial integrity of key public institutions." The judge further concluded that Singaporean citizens would be held accountable and personally responsible by the state for their actions: "In Singapore, Parliament has, through legislation, placed a premium on public order, accountability and personal responsibility."

The decision was made after four protesters sued the minister for Home Affairs and the commissioner of police for unlawfully dispersing their peaceful protest in August 2005, held outside a government building in downtown Singapore. The four had argued that they had the right to stage the protest under the Constitution, which allows a group of four people or fewer to assemble in public. But the police sent the anti-riot squad to disperse the four protesters.

According to the SDP newsletter, the peaceful protest, with the words "CPF, NKF, HDB, GIC: Be transparent now!" painted on the four protesters' t-shirts, urged the government to be transparent and accountable in its handling of public funds in the wake of a scandal that involved the National Kidney Foundation.

The SDP said the foundation was reportedly found to have spent donated money on luxury items like gold taps and expensive cars, and paid the CEO $600,000 (approx. US $400,000) in annual salary. But Mrs. Goh Chok Tong, wife of Singapore's former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, who was patron of the foundation, said the CEO's salary was justified as the amount was "peanuts."

According to SDP, the judge's decision confirms that the judiciary has no interest in protecting the democratic rights of the people, who are now at the complete mercy of the dictatorial Singaporean government.

SEAPA stated its belief "that to legitimise Singapore's claim to be a country of world-class public governance, the government and the judiciary should first protect the right of citizens to address their concerns about public institutions, and that these authorities should not regard peaceful protest as a public nuisance."

"The rights of the citizens to address their concerns over the government policies through public protest is to be upheld as a freedom enjoyed by civilised and open communities all over the world," SEAPA said.

Elections Department to revise registers of electors by Feb 28

2006-01-04T13:51:00.000+08:00

03 January 2006
ChannelNewsAsia

SINGAPORE : The Registers of Electors will be updated on or before the 28th of February this year, according to a government gazette on Tuesday.

They will contain the names of all Singapore citizens qualified to vote as of 1st January this year.

Once this is ready, Singaporeans will be invited to inspect the registers.

Updating of the electoral registers has been seen as an early indicator for a general election in Singapore.

In 1988, the GE was called 2 months after they were revised while there was a one-year time lag in the run-up to the 1991 GE.

In 1997, nearly 7 months passed till Parliament was dissolved and elections called.

But in the last GE in 2001, it took less than 20 days before the nomination date was set.

So the key question is when will be the next General Election?

It has to be held by June 2007, but Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong had recently indicated it might be "earlier rather than later".

Political watchers say this update of the electoral registers is just one of several key milestones in the run-up to any General Election.

A stronger indicator of a GE round the corner would be the release of constituency names and the electoral boundaries report by the electoral boundaries review committee.

Dr Gillian Koh, Research Fellow, IPS, said: "That really for me is the key sign. In the past two rounds, the announcement of that has been around about a month before the polls were due to be held. I don't think it's as critical an indicator when electoral rolls are open for inspection. They have called for a second inspection now."

"In the past, there has been public discussion to include as many as possible who've turned 21 - in order to include them, not exclude them when polls are called. So this time round, if elections are due, you want to include as many as possible who've made the deadline 21 years of age as of 1st January 2006."

The electoral rolls were last updated in September 2004.

Once the revision is completed, Singaporeans will be invited to inspect the registers online or at community centres - as well as at overseas missions where overseas voting will take place - to make sure their names are listed under the correct addresses and constituencies. - CNA/ch

Costly to speak ill of the rich and powerful

2006-01-03T10:25:00.000+08:00

INSIGHT: DOWN SOUTH
BY SEAH CHIANG NEE

In good times and bad, Singapore’s stability has rested on a strong legal system strictly enforced, including defamation laws that prevent the sort of wild politics that exists elsewhere.

It has created a society where people don’t make wild accusations against each other as a result of a government frequently setting the tone to sue offenders, big or small.

Since few citizens truly know what really constitutes defamation, it has resulted in a society that’s lavish with praise but short of even the slightest attack on any influential entity, whatever the circumstances.

An official spokesman recently reaffirmed that “the Government draws the ... conclusion that our libel law is what keeps the system clean and honest”.

This rationale has blurred somewhat in the wake of the National Kidney Foundation scandal involving its former CEO T.T. Durai and ex-board of directors, over which much has already been written.

It raised a question whether the republic’s defamation law is also – apart from preventing the innocent from any slanderous assault – protecting wrongdoings by the rich and powerful from being discovered.

Take the case of Madam Tan Kiat Noi. She was sued in 1999 for accusing the NKF of “paying ridiculously high bonuses” to its staff. At a time when his power was rising, the thin-skinned Durai sued.

Mdm Tan settled by publicly apologising and paying S$50,000 in damages as well as NKF's legal costs.

She wasn’t the only victim. Two others, Archie Ong and Piragasum Singavelu, suffered the same fate when they alleged that Durai had travelled by first class on charity money.

Again he sued for defamation, forcing both to settle out of court, pay damages and apologise. Ironically, these allegations, the high bonuses and first class travels, were true as revealed by the recent KPMG report.

Neither Durai nor NKF has apologised or tried to undo the injustice to these people, which led an angry writer to say, “What the NKF saga has proved is that people who win defamation lawsuits may not be innocent and those who lose may not be guilty.”

Actually the courts could not be blamed since these cases never reached any hearing. At fault was Singapore’s defamation law, which clearly favours the rich and powerful.

Like most citizens, Durai’s three “victims” simply could not afford to fight it out against a giant like NKF (with assets of S$240mil), irrespective of right or wrong.

Durai’s “victories” had an impact in convincing the public into believing that his outfit was properly run and its money was not wasted. Truth had become a casualty when the defamation law became a weapon of the wealthy.

You don’t often see a bricklayer suing a property tycoon for libel or defamation, only the other way around. Even if he does and wins, his compensation can be a lot smaller than a defamed business leader.

Singapore is, of course, not an exception. Try suing Bill Gates for whatever reason!

Lawyer Siew Kum Hong wrote, “the defamation law is very skewed in favour of the plaintiff”, explaining: “It is one of the very few areas of law (in fact, the only one that comes to mind readily), where the defendant has the burden of proving his innocence.

“The plaintiff only has to show that the defendant said or wrote something about the plaintiff that would tend to make people think less of the plaintiff. That is all he needs to do.

“To win, the defendant must prove that what he said was true, or that it was a fair comment on a matter of public interest, or that the circumstances of the statement made it qualified – for instance, it was said in Parliament or on the witness stand. That can be a real uphill task.”

For Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, this law is crucial. “If you defame us, we’re prepared to sue you, go into witness box and be cross-examined ... If you don’t sue, repetition of the lie [makes it credible]. It will be believed ...”

He and other government leaders have successfully sued and won defamation lawsuits against some of their critics, especially opposition figures and the foreign media.

Its frequent use has contributed to the sort of litigious society the government wants to avoid.

The law has also rendered whistle-blowing (an insider revealing a grave wrongdoing) either in a government department or in a large corporation a virtually suicidal task. Because of the expenses, Singaporeans simply choose to turn a blind eye when they see something radically wrong, and society is the loser.

If any of Durai’s three victims had been able to afford a Senior Counsel, the truth about the NKF could have been exposed earlier, limiting the present damage.

A retired contractor who was hired to install Durai’s office bathroom 10 years ago gave The Straits Times the first hint that things were not really right. He was quoted as saying that NKF was using a pricey German toilet bowl and a gold-plated tap.

“I started screaming my head off. The gold-plated tap alone cost at least S$1,000. It was crazy. You’re a charity using donors’ money,” huffed the man who was then a donor.

After his outburst, he was told to “just do” his job, but the taps were eventually “scaled down” to an upmarket chrome-plated model. He stopped donating from then on.

The defamation law remains in place to ensure orderliness in Singapore but it serves better those who can afford a good lawyer over those who cannot.

Seah Chiang Nee is a veteran journalist and editor of the information website littlespeck.com

Retribution?

2005-12-19T22:32:00.000+08:00

On second thought, somebody should rip out his greedy heart as well.

Regulators wasted opportunity to prevent NKF saga: KPMG report

2005-12-19T21:45:00.000+08:00

19 December 2005
ChannelNewsAsia

SINGAPORE : The National Kidney Foundation's problems of poor corporate governance under its previous CEO could have been nipped earlier had regulators stepped in when they first smelt trouble four years ago, auditors KPMG say.

As early as 1999, the Health Ministry had expressed concerns over the rapid expansion of NKF's medical programme.

It was also concerned over the excessive funds NKF raised to support just 1,500 patients at that time.

Months later, the regulator of charities, the National Council of Social Service, also raised questions about the accuracy of NKF's statement on dialysis treatment costs and subsidies; its disproportionate efforts on fund raising; the way in which donations were being used; and escalating staff costs.

But the minutes of the NKF's Executive Committee meeting held on 29 March 2001 showed former CEO TT Durai had considered that "an attack on the integrity of the Foundation."

Unfortunately, the NCSS failed to convey these concerns to the Commissioner of Charities, who has the power to order an inquiry.

Calling it a "wasted opportunity", independent auditors KPMG said it was most unfortunate that the regulators had failed to initiate an investigation into how NKF was run.

Had an investigated been conducted, KPMG said many of the issues dealt with in the report could have been prevented or addressed four years earlier.

But it did act, albeit months later.

On 31 December 2001, NCSS revoked NKF's Institution of Public Character status, which would discourage the Foundation's fundraising ability to collect tax-exempt donations.

Yet that did not stop NKF, which then applied to the Health Ministry's Health Endowment Fund to raise tax-exempt donations for health-related services.

NCSS said it had informed the Ministry of its observations of NKF.

But in January 2002, the Ministry approved NKF's IPC status, administered by the Ministry's Health Endowment Fund.

Later, the Ministry even asked NKF to raise funds for non-kidney related causes such as cancer, sending the NKF fundraising machinery into overdrive.

Said Tham Sai Choy, auditor at KPMG, "The focus of MOH and the Commissioner of Charities was very much on the issue of tax-exempt receipts at that time. The issues which we find regrettable are far more extensive."

These included issues such as the old management losing sight of NKF's original mission, and its former CEO's excesses and failures, which turned out to be the bigger problem that sparked off the saga. - CNA /ct

Report finds extravagance, lack of governance at Singapore's NKF

2005-12-19T21:39:00.000+08:00

19 December 2005
ChannelNewsAsia

SINGAPORE : A highly-awaited 300-plus page report on suspect practices by a Singapore charity, the National Kidney Foundation, is out.

The findings by KPMG are startling, from revelations that only 10 cents of every charity dollar went to subsidise patients' direct treatment costs, to wasted opportunities by regulators to commence investigations earlier.

It took 40 professionals 10,000 man hours and five months to piece together the story of what was going on at NKF.

The story they put together was one of an organisation that was losing its way.

First, the deficiencies in governing the place.

On the face of it, there was a Board and a proliferation of committees in Finance, Audit and Human Resource that could have challenged the management.

In reality, the auditors found the former NKF Board delegated all powers to the Executive Committee, which in turn delegated most, if not all, powers to the former CEO TT Durai.

He and what the report called "his coterie of long-serving assistants" made ad-hoc decisions.

"With ineffective governance by members and the former Board, and an ineffectual and collectively inept Executive Committee ... power was centred around one man, and exercised in an ad-hoc manner through Mr Durai and his coterie of long-serving assistants," the report said.

KPMG also found figures relating to the number of kidney patients, patient subsidies and treatment costs inflated or misleading.

One startling revelation: NKF's report said that in 2003, 52 cents for every dollar raised went to beneficiaries and programmes for the year; but KPMG calculated that only 10 cents out of every dollar went to subsidise patients' direct treatment costs.

Investigations also showed extravagant spending, such as frequent first-class travel by staff, and a CEO who received more pay while appearing to accept less.

The report also pointed to "missed opportunities" by regulators to fix the problem earlier.

Lapses were also found in multi-million dollar software contractors not delivering, and this is one big area where NKF money has been lost.

Compounding it, several directors in the former NKF Board and key management personnel had interests in, or were involved in companies with business relationships with the NKF.

So what happens now?

The new NKF Board is seeking legal advice on whether there were corporate practices which crossed the legal or regulatory line and on the appropriate course of action to be taken against former NKF Directors, Exco members and others, where applicable.

NKF Chairman Gerard Ee stressed, however, that any action taken will have to be weighed against the costs of such action, as this involves donor money.

As for any criminal liability, bodies like the Commercial Affairs Department and Inland Revenue Authority are still carrying out investigations.

Meanwhile, the new NKF Board says the reserves are expected to last just 6.7 years.

With the ideal being 10 years, they will have to start raising funds again; but it won't be in the way of large shows and raising lots of cash in the short term.

And while the old NKF focussed a lot on fundraising, the new NKF wants to shift the focus to patients.

It hopes to build back its support base of donors from 250,000 to the pre-July level of 300,000.

While it recognises the public may be unhappy with the revelations, it hopes they won't take it out against the new NKF. - CNA /ct

Be more realistic in assessing NKF reserves

2005-12-15T14:54:00.000+08:00

Dec 15, 2005
The Straits Times Interactive

UPON reading the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) report by interim chairman Gerard Ee, it appears that the sums do not add up.

It was stated that the present reserves of $206 million would last only 4.5 years in the worst-case scenario. There seems to be some calculation error.

The sum of $206 million, deposited in a bank account earning annual interest of 3.8 per cent, would garner $7,828,000. This plus the government subsidy of $4 million would give NKF an annual income of $11,828,000, without contributions from donations.

Presently NKF has 1,800 dialysis patients that it subsidises on average $70 per treatment. That subsidy would amount to $19,656,000 a year as each patient undergoes three sessions per week. That would leave a shortfall of $7,828,000 per year that has to come from NKF reserves. Dividing the reserves of $206 million by the shortfall of $7.8 million, it would take about 26 years for the reserves to run out.

It appears that the counsel for The Straits Times in its defence of the lawsuit filed by NKF was nearer to the truth when he said that the reserves would last 30 years.

The new NKF management has an obligation to present to the public, and especially to renal patients, a more realistic assessment of the situation. By singing the same T.T. Durai worst-case-scenario song with a new choir, it is unlikely to gain public confidence.

Although donations have dropped significantly from more than $2 million to $1.7 million a month, it is still a sizeable amount.

The $20.4 million in annual donations is more than enough to cover the $19,656,000 needed as subsidies for dialysis treatment for 1,800 patients without touching the reserves of $206 million, whose interest could cover inflation or expansion programmes.

I am a renal patient and have received dialysis treatment in Canada, China and Singapore.

In Canada, dialysis treatment is free for residents and citizens. The dialysis centres are remarkably clean, very spacious and well equipped. The medical staff are well trained and extremely friendly. Hot tea, coffee or water and biscuits are served to patients every hour, free of charge. All questions are answered in great detail and with patience.

In Guangzhou, China, the cost of dialysis for foreigners is a flat full fee of 400 yuan (S$83) per treatment. The Chinese dialysis centres are huge and surprisingly clean. They are well equipped with up-to-date imported dialysis machines, the same as those used in Singapore, if not better. Most of their medical staff are friendly and helpful.

In Singapore, the cost of dialysis for citizens at private centres ranges from $100 to $150 after subsidy. The centres are clean but patients have to provide their own blankets.

The medical staff are busy and have seemingly tight schedules and little time for explanations. Questions are often frowned upon and answers given are short and ambiguous. The typical answer is that, in Singapore, things are done differently. One cannot help but wonder why things are done differently when the dialysis machines and protocols are similar.

I have one simple request. Tell us how long the NKF reserves will last if a realistic and practical approach is adopted in managing it.

As renal patients, we accept the fact that our lives are shorter. Our lives need not be shortened further by unrealistic scenarios that would never happen. Please do away with the ambiguous language and ridiculous worst-case scenarios if public confidence is to be restored.

Cheong Wing Lee

PAP distortion of Privy Council Judgment

2005-12-12T15:43:00.000+08:00

STATEMENT

I see that the PAP government is resorting to chicanery to hide the truth from Singaporeans about the Privy Council's verdict on the "convictions" I suffered at the hands of the Singapore courts (ST Friday Dec 9). It is not the first time. It is completely dishonest in the way it is presented.

Jayakumar, the Minister for Law, or Chan Sek Keong, the Attorney-General, should have pointed out any "inaccuracy" in interpreting the judgment of then Singapore's highest court of appeal. Instead, they hide behind the skirt of a civil servant. The PAP forces civil servants to make political capital for them. It is thoroughly
unworthy of a government that claims to be creditable.

To put the record straight and to nail the lie once and for all that the Privy Council did not condemn the judgments of the Singapore courts, will Jayakumar or the Attorney-General honestly and truthfully, as though on oath, answer the following questions:-

1. It is true or not true that in 1987 the Singapore court of three judges ordered that I be struck off the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors on the ground that I had been correctly convicted on four criminal charges, a ground specified in the Legal Profession Act for striking out an Advocate and Solicitor;

2. Is it true or not true that in my appeal to the Privy Council I had challenged the validity or correctness of the criminal convictions against me;

3. Is it true or not true that the Privy Council in October 1988 overturned the Order of the Singapore court holding that I was not guilty of any of the offences, the convictions were all wrong and that "by a series of misjudgment' in the Singapore courts I had suffered a "grievous injustice". (See Judgment of the Privy Council (1989) A C 1);

4. Is it true or not true that I was restored to the Roll of Advocates sad Solicitors following the decision by the Privy Council to overturn the Singapore high Court decision to strike me off the Rolls;

5. Is it true or not true that I was thwarted by the Singapore courts in three attempts I made to make it possible for me to appeal to the. Privy Council and which the Privy Council noted in their Judgment and regretted the actions of the Singapore courts.

It is completely dishonest to say that "Mr Jeyaretnam did not appeal to the Privy Council against his convictions" deliberately hiding the fact that the then Singapore laws gave no automatic right of appeal to the Privy council from any convictions in the Singapore courts.

It is again completely dishonest for the PAP government to say, through Its civil servant that the validity of my criminal convictions were not before the Privy Council. How dishonest can this government get. I do not want a civil servant to answer the questions. They must be answered by the government's highest
legal officers.

If either Jayakumar or the Attorney-General do not answer these questions, Singaporeans will be entitled to assume that the government's protest about the programme is totally unfounded and only worthy of a government that distorts the truth.

J B Jeyaretnam

Prestigious school not always the wisest choice

2005-12-07T16:35:00.000+08:00

Dec 5, 2005
The Straits Times Interactive

I REFER to the article 'Help our less privileged kids to dream big, aim high' (ST, Dec 2).

Ms Laurel Teo worries that an academically outstanding student like Hamizah Nordin may limit her potential by not aiming for an elite school like Raffles Girls' School (RGS).

She speculates whether students from a less privileged background may not be aware of better opportunities in elite schools.

I beg to differ. I am glad Hamizah chose her friendly neighbourhood school. If her PSLE result is not a fluke, she will do well whatever school she chooses.

More important, she will have her feet kept firmly on the ground by mixing and studying with students who are not all academic high-flyers.

Our meritocratic system, and the fact that academic intelligence (some would call it IQ) is to a large extent genetically determined, has already allowed the cream to float to the top.

The vast majority of children from elite schools have parents who are professionals or wealthy businessmen. They mix among themselves without knowing there is a large section of society leading a different way of life, and often there is an element of snobbishness in making it to an elite school.

In the 1960s, the Nanyang primary and secondary schools I attended had a totally different student population from today. Many of my classmates came from the surrounding kampungs. Nanyang was anything but an elite school. Those of us who were stronger academically were tasked to tutor the weaker students. An experience that was valuable to both groups.

Today, Nanyang Primary is a highly desirable school to get into. Parents who can afford it, buy houses within the 1km radius to get priority for admission to Nanyang Primary. After entering, they mix with other children from upper middle class families who usually also do well academically.

Those who find difficulty coping academically are advised to get tuition, and when despite tuition, they cannot do as well as their peers, they develop psychological problems, especially low self-esteem and thinking themselves stupid when they are of average intelligence.

I benefited from the old Nanyang of the 1960s from mixing with children from all walks of life and all degrees of academic ability. I learnt there is more to a person than his academic performance.

After O levels, I moved to Raffles Institution not because it was an elite school. On the contrary, I chose Raffles because National Junior College (NJC) was at that time not only the elite school but also the favourite school of the Ministry of Education. I did not want the unfair advantage accorded to NJC in terms of facilities and teachers.

I left Nanyang not because its pre-university was not among the elite but because I wanted to do medicine and needed to study science subjects from textbooks written in English.

Again in the Raffles Institution of my day, students came from all walks of life. Many of my friends lived in HDB flats and took the bus to school. Again, I learnt about the real world in the Singapore of the early 1970s through my friends.

I did the medicine combination: biology, chemistry, physics and economics. Except for physics where I had an exceptionally enthusiastic teacher, I tackled the other subjects by self-study.

Often, right in front of the biology, chemistry or economics teacher's nose, I would be reading something else. Yet I topped Singapore in my A-level results for science students.

I say this not to boast but to prove the point that an academically capable student who knows the importance of self-study will do well academically in any school, elite or otherwise.

I did not aim for Cambridge, Oxford or Harvard. I am proud to say I graduated from the then University of Singapore. That I do not have a degree from a prestigious foreign university is not why I have not been as successful in conventional terms as my two brothers who both went to Cambridge.

I write this rambling account of my student life to show that going to a prestigious educational institution just because it is prestigious is not always the wisest choice.

I learnt more valuable lessons such as empathy for the less academically inclined, that there were other aspects of the human mind such as integrity, honesty, courage, generosity and compassion that are just as if not more important than academic ability.

At each stage where a decision about which educational institution to choose had to be made, I knew and had all my options. But I did not dream bigger or aim higher (or more accurately, I did not follow what the elite students of my cohort did), not because I was not aware of the other options but because being considered 'elite' was not important to me.

I wish Hamizah the best. Ten years from now, I am sure, barring any change in her character, she will do well even though she did not choose RGS.

Dr Lee Wei Ling

Another blunder...

2005-12-07T16:21:00.000+08:00

Once again, another diplomatic blunder by our Dear Leader.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, left, bows in front of the German flag during the welcoming ceremony with military honours for Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, center, in the Chancellory in Berlin on Thursday, Dec. 1, 2005. Instead of bowing in front of the German flag according to the international protocol Singapore's Prime Minister kept on walking and left Chancellor Merkel behind. It was Merkel's first welcoming ceremony with military honours for an international guest after being elected Chancellor. (AP Photo/Herbert Knosowski)

PM Lee caused Singapore's relations with both Taiwan and China to chill before and in the early days of his office. He chose to visit Taiwan at the displeasure of mainland China while an unhappy incident led a Taiwanese minister to call Singapore 'a piece of snot'.

Hemlock's Musings: Why Singapore is a pathetic place

2005-11-22T12:20:00.000+08:00

http://www.geocities.com/hkhemlock/mus-sin.html

*lol*

The Attorney-General's application

2005-10-16T00:44:00.000+08:00

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE

Originating Motion ) In the Matter of section 5 (i) of the Miscellaneous Offences
(Public Order and nuisance) Act (Cap. 184)
No. 39 of 2005/A ) Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance)
(Assemblies and Processions) Rules

And

In the matter of Article 14 (1) (b) of the Constitutionof the Republic of Singapore

Between

1. CHEE SIOK CHIN (NRIC NO.)

2. N GOGELAVANY (NRIC NO.)

3. YAP KENG HO (NRIC NO.)

…Applicants

And

1. MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

… Respondents

SUMMONS-IN-CHAMBERS

Let ALL PARTIES concerned attend before the Judge in Chambers on the 19 day of Oct 2005 at 2.30 pm on the hearing of an application by the Attorney-General on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Respondents for this action to be struck out or dismissed and costs of and incidental to this application be paid by the Applicants to the Respondents.

The grounds of this application are that the Originating Motion is irregular, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and/or that it is an abuse of the process of the Court.

Dated this 7th day of October 2005.

Entered No. 5162 of 2005

Clerk santhi

This summons is taken out by the Attorney-General whose address for service is The Attorney-General’s Chambers, 1 Coleman Street #10-00, Singapore 179803.

for ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Warwick lecturers vote against Singapore campus

2005-10-16T00:25:00.001+08:00

By John Burton in Singapore
Published: October 14 2005 11:57 | Last updated: October 14 2005 11:57
Financial Times

Senior lecturers at Warwick University in the UK have voted against setting up a branch campus in Singapore due to worries about limits on academic freedom, dealing a possible setback to the city-state's ambitions to become a regional hub for higher education.

Singapore requires international educational institutions operating in the city-state to agree not to conduct activities seen as interference in domestic affairs.

The lopsided 27-13 “no” vote by Warwick's senate this week is believed to be the first time a foreign university has rejected the conditions set by Singapore. Although the vote is non-binding, it is likely to put pressure on the university council to abandon the Singapore plan when it makes a final decision on October 18.

Warwick and Australia's University of New South Wales are the only two foreign universities selected by Singapore's Economic Development Board to set up a full-scale campus.

The city-state has succeeded in attracting smaller schools operated by several top institutions, including Insead and the University of Chicago Graduate Business School, in an effort to triple the number of university students to 150,000 in the next decade.

The Warwick vote came as the outgoing US ambassador to Singapore warned in a farewell speech that Singapore's limits on expression might cause the government to “pay an increasing price for not allowing full participation of its citizens”.

Faculty and students at Warwick have questioned the costs of the nearly £300m ($525m) project and the university's ability to attract quality students and staff to the Singapore campus. But much of the criticism has focused on limits on academic freedom and civil liberties, including curbs on gay rights and high execution rates for criminals.

Warwick recently sent a letter to EDB asking that its students in Singapore be exempt from strict laws limiting freedom of assembly, speech and the press, and the removal of bans on homosexuality and certain religious practices on campus.

It also sought guarantees that staff and students would not be punished by the Singapore government for making academic-related comments that might be seen “as being outside the boundaries of political debate”. EDB said it would not comment.

The demand that the Singapore campus enjoy the same degree of academic freedom as in the UK came in response to an advisory report by Thio Li-ann, a law professor at the National University of Singapore, which said freedom of “speech is permissible as long as it does not threaten real political change or to alter the status quo”.

She warned that “the government will intervene if academic reports cast a negative light on their policies” but said the presence of Warwick in Singapore could “serve as an impetus for continued liberalisation”.

Govt shouldn't equate analysis with advocacy

2005-10-13T15:20:00.000+08:00

ST Forum

IN MY article, 'Managing civil disobedience' (ST, Oct 10), I analysed 'calibrated coercion' as one under-appreciated governance skill of the People's Action Party, and speculated that the opposition's strategy of civil disobedience presents a new challenge that the PAP would have to manage carefully.

The Prime Minister's press secretary, Mr Chen Hwai Liang, has responded by presenting the Government's position on its own success factors ('Govt doesn't depend on 'calibrated coercion').

I will continue to refine my own analysis based on Mr Chen's and other responses. The PAP's record of political stability is unique in the world and deserves nuanced and sustained study, which I, like others in the academic fraternity, are committed to. I therefore welcome the Government's engagement with my ideas.

However, I am saddened that the Government has chosen to cast my article in partisan terms. Worse, it claims that I 'commended' the strategy of civil disobedience. This is not just a misrepresentation of my views. It is also a serious accusation, as it suggests that I was inciting readers to break the law.

I did not. I tried to explain Dr Chee Soon Juan's strategy, not champion it. Unfortunately, Mr Chen has chosen to equate analysis with advocacy. By this token, a historian who studies the rise of communism must be a communist himself. The terrorism expert who explains the motivations of Al-Qaeda operatives must be siding with terrorists. And a sociologist analysing Stefanie Sun's international appeal must be a groupie. Such labelling would make much academic research untenable.

Only time will tell conclusively whether Dr Chee's application of civil disobedience to Singapore is as irrelevant as communism, as dangerous as terrorism, or as benign as a Stephanie Sun song.

However, until experience tells us otherwise, my own hunch is that it is possible to work legally for a better Singapore, and to call for changes in laws without breaking them. Most Singaporeans who are in favour of faster political liberalisation (including opposition leaders other than Dr Chee) appear to share this faith.

I also share the view of PAP MP Charles Chong and his grassroots leaders that Singaporeans who want to press for change need to be 'very creative, but within the law'.

That does not mean alternative approaches, such as Dr Chee's, don't deserve close and dispassionate scrutiny. Sadly, readers may get the impression from parts of the Government's response to my article that it will treat such study as equal to instigating others to break the law, and therefore out of bounds.

As for me, I will choose not to come to this pessimistic conclusion despite the unfair accusation, and accept on faith that there remains room in Singapore for the critical discussion of serious issues.

Cherian George (Dr)

Govt doesn't depend on 'calibrated coercion'

2005-10-13T15:17:00.000+08:00

Oct 12, 2005
The Straits Times

IN 'MANAGING civil disobedience' (ST, Oct 10), Dr Cherian George regretted that the PAP Government's 'calibrated approach to coercion' and its self-restraint had made it harder for 'pro-democracy activists - (to) remind Singaporeans that they should care about political liberalisation'.

He noted that 'that is where Dr Chee (Soon Juan)'s strategy of civil disobedience comes in', and commended it as a 'strategy (which) turns the state's monopoly of force against itself'.

Dr George has mixed up several different issues. First, the Government does not depend on 'calibrated coercion', but derives moral authority precisely from what Dr George himself acknowledged - 'an outstanding record in delivering the goods, internal discipline, ability to win genuine freely-given loyalty from the majority of Singaporeans'.

Second, this record of good and clean governance depends on rigorously upholding the rule of law in a plural and democratic society.

The Government must act when the law is broken, whether by opposition politicians or government supporters, and whether through violent or non-violent means.

If a law is unjust, there are established avenues for reviewing and changing it. Neither Mr Chiam See Tong nor Mr Low Thia Khiang has had to resort to 'civil disobedience' or defamation in order to be elected as MPs.

Our defamation laws follow the English model, and keep our public discourse responsible and honest. Dr George described defamation civil suits as 'the state's weapon of choice', but ministers can sue successfully only if they have been defamed, and they do so on a personal basis, not on behalf of the state.

Opposition MPs themselves have sued when they considered themselves defamed.

Third, zero tolerance for law breaking does not equate to zero tolerance for dissenting views. On the contrary, we encourage people to speak up and express their opinions on national policies and community life, so that out of the diversity of views a consensus can be forged, and a better decision made for the good of the nation.

Dr George's critical article was published in The Straits Times, contradicting his own claims.

Of course, where criticism is directed against the Government, then the Government has to respond to it or rebut it, or else lose the argument and the respect of Singaporeans. This is what it did a decade ago in response to Dr Catherine Lim.

Such exchanges do not represent 'PAP intolerance towards dissent'. They are part and parcel of public discourse in a democratic society.

Dr George is, however, right that the PAP has not 'undergone a fundamental philosophical conversion towards liberal ideals'. He offered no supporting arguments or evidence why these are the right ideals for Singapore.

The Prime Minister has explained why he does not believe that liberal democracy as practised in the West will work here.

Singaporeans know that we have thrived on a different approach - the PAP has won every election since 1959 because it enjoys the trust and support of the people, governs in their interests, and involves citizens in the large issues that affect us all.

Chen Hwai Liang
Press Secretary to the Prime Minister

Managing civil disobedience

2005-10-13T12:18:00.000+08:00

By Cherian George
For The Straits Times

THE 'white elephants' affair has resulted in a 'stern warning' to its unnamed perpetrator. After this case, people will be more careful to check that they do not accidentally flout the law, as the unfortunate Mahout of Buangkok appears to have done.

However, this is unlikely to be the last such case. The stern warning will not deter opposition activists who believe in deliberately breaking the law to make a political point. Their attempt to inject civil disobedience into Singapore's body politic represents an intriguing challenge to the People's Action Party's ideological hold. It calls for deft handling. While thwarting a protest is easy for the authorities, the question is how much political capital they will have to spend in the process.

This is the real power of such campaigns. By deliberately but non-violently flouting laws that they deem unjust, opponents put the authorities in a fix.

The state could choose to close one eye, but this would diminish its authority and probably invite follow-up breaches until these are too large or too flagrant to be ignored. If the state responds with force against a peaceful protest, the activists can still try to claim the moral victory. They may succeed in convincing the wider public that the law in question - and the state's power in general - is neither just nor moral, but instead backed by sheer force.

Thus, campaigns of civil disobedience test a state's moral legitimacy, revealing whether its rule is based mainly on consent or on coercion.

Dr Chee Soon Juan has been dabbling with this strategy for some years, at least since 1998, when he spoke in public without a permit and landed up in prison. His new book, The Power Of Courage, promotes non-violent civil disobedience as an opposition strategy in Singapore.

The Government has responded that the rule of law must be respected. Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng said that wilful law-breaking 'regardless of whether you think it is a silly law or not...does violence to the rule of law', even if the actions are peaceful.

While the principle of zero tolerance for law-breaking is straightforward, applying it will be a challenge. Civil disobedience will test a key element of PAP governance: its acumen in calibrating its use of force against political challengers, such that opponents are neutralised with minimum collateral damage.

This is not to deny the other - and much better-understood - sources of the PAP's strength, namely its outstanding record in delivering the goods, its internal discipline and its ability to win genuine freely-given loyalty from the majority of Singaporeans.

But every state, by definition, also comprises instruments of force. And the intelligent use of force is no less a dimension of good governance than, say, an efficient bureaucracy or long-term urban planning.

Its calibrated approach to coercion may be one of the least appreciated of the PAP's many skills. Indeed, stating it this way will probably provoke some incredulity. After all, even some of the PAP's most ardent supporters think it is guilty of occasional overkill. PAP leaders themselves are not coy about their macho side. Mr Lee Kuan Yew talks of knuckledusters and nation-building with equal aplomb. If the PAP were to develop and market a computer game, it would be a cross between SimCity and Street Fighter.

Self-restraint

IMAGE aside, however, the facts show a government increasingly aware of the need to exercise self-restraint in its use of force. Yes, it has an array of repressive tools within easy reach. But, compared with other states that possess similar tools and are controlled by similarly strong-willed leaders, Singapore's Government has been relatively judicious and sophisticated in their use.

The spectrum of coercive tools available to an authoritarian regime today ranges from political murders and disappearances, and torture and imprisonment without trial, to criminal prosecution, civil action, the banning of organisations, sabotaging opponents' means of earning a living and character attacks through state-controlled media.

The most extreme of these tools have never been used in Singapore. And it is noteworthy that detention without trial, under the Internal Security Act, was used frequently in the 1960s and 1970s but has not been applied to non-violent political opponents in almost two decades.

As for criminal prosecutions, most of these have not involved jail terms. Dr Chee went to prison because he would not pay a fine. The state's weapon of choice - defamation civil suits - similarly does not involve incarceration, though it can be devastating financially.

Some may argue that these distinctions are academic, as the PAP's calibrated coercion is still coercive enough to neutralise the opposition. On the one hand, that is precisely the point being argued here: The PAP has developed into an art form the ability to suppress challenges with a fraction of the brutality employed by the most ruthless dictatorships, but with an effectiveness that more than matches them.

Still, the difference between physical torture and a lawsuit is hardly insignificant. To claim otherwise - to say that Singapore is like the Soviet Union of the past, or like Zimbabwe today - is to trivialise the suffering of dissidents in some of the most inhumane regimes of the modern era.

Furthermore, different tools have different secondary effects. That is why calibrated coercion is not only more ethical than unbridled repression, but also the smarter option for any regime interested in long-term consolidation rather than short-term plunder.

States that overplay their hand often find the excessive violence backfiring on them. It unleashes a moral outrage that opponents can harness to mobilise a hitherto-inert public behind their cause.

Tipping points

IN THE Philippines, the sight of opposition leader Benigno Aquino Jr, gunned down in cold blood on the tarmac of Manila International Airport in 1983, was the beginning of the end of the Ferdinand Marcos regime.

Indonesia, May 1998: The shooting of four student protesters was the tipping point that turned the Reformasi campaign against then-president Suharto into a full-blown revolution.

Malaysia's Reformasi got a fillip from sensational images of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim being snatched away under the Internal Security Act and then emerging from custody with a black eye, courtesy of the country's police chief.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew would later comment that the Mahathir government erred tactically in using the ISA instead of a straightforward criminal charge - a rare hint that the calibration of coercion is a conscious policy, even if never enunciated.

One of the few political theorists to have analysed the cost of a state's violence to the state itself was political philosopher Hannah Arendt.

In her pithy treatise On Violence, she rejected Mao Zedong's oft-quoted dictum by arguing that while violence can flow from the barrel of a gun, power cannot.

Power corresponds to the human ability to act in concert; it belongs to a group and exists only as long as the group coheres.

'Single men without others to support them never have enough power to use violence successfully,' she wrote.

'Even the totalitarian ruler, whose chief instrument of rule is torture, needs a power basis - the secret police and its net of informers...Where commands are no longer obeyed, the means of violence are of no use...Everything depends on the power behind the violence.'

Power is sustained by legitimacy, and legitimacy is what's lost when violence is misapplied. 'To substitute violence for power can bring victory, but the price is very high; for it is not only paid by the vanquished, it is also paid by the victor in terms of his own power,' she said.

Therefore, even though violence, power and authority often appear together, they are not the same. Indeed, she added: 'Power and violence are opposites; where one rules absolutely, the other is absent. Violence appears when power is in jeopardy, but left to its own course it ends in power's disappearance.'

Arendt thus zoomed in on the counter-intuitive truth that run-of-the-mill dictators have failed to understand. As in so many other areas, the PAP belongs in a different league. It may have wielded mallets to smash assorted flies in the 1960s and 1970s, but since the mid-1980s it has been relatively self-restrained in the use of force.

This is why the Catherine Lim Affair was able to create such a stir in the mid-1990s, and is still talked about 10 years later, despite the fact that she was not arrested, exiled or 'fixed'. Her books were still published and used as literature texts in government schools, so she was not even punished professionally.

Three decades ago, these less-calibrated means of coercion were more routine. A Singaporean from that period, transported through time to the present day, would be dumbfounded by the notion that the Catherine Lim Affair - which never got nastier than a verbal lashing - could be iconic of PAP intolerance towards dissent. He would have concluded, correctly, that the PAP had changed.

Our time-traveller would be wrong, however, if he assumed that the PAP had undergone a fundamental philosophical conversion towards liberal ideals. As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong emphasised at his talk at the Foreign Correspondents Association last Thursday, it has not - and will not.

The change is instead at the level of methodology. By systematically shifting political controls behind the scenes - through legislation covering trade unions, universities, the press, religious groups and the legal profession - the PAP has pre-empted ugly confrontations with institutions that could challenge its authority.

Mixed blessing

THE contemporary scene of calibrated coercion is a mixed blessing for Singaporeans who want more freedom. There is certainly less cause for fear today than in the old days when coercion was more blunt. On the other hand, the PAP's self-restraint gives its opponents less moral ammunition.

Controls are so seamlessly integrated into the system and coercion is so well calibrated that the average Singaporean can go through much of life without bumping into the hard edges of PAP authoritarianism. This is bad news for pro-democracy activists, who consequently have a tough time reminding Singaporeans that they should care about political liberalisation.

That is where Dr Chee's strategy of civil disobedience comes in. It is a predictable response to the PAP's success at calibrated coercion. It involves seeking out laws that may not enjoy great public support, and deliberately flouting them to provoke a forceful response. The use of force will ensure victory to the PAP, but the price of victory, to borrow Arendt's words, will be 'paid by the victor in terms of his own power'. The strategy turns the state's monopoly of force against itself.

Other states have fallen into the trap when those at the top miscalculate, or when their functionaries - especially the police or army - get trigger-happy when putting down peaceful protests. There is little risk of the latter in Singapore, where uniformed services are highly disciplined and under firm civilian direction. The former scenario - political miscalculation - also seems unlikely.

However, it should be noted that a new and less experienced generation of ministers and permanent secretaries is taking charge. For them, there may be an urge to deal with challengers of any sort in the most expeditious manner, and the temptation to get their way through actual or threatened force may be irresistible. The alternative - the use of reason and debate - may seem too slow, too weak, especially when more decisive tools are at one's fingertips.

The situation, in short, is dynamic. The Government can narrow the opportunities for effective civil disobedience by pro-actively amending regulations that are over-broad and difficult to defend intellectually to the ordinary Singaporean. Until then, the Chees of Singapore will continue to pressure those points in the law. The authorities will not give in; they will say no. But they will have to calibrate carefully how they say no.

The writer is an assistant professor at the School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, where he researches media and politics. This article is based on an academic paper on calibrated coercion, published in the Asia Research Institute's working paper series, at www.ari.nus.edu.sg .

Don't let electoral boundaries breed cynicism, apathy

2005-09-24T23:11:00.000+08:00

Sept 23, 2005
The Straits Times
THE POST-65ERS
Don't let electoral boundaries breed cynicism, apathy
By Peh Shing Huei

PENG, a truck driver from Woodlands, went to see his MP to get help to woo the girl of his dreams.

He went down with his friend, Bin.

The MP agreed to help - until he realised the girl involved lived in the opposition-held Potong Pasir ward.

'During the last elections, you guys should have drawn the boundaries so that Potong Pasir is part of your constituency,' Bin lamented.

'Excuse me, but we are in Woodlands,' interjected a perplexed Peng.

'No problem,' added the animated Bin. 'All you need to do is link, link, link, link, link and then you call the whole thing a GRC.'

The above snatch of dialogue is fictitious. It's from Jack Neo's romantic comedy, I Do, I Do, which I saw on DVD recently.

But what is real is the picture painted of Singapore's electoral map.

Changes to electoral boundaries have become so frequent here that some would probably not be entirely surprised if some day, Woodlands were to be linked up with Potong Pasir to be one big GRC.

As opposition MP Low Thia Khiang once said in Parliament: 'Maybe, one day, there will be only five GRCs - north, south, east, west and central.'

We laugh at the joke in the movie because we can identify with it.

In fact, the question has to be asked: Have Singapore's electoral boundaries become a laughing stock and fodder for satire in some quarters?

Recall the 1996 boundary changes, when Serangoon Gardens was made a part of Marine Parade GRC.

As author Cherian George noted wryly in Singapore: The Air-Conditioned Nation: 'Serangoon Gardens residents can now advertise their homes as 'being near the sea'.'

The People's Action Party has often said that the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee, which is part of the Prime Minister's Office, makes its changes to electoral boundaries based on population shifts.

But the perception among others is that politics does play a part. Why else, say voters, would changes take place to areas where the opposition had done well in previous polls, giving advantage to the ruling party?

For example, Cheng San GRC, where the Workers' Party narrowly lost in the 1997 polls, was broken up in 2001, and the same happened to Eunos GRC earlier.

Does this constitute gerrymandering, which is to divide an area into voting districts so as to give unfair advantage to one party in elections?

The PAP has always maintained that the committee set up to review boundaries is independent and favours no political party.

But even the Feedback Unit's Political Matters and Media Group noted in 2002 that the boundary changes were 'less than fair', highlighting the extensive redrawings of boundaries for the past five general elections which were announced close to Nomination Day.

It also highlighted the perception that the panel is seen to be not independent.

To be fair, Singapore is not the only country where the perception of gerrymandering is an issue.

In fact, the term 'gerrymander' originated from the United States, where Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry's party drew an odd-shaped election district that looked like a salamander in 1812.

'Gerrymander' is a combination of his name and the lizard-like amphibian.

More recently, The New York Times had editorialised that because of gerrymandering, New Yorkers had 'no more voting options than North Koreans have'.

In Singapore, the tendency to redraw electoral boundaries, without population shifts as the key reason, can create problems.

For one, it can breed complacency in MPs from the governing party, who think that - if their wards prove to be tetchy ground - redrawing would be one safe option they can hope for.

But what bothers me most is that boundaries have become fodder for jokes among Singaporeans and have proved to be such good material that they have crept into our popular culture.

Many Singaporeans in my age group don't treat the boundaries seriously.

Older adults remember the early days - before the mid-1980s - when boundaries did not change so quixotically. They recall the days when Marine Parade represented just Marine Parade residents, and know that inland Serangoon Gardens voters wouldn't really care two hoots about the issues faced by those living by the sea.

But what about young Singaporeans like myself?

We don't have the benefit of history. We have been brought up in an era when frequent boundary changes have become a laughing stock.

Would a child brought up on a diet of electoral-boundary jokes take an election seriously?

And, by extension, would he or she take elected politicians seriously?

I have my doubts.

Unless addressed, the perception of gerrymandering would tend to reinforce political apathy among younger Singaporeans.

Can Singaporeans trust the electoral process, if the outcome of electoral-boundary changes is often to remove wards that the PAP nearly lost?

And if young Singaporeans become cynical about electoral boundaries, won't that cynicism extend to elections, and the vote?

It's a sad day when issues surrounding the citizen's hallowed right to vote become less and less like the serious matter they should be.

shpeh@sph.com.sg

NEA DENGUE FIASCO: Open Letter to PM Lee

2005-09-16T21:53:00.000+08:00

Date: 12 September 2005

To: PM Lee Hsien Loong

cc: Dengue Inter-ministerial Committee:
Chairman/MEWR Minister Yaacob Ibrahim
Member/MOH Minister Khaw Boon Wan
Member/MOH Snr MoS Dr Balaji Sadasivan
Member/MHA Snr MHA Ho Peng Kee
Member/MND Minister Mah Bow Tan
Member/MND 2nd Minister Lim Swee Say

NEA Board Chairman Simon Tay
NEA Board Member Halimah Yacob (GPC Chairman/Health)
NEA Board Member Dr Satku Kandiah (MOH/DMS)
NEA CEO Lee Yuen Hee
NEA Director-General of Public Health Khoo Seow Poh
NEA Head,Environmental Health S Satish Appoo

Head of Civil Service Perm Sec Peter Ho
Former Head of Civil Service Perm Sec Lim Siong Guan
Public Service Division Perm Sec Eddie Teo
Public Service Division Perm Sec Lim Soo Hoon

Members of Parliament:
MP Dr Amy Khor (GPC Chairman, Environment/Nat'l Devt)
MP Dr Lily Neo
MP Chiam See Tong
MP Low Thia Khiang
NCMP Steve Chia

From: Mr See Leong Kit

NEA DENGUE FIASCO: Open Letter to PM Lee

Dear Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong,

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

1 Just like you, I am an eldest son. But unlike you, I was not raised with a silver spoon in my mouth and grew up in the poorer quarters of Geylang.
The poverty of my youth has put the steel in my subsequent resolve to SPEAK UP FEARLESSLY on issues of public interest and concern.

I owe much to my illiterate but wise mother who taught me this Cantonese saying at a very young age: "If what you SAY or DO are the RIGHT THINGS, you need not fear the LIGHTNING BOLT* striking you dead." [*such as that depicted in the PAP logo!]

I studied hard and earned a place at Raffles Institution, where a dedicated teacher also taught me this: "Do not be afraid TO SPEAK UP to RIGHT a WRONG."
[ I had also participated under the RI school contingent in our very first National Day Parade, having underwent many long hours of training under the hot sun.]

I next earned a Colombo Plan scholarship to study at a British university --- where I learnt how to think/analyse logically. So I am very clear in my mind that as a scholarship holder (whether Colombo Plan or S'pore Govt), I am certainly beholden to SINGAPORE but definitely not the PAP --- as the scholarship was not paid out of PAP party funds.

Upon receiving my degree, I returned to serve my full-time National Service some 30 years ago. I went through rigorous training under both roasting hot sun and drenching rain --- but found it to be no big deal.

2 (a) Over the past 30 years (more than half of my now 57 years), I have written extensively to newspaper forums as well as directly to politicians/bureaucrats --- mostly on education/social issues and particularly issues of PUBLIC HEALTH and of PUBLIC SAFETY.

I may not be a Medical Doctor, but on the latter issues, I am well read, well researched and speak with a STRONG SOCIAL CONVICTION.

(b) I had dared to speak up on subjects deemed "taboo" (to be swept under the carpet and kept from public view) --- such as the disease threat of AIDS and student suicides (with such "shameful" social statistics: From 1997 - 2001, 20 primary students [ie under age 13] have jumped to their deaths. Figures for 2002 onwards were strangely undisclosed! )

Why should I bother to do so? --- which is probably what former PAP MP Lau Ping Sum would have asked, until his own son tragically took his life at a British university.

(c) Why should I speak up about public safety issues and persevered OVER 4 LONG YEARS to finally "corner" the laid-back, bird-brained bureaucratic buffoons at LTA to install the concrete safety bollards now seen at bus stops (to protect the daily countless adults/students who have to wait at such places) [Details at Annex A para 1]?
--- which is probably what former Snr Minister of State Peter Chen would have asked, until his own wife died in a tragic accident involving a heavy vehicle driven by a reckless driver.

(d) Mr Lee, why do I send you so many lengthy write-ups [with detailed compelling arguments] on WHY our POLITICIANS/BUREAUCRATS cannot afford to be COMPLACENT but MUST BE PRO-ACTIVE in the fight against numerous emerging/re-emerging INFECTIOUS DISEASES (such as SARS, Bird Flu, Superbugs, etc)?

Remember how your own mother had a close shave with SARS at S'pore General Hospital? Likewise, your one precious daughter studying at NUS when an NUS researcher was infected by SARS at the EHI Laboratory? (He could have wandered around the campus and cough/sneeze near her, right?)

(e) The following descriptions best sum up my experiences over 30 years in Speaking Up Openly and in dealing with our mostly laid-back public officials:
(i) "Talking to the Great Wall of China" in English.
(ii) "Vomitting Blood" in Cantonese.

(f) It is quite evident that, in supposedly First World Singapore, our supposedly "World-Class" million-dollar ministers and supposedly "First-Class" half-a-million dollar senior civil servants have yet to learn such invaluable lessons:

(i) 2004 Thai Government Bird Flu Hush-Up/Cover-Up Scandal.
The Nation editorial --- "....the government has been caught red-handed in lying to the people..."
The Bangkok Post editorial --- ".... the government's efforts to SWEEP THE PROBLEM UNDER THE CARPET have EXPLODED IN ITS FACE, leaving the poultry industry in tatters and the very SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC in jeopardy..."

The parents of the first Thai (a 6-year old boy) to die from Bird Flu VOWED TO SUE the government [with PM Thaksin as first plaintiff and his Cabinet the second plaintiff.]
Mr Thaksin had admitted he had suspected "for a couple of weeks" that the disease had appeared in the kingom but kept it quiet for "fear of sparking mass panic".
Boy's angry Father: "If the government had told us about the spread of bird flu, we would have protected our son."
Boy's angry Mother: "I REGRET VOTING for Thaksin. I will NEVER FORGIVE them (the government) for this pain."

(ii) 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami Tragedy:
--- Expect the Unexpected. Be Prepared for the Worst.
--- Practise "Worst-Case Scenario" Contingency Planning.

(iii) Justified Public Anger at America's Bush Administration for its PATHETIC SLOW RESPONSE following Hurricane Katrina.
"Has the U.S. Government become a CAN'T DO Government" (ST headline)
"WHAT TOOK THEM SO LONG? Petty turf wars, red tape and lack of preparation were all factors in debacle." (ST 7.9.05)

(iv) "MOSQUITO-BORNE DISEASE KILLS 650 IN INDIA. More than 3,000 people warded with Japanese encephalitis in northern state." (ST 12.9.05)

(g) MISPLACED PRIORITIES of Singapore politicians:

SO MUCH TALK about fighting TERRORISM.
SIMILAR TALK on protecting/saving the ENVIRONMENT.
BUT WHERE IS THE "OWNERSHIP & POLITICAL WILL" on "educating/preparing" the people to deal with disease threats [viruses/bacteria being tiny/unseen "terrorists"] and possible "bio-terrorism" ???

(h) So, this is my SIMPLE MESSAGE to our politicians/bureacrats (in particular) and fellow S'poreans (in general):

Viruses and Bacteria may be very tiny but can cause SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEMS (and even DEATH) to ANYONE (whether young or old, whether you are a politician, bureaucrat or ordinary citizen).

Thus, ALL OF US had better wake up, sit up and join forces to tackle DISEASE THREATS ( with OUR POLITICIANS providing the EXPECTED LEADERSHIP !!! Otherwise, what the heck are they paid million-dollar salaries for ???).

THE NEA DENGUE FIASCO

3 Our current dengue "crisis situation":
As of 3 Sep 05 --- 8 deaths (incl 10-year old schoolboy). 8,850 cases (with high percentage of 80% [ or 6,000 people] requiring hospitalisation).
[Compared to 9,459 cases for the WHOLE of 2004, then considered a 10-year record high.]
With weekly cases of some 600 (or some 80 cases daily), our hospitals are bursting at the seams with resources fully stretched.
Hence, the various forum letters by angry S'poreans on being turned away by hospitals or the long wait before admission.

4 I have been closely monitoring the dengue situation here for the past 15 years (1992 spike at 3,000 cases, 1998 spike at 5,500 cases and 2004 ten-year record spike of some 9,500 cases --- reflecting a worrying rising trend!)

[ Some years ago, my own mother nearly died of DHF. She required 6 bags of blood transfusions and took 4 long months to recover completely.
I was naturally worried sick --- since I happened to know that the risk of contracting AIDS or other blood-borne diseases from blood transfusions may be low but can NEVER BE ZERO, as confirmed by our Health Ministry.]

5 Over the years, the ENV/NEA handling of the dengue threat can be rightly described as laid-back, complacent and pathetic:

(a) For sure, the current "crisis situation" did not just happen overnight --- there was a DISCERNABLE build-up since END OF 2004 (i.e. some TEN MONTHS AGO).
In short, if Minister-IN-CHARGE Yaacob and his NEA officials have been PRO-ACTIVELY monitoring the situation closely over the PAST TEN MONTHS, they would have seen it coming.

The January 2005 dengue death of a 10-year old schoolboy would have sent alarm bells ringing --- but did all these highly-paid public officials really care or was it just a "hard-luck" conveniently-forgotten death statistic??? [Death toll so far has gone up to 8]

(b) I have never failed to notice that each time dengue cases rise, these same public officials will fall back on the same standard LAID-BACK REACTIVE approach of just calling on Singaporeans "to play their part"!
OF COURSE, any fool will agree that Singaporeans must play their part and co-operate.

As the saying goes: mere TALK IS CHEAP (and easy!).
BUT how are you going to get the people to play their part when NEA HAS YET to mount a programme to EFFECTIVELY EDUCATE S'poreans on the SERIOUSNESS of the Dengue Threat (as many S'poreans have this complacent approach of leaving everything to their Damn Good PAP Government or "si beh ho cheng hu" in Hokkien) ???

So WHEN is our NEA officials going to WALK THE TALK?

In fact, last year on 8 Mar 04 (i.e. 17 MONTHS AGO), I took the time and trouble to write in to then ENV Minister Lim Swee Say with this suggestion:

"Make use of TELEVISION (as a powerful graphic medium) to EDUCATE as MANY people as QUICKLY as possible (to "prepare" the people to handle A POSSIBLE LARGE-SCALE OUTBREAK.)".

This is what is called PRO-ACTIVE CONTINGENCY PLANNING.
Alas, Minister Lim did not bother to reply to my suggestion, even after I sent him my 29 Mar 04 reminder.
Thus, my file records showed he had maintained a DEAD SILENCE not once but TWICE.

On 17 Nov 04 (i.e. 11 MONTHS AGO), I revived the same suggestion with his successor MEWR Minister Yaacob Ibrahim. Alas, it too fell on deaf ears!
With my two reminders on 22 Dec 04 and recently on 27 Jun 05, Minister Yaacob is on record of maintaining a DEAD SILENCE not once but THRICE to a citizen's well-meaning feedback.

(c) On the latter date of 27 Jun 05 (i.e. more than TWO MONTHS AGO), I had sent an email titled "DISEASE THREATS IN SINGAPORE --- Unanswered Questions" to PM Lee and Ministers Yaacob, Khaw, Tharman, Lim Swee Say.
It took me four weeks to prepare this lengthy comprehensive submission containing my feedback/insights/suggestions on fighting these various disease threats --- SARS, Bird Flu, Dengue, HFMD, Tubercolosis, Meningitis, Superbugs MRSA & VRE, Polio and AIDS.

Its Section 10 on DENGUE reads as follows:

(a) Two types --- Dengue Fever (with 4 strains of virus) and the more deadly Dengue Haemorrhagic Fever (internal organs bleed/potentially fatal).

(b) FEW S'poreans know these FACTS:
--- Since 2003, 10 people here have died from Dengue.
--- HDB/private flats are just as prone to dengue outbreaks as landed homes.
--- Severe cases may require blood transfusions (with an attendant AIDS risk, which can NEVER BE ZERO -- as confirmed by MOH)
--- Both young and old people are vulnerable [ In one Yishun outbreak, a 2-year old infant and a 68-year old woman were both hospitalised]
--- The year-end mosquito breeding season coincides with important year-end school/university exams. [An 18-year old DHF victim had to sit for his important A-level exams in a hospital, with his performance naturally affected by the ordeal]

(c) DO NOT EVER ASSUME these large-scale dengue outbreaks CANNOT happen in tiny densely-populated Singapore:
(i) Mar 2003 Indonesia Dengue Outbreak
[ over 50,000 infected/ over 500 dead (mostly children)]
(ii) May 2005 Thailand Dengue Outbreak
[ 7,000 infected(mostly children under 9 years), 16 dead so far]

(d) Feb 2004 --- NEA announced its Mozzie Buster programme to get primary students (initial target: 2,000 students) to seek out "potential mosquito breeding sites"!!!

Yet another "incredibly stupid idea" ---coming from former NEA Public Health Commissioner Wang Nan Chee --- as this would expose the students to the risk of being bitten by mosquitoes and contracting DF/DHF.
Interesting Question: WHY didn't ANYBODY in both NEA and MOE (who allowed the scheme to be introduced in schools) EVER GIVE A THOUGHT to such risks for the students?
[ Some years ago, an 8-year old schoolgirl had died of dengue. Recently, a 10-year old schoolboy also died of dengue.]

>>> Question No 1 (for Minister Yaacob) --- I had previously written extensively to your predecessor Lim Swee Say (who did not bother to respond) to have the scheme scrapped rightaway to safeguard the health of our school children.
I now seek the following answers from you: Has the Mozzie Buster scheme for students been scrapped? If so, indicate when it was scrapped. If not, please explain fully WHY NOT?
[ THINK (IBM slogan) --- If your own children were in primary school, would YOU allow them to participate in such a stupid/foolhardy scheme?]

(e) There are still many older HDB/private flats installed with sloping bamboo-pole holders which can harbour stagnant rain water --- and so breed mosquitoes (VERY FEW S'poreans know this). [See today's ST 12.9.05 Forum letter "Dengue threat in HDB laundry pole holders".]

NEA's Dengue public education programme SHOULD thus be:
(i) PRIMARY Objective --- Make use of TELEVISION to EDUCATE as MANY people as possible (to QUICKLY "prepare" the people to handle a possible large-scale outbreak).
Show on TELEVISION a homeowner or maid carrying out ALL the various simple measures to prevent mosquito-breeding in homes eg covering up bamboo pole holders, overturning pails,etc,etc ["monkey see, monkey do"]

(ii) SECONDARY Objective --- Next, carry on with its "grassroots approach" to "reinforce" the messages in the TV education programme. If NEA just do this "time-consuming" approach (as currently), by the time it finish going around the numerous grassroot bodies, many S'poreans (including possibly our politicians/bureaucrats!) may have already died of Dengue!!!

>>> Question No 2 (for Minister Yaacob) --- Are you going to direct current NEA Public Health Commissioner Khoo Seow Poh to undertake approach (i) RIGHTAWAY (no time to lose, as we had big spike in dengue cases early this year)? If not, please explain fully WHY NOT?

6 Mr Lee, please note the following:

(a) From the above revelations, IF Minister Lim Swee Say had seriously heeded/adopted my said suggestion 17 MONTHS AGO and IF Minister Yaacob had done so 11 MONTHS AND TWO MONTHS AGO, the current "crisis situation" could have been avoided (and with possibly FEWER DEATHS!)

How Pathetic And Pathetic (PAP) --- so many OPPORTUNITIES and so much LEAD TIME to educate/prepare the people for a large-scale epidemic wasted i.e. "gone down the mosquito-infected drain" !!!

(b) So, if there are more deaths to come (especially of young children), Singaporeans can rightly hold Ministers Lim Swee Say and Yaacob Ibrahim ACCOUNTABLE and ANSWERABLE for the laid-back/complacent/tardy handling of the dengue threat leading up to the current crisis.

And the grieving relatives of such victims can also sue such million-dollar ministers. ( Since PAP ministers like to sue people so much, it would be a nice welcomed change for the people to sue them ! )

CONCLUDING REMARKS

7 The NEA Dengue Fiasco is JUST ONE of our numerous Fiascos after Fiascos ( as listed in Annex A below).

The ROOT CAUSES of all these fiascos lie in the Basic Principles of Political Governance & Public Service (as spelt out in Annex B below) --- which can be summed up as follows:

(a) control/manipulation of Press/TV media (people only hear "feel-good" news and not "the good,the bad and the ugly" aspects of a society) = yes-man journalists

(b) mollycoddling civil servants (through condoning their shortcomings/mistakes in serving the people) = yes-man civil servants

(c) using the law as a political weapon through defamation suits to deal with differing/dissenting views (i.e. Fear Factor,Singapore Edition) = yes-man citizens

Simple mathematical equation:
yes-man journalists + yes-man civil servants + yes-man citizens
= perfect recipe for fiascos/cock-ups/screw-ups/cover-ups (with HUMAN LIVES possibly at stake)
= SINGAPORE going "down the drain" (infested with dengue mosquitoes!)

8 Remember, at a PAP 50th Anniversary function, you said to this effect: Don't just sit there! DO SOMETHING! Don't be NATO (No Action,Talk Only)!

[ "DPM Lee promises a more open Singapore". "I don't make promises I can't keep: DPM Lee" (ST & Jan 04) ]

Internet readers of this Open Letter will rightly expect you (as the PRIME MINISTER ) to demonstrate the requisite POLITICAL LEADERSHIP as follows:

(i) DIRECT all your ministers and senior civil servants to put an IMMEDIATE STOP to all the DEAD SILENCE (a most ARROGANT and DISRESPECTFUL ACT towards citizens [like myself] who try to participate/contribute to the well-being of Singapore.

For if they continue to do so, Singaporeans (who are paying for their salaries) have EVERY RIGHT to treat such public servants as DEAD and should thus be struck off the public payroll! (WHY should our people pay for the salaries of DEAD public servants???)

(ii) ADVISE Minister Yaacob to set the proper/correct example to civil servants in not maintaining any further DEAD SILENCE to the long-outstanding Questions No 1 & 2 stated in para 5(c) above.

I will be expecting his PERSONAL email reply (i.e. as MEWR Minister-IN-CHARGE,thus any passing-the-buck to NEA officials is unacceptable) by 5 pm WED 14 September 2005 [as per Civil Service 3-working day Response Directive].

After this deadline, I will proceed to download over the Internet the following to help fellow S'poreans judge/decide for themselves:
--- this Open Letter
--- Minister Yaacob's email reply (if any)
--- Your response to this Open Letter (if any)

[ Note: My feedback on SERIOUS ISSUES (Disease Threats) are the contributions of a SERIOUS-MINDED educated 57-year old S'porean who has "eaten more salt than 50-year old Minister Yaacob has eaten rice" (in Cantonese). So Minister Yaacob will do well to take me VERY SERIOUSLY! ]

9 Mr Lee, the current dengue crisis has completely vindicated by persistent feedback efforts to our politicans/bureaucrats on various disease threats (and not merely dengue).

I am not a member of any political party. I speak as an educated concerned citizen. And coming from the same alma mater Raffles Institution (as your Famous Father and SM Goh), I cannot be such a stupid Singaporean as to make unfounded statements.

Firstly, I have documented file records. Secondly, I am raising issues of public health (involving human health and human lives) and so am confident of the people's backing.
Therefore, any clever attempt to cook up a defamation suit against a Public Health Whistle-Blower will result in a hugh backlash of justified public anger as seen in the NKF Disgraceful Debacle-cum-Shameless Scandal.

In your planning for the coming General Elections, here are some invaluable/honest feedback taken from Internet postings of younger, better-educated, Internet-savvy S'poreans:

(i) Hi ALL, notice these glaring similarities in the NKF and PAP:
--- a deplorable Lack of Transparency and disgraceful disrespect for donors/citizens.
--- using defamation suits to threaten the people's right to ask questions.
--- officials paying themselves very handsome, so-called "peanut" salaries.

Wah lau, if such high salary is "Pea-Nut", then the salaries of the majority of Singaporeans must be "Pee-Sai", hor?

(ii) This Andrew Kuan Wayang Show. Why can't they stage the show themselves, instead of making use of civil servants?
They also make use of civil servants to fiddle electoral boundaries.
This is not fair to civil servants, lah. Civil servants are supposed to be non-political, mah.

ANNEX A: Other Fiascos (involving Human Health and Human Lives).

1 LTA Bus Stop Safety Fiasco.

My 15 Sep 2004 STREATS published letter "I,not LTA, wanted bus-stop bollards":

".......In his letter "Bollards make me feel safer" (Streats, Sept 7), Mr Tan Kok Tim had mistakenly commended the Land Transport Authority (LTA). Allow me to set the record straight.

In 1998, a runaway car ploughed into a bus stop, killing one and injuring two students. In 2000, a similar tragedy happened, with two students and two women seriously injured.

Many concerned commuters then suggesed putting "some form of barrier" at bus stops. The LTA persistently argued that such barriers impede passenger movement and merely advised motorists to drive "more carefully"!!!

In 2001, I wrote directly to former LTA CEO Han Eng Juan*, asking "Who says you have to erect massive or continuous barriers?" and suggested concrete bollards (even providing a sketch). [* former S'pore Navy top-brass]

Regrettably, the LTA dithered on the matter with exasperating lame excuses. The correspondence "ding-dong" went on for three months!

In 2003, I revived the issue with LTA. Were it not for for my dogged persistence, the concrete bollards would never have been installed recently. Still, it has taken the LTA FOUR LONG YEARS to act on such a simple and inexpensive safety measure to protect adults and students who have to wait at bus stops......"

2 AIDS Risk Through Blood Transfusions.
In my published 25.1.93 ST Forum letter "Can MOH explain why I can't donate blood to my son?", I had publicly raised this concern --- which was clearly not taken seriously by MOH officials. [Then Health Minister Yeo Cheow Tong, PS/MOH & DMS Dr Kwa Soon Bee]

FIVE YEARS LATER, in 1997, the tragedy that was "waiting to happen" did happen to not one but two innocent adult S'poreans who contracted AIDS through blood transfusions.
MOH officials then "downplayed" this double tragedy, promising to pay the victims' medical bills. This was SCANT CONSOLATION to their loved ones, as both victims died of AIDS not so long after.

MOH also had to FINALLY and PUBLICLY admit to the following (which was previously kept from the public for many years):
".....No procedure can reduce the risk of infection from contaminated blood to ZERO...." [ then MOH/DMS Dr Chen Ai Ju ST 17.11.97].

Food for Thought --- That is, even if the risk of contracting AIDS from a blood transfusion is so remotely low as one in three million [our citizen population], how would ANY S'porean like to be that ONE unfortunate statistic ???

[ Additional Note: Currently, Donated Blood are routinely screened for AIDS and Hepatitis B/C.
However, there also VARIOUS OTHER "blood-borne" diseases (incl Mad Cow Disease) that could be transmitted through a blood transfusion.]

3 Our 2000 HFMD Outbreak Fiasco.[ some 4,000 infected/ 7 young children dead ]

The 1997 Sarawak and 1998 Taiwan HFMD epidemics showed this contagious disease could spread quickly to large numbers of young children. (But, alas, our ENV/MOH officials didn't pick up the lessons.)

ENV Public Health Commissioner Wang Nan Chee was then Chairman of the HFMD Task Force. He was caught napping, slow to react and his deplorable "smug complacency" were revealed through these burning questions:

(i) WHY did he not adopt the PRO-ACTIVE APPROACH of making the disease LEGALLY NOTIFIABLE when the Task Force was set up in 1998?
[ Doing so would have enabled it to track cases, anticipate an impending epidemic with more time to alert parents/childcare operators.]

(ii) WHY WAIT until the death of a 2-year old toddler on Sep 10 to annouce making it notifiable as from Oct 1, and not rightaway?
[ Anyway, for the 20 days after this was done, some 2,200 cases were notified --- confirming that an epidemic was ALREADY AT HAND!!! ]

(iii) WHY WAIT until the deaths of two siblings* on Sep 30 to HASTILY announce the SUDDEN closure of childcare centres in a BELATED bid to halt the growing epidemic?
[ *All three children in one family came down with HFMD, with a 2-year old brother and 14-month old sister dying within hours of each other. Altogether, 7 young children died in this outbreak.]

[ Note: In the above 2000 HFMD fiasco, senior civil servant Wang Nan Chee had demonstrated a deplorable "smug complacency". In the 2003 EHI laboratory SARS case fiasco (para 5 below), he demonstrated an equally deplorable "smug over-confidence". And in 2004, he was behind the incredibly stupid NEA Mozzie Buster scheme for primary students.]

4 Our 2003 SARS Outbreak [ 238 infected/ 33 deaths]:

(i) We were DAMN LUCKY in that, THIS FIRST TIME, the disease was largely confined to the healthcare setting --- so most victims were HCWs (healthcare workers ie nurses/doctors).

THE NEXT TIME, if the virus spreads to the WIDER COMMUNITY through a combination of Coughing/Sneezing AND Sharing Food, it would be "near impossible" to contain the disease!

(ii) Beneath the SEEMINGLY CALM EXTERIOR, there was UNDERLYING PANIC and under-estimation of the threat:
01.03.03 Victim No 1 hospitalised at TTSH.
12.03.03 WHO global alert on "atypical pneumonia".
15.03.03 WHO named new disease as SARS. 16 infected to-date.
18.03.03 21 infected (still early days)
Amazingly, an over-confident Health Minister Lim Hng Khiang told Parliament: "It will require us another 10-14 days, before we can declare 'all clear' if all things go well". He also said there was NO CAUSE FOR ALARM (when this was just the BEGINNING of the outbreak !!!)
30.05.03 Singapore taken off WHO SARS list. [Final tally 238 infected/ 33 deaths]

(iii) On extending the closure of schools, I had to send then Education Minister Teo Chee Hean my 3 Apr 03 email to remind him thus --- "The LIVES OF OUR CHILDREN are DEFINITELY MORE IMPORTANT than the unavoidable disruption to curriculum, examinations and holiday plans. With this new and little-known killer SARS virus, it is DOWNRIGHT SENSIBLE to err on the side of caution."

5 2003 EHI Laboratory SARS case Fiasco.

Singapore became the "laughing stock" of the international medical community (first country in the whole world to have a SARS case contracted in a laboratory!).
Former NEA Public Health Commissioner Wang Nan Chee displayed a deplorably "smug over-confidence" in his persistent denials that the SARS-infected NUS researcher could have picked up the infection at its "world-class" laboratory.

He was proven wrong by the International Expert Panel, which also provided these very shocking findings. These VERY BASIC laboratory procedures (for a lab dealing in "live" viruses!) were ABSENT --- restricted access to the lab; proper records; wearing appropriate protective gear; using properly-sterilised equipment. [ Even a secondary school Chemistry teacher would be shocked!]

At the televised Press Conference on the findings, both ENV Minister-in-charge Lim Swee Say and Wang were conspicuously absent.
When interviewed by reporters the next day, Minister Lim finally offered his Belated Apology (one day late).

This incident is certainly no small nor laughing matter.
POSSIBLE DIRE CONSEQUENCES --- WHAT IF the SARS-infected NUS researcher is a "super-spreader" who then wander around the university campus to start new clusters of SARS infection amongst NUS students???
[ Note: PM Lee's one precious daughter was then an NUS student.]

6 MOE Vietnam School Visit Fiasco.

[ Minister-IN-CHARGE Tharman Shanmugaratnam.
Perm Sec Lieutenant-General Lim Chuan Poh (Army top-brass) ]

From my 16/3/05 TODAY published letter "Unwise to put pupils at risk":

In 2004, 69 Singapore schools did "community work" overseas.
In Nov 2004, 6 teachers and 10 students from Choa Chu Kang Primary School spent a week helping out in an orphanage in Vietnam (around that time, Vietnam was having its major bird flu outbreak!)

Whatever the good intentions, the trip was "an incredibly stupid idea" !!!
The teachers/students were putting themselves at risk of contracting bird flu AND PASSING ON THE INFECTION to fellow citizens/teachers/students upon returning to Singapore.

7 2004 Nicoll Highway Collapse Fiasco.

Are these two incidents that were "WAITING TO HAPPEN"?

In 1993, at the Clementi Station, an MRT train crashed into a stationary train (156 people injured, some with severe "whip-lash" neck injuries).

DAMNING INDICTMENT of then Inquiry Panel --- ".....The seeds of the collision were actually sown FIVE YEARS AGO in 1988. The crash COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED but for a series of "errors of judgement, omissions of communication, lack of initiative, over-confidence in the automatic train protection system and a LACK OF A SENSE OF DANGER by groups and individuals prior to the collision........."

ELEVEN YEARS LATER, the past lessons have clearly not been learnt !!!

SAME DAMNING INDICTMENT in the 13 May 05 Final Report (Committee of Inquiry into the Nicoll Highway Collapse) --- the collapse of the section of MRT Circle Line and subsequent collapse of 100m of Nicoll Highway was a MAN-MADE DISASTER that COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED.

ST 14 May 05 front-page headline --- "Panel slams safety at worksite: RECKLESS, SLOPPY, INDIFFERENT"

TNP 14 May 05 report "So many warning signs, but....." --- FOUR lives could have been saved. FOUR families would not be grieving. IF ONLY the WARNING SIGNS had been taken more SERIOUSLY. But they went UNHEEDED. Only simple patch-ups were done.

Again, this incident is no small nor laughing matter.

POSSIBLE HORRENDOUS CONSEQUENCES --- WHAT IF the design/construction faults manifest themselves only AFTER the project was completed? Say, during peak hour traffic, the collapse occur. ABOVE GROUND, many cars and crowded buses plunge into a big gaping hole along Nicoll Highway. BELOW GROUND, many MRT commuters suffer the terrible fate of being "entombed" to death. Total Death Toll in the hundreds, thousands???

ANNEX B: Basic Principles of Political Governance & Public Service.

1 A VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION:
SINGAPORE is a country with a 200-year history and belongs to ALL its 3 million citizens.
The PAP is just a 50-year old political party with only some 15,000 members.

(Some years ago, academic-turned-PAP politican Koo Tsai Kee almost committed "political suicide" when he BRAZENLY declared that Singapore and the PAP are synonymous !!!
He was immediately lambasted by many educated/thinking S'poreans. Served him right! Over the Internet, many were saying he was suffering from the deadly/incurable "Foot in the Mouth" disease! )

[ Million-Dollar Question --- If the PAP is really held in such high esteem by the people and with the attraction of million-dollar ministerial salaries, WHY are there no long queues of educated/capable people lining up to join the PAP?
Even they have publicly admitted they need to "drink a lot of tea" to "persuade" people to join! ]

2 Similarities between CORPORATE Governance & POLITICAL Governance:

As FINANCE Minister, Lee Hsien Loong had preached the following:
--- Need for Good CORPORATE Governance through TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY and CHECKS & BALANCES.
--- Avoidance of Conflict of Interests.
--- Recognition of Whistle-Blowers in exposing Corporate Fraud.

[ Million-Dollar Question for a Million-Dollar Minister --- wearing his hat as PRIME MINISTER, WHEN is he going to practise what he preached in introducing similar desirable requirements in the even more important area of Good POLITICAL Governance?
Educated/thinking S'poreans have been impatiently waiting for such Political LEADERSHIP --- not least in their desire to have more political choices through a level-playing field in our political arena.]

From the Internet:
In America, Red Indians say White Men speak with forked tongue.
In Singapore, Singaporeans say Men In White also speak with forked tongue.

In Singapore's Political Governance, there is little TRUE SUBSTANCE but hell of a lot of FORM such as political orchestration ("wayang" in Malay,"chor hee" in Hokkien); election gerrymandering; mollycoddling of civil servants; flirtation with union members, etc,etc,etc.
This may be good for the PAP, but are DEFINITELY NOT GOOD IN THE LONG-TERM for Singapore (as a country) and for Singaporeans (as a people).

From the Internet:
You can fool MOST people MOST of the time.
But you cannot fool ALL the people ALL the time.

3 Singapore's CONTINUED SURVIVAL depends ultimately on the COLLECTIVE INPUTS of its politicians, civil servants and people. NO ONE GROUP can claim the FULL CREDIT for the country's achievements.

If the people can do everything by themselves, there would be no need for a Government. Conversely, if the Government thinks it can afford to brush aside the people's feedback, it may as well govern a deserted country, say Timbuktu in Africa!

If the FEW strengths (eg incorruptibility) of our public officials are constantly trumpeted, but their MANY weaknesses (eg DEAD SILENCE or exasperating replies to public feedback) are not publicised, how can they ever IMPROVE to help Singapore PROGRESS "from a small country to a Great Nation" ?

Our public officials can look at public feedback in two ways --- the negative, defensive way or the positive, constructive way, which will help them try "harder" to serve the people "better". This is the true meaning of "public service" --- plain and simple!

A truly First-Class Civil Service is one that is RESPECTFUL OF PUBLIC FEEDBACK and RESPONSIVE TO PUBLIC NEEDS.

4 As the term rightly indicates, Public SERVANTS (generic term for politicians/bureaucrats) are PAID by the people to SERVE the people.

--- As such, they have no right to go around "expecting" or "demanding" respect from the people. Or worse, trying to "beat respect out of the people" in using the law as a legal weapon, such as through defamation suits.

Like it or not, they MUST FIRST "earn" such public respect through appropriate WORDS (what they say) and DEEDS (what they do).
[ In short, if they do not FIRST show respect for the people, why should the people respect them at all ??? ]

--- ANY Public SERVANT who either maintains a DEAD SILENCE to issues of public concern raised by the people or delivers exasperating public replies that insult the people's intelligence is guilty of displaying an ACT OF ARROGANCE AND DISRESPECT to the very same people (who are paying for his super-generous salary/bonuses out of their hard-earned monies collected through numerous taxes and dues.)

[ Million Dollar Question: Are our public officials "definitely dumb" (unable to comprehend issues stated in plain simple English) or "deliberately dumb" (to avoid/evade the issue at hand) ?
EITHER WAY is bad for the LONG-TERM FUTURE of Singapore! ]

Also copied to:

MOH --- Parl Sec Dr Maliki Osman; PS Yong Ying-I; DMS Dr Satku Kandiah;

HPB --- CEO-designate Lam Pin Woon

SingHealth --- CEO Dr Tan Ser Kiat

National Health --- CEO Dr Lim Suet Wun

MEWR --- PS Tan Yong Soon

AVA --- CEO Dr Chua Sin Bin

Other Ministers:

MOF Raymond Lim / MCYS Dr Vivian Balakrishnan / MOT Lim Hwee Hua

DPM Wong Kan Seng/ MOM Ng Eng Hen/ MINDEF Teo Chee Hean

MOE Tharman Shanmugaratnam/ MICA Lee Boon Yang

MFA George Yeo/ MTI Lim Hng Kiang/ MOT Yeo Cheow Tong