Paths Not Taken

I first spotted the links to the following at Singapore Angle.

This is a project of the QUT Centre for Social Change Research (CSCR).

The project aims to recast Singapore's postwar history by studying the civil and political movements that have operated outside the parameters of imagination created by the ruling People's Action Party. The project draws from disciplines as diverse as history, cultural studies, anthropology, political science, sociology, law, gender and development studies, and architecture, and it studies an equally diverse range of ‘paths not taken’: party and activist politics; trade unions; commercial and professional organisations; social, intellectual, ethnic and religious movements, and; the media and service organisations. The project is intended to culminate in an international symposium and an edited book.

Some of the contributions appear very interesting and if I had a very rich guardian angel I would attend.

2. History Spiked: The Death of the Liberal Ideal in Singapore Media
Dr Cherian George

The press system in Singapore up to the 1970s included an adversarial tendencywithin the mainstream press, a contentious alternative press, and a live public discourse on press freedom. This paper will trace the closing off of these paths,leading up to the hegemonic, non-contentious and “nation-building” press system of post-70s Singapore. It will argue that the state achieved this closure not only by overt political repression but also by riding global trends in media economics and intellectual culture, which tended in the direction of industry concentration and commercialisation, at the expense of media diversity and public service.

This explanation for the prevailing media system refutes the cultural arguments that are currently mustered in its defence – that the system is a reflection of Asian values that emphasise consensus and harmony – and argues instead that it was a matter of deliberate political engineering by the PAP regime. Finally, the paper will attempt to locate vestiges of counter-hegemonic practice and discourse within the Singapore media system and assess their potential.

Dr Cherian George is a postdoctoral research fellow at Nanyang Technological University.

Lawyers and Politics: 1945-1990
Dr Kevin Tan

This paper examines the relationship between the legal profession and politics in Singapore from 1945 to 1990. The relationship between law and politics is a close one, especially in the aftermath of World War II and the rapid decolonization within the British Empire. This took on an greater significance given the number of lawyers involved in post-War political developments throughout the Empire. Singapore was no exception and it came as no surprise that the first Chief Minister and Prime Minister of Singapore were both lawyers.

The active role that lawyers played, both individually and collectively – through institutions such as the Bar Committee and its successor, the Law Society, as well as through political parties – in the immediate post-War period contrasts markedly with the relative inactivity of the profession in the 1980s and 1990s. It is also significant that the legal profession provided key political players who spanned the entire political spectrum during the formative years of Singapore’s nationhood. This plurality of views and visions for an independent Singapore was a path that was not taken; a path which could have led to quite a different Singapore.

This paper adopts a chronological approach and is organized in three parts. In Part I, we consider the period from 1945 to 1955, looking at the role lawyers and institutions played in the fight for self-government, and their competing visions for Singapore. In particular, the role of the Progressive Party under CC Tan, the Labour Front under David Marshall and the PAP under Lee Kuan Yew will be compared and contrasted. Part II will consider the developments from 1955 to 1965, the period of transition from the Rendel Constitution to Singapore’s separation from Malaysia. Focus will beon the roles played by Lee Kuan Yew, EW Barker, KM Byrne (from Singapore) and Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Razak (from Malaysia) in this whole process. Part III concentrates on the post 1965 developments with discussion on the role of lawyers in the nation-building process. In particular, we will consider how the Law Society tried to find a voice in this process and ended up being crushed. Key figures who will be considered in this period are Francis Seow, Toh Soh Lung. The role played by opposition lawyers like Chiam See Tong will also be discussed in passing. Finally, I will discuss the establishment of the Singapore Academy of Law and how its expanded role has silenced the pluralistic political discourse that saw a brief flowering in the 1980s.

Dr Kevin Tan is a private researcher in Singapore.

Related Link:
Paths Not Taken: Political Pluralism in Postwar Singapore

Human Rights

Calling all Bloggers: Get Skyped

Get your actual voice heard by a global audience. Introduce your blog and tell the world what it’s like to be a blogger in your country.

If you don’t already have Skype, please get it.

I look forward to talking to you soon. If I am not online then simply leave me a voice mail and I will get back to you asap.

To start go to Skype and download the free software. Invest a few dollars in headphones and microphone set. Then simply click on the Skype botton in the right hand column.



Human Rights

Old Age A Blessing? Not in Singapore

Filial Piety in Singapore? In order to understand the true level of caring I would walk into a local fast food restaurant. The sight of an elderly lady, stooped over emptying rubbish is an image that will stick with me forever. The thought that my grandmother or grandfather would still have to work after 60-65 makes me sick. If one sphere of the population deserve health care and some level of payment from the state in the form of welfare, or 'pensions', then there can be no better deserving than the elderly.

When I hear the empty words of politicians referring to filial piety or 'how the elderly can continue to contribute' I realise just how much hot air politicians like to emit.

TODAY
30 JUNE 2005

----------------------------------------

THERE is nothing more comforting than to be reminded that you were once young.

That once, you moved to the rhythm of music effortlessly; that once, you were in love and could still feel what it is to be in love when you listened to romantic melodies.

It is also empowering to find that one can be 69 or 70 and enjoy what one enjoyed twenty, thirty or even forty years ago.

I realised this the night of the Engelbert Humperdinck concert.

It was one of those rare times I felt I was not the oldest in a crowd. I saw familiar faces who were there to recall good old times that seemed to be disappearing quickly.

We were all 20 once again.

Engelbert Humperdinck reminded us - if we needed reminding at all - that life is not over yet for those of us in our 60s and 70s. Even if we may look a bit worse for wear and our faculties compromise, or if we elapse into "senior moments" now and then.

There he was on stage, a bit thicker in the middle, a bit broader in the jowls, a bit stiffer in the joints. But with the same magic that had captured audiences the world over for almost 40 years.

During the concert, for some reason I can't recall, Engelbert Humperdinck mentioned social security and asked if we got pensions.

There was this very telling silence. Reality of life for the old put a damper on the evening.

Life is difficult for older people in Singapore.

The Aware-Tsao Foundation report published recently concluded that "older women are in a particularly vulnerable position in their later life because of the lack of income over their lifetime, an old age income security system … the lack of an adequate and inclusive health care financing mechanism that covers those not in formal employment, and a family situation that can no longer sustain its care giving and providing role for its older relatives."

The report adds that the responsibility to support the older population goes beyond the immediate family.

The Government, the private sector and communities all have a role to play to ensure that the older population feels valued and able to contribute.

For instance, the estate that I live in is undergoing upgrading. It is costing many millions of public funds, no doubt.

Has it made the buildings wheelchair-friendly? No. In this supposedly family-friendly society, is any consideration given to young mothers with strollers?

Sometimes, I wonder if one arm of government knows the policies being promoted by the other arms.

I move between despair and exaltation when I think of my own old age. The exaltation comes from imagining new visions, new states of personal realisation emerging at this stage of my life.

But then, public policies in healthcare, housing, education and labour - despite new initiatives being announced recently - seriously lag behind the needs of a growing elderly population.

Health costs keep rising. There are few support systems. Nor is there sufficient financial security - even with the CPF scheme intended, ironically, for this purpose.

So, what will nourish the visions of ageing men and women like myself, who want to live independent lives?

To say that taking care of the aged is the responsibility of the family is to deny the state's responsibility to provide an environment that makes life easier for an ageing population.

It is also a denial of the reality of life for those Singaporean families which struggle to make ends meet.

One 84-year-old aunt I know has been praying for death for 10 years. Old age has made her dependent on two daughters who have, she says, the unhappy burden of looking after her.

Another 96-year-old aunt, hearty and mobile, has been shunted from son to son for 10 years.

Old age is not a blessing. And even those of us who can afford to attend a concert, can escape from the worries of ageing only for a moment.

The writer, a social activist and teacher, is a former president of Aware and SCWO.

Human Rights

Edinburgh Calling

As some of you may know I am currently living in Edinburgh. Which has placed me in a postion to blog the upcoming events over the next few days - 2nd and 6th of July 2005. This Saturday there will be a large meeting in Edinburgh entitled The Long Walk to Justice.

The Long Walk To Justice is a symbolic journey of people across the world to Edinburgh to show the G8 leaders that the world is watching and waiting.

Ahead of the G8 Summit, hundreds of thousands of people from across the globe will make their way by land, sea and air to the Scottish capital, Edinburgh, to show the leaders of the world's richest nations that they must act to stop the scandal of extreme poverty.

I will be joining the event and blogging by whatever means possible. Hopefully via mobile phone, video, and pictures. I think it is a unique opportunity to do some 'bridge-blogging' into Singapore. The mass media will of course be covering the events but hopefully Singaporean readers will get a more personal account via this blog.

And as if that wasn't enough I am also the proud possessor of two tickets to the Edinburgh 50,000

Edinburgh 50,000

The Final Push

This is the final moment; this is the eve of the biggest meeting ever in the fight against poverty.

As the leaders fly into Gleneagles on the evening of Wednesday 6th July, a very special event at Edinburgh’s Murrayfield Stadium will signal the end of the Long Walk To Justice and the beginning of the G8 Summit.

Hosted by Lenny Henry and Peter Kay, the event will include some of music’s biggest names such as Annie Lennox, Snow Patrol, Travis, The Sugababes, Ronan Keating, Beverly Knight, The Corrs, Natasha Bedingfield, Proclaimers, Texas, Youssou N’Dour, McFly, Bob Geldof, Midge Ure and African artists from Peter Gabriel’s WOMAD plus a line up of very special speakers.

So if all goes well I will be blogging democracy in action, witnessing thousands voicing their opinions, taking part in a mass movement and adding my voice to the Make Poverty History Campaign.

Human Rights

Chee to launch new book

"the democratic revolution has begun!"

Dr Chee Soon Juan has written a new book and will be launching it in a public forum in less than two weeks. Entitled The Power of Courage: Effecting Political Change in Singapore Through Nonviolence, this book explains to readers the concept and philosophy of nonviolent action and why it is important to Singapore.

The book launch is open to members of the public.

9 July 2005, Saturday 2 pm
Grand Plaza Parkroyal
10 Coleman Street
Coleman Room, Level 1
(Opposite Peninsula Hotel,
City Hall MRT Station)

Unlike Dr Chee's previous books, this publication discusses how Singaporeans can take action to empower themselves and stop the political rot that afflicts our nation. It is a practical book with useful information on organizing activists and taking positive steps to wean the PAP off its addiction to authoritarian habits.

Mr Francis Seow, Singapore's former solicitor-general and the bane of the Minister Mentor writes the first Foreword, with Mr Robert Helvey, president of the Albert Einstein Institute and expert on nonviolence, writing the second. Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam weighs in with an Introduction.

The book also examines the laws that the PAP introduces to strengthen its grip on power and how these laws are applied selective against the opposition. Dr Chee also relates how nonviolence has been effectively and successfully applied around the world. The book encourages Singaporeans to be proactive and take the struggle for freedom to the PAP.

Yeshua-Moser Puangsuwan, Asia's coordinator for Nonviolence International and who was recently prevented from entering Singapore to conduct a workshop on nonviolence, wrote on the backcover of the book:

"In this brief but clearly written book Dr Chee has outlined the methods of non-violent civil disobedience, or the moral imperative of breaking unjust laws to bring about social uplift, as was advocated by some of the greatest practitioners of nonviolence, MK Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Using examples from the histories of different civil movements for social change, and giving specific examples from contemporary Singapore, he reveals how the current government of Singapore pursues the selective use of legislation, which instead of promoting the rule of law, entrenches the current People's Action Party regime's 'rule by law'. Read this book and pass it on, the democratic revolution has begun!"

So make sure you spread the word and make your way down to Grand Plaza Parkroyal Hotel next Saturday and see how you can be part of the democracy campaign that will ultimate win us back our country.

Singapore police warn would-be Olympic vote protesters they could face arrest

Welcome to Singapore.

By GILLIAN WONG

SINGAPORE (AP) - Singapore police Tuesday said they would clamp down on any protest designed to disrupt the 2012 Summer Games vote, saying demonstrators could face arrest.

The warning came a week after a British group of small businesses opposed to London hosting the games said they were considering protesting at the Singapore meeting, which begins Sunday, to dissuade the International Olympic Committee from giving the vote to the British capital.

Other cities vying for the Olympics, which could bring up to $12 billion US for the hosts, are New York, Madrid, Paris and Moscow. The decision will be made July 6.

Singapore law dictates that outdoor gatherings of five or more people require a police permit. Public demonstrations are extremely rare in the tightly-controlled city-state. Police usually deny permits, citing "law and order problems." "

Anyone who organizes or participates in an assembly or procession without a permit is violating the law," said Aubeck Kam, the police's operations director, at a briefing about security for the July 2-9 meeting.

Heads of state expected to be in Singapore to support their countries' bids include British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and a slew of celebrities and star athletes are also expected to attend.

People gathered to support a cause would constitute a demonstration, Kam said, adding the police have not received an application from the British group to protest.

Kam also said police would not authorize any application for outdoor marches or assemblies with the potential to "breach public peace."

More than 2,000 armed police, military and civil defence officers will maintain security at the event, which an estimated 3,500 delegates will attend, Kam said.

All vehicles and persons entering the IOC session at the Raffles City Convention Center will be checked, and concrete barricades will be set up around the building to prevent anyone from ramming a vehicle into it, he said.

The British Marshgate Lane Business Group claims they are being offered below-market rate compensation to move in preparation for London's hosting.

Related Articles:
London businesses set to send delegation to Singapore

Human Rights

Take survey or face fine, Everyone told

I suppose this is one way of getting around the major problem of poor response when using a postal questionnaire but surely forcing people to return is a gross invasion of privacy. Anyone ever heard of civil liberties or the right to privacy in Singapore?

If the Department of Statistics requires a certain number to be returned then they should send out the largest number possible that will ensure they meet their quota. They could also put an incentive in place, win a free trip, never have to answer one of our surveys again. The use of a fine if it is not returned should be viewed as a threat. Yes you get a great return rate, but the information provided is not likely to be correct. It cannot be annoymous, information might be checked by the authorities. The data collected may have a high claim of internal reliability but it lacks any claim of representativeness and therefore lacks any claim to being scientific.

The information is provided under a threat.

It can in no way claim any level of 'validity'. The person filling it out had better be careful. If I was filling it out I would have my lawyer sitting next to me while I did so.

I could guess the findings now, "Our survey shows that the laws of Singapore are being adherred to by all Singaporean households." And those laws are CONSERVATIVE, therefore Singaporeans are conservative, so we will introduce changes in government policies, but very slowly. Our population does not desire dramatic change because they are conservative.

Or is it that our survey threatens people if they do not fill the form in, and if information is not correct. What happens if someone fills the form in saying that they are a lesbian couple, one an illegal immigrant, both 26 years old, living with three children from their past marriages? Is there even a section on the form that enables the respondent to input such data?

Today
June 27, 2005
SINGAPORE
Lee U-Wen

THIS was one lottery where Mr Mika Sampovaara didn't want his name to be pulled out of the hat.

The 35-year-old trader from Finland, who moved to Singapore last year, received a letter from the Department of Statistics (DOS) in March, asking him to take part in the General Household Survey here.

Mr Sampovaara was not interested.

"I don't have anything to hide, but I should have a basic right to privacy. They want to know my passport number, date of birth, education level, my wife's name, and so on. It's very unusual for me. Whatever the institution, reputable or not, that's a lot to ask for," he said.

He told the DOS that he did not want to participate. He was in for another jolt.

"I was told that was not an option and had to give them the information they wanted."

If he didn't do so on time, he would be fined.

According to the department website, anyone who refuses to answer or knowingly provides wrong information faces a fine of up to $1000.

The department feels that the survey, conducted every 10 years, is extremely important. After compiling data on how much families earn, spend and travel, it helps the Government plan public programmes and policies.

But Mr Sampovaara comes from Finland, where there is no obligation for people to take part in such surveys.

This was confirmed by the Embassy of Finland. In fact, about 37 per cent of the people there refuse to - or do not - respond to similar household surveys.

Here, too, Mr Sampovaara wants his right to privacy to be respected even as the Singapore Government seeks to attract more overseas talent.

"Don't get me wrong, I love Singapore very much. It is a very safe country and I've had a wonderful time here so far," said Mr Sampovaara. "I do not like to be forced to do anything just for the sake of doing so," he added.

Apparently, the DOS remains unmoved in the face of his stand. Mr Sampovaara said he had received at least 10 phone calls from the department, which randomly selected 90,000 homes - about 10 per cent of households here - for the survey.

When he refused to cooperate, a DOS officer came knocking on his door. It was after 10pm. "I told him to go away but it was hard to sleep afterwards," said Mr Sampovaara.

When contacted by Today, the DOS said that it typically takes about half an hour for a family of four to complete the GHS.

Said Ms Ang Seow Long, its assistant director of publications and statistical information: "It's important that respondents provide the required information so that the results are complete and nationally representative.

"The majority of respondents are co-operative and have helped to maintain a high response rate."

She reiterated that the households that had been selected could not be replaced - to ensure that the survey remained representative. She said there were safeguards in place to protect the confidentiality of the information given to the DOS.

Mr Sampovaara, to whom the issue of privacy is vital, still hasn't budged. He is beginning to realise there are no easy answers.

How Other Countries Do It

In the United States and Canada, the Statistics Act requires the authorities to inform respondents whether their participation is mandatory or voluntary, depending on the nature of the survey.

Closer to home, countries such as Japan have laws stating that those selected for housing surveys are obliged to respond or face penalties.

No such obligation or penalties exist in Finland.

Human Rights

Money culture spreading to the young

Star, Malaysia
June 26, 2005

Insight Down South By Seah Chiang Nee

A PRE-TEEN pupil offered $1 to his classmate to do his homework. Another gave his friend 10 cents as a tip to buy canteen food for him.
These Generation Y tales told to me by a mother over lunch recently touch on one of Singapore’s maladies after years of affluence.

This wealth has given Singaporeans a good life but has also moulded a lopsided view that money is a quick fix for all problems.

But these schoolboy horror stories have been around for decades.

In the early years, even when Singapore was less wealthy, some students in elite schools were known to flash Rolex watches, Gucci bags and other branded goods.

Dr Tony Tan, the current deputy prime minister, once spoke of a spoiled brat who burned a $5 bill to show off how “successful” his parents were, and his friend promptly replied by torching a $50 note.

Some time ago, a friend told me his son had come home one day complaining about his pitiful pocket money after being shown a classmate’s birthday present from his father.

It was a $200,000 deposit in the 12-year-old’s Post Office Saving Bank (since taken over by DBS Bank) account.

The stereotype of youth is someone who knows the price of everything but the value of none. It is, of course, exaggerated and hardly fair since he lives in his parents’ mould.

The rapid transformation from Third to First World has created an attitude towards money more profound than in many other comparable cities.

“If you have a problem, just throw money at it and it will go away” seems to be a viewpoint that has been passed on to the young generation.

Take the case of nine-year-old Jeremy Tio, who was lost for three nights recently in Fraser’s Hill with his three Malaysian cousins.

When he was found, he emotionally hugged his rescuer and said, “I love you.”

But he revealed his Singaporean upbringing when he told his Malaysian rescuers, “If I give you money, can you take me home?”

His gracious rescuer Rapi Bata replied: “No need to pay us. We are here to help you.”

This episode raised concern at the direction in which Singaporeans are being raised. Very few people blame Jeremy for the remarks because of his age and the severe fatigue he was under.

But spoken so matter-of-factly by one so young, it has placed the whole society, the education system and his parents under the critical spotlight.

One Internet writer said, “It belies a very serious problem with our society at large. From such a young age, little Jeremy knows the power of money.”

Another cynical response: “Can’t blame little Jeremy. He is only money-minded, that’s all. This is a true blue Singaporean. Money talks every time. I think Jeremy will be an exemplary Singaporean when he grows up. He appreciates the value of money.”

Others were less judgmental, pointing out his tender age. One defended him, “When you're cold, hungry, desperate, afraid ... would you will still be thinking straight?”

But the general view is: “He thinks money can solve everything or it can make people work!”

It flows down from the highest level of leadership, which has long used money as a weapon to fight corruption. Singapore’s Cabinet ministers (and senior civil servants) are among the world’s most highly paid.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew often says that giving high salaries to government ministers and officials is the best way to keep graft at bay.

Even a junior minister in Singapore earns more than $1mil a year, with the Prime Minister and other senior leaders making at least twice the amount. By comparison, the US President earns US$400,000 or about S$700,000.

Several years ago, the son of one of Singapore’s billionaires said in a public speech that “greed is good” because it served as a builder of human enterprise and wealth.

He is evidently not the only businessman to think in this way. A rising number of executives of publicly listed companies do more than just think; they are facing fraud or corruption charges in court.

The money culture is spreading but not every one is against it. In the name of pragmatism and reality, some support the principle that “if you want good service, you pay for it”.

Want Olympic winners? Give a $1mil reward. In some charity bodies, $3 out of every $10 you contribute may end up as commissions to professional collectors.

Thank goodness we have not reached America’s level of money-mindedness – yet! We don’t have to tip our taxi-drivers or anyone just to make a dinner booking, but for how long?

o Seah Chiang Nee is a veteran journalist and editor of the information website littlespeck.com



Human Rights

Utopia or dystopia?

I came across a blog under construction called 'SCITO TE IPSUM' which is Latin and means "Know Yourself." It has links to a few blogs, mine included but I came across some articles by Catherine Lim. One of the articles is printed in full below. Copied and pasted in the likely event that one day it will disappear from SCITO TE IPSUM.

I may not agree with every view expressed, but it's worth a read if you haven't read it before. I am aware that Catherine Lim has managed to have articles published in the Straits Jacket and the article below appears to bite the hand that feeds it, then quickly apply soothing lotion in the next paragraph.

10 May, 2005:
Utopia or dystopia?
by Catherine Lim

A nation of politically naive citizens can threaten Singapore's survival. It is time the Government teaches politics and independent thinking to its people.

THE interested observer of the Singapore political scene cannot but notice the emergence of a new model of People's Action Party governance. After 40 years of PAP rule, through the leadership of two prime ministers and in the first year of the third, the emerging model carries the strong endorsement of the past prime ministers and is shaping into a blueprint for future governance.

It is actually an updated version of the old model, to fit in with the changing climate of the times. Basically, it has kept intact the substance of the old model but dispensed with the style.

It continues to affirm the philosophy of PAP founding father Lee Kuan Yew, which can be distilled into a few hard-headed principles:

- The incorruptibility, dedication and self discipline of the elected leaders;

- The primacy of the economic imperative for a tiny, resource-poor island state in a ruthlessly competitive world;

- The absolute necessity of trust in the government-people relationship.

But it has abandoned the style that Mr Lee had deemed necessary to go with the stern principles - that is, an authoritarian, no-nonsense manner which has little use for sentiment - and actually opted for the exact opposite: an all-out effort to win the people's hearts through a friendly, patient, consultative approach.

The change started with the Goh Chok Tong administration, which declared its goal of creating a kinder, gentler society. But it was left to new Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong - once perceived by the people to be aloof and arrogant - to reinforce, consolidate and complete the process.

In his constantly proclaimed aim to develop a caring, inclusive society in which no one would be forgotten, PM Lee is easing into an affable, witty and engaging style that has come as a surprise to many Singaporeans. In the short time he has been in office, he has established a pleasing camaraderie with young Singaporeans whom he has singled out for special attention and nurturing.

The new model seeks to achieve a fine balance between the famed, awesome PAP efficiency and a still-developing PAP amiability, between the old habit of top-down decisions and the new practice of seeking and welcoming bottom-up feedback, between hard pragmatism and gentle empathy, between, in short, the constantly competing claims of head and heart.

The recent Casino Debate is a good illustration of this striving for balance. The new Prime Minister took great pains, after making a decision in favour of the tough economic realities of today's world, to reassure critics that he would balance the decision with the necessary measures to check, correct and prevent the social and moral ills they had warned him about.

The handling of the Casino Issue is likely to be the modus operandi for all future major issues: The Government will, in all sincerity and goodwill, invite free and frank views from everyone (but firmly turn down all suggestions of anything as raucous and messy as a referendum or street demonstrations), consider the views carefully, make its own decision, explain it with greatest care and patience, and then make a rallying call for all to close ranks and move on in a display, once more, of national unity.

There are two ways of looking at the new model of governance.

The first, that of the sceptics, says: Nothing has changed. The PAP Government merely goes through the motions of consultation and dialogue. It will never budge from the old tough Lee Kuan Yew stance: Leave us to do our job, and do not make any trouble.

The second, that of the optimists, says: Everything has changed. Never before has a Singapore leader so earnestly articulated the need for a caring, inclusive society and reached out to so many people with such warmth, sincerity and good humour.

The high visibility of the current Government-people amity should not obscure the fact that the new model has a serious omission. It has left out, rather conspicuously, something which one would have thought vital to the proclaimed national goal of inclusiveness, which ensures that that no one, even if he or she is in the minority, is left out.

This missing element in the model is the need for a political opening up, which should lead to a situation where political freedom enables Singaporeans, at last, to enjoy the basic rights taken for granted in other societies in the free world - such as the right of free expression, assembly and demonstration.

The fact that only a minority of Singaporeans - those with a tendency to be more vocal and contrarian - has agitated for these rights, does not detract from their importance in an inclusive model.

More than anything, these Singaporeans want to speak with their own distinctive individual voices, without fear of reprisal. They want to convince the Government that, far from being a disruptive force in society, political freedom will eventually lead to the development of a distinct Singaporean identity and culture.

For at some stage, beyond the unavoidable cacophony and messiness of diverse voices raised in vehement argument and debate, there will emerge a new collective confidence that cannot but revitalise and embolden the other domains of national life, in particular the arts.

The arts often take their cue from their sister domain of political expression. A government crackdown on dissident voices will result, for instance, in self-censorship and a new cautiousness in theatre or drama, whereas government relaxation of political controls will see an enthusiastic exploration of hitherto taboo subjects.

Hence there is a close link between political freedom and the arts, and by extension, between both and culture. Implicit in any discussion of whether there is a Singaporean identity or a Singaporean culture (an angst-filled question in the frequent bouts of collective soul-searching by Singaporeans) there is the understanding, therefore, of this role of political freedom.

Implicit also is the understanding that if Singapore culture is to be distinctive and unique, it must have the freedom to develop spontaneously, in its own time, on its own terms, like the super-organism which anthropologists say every culture really is.

Hence, it is not the ersatz culture copied from the West, nor the rojak culture cobbled from an arbitrary selection of cultural products such as char kway teow, Singlish, the Merlion or the Durian.

Identity, culture, national pride, a sense of national belonging, the meaning of being Singaporean - it would be extremely difficult to define any of these ideals without at some point or other bringing up the part played by political freedom.

In view of the importance of this opening up of society, loosening of present strictures and removal of the infamous out-of-bounds markers, it is surprising that the matter has so little place in the new model of governance.

At no time in the articulation of his goals for achieving the society he desires for Singaporeans, has Prime Minister Lee made any significant mention of a systematic development of this arguably all-important political identity without which there can be no true national identity and no true culture.

The reason for the reluctance may lie in a certain mindset resulting from an adherence to one of the inviolable principles laid down in the Lee Kuan Yew philosophy - namely, an unshakable bond of trust between the Government and the people.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew crushed his critics because he saw all criticism - whether from Singaporeans or foreigners, from individuals or from organisations - as undermining the people's trust in the Government's integrity and hence making it more difficult for the leaders to do their job.

It is a distinctive PAP policy of pre-emption and nipping-in-the-bud that has proved very effective.

It may be said that Mr Lee Kuan Yew has left a legacy of almost pathological dislike of the flamboyant theatrics, histrionics and fraudulence that the Government has come to associate with those critics, especially those in the Opposition, who have dared to challenge it openly.

This stance was maintained through the Goh Chok Tong administration, and is likely to continue in the present administration of PM Lee, since allowing political freedom, especially in the present times when the young have become bolder and more vocal, could open the floodgates of a long, pent-up need and unleash a torrent of criticism that would prove unmanageable.

Between his adherence to traditional PAP practice, and his new avowal to reach out to everyone in society, PM Lee cannot be in too comfortable a position. His response so far has been to play down the issue, tolerate it, or isolate it if possible. At the worst, the Government could simply wait it out, politely listening and explaining, but doing nothing.

The overall result of this response is that while the winds of change are allowed to sweep through the corridors of business, education, the arts, entertainment, etc, they bypass the political domain, which continues to be in the doldrums.

But, ironically, the biggest wind of change, that is, the Prime Minister's whole-hearted effort to touch people by breaking down all barriers of communication, may be the very thing to embolden some rebels to protest against the greatest barrier of all - that of political suppression.

It would appear that having agitated for political change for so long, they are not about to stop now. A new, younger, sophisticated, more exposed electorate that likes to see itself as cosmopolitan, is making clear that this desired change should be much more than the concessions made so far, such as the setting up of the system of Nominated Members of Parliament to allow for more dissenting voices in Parliament.

And of course the change should be much, much more than the patently ineffectual Speakers' Corner, the derisory Bohemians' Corner and the laughable bar-top dancing. After these experiments, it is very unlikely that the Government will in the future offer anything that can be even remotely construed as a token, a sop or a joke.

The issue continues to be the most intractable problem on the political scene, and may be the worse for not having the clear-cut, unambiguous lines it had in the former Lee Kuan Yew regime.

While political dissent then was squashed unceremoniously, the new dispensation, in keeping with its image, has opted for a softer approach. But it is a necessarily ambivalent one which appears to satisfy no one.

The approach boils down to one of three standard responses, depending on which is most appropriate to the occasion:

- There already is freedom, as evident from the presence of a whole range of channels through which people can freely express their views, for instance, the feedback units, the forum pages of major newspapers, the meet-the-people sessions with MPs, etc.

- For a small, vulnerable country like Singapore, the political process must evolve slowly, if it is not to be a disruptive or even catastrophic force, as can be seen in so many countries today; and

- The issue of political freedom is really the concern of the minority only, as the majority are more taken up with bread-and-butter issues such as jobs.

Beyond the official responses, given almost perfunctorily, as if to waste no more time in getting to more important matters, there has been no indication that the Government even regards the call for political freedom as an issue, much less a problem worthy of careful diagnosis, prognosis and cure.

At most, it is regarded as a nuisance, to be tactfully handled but quietly monitored to prevent it from getting out of hand. As long as it remains at the level of mere verbal disgruntlement, the Government seems willing and able to live with it.

But it refuses to go away. With alarming regularity, over many years, it has cropped up at almost every public forum, debate or discussion. And dismayingly, the official response each time is the same.

By now, the form and wording of these Government-people exchanges, especially those between ministers and young people in public chat sessions, are beginning to take on a tedious predictability, as are the polite silences following the official responses (which silences, however, could later turn up on the Internet dressed in colourful and scurrilous verbiage).

Surreal feeling

HENCE, in the purportedly frank, friendly and no-holds barred sessions, the interlocutors seem locked in an uneasy ritual of spoken and unspoken responses, a pattern that will be repeated in similar future sessions, in a numbing cycle.

One gets the surreal feeling that everyone seems trapped in a Samuel Beckett-like circularity that nobody knows how to break out of:

Comment: There's still fear in Singapore society.

Government response: What fear? Singaporeans are freely expressing their views and criticisms, and the Government is not putting them in jail for it.

Unspoken comment: But people are still too frightened to talk about the taboo subjects, defined by the so-called out-of-bounds markers. They fear that the powerful PAP Government will punish them in any number of ways, for instance, sue them, get their employers to demote them, cut their salaries, get the Income Tax people to go after them.

Comment: There's no real opposition in Singapore, and never will be.

Government response: But anybody is free to stand against the Government. If you think you can do a better job than the present Government, by all means form an opposition party and prove it.

Unspoken comment: But the political playing field is not a level one, considering the tendency of the Government to play hardball politics during elections. It will only be a matter of time before the remaining opposition parties are mowed down and rendered extinct by the awesome PAP juggernaut.

Comment: We don't feel a sense of belonging or ownership in Singapore.

Government response: No sense of ownership? But 90 per cent of Singaporeans own their homes.

Unspoken comment: But a sense of belonging and ownership does not come from only material things such as property and bank accounts. We need identity and individuality and space and freedom. But we are fearful that bringing all these issues up will make us appear ungrateful and disloyal Singaporeans.

This situation is certainly not a desirable one, because it is time-wasting, wearying, futile and most of all because it feeds on that most destructive of emotions - fear.

In the absence of any real effort to solve the problem, this fear has become grossly amplified, exaggerated and maliciously distorted in the channels of private, anonymous communication, such as through SMS, the Internet and coffeeshop and canteen chat.

In my own case, after I had displeased the Government through my political commentaries, I heard no end of rumours, some of them truly laughable, about the Government wanting to revoke my citizenship, about Government agents closely following me and bugging my phone, about the secret police bursting in on me in the middle of the night.

So here is the Government-people relationship caught in a situation where communication has taken both overt and covert forms, where what is unsaid can be far more significant than what is said, leading to a complex tangle of ambiguities, incongruities and contradictions.

How can this quandary be resolved? Something is happening in the present that may actually resolve it in favour of the Government. There is an atmosphere of anxiety, not only in Singapore but in the region and the rest of the world, which is the aftermath of a spate of catastrophes never before experienced: Sept 11, terrorist activities, Sars, the Indian Ocean tsunami.

People everywhere are gripped by an urgency simply to stay alive, keep safe, protect their loved ones. On a lesser scale but creating no less urgency, is the threat of the new economic giant China, which could mean the loss of jobs nationwide.

In such a charged atmosphere, the dissident voices of a minority clamouring for more freedom will be seen as an irrelevance, a nuisance, an intolerable distraction from more important concerns. This concentration on basic material needs and disregard of everything else, especially abstract ideological matters, is being seen currently in most societies, especially Asian countries, including China, India and Vietnam. Everybody seems determined to make a living, and a good one at that.

The trend is working to the advantage of the PAP Government. For the potential trouble makers who have been agitating for political change, and getting little support from others, will feel increasingly isolated and soon give up, from sheer fatigue, disillusionment or despair. They will eventually disappear from the political scene.

From the Government's viewpoint, the best thing that can happen will be for these recalcitrants to come to their senses, and rechannel their energies into the more rewarding activity of making money or advancing their careers.

Political societies such as the now defunct RoundTable will fold up and never see the light of day again. It is unlikely that new political clubs will replace them. Two or three general elections from now, the Opposition parties may even cease to exist.

To the criticism that the PAP Government has reverted to the old authoritarianism and aims to be a government in perpetuity, by crushing out all opposition, the response will be a measured and principled one. Its rationale will be something like this: PAP rule, as originally established by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, is the best for Singapore, as shown again and again by the people's resounding vote through elections over 40 years. Therefore, as long as the leadership remains incorrupt and competent, it is in Singapore's best interests for it to stay.

But the Government recognises the danger of a complacency that could result from a permanently entrenched PAP leadership. So it will make it its duty to keep monitoring and re-inventing itself to stay ahead of the danger.

Hence, the people can always be assured of a strong, honest, efficient and dependable PAP Government to lead them in a world increasingly fraught with risks.

This is indeed a troubling picture for those who have agitated for change and now have to concede defeat. But there will be no show of triumphalism on the part of the Government. With characteristic grace and goodwill, it will concentrate quietly on perfecting the new model of governance, now happily excised of the last fractious element.

It will concentrate on what it knows everyone is most concerned about today - safety, security, jobs - and go well beyond these to ensure that Singaporeans will continue to advance in their standards of living. It will make sure that all the components in the model are configured optimally to give enduring stability, harmony and prosperity to the society.

In the light of this enlightened pragmatism, all accusations of materialism will sound hollow and appear hopelessly out of touch with reality.

Indeed, the model will be one not only for future governments in Singapore but also for governments in developing societies that have long suffered from riots, ethnic divisions, crime, poverty, official corruption and ineptness.

Singapore regularly receives visits from foreign delegations anxious to find out the secret of its orderliness and prosperity.

It enjoys a high ranking in worldwide surveys on political, economic and social stability, and its recent efficient but graceful, empathetic response to last year's Indian Ocean tsunami crisis, can only enhance its international standing.

Sowing seeds of decay

INTO this rosy picture of a near-utopia, it would be most ungracious, indeed churlish, to inject a sombre note. But the truth is that a model of governance that has no place for political openness carries with it the seeds of its own decline or even demise in the long run.

For it will have bred a politically naive, dependent, manipulable people who have never experienced the normal messy, noisy but healthy processes of political education, challenge and struggle.

These people can be compared to artificially nurtured hothouse plants, unable to survive if thrown among the sturdy plants in the wild. Living in a utopia as long as they are protected, they are plunged into a dystopia when circumstances change and they have to fend for themselves.

A biological analogy may be useful to highlight this danger. The new model of PAP governance, being monolithic and homogeneous because everyone is ultimately made to the PAP image, is not unlike a colony of organisms that, through long inbreeding, exhibits no diversity.

It is a model where differences of creativity, aptitude and attitude are tolerated only if they can be managed under the PAP aegis, like harmless genetic mutations in a system.

But strength and resilience, creativity and inventiveness, as we all know, come not from sameness and agreement, but from engagement with differences, leading to healthy competition and conflict and new improved forms. An undifferentiated colony of organisms becomes that much more vulnerable to destruction and extinction in the event of a sudden environmental change.

Such a fate for Singapore sounds horrendous, even if it is speculative and in the distant future. It would be no bad thing to act now to prevent the horror. And the most effective measure will be political education for Singapore society.

Such a political education is possible, and need take no more than 15, 20 years. It must not of course be provided only in the classrooms, the debating halls of colleges and universities, the forums in newspapers and on television.

Instead, it must be based chiefly on observation of and participation in the real world outside - the world of brute survival where the law of the jungle still prevails, where brilliant ideology, excellent academic credentials and even unimpeachable moral integrity are no guarantees of success, where ultimately experience, especially of the bruising kind, is the best teacher.

Still using analogies from biology: Singaporeans, like people everywhere else in the free world, should be seen as organisms, not products, and should be allowed to develop, not artificially in a controlled setting, but spontaneously in a natural environment.

Only then can a society truly come into its own. Between the present tentative, half measures of the political opening up, and this desired state still far off in the future, there is obviously a very long way to go. But if the Government decides to build this goal into its model of governance and is prepared to take the risk of a major experiment of nationwide political education to attain it, it will have taken a bold and brave step indeed.

And it will find that the risk is not so great after all. For at this stage of its rule, the PAP Government has all the necessary experience, skills and expertise, all the necessary structures and mechanisms to deal effectively with any risk, and avert any catastrophe.

If it brings to the experiment the same care, astuteness, foresight, boldness and above all open-mindedness that it had in the past brought to seemingly intractable problems in the economic sphere, the political experiment, even if it takes a long time and involves major adjustments, is likely to be a success.

The heady prospect of such a situation created by the PAP leadership after 40 years of resistance to it almost invites a paean: Let a hundred dissident voices bloom. Let each have its say and sharpen itself against the others. For then there will be a rich marketplace of learning experiences, the coming of age, at last, of the people.

When that happens, the new model of governance will have become a truly inclusive one, providing for the needs not only of the abiding majority but of the rebellious minority, taking care not only of the present population but also of generations in the distant future, who will come long after those of us who worry for them, have left the scene.

The writer is known for having penned the commentary, The Great Affective Divide, in 1994.


Two scenarios too awful to contemplate

TWO possible scenarios could, in the long run, result from an overdependence on a super government. First, no government, no matter how enlightened in its principles and effective in its actions, can expect to remain so beyond a certain period of time. In the normal course of all things human, even Mr Lee Kuan Yew must make an exit, and there will come, in a matter of years, a post-Lee Kuan Yew era.

As younger ministers with different experiences and increased global exposure appear on the scene, the model will increasingly lose its original character and strength. There is a greater likelihood of an attenuation rather than an augmentation of the Lee Kuan Yew principles.

What is more, an actual reversal of the principles could come about. The Minister Mentor himself, at a recent conference in Malaysia, spoke about the probable intrusion of corruption into Singapore politics in the absence of the stern PAP philosophy that he has held dear for so long.

Twenty, 30 years down the road, long after MM Lee and other PAP stalwarts have left the scene, there may appear a government that will wear the PAP mantle but have none of its principles. The tragedy for Singapore then will be a leader or leaders inheriting all the structures of power and using them for their own self aggrandisement. And they will get away with it, because the electorate, through long habit, will have become incapable of protest and will continue to look up to any PAP government for guidance.

The second direful scenario resulting from this overdependence of the people concerns an external danger. While Singapore now enjoys good relations with its neighbours, the situation could change. The island-state, once described by a political scientist as a small Chinese fish in a large Muslim sea, could find itself squeezed between larger, more powerful neighbours not quite enamoured of it.

In the event of an invasion, even the strongest government needs a politically robust, alert and savvy society to fight the enemy, especially in a long drawn-out war of resistance. Singaporeans, not trained in the rough and tumble of the political process, lacking the brute instincts of the political animal, unwilling to take on the grit, grime and gore of a fight, may be unable to rise to the challenge.

The worst possible scenario is their fleeing, at the first sign of trouble, to countries such as Australia and Canada where, ironically, the material prosperity made possible by the PAP Government has enabled them to buy second homes.

These two scenarios may appear overly pessimistic, even ludicrous, in the context of the present situation, with its bright prospects of an ever prospering Singapore in an ever peaceful relationship with its neighbours and the rest of the world.

In the short-term view, Singapore is well on the road to becoming one of the world's greatest success stories. But among concerned Singaporeans taking a long-term view, there must be anxieties that a clear, tight, streamlined model of governance that ignores the need for the nurturing of political awareness among the young, could spell danger.

Human Rights

Malaysian Film Fest to Show Singapore Rebel

Anyone like to see the documentary 'Singapore Rebel' simply pop over to Malaysia. The director Martyn See has had a little chat with the police in Singapore and could be facing 2 years in jail and a very large fine.

Seems that Malaysia is a more open society than Singapore. Imagine a film festival unhindered by regulations and laws that undermine freedom of expression. Imagine Singapore showing not just international films related to freedom but 'local' films.

Freedom Film Festival

Culminating to the awards night are film screenings of local and international films from July 6 onwards. Don’t miss out on awe inspiring films like ‘Life On The Tracks’ from the Philippines and ‘Garuda Deadly Upgrade’ from Indonesia; also included are local delights such as Osman Ali’s ‘Malaikat di Jendela’.

Young aspiring filmmakers also should take this opportunity to meet internationally renown filmmakers like Lexy Rambadeta (Indonesia), Nana Buxani (Phillipines), Martyn See (Singapore) and many more.

8.00 - 10.00pm | Theme: Freedom of expression.

Singapore Rebel by Martyn See (30 mins)
Singapore Rebel chronicles the tribulations of opposition activist Dr. Chee Soon Juan from his initial fear to acts of civil disobedience .

Related Links:
Film-maker now under police probe
Films Act Related Email
Singapore Rebel blog
Freedom Film Festival
Singapore Rebel Bittorrent
From the Guardian Newspaper
New Zealand Human Rights Film Festival
Amnesty International Film Festival

Human Rights

Political opposition subject to harassment and law suites

We circulate [Sg Review] below Press Statement from Mr JB Jeyaretnam. Political opposition parties are routinely subject to harassment and law suites in Singapore's police state.

http://www.jbjeya.org/JBJ_msg.html

http://www.jbjeya.org/JBJ_Press_Statement_June_23.pdf

================================
PRESS STATEMENT
BANKUPTCY DISCHARGE

In my previous application for discharge from bankruptcy,I had offered up to thirty three end one-third percent (33 1/3 %)of the debt due to the creditor. My application was refused by the courts.

This morning I made another application to the court offering $258,683-82 representing forty (40)percent of the debts.

Messr Goh Chok Tong and Jayakumar, two of the creditor, have refused to accept the offer. Their lawyer did not say why.

As previously stated,Jayakumar has already been paid $166,666-66 from the $200,000.00 Judgment he obtained.He will get a further $20,000-00 under my offer making in all $186,673-98 which will mean he would have recovered over 93.33 %. Apparently that is not enough for Jayakumar. I have to remain a bankrupt until he gets the full amount.

Similarly, Goh Chok Tong bas been paid $69,000-00 of his $100,000-00 judgment and I am now offering him 40% of the balance which i $14,485-60 making a total of $83,485-60 which will mean he would hate recovered 83.5 %. Apparently that is not enough for Goh Chok Tong and he wants to keep me bankrupt until he gets his full $100,000-00. And these are ministers of the government, who claim a million dollars a year, are determined to keep me a bankrupt.

The other creditor has also not accepted my offer without explaining why it was not acceptable. Under my offer they will be getting $252,100-00 which is 45.65% of the amount due to them.

All creditors have not sought to pursue the other defendants, who were sued along with me, but have made me a bankrupt.

CAO,a foreign company,was let off upon offering 54% to their creditors. I, a Singapore citizen, cannot be let off presumably until I offer 100%.

JB Jeyaretnam
23 June 2005

Human Rights

Maid to sweat in Singapore

By Kalinga Seneviratne

SINGAPORE - A rare, passionate public debate on a social issue is raging here on how this tiny, affluent Southeast Asian nation treats the thousands of maids or foreign domestic workers (FDWs) in the city-state.

While some focus on whether these women should get a mandatory day off each week, others argue it is more important to clean up the maid agency industry, which appears to be exploiting poor women from neighboring countries by charging them exorbitant fees to work here.

The debate started more than two months ago when local newspaper Today began publishing letters from FDWs complaining about ill treatment and a lack of days off.

It gathered steam three weeks ago when Association of Employment Agencies (AEAS) president Angland Seah said in an interview with the paper that his organization would like to see a provision for four off days a month incorporated into all new FDWs' job contracts.

Since that call was made, Today claims that employment agencies have been deluged with calls from maids who want the weekly off day incorporated into their contracts immediately, while many employers have threatened to take their business to agencies that are not AEAS members. Letters to newspapers responding to the issue have been mixed.

"For goodness sake, these people are maids," wrote letter writer Edwin Wong. "They are from other countries and have willingly accepted our terms and conditions to be a FDW. We didn't force them."

Writer Stephanie Thio observed, "For a civilized country, Singapore seems to have a disproportionately large number of maid-abuse cases. I think this is because Singaporeans have allowed themselves to accept the idea that foreign domestic helpers are a slightly lesser breed. So we don't accord them the same standard of humanity that we do to others in our lives. This mindset needs to be changed."

Recently, courts have started jailing maid abusers (all women), including a teacher who was sentenced to six weeks behind bars. Previously, those found guilty only received fines.

Police say the number of reported abuse cases has dropped from 157 in 1997 to 59 last year because of the court cases. But activists argue those numbers are only the tip of the iceberg because many FDWs are afraid to report abuse to the police.

Indonesian maid Alfath Ruminanar, 26, was one who did go to the police. She told Inter Press Service that when she complained to her employment agency about abuse people there asked her to pay S$2,000 (US$1,185) to finance her way home.

Ruminanar injured her hand at work but both her employer and the agency wanted her to keep on working. When she wanted to take sick leave, they kept her salary to pay the government levy, which the employer is supposed to pay each month for having a FDW.

Now with the help of the voluntary agency Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics (HOME), Ruminanar is suing the employment agency for compensation. "After working for nine months here I have earned only S$700," she said. "The agency took seven months of my pay [as commission]."
After having been abused for many months by her employer, Filipino maid Judilyn also complained to the police. "Madam always beat me, shouted in Chinese, and finally burned my leg. That is when I went to the police," she told IPS.

"I have worked for seven months here, and got only one month's pay to take back home. I borrowed P9,500 [US$171] in the Philippines to come here; the agency kept six months pay because they said I signed with them [to give that commission]."

Wages for FDWs are dictated by supply and demand. Filipino maids, who often speak some English, usually receive around S$351 a month. Sri Lankans, most with some education and English ability, get S$247, and the villagers who comprise the bulk of Indonesian FDWs are paid S$197. In addition, the employer pays the S$195 monthly levy to the government.

While the Employment Agencies Act of 2000 stipulates that agencies can only take 10% of a FDW's first month's salary, and another S$5 as a commission, social worker Jolovan Wham of HOME said in an interview it is the norm for agencies to take between three and six months of a FDW's salary as commission.

He also pointed out that in the Philippines, under the Overseas Employment Administration Act, agents are only allowed to take one month's salary, plus administration costs, for placing FDWs.

In February, HOME set up Singapore's first non-profit maid's agency - Star Home Personnel - which charges only one month's salary as commission.

"We are trying to keep costs as low as possible, so that we don't exploit and profit from [FDWs] poverty," said Wham. But, he added, when the new body tried to find an agent in Indonesia to provide them with maids the person wanted at least S$1,400 dollars as commission. "When we asked why, they said that they have to bribe officials to get the necessary papers for a maid to come here," he explained.

Thus, it seems there are problems at the other end, in Indonesia, the Philippines and Sri Lanka. However, Wham argued that most maid agencies in Singapore have a culture of treating FDWs as subservient, and train them to "say 'yes' to ma'am" all the time. "They are interested in the employer's business not the maid's welfare," he said.

In this cut-throat industry, agencies advertise "no fee" placements, when legislation requires that the employer pay for the FDW's return airfare at the end of the two-year contract, for medical insurance and for six monthly tests, including a test for AIDS.

"How did it become the norm that maids must work for months on end without sniffing a cent of their salary?" asked Alan John, writing in the Straits Times newspaper. "And, all the time, these women are expected to set homesickness aside, wear a happy face, stay motivated, learn to fit in with a new family in a new country, and prove they are worth keeping."

Rather than debating about whether a maid should get a day off per week, what needs to be done is to eradicate the "cruel desire to extract the maximum to make their maid worth her salary and levy", argued John.

Not all maids are badly treated. Many local employers not only give them every Sunday off, but occasionally allow the women to go out on Saturday nights.

Filipino maid Rhia is one of these lucky ones. She told IPS that every alternate Saturday night she is allowed to go out with her local boyfriend, in addition to spending every Sunday with him. Her employer also treats her as part of the family - she sits down to meals with their extended family, and the children call her "aunty".

Sri Lankan expatriate Surani said she has never used an agency to find her Sri Lankan maids. She recruits them through her family connections in Colombo, pays their airfare and all fees for processing papers here. "The maid receives her full salary from the very first day she starts work here," Surani told IPS. "Many Sri Lankan expats I know do the same."

Human Rights

Free Aung San Suu Kyi

Spotted at the Optical and then Amnesty International Singapore

On June 19th 2005, Burma's democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, will be 60 years old. On that day she will have spent a total of 9 years and 238 days in detention.

Armed soldiers behind a barricade of barbed wire turn away any visitors. The regime has also cut her phone line, so no-one can call to wish her happy birthday.

The brutal generals who rule Burma have already made one attempt on her life, attacking a convoy she was travelling in on May 30th 2003. Up to 100 of her supporters were beaten to death in the attack. Aung San Suu Kyi's car managed to speed away, but she was later arrested.

Take action now to help free Aung San Suu Kyi - send an email to Burma's dictator.

Related Links:
Aung San Suu Kyi
Burma Campaign UK
Burma's PR Consultant
Constructive Engagement

London businesses set to send delegation to Singapore

A group of business people from London, intend to travel to Singapore in order to protest outside Raffles Hotel when the IOC delegates meet to decide which city will get to host the 2012 Olympics. They have certain economic concerns they would like to be addressed.

Maybe someone should inform them that you can't just walk into Singapore and start a protest. There are formalities to be attended to and permission to be achieved before any gathering in Singapore of more than X people can take place.

They are foreigners not Singaporean. I would imagine that permission will be granted so long as everyone in the group can prove that they are not Singaporean and have zero connections, either property or financial investments in Singapore. They must provide evidence that they have no interest, emotional, political or economic in Singapore's future before permission to protest against the IOC meeting, in Singapore, can be granted. Then you can protest.



Bid faces Londoners' protest in Singapore

Paul Kelso
Thursday June 23, 2005

London 2012's final push to win the International Olympic Committee vote in Singapore next month may be embarrassingly overshadowed by protests from local businesses opposed to the games being staged in the capital.
The companies, based on the site of the proposed London Olympic stadium, are considering sending a delegation to Singapore to lobby the IOC membership as they gather for the crucial vote on the venue for the games.

Such a move would cause great discomfort to the 100-strong London delegation travelling to Singapore. Security arrangements at Raffles Hotel, the venue for the vote, mean the protest delegation would be unlikely to get access to IOC members without an appointment, but protestors at the gates might harm London's chances of overhauling the favourites Paris when the vote takes place on July 6.

The businesses, based on Marshgate Lane, are in dispute with London 2012 and the London Development Agency (LDA) over compensation for moving away from their current premises. Negotiations between the two sides have been increasingly bad tempered, with some of the the businesses claiming they are being offered compensation below market rates or inappropriate land swaps.
The IOC evaluation commission mentioned the dispute in its report on London, concluding that the issue would be settled and did not pose a threat to London's ability to stage the games.

Mark Stephens, the lawyer representing some of the businesses, said a final decision on whether to travel to Singapore would be made in the next week. "The businesses will travel if they believe that it will be an effective way of lobbying the IOC... All we are asking for is that the businesses receive economically neutral offers - that is a guarantee that they will not lose money - or appropriate alternative land within the area.

"If Seb Coe, Tessa Jowell or Tony Winterbottom [head of the LDA] could guarantee that today then every one of my clients and the 308 businesses in the area would settle."

Human Rights

The ISD?

After someone read the article Spookythey decided to forward the following to me via email. I have no idea if my wild goose chase to London had anything to do with the ISD in Singapore. My house upon return from London appeared undisturbed, but then again I recently moved house. Surely they have bigger fish to catch? Got me looking over my shoulder though.

The FBI is investigating complaints by US citizens of harassment by Singapore's Internal Security Department (ISD). One California academic, a widely respected specialist on Southeast Asian affairs who asked not to be identified, said ISD agents broke into his home because he was working to bring leading Singaporean opposition figure Tang Liang Hong to an American university. The operatives tore out his door handle to get in, then searched his computer and desk. A week later, an Asian man, waiting in a tree, photographed and videotaped the academic while he walked in the park. After temporarily blinding the academic with his bright flash, the man jumped from the tree and made a getaway in his car. Tang -who is facing a $4.5 million defamation lawsuit by Singaporean senior ministers-was not surprised by the burglary. "I've been followed everywhere, whether I was in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Australia or in London," he said in a phone interview from Australia.

Related Article:
Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence

Human Rights

International appeal for release of Ching Cheong

We, journalists and press freedom activists, call for the immediate release of our colleague Ching Cheong, unfairly detained in China since 22 April 2005. Our colleague, correspondent for the Singapore daily Straits Times, is an experienced and honest reporter who respects journalistic ethics.

We reject the accusations of spying brought against him by the Chinese government, which are liable to create confusion and cast suspicion on the entire profession.

Ching Cheong was in China to carry out his work as a journalist and for that reason alone.

To sign the petition click here.


Human Rights

blacklisted?

I received a request to get the word out that China appears to have restored the blocking of access to TypePad hosted blogs.
asiapundit.com
blacklisted?

It seems AsiaPundit, Glutter, BillsDue and a number of other sites are presently not directly accessible from Shanghai or Chengdu. I'm not sure if this is temporary or not, although my initial impression is that the ban on TypePad-hosted sites may have been restored.

Simon World can still be read from Shanghai, although not in Chengdu.

I'd appreciate it if China-based visitors who can access would comment on whether this site is blocked in your region.

(UPDATE 20:30) Verified through a tech-savvy friend on the Shanghai webloggers list, TypePad is down in Shanghai.

Human Rights

Local film makers go "GaGa" in battle to present alternative Singapore

First spotted at Singapore Rebel.

Agence France Presse
June 20, 2005
SINGAPORE

IN the official version of Singapore presented by the nation's political leaders and tourism authorities, there are no women in wheelchairs who beg at train stations by singing haunting, hypnotic tunes.

The Southeast Asian city-state, famous for the "economic miracle" that transformed it from third-world status to first in a generation, is sold to the world as a shoppers' paradise, a high-tech hub and a land of no civil dissent.

The nation's mainstream media, under strict instructions from the People's Action Party that has ruled since independence 40 years ago, rarely deviate from the relentlessly upbeat theme, and life, it seems, is a dream.

A new film, however, offers an alternative, melancholic image of Singapore that documents the lives of a diverse group of proud citizens who share a common burden of having become lost and neglected amid the nation's material progress.

In Singapore GaGa, a woman missing most of her teeth sits in a wheelchair and sings in a beautiful voice a plea to the commuters walking past: "Uncle, Aunty, one dollar, one dollar, buy my tissues ... one dollar, one dollar".

In another scene, an elderly man who is a minor celebrity for his busking at subway stations recalls the time police forced him to the ground and moved to handcuff him for performing without a license. "I am a national treasure," he says repeatedly.

Other people featured include an exquisitely talented harmonica player who has been long-resigned to the government's insistence to teach the banal recorder in schools, and a group of community news readers who lament the fading use of Chinese dialects in favour of the official English and Mandarin.

"The primary theme is a sense of yearning to belong ... to be acknowledged," the film's director and producer, Tan Pin Pin, tells AFP in an interview after a screening for the local and foreign press last week.

The other theme, Tan says, is a "sense of being neglected, abandoned".

"In the process of putting this together, this theme emerged ... these people are coping with being neglected in different ways."

Tan, a 36-year-old honours graduate from Britain's prestigious Oxford University, is part of a small band of independent film makers in Singapore who continually struggle against the government's efforts to stop controversial issues from being aired in public.

Amendments to the Film Act in 1998 mean people who make "political" films can be jailed for two years, while strict censorship laws have for decades filtered out other so-called controversial issues such as sex, race, religion and national security.

One of Tan's early films, a three-minute effort from 1998 called Lurve Me Now that explored the fantasies of Barbie dolls, remains banned apparently because of its sexual references.

But, with Singapore GaGa, Tan has cleverly explored issues the government does not necessarily want aired by using subtlety, humour and pathos. Tan even earned a "PG" -- or parental guidance -- endorsement for the film from the government's censors.

"It's very hard to make anything critical in Singapore. You have to say something without actually saying it. So it's a sort of shadow dance that I sometimes find myself playing," she says.

"I find that making documentaries in this way, where there are many levels, is a way of being able to continue to make films in Singapore. Because doing anything more explicit may invite more questions."

And while the mainstream press such as the Straits Times newspaper have given her film rave reviews for being "quirky" and "striking a chord with every strata of society", others have appreciated the film for deeper political angles.

"GaGa is subversive in a warped patriotic gentle loving way, or rather, it's patriotic in a gently subversive way, i don't know, just don't let THEM know," writes one Singaporean in an entry posted on the film's official website.

Tan emphasises that there is no "enemy" she is trying to challenge. "It's not us against them," Tan says in reference to the government, adding that she has turned the restrictions into a positive.

"It actually makes my films better. You are constantly trying to add subtext to a film. The process of adding subtext or layers makes it a much richer work," she says.

But Tan admits that at times she is overwhelmed by not being able to fully express herself.

"What's most difficult for me is dealing with how not to censor myself when it has become such an automatic reaction. I have to sit down and tell myself: 'don't do that, don't do that (self-censor)'," she tells reporters after the press screening.

Other high-profile Singaporean filmmakers who have adopted more confrontational approaches have suffered accordingly.

Video editor Martyn See is under police investigation for making an unapproved "political" short film, Singapore Rebel about opposition politician Chee Soon Juan.

The film portrays Chee, a marginalised figure in Singapore politics who rarely receives positive coverage in the traditional press and has never been voted into parliament, as a loving family man who is eloquent, well-educated and courageous.

If convicted of violating the Films Act, See could be fined up to S$100,000 (US$61,000) as well as jailed for two years.

Another film maker to have run afoul of the law is Royston Tan, a 20-something director who has won more than 35 international and local awards and was last year named by Time magazine as an Asian "Hero" for his work.

Royston Tan's 2003 feature film about Singapore's gangland culture, 15, suffered 27 cuts at the hands of the censors over concerns of it being a national security threat.

In response, Royston Tan made a 13-minute film last year that became a cult hit called Cut, which lampooned the government's censorship policies and the head of the censorship board -- but managed to avoid being cut itself.

In 2001, a 15-minute film about long-time opposition politician J.B Jeyaretnam, Vision of Persistence, by three lecturers at the local Ngee Ann Polytechnic was also banned because of its political content.

Meanwhile, Tan Pin Pin is continuing to win wide acclaim for Singapore GaGa.

The film, which played to a standing-room only audience at the Singapore International Film Festival in April, will be screened at a local arthouse in July and the Rotterdam International Film Festival in Jaunuary next year.

Human Rights

Recommendations to Ensure Freedom of Expression on the Internet

Reporters Without Borders and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) make six recommendations to ensure freedom of expression on the Internet.

This declaration by Reporters Without Borders and the representative of the OSCE on Freedom of the Media aims to deal with the main issues facing countries seeking to regulate online activity. Should the Web be filtered? Can online publications be forced to register with the authorities? What should the responsibility of service providers (ISPs) be? How far does a national jurisdiction extend?

Reporters Without Borders thinks the six recommendations go beyond Europe and concern every country. It hopes they will provoke discussion in the run-up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).

Full text of the Declaration :

1. Any law about the flow of information online must be anchored in the right to freedom of expression as defined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

2. In a democratic and open society it is up to the citizens to decide what they wish to access and view on the Internet. Filtering or rating of online content by governments is unacceptable. Filters should only be installed by Internet users themselves. Any policy of filtering, be it at a national or local level, conflicts with the principle of free flow of information.

3. Any requirement to register websites with governmental authorities is not acceptable. Unlike licensing scarce resources such as broadcasting frequencies, an abundant infrastructure like the Internet does not justify official assignment of licenses. On the contrary, mandatory registration of online publications might stifle the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and information on the Internet.

4. A technical service provider must not be held responsible for the mere conduit or hosting of content unless the hosting provider refuses to obey a court ruling. A decision on whether a website is legal or illegal can only be taken by a judge, not by a service provider. Such proceedings should guarantee transparency, accountability and the right to appeal.

5. All Internet content should be subject to the legislation of the country of its origin ("upload rule") and not to the legislation of the country where it is downloaded.

6. The Internet combines various types of media, and new publishing tools such as blogging are developing. Internet writers and online journalists should be legally protected under the basic principle of the right to freedom of expression and the complementary rights of privacy and protection of sources.


Human Rights

Spooky

Phishing is something I have never experienced before. The website, singabloodypore does tend to draw some unwarranted attention, a few 'you will die' messages and has been hacked, according to my limited knowledge, on at least one occasion. So read the emails below that I received from a ‘Mr Ian Mc Kenzie’. I actually went to London over the weekend and when I presented myself to the reception in the hotel, there actually was an Ian McKenzie registered there. I never met him but after waiting one hour, in the bar of course, I left my phone number. Later the same evening I received a call from a real ‘Ian McKenzie’ stating quite clearly that no such arrangement had been made. So it was a practical joke, a hoax, a joke at my expense. All rather spooky, so I quickly got on the next train back to Edinburgh. Well actually I made the most of my three days in London. So it wasn’t a completely wasted journey.

I am also reporting this incident to the Federal Trade Commission at spam@ftc.gov. As “Ian” claimed to be working for www.italica.rai.it, an Italian television company.

In one way it is nice to know that I may have offended someone so much that they will go to such lengths to send me on a wild goose chase. Unable to undermine claims made in this blog, unwilling to engage in debate, someone had to resort to wasting my time. What they hoped to achieve is unknown, but the blog will continue and I will be more skeptical.

I have removed the majority of my responses to the emails, but you will get a good picture of the discussion that took place. I have left the poor spelling in place. I also tried contacting the Italian televsion company but received no reply.

---------------------------------
Hello Steven,
I read your blog site with interest. I'm the managing editor with an Italian television company. Would you be interested in doing some free-lance work with us? If so, perhaps you could tell me something about your background, what you are doing now, why you left Singapore etc.
Ian

---------------------------------
Hi Ian

I would be more than happy to do some freelance work..

And would be more than happy to provide you with my background information and what I am currently involved in, if you could alleviate some of my reservations regarding making contacts on line.

Could you tell me the name of the Italian television company you work for and if possible a website address.

My apologises for the caution.

Steven
---------------------------------
Ian McKenzie May 28
It's www.italica.rai.it

---------------------------------
Hello Steven,
That's all fairly comprehensive. You seem to have a extremely varied and interesting backgound. We are putting together a series about expats (not necessarily Italians) who have made the decision to move overseas. What we what to avoid is the really bland kind of material that you tend to get in travel prpgrammes etc. We need something that probes beneath the surface and provides an insight into what Singapore is really like. Where are you based now? I'll be coming to London, probably within the next four weeks. Would you be happy to meet? We can pay your travel costs etc.
Ian.

---------------------------------
That's great. I'm travelling to Paris at the end of the week. I will be taking the Eurostar to London after that. Will ask my secretary to make the necessary arrangements. Thinking back, you say that you lived in Dublin. Would you also be able to offer an insight into living in the Irish Republic? Alots of expats are setttling there apparently. Also, in the light of what you have said on your blog site, would you be permitted to reside or even enter Singapore again? Incidentally I studied at the University of Warwick back in the early 70s. I read English and Classical Civilization .
Ian

---------------------------------
Hello Steven,
Would you be able to prepare something on the Dublin lifestyle targeted at someone who might be thinking of relocating there. Just, say 500 words, in preparation for our meeting. Lots of 'bite sized' bits of info that would appeal to a typical televsion audience.Ian

---------------------------------
Hi Steven,
Sorry I haven't been in touch. How are you fixed for the week after next? Also would you be possible for you to give a Powerpoint presentation on Dublin as an expat destination? My vice president has specifically requested this. Sorry! Ian

---------------------------------
Hello Steven,
Yes, I should have explained. Initially we were contemplating employing you as a free-lance writer/researcher. Last week my VP saw your profile and suggested that we might also engage you as a presenter. You have a teaching background, so I assume that you have reasonably good presentation skills. Likewise it's a good way of localizing the content. This is why he want you to do a presentation. Obviously we can't make a firm job offer at this stage but I think that it's safe to say that we will be using your services in some capacity. This is as much as I can say at this stage. I'm in Amsterdam at present and leaving for Milan tomorrow and a bit rushed off my feet...... Give me a few more days and I can firm up on the date.
Regards, Ian.

---------------------------------
Hello Ian,[now talking to himself]
How are fixed for the 16th/17th June? We will be staying at the Holiday Inn, Coram street, Bloomsbury, London. WC1N. It's about ten minutes from both Kings Cross and Euston Stations. Ian

---------------------------------
Yes, everything is prepared. Is Friday alright, say 4 pm? If you could ask for me at reception. Also please remember to keep all tickets/receipts etc. Ian

---------------------------------


Human Rights

Amnesty International Singapore

This blog is not officially endorsed by and/or accredited by AI. AI S'pore does not exist in the physical world. This blog is intended to give it a virtual presence. The laws created and the total control of power exerted by the ruling Peoples' Action Party have thus far made it near impossible to have a physical presence but I am confident things will change in the near future. But, as a people, we have to start somewhere and not wait around for it to happen.

Singapore Unreasonably Bars a Taiwan Falun Gong Practitioner

By Dai Huiyu
The Epoch Times
Jun 17, 2005

----------------------

TAIPEI - On June 10, 7:40 a.m., Nie Shuwen from Taiwan boarded an airplane bound for Singapore. Upon arrival, Nie was denied entry and forced to deport. At the same time, a box of books titled “Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party” that was being carried by her traveling companion got confiscated. On that same day, Nie boarded an Eva Airlines Flight BR226 back to Taiwan. Upon arrival at Jiang Kai Shek International Airport in Taiwan at 5:30 p.m., a press conference was immediately held. Nie said it was unacceptable for Singapore to violate human rights and called upon the Singapore government not to concede to pressure exerted by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Nie stated that the reason for her trip to Singapore was to participate in an experience sharing conference for Falun Gong practitioners. Just as she was about to go through customs, an officer checked her passport and said, “We’ve already been notified by Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA). You do not meet the regulations so are not allowed entry.” The officer could not give a precise explanation as to which regulations were not met. Nie said that after continuous questioning, the officer then stated, “I’m not allowed to tell you the reason. I’m just following orders sent by the ICA.”

When Nie’s traveling companion questioned the officer if it was because of her practicing Falun Gong that the Singapore government would not grant her entry, this officer did not deny it at the time.

To continue reading...

Human Rights

How to put banned Chinese words in the title of a blog on MSN Spaces China

An urgent request to help bloggers in China. Originally found on Global Voices Online and Peacefire.org . Singaporeans are extremely competent in English and Mandarin and hopefully someone in Singapore will quickly step up and translate the instructions into Chinese. Once that has happened we can post it to sites still getting through the Chinese Government censorship. If you can't translate, copy and paste it to your site in the hope that someone else can.

If somebody would like to translate these instructions into Chinese, please feel free to do so, post the translation on your blog or website, and please give us the link in the “comments” section of this post. Alternatively, if you don’t have a blog or website, you can post the whole translation directly into the “comments” section.

Also, if you’re in China and try this, if you have problems, questions, or if it doesn’t work, please also let us know in the “comments” section.

——————————————————————–

How to put banned Chinese words in the title of a blog on MSN Spaces China

WARNING! Even though you can use these instructions to insert banned words into the title of your Chinese blog, Internet access in China is still monitored and controlled by the government. If you use these instructions to post banned material, you should not publish your blog from an Internet terminal where your actions could be traced back to you personally, and you should not publish anything on your blog that could be used to identify you. You should also use a HotMail.com address that doesn’t identify you by your real name (create a new HotMail.com account if necessary).

To use these instructions, you will need to create a new MSN Spaces account. Unfortunately these instructions cannot be used to remove the filter settings from an existing blog. If you have already created an MSN Spaces account using your MSN.com or HotMail.com address, you will also need to create a new MSN.com or HotMail.com address, since each existing MSN.com or HotMail.com address can only be associated with one MSN Spaces account.

To create a blog where you can post banned Chinese words in the title:

IF YOU SPEAK ENGLISH:

If you speak English, go to http://spaces.msn.com/?mkt=en-us
Use the English interface to create a new MSN Spaces blog.
Then once the blog has been created, go to the URL http://spaces.msn.com/?mkt=zh-cn to switch the interface back to Chinese. You can now publish your blog in Chinese and use banned Chinese words in the title. As long as your blog is *created* using the English interface, the word filter will not be applied.

IF YOU DO NOT SPEAK ENGLISH:

You must have a HotMail account. Create a new HotMail account if you don’t already have one, then go to www.HotMail.com and sign in to your HotMail account. Make sure you are signed in before proceeding.
Go to this URL: http://spaces.msn.com/?mkt=en-us
The interface will display in English.
Click the “Sign Up” button in the middle of the page. [Note: if this document is translated into Chinese, the words “Sign Up” should remain untranslated, since this is how the user will see the button.]
On the page where you enter settings for your new blog:
In the field marked “1.”, enter a title. You can enter banned words in the title here, or you can change the title later.
In the field marked “2.”, enter the URL you want.
Leave “3.” the way it is.
In section “4.”, check the checkbox (which indicates that you accept the MSN
Terms of Service).
In the bottom row, click the button on the left labeled “Create your space” [note, if this document is translated into Chinese, do not translate the words “Create your space”] to create your MSN Spaces account.
The next page that comes up will say (in English) that your MSN Spaces account has been created. In the bottom row, click the button on the right labeled “Go to Your Space” [note, if this document is translated into Chinese, do not translate the words “Go to Your Space”] to proceed to the page to edit your MSN Spaces account.
Once you are viewing the page to edit your MSN Spaces account settings (in English), add the characters “&mkt=zh-cn” to the end of the URL in the browser.
This will switch the interface back to Chinese. However, since you *created* the blog using the English interface, the Chinese word filter will still not be applied to the title of your blog.

You can now edit the title of your blog to enter banned Chinese words.
(However, you still will not be able to enter English words like “ass” that are banned from the English interface.)





Human Rights

Results of the competition for best blogs defending freedom of expression

Here are the results. Singabloodypore was simply honoured to be among the list of 60 blogs that were nominated. Hopefully it will encourage bloggers concerned with Freedom of Expression around the world to connect to each other and help dispel the idea that a country can or does speak with one voice. The list of 60 blogs highlights the idea that there are many of us demanding freedom of expression. Some bloggers do so, even when threatened with prison terms.

Reporters Without Borders selected around 60 blogs that, each in their own way, defend freedom of expression. The organisation then asked Internet-users to vote for the prize-winners - one in each geographical category. More information about the Blog awards.

After two months of voting, here are the results :

ASIA
Screenshot
www.jeffooi.com
Country : Malaysia
Language : English
An extremely popular blog that takes an independent approach to Malaysian politics and society. Its editor, Jeff Ooi, was threatened with imprisonment, at the beginning of October 2004, because he allowed on his blog a comment “insulting Islam”.
------------------------------------
Africa and Middle East
Shared Pains
kabul2.blogsky.com
Country : Afghanistan
Language : Farsi

A blog commenting on Afghanistan’s political and social life with a forthrightness rarely found in this country


Joint winners
Al Jinane
www.emarrakech.info/prana
A blog run by a Moroccan trying to “understand the complexity of the world”.
------------------------------------
Europe
ICT lex
www.ictlex.net
Country : Italy
Language : Italian
A blog on Internet law and new technologies
------------------------------------
Americas
Press Think
journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink
Country : United States
Language : English
A blog run by an American journalist dealing with the media and free expression in the age of the Internet
------------------------------------
Iran
Mojtaba Saminejad
8mdr8.blogspot.com
Country : Iran
Language : Farsi
A weblog that earned its editor, Mojtaba Saminejad, a two year prison sentence in June 2005 (See : www.rsf.org/article.php3 ?id_article=12563).
In a demonstration of solidarity the 10 webloggers named here, who were also nominated for a prize, all voted for Mojtaba.They were : Nikahang, Shabah, Mithras, Khorshidkhanoom, Z8un, Memarian, Ghaja, Webnaameh, Shabnamefekr, Shargi.
------------------------------------
International
Netzpolitik
www.netzpolitik.org
Country : Germany
Language : German
A blog dealing with open source technologies, Internet-users’ rights and free expression in cyberspace.
------------------------------------
The competition for the best free expression blogs was organised in partnership with Deutsche Welle's "Best of the Blogs awards".

Related Links:
Singabloodypore Nominated
List of 60 blogs nominated
Reporters Without Borders

Human Rights

Microsoft censors its blog tool

Not clearly related to Singapore, but worrying that the large corporations will bend in order to accommodate the whims of a government. Something tells me that this is a bad omen. If Microsoft will bend for one undemocratic government then the others will soon be lining up to demand the same curbs on freedom of expression. Not being able to blog the word 'democracy' is seriously disgusting. I think bloggers should boycott the Microsoft Blog tool, 'MSN Spaces'. Yahoo also deserves to be avoided as much as possible. I am going to MSN and deleting a blog I set up there. I know few people will do the same.

China 14 June 2005

Microsoft censors its blog tool

Reporters Without Borders said it was disgusted to find that Microsoft was censoring the Chinese version of its blog tool, MSN spaces, the system automatically rejecting words including "democracy" and "Dalai Lama".

"Following Yahoo !, here is a second American Internet giant giving way to the Chinese authorities and agreeing to self-censorship", the worldwide press freedom organisation said.

"The lack of ethics on the part of these companies is extremely worrying. Their management frequently justifies collaboration with Chinese censorship by saying that all they are doing is obeying local legislation.

"Does that mean that if the authorities asked Microsoft to provide information about Chinese cyberdissidents using its services that it would agree to do so, on the basis that it is "legal" ? Reporters Without Borders wondered.

"We believe that this argument does not hold water and that these multinationals must respect certain basic ethical principles, in whatever country they are operating."

Reporters Without Borders has been able to check that, as reported by several news agencies, when a Chinese blogger attempts to post a message containing terms such as "democracy", "Dalai Lama", "Falungong", "4 June" (the date of the Tiananmen Square massacre), "China + corruption", or "human rights", a warning displays saying, "This message contains a banned expression, please delete this expression."

Generally "subversive" messages are displayed on Chinese-hosted forums and blogs but the banned words are automatically replaced with blank spaces.

The Chinese version of the MSN portal, along with the blog tool, were launched as a joint venture with a local state-controlled company, Shanghai Alliance Investment Ltd (SAIL).

The Chinese authorities are trying to impose self-censorship on all search engines and blog tools that wish to operate on its territory. Yahoo !, which was the first, agreed to remove all "subversive" news and information from its search results. Despite repeated requests from Reporters Without Borders, the company's management always declined to discuss the issue.

Google, which has so far refused to censor its search engine, now looks likely to follow in the footsteps of its competitor. When the company announced it was opening an office in China, Reporters Without Borders wrote to its two founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, asking them to respond clearly to the question : "Would you agree to censorship of your search engine if Beijing asked you to". Google never replied.

Reporters Without Borders also wrote, on December 2003, to the CEO and founder of Microsoft, Steven A.Ballmer and Bill Gates, to bring to their attention their freedom of expression responsibilities, particularly in a country like China. This appeal, like the others, went unanswered

.


Human Rights

Wit and Spit

A Singaporean living overseas contemplates a return home...

But at the same time, the socio-political development that has yet to be accomplished is amazing, considering how much there is to be proud of. So much could be improved, in my opinion. Press limitations, the overt emphasis on materialism, the go-to-college-and-be-a-doctor-or-you're-worthless paradigm, etc. etc. It's just that, well, the current system in place works so damn well. The gov't has done such an excellent job making the tiny island a first world country and I'm always so proud of telling people where I'm from. It almost makes me question if those changes are worth the chaos that might ensue if someone tried to enact socio-political change.

Wit and Spit

Sarong Party Girl - Keep on Blogging

Is the Singaporean Blogosphere really abuzz? I have visited Sarong Party Girl's blog a few times,[for research purposes of course] and to be quite honest the pictures are not pornographic. The pictures do have an artistic quality to them, the stories are another matter however.

I just hope that she manages to keep her identity secret otherwise she could be in for a lot of criticism from fellow Singaporeans. The interest seems to be that a young female Singaporean, is not as sexually inhibited as the 'conservative image' propagated by the government would like us to believe.

As far as I am concerned it is her sex life, her sexuality and she can do whatever she pleases with it.

The government may not see it in the same light. They may counter that it shows Singaporeans in a detrimental way. It really depends on the type of gender identity your social policies and education system are trying to socialise the population into.

But all the social engineering in the world still allows for the individual to reject the role placed on them by society. Sarong Party Girl seems to enjoy flirting and playing with the role that she is supposed to assume.

Frankly, thanks for all the publicity. As for the criticism, what do I care. My confidence and self-satisfaction does not depend on anyone's opinion or judgment of me. Why should it, when all the people that criticize me are dumbasses anyway. Whoever you are, you are too narrowminded, thoughtless and irrational for me to believe your assestments of the person that is me should have any creditability atall for me to give a shit about what you think.

She is aware of the 'questions' surrounding her blog, yet soldiers on, expressing her self, defining her own actions. She may now have to defend her own actions to a wider audience, or reject the criticism. I hope she continues the blog, not for the reader but for her own development as a writer.

Sydney Morning Herald
Singapore
June 13, 2005 - 8:55AM
Naked blogger attracts thousands

A 19-year-old girl who posted nude pictures of herself on the internet has set Singapore's blogging community abuzz, but lawyers say she is probably not breaking any obscenity law in the conservative city-state.

Writing under the moniker Sarong Party Girl, her weblog details her life and numerous sexual escapades.

"If someone were to flash himself physically, it's very clearly an obscene act," lawyer Jonathan Kok told The Straits Times. "But on the internet, it's a grey area."

The girl, waiting to enter a university, has gathered a daily following of about 3000 readers since she started her blog in February last year.

"There is nothing wrong with having a nude picture of yourself published or on show, as long as there is an artistic value to it," she told the newspaper. "These pictures were nice."

She admitted however that the blog has been kept secret from her parents.

Related Link:
Sarong Party Girl

Human Rights

Winner [continues to] Take all in Singapore

Singapore's millionaires increase
at fastest pace in world
Bloomberg
June 10, 2005
SINGAPORE

THE number of millionaires in Singapore rose at the fastest pace in the world in 2004, according to a report by Cap Gemini & Merrill Lynch & Co.
Singapore millionaires rose 22.4 percent to 48,500, the report said. In the US the number increased 10 percent to 2.5 million and in Hong Kong they rose by 18.8 percent to 67,500. Asia had 2.3 million millionaires last year, up 8.2 percent, the research showed.

Link to Singapore Windows.

Winner [continues to] Takes all in Singapore

The issue is one that is not merely located in Singapore and was recently discussed by a BBC show called Panorama, which airs on the BBC World in Singapore. However you can get links to it at the following site.

I have also provided a link to statistics published in June 2002, which shows that the gap between rich and poor is increasing as Singapore rapidly becomes a "Winner Takes All Society". The gap has continued to widen after the economic crisis.


published article below is from sg-review.
Streats
10 Nov 2004
Leong Sze Hian

Rich-poor divide is widening

I REFER to the report, "Poor getting poorer in Hong Kong" (Streats, Nov 4), and former permanent secretary Ngiam Tong Dow's recent remarks in the media about the greatest danger being elitism and complacency.

Lawmakers are said to be urging the Government to do more to close a widening wealth gap.

Meanwhile, the gap between the rich and poor in Singapore seems to be widening.

The number of people in Singapore considered affluent has jumped by a quarter from five years ago, despite recession and job losses, according to a study by London-based business intelligence and consultancy firm Datamonitor.

According to the latest Ministry of Manpower labour market report, the percentage of workers still looking for a job six months after being laid off was 66.7 per cent for those with secondary education and below, and only 10 per cent for those with post-secondary education.

According to a study by Mr Mukhopadhaya Pundarik at the National University of Singapore, income inequality increased in Singapore during the Asian economic crisis.

The average household income of the bottom decile decreased by 48.4 per cent, while the overall decrease was only 2.7 per cent.

The unemployment rate for this bottom 10 per cent increased from 28.2 per cent in 1998 to 44 per cent in 1999 - an increase of about 56 per cent compared to 42 per cent for the total labour force.

The latest inflation data for Singapore shows that the rise in consumer prices for the lowest 20 per cent income group was more than seven times that of the top 20 per cent income group.

Regarding tax incentives, I understand that more than a third of the working population does not earn enough to pay income tax. A tax policy that progressively gives more rewards to the richest and hits the poorest may lead to even greater income inequality.

Eighty-three countries are ranked above Singapore in the United Nations Human Development Index Report's Income Inequality measure.

According to the Singapore Census of Population 2000, the ratio of average income for the top 20 per cent to the lowest 20 per cent increased from 11.4 in 1990 to 20.9 in 2000.

Perhaps we need to give more emphasis to reducing the gap between the rich and the poor.

- Leong Sze Hian

Super Tax for Super Rich?
Those of you who dis-like criticism without a solution can now argue against the following possible solution.

Before you read I have decided to prempt a few possible counter arguments.

Calling for a demand to super tax the super rich, 'Envy', seems to be built on a very individualistic, rational choice argument. That human beings are only motivated by instrumental rationality, or greed and self-promotion. A society that refuses to acknowledge action based on 'social' values seems to encourage the interpretation of human action by rational choice motivation. Claiming that we are all motivated by 'greed' seems to de-humanise, or remove our other emotional motivations and render them ineffectual.

The other counter argument is that the wealth will trickle down from the top. An arguement that Margaret Thatcher used in the 1980's. The 1980's, a decade of giving, loving and caring for our fellow human beings.

The bigger issue is how do you get those with the super wealth to agree to a super tax? After all they have a very strong influence on the political situation and in Singapore's case, the politicians are the super rich. [Oops!]


The entire post is available here.

Related Articles:
Winner Takes all in Singapore
Super Tax for Super Rich?
Singapore elderly told to toil longer for less
Human Rights

Pot Reports that Kettle is Black

11 June 2005
Yawning Bread
June 2005
http://yawningbread.org

On 22 April 2005, journalist Ching Cheong was detained by the Chinese authorities while he was visiting Guangzhou. Ching is a Hongkonger working for the Straits Times, being their Chief China Correspondent.

As I recall, he tends to write incisive analyses about Chinese and Taiwanese politics, and I sensed he carried with him a liberal point of view.

Although he was arrested in the third week of April, it wasn?t until the last week of May before the Straits Times revealed that one of their top writers had been detained, and then only because the foreign media had broken the story.

Ever since then however, there have been at least half a page, more often a full page, about Ching Cheong every day in the Straits Times. At first, the reports revolved around speculation that he was party to an attempt to publish a book containing the late Zhao Ziyang's views about post-Tiananmen China though the Chinese government from the beginning denied that this was the trigger issue. Instead, the government's spokesman indicated that Ching was detained for spying for a foreign agency.

In the 4 June 2005 edition of the Straits Times, it was reported that not only did the spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry repeat to journalists at a press briefing that, "Hong Kong resident Ching Cheong [had] been instructed and requested to engage in intelligence gathering activities in mainland China," the newspaper also noted at after a month's delay, the same explanation was finally pinned up on the Foreign Ministry's website.

At the same time, it was learnt that a sociologist, Lu Jianhua, was also detained in late April. Lu was apparently a well-connected researcher at the high-regarded Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and Ching had known him. Perhaps they had shared information that the government didn't want discussed.

It is quite typical of the Chinese government to be completely opaque and Ching's case is no exception. In the absence of details, the Straits Times have been following up on other cases of detention by Beijing, protests by international human rights groups, a petition by Singapore journalists submitted to the Chinese Embassy here, and action (or lack of) by various governments. Besides the Chinese government, others that may have a stake are the Hong Kong government (because Ching is domiciled there), the British government (because he holds a British Overseas National Passport) and the Singapore government (Straits Times being his employer).

Of course the Straits Times has been ever so respectful, never saying anything that can be construed as campaigning for Ching's release, but the sum total of all that reporting has been to keep attention focussed on his case, implying an injustice or at least an unjustifiable opacity on the part of the government.

Well, the Straits Times' moral high ground would be a lot more credible if firstly, rather than react to foreign reports, they had reported his detention as soon as they had known about it -- and since Ching was their employee, they would have been among the first -- and secondly, they had done likewise with another story much closer to home.

On 16 May 2005, Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan was denied entry into Singapore by the Immigration authorities at Changi airport. He was coming to Singapore at the invitation of the Singapore Democratic Party to conduct a workshop on political methods. Moser-Puangsuwan, a US national, is the Southeast Asia coordinator for NonViolence International, a US-based NGO.

He had been here 4 months earlier for another workshop, and apparently this was what gave cause for the government's action.

As reported by the South China Morning Post, 30 May 2005, The [Home Affairs] ministry's communications director, Ong-Chew Peck Wan, said the activist had been indefinitely barred from entering the country for interfering in its domestic politics. Specifically, that was in January, when he had given a workshop to Singapore Democratic Party members at which he had promoted civil disobedience activities.

She said that the decision had been based on investigations following publication in March on the internet forum NewSintercom of an interview with Mr Moser-Puangsuwan.

"From what was disclosed at that interview and subsequent investigations, Yeshua was found to have conducted a political action workshop in Singapore in January 2005," Ms Ong-Chew said. "This was aimed to teach Singaporeans how to wage a non-violent campaign of civil disobedience against the government so as to liberate and expand civil rights of Singaporean citizens who, he deludes himself to believe, are living under dire oppression and injustice.

"To mount such a campaign, he specifically recommended targeting youth and women as the primary groups to co-opt and mobilise against the government."

The government's contention that Singapore's politics were reserved for Singaporeans was reiterated. "Foreigners, like Yeshua, with no stake in the future of Singapore, will not be allowed to interfere in Singapore's domestic politics, much less to instigate, agitate and promote civil disobedience among targeted segments of society, against the laws of the country," the spokeswoman said.

She maintained that those who did were not welcome in Singapore.

Some may say there is a huge difference between Ching's case and Moser-Puangsuwan's. Ching was detained and has been held virtually incommunicado. Moser-Puangsuwan was only deported from the airport soon after arrival.

There is something unbecoming of a government to launch a personal attack like this.

It's one thing to say that Moser-Puangsuwan's action breached our rules, it's another to deride him as deluded. This kind of character assassination has no place in a democratic system that the PAP claims we are.

In any case, doesn't the very act of deporting someone who advocates non-violent political participation vindicate anyone's belief that Singaporeans "are living under dire oppression and injustice"?

But first, we should remember that the Singapore government too, through our Internal Security Act, has the power to detain people without trial just like China. Opposition politician Chia Thye Poh was held for 32 years! See the article Without cover of the covenant

Secondly, both cases hinge on the way governments rely on vague and sweeping powers to deny their critics room for putting their views across. In the case of China, the question revolves around what constitutes state secrets, and thus, what constitutes spying. In the case of Singapore, the vagueness is supreme in the area of what constitutes politics, particularly 'out of bounds' subjects ('OB markers' in Singaporean usage).

China has a long history of harassing and detaining anyone who attempts to publicise a view contrary to the Party line. To bring to the attention of the public any information that is embarrassing to the government can easily be considered revealing state secrets since virtually everything is supposed to be a secret.

Singapore too has a long history of harassing and detaining anyone who attempts to publicise a view contrary to the Party line. Our specialty however is the defamation suit. Now add deportation to the list.

What about the claim that Moser-Puangsuwan was "interfering" in domestic politics? Well, it depends on whether one wishes to adopt an extremely narrow definition or a broader one. Both are valid, but to be credible, one has to be consistent.

Moser-Puangsuwan was not campaigning in the streets or to the general public; he was here to conduct a workshop for a political party to help them improve their skills.

In a way, this isn't a lot different from a speech therapist trying to help our ministers become better public speakers, or the make-up artist helping a PAP politician look good minutes before he goes on television, or for that matter, the producers of TV documentaries featuring our ministers. If these behind-the-scenes people aren't Singapore citizens, aren't they equally "interfering" in our domestic politics by helping one side look good or be more skilled at their communication?

It might be argued that the Singapore government has been consistent. Consistently heavy-handed. In April 2005, the government banned Amnesty International's Southeast Asia specialist, Timothy Parritt, from speaking at a forum on the death penalty, although he was allowed into the country to attend the event. The forum was organised by a number of activist groups.

But what this instance really suggests is that if you speak up against current policy, you're interfering, leaving you with the sneaky suspicion that if you praise current policy, you're not. As everyone knows, Singapore uses the death penalty, and now it is shown by this example of Timothy Parritt that to advocate the opposite is considered interference in our domestic politics. What if a foreigner came to speak in favour of the existing policy? Would that be interference too?

The apologists for the PAP would say, no, no, we'll be even-handed. No one can come and speak FOR the death penalty either.

It's hard to disprove that if no one tries to come to argue for the death penalty. In the modern world, it'll be hard to find anyone able to make a cogent case for the death penalty used as broadly as it is in Singapore and (guess what?) China -- the country with the most executions annually!

But an analogous situation will suggest that we shouldn't be too gullible.

Look at how many foreign speakers are invited by fundamentalist Christian groups to rail against homosexuality. Aren't they participating in a societal debate that eventually impacts upon our laws, policies and politics? Some of these hate-mongers have been reported to have "advised" the faithful to write to their Members of Parliament to demand tighter censorship and enforcement of laws against gays and lesbians. Why aren't any of them deported and declared persona non grata for interfering in our domestic politics, I ask.

So, where is that line between inviting foreigners to come and teach us a thing or two, and "interfering in domestic politics"? How consistently is policy applied? Hasn't our own government been arbitrary, opaque and self-serving?

None of these questions appear in the Straits Times, in fact, almost nothing about the Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan case except for a single report.

On the other hand, we get daily stories about Ching?s detention in China. Ching Cheong is not a Singapore citizen and the issue is China's political system, a foreign country's. Yet when it comes to a workshop organised by a Singapore political party, and a serious question of what constitutes domestic politics in Singapore, our own newspaper, the Straits Times, is practically mute.

Human Rights

Mojtaba Saminejad

Click the image to be taken to the petition and sign it. If you have a blog, why not post it today and encourage others to do the same.

Mojtaba Saminejad is an Iranian blogger who was arrested for reporting on the arrest of three fellow Persian bloggers. Today, he is leading a hunger strike from his cell in Gohar Dashat prison outside Tehran, which is known for its abuse of inmates. Motjaba was arrested for reporting the earlier arrest of three of his fellow Iranian bloggers. (Iran has arrested over 20 bloggers over the last year.) Iranian bloggers who have been released have reported being the victims of torture.
Under the domination of Ayatollah Khamenei and the Supreme Council, Iranians are not free to hold their leaders accountable. But you are. Send a message to the Iranian regime demanding that Mojtaba be granted pardon and unconditional release. Outside support is vital to ensuring Motjaba's release.
You can edit the petition text below. It will then be emailed to the following Iranian leaders:

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the Permanent
Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Iranian Representative, Iranian Representative at the Pakistan Embassy
Mohammad Khatami, Iran's President
Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi, Head of the Iranian Judiciary

Related articles on other sites:
Committee to Protect Bloggers
Reporters Without Borders

Burma's PR consultant

IN THE RED CORNER we have George Yeo arguing Burma/Myanmar forgo the ASEAN chair...
Singapore suggests Myanmar forego ASEAN chair

Reuters

Singapore, June 9, 2005|19:02 IST

Singapore, Southeast Asia's wealthiest nation, suggested on Thursday that military-ruled Myanmar forego its chairmanship of the ASEAN grouping next year because of international concerns over its human rights record.

The United States and the European Union have threatened to boycott high-level meetings with the 10-member Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) if Myanmar takes the rotating chairmanship without making progress on human rights, including freeing opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

In an article in the Financial Times, Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo said that ASEAN foreign ministers agreed at a a meeting in April that the organisation should not take away the chairmanship from any country, but Myanmar had assured the grouping that it would take ASEAN's interest into account.

"ASEAN foreign ministers took this to mean that Myanmar would voluntarily forego its turn to chair. This would be a good solution," Yeo wrote. His office refused to elaborate.

Singapore is the largest exporter to Myanmar and its second-largest trading partner after Thailand, according to official Myanmar data.

At a security conference in Singapore at the weekend, Myanmar hinted it may be working on an alternative solution.

Asked whether Myanmar would give in to international pressure and relinquish the ASEAN chair, Myanmar Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs U Maung Myint told Reuters that the country is "preparing another situation". He declined to elaborate.

The issue has threatened the unity of ASEAN, with some countries opposing Myanmar's chairmanship unless it shows concrete progress in implementing a roadmap to democracy.

Diplomats say a Myanmar chair could isolate and diminish ASEAN as the U.S. and Europe would stay away from key meetings and switch to bilateral contacts with member states.

"If Myanmar were to chair the ASEAN, we would not engage as much with the organisation, but we would remain engaged with individual member states," a U.S. embassy official told Reuters.

Tim Huxley, Senior Fellow for Asia-Pacific Security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that matters of pride make it very difficult for Myanmar to forego the chair.

"If they did become chairman, this would be presented internally as reaffirming the legitimacy of the regime and the fact that the regime has an important role to play regionally."

Huxley added that it was very unlikely that Myanmar would leave the grouping which it only joined in 1997.

"ASEAN is an alternative to complete reliance on China, and it opens up economic cooperation with Southeast Asia," he said.

On Wednesday, Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda told a parliamentary hearing that his feeling from the April meeting of foreign ministers in the Philippines island of Cebu was that Myanmar would probably not take its turn.

"We openly said (to Myanmar) that when the situation in your country is ready, you will not need to wait until the other nine get their chairmanship turns. Just slip in," he said.

Thai Foreign Minister Kantathi Suphamongkhon said on Thursday that whether Myanmar took its turn would depend on the progress of its political reforms.

"If Myanmar were to postpone the chairmanship, we hope that the postponement would not have to be too long. If real progress can take place, then Myanmar will not have to wait another 10 years to become chairman," Kantathi told reporters in Bangkok.

ASEAN -- home to 500 million people -- is made up of Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines.

The chairmanship rotates in alphabetical order and is now held by Laos, where ASEAN foreign ministers will meet in July. Wirajuda said he expected a decision on the issue there.

(Additional reporting by Darren Schuettler in Bangkok)

AND IN THE BLUE CORNER...

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - A Singapore firm has won a $10.6 million deal to expand the Yangon International Airport in Myanmar.

Singapore information technology company CNA Group said in a statement that under the deal, the firm will design and install engineering systems at Yangon airport.

Myanmar said in January that with $1.57 billion for 72 projects, Singapore tops the list of the 25 foreign investor countries in Myanmar. According to official data from Myanmar, Singapore is the largest exporter to Myanmar, and its second-largest trading partner after Thailand.

"If we don't take their money someone else will."

Come on George, the Straits Jacket is prepared to ignore such glaring faults in the on-going story of the raltionship between the two countries, but surely you are aware of them. Or is it an attempt at denying the continuous, 'constructive engagment', filling your metaphorical pockets, and pointing a finger of accusation at the same time, position. John Pilger in his book, 'Hidden Agendas', refers to drug lords' "Ling Ming-xian and Lo Hsing-han, who run most of the multi-million-dollar drugs trade from Burma, frequently visited Singapore and had established companies there 'as a way of possibly laundering drug money'[Bangkok Nation, 1996]."

"Singapore is by far the most important 'back door'"(Pilger 1999)for Burma. Pilger also argues that the arms industry is a speciality for Singapore. How far would Singapore go? In 1988, when the majority of the Burmese population were on the streets in a popular protest against SLORC(The junta), the Burmese Army was running out of bullets...

Go on George Yeo, I bet you can guess which country stepped in to help the junta with ammunition.

The concerns expressed by George Yeo seem to be premised on a fear of weakening economic ASEAN and US, European economic ties. Then again it could have been negotiated during the recent visit to Burma that Singapore becomes Burma's PR consultant. How much is the Singaporean government charging?

"If we don't take their money someone else will."

Human Rights

Singapore Bans Benetton Magazine for Sexual Content

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - The latest edition of a magazine published by Italian fashion house Benetton has been banned in Singapore because of its explicit sexual content, the government's media regulator said on Thursday.
Colors magazine's spring issue contains explicit illustrations and photos of nudity and sexual acts, including orgies, the Media Development Authority (MDA) said. The magazine is known for its provocative pictures and hard-hitting topics like AIDS, race, religion, war and immigration.

"The MDA has directed the distributor of Colors magazine to withdraw all copies of the spring issue from the market," the MDA said in an e-mail.

The MDA provides publication importers with a set of content guidelines and they are expected to self-regulate.

"When in doubt, they can consult the MDA, but in this case, the distributor did not consult the authority," the MDA said.

Years of censorship have earned Singapore a reputation as Asia's "nanny state," although the city has relaxed some social controls.

Last year, Singapore lifted a ban on Cosmopolitan magazine and on the television series "Sex and the City," which had been deemed too racy.

Singapore imports more than 1.5 million publications each year, the MDA said.

If nothing else the MDA managed to inform the world that Benetton actually has a magazine called 'Colors'. Well done Benetton, great ad campaign. If your company requires some free advertising post it to Singapore today. Launch something, anything that you think your grandfather or grandmother would disapprove of and email it to the MDA for approval.

Relevant Articles:
Color Magazine


Human Rights

Singapore bans popular gay party

Health minister blames annual event for rise in gay HIV infections
SINGAPORE (AP) | Jun 8, 7:19 PM

Singapore has banned one of Asia's largest annual gay-themed outdoor parties because it is "contrary to public interest,'' police said on Wednesday.

The decision came a few months after a senior official in this tightly controlled Southeast Asian island nation blamed such parties for the rise in HIV infections among gays.

Hong Kong-based Fridae.com, an Internet-based network of Asian gays, applied through its Singapore subsidiary, Jungle Media, for a permit to hold its annual Nation beach party here in August.

But the application has been turned down because the "police assessment is that the event is likely to be organized as a gay party, which is contrary to public interest in general," a police statement said, without elaborating.

The past four Nation parties were held in Singapore. At least 8,000 revelers attended the last one, generating an estimated $6 million in tourist revenue, organizers say.

On Fridae.com's Web site, organizers said they would hold this year's three-day Nation '05 on Thailand's resort island of Phuket instead.

Singapore official Balaji Sadasivan said international gay parties 'allowed gays from high-prevalence societies to fraternise with local gay men.'

In March, Singapore's Junior Health Minister Balaji Sadasivan suggested that a rise in HIV infections among gays in Singapore was linked to gatherings like the Nation parties which, he said, "allowed gays from high-prevalence societies to fraternise with local gay men, seeding the infection in the local community.''

Fridae.com chief Stuart Koe said on the Web site that he was disappointed by Singapore's rejection of the license application.

"This is a direct contradiction to previous calls for embracing of diversity,'' he said.

Singapore, a city-state of 4 million people, has taken some steps to loosen its notorious social controls. But it bans gay sex, defining it as "an act of gross indecency'' punishable by a maximum of two years in jail. There have been few prosecutions, however.

The number of new, officially reported AIDS cases in Singapore reached 311 in 2004, nearly 30 percent more than in the previous year.

Human Rights

The Real Nemesis: A Bloated Bureaucracy

To: Sg_Review
Below message was sent to TODAY but never published. Pls circulate.

From: Brian Wong Tuck Meng
To: TODAY admin@newstoday.com.sg
8 June 2005
THE REAL NEMESIS: A BLOATED BUREAUCRACY

I refer to below article from Chong Lee Ming in the 8 June 2005 issue of TODAY. The author makes a staunch defense for government policy makers which I personally cannot agree with

One remark which was totally inaccurate was as follows: "Bear in mind that the civil servants who formulated the policies live among us, and their thoughts and ideas are shaped by the society they live in."

Policy formulation (depending on the subject matter and scope) usually lie well beyond the domain of the average civil servant. It is the superscale senior level administrators and very highly paid ministers who have a direct hand in shaping and implementing these policies (and they certainly take the credit for it too).

Do these very well paid individuals live amongst us, walk in our shoes, eat from the same bowl and smoke the same pipe as us? Do these well paid policy makers (in their ivory towers) know what its like supporting a family with 2 kids on a household income of SGD3,000 per month? I think not.

A vast irreconcilable disparity in income levels separates these lofty policy makers from the humble man on the street. Lets pause here and see how large this income disparity (between a minister and average worker)is. Conservative estimates of a Singapore Minister (who is a policy maker) basic salary starts around the region of SGD1.2 million p.a. This does not include bonuses and other incidental income the minister earns in the many hats he wears, and also excludes fringe benefits and nest-egg/retirement endowments.

I repeat that these are conservative figures which exclude many add-ons so the actual take home of a Singapore Minister is much higher. The Singapore Prime Minister's basic is even higher at SGD2 million per annum. And the President's salary stands at approx SGD2.4 million per annum. No salary figures are available for the position of Minister Menthor.

The point here is that these are a very well-paid lot of policy makers who are blissfully shielded from the trials and tribulations of the average working Joe. And it is these same group of lofty millionaires who will decide on takes that will materially and directly affect our lives even whilst they remain shielded from the effects of their own policies.


In view of these very handsome salaries, Singaporeans have a right to expect far more from their leaders. Otherwise what's the justification if they deliver no better insights then the obvious solutions that anyone can think of (e.g. extend ERP gantries and rates everytime congestion occurs).

Below is an article from Miss Mellanie Hewlitt which basically hit the nail on the head when she questioned whether a minister who takes home such huge salaries can ever identify with the needs and aspirations of the average Singaporean. Miss Catherine Lim also addressed this issue more diplomatically in her old article "PAP and the people: A return of disaffection?" (see:
http://www.singapore21.org.sg/art_disaffection.html#debate1)

It is apparent that the vast majority of Singaporeans do not feel these inflated salaries are justified at all. But somehow the local press is always able to come up with fascinating numbers which say Singaporeans are happy with their lot, without actually addressing this issue.

For instance the Head Lines of the Straits Times today stated "Govt okays youths' ideas for change". But is this really the case? There have been countless suggestions to reduce Ministerial Salaries to more credible and realistic levels, e.g. around SGD150,000 per annum which is still more then what 80% of income earning households make. But this would amount to a 85% reduction in salaries for the well paid ministers.

If this government really wants to show it is serious about accepting recommendations for change, than Singapore's Leaders should lead by example and take a 85% pay-cut. Talk is so easy but walking the talk is a different matter. And when they have the mental and character to take this route, they will then perhaps appreciate what it is like to walk in the average man's shoes and support a family with an income of SGD3,000/- here in Singapore. Until they take this challenge Singapore's million dollar ministers have a serious credibility problem on their hands, not just in Singapore but all over the world.

Finally Mr Chong Lee Ming should note that the real nemesis here is not a "complaining public" but a a very fat and bloated ministerial cabinet which is unable to justify the vast amounts of tax dollars they take home.

Regards

Brian Wong Tuck

Human Rights

The Internet under surveillance

Things occurring in Singapore seem to fade into the mist of the mass media when you realise what is happening in Iran and China. If Singapore is trying to curtail online freedom of expression we should be glad that they seem to be taking the 'soft power' approach. The threatening of Acidflask with court proceedings seems the lesser of two evils. Rather worrying though, that in order to paint a nice picture of the Singaporean context , I have to refer to China and Iran. What happens when the softly-softly co-opting approach of suppresing free speech doesn't shut us up?

But for now I think our thoughts should be with Mojtaba Saminejad...

The Internet under surveillance
7 June 2005

IRAN

Blogger Mojtaba Saminejad gets two-year prison sentence

Reporters Without Borders voiced deep concern today about the fate of 25-year-old blogger Mojtaba Saminejad, who has been sentenced to two years in prison by a Tehran revolutionary court for "insulting the Supreme Guide" and who is due to be tried soon on a separate charge of insulting the prophets, which carries a possible death penalty.

The press freedom organisation urged all bloggers to mobilise on behalf of the young blogger, who was arrested on 12 February.

"All blogosphere messages of solidarity are welcome," the organisation said. "We know that these message reach the prisoners and help put pressure on the Iranian authorities, especially in the run-up to the presidential election. It is vital for people to talk about Mojtaba."

Mojtaba's lawyer, Mohammad Saifzadeh, said the two-year sentence was handed down after a hearing on 23 May in which his client was not allowed to speak freely. To intimidate him, the authorities had him accompanied in court by the police officers who interrogated him in prison.

He will appear in court again on 22 June to be tried on a charge of "insulting the prophets and the holy imams." This extremely serious accusation could result in his being found guilty of apostasy, which carries the death penalty under article 512 of the Islamic criminal code.

Various initiatives are under way on the Iranian Internet in support of Mojtaba. Internet users have dedicated a blog to him in both English (http://mojtaba-samienejad.blogspot.com) and in Farsi (http://en-mojtaba-samienejad.blogspot.com). Some 50 Iranian bloggers are openly backing him. The Penlog bloggers group has also firmly condemned his conviction (see
http://penlog.blogspot.com/2005/06/blog-post_05.html).

For more information on the case, go to http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=12564

6 June 2005


CHINA
Authorities declare war on unregistered websites and blogs

Reporters Without Borders voiced alarm today at the Chinese government's announced intention to close down all China-based websites and blogs that are not officially registered. The plan is all the more worrying as the government has also revealed that it has a new system for monitoring sites in real time and spotting those that fail to comply.

"The Chinese authorities use this type of announcement above all to intimidate website operators and bloggers," the press freedom organisation said. "The authorities also hope to push the most outspoken online sites to migrate abroad where they will become inaccessible to those inside China because of the Chinese filtering systems."

Reporters Without Borders added: "Those who continue to publish under their real names on sites hosted in China will either have to avoid political subjects or just relay the Communist Party's propaganda. This decision will enable those in power to control online news and information much more effectively."

The new initiative was announced in a decree issued by the ministry for the information industry (MII) on 20 March, which said all China-based websites - commercial or otherwise - would have to register by 30 June, giving the complete identity of the persons responsible for the sites. According to the authorities, the aim is to control information that "endanger the country."

According to official figures, about 75 per cent of Chinese sites have already complied with the new procedure. The Russian news agency Interfax reported that the ministry subsequently announced that a new system called "Night Crawler" (Pa Chong, in Chinese) that allows the authorities to locate and block unregistered sites would get under away at the start of June.

At the request of the authorities, the Telecom operators that host the biggest Chinese news portals informed their users that this procedure is obligatory. In May, many bloggers received e-mail messages telling them to register to avoid their blogs being declared illegal.

A China-based blogger told Reporters Without Borders on condition of anonymity that the Shanghai police recently rendered his website inaccessible because it had not been registered. He then phoned the MII to ask what he had to do in order to register, and was told that in his case it was "not worth bothering" because "there was no chance of an independent blog getting permission to publish."

Human Rights

Lion City Still in the Dark Age

Entire article...

1 June 2005
Peter Kammerer
South China Morning Post
30 May 2005

Although Singapore has relaxed some tough regulations relating to tourism, one visitor's experience points to the continuing political stranglehold

Singapore does not fool its critics. They know that much like the middle-aged woman who tries to hide her age with makeup, dyed hair and trendy clothes, all the recent talk of casinos and topless cabaret shows are only skin-deep.

Under the facade of being tourist-friendly, they lament, the island nation remains the same as it has always been - a virtual police state where the media is tightly controlled, political opposition is barely tolerated and free speech is allowed only with permission.

A 'virtual police state', does this refer to the internet or is it a replacement for the term, 'almost', 'practically'. Either way it works for me. The internet is heavily monitored, Acidflask and Philip Yeo are one example. Cameras have become omnipresent in the fight against terrorism. Anti-terror law that could be used in a public disorder context. Cameras in classrooms and lecture rooms for the safety of the students.

Mr Moser-Puangsuwan has since been trying to get an official explanation from Singapore's embassy in Bangkok.[He was refused entry into Singapore at Changi International Airport after arrival on a Singapore Airlines flight from Bangkok on May 13, 2005] Comments from the Foreign Affairs Ministry in a report in Singapore's Straits Times on May 16, identical to a statement issued to the South China Morning Post on Wednesday, has given the only indication so far.

The ministry's communications director, Ong-Chew Peck Wan, said the activist had been indefinitely barred from entering the country for interfering in its domestic politics. Specifically, that was in January, when he had given a workshop to Singapore Democratic Party members at which he had promoted civil disobedience activities.

This argument about 'interfering in its domestic politics', is a common argument used to silence non-Singaporeans. It seems to be dependent on a world view that what happens in Singapore is happening in isolation from the region and the global situation itself. It is premised on the idea that Singapore is isolated from the rest of the planet. Isolated, cut off, removed, separate. Sounds like North Korea, and yet at the same time Singapore is a bridge between, 'East and West'. An economic bridge that can link up with China, India and the USA at the same time. A country that supports Burma via its 'constructive engagement' with a despot at the wheel.

All thoughts that the government was trying to "lighten up" to make Singapore less sterile and more friendly to visitors dissipated. His response was a stunned, "What does this mean?"

The officer wordlessly indicated the form. That was no answer for the American. He understood he was ineligible for entry, but wanted to know why.

The officer could not answer and nervously called on the help of an older man, apparently his superior, who was sitting nearby. Mr Moser-Puangsuwan was led to an office and in answer to his query, was again told, "You are ineligible for issue of a pass under current immigration rules".

Explaining that that was not, in his mind, a valid reason, he again asked why he was being denied entry and was given the same response. Time and again he asked for clarification, but the smiles and nods from the senior officer began to be replaced by agitation and anger with each identical reply.

Finally, two police officers were called and the activist was taken to a holding area packed with mostly young Asian men awaiting deportation. The policemen were also unable to answer his queries, instead indicating that it was an immigration matter.

I am very sorry but I am going to have to say it again. Has anyone every read Franz Kafka's The Trial. The reason the officers involved are unable to provide an answer is because they don't know the reason. It would be on a need to know basis. One question remains, what law has been broken? No law has been broken, the powers that be have issued a dictat.

The ministry's communications director, Ong-Chew Peck Wan, said the activist had been indefinitely barred from entering the country for interfering in its domestic politics. Specifically, that was in January, when he had given a workshop to Singapore Democratic Party members at which he had promoted civil disobedience activities.

She said that the decision had been based on investigations following publication in March on the internet forum NewSintercom of an interview with Mr Moser-Puangsuwan.

"From what was disclosed at that interview and subsequent investigations, Yeshua was found to have conducted a political action workshop in Singapore in January 2005," Ms Ong-Chew said. "This was aimed to teach Singaporeans how to wage a non-violent campaign of civil disobedience against the government so as to liberate and expand civil rights of Singaporean citizens who, he deludes himself to believe, are living under dire oppression and injustice.

Other deluded groups and individuals are Reporters Without Borders, Amnesty International, the US State Department, Acidflask, Martyn See, Dr Chee, Shanmugam [not technically deluded, because he was killed for trafficking cannabis], Death Row inmates, those held without trial, Gay Event organisers... And again I would like to state that the internet in Singapore is under very close observation. Its like they've hired an army or group of civil servants to do nothing but monitor the internet, maybe write a few blogs while they are at it.

The government's contention that Singapore's politics were reserved for Singaporeans was reiterated. "Foreigners, like Yeshua, with no stake in the future of Singapore, will not be allowed to interfere in Singapore's domestic politics, much less to instigate, agitate and promote civil disobedience among targeted segments of society, against the laws of the country," the spokeswoman said.

She maintained that those who did were not welcome in Singapore

Instigate -
1. to provoke, to stir up civil disobedience
Agitate -
1. To cause to move with violence or sudden force.
2. To upset; disturb: was agitated by the alarming news.
3. To arouse interest in (a cause, for example) by use of the written or spoken word; debate.
Promote
To contribute to the progress or growth of; further.
3. To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.
4. To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity: commercials promoting a new product.
5. To help establish or organize

The words appear similar, but the crux of the matter is 'civil disobedience'-
Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.

So change of a Singaporean governmental policy has to come from within? But isn't civil society in Singapore non-existent? Isn't every young, possible 'civil' group co-opted under an umbrella of a government linked organisation, thus turning the once 'civil' group into a 'civic' group.

And on a more personal note, does this blog 'Singabloodypore' mean that I am engaged in encouraging civil disobedience? Is discussing policies, laws, decisions online an act of instigating, agitating? On a very quick look at the list I think agitate, with its reference to 'the written word' would apply to this blog. But I don't believe I am attempting to cause 'civil disobedience', unless of course 'Freedom of Speech' is defined as civil disobedience in Singapore. Is there a law banning free speech?

Veteran journalist and commentator Ravi Veloo, is then quoted as follows:

"What they're really worried about is demographics and enlarging the tax base," he said during a business trip to Kuala Lumpur.

"The quickest way to do that is to import more foreign bodies in the name of foreign talent. The dilemma is how to have more people here, especially from abroad, without altering the political landscape which they've developed over the past 50 years and works very significantly to their favour."

But Mr Veloo rejected suggestions that Singapore was a brighter, breezier place because of the push for change.

"These are just superficial flourishes of the brush, but the paint is still the same colour," he said. "Singapore's the only country in the world that has moved forward so impressively in terms of technology and the economy, but it is still so retarded politically."

Politically 'retarded', wonderful command of the English Language. Sums it up nicely.

The entire article is available here.

Human Rights

Last Chance to Vote

If you have already voted then "thank you" regardless of who you voted for. If you haven't voted yet, time is running out, so please vote today. Make sure you provide a valid email address so that your vote can be verified.

Reporters Without Borders in partnership with the "Best of the Blogs awards" of Deutsche Welle,is calling on Internet-users to vote online for award-winners from among 60 blogs defending freedom of expression.

Singabloodypore has been nominated in the Asia category. To show your support please visit Reporters Without Borders and vote. Or click on the image.


Closing date on 1st June 2005.


For more details view here.


Many thanks to Mr Miyagi, Simon World, Civiblog, & Myrick, for linking.



Human Rights

Government Sanctioned Blogosphere of Singapore

Is the Singaporean blogosphere being invaded by the government? Who invited the government to the convention or has the entire convention simply been devised and planned by the government?

http://tribolum.com/archives/2005/06/01/bloggerssg.php
There’s a conspiracy at hand. Shine!, a government initiative, is funding (even if it is only the refreshments) the first Singapore Bloggers Convention.

No longer will you be able to hide behind online monikers like AcidFlask or Mr. Brown. Participants, please register at the table with your identity cards and your URLs.

What: Bloggers.SG
When: 16th July 2005
Where: Woodlands Regional Library


Please get in line so they’ll know who to sue should you have slightly controversial ramblings on your “web blog”.

http://chuacw.ath.cx/chewy/archive/2005/06/01/1332.aspx
Still think that blogs in Singapore are not "pick your favourite word here" by the Govt?
Well, here's proof.

Bloggers.SG 2005, the first upcoming Bloggers Convention of Singapore, would be held at the Woodlands Regional Library.

Let's review all the clues.

Tomorrow.sg, started by a staff of IDA.

Bloggers.SG 2005, held at a location owned by the state.
Refreshments provided by Shine, which is...

The Ministry for Community Development and Sport


QED.

Human Rights

Hong Kong journalist Ching Cheong accused of spying

Reporters Without Borders expressed dismay at accusations of spying levelled against Ching Cheong by the Chinese foreign ministry. The authorities in Beijing announced on 31 May that the correspondent for the Singapore daily Straits Times had confessed to being a spy in the pay of foreign agencies. The official statement read, "Ching Cheong confessed : Following instructions from a foreign intelligence agency, he engaged in intelligence gathering activities in China and received significant a large spying fee." The management of Straits Times said it was shocked at these accusations. The journalist's wife, Mary Lau, told the press that her husband had told her he could be held for a long period. She also explained that he had apparently fallen into a trap set by an intermediary as he was trying to obtain recordings of secret interviews with former prime minister Zhao Ziyang.

--------------------------

Hong Kong journalist detained in Beijing for more than one month

30 May 2005

Reporters Without Borders called on Singapore and Britain to act to obtain the release of journalist Ching Cheong (photo), Hong Kong correspondent for the Singapore daily Straits Times who has been detained in Beijing for more than one month.

The Singapore-resident journalist, who was picked up by Chinese police in Guangzhou, southern China on 22 April, is the holder of a British National Overseas (BNO) passport specific to Hong Kong. He faces a possible charge of "stealing state secrets".

The Singapore and British governments should pressure for the immediate release of the journalist, the worldwide press freedom organisation said in letter addressed to the Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, and British Foreign Minister Jack Straw.

The organisation insisted that Singapore government had an obligation to protect the freedom of the journalist who was working for a pro-government newspaper Straits Times. The Singapore ministry of foreign affairs however stated on 30 May that the Chinese authorities had not contacted it about the subject so they did not have sufficient information.

Ching Cheong, 55, travelled to Guangzhou to collect documents connected with the former communist party leader, Zhao Ziyang, who died in January while under house arrest for negotiating with demonstrators in 1989.

Ching is the second journalist employed by a foreign newspaper to be detained in China. New York Times contributor, Zhao Yan, was arrested by Chinese authorities in October 2004 and accused of "divulging state secrets".

Human Rights