Managing The Internet

An interesting concern found on Sammyboy forum.

Anonymous said...
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages?msg=108393.1

Everybody knows SPH has just launched this STOMP website for youths.

Actually, it is a scam to distract youths from private blogs and forums that is Pro- Alternative Parties and centralised all the "Youth Issues" into one website controlled by the authorities.

Even Video is allowed to be uploaded. They hire all the Pro PAP bloggers like Xiaxue and Dawn Yang to spread the gospel.

Whill this STOMP website worked for PAP ?

This STOMP website is PAP's first trial run to manage,deal and fix the internet.

Will Youtubes and Blogspots truimph over STOMP?

In long run, Singaporeans might only be able to identify with STOMP and everyone MUST go that website to upload videos and speak your mind.

Like how NS men can only go NS Portal to do NS stuff.

This STOMP website might be a competitor against blogs like Yawning Bread, Gayle Goh etc

Youths today and voters of tomorrow might in the end get distorted information about Singapore politics again.

Until STOMP allows us to upload videos like WP crowds,AP Speeches and Chiam See Tong's Long March to Town Council clips, this STOMP website is considered PAP website.


STOMP is to reinforce people already inside the matrix so that they will never get out.

Maybe someone can try uploading Chiam's clips into STOMP and see what happen ?

The internet war has just begun and it is still early days.

STOMP was not really mean for us seasoned internet pros.

It was meant for those youths who are about to become seasoned internet pros.

The catch here is that these youths will read Pro PAP news instead of listening to us critisizing PAP.

Then PAP will have a internet following in 10 years time .

Whatever motive PAP have behind in creating STOMP should be self-defeated and make redundant.

STOMP advertisements are relentless and everywhere.

If PAP succeeds, the consequences are unthinkable.

Imagine an entire generation has already passed by for 40 years, hoodwinked into the matrix by SPH and Straits Times without bothering to think of the credibility of the news they read.

I do not wish to see the new generation with internet, sms, mms, 3G etc be also hoodwinked for another 40 years into matrix by the very same media, medium and tools they use to access information.


I can bet on STOMP being a useful tool and gathering point for Pro PAP videos, pictures and stories for GE 2010/2011.

PAP is starting to manage the internet.

Singapore

I'm the victim here, says Ravi

Lawyer facing action writes to the Law Society
Friday • June 30, 2006
Christie Loh
christie@newstoday.com.sg

Lawyer M Ravi (picture), 37, is facing the prospect of a temporary suspension — or worse, having his licence revoked — for insolence toward a female district judge, a case that comes in the wake of several instances of improper court behaviour.

But Mr Ravi wrote a letter to the Law Society yesterday, decrying what he called "a serious miscarriage of justice".

He argued that his case did not warrant an appearance before the Court of Three Judges. That is the legal profession's top disciplinary authority with the power to strike an errant lawyer off the rolls or suspend him for a maximum of five years.

The Law Society's disciplinary committee had referred Mr Ravi to the highest body after hearing of the solicitor's rude behaviour during a trial presided over by District Judge Wong Choon Ning three years ago.

Mr Ravi's poor behaviour included speaking loudly while other cases were being heard, and remaining seated while being addressed by the judge.

Because Justice Wong lodged a complaint with the Law Society, the matter was brought before its disciplinary committee which last week ordered Mr Ravi to pay the Law Society costs of $2,000 and also decided to involve the Court of Three Judges.

Mr Ravi, who has forked out more than $5,000 for four previous transgressions, told Today that he would pay the latest penalty. But he insisted that the Law Society had no case against him.

He explained that Justice Wong had accepted his apology. And because she refused to testify against him, the Law Society should then have either dropped all the charges, or proceeded with the case without the judge's evidence, which could eventually lead to the charge not being proved.

However, neither course of action was taken, as the Law Society went on to amend the charges, resulting in a less serious case against Mr Ravi.

That confused the disciplinary committee, which chided the Law Society for not having understood the legal implications. But the committee still concluded that Mr Ravi should go before the Court of Three Judges because disrespect for judicial authority is "like poison transfused into the system little by little attracting less than serious attention," the committee said in its report.

"As a result of a series of misdirections, I am now a victim," Mr Ravi said in his letter.

When contacted, Law Society's communications assistant director Shawn Toh said he had not seen the letter.

"I don't know how the Council will respond. They may choose to ignore it or not," he added.

Mr Ravi, who is representing the Singapore Democratic Party's Dr Chee Soon Juan in a defamation case filed against him by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, received support from his client.

Dr Chee said that if Mr Ravi was suspended, it could deprive SDP leaders of legal representation.

Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.

Singapore cited in Report to US Senate

29 Jun 06
From Singapore Democrats

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) recently presented its findings on the development of democracy around the world to the US Congress and made a couple of pointed references to the PAP.

On 8 June 2006, Mr Carl Gershman, President of the NED, presented a 52-page report before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Backlash Against Democracy Assistance.

Mr Gershman stated that foreign governments' efforts to constrain democracy assistance have recently intensified and now seriously impede democracy assistance in a number of states.

Despite these developments, however, the demand for democratic assistance is greater than ever. The report goes on to say that there is a long history of successful democracy assistance, even in challenging circumstances.

In its conclusion, the report outlines a number of concrete recommendations for Congressional actions to counter the new backlash.

The following are what the report said about the PAP:

“As democracy has spread, it has acquired the status of the only broadly legitimate form of government. Today, about three-fifths of all the world’s states—121 of 193 by Freedom House reckoning—are democracies. The collapse of twentieth century totalitarianism removed not only the greatest threats to democracy but also the only systemic and ideological alternatives. Similarly, democratization has largely undermined East Asian exceptionalism and transformed the tiger economies that once seemed to present modernizing authoritarianism as an alternative to democracy for developing economies. Singapore still represents this model and, to some extent, China may be seen as an updated version, offering economic growth—development, not democracy—as an excuse for maintaining authoritarian rule. But even these regimes and their would-be emulators claim to represent or aspire to a variant of democracy, not a serious alternative.”

“Punitive legal actions are another form of harassment, notably in Singapore. In February 2006,opposition politician Chee Soon Juan, secretary general of the Singapore Democratic Party, was bankrupted and, as a consequence, barred from contesting political office, following a punitive defamation suit brought by former prime ministers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong. Chee was barred from traveling to the World Movement for Democracy’s Istanbul assembly in May 2006 when immigration agents impounded his passport.”

For the full report, go to: http://www.ned.org/publications/reports/backlash06.pdf

Thoughts on the SM views of the GRC

I read this a few days back and was very shocked and mulled about it occasionally over with friends and decided to finally blog about it.

The Straits Times Article:

June 27, 2006

GRCs make it easier to find top talent: SM

Without good chance of winning at polls, they might not be willing to risk careers for politics

By Li Xueying

SENIOR Minister Goh Chok Tong yesterday gave a new take on the role of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) in Singapore politics.

Their role is not just to ensure minorities are adequately represented in Parliament, he said. They also contribute to Singapore's political stability, by 'helping us to recruit younger and capable candidates with the potential to become ministers'.

'Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics,' Mr Goh said at an event marking the appointment of members to the South East Community Development Council (CDC).

Introduction

In other words, the GRC system further allows the PAP to convince their choice of select Singaporeans to join PAP, win and serve the people. The GRC system is equated with the “assurance of a good chance of winning.” It is moot that such will only serve the party that has the ability to assure these select Singaporeans a good chance of winning.

There are four questions that could be raised, and their answers, reflect a situation that ought to be properly debated in Parliament.

The first question is whether this coincides with the nation’s best interest.

When the choice of leadership becomes further removed from the heart of democracy: popular choice, what are the potential effects? The PAP is suggesting implicitly that their choice is the right one, and will hence coincide with the nation’s best interest.

Alex Au asks, “Who gets to define talent?” and how subjective this might be. He also suggests that groupthink is a bad thing and this system creates groupthink.[1]

The fear I had and have is similar: the GRC system has the potential of focusing greater power on the hands in a single party. The PAP governs your life today, and now, it appears to indirectly govern the choice of your leaders in the future. This broken linkage between popular choice and leaders might be bad for the nation.

Who should do future leaders aspire to serve under such a scheme? Should they aspire to serve the people or the PAP? Will they aspire to serve the PAP more because the PAP is the party who shall give them the assurance to win? Legitimacy in a democracy comes from the people’s support, not party politics. Intelligent clear-headed inspired leaders will no doubt recognise that their final masters are the people, and no party. We have already agreed that PAP is not Singapore, and PAP is not the people.

The PAP is the ruling party while the people are your masters. Let no politicians, even those who are assured of winning, fail to recognise that. This system however, does not encourage explicitly, especially during election time, our would-be new leaders to recognize that.

This of course could be salvaged by sufficient party indoctrination and education that the PAP serves the People, and that individual politicians ultimate responsibility is the people. But how does that politician really know unless he gets that mandate directly?

The second question is what types of people are the PAP looking for

The article also suggests that some PAP winners need the assurance of victory before joining politics. “Society before self?” In other words, does it not imply that there are current PAP winners who will not have risked their careers to serve the people? The question whether this is a trait of suitable candidates were not questioned. Instead

SM Goh added,

'Why should they when they are on the way up in the civil service, the SAF, and in the professions or the corporate world?'

In other words, SM Goh feels that this is justified because these people were already so good, they only could lose by joining politics in Singapore and not taking risk is the norm. Are these the type of people Singapore want?

Of course these men and women might be great at their work and will serve Singapore truly well. Yet again, the answer to the second question exposes risks in the recruitment process as such people appear to be willing to put self over society when called to serve. They are not willing to take the plunge and the risk.

This again decreases moral authority. It might be more efficient, might attract “better people” but the GRC system seen in this perceptive places faith in the recruitment process. What if it goes wrong?

The third question is whether there are really risks in joining PAP politics

Let us assume that the first two questions are answered in the affirmative for the PAP; (that this truly serves the best interest of Singaporeans, and that this is the type of people we are looking for) the next question is whether such fears to their careers when they join PAP politics are justified.

I have personally never come across any report since the introduction of the GRC, which shows that ex-PAP candidates have done poorly or terrible relative to their ex careers after retirement from politics (save for those who ran foul of the law.) There are examples that joining the PAP might bring one less monetary incentives but that problem is already supposed to be fixed by the pegging of Ministers pay scale to the private sector.

Being unsure, I have doubts whether this is entirely accurate. In other words, the fears might not be even justified. Should policy decisions be made on fears that are not all that clear yet?

The fourth question is what this does to opposition politics?

By making it easier for the PAP new candidates to enter office, the system might deprive more deserving opposition candidates (deserving defined here by majority ballot votes in an imaginary one on one scenario).

Do Singaporeans want to make it more difficult for opposition members to enter Parliament?

Conclusion

At the end of it all, GRC does not make it easier to find top talent, as the headline suggests. What it does, however, is that it makes it easier for the PAP to pick future leaders for Singapore based on their criteria. A criterion that is explicitly un-required is that these talents do not need to risk their careers – need not risk their careers to serve the people. It creates a system where it is less clear the newly selected's mandate comes from the people. Finally, it makes things harder for the opposition.

Is that what we, Singaporeans, want?

---

[1] http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2006/yax-615.htm

Elections Department Needs to Explain

My Feedback to TODAY in response to the below article:

I am alarmed by the news report on the glitch causing ballot boxes to be reopened. The glitch puts in place questions on the secrecy and the handling of votes. It is an issue which requires attention and retification since it has occurred both, in 1980 and 1997.

The authorities need to explain how and why it occurred, the personnel involved, and how the secrecy of those voters whose ballot papers are sealed in both boxes will be protected.

This incident also questions the eligibility of voting. The Elections Department must explain why Singaporeans who did not vote for current or previous elections will have their names struck off the electoral list for future elections.

====

Glitch causes ballot boxes to be reopened
Thursday • June 29, 2006
Jasmine Yin
jasmine.yin@newstoday.com.sg

BALLOT boxes from two polling districts in Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) have to be re-opened, as the name lists of people who voted in the May 6 General Election (GE) were mistakenly sealed along with their counted ballot papers, the Elections Department said in a press statement yesterday.

President S R Nathan has directed an Order for Returning Officer Tan Boon Huat to "retrieve only" the name lists of AJ24 and AJ25 polling district voters "for the purpose of preparing the lists of electors in these two polling districts who failed to vote at the General Election 2006".

All eligible voters are required to cast their ballots in Singapore.

The lists of non-voters "cannot be prepared", the press statement read, because the names of voters "were inadvertently placed together with the counted papers and other documents by the staff at the Xinghua Primary School counting centre in the ballot boxes and sealed therein".

According to the Jan 9 edition of the Government Gazette, AJ24 includes the area bound by Upper Serangoon Road and Hougang Avenue 3, while AJ25 includes the area bound by Hougang Avenue 1, Hougang Avenue 3 and Tampines Road.

Aljunied GRC was one of the hotspots in last month's GE. The five-man People's Action Party (PAP) team led by Foreign Minister George Yeo won 56.09 per cent of the vote against the Workers' Party (WP) team.

The Elections Department said this was not the first time that ballot boxes — which are kept in the vault of the Supreme Court for six months after the polling day — have had to be unsealed. Similar instances have occurred in 1980 and 1997.

When told about the unsealing of the ballot boxes, 28-year-old unemployed Aljunied voter Mark Lim said he felt "uncomfortable", citing the serial numbers that were printed on the ballot papers.

Non-Constituency Member of Parliament and WP chairman Sylvia Lim, who led a team against the PAP in Aljunied, would only say: "I would like to reserve comment until I find out more about this."

PAP Member of Parliament for Aljunied Zainul Abidin Rasheed said: "To me, it sounds like a technical matter and I would leave it to the Elections Department to resolve."

The Elections Department said that the lists of non-voters in polling districts AJ24 and AJ25 will be published for inspection on or after Nov 6. The lists from other polling districts are now available for inspection at the Elections Department and designated community centres and clubs.

Those who failed to vote at the last General Election can apply to restore their name on the Registers of Electors with the Elections Department.

Visit www.elections.gov.sg for more information.

Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.

Poorer S'poreans earned less last year

Thursday • June 29, 2006
Lee U-Wen
u-wen@newstoday.com.sg

Lower-income Singaporeans earned less last year than in 2000, with higher unemployment and smaller wages just two possible reasons for the decline.

Last year's General Household Survey shows the average monthly household income from work dipped to $1,180, or by nearly 20 per cent, for the 11th to 20th percentile of wage earners, and to $2,190, or by about 5 per cent, for those in the 21st to 30th percentile.

This latest survey, conducted once every 10 years by the Department of Statistics, showed that the decline was caused partly by the growing number of homes with retirees and those without any income.

A department statement added that, compared to 2000, last year's higher unemployment and lower salaries could have also contributed to the dip. Homes with jobless family members typically fall into the lower income groups as the overall income generated from work falls when a person loses his job, explained the department.

The figures, however, do not take into account the various monetary handouts by the Government, such as this year's $2.6 billion Progress Package, which were primarily meant to help lower-income residents here.

On the whole, all ethnic groups in Singapore enjoyed a growth in their income levels between 2000 and last year. The monthly household income increased from $5,200 in 2000 to $5,600 last year for the Chinese. For the Malays, it went up from $3,200 to $3,400, while the Indian community saw a rise from $4,600 to $5,200.

Ironically, it was the top 10 per cent of wage earners who enjoyed the largest increase in monthly household income. The average of $16,480 was 14.8 per cent higher than the $14,360 earned by this group in 2000.

The average household monthly income across the board last year was $5,200. After factoring in low inflation, the income increased in real terms between 2000 and last year by 1.1 per cent a year.

Besides income levels, this latest instalment of the household survey focused on Singaporeans' habits when it came to taking public transport, going on vacation and the type of house they resided in. Download the full report from www.singstat.gov.sg.

Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.

Who is Lionel De Souza?

Who exactly is Lionel De Souza? Who does he work for? Why are his letters continually published in The Straits Times? Why do his views always adhere to the views of the establishment and the PAP? Is he really a member of the Peoples Action Party or someone who acts as a confederate for the policies and actions of the ruling party? Is he the editor writing under a pseudonym?

And as for - "I am certain that if this letter is published in The Straits Times, netizens and other cyber-terrorists will have a field day posting all kinds of nasty or defamatory remarks against me." I am not a cyber terrorist and my name is Steven McDermott aka soci, John Hicky and currently a research student in Scotland.

And the reason most bloggers attempt to remain anonymous is to protect themselves from defamation and sedition cases for speaking their mind - defending freedom of speech. Something I am sure you believe is readily available with the Straits Times regardless of what those annoying international independent organisations argue.

Regarding the Char case - I hope that the judge throws it out of court. The sedition act covers race and class and attacking, laughing at and offending a religion is a pillar of freedom of speech. Char was right to post the images and right to defend him or herself against the accuser. This time we have a religious 'jobs worth' arguing that he was 'offended'. Christianity and the iconography of Jesus Christ offends many, the persecution of non-believers, the Pope's refusal to endorse condoms in the fight against AIDS, christian fundamentalists in the US White House, the dangers and absurdities of organised religion 'offend me' but I sure will not be calling on the police force to endurse my belief system.

June 22, 2006S from nofearSingapore...

ITNews:
Bloggers should have the conviction to stand behind any statements they make and not hide under the cloak of anonymity

I refer to the report, 'Divided views over police checks on blogger' (The Sunday Times, June 18).

Personally, I have developed a great distaste and distrust of bloggers who post anonymously or use pseudonyms to disguise their identities. I can understand that sometimes anonymous postings are unavoidable. However, when postings on the Internet are seditious or have a tendency to deliberately wound the religious feelings of any person, the perpetrator of the posting should have the full weight of the law brought to bear on him or her.

It appears to be the norm for bloggers to hide under the cloak of anonymity or use pseudonyms to blame, insult and rant out against the Government or individuals believing that their postings can better the political process or current events concerning Singapore. Netizens have no legal or constitutional right to condemn the whistle blower who brought blogger Char's blasphemous posting of pictures of Jesus Christ on the Internet to the attention of the police. The conduct of netizens is similar to that of cyber terrorists since netizens have unashamedly condoned the seditious posting of Char, which could have sparked off strong reaction as did the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in a Danish newspaper in February this year. Fortunately, Char's blasphemous and seditious posting happened in Singapore, a country of tolerance. I am certain that if this letter is published in The Straits Times, netizens and other cyber-terrorists will have a field day posting all kinds of nasty or defamatory remarks against me. They will do so anonymously or using pseudonyms. To these cyber-terrorists I say, 'Be brave and don't hide under the cloak of anonymity or use pseudonyms'.

They should have the conviction to stand behind any statements they make. If they do not have the confidence and passion to put their names beside their statements, I am sure that all right-thinking people cannot take them seriously. It appears to be the current trend for bloggers to hide under the cloak of anonymity to act irresponsibly by ranting and musing about current events. If their ratings and musings do not cross the line of fair comment, they are free to do as they please. However, for bloggers who choose to post seditious and inflammatory comments that could cause anarchy by damaging the fabric of religious and racial harmony; they should be dealt with vigorously under the law. Cases of this nature should not be dealt with by the Community Court where the punishment meted out could be probation and performing a number of hours doing community service. They deserve a more deterrent punishment. I hope that I do not sound 'sub-judice', but I hope that blogger Char receives his just deserts for his blasphemous and seditious posting.
Lionel De Souza

Singapore

Goh Chok Tong admits that GRCs are meant to skew

An extract from Yawning Breads article regarding an interview for The Straits Times.

Goh Chok Tong admits that GRCs are meant to skew

As if Lee Hsien Loong's remarks denigrating Australia were not enough to convince people how anti-democratic the Singapore government is, Senior Minister (and former PM) Goh Chok Tong has now provided more evidence.

In his latest speech, Goh said that one of the purposes of Group Representation Constituencies [1] was to help People's Action Party (PAP) candidates win election easily.

There! He has admitted it. The State and its electoral system have been corrupted to serve partisan ends.

to continue reading...

Singapore

Email Reply on article, ""No regrets over glint of toughness on democracy, says Lee"

With regards to the online news report, in New Zealand Herald, "No regrets over glint of toughness on democracy, says Lee" published on Wednesday June 21, 2006, written by John Roughan, I subsequently sent an email reply to his article. I have yet to hear a reply.

===

Dear Mr Roughan,

As a Singaporean currently travelling overseas in Australia, I am glad to to be able to read online about the Singapore Prime Minister’s press conference from your paper. In my opinion, the New Zealand Herald has chosen a much more objective reporting on the Singapore’s Prime Minister visit to New Zealand than any of the Singaporean press.

While the paper has tried to present as much as possible an objective report, some of the comments made by the Singapore Prime Minister needs to be challenged. I hope New Zealand Herald will publish my letter or at the very least, do another more in-depth story on the political situation in Singapore. I believe this is crucial as the free trade agreement between New Zealand and Singapore; as well as both countries’ close ties mean that the political situation back at home generally has an impact on New Zealand. New Zealanders must recognize that Singapore is not a democracy, as its leaders claim; and that the authoritarian Singapore government retains a tight grip on the city state in many political and social aspects.

In Singapore, it is not uncommon for PAP and especially its leaders to call Opposition names. Our Singapore Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien, has now chosen to call Dr Chee names in an overseas trip. His father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, has also done the same over the years against his critics. During the last election, Mr Lee Kuan Yew called Mr James Gomez, an Opposition Party Candidate for the Worker’s Party, “a bad egg”. Upon calling their opponents’ names, they go on to taunt the other party to sue them for defamation. As is commonly well-known, no one has ever won any defamation suit against the Lees. Even foreign papers have been forced to issue apologies or risk having their circulation curtailed.

With regards to the defamation suit that both Mr Lee and his son has chosen to file against SDP and its Council Executive Committee members, Dr Chee and his sister has chosen to stand firm, while the other members has chosen to apologise. This occurred prior to the recent General Elections over an alleged defamatory article printed on the New Democrat, which is the Singapore Democrat’s Party newsletter. Currently, the Lees have applied for a summary judgement on this case which means that it will be decided in chambers behind closed-doors. It is ironic that the Lees, who felt that they have been wrongly defamed, have chosen to avoid an open hearing.

Mr Lee also mentioned that permits are required for outdoor gathering. Again, it is well-known that the government has constantly denied application permits for protests.

When Mr Lee said that we can have “any number of gatherings (by which he means indoors) [and] you can publish anything you like in writing”, it is again misleading to readers who are unaware of what is happening in Singapore.

Indoor political gatherings such as forums have been subjected to intrusion by the secret police department, commonly known as the Internal Security Department in Singapore. Such gatherings do not allow overseas speakers to participate. The government has banned Amnesty International spokesperson, Mr Tim Parritt, from speaking in an anti-death penalty forum on 16 April 2005. The government has also detained and deported Mr Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan, a representative of Nonviolence International from Singapore's Changi airport, on the evening of 13th May as he was invited to Singapore to conduct a non-violence workshop.

It would be of interest to readers of this paper that the PAP pays its ministers highly grotesque amount salaries. The government maintains that it is necessary to keep “talent and making sure we were the best qualified team.” Such vague terms are debatable. Not to mention that the Singaporean population has never been consulted on this issue.

Mr Lee also said that the government keeps “a broad central view of Singapore” in perspective. He said, “We are not representing one section of the population, workers against employers or any other group. We are representing the whole country."

In that regard, how does he explain that the government continues to repress the rights of the sexual minority? Homosexuality remains a punishable crime and People Like Us, a gay rights group, was denied legal registration as a society. The government also banned Fridae.com, a regional gay portal, from holding outdoor dance parties such as Nation, Snowball and Feeling Good. The government has refused to act constructively against the increasing HIV rates amongst the MSM (Men Who have Sex with Men) community but instead, chose to react with a homophobic attitude. How does the government expect the community to deal with HIV if it chooses to see gays as a “outsiders” or worse “criminal outcasts”?

The Singapore government has also refused to pass legislations which will elevate the plight of foreign domestic workers. On December 6 2005, the international NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a detailed report on actual and potential abuses of foreign domestic workers and recommended remedial actions.

Mr Lee also mentioned that Singapore conducts “elections” and that there are other Opposition parties, news media and blogs in Singapore; which unfortunately only “keep up the appearance” of a democracy. The Singapore Elections are neither free and fair. The campaign period is over a limited period of 8 days and political parties are denied of using effective means to reach out to voters, even on the Internet. There is a list of do’s and don’ts on what is allowed. The Singapore Democratic Party podcast was removed during the campaigning period to comply with regulations. Blogging and vodcasting is also banned during this period as citizen journalists are barred from reporting on rallies or commentaries (though some bloggers have refused to comply with the regulations). Anonymity is however not guaranteed in blogosphere. The police is recently investigating a blogger for posting Jesus Cartoons. It has charged three bloggers for “sedition” on making racist comments.

The police has harrassed individual activists over the years. Martyn See, who made a short documentary, entitled, Singapore Rebel, about Dr Chee, has had his equipment confiscated and questioned for an extended period of time. The police has however not filed any charges. It is effectively a dasmacus sword and a precautionary tale to Singaporean filmmakers. Mr Robert Yeo, an internet activist, has a less well-known story to tell. After distributing leaflets at a shopping mall which raised questions about the counting process in the 1997 General Election in Cheng San GRC, the police went to his house, arrested and sent him to the Institute of Mental Health. His computer was also seized.

Mr Lee closed his speech saying that human rights are familiar issues to Western journalists and maybe readers, but that it does not define Asia. He said that New Zealanders need to come and learn how people live.

As a Singaporean and more importantly, a human being, I take offence at Mr Lee’s remarks which suggest that Asians are either non humans or a substandard derivative form of living being. Unfortunately, as a Singaporean, I cannot openly criticize our Prime Minister and the comments he make. In what way then, can he claim, that Singapore is a democracy.

What I have written in this letter, is just the tip of the iceberg of the going ons in Singapore.

I hope the paper will publish my letter or do another in-depth story on the political situation in Singapore. I will be very happy to provide any information that I am in possess of. I would also encourage the editors of the paper to contact the various people who are involved with the democratic struggle in Singapore, if there is a need to do so.

I-S Magazine interview with Sylvia Lim

The fever of the elections has passed, the dust has settled. Sylvia Lim, Chairman of Worker’s Party, leads the highest-scoring opposition team, winning 43.9 percent of votes at Aljunied GRC.

Newly appointed as Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP), she gives Sharon Lim an insider view....

Stepping into the interview in a bright pink chinois jacket and a pair of jeans, Sylvia Lim looks relaxed and unassuming- nothing like the persona portrayed during the nine-day hustings. Personable and eloquent, answers easily roll off her tongue when asked about politics and the work of her party.

But delve into Sylvia Lim the person, and long pauses and hesitation fill the air. Realistic and practical, she typifies the composed party leader with her feet {and ear) firmly on the ground.

Don't expect her to be championing women's causes in Parliament. Her passion lies in the bread and butter issues of the regular Joe. And bring up the fact that she is the first woman opposition MP since 1963, she retorts, "So what if I am male or female. It doesn't make a difference."

From a supporter who donated bottles of birds' nest drinks for each Workers' Party candidate, to an anonymous man who sent Lim constructive feedback on her rally speeches every day via email, to the hordes that attended the nightly rallies, these actions surprised, touched and affirmed her cause in giving Singaporeans another voice in politics.

Q: Did you feel that you were given justified media coverage during the elections?
A: I think this round, generally, the English and Chinese papers did not represent the Workers' Party in a bad light. And because of this, it affected voters' perception of us as well. So people started to think, "Hey, Workers' Party is not crazy." But then, we could have had more coverage vis a vis PAP, but that's" the way things are.

Q: "The way things are." Is that a resigned statement or ...?
A: It's born out of a sense of realism and also from having worked with people who have been in opposition politics longer. They'll tell you "Oh, it's so much better than the previous elections, don't complain." So there is a little bit of taking the scraps that fall from the table, that kind of thing.
Of course we want things to improve, but we can't expect things to improve in quantum leaps overnight, so we try to push the boundaries. I find sometimes also that because people are too resigned to the fact that the status quo will remain, that there's no inclination for change, and that's wrong. Because if you've ever tried to push the boundaries, you will realise that things can happen. If you're there and you're prepared to take a risk, things will happen.

Q: What part of campaigning did you find enjoyable? ..
A: I think it was enjoyable to know that a party of our size - which is nothing compared to the PAP - can make some waves. So it's always good to know that you don't have to have a lot of money or a lot of manpower to make some difference. Even little steps do matter. People are prepared to come forward to join the party and stand as candidates against the PAP. These are the pillars on which bigger things will be founded.

Q: What was the high point for you?
A: I found the Serangoon Stadium rally quite a high point for me. It was the final rally, first of all.
Secondly, it was the one and only rally site that we had where we could see the audience, because the stadium was very well lit and we could see people's faces. That was very very uplifting. And we ended off the whole thing with the pledge - and I think there was some sense of unity of purpose, some solidarity with the people.

Q: What was the lowest point?
A: For me personally, I think there were times when I thought that I didn't do as well as I could. For example, for the party political broadcast on Tv; the feedback was that I came across as arrogant, blah, blah, blah. I didn't intend to be so, but I realised that it's got a lot to do with media training. Other than that, what I imagined the campaign to be eventually turned out to be not as scary as I thought.

Q: Were you scared?
A: I wasn't scared at all. But initially, you know, when you think of it in vacuo, you think that the PAP is going to dig out everything you've done from the time you were in kindergarten or whatever. I was waiting for that, but nothing came. In the end, they were just harping on the J. Gomez thing.

Q: What is your feeling on the outcome of the James Gomez incident?
A: I was surprised that the police gave him a warning. Not because I felt that he had done anything wrong.

Q: Was there any point in time when you thought, "Yah, we actually have a chance of winning."
A: Such thoughts do cross my mind, but generally I know that we really need to be prepared for the worst, because if we win or if our margins are poor or whatever, we still have to face the media and the people. And we have to be composed at that point, you see. So it's always important to be prepared for all eventualities.

Q: Were you pleased that you actually met your 40 percent target?
A: I wouldn't say it was a target, but we are pleased that the voters showed that they were prepared to support us. We were not really surprised by the results, but I think we still hoped that we could have done better

Q: How did you feel when the Party decided that you would be the NCMP?
A: I felt a sense of responsibility, that I have to do it properly. And also not to let down the people who had voted for us.

Q: What can we expect from you in Parliament? What kind of issues will you be championing?
A: The traditional concerns that WP tends to raise, i.e. to speak up for those who are not doing very well under the free market economy. So we'll be watching issues like cost of living, health care costs, retirement concerns. Ar the same time also, because I'm legally trained, I will be reviewing the legislation concerning Parliament, which I've been helping Mr Low to do for the past few years anyway. So I'll be speaking up on that. And personally, I guess I will take an interest in some of the law and order debates. But I must add that I'm not there to canvass my own causes.

Q: What is your mantra, speaking generally?
A: Fairness. I think people should be treated fairly. I think that's the fundamental principle.

Q: Do you think you're misunderstood?
A: No, not really (laughs). I don't think people's impressions of me have fossilised yet. It's hard to put this in a neutral way. People have come up to me after the elections, in public places, and told me things like "Thank you for what you're doing," "Thank you for giving us a choice: and "Don't give up." So for whatever reason, I think that they believe that what we're doing is actually something for them. Which I think is really (pause) it! We're not in this for ourselves because, frankly speaking, the benefits you get are (laughs), you know, let's not talk about that. There are some sacrifices made, because we think that it is probably better for Singaporeans in Singapore if there are elections where people have choices. And because of that, if the people perceive it, then I think we've achieved quite a lot.

Q: That speaks of the party, but what about you?
A: Similarly too, I think, okay, I don't know about everyone, and I'm sure some people hate me, but ah ...

Q: Does that concern you?
A: You can't please everyone, so that's okay. But I think so long as the average person believes that I am sincere in what I'm trying to do on the Workers' Party platform, that is try to advance their interest and keep the government accountable, so long as people believe that, I think that would be good enough.

Q: Do you think people believe this?
A: It may be too early to form a definitive judgment, but I think, based on the elections feedback and all that, that people do believe that I'm sincere in what I'm trying to do. It's something that is a long haul thing, you know. Of course I'm not saying that I'm going to be around forever. I think, personally, I would commit my time and energy if I feel that there's support for the things we're trying to do and we're making headway. But if I find that we're not making headway, then what's the point. I mean, we all have lives to lead, right?

Q: You're a public figure now. How does that make you feel?
A: I think that's alright. I think I can still bear with that. But I suppose I have to be more circumspect in the things I do. So I guess you can expect me to be going out of Singapore more (hearty laughs). Like just yesterday I went down to my neighbourhood coffee shop dressed in my home clothes. I put on sunglasses to try to look as unrecognisable as possible. I was waiting for my mother, actually, and along came this group of retirees, and they said "Oh, we finally get to meet you" or something like that. It was very, very touching. They were supporters of Workers' Party. And they told me about the rallies they had attended and gave me feedback. It's useful to remain in contact and be approachable. We don't want that to change.

Q: So who is Sylvia Lim?
A: I'm idealistic, but I'm also a very practical person. So I would make sactifices for my ideals, but still try not to break the law in doing that.

Q: Is being Chairman of WP and lecturer at Temasek Polytechnic your entire life? Or is there more to it?
A: No, no, it isn't. I would say it takes up quite a lot of my time. I still have time left over, which I save for a few things like my family, close friends and mysel£ And I will always leave that pocket there, because I think that's very important for my sanity.
I-S Magazine

-via Little Speck

Singapore

Stop unlawful execution of Africans: M Ravi

From the Singapore Democrat:

The following is an appeal to the international community launched by human rights lawyer Mr M Ravi, urging the international community – in particular the Nigerian and South African Governments – to take action to stop the unlawful hanging of Amara Tochi (Nigerian) and Nelson Malachy (South African) in Singapore.

Background

The High Court in Singapore had imposed Death Sentence on Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi. 19, a Nigerian and Okele Nelson Malachy, 33, who is stateless (from South Africa).

On the 16th March 2006, the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals. As a last resort, they can file appeal for clemency to the President. It is clear from previous clemency petitions that the President hardly grants clemency.

In Singapore, "the law presumes that a person caught in possession of prohibited drugs knows that he is in possession of some drugs, with the burden of rebutting the presumption on the person charged."

Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi thought that he was carrying African herbs that tasted like chocolate. On 28 November 2004, he was arrested at the Changi Airport transit lounge with heroin. He had with him 100 capsules of heroin weighing about 727.02 grams.

Tochi was arrested for allegedly carrying heroin while Malachy was nabbed in a subsequent police operation after Tochi identified him as one of his companions. The court in Singapore handed the death sentence after a 13-day trial. It is disturbing to note that the learned trial judge himself having raised reasonable doubts proceeded to convict them.

Against Tochi the trial judge Mr.Kan Ting Chiu made the following finding at paragraph 42 of his judgment [2005] SGHC 233:

"There was no direct evidence that he knew the capsules contained diamorphine. There was nothing to suggest that Smith had told him they contained diamorhine, or that he had found that out of his own."

Against Malachy, the trial judge made the following finding at paragraph 61 of his judgment:

"Although there was no direct evidence that the accused knew that the capsules contained drugs, and there is no presumption of such knowledge raised against him…"

According to Amnesty International 2005 report. Singapore has the highest rate of executions per capita in the world. Most of the executions arise from trafficking of drugs and the laws have been applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.

Unjust Criminal Laws in Singapore

The criminal laws of Singapore are completely weighted against the accused for example; confession alone can be relied upon in sentencing a person to death. Also, there is no right to pre-trial discovery on accused statements or admissions.

It is almost impossible to rebut the presumption where the burden is reversed on the accused to prove his innocence. Further, accused person can be convicted solely on the uncorroborated and unsupported evidence of the co-accused. Also the courts here have declared they have no jurisdiction or powers to reopen a case even if there is fresh evidence adduced before execution. In one case, which I argued on the eve of the execution asking for a retrial, the then-Chief Justice who presided the case maintained that an innocent man can be hanged in Singapore due to procedural matters.

Singapore practices Mandatory Death Sentence in that it takes away the discretionary powers from the judges in precluding them from looking into extenuating and particular circumstances of the individual cases. Once the accused is convicted of trafficking eg: 15 grams of heroin, death sentence is mandated.

Recent campaigns against mandatory death sentence in Singapore

In the recent case involving an Australian, Van Nguyen Tuong, 25, who was ruthlessly hanged in Singapore amidst international criticism, I filed a complaint to the UN Rapporteur Philip Alston against the mandatory death sentence imposed on Van Nguyen.

In response, Mr Alston a press release condemning the mandatory death sentence imposed on Van Nguyen as being unlawful under International law.

Although less than half the world’s nations support death penalty (including Nigeria) very few of them practice mandatory death sentence. A former Singapore High Court judge had argued recently that the practice of mandatory death sentence is unconstitutional in Singapore.

I have been extensively campaigning along with other civil society groups in Singapore against the mandatory death sentence in the past. Recently, I was the counsel for two high profile cases where my clients were executed despite my eleventh hour appeal applications in court taken out on the eve of the execution on grounds of miscarriage of justice.

Prejudice against African nationals in Asia

There have been a spate of executions of African Nationals across Asia, which had gone unnoticed. The Australian and Western counterparts get different treatment in the media eg; German national Julia Bohl who was convicted for trafficking drugs escaped the gallows in Singapore. McCrea, an Australian charged for committing double murder in Singapore received clemency even before his trial commenced. Last week, McCrea's double murder charges had been reduced to one of manslaughter.

It is important that, the international community and the media stand united in lending their voice to protect our African brothers from being treated in a discriminatory manner as executions of Africans rarely get the attention of the international or local media. Also many young African males are lured to Asia by attractive sports and athletic deals but end up being exploited as petty drug traffickers.

Appeal to take immediate action

In this sprit, I also appeal to the African nations and civil societies across Africa to appeal to Nigeria and South Africa to bring the present matter to the International Court of Justice and challenge the mandatory death sentence imposed against Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi and Okele Nelson Malachy. I repeat that the mandatory death sentence in Singapore was declared unlawful by the UN in November 2005. I am prepared to lend my assistance to Nigeria and South Africa to refer the matter to the International Court of Justice and to argue the case.

I will continue to network with International organizations like American Bar Association, Amnesty International, and Australian Coalition against Death Penalty to highlight this grave situation in Singapore and I will carry the campaign across Europe, African and Asia to abolish the mandatory death sentence in Singapore.

I also urge all the anti-death penalty activists and like-minded Singaporeans to join hands in support of the upcoming campaign to prevent the impending and unlawful execution of the two Africans.

In Peace,

M Ravi
Lawyer, M Ravi & Co
Singapore
mravilaw@gmail.com

Singapore

SDP: Once more into the Breach

"In the recent burst of court cases, has the SDP breached the MIW's defences by subtly attacking the links between the judiciary and the ruling party? Or is their confrontational deliberate law-breaking activism actually their political folly?"

More

Airport powder scare sees hundreds quarantined

25/06/2006
ABC News Online

Adelaide airport is in chaos this afternoon because of a yellow powder found on bags on the international luggage carousel.

Up to 400 people have been quarantined in the airport's international terminal.

The powder was noticed on luggage that had been carried on a Singapore Airlines flight, which arrived just after 7.30am ACST.

Emergency crews are struggling to identify the powder because remote equipment is failing to work from inside the terminal.

Adelaide Airport's public relations manager John McArdle says some of the passengers managed to get to a taxi and leave the airport before authorities could quarantine them.

"I understand that some of them got into a taxi and authorities are trying to track them down."

Mr McArdle says passengers on all incoming international flights are being put into quarantine.

"Incoming international aircraft and being unloaded and people are being placed into a secure lounge ... and they will be processed as soon as the product is identified as being safe," he said.

Mr McArdle says some passengers came in contact with the powder when they picked up their luggage from the carousel, he says they then inadvertently transferred the powder onto other passengers.

Mr McArdle says there were 200 people on the initial flight and another 150 have since arrived on other flights.

"This is a real incident and this is the first of the major incidents that we've had," he said.

"We're more than happy with how the process is handled. My feeling would be that the delay would escalate through the day."

===
Found in a Singapore Airlines flight... Did it come from Singapore? If it did, how did it get past the Singapore customs? Is it a possible prank? If they are some form of poisonous materials used by terrorists, does it mean that they are already using the powder in Singapore for terrorists means?

Philippines stops death penalty

By Sarah Toms
BBC News, Manila

Philippines President Gloria Arroyo has signed a law abolishing the death penalty just two weeks after Congress passed the legislation.

As a result the sentences of the 1,200 inmates on death row will be now be commuted to life imprisonment.

Mrs Arroyo said she welcomed the change but insists she is not softening her stance on fighting crime or terrorism.

Mrs Arroyo has been under pressure from the influential Roman Catholic church to scrap capital punishment.

The signing comes as she prepares to head to Rome for an audience with Pope Benedict XVI.

Earlier this month legislators in the Philippines, a mainly Catholic country, voted overwhelmingly to abolish capital punishment. By Philippine standards the bill was pushed through in record time.

Violent crime wave

In a speech Mrs Arroyo said "we yield to the high moral imperative dictated by God to walk away from capital punishment".

Earlier she had assured the public that the end of the death penalty did not mean there would be a soft stance against criminals.

The Philippines is plagued by violent crime with guns readily available and used in even minor disputes. Supporters of capital punishment say they fear the repeal will result in more crime.

The repeal comes just days before Mrs Arroyo visits the Vatican for an audience with Pope Benedict XVI.

Some analysts see the repeal of the death penalty as an attempt to win support from bishops for the president's plan to move to a parliamentary system of government.

Others say Mrs Arroyo is trying to diffuse opposition from the church to the government's efforts to revive mining.

The death penalty was abolished once before in 1987 but was re-imposed seven years later after a rise in crime.

Under that law seven executions were carried out by lethal injection, but in 2000, the then president, Joseph Estrada, ordered a moratorium after strong lobbying by the church, the European Union and human rights groups.

==

Thought this may be of interest since Philippines, it appears, despite their crime rates (which is seen as higher than Singapore), opposes the death penalty. The article also mentioned that Arroyo was under pressure from the Roman Catholic Church to scrap capital punishment. The Pope's Special Envoy Cardinal Renato Martino was in Singapore for a few days to visit Nathan. Did the religious leader pressurise the Singapore government on the death penalty? Apparently not, else it would have made news...

World Bank seeks street protests in Singapore

By Marwaan Macan-Markar
IPS
24 June 06
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33721


Activists familiar with street protests outside the venues of annual meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) are in for a different treat at this year's gathering.

Singapore, the host country of the mid-September event, is sparing little to ensure that it lives up to its legacy as an affluent city state where universally accepted democratic principles -- such as the right to freedom of association -- are banned. The South-east Asian nation's penchant for thought control will be evident enough for the expected 16,000 delegates.

Till now, a broad group of activists who have written a letter to Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, requesting the government to permit the traditional anti-Bank protests, have still to receive a reply. ''(We are concerned) about the impending restrictions and threats reportedly being made that will hamper meaningful civil society participation at the upcoming ... meeting,'' the letter, sent in March, said.

The World Bank, however, has stepped in to assure activists that space for civil society is being negotiated to avoid what some critics of the international financial institutions says will undermine the credibility of the Bank's claims to promote good governance, accountability, transparency and democracy.

''We are working closely with the IMF and with the Singapore Government -- and have been for many months -- to ensure that diverse civil society voices are very much heard before, during and after the Annual Meetings,'' writes Peter Stephens of the Bank's Singapore office in a letter to the non-governmental organisations (NGOs). ''We believe that meaningful civil society engagement is critical to the effectiveness of the meetings.''

The letter also dismisses the argument made by the NGOs that the Bank and the IMF are trying to shut the door on the world's poor by giving shape to a restrictive process. ''Far from being a regulated or restricted process, as you appear to suggest, we are trying to enable a process that is open and led by civil society, and for the issues and means of addressing them to arise spontaneously, not through a formal process that we lead or try to manage,'' adds Stephens.

But for veteran civil society actors in Singapore, the Bank's letter appears to be out of touch with the stubborn reality on the ground in the city-state. ''It will be nearly impossible to protest in Singapore for locals,'' Sinapan Samydorai, head of Think Centre, a human rights NGO, told IPS. ''Locals trying to express any political opinion in public will require a license. The licenses are often denied to locals.''

There is a possibility, though, that the Lee Hsien Loong administration, may provide space for select foreign groups, he adds. ''The government may permit a selected number of foreigners to march peacefully -- with the required license -- to show-case that there is 'freedom' in Singapore. Controlled and managed, it will boost the image of Singapore.''

Concern about the oppressive measures that await activists in Singapore emerged as early as February, when Home Affairs Minister Wong Kang Seng issued a threat that public protests may ''attract severe punishment, including caning and imprisonment''. The restrictive law against public gatherings -- where any gathering of more than four people need a security permit -- was introduced by the British when it ruled this country as part of its colonial empire. The military dictatorship in Burma, also a former British colony, keeps Singapore company by upholding the same law.

And the installation of nearly 158 closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras to monitor activity at 67 traffic intersections and at the venue of the September meeting, Raffles City, a shopping mall and convention centre, will make it easier for the country's police to respond to protests without permits.

Among the examples of a typical Singaporean response to local protestors who dare to think independently -- than succumbing to the thought control measures of the country -- was the arrest of four demonstrators calling for greater accountability and transparency of the state-managed pension fund. This silent protest in August last year brought out nearly a dozen anti-riot police in full battle gear, including helmets, shields and batons.

Neither the police nor the courts accepted the fact that these demonstrators had not broken the law, since they were below the required number that needs a permit, M. Ravi, a human rights lawyer who handled this case, said in an IPS interview. ''The court ruled that even one person protesting and saying unfavourable things against the government is incendiary.''

According to Ravi, the government does not compromise on this measure to control dissent and alternative views in the country. ''It is extremely serious about the bans against public demonstrations.''

The recent parliamentary elections in May, where the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) was returned to power, served up large helpings of the bizarre quality of Singapore's ruling dynasty. The country's founding figure, former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, father of Lee Hsien Loong, justified these authoritarian measures as a mechanism needed to transform this malaria-infested trading port in the late 1950s to a development success story.

At the poll, the PAP marginalised opposition parties by banning their use of the electronic media to campaign, denying the leader of the Singapore Democratic Party a chance to campaign in public, banning his speeches being read by others in public and police intimidation of other candidates that made normal political activity look like a crime.

Yet Lee Hsien Loong did not consider such violations of political and civil liberties a problem. On the eve of the poll, he was quoted as having told 'The Straits Times,' a government mouthpiece, that ''the political system here is as fair as you can find in any country in terms of your being able to stand up, to have a view, to organise, to mobilise and participate.''

''(You do) not need a lot of money or a lot of power to get moving,'' he was quoted as saying.

Shalmali Guttal, a senior researcher at Focus on the Global South, a regional think tank, wishes that was really so. ''This year's annual meeting seems very suspicious to us because the World Bank and the IMF are still uncertain about the calls by civil society for demonstrations to be permitted. Failure will only prove to us that the hegemony of these institutions continues at the expense of democracy.''

For her, public participation on the streets outside the meeting's venue ''is the only available option for the victims of the Bank's programmes to protest. The meeting's credibility will suffer if demonstrations are banned.''

Business Times Interview

To: Swati Chaudhary
Date: Jun 8, 2006 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: Feature on Singapore Bloggers


1)How did you start blogging
i) When?

The first post was written June 2003 while sitting at my desk during lunch break in Singapore. Initially using a different name 'John Hicky' as some of what I was writing about needed a certain level of anonymity in the beginning. And my boss may not have been to keen to know what I was using the company computer to do.

ii) Why blogspot (features/ease of setting up or any other reasons there may be)

Blogspot was really the first blogging software that I had heard of then and the ease of use combined with the html and java skills I had picked up while running a more academic site for my students made the shift into blogging an easy one. All it takes to start publishing on line is an internet connection, the ability to post an email and three easy set up tasks that blogspot walks you through. Getting people to read it is a different matter. Reading other bloggers material, posting comments hyper linking other bloggers and trackbacks allows other bloggers to know you are there and they will cross link and cross post etc integrating your site into the wider blogging community. When getting started blogspot enables you to slowly learn and use these techniques while not overwhelming you with code and blogger speak.

2) How many visits a day do you get?

Currently it is an average of 1,027 new hits 1,585 refreshes or people returning to the site. Making an average of 2,500 per day.

i) Where are your visitors mainly from? Currently 65-75% are from Singapore. This has largely been the trend for the last 3 years. Depending on current news events the 'other' countries will increase or decrease according to the geographic location of the story. There is also a small number of Singaporeans who are currently studying overseas. Click on the link to see the up to date country share of visitors.

ii) Who are they? (if you have any idea based on the comments and emails that you receive)

The vast majority of commentators tend to be Singaporean and guessing as a result of their command of the English language well educated and articulate. Those who tend to go online for information regarding politics and social affairs are in the 20 to 29 year old demographic according to a recent IPS survey. There are a few brief comments given by readers who appear younger but the IPS survey did not deal with that demographic.

3) What do you think makes your blog attractive to people?

The blog has to be updated on a daily basis and more if possible. We would also like to think it is viewed as an alternative news and information source. As a team, myself and the other contributors search the internet, news sites, blogs etc for stories relevant to politics and social issues in Singapore or we take articles from the main stream media, political speeches and criticise them, question their assumptions, check out their 'facts'. Readers also get to contribute and can be perceived as producers of content rather than passive consumers, in political discussions, and calls to action such as signing petitions or attending meetings.

Singabloodypore has been online now for three years and has been updated almost daily from the start; we are consistent, determined and not easily frightened into self-censorship by speeches from members of parliament. We have done and will continue to engage the public in an open debate and continue to be shape and be shaped by the online topics and debates.

4) Why have you refrained from putting up ads/sources of revenue on your blog?

Not an anti-commercial stance but more to do with not being aware of companies or educational establishments willing to align their brand with a site that can be politically controversial. The demographics of the readership would require a Singaporean based target market in order to be a practical endeavour.

Engaging in politics in Singapore is seen by many as a risky endeavour with few material gains to be made unless you align your opinion to that of the dominant party.

Individual Singaporeans seem to be less risk adverse than Singaporean companies.

6) What advice would you give to people who hope to follow your example and be widely-read bloggers?

My number one no-no is writing about employers, past, present or future. Yes blog about products you are launching but approach your boss first. Next 'do not do' is hate speech aimed at specific individuals, groups or organisations. There is a certain code of ethics I adhere to, maybe one day I will get around to writing them down. Finally I try to write as little as possible about my personal life, enough to individualise it but not an online personal diary, simply because it is irrelevant to the focus of a political blog.

Pick a topic that you are consumed with passion for. Post often, keep it as up to date as possible and most importantly of all read other blogs within your target community, be it business or IT, comment frequently on your own site and others, reply to questions and comments as much as possible, block flamers, hyper link to as many bloggers as possible and approach the bigger players politely asking for a hyper link to your site after you have provided a link to theirs.

Blogging is about social relations online while trying to build a little community. Blogging requires you to realise that bloggers are inter-dependent not independent.

If you require any further clarification please feel free to ask.

Singapore

ST Interview on Internet Regulations in Singapore

To: Elgin Toh MY
Date: Jun 12, 2006 6:55 PM


1. We are in the 10th year of Internet regulation in Singapore. How do you think the regulation has evolved during this time, both in theory and in practice ( i.e. enforcement)?

As I have only been engaged with Singapore and in particular the Singaporean internet scene since 1999 I can not account for the years I was not engaged with it. I am however aware of the 'back ground' story of how Singapore became one of the most connected cities in the world and the various government initiatives that have been implemented in order to facilitate the level of connection that Singapore has.

The story of the original sintercom is a good point to view how the initial regulations were enforced. The site had become rather popular in the run up to the previous elections and this resulted in the owner of the site being approached and encouraged to register the site as a political site. Sites like the Think Centre had also been approached in the past to register. The Think Centre registered, however the owner of sintercom felt that the pressure was a little too much and decided to close down what was an extremely important social and political discussion space.

Today the theory or the proclamations are the same, namely that political blogs need to register with the MDA. The laws are still in place, however the will to enforce them appears to be lacking. The pro-active stance of the authorities of the 1990's has become re-active. The recent jailing of 'racist' bloggers after complaints from blog readers to the police is a case in point of this new approach.

2. How have internet practitioners like yourself adjusted to the evolving regulations and what has this meant for political discussion?

Speaking for myself, I will openly admit that I very rarely consider the 'regulations' in my day to day activities on line. The idea that the 'regulators' make a declaration and then everyone online shifts their behaviour to meet the new regulations is a rather one sided view of the process that is at work in the new online media. The recent declaration regarding political pod casting, video casting and political blogging is a good example.

Before the elections as most will remember an announcement was made regarding the new media and certain 'political advertising' that was deemed out of bounds. Many bloggers responded in a rather fearful manner. Some closed their sites but the majority appeared to carry on as normal, after all the current internet users tend to have a greater level of knowledge and many appear anonymous online. Those only really affected by the 'ban' was the Singapore Democrat Party leading to speculation that the ban was only really intended to further curtail their voice in the new media thereby ensuring the dominant voice to be that of the Peoples Action Party.

The SDP complied but a quick look at the activity of individual and group bloggers shows this did not stop their engagement with the political debate from reaching the online public.
Whether those that make the regulations will admit it or not, they are in a process of negotiation with online producers not a position of authority where they are 'managing us'. Laws and regulations can and are announced on a regular basis but if the infrastructure and the will to enforce them is absent they appear to be idle threats. The very nature of the internet is questioning the old power structure whereby those in a dominant position were able to dominate the media, dominate the cultural production - this position is no longer tenable.

In terms of political discussion I feel that the most pertinent issue is 'who controls the internet', does the Singaporean state exert its sovereignty over the 'virtual world'? Or are the people of Singapore willing to claim their voice, and speak truth onto those in power. The political discussion that is ongoing is the battle for this new media.

3. Given the evolving regulations, what is the current role of the Internet in Singapore vis-a-vis the traditional media especially in the context of political discussion?

The current role or possible niche of the internet in Singapore is that the national media or main stream media is ranked 140 th on the Reporters Without Borders index out of 167 countries for media freedom. If taken seriously this indicates that there is very little political discussion in the traditional media in Singapore.

Other countries are beginning to take notice, with large newspapers starting to accommodate the new media. Their main concerns are a drop in revenue as more and more 20-something's and younger go online to get information. They are also concerned with the drop in revenue as advertisers are shifting towards online outlets instead of the traditional media.

With particular reference to political discussion I get the sense that by internet users being able to go online and get involved in online petitions, discussion groups, sending letters or joining local and international Non-Governmental Organisations there is slow political awakening occurring. Politics has for a long time been regarded as a 'risky' activity dare I say it almost criminal. As more take part on line and there are no repercussions then people might get a little braver and more active and attend a forum or sign a petition. This is of course pure speculation.


4. Some are philosophically against the regulation of the Internet at all. What are your views?

As I am not one to take an absolutist position on most arguments I feel that the only appropriate response is to look at the question from a practical or pragmatic position. The current situation in Singapore is that very few sites are blocked. Those that are tend to be pornographic in nature. However anyone with the knowledge of how to send an email can get around these blocks with the use of proxy servers and anonymous email addresses. There are of course also issues of copyright and the most distasteful of all are adults luring children to meet off line.

Yes children need to be protected – protected by their parents and those charged with their care at school etc. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression for all are just as salient as protection of the vulnerable and minorities.

For financial transactions to be secure regulation of the internet is necessary , the copyright of individuals work protected etc. Not at the expense of being used as a smoke screen for authoritarian governments to maintain their grip on the minds of the people. Not at the expense of stunting culture and creativity.

If a handful of companies and government organisations control access to the new media, and they decide which political views get aired and which issues are up for discussion this week, you might like the views and opinions. However a country that allows a few to decide the issues that everyone else gets to hear about is unacceptable.

5. The Government promises a lighter touch for the future of Internet regulation. Are you in favour of this? Does this make regulation here more aligned to regulation in other countries? How do you think the lighter touch is going to work, in practical terms?

Promises can be broken, what is needed is a clear declaration and a dismantling of certain internet and election advertising legislation in regards to online political discussion, then and only then is such an announcement to be welcomed.

The government has promised a lighter touch not out of an ideological love of freedom of speech or expression but as a pragmatic response to an attempt to control the new media during the 2006 election that failed. It is the same old approach of trial and error. If something doesn't work try something different.

A more important question is why the government used the regulations in order to demand that the SDP remove pod casts from their site during the recent election.

The future of the internet will not be decided by the Singaporean government alone. They need to acknowledge that they are actively in a process of negotiation with their own net savvy citizens.

Singapore

Further restrictions on political opposition leaders

Via email from Amnesty International
June 25 2006

To: Singapore/Malaysia Network

Friends,

Recent weeks have seen developments in Singapore, several of which reflect Amnesty International's continuing concerns about restrictions on freedom of expression. Some were associated with the May 6 General Election and involved opposition party candidates. The following information comes from a range of sources normally regarded as reliable and often providing the background on AI's concerns -- but does not necessarily represent AI's views or findings. Further information or corrections are welcome.

Best wishes,

Margaret John
Coordinator for Singapore and Malaysia


SINGAPORE: Further restrictions on political opposition leaders

James Gomez, Workers' Party (WP) candidate in the May 6 General Election, wrongly claimed he had filed a minority candidate certificate and was deemed to have possibly committed a:"serious offence" or even a crime, if found guilty of "framing the elections office". Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew reportedly called him a liar. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kuan Yew challenged the WP to take legal action if it found their remarks libellous. Gomez was stopped at the Singapore airport as he prepared to return to Sweden, where he now works, and was questioned for eight hours. No charge ensued and he was allowed to leave the country after a stern warning.

In response to a media enquiry concerning James Gomez, AI's International Secretariat stated its concern about "the continuing misuse of civil defamation suits and other laws for political purposes in Singapore to penalise and silence critics of the government, including those which preceded the recent election. A pattern of politically motivated suits in Singapore has served to maintain a climate of political intimidation and self-censorship which stifles freedom of expression, deters the expression of views alternative to those of the ruling Peoples' Action Party (PAP) and dissuades many Singaporeans from exercising their right to full and free participation in public life".

In early June, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, won their defamation suit against the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), of which Dr Chee Soon Juan is Secretary-General, after the court ruled that SDP had failed to file its defence. The suit was filed against the party's Executive after the January issue of the party's newspaper, The New Democrat, criticised the government's handling of a situation involving Singapore's largest charity, the National Kidney Fourndation (NKF). All defendants except Dr Chee and his sister Chee Siok Chin apologised and agreed to pay damages. Dr Chee and Ms Chee have applied to the court to stop the summary judgment applied for by the plaintiffs i.e. a ruling not in open court, but instead determined by the Assistant Registrar, thus disallowing the defendants the right to call witnesses, as intended, from the PAP, the NKF, government agencies, international experts, and individuals such as former prisoners of conscience Francis Seow and Said Zahari. Should the SDP be unable to pay the designated damages, the party could be closed down.

Dr Chee and SDP colleagues Yap Keng Ho and Gandhi Ambalan have now been charged with violating the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act for speaking without a permit on several occasions in the run-up to the General Election, according to their lawyer, M Ravi.

These developments regarding Dr Chee add to the penalties and restrictions faced by him since he joined the small opposition SDP some twelve years ago and became an open critic of the government: he was fired from his university position, charged under various restrictive laws, imprisoned three times, made bankrupt and barred from seeking election. He has also been recognised internationally as a human rights defender and received the prestigious Defender of Democracy award from Parliamentarians for Global Action. His latest book, The Power of Courage -- Effecting political change in Singapore through Nonviolence, has been described as focussing on "the moral imperative of breaking unjust laws to bring about social uplift, as was advocated by... MK Gandhi and Martin Luther King" (Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan, Nonviolencve International). Recently commenting on his imprisonment following the exercise of his right to freedom of expression, he said that the government "can jail me, but they can't jail democracy".

Singapore's Attorney General asked the High Court to dismiss Chee Siok Chin's application to invalidate the results of the General Election, because she had failed to pay the required S$5,000 court deposit on time. She alleged that the PAP secured its 66.6% victory through intimidation, bribery and censorship. Main international media, the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Asian Network for Free Elections and others were critical of government restrictions on the opposition during the election. Canada's Globe and Mail editorial spoke of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong as paying "lipservice to the need for more openness in a political system that is democratic in name but authoritarian in practice", referred to intensified harassment of the opposition and alleged Lee Kuan Yew's influence over his son's leadership of Singapore. The Age (Australia) published a series of articles by Michael Backman, in which he charged that "Increasingly, people around the world are beginning to laugh at Singapore...too often alternative viewpoints are responded to with public humiliation, threats, defamation writs and detention", and he warned business to "consider these aspects and not just competitiveness when assessing Singapore as a place for investment".

Singapore

The Follow Up Jesus Pictures?

"Describing himself as a free thinker, he said he had posted a cartoon that depicted Jesus as a zombie biting a boy's head in January.

Char did not reply to the message but chose to irk the person instead. He searched the Internet for more pictures depicting Jesus and published three of them on his blog."
-- Zakir Hussein, ST, 14 June

Char, were these the pictures you posted? You know, the ones so blasphemous, dangerous, and riot-inducing that the ST decided not even to describe them, when they already gave a good description of the zombie cartoon...



A license plate from license-plate-world.com, from its insults collection, which includes gems like "If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic!" and "I took a pain pill... why are you still here?"



A photoshop of the Criterion Collection DVD box of the Last Temptation of Christ



Jesus found on paper. Seriously, after images of Christ have been found on cinnamon buns and subway water stains, this is...?

Singapore

BLOGGER COULD GO TO PRISON FOR POSTING JESUS CARTOONS

Reporters Without Borders / Internet Freedom desk

SINGAPORE

By forcing a blogger to remove four cartoons of Jesus from his blog last March and by charging him with a violation of the Sedition Act, for which he faces up to three years in prison, the Singaporean authorities were violating free expression and trying to foster self-censorship in the country's blogosphere, Reporters Without Borders said today.

"We understand that cartoons relating to religious symbols may be found shocking, but they should be tolerated for the sake of free expression," the organisation said. "Anyway, it is hard to see how posting a few humorous drawings, no matter how bad their taste, could destabilize social harmony in Singapore, as the authorities suggested."

Reporters Without Borders added: "It is not the job of the police to intervene in this kind of case. By targeting this blogger, the authorities have once again shown they attribute scant importance to media diversity and independence. In their view, the role of press is simply to educate and orientate the public, a position not very dissimilar to the one taken by the Chinese and Vietnamese regimes."

The story was first reported by the Singapore-based Straits Times daily, which referred to the blogger only by his pseudonym and did not give his real name or his blog's address. The newspaper said Char did not draw the cartoons himself, he just found them on the Internet and posted them on his blog.

One of them, posted in January, portrayed Jesus as a zombie. All of the cartoons were taken down after the police stepped in. According to the Straits Times, Char acknowledged that posting the cartoons was an "unwise move." The police confiscated his computer and told him an investigation would be carried out. When Char got back in touch with the authorities last month, they told him he was still being investigated.

This case follows the conviction of three bloggers for posting racist comments about the Muslim and Malay communities. One of them got a one-month prison sentence. Reporters Without Borders also voiced concern in April about a series of government measures restricting podcasting (the online distribution of audio files). See: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17497

In the 2005 Reporters Without Borders classification of countries according to their respect for press freedom, Singapore was ranked 140th out of 167 countries.

Singapore

The Offending Jesus - Zombie Cartoon?

Char was this the offending cartoon that you posted? If not, how about everyone trying to help me find it. Post your html links in the comment section.

Singapore

Single party rule ‘best for Singapore

Anyone remember George Yeo who made similar insensitive remarks that caused Taiwan to call us a "snot"? Looks like our dear leaders are making international news to make themselves look silly. As the Singapore saying goes, "You pay peanuts, you get circus monkeys... "

====
Single party rule ‘best for Singapore’
By John Burton in Singapore and Leora Moldofsky in Sydney
Published: June 22 2006 01:50
Last updated: June 22 2006 01:50

Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore’s prime minister, has criticised Australia and New Zealand’s liberal democratic practices, suggesting that Singapore’s system, under which a single party has ruled since independence, is more efficient.

Mr Lee made the remarks at the end of a nine-day visit to the two countries, which are attracting a growing number of immigrants from the Asian city-state.

Although the democracies of Australia and New Zealand made for “more exciting” politics, the national interest could suffer in a multi-party system, said Mr Lee.

The comments could provoke controversy, particularly as Mr Lee’s visit was meant to improve economic and defence ties in spite of criticism about Singapore’s human rights record.

“Endless debates are seldom about achieving a better grasp of the issue but to score political points,” said Mr Lee about the political systems in Australia and New Zealand.

He said John Howard, the Australian prime minister, “spends all his time dealing with this party politics. The result is you don’t have a lot of time to worry about the long-term future.”

Dominant party rule was the best system for a small, multiracial country like Singapore, Mr Lee said, as he prepared to leave New Zealand, whose population of 4m is similar in size and ethnic complexity to that of the city-state.

The People’s Action Party has governed Singapore since 1959 when Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Lee’s father, was elected prime minister.

Mr Lee blamed Australia’s multi-party system for his failure to persuade Canberra to open its aviation market to state-owned Singapore Airlines, which is seeking to fly the transpacific route from Sydney to Los Angeles.

He said Australia’s National party, the minority partner in the ruling coalition, was against opening up the route because Qantas could threaten in response to cut unprofitable routes to rural areas where the party is strong. Qantas has opposed Singapore Airline’s entry on the transpacific route.

The decision was “a net loss” for Australia because it hurt tourism, Mr Lee said.

His remarks appeared aimed at Mark Vaile, the National party leader and trade minister, who will lead negotiators next month in a review of the bilateral trade pact with Singapore.

Mr Lee was questioned about the treatment of Singapore opposition leader, Chee Soon Juan, who was charged this week with speaking in public without a police licence. He said all political leaders had to respect the law, adding that Dr Chee engaged in “destructive” policies that were meant “to impress foreign supporters”.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006

Repression curbs Singapore's potential

Taken from mailing list, Singapore Review

===
Repression curbs Singapore's potential
Arthur Waldron. The Providence Journal. Providence, R.I.: Mar 26,
2006. pg. C.06

PHILADELPHIA - THE GOVERNMENT of Singapore, it appears, is intent on
burning the bridges that should lead to their country's future. What
other conclusion can one draw from the trial of Dr. Chee Soon Juan, a
leader of the island's determined but absolutely peaceful and law-
abiding democratic movement?

Singapore is one of my favorite countries, and as an American, I do
not take sides about its internal affairs. But I did happen to hear
Dr. Chee speak last year, at a democracy conference in Taiwan, and to
meet him. The talent scout in me was deeply impressed.

Hearing him, I could not help thinking that this man would be the
first prime minister of a politically mature Singapore to be chosen
in a fully democratic election.

Dr. Chee speaks brilliantly, with great clarity and simplicity, and
formidable intellectual and moral power. He is certainly up to the
high standard set by the great founding fathers of today's Singapore,
including David Marshall and Lee Kwan-yew, whom ordinary people
packed the parliamentary galleries to hear, back when debate was more
common in that country.

No doubt exists in my mind that in an open televised discussion Dr.
Chee would verbally dice and mince any member of the current
Singapore government. They were once razor sharp and quick on their
feet, but decades of power and privilege have dulled them.

Now Dr. Chee is caught in the coils of the sadly familiar Singaporean
political repression by means of the courts. Found guilty of various
technical violations and saddled with fines he cannot pay, he is now
bankrupt -- and thus, conveniently, ineligible to run for office.
This time he may be imprisoned.

But at age 42, he can afford some time. Dr. Chee is as fully prepared
for imprisonment as was Jawaharlal Nehru in British India 70 years
ago. He will make good use of the time.

At some point he will be released and, sooner or later, Singapore
will begin to change. Ideas will be needed about how to make those
changes.

A generation ago, the People's Action Party led change and dealt with
setbacks brilliantly, making a territory that had seemed doomed --
poor, ethnically divided, without employment, and viewed with
hostility by its neighbors -- into one of the most prosperous and
well-administered of countries.

Sadly, that momentum now seems to have been lost. The man who did so
much to rescue the territory and transform it, Lee Kwan-yew, is now
in his 80s, but still dominating the island's politics and showing no
sign of genuine retirement. Once a powerful advocate of democracy, he
has more recently tended to take the side of authoritarian rule.

Thirty years ago, Lee looked set for real greatness. And he could
have achieved it if he had used his time in the power he had earned
to create an institutional system for Singapore that would survive
him. This he never did. Today his vision for the future seems to be
limited to turning over politics to his son and management of the
island's vast government assets to his daughter-in-law.

The task of creating a Singapore run by laws and institutions, rather
than by a family and its associates, Mr. Lee has bequeathed to his
successors.

That is why Dr. Chee is so important. Lee Kwan-yew's generation is
exhausted; having realized one vision, it is not capable of producing
another.

Dr. Chee's trial testifies to this. If those leaders still had the
vigor and intellect of their early years, they would be debating Dr.
Chee in public or parliament -- trading argument for argument
fearlessly in front of their fellow citizens, confident that their
ideas would prevail. Instead, these once formidable parliamentarians
are seeking to disqualify and silence Dr. Chee without ever facing
what he has to say.

This will not work. Singapore has transformed itself economically,
socially and intellectually since the days when the People's Action
Party pulled it back from the brink of the abyss of wretched poverty
and ethnic conflict. The challenge now is almost the opposite: to
create political institutions and politics appropriate to one of the
wealthiest, best-educated and most sophisticated populations in the
world.

Doing this will mean involving the population directly in ruling
itself, far more than is the case today. The state media monopolies
will have to be dismantled, the gerrymandered electoral system
rectified, political speech encouraged, and parliamentary debate
revived from its decades-long slumber.

The People's Action Party of Mr. Lee may surprise us all by rising to
these challenges, as it did to face comparably complex difficulties
early in its career. But even should it do so, one doubts that a
future of unbroken domination by that party would be either feasible
or good for Singapore.

Changes have to be made, and will be. The only question is when and
by whom? Debating with Dr. Chee Soon Juan, instead of dragging him
through the courts, would be a good, not to mention a wise, initial
change.

Arthur Waldron is the Lauder Professor of International Relations at
the University of Pennsylvania and a regular visitor to Singapore.

No regrets over glint of toughness on democracy, says Lee

No regrets over glint of toughness on democracy, says Lee
Wednesday June 21, 2006
By John Roughan

Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who gave New Zealanders a glimpse of the hard edge of Singaporean democracy during his state visit this week, has no regrets about it.

Mr Lee, son of the city state's patriarch Lee Kuan Yew, was asked at his Wellington press conference why he is suing an Opposition politician for defamation and pursuing charges against him of speaking in a public place without a licence before Singapore's recent election.

"He's a liar, he's a cheat, he's deceitful, he's confrontational, it's a destructive form of politics designed not to win elections in Singapore but to impress foreign supporters and make himself out to be a martyr," the newly re-elected Prime Minister said of his unsuccessful opponent, Chee Soon Juan.

Speaking to the Herald in Auckland yesterday, Mr Lee did not believe the previous day's outburst had left a bad impression.

"No I don't think so," he said. "It depends what you are doing and why you are doing it. Everybody has to abide by the laws.

"If you deliberately defame somebody then there has to be consequences. If we didn't act against somebody who defamed us then it is not a matter of being generous and forgiving but the question arises if no action is taken, surely there must be some truth to it."

As for licensing public speaking, "Our main concern is race, language and religion. These are issues where you can rouse people and words cannot be taken back and you can cause riots and bloodshed."

It applied only outdoors, he insisted. "Indoors you can have any number of gatherings [and] you can publish anything you like in writing. But to organise a crowd and harangue the crowd - we thing it's wise to have precautions."

You'd wonder why they bother. Singapore has been ruled by the Lees' Peoples Action Party since its independence 40 years ago. At the latest election the party won 82 seats, opposition parties just two.

Elections are so one sided that the constitution now awards the Opposition three seats in the legislature, regardless of the election results, and there are nine seats reserved for nominees from occupational groups, including the media.

Mr Lee is only the third Prime Minister the country has had, following his father, who retired in 1990 (though he remains in the Cabinet as "minister mentor"), and Goh Chok Tong, who was thought to be a seat-warmer for Lee junior, known as BG ever since he became the youngest Brigadier General in the Army's history.

Mr Lee's political apprenticeship was longer than expected, perhaps partly due to his brush with cancer of the lymph nodes in 1992.

He is said to be arrogant and autocratic, which possibly explains the tension in the hotel room as his entourage awaits.

But when he enters he is affable, languid and surprisingly tall.

How then did he explain his party's unbroken record in power?

There have been other countries, he points out, with one party in power for a long period: Japan, Mexico.

"In our case special circumstances made us the dominant party after independence and keeping that position by a series of actions.

"One, by keeping talent and making sure we were the best qualified team. Two, we have kept ourselves renewed - same party but not the same people, new MPs, new ministers, new ideas ...

"Three, keeping a broad central view of Singapore. We are not representing one section of the population, workers against employers or any other group. We are representing the whole country."

But democracy is about dealing with differences of opinion. How does Singapore manage that?

"We have elections, many parties, news media report a wide range of views and now the internet. There are any number of blogs on Singapore.

"It's not possible for us to have unanimous views ... but on major fundamentals of the country - that you have to be self-reliant, have a strong defence, good multi-racial relations, that you have to plug into the world and globalise and earn a living for ourselves - those are broad principles which command very general support."

Singapore and New Zealand have a free trade agreement, our most comprehensive after CER with Australia, and just last month the Singapore deal was the basis of a four-way Pacific pact with the inclusion of Brunei and Chile.

Mr Lee hopes his visit to Australia and New Zealand, his first overseas since his re-election, will help bring us closer. "I think you need a population more attuned to what is happening in Asia."

Human rights, he said, "are familiar issues to Western journalists and maybe readers too, but really they don't define Asia. You need to come and learn how people live."

HIGH ACHIEVER

* Born February 10, 1952, Lee Hsien Loong is the eldest child of former Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.

Education
* Studied at Cambridge and Harvard, gaining a first-class degree in mathematics and a masters degree in public administration.

Military service
* Joined Singapore Armed Forces in 1971. Rose quickly through the ranks to become brigadier-general.

Politics
* In 1984 followed his father into politics as a member of the ruling People's Action Party. Elected to the party's central executive committee in 1986. Appointed Deputy Prime Minister in November 1990. Became Prime Minister in August 2004.

Family
* Married to Ho Ching, executive director and chief executive of the Government-owned Temasek Holdings.

The couple have one daughter and three sons, including a daughter and son from Lee's first wife.

Pensées: 10 short notes on sedition

"The police will investigate when someone complains about offensive material on the Internet because it can have an impact on the public" - Wong Kan Seng, 17 June 2006

What counts as overreaction in a case of sedition? Even in the bad old days when the sedition laws were designed, sedition - like treason - was an accusation not lightly made, a charge not taken up by the state unless there was a clear case to answer to.

Any man with common sense will ask: are the pictures really seditious? do they offend Christians? a vast majority of Christians? to the extent of inciting riots?

Any man with common sense will state: material that mildly offend, that a sizeable proportion of Christians do not find offensive, is not seditious, and warrants no investigation.

Any man with common sense and more brains will believe there must be clear guidelines to prosecute only cases that are offensive enough to threaten the population.

Read the rest of the post here.

Singapore

Temasek's undue diligence

KUALA LUMPUR - Temasek Holdings, Singapore's hugely successful state-owned investment vehicle, has been characterized as brusque in its business acquisitions, but seldom sloppy. Several recent investments, however, raise hard questions about whether the secretive Temasek is conducting enough due diligence before entering politically sensitive blockbuster deals across the region.

To offset its lack of natural resources and a land-limited local economy, Singapore Inc has gone on a regional investment spree in recent years, acquiring significant stakes in ports, telecommunications and banking assets through state-owned investment vehicles. Temasek, which was first established to raise capital for government-linked companies, and whose current executive director, Ho Ching, is the wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, has on nearly all counts had a successful investment record - apart, perhaps, from its botched attempts to launch an airline in the 1990s.

Read the full article at Asia Times Online.

Singapore Temasek

Rebuke for Lee remote when economics rule

Rebuke for Lee remote when economics rule
17 June 2006
New Zealand Herald
By Fran O'Sullivan

PRIME MINISTER Helen Clark is presented with a dilemma as she prepares
to roll out the red carpet for visiting Singaporean Prime Minister Lee
Hsien Loong.

If Clark is true to her principles she will castigate Lee ``ever so
gently'' over the punitive measures his Government is taking to silence
his political opponents. But if past practice is anything to go by,
Clark will simply turn a blind eye and get on with the job of cementing
stronger political and economic ties with the Asian city state.

This is not an easy balancing act, especially for a political leader
like Clark who needs Lee's support to further New Zealand's ambitions
within Asia.

There are big regional issues on the agenda. Singapore is considering a
commitment to send its troops on a United Nations-mandated peacekeeping
operation in East Timor. This would lessen the burden on Australia and
New Zealand who in reality lack the capacity to be ``peacekeepers of
first and last resort'' for the unstable mainly Pacific countries to our
north. On this score, Clark does need to emphasise the necessity for a
strong commitment from Singapore.

Singapore is still a prime defence partner for New Zealand and is
increasingly important to our business sector as a springboard to Asia.

There is much to be admired about the way Singapore used
state-controlled investment funds and infrastructure companies to build
its economy. Lee Kuan Yew's nanny state was determinedly capitalistic
but under firm Government direction. Savings came first. A compulsory
national savings scheme was introduced.

Unions were given monopolies to run supermarkets and taxi companies.
Welfare came out of employers' and workers' pockets. Loss-making
state-owned enterprises were shut.

National Finance spokesman John Key believes this country should study
some aspects of the Singapore model which appears to be in continuous
improvement.

But nanny state has come at a price. Nearly two-thirds of productive
activity is accounted for by businesses owned by the state or run
through the public sector.

Temesek, the giant state holdings company run by Lee's wife, Ho Ching,
is synonymous with Singapore. But there is also Singapore Airlines,
which was burned by its Air New Zealand shareholding; Singtel, run by
Lee's brother, Hsien Yang; Changi Airport; Singapore Press Holdings; and
Raffles Corporation.

These and many more are owned by Temasek or the Government of Singapore
Investment Corporation (GIC). The state companies want to spread their
wings further offshore, but the private sector complains they are too
powerful.

The Government hasn't said so directly, but the Lee model is now
basically being mirrored by Economic Development Minister Trevor
Mallard, who wants to expand New Zealand's state-owned enterprises into
agents for economic transformation.

One reason for Singapore's outstanding success story has been the
practice of the governing People's Action Party (PAP) to appoint leading
businesspeople and former senior military to senior government roles.

But the million-dollar-plus pay packets being dished out to these
``public servants'' has started a backlash.

When I was in Singapore a week ago it was obvious that a major gap had
opened between rich and poor. Singapore has a high home-ownership level,
much more so than in New Zealand, but high interest rates are biting.

Given Singapore's astounding economic record of 7 per cent average
growth for 30 years, isn't it time the country developed a first-class
human rights record to match?

Lee should be encouraged to applaud those of his citizens who insist on
their full democratic rights, which is in line with the stance he began
to stake out after first being appointed Prime Minister.

Instead, opposition politician Chee Soon Juan is facing charges for
speaking in public without getting a licence from the Government. But
Chee wouldn't have been given a permit even if he had applied.

Such action conflicts with the less restrictive environment the
international community had expected once Lee the Younger took over the
leadership reins from former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong.

Lee had a singularly long apprenticeship as Goh's deputy.

When he finally got the big job, this highly intellectual politician
said he would introduce greater personal freedoms for the 4.5 million
inhabitants of the city state.

He also promised to loosen nanny state economic strings and encourage
well-ordered Singaporeans to come up with ideas to combat China's
commercial encroachment on its neighbours.

When Phil Goff was Foreign Minister it was his job to make New Zealand's
expectations on human rights abuses clear to visiting politicians.

Goff's style was to make his points behind closed doors. But right now
the only New Zealand politicians pressing these buttons are United
Leader Peter Dunne, who still takes a robust position on Taiwan's
political rights, and Green MP Keith Locke.

What is going on with Chee has not yet reached the heights of lunacy
that former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed reached with the
imprisonment of his reform-minded deputy. But there are uncomfortable
parallels.

Singapore blogger could be jailed for Jesus cartoons

Have we posted this story? Another example of clamping down on blogging.

====
Jesus cartoons could draw jail for Singapore blogger
Wed Jun 14, 1:36 PM ET
AFP

A Singaporean blogger is under investigation for posting cartoons mocking Jesus Christ and could be jailed up to three years, the police said.

A police spokesman declined to give details about the suspect, who was described by the Straits Times as a 21-year-old office worker with his own blog site. His race and religion were not disclosed.

The blogger, who described himself as a "free thinker," had first posted a cartoon depicting Jesus Christ as a zombie biting a boy's head in January, the Straits Times said.

He ignored an online message asking for the cartoon's removal and went on to post more caricatures of Christ to spite the sender.

"I never thought anyone would complain to the police because the pictures were not insidious," he told the newspaper, adding the cartoons have already been removed from his site.

He was called in by police in March and the investigation is ongoing.

"It is a serious offence for any person to distribute or reproduce any seditious publication which may cause feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes," said a police statement sent to AFP.

Singapore, a multi-racial island nation, clamps down hard on anyone inciting communal tensions. Two ethnic Chinese men were jailed last year for anti-Muslim blogs.

Ethnic Chinese make up 76 percent of Singapore's resident population of 3.4 million with Malay Muslims accounting for 13.7 percent followed by ethnic Indians, Eurasians and other racial groups.

Under the Sedition Act, offenders may be liable to imprisonment of up to three years or a fine not more than 5,000 Singapore (3,144 US) dollars or both.

Censors last month barred viewers below 16 years of age from watching "The Da Vinci Code" because they were afraid some children might see it as a factual movie.

The blockbuster film poses the explosive idea that Jesus Christ married his follower Mary Magdalene and started a blood line that still exists in secret.

The price of freedom

When overseas political party leaders make comments or issue press releases about the state of human rights in Singapore, we know that the work of the democratic freedom fighters have not been put to waste. It is a shame however that Helen Clark has decided not to discuss any of these issues with Mr Lee.

====
The price of freedom
Monday, 19 June 2006, 4:47 pm
Press Release: Green Party
Dr. Russel Norman
Co-Leader
Spokesperson on economics, electoral matters and trade

The price of freedom

19 June 2006

“Helen Clark’s reported comments that she did not intend to raise human rights issues with Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee during his visit are quite shocking,” Green Party Co-Leader Russel Norman says.

“If true, it is inexcusable that the Government refuses to raise or criticise human rights in Singapore during the visit of Singapore’s Prime Minister. I can only presume that this is because of the sensitivity over trade issues,” says Dr. Norman, the Green Party trade spokesperson.

“The Singapore Government routinely suppresses free speech and the right to free assembly, as documented by Amnesty International reports.

“We have a duty to the ordinary citizens of Singapore to speak out about the human rights abuses of their Government because they are not allowed to speak out themselves.

The leader of the opposition in Singapore faces expulsion from parliament because he dared speak out against the Government. He was sued for defamation and fined $500,000 and now faces bankruptcy and expulsion from parliament, just as the leader of the opposition Workers’ Party was before him.

“If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as Thomas Jefferson once said, then we shouldn’t let our vigilance lapse just because the Government is aiming at more free trade deals in Asia.

“If New Zealand MPs were thrown out of parliament for disagreeing with the Government, would we not expect other democratic nations to speak out,” asks Dr. Norman.

Should NZ Follow Singapore's Example?

Should NZ Follow Singapore's Example?
Sunday, 18 June 2006, 4:04 pm
Press Release: Green Party

“The visit of Singapore’s Prime Minister is a good opportunity for us to reassess our lax foreign ownership laws, which are driving up house prices,” Green Party Co-Leader Russel Norman says.

“Non-residents buying land and houses in New Zealand is driving up house prices by pitting wealthy overseas buyers against Kiwis trying to get into the housing market,” Dr. Norman says.

The Closer Economic Partnership deal between New Zealand and Singapore includes a provision that restricts New Zealanders from owning land and landed property in Singapore (Annex 3.2). But there is no such restriction going the other way.

“If Singapore can do it, why can’t we?” Dr. Norman asks.

“Helen Clark should use her talks with Singapore’s Prime Minister to learn about their restrictions on non-residents owning land so we can do the same here.

“Given that housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable in New Zealand, driven in part by overseas investors, and that the Government’s Welcome Home Loans scheme has failed to make housing affordable, it’s time for the Government to look at other options.

“Reserving land ownership to citizens and permanent residents would help take some of the pressure off the overcooked housing market so that ordinary New Zealanders can afford to buy homes for their families”, says Dr. Norman.

Singapore PM defends island's democratic freedoms during New Zealand visit

Do we really have free speech? How can Mini Lee said it with a straight face? Why did the international journalists not refer to latest examples of the defamation suits that the Lees have filed against SDP? Moreover, democratic freedoms do not simply refer to just freedom of speech, but also freedom to peaceful assembly and freedom of the press... which obviously is banned in Singapore.

===
Singapore PM defends island's democratic freedoms during New Zealand visit
Monday June 19, 2006

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) - Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Monday argued that his tightly controlled island state enjoys political freedom, saying his government has no reason to restrict democratic rights.

Lee was asked by journalists about democratic freedoms in Singapore during his first-ever visit to New Zealand, where he held talks with Prime Minister Helen Clark Monday on trade, investment and other bilateral issues.

Clark said the issue of free speech had not been discussed at their meeting.

Lee told reporters Singapore's government had "no reason to want to restrict any democratic or political rights of opposition politicians or leaders'' and that free speech was allowed as long as speakers stayed within the law.

"You can make speeches, you can publish articles, you can put things up on the Internet, you can speak. We have a speakers' corner which is highly underutilized and contest elections,'' he said.

Lee's ruling People Action Party, which has won every general election held since Singapore became independent in 1965, maintains sharp limits on freedom of speech and assembly, and its leaders have sidelined some opposition figures with defamation suits that have rendered them bankrupt, making them ineligible for office.

Forty-seven opposition politicians contested May elections, but "the electorate rejected them,'' Lee said. - AP

Sporting agree to pay players more, offer better accommodation and meals

From TODAYonline:

IT WAS an issue that was so controversial that it elicited responses from human rights groups as well as sports fans, in a story that was heard around the world.
.
Professional footballers in Singapore, brought here from Africa and playing for S-League club Sporting Afrique, were taking home an average of $100 a month in salaries, after their employers had deducted almost $1,500 for food and lodging. The Today exclusive, which appeared on June 7, also pointed out that 22 players were crammed in one house at Seletar Hills and fed a monotonous menu of rice and chicken.
.
But happily, after two weeks of hard work by various parties including the Football Association of Singapore (FAS), the standoff between the aggrieved players and the club has been resolved.
.
After a meeting over the weekend between the FAS, the players and club management, the players have accepted a new deal, which will now increase their monthly take-home salary from $100 to about $600 a month. They will also be entitled to earn up to $1,000 a month on a new bonus system, depending on their results. The club will also be sourcing for two more houses for the players to live in till the season ends, with catered meals thrown in.
.
FAS president, Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, said: "It is a good outcome. The club addressed the players' grievances and can now move on and concentrate on the football. Sporting Afrique have some very good players and have added a new dimension to the S-League with their blend of football."
.
The club had joined Singapore's professional league at the start of this season, with players hailing mostly from Kenya, Cameroon and Nigeria. All had signed contracts with the club, promising them $1,600 a month in salaries. But the club also deducted $1,500 of that money for food and accommodation, as the players had signed a separate contract with the club authorising the deductions.
.
The report sparked massive public reaction, with many condemning the club for "exploiting" its players. The story received worldwide attention, with the BBC and other major newspapers reporting the issue as an abuse of player rights.

Singapore human rights

All Quiet on the Char Front

"The news of Char possibly being bashed with the Sedition Act is slowly becoming stale in the blogs. I think he made his move too soon. It looked like he wanted to rally support for his plight by publicising his predicament but there was insufficient momentum in the blogs to elevate him to martyr status just yet. The main reason is likely because the police has smartly or luckily remained relatively silent on the whole matter and no fuel is given to us bloggers to go amok either way."

More

The Four Million Frowns project

Let the overdue pardody begin:

I'm starting my own version entitled " Four Million Frowns"
Send us your frowning photos. Your angry photos.
Black and white, colour, individual or group portraits.
But make sure it's vertical for individuals and horizontal for group shots!
send them to me with your name too.

Call it a parody, a chance to show your displeasure.Whatever. But don't take it too seriously. Just have fun while you are at it

Continue reading at 4millionfrowns...

As of 17 June, the author has successfully collected 31 frowns.

As of today, the official Smiles 2006 project has an archive of approximately 4,524 smiles.

4millionfrowns aims to achieve at least 400 frowns. That's an ambitious 10% of the plastic smiles already under the government's belt! Go on. Submit yours. You know you want to...

Singapore

Lees thinking of avoiding open trial

From the Singapore Democrat:

Last month, Dr Chee Soon Juan had written that Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong would try to avoid going to open court over the NKF lawsuit:

“The only worry is that the plaintiffs will try to prevent the matter from going to trial and avoid being cross-examined. This can be done through frivolous court applications to try to bog the process down and drain the defendants financially. Another possibility is that the Lees may use legal technicalities to overcome the defendants’ actions thereby preventing the matter from going to open trial.” (Click here to read full statement.)

It seems that the Lees are living up to their reputation. During the pre-trial conference held today their lawyer, Mr Adrian Tan of Drew & Napier, dropped the bombshell that his clients are likely to apply for summary judgment.

Summary judgment means that the matter will be heard behind closed-doors (instead of open court), no witnesses will be allowed to be called, and the defendants will not be allowed to present their case.

The assistant registrar will then make the decision as to whether the Dr Chee and Ms Chee are guilty of defaming the Lees – without having heard evidence from anyone.

In 2001, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong also applied for summary judgment against Dr Chee Soon Juan over the Indonesian-loan lawsuit. Dr Chee was found guilty of defaming Messrs Lee and Goh and ordered to pay the two $500,000 in damages – all without a trial.

In the present case, Dr Chee and Ms Chee have indicated repeatedly that they will not apologise to the Lees and look forward to facing both father and son in court when both sides will present witnesses and subject themselves to cross-examination. Lawyer M Ravi have also indicated repeatedly that he looked forward to cross-examining the Lees.

Apparently getting a bout of cold-feet, the Lees are now thinking twice about proceeding with the matter and want to have it heard behind closed-doors. If the Lees go ahead with decision to apply for summary judgment, it will signal the biggest cowardly act ever to be taken by PAP’s leaders.

The Lees ought not resort to such unseemly action. They should face the Chees in open court so that all parties can get to the bottom of the matter and have the public see and hear all the evidence presented.

Dr Chee and Ms Chee, having discussed the matter with lawyer Mr M Ravi, have decided that they would like to call the following as witnesses and apply to subpoena them if necessary:

1. Mr Goh Chok Tong (Senior Minister)
2. Mr Khaw Boon Wan (Minister for Health)
3. Mr Lim Hng Kiang (2nd Minister for Finance)
4. Mdm Ho Ching (Managing Director of Temasek Holdings and wife of PM Lee)
5. Mr Lee Suan Yew (brother of MM Lee)
6. Former NKF Board members
7. Head of the National Council of Social Services
8. Head of the Housing and Development Board
9. Head of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation

10. Mr Tang Liang Hong (sued by PAP leaders)
11. Mr Francis Seow (former solicitor-general and detained under the ISA)
12. Mr Tan Wah Piow (former University of Singapore student leader and jailed)
13. Ms Tang Fong Har (detained under ISA in the so-called Marxist conspiracy)
14. Mr Said Zahari (detained under the ISA for 17 years)
15. International experts/academics



Letter to the Lees

14 Jun 2006

Mr Lee Kuan Yew
Mr Lee Hsien Loong
Istana, Singapore

Dear Sirs,

It is with much regret, though not with the slightest surprise, that we learn from your lawyer this morning that you are considering applying for summary judgment in the lawsuit that you have taken against us. We had suspected all along that you would try to avoid going to open trial. Our suspicion seems to have basis.

We have repeatedly told you since the day you sent us your letter of demand that we will not apologise and that we look forward to seeing the both of you in court. There is, therefore, absolutely no case for a summary judgment. Such an application would become a laughing stock of the world.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew said on 9 May 2006: "If anybody calls me a liar and dishonest, I'll take him straightaway to court. I'll be in the witness box..." By going for summary judgment, how are you going to be in the witness box? And if you don’t get into the witness box, what conclusions do you expect us to draw from this?

We have lined up a list of witnesses that will support our defence and tear up your case. We have a lawyer, Mr M Ravi, who looks forward to cross-examining you. If you believe that you have just as strong a case, let us go to trial so that we can get to the bottom of everything.

We have said it before and we will say it again: We are prepared to face you in court Please don’t try to avoid this by applying for summary judgment. It is most unbecoming of a Minister Mentor and Prime Minister. If you have the temerity to sue us over the article, at least have the courage to face us in court.

Sincerely,

Chee Soon Juan
Chee Siok Chin

Related: Today says CSJ trying to avoid Lee

Singapore

PM, MM to apply for summary judgement against Chee siblings

Channelnewsasia.com: "SINGAPORE : Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew have decided to apply for a summary judgement from the High Court in their defamation case against Singapore Democratic Party's Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin.

This latest development comes after both leaders won in their defamation suit against the Singapore Democratic Party on June 7.

The High Court ruled in their favour after the SDP failed to file its defence.

This was for defamatory remarks made in the January edition of the party's newspaper against both the Prime Minister and the Minister Mentor.

If the court grants a summary judgement in their suits against the Chee siblings, the matter won't have to go to trial.

At Wednesday's hearing in chambers in the High Court, lawyers from Drew and Napier say both Dr Chee and Ms Chee will be writing to the two leaders to ask if they would agree to consolidate their two separate cases into one.

A reply from the Singapore leaders is expected by Monday.

The matter has been adjourned for a further two weeks and will come up again at the end of the month for a pre trial conference. - CNA /ct/ls

"

Singapore PM arrives tonight

Remember Nguyen Tuong Van

13jun06

SINGAPORE'S Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong touches down in Australia tonight, his first visit since the island state's controversial execution of a young Australian drug trafficker.

Officially, Mr Lee's trip will be dominated by talks on trade and security.

But ongoing concern over Singapore's mandatory death penalty is certain to be a feature of his more public engagements.

Melbourne drug mule Van Tuong Nguyen was executed on December 2 last year after Australia's exhaustive pleas for clemency fell on deaf ears.

Lawyer Lex Lasry, QC, who represented Nguyen, says he wants to send a message to Mr Lee that Singapore should change its policy of mandatory death for a number of crimes.

Prime Minister John Howard will hope continuing public anger over Nguyen's death does not cloud the visit, intended to strengthen ties between the two countries.

Official talks will focus on trade, investment, security and regional issues.

Mr Lee will meet Mr Howard tomorrow, along with other senior members of government.

During those talks, he is likely to address Singapore's desire that Australia review its open skies policy as part of an overall examination of free trade between the countries.

Earlier this year, the government rejected a proposal to allow Singapore Airlines to join Qantas and American-based United Airlines on the lucrative trans-Pacific route between Australia and the United States.

The Advertiser

Singapore

SEAPA director gives talk at UCLA

Executive Director of the Southeast Asian Press Alliance Roby Alampay discusses media laws and restrictions and new media's impact on Southeast Asia

By Amanda Natividad
AsiaMedia Staff Writer

Monday, June 12, 2006

Los Angeles --- Roby Alampay, executive director of the Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), believes that the only obligation of the media is to be as neutral as possible. In an event last Tuesday at UCLA, he also discussed the importance of understanding individual countries' media policies before expecting media freedom.

"It is impossible to try to capture diverse models for media operations in Southeast Asia in one paragraph, one page, one sentence, one statement," Alampay said. The only fair statement that can be made about the media of the Southeast Asia region is that every journalist, everyone expressing a radical opinion is threatened in one way or another.

For example, he said, it is not widely known that it is illegal to for a group of five people in Singapore to gather without a permit. In August, 2005 four people outside an office building were ordered to disperse or face arrest for public nuisance for protesting the government expenditures public funds.

A key question that Alampay urged the audience to ask applies not just to Southeast Asia, but to every country: Who owns the press? Whoever owns the press controls it; the owner manipulates what is and what is not being reported.

While conglomerates and powerful political figures take ownership of many broadcasting systems, hope lies in cyberspace, he said. Internet news and blogs are increasingly popular and, though many governments aim to tighten their reins on this new media, citizens are finding more freedom to make their voices heard online.

"We know that the Internet is something inevitable, something needed for economies to be competitive in this day and age. Governments know this…everybody knows that it is inevitable that everybody must get on this highway one way or another," Alampay stated. In many areas, such as Singapore, the Internet is becoming a means of social gathering

Still, the Internet is not readily available in all parts of Southeast Asia. Alampay said that Internet access in Cambodia can cost as much as $2 per minute. He cited statistics from Internet World Stats which say that only 9 percent of the population of the Philippines is online. Burma's (Myanmar) online population is just a tenth of a percent. On the other hand, the Internet regularly reaches close to 70 percent of Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore.

More influential in these areas are mobile phones, particularly SMS text messaging. 45 percent of Thailand's population, 65 percent of Malaysia and 43 percent of the Philippines own a mobile phone. Even Laos, a country in which the Internet is nearly nonexistent, has a 9 percent mobile phone user population, according to Telecompaper. From business executives to street beggars, mobile phones are indispensible to many in the region, said Alampay. New media is not limited to the Internet and as the World Wide Web goes mobile, these two technologies could form an incredible resource reaching millions of people.

SEAPA is a coalition comprised of five non-profit organizations was established in November 1998 in Bangkok. It is the only regional organization that exists solely to promote the freedom and protection of the press. SEAPA represents eleven countries.

Alampay began working with SEAPA in August 2004 after twelve years of working in journalism. His first job was reporting for the Philippine Daily Enquirer from 1991 to 1993; he then published and edited for Kampus Magazine from 1992 to 2000, and co-founded, designed, and managed FLIP Magazine from 2002 to 2003.

The significance and complexity of the Southeast Asia's media drives Alampay's work with SEAPA. Though he spent many years as a practicing journalist in the Philippines, he said that his staunch view on the promotion of media freedom is a bias that prevents him from calling himself a journalist today.


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

Roby Alampay spoke at an event hosted by AsiaMedia with support from the UCLA International Institute. Alampay is also an occasional contributor to AsiaMedia.

Date Posted: 6/12/2006

Singapore

Smile 2006

Ah, Minilee wants to welcome the world with a smile - or more precisely, he wants the entire nation to greet the IMF/World Bank conference with 4 million smiles.

It's as though Singapore is a gigantic Potemkin village, yes? That the entire population of Singapore will magically transform into obliging, smiling flight stewardesses to welcome the robber barons of global capitalism? And why on earth would Singaporeans be so docile and obedient to smile for the Prime Minister and his WTO, just because he's asking nicely?

Then again, this isn't unusual from the man who claimed that there is no angst in Singapore.

Okay Minilee and Mr Wong Kan Seng, here's my submission for Smile 2006.



Welcome to Singapore!
Protesters will be caned!
Have a nice day =D

Singapore

Howard urged to pressure Singapore on death penalty

ABC News Online

Howard urged to pressure Singapore on death penalty
A barrister who represented a Melbourne man hanged in Singapore last year is calling on Prime Minister John Howard to raise the issue when he meets with his Singaporean counterpart tomorrow.

Lex Lasry, QC [pictured], represented 23-year-old Van Nguyen, who was arrested in Singapore in 2002 on drugs charges.

He was executed last year after an appeal for clemency was rejected.

Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong arrives in Australia tomorrow for trade and security talks with Mr Howard.

Mr Lasry says he wants Mr Howard to join a campaign to change Singapore's law regarding the death penalty.

"It operated very unfairly in the case of Van Nguyen," he said.

"Lee Hsien Loong said that the rule of law had taken its course when Van Nguyen was executed but it wasn't the rule of law at all.

"The only thing that's even worse than a death penalty is a mandatory death penalty which takes the courts out of the equation.

"Ultimately I say that Singapore will have to change that law, it's an extraordinarily unfair law."

Singapore

MOE considering whether to hire native speakers to teach English

From Channelnewsasia:

The Education Ministry is studying whether to hire native speakers to teach English language in schools.

Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said this during a dialogue session at a student education conference.

Questions from the students at the dialogue session were wide-ranging.

But the concern on how to better enhance students' English proficiency cropped up often.

Mr Tharman assured them that his ministry is paying attention to this area.

But he pointed out that it is incorrect to say that the standard of English language has deteriorated.

Mr Tharman said that is because more people are speaking English now compared to 30 years ago and inevitably it gets spoken in a different way.

He said: "If need be, we can bring back native speakers of the English language to help us, especially in the first phase, help us to strengthen the teaching of the English language.

"We have many excellent Singaporean teachers in the English language. But we may need more numbers and this is something which we're looking into as well.

"At the top end, we need to do more, to make sure that those who have the ability to speak it well, really do so and are proud about it, just like how we want students to be proud about speaking the mother tongue well."

Earlier this week, Mr Tharman revealed that the new Minister of State for Education, Lui Tuck Yew, will be looking at improving the teaching and learning of the English language.

During the education conference, the students also presented their proposals such as having more exchange programmes between ITE and JC students.

The conference, organised by Hwa Chong Institution, involved 65 students from various schools.

After listening to the proposals given by the students, Mr Tharman said that he was very impressed with their work.

He called their suggestions constructive and mature.

And Mr Tharman was heartened to note that the students themselves want to broaden their education and develop life skills.

1. If Singapore's standard of English is apparently not deteriorating, then why consider hiring native English speakers at all?

2. Perhaps Tharman would like to clarify what the definition of 'deteriorating' is. If the standards are supposedly "changing", but not "deteriorating", then they are improving? Come on Tharman. As Education Minister, use your proficient language skills and tell us what you're really trying to say: the kids need help.

Singapore

L'infantile blogosphere - Revisited

There is a conclusion posted at the bottom of this post, which I can respond to by asking that if I had never raised the topic in the first place on Thursday, April 21, 2005 would more politically orientated bloggers have emerged? The original assertion was a descriptive interpretation not a prediction.

Aside from the debate it is great to see researchers taking a keen interest in the fascinating Singapore Blogosphere.

By Hwee Hwee Tan RMIT University


It all started when ...
Singabloodypore said, "Yes I am aware of some very mature blogs written by anonymous bloggers, to name just two, the likes of Wannabe Lawyer, Singapore Commentator stand out but go read the likes of MrBrown, Xiaxue and other certain blogs that shall not be named, and it is full of infantile sub intelligentia nonesense. I am very sorry for leaving Mr Miyagi out of the list."

A blog post that sparked off an online and offline debate on the voice of Singapore blogosphere ...

More ...


Is Singapore blogosphere infantile?
I set out to explore the issues arising from Steve's critique of Singapore blogosphere through a series of interviews with three seasoned Singaporean bloggers. This section captures selected excerpts and audio files from these interviews.

More ...

Are we infantile?
By no means representative of the entire blogosphere or for that matter the featured bloggers in entirety, this section draws on selected texts from Mr Brown, Mr Miyagi and Xiaxue, in an attempt to provide a flavour of the voices of these celebrity bloggers.

More ...
Beyond Tomorrow
The concluding section of this documentary reviews the role of bloggers in the recent Singapore Election, alluding to emerging issues that will continue to shape te ambivalent future of Singapore blogosphere.

More ...

Related Links from the Site:
Group dynamics in Singapore blogosphere

The voice of popular blogging

Inscribing cyber politics in Singapore – satirical politics of the personal

Infantile bloggers - politics of the personal?

Whilst these developments may appear to disprove Steve McDermott's critique of the Singapore blogosphere, it remains unknown whether blogs in Singapore will persistently serve as alternative sites to diversity the political discourse in Singapore. Rather than heralding the democratic potential of blogs, I would argue that blogs are by nature more of a self-serving means of expression than a representation of popular will. Hence, it remains to be seen whether in a closely monitored Police State, a centralising structure such as Tomorrow and the emergence of celebrity bloggers may serve to amalgamate the collective intelligence rather than privilege the voice of a dominant collective in the Singapore blogosphere. http://raws.adc.rmit.edu.au/~s3090325/beyondtomorrow.html

Singapore

Singapore: The Government's Role in the NKF

Below is the article which has resulted in the Lee family winning yet another defamation case behind closed doors. Written by Dr Chee and printed in The New Democrat. Why the closed doors? Might it be that they do not want you to read the article in question.

The Government's Role in the NKF

In all the hand-wringing and breast-beating by the Government over the NKF issue, Singaporeans must not lose sight of one thing: Such a scandal is inevitable given the kind of secretive and non-accountable system bred by the PAP.

The Government now tries to exone-rate itself by playing the innocent and gullible party duped by greedy NKF officials.

It forgets that in April 2004, Minister Khaw Boon Wan had, in reaction to public unease about the NKF, sought to appease Singaporeans by telling them that the Ministry of Finance "would have reacted many years ago" if there was any breach of rules by the NKF.

Mr Khaw categorically endorsed the NKF's dealings and called on the charity to "continue" to remain "transparent" in its operations.

At the same time the Second Minister for Finance, Mr Lim Hng Kiang, said that the NKF had "quite a sound record" because it spends "more than 80 percent of its funds on its beneficiaries" whom we now know are not kidney patients.

Clearly, alarm bells were raised. People could see that something was wrong and they had expressed their unhappiness over the years.

And yet, the Government which had the power to do something, chose not to. Not only did it choose not to rein in NKF but it also continued to praise the charity and encouraged people to donate to it. With assurances from not one but two Ministers, the charity went on its merry way.

The question that is on everyone's lips is: If Mr TT Durai had not taken the legal suit, would the Government have bothered to look into the NKF records? NKF would in all likelihood have continued to operate with the Government's blessings.

The NKF fiasco is not about bad practices. It is not even about negligence on the Government's part.

It is about greed and power.

It is about the idea that the political elite must be paid top dollar, no matter how obscene those amounts are and regardless of who suffers as a result of it.

It is about a system engineered over the decades by the PAP that ensures that it and only it has access to public information and by fiat decides what is allowed and what is not.

It is about what a "democratic society, based on justice and equality" should not be.

Singaporeans must note that the NKF is not an aberration of the PAP system. It is, instead, a product of it.

To ensure that there is transparency and that Singaporeans are kept informed of matters directly affecting them and their future, the Government must:

One, disclose the breakdown of the cost of building HDB flats and the profits HDB makes.

Two, reveal where and how GIC uses our savings.

Three, disclose the salaries of the top executives of Temasek Holdings and other GLCs.

Four, declare the assets and incomes of its Ministers.

Five, reform the election system to ensure that it is free and fair.

It goes without saying that someone must be held accountable over the whole sordid NKF affair. However, real accountability starts much higher up.

Related Article
If you think the running of NKF was bad, read this...

Singapore

Durai denies former NKF exco delegated absolute power to him

Of course there is absolutely nothing to be discerned from the fact that this court case only manages to come to the boil exactly one month after the general election.


By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia

SINGAPORE : The National Kidney Foundation's former chief executive TT Durai has filed his defence for the civil suit brought against him by the new NKF board, denying most of the claims made against him.

He also denied that the executive committee had delegated absolute power to him.

The new NKF management has alleged that Durai engineered a structure within the organisation that subverted proper checks and balances which should have acted to restrain excesses.

But in his 40-page defence, Durai claimed he had kept the executive committee informed of all that was going on in the NKF.

He said that the committee had free access to all records and could query anything that was being reported and decide on any proposals put forward.

On his pay, Durai denied that his bonuses depended upon the success of fund raising, saying this factor was only one consideration.

He claimed all salary increases, bonuses, overtime payments and unutilised leave compensation paid to him were decided by the exco.

He added that NKF's policy of not disclosing the salaries of its employees was not to mislead the public or conceal any improper benefits.

The new NKF alleged that Durai inflated the monthly treatment costs of patients and misrepresented patient numbers to gain public sympathy and increase donations.

Durai claimed, in his defence, that he was never involved in the computation of treatment costs of dialysis patients and that patient numbers were given to him by the various departments, which obtained the information from external administrators of programmes funded by NKF.

The old NKF had also awarded contracts worth over S$5 million to Protonweb Solutions and Forte Systems, both owned by Pharis Aboobacker.

While Durai admitted that Aboobacker is a friend, he claimed he took no part in NKF's evaluation to award an IT contract to Forte Systems.

He added that the executive committee had awarded the call-centre project to Protonweb Solutions because it was the cheapest option.

The new NKF said that both companies were paid despite Forte not delivering the software on time and Protonweb Solutions not fulfilling the contract terms fully.

Durai also denied allegations that former chairman Richard Yong and former treasurer Loo Say San were his associates, and acted on his instructions.

Durai alleged it was Dr Khoo Oon Teik, who founded the NKF in 1969, who invited Yong to become a member of the exco.

As for former director Matilda Chua, Durai claimed it was "not unusual to make ex-gratia payments to departing staff".

Chua had received generous pay performance bonuses after she declared her intention to resign.

Her monthly salary was increased to S$12,500 in June 2000, and backdated to April 2000, without any exco approval.

Durai said this was because of her contributions in running the charity shows, and he claimed that the person who took over her position was paid even more.

As for expensive business trips, Durai said he flew first class as the tickets were available at a price not exceeding business class fares, and it was NKF policy that senior personnel were allowed to purchase such tickets.

Four pages in the defence statement were also spent documenting Durai's contribution to NKF, which included setting up 21 dialysis centres and three prevention centres, tying up with top medical institutions to improve the quality of medical treatment, helping the Health Ministry in setting up an emergency dialysis centre during the SARS crisis, and spearheading a five-year multi-organ donation campaign.

In their defence, Yong, Loo, and Chua claimed Durai was singularly responsible for the NKF's day-to-day operations.

The three are also being sued by the new NKF, which is seeking more than S$12 million in damages. - CNA /ct

Related posts:
Govt cannot claim that it was “misled” in NKF scandal: Chee
The political parallels to the NKF scandal

Singapore

Singapore's top leaders LOSE defamation suit

The correct title is of course "Singapore's top leaders win defamation suit". So all you MNC CEO's out there can put the emergency red phone to your bosses overseas down.

If the Lee family actually ever lose a court case it would be the death nail in the coffin of authoritarianism in Singapore and an end to the lack of independence of the legislature, judiciary and the executive.

In order to defend themselves against the argument that the judiciary is not independent they should lose one case every two decades just to give themselves 'Plausible deniability'.

SINGAPORE (AP) - Singapore's prime minister and a senior Cabinet minister have won a defamation suit against the opposition Singapore Democratic Party after the group failed to file a defence, the High Court said Thursday.

The judgment came Wednesday in a closed door hearing, according to a court official who spoke on condition of anonymity in accordance with the High Court's policy.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father Lee Kuan Yew, a former prime minister and a current senior Cabinet minister, sued the opposition party and its leaders in April for allegedly defaming them in the party's newsletter by linking a scandal at a local charity to the ruling People's Action Party.

The SDP announced in May that it would not be defending itself in the lawsuit, meaning the Lees won by default.

Six of the SDP leaders named in the suit apologised and agreed to pay damages.

The damages to be paid will be decided at a later hearing.

Two other SDP leaders - Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan and his sister, central executive committee member Chee Siok Chin - are still fighting the defamation suit.

No date has been set for that hearing.

The lawsuit said articles in the January issue of the SDP newsletter linked a scandal at the National Kidney Foundation, Singapore's largest charity, to PAP governance.

Ruling party leaders have successfully sued several opposition politicians and journalists for defamation.

The leaders have said such actions are necessary to protect their reputations and clear the public record of false accusations.

Related Articles
Where's the defamation?The offending article from The New Democrat
Singapore Democratic Party to Contest Lees' Legal Action

Singapore

When GP teachers blog

Aside from infantile topics, political comedy and "scurrilous" anti-Whiteshirt posts, the blogosphere is for serious thinking and a medium for staging discussion.

We turn our attention to blogs operated by GCE A level General Paper teachers.

Mr Wang is dizzy and delirious that his blog is featured by a GP tutor. "Go, me!" he seems to say.
The Poblemengrish team note the substandard, almost pidgin English in a GP tutor's blog.

I'd like to feature an excellent post from a GP tutor's blog, though.

Media Literacy

Five Key Questions

“Who created this message?”
“What techniques are used to attract my attention?”
“How might different people understand this message differently from me?”
“What lifestyles, values and points of view are represented in, or omitted by from, this message?”
“Why was this message sent?”

And far more importantly, “Media have embedded values and points of view.”

Whenever you read a newspaper, a press release, a statement from the Prime Minister's Office, whenever you watch a piece of news, a public forum, a dialogue session on television, or pore through a minefield of survey findings from the IPS or the ST survey team, do you ask yourself these questions?

What conclusion is XYZ article trying to lead me into making?
Who does the message assume it speaks to, who is its 'ideal audience'?

The entire ST will lose its power as the propaganda unit of the Whiteshirt Party once Singaporeans are able to deconstruct its messages. Media literacy, the awareness of how messages are massaged and spun, will enable people to be immune from propaganda.

Singapore

Political Comedy Meme: The Singapore Politics Drinking Game!

Agagooga has written a hilarious post that might outdo the brilliance of Mr Brown's National Education series.

It is called The Singapore Politics Drinking Game.

Excerpts follow:

Every time the Party, the State and the Government are conflated, drink once.

Every time you see a stupid ST Forum letter about how democracy and Freedom of Speech are bad for Singapore, drink once. If the letter ends with "Majulah Singapura", drink twice.

Every time you see the archived shot of MM Lee crying, drink once. If it is accompanied with moving music in the background, drink thrice.

Every time a new buzzword is thrown up, drink once. Every time we have a new silly acronym ("SPRING Singapore"), drink twice. Every time a new false dichotomy is introduced ("Stayers" vs "Quitters"; "Heartlanders" vs "Cosmopolitans"), drink thrice.

Every time someone talks about Asian Values, drink once. Every time someone talks about the decadent West, drink twice. Every time we want to emulate the decadent West, drink thrice.

Your mission, if you choose to accept, is to add new rules to the Singapore politics drinking game in your own blogs, and link your post here, as well as add the following HTML code <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/singaporedrinkinggame rel="tag">singaporedrinkinggame</a>

I'll get the ball rolling now:

Every time someone talks about radical English-educated intelligentsia or ivory tower academics, drink once.
Every time someone accuses detractors as armchair critics, drink twice.
Every time someone invites critics to start their own political party, drink thrice.
Every time someone invites critics to start their own blogs, smash a bottle over your head. If the blogger is found to be evading taxes or being seditious/racist, smash two bottles over your head.

Every time the Whiteshirt party holds elections at the peak of the economic cyle, drink once.
Every time the ST reports the stock market rose the next day "because the Whiteshirts won", drink twice.
Every time the economy and stock market start tanking 6 months after the elections, drink the entire bottle.

Every time a Whiteshirt MP proclaims that a minor local accident or major international incident (that incidentally never affected Singapore) has brought Singaporeans together, drink once.

Every time NUS attracts an aged genetic researcher past the peak of their careers, drink once. If Papalee becomes the first successful test-subject for a bleeding edge life-extension technology invented by a pharmaceutical MNC based here, smash the bottle over your own head. If Papalee becomes a "negative outcome", buy everyone a round of drinks!!!

Singapore, singaporedrinkinggame

Bloggere i Singapore - politik på kanten (Danish)

I believe a few of our contributors were approached to take part. As I currently have no access to a sound card, I cannot listen to the Danish programme so hopefully someone will come up with a transcript soon.

Published Sunday, June 04, 2006 by Singapore Election

03. juni 2006 kl. 20:55 på P1

This one is for our Danish Speakers. Features Dr. Randy Kluver and do check out his blog.

[Listen] 1 hour 27 minutes(in Danish)

Singapore er et af Asiens rigeste lande, og er, i hvert fald på papiret, et demokrati. For selvom der er frie valg, så har den siddende regering indført en så skrap medielovgivning, at det faktisk umuligt for kritikere og oppositionspolitkere at kommer til orde. Hvilket selvfølgelig også er meningen, og det er da også en af de væsenligste grunde til, at regeringen vandt det netop overstået valg stort, med ikke mindre end 82 ud 84 pladser i parlamentet.

Men for første gang debatterede almindelig mennesker faktisk valgkampen, for selvom regeringen havde forbudt politiske pod- og videocast, så glemte den at forbyde politiske blogs. Og det har ændret Singaporianernes indstilling til deres politikere.

In English:
"Singapore is one of the richest countries in Asia, and at least on paper, a democracy. Even though there are free elections, the government applies so strict media laws that it is actually impossible for critics and opposition politicians to voice their opinions, which of course is the idea, and that is obviously also one of the most important reasons that the government won the recent elections with a huge margin; no less than 82 out of 84 seats in parliament.

But for the first time ordinary people actually debated during the election campaign because even though the government had made political pod- and videocast illegal, they forgot making political blogs illegal. And that has changed the attitude towards the politicians."

Singapore

Blogs and Freedom of Speech

Worldpress.org
June 6, 2006

A global phenomenon — blogging — has exploded in popularity to the point where there are now more than 20 million blogs being tracked around the world. They have risen in prominence as well as in numbers, with some leading blogs challenging the established order of the mainstream press. Indeed, at times the mainstream media has been put in the unusual position of reacting to news that bloggers generate.

The term 'blog' is a blend of the terms 'web' and 'log,' leading to 'web log,' 'weblog,' and finally 'blog.' Authoring a blog, maintaining a blog or adding an article to an existing blog has been dubbed 'blogging.' Individual articles on a blog are called 'blog posts,' 'posts,' or 'entries.' A person who posts these entries is called a 'blogger.'

According to online encyclopedia Wikipedia, the term 'weblog' was coined by Jorn Barger on Dec. 17, 1997. The short form, 'blog,' was coined by Peter Merholz. He broke the word 'weblog' into the phrase 'we blog' in the sidebar of his weblog in April or May of 1999.

Since 2003, blogs have gained increasing notice and coverage for their role in breaking, shaping, and spinning news stories. Bloggers provide nearly-instant commentary on televised events, creating a secondary meaning of the word 'blogging' — to simultaneously transcribe and editorialize speeches and events shown on television.

In 2004, the role of blogs became increasingly mainstream, as political consultants, news services and candidates began using them as tools for outreach and opinion forming. Appropriately, that year Merriam-Webster's Dictionary declared 'blog' as the word of the year.

'The Blossoming Of Citizen Journalism'

London's BBC (June 5) welcomed the new Internet craze in an article titled, "Why we are all journalists now," which said: "The blossoming of citizen journalism stands as one of the Internet's most exciting developments. With millions of bloggers, tens of millions of Internet posters, and hundreds of millions of readers, online news sources have radically reshaped the way we access our daily news. While mainstream news organizations initially expressed doubt about the news value of online sources such as blogs, in recent months many have launched their own blogs, frequently maintained by some of their most distinctive voices. Indeed, the remarkable growth of the blogosphere is enough to convince even the most die-hard skeptic that something important is afoot. Technorati, a blog search engine, reports that it tracks 75,000 new blogs each day."

A more detailed look at blog growth was provided by British business Web Site, Vnunet.com (May 26): "A new blog is created every second, adding to the 37 million that already exist, according to David Sifry, founder of the Technorati weblog data-set and link tracker/search engine. This staggering rate of increase equates to a sixty-fold growth of the 'blogosphere' within the past three years. There are no geographic or demographic boundaries to blogging. Ray Valdes, a web services analyst at Gartner, observed that the total number of bloggers worldwide makes it difficult to conclude that one geographical region could have a higher concentration of blogging activity than any other.

There are a number of blog formats, but according to Singapore's SDA Asia Magazine (May 25), the dominant computer operating system manufacturer has taken the lead: "MSN Spaces, Microsoft's free blogging platform, launched in Dec. 2004, has taken off in a big way in less than two years of existence. According to a data released by comScore Networks Inc., an independent Internet audience measurement and consulting company, MSN Spaces is the most widely used blogging service worldwide with more than 100 million unique visitors.

People all over the world have discovered profitable ways to incorporate blogging into their personal and business lives. OhMyNews International (May 11) reported: "In Africa, there are ways to extend the Internet as part of other methods of communication. This can be through SMS on mobiles or conventional radio for local relays. There is a flourishing blogging scene, featuring such blogs as Kenyan Pundit by Ory Okolloh. The Mail and Guardian hosted a blog for all politicians in recent local elections. This resulted in many comments and helped to encourage debate. There is also the start of a citizen journalism site at Reporter.co.za. The session started with a protest at the Reuters selection of images about Africa that reinforced assumptions about poverty."

Some blogosphere demographics were provided by India's Hindustan Times (June 2): "According to an Internet survey, blogging has more female addicts than male, with over 68 percent of bloggers being women. Although it is picking up in popularity with adults, blogging is still largely the domain of teenagers with nearly 58.8 percent of bloggers worldwide falling in the age group 13 to 19. … Blogging has its benefits even as far as one's emotional and mental health is concerned. When a number of people worldwide gather to express like viewpoints on an issue, it helps in collective ventilation whereby one derives confidence by sharing the same sentiments with others. Said Rahul Dewan, a blogger and a student of engineering, 'I find it (blogging) better than writing a book, because you can say exactly what you want, without interference from anyone else. You have your own space on the Internet, which people visit, read and comment upon. This way you also receive feedback over your post which can be used constructively.'"

From the Caribbean, the Jamaica Gleaner (May 3) reported: "Blogging, which might be a new word to many readers, is being grasped both here and abroad not only as the future of press freedom but also as an opportunity to develop media careers. … Peter Dean Rickards is a Jamaican photographer who, since 1999, has used his website The Afflicted Yard (www.afflictedyard.com), which includes a blog, as an online portfolio leading to work and recognition from leading international style magazines such as Fader, i-D and Vanity Fair. 'The Web's been a very effective tool for me. It serves primarily as a portfolio and allows me a great deal of independence as it relates to my own work,' Mr. Rickards said. 'It's allowed me to compete with writers and photographers around the world who have the advantage of being able to walk into offices and present their work in person.'"

Free Speech

The issue of free speech is a very important in discussions about blogs and blogging, as noted in London's business-oriented Web site Silicon.com (May 15): "In the same way that the Internet and technology provided the original facility for both sides — those who want to be free and those who want to constrain — it also provides new opportunities for communication and anonymity. IP tunnels, proxy servers, encryption, phantom email accounts and spoof addressing are among the obvious examples — not to mention the hiding and/or embedding of data in apparently passive files! And then there are all the tools used by the spreaders of viral infections and bot networks. All could be turned and used to keep free speech alive and safe."

World events have exterted a major influence on the growth and influence of blogs, according to Australia's The Age (June 2): "Although the technological capacity had existed for some time, and pioneering blogs such as the Drudge Report had been active since the 1990s, Sept. 11 fueled the explosion of what we now call the blogosphere — millions of websites operated by opinionated amateurs with access to the means of digital media production. Today, bloggers and citizen journalists increasingly shape the global media agenda. During the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Baghdad Blogger provided global audiences with a glimpse of what life was like for ordinary Iraqis stuck between an invading army and a brutal dictator. The Asian tsunami of 2004 was a global news story told largely with home video footage."

Reuters South Africa (May 6) reported on one of the hottest blogging scenes: "Blogging is booming in China with the number of bloggers expected to hit 60 million by the end of this year. China is the world's second-largest Internet market after the United States, with more than 110 million users. A survey by Chinese search engine Baidu.com put the current number of blog, or web log, sites at 36.82 million which are kept by 16 million people, the official Xinhua news agency said. But the Communist Party's propaganda mandarins are obsessed with control and have closed down some outspoken blogs. Chat forums and online bulletin boards are routinely monitored for controversial political comments and sensitive words such as 'freedom' and 'democracy' are censored."

As Silicon.com (June 5) reported, the censorship debate has heated up: "… Internet companies have also come under fire lately for some actions in China, including Google for saying it would block politically sensitive terms on its website in the country and Microsoft's MSN for shutting down a blog under Chinese government orders."

Government Censorship

A bulletin from France's Reporters Without Borders (May 3) presented a foreboding look into the possible future repression of bloggers' freedom of expression: "Dictators would seem powerless faced with this explosion of online material. How could they monitor the e-mails of China's 130 million users or censor the messages posted by Iran's 70,000 bloggers? The enemies of the Internet have unfortunately shown their determination and skill in doing just that. Censorship of the Web is growing and is now done on every continent. Traditional 'predators of press freedom' — Belarus, Burma, Cuba, Iran, Libya, the Maldives, Nepal, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam — all censor the Internet now. In 2003, only China, Vietnam and the Maldives had imprisoned cyber-dissidents. Now more countries do.

"A score of bloggers and online journalists have been thrown in jail in Iran since Sept. 2004 and one of them, Mojtaba Saminejad, has been there since Feb. 2005 for posting material deemed offensive to Islam. In Libya, former bookseller Abdel Razak al-Mansouri was sentenced to 18 months in prison for making fun of President Mohammar Khaddafi online. Two Internet users have been jailed and tortured in Syria, one for posting photos online of a pro-Kurdish demonstration in Damascus and the other for simply passing on an e-mailed newsletter the regime considers illegal.

"A lawyer has been in jail in Tunisia since March 2005 for criticizing official corruption in an online newsletter. While a U.N. conference was held in Tunis in Nov. 2005 to discuss the future of the Internet, this human rights activist was in a prison cell several hundred miles from his family. It was a grim message to the world's Internet users.

"The situation has worsened in the Middle East and North Africa. In Nov. 2005, Morocco began censoring all political websites advocating Western Sahara's independence. Iran expands its list of banned sites each year and it now includes all publications mentioning women's rights. Some Asian countries seem about to go further than their Chinese 'big brother.' Burma has acquired sophisticated technology to filter the Internet, and the country's cyber cafés spy on customers by automatically recording what is on the screen every five minutes."

In Iran, the situation appears to be particularly dire. According to London's Online Press Gazette (June 5): "Locking up bloggers remains a favorite practice of the Iranian authorities. In January, Arash Sigarchi received a three-year prison sentence for 'insulting the Supreme Guide' and for 'propaganda against the regime.' Sigarchi has kept a political and cultural blog since 2002."

Things are no better in Egypt, as an article in the Middle East Times (May 19) detailed: "As internationally acclaimed blogger Alaa, of www.manalaa.net, sits in prison waiting to be released, bloggers in Egypt have begun a new campaign to educate Egyptians and the entire world on the situation facing Egyptian bloggers. Manal, the other half of manalaa.net and Alaa's wife, told the Middle East Times, 'Lots of bloggers find freedom of expression attainable with blogs.' Last year Reporters without Borders awarded Manal and Alaa the freedom of expression award for their blogging efforts in Egypt. At the time, Egypt had only a few dozen blogs, but since then, an explosion of bloggers has been witnessed in Egypt. The number is now thought to be in the thousands.

"Alaa has snuck messages out of his prison cell and those have been posted online, in Arabic as well as English. His imprisonment has led more and more bloggers across Egypt to join the bandwagon calling for freedom of expression. Since April 27, blogs have sprung up throughout the country, all calling for action in order to free activists from prison. Among the thousands of blogs, Freealaa.blogspot.com and Freedroubi.blogspot.com are the most notorious. These blogs attempt to expose the ruling regime's tactics and call for people to take action in order to free the activists from what they call unlawful imprisonment."

Fighting Back

Fortunately, there are forces fighting back against the tide of Internet censorship. London's The Observer (June 4) reported on a celebrity-led, collaborative effort: "Chris Martin, Martha Lane Fox, Bob Geldof and Archbishop Desmond Tutu are among nearly 20,000 people who have backed The Observer and Amnesty International campaign to end repression on the Internet. This remarkable response to the launch of Irrepressible.info last week included support from around the world. The campaign — 45 years after a powerful article in this newspaper led to the founding of Amnesty International — recognizes the Internet as a new frontier in the struggle for human rights. It demands that governments stop censoring websites, blocking emails and persecuting and imprisoning bloggers. It also calls for major corporations to stop making it easier for them to do so. … More than 1,000 blogs are already linked to the Irrepressible.info website, and the campaign has been welcomed by bloggers who have suffered under oppressive regimes. Hossein Derakhshan, an Iranian now living in Canada, whose blog Hoder.com has been censored in Iran, said: 'By censoring the Internet and specifically blogs, governments are depriving themselves of amazing sources of information about what their population thinks of them and what they are up to.'"

Repressive governments are now being called on to account for their Internet policies, as AllAfrica.com (May 24) noted: "Reporters Without Borders has called on Ethiopia's information and culture minister, Hailu Berhan, to explain why several websites critical of the government have been inaccessible in the country since May 17. Ethiopians have also seen all publications hosted by Blogspot.com disappear from the Internet.

"Even though the authorities have made no announcement, it is likely that the disappearance of the sites is the result of political censorship and not technical problems. 'We would like to know if your government has deliberately blocked access to online publications, a list of which we enclose, thus taking the course of filtering the Internet,' the press freedom organization asked Hailu Berhan in a letter. 'The Ethiopian Internet is dynamic and has seen the development of an extremely active blogging community. It is your responsibility to ensure that all opinions can be expressed online, even when some Internet users directly criticise government action. Preventing debate and controlling news and information circulating online will only aggravate an already very tense political climate. … We also wish to draw to your attention the consequences of filtering a blog tool such as Blogspot.com, which is currently inaccessible in Ethiopia. Blocking access to this service has the effect of censoring all publications which it hosts, the vast majority of which do not deal with politics or with Ethiopia.'"

There have already been some successes in the battle for a censorship-free Internet. According to the Philippines NQ7.net (May 6): "Pakistani blogger Dr. Awab Alvi, on May 3, after almost two months since the initial ban was imposed, the Alvi-e Team — supported by bloggers worldwide joining under the 'Don't Block the Blog' banner — are pleased to report that they again have access to Blogspot blogs in Pakistan. Dr. Alvi said that the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) had blocked access to Blogspot on March 3, disallowing access to a number of websites for the Internet users in Pakistan. The ban was in response to a list submitted by a Supreme Court decision on March 2 that instructed the PTA to ban 12 offending websites which highlighted the blasphemous cartoons on the Prophet Muhammad.

"Alvi and his fellow bloggers said that the collective efforts of dozens of free speech activists of the 'Don't Block the Blog' campaign and the Action Group Against Blogspot Ban in Pakistan had successfully pressured the government to lift the ban."

An important U.S. court decision was also lauded as a step in the right direction in protecting bloggers' rights. Reporters Without Borders (May 30) noted: "Reporters Without Borders today hailed a Californian appeal court's 'historic' decision on May 26 that online journalists and bloggers have the same right to protect their sources as other kinds of journalists. The ruling was issued in a case between the U.S. electronics manufacturer Apple and websites that posted confidential information about some of its products. In his ruling, the appeal court judge refused to make a distinction between 'legitimate and illegitimate' news reports, warning that any attempt to go down this road would jeopardize the goals of the First Amendment.

Enjoy a fascinating trek through blogs from all over the world in Worldpress.org's World Blog section.

Singapore

SINGAPORE: Policeman who nabbed racist blogger gets award

Wasn't the charge 'Sedition' and not racism? I am also somewhat stunned into disbelief that the only way the Singaporean authorities can track a blogger down is with a lone police officer sitting at a computer.

Please tell me that the online security system is trying to play down their capabilities?

Station Inspector Mohamed Zulnizan Mohamed Arsis arrested blogger for comments against Malays

Straits Times
Monday, June 5, 2006

By Khushwant Singh

Station Inspector Mohamed Zulnizan Mohamed Arsis stayed awake for the better part of two days tracking down the blogger who posted racist remarks in October last year.

For his devotion to duty, he will be among the 335 police officers to receive commendation certificates today from Police Commissioner Khoo Boon Hui.

The 32-year-old inspector started tracking the blogger when a police report was made about his comments against Malays.

Inspector Zulnizan said: "I knew I had to check that particular blog every two hours so as not to miss any posting by the blogger's friends. If not, some of the postings would be replaced with new ones.

"Within a day, I found out what school he was in. Then I found out his address and he was arrested."

The 17-year-old blogger pleaded guilty and was placed on probation for two years and ordered to do 180 hours of community work for Malay welfare organisations to clear his misconceptions about Malays.

Inspector Zulnizan, a father of two sons aged four and two, said his teacher wife used to complain about his irregular hours but has now come to realise how much he enjoys his work.

Sleuthing also suits another award winner -- 32-year-old Staff Sergeant Mohammed Juanda.

"Every assignment requires a different approach -- a different cover," he said.

He is one of the five members of the Orchard Task Force, commended for making 27 arrests last year in cases involving theft, pickpocketing, credit card fraud, robbery and rioting in the Orchard Road area.

Date Posted: 6/5/2006

Singapore

Singapore opposition summoned for speaking without permit

Tue Jun 6, 2006 12:23 PM IST

By Koh Gui Qing

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore opposition politician Chee Soon Juan and two supporters have been summoned to court by the police for speaking in public without a permit between November 2005 and April 2006, a police spokesman said on Tuesday.

Chee, leader of the Singapore Democratic Party, and Yap Keng Ho and Gandhi Ambalam have been told to appear in court on June 20, police spokesman Victor Keong said.

Public speaking is prohibited in Singapore unless speakers have been licensed by the government.

"Our officers observed that Dr. Chee and other SDP-related persons were giving extended speeches and not merely making a sales pitch to sell their publications," Keong said.

Chee, who was served eight summonses, could not be reached for comment.

"The SDP is determined to break the PAP's stranglehold on free speech and peaceful assembly in Singapore," the SDP said on its website.

The wealthy city-state has been criticised by Amnesty International for its tight controls on political expression, but the People's Action Party (PAP), which has ruled the city-state since independence in 1965, says that firm regulation of public debate and the media is necessary to maintain law and order.

The SDP did not win any seats in the May 6 general election, but won 23 percent of the votes in the wards that it contested. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's PAP won 82 of the 84 seats in parliament, keeping the same number of seats as before.

Chee's sister, Chee Siok Chin, has appealed to the court to annul the results of the election on the basis that it was not free and fair, but the Attorney-General has asked the High Court to dismiss her application, the Straits Times newspaper reported on Tuesday.

Chee and his sister also face a defamation lawsuit, which was launched by Lee and his father, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, over an article in the SDP's newsletter.

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

Singapore

Goh Chok Tong speech decoded

3 May 2006 - Washington, speech to reporters

"The PAP is not out to have a clean sweep. What we are trying to offer is certainty of good government and good people in charge. So my message is this: Have your desire for opposition fulfilled, but never to the extent of changing the government."

--- Peanut Goh

Get your decoding rings ready!

1. "I do not have the calibre to function in a true democracy."
2. "In Singapore, the PAP decides how many opposition MPs Singaporeans are allowed."

Peanut Goh should grow up and accept the challenge of governing in a democratic country, where the voters decide how much of an opposition they want in Parliament. If he's unable to deal with the decision of the voters, he should either step down or work for peanuts.

My question to Peanut Goh: Let's cut to the chase and forget about elections, in this case. How many opposition MPs do you allow us to have, at maximum? Please, I want some more.

3. "We will do what we can to prevent Singaporeans from voting in more opposition MPs."

Peanut Goh admits he wants to control how Singaporeans vote! We need a clarification on what legal or extra-legal means he is contemplating. Does this include fixing opposition candidates? Or finding more ways to buy his supporters votes?

4. "The PAP will never allow voters to change ruling parties."

But Peanut Goh, you have no right to make this kind of statement. It is not your place to dictate to voters who they can and cannot vote for; how many seats the opposition is allowed and not allowed to win. It is not your place to tell voters they can vote in opposition politicians, but not too many.

Need I say that this is scandalous? Peanut Goh should withdraw from Marine Parade GRC for the insult to Singaporean voters he has made. The PAP should take clear, unambiguous steps to do the right thing, to sack Peanut Goh from the party before he damages their credibility any further.

"We can't fight the next battle using today's strategies," says Peanut Goh. But it is clear that the objectives of the Whiteshirt battle still remains the same as yesterday's battle. It is clear that the Whiteshirts still view voters as frightened children who must be told who they can vote for, and how many sweets they're allowed. It is clear that the Whiteshirts continue to be wildly out of touch with reality.

Singapore

Remember - People's Army turns against the people

Monday June 5, 1989
The Guardian

It is, for all who watch and wonder about the Communist world, the ultimate obscenity. Worse even than Hungary or Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan for there the tanks and troops were alien invaders, rolling across borders in the fashion through time immemorial of big powers knocking little powers into line.
But in China it is the People's Army turned against the people: shooting them indiscriminately in Tiananmen Square, on the streets, on their doorsteps, crushing them beneath tanks. A bankrupt, desperate, geriatric government, an edifice of ideology and aspiration, flaking and toppling before our eyes. We have been confronted, this week-end, by one of the great punctuation marks of 20th-century history.

No-one in the largest nation in the world will ever forget the first week of June in Beijing. A surge of desire for greater freedoms - not democracy as we know it, but an opening of society, a spirit of glasnost - has posed ultimate questions to a group of old men and, ultimately, at whatever cost, they have moved to stamp it out.

There was a chance, only a handful of days ago, that a more liberal strain of thinking within the Chinese Communist Party could, by its success in the backroom struggle for power, have harnessed the yearning for glasnost. But the old men won.

Are the manifest death throes of the Communist monoliths manageable? Can they be predicted and relied on? Could Tiananmen Square come to Red Square and savagely end a period of burgeoning hope?

The point is a starkly simple one. We, sitting comfortably in the West, assume that a spark in the individual human condition - a spark called freedom - must, in the end, make a bonfire of the system that seeks to snuff it out. We assumed, from Nixon on, that China could gradually evolve, that the business culture, the Americans with cheque books, would inevitably bring some form of democracy in their wake. Tell that, this bloody, awful morning, to the marines.

How frail is the Soviet spark? The Soviet people - because glasnost came first - may have acquired a patina of sophistication that the students of Beijing lacked. The Soviet Union is seeking to devolve power, to provoke argument, to manage change. The pensioners of the Chinese establishment had, long since, run out of ideas.

They must not get away with it. In the eyes of the West, because of the spark. And in the eyes of those who watch from Moscow, too, because the nightmare of Deng is theirs as well. We all, at root, know the Chinese march towards liberty must be resumed.

[From Angry Chinese Blogger]

Tiananmen Square

Good governance is top concern for voters in post-GE survey

For my own records.

Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 02 June 2006 2042 hrs
By Farah Abdul Rahim, Channel NewsAsia

SINGAPORE: Close to 1,000 voters surveyed have said "good governance" is the key factor in shaping how they vote.

Bread-and-butter issues, as well as upgrading, had less sway over them.

The Institute of Policy Studies survey also found that the pre- and post-independence generation were not all that different when it comes to views on the elections system, including whether it was a fair one.

The results of the survey came as a surprise to many political watchers.

The average Singaporean voter was more concerned about having an efficient and fair Government with alternative views in Parliament.

Even the personality of candidates came before bread-and-butter issues like the cost of living and jobs.

Upgrading was dismissed as not too important by more than half of the respondents polled.

"The lower bands of the social class, those who are poorer did not rank jobs, cost of living highly either. The ranking increased as you went through the higher income, that is a bit intriguing as you think those in the lower income band would be more interested in pocket book issues but you will notice that they rank question of fairness of government policy higher. In the end, people don't really look to the Government for their pocket book issues to be settled at the vote or ballot boxes. What they do want is a Government that is fair, that will treat all citizens equitably," said Dr Gillian Koh, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Policy Studies.

Nearly half of those surveyed felt it is important to have elected opposition members in Parliament.

This sentiment was marginally stronger among the pre-independence generation, especially those between 40 and 54, compared to the post-independence generation.

About a third of all surveyed want to see some change, in terms of political reform.

Nearly 1 in 3 above 40 prefer the status quo, and a fifth of the post independence group is similarly conservative.

While the rest have not made up their minds.

The majority felt the election system is fair to all political parties, with no need for change.

This includes those aged 65 and above, the working class, and those with primary education and below.

One in two surveyed were also of the view that the policy to link votes to upgrading was not fair - those under 40 were more inclined to feel that way.

"A big band of the post-65ers are in the swing category, for want of a better term. They haven't decided one way or the other, I suspect then that the other issues weigh more heavily when they cast their vote - the question is where will they land as they move further up the age bands. The post-65ers were not all out-and-out liberals, that the profile among the conservatives, pluralists, and the in-between swing categories was somewhat similar across the band from the post-65ers to the pre-65ers," added Dr Koh.

As for the quality of candidates, voters looked for honesty and people skills, rather than the candidate's credentials and even the party.

Voters continued to rely on television coverage and newspapers to help shape their voting decisions, followed by election rallies.

The Internet was least used for this, but the survey also showed that many in the post-independence generation also went online, while also depending on online sources of information.

On their assessment of political parties, the People's Action Party was deemed the most credible political party - it won strong support from those above 40 and the working class.

Those in the service industries, and a high proportion of those between 21 to 54 felt the Workers' Party was credible, while a bigger group among the 21-29 year-olds felt the same about the Singapore Democratic Alliance and the Singapore Democratic Party.

The Institute of Policy Studies said the results will help to better understand the Singaporean voter.

985 Singaporean citizens aged 21 and above made up of both voters and non-voters were polled almost equally to reflect the fact that 52 percent of the voting population actually exercised their vote in the May 6 General Election. - CNA /dt

Copyright © 2006 MCN International Pte Ltd

[ using terms like 'many' - is rather inaccurate and makes me wish I could get the actual data set. I know that before I even ask, the answer is NO]

Singapore

PAP rethinking strategy for Potong Pasir, Hougang: SM Goh

Washington DC: The People's Action Party is re-thinking its strategy for the opposition-held wards of Potong Pasir and Hougang in the wake of the recent General Election results.

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, who had been tasked to help win back these two constituencies in the May 6 polls, shared his ideas with reporters during a news conference at the end of his 2-day visit to the United States.

He also revealed that the defeated PAP candidates might not stand in those wards in the next election.

Over at Hougang and Potong Pasir, it has been quiet on the PAP front since last month's General Election.

There were no Meet-the-People sessions.

And it looks set to continue that way.

For a long time, residents there had enjoyed the so-called 2-in-1 effect - an elected opposition MP and a PAP man who also worked for their interests.

But Mr Goh said that could change as the PAP assesses its next move in the two opposition wards.

He said: "They would have to revise their strategy. For the time being......do what is minimal. That is what the opposition have been doing - do minimal, only criticise and have been able to get support. See what happens for the time being. At least half way through, may change tactic."

The tactic for now, though, is for the PAP grassroots organization advisers to look critically at whatever may not be working in their respective constituencies.

Mr Goh also revealed that PAP's Eric Low and Sitoh Yih Pin might contest other constituencies in future.

Mr Goh said: "While they'll be fielded in the next elections, may not be in Hougang and Potong Pasir because in our view, as party leaders, it's unfair to field Sitoh and Eric Low if we think they don't have a chance."

So who will stand there instead?

Mr Goh said: "Doesn't matter, can field new candidates and after 1-2 elections, that person would have his teeth cut. He would be a better person - he has fought and he can be an MP elsewhere.

"So why not Hougang? Since the residents have chosen to have an opposition MP, let them continue to have an opposition MP because the desire for an opposition is strong and the PAP is not out to have a clean sweep, but at the same time not wanting to let opposition grow."

But at the end of the day, Mr Goh said, he hopes that Singaporeans understand that stability and good governance is important.

Turning to the role of the Internet, he said that the government would have to liberalise the use of podcasting in future and learn to work the system to its advantage. - CNA/ir

1. Why was this announcement made in Washington D.C, of all places? It doesn't quite make sense, to be talking about such a relatively small issue over there, when perhaps, the order of conversation should have been FTAs or bilateral relations.

2. Look closely at the bolded words.

• For a long time, residents there had enjoyed the so-called 2-in-1 effect - an elected opposition MP and a PAP man who also worked for their interests.

  The opposition wards have NOT been enjoying a 2-in-1 effect. They have been deprived of the basic privileges extended to every other constituency in the country. Why aren't the PAP men there campaiging for upgrading, if they were really working to better the constituency?

• That is what the opposition have been doing - do minimal, only criticise and have been able to get support.

The opposition candidates have NOT been doing minimal, and simply criticising. If that was the case, the politically seasoned people of those constituencies would not be voting them in every single time. That's the PAP's job - criticising the opposition at every election, and having no real election issues.

• Doesn't matter, can field new candidates and after 1-2 elections, that person would have his teeth cut.

So those constituencies don't even matter to the PAP anymore - they are a training ground, it seems.

• but at the same time not wanting to let opposition grow.

Oops! Looks like someone let slip the true intention behind PAP.

Cutting through all the rhetoric, one message emerges loud and clear: if the opposition wards want to commit suicide, the PAP will only stand and watch. The exact same message was repeated in 1984, after a particularly "shameful" un-landslide election. See here for details.

Now we know how much they care.

3.

Turning to the role of the Internet, he said that the government would have to liberalise the use of podcasting in future and learn to work the system to its advantage.

Let me translate please, I speak the language of PAP very well. Learn to work the system to its advantage? Clearly, this, coming on the heels of Denis Phua's message about "managing" the internet, is PAP for learning to "control" the internet, and the bloggosphere. And note, this was left at the end of the article, almost as a casual remark. Kind of off-topic too, in what is an article about elections.

Singapore

Singapore's political parties take stock, gear up for next polls

SINGAPORE: Political parties have taken stock and are gearing up for the next election.

The Workers' Party wants to build up its pool of candidates, while the Singapore Democratic Alliance wants to merge its component parties.

For the ruling People's Action Party, it will be an all out effort to continue getting a strong mandate in future elections.

Speakers from the four political parties which contested the recent general election acknowledged there is now greater public acceptance of party politics in the country.

"An endorsement of this was seen on Tuesday when the Prime Minister made his swearing in speech and he says this election we have heard the people, we will do something about cost of living, we will look at health care costs. So we make no apology for canvassing the national agenda," said Sylvia Lim, Chairman for the Workers' Party and Non-constituency MP.

When asked what the Workers' Party would do for workers, Ms Lim said, "We will canvass outside of these organisations for issues that matter to workers, not necessarily to their union leadership but to workers themselves, for instance, in our manifesto you will see proposals for unions to be more indepedant and we have also proposed unemployment insurance to take care of workers who may be out of work."

One of the key issues at the Institute of Policy Studies' post-election forum was the future of opposition parties in Singapore come the next general election.

And some political analysts feel it would make good sense for the opposition parties to cooperate electorally and put up a good fight against the ruling party.

For its part, the Singapore Democratic Alliance wants to review the current arrangement, where its four component parties campaign on different platforms.

"We are proposing also that in the next general election five years from now, only an SDA party. We don't want a coalition of parties, in other words there is a likelihood that the NSP may dissolve as well and then we have just one SDA party to contest just like the Workers Party and SDP. The work has to start now and not five years later to be able to be a party to contend with in the next GE. If we don't do that, then we will be out of the running because it takes a lot of time and effort from members to contest the next GE," said Dr Vincent Yeo from the Singapore Democratic Alliance.

For the PAP, the recent general election threw up challenges.

Ms Indranee Rajah said the competition was good and the party's getting ready to take the next step .

"The electorate has different views on certain things. But if we are able to reach them, if we are able to say "ok", this is the scenario, we will take it in our stride and we will offer you the right things which we hope you will agree with and which we hope reflect what people think on the ground, then we would deserve the mandate that is given to us. That's our challenge and I don't think we have any hesitation in taking it on, and we hope we will have a strong mandate in elections to come," said Indranee Rajah, MP, Tanjog Pagar GRC.

And one way the PAP hopes to achieve this, is by making sure people feel that their lives have improved. - CNA /dt/ct

Singapore

In Singapore, a censor's cuts and sensibilities

By Sara Webb | May 31, 2006

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore's chief censor, Amy Chua, says she loves human interest films -- the kind where the humble protagonist succeeds against all odds.

"Erin Brockovich," "Billy Elliot" and "Million Dollar Baby" are among her favorites. "Cut," in which Singapore director Royston Tan settled a score with the censors for mutilating one of his films, is not.

In "Cut," a film buff chases a frumpy censor as she wheels her cart down a supermarket aisle, and reels off a string of films which the bureaucrat had snipped -- from "Lost in Translation" to "Titanic." "Cut" itself, first shown in 2004, was not censored.

"This film misrepresents the Board of Film Censors (BFC) because we are portrayed as being "scissors-happy" when this is far from the truth," Chua, the BFC's chairwoman, told Reuters. "I'd prefer if we are viewed as classifiers rather than censors.

The film won a following among cineastes in the city-state, where an outing to the cinema often used to be memorable not so much for the film itself as for the jerky edits excising bare breasts, sex scenes and obscenities.

"'Cut' is a plea from the Singapore film industry," said Tan.

However, Singapore's long-standing stranglehold over content is being eroded thanks to technology, now that many films can be downloaded for free over the Internet.

Two years ago, following a review of censorship practices, Singapore revised its classification of films and videos, giving a wider range of ratings. Now there is a category for viewers over 18 years old, in addition to existing ones for 16-plus and 21-plus. Now there is less need to cut "adult" scenes as a film can be rated for a mature audience.

NUDES AND PRUDES

"Censorship is a reflection of a country's social norms and values," said Chua, a demure woman in her 50s who is in charge of content for film, video, broadcast and publications at the information ministry's Media Development Authority (MDA).

"In Scandinavia full nudity (on screen) might not be a problem, but if we had full nudity, parents would complain."

The censors' vetting of videos brought into the country for personal use may be eliminated next, Chua said.

The addition of the category for over 18s gave viewers more choice while protecting younger audiences, she said. As a result, films that deal with controversial issues -- at least for Singapore -- can be seen in cinemas.

The city-state officially outlaws gay sex.

Wong Kar-Wai's gay love story "Happy Together" was shown first at a film festival but was not allowed for commercial distribution under the old rating system.

But award-winning "Brokeback Mountain," based on Annie Proulx's story about two gay cowboys, was shown uncut this year.

"It didn't really glorify homosexuality as a lifestyle, and scenes were tastefully shot," said Chua who, as head of the BFC, reviews controversial films such as "Brokeback Mountain" and "Kinsey," which is based on the life of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey.

But Tan, the Singaporean director, ran afoul of censors with his film about local youth gangs: "15" had 27 cuts for offensive language, violence and gang chants which the authorities feared might incite violence and glorify gang culture.

SEX, VIOLENCE AND POLITICS

Singapore's sensitivities extend beyond sex, violence and swear words to political, racial and religious issues, reflecting more than four decades of one-party rule and a population mix of ethnic Chinese, Malays and Indians.

The People's Action Party, which has dominated politics since independence in 1965, has repeatedly used defamation lawsuits against opposition politicians. In the run-up to the May 6 general election, the government warned Singaporeans against posting political commentary in blogs and podcasts.

Last year, Singaporean film director Martyn See had to withdraw his documentary on opposition politician Chee Soon Juan from a film festival. See was then questioned by police, who confiscated copies of the film as well as his film equipment.

"Political subjects can be treated in a film. It's how you treat it, whether it's balanced," said Chua who spent most of her career at Singapore's state broadcaster making documentaries and managing programing.

The Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) said last year that "party political films are disallowed because they are an undesirable medium for political debate in Singapore." MICA said "the ban here is only on films which deal with political issues in a partisan manner."

The See saga prompted a member of the public, Kelvin Lau Jit Hwee, to write to a local newspaper pointing out that the state-owned broadcaster had screened a series about government leaders: Could they also have violated regulations and face investigation by police, he asked.

The government said the series did not breach the Films Act "as the discussions were conducted in a non-partisan manner."

"Things have improved, but it's often a case of two steps forward, one step back," said poet and writer Felix Cheong.

Singapore, censorship

World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund

Asia in the World, the World in Asia

September 16-18, 2006
Pan Pacific Hotel
Singapore

About The Program

The Program of Seminars creates a forum during the Annual Meetings for private sector representatives, government delegates, representatives of civil society, and senior World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund officials to engage in dialogue on finding solutions to the major financial and development challenges confronting the international community.

The Program includes roundtable discussion, seminars, and regional briefings. The topics of the thematic sessions reflect issues that are making headlines and are affecting the lives of people. The regional briefings provide potential investors with unique access to policymakers and insights in to the business environment in emerging markets.

The Program promotes partnership, cooperation, and sharing knowledge, experiences, and new ideas. It is designed to interest a broad audience of policymakers, academics, representatives of civil society and others who attend the Annual Meetings.

Program Goals

To encourage and contribute to a dialogue among business leaders, high-level government delegates, World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund officials, and representatives of civil society about how to make the global economy work for everyone.

To provide cutting-edge, up-to-date information on topics addressed in individual seminars.

To catalyze actions to achieve sustainable development and international financial and economic stability by identifying institutional, social, and technological requirements for success.

To promote public-private partnerships to foster sustainable development.

Program Features

Seminars stimulate discussion about how to address the major development challenges facing the public and private sectors and civil society today.

Regional briefings provide information about investment opportunities in selected countries.

Publication and other printed materials cover the range of themes, regions, and countries addressed in the Program.

How To Attend The 2006 Annual Meetings Program of Seminars

ELIGIBILITY

The Annual Meetings Program of Seminars is open to private sector representatives, government delegates, representatives of civil society, accredited press, observers from international organizations, staff of academic organizations, government agencies and World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund officials.

Members of official country delegations, Observers from international organizations, and duly accredited members of the Press registered to attend the Annual Meetings are not required to pay a fee or apply in order to attend the Program.

Representatives of Civil Society Organizations must be accredited to attend the Annual Meetings. They are not required to pay a separate fee or apply to attend the Program of Seminars. The Civil Society accreditation system will open on June 1, 2006 and will close on August 1, 2006. Please see the Civil Society website for more information.

APPLICATION PROCESS

The 2006 Annual Meetings Program of Seminars pre-registration/application form is to be completed only by staff of academic organizations, government agencies and the private sector.

Private Sector representatives must apply and pay to attend the 2006 Program of Seminars. We welcome payments in the form of wire transfer, American Express, Visa, MasterCard, Eurocard, Discover, and Diners Club.

ACCREDITATION AND CONFIRMATION OF YOUR REGISTRATION

All applicants will be accredited through the Annual Meetings accreditation process. Applicants are encouraged to submit pre-registration/application forms as soon as possible to facilitate this process, which could be lengthy. Once accreditation has been obtained, applicants will be able to attend the Program of Seminars. Applicants will receive a confirmation letter from the Special Guests and Visitors Office for the Annual Meetings.

The accreditation process to attend the Annual Meetings will begin in June 2006. On-site registration starting August 20 can result in lengthy delays in the accreditation and registration process.

REGISTRATION DEADLINES

Last date for pre-registration is August 20, 2006. Forms submitted after this date will require on-site registration which may result in delays of more than 24 hours.

Online Registration This on-line registration form is for the 2006 Annual Meetings Program of Seminars for staff of academic organizations, government agencies and the private sector.

You must register through the Civil Society website if you are a representative of:

Non-governmental organization ( NGO) or
Local community group
Labor union
Indigenous group
Think Tank
Charitable organization
Faith-based organization
Professional association
Foundation

If you are thinking of attending you might need to start saving round about 2004.

Full Program - US $1500
One Day Program - US $950

Singapore

SINGAPORE: Bloggers say Net best left unregulated

Bloggers believe Internet regulates itself and blogs that lack credibility would lose readers

Straits Times
June 1, 2006

By Leslie Koh and T. Rajan

Netizens believe that the Internet has its own checks and balance, and is best left unregulated by the Government.

For instance, said bloggers, websites that feature wild, baseless accusations or irresponsible content will soon lose their readership and credibility, as readers move to other websites.

And unfair criticisms of other postings on forums or blogs will likely draw counter-arguments, sparing the original writer the need to respond to every comment.

This is how the Internet regulates itself, said those who argued against the need for the authorities to monitor and manage political debate on the Net.

It was a point stressed repeatedly yesterday at the conference on new media by bloggers, or what the Internet calls those who post their thoughts and reports on online diaries called weblogs, or blogs.

Mr Lee Kin Mun, 36, who runs the popular blog Mr Brown, said: "If I became irresponsible and started saying things without basis, people will go elsewhere as there are other bloggers in Singapore."

He was responding to a call by Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lee Boon Yang for Netizens to be responsible.

The consequences of irresponsible comments on race or faith-related issues in multi-racial Singapore, the minister explained to reporters later, could be "horrendous."

Media practitioners agreed that such issues had to be approached with care, but some urged the authorities to take a hands-free approach towards the Net.

At a roundtable discussion, Mr Peter Lim, 67, a former editor-in-chief of The Straits Times, argued for minimal regulation.

He wondered if the 'light touch' that Dr Lee spoke of could evolve into "almost no touch," and if the authorities were bold enough to do so.

Another blogger, Mr Benjamin Lee, 37, agreed.

"I'd rather there wasn't any touch at all. I would prefer the Government to be engaged with the new media rather than regulate it," he told reporters.

One way, he suggested, was for politicians and civil servants to set up their own blogs, or take part in online forums.

Regulation of the Net was one of the hot topics at yesterday's conference, which discussed the differences between traditional media, such as newspapers and television, and new media in cyberspace.

But while bloggers stressed the Internet's built-in checks and balance, they also acknowledged Netizens' responsibility not to break the law in their blogs.

Mr Lee Kin Mun said: "Our slogan is, 'Prison got no broadband'. It is part of our effort to educate, especially the young people.

"We tell them not to be rash. If they feel the content is risky, then we say, 'don't publish.'"

Date Posted: 6/1/2006

Just wondering if MrBrown was misquoted or mis-paraphrased but

"Mr Lee Kin Mun said: "Our slogan is, 'Prison got no broadband'. It is part of our effort to educate, especially the young people.

"We tell them not to be rash. If they feel the content is risky, then we say, 'don't publish.'"

Who is 'our' and is the syllabus available online or do I pick it up at the Today Newspaper? So Mr Brown, is that not self-censorship? 'Publish and be damned' as opposed to 'publish or be damned'.

Singapore

Petition for Upgrading for residents of Hougang and Potong Pasir

From One Singaporean to Another
---

TO: The Prime Minister of Singapore

Dear Sir

I am an ordinary Singaporean who is not affiliated to any political party in Singapore. And I live in a PAP-held ward. However, as a concerned Singaporean and a pro-Singapore citizen, I felt compelled to speak up for my fellow Singaporeans in Hougang and Potong Pasir who showed to the rest of Singapore that they have the courage to stand up for the MP who has worked so selflessly for them and also the SOUL to reject material goodies. Aren’t such qualities admirable?

In fact, these fellow Singaporeans at Hougang and Potong Pasir clearly demonstrate that the ‘glue’ that bonds citizens and country is not just endless money incentives and countless upgrading on the façade. We need better heartware and not hardware!

When I watched the press conference during the wee hours of 7 May and I heard you said “Not all who voted for the Opposition reject the PAP programme or the PAP Government,”

“Now that the elections are over, we should come together again as one people,” you said. “Whichever party that you voted for, let’s close ranks, and in the words of the manifesto, stay together and move ahead,” it gave me (and many others) hope.

Yes, Singapore has moved ahead since our independence in 1965. We have come this far because of far-sighted political leadership, as well as all Singaporeans rallying as one to build this nation.

Read the rest of the petition here. The petition was created and written by Tay Lai Hock.

Singapore

Singapore’s Phoney Democracy

Click here to read Mr Lee's letter of congratulation from openDemocracy for winning May's Bad Democracy award

Tom Burgis
1 - 6 - 2006

Singapore's increasingly hard-pressed people deserve better than the electoral charade offered by their prime minister Lee Hsien Loong, the recipient of the seventh monthly "bad democracy" award.

We hope it will be taken the right way if we suggest that, in choosing Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore's prime minister, as the winner of the seventh Bad Democracy Award, you, dear readers of openDemocracy, are coming to resemble Holden Caulfield, the disenchanted iconoclast of JD Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye.

It is not the sheer violence of the world that outrages you – you have spurned such fiends as Robert Mugabe and Islam Karimov. You did not punish the ruinous but apparently heartfelt zeal of Tony Blair or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

No, the political trait that leaves you apoplectic with wrath – that which marks the Berlusconis, the Howards and the Lukashenkos of this world – is the same that riled young Holden. Lee, like most of our previous winners, is a phoney.

Lee is keen to be seen as a democrat. He talks like a democrat. He holds elections.

But, beneath that thin veneer, he and the party he leads, the People's Action Party (Pap), have not the faintest inclination to bend to the will of the Singaporean people.

In May's elections, the Pap scooped eighty-two of the country's eighty-four seats, thirty-seven of which were won uncontested. An outpouring of electoral adoration for Lee? We fear not.

His father, Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's first prime minister who governed with an iron-fistful of dollars for thirty-one years and who many believe continues to pull his son's strings in his post of "Minister Mentor", reproached those who did not vote for the Pap as "ungrateful".

Just to ensure that voters were clear where to direct their gratitude for the Lee dynasty's selfless service, Lee Snr sued Chee Soon Juan, leader of the Singapore Democratic Party, claiming that his campaigning amounted to "defamation".

In a battling but futile repost, Chee has lodged an application to have the election declared void, on the grounds that his activists say they witnessed government officials doling out cash to prospective voters and telling those Singaporeans who live in public housing – about 85% of them – that investment in their estates would run dry if the local Pap was not returned.

"Politics in Singapore is still very primitive. Fear pervades society."

Intimidation may be conducted with more élan here than in nearby Burma or Indonesia, but nonetheless, Chee argues, dissenters are cowed.

He has been bankrupted by the litigious Lees. All the same, his party won 23% of the vote in May – in spite of intimidation that saw hotels refuse to host his press conferences and printers too terrified to ink his leaflets.

"Politics has become a crime, human rights is taboo", he says. "The entire atmosphere is poisoned."

Plainly, this is not the height of democratic behaviour. But, the argument goes, what is a little opposition-bashing when Singapore, a city-state with a population of just 4.5 million, has blossomed into the fifty-fourth largest economic entity on the planet, with a GDP bigger than Ireland's and a turnover in excess of Citigroup's? Shouldn't Singaporeans stop grumbling about a spot of disenfranchisement and just get on with living their fabulous lives?

"If that were true, why is the government so scared?" Chee asks. "If we are all more prosperous, the government should have no problem with free elections.

"But why do they sue oppositionists? They already control all the media, but why did they ban podcasting and blogging for the nine days of the election campaign?

"Yes, Singapore has more prosperity. But you have to ask: prosperity for who?"

A pertinent question – especially when one recalls that Singapore is held up as the glinting model of the "Asian values" by which tough governments deliver their people from poverty.

A recent report in the Asia Times found that all may not be rosy enough in Singapore for Lee to rely on the sheer adulation of a wadded electorate to keep him in power.

Since the Asian financial crisis bit in 1997, the gap between rich and poor has widened dramatically. While Singapore has the world's fastest growing number of millionaires, the poorest have seen their incomes halve over the past decade.

The rising tide, as we are incessantly reminded by those who badger governments to keep their noses out of free-wheeling economies, is supposed to lift all boats. It is odd, then, that Lee recently told many of the most needy among his flock that their boats may soon be scuppered, coolly informing them that the unemployment rate was set to rise.

What's more, in his drive to court foreign investment at all costs, Lee has not seen fit to provide a minimum wage or anything else to soften the buffets to the remaining non-millionaires.

As he swore in his new cabinet on 30 May, Lee made all the right compassionate noises, prompting Denise Phua, a Pap MP, to gush: "What is most impressive to me is that he always promises us that no one will be left behind and I'm very interested in this. I hope to be able to contribute to this end as part of his team."

You get the impression that the burgeoning legions of young unemployed and those who work their fingers to the bone for a pittance in a country whose leaders never stop telling them that they've never had it so good have heard that one before.

Click here to read Mr Lee's letter of congratulation from openDemocracy for winning May's Bad Democracy award

Vote for me

And so, speaking of shameless phoneyness, we turn to our next batch of offenders against democracy.

One band of ne'er-do-wells who have shown themselves to be very much of the less-government-more-cash philosophy propounded in Singapore was the senior management at Enron, which heads our latest list of nominees.

Enron's monumental attempts to conceal its crooked ways is in marked contrast to the tactics of our second nominee, the Bulgarian mafia, more given to knee-breaking and extortion but similarly oblivious to any notion of the greater good.

Then we have two real eccentrics of the dictatorship circus: Libya's Colonel Gaddafi, who once observed that "there is no state with a democracy except Libya on the whole planet"; and North Korea's "dear leader" Kim Jong-Il, apparently history's greatest golfer.

The list concludes with those charming rogues of the Taliban and Chad's Idriss Déby, one of Africa's more limpet-like leaders.

As ever, the choice is yours. You can vote for them here and muse on them here. In the meantime, we shall continue to thumb our copy of The Catcher in the Rye and dream up some appropriate way to deal with the winner.

This article is published by Tom Burgis, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.

Singapore

Downsides devalue Singapore Inc

Michael Backman
May 31, 2006

ASIA ONLINE

KIASU is the term Singaporeans use to describe the unpleasant side of their culture. Acting in a kiasu manner means being greedy, unwilling to share and insensitive to others. Many Singaporeans feel this is a good description of the Government and its approach to power. The winner-take-all attitude is out of step with other nations.

No one can deny that Singapore is an easy place (although not necessarily a good place) to do business, compared with its neighbours.

Singapore scores highly on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index: it is ranked No. 5 of 158 countries. The Global Competitiveness Report ranks Singapore No. 6 of 117 economies.

The Government likes to broadcast these figures. But it doesn't broadcast that it executes more people per head a year than almost anywhere else. Reporters Without Borders has Singapore No. 140 of 167 countries for media freedom.

It is as if Singapore is more a ruthless corporation than a country with a civil society, its people more employees than citizens, and its broadsheet, the Straits Times, more like a staff bulletin than a newspaper. As a Singaporean diplomat once told me, "We don't have journalists in Singapore; only propagandists."

Increasingly, people around the world are beginning to laugh at Singapore; they laugh at its Government's petty and self-serving restrictions on what people can and cannot do. But in Singapore, many people are unaware of this because the Government-controlled media feed them a diet of only good news stories.

Race relations are often used as an excuse for restrictions. But Singapore has one of the most homogeneous race profiles in the world: 77 per cent are Chinese, the rest comprise Malays and Indians. Singapore does not have the racial complexities of many countries.

The Maria Hertogh case is cited as an example of how Singapore is on the edge racially, and used to justify various restrictions. Rioting erupted among Malays after a court allowed a Dutch girl who was raised as a Muslim to be returned to her Catholic parents. This was 56 years ago.

No viable opposition has been allowed to form, and without robust national debate Singaporeans are becoming politically de-skilled. Accordingly, the Government comprises plenty of ministers but few politicians, and there is little elegance to their art. They know only how to clobber: too often alternative viewpoints are responded to with public humiliation, threats, defamation writs and detention. Business should consider these aspects and not just competitiveness when assessing Singapore as a place for investment.

The Singapore Government hates people like me commenting on what it regards as its internal affairs. It hates it because foreigners cannot be controlled. But that does not stop the Singapore Government from intruding in the internal affairs of other countries.

Eddie Teo, Singapore's new high commissioner to Australia, has written letters to The Age critical of my recent columns. This is the first time Mr Teo has lived outside Singapore in 35 years and no doubt he finds a free media refreshing.

In one letter, Mr Teo claimed Singapore's defamation laws follow the English model. He is wrong. The British government does not sue opposition politicians so they are bankrupted and cannot run for parliament. If the British are to be blamed for Singapore's laws, then they can be blamed for Singapore's economic success. It was they who established Singapore as a free-trade port, which has made Singapore rich.

He says Singapore has a good legal system. That is true, but only compared with Indonesia, the Philippines, China and Thailand. Laws that have not had the benefit of open public debate and passage through a robust parliament are not really laws but decrees.

Rule of law becomes rule by law and many things are possible. Execution without a jury trial is one; torture is another.

Geoffrey Robertson, QC, writing last month for the Open Democracy Foundation, describes how torture was used in Singapore in the 1980s. A group of young lawyers, Catholic aid workers and women playwrights were rounded up by Singapore's Internal Security Department and detained without trial because they were suspects in an alleged Marxist conspiracy. They were not terrorists, they were political activists. The worst they seemed to have done was distribute Marxist literature.

They were deprived of sleep, doused with cold water and blasted with refrigerated air. The torture was not physical and left little evidence, which was its point. Instead, it was psychological and left what Robertson terms the Singapore scar. The minister then responsible for the ISD was Lee Hsien Loong. He is now Singapore's Prime Minister.

And who headed the ISD and Defence Ministry's Security and Intelligence Division for much of the 1980s? Eddie Teo, Singapore's high commissioner to Australia, the man who now enjoys our media freedoms, but who has spent much of his career denying Singaporeans similar freedoms. Some might regard that as kiasu.

michaelbackman@yahoo.com

www.michaelbackman.com

Singapore

Singapore rejects Canadian charges of biased judiciary

The Asian Pacific Post
Wed, May 31 2006

Singapore’s Law Ministry has roundly rejected allegations about a "biased Singapore judiciary," which has come under intense scrutiny in a case in Canada.

The Canadian company making the allegations has already lost a court battle on its home ground in Canada, it pointed out.

Ontario-based EnerNorth Industries, an oil and gas company, is arguing that it never got a fair trial in Singapore after it was ordered to pay US$2.79 million (C$3.1 million) by the courts here to its former Singapore-based partner, Oakwell Engineering.

But Oakwell won in Canada too, pointed out a Law Ministry spokesman.

Justice Gerald Day of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in its favour when it applied to have the award enforced in Canada last August.

But EnerNorth appealed.

It asked the Ontario Court of Appeal to decide if legal decisions made in Singapore are fair and impartial enough to meet Canadian standards of justice.

The appeals court reserved judgment after hearing the case recently.

Oakwell is a Singapore corporation that supplies engineering works and products in the marine industry while EnerNorth is an Ontario corporation engaged in shipbuilding, engineering, construction and power generation around the world.

In June 1997, the two firms agreed to jointly finance, construct and operate two mobile power plants to generate electricity in the state of Andhra Pradesh, India.

But 14 months later the project soured and EnerNorth bought out Oakwell’s stake in exchange for US$2.79 million, royalty payments, and shares in EnerNorth.

EnerNorth did not stick to the deal and in August 2002, Oakwell sued for US$2.79 million in Singapore.

The case was heard by the late Justice Lai Kew Chai.

EnerNorth brought a counterclaim against Oakwell for US$175 million (C$195 million) but its claim was dismissed and it was ordered to pay the money demanded by Oakwell.

EnerNorth’s appeal in Singapore was dismissed by a three-man court headed by former Chief Justice Yong Pung How in April 2004.

EnerNorth’s allegations in Canada have been dismissed by Oakwell’s lawyers.

"This is not a political case. It is a commercial matter.

"It was heard before the courts of a country built on foreign investment, with an impeccable reputation for fairness to foreign firms like EnerNorth," said Oakwell’s lawyers.

In Singapore, EnerNorth was represented by lawyers from Drew & Napier and Oakwell by Philip Jeyaretnam.

A Law Ministry spokesman said: "These allegations have been roundly rejected by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice."

In deciding the case, Judge Day of the Ontario Superior Court said that he was satisfied "that there is no reason to doubt the impartiality of the judges who heard the case in Singapore."

"Singapore prides itself on having an independent and impartial judiciary," said the Law Ministry spokesman.

She added that the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy in Hong Kong has "consistently rated the Singapore judicial system as one of the best in the region, and emphasized that Singapore has one of the most fair and transparent legal systems in the world."

Singapore

And The Winner Is!

The Open Democracy award for worst abuser of democracy goes to...





Congratulations PM Lee Hsien Loong, another title for your curriculum vitae. We are sure you will carry the infamy with pride and honour.

Singapore

Protests Before and After September 2006

"I hope that peaceful protests spring up in September 2006. The reason is that assuming September 2006 and its various protests go by without any shameful incident, will the government then become mature enough to handle peaceful non-disruptive protests in Singapore from then on? Is September 2006 the watershed in our street protest culture?"

From Chemical Generation