Doors close on free press

Original article can be viewed here.

There is no end in sight to the dangerous restrictions facing journalists in south-east Asia, reports John Aglionby

Thursday January 1, 2004

A former Vietnamese journalist, Nguyen Vu Binh, who used the internet to criticise his country's government is sentenced to seven years in a trial closed to foreigners. Zaw Thet Htwe, the editor-in-chief of Burma's First Eleven Sports Journal is sentenced to death for alleged treason after he published a story about the reported misuse of an international donation to promote football in the military-run nation.

One of Indonesia's most prominent news magazines, Tempo, is being constantly victimised by the courts after it wrote several critical articles about a powerful businessman with close ties to the ruling elite.

Meanwhile a senior editor at the Rakyat Merdeka newspaper is sentenced to six months for approving headlines that, amongst other things, likened President Megawati Sukarnoputri to diesel fuel.

The Philippine press appears free, but more journalists are being killed than ever before and few thorough investigations have been made into their deaths.

Meanwhile in Thailand, the creeping authoritarianism of the prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, and his party cronies is taking its toll. They are steadily increasing their control over the country's media - with the latest conquest being interests run by a cabinet minister taking a controlling stake in one of the most critical news organisations, the Nation Media Group.

There has been little to cheer about elsewhere in the region in the last few months. The new Malaysian prime minister, Abdullah Badawi, has put his own people in charge of the sycophantic mainstream media while the most critical news outlet, the website Malaysiakini has an unresolved year-long police investigation hanging over it.

Despite government claims of a new openness, few Singaporeans are brave enough to speak out. One young filmmaker who made a movie about teenage gangs was dumbfounded to have it banned for reasons of "national security", while almost everyone I interviewed on a recent trip to the island republic pleaded to be quoted in a positive light as they feared Big Brother's seemingly ubiquitous reach.

Lin Nuemann, a regional adviser to the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists, says his organisation's forthcoming annual report is going to be pessimistic about the state of press freedom in the region.

"What we're saying is that virtually every place is getting worse," he said. "Although you can't really say Burma is getting worse, because it's not got far to go."

This is all a far cry from the optimism that swept the region six-and-a-half years ago following the Asian financial crisis that mushroomed into political turmoil in several places, most notably Indonesia.

The crisis prompted a sweeping liberalisation of the press in Indonesia and significant moves elsewhere. But that momentum has dissipated and is now going into reverse. The open window that allowed a fresh wind to blow through the region's media is being steadily closed.

In a recent survey of global press freedom in 166 nations, Reporters Sans Frontières ranked south-east Asia's media as follows: Cambodia (81), Thailand (82), Malaysia (104), Indonesia (110), the Philippines (118), Singapore (144), Vietnam (159), Laos (163) and Burma (164).

"The elites are regrouping and there's much less patience for a vibrant free press now," Mr Neumann said.

The CPJ is most disturbed about Indonesia, according to Mr Neumann, where the pendulum appears to have swung most dramatically. "You have a combination of military and national security pressures and a not very well-organised court system," he said. "If it means an organisation like Tempo gets scared then you know the situation is serious."

What's worrying analysts and diplomats around the region is that with elections due in Indonesia (both parliamentary and the first ever direct presidential poll), Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines this year and a probable change of prime minister in Singapore, the room for alternative opinions to receive a fair airing is becoming increasingly limited.

The status quo is almost certainly going to remain, if not become more entrenched, in Malaysia and Thailand. Meanwhile the gun culture is so strong in the Philippines that no one will be surprised if journalists start to pull punches. Indonesia is a different situation, where anything could happen, although journalists know that no one will be on their side in the likely event that the politicians start playing dirty as the stakes mount.

Little change is expected elsewhere. Amnesty International is unsurprisingly gloomy after its recent, second, visit to Burma, while organisations such as Forum Asia are not holding out much hope for reform in Vietnam and Cambodia.

By John Aglionby of the Guardian.

Singapore's Unemployment Rate - Show Us the Money

According to reports at MOM the unemployment rate in Singapore (Q3) has climbed to a 17 year high of 5.9%. The powers that be are hoping that this will soon peak and then start declining in 2004.

However, after reports during the week in the Today newspaper that Singapore was letting its regional neighbours down in terms of receiving foreign investment, this optimism maybe mis-placed.

Yes, this is the epoch of globalisation, but regionalisation also plays a key role in the fortunes of all involved. Remember the collapse of the Thai currency in the late 1990's?

The article published by Forbes, called the current situation a crisis of plenty. For those at the top of course.

Estimate figures, "already estimated to exceed $100 billion in a nation of just over 3.3 million citizens, are set for a top up from a record current account surplus the country has in its balance of payments with the rest of the world." (see linked article above).

This excess may explain the current slump in investment in Singapore by foreign investors, but this money, so far, appears to simply be lying in an account somewhere, while the unemployment rate reaches all time highs, GST increases, etc...

I have some simple questions.

Why don't they invest the money that the population of Singapore created, into Singapore?

Or is it to be invested regionally, AGAIN?

Singapore is part of the South East Asia region and the international community has not viewed Singapore as a priority for investment. In order for Singapore to play its part in the region, surely investment has to happen either internally or externally. The external option has been refused.

So, the 5.9% of those Singaporeans must be roaring

"Show us the money..."

SINGAPORE: New laws for cyber-dissidents

Singapore has introduced new laws giving local authorities sweeping powers to take pre-emptive action against so-called "cyber terrorists". Under the changes, anyone suspected of preparing to hack or deface a website can be jailed for up to three years or fined up to five thousand U-S dollars.

Transcript:

DR CHEE: It's just another way that the government continues to use laws to begin to restrict the growth of the internet, the use of the internet for democratic purposes and this is just another example of it.

LOPRESTI: And just how real though is that threat from cyber terrorism? Is it a rising threat?

DR CHEE: "Well you know, you can't begin to try to work on some of these legislation to address the problem that you want to get at. But by coming up with laws that are just so vague and this allows this government to do almost anything. It's just another way that this government wants to tell the people that look, we are watching and we will take action for people who want to try to use the internet to promote democracy in Singapore."

LOPRESTI: You say that these laws are vague, and in that vein I guess you could say that there is very real possibility that the laws could be open to abuse?

DR CHEE: "Yes. I mean let me take you back to what 30 to 40 years ago when the internal security act was first put in place. At that time, you know the government was saying that well, it was targetting at the Communists. Well guess what? The law was repeatedly used on the ruling parties opponents, legitimate opponents, opponents who are elected opposition MP's and that for the last 20 to 30 years they have used it to crackdown on the democratic activist people who want us to see more freedom and human rights take place in Singapore and this is just another horrendous piece of legislation that will give this government even more unbridled power.

And there is absolutely no check and balance that we have here. I mean given the state of the opposition, given the dismal obscene of democracy here in general. It's suicide for democracy if we continue on this manner."

LOPRESTI: So would you describe these laws as the internet version, I guess of Singapore's internal security act?

DR CHEE: "Very much so. I think this has given again the government a new lease of life if you will in as far as cracking down on internet activity. People who genuinely want to push for a more democratic political change in Singapore and given this government can be excused to that it wants to take whatever action it wants to continue to perpetuate its authoritarian control."

LOPRESTI: Now that these laws have been passed, realistically what can the opposition do?

DR CHEE: "You know for us here the debate always goes on after the government makes the decision and you know given as I said the state of democracy in Singapore. It's a complete laugh that you know we all make this pretence of having this debate when things are shoved down our throats and government decides it does. And the worst part of it is we are unable, there's no way we can hold this government accountable. And it doesn't have to justify for any of its actions. It just goes ahead and does what it wants."

'"So really it doesn't come as a surprise. I mean you know people may so oh, you know look at this. Now we have this new law, but for us it's really just something that's very normal. It doesn't raise any eyebrows over here in Singapore."

Transcripts from programs "AM", "The World Today", "PM", the "7:30 Report" and "Lateline" are created by an independent transcription service. The ABC does not warrant the accuracy of the transcripts. ABC Online users are advised to listen to the audio provided on this page to verify the accuracy of the transcripts.

12/11/2003 15:41:02 | Asia Pacific Programs

Singapore and Authoritarian Capitalism

By intellectual Christopher Lingle...........(feared and driven out by PAP)
Singapore and Authoritarian Capitalism
by Christopher Lingle
Publisher: The Locke Institute, ISBN: 8485809521


Despite the impressive growth rates in the region, there are some serious questions about the policies and institutions in the high performing East Asian economies. Indeed, several of the traditional institutions can be expected to impose a binding constraint upon the continuation of the rapid economic growth in Singapore and in other countries in the region.

In particular, many of these institutions militate against individuality and individual rights and freedoms. In turn, "authoritarian capitalism" describes the operational elements of this particular development model. On one hand, authoritarian-capitalist regimes place a limited and selective set of persistent policy interventions into market activities. On the other hand, these same regimes impose heavy restrictions on political activity. Whereas, Soviet economies contrived to have an economy without prices, authoritarian capitalism presides over markets without the guarantee of individual freedoms or rights. As a result, there are conflicting and misleading signals about a relatively free economy whereas political freedoms are repressed within an authoritarian- based government. Singapore's single-party regime offers a model of authoritarian capitalism that may be followed by other single-party regimes in the region.

Although this economic development model bears strong similarities to "authoritarian socialism," authoritarian capitalism has been so far immune to the criticisms of their shared potential for failure. Apparently, the strong economic performance has led many observers to ignore the ill effects and the long run costs associated with authoritarian capitalism.

Acceptance of authoritarian capitalism as a viable and exportable model for development depends upon an understanding that economic and political liberties are not interdependent. However, similar faulty reasoning induced promoters of authoritarian socialism (communism) to overlook its most fatal contradiction. The collapse of communism provides evidence that repression of political freedoms will eventually undermine the activities that support economic growth. While authoritarianism can be consistent with short run economic gains, there are logical and economic limits to these results.

On the economic side, authoritarian capitalism involves the politicization of commerce and the commercialization of politics. Commerce is politicized when the profitability of economic actors depends more heavily upon relationships with the ruling party than the efficient use of scarce resources. Commercial politics describes the actions by ruling parties to develop their own sources of revenues through business transactions to decrease their dependency upon the electorate. These activities are likely to involve privileged, insider access to economic data that benefit the party and also allow party functionaries to enjoy private gains.

Despite the impressions to the contrary, authoritarian capitalist regimes employ extensive, if not always deep, interventions in the economy. Most of them have highly interventionist foreign exchange policies. These are implemented in support of industrial policies that target specific industries as leaders in their export-orientated industrialization (EOI) strategies. Investment funds and subsidies are directed toward selective areas of economic activity and, conversely, are diverted from use in other areas. Many of those countries applying EOI policies tend to be highly dependent upon foreign investment funds or technology or both, as well as access to foreign markets for their exports. This dependency on outsiders is exacerabated by the institutionalized restrictions upon the formations of domestic entrepreneurs to provide an indigenous source of economic growth.

An equally problematic issue relating to Singapore's growth is that it can be explained in large measure by the massive increases in input of labor and capital instead of from increases in efficiency or productivity. Most economists readily recognize that such input-driven growth will be limited by the law of diminishing returns. Following this logic, East Asia's "miracle economies" mirror the early stages of growth in the Soviet Union that obviously proved to be unsustainable. In all events, the necessary sources of increases in productivity are inventiveness and free thinking. Unfortunately, policies under authoritarian capitalism suppresses individualism and intellectual freedom and will greatly impair the formation of entrepreneurs.

There are few signs that regimes such as Singapore's are willing or able to undertake the necessary changes to modify their policies and institutions that have generated the conditions of "parasite economies" where they depend upon the financial capital or the creativity and inventiveness of other countries. In the long run, the economic arrangements associated with East Asian authoritarian capitalism are unlikely to sustain the levels of high performance recorded in recent years.

Singapore's authoritarian-capitalist regime has its own peculiar political arrangements that mesh with its economic policies. By combining a sense of national insecurity and dread of the unknown with the fear of government retribution, Singapore's ruling party has implemented a special form of "Asian democracy" that can be identified as phobocracy. The rule-by-fear government of the People's Action Party (PAP) regime judiciously combines a western democratic vocabulary with a particular set of traditional values that it claims are unique to Asia.

In order to maintain a disciplined and docile electorate, the PAP rulers rely upon a beguiling combination of reason and force. However, their idea of reasoning is limited to an unbalanced insistence upon only the advantages of communitarian arrangements and the necessity of consensus building. Their ability to construct these incomplete images of political utopia is supported by a subservient domestic media and a cowed international media. The passivity of the media results from legislative and judicial actions that operate at the behest of the PAP-controlled executive branch. In sum, the regime exercises obsessive and complete control over all branches of government and media as well as other elements of civil society. In turn, there are few limits to the amount of force that can be wielded as reprisal against critics or political rivals.

Singapore's regime practices a form of "soft authoritarianism" without political murders or disappearances. Nonetheless, executive control over the judiciary and the legislature means that law follows the whims of the regime. One element of the illusion of the legal system is the scrupulous application of justice in cases that involve commerce, particularly when it affects the interests of multinational corporations. The resulting system is one of rule by and for rulers in place of the rule of law. The compliance of the courts leads to "lawless order" and is a conspicuous contradiction of the reputation for Singapore's corruption-free government.

The criminalization of politics and politicization of crime represent several of the other institutional arrangements associated with Singapore's authoritarian capitalism. Politics in Singapore is criminalized in the evident pattern whereby opponents of the regime are sued for criminal defamation after criticizing the actions of the ruling party. Moreover, the authorities in Singapore use crime as a political weapon. One aspect of this involves the manipulation of perceptions and the apparent masking of crime statistics to provide the illusion of a crime-free environment. Another aspect is to place the blame for much of the crime that does occur on westerners and their decadent influences.

Blindness to the shortcomings of the intricate and extensive elements of their development strategies has left the PAP open to a potentially serious crisis. It may not be the forces of modernization, per se, that prompts political change in Singapore. A failure in their economic structures may come first. A serious long run challenge that must be faced is how to escape the entrenched dependencies with the developed economies. However, the incentive structures associated with authoritarian capitalism work against the necessary emergence of local talent to serve either as entrepreneurs or as researchers capable of doing original research.

Of more immediate concern is the stability of Singapore's economy that exhibits the classic symptoms of a property and stock market bubble. There is no reason to expect that the record of centuries of the collapse of bubbles can be changed even by Singapore's famously efficient bureaucrats or its supposedly squeaky clean rulers. The question of the bursting or deflating of the speculative bubble is a matter of when, not if.

Happily, there is no doubt that the next century will witness a continuation in the rising fortunes and growing political importance of East Asia. Even so, it may be premature to anticipate that a simplistic extrapolation of the recent economic performance in the region will be an accurate harbinger of its post-millennial achievements. It may be just as likely that the authoritarian-capitalist regimes will set another record. Perhaps they will match their rapid pace of economic development by consigning themselves to the dustbin of history more quickly than was their predecessor, authoritarian socialism.

© Christopher Lingle

Oligarchy - A definition...

Oligarchy - Any form of government in which there is ‘rule by a few’; for example, by members of a self-regulating élite having domination over a larger society.

Yes, we all know that 'democracy' is an essentially contested concept. But this is getting beyond a joke.

An open society requires a free press and high levels of transparency, standards of accounting need to be high including disclosure of accounts and democratization.

Democratization will provide Singapore with flexibility, sustainability and legitimacy. It would also enable the replacement of ministers on a grand scale, bringing new life-blood into the stagnated old-guard that have dominated the 'group-thought' for the last 30 plus years.

Read the article below.

An interesting read...

Just how much surplus wealth does a country need? And in how many hands should that wealth reside? Read on...

Spot the Contradiction

One rule "that remains firmly in place, is the requirement that foreign journalists stay out of Singapore's politics," Lee said.

But the minister said that the government did not expect its stand to impede Singapore's ambition to become a base for international news organisations, adding that the number of foreign correspondents here had risen to 190 from 82 in 1986. (Littlespeck)

A belief that the forces of globalization are unstoppable in economic terms, so we have to cut your wages, yet the effect that it is having on culture and politics are stoppable, within this little island.

Don't Singaporean journalists comment on foreign government policies?

The forces of globalisation are not simply economic but also include the spread of ideas and cultural values that may not be adhered to in Singapore. Nation states around the globe are all facing this issue. Values and ideas that may appear 'new' are being fed directly into the homes of Singaporeans and allowing individuals to re-assess previously held notions. Driving some into an idealized image of the 1950's and others into the 20th century.

Freedom of choice is not merely the choice to buy the items advertised on TV but the right to choose how you live your life. The world order is possibly going through a process of restructuring, in values as well as economic concerns.

To think that Singaporeans could be sheltered from this up-heaval and that the government doing the sheltering would remain immune is un-workable in the long term.

Singaporeans and Singaporean ministers no longer define all the rules.

Singaporean Internet Laws Tightened

The following has yet again not been reported widely within Singapore. In fact it failed to receive a report on the evening news yesterday.

The new law gives the government the powers to spy on ALL internet activity. Some MPs have even expressed concern that these new laws may be a further tool of oppression in an all ready authoritarian state.

The law has been introduced to combat hackers and enables the government to conduct a pre-emptive strike. I am all for undermining the attempts of malicious hackers but this law means that while you read this you are being watched.

Recent reports in the press regarding the detention of an adult male for having consensual oral sex with a legally consenting female has shown that old archaic laws can and will be implmented when the judicary decides to. What guarantee do the people of Singapore have that this new law will not be used to stifle a new born sense of free speech that the internet has heralded?

The Singaporean government claims to be opening up and becoming more transparent. They call for Singaporean's to express their views. Expressing your views in the full light of a government official can only undermine free speech in a country that is infamous for 'self-censorship'.

singaBLOODYpore

Yes, its official. The law in Singapore ensures that anyone can be imprisoned in Singapore. Old laws still have their function in 2003. Its a definite that no matter who you are you have contravened some law or other.

It would be hilarious if it didn't result in a man being sent to jail for two years. Yes, the law may exist, but like rights the law needs to be exercised wisely and appropriately. Otherwise the law appears to be a mechanism of ensuring a Kafkaesque draconian state.

As in the novel, 'The Trial' we are not aware of our actions being criminal here in Singapore, but when they come a-knocking you will realise that 'the law is an ass',(meaning the donkey variety) administered by unthinking, uncaring bureaucrats.

What follows is yet another example of the global village looking upon the 'nanny state' as the global 'jobs-worth'.

Singapore Policeman Gets Two Years for Oral Sex
Fri November 7, 2003 07:55 AM ET

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - A Singaporean police sergeant has been jailed for two years for having oral sex in a country where prostitution is legal but oral sex is not, a newspaper reported Friday.

The Straits Times reported that the 27-year-old police coast guard sergeant landed in court after a 16-year-old reported to the police that she had performed oral sex on the man.

She was above the age of consent and agreed to perform the act, but oral sex is against the law in the city-state, the paper said.

"The act by itself is an offence. It is not a question of consent or no consent. Even between consenting people, it is an offence," criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan told the paper.

The maximum punishment for the offence is life imprisonment.

© Reuters 2003. All Rights Reserved.

SleEze-Link - What's Next?

Articles have recently appeared in the local press regarding changes to the price structure of the Ez-Link cards. Yet again the lack of planning and general research that normally takes place before an organisation introduces something new, has been lacking.

And yet again in Singapore, guess who is expected to deal with the price tag for such an error. The consumer, or rather the Public, who depend heavily on the mode of transport provided by the monopoly.

The government and large monopolies in Singapore seem to regard the consumer as a bottomless pit of money. This is yet another blow to the wallets of those of us who can afford it the least.

In the recent interview with the PM he refused to be drawn on the relationship between the government and the electorate. When pressed he opted for a relationship of 'equality'. This admission highlighted a very entrenched 'mind-set' of those in power. They believe that they have an unquestionable right to rule and ignore a very central notion of democratic states, namely that 'they' are public SERVANTS and not the masters.

This 'mind-set' spills over into the corporate world of Singaporean CEO's and managers. The work force and general public are viewed as resources of finance. Resources that can be called upon at will, with little opposition. The population of Singapore is its only natural resource. But this should not be read as resulting in a culture whereby, management and government pay for the up-grading of skills within the work-force.

The working class people of Singapore are a source of income to be tapped as often as possible. Month after month they are called upon to fit the bill that was created by errors not of their own doing. Ez-link, GST, CPF, Redundances..., Hospital Bills. No wonder a popular advert campaign asks...

"WHAT"S NEXT?"