3 Jun 2006

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

2 Jun 2006

In Singapore, a censor's cuts and sensibilities

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.

,

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: 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'.

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.

1 Jun 2006

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.



Vote For LHL!

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 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."


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.


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