21 May 2004
15 May 2004
Singapore - Model Society or City of Fear?
Welcome to Lee Kuan Yew's transistorized, deodorized, air-conditioned, multi-storied, city-state.
The (London) Observer
What happens when human rights come into conflict with economic security? In Singapore, the people have apparently given up many human rights to the interests of a smooth-running, prosperous society. Some visitors view Singapore as a model society worth imitating. Others see it as a city of fear.
Model Society
After landing at Changi International, you will be impressed with the efficiency of Singapore's airport, called the finest in the world by the travel industry. You will have little trouble getting to your hotel, since Singapore has plenty of taxis, modern expressways, and a sleek new subway. You will soon notice that auto traffic is carefully regulated with well-disciplined drivers.
As you make your way through the city, you will be pleased with the squeaky clean streets lined with trees and flower beds. High rise apartment and office buildings help pack 3 million people into 240 square miles (about 12,000 citizens per square mile). You will not see any slums, homeless people, or beggars.
By the time you arrive at your hotel, you will be aware that almost everyone speaks some English. English is taught as the "first" language in the schools, and has become the common language for everyday communication. You will also learn that eating is a joy in Singapore with its many five-star restaurants. Even the city tap water is safe to drink. At night, you will have little fear as you stroll through Singapore's safe streets.
Singapore is a city as well as a nation, located on a small island in Southeast Asia. A former British colony, Singapore became completely independent in 1965. Today, Singapore is truly a multicultural and multilingual society with four official languages: Mandarin Chinese, Malay, Tamil, and English. Singaporeans of Chinese descent, speaking a variety of dialects as well as Mandarin, make up more than three-quarters of the population. The Chinese are also the driving force behind the country's highly successful business community. Malays, mostly Muslim, account for the bulk of Singapore's low income workers. Other Singaporeans are Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, and Christians from southern India. This great ethnic mix in Singapore heavily influences the way the government runs the country.
The people of Singapore today enjoy the highest standard of living in Asia, second only to the Japanese. The average annual income is about the same as in the United States. The unemployment rate is under 5%. Most people own their homes (mainly comfortable apartments). Workers pay into a social security system that provides health care benefits, allows them to borrow in order to purchase a home, and enables most to retire at 55.
The Government Knows Best
Less than 30 years ago, Singapore was a backwater, poverty-stricken, Third World port city with few natural resources. But soon after they gained independence, the founders of the struggling nation decided to transform their city-nation into a world-class commercial center. The founders accomplished this through careful planning and by attracting investment from foreign multinational corporations.
One of Singapore's most prominent founders, Lee Kuan Yew, flirted with socialism as a young man, but later became a fierce anti-communist and an advocate of free enterprise. Lee and a small group of like-minded leaders set out to plan a model society. He was the guiding force behind Singapore's economic miracle from its beginnings with the new republic in 1965 until he retired as prime minister in 1990.
Lee was convinced that an elite group of highly educated, dedicated, and honest leaders should run the government. Their goal was to assure a political stability that would attract foreign investors. Unlike other totalitarian regimes, Lee installed a system that allowed regular elections and competing political parties. Lee's popular political party, the People's Action Party (PAP), has won almost all the seats in the parliament for more than a quarter of a century.
Prime Minister Lee and the People's Action Party both believed that the government knows what is best for the people of Singapore. As a result, the government has little tolerance for political debate, special interest groups, or dissent. The government expects its citizens to be hardworking, disciplined, and obedient. Most Singaporeans seem to agree.
When Singapore became an independent nation in the mid-1960s, the Vietnam War was raging nearby and the threat of a communist takeover seemed real. Consequently, the government under Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew passed a series of laws to suppress dissent. One of these laws, the Internal Security Act, allows the government to arrest and jail individuals without charge or trial.
Many of Singapore's laws are backed by stiff fines: failing to flush a public toilet ($100); spitting or smoking in public places ($300); eating or drinking on the subway ($300); littering ($600); selling chewing gum ($1600). The government came down against chewing gum after vandals began sticking wads on elevator buttons and subway car doors. Elevators in apartment buildings even have urine detectors that, when activated, take the violator's picture and lock the door until the police arrive. The fine is $1200.
For more serious crimes, Singapore resorts to imprisonment and caning (beating with a stick). The death penalty is used in cases of first degree murder, armed robbery, and drug trafficking. Over 30 persons have been hanged since 1975 for drug offenses.
Singapore's economic system has been described as "state capitalism." While private ownership and free enterprise are vigorously encouraged, the government still keeps a firm hand on most business activity and retains ownership of some industries. The government also controls wages and has weakened the labor unions so that strikes are rare.
The school system is patterned after the Japanese model. Periodic examinations weed out those who do not do well in academic subjects (especially English) and "stream" them into technical and vocational schools. The more academically successful youngsters go to "superschools" where they are prepared for the university and professional careers.
One of the most controversial government policies concerns population control. At first, the government launched a campaign to reduce the birth rate through tax incentives and easily available abortions ("Stop At Two"). However, after discovering that such a policy would cause Singapore's population to decrease after the year 2030, the government reversed itself. They offered tax rebates for a third child and made abortions more difficult to get ("Go For Three"). Then, when most three-child families turned out to have low incomes, the government became concerned. They enacted new laws that restricted valuable primary school registration to the children of mothers who were college graduates. This policy proved to be so unpopular that it was finally abandoned.
City of Fear
In recent years, some Singaporeans have begun to question the old belief that the government always knows what is best for the people. In 1987, 22 church social workers, professionals, and students publicly criticized certain government policies. They were accused of organizing a "Marxist conspiracy to subvert the existing social and political order." They were jailed without trial. Most of these "criminals" were released after confessing on television. However, several of them were rearrested after they issued a statement to the press retracting their confessions. They also charged that while they were held in jail they had been beaten, subjected to long interrogations, and otherwise mistreated.
Some of those who were rearrested appealed to the courts with habeas corpus petitions. These required the government to produce formal charges or release them. The courts ordered that they be let go, but as soon as they were free the government arrested them again. The last of the "Marxist conspirators" were not released from jail until June of 1990; they are restricted in their freedom of movement, speech, and association with others.
Government censorship is a fact of life in Singapore. The government screens books, magazines, movies, videos, music recordings, live performances, and the internet. Privately owned TV satellite dishes are illegal. All Singapore newspapers are controlled by a single holding company largely owned by the government.
Political gatherings of more than five persons in Singapore require a police permit. Therefore, public demonstrations are rarely allowed except in support of the government. When asked why university students were denied permission to protest against tuition increases, the current prime minister, Goh Chok Tong, replied:
If you allow students to do so, then workers will begin to do so over the slightest grievance. And if you have several demonstrations, right away the impression is created that government is not in control of the situation that the place may become unstable. That will have an impact on foreign investors.
In many ways, Singapore provides its inhabitants with an ideal existence. Singaporeans enjoy a clean, efficient, and attractive environment. Most citizens can expect full employment, a good education, and comprehensive healthcare. This seemingly secure, comfortable society depends on strictly enforced laws that were originally designed to combat communist subversion and prevent conflicts from breaking out among the country's ethnic groups. Singapore's rigid rules and numerous laws make sure that the tiny city state runs smoothly, but at what price to individual freedoms and human rights?
© 1993, Constitutional Rights Foundation, 601 South Kingsley Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90005, (213) 487-5590
The (London) Observer
What happens when human rights come into conflict with economic security? In Singapore, the people have apparently given up many human rights to the interests of a smooth-running, prosperous society. Some visitors view Singapore as a model society worth imitating. Others see it as a city of fear.
Model Society
After landing at Changi International, you will be impressed with the efficiency of Singapore's airport, called the finest in the world by the travel industry. You will have little trouble getting to your hotel, since Singapore has plenty of taxis, modern expressways, and a sleek new subway. You will soon notice that auto traffic is carefully regulated with well-disciplined drivers.
As you make your way through the city, you will be pleased with the squeaky clean streets lined with trees and flower beds. High rise apartment and office buildings help pack 3 million people into 240 square miles (about 12,000 citizens per square mile). You will not see any slums, homeless people, or beggars.
By the time you arrive at your hotel, you will be aware that almost everyone speaks some English. English is taught as the "first" language in the schools, and has become the common language for everyday communication. You will also learn that eating is a joy in Singapore with its many five-star restaurants. Even the city tap water is safe to drink. At night, you will have little fear as you stroll through Singapore's safe streets.
Singapore is a city as well as a nation, located on a small island in Southeast Asia. A former British colony, Singapore became completely independent in 1965. Today, Singapore is truly a multicultural and multilingual society with four official languages: Mandarin Chinese, Malay, Tamil, and English. Singaporeans of Chinese descent, speaking a variety of dialects as well as Mandarin, make up more than three-quarters of the population. The Chinese are also the driving force behind the country's highly successful business community. Malays, mostly Muslim, account for the bulk of Singapore's low income workers. Other Singaporeans are Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, and Christians from southern India. This great ethnic mix in Singapore heavily influences the way the government runs the country.
The people of Singapore today enjoy the highest standard of living in Asia, second only to the Japanese. The average annual income is about the same as in the United States. The unemployment rate is under 5%. Most people own their homes (mainly comfortable apartments). Workers pay into a social security system that provides health care benefits, allows them to borrow in order to purchase a home, and enables most to retire at 55.
The Government Knows Best
Less than 30 years ago, Singapore was a backwater, poverty-stricken, Third World port city with few natural resources. But soon after they gained independence, the founders of the struggling nation decided to transform their city-nation into a world-class commercial center. The founders accomplished this through careful planning and by attracting investment from foreign multinational corporations.
One of Singapore's most prominent founders, Lee Kuan Yew, flirted with socialism as a young man, but later became a fierce anti-communist and an advocate of free enterprise. Lee and a small group of like-minded leaders set out to plan a model society. He was the guiding force behind Singapore's economic miracle from its beginnings with the new republic in 1965 until he retired as prime minister in 1990.
Lee was convinced that an elite group of highly educated, dedicated, and honest leaders should run the government. Their goal was to assure a political stability that would attract foreign investors. Unlike other totalitarian regimes, Lee installed a system that allowed regular elections and competing political parties. Lee's popular political party, the People's Action Party (PAP), has won almost all the seats in the parliament for more than a quarter of a century.
Prime Minister Lee and the People's Action Party both believed that the government knows what is best for the people of Singapore. As a result, the government has little tolerance for political debate, special interest groups, or dissent. The government expects its citizens to be hardworking, disciplined, and obedient. Most Singaporeans seem to agree.
When Singapore became an independent nation in the mid-1960s, the Vietnam War was raging nearby and the threat of a communist takeover seemed real. Consequently, the government under Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew passed a series of laws to suppress dissent. One of these laws, the Internal Security Act, allows the government to arrest and jail individuals without charge or trial.
Many of Singapore's laws are backed by stiff fines: failing to flush a public toilet ($100); spitting or smoking in public places ($300); eating or drinking on the subway ($300); littering ($600); selling chewing gum ($1600). The government came down against chewing gum after vandals began sticking wads on elevator buttons and subway car doors. Elevators in apartment buildings even have urine detectors that, when activated, take the violator's picture and lock the door until the police arrive. The fine is $1200.
For more serious crimes, Singapore resorts to imprisonment and caning (beating with a stick). The death penalty is used in cases of first degree murder, armed robbery, and drug trafficking. Over 30 persons have been hanged since 1975 for drug offenses.
Singapore's economic system has been described as "state capitalism." While private ownership and free enterprise are vigorously encouraged, the government still keeps a firm hand on most business activity and retains ownership of some industries. The government also controls wages and has weakened the labor unions so that strikes are rare.
The school system is patterned after the Japanese model. Periodic examinations weed out those who do not do well in academic subjects (especially English) and "stream" them into technical and vocational schools. The more academically successful youngsters go to "superschools" where they are prepared for the university and professional careers.
One of the most controversial government policies concerns population control. At first, the government launched a campaign to reduce the birth rate through tax incentives and easily available abortions ("Stop At Two"). However, after discovering that such a policy would cause Singapore's population to decrease after the year 2030, the government reversed itself. They offered tax rebates for a third child and made abortions more difficult to get ("Go For Three"). Then, when most three-child families turned out to have low incomes, the government became concerned. They enacted new laws that restricted valuable primary school registration to the children of mothers who were college graduates. This policy proved to be so unpopular that it was finally abandoned.
City of Fear
In recent years, some Singaporeans have begun to question the old belief that the government always knows what is best for the people. In 1987, 22 church social workers, professionals, and students publicly criticized certain government policies. They were accused of organizing a "Marxist conspiracy to subvert the existing social and political order." They were jailed without trial. Most of these "criminals" were released after confessing on television. However, several of them were rearrested after they issued a statement to the press retracting their confessions. They also charged that while they were held in jail they had been beaten, subjected to long interrogations, and otherwise mistreated.
Some of those who were rearrested appealed to the courts with habeas corpus petitions. These required the government to produce formal charges or release them. The courts ordered that they be let go, but as soon as they were free the government arrested them again. The last of the "Marxist conspirators" were not released from jail until June of 1990; they are restricted in their freedom of movement, speech, and association with others.
Government censorship is a fact of life in Singapore. The government screens books, magazines, movies, videos, music recordings, live performances, and the internet. Privately owned TV satellite dishes are illegal. All Singapore newspapers are controlled by a single holding company largely owned by the government.
Political gatherings of more than five persons in Singapore require a police permit. Therefore, public demonstrations are rarely allowed except in support of the government. When asked why university students were denied permission to protest against tuition increases, the current prime minister, Goh Chok Tong, replied:
If you allow students to do so, then workers will begin to do so over the slightest grievance. And if you have several demonstrations, right away the impression is created that government is not in control of the situation that the place may become unstable. That will have an impact on foreign investors.
In many ways, Singapore provides its inhabitants with an ideal existence. Singaporeans enjoy a clean, efficient, and attractive environment. Most citizens can expect full employment, a good education, and comprehensive healthcare. This seemingly secure, comfortable society depends on strictly enforced laws that were originally designed to combat communist subversion and prevent conflicts from breaking out among the country's ethnic groups. Singapore's rigid rules and numerous laws make sure that the tiny city state runs smoothly, but at what price to individual freedoms and human rights?
© 1993, Constitutional Rights Foundation, 601 South Kingsley Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90005, (213) 487-5590
4 May 2004
Singapore expels union activist
Singapore expels union activist
By Andrew Wood
BBC, Singapore
Singapore has expelled a union activist who angered the country's influential senior statesman, Lee Kuan Yew.
Captain Ryan Goh, a Malaysian, led a campaign at Singapore Airlines to oust union leaders who accepted pay cuts and redundancies last year.
The authorities told Mr Goh that he was an undesirable immigrant in March.
As he departed from Changi airport, Mr Goh said he hoped to remain a pilot - but restrictions on visiting Singapore might cause problems.
"Singapore Changi Airport is an international hub so most of the airlines will fly into Singapore," he told reporters.
"And if I do get a job with the international airlines, naturally I will fly into Singapore. And with the prohibition on me it will be difficult to get a job as a crew."
Mr Goh says he will live in Australia. The authorities have allowed one of his four children to remain in Singapore to finish school.
Strikes and labour protests are rare in Singapore.
In February, Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's senior minister, intervened in the dispute at Singapore Airlines.
He singled out Mr Goh as the instigator of a revolt by union members, who had voted out union leaders after they accepted pay cuts at the state-owned airline.
The authorities then ordered Mr Goh and his family to leave.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/3676881.stm
Published: 2004/05/01 17:07:56 GMT
© BBC MMIV
28 Apr 2004
Lawyer charged with disorderly conduct
Lawyer charged with disorderly conduct
So in Singapore if you dare to question or refuse to keep your mouth closed you can go to jail. The following article seems to smack of a vendetta against the defence lawyer of a man who has been condemned to death. Yet again it shows that the judiciary here can be used on an ad hoc basis to ensure that we are all 'criminals' if we question authority.
The article is from "The Straits" jacket, where they write only what they are told to write. I wonder if Amnesty International are aware of this situation.
And talking of Amnesty International I notice that the furore created by the PMs blopper of not knowing how many are put to death in Singapore, and the report citing Singapore as having the highest death penalty in the world, per capita; has never been refuted or a subject of discussion since promises were made quite sometime ago.
The Straits Jacket writes....
LAWYER M. Ravi was yesterday charged in a magistrate's court with behaving in a disorderly manner at a bar at Magazine Road.
Out on bail, Ravi is accused of yelling at the top of his voice in a bar.
The 35-year-old was accused of shouting at the top of his voice at the China Bar at about 1.55am on Nov 6.
He is out on bail of $5,000 until the case is mentioned again on May 25.
A person found guilty of disorderly behaviour in a public place can be jailed for up to one month and fined up to $1,000.
A second offender can be jailed for up to six months and fined up to $2,000.
Ravi first made the news in September last year after he had a heated exchange with High Court Judge Woo Bih Li while trying to seek a retrial for a condemned drug trafficker who had exhausted all avenues of appeal.
Justice Woo has since made a complaint to the Law Society against him for improper conduct in court.
27 Apr 2004
23 Apr 2004
Lenin and Singapore
Lenin and Singapore
Manuel Castells again
The Last "tiger" of our story, Singapore, baffles me, as everybody else. Unlike the three other countries, no civil society has really developed in Singapore in the 1990's, and the state seems to be as powerful as ever, in spite of statements to the contrary. This applies to authoritarian politics, and the control of information, as much as to the steering and monitoring of Singapore's development. The state continues to work in close contact with multinational corporations, as was 30 years ago, but, having become rich, it also now uses its own resources to invest in companies, either by itself or in joint ventures. Per capita income in Singapore now exceeds the average of the European Union. The city-state works smoothly in a fully planned metropolitan system. The island is the first country to be entirely wired with optic fiber, and is poised to become the first smoking-free and drug-free country (drug traffickers are sentenced to death, and often executed). The city is clean: littering the streets is penalised with heavy fines, and with community work performed in green uniforms, with the culprits exposed in the media. Political and cultural dissent is kept to a minimum, without the need to resort to extreme repression. There is formal democracy, and token opposition. When an opposition leader denounces government abuses, he is sued in court by the corresponding government official, and the court takes care that the daring critic is heavily fined or jailed. There is effective management of inter-ethnic tensions. And there is relatively peaceful co-existence with its surrounding Muslim world, although the whole population continues to be organised in armed militia, and the Singaporean Air force is on a constant state of alert to proceed with retaliatory bombing of large cities just minutes away in their flight plans. The towering figure of Lee Kwan Yew, while no longer Prime Minister, continues to permeate Singapore’s political culture and institutions. He succeeded in inventing a society out of nowhere, and making it the historical proof of the superiority of "Asian values," a project probably dreamed in his Oxford years, as a nationalist without a nation. (Chua 1998) In fact, he rediscovered Victorian England, with its cult of moral virtues, its obsession with cleanliness, its abhorrence of the undeserving poor, its belief in education, and in the natural superiority of the few highly educated. He added a high-tech twist, actually funding studies to establish a scientific basis for the biological superiority of certain groups. Not on a racial basis, but on a class basis. His beliefs directly shaped Singapore's policies. For instance, college-educated women in Singapore received, in the 1980s, special allowances from the state to give birth to as many children as possible, as well as family leave to educate their children, while working-class women (Chinese or Malay) were taxed for having too many children. The aim was to improve the quality of the Singaporean population by increasing the proportion of children born to educated families. The whole of Singapore is based on the simple principle of survival of the fittest. The ultimate goal of state policies is to enable Singapore to survive, and win, against the implacable competition of the global economy, in an interdependent world, by means of technology, social engineering, cultural cohesiveness, self selection of the human stock, and ruthless political determination. The PAP implemented this project, and continues to do so, an accordance with the principles of Leninism that Lee Kwan Yew knew, and appreciated, in his resistance years as a labour lawyer in the anti-colonialist movement. And, indeed, it is probably the only true Leninist project that has survived, outlasting its original matrix. Singapore represents the merger of revolutionary state with the developmental state in the building of legitimacy, in its control of society, and in its maneuvering in the economy. It may also prefigure a successful model for the twenty-first century: a model that is being sought, consciously, by the Chinese Communist state, pursuing the developmental goals of a nationalist project.
Manuel Castells(End of Millennium, page 305-306)
More Singapore business in Burma
More Singapore business in Burma
Mark Baker
Sydney Morning Herald
10 April 2004
Qantas has defended its partnership in a new Asian budget airline with two prominent Singaporean businessmen who have commercial ties to Burma's military regime.
One of the partners this week left open the possibility of the Singapore-based airline flying to Burma - despite an international boycott on tourism and investment called by detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon, while refusing to disclose which routes were being considered, later insisted that he and his partners would "do the right thing" in response to the Burma boycott.
"If they are discouraging tourism and all the rest of it, it's probably very unlikely we'd want to fly there," Mr Dixon said.
The new airline - likely to be called Jetstar Asia - plans to begin flying later this year to a range of budget tourist destinations within a five-hour radius of Singapore. It aims to build a fleet of 20 aircraft within three years. Qantas will have a 49.9 per cent stake in the $S100 million ($78 million) start-up and will initially hold the chairmanship of a six-member board. Two leading Singaporean businessmen - Wong Fong Fui and Tony Chew - have taken a total 31.1 per cent stake in the new company, with the balance of the shareholding held by Temasek Holdings, the powerful investment arm of the
Singapore Government.
Mr Wong was managing director of Burma's privatised national airline, Myanmar Airways International, for seven years up to 1998, and Mr Chew is a member of the Myanmar Business Group, an association of Singaporean businessmen with interests in Burma.
Asked whether his strong business ties in Burma and Vietnam made them likely
destinations for the new airline, Mr Chew told a press conference in Singapore on Tuesday: "I think every destination is potential."
Mr Dixon said the airline was studying a range of potential routes, but said he could not be specific until approval had been granted by Singapore's transport ministry.
Pressed on whether Qantas was swayed by calls from Ms Suu Kyi and her National
League for Democracy for tourists and businessmen to stay away from Burma until
democracy was restored, Mr Dixon appeared unsure about the boycott, which has
drawn strong international support.
"Are you saying a social issue, a conscience issue or a commercial issue?" he said, in response to a question from The Herald.
When told it was a political issue, he said: "I'm quite sure all the shareholders would take in political issues, they'll take in social issues and they'll take in commercial issues.
"I think you can rest assured, given our background, and I'm quite sure with Mr Chew and others, that we'll make the right decision when it comes to things like that."
Mr Dixon said Qantas had "a track record around the world for doing, basically, the right thing, and I'm very confident Mr Wong and Mr Chew and Temasek will [do] the same".
Singaporean companies - including some with substantial government shareholdings - have been attacked by international human rights groups as being among the most active foreign investors in Burma in recent years.
THE OPTICAL
Singapore
Mark Baker
Sydney Morning Herald
10 April 2004
Qantas has defended its partnership in a new Asian budget airline with two prominent Singaporean businessmen who have commercial ties to Burma's military regime.
One of the partners this week left open the possibility of the Singapore-based airline flying to Burma - despite an international boycott on tourism and investment called by detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon, while refusing to disclose which routes were being considered, later insisted that he and his partners would "do the right thing" in response to the Burma boycott.
"If they are discouraging tourism and all the rest of it, it's probably very unlikely we'd want to fly there," Mr Dixon said.
The new airline - likely to be called Jetstar Asia - plans to begin flying later this year to a range of budget tourist destinations within a five-hour radius of Singapore. It aims to build a fleet of 20 aircraft within three years. Qantas will have a 49.9 per cent stake in the $S100 million ($78 million) start-up and will initially hold the chairmanship of a six-member board. Two leading Singaporean businessmen - Wong Fong Fui and Tony Chew - have taken a total 31.1 per cent stake in the new company, with the balance of the shareholding held by Temasek Holdings, the powerful investment arm of the
Singapore Government.
Mr Wong was managing director of Burma's privatised national airline, Myanmar Airways International, for seven years up to 1998, and Mr Chew is a member of the Myanmar Business Group, an association of Singaporean businessmen with interests in Burma.
Asked whether his strong business ties in Burma and Vietnam made them likely
destinations for the new airline, Mr Chew told a press conference in Singapore on Tuesday: "I think every destination is potential."
Mr Dixon said the airline was studying a range of potential routes, but said he could not be specific until approval had been granted by Singapore's transport ministry.
Pressed on whether Qantas was swayed by calls from Ms Suu Kyi and her National
League for Democracy for tourists and businessmen to stay away from Burma until
democracy was restored, Mr Dixon appeared unsure about the boycott, which has
drawn strong international support.
"Are you saying a social issue, a conscience issue or a commercial issue?" he said, in response to a question from The Herald.
When told it was a political issue, he said: "I'm quite sure all the shareholders would take in political issues, they'll take in social issues and they'll take in commercial issues.
"I think you can rest assured, given our background, and I'm quite sure with Mr Chew and others, that we'll make the right decision when it comes to things like that."
Mr Dixon said Qantas had "a track record around the world for doing, basically, the right thing, and I'm very confident Mr Wong and Mr Chew and Temasek will [do] the same".
Singaporean companies - including some with substantial government shareholdings - have been attacked by international human rights groups as being among the most active foreign investors in Burma in recent years.
THE OPTICAL
Singapore
18 Mar 2004
The Battle of Sexuality
The Battle of Sexuality in Singapore
Recent debates in the national media and newspapers are attempting to defend male domination in Singapore, (patriarchalism). Whether it is a debate focusing on the birth-rate, homosexuality, (gay and lesbian) or oral sex legislation I feel that the following section from a well known and highly regarded sociologist seems to place Singapore's 'problems' in a wider global issue. The statistics referred to in the article are American, but finding statistics on this area in Singapore is not possible. However, survey conducted by Durex concluded that Singaporeans have the least sex in the world. I wonder if that survey questioned the frequency of other sexual activity. How would Singaporeans have been ranked if the "perverse" pleasures had been assessed?
In the TODAY newspaper there is a letter from someone condemning 'oral sex'. Here is my rebuttal. What follows are not my own words but those of Manuel Castells.
"[C]onsumerist sexuality" appears to be on the rise, although the indications here are rather direct. Laumann et al. analyze their sample in terms of sexual normative orientations following the classic distinction between sexuality (procreational), relational (companionship), and recreational (orientated towards sexual enjoyment). They also isolate a "libertarian-recreational" type that seems closer to the images of pop-sexual liberation or, in Giddens terms, "plastic sexuality." When analysing their sample by major regions in America, they found that 25.5 percent of their sample in New England, and 22,2 percent in the Pacific region, could be included under such a "libertarian-recreational" category: this is about one-quarter of the population in some of the most culturally trend-setting areas of America.
A meaningful indicator of increasing sexual autonomy, as a pleasure-orientated activity, is the practice of oral sex which, I remind you is catalogued as sodomy, and explicitly prohibited by law in 24 American states, albeit under conditions of doubtful enforcement. Laumann et al., (1994) commenting on these findings, assert that:
The overall trend reveals what we might call a rapid change in sexual techniques if not a revolution. The difference in lifetime experience of oral sex between respondents born between 1933 and 1942 and those born after 1943 is dramatic. The proportion of men experiencing oral sex in their lifetime increases from 62 percent of those born between 1933-37 to 90 percent of those born between 1948-52. The timing of sexual techniques appears to have been responsive to cultural changes in the late 1950s, changes that peaked in the mid to late 1960s, when they approached saturation level of the population. The lower rates among the youngest groups in our survey are not evidence of decline in oral sex; these groups simply have not yet engaged in sexual relationships in which oral sex has become likely if not normative. [Laumann et al., (1994)]
Incidentally, between 75 and 80 percent of women in the latest cohort also experienced oral sex, and in the younger groups their occurrence is higher than for men. Laumann et al. Also report widespread incidence of auto-eroticism (associated with high levels of partnered sexual activity), and of masturbation, hardly a novel technique, but that seems to involve two-thirds of men, and over 40 percent of women.
Thus, if instead of reading sexual behaviour under the norm of heterosexual, repetitive partnership, we take a more "perverse" approach to it, the data reveals a different story, a story of consumerism, experimentation, and eroticism in the process of deserting conjugal bedrooms, and still searching for the new modes of expression, while watching out for AIDS. Since these new patterns of behaviour are more visible among younger groups, and in trend-setting cities, I feel safe to predict that, if, when, and where the AIDS epidemic comes under control, there will be one, two, three many Sodoms, emerging from fantasies freed by the crisis of patriarchialism, and excited by the culture of narcissism. Under such conditions, as Giddens proposes, sexuality becomes the property of the individual.(Giddens, 1992) Where Foucault saw the extension of apparatuses of power into sexuality constructed/construed subject, Giddens sees, and I concur, the fight between power and identity in the battleground of the body.
Click here to learn more.
Castells, M., (2004), The Power of Identity, Second Edition.
Singapore is a patriarchal society in the midst of a quiet revolution, led primarily by females and declining marriage rates and birth rates are the front line. The old male guard will not even admit that there is a battle between the sexes centering on female ownership of their own bodies but also sexuality in general.
16 Mar 2004
The Birth-Rate
The Birth-Rate or Rampant Patriarchy in Singapore
You may have noticed that I have been particularly quiet with regard to the 'Birth Rate' issue.
There is a reason for my silence. The current debate seems to be covering most of the angles, which is refreshing in Singapore. However, some male MP's really don't require criticism, the adage of 'Give them enough rope and let them hang themselves', seems most appropriate. They merely highlight their patriarchialism.
Yes I wish to have children, but I am a man and whether or not a woman wishes to have a child is a decision that resides with her and her alone.
All that the government should do is ensure that any woman regardless of marital status, educational background, ethnic group, age, religion or sexuality who wishes to have a child will receive the economic and housing benefits that ensure that the child is not raised in a situation of discrimination or economic hardship.
Women receiving 56% of the male income, when educational, job experience and position are all equal, in no way facilitates such a choice to have a child.
You may have noticed that I have been particularly quiet with regard to the 'Birth Rate' issue.
There is a reason for my silence. The current debate seems to be covering most of the angles, which is refreshing in Singapore. However, some male MP's really don't require criticism, the adage of 'Give them enough rope and let them hang themselves', seems most appropriate. They merely highlight their patriarchialism.
Yes I wish to have children, but I am a man and whether or not a woman wishes to have a child is a decision that resides with her and her alone.
All that the government should do is ensure that any woman regardless of marital status, educational background, ethnic group, age, religion or sexuality who wishes to have a child will receive the economic and housing benefits that ensure that the child is not raised in a situation of discrimination or economic hardship.
Women receiving 56% of the male income, when educational, job experience and position are all equal, in no way facilitates such a choice to have a child.
14 Mar 2004
Who Needs Corruption With a Salary Like This!
Who Needs Corruption With a Salary Like This!
The below table is not properly referenced and maybe inaccurrate but are based on figures for the year 2000. Gleamed from Singapore Review. I am putting them here because the mind boggles at the ratio of ineptitude to salary. There is no need for individual MPs to be corrupt, the entire group ensure that. It looks like institutionalised corruption.
1. Singapore Prime Minister's Basic Salary US$1,100,000 (SGD1,958,000) a year Minister's Basic: US$655,530 to US$819,124 (SGD1,166,844 to SGD1,458,040) a year
2. United States of America President: US$200,000 Vice President: US$181,400 Cabinet Secretaries: US$157,000
3. United Kingdom Prime Minister: US$170,556 Ministers: US$146,299 Senior Civil Servants: US$262,438
4. Australia Prime Minister: US$137,060 Deputy Prime Minister: US$111,439 Treasurer: US$102,682
5. Hong Kong Chief Executive : US$416,615 Top Civil Servant: US$278,538 Financial Sec: US$315,077
Source: Asian Wall Street Journal July 10 2000
In relative terms, less then 20% of Singaporeans here have take home salaries
exceeding SGD100,000/- A YEAR.
In stark contrast, BASIC SALARY FOR A MINISTER STARTS AT SGD1,166,844 A YEAR,OR JUST UNDER SGD100,000 A MONTH.
However there is no corruption in Singapore. Jesus, don't make me laugh!.
The below table is not properly referenced and maybe inaccurrate but are based on figures for the year 2000. Gleamed from Singapore Review. I am putting them here because the mind boggles at the ratio of ineptitude to salary. There is no need for individual MPs to be corrupt, the entire group ensure that. It looks like institutionalised corruption.
1. Singapore Prime Minister's Basic Salary US$1,100,000 (SGD1,958,000) a year Minister's Basic: US$655,530 to US$819,124 (SGD1,166,844 to SGD1,458,040) a year
2. United States of America President: US$200,000 Vice President: US$181,400 Cabinet Secretaries: US$157,000
3. United Kingdom Prime Minister: US$170,556 Ministers: US$146,299 Senior Civil Servants: US$262,438
4. Australia Prime Minister: US$137,060 Deputy Prime Minister: US$111,439 Treasurer: US$102,682
5. Hong Kong Chief Executive : US$416,615 Top Civil Servant: US$278,538 Financial Sec: US$315,077
Source: Asian Wall Street Journal July 10 2000
In relative terms, less then 20% of Singaporeans here have take home salaries
exceeding SGD100,000/- A YEAR.
In stark contrast, BASIC SALARY FOR A MINISTER STARTS AT SGD1,166,844 A YEAR,OR JUST UNDER SGD100,000 A MONTH.
However there is no corruption in Singapore. Jesus, don't make me laugh!.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)