Gerald Giam

Protecting their own kind

The PM and Home Minister have given their statements in Parliament regarding Mas Selamat’s escape.

I am glad that although the Committee of Inquiry (COI) report was not released, at least the details of how Mas Selamat escaped — complete with pictures — were. I’m also glad to learn that this wasn’t an inside job. And I think it’s fitting that not just junior officials, but even the Superintendent of Whitley Road Detention Centre (WRDC) will be punished for this lapse.

That’s the good stuff. Now for the not so good.

The Escape

I wonder what was going on in the mind of the Gurkha who accompanied Mas Selamat into the toilet. Didn’t he find it a bit odd that the water was kept running for 11 minutes? Couldn’t he have banged on the door and asked Mas Selamat what was taking him so long? Or looked under the door? Or heard him opening the window and squeezing himself out? Why did he go OUT of the washroom to look for the female ISD officer to alert her, leaving the prisoner completely unattended. Maybe it was during those few seconds that Mas Selamat was able to escape from the window undetected.

Next the leap over the fence. The COI said it was most likely that he jumped on top of the covered walkway and lept across the fences to freedom. I find that quite incredible. The photo shows a double row of fencing, each with barbed wire on top, and separated by at least 2 m. The ground on the other side is filled with shrubs. Even if Mas Selamat lept across it, he would have broken his ankle when he landed.

The alleged escape across the fence is uncannily similar to the method used by NSF Dave Teo, who went AWOL from his army camp with a SAR21 assault rifle and several 5.56mm ammunition rounds. Teo lept from a parapet situated near a fence to escape. Did our security agencies not learn a thing from this very recent incident — that you should never have any fixed platforms near a fence?

Responsibility

I am shocked to learn that the punishment for allowing Mas Selamat to escape will be limited to only officers in the WRDC. Surely there are others in the ISD and MHA who are partially responsible.

It was reported that the toilet Mas Selamat escaped from was usually used by visitors and staff of WRDC. These visitors must, at one point or another, have included senior officials from ISD and MHA like the Director ISD, the Permanent Secretary (Home Affairs) and even the Minister himself. The Deputy Secretary (Security) who sat on the COI must have seen the same window design in the women’s toilet.

Did it not occur to any of them that there was a huge, ungrilled window with a ledge below it? Why did they not sound any alert? Were they complacent too? If so, do they not share part of the responsibility?

High security installations like these usually have regular security audits by another higher unit. If these audits were carried out, why didn’t the auditors discover the ungrilled window and the fence with a covered walkway beside it? These auditors should also be punished for their negligence. If no such audits took place, why not? ISD and MHA then bear some responsibility for not instituting these external audits.

PM’s speech today in Parliament and his responses to MPs’ questions were most disappointing.

He put up a stout defence for his Home Minister and Director ISD, saying they are “ultimately accountable” but “were not to blame”. This is a contradiction in itself. If you are accountable for something and that something goes wrong, you are to blame. That is what leadership is about.

I’m not asking for any resignations. But for everyone up the chain of command beyond the Superintendent of the WRDC to get away scot free is breathtaking! No one is going to even get fined, forfeit leave, sign extra, do push ups?

The PM said: “(T)his does not mean that if a lapse occurs down the line, every level in the chain of command, up to and including the Minister should automatically be punished or removed.”

In that case, no Minister will ever be punished for anything, because Ministers never do anything with their own hands. Everything that they do in the course of their work is actually carried out by a battalion of civil servants working under them.

PM chose to trot out the “we are not like other countries” argument, when he pointed out that we should not have a culture where Ministers “fall on their swords” whenever something goes wrong, just for political expediency. This is playing back like a tired old record from his father’s era. Most Singaporeans with half a brain will know it is less about being different from other countries, but more about protecting their own kind — the tight-knit network of elites who run this country.

What JBJ actually said at his Reform Party press con

While our local press dutifully reported about the press conference held by JB Jeyaratnam about his registration of the Reform Party, it appears they only reported the “constructive” stuff he said, but none of the 1 hour of criticisms of the PAP.

It’s pathetic that even Channel NewsAsia’s report is based on a report filed by AFP. Can’t we even report about our own country?

Here’s the AFP report:

A tough-talking new political party vowed on Friday to fight what it called the “enslavement” of Singapore after nearly half-a-century of rule by the People’s Action Party (PAP).

“Our people have been enslaved all this while,” J.B. Jeyaretnam, 82, interim secretary general of the Reform Party, told a news conference.

He said Singaporean society has been “castrated” and its people left powerless by an executive that holds “absolute power.”

For Jeyaretnam, a rare voice criticising the PAP over the past decades, the party’s formation marks his full return to politics after emerging from bankruptcy and being reinstated as a lawyer.

“We now in the Reform Party are not going to play pussy-foot with the PAP,” he told reporters at the close of a lengthy address which outlined what he sees as the country’s social, political and economic problems.

“I think it’s time now to ask questions and hold the PAP to account,” he said.

Party officials said they held the news conference a day after filing documents to register their party.

The opposition plays only a marginal role in Singapore but Jeyaretnam made political history in 1981 when he became the first opposition politician elected to parliament. He was then secretary general of the Workers’ Party.

The lawyer was disbarred when he was declared bankrupt in 2001 after failing to pay libel damages to members of the PAP, including former prime minister Goh Chok Tong.

During his bankruptcy, he was reduced to hawking his self-penned books outside city subway stations.

Last year Jeyaretnam paid 233,255 Singapore dollars (now 172,578 US) to clear his bankruptcy, which had prevented him from running for political office, after help from friends and his prominent lawyer son.

He was also reinstated to the bar and has resumed legal practice.

On Friday, Jeyaretnam said he did not care whether Singapore’s “obedient press” reported his comments — which continued for 80 minutes.

“Some things have to be said,” he stated as he began the speech.

He said Singapore, which prides itself on having ‘First World’ status, faces a widening gulf between rich and poor.

Government leaders earn millions but many families survive on one or two thousand dollars a month (605-1,1210 US), yet nobody speaks up, he said.

“There is, I don’t have to tell you, a fear culture in Singapore,” Jeyaretnam said. “It’s a total enslavement of the people.”

He said the party’s registration documents contained the names of only 10 people — and even attracting that many was not easy.

“People are still afraid,” he said.

Asked whether his news conference in a hotel meeting room was being monitored by police, he replied: “I’m sure that it is.”

Jeyaretnam said he hopes not only to reform the structure of the Singapore system but also people’s way of thinking, to rouse them from a PAP-induced “slumber.”

Jeyaretnam said that, if he is physically able, he will stand as a candidate in the next general election due by 2011.

He called for a complete overhaul of the electoral system, which he said places opposition parties at a disadvantage. The PAP won all but two seats in last year’s polls for the 84-member parliament.

The country’s leaders say its tough laws against dissent and other political activity are necessary to ensure the stability which has helped it achieve economic success. Thousands of foreign firms are based in Singapore, one of the most politically stable countries in the region.

The leaders dismiss criticisms from human rights groups who have said the government uses libel laws to silence critics, saying they have to protect their reputations.

Jeyaratnam spoke at a table with two other party officials beside him. To their left stood a white board which carried only two words in blue ink: “Reform Party.”

Bloggers to call for bold changes to new media regulation

I have been working with a group of fellow bloggers which will be submitting recommendations to the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts within the next few days on the subject of Internet regulation. This open letter, which will be released to the public at the same time, will call for sweeping changes to bring Singapore in line with international norms and the reality of the new technology.

Its key proposals include:

1. All regulation of speech should be platform-neutral, given the steady convergence of various platforms as a result of the digital revolution. There should not be different rules for different media.

2. Platform-neutral regulations should be harmonised to be as minimal as the current freest platform, if not even freer.

3. What rules there need to be should be narrowly tailored and should serve clear social purposes.

4. Rules should take the form of unambiguous laws, and in extremis, violators prosecuted, rather than take the form of licensing, bureaucratic discretion and administrative penalties as currently is the case. The various licensing schemes and the Media Development Authority’s powers to fine and ban should be dismantled.

5. Shielding a government from criticism is not a legitimate social purpose. Restraining political content is unjustified in principle and unrealistic in practice, and the attempt to do so impairs Singapore’s maturity as a nation.

6. The group notes that there are plenty of laws that need to be amended or repealed to give effect to the recommendations, such as the Broadcasting Act, the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Films Act. As this may take time, the group proposes that in the interim, there could be an Internet Freedom Act that sets out clear guarantees for Internet freedom, over-riding the multiple (and sometimes conflicting) restrictions in all these other laws, regulations and codes of practice.

7. The group advocates a much bigger role for community moderation and in fact sees an ongoing trend wherein site owners themselves ensure a responsible use of their digital space. To further this process, the group suggests that an Internet Community Consultative Committee (IC3) be set up comprising one-third independent content providers, one-third persons familiar with rapidly evolving digital technologies, and one-third regular consumers of Internet content (i.e. regular surfers). They should not have any legal powers, but serve as a regular meeting point for citizens concerned with the free and responsible use of digital media.

8. Controversies relating to Internet speech should as far as possible be resolved via community moderation. Only when public safety is at serious risk should the law and prosecution be invoked.

The group of 15 persons was led by Choo Zheng Xi from The Online Citizen and Alex Au of Yawning Bread, and started work in December last year.

PM Lee speaks about the Internet bogeyman

In an interview with Chinese language daily Lianhe Zaobao on Sunday, PM Lee delved into the topic of new media.

THE new media is changing rapidly and Singapore’s laws must evolve to keep up, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said.

But any loosening up will be done carefully.

Otherwise, misinformation and extremist views could proliferate.

Politics might also become tainted by graft if parties have to spend large sums to campaign online, he warned.

But the status quo is not an option either.

‘Some have said that ‘one year in the new media is equal to seven years in the world outside’,’ he said.

‘So in one term of the Government, there will be five years of changes in the new media, which is equal to more than 30 years in the real world. It is a whole new world.

‘Thus, it is necessary for us to update the rules to adapt to the demands of the new era. We will examine whether we should relax part of the rules but this issue will be handled cautiously to prevent a negative impact.‘

Current laws disallow the making and distributing of party political films.

During campaign season, political parties are not allowed to put audio or video-casts on their websites.

Mr Lee warned that Singapore would suffer if elections came to be fought through expensive online films and advertisements.

‘If a party needs money, many people are willing to donate, but these political contributions never come with no strings attached. After you win and come into power, the donors will turn up politely to ‘collect their dues’,’ he said.

– excerpts from The Straits Times, 14 April 2008

I am getting rather worried by the remarks by PM Lee about changing new media laws. It appears that some change is on the cards, but it won’t be nearly as drastic as many Singaporeans are hoping for.

For a start, it’s interesting that PM Lee chose to reveal his thoughts on new media to a Chinese language newspaper, instead of the Straits Times or TODAY. The Chinese press tends to be read more by older and/or lower-income Chinese Singaporeans, who are the least frequent users of the Internet and the most concerned about religious extremism. This makes fertile ground to sow fear about the dangers of the Internet.

PM Lee said that if the loosening up was done too fast, “misinformation and extremist views could proliferate”. But since the declaration of MICA’s “light-touch” approach to regulating the Internet, have we seen this happen? I don’t think so. What we have seen is a tremendous improvement in the level of political debate in this country.

He warned that “politics might also become tainted by graft if parties have to spend large sums to campaign online”.

Current election laws already prevent candidates from spending more than I believe $3 per voter. Thus the mechanism is already in place to prevent lobby money from dominating the political scene here. In fact, the current opposition parties spend far less than what they are allowed to, and much less than the PAP. Even if online campaigning were allowed, this limit will still remain.

In fact, putting up a website is much, much cheaper than printing brochures and sign-boards.

Again, PM Lee warned that Singapore would suffer if elections came to be fought through expensive online films and advertisements.

This contradicts an earlier statement by George Yeo, the Minister for Information and the Arts when “party political films” were outlawed here.

Mr Yeo had said on Channel NewsAsia on 9 January 2007 that the government at that time “did not reckon this new media which allows you to produce the programmes quite cheaply”, and felt that the government has “got to adjust that position (of banning party political films)”.

Finally, PM Lee said many people are willing to donate to a party, but these political contributions never come with no strings attached. After you win and come into power, the donors will turn up politely to ‘collect their dues’.

Our political donations laws are one of the most stringent in the world. None of that is about to change. The only thing that might change is that opposition parties might find it easier to raise money on the Internet, just like Malaysia’s Jeff Ooi and US Presidential candidate Barack Obama.

The bottom line in all these arguments: Whatever is not advantageous to the PAP, we will continue to ban.

————

Update: A group of bloggers, including myself, will be submitting a paper to the Government, detailing the changes we would like to see made to our laws and regulations of the Internet. This paper is into its final revisions and will be out in a matter of days rather than weeks. Stay tuned for more information on The Bloggers’ Feedback to the Government.

.
.

Do we really have to suck up to the Chinese like that?

This afternoon, I got a Channel NewsAsia SMS news alert that read:

PM Lee says outrage in China over anti-China protests, especially among Chinese youths, will have lifetime consequences beyong Beijing Olympics.

I rubbed my eyes in disbelief for a moment! Could it be that the Singapore Prime Minister actually criticized the Chinese for their anti-western vitriol that the world has become so accustomed to whenever nationalist sentiments are provoked? (PM Lee himself was a recipient of that Internet vitriol when he visited Taiwan in 2004 just weeks before becoming Prime Minister.)

When I visited the CNA website to read the whole report, I realised I was dead wrong. PM Lee actually said in a speech at the London School of Economics Asia Forum:

The outrage in China, especially among the young, can be read on the flooded Internet bulletin boards, all carrying virulent anti-foreign sentiments. Pity they are in unintelligible Chinese ideographs. Were they in the English language, young Americans and Europeans would realise that these displays of contempt for China and things Chinese will have consequences in their lifetime, well beyond the Olympic Games.

If I understand correctly, what PM Lee meant was:

Those stupid ang mohs should have never insulted the Chinese people by voicing support for Tibetan independence and protesting against the Olympics being held in Beijing. Look what has happened now: 1.3 billion Chinese people are outraged. You folks will live to regret it the rest of your life, because China is a future military and economic superpower which you cannot afford to offend.

PM Lee had also said:

No protesting group truly expects that their public display of anger and outrage at China’s treatment of Tibetans or ethnic Han dissidents will change China’s policy when it affects its core security concerns. They know no government can give ground on any core issue under such public duress, whatever the merits of the arguments.

You see, PM Lee is viewing the world from the worldview of this little oyster called Singapore. He seems to have forgotten that many autocratic governments, from the time of the French Revolution to the Philippines’ Marcos and Indonesia’s Suharto were toppled by “people power” movements.

Sure, governments in countries like China and Singapore are at no risk (now) of falling in that manner because they have got an iron grip of all the levers of power.

But to pronounce that the Chinese government will not be moved by these protests is equally wishful thinking, especially in the age of the Internet and free flow of information. I’m sure the Tibetans are watching the protests around the world and gaining lots of inspiration from them.

These are erudite words of advice to the whole Western world, coming from a leader who has yet to address the problems in his own backyard, like an escaped terrorist and rocketing inflation.

In his effort to butter up the Communist Chinese, PM Lee has revealed how out of step he and his government are with regard to the growing tide of democratization and justice that is sweeping even our end of the world.

Where is our "full account", independent Committee?

The day after Mas Selamat Kastari (aka The Limping Terrorist) escaped from prison on 27 February, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng told Parliament that there will be an “independent investigation” into this “security lapse”.

Then Singaporeans found out that our government has a different definition of the word “independent” when it was revealed that this Committee of Inquiry (COI) included the Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, who “oversees security policy” as part of her regular job.

But the COI is independent, we are told, because “she does not have any line relationship over ISD or any operational departments”.

I guess since I didn’t get 4As in my A-levels like those 600 potential prime ministers, I should just shut up and accept that my England is not very powderful because I wasn’t paying attention when my primary one teacher taught me what “independent” means. Obviously my definition must be wrong, otherwise it would mean that our Deputy Prime Minister told Parliament something that wasn’t true.

(But wait a minute…if she is a DS overseeing security policy, but does not have anyone at the Internal Security Department or any operational departments reporting to her, then what is her superscale salary being used to pay for?)

On 2 March, Channel NewsAsia reiterated Mr Wong’s “independent Committee of Inquiry” comment, and went on to say that the “report should be ready within a month”.

I just checked the calendar, and I think it’s 11 April today, which means that the report is more than 10 days late.

What could be the reason for the delay? The DS on the COI team is from the elite Administrative Service, well trained in report writing. Surely she would have been able to whip up a report within a matter of days.

Perhaps the report really was ready long ago, but it needs time for “inter-agency consultation” so as to soften any potentially embarrassing findings, particularly for the political elite. MM Lee has already foreshadowed what the report might contain, when he pinned the blame for the escape on the goats…I mean…guards, whom he accused of being “negligent”.

But fret not, Singaporeans. Two “facts” may have turned out to be untrue, but I’m still holding out for a third fact to come true: That when the COI completes its inquiry, the Government will give a full account on how Mas Selamat escaped.

(It’s notable that it is only after the Workers’ Party expressed concern that the Committee will “submit its report to the Minister, and no part of the proceedings may be released to anyone except with the Minister’s written permission”, did the MHA come out and declare that there will be a “full account”.)

So where is our full account, “independent” Committee of Inquiry?

Or maybe I should be asking MHA: Why have you not released the COI’s full account to the public yet? Does the Government think that Singaporeans are all saying “what to do? He’s escaped” and are moving on with their lives?

Singaporeans are waiting…

Personally, I’m equally interested to find out the outcome of the separate CID investigation which is looking into whether there was any criminal wrongdoing, and “if any person is found to have abetted the escape”. I had asked on the second day after the escape whether this was an inside job and I still maintain that this is the most likely scenario.

More S’pore teens engaging in risky sexual behaviour

Singapore‘s Department of STI Control has reported that the number of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among teenagers is set to hit another high this year. According to a Sunday Times report today, the reported figures grew from 238 in 2002, to 678 in 2005, to 775 in 2006 and is likely to have hit 815 in 2007. In the 1980s and 1990s, numbers hovered around just 250 cases a year.

Teenage pregnancy figures also increased from 731 in 2003 to 838 in 2006.

Youth counsellor Haji Md Yusof Ismail from Ain Society observed that teenage sex in recent years has evolved from sex with single partners for love, to sex with multiple partners to fulfill purely physical desires.

The Internet has been blamed for the increase in sexual activity among teens.

While it cannot be denied that Internet pornography and chatrooms played a part in this shift in behaviour, it is foolish to pin the Net as the primary culprit. We need to question why teenagers are increasingly seeking love and acceptance through engaging in sexual activity at such a young age.

It’s not about banning kids from using the Internet. Neither would pummeling them with lessons about values and morality help much. Scaring them with “gross” pictures of infected genitals will be as effective as anti-smoking ads — if these kids don’t love themselves, why would they care what harm they are doing against their bodies.

Perhaps if we dive into the mind of teenagers who engage in this sort of behaviour, we would find that many do this because they lack the self-confidence to say “no”. They may think that having sex is a way to gain love, affirmation and acceptance from peers, because they feel they don’t get it from their parents, siblings, teachers and society in general.

I feel this is an issue that needs to be tackled at its roots. Heal the heart and soul of these hurting youngsters, and their outward behaviour will fall in place. It will take a concerted effort of parents, religious organisations, social service organisations, schools and the government to turn this worrying trend around.

But no need in our society is more pressing than protecting the destiny of our young people.

————

Original article:

The Sunday Times, 6 Apr 08

Teen sex infections likely to hit new high
Most teenage boys get gonorrhoea and girls chlamydia, and some having sex at 12

By Teo Cheng Wee

The number of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among teenagers is set to hit another high this year, said the Department of STI Control (DSC).

The figure had been steadily increasing in recent years. Starting from a low of 238 cases reported to the department in 2002, it grew to 678 cases in 2005, 775 in 2006 and 657 in the first nine months of last year .

Although the full figures for last year are not available yet, DSC clinic head Tan Hiok Hee estimated that numbers had grown by another 3 to 5 per cent. This means the final tally would be in the region of 800 to 815.

In comparison, STI figures for the general population have stayed relatively constant at around 11,000 from 2004 to 2006.

Dr Tan pointed out that the last time teenage STI rates were this high was in the late 1970s. In the 1980s and 1990s, numbers declined and hovered around 250 cases a year.

‘But after 2002, the numbers have really increased,’ he said.

Teenage pregnancy figures – which have increased from 731 in 2003 to 838 in 2006 – are another indicator that more young people are having unprotected sex.

Such statistics have led to teenage STI being identified as a ‘pressing matter’ by a Health Ministry committee on adolescent health issues. Dr Tan, who sits on the committee, said the panel recently completed its report and is due to submit it to the ministry.

The top two STIs reported here are chlamydia for girls and gonorrhoea for boys. The two infections account for more than half of all STIs in teenagers. These are also the most common STIs in adults.

Last year, the youngest patients who sought help at the DSC clinic in Kelantan Lane were three 14-year-old girls, for gonorrhoea and chlamydia. Some of these youth were already sexually active at the age of 12.

Most of the time, teenagers either visit the clinic alone or with their friends. They usually come forward because they are showing symptoms like a discharge, sores or painful blisters.

Girls are more likely to be infected, with the number of girls being twice that of the boys.

Dr Tan explained that this is because girls usually attain sexual maturity earlier and are more susceptible to certain infections such as chlamydia.

Girls also tend to have older partners, who are more sexually experienced and tend to have more partners as well.

The reactions of parents and teens, upon finding out that the latter have STI, have been varied, said Dr Tan.

He recounted one 15-year-old boy with gonorrhoea who visited the clinic with his mother. She scolded him in the consultation room, pulled his ear and said he deserved the pain he was in because of his immoral behaviour.

On the other hand, the mother of a 16-year-old boy with anal warts had a frank discussion with her son on STIs and risky activities and stayed calm and non-judgmental, he recalled.

Youth counsellors and doctors point to the influence of cyberspace as one possible cause for the trend, noting that the increasing numbers have coincided with the advent of the Internet.

With pornography readily available online, teens not only get more used to the idea of sex, but they also learn at a young age how to do it.

Said youth counsellor Haji Md Yusof Ismail, who works at voluntary welfare organisation Ain Society: ‘They are also thinking: If celebrities like Edison Chen are doing it, why can’t we?’

Some teenagers also contracted STIs after they hooked up with strangers on online chatrooms and forums.

Haji Yusof observed that teenage sex in recent years has evolved from sex with single partners for love, to sex with multiple partners for pure physical needs.

Dr Carol Balhetchet, director of youth services at the Singapore Children’s Society, has also noticed a mindset shift in teenagers in the last five years.

‘Gone are the days when virginity is pure. It is now cool to have sex,’ she said. ‘When they have unprotected sex, they don’t see it as risky behaviour – they think it’s natural and pure.’

When contacted, the Ministry of Education told The Sunday Times that it is already involving the home, school and community to tackle the problem, including training teachers to engage better with both students and parents on the subject of sex.

Haji Yusof said: ‘It’s a challenging problem, no doubt, and I feel that it’s an uphill task battling changing societal norms. But there is no magic pill. We have to continue working hard to solve the problem.’

New Cabinet line-up throws up some surprises

The new Cabinet announced by the Prime Minister’s Office on Saturday evening unveiled some surprises in both promotions and non-promotions. Nobody was dropped from the Cabinet, and in fact the size of the Cabinet increased by one to 36 men and women, with six promotions.

From backbencher to Minister

The most significant promotion was that of MP for Sembawang GRC K. Shanmugam, who has been appointed as the new Law Minister. That he was appointed as an office holder at the Ministry of Law was not unexpected. He had been mentioned in the press quite a few times as a likely successor to Prof S. Jayakumar, who has been the Minister for Law since 1988.

However, Mr Shanmugam’s hop-step over many rungs of the political ladder comes as quite a surprise. Into his fifth term as a backbencher, he skipped over the offices of Parliamentary Secretary, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Minister of State, Senior Minister of State, Second Minister and Acting Minister, to be appointed immediately as a full Minister. Not only that, he was given a double portfolio. He will also be the Second Minister for Home Affairs, a heavyweight ministry that is often seen as second in importance to only the Defence Ministry.

Reshuffle at MICA

Many had anticipated a leadership change at the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA). Dr Lee Boon Yang was expected to step down as Minister into retirement after 17 years in the Cabinet. Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, the Second Minister, was widely regarded as almost a shoo-in to replace him as Minister. Instead it was Dr Balakrishnan who was dropped from MICA. (He retains his appointment as Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, though.) It is unclear why he was not promoted to full Minister at MICA, nor why he had his ministerial portfolios reduced from two to one.

Senior Minister of State Balaji Sadasivan will also be leaving MICA. Singaporeans would recall that it was Dr Balaji who announced just before the May 2006 General Elections that websites which “persistently propagate, promote or circulate political issues relating to Singapore” will be required to register and will thus be prohibited from engaging in election advertising. This directive was largely ignored, and it led to the creation of a series of “persistently non-political” podcasts by mr brown, including the famous “Bak Chor Mee” clip.

While there was no replacement for Dr Balakrishnan at the Second Minister’s post, Dr Balaji’s position will be filled by the newly promoted RAdm(NS) Lui Tuck Yew, previously the Minister of State for Education. Speculation will be rife as to whether the former Navy Chief is being tested out as the next potential successor to Dr Lee Boon Yang.

It should be noted that the senior management at MICA has recently also seen some changes. Mr Chan Yeng Kit, the former CEO of the Info-Comm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA), took over as Permanent Secretary at the start of this year. Last week, Mr Lock Wai Han, the former Director of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) was appointed as MICA’s Deputy Secretary.

The effect that these changes (and non-changes) will have on the government’s approach to the old and new media is something that many will be watching with baited breath to unfold. Will Singapore beat Sudan and improve on our 141st ranking on the press freedom index? Will the “light touch” approach to the Internet become lighter or heavier? And will “party political films” ever be allowed in Singapore, like in virtually all other democracies in the world?

It is difficult to assess what the rationale for these recent leadership changes at MICA were, but I would not be surprised if the “political tsunami” in Malaysia fuelled by independent Internet media was factored in the decisions. We have seen the stepping down of an office holder who was seen as resistent to the tide of the new media, to be replaced by another who is prepared to go in there “listening, learning, and then contributing”.

Still waiting for Madam Minister

The much hoped-for appointment of Singapore’s first female Minister was not to be in this Cabinet reshuffle. The most touted candidate, Minister of State for National Development Grace Fu, was promoted to Senior Minister of State and given another portfolio in the Education Ministery. However, she did not make it to full Minister this time around. While gender equality champions are bound to be disappointed, this outcome was unsurprising.

Ms Fu is only a first-term MP who did not face an election fight during the last elections. (Her Jurong GRC team received a walkover.) It would be premature to promote her to Minister so soon, as this could raise questions about whether her gender played an “affirmative” role in her promotion. Besides, the most likely ministry for a first time minister, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), is still being helmed by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan. Nevertheless, one could expect that MCYS will eventually be headed by a female minister, possibly by the next reshuffle.

Where is our Fourth generation PM?

When Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam was recently appointed Finance Minister, it set tongues wagging as to whether he might be a possible successor to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. Some had expected that this Cabinet reshuffle would give a clear signal of who the anointed leader would be. That clear signal would have been the appointment of a new Deputy Prime Minister. Some had wondered if Prof Jayakumar would step down to make way for a new DPM.

This was not to be the case. Prof Jayakumar remains as DPM and Coordinating Minister for National Security. Even the other DPM, Mr Wong Kan Seng, held firmly to his position as DPM and Home Affairs Minister, despite calls from some quarters for his resignation after the embarrassing escape of alleged terrorist Mas Selamat Kastari.

Singaporeans will have to wait a bit longer to get a sense of who may succeed PM Lee.

Conclusion

In keeping with Singapore’s tradition of predictable succession planning, this latest Cabinet reshuffle had a few eyebrow-raisers, but on the whole steered away from any radical departures from the status quo. Therefore, in the remaining three years of this Government’s term in power, we can expect more of the same old politics and policies.

This piece first appeared in theonlinecitizen.

Consumers the losers with Virtual Map shutdown

Virtual Map, the company that runs StreetDirectory.com has shut down its website after losing a lawsuit to the Singapore Land Authority (SLA).

According to the Straits Times, SLA, which originally issued Virtual Map a licence for its maps of Singapore, sued the company in January 2007 for continuing to use the SLA maps even after the licence had expired. Virtual Map lost it case in the District Court, and was ordered to stop using the infringing materials. It appealed to the High Court, but lost again.

The company is now considering quitting its business in Singapore and focusing elsewhere. It also has online maps in Indonesia and Malaysia.

I am shocked and disappointed to learn that things have turned out this way. I use StreetDirectory.com all the time to find directions, usually from MRT stations to my point of destination. It isn’t the most fantastic online map I’ve used, but it’s certainly by far the best in Singapore.

In contrast, SLA’s StreetMap is pathetic. There are so few details in SLA’s maps I just gave up after using it once. Unlike StreetDirectory.com, StreetMap does not provide a facility to search for bus and driving directions to that location.

There was another map website that ST highlighted, but when I visited its site, it said, “ShowNearby is on debugging mode. During this time, users may undergo a bumpy surfing experience.”

In any case, those maps have even less detail than SLA’s maps.

I really don’t understand what SLA was trying to achieve by suing Virtual Map and forcing them to stop using the maps. I mean, at least let them pay for the license and continue using it right? Now not only is a budding local startup forced to shut down its core business, but thousands of consumers like me who rely on online maps are going to be, literally, lost.

So much for promoting entrepreneurship. So much for consumer rights.

There is one sliver of hope though. They are considering making a final appeal to the Court of Appeals. Let us, powerless consumers, keep our fingers crossed.

Wanna be PM? Here’s the criteria

Straits Times reported Wednesday that PM Lee said that the search for his successor is still ongoing. He is seeking political talent in their 30s and early 40s, one of whom he hopes will emerge as his successor. The ST reported:

He looked at recent data on the 600-odd students who score four As in their A levels each year. About two-thirds pursue university degrees here, and one-third go overseas.

Of those who go overseas, at least 100 are not on scholarships. About half of these non-scholarship holders do not return but work abroad after they graduate.

In addition, another 100 of those who get their degrees here go overseas to work. They may come back one day but there is no guarantee.

‘This flow is going to continue,’ Mr Lee said. ‘So it’s a big challenge to find successors, particularly for politics.’

Now I see the No 1 criteria for Prime Ministership: You must get 4As in your A Levels! Everything else is secondary, I guess.