Author: Gerald Giam

Gerald Giam is the Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC. He is the Head of Policy Research of the Workers' Party of Singapore. The opinions expressed on this page are his alone.

Increasing access to higher education imperative for Singapore

In my previous post, I argued that making higher education affordable for the masses is the best form of public welfare as it gives all students, including those from low income families, an opportunity to graduate from university, which will give them the necessary headstart in Singapore’s knowledge-based economy. This will not only greatly improve the employment opportunities and social mobility of the low income students, but it will alleviate Singapore’s shortage of knowledge workers and hence reduce the need for such large numbers of foreign talent.

There are many challenges students face in completing their university studies, including financial difficulties, low family expectations, lack of effort and weak academic ability. This article will focus on the financial aspect, as it is the probably only factor that could prevent a student from completing university even though he or she has overcome all the other factors.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) has always claimed that no student will be denied a university education because of financial difficulties. It claims that all cases of genuine financial need will be met by bursaries.

Unfortunately, bursaries don’t cover the full tuition costs. The annual tuition fees in local public universities range from $6,100 for arts and engineering, to $17,500 for medicine and dentistry (including the MOE tuition grant, which is given to all students, even foreigners). Most bursaries are valued between $800 and $2,000 per year, based on the level of financial need. (One needs to have a gross monthly per capita household income of less than $900 to qualify for an $800 MOE bursary.) The bursaries usually prohibit students from concurrently holding other bursaries or scholarships, and require them to re-apply every academic year.

NUS’ Student Financial Aid Unit states on their website that the financial aid package is a “partnership involving the student, his/her family and the University”. While this co-payment approach sounds reasonable in theory, in reality many students from low income families still won’t be able to meet the balance of payment even after factoring in the bursaries. They would still have to fork out several thousand dollars each year for tuition fees, books and other living expenses, even if they receive the maximum $2,000 bursary. Part-time work could make up for some of the shortfall, but the money earned may be needed to supplement family income or support siblings, rather than pay their own tuition expenses. In addition, since bursaries need to be renewed every year, the student has no assurance prior to entering university that his or her expenses will be adequately covered for the duration of the 3 or 4 year course. A tuition loan may be an alternative, but it does not reduce the net price of education (in fact it increases because of the interest) and it saddles the student with debt even before he or she has begun working.

In his Budget 2007 speech on 15 February, Second Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam announced that all Singaporean children aged 7 to 20 will now have a Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA). The PSEA of children of lower income families will be topped up annually with between $200 and $400. While laudable, a simple calculation will show that a child who gets a $400 top up every year from ages 7 to 20 will only have $4,400 their PSEA. This is not enough to pay for even one year of university tuition. In fact, by the time a 7-year old (in 2007) reaches university age, the tuition fees would probably have increased to much more than the current $6,100 a year.

An August 2006 report by the Education Policy Institute in Canada titled “Grants for Students” found that grants are an effective way of increasing access to higher education for low income students. The research revealed that grants tip the cost-benefit ratio of higher education in favour of the “benefits” by offsetting tuition costs and foregone income. In other words, a low income junior college (JC) student who is deciding whether to spend $15,000 to complete university or start working immediately, no longer has to make that decision if he knows that his university education will be covered entirely by grants.

Financial pressure may compel low income students to abandon university plans, enter the workforce and start contributing to family income. One of my friends did well enough in her O levels to get into JC several years ago. However her parents told her plainly that they did not have enough money to sponsor her through university. As a result, she left JC after her first 3 months and went to a polytechnic, which is cheaper than the JC-and-university route. This would probably not have happened had her family been wealthy enough to pay for her university education. In fact, all of my peers from high income backgrounds eventually completed university, even those with average academic ability. Those who didn’t do well enough to enter local institutions completed their studies overseas. Is it fair, then, for someone to miss out on a university education just because her family is not rich?

Singapore‘s economy will continue to rely more and more on knowledge workers. It is therefore imperative for the percentage of university graduates to increase to meet this demand. To improve access to university education, it is time for the government to consider developing a new educational funding structure to fully fund the university education of all students from families with incomes in the bottom 30th percentile. The payable fees could be slowly increased from the 31st percentile until the 90th percentile, with the latter paying full tuition fees.

In my next article, I will outline some of the ways in which this new funding structure could be implemented, even without the need to increase MOE’s overall budget by much.

Resources:


Drunk driver?


I heard a loud crash at 4am below my block. When I looked out, I saw this minivan crashed into a neighbouring block void deck. I can’t fathom how someone could lose control of his vehicle on a relatively straight portion of the road. My only explanation is that he might be drunk.


Update: Sembawang Town Council wrote to me the next day to inform me that they have asked the police to investigate this incident, and will be sending a structural engineer to check out the block. Kudos to SBTC for its quick action.

SAF overly conservative about Malays

I thought it was interesting that TODAY decided to report as their lead story West Point graduate Sean Walsh’s commentary about the SAF (“The Roar of the Lion City”, published in Armed Forces and Society), given the sensitive issues he raised, particularly about the “policy to keep Malays out of sensitive areas”.

His title for the article sounds very similar to the that of the most comprehensive book about the SAF written by British academic Tim Huxley, “Defending the Lion City” (2001). I wonder if this sums up the lack of originality in Walsh’s article. Although I haven’t been able to obtain a copy of the full article, based on what was reported in TODAY, little of what he raised was not already mentioned by Huxley in his book. [Afternote: Thank you to the two readers who shared the original article with me.]

On the issue of Malays and the SAF, I tend to think that the SAF is being overly conservative about the feared “security risk” posed by Malays. Perhaps it is based on an incorrect assumption that all Malays are ideologues who see the world only in terms of “My Race vs the Rest”.

During a forum with students back in 1999, then-SM Lee Kuan Yew said that “If you put in a Malay officer who’s very religious and who has family ties in Malaysia in charge of a machine-gun unit, that’s a very tricky business.”

I don’t think anyone is expecting the SAF to put anyone who has close family ties in a foreign state in charge of a front-line combat unit. But is this a reason to keep Malays out of sensitive units? Col Benedict Lim, MINDEF’s public affairs director, pointed out that the SAF has “Malay pilots, commandos and air defence personnel”. This is certainly news to me. Since I completed my infantry training, I have been deployed to so-called “sensitive units”, and I have yet to see any Malays there — even the drivers are Chinese and Indian. In fact, I once even had a Chinese platoon mate in one of those units who is Malaysian citizen / Singapore PR! (Second generation permanent residents are required to serve NS.)

Given today’s high-tech warfare, it is unlikely that soldiers in the offensive combat units — air force, navy, armour and artillery — will see their enemies’ faces or know which race they belong to before blasting them to smithereens. So the dilemma about “I-won’t-pull-the-trigger-because-my-enemy-is-Malay” will factor in less. If anything, it is in the infantry where face-to-face combat will take place, and ironically, that is where a larger proportion of Malay soldiers are deployed.

By perpetuating the widely-held view in neighbouring countries that Singapore is a Chinese-dominated country, the SAF is making itself (and Singapore) an even easier target for potential adversaries use racial politics to stir up negative sentiments among their populace against Singapore. Already, neighbouring country politicians frequently take gratuitous pot-shots at Singapore because of the SAF’s policies on Malays. While I am certainly not calling on the SAF to change its policies just to please our neighbours, the Government should be aware that policies like these make it harder to win the all-important propaganda war that accompanies any conflict.

In any case, the SAF and the Government would do well to uphold — to the last letter — their commitment to meritocracy. Background checks should be done thoroughly before deploying soldiers in sensitive units, but I hope it is not done in an arbitrary fashion that excludes capable soldiers simply on the basis of their race.

Education is the best social welfare

This Part 1 of a three-part series on the cost of education in Singapore:

Part 1: Education is the best social welfare
Part 2: Making higher education affordable for all Singaporeans
Part 3: Funding a new education compact


One of the highlights of 2007 Budget speech was the introduction of the Workfare Income Supplement a new “pillar” of Singapore’s social compact. Workfare, as its name implies, is an innovative way of dishing out welfare to low-income citizens, while still incentivising them to remain employed.

Workfare is billed as an important measure to stem the increasing bifurcation of Singapore society between the “Haves” and “Have-nots”. Incomes of the bottom 20 per cent of workers have been stagnant (and even slipped) for years since the early 1990s, while the incomes of the top 20 per cent have powered ahead. This presents a serious problem which cannot be ignored — both for moral and political reasons. Recent history is replete with lessons of “proletariats” overthrowing their “bourgeoisie” ruling class because of grossly uneven and unjust wealth distribution. Even in democratic India, the BJP-led government was unseated at the 2004 polls by the grassroots-based Congress Party, despite claiming credit for India’s commendable economic development in the past decade.

The $400 million Workfare package to be dished out to low-income workers seems to have pleased almost everyone, including the Opposition. Based on media reports, Singaporeans could be forgiven for thinking that this is the panacea to our widening income divide. It is most certainly not.

I see Workfare as at best a stop-gap measure to keep low wage workers a little happier until the next election. The $40 increase in monthly take home income is not going to make much difference to their standard of living. Unfortunately, as long as these workers lack the high-value skills and competencies needed to power a globalised, knowledge-based economy, it’s hard to see how their incomes would ever increase significantly within their lifetimes.

With this stark reality in mind, attention should instead be focused on helping the children of low-income families succeed in life and move up the social ladder, while still continuing to disburse Workfare to their parents.

One of the most important keys to facilitate this social mobility for the next generation is education, and tertiary education in particular. The Government has taken pride in its self-proclaimed “meritocratic” system, whereby anyone, whether poor or rich, can rise to join the ranks of the elites in society if they achieve good enough grades in school to win scholarships to study in top universities around the world. The current system has succeeded in producing an elite ruling class in our society, but will continue to fall short of the Government’s goal of giving every Singaporean a role to play in this new innovation-driven economy.

The former president of Japanese multinational Matsushita remarked some years ago to then-EDB Chairman Ngiam Tong Dow that our educational structure had some brilliant individuals perched like eagles on high peaks, but the average education level of the rest was not high. He advised that Singapore should concentrate on educating the masses to raise the average level and not just focus on the top scholars. He said that to advance as a nation, we need “high broad plateaus, not solitary peaks”.

Singapore already has an excellent education system at all levels — primary, secondary, technical and tertiary. However, for the most part, it is tertiary education (i.e. universities and polytechnics) that will make the difference between those who make it to the middle income group and above, and those who will unfortunately remain in the “struggling-to-survive” group.

This is not to be elitist and dismiss O level or ITE graduates. I have no doubt that there will be some among them that have the entrepreneurial drive and determination to start business and make it big despite their lower academic qualifications. However, these will be the exception rather than the rule. Singapore will need more knowledge workers to power our economy. If companies can’t find these workers locally, they will have to search overseas and hire foreign talent. The globalisation train is steaming ahead, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it. Most manufacturing jobs and even technical jobs will be shipped out to China, India or Vietnam sooner than we think. No amount of labour protectionism will save these jobs.

To prepare our workforce for the knowledge-based economy, the Government must give as many students as possible the opportunity to study in polytechnics and universities. It doesn’t make sense for the Government to constantly carp at the lack of local knowledge workers and import wave after wave of foreign talent, when it should be putting in place a more long-term solution by providing more opportunities for Singaporeans to complete their tertiary education. Human capital development is the best form of social welfare, and an investment with an almost guaranteed return.

In the next post, I will make the case for greater funding for Singaporeans’ education, particularly those from lower income families, to ensure that none of them misses out on obtaining a degree or diploma because of financial constraints.

News flash: Tremors felt in Singapore

I was in my flat in Sembawang at about 11.50am today and felt the building swaying for about 15-20 seconds. My friends across the island from Suntec City to Orchard Road to Clementi also felt it and some people even deemed it serious enough to evacuate their buildings.

SCDF says that they have “no idea” what caused it. I hope this was not a result of a massive earthquake in Indonesia or in the ocean, which could cause a tsunami.

Update from News Radio 93.8:
The tremors were a result of a 6.6 Richter scale earthquake in Sumatra, 400km from Singapore. News Radio interviewed someone in Centennial Tower who said that everyone there evacuated their building.

I’m a bit concerned that Singaporeans’ immediate reaction to an earthquake is to evacuate the building like during a fire. Although this might be fine for a minor tremor like the one just experienced, during a major quake, the correct action to take is to get under a door frame or a sturdy table. This is what I was taught when I lived in California. In fact the main cause of injury during earthquakes is not from collapsing buildings, but falling articles inside buildings and falling glass windows from buildings onto the ground below. Perhaps SCDF should educate Singaporeans on this.

Update at 13:53hrs:
Felt another tremor. This time it was longer. It lasted about 40 seconds. I hope structures in Singapore (including my own flat!) haven’t been damaged.

Also check out the websites of the US Geological Survey, National Environment Agency and Aaron Ng’s blog for updates.

Here’s what you should do during an earthquake if, God forbid, it gets really bad. According the the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), some earthquakes are actually foreshocks and a larger earthquake might occur.

Update at 15:11hrs:
According to the Jakarta Post, least 9 people were killed and hundreds of buildings, including the state bank, were flattened by the Sumatra quake. The magnitude 6.3 quake killed at least two children, a teacher and a woman in a market in the Sumatran town of Solok. At least two hospitals were struggling to cope with a flood of patients, many of them suffering cuts and broken bones.

Let’s pray that the authorities there have things under control. The Singapore Government should offer to send a Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team (DART) to assist. Now is a better time than ever to put into action what our ministers said yesterday in Parliament.

Update on 7 Mar 07:

Singapore MFA’s press release at 2157hrs on 6 Mar:
“Singapore has expressed its condolences to Indonesia on the earthquake in West Sumatra. Our Embassy in Jakarta has conveyed Singapore’s offer of assistance to the Indonesian government.”

I’m sure the Indonesian government is going to reject this offer, lest Singapore starts carping again about how much we have helped the Indonesians in time of need.

Projecting "soft power" but not going soft

In his speech in Parliament yesterday, Foreign Minister George Yeo said that “from time to time, we must expect countries to pressure us in the hope that we will then give way to their demands. Singaporeans know that if we give in to such pressures, we would only invite more such pressures. However, we are always prepared to build good relations with them on the basis of mutual respect and mutual benefit. We should still help them when they are in difficulty not because we expect gratitude or reward, but because that is the right thing to do.” (emphasis mine).

Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean echoed similar sentiments when he stressed that the SAF would continue rendering humanitarian aid and disaster relief to our neighbours, even though this help appeared to be taken for granted by some quarters. He said, “I still believe it’s the right thing to do. I suppose in some quarters, memories can be short. But heaven forbid, if we were to be called upon again…we will respond. We are all brothers in Asean.” (emphasis mine)

It is certainly heartening to note that the two ministers at the forefront of our foreign policy have emphasised the intrinsic value in rendering assistance to our neighbours, rather than solely focusing on a “balance of benefits” or quid pro quo. Although this by no means indicates that our leaders are becoming less “hard nosed” about foreign policy, I sense that there is a slight shift in the direction of using “soft power” to project our national interests. This will be a subject of a future post on this blog. Stay tuned!

Extradition Treaty with Indon will benefit S’pore too

Singapore and Indonesia have been conducting “megaphone diplomacy” with each other in the past few weeks. Officials and parliamentarians on both sides have been trading barbs over Indonesia’s sudden ban on the export of sand to Singapore and the bilateral Extradition Treaty that Indonesia so desperately seeks.

Indonesia has been wanting to sign the Extradition Treaty with Singapore for over 30 years. However, it is only in the past decade since the 1997-98 financial and political crisis in Indonesia that nationalistic drumbeats have forced this to the top of its foreign policy agenda with Singapore. In 1999, then-President B. J. Habibie accused Singapore of being racist and harbouring “economic criminals” as he tried to pressure Singapore to sign the Extradition Treaty. It was in this context that Habibie uttered his now infamous remark that Singapore is nothing but a “little red dot in a sea of green”, an analogy that the Singapore Government has used ever since to explain its dispassionate and clinical approach to foreign policy.

After Singapore’s and Indonesia’s new leaders — Lee Hsien Loong and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono — took power in 2004, the two countries finally agreed to move forward on talks on the Treaty. In early 2005, during President Yudhoyono’s first state visit to Singapore, PM Lee assured him that Singapore would work towards concluding the Treaty. But since then, Singapore officials have been uncharacteristically slow in working out the details of the Treaty to bring it to a conclusion.

The Indonesians have not bothered to hide their impatience with Singapore’s apparent delay tactics. In February this year, Jakarta suddenly announced a complete ban on sand exports to Singapore. Singapore was the biggest importer of Indonesian sand, which is needed for its construction industry. The Indonesians first cited environmental and border encroachment concerns. But then the Director-General for Asia in DEPLU (Indonesia’s foreign ministry) revealed to the Jakarta Post on 26 February what both parties knew all along: the sand ban had nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with applying pressure on Singapore to conclude the Treaty expeditiously.

The next day, Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla lashed out at Singapore in an interview with the Financial Times for “refusing to sign” the Extradition Treaty. He accused Singapore of trying to keep “billions of dollars” in corrupt money siphoned out of Indonesia by fleeing tycoons during the 1997-98 financial crisis. He added that “Singapore often says there’s so much corruption in Indonesia. But when we want to work together on combating corruption, they don’t want to.”

A report in Australian daily The Age (“Singapore none too fussy about the source of wealth in its financial sector”, 26 July 2006) pointed out that among those believed to be hiding out in Singapore are convicted crooks who had embezzled hundreds of millions of dollars from Indonesian banks and state investment agencies. Many of these white collar criminals had bribed state bank officials to give them huge unsecured loans, and then fled to Singapore.

Singapore: Indonesian corruption is not our problem

The Singapore Government has countered Indonesia’s claims by pointing out that an Extradition Treaty is not going to solve its corruption problems, and that the main culprit is poor law enforcement within its own borders. It has also argued that the Treaty is a complex document that is complicated even further by the different legal systems in each country.

It is clear that the Singapore Government does not see any economic benefit in concluding the Extradition Treaty with Indonesia. A Merrill Lynch report in October 2006 found that one-third — or 18,000 — of Singapore’s high net worth individuals (those with over $1 million in assets) are Indonesians holding Singapore Permanent Residency. Their combined assets are worth a whopping $87 billion — prized foreign talent indeed! No doubt these Indonesian tycoons have contributed tremendously to the strong growth of Singapore’s wealth management industry in recent years.

Of course, not all rich Indonesians living in Singapore are corrupt. But the fear in the financial services industry is that once the Treaty is signed, many corrupt Indonesians will simply pull out their money and move to another safe haven to avoid extradition, and in the process hollow out Singapore’s private banking industry. So while Indonesia’s loss has been Singapore’s gain, Singapore’s loss (when the rich crooks pack up and leave for third countries) will not necessarily be Indonesia’s gain.

So what’s in it for Singapore?

So, from a Singaporean perspective, are there any compelling reasons for concluding the Extradition Treaty with Indonesia? In my humble opinion, there are many.

Firstly, it is the morally right thing to do. “Always do what is right, because it is right“, is what an American soldier’s mother advised him when he went out to war in Clint Eastwood’s movie, Letters From Iwo Jima. Just because Indonesia wrongly thinks that the Extradition Treaty is a panacea for its corruption problems, doesn’t mean that Singapore should continue to provide refuge for economic fugitives and profit from their dirty money. As a Christian, I am convinced that “righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people” (Proverbs 14:34, NIV). We will reap in future what we sow now. Obviously this cuts little ice with our self-proclaimed rational and amoral government, but that doesn’t make it any less important.

Secondly, taking a firm stand on money laundering will raise our profile as Asia’s premier fin
ancial services hub. This issue has been reported in the leading newspapers in Australia, the UK and goodness knows where else, causing much damage to Singapore’s squeaky clean reputation. The Government previously claimed that there is no need for an extradition treaty, because Singapore banks already have stringent checks in place to ensure that the Republic is not used as a money laundering centre. If this is the case, then the Government should have no worries that the Extradition Treaty will impact the money parked in local banks. If it turns out not to be the case, then it’s high time our banks put their house in order.

Thirdly, the conclusion of the Extradition Treaty will extinguish Indonesia’s main bargaining chip in its negotiations with Singapore. They have already agreed to renew the bilateral Defence Cooperation Agreement in exchange for the Extradition Treaty. In addition to continued access to training areas for the SAF, improved defence diplomacy with Indonesia will in no small way contribute to Singapore’s security. The Treaty will also remove the main bugbear in bilateral relations with our largest and most important neighbour, and open doors for further cooperation in a myriad of areas.

Finally, if Indonesia makes inroads into combating corruption, Singapore will be one of the main countries to benefit. This is the basis of ASEAN’s “Prosper Thy Neighbour” policy. Corruption is a scourge that is preventing the Indonesian economy from achieving its full potential. Although an extradition treaty is not going to fix Indonesia’s endemic corruption, it is part of the effort and would force corrupt businessmen to think twice before committing fraud and escaping to Singapore.

Indonesia is Singapore’s second-largest trading partner and Singapore is one of Indonesia’s biggest foreign investors. A growing Indonesian economy would be a boom for not only our exporters and investors, but our services industry as well. It is certainly not a “zero sum game”, as many in our government often see it. A Business Times report (“Betting on IT in Indonesia”, 1 March 2006) indicated that there is strong interest among Singapore’s companies in the Indonesian ICT market, which is set to grow from US$1.9 billion in 2005 to US$3.7 billion in 2010. Lower corruption means more efficient running of business and less “overheads” that need to be paid out to get things done.

Concluding the Treaty “early”

It is heartening to note that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicated yesterday that Singapore “would like both Agreements (the Extradition Treaty and the Defence Cooperation Agreement) to be concluded early”.

Hopefully this is the honest truth, and not just more diplomatic lingo.

Taxing the poor and then handing out aid packages "demeans human dignity"

Second Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam is expected to announce a 2 per cent hike in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) tomorrow on Budget Day in Parliament. This bitter medicine will be prescribed after only minimal public consultation, and with the mainstream media heartily promoting the Government’s line that it is a move in favour of the poor, despite the fact that the GST is inherently regressive.

I have been reading the memoirs of former top civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow, A Mandarin and the Making of Public Policy. In interviews he had with The Straits Times in 2003 (which were re-published in his book), he commented about the GST, which was hiked to its present 5 per cent in 2004. In response to the question, “Is (the PAP’s) social compact with the people in need of an update?”, he said:

“I don’t understand the urgency of raising the GST, which effectively increases the tax on the lower income people. Why tax the lower income, and then return it to them as an aid package? It demeans human dignity and creates a growing supplicant class who habitually hold out their palms. That is not the way to treat people. Despite the fact that we say we are not a welfare state, we act like one of the most welfarish states in the world. You should appeal to their sense of pride and self-reliance.” (pp 25-26)

Mr Ngiam, an EDB pioneer and former Permanent Secretary (Finance), is no bleeding heart liberal. In fact, he is a hard-nosed fiscal conservative. He made these remarks in the context of warning the Government not to “dance to the tune of the gorilla”. What he meant was that the Government should not breed a mentality where people depend on it for everything, including “dispensable items”. He felt that the Government should “just concentrate on helping the poorest 5 or 10 per cent of the population, instead of handing out a general largesse.”

“Forget about asset enhancement, Singapore shares and utility shares”, he said.

I still maintain that the Government can explore many other sources of additional revenue, as outlined in my earlier post. In that post, I suggested 6 areas in which this could be done:

1. Use the capital gains from Net Investment Income

2. Further increase vice taxes

3. Collect more taxes from tourists

4. Impose a luxury tax

5. Stop giving election handouts to promote partisan interests

6. Work harder at reducing government administration expenditure

Let’s see what offset packages for the lower income group are announced by Minister Tharman tomorrow. They are unlikely to be as permanent as the GST hike, and even if they are — like Ngiam Tong Dow says — it still demeans their human dignity by making them permanently dependant on government handouts for survival.

Community regulation, not prosecution for "No Pork" podcasters

In my previous post, “‘No Pork’ podcast shows racism is alive and well in Singapore”, I criticised the makers of that podcast for being racist. I also took issue with bloggers who re-circulated the clip while endorsing its brand of humour. Finally, I was saddened by the reaction of so many Singaporeans (including some people I know) who thought it was funny and saw nothing wrong with that clip. I saw all this as evidence that Singaporean society — particularly the Chinese majority — has a long way to go to come to terms with, and tackle our prejudiced attitudes with regards to race and religion.

Now that the news of the clip and the reaction has gone mainstream, with the Straits Times and TODAY newspapers both reporting it, I thought I should state my stand on what I feel the authorities should or should not do in reaction to this.

Although there are some grounds to charge the makers of the clip under the Penal Code (Section 298), I do not think this is the appropriate course of action that the police and the Attorney General should take.

Firstly, it appears the clip was made with humour in mind, not with a “deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person”, as is stated in the Penal Code. While it revealed the podcasters’ immaturity, insensitivity and their prejudice, Singapore does not have any laws against racist attitudes, per se. In any case, it seems the recording was staged, and there was actually no Indian-Muslim involved in it.

Secondly, this incident has proven the ability of Netizens to self-regulate — at least to some extent. After being flagged as inappropriate by a YouTube user, the popular video hosting site took down the clip, presumably because it violated their terms of service clause, which prohibits “speech which contains slurs or the malicious use of stereotypes intended to attack or demean a particular…religion…”. It also provoked a strong reaction by many bloggers like Speranza Nuova and blog readers (who posted comments) who felt that the clip was demeaning to Muslims.

I would imagine that if the police were to take action against Ximiwakoz, the goon who posted the clip, it would be mainly to demonstrate to the Muslim and Indian communities that the Government does not tolerate racial and religious prejudice, and to prevent any strong reactions from those communities in response to the clip. I believe that our society has progressed since the 1960s, and the authorities should not fear anything other than a measured and rational response to such relatively minor incidents.

Having said that, I do hope that Chinese community leaders will take note of this incident, and speak out against prejudiced attitudes towards minorities, which are so prevalent in the Chinese community.

Teachers should show the clip to their students to impress upon them that this is inappropriate behaviour, whether in public or in private. It is wrong, not just because we live in a multi-racial society, but because prejudice against other races, religions and socio-economic classes is intrinsically immoral.