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.

Sylvia Lim: WP will not push gay issues in Parliament

Workers’ Party (WP) Chairman Sylvia Lim told a packed audience of over 80 people at the WP Headquarters yesterday that her party will not be canvassing for the de-criminalisation of gay sex in Singapore.

Ms Lim, who is also a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP), was speaking at a public forum organised by the WP to discuss the Singapore Government’s proposed amendments to the Penal Code — the primary criminal legislation that defines crimes like defamation, criminal breach of trust and rape, and their respective punishments. It was the WP’s first public forum this year and part of a series of events to mark the 50th anniversary of Singapore’s oldest political party in this November. The event featured presentations from several speakers.

Ms Lim kicked off the discussion by lamenting about the lack of attention paid to legal issues in Singapore by the media and the public. As a result, when the issue of crime was discussed, the “right wing school” often seemed to dominate the debates. She expressed concern about the sharp increases in prison terms for some offences. For example, if the amendments were approved by Parliament, the punishment for assaulting an MP would increase from 7 years to 20 years, and the penalty for being part of an unlawful assembly (itself a contentious matter) is to increase from 6 months to 2 years. Ms Lim felt that these new sentencing guidelines might further increase Singapore’s prison population, which was already the second-highest in Asia (as a percentage of the total population). This, she said, would not bode well for efforts to create an inclusive society.

Lawyer and TODAY columnist Thomas Koshy noted that while the proposed amendments included lifting of some immunity for husbands who rape their wives, it didn’t go far enough to cover all instances of marital rape. Party member Firuz Khan contrasted the process of enacting legislation in Singapore and the UK. He pointed out that in the UK, there were two Houses of Parliament, many non-government organisations (NGOs) and a diverse media to scrutinise bills before they were passed. This is not the case in Singapore, where the media tends to favour the Government’s position on proposed legislation and there is little organised action by NGOs to push issues. Marriage counsellor Anthony Yeo, who was the last to speak, encouraged ordinary citizens and NGOs to submit their views on the Penal Code, instead of depending on the Opposition to voice its disagreement.

WP reveals its position on homosexual issues

The issue of decriminalising gay sex gave rise to a heated debate during part of the question-and-answer session following the panel presentations. Two gay lobbyists in the audience questioned the apparent bias against gays in Singapore, arguing that it went against the Constitution, which guarantees equal rights to all Singaporeans. They wondered if the WP would be their representatives to speak up in Parliament for the gay community. The gay community was understandably upset that the proposed Penal Code amendments did not revoke Section 377A, which states that:

“Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.”

Ms Lim revealed that the issue of decriminalisation of gay sex had been discussed by the Party leadership. She said that while there was some “sympathy for the gay position”, there was no agreement among the Party’s leaders on moving this issue forward as a party agenda. Therefore, the WP would not be pushing that in Parliament. The WP chairman gave no indication that this position would change in the future. She did observe, however, that the gay lobby in Singapore was already very vocal and more than capable of pushing this issue on their own.

The WP’s stand of homosexuality may have surprised, or even disappointed, some who were hoping for Singapore’s largest opposition party to advance a more liberal agenda against the People’s Action Party (PAP) Government, which has been criticised by many as being out of step with the times on several issues, particularly with regards to political freedom and social mores.

In recent years, the WP has sought to distance itself from the confrontational politics practiced by the likes of its former chief J.B. Jeyaratnam and the SDP’s Dr Chee Soon Juan, in order to win the support of a broader spectrum of the Singapore electorate. Its position on not campaigning for gay rights is therefore unsurprising.

While a recent Singapore Polytechnic student-led survey of 800 teens aged 15 to 19 years revealed that half of them found homosexuality “acceptable”, a similar survey conducted by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) six years ago found that a much higher 71 per cent of young Singaporeans found homosexuality unacceptable. The young people covered in the MCYS survey would now make up the 21 to 25 year age group. It is widely believed that resistance to expanding the space for homosexuals is even higher among the middle-aged and older Singaporeans, who make up the bulk of eligible voters (63 per cent).

Even if one were to set aside moral arguments, this stance by the WP is certainly a sound political move which will put it in a good position to reach its target voters, namely Singaporeans who want an alternative but credible voice in Parliament to check and balance the ruling party.

"No Pork" podcast proves racism is alive and well in Singapore

There is a audio recording circulating the Internet in which two Chinese Singaporean men are poking fun at an Indian Muslim food stallholder by insisting on ordering pork, despite the stallholder repeatedly telling them he serves only halal food.

I was furious when I heard it. It isn’t funny at all. It’s not just extremely insensitive to Indians and Muslims. It is downright racist.

Full-time blogger Xiaxue posted it on her blog and remarked that it was “super funny”. Her post alone attracted over 260 comments, most of which agreed with her.

It turns out the recording was staged — the “Indian” character was actually a Chinese guy and the recording was done at his house. This according to the girlfriend of one of the men who recorded it. However, this does not detract from the gravity of this offensive recording.

Coming hot on the heels of the British reality show Celebrity Big Brother in which the participants racially abused Indian actress Shilpa Shetty, this clip and its response has revealed an even uglier side of Singapore. At least in the UK, the participants were roundly criticised by the public. Here in Singapore, most Chinese (including the makers of the podcast) don’t even realise that it is wrong. It makes me wonder if our façade about being a model of “tolerance” and “racial harmony” is a farce.

Chinese Singaporeans really need to engage in some serious introspection about our racist attitudes towards minorities. I have often heard comments from Chinese Singaporeans that “there is no racism in Singapore”, unlike in Australia and the UK. Who are they to make such judgments? Those of us in the majority race would never know what it is like to be a minority in your own land, unless they have lived in as a minority before.


“Chinese speaking environment” preferred

Another thing I’ve noticed recently is how job recruitment ads have evolved. Previously, they used to say “Mandarin speaker required”. Now the wording of choice is “Chinese speaking environment”, with the hope that non-Chinese will shy away from even applying in the first place. We all know that this is just another way for some companies to avoid employing minorities. Just look at these ads and judge for yourselves.

http://www.jobcyclone.com/job_desc.php?d=7383

http://www.bestjobs.com.sg/bt-jobd-unitedpersonnel-314512.htm

http://sg.jobstreet.com/jobs/2006/2/r/20/723622.htm

One of them, Zeal Infotech, asked for a Java programmer who is preferably “able to speak Mandarin” as the candidate “will be working in a Chinese-speaking environment with Chinese Singapore Citizens and PRs, or with Singapore PR invitation letters”! [read: We welcome all Chinese, even if you’re a foreigner, but non-Chinese Singaporeans should think twice before applying.]

This shameful state of affairs has got to stop NOW if Singapore is to become a developed society. It begins in the home. Parents need to realise that every casual generalisation about a certain race leaves a lasting impression on their children, many of whom carry their “inherited” racism for a lifetime without even realising it. But where parenting has failed in this aspect, the education system needs to revise its curriculum to not just preach “tolerance” (which leaves room for people to be racist behind closed doors or under the cloak of anonymity), but inculcate a genuine revulsion for all forms of racism — including employment bias and racist jokes.

Reaching out to our youths

Last weekend as I was collecting my mail at my void deck, a youth about 17 years old with arms covered with tattoos and a cigarette between his fingers came around the corner and ejected a wad of spit on the floor just a few feet from me. I looked at him and told him in the most civil tone I could manage at that point, “Excuse me, please don’t spit on the floor”.

He sheepishly replied, “Sorry…I didn’t see you there”, as he attempted to “clean up” his mess by using his foot to spread the sputum over the tiling.

“Even if you didn’t see me, you shouldn’t spit, what. This is our flat”, I attempted to reason with him, before getting my letters from the mailbox.

My new acquaintance happened to be taking the lift up to his flat together with me. He asked me, “Which floor?” while still holding that glowing cigarette. Although I was tempted to point out that he should not be smoking in the lift, I thought it best to let it go. Besides, by him offering to help me press the lift button, it was at least an indication that I didn’t just make an enemy out of my neighbour (he lives one floor below me).

As I got back to my flat, there were two issues that troubled me. The first was why Singapore youths continue to be so inconsiderate and exhibit anti-social behaviour like spitting in public places, smoking in lifts, not giving up their seats on the MRT to pregnant women and the elderly, etc. The second was what it would take to reach out to “at risk” youths like my young neighbour.

I think the two issues are related, and by addressing the second problem, the first will naturally be solved to a great extent too.

In the course of my volunteer work with youths in the past 6 years, I have learned that a key reason why many kids veer off the straight and narrow path is because many of them lack self esteem and affirmation in life.

My young neighbour has probably heard more than his fair share of negative words from his parents, teachers and perhaps even law enforcement officers for his anti-social behaviour. Unfortunately, I just added to his “honour roll” of reprimands in his life.

My objective in telling him off was simply to try to get him to feel a bit more “ownership” over our block of flats. However I can’t help but wonder if he thought I was some educated guy who looks down on “bad kids” like him. That was certainly not my intention. I regret that I didn’t attempt to make some small talk with him as we were in the lift, just to dispel any preconceived notions he had about me.

I think one way to reach out to youths is for more of us “older youths” make a greater effort to befriend them and mentor them. This is obviously not easy, given the social and “cultural” gap between us. But once they see that an adult is willing to take the time to listen to them as they talk about their hopes, dreams, fears and disappointments, they are much less likely to try to find their identity and sense of self-worth in their peers, many of whom are probably negative influences on them.

There are several voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) in Singapore which help bridge this gap by providing a framework for young professionals to befriend and mentor teenagers. Two volunteer programmes that my wife and I have been involved in the past few years are the Friends of Children programme by Life Community Services Society, and the Trybe programme by Save the Children Singapore Ltd.

Friends of Children is a befrienders programme matching volunteers with children whose parents are incarcerated (i.e. in jail). Volunteers commit to meeting their assigned child at least once a month for informal mentorship. Trybe runs motivational courses for secondary schools, Institutes of Technical Education and even reformative training centres (juvenile prisons) with a message telling them that they can achieve their dreams if they believe in themselves. Trybe also runs a “Life Coaching” programme, which is a teen’s equivalent of coaching for corporate executives. The volunteers attempt to impart positive values in their mentees through regular, structured lessons conducted for groups of 3 to 6 teens over a period of one year.

Youth crime thankfully saw a slight decline last year after more than 5 years of exponential increase. However the task ahead to reach “at risk” youths in Singapore continues to be mammoth — and growing. Nevertheless, as touchingly illustrated in the Starfish story, we can all make a difference, one life at a time. On my part, I hope that when run into my young neighbour again, I’ll pluck up the courage to give him a nice smile and hopefully chat with him on the way up to our respective floors — just to let him know that he matters too.

Kallang roars again!

I’m glad I attended Saturday night’s thrilling Asean Football Championship match between Singapore and Malaysia at the National Stadium, which Singapore won on 5-4 on penalties (1-1 after extra time). My friends and I sure got our $6 worth! It cost only $1 per goal and a few more for the lozenges for my sore throat which I got from cheering the Lions and taunting the Malaysian fans seated near my section. (Just kidding, I didn’t really need the lozenges.)

Photo credit: Football Association of Singapore

It was probably the first time since the Malaysia Cup days that the National Stadium has been filled to such capacity with a sea of red, cheering on our national team. The atmosphere in the gallery was electric. As I entered the gates, a battalion of Malaysian fans decked in yellow and carrying Malaysian flags was provocatively marching around the perimeter of the stadium. I could just imagine what it was like when Northern Irish Protestants would march through Catholic residential areas and spark riots, and vice versa. Singaporean fans were sufficiently provoked to heap loads of vitriolic insults on the Malaysians, although there was little risk of any physical violence breaking out.

Looking at the young crowd around me, it dawned on me that at least half the fans had never seen the Lions in action during the Malaysia Cup, as they were too young when Singapore pulled out of the tournament. Their cheers were loud, but uncoordinated. Nevertheless, it was great being able to cheer for our team side-by-side with Singaporeans of all races, and “high fiving” complete strangers after our goals.

Football is able to arouse patriotic emotions and gel the people like nothing else apart from war itself. It is the only time you see “apathetic” young Singaporeans singing the national anthem with such gusto.

While I appreciate the money and resources being pumped into sports like sailing and shooting to win us an Olympic gold medal, I hope more effort can be made to raise the standard of football in this country. If the goal of sports (from a national development perspective) is to rally the country together, then football really has no rivals. Think about it: Would you rather cheer for the Lions as they score against Malaysia in the Asean Football Championship semi-finals, or read in the papers about how our sailors have won an Olympic medal in the Beijing Olympics? Now imagine the Singapore football team beating China or Japan at some Asian football championships or — I dare say — the World Cup!

I mean no disrespect to our sailors and shooters. I have no doubt that they have worked incredibly hard to achieve their Olympic-class standards. But the fact that these are not spectator sports means that the impact of their wins will pale in comparison to football trophies.

Although the Lions are far from achieving the standards required to compete at the international stage, football development funds should not be redirected to other non-spectator sports that are more likely to win us an Olympic medal — unless of course winning an Olympic medal is more important because it fulfils the key performance indicators (KPIs) of some sports officials in Singapore.

Let’s rally behind the Lions as they play in the championship match against Thailand tomorrow!

Response to Singapore Election Watch

I’ve been rather busy lately and didn’t find out till today that I got flamed by fellow blogger Singapore Election Watch over my views on having a Code of Ethics for bloggers. Like Aaron, who also got singled out for personal criticism in that same post, I found it incredibly amusing.

Basically I was accused of being a “fear-mongering mouthpiece from PAP” for arguing that, among other things, bloggers could up their credibility by agreeing on a Code of Ethics to abide by.

I’m not going to do a point-by-point rebuttal of all S.E.W.’s points, because it’s hard to have a rational discussion with someone who insists on dogmatically sticking by his preconceived notions of what constitutes free speech and tars everyone who disagrees with him with personal insults and “guilt by association”. (Kudos to him for doing his research on me, though. He failed to discover, however, that I was previously also a civil servant, which presumably makes me the ultimate gahmen sycophant.)

Beyond that, I want to thank zyberzitizen and Dr Huang for putting a positive word for me in their comments.

Blogging break until February

Dear readers,

Happy New Year to all!

I will be going for a high-key reservist call-up from tomorrow until 19 January. It also happens to be a very busy period for my business. (Yes the burden of juggling the running of your own company and NS liabilities.) So I expect that this would leave me very little time to blog until early February. In the meantime, I will still try to respond to comments on my earlier posts.

Thanks for your understanding and see you all back in February.

cheers,
Gerald

The politics of Singapore’s new media in 2006

This is an article I contributed to The Online Citizen.

The year 2006 was a landmark year for the new media and citizen journalism in Singapore. The government’s “light touch” approach to regulating the Internet was probably one of the factors that emboldened many Singaporeans to step up and push the political boundaries through their blogs, podcasts (online sound clips) and vodcasts (online video clips). There were too many developments in the new media in Singapore in the past year to capture in one article. Nevertheless, this piece will highlight just a few of the more significant happenings in Singapore fuelled by this phenomenon.

Election podcasting and vodcasting

In the weeks leading up to the General Election in May, Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts Balaji Sadasivan announced a ban on “explicitly political” podcasting and vodcasting during the hustings. This move was ostensibly in response to the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)’s plans to circumvent the government-controlled mainstream media by reaching out to the electorate using sound and video clips on its website. After the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) informed political parties of this regulation, the parties had no choice but to comply. The SDP reluctantly removed the podcasts from their website, but not without protest.

However, this did not stop some Netizens from publishing videos of numerous election rallies on their blogs. Almost all of the videos, which people had recorded using their mobile phone camcorders and submitted to the blogs, were of Opposition rallies, notably that of the Workers’ Party (WP). The blog owners did make several attempts to ask for People’s Action Party (PAP) videos but there were few takers.

Some wondered why the government did not crack down on these websites. The likely reason was that the government felt assured that due to the lack of knowledge about these websites among the general populace, they would have been unlikely to swing the votes by much. This assurance was probably strengthened when a post-election survey by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) revealed that only 33 per cent of Singaporeans — mostly young adults — said that the Internet was important to shaping their voting decisions.

The rise of mrbrown

Singapore’s most well-known blogger, mrbrown, shot to fame during the elections with his riotously funny “bak chor mee” podcast. This was part of a series of “persistently non-political” podcasts (a play on the government’s phase “explicitly political”). This podcast recorded an argument between a bak chor mee man (a food vendor) and his customer over a botched order. It implicitly poked fun at the PAP’s demonising of WP candidate James Gomez for his blunder of not submitting his election forms properly and initially blaming it on an Elections Department official.

mrbrown’s next podcast about the impact of grades and exams in Singapore was equally funny. In this clip, two schoolchildren who were comparing exam grades and debating whether one student’s score of 66.6 per cent was “a very good score”, as their teacher had told her. The mainstream media had trumpeted the PAP’s 66.6 per cent win as a resounding mandate. The clip went on to lampoon other politicians both from the PAP and the Opposition.

During his National Day Rally speech, PM Lee misquoted the character in mrbrown’s “bak chor mee” podcast as saying “mee siam mai hum”. Many Singaporeans caught the error immediately, as the popular Malay dish mee siam never contains hum (cockles). PM Lee’s press secretary later clarified that he had meant to say, “laksa mai hum”. This didn’t stop mrbrown from recording another funny podcast titled, “A harmless podcast”, which contained a catchy jingle of PM Lee’s gaffe. The jingle was widely downloaded and circulated, with some people even converting it into a mobile phone ring tone. In keeping with their “light touch” commitment to the new media, there was no response from the government, even though some officials were said to have taken offence at that irreverent mockery.

Unfortunately, despite (or perhaps, because of) mrbrown’s popularity, he found himself targeted for crossing the proverbial “out-of-bounds” (OB) markers. In a column he wrote for TODAY newspaper on 30 June, mrbrown criticised the government, albeit in a light-hearted manner, for its price increases following the Elections. The article, “S’poreans fed up with progress”, drew a scathing response from MICA, which it said “distort(ed) the truth”. To the dismay of many Singaporeans, MICA accused mrbrown of being a “partisan player” in politics and declared that “it is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government”. The government’s sore point appeared to be that his opinions were circulated in a mainstream newspaper rather than on his blog, which has a much narrower and more limited audience.

TODAY promptly sacked mrbrown, despite howls of protests from Netizens, some of whom turned up at City Hall mrt station wearing brown tee shirts in a show of support for mrbrown and protest at his dismissal from TODAY.”Thankfully, no further action was taken against mrbrown and his podcasts continued to draw more and more listeners every week.

Talking Cock in Parliament

The event Talking Cock in Parliament was publicised almost entirely through “viral marketing” on the Internet. It was a stand-up comedy held at the Old Parliament House on 24 August. Most of the performances were captured and made available on YouTube and other websites. The most memorable performances were probably that of Ruby Pan and Hossan Leong. Ruby Pan had her audience rolling in laughter as she demonstrated the different English accents used in Singapore to illustrate the different strains of Singlish — acrolectal Singlish (i.e., the “high class” Singlish) and basilectal Singlish (the colloquial, ungrammatical type frowned on by the government).

Hossan Leong also had his audience in fits of laughter when he sang his localised version of Billy Joel’s “We Didn’t Start the Fire”. His song, “We live in Singapura”, chronicled the history of Singapore from Sang Nila Utama to the present day.

This refreshing, citizen-driven event not only showcased the amazing artistic talents of Singaporeans, but more importantly demonstrated that Singapore does have a unique and vibrant culture despite our short history. The event succeeded in making Singaporeans laugh at themselves and in the process celebrate their “Singaporean-ness”, regardless of political differences.

The Wee Shu Min affair

Teenager Wee “Elite Face” Shu Min put Singapore on the map in October when her arrogant online rant against what she saw as a “whining” middle-aged Singaporean, and the subsequent vitriol against her resulted in her name topping Technorati’s most popular search words in the world for a few days. T
he storm went mainstream when journalist Ken Kwek reported the online war of words in The Straits Times (ST). The incident was later mentioned numerous times in subsequent newspaper articles and commentaries, and even in Parliament. Member of Parliament Wee Siew Kim, had to apologise twice on behalf of his daughter — the second apology was for his own insensitive remarks in his first “non-apology”.

There is no doubt that the intensity in which Singaporeans reacted to these dismissive comments by an “elite” father and daughter pair served as a warning bell of the fate that awaits any politician who is blind to the growing class divide in Singapore.

Self-regulation by bloggers

A TODAY article in December by blogger Dharmendra Yadav sparked off another debate in Blogosphere about self-regulation by bloggers and developing a bloggers’ code of ethics. Many articles were written in response, arguing both for and against the proposal. It was evident that despite the rationale put forward by its proponents, most Netizens were against the idea of any sort of regulation or code of ethics on a platform which some saw as the “last bastion of truly free expression” in Singapore.

Use of the Internet by political parties

In the past year, Opposition parties in Singapore made tentative steps to use the Internet to propagate their messages. Of the three major Opposition parties in Singapore, the SDP appears to be the most Web savvy. The party regularly publishes articles and press statements on its positions on various issues. On the other hand the WP, while maintaining a respectable Web presence, has yet to use the Web extensively to maximise its reach to the electorate. In fact, two WP central executive committee members resigned following online comments of theirs which did not square with the party leadership’s preferred method of engaging Singaporeans.

Foreign Minister George Yeo was the first Cabinet minister to start blogging regularly, with some surprisingly frank and insightful articles based on his interactions with foreign leaders. P65 MPs (the term coined for new MPs born after Independence) drew some chuckles when they first started blogging about grassroots activities which did not interest the majority of Netizens. However, by immediately posting their maiden speeches in Parliament and the PAP Conference on their blogs, they proved to be a step ahead of the main opposition Workers’ Party, which was markedly slower in using the Net for their party propaganda.

Government awakens to the new media

In his annual National Day Rally speech in August, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong devoted over 25 minutes to expounding on how digital media is changing Singapore. He acknowledged that the new media will “change the texture of society” and that the traditional media was “under siege” to hold its audiences. While highlighting several citizen-driven new media initiatives, he surprised many when he mentioned political satire site TalkingCock, even remarking that “some of the jokes are not bad”. The site, which was founded by cartoonist and filmmaker Colin Goh, responded in feigned horror with a headline, “Seow Leow! TalkingCock Suffers Shrinkage, Street Cred Loss, After Rally Mention”. This was obviously not true, as TalkingCock enjoyed a huge surge in visits after the speech.

PM Lee also revealed the government’s distrust for the free-wheeling world of cyberspace. He told Singaporeans that “if you read something on the Straits Times or CNA (Channel NewsAsia) you know it is real”, unlike what is on TalkingCock. He warned Singaporeans to be “sceptical” and not believe everything they read, as “there will be half truths and untruths which will circulate, and you won’t know which is which”.

Many Netizens would have seen this as an unfair comparison, as they know that TalkingCock is just a humour site which has never claimed to be a source of proper news reports, while the ST and CNA too have their share of biases towards the government line.

PM Lee also made no mention of the many local blogs that debate political issues both objectively and independently. However, he signalled that the government would be prepared to change laws like the ones governing podcasts during elections and political videos to keep pace with developments in this digital age.

In response to these trends, the government set up a new unit in MICA’s public communications division named the New Media Unit, presumably to advise the government on Internet public communications strategies and to monitor Internet chatter. Changes to the Penal Code were also proposed to make explicit mention of electronic media as a platform for potentially defamatory comments.

STOMP and citizen journalism

In June, media giant SPH launched a new web portal, STOMP (Straits Times Online Mobile Print). It was billed by ST editor Han Fook Kwang as a platform “to provide readers with new avenues to express themselves, to enable them to interact with [the newspaper], and among themselves”.

While the paper trumpeted it as “citizen journalism”, academic and former Straits Times journalist Cherian George poured cold water on the idea. He said on his blog, “I don’t consider STOMP to be citizen journalism, because it puts the public on tap, not on top. It merely introduces greater interactivity to traditional journalism. Citizen journalism in the proper sense does its own agenda-setting. Citizen journalists decide what questions need to be asked and what topics to pursue. They don’t just answer questions decided by mainstream editors.”

Expected trends in 2007

Positive developments in the new media are expected to continue in 2007, barring any major government crackdown. As more Singaporeans from all backgrounds take to reading, writing and commenting on blogs, online forums, podcasts and vodcasts, the diversity of views on the Internet will also increase. Although most Internet chatter currently takes on a disproportionately anti-Establishment tone, there might be a slight shift in views to the right (i.e. the conservative) in 2007, as more people linked to the government machinery step in to counter their views.

We can expect more Singaporeans to warm up further to Blogosphere and see it as an increasingly credible alternative to the traditional media.

*******

Also check out Charissa’s excellent review: Rise of the New Media in Singapore Politics

Saddam’s execution a warning to would be tyrants

The execution of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has drawn mixed reactions from all corners of the world, including in his own country of Iraq. That’s really an understatement, of course, as the death penalty imposed by the Shi’ite-led Iraqi government against a Sunni ex-president threatens to even further deepen wounds in a country already bursting at its seams with sectarian strife.
 
However, beyond all the criticisms of the trial, I believe that Saddam’s execution sends a strong signal to future genocidal tyrants around the world that their crimes will not go unpunished. At the same time, it closes a sad chapter in the lives of the families of Saddam’s many victims, who will be assured that the tyrant will never again threaten them or their loved ones.
 
Saddam is probably the first head of state responsible for crimes against humanity in modern times to face the ultimate punishment following an open judicial process. From the middle of the last century until Saddam’s conviction in November 2006, it was almost unheard of for a murderous national leader to face the hangman for his crimes.
 
The list of mass murderers who have escaped the gallows is staggering: Adolf Hitler took his own life before he was captured; Imperial Japan’s Emperor Hirohito did not even face trial; the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin died while in office; Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot died of heart failure before he could be turned over to an international war crimes tribunal; Serbia’s Slobodan Milošević died days before the conclusion of his trial; Uganda’s Idi Amin died of natural causes while in exile in Saudi Arabia; and Liberia’s Charles Taylor is now awaiting trial in The Hague, which does not impose the death penalty.
 
So while lawbreakers in retentionist countries like Singapore were being sentenced to death for far less serious crimes like drug trafficking and kidnapping, these all these dictators managed to get away with murder. In fact most of them did not even serve jail time for their crimes. Where is the justice in all that?
 
Many have argued that Saddam’s execution will not improve the dire security situation facing Iraq now, but that is really a separate issue. Justice has been served through Saddam’s conviction and execution. He received the due process of an open trial conducted by his own countrymen, not by the US occupiers. In fact, most of the judges that presided over the trial were senior judges appointed by Saddam himself years back. If the US was presiding over the trial, I doubt it would have reached such a speedy conclusion, as the lengthy appeals process would have probably continued until Saddam died waiting in jail.
 
Iraq faces a long, difficult journey ahead towards national reconciliation and peace. Saddam’s execution may not produce an immediate remedy to the sectarian violence, but it is a necessary first step that will hopefully lead to a healing process and eventually a lasting peace for that nation.

Feedback on the Casino Exclusion Measures

The following is the feedback I submitted to REACH (the Government Feedback Unit) on the National Council On Problem Gambling’s Public Consultation on the Casino Exclusion Measures.

The consultation paper can be found here. REACH is accepting feedback until 31 January 2007, for those interested in giving their inputs.

————

What are your views on the draft procedures of the Voluntary Self-Exclusion? Are there any other ways to make the voluntary self-exclusion procedure simpler and more effective? How can we encourage problem gamblers to apply for self-exclusion?

It is good that NCPG will allow applications by mail or online. However, the procedures for self-exclusion should be made even simpler.

If someone makes a self-exclusion application online using his SingPass, there is no reason to have to verify it a second time by way of a phone call. If people can apply to set up a business or collect their Progress Package using their SingPass without any additional verifications, I don’t see why a simple voluntary self-exclusion from a casino needs it.

Mail-in applications accompanied by the applicant’s NRIC should also not require any phone verification. One can apply for a credit card using a photocopy of one’s NRIC, so why not a casino self-exclusion?

Informing applications that they will receive a phone call could deter some people from applying as they may not wish to have any personal contact with a “live” person about this application. The applicant may also fear — however unfounded — that the caller will be a social worker trying to help him treat his gambling problem.

Some individuals may also want to exclude themselves even if they do not have a gambling problem — perhaps for symbolic reasons. Trade & Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang and his wife have both pledged to exclude themselves from the casino. In a Parliamentary statement on 21 Apr 05, the Minister said, “Well, in my family, my wife is dead set against gambling. So we have decided that when the time comes, both of us can send in our exclusion forms.” (The speech can be found on the Hansard at http://www.parliament.gov.sg/reports/public/hansard/section/20050421/20050421_S0004.html.)

Is NCPG really going to call up Minister Lim to personally confirm his application?

Your paper has indicated that, “These steps are taken to guard against impersonations”.

NCPG’s fears are largely unfounded. There might be rare cases of fraudulent applications, but this will by far be the exception rather than the rule, given Singapore’s strict law enforcement and punishment for impersonations. NCPG’s concerns stem from a kiasu Singapore habit of assuming the worse in people, and shaping the rules to fit the lowest common denominator. If someone had his NRIC or Singpass stolen to make a fraudulent application, he will have far worse things to worry about than being excluded from a casino.

What are your views on the draft procedures of the Family Exclusion? Under what circumstances, if any, could it be better for families/social workers to persuade the problem gambler to opt for self-exclusion instead of proceeding with family exclusion? How can we better support families going through family exclusion orders?

This option should (1) be made less onerous and (2) allow for extended family to make this application and (3) allow anonymous applications.

My reasons as follows:

(1) This option should be made less onerous

If a family (say a wife) has decided to make an exclusion application, chances are that she has assessed that her gambler husband will be unwilling to make a self-exclusion application, or has failed to convince him to do so. Therefore to go back to the gambler and persuade him to apply for a self-exclusion will be counter productive. In fact, it may heighten tensions within the family, rather than lessen it.

The gambler’s family — not NCPG or any social worker — is in the best position to assess if the gambler needs to be excluded. Their assessment of the situation which affects their own family should be taken at face value. To put in place additional roadblocks to approving the application will only deter families from applying for the exclusion.

While the idea of tying in a social worker interview and referrals to help agencies is well-intentioned, it should be noted that the objective of this procedure is to exclude problem gamblers from the casinos, not to treat gambling addictions. The latter can be dealt with through other means. To force an applicant or his family to go through “counselling” before application approval will only serve to deter genuine applications.

(2) Allow extended family to make this application

Very often, a problem gambler’s family may not be in a position to make the application, for fear of the consequences. A wife who has a problem gambler husband who comes home and beats her up in frustration after suffering gambling losses will not dare to make this application out of fear for her personal safety. Therefore the respondent’s extended family (e.g. his siblings, parents, in-laws) should be allowed to make an application as well.

(3) Allow anonymous applications

By anonymous, I do not mean that someone can make an application without providing their own name. But just like tips offs to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) the applicants’ names do not need to be revealed to the respondent. This will be more effective if suggestion (2)
above is adopted.

In all the above three circumstances, if the person objects, he can always appeal and receive a COA hearing to confirm or dismiss the application (the same way as for the Third Party Exclusion Procedure).

What are your views on the draft procedures of the Third Party Exclusion? How can the NCPG implement the Third Party Exclusion in an effective and sensitive way?

I have no comments on this Third party Exclusion procedure, except to point out that the government appears to have reserved the right to exclude persons from the casino, while not giving that same right to members of a problem gambler’s extended family. (See point 2 above.)

What are your views on the draft procedures of the Panel of Assessors? What criteria should be used to select persons to sit on the Panel? Who should not sit on the Panel of Assessors? (Please note that we are not asking for names of persons.)

The government should be very objective in selecting appropriate persons for this panel. Since the duty of these assessors is to assess if persons merit being excluded from the casino, assessors should be those who understand the trauma that is faced by the families of problem gamblers and interact on a regular basis with dysfunctional families. For this reason, social workers, psychiatrists and religious leaders who counsel and assist broken families are the most appropriate candidates.

Professionals like corporate lawyers and company executives who have little or no interaction with dysfunctional families should not be included on the Panel just to make up the need for “diversity”.

Persons who have a vested interest in the success of the casino should not be included, as this could lead to conflicts of interest. These include people who work in the casinos or officials from the economic ministries and agencies who pushed for the establishment of the casinos.

* * * * *