Author: Gerald Giam

It is disappointing to learn that the Singapore government (through its subsidiary, Singapore Pools), will be hosting the World Lottery Association (WLA) Convention and Trade Show in November 2006. Not only is Singapore Pools spending millions to bring this event to Singapore, but top Singapore government leaders will also be making official appearances and giving speeches at the event. This official support and endorsement of a social vice like gambling is a sad reflection of the Government’s “economics first, everything else including morals is secondary” thinking.

According to a TODAY report (1 November), President S R Nathan will be the guest-of-honour at the opening dinner, Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam will visit the trade show and Ambassador-at-large Prof Tommy Koh will give a speech at the event. Then-Trade and Industry Minister George Yeo (now the Foreign Minister) had supported Singapore Pools’ bid several years ago by writing to the WLA.

The WLA is free to choose to hold their convention in Singapore, but the line ought to be drawn on official endorsement and financial support for this event:

• The appearance of the Head of State at the official opening dinner is the highest possible endorsement the Government can give this event.
• How are our teachers going to have the moral standing to lecture their students on the evils of gambling, when the Minister for Education is attending a gambling convention in his official capacity?
• Singapore Pools is spending $4 million of Singaporean gamblers’ losses to host this event, money which they have promised to “devote towards worthy causes that serve the needs of the community”. Does hosting a convention for rich lottery head honchos count as a “worthy cause”?

The reasons for hosting this convention are clear. The Government wants to make Singapore a conventions (a.k.a. MICE) hub. The WLA convention also boosts Singapore’s public profile as a destination for gamblers, which may in turn give a boost to the two upcoming casinos in Marina Bay and Sentosa.

But is economics all that the Government cares about? I hope more Singaporeans, especially those from the social service sector and religious organisations, will voice their objections to this unhealthy trend in Singapore, because it is becoming more and more obvious that we are on a slippery slope that will lead to the undoing of our society in the long run.

*******

Technorati: Singapore, government, gambling, casino, World Lottery Association, convention

SEVEN long months after the General Election in May, the Singapore Parliament will finally be commencing its first session this week. The mainstream media has been trying hard to inject a bit of excitement into the whole affair, with front page articles and special “Insight” reports. But do Singaporeans really care? In a one-party system, do the parliamentary debates and legislative votes really matter?

Parliament is the most important legislative body in the country — the place where the laws of our land are introduced, debated and voted on. In Westminster parliamentary democracies, Parliament is the main platform where citizens’ representatives — the Members of Parliament (MPs) — make known their constituents’ needs and grievances to the Government. MPs also vote on legislation introduced either by the Government (via the Ministers) or other MPs.

In Singapore, the laws are all in place to permit robust debate. But due to the one-party dominance in Parliament, there is little that backbenchers (i.e., the MPs who are not Ministers) can do to affect policies. Parliamentary debates are seen by many Singaporeans as being “for show” — a means to give a semblance of public debate on proposed legislation before it is enacted to law. But at the end of the day when it is time for the vote, PAP MPs have no choice to vote according to the party line, because the Whip is almost never lifted in Singapore. A good example was the casino debate a year-and-a-half ago. Several PAP MPs like Mr Loh Meng See spoke up passionately against having a casino in Singapore, but had no choice to vote for it because the Government refused to allow PAP MPs to vote according to their consciences.

New MP and Parliamentary Secretary (MCYS) Teo Ser Luck recently summed up the PAP’s disdain for robust parliamentary debates. He told TODAY (28 October) that he “feels that many topics do not have to be raised in Parliament, but can be resolved by working with various ministries”. Another MP, Ms Indranee Rajah, also noted in the Straits Times interview (29 October) that MPs have a “unique way” of contributing to the policy-making process [read: they don’t openly challenge the Ministers in Parliament, but do so politely behind the scenes so as not to embarrass them].

When I visited my MP two years ago during his Meet-the-People session to express my opposition to the proposed casino, he defensively told me that “we are not a rubber stamp Parliament”, even though I hadn’t even challenged him on that point.

There is one good reason why all important national issues must be raised and debated in Parliament rather than discussed behind closed doors with ministries. That is the need for transparency. When an issue is debated in Parliament, it is recorded in the Hansard, which is a verbatim transcript of every statement and speech made by Members of the House. The Hansard is, by law, a public record for anyone to access. In contrast, when issues are “resolved” behind closed doors, the public has no way of knowing the full details of the issue being debated. In fact, they may not even be aware that the issue was raised, and so will not be able to weigh in the debate. They are then at the mercy of slick government public communications soundbites which put across only the Government’s viewpoint on the issue.

But we also have to be reasonable to our backbencher PAP MPs. They are, after all, part of the PAP. Their main role is not to challenge the Government, but to support it. Hence, the burden of raising controversial issues and challenging proposed legislation rests solely on the three Opposition MPs (and some say the Nominated MPs). Singaporeans will be watching them closely, particularly Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim, who will be making her debut in Parliament. Ms Lim’s performance over the next 5 years will play a critical part in helping Singaporeans decide by the next election whether there is a compelling reason for having more Opposition MPs in the House.

************

Technorati: Singapore, politics, Parliament, debate, transparency

Singapore has slipped a further six places to 146th position in Reporters Without Borders (RSF)’s recently released 2006 Worldwide Press Freedom Index, several rungs below dictatorial states like Zimbabwe (140th), Sudan (139th) and Venezuela (115th), and way behind Arab Gulf monarchies Kuwait (73rd), UAE (77th) and Qatar (80th). Among Southeast Asian countries, only military-ruled Myanmar and Communist Vietnam and Laos fared worse.

Singapore also has the dubious distinction of being the only developed nation in the entire bottom half of the Index, which ranks 168 nations. If one excludes the Gulf states, which although awash with oil wealth are known for their authoritarian structures, the next developed economy that even comes close to Singapore is ranked 58 (Hong Kong).

According to RSF, the Index reflects the degree of freedom journalists and news organisations enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the state to respect this freedom. It is based solely on events between 1 September 2005 and 1 September 2006. This means that the bad press that Singapore received from the recent IMF-World Bank meetings and the banning and suing of the Far Eastern Economic Review were probably not factored into this ranking.

RSF compiled its Index by asking freedom of expression organisations, journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists, to answer a survey of 50 questions about press freedom in their countries. The questionnaire covered various challenges faced by journalists ranging from violence and physical threats against them, government restrictions on their work and state control of the media. While Singaporean journalists do not suffer from physical violence like in the Philippines, some of the questions which Singapore scored low on probably included:

14. Improper use of fines, summonses or legal action against journalists or media outlets?

19. Problems of access to public or official information (refusal by officials, selection of information provided according to the media’s editorial line etc)?

26. Censorship or seizure of foreign newspapers?

28. Independent or opposition news media?

29. An official prior censorship body systematically checking all media content?

30. Routine self-censorship in the privately-owned media?

31. Subjects that are taboo (the armed forces, government corruption, religion, the opposition, demands of separatists, human rights etc)?

32. A state monopoly of TV?

33. A state monopoly of radio?

34. A state monopoly of printing or distribution facilities?

35. Government control of state-owned media’s editorial line?

38. Opposition access to state-owned media?

42. Licence needed to start up a newspaper or magazine?

44. Serious threats to news diversity, including narrow ownership of media outlets?

45. A state monopoly of Internet service providers (ISPs)?

46. ISPs forced to filter access to websites?

48. ISPs legally responsible for the content of websites they host?

49. Cyber-dissidents or bloggers imprisoned (how many?)

It is interesting to note that while the usual suspects appeared at the top (Nordic countries) and bottom (Communist states, absolute monarchies and military juntas) of the Index, France, the country where RSF is based, was ranked only 35th, while the US fared even worse at 53rd. In fact, RSF ranked the press freedom of the extra-territorial regions administered by the US and Israel separately, slamming them with 119th and 135th rankings respectively. This may go some ways to refute the charge by many “Asian values” proponents of a blindly pro-Western bias among international journalists.

The ranking is expected to invoke a robust response from the Singapore government, which will likely argue that it reflects the liberal agenda of the Western media and that Singapore does not need to pander to these Western interests. The government will probably also point to Singapore’s favourable rankings on other aspects of governance, economic development, worker productivity and even airport and sea port rankings in other international surveys.

****************

Afternote:

• A great artistic interpretation of S’pore’s latest rankings can be found at My sketchbook.

Technorati: Singapore, Reporters Without Borders, press freedom, press freedom index, press freedom ranking, censorship, politics

Former Transparency International Malaysia chief Tunku Abdul Aziz’s 18 October commentary in Malaysia’s New Straits Times (below) makes me feel both sad and a tad bit annoyed. Sad, because of his call for Malaysia to adopt a “policy of minimum engagement” with Singapore, which he accuses of operating on the basis of “exacting the maximum advantage she can wangle out of any deal, no matter what”. Annoyed, because he somehow fails to see the plank in Malaysia’s own eye when painting Singapore as being legalistic and uncultivable.

It sometimes takes an outside observer to point out one’s flaws. Singapore would do well to conduct some introspection before summarily dismissing Tunku Abdul Aziz’s criticisms. It is true that Singaporeans and our government seem to always want to win at all costs. Kiasuism (being afraid to lose) is a national culture that permeates not just the everyday behaviour of ordinary Singaporeans, but goes all the way to the top levels of government. Our government, by its own admission, does tend to be cold and clinical in the way it operates. Although observing international law and abiding by agreements are obviously very important, we do ourselves a disservice when we buy into the dogma that being cold and clinical in our approach to foreign relations is the only way to secure our national interests. Showing a bit more of empathy may not always reap us commensurate benefits, but it certainly won’t make us more enemies.

I’m glad the Tunku understands what it feels like to be a tiny country and have a neighbour 2771 times our size calling us a “little red dot”. We have every reason to feel insecure at times. When an Indonesian president suggests that Indonesia and Malaysia should team up to cut off Singapore’s water supply, or a former Malaysian prime minister frivolously jokes about bombing Singapore with his MiG warplanes, how can that not make us wary of our close neighbours?

Malaysia is Singapore’s largest trading partner, and Singapore is Malaysia’s second largest trading partner and its biggest source of tourist dollars. Many Singaporeans and Malaysians still have relatives across the Causeway. We celebrate pretty much the same festivals, eat the same food, speak with the same accent. When I am abroad and I hear someone speaking with a Singlish accent, I would always ask the person whether he is Singaporean or Malaysian, because it’s hard to tell our accents apart. We share the same desire to build cohesive, multiracial and multi-religious societies. If you compare our similarities and differences, the scale would definitely tip in favour of the former.

There’s a very competitive world out there waiting to devour small economies like Singapore and Malaysia. The most practical solution, moving forward, would be to put aside our petty quarrels and cooperate to tackle the challenge of globalisation together. As such, the calls from some quarters in Singapore for an economic union with Malaysia should be given some consideration. We should seek to engage each other more, rather than less. Engagement should not only be at government-to-government level, but also at the institution-to-institution and people-to-people levels as well.

Most of what the writer described was based on the issues of contention that flared up during Dr Mahathir’s period in office as prime minister. There is no better time to engage Malaysia than now, while it is under the leadership of Abdullah Badawi – who is probably the most down-to-earth and pragmatic prime minister Malaysia has had since independence. Both Singapore and Malaysia should grasp this opportunity to make hay while the sun shines. Singapore and Malaysia should aim for maximum engagement now, not minimum.

———————

Singapore is simply a neighbour too far
New Straits Times
18 Oct 2006
By TUNKU ABDUL AZIZ

Singapore has every right to pursue her own agenda as she sees fit. We only hope that she will grant us a similar right to follow ours without screaming foul play at every opportunity and imputing improper motives.

Individual can, within limits, determine who their neighbours should be. Nations, unfortunately, do not enjoy that luxury. As far as we are concerned, Singapore is a case in point.

We must concede that Singapore has every right to pursue her own agenda as she sees fit. We can only hope that she will grant us a similar right to follow ours without screaming foul play at every opportunity, and imputing improper motives.

Neither of us owes the other a living. We have no hidden agenda, and do not harbour or aspire to any expansionist or territorial ambitions. If we had wanted to hang on to what many of us then considered an abomination, we would not have shown Singapore the door.

Being small is not always easy, especially when you are trying to flex your muscles and punch above your weight. To be constantly reminded that you are nothing more than a red dot on the face of the earth as President B.J. Habibi of Indonesia once did, somewhat insensitively, must have touched some very raw nerves, especially for a country that can justifiably claim a string of successes on so many fronts.

To us, Singapore appears to behave too much like an insecure lover, forever demanding to know how much she is loved. The lack of confidence is difficult to understand when she is not without ample assets herself, for the entire world to see. The insatiable craving for praise and adoration would point to some flaw in the national character, but this we know cannot be the case because the affairs of Singapore are in the hands of highly capable and rational men and women.

To say that Malays are envious of her good fortune is an absolute misrepresentation. As a Malay, I know that my race entertains no such resentment. The same goes, I am sure, for other Malaysians. We hold Singapore up as a role model worthy of emulation in many important areas of national life. I must admit, though, we find her approach to our concerns a trifle mercenary, legalistic and clinical. We believe a little human touch and love will not go amiss, and can soften the hardest of attitudes.

I am on record as being a great admirer of Lee Kuan Yew, the Minister Mentor. He has been, and continues to be, my inspiration in the fight against corruption, and for ethical private and public behaviour. The highest point of my life as an anti-corruption activist was when I succeeded, after months of exhaustive effort, in honouring Lee in Singapore on his 80th birthday by presenting Transparency International Malaysia’s International Integrity Medal.

I have spent the last 10 years telling the world how one man’s abiding aversion for corruption and everything to do with it has transformed a once corrupt colonial backwater into a much admired “Island of Integrity”. I mention this as a way of showing that many people I know well in every strata of Malay society honour Lee for his personal integrity and high ethical standards. Therefore, it is more in sorrow than anger that I touch on this subject in this column.

Singapore is not an unknown quantity to us in Malaysia. She is in a sense of us, but not part of us. The historical ties that are supposed to underpin our relations amount to nothing and to view them through rose-tinted spectacles would distort even further a relationship that has never been known for its convergence of views even on the most pedestrian of issues. Rather, it has all the makings and attributes of a potentially protracted and acrimonious future.

We cannot be continually distracted by having to put out one diplomatic, and not so diplomatic, fire after another. There are far better things to do in our country for the benefit of our people.

The late Tunku Abdul Rahman, with impe
ccable intuition, read the situation well when he decided that Malaysia had had enough of Singapore, incessantly and noisily barking and snapping at the heel.

In our dealings with Singapore, we cannot take her at face value. Let us disabuse ourselves quickly of the notion that sentiments and goodwill will cut any ice with her. We have to adopt an equally cold, clinical and legalistic approach, as they do. How often have we ended up drawing the short straw in our negotiations with Singapore? The most unforgettable was undoubtedly the MSA (Malaysia-Singapore Airline) divorce from which we came away with nothing to write home about.

Singapore has always made it clear that she has no time for sentimental nonsense, and operates simply on the basis of exacting the maximum advantage she can wangle out of any deal, no matter what.

Based on our past experience with her, and in order to avoid unnecessary unpleasantness, such as being accused of bullying a small neighbour and of other unfair and malevolent behaviour, we should, as far as possible, leave Singapore completely alone.

She is a neighbour too far, with apologies to A Bridge Too Far. It has become apparent that it is simply not worth the effort to cultivate this uncultivable neighbour. You cannot ever be right with her because she is never wrong. Winning some and losing some is not something that sits well with her. Winners take all is a strategy that appears to be well entrenched in Singapore’s national psyche.

Our relations with a neighbour such as Singapore, with her propensity for, and unseemly preoccupation with, scoring a debating point or two at every turn must be circumscribed by the most formal and correct behaviour. It is clear that while we cannot avoid living next door to each other, we should lead separate lives, taking nothing from Singapore that is not rightfully ours, and, in turn, give her nothing that is not due to her.

This policy of minimum engagement is the secret of peaceful accommodation. We should make our position entirely clear so that there is no misunderstanding of where we stand as a neighbour. We know where they stand, and we as a peaceful people must never be lulled into a false sense of security because Singapore has never tried to conceal its abiding faith in the doctrine of pre-emption in all her business dealings.

* The writer is a former president of Transparency International Malaysia and now special adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General in the Ethics Office.
—————————

Technorati: Singapore, Malaysia, politics, bilateral relations, engagement, trade, kiasuism

Asean’s anti-haze agreements may look good on paper, but they have so far failed solve the current problem

The recent positive response by the top Indonesian leadership to Singapore’s call for them to prevent the land-clearing fires causing the regional haze is an indication that firm, bilateral pressure is the probably only way to get the Indonesians to act against recalcitrant slash-and-burn farmers.

The haze problem caused by forest fires in Sumatra and Kalimantan has been affecting the region for decades. It hit its peak in 1997, when the haze cost the economies of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore an estimated $7.2 billion. Although less serious than 9 years ago, this year’s haze still threatens to inflict its toll on the economies of the region and the health of its citizens.

Almost 10 years and billions of dollars of damage after the 1997 haze, which caused a regional outcry, what has the Indonesian government done to tackle it? Recent remarks by the Indonesian forestry minister probably sum up his country’s resolve (or lack thereof) to get cracking on illegal slash-and-burn farming techniques. The minister, Mr M.S. Kaban, said: “Our forests produce oxygen which makes the air cool for them (regional neighbours), but they have never been grateful.”

Commenting on pressure on Indonesia to ratify a regional anti-haze agreement, Mr Nazarudin Kiemas, a member of the Indonesian parliamentary commission on the environment, said that not only the region, but the world, owed Indonesia for the oxygen the country produces. He went on to imply that Singapore and Malaysia were not being “good neighbours” and were “calculative”.

Asean’s efforts not working

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) has made a laudable effort to stop the haze problem. Unfortunately, these efforts have so far failed to get the Indonesians to respond positively. The Asean Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution was signed by all 10 Asean members in June 2002 and it entered into force in November 2003 when most of the member countries ratified it. However, to date, Indonesia still has not deposited its instrument of ratification, and is therefore not legally bound to adhere to the agreement, which requires signatories to develop and implement “measures to prevent and monitor transboundary haze pollution, and control sources of fires by developing early warning systems”, among other things.

Although Asean should be commended for its effort, the recurring haze has once again shown Asean to be a regional organisation with no teeth. This is mainly because of Asean’s strict rules preventing member nations from interfering in the affairs of their fellow members. It is also run by a very small Secretariat which has neither the resources nor the authority to take any enforcement action on member states, even if they flout agreements.

Domestic outcry leads to bilateral pressure

After years of failed regional efforts, Indonesia’s suffering neighbours have thankfully decided to put their foot down and say “enough is enough”. This is no doubt partly due to stronger domestic pressure by Singaporeans and particularly Malaysians on their respective governments to act against Indonesia.

The Malaysian Bar Council on 12 October called on the Malaysian Government to take Indonesia to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to demand compensation for the damage caused by the haze. Although the Government’s response was unenthusiastic, the Transport Minister conceded that demanding compensation through the ICJ was “not completely unreasonable”. Both the opposition Democratic Action Party and UMNO Youth have staged protests outside the Indonesian Embassy in Kuala Lumpur in the last two days, demanding that Jakarta prosecute those causing the fires and pay compensation to its neighbours.

In Singapore, although the public reaction has been less aggressive, there have been numerous letters written in to the newspapers calling on the Government to put more pressure on Indonesia. The Straits Times published a terse letter on their online forum on 11 October, suggesting that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and his Cabinet operate out of Kalimantan, the worse hit area, so they can experience the discomforts of the haze first hand. The writer also accused the Singaporean and Malaysian government of being “impotent” in this regard.

Bilateral pressure the way forward, for now

Reacting to the public outcry, Singapore’s Environment Minister Yaacob Ibrahim invited his counterparts from Malaysia, Thailand, Brunei and Indonesia to attend a “Sub-Regional Environment Ministerial Meeting on Transboundary Haze Pollution” on 13 October to “discuss urgent and long-term measures that the countries could undertake to tackle the problem caused by raging Indonesian forest fires”.

At the same time, over the past weekend, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong wrote to President Yudhoyono to express his disappointment over the recurring haze problem. In his letter, PM Lee urged the President to deal with the problem in a timely and effective manner, so that investor confidence in Indonesia, Indonesia’s international standing and Asean’s credibility would not be affected. He also reminded President Yudhoyono about the meeting of environment ministers on 13 October. Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also sent Jakarta a Third Party Note (TPN) on 9 October conveying Singapore’s concerns about the haze issue. A TPN is the highest-level official note, which requires a timely response from the receiving government.

The reaction from the top Indonesian leadership to this latest round of bilateral pressure was swift. President Yudhoyono convened a meeting with his officials, after which he issued an apology to Singapore and Malaysia for the fires. He also instructed his foreign minister, Dr Hassan Wirajuda, to convene a sub-regional meeting of environment ministers in Pekanbaru, Indonesia. This move was clearly an effort by the Indonesians to seize the initiative from Singapore to apply pressure on them through the meeting. In order to avoid offending the regional “big brother”, Singapore quickly agreed to shift the meeting to Pekanbaru.

On the afternoon of 12 October, President Yudhoyono telephoned PM Lee, assuring him that Indonesia was determined to take effective measures to prevent the forest fires in future. He also promised that Indonesia would ratify the Asean Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution.

After almost 10 years of failed Asean initiatives, bilateral pressure may prove to be the most effective method to get the Indonesians to act. It is an unfortunate reality in the international arena that regional or international agreements often have a louder bark than bite. Political leaders, who are the prime movers of national initiatives, usually respond better to direct pressure from their foreign counterparts.

Singapore and Malaysia need to stop wasting time crafting legal agreements within the Asean framework to prevent the haze. Even if Indonesia were to follow through with its promise to ratify the anti-haze agreement, Asean countries should be under no illusions that this would significantly improve Indonesia’s behaviour. Instead, Asean leaders and diplomats should regularly raise this issue during their bilateral meetings with Indonesian leaders, warning them of the negative impact their inaction has on bilateral relations.

Conclusion

As the monsoon winds change direction and the rains come, it is likely that politicians, both in Indonesia and neighbouring countries, may think that the problem has blown away. But it will only come back with a vengeance next year and the following years, if pressure on the Indonesians is not maintained,
particularly in the months leading up to next year’s haze season.

The governments of Singapore and Malaysia owe it to their citizens to put aside idealistic regional efforts, and instead do what works to get the Indonesians to crack down on illegal land-clearing. Singaporean and Malaysian citizens should continue to call on their governments to not let issue rest until the problem is solved completely.

This article was originally published on SingaporeAngle on 13 October 2006.

Technorati: Singapore, haze, Indonesia, forest fires, Asean Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution

In his speech at the Asian-European Editors’ Forum on 6 October, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong set out the Singapore Government’s prescription on the role of the media in society. (An excerpt of the speech is attached below.) As expected, PM Lee pointed out the pitfalls of the American model of an “unfettered and rambunctious” press. He made a veiled swipe at other Asian countries (read: Philippines, Thailand, Taiwan) which have adopted this media model and have not been as “successful at improving the lives of their people” as others with a less aggressive and adversarial press (read: Singapore, of course).

Notably, he commended the Japanese media model for being “less adversarial”, and putting “more emphasis on consensus building”. If, as PM Lee said, the Japanese media has “contributed to Japan’s success”, then the Singapore Government may have a thing or two to learn from Japan’s media.

Unlike the Singapore media, the Japanese press provides its readers a wide range of political viewpoints, from the centre-right Yomiuri Shimbun to the left-wing Asahi Shimbun. Readership is evenly split between the conservative and liberal newspapers. Singapore, in contrast, has just two national media companies, both of which are owned by the government and whose board and editors consist mostly of government or ex-government people, ensuring the media companies’ compliance with the government line at all times.

If the Singapore media can even come close to Japan’s in terms of political independence and the presentation of differing political viewpoints, we would not continue to be ranked 140th in the world by Reporters Sans Frontiers for press freedom, or be scored 38 out of 100 by the World Bank for “voice and accountability” in governance.

The New Media

PM Lee also gave his views about the Internet, or “new media”. He declared that while the traditional or mainstream media is “reliable, verified and insightful”, the new media is “full of clever propaganda, inflammatory opinions, half-truths and untruths” which are “not always easily countered by rational refutation or factual explanation”.

This belittlement of the new media is a government line which has been repeated so often that many Singaporeans have started believing and internalising it. Some journalists, in particular, love to cite this in their commentaries about the new media without substantiating it with evidence.

Due to its fewer political constraints, the new media contains many more diverse viewpoints than the government-linked media. However, it is wrong to refer to the new media as a single, monolithic entity which is all bad. The new media ranges from no-holds barred forums for Netizens to just vent, to much better thought out op-eds found in websites like SingaporeAngle.com and blogs by academics like Cherian George. Some websites like IntelligentSingaporean and MyAppleMenu provide a useful public service by aggregating and summarising quality local postings for the day.

In just the last few months, many more local blogs have been gaining prominence for their hard hitting commentaries on public policies and international relations, and for providing new insights into issues that the government-linked media does not dare to report on. A good example was the coverage of the protest by opposition activist Chee Soon Juan during the IMF/World Bank Meetings in September. While the government-linked media had orders to ignore the protest despite it being an issue of public interest, many political bloggers took it upon themselves to snap photos of the protest and post it on their blogs. Popular blogger Gayle Goh even conducted a very informative on-site interview with one of the protestors.

It is also not true that all Internet content is unfiltered, unprocessed and unverified. For example, SingaporeAngle’s editorial policy requires every post to be approved by a panel of editors before publication. Articles containing obscenities or hate speech are automatically rejected. If there is no editorial consensus on a submitted article, but it is deemed to contain “redeeming features”, the article is returned to the writer for revisions.

Furthermore, blog readers are free to post their comments and criticisms –– anonymously if they wish –– about the post. This provides a form of peer review that is absent in traditional newspapers. If one wishes to criticise an article in the newspapers, a letter to the forum page is the only option. But that letter needs to be carefully crafted and its publication is entirely at the discretion of the forum editor.

From broadsheets to blogs

The Government has recognised that the local media scene is set for some drastic changes ahead thanks to the Internet. Recently, a New Media Unit was set up within the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts to monitor Internet content and help formulate the Government’s policies on engaging citizenry through the Internet. The government-linked media will have to adapt fast to the changing media landscape. Already many young Singaporeans are shunning traditional broadsheets for blogs. As the quality and quantity of these citizen journalists’ products improve, SPH and Mediacorp can expect to lose a larger and larger market share to these new media entrants if the Government continues its stranglehold on the mainstream media.

——————–

EXCERPTS OF SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER LEE HSIEN LOONG AT THE 6th ASIAN-EUROPEAN EDITORS’ FORUM, 6 OCTOBER 2006

* * * * *

ROLE OF MEDIA

27. Good government delivers economic growth and progress, and builds a resilient and inclusive society. Responsible journalism, which understands and furthers the larger national interest, supports both of these goals. Ultimately, both exist for the people they serve.

28. In every country, the media occupies a position of power and responsibility. It is the source of news and views, accessible to all. It informs, educates and entertains. It influences and shapes public opinion. However, the media operates differently across countries. In some, media players consciously seek to uphold their responsibility to society and further the broader national interest. In others, the media reports and publishes stories based on what sells, or pushes particular ideological views, on the theory that the marketplace of ideas will automatically sort out the good from the bad.

29. The Western, particularly the American, model is an unfettered and rambunctious press, championing issues, competing to set the agenda, holding the elected government to account, and subject to minimal legal restraints. In Asia, some countries approximate this Western model of the media more closely than others. But the countries which have been most successful at improving the lives of their people do not always have the most aggressive media. For example, the Japanese media are less adversarial, and put more emphasis on consensus building. Their approach is different from the Western one, but it suits Japan’s culture and circumstances and has contributed to Japan’s success.

30. As with the political system, each country will have to evolve its own model of the media that works for it. Here too the situation is dynamic, not least because the internet is changing everything.

31. The internet is enabling ordinary citizens to post news and views on the web, making information available more quickly and plentifully than ever. The conventional wisdom is that the free flow of information on the internet is universally a good thing. It is undoubtedly very difficult to control information flow. But as we find terrorist groups using the internet to plan m
urderous attacks, and paedophiles using it to prey on defenceless children, we are learning that while the internet is a great boon to mankind, it is not an unmitigated one.

32. In the pre-internet age, newspapers and television stations not only reported news and opinions, they also filtered, processed and verified the information, in order to present coherent perspectives which shape the public debate and the public’s collective understanding of the world around us. The internet short circuits and undercuts this model.

33. Even in the internet age, there will still be a role for serious journalism, whether in print or on the web, because people will still seek out information sources which are reliable, verified and insightful. But it will not be easy to keep the public debate on this high plane, especially on controversial issues. For the internet also enables clever propaganda, inflammatory opinions, half-truths and untruths to circulate freely and gain currency through viral distribution, and these are not always easily countered by rational refutation or factual explanation. How to deal with this is something which every newspaper, and indeed every society, is grappling with.

34. Singapore regulates the internet with a light touch. But the same laws of sedition and defamation apply whether on the internet or in print, and we have prosecuted persons who have incited racial and religious hatred on blogs. Our mainstream media – television and newspapers – have kept their credibility and followings, though they are constantly tracking developments in cyberspace. We cannot say what the position will be in 10 or even 5 years’ time, with new technology continually emerging and a new internet generation growing up. Our position will evolve as we feel our way forward, but we do not believe that we should just drift with the tide. We still need anchor points that reflect our values, our vulnerabilities and our ambitions. The media in Singapore must adapt to these changes, do their best to stay relevant, and continue to contribute constructively to nation building.

Technorati: Singapore, media, press, blogs, new media, mainstream media, Asian-European Editors Forum

MM Lee says sorry that recent comments caused discomfort to PM Abdullah
by Farah Abdul Rahim, Channel NewsAsia
2 October 2006

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew says he is sorry that his recent comments about Chinese Malaysians had caused Malaysia’s Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi a great deal of discomfort.

Mr Lee had said during an international forum in Singapore more than two weeks ago that ethnic Chinese minorities in Malaysia and Indonesia are being marginalised.

In his letter to Mr Abdullah, Mr Lee said he had no intention to meddle in Malaysian politics. Nor does he have the power to influence Malaysia’s politics or to incite the feelings of Chinese in the country.

The remarks about Malaysia’s ethnic Chinese minority were made at what Mr Lee called a ‘free flowing dialogue session’ with former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.

Setting the context, Mr Lee explained he was speaking to a liberal audience of Westerners who wanted to see a stronger opposition in Singapore.

He reiterated that Singapore needs a strong government to maintain good relations with neighbours Indonesia and Malaysia and to interact with their politicians who consider Singapore to be ‘Chinese’.

Mr Lee said he did not say anything more than what he had said many times before, and added he said less than what he had written in his 1998 memoirs.

Mr Lee said UMNO leaders, including former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed and
others, had on numerous occasions, publicly warned Malaysian Malays that if they
ever lose power, they risk the same fate as Malays in Singapore, whom they allege are marginalised and discriminated against.

Mr Lee cited examples of such comments in the letter’s annex, quoting Dr Mahathir and other leaders in media reports over the years about the “marginalisation” of Singapore Malays.

The Minister Mentor reiterated that Singapore understands the reality of Malaysian politics.

Singapore has never protested at such attacks on Singapore’s multi-racial system or policies but merely clarified Singapore’s position and explained to Singaporeans the root cause of such difficulties in bilateral relations.

Also in his letter, the Minister Mentor said relations between the 2 countries have improved since Mr Abdullah took the helm in November 2003 and that both Singaporeans and Malaysians appreciate this.

Mr Lee concluded that the last thing he wanted to do, after a decade of troubled relations with the former Prime Minister, was to cause Mr Abdullah a great deal of discomfort. – CNA/ch

It’s a rare for Lee Kuan Yew to issue such personal and lengthy apology to a Malaysian leader for a controversial statement he made. The last time MM Lee apologised to the Malaysians was back in 1997 when he said in an affidavit for his libel case against opposition politician Tang Liang Hong that Johor was “notorious for shootings, muggings and car-jackings”. Even then, that apology was issued by his press secretary.

Bilateral relations between Singapore and Malaysia have been on an upswing since Abdullah took over as PM in 2003. Both countries have been keen to make up for the lost years during which it was impossible to move relations forward with Mahathir’s belligerent attitude towards Singapore.

MM’s decision to issue this apology was probably due to several factors. Firstly, Abdullah had written personally to MM asking for an explanation. This showed his sincerity in wanting to convey his disappointment with MM’s statement. Mahathir would have never done that if he were PM now. He would just have done what he did again this time – ranting and raving at Singapore, making wild counter-accusations and putting us down.

Abdullah is embroiled in a crisis within his own party because of Mahathir’s very public opposition to his leadership. Failure to respond to Abdullah’s letter with an apology would make Abdullah look weak in front of his critics, and give Mahathir more ammunition to attack him with.

It is in Singapore’s interest that Abdullah retains the confidence of his party and his people, because such a rational and moderate Malaysian leader does not come by often. We have to make hay while the sun shines and avoid jeopardising our relations with Malaysia at this juncture. In fact, our Government has in recent months even been willing to stomach similar insults from Malaysia. Umno Youth deputy chief Khairy Jamaluddin earlier this month claimed that Penang Malays were marginalised, just like Singapore Malays.

It would be interesting to see how the Government responds to the Indonesians. So far, several Indonesian MPs have demanded an apology and Deplu (the Indonesian foreign ministry) has démarched our ambassador in Jakarta to express their unhappiness. However, there haven’t been any statements from either President Yudhoyono or Vice President Jusuf Kalla on this issue. MFA will probably issue a clarification through our embassy, rather than a personal apology from MM. In any case, MM has left town for a long trip to France and the US, so it gives him a perfect excuse not to respond to the Indonesians.

The Singapore Idol results, whereby an ethnic Malay won the contest for the second season running, may be an indication that the attitudes of young Singaporeans are not as parochial as feared. What is even more surprising is that this result is not unique to Singapore, as some neighbouring countries have also shown similar trends.

In multiracial Singapore, communalism is often identified as the main fault line in society. Communalism is the official rationale for Singapore’s unique electoral concept of the Group Representation Constituency (GRC), whereby at least one member of the electoral team for a GRC must be from a minority race. This is supposedly to ensure a sufficient representation of minorities in Parliament, as it was assumed that in a first past the post electoral system, the Chinese candidate will always beat the minority candidate.

In the Singapore Idol Finals Show last weekend, Hady Mirza beat Jonathan Leong, garnering over 70 per cent of the 1 million votes cast through SMS and phone. If the PAP’s election win of 66.6 per cent in May was considered a “strong mandate”, then Hady should be proud of himself for having secured an even more overwhelming mandate from Singaporeans! This marked the second time in as many contests that a Malay contestant won the Singapore Idol crown in Chinese majority Singapore.

Hady’s win could be seen as more significant than the 2004 season result, because the two finalists were much more evenly matched this year. Back in 2004, winner Taufik Batisah clearly put up a superior all-round performance compared to second-placed Sylvester Sim. In addition, it was widely agreed that this year’s runner up, Jonathan, with his pop star looks and nice-guy persona, had an advantage over Hady in a competition where appearance and charisma often count for as much as singing ability. However, most objective viewers would agree that in terms of versatility and vocal range, Hady had the edge over Jonathan. Hence, the best man won again this year.

Some disappointed Jonathan fans may have speculated that Hady won because his Malay fans pooled their money together and voted multiple times for him. While I have no doubt that some of his fans did just that, I don’t think their numbers can account for the staggering 700,000 votes Hady received.

Let’s look at the statistics. Singapore has 4.2 million people. According to the Department of Statistics, there are 484,600 Malays in Singapore. Of these, just 111,200 are in the 15 to 29 year age group. People outside this age group are unlikely to have voted, even if they watched the programme and had an opinion on who should win.

There is another way of estimating the number of Malay voters: The 1 million total votes represented 24 per cent of the total population of Singapore. Going by this proportion, the Malays, who make up 11.5 per cent of Singapore’s population, would have contributed just 115,000 votes, which is quite similar to the 111,200 in the 15 to 29 year age group, plus a few pakciks and makciks (older Malays) who also threw in their support for Hady.

Going by either of the above two methods (which I would readily admit are totally unscientific), each likely Malay voter would have had to vote at least 6 times to reach the magic 700,000 figure. In fact, even if every Malay Singaporean voted just once, they would have not have garnered enough votes to give Hady the simple majority. Contrast this with the 529,000 Chinese 15 to 29 years old who alone could have easily handed Jonathan the win if they wanted to.

Singapore Idol and General Elections

There have been parallels drawn between Idol voting and the voting during General Elections (GEs). One might argue that they are too different to compare, not only because of the multiple votes allowed for Idol, but also because GEs are when people engage in the “serious business” of choosing their national leaders, while Idol is purely entertainment.

However, I feel that the Idol vote is similar to a GE in several respects. Firstly, although people are supposed to vote based on the ability of the contestant or candidate, most end up voting with their emotions. They are more likely to choose someone whom they “like” rather than the contestant with the best voice or the candidate with the best ideas.

Secondly, in Western countries where voting is not compulsory, only about 40 per cent of the electorate bothers to cast their votes at national elections. The figure is much lower for local or state elections. Since Singaporeans are not any more politically inclined than their Western counterparts (some would say much less so), we could estimate that more up to half of Singapore’s voters vote in the GE based on what their more knowledgeable family members or friends advise them. This is akin to Idol, whereby some people vote multiple times for their favourite singer.

Idol results in the region

Is this display of meritocracy unique to Singapore? A check on the Idol results from two neighbouring Malay-majority countries reveals an interesting phenomenon. In Malaysian Idol, the winners were an Indian, Jaclyn Victor, and a Chinese, Daniel Lee Chee Hun, in 2004 and 2005 respectively. Daniel also won by an overwhelming majority – 1.2 million of the 1.68 million votes. Second placed Norhanita Hamzah received just 500,000 votes.

Over in Indonesia, the 2004 winner was Joy Destiny Tobing, a Batak. Bataks are predominantly Christians and make up just 6 million of the 220 million Indonesian population. The ethnic group in Indonesia that wields most of the political power are the Javanese. Even the 2004 runner-up was a Chinese, Delon Thamrin. In the latest season 2 in 2005, the winner was Michael Mohede, who is obviously not Javanese either.

Conclusion

The results of the Idol shows in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia indicate that young people, unlike probably their parents and grandparents, are more likely to look beyond race and ethnicity, and judge persons based on their “content” rather than their “colour”. The fact that these young people will be our future leaders bodes well for our countries. In view of this, it might soon be appropriate the Singapore Government to review our GRC system as those old assumptions about Singaporeans’ communal attitudes may no longer apply as much to the next generation.

Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s overthrow last week by his army chief, while cautiously welcomed by many in the capital Bangkok, is a big loss for the rural poor and democracy in Thailand, and has exposed yet again the age-old problem of the voices of the poor being silenced by society’s elite.

Thaksin drew most of his political support from the rural areas in the north and north-east of Thailand, whose residents make up the majority of the country’s 65 million people. This was mainly due to his pro-poor policies which, going by figures from the World Bank, saw the number of Thais living in poverty almost halved from 13 million in 2000 before Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party took power, to 7.08 million in 2004. The agricultural incomes in the poorest sections of the country rose 40 per cent during that period.

According to Giles Ungpakorn, a political science lecturer at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University in an interview with Inter Press Service, there is “no comparison on pro-poor policies between the TRT and the parties in government before 2001”. Ungpakorn pointed out that the opposition Democrat Party had been in government many times before but “their policies lacked sympathy for the poor”.

Rather than outright vote-buying to win elections, as many of his opponents charged, Thaksin’s policies to help the poor were often in response to feedback from the ground. The TRT had sent consultants to the countryside to find out what the people needed and tailored their policies to deliver on the needs of the poor.

Among these pro-poor policies were a low-cost universal healthcare scheme which enabled poor Thais to receive treatment for any ailment by paying 30 baht (S$1.25) per hospital visit; a S$31,000 per village micro-loan fund; forgiveness of land debts for 3 years; and the “one-village-one product” (OTOP) programme, whereby the government helped cottage industries with research and development and marketing of products. More than just a monetary handout, OTOP has helped incomes to be spread to many people in the villages and “has given people producing handicrafts a feel they can be part of the global economy”, according to the chairman of Chiang Mai’s OTOP association.

In return, Thaksin was given overwhelming support from the rural poor during elections. During the 2005 polls, the TRT was re-elected with nearly 70 per cent of the votes, which translated into an absolute majority of 377 seats out of 500 — a first in Thai history. Thaksin also became the first Thai prime minister to complete a term in office without being toppled.

Sadly, this democratic mandate was not enough to satisfy the urban elites in Bangkok. Throughout 2006, tens of thousands of people in Bangkok rallied on the streets chanting, “Thaksin aok bai (Thaksin get out)”. This led to Thaksin calling snap elections in April 2006 to renew his mandate. The opposition parties, aware that they could not win without the rural vote, boycotted the polls, stripping the elections of their legitimacy. The TRT won again with 57 per cent of the vote, although the result was later nullified.

Although Thaksin did have his shortcomings, most notably his brash and arrogant “CEO-style leadership” and his poor handling of the insurgency in the southern Muslim-majority provinces, it is regrettable that his opponents used undemocratic means like street protests and finally a military coup to unseat him.

With the country now under martial law, the rural poor have even fewer outlets to voice their disappointment that their “champion” has been felled. In order to consolidate its grip on the country, the military has shut down over 300 community radio stations in 17 northern provinces and 50 stations in the north-eastern province of Roi Et, the poorest region in Thailand. Radio call-in talkshows have also been banned nationwide.

Thaksin is possibly gone for good this time. The poor will have to wait and see whether the military junta and future governments will be on their side the same way Thaksin was. Judging from recent history, this outcome is unlikely. Once again, the poor have had the short straw drawn for them.

The IMF/World Bank Annual Meetings ("S2006" in local lingo) were supposed to be Singapore’s opportunity to showcase its progressiveness and efficiency to the financial leaders of the world. Unfortunately the current dispute over the participation of accredited civil society organisations (CSOs) threatens to diminish much of the hard work that the government and people of Singapore have put in to make this mega event a success.

The problems first surfaced when the police announced on 28 July that all outdoor protests would be banned and that registered CSOs will be designated just a small area in the Suntec Convention Centre atrium to make their voices heard — sans loudhailers. This was a huge slap in the face for CSOs who are used to large scale street marches complete with large banners, microphones and, sometimes, burning effigies.

World Bank officials registered their dissatisfaction with this decision, claiming that they were only recently informed about it and were not properly consulted beforehand.

Then came the bombshell: The police revealed that 28 activists, many of whom were accredited by the World Bank to attend the meetings, would be denied entry. (This number mysteriously decreased to 27 in later news reports.) The authorities had probably done background checks on these activists and assessed that they were likely to attempt to lead their organisations in street protest while in Singapore.

The World Bank and IMF have been feeling the heat from CSOs, many of whom have accused the institutions of deliberately choosing Singapore as a venue because they knew protesters would not have the opportunity to demonstrate against what they believe are injustices against people in developing countries. The Inter Press News Agency, which is closely aligned with several CSOs, published an article on 31 July titled "World Bank Finds Refuge in Nanny State". On 12 September, a leading anti-globalisation group, Jubilee South, alleged that Singapore police had visited Batam’s local police and "asked them not to allow" the International People’s Forum, an anti-IMF gathering, to be held there. After initial announcements by the Batam police that the gathering would be banned, the police there finally relented and the meeting was finally cleared to take place.

Responding to the pressure from CSOs, World Bank president, Paul Wolfowitz, and his managing director have both publicly accused the Singapore government of breaching the Memorandum of Understanding signed three years ago where it was agreed that all accredited CSO representatives would be allowed to attend the meetings. Even the European Union (EU) has weighed in the issue. The Finnish EU Presidency issued a statement urging the Government to "reconsider its decision" to impose the entry ban and that "open and constructive dialogue between civil society and the World Bank institutions is very important for the development of World Bank policies". The EU emphasised that the activists had been accredited by the World Bank and should have the right to participate.

The police cited security concerns, specifically the threat of terrorism against the delegates, as their reason for banning outdoor protests and blacklisting these individuals, whom they labelled as "troublemakers". The World Bank has pointed out that there was "insufficient clarity" and a lack of a "coherent explanation" by the Singapore authorities regarding these concerns. This is unsurprising, since nobody, I suspect, actually believes that these 27 activists are going to commit acts of terror against the S2006 delegates.

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong revealed the political considerations behind the protest ban when he recently told Bloomberg TV that "we have very strict rules for our own locals, and we can’t have two standards because otherwise, we’ll be in deep political trouble with our own citizens". However, judging from the massive influx of foreign talent into Singapore, it’s hard to believe that the Government is overly concerned about Singaporeans’ unhappiness over favourable treatment of foreigners. The "political trouble" SM Goh referred to was probably the paranoia within government circles that if foreign activists were allowed to protest at S2006, it would open up a can of worms — with a precedent already set, local opposition figures and activists would then demand equal rights to mount outdoor protest in the future and the Government would then have its hands full trying to "fix" them.

Singapore Democratic Party Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan had earlier this week written a letter to Paul Wolfowitz alleging that "the ‘security’ reasons given for the ban are but a smokescreen". He has decided to take this opportunity to lead a protest march today in defiance of the ban and repeated warnings from the police that "anyone participating in it would be committing and offence". Dr Chee’s intent is clear: He wants to police to arrest him in full view of the 23,000 delegates to make himself look like a "martyr" and in the process embarrass the Government. This is one wish that the police will surely grant to Dr Chee, regardless of what the S2006 delegates think. The result, unfortunately, will be further damage to Singapore’s already poor reputation for lack of free speech. (The World Bank’s recently released "Governance Indicators" have scored Singapore in the 90s out of a scale of 100 for all indicators except "voices and accountability", which Singapore scored a pitiful 33.)

All these happenings are unfortunate given the $100 million and thousands of man-hours that the government has poured into organising S2006, including the expensive "Four Million Smiles" campaign and the over-the-top "flowers on Orchard Road" to impress the delegates. It is therefore a small consolation that the Government has backed down slightly by deciding to grant twenty-two of the 27 activists entry. This announcement came on the eve of the day in which most of the bigwigs, including Britain’s finance minister and likely future prime minister Gordon Brown, are arriving in town. But the damage had already been done. 164 CSOs had already announced a boycott of all S2006 events and the international wires and press, including the respectable Financial Times, has had their field day mocking Singapore’s draconian measures. Bad PR like this only denigrates Singapore’s otherwise stellar reputation overseas for good governance.

I hope that the Government would realise that its hard-line stance against legitimate civil society voices does no good for Singapore’s international reputation, nor does allowing those voices to be heard compromise our internal security.

*   *   *   *   *