Category: Uncategorized

It’s an awesome sight to see the Singapore flag being raised at the Olympic stage! Congratulations to Yip Pin Xiu on her gold medal winning performance! You have done our nation proud!

I would like to say a big THANK YOU to everyone who took time off your precious Saturday evening to attend our public transport forum at Speakers’ Corner today.

Thank you also to my fellow bloggers who helped publicize the event on your blogs.

There were over 100 people in attendance — one of the largest turnouts at Speakers’ Corner since it started. The event received good media coverage in all the print and broadcast media.

Even if you did not get a chance to speak, your attendance was a powerful message in itself to the government that Singaporeans are very concerned about the public transport fare hikes and service standards.

I hope to get a chance to meet more of you at our next event. :)

.

Straits Times Forum
9 Sep 2008

Why WP didn’t get permit for event

I REFER to last Thursday’s letter by Mr Tan Ghee Gay, ‘Why ‘no’ and ‘yes’?’, regarding police decisions with respect to the Workers’ Party’s (WP) proposed mass cycling event last year, and the carnival on Aug 31.

Police do not issue permits for outdoor political events in public places due to the potential for disorder and unruly behaviour. This applies to events organised by all political parties. For this reason, police rejected WP’s application to hold a mass cycling activity in East Coast Park, to commemorate its 50th anniversary in September last year.

The event on Aug 31 was very different. The permit was issued after taking into account the organiser and the nature of the event. It was organised by the PAP Community Foundation, which is a registered charity and not a political party. The event was not assessed to have the potential for disorder and unruly behaviour. It was a carnival that involved children and families from various kindergartens and educational institutions. The Prime Minister, as guest of honour, and a few other guests, made their entrance by cycling a short distance. During the event, a sum of $664,000 (which had been raised earlier) was distributed to 17 charities, including Beyond Social Services, Children’s Aid Society and Chung Hwa Medical Institution.

DSP Paul Tay
Assistant Director (Media Relations)
Singapore Police Force

If I were the media relations director of the Singapore Police Force (SPF), I would advise my staff to stop justifying what is unjustifiable.

Of course technically PAP Community Foundation (PCF) is not a political party. But the current police policy seems to be aimed more at preventing opposition political parties from holding outdoor events, rather than maintaining law and order.

There are a myriad of outdoor events that could cause disorder, including events held by the PAP and its subsidiaries. A logical conclusion of the SPF’s policy banning outdoor events by political parties is to ban rallies altogether during the election period.

In any case, I feel I need question the SPF’s impartiality when I read the last paragraph: “During the event, a sum of $664,000 (which had been raised earlier) was distributed to 17 charities, including Beyond Social Services, Children’s Aid Society and Chung Hwa Medical Institution.”

Why are the police doing the job of the public relations manager of the PCF?

.
.

The Sage of Singapore has spoken again.

This time he told his grassroots supporters: “You vote in a Div 3 Government instead of a Div 1 Government, the whole economy will subside within three, four years. Finished!“

The Straits Times reported that he said that to vote anything but top quality into office could lead to, among others, job losses and falling property prices.

“We will be worse than our neighbours…”

On restless youths, he said: “They say: ‘Oh let’s have different parties change and be in charge of Government.’ Is it that simple?”

“If ever the PAP goes corrupt, weak, it’s finished. You will have to look for a new team, and a new party. That will be very difficult. So just watch and make sure nothing goes wrong with the PAP.“

I am reminded of some English saying about eggs and baskets.

Amidst all the fear-mongering about the opposition bogeyman, there was a sliver of hope in what he said.

“We know that Singapore wants (an) opposition to check the PAP. We’ll find a way to have more voices inside the assembly, but not at the risk of voting in a Div 2 or 3 Government.”

I take it to mean that the ruling party is considering allowing more alternative views to be aired in Parliament. Which would mean more than the currently allowable three non-constituency MPs? Or even more nominated MPs? Or perhaps they simply won’t be so plain mean to our earnest but feeble opposition (apart from a certain Chee) and give them a level playing field to build up their ranks with more quality candidates.

If I were a PAP campaign strategist (which I am obviously not educationally qualified to be), I would advise them to liberalize politics significantly. In one fell swoop, they would pull the rug under the opposition’s feet. After all, most people who support the opposition do so not because they think the opposition is more capable of leading, but because they don’t like the PAP’s dominance, arrogance and unfair play.

In fact, I’m told from sources in the media that PM Lee is going to announce a significant liberalization of the Internet in his National Day Rally speech this Sunday — not that it will really make much of a difference to bloggers and online rebels.

.

I attended the Seminar on Internet Regulatory Reform at URA Centre this afternoon. The seminar was kindly sponsored and organised by NTU’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communications, together with “Bloggers 13” — the 13 bloggers who submitted the Proposals for Internet freedom in Singapore to the MICA Minister exactly two months ago. Special thanks must go to Dr Cherian George, who mooted the idea for this seminar and Alex Au and Choo Zheng Xi who put it all together.

I was quite glad that many members of civil society, academia and bloggers turned up to support the event. Also present were Mr Cheong Yip Seng, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS), and members of the press.

After presentations explaining the proposals, the floor was opened for Q&A.

It seemed that the subject that caught the most interest was our proposal to establish an Internet Content Consultative Committee (IC3). This is the section of our proposal where we mentioned the IC3:

2.3 Community moderation instead of formal regulation

We believe that almost all of society’s legitimate concerns about the abuse of free speech can be addressed outside the formal regulatory system. Online communities have already evolved sophisticated norms of informal self-regulation.

Internet forums are almost always moderated; bloggers keep an eye over readers’ comments appended to their posts. Popular sites heavy with pictorial or video content, such as YouTube, have their own rules forbidding salacious material.

With the evolution of new technology and social practices of netizens, it is neither practical nor is there need for the state to play the role of a master moderator. Legislation and state intervention, except in extremis, do not provide the best solution in dealing with the emerging complexities of the Internet.

The Internet is a social space, and social norms of leeway and consideration are constantly shifting. Although we have faith that these norms will evolve in pro-social directions, we agree that this won’t happen without some concerted effort. What is needed is a process through which online communities are represented in Singapore’s search for the right balance between individual freedoms and social goals.

One possible approach is to organise an Internet Content Consultative Committee (IC3) comprising one-third independent content providers, one-third persons familiar with rapidly evolving digital technologies, and one-third regular consumers of Internet content (i.e. regular surfers). The IC3 would issue recommendations whenever controversies arise regarding digital content, for example offering its view when conflicts arise between the state and content providers alleged to have behaved irresponsibly.

The IC3’s deliberations should be open to public view – and digital technology can be harnessed to this goal. The objective over time is to subject more and more so-called “sensitive” areas to public reason, replacing intervention by the state (whether heavy handed or light touch) with people’s own capacities for discernment and judgement. The only viable long term response to the impracticality of internet censorship is to help Singapore mature as a society, online as well as offline.

I think this is something that requires more discussion, and probably another paper fleshing out details of this proposal.

The libertarians amongst my fellow bloggers will question why there is even a need to have an IC3, when what we should be calling for is total freedom on the Internet.

I do not believe that this is practicable. In any community, there are bound to be those who contravine generally accepted rules and codes of conduct. At stake also is the racial and religious harmony of our state, and the protection of minors from undesirable content on the Internet.

I am persuaded that the government will make no move towards acceding to our requests like repealing the Films Act, Section 33 (party political films) and 35 (films contrary to public interest) until every last fuddy duddy there is convinced that the community is able to self-regulate. IC3, therefore, could fill in this gap to allow the government to cede this space to citizens.

A point of debate during our seminar was about who would appoint the IC3. Should it be the government or civil society? At stake is the credibility and sustainability of the IC3.

As a member of the Films Appeal Committee, I am well aware of the strengths and limitations of government-appointed committees.

For the IC3, I feel it would be ideal if it were a citizen-established committee which receives no funding from the government. The members of the committee could include representatives from blogosphere, educators, academics, media, and the government. The chairman of the committee should be elected by fellow members on a regular basis.

There is still much more to discuss regarding this proposal. We would very much want to involve the wider Internet community in this. Suggestions are most welcome!

.

There will be a public forum this Saturday, 21 June 2008, on Internet regulatory reform. Organised by the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, it aims to contribute ideas to the government’s ongoing review of Internet regulations. It will discuss the proposals submitted to the government recently by a group of independent bloggers.

Mr Arun Mahizhnan, Deputy Director of the Institute of Policy Studies, will provide a bird’s eye view with his opening remarks. Members of the bloggers’ initiative for Internet reform will present the key elements of their proposals, and there will lots of time set aside for questions and open debate.

Says Assistant Professor Cherian George from the Wee Kim Wee School:
“Some of the key issues to be discussed are deeply contentious, even within the blogging community. We don’t expect a consensus at the end of the day, but we can at least aim for a better understanding of the various positions.”

Mr Choo Zheng Xi, an editor-in-chief of The Online Citizen: “Public awareness and discussion are critical. It is important that as many stakeholders as possible are involved in shaping the future of newmedia, and there is no more important stakeholder than every single member of the public.”

Mr Tan Tarn How, a media researcher with the Institute of Policy Studies: “The proposals call for a fundamental reassessment of Singapore’s Internet regulations. Anyone who is concerned about the current regulation regime for new media – its philosophical underpinnings, its enforceability, and its wider effects on society –
ought to give the proposal serious consideration, and the forum is a good occasion for doing it.”

The forum, formally titled “Seminar on Internet Regulatory Reform”, will be held at the Function Hall (level 5) of the URA Centre on Maxwell Road, on Saturday 21, June 2008, at 2 p.m.

Admission is free and the event will be open to media reporting.

To reserve a seat, please register by sending an email to:
irr-singapore-subscribe@googlegroups.com

.

The Myanmar generals seem pleased with the results of the recent referendum to approve a new constitution which bans Aung San Suu Kyi from standing for elections and reserves one-quarter of the parliamentary seats for the military. This of course means the Constitution will effectively never be amended, since two-thirds majority is needed to change it.

According to ‘official’ results, 92.48 per cent of voters had endorsed the charter, and voter turnout was 98.12 per cent.

98.12 per cent turnout! Wow, General Than Shwe. Your people must really love you. Despite two of your districts being virtually wiped out by Cyclone Nargis, the people there still managed to make it to the polls to vote for you.

Still they lost out to their rival dictator, the late Saddam Hussein. Back in October 2002, just months before the invasion of Iraq, officials there proclaimed that Saddam won 100 per cent backing in a referendum on whether he should rule for another seven years.

.

Organised by the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, NTU

“The job of a citizen is to keep his mouth open” – Gunter Grass

Are Singaporeans satisfied with the state of Internet regulation as existing?

If not, what changes do we wish to see and how can a bottom-up desire for reform translate into policy review?

Can Singapore afford the political and social costs of free speech? Is there a contradiction between wanting freedom for political speech and controls over social speech? Is technology really in the driver’s seat? Are governments powerless in the face of a global Internet?

Guest speaker:

Mr Arun Mahizhnan, Dep. Dir. Institute of Policy Studies

Presentations by members of the Bloggers’ Group for Internet Deregulation

Chaired by Asst Prof Cherian George, Wee Kim Wee School, NTU

—————

Date: Sat, 21 June 2008

Time: 2.00pm to 5.00pm

Venue: URA Centre, Maxwell Road, Function Hall, Level 5

Admission: Free, RSVP required

Media: Open to reporting

To register (RSVP), please send an empty email to :

irr-singapore-subscribe@googlegroups.com

You will get an email response asking you to confirm your request.

Late notices, if any, will come from the Googlegroup.

It appears I have upset a few anonymous readers (presumably SDP supporters or members) for suggesting in my previous post that Chee Soon Juan should concentrate on being a political activist rather than a politician.

My suggestion is not new. I know several other people — none of whom are PAP supporters — who have suggested the same thing.

I believe there are two main ways of engaging in politics in Singapore, and elsewhere: One, by contesting elections; and two, through civil society activism. (The PAP, through the Catherine Lim affair in the 1990s, believes only the first is valid. I strongly disagree.)

Fortunately in Singapore, both avenues are available to citizens. In some countries like China, North Korea and Cuba, only the second method is possible, albeit very difficult. One reader pointed out that Chee and company will never get their application to start a civil activist group approved. For someone who advocates non-violent civil disobedience, this should be the least of his concerns.

To build a democratic society — as we have all pledged to do — Singapore needs both politicians and political activists. Neither is more or less important than the other. In fact, the two often have a symbiotic relationship.

Thus, when I say that Chee should quit politics and start an activist group, I mean him no disrespect. For the reasons explained in my previous post, I believe he will serve Singaporeans better as a non-partisan political activist.

Since Chee likes to compare himself with Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr, he would be aware that neither of these men was a politician, nor did they have plans to become one. They were above partisan politics.

I have seen Chee speak on several occasions, and I know he is not the crazy person that most Singaporeans think he is (probably stemming from the way the media paints him to be). I agree with many of his beliefs on freedom, democracy and human rights. Unfortunately, unless these ideals are translated to dollars and cents for “pragmatic” Singaporeans who make up the majority of the electorate, he will make no headway at the polls.

Having said that, there is a great and pressing need for more political education in Singapore. Most Singaporeans are not aware of their civil and political rights. They don’t know where the law stands on issues. I frequently get asked by well-meaning friends: “Won’t you get in trouble for criticizing the government on your blog?” I also know of ex-colleagues in the Civil Service who think civil servants and NTUC members must vote for the PAP during elections. (That is not true, by the way.)

Chee and his colleagues could help fill this gap. In fact, they are already doing this quite well. The One Nation Under Lee film which they supported (or some believe, made) is an excellent example. That film chronicles all the strong arm tactics used by Lee Kuan Yew to suppress dissent in Singapore during and after his reign. These are important historical issues that every Singaporean, regardless of political affiliation, should at least be aware of.

It would be much less distracting if Chee didn’t appear to be doing that to win votes at the polls.

.

While some people continue to debate who is to be held accountable for Mas Selamat Kastari’s escape, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong believes the more urgent task is to stay on top of problems like soaring food prices.

Straits Times, 27 April

A familiar pattern whenever scandals involving government wrongdoing/negligence/incompetence break out is:

• Damage control
• Press reports and comments on only the safe topics
• Blogs come up with conspiracy theories
• Grand exhortation by MM, PM and/or SM, in that order
• Opposition makes a small whimper.
• Press all falls in line, reporting only what the big men have said.
• Forum page articles all show Singaporeans reacting in support of the govt.
• Blogs go ballistic attacking the govt.
• One of the big men says: “Let’s move on”. Agenda is abruptly changed to something relatively unimportant.
• Press obediently complies. Blogs go even more ballistic.
• A few weeks later, everything is forgotten.
• People still vote for the PAP at next election.