Category: Uncategorized

Another example of how other countries (in this case Malaysia) like to emulate our superior system of government, especially with regard to controlling the flow of information. Perhaps we will soon be hearing of debates in Malaysia about raising their ministers’ salaries. After all, Malaysia has a corruption problem right? And we all know that high salaries will eliminate corruption…

Politically-motivated Blogs Must Be Monitored And Registered, Says Zam

SINGAPORE, April 6 (Bernama) — Information Minister Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin Friday lent his weight to a proposal to register blog sites, especially those which are politically-motivated.

He said the mainstream media were subjected to registration, monitoring and specific laws, and as such, there was no reason why the same should not apply to blog operators.

“We must know who they are. So there must be laws that will facilitate their identification,” he told reporters here.

However, he said, the need to register blogs with entertainment and social commentary contents might not be as great as politically-motivated ones.

“When people involved in politics want to use blogs for their political interest or when blog operators are politically-motivated, we have to know who they are.

“Politics is meant to gain influence among the people, politics is meant to obtain power. When it comes to power, it’s the people who are in control.

“When the people use the power, they’ll have to identify themselves. They are dishonest if they hide themselves when talking about politics,” he said.

Zainuddin said in the quest for political power, people were willing to resort to slander, disseminate lies, use unauthorised sources or choose not to verify the source of the information.

“This is very dangerous as they are writing and taking steps to gain power. Their objective is to topple the government, widen the reach of their political doctrine and assist any parties for political purposes,” he said.

Zainuddin said he concurred with the monitoring and registration proposal forwarded by the Energy, Water and Communications Ministry.

Zainuddin discussed the blog issue and how the island republic was approaching the matter in a meeting this morning with his counterpart, Information, Communications and the Arts Minister Dr Lee Boon Yang.

The Malaysian minister said Singapore had formulated a mechanism for the registration of blogs which consistently churned out articles on politics.

He pointed out that Singapore had a class licensing framework to supervise new media forms such as blogs, subjecting them to certain code of ethics under the supervision of the Media Development Authority.

A class licence involves the gazetting of the terms and conditions of a particular industry, and anyone who provides the services within the scope of the class licence will be deemed to have read and agreed to the terms and conditions, and would be considered licensed.

Zainuddin felt that the method implemented by Singapore was practical and it could possibly be modified for use in Malaysia.

“We’ll see whether or not this version can be done in Malaysia. I don’t know yet but I feel that the method is a practical one,” he said.

— BERNAMA

Here’s what another Bernama article has to say about the discussions between the Information Ministers from Malaysia and Singapore:

On the issue of new media, including the proliferation of blogs, Zainuddin said the issue was also touched on during the discussion.

“We do not want to control blogs. We just hope for the bloggers to be responsible, and to be held responsible for what they blog…I share this view and I think the Singapore approach is practical,” he said.

Asked to comment, Dr Lee said that Singapore had an advisory council to study the impact of new media, among other things, including the rising popularity and influence of blogs and try to anticipate its impact particularly on the younger generation over the long term.

“We recognise that the blogs are there; that many young people are very enthusiastic about blogging and are becoming very active players in this so-called Web 2.0 where instead of using the Internet to draw information, users are now generating content to be shared with others.

“So this is quite a significant development. As of now, our regulatory approach to the Internet has been a light touch. Our position in terms of new media is that the law of the land applies in the real world as much as in cyberspace,” Dr Lee said.

Read the full article here.

Several months ago, there was a debate in Singapore blogosphere about coming up with a Code of Conduct. While a few of us supported it, the majority of our fellow local bloggers and readers opposed it. The idea ended up being stillborn.

It was reported today that Tim O’Reilly, the guy who coined the term “Web 2.0”, and Jimmy Wales, the creator of Wikipedia, have teamed up to draft a Bloggers’ Code of Conduct. The Draft Code can be viewed and edited on (you guessed it) Wikipedia.

I’m not going ga-ga over this just because a couple of Yanks have proposed it. But if even our generation’s prime proponents and facilitators of free speech are talking about a Code of Conduct, I think it deserves a second look. I’ve looked through the Draft Code. Personally I think it is fair, but its scope is rather narrow. It seems to be focused mainly on readers’ comments rather than the blogs themselves.

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.

I’m still on my blogging hiatus, but I thought I’d share this clip, for those who haven’t already seen it. I thought it was hilarious! (Not that I think our “responsible” local media would do anything different if it were in the same situation.)

Thaksin’s CNN interview censored on Thai TV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqlOCIvUtKw

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 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.

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.

* * * * *

Dharmendra Yadav wrote an article for TODAY calling for bloggers to “self-regulate” by way of a code of ethics. I support this idea as articulated by Yadav and Aaron Ng. My reasons are found in my comments here and here.

Aaron has taken the initiative to draft out a code of ethics for consultation here. I hope all of Singapore blogosphere (bloggers and readers alike) would take some time to look through this draft code and give your comments and suggestions.

Just as the GST debate in Singapore seems to be petering out, Hong Kong — the very economy that Singapore is often trying to emulate — yesterday shelved its plans to introduce a 5 per cent GST in the face of strong public opposition. It is notable that this decision was reached after a long 9 month public consultation. In Singapore’s case, there was no public consultation at all. Just an announcement in Parliament which Singaporeans are expected to meekly accept. Perhaps it is not just the government that is to be faulted, but us citizens as well for too easily accepting whatever will be, will be.

Hong Kong shelves controversial sales tax plan

HONG KONG (AFP) – Hong Kong is to drop plans to introduce a goods and services tax (GST) after it failed to win enough public support for a change in the city’s famously low tax environment.

Financial Secretary Henry Tang said the decision was reached after an ongoing public consultation showed that the controversial plan lacked public support.

“It is clear from the views collected that we have not been able to convince the majority to accept GST as the main option to address the tax base problem,” he said.

“So we accepted that at this time we do not have the public support nor the conditions for introducing a GST. For the remainder part of the consultation we will not be advocating GST as the only option,” he told reporters.

Tang did not take questions nor clarify whether the government will re-consider the policy in the future.

He said the government will stop promoting the plan over the remainder of the nine-month consultation period and urged citizens to continue to provide their views on the other possible ways to widen the tax base.

Hong Kong leader Donald Tsang said the decision has complete support from him and the Executive Council, or cabinet.

“We believe that the decision (Tang) has made respects fully the wishes of Hong Kong people that we should seriously consider widening our tax base,” he said.

“At the same time he has paid full regard to the strong opposition of the people to the introduction of GST at this time,” he said.

Tsang Yok-sing, Executive Councillor and the founding chairman of the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB), also welcomed the move.

“We opposed the GST but also believe that we should find other ways to widen the tax base … we welcome that the government has listened to the public views,” he said.

The proposal has met public hostility with protests denouncing the plan throughout the consultation period. All major political parties opposed the measure.

Activists had accused Tang of robbing the poor to pay the rich, with protesters saying a sales tax would decimate the booming tourism industry by making shopping in Hong Kong — one of its biggest draws — less attractive.

If you need proof that the government’s spin is working, look no further than the Straits Times Forum page!

Nov 21, 2006
‘No’ to minimum wage, ‘ Yes’ to GST hike

I REFER to the proposed GST increase from 5 to 7 per cent, to provide for those who are poor. There is indeed a pressing need to help lower-income Singaporeans caught in the globalisation tide.

Being a small-business owner, I can attest to this. I have many employees who earn less than $1,000 in basic salary and are the sole breadwinners (One such staff member hails from a family of 11). It is heart-rending hearing them bemoan the cost of living, utility bills, household expenses, etc. Much as I would like to pay them more, it is not possible to do so without affecting cost and the business’ survival.

The minimum-wage argument is not tenable. Should employers be forced to pay a minimum wage, many like myself would choose either not to hire because we cannot afford it, or not to set up shop in Singapore. This will result in lesser employment.

I am glad the Government has heeded the call to take care of the lower-income. Workfare is unique to Singapore and is a far better principle than welfare. Under workfare, hardworking Singaporeans are given a chance to level up whereas welfare destroys all incentive to work.

It will take some time for Singaporeans to accept the GST increase. I urge everyone to take a measured and rational approach and to support it as it is designed primarily to help poorer fellow citizens. In order to make the reason for the GST hike more persuasive, I suggest the Prime Minister gives a full account of the two-point increase by Budget 2007 – what is the exact dollar value and how much of each dollar will go into workfare.

Theodore Yeo Guan Huat