Category: Uncategorized

Indonesia’s testy reaction after Singapore raised the haze issue at the United Nations (UN) highlights the difficulties that the “little red dot” faces in getting its giant neighbour to clamp down on culprits starting the forest fires which cause the choking haze in the region every year. In order to buffer Indonesia’s negative reaction, Singapore will need to cooperate more with its other suffering neighbours, particularly Malaysia, to apply the necessary diplomatic pressure on Indonesia to do something about the problem.

Speaking at the UN in New York on 25 October, Singapore’s deputy permanent representative Kevin Cheok said that the haze problem “can be permanently resolved only if there is effective and sustained action on Indonesia’s part. Indonesia will need help. Singapore, like other affected countries, is prepared to assist…”

The senior diplomat added that that “the scale and severity of the problem means that Asean will require international assistance, including from the UN”. He pointed out that the annual forest fires have global consequences and require global action, but the “Indonesians themselves must muster the political will to take the crucial first steps to address this problem”.

Mr Cheok’s Indonesian counterpart, Adiyatwidi Adiwoso Asmady, reacted angrily, saying that “no substantive cooperation” in dealing with the problem has been achieved so far (as if Singapore was somehow at fault). She then proceeded to call Singapore’s statement “disparaging” and suggested some “malice” behind Singapore’s motives.

Indonesia continued to show its displeasure by démarching Singapore’s ambassador in Jakarta to demand an explanation for the remarks. Industry Minister Fahmi Idris also skipped last week’s bilateral meeting on the Indonesian special economic zones (SEZs) in protest. (Singapore has made – and continues to make – huge investments into the SEZs to help Indonesia develop them, a fact obviously ignored by the Minister.)

This hyper-sensitive reaction is nothing new. Years ago, then-Indonesian President B.J. Habibie, derided Singapore as being just “a little red dot” in response to a slight from Singapore.

As I wrote in an earlier article, I believe that bilateral pressure is the most effective way of getting the Indonesians to act against the fire starters.

Singapore is justified in raising the issue at the UN, as the air pollution caused by the Indonesian fires affects not only Southeast Asia, but the entire world, as it contributes to global warming. However, by sticking out its head and telling it plainly as it is, Singapore is now suffering from the wrath of a neighbour thousands of times its size.

Singapore’s other neighbours, Malaysia, Brunei and Thailand, have also been suffering from the haze. Malaysia hasn’t exactly been suffering in silence. The Malaysians have, in many ways, been more vocal in their frustration with Indonesia’s lackadaisical approach to this problem. Malaysian politicians from both the ruling party as well as the Opposition recently staged protests outside the Indonesian embassy in Kuala Lumpur.

Singapore does not have the strength to pressure Indonesia alone. If Singapore and Malaysia – and perhaps Thailand and Brunei – could coordinate more effectively with each other, Indonesia will find it harder to distract from the issue with rhetoric. It will also not be so easy for them to sneer at Singapore being an impertinent little “adik” (little brother) telling their “abang” (big brother) what to do. With a warming of bilateral relations since Abdullah Badawi took over as Prime Minister of Malaysia, there is no reason why the two countries cannot work together more effectively to tackle this problem. For a start, Singapore and Malaysia could issue joint statements and defend each other on this issue, rather than just act individually.

There is more than just national and regional pride at stake here. Meteorologists are predicting a “super El Nino” next year, which could lengthen the dry season and result in the haze continuing until February the following year. This would surely result in far greater economic and health damage than the $7.2 billion that the 1997-98 haze costed the region. Stakeholder countries will need to mobilize all the technical, economic and diplomatic resources they can to tackle this problem before next year. It will be no easy task, and time is fast running out.

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

Technorati: Singapore, politics, haze, UN, Malaysia, Indonesia, El Nino

After 24 years of tyranny and hundreds of thousands of deaths to his account, former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been sentenced by an Iraqi court to death by hanging for his role in the killing of 148 people in 1982. However, there are differing reactions to the verdict from his victims, supporters and various members of the international community as to whether justice has indeed been served.

The court found that Saddam and his fellow defendants had ordered the villagers’ murder after members of a Shi’ite political party tried to kill the former president in the town of Dujail in 1982. Saddam was found guilty of the torture, illegal imprisonment and executions of the 148 men, as well as the arrest and torture of others and the confiscation and razing of their farmlands. Nine people were killed during the destruction of orchards, and many of the 399 people who had been detained were either killed or remain missing. In a speech at the end of a day of hearings in March 2006, Saddam admitted ordering the Dujail trials and said that he alone as head of state should be held accountable for the charges. Some documents indicated that about 50 of those sentenced to be executed had actually died during interrogation before they could go to the gallows. In the first months of the trial, a series of Dujail residents testified that they were imprisoned and tortured and that their relatives were killed. Several women related how they were stripped naked, beaten or given electric shocks.

According to Iraqi law, Saddam is entitled to an automatic appeal against his conviction. His case will be sent to the appeals court tomorrow, where it will be reviewed by a panel of judges, who will decide whether or not to allow a retrial. If the judgement stands, however, Saddam must be executed within 30 days of the appeals panel delivering its verdict.

This is just the first conviction in a series of trials lined up for Saddam. Next Tuesday, Saddam returns to the dock for a much larger trial in which he is accused of killing as many as 180,000 Kurds in the late 1988 in Anfal. However, he is likely to be executed before this next case is completed.

Although the news of Saddam’s conviction was welcomed by many Iraqis and world leaders, Saddam’s supporters in his hometown of Tikrit, defied a curfew to voice support for him and to denounce the verdict.

Since, Iraqi law states that an executed criminal cannot be tried for other crimes and the charges must be dropped, some Kurds might feel they have been denied justice because the court will not find out the truth about Saddam’s alleged genocide against them.

Human rights organisation Amnesty International, which opposes the death penalty, issued a statement that they “deplore the verdict of the death penalty” on the basis that it was not a fair trial.

Some countries which oppose the death penalty appeared torn between on one hand applauding the guilty verdict and on the other hand condemning the death penalty. Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodrguez Zapatero, who withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq following his election, said that Saddam had to “answer for his actions”, but reiterated the European Union’s opposition to the death penalty.

– Al Jazeera, BBC News, CNN and agencies

As mentioned in my post on Thursday, I am disappointed to learn of the strong (albeit possibly inadvertent) official endorsement of gambling by our leaders by way of their attendance and participation at the upcoming lottery convention, as well as the financial support our government is pouring into this event.

I think it is timely to highlight some of the speeches made by a PAP MP and two Nominated MPs during the parliamentary debate on the proposal to develop integrated resorts in Singapore, which I have extracted from the Hansard. [Note: This debate took place after Cabinet had made its decision to proceed with the casinos.] Emphasis below is mine.

——————

Thursday, 21st April, 2005
Parliamentary debate on proposal to develop integrated resorts

Mr Loh Meng See (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this year we will be celebrating Singapore’s 40th year of independence. The Government has on Monday, 18th April, announced its momentous decision to develop two integrated resorts with casinos at Marina Bayfront and Sentosa.

I have listened carefully to the Prime Minister and Ministers who have spoken on the subject. Indeed, I can sense the ambivalence they held and the moral dilemma they faced in arriving at this very difficult decision. I respect their decision, as I have been taught to submit to those in authority who have been empowered and who will be held accountable for the decisions they made. We will render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.

But I wish they had decided differently, as I disagree strongly in having a casino in Singapore. As I reflect on the matter, the question that plays in my mind is: why are we faced with such a Hobson’s choice today? Minister Mentor has said that “the cost of not doing it is even greater”. We have been told that not to proceed with the development is worse than proceeding with it. We have been asked to pay the perceived minimal cost in human suffering to enjoy the larger economic benefit. My view is that, after three and four generations, the costs will outweigh the benefits, and many of us here today will not be around to see the consequences, but our children and grandchildren will be.

Is this the way to measure policy outcomes? Have we fully explored all alternatives before we ask only casino operators to put the proposals? Are we sure that we want to put our destiny in tourism and a not insignificant part of our economy in the hands of two foreign casino operators? Are we sure that the novelty of integrated resorts would not wear out? Are they fully recession-proof? Would it not hollow out the other businesses in Singapore if one-third of the casino income is to come from Singaporeans?

After 40 years of independence, we must adjust our thinking from being fixated with the idea that economic prosperity is all that matters. There is a very high cost that accompanies with the single-minded pursuit of wealth and prosperity. We are already a developed economy enjoying a higher average per capita income. To have an annual economic growth of an average of 3-6% is not insignificant.

We need the cultural ballast and strong national values and social graces to provide the balance in the way we live. The world wants us to seek instant gratification and temporary pleasures, but if our people are too stressed out and not having the happiness, peace and joy in their hearts, then it counts for nothing. What our people need is healthy relationships with their family, neighbours and the community. Instead, we see dysfunctional families and quarrelling neighbours. In the lexicon of Thomas Friedman, we are forsaking our olive tree by trading it for a newer and bigger model of Lexus.

Personally, I am all for economic growth and prosperity. But I am not so sure whether, if we keep on going the way we are, our communities will not fall apart. Switzerland and the Nordic countries I hear earlier, have been held as excellent examples of how the Swiss work, live and play. I like some of what they do. We should follow the Swiss in keeping the Sabbath in not washing the cars and mowing the grass on Sundays, not flushing the toilets in the night as it could disturb the neighbours, buy and support locally-made goods even if they are more expensive than foreign goods. For every issue that affects the whole community, they hold a referendum to decide. The Swiss possess the maturity, strong cultural and social values that we Singaporeans lack.

We have read the document written by Mr Chia Teck Leng on the casino escapades. He feels that we ought to go ahead with the casino. I am not so sure how much weight we want to place on the opinions of a man who has been imprisoned because of his addiction to gambling. Unfortunately, we do not have a chance to hear the feeling of his wife and two teenage sons. If we were to hear their side of the story, we would have a different perspective of the untold harm that has been caused. My real concern is that we will not know whether we have made the right or wrong decision until perhaps 10 to 20 years later. By that time, the situation in Singapore would have deteriorated beyond recognition.

I cannot understand the argument put forward that, as gambling is already in existence, the harm is incremental in nature. Do we not know that two wrongs do not make a right? The damage and harm to society could be compounding and cumulative in nature and rising exponentially. With the proliferation of vices, we will be like frogs in hot water, and we do not know that we will be boiled to death.

The Government has made the decision. I will respect it. But I will discourage Singaporeans to contribute their expected one-third share to the casino income and, instead, contribute the money to charity to help the needy and disadvantaged. When political leaders share their stories of “little” gambling experiences in this House, unwittingly and subtly we are telling the young that it is all right to try and play 4-D and jackpot machines and have some fun. That, to me, is the thin end of the wedge, the beginning of disaster.

It is exactly what I am afraid of. Over time, our people’s guard will go down, slowly but surely. We can explain and rationalise our actions, we get into a mode of denial. Gambling and other vices become the norm in our society. Slowly, warm water turns to hot water, then to boiling water. It is a matter of degree, but it is also the difference between life and death.

This surely cannot be. Our young should be taught good moral ethical values. Gambling is like smoking, something not to be tried in the first place.

Therefore, I urge the Government to have a Code of Conduct for Ministers and MPs, civil servants and even directors of listed companies to be barred from gambling in the casino. Other associations, like the teachers’ unions, can also make voluntary pledges.

We require good records to be kept on the patronage of the casinos and we have a law that considers unexplained wealth to be ill-gotten gains. It is not just gambling that we should be concerned about, but the related effects of corruption, money laundering and organised crimes that come with it. We must protect and safeguard the integrity and reputation of Singapore’s financial centre status.

I would like to see the rules on casinos to be legislated rather than merely regulated. No flexibility should be given to the Government of the day to decide. I am confident of the present Government to manage and run the system, but as a safeguard for future generations, appropriate legislation should be instituted so that we can delay the ill-effects of gambling and ot
her vices breeding its ugly head on our society.

As we are proceeding to the next step of Requesting for Proposals, I would like the Government to have the ability to walk away and say “no” if there is a huge discrepancy between the concepts and the proposals submitted. Many house buyers would have experienced this – the house they receive at the end of the day is not what the one they saw in the drawings and design models. Therefore, we have to be alert and vigilant.

Remember, if we enter this realm, we are at the mercy of expert gamblers. On our side are politicians and civil servants who are, I think and hope, novices in this game.

Sir, I rest my case.

———————-

Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim (Nominated Member) (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on the proposal for the establishment of integrated resorts with casinos. The Government announced on 18th April 2005 that it will develop two integrated resorts with casinos. In the past three days of the Parliament debate, many Ministers and MPs have raised many points. I have declared that I do not support the building of casinos in Singapore during the debate on the Presidential Address. Now, I would like to declare that I do not support the proposal for the development of two integrated resorts with casinos in Singapore. I have a few points to raise here for discussion.

In the debate on the Presidential Address, I mentioned that the setting up of a casino will be a source of all evils and this will be very bad to our social ethos. Where gamblers gather, there will be prostitutes, illegal moneylenders and drug traffickers. Incidents of drug-trafficking, kidnapping, vices and other forms of crime will be doubled, tripled or even quadrupled. In the past three days of the Parliament debate, many of the Ministers and MPs agree with this point.

As analysed and agreed by the media, the arch crime is the setting up of a casino. It will bring about a whole lot of social problems, such as broken families, increased number of suicides and many children may have to stop their study, etc. In last month’s Budget debate, the Minister for National Development introduced regulations to prevent people from cashing in by reselling their HDB flats, so as to ensure that they have enough money for their old age. Does the Minister know that in many of these cases, these people have cashed in to pay for their mounting gambling debts? These social problems will increase manifold. In the debate over the past few days, we all agree that such problems will increase.

In the past three days, some Ministers and MPs have talked about their own gambling experience, and they said that they could exercise restraint or choose not to place any bets at the casino. Some MPs have also said that with the development of the integrated resorts with casinos, Singaporeans can choose not to enter the casinos as nobody forces them to enter the casinos to gamble. As mentioned earlier by an MP, if you lead a horse to a river and the horse does not wish to drink the water from the river, you cannot force it to drink the water from this river. However, it is easier said than done. For people who have lived a comfortable life and have strong will power, they can exercise self-control. However, for those people who may have slightly weaker will power, they may not be able to resist the temptation of going into the casino and become addicted to gambling. Why is this so? This is because for the poor and the lower-income group of people, this is a dream-seeking world. With the escalating cost of living, besides working on a few jobs to pay for the living expenses, the people in the poor and the lower-income group can only put their hope on gambling. The poorer they are, the more they would want to gamble, with the hope of changing their destiny. Whenever they buy a 4-D or Toto ticket or play at a gambling table, they are buying a dream – a dream to clear up their housing loans, a dream to provide for their children’s university tuition fees, a dream to give their parents a better life. Every time when the 4-D or the Toto result is out, thousands of dreams were shattered.

During my younger days (I was born after 1965, which was different from the generation of MM Lee, but I do know what is “chap ji kee”. I also know what is “four-colour cards”, the “si sek bai”), I have seen and experienced for myself the damage done by gambling of this nature. When I was small, I always wondered why we had to have porridge with soy sauce vegetables for our meals and I really could not understand the causes of this. Those people who have not experienced or seen such gambling would not be able to understand that feeling. They could say very lightly, “The people are free to choose whether to frequent the casino or not, nobody is forcing them to go to the casino!” I would not say that. With the casino just a few minutes’ drive away, the poor and the lower-income group of people would want to go and try their luck there with the hope of winning some money from the gambling tables.

The Ministers said that the Government is confident that we could build world-class integrated resorts with casinos and, at the same time, keep the social cost and crime rate at a minimum. Are we being too optimistic?

I have said before that some people are commenting why Singapore is always pushing to be the “first” in the world in everything we do – Number One airport, Number One sea port, Number One medical centre in Asia, etc. Do we really believe that Singapore is a superman, and we could excel in everything we do? Even before building the integrated resorts, we are already claiming that they are going to be world-class. Are we too optimistic and over confident in ourselves?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am a worrier, I am not so optimistic. The Government has considered and would implement a series of measures, such as the MCYS would set up all kinds of councils to prevent Singaporeans from going into the casino, and the Ministry of Home Affairs has also various measures to reduce or minimise crimes arising from gambling. All these measures would be set up as a safety net. However, all these measures and safety net are purely theoretical, that is, they are just on paper. Whether these measures will prove to be effective or not, nobody knows!

Based on various reports, the Government speculated on how the social problems and crime rate will increase if the integrated resort with a casino is built. However, these speculations are just purely theoretical. The ill effects of casinos are like an octopus with all the 10 tentacles reaching out to every node and corner of the society. At this moment, we do not really know the actual and full extent of the negative impact the casino would bring about.

One thing is certain: the casino will definitely bring with it negative impact on our society. However, we cannot be certain that the integrated resorts will really create 35,000 new jobs. This is just a theoretical speculation. We can be sure that Singapore will have to pay a price but we cannot be sure whether the so-called “huge” economic benefits will outweigh the social cost that we have to pay. At the moment, all these economic gains are mere theoretical speculation.

Hence, Singaporeans want to know whether the Government has any contingency and back-up plans to deal with unforeseen consequences.

At a lunch that SM Goh hosted for the NMPs, I spoke to SM Goh on the question of building a casino. I told him that as we take the first step, we should have already thought of the 10th step. He agreed with me. As such, I hope that the Government would share with the people the contingency and back-up plans. For example:

(1) If the number of people addicted to gambling is many times more than what the Government has predicted, what is the Government’s back-up a
nd contingency plans?

(2) If the crime rate is increased many times more than predicted by the Government, what will be the Government’s back-up and contingency plans for that?

(3) If the gambling ethos cause such adverse impact on our young people that many do not continue to pursue their education or career, and try to make a quick buck from working at the casinos, what kind of a contingency plan do we have? This is already a hot potato in Macau.

(4) At the same function, I also raised the point that we have to deal with the social cost arising from the opening of the casino. We agreed that we need to look into the incremental cost involved. Yesterday, SM Goh said that the social cost will not be too high. I am very worried, as I am a pessimistic person. I would like to know, if the cost for these measures to deal with the crime and social problems is an exponential increase, the Government has formulated any contingency and back-up plan to deal with this possibility.

Further, can the Government assure Singaporeans that the Government will stand firm on the restriction of Singaporeans to enter the casinos? After some years, if the operators tell the Government that they cannot make ends meet, and request the Government for liberalisation and relaxation of rules to allow more Singaporeans to go into the casinos so as to maintain the integrated resorts, will the Government succumb to such a request from the integrated resorts’ operators? Can the Government assure us that it will not compromise on its stand?

Finally, I would like to reiterate that I do not support the construction and development of the integrated resorts with casinos. If the Government introduces casinos into Singapore, then Singapore will and must pay a price for it. This reminds me of a classic phrase in the movie “Infernal Affairs II”, which is: “Chu lai hun de, zong you yi tian shi yao huan de.” I hope the price that Singapore has to pay for the economic gains and development that would be gained from the integrated resorts with casinos will not be too high. I hope our younger generation, our children, our grandchildren will not, in the next 20-30 years, pay this kind of “debt” incurred by the Government. I do not wish to see the Government being accused of leaving behind a heavy load of social debts for our future generations of Singaporeans.

———————

Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. I just have two calls and a question. First, my call.

The call is that for the next big issue that we face as a country, would the Prime Minister and the Government please reverse the sequence – first debate in Parliament, then decide in Cabinet.

The present debate, which I have been following for the last four days, has all the flavour of a post-mortem. We have heard many moving speeches from senior Cabinet Ministers, honourable colleagues, but a decision has already been taken. I recall several years ago, the then Deputy Prime Minister Lee, gave an inspiring speech at the university. He urged our students to take an active role in the movie, not just sit back and be in the audience. So, next time, please, Sir, let us take an active role as actors and actresses in the movie, not just be the first audience. So my call for the next big issue is to let Parliament debate the issue before, and not after, the Cabinet’s decision.

Sir, my second call. On this point, I echo hon. Members Mr Chiam, Mdm Halimah, Mr Loh Meng See and Prof. Ong. Will the Government please commit to the House that in the future it will not relax the conditions on admission of Singaporeans to the casino? We have heard from the Prime Minister, the Senior Minister, Minister Mentor, and others, that there are many plans for integrated resorts with casinos. If they do not come here, or even if they come here, they may set up elsewhere – Bangkok, Phuket, we have heard many places. When this happens, all these would be competing for the same tourist dollars from China, India and elsewhere. It may be that the business for our integrated resorts will slacken, then the management may come back to the Government to say, “Oh, our business is not going so well. Please give us some concessions.”

Sir, my call is, please, would the Government commit that there would be no concessions?

Third, my question, Sir, which is related to my previous call: who, if any, will regulate the quality of the other features of the integrated resort? On this point, I also echo hon. Member Dr Loo Choon Yong. Initially, as the Senior Minister has said, we will get Celine Dion, Norah Jones, one of my favourites. We will get Cirque du Soleil. But what if business is not so good? The integrated resort might downgrade. We will get second-rate singers, third-rate circuses. My question is: will the operating franchise specifies standards of performance to ensure that we get only the top-class?

————————-

Former white South African President P.W. Botha died in his home in the Western Cape province on 31 October. Botha had ruled the country with an iron fist for nearly two decades during the apartheid period from 1978 to 1989. Thousands of blacks were detained without trial during his presidency, many of whom were tortured and killed. After the end of apartheid, he was found guilty of gross human rights abuses. However, he refused to apologise for apartheid.

Despite all his wrongdoings, the current black majority South African leadership has shown remarkable magnanimity in its reaction to Botha’s death. President Thabo Mbeki ordered all flags to fly at half mast and the government offered Botha’s family a state funeral for him, which they wisely turned down. The governing African National Congress (ANC), which was outlawed under Botha, was among the first to offer its condolences to his family and friends. Former president and liberation hero Nelson Mandela, whom Botha refused to release from jail, also issued a statement paying tribute to Botha for taking steps towards an “eventual peacefully negotiated settlement” in the country.

South Africa had previously shown the world a wonderful example of national reconciliation through its Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), whereby victims of racist violence during the apartheid era could come forward and be heard at the TRC. The perpetrators of the violence could admit their guilt in front of their victims’ families, seek forgiveness and request amnesty from prosecution. Several other countries have adopted the approach of the TRC in their process of dealing with human rights violations after extensive political change.

The lessons behind the TRC are probably best captured in a touching memoir by the chairman of the TRC, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, titled No Future Without Forgiveness. The world will certainly be a better place if more countries learned from South Africa in this aspect of national reconciliation.

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