Is Straits Times protecting Govt from criticism?

The following is a letter from a volunteer with TWC2, a migrant worker advocacy group, that was sent last week to the Straits Times Forum. It got rejected for publication by the Forum editor, but was re-published by The Online Citizen. I felt it was an excellently argued piece. It makes no wild accusations, and cogently explains the difference in how the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and a victimised foreign worker defines a “resolved” salary dispute. If it was rejected primarily for the purpose of protecting MOM from criticism, I find it quite shameful of the paper to do that.

————

Dear ST Forum,

(MOM deputy director) Ms Ng’s letter aims to counter a remark in an earlier Straits Times article in which Jolovan Wham, Executive Director of H.O.M.E., was quoted as saying ‘foreign workers here are given little real protection’.

Ms Ng stated that foreign workers wage claims are usually resolved before they return home except in exceptional circumstances. The veracity of this statement depends on what Ms Ng means by ‘resolved’. Workers may have accepted settlement terms and agreed to return home, but whether or not the settlement terms equal a fair and just outcome is a different matter. In the past few months, many foreign workers from Bangladesh and China have been repatriated and statements from MOM often claim their cases have been ‘resolved’. Yet it is not always the case that these workers are paid fully what they are owed nor are mediation processes necessarily fair.

While a salary case is pending, workers are generally unable to work and cannot afford to stay in Singapore for too long. When cases drag on, workers tend to grow desperate and, under pressure, agree to ’settle’ for whatever is given. The alternative, of prolonging their stay with no guarantee of a higher settlement, weighs mediation outcomes heavily towards employers’ interests.

Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to expect workers to be compensated for breach of contracts. Citing ‘impracticality’ and an economic downturn is questionable. A bad economy does not excuse unethical business practices nor flexibility in upholding the law. It must also be pointed out that there have been many cases in which construction workers from China have been fined hefty ‘breach of contract’ fees despite the fact that their contracts have terms less favorable than the Employment Act and should be void. Companies then deduct large sums of money from the workers’ unpaid salaries, citing ‘breach of contract fees’, before repatriating them. In the past few months, MOM has allowed these ‘breach of contract fees’ to be deducted from workers salaries during mediation meetings.. How is it that this is not considered ‘impractical’ in an economic downturn?

It is encouraging to know that the MOM is taking the recent media coverage seriously and is acting to ensure employers uphold the Employment Act. We look forward to greater enforcement of existing laws and prosecution of errant employers so that all workers will be protected. After all, it is not the mere existence of laws that provide protection but its active and consistent enforcement.

Ms. Stephanie Chok Juin Mei

(This letter was re-published with Ms Chok’s permission. MOM’s letter to the ST can be found here.)

Amendments to the Films Act

The Films (Amendment) Bill was read the first time in Parliament on 22 January. The Bill is found here. No huge surprises, since the Government had made its intentions clear in its response to AIMS.

However one change which political parties should take note of is the replacement of Section 2, subsection (f), which now permits:

(f) a film without animation and dramatic elements —

(i) composed wholly of a political party’s manifesto or declaration of policies or ideology on the basis of which candidates authorised by the political party to stand will seek to be elected at a parliamentary election; and
(ii) made by or on behalf of that political party;

I think this is a step forward, but still unnecessarily restrictive. Does it mean that films which are simply statements from political figures, but are not stated in their manifesto and are not their official election platform will still remain banned? I sure hope not!

A new Section 4A introduces a new Advisory Committee to “provide advice to the Board (of Film Censors)” regarding political films. However, Section 4A(2) immediately overrides the power of the this committee by stating “the Board may consult the relevant advisory committee…but…shall not be bound by such consultation.”

Another point, which has been highlighted by other bloggers, is Section 2, subsection (d), which states that the following is now allowed:

d) a film designed to provide a record of an event or occasion that is held in accordance with the law for those who took part in the event or occasion or are connected with those who did so.

Alex Au has pointed out that this is another of those “Chee Soon Juan laws” — laws which were specifically enacted to counter the activities of Dr Chee Soon Juan and his followers. (In fact, Section 33, the original law which bans political films, was enacted soon after Dr Chee made a video promoting his party some years back.)

While it would be illegal for filmmakers to film an illegal protest, it would not be an offence for Mediacorp to do the same, since Section 2, subsection (a) allows “a film which is made solely for the purpose of reporting of news by a broadcasting service licensed under any written law”.

But this raises another point: Are the police, then, allowed to film illegal protests and submit it as evidence in court? I don’t see anything that permits that. Unless, of course, there are other laws (or lack thereof) which give the police the power to do anything they deem necessary to perform their work.

I hope there will be more debate on this law during its second reading in Parliament.

Gems from President Obama’s inaugural address

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the fainthearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor — who have carried us up the long, rugged path toward prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again, these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

*   *   *   *

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.

*   *   *   *

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

*   *   *   *

Minister rebukes perm sec for ‘lacking sensitivity’

One of the performance measures of all Division One civil servants is ‘political sensitivity’ — the ability to read the political climate and formulate policy recommendations accordingly. Unfortunately for one permanent secretary — the administrative head of a Ministry — his lack of political awareness came to bite him from behind. It has even earned him a rare public rebuke from the Minister in charge of the Civil Service, Teo Chee Hean. The Minister also said he demonstrated ‘poor judgment’.

The Perm Sec not only went on a five-week, $46,000 vacation, but he took the effort to pen a whole journal about his wonderful experience for the Straits Times Life section.

Most memorably, he advised the newspaper’s readers:

Taking five weeks’ leave from work is not as difficult as one thinks. Most times, when you are at the top, you think you are indispensable. But if you are a good leader who has built up a good team, it is possible to go away for five weeks or even longer.

Perhaps that is why the Government decided to reject AIMS’ recommendation to allow civil servants to blog about government policies. If even a perm sec can’t be trusted to think before he writes, how can the low level officer be even trusted with an Internet connection?

Cynicism aside, I think this once again shows how the Internet has managed to force the Goverment’s hand. None of this outcry would have surfaced if not for bloggers carping about it on the Net (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here). This is despite the government-owned Channel NewsAsia deleting its discussion thread (and this one too) on this topic from their online forums page. But no worries, readers can still Google’s cached version (and this other one) while it lasts. Perhaps bloggers can’t take all the credit, since Reuters (and its Singaporean reporter) also thought it newsworthy to publish an article about it for the world to read.

Whichever the channel, with no public outcry, the Minister would not have seen the need to publicly chide one of his perm secs just to sooth the anger on the ground.

Israel orders ceasefire days before Obama inauguration

From http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056246.html:

Prime Minster Ehud Olmert on Saturday night announced that Israel’s security cabinet has voted in favor of a unilateral cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, which went into effect at 2 A.M. local time (8 am Singapore time).

The announcement comes after three weeks of fighting in the coastal strip, as Israel launched a massive military offensive aimed at halting years of daily rocket fire on its southern communities. Palestinian sources say that more than 1,100 Gazans have been killed since the offensive began on December 27. Three Israeli civilians and 10 Israel Defense Forces have been killed during that period.

I’m relieved to learn that the Israelis have finally decided to call off their brutal assault on Gaza, which medical sources in Gaza City have reported has killed 1,203 people in Gaza and injured more than 5,000 more, many of them Palestinian civilians. 410 children have died.

However while the blitz has ended, the occupation of Gaza has just begun again. After a three week campaign of aggression in response to Hamas rocket attacks, what prospect is there of peaceful negotiations towards a viable two-state solution?

It is interesting to note that this ceasefire comes just two days before the inauguration of US President Barack Obama. Obama, like all US presidents since the 1970s, has declared his unwaivering support for Israel. However, there are subtle differences between his position and that of his predecessor, George Bush. Israel is aware of this. Rather than wait for the Obama administration to apply pressure on them, they have taken the smart step to stop the assault before he takes over the leadership.

I believe that while Obama will do what it takes to defend Israel, he will not necessarily do it the way the Bush hardliners did it. I hope that he will seriously engage the Palestinians (and not only the factions led by President Mahmoud Abbas) with the help of the Middle East Quartet, to negotiate a lasting solution to this long-drawn crisis.

Decades of violence have proven that it does not provide the answer. I’m sure the Palestinians, with the exception of a few factions, are ready for peace. The hardliners (both in the US and Israel) who advocate the use of force as the first and only solution must be sidelined to set the stage for genuine negotiations.

Govt should not respond to only views it can control

The Voices Editor
TODAY newspaper

Dear Editor,

I refer to P N Balji’s commentary, “Why obsess about Govt response?” (TODAY, Jan 12).

Mr Balji suggested that I have a “fascination” and an “obsession” with government attention, when I argued that the Government should respond to online postings. He has misunderstood my comments.

This is what I wrote on The Online Citizen, where he had extracted my comments from:

The Government said that “it is not practical or feasible to respond to all blogs or forum postings”. No one is expecting the Government to respond to all blogs. But this should not prevent them from responding to some blogs, particularly those of serious socio-political bloggers who make cogent and rational suggestions in their posts.

It may be true that “not all bloggers welcomed the Government’s voice on their private blogs”, but there are some that do welcome a response.

I sense that the Government’s fear is that responding to a blog that is critical of the Government will lend the blog credibility, when it is more interested in discrediting opposing voices. Another fear is that a response will generate even more opposing views, which the Government may not have a response to. This may make the Government look bad.

My main point was that the Government should engage in debate about public policies not only on their own platforms, but also on other platforms where the discussion is ongoing. This was also the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS), which the Government rejected.

The Government should not only respond to views that it has control over, like those in the mainstream media and on their own feedback portal.

Furthermore, it makes sense to respond on the platform where the original comment was made in order to reach the right audience. Mr Balji’s article in TODAY about my online commentary is a case in point. He should have instead written his piece for The Online Citizen to put forward his views to bloggers, rather than to mainstream media readers.

I agree with Mr Balji that bloggers should not wait for the Government’s stamp of approval before making policy suggestions on their blogs. Most bloggers are already doing that. In fact some have taken it a step further. For example, The Online Citizen organised a talk at Speakers’ Corner last September to highlight our proposals to the Ministry of Transport for improving Singapore’s public transport system. (We have yet to receive the Ministry’s response.)

Sincerely,
Gerald Giam

Question to Readers: What is the purpose of the foreign worker levy?

I often need info for my policy research that I can’t find in government publications and websites. I could, of course, email the relevant ministry to ask them, but knowing civil servants (of which I was one before), they are likely to give me cut-and-paste answers, which don’t really answer my question. I’ve been told that the best way to get info sometimes is for MPs to ask them in Parliament. But since I’m not an MP, I don’t have the benefit of that channel. Unfortunately Singapore also lacks a Freedom of Information Act, which ordinary citizens can use to get information from their government.

I have therefore decided to start a new category of posts on my blog, tentatively titled Question to Readers. The purpose is to solicit answers from readers who may be in the know about that particular area. It would be great if readers could answer either by posting a comment, or by emailing me directly. My email address can be found on my About Me page. Thank you!

—————–

My first volley of questions concerns the foreign worker levy:

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) website explains that the Foreign Worker levy “is a pricing control mechanism to regulate the demand of foreign workers in Singapore”, while the EnterpriseOne website says that the levy “is a pricing mechanism to control the number of foreign workers (including foreign domestic workers) in Singapore”.

I understand from the MOM website that the Foreign Worker (FW) levy and Foreign Domestic Worker (FDW) levy ranges from $50 to $470, depending on the industry and skill level of the worker.

Q1.    Since MOM is the ministry that issues Work Permits (WP), is it not possible for MOM to control the number of foreign workers in Singapore by controlling the number of WPs it issues? Why is there a need for a levy to serve this purpose?

Q2.    For FWs, there is already a Dependency Ratio for each industry, that requires that, say in the case of the construction industry, one local must be hired for every seven FWs. Doesn’t this ensure that companies don’t simply hire only FWs to the exclusion of Singaporeans?

Q3.    What is the FW and FDW levy monies collected used for? Do they simply supplement the operating budget of MOM, or its reserves, or are they specifically allocated to certain development expenses like worker training?

Q4.    What is the total amount collected in FW and FDW levies in FY2008 (or FY2007 if FY2008 figures are not available)?

Do any readers have the answers to these questions? Any info would be much appreciated.

Govt accepts 17 of AIMS’ 26 recommendations

The Singapore Government this morning responded to the recommendations submitted by the government-appointed Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS). It spelled out in its 18-page paper the reasons for accepting 17 of the 26 recommendations made by AIMS, and for rejecting the rest.

Summary of responses

The Government has agreed to rethink some of its current citizen engagement processes, like closing the feedback loop and replying to online letters in mainstream media websites. However it has declined to engage directly with bloggers on their turf, preferring to use its own portals like REACH (the Government feedback unit).

It has also declined to give more space for civil servants to voice their opinions.

On the Films Act, the Government has said it will liberalise it to allow political films which are “factual and objective, and do not dramatise and/or present a distorted picture”. The Government will continue to disallow “dramatised, sensationalistic and emotive” political films. An independent advisory panel, headed by a retired judge, will decide the fate of all party political films.

The Government will retain Section 35, which gives the Minister the discretion to ban any film, and has rejected AIMS recommendation for the Minister to spell out his reasons for doing so.

On the protection of minors, the Government has agreed to lift the symbolic ban on 100 websites only after a coordinating agency is satisfied that its programmes to protect children are working effectively.

However it has declined to pay for Internet filtering services for parents, except for certain low-income families.

Finally, the law will be changed to confer limited immunity from defamation actions on websites that host content.

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS

E-Engagement

Rethink some of its current citizen engagement processes

The Government has said that it will explore measures on how to formally recognise well thought-out suggestions and feedback submitted to it every year, to encourage more Singaporeans to come forward and be engaged.

This is an encouraging move. I’m sure there are many Singaporeans who, like me, have given up sending feedback to REACH (the Government feedback portal), because it all seems to go into a “black hole”, to be read only by junior civil servants. Although I don’t expect the Government to accept every suggestion, well-intentioned and considered views should not simply be filed away. They should at least be published and recognised so that other policymakers and stakeholders can read them and consider them for future implementation.

Engage voices outside of current Government platforms

The Government said that “it is not practical or feasible to respond to all blogs or forum postings”. No one is expecting the Government to respond to all blogs. But this should not prevent them from responding to some blogs, particularly those of serious socio-political bloggers who make cogent and rational suggestions in their posts.

It may be true that “not all bloggers welcomed (sic) the Government’s voice on their private blogs”, but there are some that do welcome a response.

I sense that the Government’s fear is that responding to a blog that is critical of the Government will lend the blog credibility, when it is more interested in discrediting opposing voices. Another fear is that a response will generate even more opposing views, which the Government may not have a response to. This may make the Government look bad.

I am glad to hear that the Government has decided to reply to online letters carried in the online letter forums of the local mainstream media. This should have been done all this while. There is no reason to believe that online letters are any less worthy of a response, since they too have been carefully selected for publication by the newspaper forum editors.

Giving more space for civil servants to voice opinions

The Government’s response to AIMS on this was a flat “no”. However, I feel the Government should consider allowing civil servants to comment publicly on policy matters outside the purview of their own ministry. For example, there is no conflict of interest for a MINDEF officer to comment on social welfare issues (which comes under the purview of MCYS).

Online Political Content

Certain party political films will be allowed, and during election period

It is a step forward for some party political films to be allowed, as opposed to the ridiculous blanket ban currently. Films that are “factual and objective, and do not dramatise and/or present a distorted picture” will be allowed under the amended Films Act. The Government has said that it will continue to disallow “dramatised, sensationalistic and emotive party political films which would do harm to rational and objective political debate”.

But who is to judge what is factual and objective, or a dramatisation, a distortion, sensationalistic or emotive? These are very subjective judgment calls, which I doubt even the Independent Advisory Panel would be able to make fairly.

It would be much better to treat political films no different than normal commercials seen on TV. Companies who produce commercials which mislead consumers can be fined. But you don’t ban all TV commercials on the pretext that a few commercials may be false and misleading.

I am disappointed that the Government has taken this approach. I believe the real rationale behind it is that the Government wants to pre-empt the making of any films which may swing an election against them. This is not just self-interested, but kiasu (afraid to lose).

My stand is that Section 33 of the Films Act should be repealed completely. False and misleading films can be prosecuted under advertising or defamation laws. Citizens should be trusted to judge the rest, whether they want to believe them or reject them.

Section 35 of the Films Act

The Government has agreed with AIMS recommendation to retain Section 35 of the Films Act (Minister may prohibit possession or distribution of any film). But it has rejected AIMS recommendation for the Minister to be required to provide reasons for the ban.

This means Section 35 remains as an omnibus law which gives the Minister almost absolute discretion in banning a film. This renders any liberalisation of Section 33 (party political films) almost meaningless.

I have noted that the Government has stated that “films that may be banned under Section 35 will not be party political films”. But since the Minister can simply ban films without giving any reasons, this power can be used to ban films that even the Independent Advisory Panel has approved.

It should be noted that Martyn See’s “Zahari’s 17 Years” was a political film but it got banned under Section 35. Precedent already contradicts the Government’s claims.

Extend positive list for Internet Election Advertising

Political parties will now be allowed to use podcasts, vodcasts, blogs and other new media tools for Internet election advertising. This is a positive move. The onus is now on political parties to make full use of the increased space they have to communicate with the electorate to help them to make a more informed decision at the polls.

Conclusion

Overall, I feel that the Government’s moves are a positive step forward in engaging citizens and liberalising the political atmosphere. However they are not nearly what is expected of a country at such an advanced stage of its economic development.

One-eyed Dragon’s kidneys donated to ex-CK Tang chief?

The Straits Times has reported today that the kidneys of Tan Chor Jin (aka One-eyed Dragon) were donated to retail magnate Tang Wee Sung, who received them in an operation yesterday. Tan’s mistress said that Tan had made known he wished to donate his kidneys.

I’m just curious to know whether Tang was in line to receive the kidney, or if he jumped queue because of his power and influence.

Also, are there safeguards to ensure that death row inmates are not used for organ harvesting against their will, like in China, or that their executions are specifically brought forward to suit the needs of recipients? In the case of Tan, he had expressed a wish for his execution to be delayed so that he could hear his son call him ‘Papa’ a few more times.

Share
Copy Link
×