“One-eyed Dragon” hanged

One-eyed Dragon

Tan Chor Jin (aka “One-eyed Dragon”) hung on Friday morning for murdering a former friend and nightclub owner Lim Hock Soon in 2006. His appeal for clemency to the President was turned down.

Criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan recounted in his memoirs, The Best I Could, his meeting with Mr Tan in August 2008, when he was getting him to sign his petition to the President.

One-eyed Dragon was sceptical about signing the petition, knowing that it would be turned down. But he told his lawyer that he wanted to defer his execution for as long as he could.

This was the exchange, as recounted by Mr Anandan:

One-eyed Dragon thought for a moment. “You know, I want to defer my execution for as long as I can.”

“Why? Are you afraid to die?” I asked.

“No, no, no. I’m not afraid to die. In fact, it would be quite good to die.”

“Then why do you want to delay the execution?”

“When I was arrested and charged, my son was only a few months old. Now he is almost two years old. When he comes to see me, he calls me ‘papa’. I spend time with him even though I’m in this condemned cell. I love that boy and love even more to hear him call me ‘papa’. I just want to hear him call me that for a few months more. That’s why I hope to have the execution delayed.”

I told him that when I send the petition to the President, I could include a note stating his wish. It could give him a little more time. He instructed me to do that.

Mr Tan may have been a convicted murderer who deserved to die under Singapore law, but his crime does not take away an ounce of humanity from him. As a father to a baby daughter, I feel sad for Mr Tan. He will not be able to hear his son call him ‘papa’ any more, and a young boy is going to grow up without a father.

May his soul rest in peace.

Perspectives on the situation in Gaza

Israeli blogger and former army reserve “AronT”, who blogs at Aron’s Israeli Peace Weblog, claimed that Israelis have long been indoctrinated by three political/military laws which dictate their dealings with Palestinians.

The first is one is: If force doesn’t work, apply more force.

The second law that most Israelis blindly accept is that “in a tough neighborhood, you have to be the toughest, whatever the cost.” This is used to justify any “disproportionate response” to Palestinian attacks.

Finally Aron’s third Israeli political law is: Arab leaders are intractable terrorists out to destroy Israel so there is no one on the other side to talk to.

Aron’s full explanation of his three laws is at this blogpost.

Looking at the situation in Gaza right now, it is hard not to be convinced that these three laws are at play.

Current situation

Let’s have a quick situation report at the time of writing:

Following the end of an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire between Palestinian faction Hamas and Israel in December, Hamas resumed short range rocket attacks on Israeli towns bordering Gaza. This prompted Israel to launch its most blistering and sustained attack on Gaza since the 1967 Six Day War. As it stands now, there are about 470 Palestinians killed and over 2,000 injured. The UN says that about a quarter of the dead Palestinians are civilians. Four Israelis have been killed by rocket fire from Gaza.

The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has just launched a ground offensive into Gaza, with infantry, artillery, engineering and intelligence forces now inside the territory.

On the diplomatic front, the United Nations Security Council has failed to agree on a statement condemning the Israeli attacks, because the US has blocked it, claiming it is unbalanced. The US, Israel’s staunchest ally, is the lone major power in the world overtly supporting Israeli attacks, saying that Israel has a right to defend itself, and that a one-way cease fire that leads to rocket attacks from Hamas is not acceptable.

Meanwhile, the President of the UN General Assembly, who represents all 192 member nations, has called Israeli actions a “monstrosity”.

Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has called the Israeli ground operations “an extremely disturbing development” and said “it can only exacerbate the already grave humanitarian situation”.

Reactions from some Singaporeans

While Singaporeans have understandably not taken to the streets to protest, unlike in other major cities like Sydney, New York and Jakarta, I asked two Singaporeans for their views on the current situation. (Note: These are their personal opinions. I make no claims that they are representative of all Singaporeans.)

On whether Israel’s current response is appropriate, lecturer Dr Syed Alwi questioned whether this attack by Israel is aimed at defending itself or for Israeli public consumption prior to elections.

NUS law student Cynthia Tang had this view:

The ferocity of Israel’s response to Hamas in the Gaza Strip must be understood within the conundrum of Israeli domestic politics. Israel’s general elections will be held on 10 February, where the prospect of a return to power of hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud Party is not low. Hence, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (from the more moderate Kadima Party who had advocated land for peace) feels the pressure to harden his position on Hamas. There was initially a wave of Israeli sentiments towards land for peace (when Ariel Sharon was prime minister and first pushed for it), however the tide on the ground has changed since Olmert took over and failed to deliver the security benefits which would presumably materialise under the land concession and his government’s weak response in the second Lebanon war (in 2006), where the overwhelming deterrence once enjoyed by the almost invincible Israeli military was severely dented.

Israel‘s response has worsened the situation in Gaza as, in addition to the attacks, they have, more damagingly, locked down the Gaza crossings which have completely crippled the Palestinian economy. Such actions only serve to back Hamas and the Palestinian people into a corner, and make an agreement for a ceasefire difficult.

US support for Israel

On the one-sided US support for Israel, Ms Tang was of the view that “US has to support Israel due to its domestic politics. Outside of the Jewish lobby in Washington, the general public opinion in the USA is still very much for Israel.”

She quoted an article in Foreign Affairs magazine, which stated that “widespread gentile (i.e., non-Jewish) support for Israel is one of the most potent political forces in the U.S foreign policy”. She opined that incoming President Barack Obama will be no exception.

Dr Alwi felt that the US’ response has added to its credibility problem in the Muslim world.

I am personally disappointed at Mr Obama’s silence on this matter. He has stated that he does not want to undermine the outgoing administration’s position. However, I believe it is a cop-out to avoid confronting a political hot potato. I’m sure he knows what is right, but is afraid to say it for fear of losing political capital with conservatives and the Jewish lobby.

In fact, I agree with some analysts that Israel has decided to seize the chance to attack Hamas now before January 20, when Mr Obama — who is much more fair minded on the Israeli-Palestinian issue — takes over as President.

Negotiating with Hamas?

Israel has categorically stated that it will not sit at the negotiating table with Hamas, which it brands a terrorist organisation.

Dr Alwi pointed out:

The problem with the word “terrorist”, is that one man’s terrorism is another man’s freedom-fighter. But I do agree that Hamas used to target civilians and this works against her image. Yes, I think Israel has to sit at the negotiating table because just about every other Arab Muslim group has had “terror” in its repertoire. If you do not deal with Hamas then who are you going to deal with? Once again is this because of altruistic moral reasons or is this refusal to deal with Hamas just for the consumption of the Israeli conservative lobby?

Hamas is a poor Muslim response to an organised militant Israel. You are not dealing with sophisticated ideas here. Its a raw response that plays on the Arab Muslim aspirations. Part demagoguery and part Rambo — but mostly poverty! These are people who feed on a sense of hopelessness, American double standards and Islamic rhetoric. I do not like Hamas, but then, the rest are no better.

Ms Tang added:

I have no doubt that Hamas is a terrorist organisation today. At present, the organisation routinely and systematically perpetrates acts of terror against Israel and had vowed itself against the very existence of Israel. However, that does not mean that there is no room for Hamas to gain legitimacy down the road as a political entity.

When Fatah was first founded and led by Yasser Arafat and other members of the Palestinian Diaspora in the 1960s and 1970s, it was one of the chief terrorist groups conducting terrorist attacks against Israel and also provided training to other Islamic militant groups. However, it gained legitimacy in 1993 when the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) renounced terrorism and signed an agreement of mutual recognition with Israel. This is not to say the Fatah re-entered into the mainstream out of the goodness of their heart, but because all political entities are pragmatic and will do the necessary to stay in power. In this case, Fatah did so to become the de facto government in the Palestinian Territories. If Fatah, the original armed nationalist group, could gain legitimacy and re-enter into the mainstream along the way, who is to say that Hamas can’t or will not? Hence, are they a terrorist group now? Yes. But it is an unknown if they will continue to be a terrorist group indefinitely. The key question is how do we incentivise Hamas to see it in their interest to enter into the mainstream, quite akin to Gaddafi’s Libya.

I agree that eventually Israel will need to negotiate with Hamas if it is to find a political solution, as distasteful as it might seem to them. The reality is that Hamas won the popular vote of the Palestinians (partly due to a fatal miscalculation by the US and Fatah).

And not just the PLO, but other political movements which started out with violence took the peaceful, responsible path after coming to power. South Africa’s African National Congress (ANC) is another example (although the violence committed by the ANC pales in comparison with that committed by the PLO and Hamas).

It should be pointed out that Hamas, along with all other Arab countries, actually supported the Arab Peace Initiative proposed in 2002 by Saudi Arabia. The Arab Peace Initiative among other things, considers the Arab-Israeli conflict ended and establishes normal relations with Israel in exchange for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967.

This is not to defend Hamas, which has, like the IDF, committed dastardly deeds against civilians. But one thing is for sure: Continued eye-for-an-eye violence is not going to bring peace — at least not in this conflict.

Hyperbolic wisdom from the transport minister

At a dialogue with residents of MacPherson on Sunday, Transport Minister Raymond Lim responded to questions about transport fares in the midst of an economic downturn.

A resident, in the best English he could muster, said he hoped there would be “no any increase in transport fare” next year. The Minister’s response?

“You want it to be free, do you want the GST to go up to 8.5% to run a completely free bus and train system?”

I don’t think completely free public transport was on the minds of any Singaporean. We all know that nothing is free in this country, even if we’ve paid for it in taxes. Why was the Minister talking down to Singaporeans like that by using such hyperbole?

In response to another resident’s question whether the transport companies were making “a lot of profits”, he said:

“We don’t want the companies to be making excessive profits, but that’s different from saying that they cannot make profits at all.”

Again, hyperbole. Is everyone clamouring for public transport companies to make zero profits? In fact, their balance sheets are far, far from zero.

In response to further requests for transport subsidies, he said:

“There are only two persons who pay when it comes to public transport fares. One, I use – I pay. Or two, I use – you help me subsidise my ride. What happens when you subsidise my rides? That means the taxpayers are now paying.”

“My” rides? Does the Minister really take public transport?

Actually I see nothing wrong with the “I use, you help me subsidise” model. “I” being wealthy taxpayers, and “you” being the working class commuters who are struggling to pay for their transport to their $700 per month cleaning job.

And finally, when a resident questioned why when oil prices have fallen to about US$33 a barrel from a high of US$147 in July, bus and MRT fares haven’t seen a similar drop, the Minister reasoned that “public transport fares are not directly linked to oil prices”, but to a basket of other “national factors”.

Technically he is correct — they are not directly linked. The Public Transport Council’s “maximum fare adjustment” is proportional to inflation (the Consumer Price Index), wage increases and inversely proportional to the profitability of the public transport operators.

But two of those three factors are linked very closely to oil prices. In fact, the public transport operators said so themselves, as highlighted by another TOC article.

A Straits Times reader, maynardjohn, responded:

Nobody claims the relationship between oil prices and fare prices is 1:1. Neither is there a demand that the correlation be linear. Hence an increase of 40% in oil price is fully compatible with an increase of 0.7% in fare price (the latter being a rather arbitrary function of operator’s profit). By the same token, the commuters fully expect that a substantial fall in the oil price to translate into a reduction in fare price.

Unsurprisingly, reactions to the Minister’s statements provoked a rather unhappy reaction from Singaporeans. The Online Citizen’s quote of his remark provoked over 60 angry responses in just 12 hours.

Even the Straits Times article on his remarks evoked an unusually negative reaction from Straits Times subscribers. The comments thread had three pages of comments — all of them negative.

Perhaps the Minister did not realise that he was on national television, and thought he was just speaking to a group of elderly grassroots supporters who couldn’t even understand him, let alone talk back to him.

Here’s the clip from Channel News Asia:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRfd_IefiU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]

China’s “Charter 08”

A few weeks ago, 303 prominent Chinese citizens put their signature to Charter 08 (零八宪章), which was a well-crafted statement of how they wished to see China develop into a free and democratic nation, which contributes to peace for humankind and progress toward human rights. Some of them are already paying the price for speaking out — several have been interrogated by the authorities and one remains under police custody.

Below is section II of the Charter, which spells out the fundamental principles that frame what they are asking for. The English translation by Perry Link follows it. The full Chinese version can be found here and the full English translation can be found here.

I salute these brave Chinese heroes. In fact, much of what they have written in their Charter is directly applicable to Singapore.

———

零八宪章


二、我们的基本理念

当此决定中国未来命运的历史关头，有必要反思百年来的现代化历程，重申如下基本理念：

自由：自由是普世价值的核心之所在。言论、出版、信仰、集会、结社、迁徙、罢工和游行示威等权利都是自由的具体体现。自由不昌，则无现代文明可言。

人权：人权不是国家的赐予，而是每个人与生俱来就享有的权利。保障人权，既是政府的首要目标和公共权力合法性的基础，也是“以人为本”的内在要求。中国的历次政治灾难都与执政当局对人权的无视密切相关。人是国家的主体，国家服务于人民，政府为人民而存在。

平等：每一个个体的人，不论社会地位、职业、性别、经济状况、种族、肤色、宗教或政治信仰，其人格、尊严、自由都是平等的。必须落实法律面前人人平等的原则，落实公民的社会、经济、文化、政治权利平等的原则。

共和：共和就是“大家共治，和平共生”，就是分权制衡与利益平衡，就是多种利益成分、不同社会集团、多元文化与信仰追求的群体，在平等参与、公平竞争、共同议政的基础上，以和平的方式处理公共事务。

民主：最 基本的涵义是主权在民和民选政府。民主具有如下基本特点：（1）政权的合法性来自人民，政治权力来源于人民；（2）政治统治经过人民选择，（3）公民享有 真正的选举权，各级政府的主要政务官员必须通过定期的竞选产生。（4）尊重多数人的决定，同时保护少数人的基本人权。一句话，民主使政府成为”民有，民 治，民享”的现代公器。

宪政：宪政是通过法律规定和法治来保障宪法确定的公民基本自由和权利的原则，限制并划定政府权力和行为的边界，并提供相应的制度设施。

————

Charter 08

II. Our Fundamental Principles

This is a historic moment for China, and our future hangs in the balance. In reviewing the political modernization process of the past hundred years or more, we reiterate and endorse basic universal values as follows:

Freedom. Freedom is at the core of universal human values. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom in where to live, and the freedoms to strike, to demonstrate, and to protest, among others, are the forms that freedom takes. Without freedom, China will always remain far from civilized ideals.

Human rights. Human rights are not bestowed by a state. Every person is born with inherent rights to dignity and freedom. The government exists for the protection of the human rights of its citizens. The exercise of state power must be authorized by the people. The succession of political disasters in China’s recent history is a direct consequence of the ruling regime’s disregard for human rights.

Equality. The integrity, dignity, and freedom of every person — regardless of social station, occupation, sex, economic condition, ethnicity, skin color, religion, or political belief — are the same as those of any other. Principles of equality before the law and equality of social, economic, cultural, civil, and political rights must be upheld.

Republicanism. Republicanism, which holds that power should be balanced among different branches of government and competing interests should be served, resembles the traditional Chinese political ideal of “fairness in all under heaven.” It allows different interest groups and social assemblies, and people with a variety of cultures and beliefs, to exercise democratic self-government and to deliberate in order to reach peaceful resolution of public questions on a basis of equal access to government and free and fair competition.

Democracy. The most fundamental principles of democracy are that the people are sovereign and the people select their government. Democracy has these characteristics: (1) Political power begins with the people and the legitimacy of a regime derives from the people. (2) Political power is exercised through choices that the people make. (3) The holders of major official posts in government at all levels are determined through periodic competitive elections. (4) While honoring the will of the majority, the fundamental dignity, freedom, and human rights of minorities are protected. In short, democracy is a modern means for achieving government truly “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Constitutional rule. Constitutional rule is rule through a legal system and legal regulations to implement principles that are spelled out in a constitution. It means protecting the freedom and the rights of citizens, limiting and defining the scope of legitimate government power, and providing the administrative apparatus necessary to serve these ends.

——–

Economist edition banned in Thailand

This is the article in The Economist that got it banned in Thailand. (Technically, the distributor voluntarily self-imposed the ban. But we all know better.)

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12724832

Exerpts from The King and them:

Much of the story of how the king’s actions have hurt his country’s politics is unfamiliar because Thais have not been allowed to hear it. Some may find our criticisms upsetting, but we do not make them gratuitously. Thailand needs open debate if it is to prepare for the time when a less revered monarch ascends the throne. It cannot be good for a country to subscribe to a fairy-tale version of its own history in which the king never does wrong, stays above politics and only ever intervenes on the side of democracy. None of that is true.

In reality, with public anger at the queen’s support for the thuggish PAD and the unsuitability of Bhumibol’s heir simmering, Thailand risks the recent fate of Nepal, which has suffered a bitter civil war and whose meddling king is now a commoner in a republic. The PAD was nurtured by the palace and now threatens to engulf it. An enduring image of the past few days is that of PAD toughs shooting at government supporters while holding up the king’s portrait. The monarchy is now, more clearly than ever, part of the problem. It sits at the apex of a horrendously hierarchical and unequal society. You do not have to be a republican to agree that this needs to be discussed.

While I think the article was a little harsh on the king — it’s not just the monarchy, but large sections of the Thai elite who support this vile anti-government movement called the PAD — it does seem to have an element of truth.

Now it appears the opposition Democrat party is trying to seize power without a democratic mandate. It’s really preposterous.

S’poreans and foreigners both paying the price

On 4 December at a National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) forum for employers and unions, NTUC chief Lim Swee Say and Acting Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong were both reduced to imploring employers to retrench foreign workers before Singaporean workers, in order to minimise job losses for the latter, who make up a sizeable bloc of voters in every general election. This is a truly sorry state of affairs in Singapore’s employment landscape.

Firstly, it appears the government has taken a cold, utilitarian attitude towards foreign workers. It is as if these workers are soulless machines, who should be simply discarded when they are no longer needed. In fact, each of these workers is probably the sole breadwinner whose remittances support a large extended family back home.

Secondly and more importantly for Singaporeans is the fact that if the government has to beg employers to retrench foreigners first, it implies that their policies so steeply favour foreigners, such that if left to market forces, employers would naturally want to shed Singaporeans first.

Mr Lim said it “makes business sense” to release foreigners first during a downturn if a Singaporean could do the same job equally well. His reasoning is that when the economy recovers, it will be easier to source for foreign labour than compete for local talents with business rivals.

The Minister evidently has never been a business owner himself. If both can do the job equally well, it will make better business sense to axe the Singaporeans first, since they carry the extra loaded costs of reservist duty (for men), maternity leave (for women), employer CPF contributions and paid childcare leave (for both). In addition, family responsibilities and higher costs of living compel Singaporeans to ask for higher wages to meet their living expenses. They will also be less willing to work overtime or commute to far flung factory locations as this will take away time from their families (or their second jobs, in many cases). Foreign workers, who are here without their families, have less reason to make such demands. It should therefore be the government’s duty to its citizens to ensure that the total cost of hiring a foreign worker is not lower than the cost of hiring a Singaporean.

The government’s argument is that foreigner workers — referring to blue collar workers, not “foreign talent” — provide low cost labour for our companies in good times, preventing these companies from uprooting and moving to lower cost countries like China and Vietnam, which will result in even more Singaporean job losses.

While this argument sounds good to the ears on the surface, it obscures the fact that no matter how lowly we pay our workers, the cost base of Singapore is still much higher than in China and Vietnam, or even Malaysia. Human resources firm ECA International Asia recently reported that Singapore has leapt 27 places up the global rankings of the world’s most expensive places to live in.

For most companies with operations here, the highest business expense after wages is office rentals. High rentals are caused in part by the government allowing “market forces” to run amok in the 1990s and property prices to rise so steeply that it has rendered our economy uncompetitive. Of course, the government will not admit that rentals make us uncompetitive — they will insist that our wages are the culprit. Nevertheless, even wages, while kept low for blue collar workers, have risen significantly over the past few years for senior managers and “foreign talent”, and this undoubtedly accounts for a large portion of companies’ wage bill.

The pittance paid to foreign workers has effectively suppressed the wages of Singaporean blue collar workers. At the end of the day, not only do Singaporeans lose out in wages and jobs, but so do foreign workers, whose living conditions and low salaries (after deducting the government levy) leave much to be desired for a developed country like Singapore which claims to uphold migrant worker rights.

The only ones who benefit are the corporations and their shareholders — and of course the people whose bonuses are tied to the country’s GDP growth rate, not the unemployment rate.

Is Singapore ready for a non-Chinese PM?

This is an article sent by a friend of mine to the Straits Times, which they declined to publish.

———–

15 November 2008

Is Singapore ready for a non-Chinese PM? Why or Why not? What do you think is holding us back?

I’m 61 years old and I still remember very clearly. At that time (60s/70s/80s) there were no extra efforts required to get the various races to mix and be friends with each other, whether in school or in the neighborhood.  Even while I was serving in the SAF, we did not need to be told who we should visit and when.  We were never made to realize who is a Chinese, Malay or Indian.  We were just friends and never thought of the race issue.  Why?  Was it our school system?  Was it our parents?  Was it the manner in which the government delivered the multi-racial, multi-religious message to us?

Why is it that after 43 years of nation building we have to be constantly reminded who we are (i.e., Malays, Chinese or Indians).  This is still clearly stated in our Identity Cards.  The authorities need to make sure that there is a balance in every aspect of life in Singapore; from racial balance in housing estates to the GRCs.  When the festivals come we need to be told that we should visit each other and find out more about each others’ cultures.  We even need to have an interreligious and harmony day in school and at various national levels.  We need to organize visits to each others’ festivals.  What will it be next?  How have we come to this?  Why have we come to this?  These I believe are the core issues

That is why I feel that it will not be made to happen…..never on its own, surely not by design anyway.  It is not going to happen in my lifetime for sure.  I feel that we need to find answers to the simple questions and correct what is going wrong.  Why we cannot go back to the 1960s and 1970s, with regards to racial and religious harmony?  When will we be told that we are Singaporeans.  What are we doing wrong?  How can we correct this?  Then, we can ask the question, “Is Singapore ready for a prime minister who is not Chinese?”

Just because it has happened in the USA it does not mean that we need to find answers to the same question.  I feel that the question is too early for its time.  I fail to understand the purpose of it.  Is it just another rouse, to make us imagine that there is some possibility however remote it might be?  Let’s not kid ourselves.  The majority will continue to rule; however the socioeconomic and geopolitical dynamics will help to maintain its own checks and balances.

My answer would therefore be a clear NO!!

Ajit Singh Nagpal

Transparency, please, ICA

The Straits Times Forum (6 Dec) carried this letter:

Fewer PRC nationals than reported

THE Special Report, ‘Young dragons’ (Nov 22) gave some gross overestimates of the number of PRC nationals in Singapore.

Our records show that the total number of persons from all Asian countries (excluding South-east Asia) who are in Singapore is 852,000. This includes China, India, Bangladesh and 30 other countries. Hence the number of PRC nationals is obviously only a fraction of that, and not ‘close to one million’ as cited in the report.

Likewise, the number of nationals from these same countries who have acquired permanent residence or Singapore citizenship over the past 20 years is 239,000. Again, only a fraction would have been PRC nationals, and not ‘between 300,000 and 400,000’, as estimated by the Tian Fu Club.

Ong-Kong Yong Sin (Mrs)
Senior Public & Internal Communications Executive
Immigration & Checkpoints Authority

I think it is plain to me that our immigration authorities have the figures but are unwilling to release the exact number of PRC nationals and PRs living in Singapore. This has led to the “gross overestimates” by even supposedly reputable sources like the Straits Times.

Why is it so difficult to release these nuggets of gold? Do Singaporeans not have the right to know how many foreigners from each country are in their midst?

Or is it because the ICA has something to hide — perhaps the fact that this “fraction” of 852,000 is closer to 9/10 than 1/2. I think our government owes it to Singaporeans to come clean with these figures. If it turns out that the vast majority of foreigners and PRs in Singapore originate from China, then they need to explain the reasons for this gross imbalance of immigrants. Are they trying to boost the population of a certain race, or is it just that China produces a disproportionate number of talented people?

AIMS report shows the way forward

The government-appointed Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) released its long awaited report this morning.

Firstly, I would like to publicly commend Mr Cheong Yip Seng, the AIMS committee and its secretariat for a very well-researched, well-thought through and balanced report, and for the very consultative approach they had taken throughout the past 18-months.

When I first heard about AIMS when it was first launched, I thought to myself, “That’s it, now the government is going to use this committee to justify their clamping down on the Internet.”

I’m glad AIMS has proven me wrong. Although I still feel they have been a tad too conservative politically, I think their proposals, particularly the ones on political content can be said to be “one small step for the government, one giant leap for Singapore”.

The AIMS report can be viewed at www.aims.org.sg. The committee proposed the eventual repeal of Section 33 of the Films Act, which bans party political films, and recommended tightened disclosure requirements for Section 35, which currently gives “the Minister” the right to ban any film that he deems to be against the public interest. This is a bold step forward, which I hope the Government will accept. In fact, I hope they go one step further to repeal both those laws.

The AIMS report also contained unedited letters from the public and corporations in response to its consultation paper. I was quite amused how many members of the public appeared to have overreacted to AIMS’ proposed liberalisations. Many letters focused on how liberalisation will lead to an erosion of morals.

Let me say that as a Christian, and a professed social conservative, I am the last one who would want to see any erosion of our nation’s moral fabric. However I agreed with AIMS that, with respect to the Internet, education will serve as a better safeguard of morals than regulation. The thrust of AIMS’ proposed liberalisations are actually in the political sphere. In this aspect, I am strongly in favour of liberalisation, because our country is lagging far behind our peers in the developed world.

It will take me a while to go through the 224 page report to give my comments. But in the meanwhile, the following is my feedback to AIMS’ consultation paper released a few months back. Since the final report is quite similar to the consultation paper, many of my comments still apply to this report.

————-

23 September 2008

Mr Cheong Yip Seng
Chairman
Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society

FEEDBACK TO AIMS’ CONSULTATION PAPER

1 On 29 August 2008, the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) released a consultation paper to gather feedback from the public on its proposed recommendations to the Singapore Government on engaging new media.

2 This paper is my feedback to AIMS’ consultation paper. They are my personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of any groups or organisations that I am affiliated with.

3 The responses are grouped according to the chapters in AIMS’ consultation paper.

Chapter 1: E-engagement

4 There needs to be a paradigm shift in the Government’s thinking regarding e-engagement. As a general approach, instead of pouring money and resources into only building its own online platforms (e.g., REACH portal), where it tends to only preach to the choir, the Government should venture out to engage the “unconverted” on the latter’s turf. This was rightly pointed out in AIMS’ paper.

5 The Government may need to be selective about which areas it ventures into. The vast majority of bloggers who do not write about political issues would not appreciate it if a government official posts a comment “correcting” them for inaccuracies in their blog postings. However there are a few serious political bloggers who would appreciate a response to their ideas and suggestions, even if it comes in the form of a robust rebuttal from the Government.

6 Government representatives could respond by posting a comment on a blog post, or contributing full article response to the same blog. Serious blogs would be happy to grant the right of reply to the Government or any other party.

7 It would be preferred if politicians and government officials engage in their “personal” capacities — meaning there is no need to parade one’s full designations, titles and ministries when posting a simple comment on a blog. Blogosphere is an egalitarian society where the quality of one’s ideas counts more than the titles one carries.

8 Civil servants should be allowed to comment on policy matters outside the purview of their ministries, as long as they do so in their personal capacity and they do not divulge classified information. They should not be required to seek their permanent secretaries’ approval before speaking or writing to the media (including online media) on matters that does not directly concern their ministry.

9 The Information Ministry is already actively monitoring blogs and Internet forums. The Government should acknowledge some of the good ideas that are generated online, instead of constantly implying that serious political discussion is absent from the Internet.

10 E-engagement, if executed selectively and sensitively, could cause bloggers to be slightly more circumspect in expressing themselves on their blogs. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Internet experts have highlighted that “people are more polite when they know you are listening” .

11 The Government should consider issuing press releases, releasing embargoed papers or speeches to citizen journalists, and inviting citizen journalists to cover press conferences and official events. Credible socio-political blogs could be issued press passes like the Malaysian government did for Malaysiakini and other online media.

12 This is a good way to encourage citizen journalists to firstly, report rather than simply comment from a distance; and secondly, to provide fairer and more balanced coverage.

13 Ministers and senior officials should not be reticent in granting interviews with credible online media if asked.

Chapter 2: Online Political Content

14 Section 33 of the Films Act, which bans “party political films” outright, is an ill-conceived and unnecessary law. Various arguments have been put forward by the Government in support of the law. Most centre around the possibility of a “freak election” result due to a “scurrilous” video being released a few days before Polling Day.

15 There is no evidence anywhere in the world of an freak election result simply due to a false and malicious video being released in the last few days of campaigning.

16 Any falsehoods or misrepresentations can be dealt with using the existing Penal Code, Sedition Act or Defamation Act. Furthermore, with its unfettered access to the mainstream media, the Government can easily refute any false allegations, even if they are made at the eleventh hour.

17 The goal of keeping election costs down can continue to be achieved by current election laws which limit the amount a candidate is allowed to spend on each voter.

18 In addition, the Parliamentary Elections Act could be amended to require any party political films to clearly state the sponsor of the video, as is required in the US, Australia and other developed countries. This will provide viewers a frame of reference to judge the partisan nature of the video.

19 Most importantly, we should not underestimate Singaporean voters’ ability to discern what is true and what is false and malicious.

20 AIMS has proposed a compromise “blackout period” whereby no new political videos can be released during the election period. A blackout period will take things back almost to square one. It will hamper political parties’ ability to communicate with the electorate during the most critical period when voters are making up their minds.

21 Even if there is a blackout period or if Section 33 remains on the statute books in its entirety, there is nothing stopping someone from uploading a “scurrilous” video to YouTube (or any of the dozens of video sharing sites). The fact that it is “prohibited content” would make it even more attractive to watch.

22 While I applaud AIMS’ attempt to push the boundaries by proposing a relook, and possible repeal of the law, I believe that anything short of a complete repeal of Section 33 of the Films Act would be disappointing to many thinking Singaporeans.

23 Separately, Section 35 of the Films Act (Minister may prohibit possession or distribution of any film) should be also be repealed. This is an omnibus law which gives the Minister absolute discretion in banning a film. If left in place, it would render any repeal of Section 33 meaningless. It should be noted that Section 15 (Prohibition and approval of films for exhibition) already empowers the Board of Film Censors to ban films.

24 I fully agree with AIMS recommendations regarding Internet election advertising and removal of the registration requirement in the Internet Class License Scheme.

25 In addition, election candidates and political parties should be allowed to solicit and accept donations over the Internet without overly stringent requirements to verify the identity of donors.

Chapter 3: Protection of Minors

26 Requiring ISPs to provide filtering in the form of Family Access Networks (FAN) on an opt-out basis is better than nothing. However FAN could give a false sense of security to parents who think that filtering provided by ISPs is going to filter out all undesirable content.

27 In fact, FAN cannot filter out a very large portion of undesirable content. At the same time, it could end up filtering content that the adults in the family may wish to view. For example, adults doing research on terrorism, drug abuse or gay issues could encounter blocked pages when using FAN.

28 It is much more effective to encourage parents to install Internet content filtering software on their home PCs . While PC-based filters do not filter out everything, they provides several advantages over FAN:

a. Access logging. Parents can view all the websites that their children access by checking the logs recorded by the software. If the child knows his parents are monitoring what he is surfing, he is much less likely to access sites he knows are out of bounds to him. Some software packages are able to email the daily log reports to parents.

b. Designating access time. Most filtering software allows parents to set the time in which the Internet can be accessed.

c. Auto lock out. The software can be configured to automatically block Internet access to the child if undesirable websites are accessed too many times.

d. Turning off filtering for adults. Parents (who have the password) can turn off filtering and logging so that they themselves can have full access to the Internet.

29 All this requires training for the parents. For parents who are IT savvy enough or are willing to learn, this provides the best method of regulating children’s access to the Internet and preventing them from accessing undesirable material.

30 For other non-IT savvy parents (who make up the vast majority of parents), there needs to be a concerted programme of parental education and awareness building.

Chapter 4: Intermediary Liabilities

31 I fully support AIMS recommendations in Chapter 4.

Summary

32 The following is a summary of my proposals:

a. Engage Netizens on their turf, not the Government’s.
b. Issue press passes and press releases to serious socio-political websites.
c. Allow civil servants to blog about policy issues.
d. Allow online political donations.
e. Completely repeal Sections 33 and 35 of the Films Act.
f. Encourage parents to install filtering software on their home PCs.
g. Educate parents on the use of such software.

33 I hope AIMS will consider these proposals in its final report to the Government

* * * * *

Submitted by:
Gerald Giam

Terrorists have killed one of our own

I am very saddened to learn that 28-year old Singaporean lawyer Lo Hwei Yen has been killed by terrorists who attacked the Indian city of Mumbai. This is the first Singaporean in recent memory who has been killed by terrorists – probably since the MacDonald House bombing in March 1965.

After reading about repeated terror attacks in Iraq, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and India, it is easy to numb your mind to all these senseless deaths. That is, until a fellow Singaporean falls victim to these evil doers.

I don’t know Ms Lo personally, but she is just a year younger than my wife. She was a lawyer and obviously a promising one, to be sent on overseas assignments alone at such a young age. In short, she was one of our nation’s best and brightest. I understand that she was recently married. I cannot imagine the pain her husband and family must be going through. May God grant them strength to persevere through this difficult time.

I utterly condemn these terror attacks. Over 140 people have been killed, many of them machine gunned down while in their hotels or places of worship. To me, that is even more unconscionable than exploding a bomb. How does one’s conscience get seared to the extent of squeezing the trigger, emptying out magazine after magazine and gunning down defenceless civilians? This all proves that the evil in humans knows no bounds.

May these terrorists face the full wrath of justice, whether in this life or the next.

Share
Copy Link
×