geraldgiam.sg

PM Abe’s resignation: More lessons from the Land of the Rising Sun

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced his resignation today after less than a year in office. This followed a defeat of his party, the Liberal Democratic Party, in the recent upper house elections as well as a string of scandals involving ministers in his Cabinet.

Photo: Channel NewsAsia

I’m not an expert in Japanese politics, but from what I have read, I thought Abe was doing a pretty decent job, especially on the international front. Under his leadership, relations with China improved tremendously, with a series of high level exchanges of visits between leaders of both countries — Abe made Beijing his first foreign visit, and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao also made a successful visit to Japan.

Abe had great dreams of making Japan a “normal” nation once again. He converted the Defense Agency to a full fledged Ministry, and pledged to rewrite Japan’s pacifist Constitution. While the Constitution may have been music to the ears of Asians who suffered under Imperial Japan in the Second World War (and much earlier, in the case of Korea and China), it also made it very difficult for Japan to fulfill its international obligations as the second richest country in the world — for example contributing to the military aspects of reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, his focus on international affairs and ideological aspects of Japan’s future, coupled with his poor performance domestically, led to his downfall. Channel NewsAsia reported:

Rural voters deserted the LDP in droves in the recent election, failing to relate to Abe’s ideological agenda, which focused on building Japan’s global standing and rewriting the constitution.

But the campaign failed to resonate among voters as the opposition pressed on bread-and-butter concerns such as mismanagement of the pension system and income inequality.

“Japan’s Abe steps down as prime minister”, CNA, Sept 13

What lessons does this hold for Singapore?

I think voters are the same in Japan, Singapore and anywhere else. Bread-and-butter issues will always take precedence over international affairs or idealogical pursuits, no matter what the merits of the latter are.

This is the key reason why the PAP has been able to win election after election since 1959. They know the vast majority voters don’t give a hoot about what Singapore’s international standing is, or whether they uphold human rights or press freedom. What they care about is whether or not life will get easier for them and their families over the next five years.

Is it any wonder then that Dr Chee Soon Juan and his ilk are finding it so hard to get support from mainstream Singaporeans? I admire Dr Chee for what he is fighting for. I don’t think he is out to bring Singapore down. But I also think his focus on spreading liberal democracy and human rights in Singapore is not going to win him many voters–as least not until our “unfreedoms” directly hit our pocketbooks. Without voter support, you can’t win a seat in Parliament. And without enough opposition seats in Parliament, the Government will never really feel any threat to its position and can continue enact policies with impunity.

The key, then, for a successful political party would be to focus on issues that matter to everyday Singaporeans — jobs, child support, education, retirement. Values and ideology should still be the guiding light of our leaders, but these values need to be melted into butter which can spread on the bread of the common man.

"Texas Barbeque Gathering" must go ahead

ASEAN-U.S. meeting will be an important step to building stronger relations

Photo: AFP

In what is seen as a signal that Southeast Asia is still important to the U.S., President George W. Bush has invited the region’s leaders to his ranch in Texas for a barbeque — and presumably more substantive talks too.

Bush made this invitation on Sep 7 at the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in Sydney, where leaders from 21 Asia-Pacific countries are gathered this week.

Many see Bush’s invitation as him making amends for skipping a high level summit with leaders of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which was to be held in Singapore just before the APEC meeting. The Jakarta Post reported that Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda said Bush “wanted to prove that his postponement of (the) Singapore summit on the way to attend the APEC summit did not reduce the U.S. commitment to ASEAN”.

Just a few weeks earlier, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had, for the second time, skipped the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), a security meeting between ASEAN ministers and their U.S., Russian, Chinese and Japanese counterparts.

All these no-shows by senior U.S. officials were seen as a snub to the region. U.S. officials insisted that it was due to scheduling difficulties — on each of these occasions, the U.S. leaders made last minute detours to the Middle East to deal with pressing security problems there.

However, many ASEAN leaders are concerned that ASEAN is getting relegated lower and lower in U.S. foreign policy and trade priorities, as the situation in Iraq and Israel-Palestine take centre stage, while remaining U.S. attention in Asia is getting diverted to rising giants China and India.

Going to Big Brother’s house?

Bush’s invitation to the ASEAN leaders to meet him together at his ranch has evoked mixed reactions. Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong described it as a “very good” move, with the government-controlled Straits Times boasting that Bush “reserves invitations to Texas as a diplomatic plum for close allies”[1].

Indonesian officials, however, were more cautious. They told The Jakarta Post that the location of the meeting in Texas could create the impression that “ASEAN leaders were ‘reporting back’ to a superior power”.[2]

Philippines President Gloria Arroyo was more circumspect. She told reporters that the meeting will be done “at the convenience” of ASEAN.

In most Asian family traditions, younger siblings are expected to visit the eldest sibling in his home during festive occasions like Chinese New Year and Hari Raya Aidilfitri (Eid ul-Fitr) — and not the other way around. While this protocol does not necessarily extend to international diplomacy, the cultural implications of Bush’s group invitation were probably lost on the President and his advisors.

The Myanmar Factor

Another reason for Bush and Rice skipping meetings with ASEAN could be because of the presence of Myanmar in the grouping. The Neo-cons in the Bush administration are understandably reluctant for their leaders to be seen sitting at the same table as the brutal military dictators who currently rule Myanmar. Hence, Bush’s latest invitation to the seven ASEAN leaders who were present at the APEC meeting could be a way for Bush to meet with just those countries he fancies, while excluding Myanmar, which the U.S. has been so openly critical about. Three ASEAN countries — Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos — are not APEC members.

In any case, the U.S. has a travel ban on leaders of the Myanmar junta and their family members. This makes it highly unlikely that it would allow any Myanmar leaders to attend the ASEAN-U.S. meeting in Texas. This could put ASEAN leaders in a quandary. ASEAN has up until now insisted on its principle that any meeting with ASEAN must include representatives from all its 10 member states. A previous ASEAN ministerial meeting with their European Union (EU) counterparts in The Netherlands got downgraded to “officials level” because the Dutch government refused to grant a visa to Myanmar’s Foreign Minister.

Whether ASEAN will insist on adhering to this principle this time around is unclear. Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda told The Jakarta Post that ASEAN leaders would first have to discuss the practicalities of responding to Bush’s invitation before reaching a decision on whether or not to accept. However, Singapore, the current chair of ASEAN, has already promised to “coordinate a time for the meeting”.

Working Out the Practicalities of the Meeting

The practicalities of the ASEAN leaders’ meeting with Bush in Texas can and definitely should be worked out. For example, instead of naming it an ASEAN-U.S. meeting, it could be billed as a meeting between the U.S. president and several Southeast Asian leaders. Alternatively, the U.S. could allow a low level Myanmar official to represent Myanmar at the meeting, while extending invitations to the remaining ASEAN heads of government. In any case, top Myanmar junta leaders seldom travel out of the country except to seek medical treatment.

< span lang="EN-GB">

Much at stake with U.S.-ASEAN relations

For most pragmatists in ASEAN, the decision whether or not to proceed with the high level meeting with Bush (with or without Myanmar) is a no brainer. The U.S. is ASEAN’s biggest trading partner. Beyond trade, U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia is critical to maintaining the balance of power in East Asia. A rising China is actively courting ASEAN with its lucrative offers of increased trade and diplomatic links. While all ASEAN countries welcome China’s interest in the region, most of them would still prefer the U.S. to continue maintaining a strong presence in the region.

ASEAN leaders need to find a way to generate greater U.S. interest in the region. Likewise, the U.S. also needs to realise that much is at stake if they lose their focus on ASEAN, which is home to over half a billion people and is the fourth largest trading partner of the U.S.. The U.S. shares many concerns with ASEAN, from the long-running fight against terrorism to more recent concerns like environmental protection and bird flu.

It would be unfortunate if relations were held back because of the Myanmar millstone or U.S. pre-occupation with events in the Middle East. This proposed Texas retreat will be an important step in the right direction to build stronger relations between ASEAN and the U.S.. All parties will do well not to pass up this opportunity.

This article first appeared in OhmyNews International.

[1] “Asean leaders get an invite to Texas from Bush”, The Straits Times, Sep 8, 2007.

[2] “Bush’s Texas invite leaves APEC leaders in an awkward silence”, The Jakarta Post, Sep 8, 2007.

What the WP cycling event ban has revealed

Recently, the PAP Government saw it fit to ban a cycling event that the opposition Workers’ Party (WP) wanted to organise in East Coast Park to celebrate its 50th Anniversary.

The reasons given by the Minister in Parliament were:

“East Coast Park is a recreational park for Singaporeans and their families. It is not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause.”
It could “(displace) the usual recreational users (from East Coast Park).”
“It is an open area where there is potential for breach of peace, public disorder and unruly behaviour.”
“You [the Opposition party members] may be well behaving, but there may be other people whom you come across when you cycle who may stop you, may want to debate with you and that may attract a crowd, therefore will result in problems the police want to avoid.”

Meanwhile, both theonlinecitizen and mrbrown have pointed out that the Young PAP (YP) has gone ahead and organised Night Cycling events (in MY constituency!) in the past without any restrictions. I guess George Orwell’s pigs were right that some animals are more equal than others.

Some points which I noted from this episode are:

The mighty PAP is so insecure and afraid that a tiny opposition party (which couldn’t even win more than one full seat in Parliament for the past 20 years) will gain too much influence from organising a cycling event.
The WP’s cycling event has just been given a whole lot more press coverage than they could ever hope for if it was approved. More PR mileage for less work — how much more could the WP ask for?
The PAP thinks Singaporeans are so interested in current affairs that they would actually try to debate issues with strangers cycling in a park.
The PAP is concerned about its own party supporters’ commitment to law and order.
It has acknowledged that opposition party supporters are not the hooligans they are always made out to be, as they are less likely to disrupt YP cycling events than vice-versa.

Troubled families: Malay problem or Singapore problem?

But even as most Singaporean Malays are progressing, filling more places in universities and polytechnics, joining the middle class and living in bigger homes, one small group is falling behind.

And it is this minority — the dysfunctional families — that concerns Mr Lee Hsien Loong.

On the rise: Divorce rates, the number of single-parent households and an “unacceptably high number” of teenage births and early marriages. Calling last night on self-help group Mendaki to mobilise a community-wide effort to address the problem of such families, Mr Lee said this was vital to avert a “serious social problem” and “a human tragedy”.

“In the last two years, the community has started to tackle these issues. But you need to muster a major effort focused on this problem, and work out practical and effective solutions.

“In this area, your self-help efforts are critical….”

Excerpts from TODAY, 3 Sep 07

PM Lee, in his speech at Mendaki yesterday, brought up the issue about dysfunctional Malay families yet again. He had already mentioned it during the Malay portion of his National Day Rally speech last month, and I believe he also mentioned it during last year’s speech. Now he says it may result in a “serious social problem” and “a human tragedy”.

Obviously this is a very worrisome issue for the government, and the situation hasn’t improved much over the past year, otherwise PM Lee wouldn’t have mentioned it again and again.

But is this a Malay problem for the “Malay community” to solve on their own, or it is a problem that ALL Singaporeans need to collectively tackle? In his speech, PM Lee used the word “you” more than “we” to describe who needs to deal with the problem. I wonder why? Aren’t we all Singaporeans? Why the “it’s-your-problem-go-solve-it” approach? Should we continue on in our “self help” approach to problems, or is an “all of us help” approach more appropriate in today’s Singapore?

PM Lee mentioned that “it is much harder for the Government to intervene, or for other voluntary welfare organisations outside the Malay/Muslim community to take action, without being misunderstood or triggering a defensive reaction”. Is this really the case, or is it a false assumption? If done sensitively, would it be possible for Singapore’s limited social support resources to be redirected to where the need is currently most acute?

This post is not intended to be another smart alec commentary criticizing government policies. I don’t know enough about social problems to comment. I would really like to hear from readers what YOU think is the way forward.

————–

US ambassador says "US will fight" if China invades Taiwan

If the People’s Republic of China decides to take Taiwan by force, the US will fight on behalf of Taiwan against the Mainland, said a former US ambassador.

Chase Untermeyer, who just completed his tour as ambassador to Qatar and is on his way back to the US, made these personal comments on 28 Aug at a public lecture on “US policy in the Middle East” at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, which was attended by about 80 government officials, foreign diplomats, academics and students.

The ambassador used the Cross Strait example to illustrate the importance the US government — in his opinion — places on the principles of democracy and freedom in making its foreign policy decisions. He pointed out that successive US administrations had made decisions to enter military conflicts not simply out of national interests or detailed calculations of the costs and benefits of entering the wars, but based on deep seated principles that are “as old as the US itself”.

Untermeyer cautioned that many countries would be mistaken if they think the US conducted its foreign affairs solely on hard-nosed pragmatism, like securing oil supplies. In the case of an invasion of Taiwan by China, Untermeyer believed that the US will fight China not because of treaty obligations or even out of national interest, but based on its principles to defend its democratic allies against aggression. (The US’ Taiwan Relations Act obliges the US to supply Taiwan with the military capability to defend itself.) Untermeyer assessed that even if a war with China is detrimental to US economic interests, the US will still aid Taiwan if the Chinese invasion goes against the will of the Taiwanese people.

Attempting to debunk the common perception that the US is interested in the Middle East only for its oil and enriching its own oil companies, Untermeyer argued that if that were so, the US would have never created the State of Israel, knowing the unpopularity of that move in a region dominated by Arab countries. The US depends on the Middle East for a quarter of its oil supplies. He said that the European Union is much more dependent on Arab oil and therefore sees the Middle East through the prism of energy security much more than the US does.

On the powerful Jewish lobby in the US influencing foreign policy in the Middle East, Untermeyer explained that Jews made up only five per cent of the US population, and that Jews alone would not be able to influence US policy that much. In fact, he said, the pro-Israel lobby in the US is powerful not just because of Jewish support, but because it fights for a “broadly popular cause” subscribed to by a wide spectrum of American citizens, including conservative Christians.

On Iraq, Untermeyer predicted a gradual reduction in troop numbers over the next year following a much anticipated report to Congress next month by the US ambassador to Iraq, but that it would not go “down to zero”.

Touching on Iran, he was convinced that Islamic republic is in the process of developing a nuclear bomb and the capability to deliver it on missiles. By removing Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, the US had unfortunately removed the a heavy counterweight to Iran, which is a far more threatening member of the “Axis of Evil” than Iraq was.

Untermeyer was sceptical that a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will resolve all the problems the US is having in the region, although he emphasised that the US should help “solve it for its own sake”. Cautioning that since any final settlement will involve large compromises by both sides (the Israelis and the Palestinians), he expected that right wing and jihadist groups would still seize upon any compromises that did not favour the Palestinian side to whip up sentiment against the US.

Voicing his personal disagreement with the policies of the current US administration, Untermeyer said that he did not “see anything wrong with dealing with Syria” rather than isolating them, which is the current Administration’s policy. He pointed out that isolation and sanctions have never been effective ways to change undemocratic regimes — Cuba being the most prominent example.

During the question and answer session, a student from China, referring to Untermeyer’s statement about defending Taiwan, pointed out that the island has been an integral part of China for far longer than the US has been nation. He asked Untermeyer what the US would do if one of its own states broke away. Untermeyer refused to be drawn into the Chinese student’s analogy, instead repeating that the US will fight based on its own principles of defending democracy, rather than historic precedent or economic interest.

An Indian student then queried how the US could spring to democratic Taiwan’s defence, yet cosy up with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who overthrew a democratically elected government. Untermeyer acknowledged that Pakistan presented a whole slew of policy difficulties for the US, but that the US saw Musharraf as “our man” for now in no small part because of the threat of Al Qaeda.

Untermeyer admitted that there were many examples of US actions that contradicted this assessment. However, he pointed out that even pragmatists like former secretary of state Henry Kissinger conceded that the principled, values-based approach to foreign policy will in the long run prevail over an approach based purely on hard nosed pragmatism and selfish national interests.

————

This article first appeared in theonlinecitizen.com.

Lessons from the Land of the Rising Sun

Elena and I just returned from a vacation in Japan. It was quite a memorable experience indeed! We spent a few days in Tokyo, visiting places like Disneysea, Akihabara and even the Yasukuni Shrine. The latter is probably not a common tourist destination for ethnic Chinese like myself. It is the final resting place and memorial to Japanese soldiers who died fighting for their country, including convicted the “Class A” war criminals who committed great atrocities against the people of Asia, including those Singapore, Malaya and the Philippines. My great grandfather and grand uncle were abducted by Japanese Imperial Army soldiers during the early days of the War, never to be seen again. (They were probably shot and killed on a beach in Singapore’s east coast.)

But I thought it would useful to see first hand the place that has been the cause of so much tension between Japan and its neighbours, China and Korea. I recognised the arch and walkway from TV footage of former Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi walking through during his provocative visits to the Shrine. Unfortunately I missed the real fanfare which was to take place a few days later, on August 15, the anniversary of the US atomic bombing of Hiroshima. That is the day that many right wing Japanese parliamentarians and dignitaries visit to Shrine to pay homage to their fallen “heros”. (Admittedly not all those in Yasukuni were war criminals, and for the record I don’t agree with President Harry Truman’s decision to drop the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing an estimated 120,000 Japanese civilians.)

After Tokyo, we took a beautiful drive across the island of Hokkaido, Japan’s northern frontier, which is home to just 2 per cent of Japan’s 121 million people. We both don’t speak Nihon-go, so GPS, hand signs and Kanji characters came in quite useful in finding our way around.

This post isn’t a journal entry about our vacation. Instead, I thought I’d share some of the things we observed about the Japanese people, their behaviour and the way their society is organised, and the lessons that Singaporeans could learn from this amazing land. My positive observations fall under 3 broad categories:

1. Consideration for others

In Japan, it is considered rude for your mobile phone to ring in any enclosed space. In our entire two weeks there, we only heard cell phones ring twice — and both instances occurred in open, public areas. Contrast this with my two hours at Singapore’s National Library last Saturday, when I heard phones ringing at least four times!

Driving in Japan, even in a crowded city like Sapporo, was a breeze because everyone gives way, even when they are not required to. I felt a little embarrassed once when I didn’t give way to a car coming out of a petrol station onto the main road, and the car behind me did. I only heard a car horn sound once, and that was a cab driver honking at another cabbie.

Although most Japanese can’t speak much English, everyone we approached for help was more than willing to assist. There was once in Tokyo we got lost and asked a young lady for directions. She didn’t know the way so we thanked her and continued on our way. A few minutes later, on seeing that we were still lost, she came back and tried to ask someone else along the street for help on our behalf! I was amazed at her kindness.

2. Self governance

By self governance, I’m referring to individual citizens willingness to do the right thing, even without being compelled to do so by governing authorities.

On escalators, no matter how crowded it is, everyone — yes everyone — stands on the left, to allow those in a hurry to overtake.

While we were waiting at the crowded Tokyo metro, my jaws almost dropped when I saw all the commuters queuing up in two neat rows on each side of the train doors, waiting their turn to enter. I wonder whether I’ll ever live to see that happening at Jurong East MRT, where the Law of the Jungle apparently reigns supreme.

The Japanese are committed to recycling. Most trash cans have three separate bins — for combustibles, non-combustibles and liquids. The Japanese all faithfully separate their rubbish before throwing. (Yes, they all clear their own trays at fast food restaurants.) There was once at a KFC when I couldn’t figure out which bin was for which item of trash (since I don’t read Japanese). I was tempted to “anyhow throw it”, but societal pressure forced me to do the right thing and ask someone for help.

3. Work attitude

Customer service in Japan is light years ahead of Singapore. Everyone, from hotel staff to waiters to 7-11 cashiers are genuinely friendly and nice. What impressed us most was the work attitude of even those working in “menial” positions like petrol station attendants, car park security guards and toilet cleaners. When I drove into petrol kiosks, the pump attendant would take off his cap, bow and smile. I didn’t even have to get out of my car, as he (or sometimes she) would clean my windshield and collect my payment without expecting any tip.

The public toilets, including those in the metro stations, were sparkling clean and odour free — better than even the toilets in Changi airport — and without a cleaner camped permanently in the toilet. Each cleaner is decked in a smart, white uniform and my guess is that he or she is simply more efficient and effective in his cleaning duties.

Beyond these, one thing I really liked about the hotels there is free, unlimited Internet access from the rooms! No where else, in all my travels, have I enjoyed this in hotels.

Obviously, Japanese society isn’t without faults, and I have chosen to only highlight the positive things in this post. But I think if Singaporeans could learn a thing or two from the Japanese, it could pave the way for us to be a truly developed, First World country.

A YOUTHniquely Singaporean film competition

I’m helping South West CDC organise a film competition. The theme of the competition is “YOUTHniquely Singapore”. So far, we have received quite a number of quality entries. The films can be viewed at www.yourfilm.sg.

Registration is open now until 21 September. If you have something to say about Singapore and can express it using a film, do consider joining! Registration is free and is open to all youths (15-35 years) in Singapore. Top prize is $1,000 in cash and prizes! Just click here to register and submit your films.

A little red dot worth fighting for

“I am not going to sacrifice my life for a worthless piece of land”, cried one reader in response to one of my articles last year about National Service (NS).

As Singapore celebrates its 42^nd National Day in a few days, I hope the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans do not share such a cynical view.

Some Singaporeans see the nation of Singapore, the government and the People’s Action Party (PAP) as one monolithic entity that they either love or hate. Last year, it was reported that some Singaporeans refused to fly their flag during National Day because they were unhappy with some government’s proposed GST hike.

Retired senior civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow once said that “Singapore is larger than the PAP”. I strongly agree. Surely it is possible to disagree with the government, yet still love our country. Similarly bad experiences with the government (like NS for some men) should not diminish our patriotism.

While we cope with the daily stresses of school or work, it is understandable that we often focus on the negative aspects of our country, like the fast pace of life, the high cost of living or our authoritarian government. Unfortunately, we sometimes forget to count the many blessings we have received as Singaporeans. Here are some of the top things I love about Singapore…

Peace. National and regional peace has eluded many countries. To this day many countries like Myanmar, Sudan, Nigeria, Palestine, Zimbabwe and Pakistan are still in the throes of civil unrest or war. Talk to the suffering people there and they will tell you how they wish for peace in their land. The peace that Singapore currently enjoys is much to be thankful for indeed — and not to be taken for granted, especially when we live in a pretty rough neighbourhood.

Low crime. Singapore is probably the safest big city in the world. Those of us who have lived in other countries (including developed ones) would particularly appreciate how safe our streets are. When I was living in Los Angeles, my individual freedom of movement is severely curtailed every day by the fear of violent crime. (The campus Starbucks in my university was robbed at gunpoint, and there was a drive-by shooting outside my house the year after I left.) Many expatriates would probably cite our safe environment as one of the top reasons they chose to relocate together with their families to Singapore.

Unity in diversity. Our ethnic and cultural diversity is a tremendous asset. It has undoubtedly contributed to the vibrancy of our local culture, which has in turn placed Singaporeans in good standing to thrive in a globalised world. Ethnic diversity has been a source of great conflict in many countries. Fortunately this is not so in Singapore, where our inter-ethnic peace can be considered one of the greatest achievements of our people.

Top grade schools. Singapore students have notched some of the top scores in international benchmarks, particularly in maths and science. Singapore maths textbooks for the primary grades are being used more than 200 schools in almost all 50 states in the US. The facilities, academic standards and teaching quality of our schools are on par with some of the best in the world. Although there are many concerns over the pressure cooker environment of our schools, on the whole, I think I would rather have it this way, than have them operate like playschools.

In addition to high academic standards, our public schools also give parents the confidence that their children can go to school in safe environment free of drugs and gang violence that plagues many inner city schools in developed countries.

Excellent healthcare. Singaporeans enjoy one of the best standards of healthcare anywhere in the world. I know a Nigerian businessman who travels half way around the world every year to come to Singapore for his routine medical check-up. I have also met cabinet ministers of countries like Bangladesh who say they regularly visit Singapore for medical treatment. They would not do so if they did not think that Singapore has the best medical facilities and doctors in the region. Singaporeans are incredibly fortunate to have easy access to such excellent healthcare facilities and world renown doctors, often at heavily subsidised prices.

Social mobility. Our system of meritocracy has provided opportunities for almost anyone to succeed, as long as they are willing to work hard and never give up. We do not have a caste system which pigeon-holes particular groups, or a system of patronage which requires guanxi (connections) with important people to get anywhere in life. Our meritocracy is by no means perfect. Being in the majority race or being a “white horse” is unfortunately still often an advantage, but I think we have generally achieved a pretty level playing field for all, with some room for improvement.

Singaporean culture. Who says Singaporeans got no culture? Singlish not part of our culture, meh? How about our unique blend of Malay, Indian, Chinese and Western food? I would even consider the shared experience of NS to be part of our culture (at least for half the population).

Freedom of speech…at least on the Internet. Singapore is by no means a bastion of media freedom. However, the Government’s “light touch” approach to regulating the Internet certainly deserves honourable mention. Since the explosion of popularity of blogs in the past two years, there hasn’t been a single report of political bloggers being
hauled in by the police for crossing the proverbial “out-of-bounds (OB)” markers. Despite the political vitriol against the government published on some local socio-political sites, the only Netizens who have gotten in trouble with the law here are three silly young men who made some deplorable remarks about other races and religions in Singapore. Their punishment was justified in the eyes of most Singaporeans.

National Day is an excellent time to reflect on how much we love and appreciate our country. Our country might have its flaws, but if we take an honest look at the state of our nation, most of us will agree Singapore is still a wonderful place to live in, and little red dot worth fighting for.

Happy National Day to all Singaporeans and Majulah Singapura!

————-

This article first appeared in theonlinecitizen.

Pray for the Korean hostages in Afghanistan

This is a photo of the 23 South Koreans (18 women, five men) who were abducted by the Taliban in Afghanistan six days ago. The group includes doctors and nurses who went to Afghanistan to provide medical services for humanitarian purposes. These young people, filled with passion and idealism, were trying to make a difference in this broken world.

The militants have already killed one of the men in the group. They are demanding that eight of their jailed fighters be released, or the remaining hostages will be killed.

According to blogger eugenecho, who translated an article from Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo, the man killed is Pastor Bae Hyung Kyu. He was 42 years old
was the leader of this relief group. He was on staff as the pastor of the Young Adult ministries in Saemmul Presbyterian Church which he helped to plant nine years ago and which has since grown to nearly 4,000 people. Pastor Bae is survived by his wife and his daughter.

This is a deplorable evil act that is being committed. It is unlikely that Korea will accede to terrorists’ demands, unlike what the Philippines did sometime back when some of its nationals got kidnapped. Hence, the fate of the hostages is really uncertain.

I hope we can join millions of Koreans and people around the world in praying for this group’s safe release and passage back to Korea.

Photo: CNN.com/AP

Response to Straits Times’ questions for article "Internet users learning netiquette the hard way"

Last Friday (July 20), the Straits Times contacted me to ask for my views for their article, “Internet users learning netiquette the hard way” (ST, July 25). The following are the questions and my responses.

Straits Times (ST): I see that you have put your name down on the blog and not shy behind annonymity (sic). But when you blog, are you consciously aware that there are people reading you? If so, do you hold back on talking about certain topics or word your arguments carefully?

Gerald (GG): Yes, I am aware that many people in Singapore and in other countries read my articles (which I write for not just my own blog but other online publications like TheOnlineCitizen.com and OhmyNews International as well). I take a very considered approach to my articles. I do not write things that could be deemed illegal in Singapore. For example, I refrain from making ad hominem attacks on people, and I am careful not to reveal any official secrets (which I might have learned during my NS or when I was a foreign service officer in MFA). However, I do not hold back criticism when I feel criticism is due. For example, I wrote a series of articles last year arguing against the latest GST hike in Singapore. (See the articles here, here, here and here.) But even when I criticise, I try to focus on the issue rather than the person(s). Where possible, I also try to present alternative solutions, although I don’t believe that all criticism needs to be accompanied by solutions.

ST: What do you think of the Wee Shu Min case? I’m thinking if she said it quietly to her friends, nothing would have happened. In this case, it was the Internet, a public area where people read and take notice of what you say, that blew the issue up. Its abit like racism, isn’t it? One can be racist among racist and nobody would take notice. But broadcast it, combined with the fact that one is a public figure, or related to one, and that person can be in big trouble. Would you agree?

GG: The dismissive and arrogant tone of her online rant was interpreted by many Singaporeans as being reflective of the disconnect that some of our “elite” have from mainstream society. I do not agree that one can say nasty or racist things about others in private, but not in public. Sooner or later, one will be held to account. For example, your friends might hear what you mutter in private, and decide to broadcast your words on their blog. But I do agree that public figures (and their relatives) need to be aware that their words carry more weight than that of the ordinary man on the street.

ST: The spread of information over the net is also stupendous. Immediately almost. Do you take care in verifying information before writing or blogging about it?

GG: Yes, I never publish anything without verifying the facts. I see that as my responsibility as a citizen journalist. There is a lot of information on the Net, but it is not as difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff as many “blogophobes” like to make it out to be. Adults should have no problem telling apart a false and misleading website from a genuine one. I think schools and parents have a responsibility to inculcate some media literacy in our young, rather than try to shield them from the Net. But I feel the mainstream media and some of our politicians do bloggers a disservice when they keep perpetuating the myth that blogosphere (and the Internet in general) is “full of clever propaganda, inflammatory opinions, half-truths and untruths” (see this article of mine). I think Singaporean bloggers in general are very responsible citizen journalists.

(Verbal question over a subsequent phone call by the journalist. May not be verbatim.)

ST: Have you ever gotten yourself in trouble because of something you blogged about?

GG: No, I am always very careful about what I blog about.

(Another verbal question)

ST: Do you know anyone who has gotten himself or herself in trouble because of their blog? We are writing an article highlighting some recent incidents where people got burnt because of comments they published on their blogs.

GG: I am in touch with a number of fellow bloggers and I am not aware of any of them who have gotten in trouble because of their blog. I don’t think this is a very a big issue in Singapore.

Afterthoughts:

I’m aware that several other social-political bloggers were also approached by the ST for this article. It seems the questions asked were almost identical. Dansong has published his responses on Singapore Angle. I notice only quotes from university professors and MPs made the final cut. Oh well… :)

What I was actually uncomfortable with was the slant of the article from the outset. It was obvious from the questions that the ST was trying to frame the article in terms of “Singapore bloggers are an irresponsible lot and the nonsense they write always gets them in trouble”.

Is this another example of how the mainstream media is trying to make the new media look like an amateurish and unreliable source of information?