Cry Freedom

Two Souls

2011-12-21T12:16:00.000+08:00

The Arab manning the hotel souvenir shop invited us to come in out of the cold, no purchase necessary. After learning we were from Singapore, he said his name was the equivalent of Peter, as in St Peter. Not exactly something one would shout from the top of the roof in a 99.9 percent Muslim country.

Peter said business throughout Egypt was in the doldrums, following the departure of Mubarak. Would he consider Mubarak a good guy? Yes, said Peter, he was a strongman, but he was getting old (in the head). The new set of leaders are wimps by comparison, and have yet to earn the confidence of the people. Uh uh, we know the feeling, but discretion kept our opinions to ourselves.

Raul the bellhop was from Mumbai. He heard from friends Sentosa World Resort was hiring. Where are the Dubai nationals, we asked him. From the waiters in the coffee shop to the guy in charge of the internet kiosk, everyone was from the Philippines. Only the drivers for the shuttle buses to the city shopping center were not speaking in Tagalog. And practically all the sales staff at the shops were filipinas. One of them said she recognised our "Singapore accent" - maybe she was a former domestic who relocated for the higher pay in Dubai. One up for our distinctive "national identity".

Raul said the drivers were likely from Pakistan or similar. There was the odd bearded guy with a burkha draped missus (or two) in tow. Maybe our hotel was not in the same class as the ones Thaksin hangs out at. Maybe there are more local born and bred there. Maybe.

Blood On His Hands

2008-11-29T18:04:00.004+08:00

The Mumbai terrorists were targetting Americans and British citizens. So why was Singaporean Lo Hwei Yen, 28, shot? Lo is a Chinese lady married to an Indian Singaporean. Her death was confirmed on 28 November 2008 at 9.35 pm Singapore time. She first spoke to her husband at 2 a.m. on Thursday 27 November, informing him hotel staff had told her to move to another level in the Oberoi Trident Hotel. Later, at 6 a.m. she told him she was taken hostage.

An Indian news channel had reported earlier that the terrorists had held the woman at gunpoint and ordered her to tell the Singapore Government to tell the Mumbai authorities to refrain from acting against them or she would lose her life.

Perhaps the clue lies in the ill choice of words in the following communication from one prime minister to another:

HE Manmohan Singh
Prime Minister
Republic of India

27 November 2008

Dear Prime Minister,

I was shocked to learn of the series of terrorist attacks in Mumbai on 26 November 2008. On behalf of the Government of Singapore, I convey our deepest condolences to you, the Government of India and the families of the victims .
The terrorists have taken several people of different nationalities as hostages, including a Singaporean . We are already working closely with the Indian authorities on this. Singapore stands ready to assist the Indian authorities in any way to secure the safe release of the Singaporean and other hostages .
I am confident that the Indian people will rally around your government as it deals with the Mumbai terrorist attacks and bring the perpetrators to justice . The Mumbai attacks are another reminder that terrorism continues to be a common threat to all of us. We strongly support your government's efforts in fighting the scourge of terrorism .

Yours sincerely,
Lee Hsien Loong

Salaries For Fat Cats

2008-11-25T11:18:00.005+08:00

In April 2007 and January this year, the salaries of top civil servants and ministers were revised upwards again "to keep pace with soaring private sector salaries". But, in the light of economic doldrums island wide, the Public Service Division apparently had to bite the bullet and announced that the 2009 salary revision for this group has now been deferred (not cancelled). The original game plan was that the already over paid top civil servants and ministers were supposed to get another pay rise in January next year. It was to be the third adjustment to bring public sector pay to 88 per cent of the private sector benchmark, a move announced in April 2007.

Ministers and top civil servants will now get a pay cut of up to 19 per cent next year. The Civil Service is also reducing the year-end bonus payment for this year.

The guiding benchmark, we are told, is set at two-thirds of the median pay of the top eight earners in each of the six sectors: multinational corporations, lawyers, bankers, accountants, local manufacturers and engineers. What piques one's curiosity is that, despite endemic bankruptcies, and wide scale retrenchments in private corporations, the government released data show that all indexed professions in the private sector, excepting accountants (probably the lot working for Lehman Brothers and the like), are earning 11 to 35 per cent more in 2008 than in 2007.

Commenting on the pay cut, Mr Teo Chee Hean, Minister in charge of the Civil Service, said: "Public sector salaries follow the market up and down. The mechanism we introduced last year to link a significant proportion of the salary of senior civil servants to the performance of the economy is working as intended. This mechanism allows salaries to respond more rapidly to market conditions." Maybe the minister has another set of figures for his speech.

The facts on hand seem to suggest that the formula used to calculate the ministrial paycheck is not as straight forward as claimed. Like the formula used to calculate the tariff rate for electricity, the mathematics involved will probably take several man-years to explain.

The Public Service Division also took pains to highlight that the Prime Minister has and will continue to donate all increases in his own salary after the April 2007 revisions, to good causes for five years. Note "good causes" and not "charitable organisations."

One Party Rule

2008-11-20T10:38:00.002+08:00

Two-party system cannot work here, says PM Lee (18 Nov 2008, Straits Times)

A two-party system cannot work in Singapore, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on Sunday.

This is because it is adversarial and guarantees neither good governance nor progress.

As long as the People's Action Party (PAP) changes itself and continues to provide clean and good government, and the lives of Singaporeans improve, the country is much better off with one dominant, strong, clean party, he said.

Speaking at the PAP annual conference, Mr Lee highlighted two examples of how the two-party system worked: The United States and Taiwan.

Concerning the US, he noted that Mr Barack Obama had campaigned on the theme of 'Change we can believe in'.

The President-elect would now try to change the direction of the country because that was the nature of the system in the US: One party changing what the other has done once it is in power.

The US could afford such change because it was a big country, said Mr Lee.

'It has a big pool from which to find political talent. Mr Obama will be able to find many able people to hold his administration... According to one report, they are all waiting beside their telephones waiting for the phone call.'

He added that while Republican presidential candidate John McCain might have given a 'very gracious' concession speech after he lost to Mr Obama, that will not alter the stark reality of adversarial politics in the US: The Republican Party will be doing all it can over the next four years 'to undermine the Democratic Party, and in the next elections, beat it, and get back into power'.

The US could withstand such an adversarial system because of its size: 'Whatever happens, the US will still be there. Eventually, problems will be put right and life will go on.'

In smaller countries however, there was no guarantee 'that if something goes wrong...you can put Humpty Dumpty together again', he noted.

He cited Taiwan as an example of how two-party democracy had been detrimental to people's lives.

In 2000, its voters, unhappy with the 'corrupt' and 'stale' Kuomintang (KMT), voted in MrChen Shui-bian's Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

But after eight years of his presidency, they saw the 'sad results' - a stagnant economy, polarised politics and worsening corruption.

So they voted him out, and returned the KMT to power.

But the KMT found it was not so easy to get the economy restarted or to restore good government and have a less polarised political environment.

The Taiwanese today are disappointed with President Ma Ying-jeou because his campaign promise of instant improvements has not materialised, said Mr Lee.

Yet the alternative to President Ma in the form of the DPP leader would do no better.

Taiwan would qualify as a democracy by Western standards because it has had two changes of government in the past eight years, said Mr Lee, but it was not a political system that worked properly. It was 'malfunctioning'.

'I don't think you want that kind of political system in Singapore,' he said.

So just how well is his PAP team doing under the one-party rule system? Official statistics released show that the budget deficit for 2008 is negative $2.4 billion, revised from the earlier projected $0.8 billion. In 2007 the government had a budget surplus of $6.5 billion.

Also, it was reported that the Town Councils run by PAP members of parliament invested $16 million in failed Lehman Brothers-linked structured products. Statutory boards - Civil Service College, Singapore Land Authority, Infocomm Development Authority - incurred a 14 percent loss on investments in credit-linked notes.

The last word from his father is also worth noting: Lee Kuan Yew once told the media that if the PAP fails to deliver, he expects the military will step in.

An Expensive Messenger Boy

2008-11-03T09:14:00.004+08:00

The uproar began over a month ago, when SP Services announced that electricity tariffs would increase 21.5 per cent in the last quarter of this year. Consumers already burdened by record inflation saw red, pointing to the $1.08 billion that SP's parent company, Singapore Power, made last year. How would the poor cope, and why couldn't Singapore Power use some of its profits to absorb the cost, many asked in newspapers and internet forums.

After remaining largely silent while market regulator, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) made pathetic responses to news coverage and letters to the press, group chief executive Quek Poh Huat told a media briefing that blaming SP services for high tariffs was akin to shooting the messenger.
"If I'm the lorry driver (delivering) goods to your house, and you ask me how come the price for a bag of rice has doubled, I can't explain to you," said chief financial officer Yap Chee Keong, who, like his boss, draws a superscale salary which is more than double that of a lorry driver.

We are told the transmission charge, which is collected by SP services, makes up 17 percent of the tariff. The EMA sets the formula for tariffs, which Non-Constituency Member of Parliament asked to be revealed in Parliament last month. Expectedly, the Singapore Power lorry drivers are very quiet on this request. At best the public will get a Ong Teng Cheong type answer about how many man years will be required to make the computations.
Singapore Power's profit from the regulated electricity market monopoly here was $423 million last year, representing a 6 per cent return on total assets, which is more than double what the public gets from their Central Provident Fund compulsory savings (2.5 per cent). And it's also higher than the 5 percent promised returns on the Lehman-linked structured deposits, which many retirees turned to because of the pathetic 1 per cent offered for bank fixed deposits.
Reader Daniel Gwee wrote in his response:
"SP Services in not an office boy. It has a higher mandate: That of a negotiator, to get the best terms for us and not pass on what terms have been quoted by a supplier.
We have been told Singapore switched to the use of natural gas as a more competitive source than fuel oil for generation purpose.
Have we been able to get the best commercial financing terms, and is it cheaper than obtaining Government funds?"

Shifting Sands At Marina Bay Casino

2008-10-24T05:38:00.000+08:00

Las Vegas Sands, the company building Marina Bay Sands resort, one of two casinos championed by PM Lee Hsien Loong, saw its share price plunge from a 52-week high of US$144.15 to Tuesday's (21 Oct 08) price of US$12.43, on concerns about a slowdown at its US operations, profitability of its Macau casinos and high gearing. According to Associated Press, Las Vegas Sand's CEO Mr Sheldon Adelson and his wife lent the company US$475 million this month to meet liquidity requirements and avoid triggering a loan covenant. Sheldon disputed reports that his company was having trouble getting banks to agree to terms.
Mr Sheldon said in February that it had obtained all the necessary financing, amounting to $5.25 billion, to develop the Marina Bay Sands casino, which is due to open at the end of 2009.
Not exactly good news for local banks DBS, OCBC and UOB, who are among the 12 lead arrangers of the $5.25 billion loan. "Although the banks are well capitalised, this may be a significant hit because they are lead arrangers for the syndicated loan," said UOB Kay Lian bank analyst Jonathan Koh. Mr Koh said in a note that OCBC and DBS could still be holding a bulk of term loans allocated, although UOB might have distributed a portion of its term loans to foreign banks.
Already embroiled in the repercussions from the Lehman Brothers collapse, DBS admitted its standards in the sale of the Lehman-linked notes were not followed in some cases and announced investors involved will be compensated immediately. DBS Bank issued and distributed DBS High Notes 5 in Singapore and other Lehman-linked products in Hongkong, and estimated total compensation in Singapore and Hongkong of at $70 to $80 millions. It sold the Lehman-linked structured notes to 4,700 customers in the two economies, who invested a total of $360 millions.
Mr Leng Seng Choon, head of research at DMG & Partners Securities, highlighted that investors in the Marina Bay Sands casino complex should note that there is "some national interest" in this project. "The entire project was first initiated by the Government, I think we have to take that into consideration." Is he suggesting that the taxpayers may be picking up some of the tab?

Unbecoming Police Behaviour

2008-10-23T09:12:00.002+08:00

When Mr Tong Mun Cheong woke up following an epileptic seizure on Oct 1, he found himself handcuffed and inside a police lock-up.
The last thing he remembered was waiting for a taxi in Sungei Road earlier that evening.
Mr Tong, 34, said a police officer told him he had been taken in for drunken behavior and refused to let him call his mother for his seizure medication.
"I told them I had fits but the police didn't believe me. I asked them to take me to the hospital, but they said 'no'," said Mr Tong, who has been suffering from epilepsy since 1996.
After three hours in the lock-up without food, water or medication, Mr Tong suffered another attack.
His mother, Madam Er Swee Chew, told the Straits Times that the officers still would not let his son go.
"They told me he was having an attack but there were ambulance staff attending to him," said the 67-year-old housewife.
She had his medication, but the officer would not give it to him, she said.
They also refused to talk to staff at the Singapore General Hospital who could verify her son was epileptic, she claimed.
It was only after Mr Tong's older brother spoke to them that he finally released. "Mun Cheong's brother had told them that if they didn't release him, they had to be responsible for anything that may happen to him," said Madam Er.
The Straits Times (22 Oct 2008) reported that it was not the first time that epilepsy patients, like Mr Tong, have been arrested by the police on suspicion of unruly behavior or drunkenness.
The police force has been hit recently with a spate of resignations, despite being rewarded with substantial salary increments inspite of the complacency attributed to the escape of alleged terrorist Mas Selamat Kastari and security lapses at Changi airport and the surbordinate courts.

Freedom Of Speech

2008-07-02T08:54:00.002+08:00

Writing to the Wall Street Journal, Lee Kuan Yew's press secretary relives Bhavani's attack on MrBrown, complete with gross inaccuracy and blatant distortion. Where in the court transcript was anyone labelled "murderers, robbers, child molesters" and "rapists"?

Your editorial ("Democracy in Singapore," June 26), relying on a "partial transcript," has misunderstood the issue in the libel case involving Dr. Chee Soon Juan and his sister.

The case had nothing to do with political freedom. It was for defamation arising from the Chees' false claims that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kuan Yew are criminals and corrupt. Despite being advised by a Queen's Counsel, they failed to produce any credible defense or evidence to back up their claims.

Having lost, Dr. Chee in open court then called the Singapore leaders "murderers, robbers, child molesters" and "rapists." The Chees also rebuked the judge, ignored her orders and shouted her down. In Ms. Chee's defense, her lawyer could only claim that she was "almost paranoid." This is why the judge sentenced the Chees to imprisonment for scandalizing the court.

Many opposition politicians routinely criticize government leaders, but are not sued because they have not uttered slanderous falsehoods. Contrary to your editorial, Singapore upholds free speech and the right to disagree, subject to the law.

Singapore's laws must be decided by Singaporeans, not by foreigners like Gopalan Nair, who is a U.S. citizen, or by the foreign media. Foreign media are entitled to report and comment on what is happening in Singapore, but they circulate here subject to Singapore law. They have no right to defame, to give a skewed account of court proceedings, or to engage in Singapore politics, for example, by campaigning for their version of Western style "democracy" for Singapore.

Yeong Yoon Ying
Press Secretary to Minister Mentor
Singapore

When challenged to prove the veracity of her statement: "Dr Chee had called Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew ‘murderers, robbers, child molesters’ and ‘rapists’ in open court", the press secretary responded thus:

I enclose p. 115 of the verbatim court reporting transcript of the hearing on28 May 2008. Line 11 onwards reads:

Mr Davinder Singh: “ ... And to conclude on Dr Chee’s submissions, he says that he doesn’t wish Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong ill. In that same breath, he says he stands by The New Democrat article, which alleged that they are ‘criminals, corrupt, and covered up matters in the NKF’. And under his breath he’s now just said ‘murderers and robbers’.”

Dr Chee: “And rapists, too, you might as throw it in, you know, right? Child molesters”.

Mr Singh: “And this is the man who says “I don’t wish them ill”.

Dr Chee has once again lied to Singaporeans.

She must think Singaporeans share her same IQ level.

Tangs Chief in Kidneys-for-sale Case

2008-06-30T10:09:00.002+08:00

In the first case of it kind, two Indonesian men who agreed to sell their kidneys have pleaded guilty to organ trading offences under the Human Organ Transplant Act. Court documents cite 55-year-old Mr Tang Wee Sung, executive chairman of retail giant CK Tang, as one of the patients who had offered to pay about 150 million rupiah (about $22,200) to Sulaiman Damanik. Although Mr Tang did not get his transplant because police investigations put a stop to the transaction, Ms Juliana Soh returned to Medan after receiving her kidney at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in March this year. Both patients were treated by renal physician Dr Lye Wai Choong, president of the Society of Transplantation (Singapore), who has a clinic at the Mount Elizabeth Medical Centre.
The high profile names must present a moral dilemma for Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan, who claimed that "no matter how desperate the situation is, we must never break the law." The last time he had to face down powerful personalities was when NKF CEO TT Durai and Chairman Richard Yong marched into his office for an opinion on the SPH defamation suit. During a walkabout in the 2006 general elections he stood his grounds about not be able to claim anything for bills that are below below the deductible amount, when a retiree asked for help with his monthly medical bill, which was just $1.00 short of the $20.00 limit. Except for this reneging of his no means test election promise, Mr Khaw's record has proved to be more acceptable than that of his cabinet colleagues. Specifically, nobody can do worse than the Home Affairs Minister with his Mas Selamat Kastari cartoonish escape from the Whitely Road Detention Center, the breakout debacle from the Subordinate Courts lock-up, and the embarassing revelation that a man could sail past airport security checkpoints with a wrong passport. In all three instances, only the "small people" were taken to task, although the public is still baying for the resignation of the Home Affairs Minister.
The duo who sold their kidneys are expected to be sentenced within a week, but what about the buyers, the "runner" and the doctor who made the organ swop in the operating theater?

Cabby caught ranting on Youtube

2008-06-29T09:21:00.005+08:00

The local press had reported the altercation as “Cabby caught ranting on Youtube”. But MediaCorp Executive (ME) Andrew Teo, who posted his personal video on STOMP, decided to delete it after attracting an avalanche of unsympathetic comments. It serves as an interesting commentary on stressful Singapore living that sociologists will be studying years from now, down to the reference on ex-PM Goh Chok Tong's recommendations. A rough transcript goes like this:

ME: What, you tell me to f–k off, is it?

Cabby: I’m tellin you to f–k off.

ME: He tell me to f–k off, you know, he’s against road directions and he ask me to f–k off! He say, he just asked me to f–k off, I have it on recording, ah. Get the hell out of here, you understand me?!

Cabby: Get out the hell!

ME: This is Medicorp okay, we’re staff here…
You get the hell out of my face now, get out now! Okay!?

CISCO: Sir, I need you to move, sir…

ME: Move, move your ass! Understand or not!

Cabby: You shutup, lah, shutup!

ME: What, shutup? I’m going to stick… no, none of my business… this is a civil, this is a civil… traffic police case, and civil case, against directions, I’m asking you nicely to get out… don’t get out, right?

Cabby: I don’t need you to tell me, okay?

ME: What? What? You get out now!

Cabby: I don’t need you to tell me, okay?

ME: What? I don’t need you to tell me? I’m a civil servant… civil minded ser….
You get out now, hey, get out lah, come on, get out now, get out!!
Two CISCO officers here, you don’t obey orders. Call police, Sally, say harassment now, just call triple nine, call triple nine, say there’s a police officer coming, send … just call triple nine, say…
Ah come on, lah, don’t try to be funny, lah... What do you mean here first, here second? I’m telling you to… arrest… I tell you you are against direction, you tell me to f–k off, right?

CISCO: Sir, I need you to move aside…

ME: No, no, I won’t move, I won’t move, he has to move… see!

Cabby: Okay, you win lah!

ME: No, what win? This is a police case, okay?

Cabby:You win lah!

ME: Not me, the government win.

Cabby: I don’t care if this is a police case..

ME: The government win, okay? The government… so? so? so? so?
You are against direction, you out! Get the hell out of here!

Cabby: (On) what authority, man…

ME: What no authority? I’m a citizen of Singapore, what no authority? What no authority? You are under citizen arrest now. Excuse me, officer, take down his office… his, his particulars now… Ah, go, go, better go, go… You want a citizen arrest or not? You want citizen arrest? Then don’t go, if you got the guts, don’t go! SHC XXXX… What, you are against direction now..

Cabby: F–k off, now, get out of my sight!

ME: No, I won’t f–k off, why should I f–k off?

Cabby: What you, bloody blur lah, on the street, you want to make nonsense…

ME: What? What? You don’t go, if you got the guts, stay one more, stay…
Yeah, stay, good, don’t go ah? Don’t go! Don’t go! Come on.. hey don’t go then don’t go, take down his particulars, officers…

Cabby: Tell him to shut up, tell him to shut up…

ME: No, you don’t go…

Bystander: Tell him to shut his mouth!

ME: If you got guts, don’t go… So! don’t go lah, don’t go… Hey, come on, chicken shit, don’t go! (Cab drives off)
Don’t go, you got the guts, don’t go…
Officer, I need you to be witness… to this, er, this is a crime scene, you know, person harass me, this is penal code 323… yeah. This is, er, this is, er, er, er, criminal, you know, criminal offence, you know… I was just telling him please don’t… park against direction. What’s wrong with..? I’m a citizen, I have the right to, you know…. SM Goh Chok Tong say blow whistle, what’s wrong
with that? I have the right, you know?

Silence Of The Lambs

2008-04-27T18:19:00.000+08:00

Using his “People support CPF cuts because there are no protest outside parliament” brand of logic, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong mistook Opposition Member Low Thia Khiang’s silence as concurrence that his Deputy and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng should not resign over the Mas Selamat Kastari SNAFU (Situation Normal All F**ked Up). Lee had pointedly asked Mr Low in parliament: “Let me ask the member whether he thinks (Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng) ought to resign because of this.” When Low declined to respond, he followed up with: “No answer. So I think that settles the point.”
Or does it?
A Dharmendra Yadav, purportedly postgraduate student at the National University of Singapore, speculated that:
1) Mr Low did not want to incur the Government’s wrath and end up having to face a defamation suit;
2) Mr Low did not understand that Mr Lee was asking him a question, since he does not have as good a grasp of English as the Prime Minister;
3) Mr Low might have thought that Mr Lee was asking a rhetorical question — and thus merited no reply.
Singaporeans have been muted on more than one occasion, no thanks to the GRC system, amongst other gerrymandering election tactics. The only instance when their threshhold of pain was breached was when graffiti was scrawled over at the entrance of the National Kidney Foundation building. Even Ho Ching, wife of the Prime Minister, recognised the writing on the wall, and wrote a front page article in the morning paper to appeal for calm.
SM Goh Chok Tong is now trying to deflect from the conumdrum of ministers demanding private sector salaries, but not commensurate acountability, by suggesting that the government should move on and focus on rising prices instead. The latter may be a more difficult task than locating Kastari. Who insisted on implementing the full 2 per cent increase in GST despite widespread objection from the populace?

Debrief Of Mas Selamat

2008-04-22T18:20:00.000+08:00

Mr X: Well, now that the details of your 11 minutes of fame, for which we paid quite a tidy sum to arrrange, are all over the papers, do you have any questions?
MSK: I must say the ledge in the toilet was just the right height for a man with a limp to step up to reach the window without grilles.
Mr X: That was a bonus, just as was the sawed off handle of the window. What you can’t open, you can’t close either.
MSK: Why the bag of seven rolls of toilet paper on the floor just below the toilet window?
Mr X: We weren’t sure the pipes would bear your weight, given the shoddy work of contractors, as demonstrated in the case of the Nicoll Highway collapse. You did break your leg springing out of your Indonesian cell. The toilet rolls provided a less conspicuous cushion in case you fell. The last thing we wanted to, was to ask you go break a leg. Hah, hah, that’s an American joke.
MSK: Turning on the running tap to mask noises, that I understand. Why did I have to flip my pants over the toilet door? I was supposed to be taking a leak in the urinal, not use the jamban. Hey, me laki laki, not perumpuan.
Mr X: That was the signal you had one minute to vamoose. We are proud you did it within 49 seconds, and you may yet represent us at the Beijing Olympics.
MSK: The covered stairway was a godsend to clear the security fence, but did I have to dump my yellow baju kurung? It was my favorite.
Mr X: We wanted them to be on a look out for a naked man limping on one leg, that is when he’s not walking slowly.
MSK: Heh, heh. How come the CCTV cameras were not working?
Mr X: They have maintenance priority for CCTV monitoring only at election offices, to catch opposition candidates screwing up their filing papers.
MSK: What will happen to the ISD director in charge?
Mr X: DPM Wong already told parliament he knows him for many years, kawan-kawan, so he will probably have a CEO post in a GLC lined up. Did you know the guy in the Istana was a ISD director once, and he screwed up big time in the Laju hi-jacking affair?

Who Cares For Rice

2008-04-12T18:21:00.000+08:00

Lamenting that he may have to slave for another 13 years at a paltry $3.6 million++ a year before Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong can find a worthy successor, we are told that out of 19 ministers in cabinet, 12 are scholars, i.e. they possess the requisite 4 As in their school report card. We had a clue of how these types think when, in the doldrums of recession, then minister and Colombo Plan Scholar Yeo Cheow Tong famously said, “Only 5% are unemployed. We still have 95% who are employed.”
Downplaying NTUC Fairprice’s recent hike of 9 to 14 percent for “some varieties” of the currently scarce commodity of rice, labour chief and Minister Lim Swee Say attempted to minimise the inflationary contribution by rationalising that “For every $10 you spend, only 22 cents went to buying rice.”
The Straits Times went on to quote Lim, a SAF scholar, as having said, “You don’t go home, eat rice in the morning and nothing else; lunch time, eat rice alone and nothing else; dinner, eat rice and nothing else….”
Understandably, with his monthly pay check as Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Lim can afford more choices for his meals, such as Filet of Beef Wellington, Escallop of Veal Adriatico, Stuffed Cornish Game Hen with Peaches, Pork Medallions Morella or Paupiettes of Sole Vigneronne. It must be very hard for him to imagine that, with spiralling inflation in Singapore hitting 6%, many people actually have to eat rice at every meal, with or without soya sauce.

Police Mentality

2008-02-05T18:37:00.000+08:00

Ex-Deputy Public Prosecutor Thomas Koshy wrote to ask if bid rigging should be treated as a crime. Four executives of pest elimination companies had been found guilty of a bid rigging scam which involved contracts totalling about $1 million, victims of which included public institutions such as Temasek Junior College and Alexandra Hospital. Yet the fantastic four were subsequently elected into the governing council of the Singapore Pest Management Association (SPMA) - one retaining the post of president. Even grassroots leaders have to envy that kind of political clout.
Questions must also arise when a businessman was punched by an American sailor in Wheelock Place, or when a man had four teeth knocked off by a stranger in a void deck of a Bishan flat, and all the police did was to take down the particulars of the parties involved and let the assailant go. The police claims their hands are tied by the law and how it distinguishes a “simple” hurt case from one which is “grievous.”
Asking, “Are we setting too high a tolerance (for violence)?” non-Constituency Member of Parliament Sylvia Lim said the public found the inability of the police to act rather “non-sensible”, and continuing to keep things the way they are would “undermine the public sense of safety.” She gave an example: If she scratched someone’s car, she could be arrested on the spot for vandalism; but if she punched someone, causing a nose bleed, she could walk away.
Recent revisions to the Penal Code had expanded the definition of grievous hurt to include (1) death (Picture the cop with notepad in hand, “Sir, the victim is dead, can we treat this case this as a grievous assault?”) and (2) non-consensual penetration of the vagina or anus. Wait, the exalted law makers provide that the last instance is grievous only if the penetration “causes severe bodily pain.” If the assailant mimicks Marlon Brando’s creative use of butter in the classic Last Tango in Paris, the police may let him go. And Al Qaeda types will freely roam Orchard Road if they tweak their assault tactics, “No bloodshed, internal injuries only!”

Bullshit Hits The Fan

2008-01-26T18:22:00.000+08:00

Speaking to reporters on his way back from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, Father Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew told the press: “I do not believe the Chinese economy is immune to a US slowdown, nor is the Indian economy.” As for effect on Singapore’s economy, he said, “Our total trade is 300 per cent of our GDP (gross domestic product). So when the external trade goes down, you tell me how we buffer ourselves.”

Meanwhile at a breakfast meeting with 40 businessmen from the French Business Confederation as he wrapped up his 3-day official visit to Paris, Son Prime Minister Lee Hisen Loong is singing a different tune, claiming Singapore and Asia can weather the storm, should the US go into a recession. PM Lee also said the economies of China and India will continue to grow despite what happens in the US, adding: “…in Asia, I think we are stronger and better prepared and we will weather it.”

For the significant portion of the world’s economic movers, shakers and interpreters gathered in the Swiss mountain town of Davos for the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum just as markets from Mumbai to Madrid were freaking out, the writing is already on the wall:
“The debate is not whether we’re going to have a soft landing or a hard landing in the U.S. but how hard the landing is going to be,” says Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics at New York University. He sees a sharp, possibly year-long U.S. recession and a global slowdown. Despite Asia’s torrid growth, consumers in China and India accounted for only $1.6 trillion of the world’s spending last year, a tiny fraction of the $9.5 trillion spent by Americans, according to Stephen Roach, head of Morgan Stanley’s business in Asia. It’s impossible to pull U.S. spending back without sending ripples through the rest of the world.

What has become evident is that globalization can’t insulate us from recessions. Or justify 21% increases for multi-million dollar “top talents.”

A History Of Bullying

2008-01-18T18:23:00.000+08:00

When Parliament sits on Monday, Dr Lily Neo is not going to be content with the fast food pace at which the Speaker moves proceedings to make sure only 90 minutes are available for the 80+ Members of Parliament to deliberate on issues that affect the daily lives of ordinary citizens.
The MP for Jalan Besar GRC has filed a motion of adjournment so she has at least 20 minutes to go in depth into the bullying issue. Apparently one child had been kicked in the stomach while another was kicked in the chest and ribs, but the school principal had put it down to “thoughtless pranks.”
Then there was this principal who broke the hearts and spirit of students from one Secondary 5 class by telling them to GET OUT and apply for places in the ITE as they were unlikely to do well at the O levels, since she wants only 100% passes in her school. Instead of the rebuke expected by infuriated parents, Minister of State for Education Rear-Admiral Lui Tuck Yew claimed the “Principal’s ITE advice ‘had to be delivered.’”
MP Wee Siew Kim said just as much, “people cannot take the brutal truth,” in support of her daughter Wee Shu Min’s vitriolic attack on one innocent Derek Wee (WHY do all the idiots have my surname why?!) for taking pity on the lot of a cab driver, and telling him to “GET OUT of my elite uncaring face”. Hence Dr Neo says she is also concerned about cyber bullying, which takes place through the internet.
Actually the history goes back further when Teh Cheang Wan was Minister of National Development and threatened to withdraw HDB Emergency Lift Services from blocks which voted for the Opposition. Goh Chok Tong upped the ante by threatening to turn into slums those precincts who cast the wrong votes.
As for personal experience on the receiving end, Dr Neo sighed: “If I asked a question, I can only ask two or three sentences, and sometimes a topic deserves more.”

Military Justice, Singapore Style

2008-01-15T18:27:00.000+08:00

Mindef spokesperson Colonel Darius Lim said that only the most serious breaches of military conduct result in jail time. Last year, “less than 5 percent” of the people sentenced in court martials and summary trials ended up behind bars, he said.
So how did Private Marcus Ng end up being one of 150 Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) regulars, full-time national servicemen and operationally ready NSmen, hand-cuffed and incarcerated in the dehumanising cells of the SAF Detention Barracks in remote Kranji? Did he steal a rifle for Al Qaeda, hi-jack one of the general’s Mercedes for a joy ride, or disclose top secret data about the White Horse special treatment for kin of favoured elites? No, his crime was for SPEAKING AGGRESSIVELY to a 50-year-old female 2nd Warrant Officer K Saraswathi in the private confines of his unit’s Operations Room. By comparison, Chee Soon Juan got off easy for yelling loudly, “Where’s the money, Mr Goh” in a very public market place, while directing his query at then PM Goh Chok Tong about the billions promised to Suharto, when Indonesia was a bit cash strapped.
A busybody Master Warrant Officer Ger Ah Kee, a trained Commando, apparently saw the altercation, intervened, and actually laid his grubby hand on the private’s physical body. When Ng shrugged off the Master Warrant Officer’s offending limb, he was slapped with two more charges: one for insubordinate behaviour after the Operations Room argument, and another for improper conduct.
Ng’s defence lawyer, Mr Wendell Wong from Drew & Napier, said a jail term was “the harshest punishment I’ve ever seen for this sort of offence”. Further, the lawyer pointed out to the appeal court that the prosecution had failed to provide relevant documents or offer prosecution witnesses to Ng.
“Nothing undermines morale and discpline more than a widespread perception, rightly or wrongly, that military justice is unfair,” chimed in Dr Bernard Loo, assistant professor in war studies at the Nanyang Technological University.

Good Gracious!

2008-01-09T18:28:00.000+08:00

A gracious Singapore? “Not in my lifetime,” was the reported reply from Lee Kuan Yew at a dialogue with the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (Iseas) on Monday night. His idea of a gracious society include “where people are considerate to one another, where you don’t make more noise to upset your neigbour than you need to.” Commenting on Malaysia’s growth prospects, he had said: “I don’t see any economic hardship in Malaysia, but whether you have a happy people… happiness and economic growth are two different things.”
Some may postulate that conglomerate Fraser & Neave (F&N) was definitely gracious to scrap younger son Lee Hsien Yang’s workload as a business consultant and still give him the $1 million anyway as a paid director. Mr Lee joined the property, food & beverage and publishing conglomerate as its non-executive chairman in October 2007, replacing Dr Michael Fam. As a consultant, Mr Lee’s role was “to assist with the overall strategic planning for the group”, and paid the $1 million in addition to the $250,000 he also draws as a non-executive chairman. It was gracious of F&N as Mr Lee does not have the training, experience or track record in property, food & beverage or publishing. Well, he is the son of Lee Kuan Yew, brother of the prime minister, and brother-in-law of the Third Most Powerful Woman In The World. TODAY graciously added that “the company should be applauded for keeping a corporate talent in Singapore and not losing him to foreign shores”, in the same line of logic as certain ministers can earn more in the private sector, Yeo Cheow Tong excepted.
F&N announced that the consultancy agreement will be dissolved on Jan 31. The consultancy fee will be built into the directors’ fees. F&N also said the requirements of Mr Lee’s role remains the same.

Letter From A Dane

2007-04-25T07:36:00.000+08:00

I read with interest Mentor Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s remark in Singapore’s Parliament that Denmark, Finland and Switzerland can afford mediocrity in the remuneration of their ministers.

I shall restrict my observations to Denmark and Finland.

These 2 Nordic countries reward their leaders, in both the private and public sectors, somewhat less handsomely than Singapore. Despite this, I would suggest that both countries’ governments are by no means mediocre, and neither have they evinced any indication of being able to afford it.

Finland has managed to weather the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 90s, a market for 20% of its exports, in no small part due to its successful transformation from a resource-based to a knowledge-based economy. Its leading multinational, Nokia, is the market leader in the mobile telecommunications industry, with a global market share of 36% in the manufacture of mobile phones (Q42006) and revenues of €41.121 billion (2006). While most of the credit for this success story can be attributed to the Finnish private sector, Finland’s government had a significant role to play in creating the optimal framework for the flourishing of the technology sector. From the mid 1960s onwards, there were special efforts to expand higher education, with a law on higher education passed in 1966, the result being that Finns are some of the most well-educated people in the world.

The Finnish government was also instrumental in pushing for the promotion of GSM as the European mobile telephony standard, based on the Nordic countries’ experience of NMT, an earlier, pan-Nordic standard. The early adoption of GSM in Finland provided the platform for Nokia’s global breakthrough. Decades before the global liberalization of telecommunications markets in the 1990s, Finland’s telecoms market had already been liberalized, and thus had possibly the world’s most competitive market for telecom operators and equipment makers. Credit for this is in no small part due to the role of the Finnish government. Finland devotes a higher percentage of its GNP to research and development than most countries, and the role of the government has been critical, especially in the early 90s, where public-funded research increased despite recession.

In the case of Denmark, the government made the decision in the 1970s to intensify research into renewable energy. Important research was carried out at Risoe, the government research centre, into wind energy. It took political courage to subsidize feeder tariffs for wind turbine-produced electricity. That decision has paid off handsomely. Today, Danish-based companies have a global market share of ca. 50% in the manufacture of wind turbines, an industry with global annual growth rates of 30%, and estimated revenues of €10 billion (2006, est.). Indeed Denmark’s Vestas has recently set up engineering and research facilities in Singapore.

In more general terms, I would submit that both countries’ systems and governments are not mediocre, and are like Singapore’s, acutely aware of not being able to afford it. Rather than Europe being there to catch Finland and Denmark should they falter, both countries have been net contributors to the European Union budget since their accession. Mediocrity is not a hallmark of either society either. In the last 30 years, both countries, despite their small populations, have produced individuals who have won Olympic gold medals, Oscars and Nobel Prizes. They have produced New Economy pioneers, for example Finland’s Linus Torvalds, the creater of Linux (an open-source operating system and competitor to Microsoft’s Windows) and Denmark’s Janus Friis, co-founder of Skype (a peer-to-peer telephony application).

In conclusion, both countries’ positions as globally competitive economies and high-achieving societies have been attained against the backdrop of low corruption levels, and high levels of trust between citizens and government, and seemingly despite high taxes and comprehensive welfare states. This has not required stratospheric levels of remuneration of government leaders and officials.

Mr. Gregory Glen
Holstebro, Denmark

Money Definitely No Enough

2007-03-12T09:40:00.000+08:00

MP for Jalan Besar Dr Lily Neo told parliament that plans by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) to raise by $30 to $115 the public assistance (PA) handout to those with no means of income due to age, illness or disability, was not enough. Said Dr Neo, “My senior constituents told me they need to skip one meal a day so as to manage to survive on the PA amount of $260, and the extra $1 proposed by MCYs will not be able to buy a meal in any hawker centre.” Minister Vivian (male, not female) replied that the entitlements have to kept low so as not to erode the incentive to work. Hello, countered the well coiffured Dr Neo, “surely this line of argument shouldn’t be applied to people who can never work because of disability.” At this stage, Vivian the male Minister told her they always can skip an appointment with the hair-dresser if they want 3 full meals a day. “And tell them not to dance on the bar-top, because that will lead to fights because of jealous boyfriends”. When Dr Neo persisted by reminding the Minister with “Shouldn’t providing three meals a day be a priority of his promise to help the poor cope with higher cost of living, thanks to the GST increase?”, a desperate Vivian scouring the house for support noted that since Opposition MPs are silent on the MCYS debate, perhaps they agree with “my policies, my philosophy and my programmes.” To which Workers’ Party chairman Ms Sylvia Lim replied, “Sir, I’d like to to respond to the minister that there are still four years to ago. We are just enjoying ourselves, watching him dig his own grave.”

Oscar Awards

2007-02-27T18:18:00.000+08:00

Not to be outdone by Hollywood’s 79th Oscar Awards extravaganza, the Singapore parliament decided to convene a Great Budget Debate to showcase its own highly paid performers in action. Dubbed The Mother of All Wanyangs by those in the know who claim the budget is a done deal, nothing will ever come close to the Great Casino Debate. Unlike the nominees for the Oscars who had to wait for the committee’s decision, the parliamentary affair is more predictable.
Walking away with the Comical Ali Award (an allusion to Chemical Ali, the nickname of former Iraqi Defence Minister Ali Hassan al-Majid, who maintained that “everything is just fine” even as American tanks were rolling in) will be “FM” George Yeo. “Our foreign relations are on the whole very good. We have excellent relations with all our major partners, with the US, China, Japan, India, Europe and Australia,” Yeo said in a speech to his parliamentary constituency last Friday.
The Award for Best Script is a giveaway for Vivian Balakrishan who, before executing a classic U-turn, painted a dire scenario thus: “If you want to dance on a bar top, some of us will fall off the bar Top. Some people will die as a result of liberalising bar top dancing… a young girl with a short skirt dancing on it may attract some insults from some other men, the boyfriend will start fighting and some people will die.”
A shoo-in for the Transparency Award will be SM Goh Chok Tong who confessed that Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) in Singapore politics… is not just to ensure minorities are adequately represented in Parliament. “Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics,” he is quoted as saying.
The Best Cusine Award is unanimously accorded to PM Lee who created a new Singapore hawkerfare favourite when he spoke the memorable words, “I give you an example: you put out a fun podcast, you talk about ‘bak chor mee’; I will say “mee siam mai hum”, then we compete.”
Contenders for the Best Fiction may number more than one, but Minister Ng Eng Hen will definitely earn a special mention for his contribution: “Cutting Ministers’ pay won’t trim fat. You’re getting a bargain for the ministers’ pay. As a surgeon, I worked half as much and made 5 times more.” Serious challenge comes from Lim Boon Heng, who said:
“Restoring the pay cuts of civil servants and ministers is reasonable as Singapore’s economy has now regained momentum.”
AND
“I don’t think my reading for the economy is strong enough for us to even consider asking for the restoration of the cut in CPF.”
And the Best Comedian Award absolutely has to go to the new Secretary of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) Minister Lim Swee Say, “We believe that the offset package will actually stimulate some spending, additional demand. For example, the low-income households, the low-wage workers will be spending every dollar that they take from the Offset Package, every dollar that they get from the Workfare and incentive schemes on necessities.”

Crazy Horse Bites Back

2007-02-20T18:17:00.000+08:00

On Sunday, Karl Verhulst, 39, was carrying his year-old son Zakki in his arms when a horse in the Children’s World Animal Land section at the Singapore Zoo stretched over the 1.3 m tall barrier and bit his abdomen. Belgian national Mr Verhulst said, “The crazy horse could have easily bitten my son,” alluding to more dire consequences than the shutting down of the Crazy Horse Salon at Clarke Quay. Zoo spokesperson Isabel Cheng claimed the horse could have been spooked by the exceptionally large crowd during the Chinese New Year holidays, out in force to spend their Workfare Bonuses, Senior Citizens’ Bonuses, etc before the GST hike starts to bite in July. PM Lee told his followers this year’s Budget was a fair package, carefully balanced to provide something for everyone, except maybe horses. “Five years and seven years of offset (equivalent of GST increase) is quite a lot of money”, said Mr Lee, but horses, and Singaporeans who are encourage to “stay involved and actively engaged” until ready for the glue factory, are not entirely convinced. They pointed out that the GST offset package was reported to be worth $4 billion, while the hike will generate $1.5 billion a year for the government coffers, or $7.5 billion in the 5 years before the next election, and consequent round of price increases. Besides, the $100 property tax rebates and $30 reduction in maid levy really pale in comparison to the parliament approved $15,000 increase in the President’s entertainment allowance. If that doesn’t drive horses crazy, what will?

Always Room For More

2007-02-14T18:16:00.000+08:00

National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan had told parliament that finding the right name for the revamped downtown Marina Bay, which will include the much-debated resort casino, a new business district and swanky retail outlets, was “a process akin to parents deciding on a name for their child”. And that was the justification for paying global branding company Interbrand S$400,000 ($240,964) to initiate a massive branding exercise that involved market tests, focus group discussions and consultations with developers and the general public. After spending months deliberating over 400 potential names, the urban development authorities decided to stick to, well, Marina Bay.
Fresh from his coup, Mr Mah is laying the grandiose groundwork for a future population of 6.5 million. The previous target, or what experts call “a planning parameter”, was 5.5 million. The island has 4.5 million people today. Mr Mah said: “Our goal is not just to provide space, but also to enhance our living environment to the extent that it becomes our competitive advantage in the attraction of talent and investment.” The brand new Minister of State for National Development, Grace Fu, assured the nattering nabobs of negativism that overcrowding can be prevented with creative and innovative approaches to land use. Nevermind the authorities’ plan to grow the island’s 650 sq km by another 100 sq km in 2030 has recently been torpedoed by Indonesia’s ban on selling sand to Singapore. Even with 8,667 persons per sq km (compare Hongkong 6,407 per sq km), there’s still standing room to spare, although Mr Mah may have to give up his private swimming pool at his landed property residence to contribute to the nation’s effort.
Still, laggards who prefer to lie down instead of standing up for Singapore are praying that Mr Mah will repeat his Marina Bay Renaming Oscar deserving performance and, after spending billions of taxpayers’ money, end up with present population of 4.5 million.

The Knockout Punch

2007-02-07T18:14:00.000+08:00

In better fighting form than Rocky Balboa, the outgoing chairman of the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star), Mr Philip Yeo — the man who spearheaded the biomedical push — yesterday countered the suggestions raised by Dr Lee Wei Ling as well as two World Bank economists that Singapore’s biomedical strategy had only a 50-per-cent chance of succeeding. Yeo took issue with Dr Lee’s criticism, saying: “For a person who has not been here to make comments, I leave it to the person.”
In response, the person mentioned, Dr Lee, daughter of patriach Lee Kuan Yew, said in an email to Today that, unlike herself, Mr Yeo had not been to hospital, seeing patients.
“Five per cent of ethnic Chinese are Hepatitis B carriers with a high risk of liver cancer and/or liver failure. Multiply that by the total number of Chinese worldwide,” she said. Similarly, she added that head injury might not be a glamourous area for research but it was one of the main causes of disability in children and otherwise healthy adults. In addition, NNI has an established track record in head injury research, which gives Singapore a competitive advantage.
“What is Philip Yeo’s definition of success — and can he show at least some glimpse of it?” she asked.
On the World Bank’s aside that the Singapore-based foreign scientists were “a footloose bunch who could pack up and leave overnight”, Sir David Lane, the executive director of A*Star’s Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, decries: “They sold their house, quit their jobs and are committed to Singapore in a big way.” Professor Lane neglected to reveal who was paying for their generous relocation, housing, living, schooling and “hardship” allowances. One recalls Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s shrewd observation: “People don’t come here because they like Singapore - they come because the returns are better.”

The Bio-Medical Attack

2007-02-07T11:49:00.000+08:00

Dr Lee Wei Ling, director of the National Neuroscience Institute (NNI), feels that studies here should focus on Hepatitis B, auto-immune disease and head injuries — areas where Singapore may have a competitive advantage."We need to choose the few research areas that we think may have a chance with," she recently told Reuters. "Why should we want to compete with another 10, 20, 30 world-class centres chasing the same thing?" And in a pointed allusion to the funds being spent on this research, she asked: "Anyone who looks at Singapore's size will wonder — why are we trying venture capitalism?" Two World Bank economists have also added to this line of questioning by saying that Singapore's biomedical strategy had only a 50-per-cent chance of succeeding.

Bristling at such suggestions, the outgoing chairman of the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star), Mr Philip Yeo — the man who spearheaded the biomedical push — yesterday countered the doubts raised by Dr Lee as well as the World Bank economists. "This is not an instant business. It takes 10 or 15 years to train these people," he said in his final biomedical briefing before he takes up his next assignment as economic adviser to the prime minister in April. He defended his policy of attracting the "big whales" — the top scientists — to Singapore. "I need the whales to take care of the guppies," he said, referring to his young PhD students now studying in top universities worldwide. Yeo has also referred to the same scholarship holders as his "slaves".

Mr Yeo next took a direct personal attack on Dr Lee's criticism, saying: "For a person who has not been here to make comments, I leave it to the person. The Singapore Government is fully committed to what we've done."

Both he and Sir David Lane, the executive director of A*Star's Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, felt that the approach of focusing on what Dr Lee called "niche areas unique to the Singapore population" would not work. It was better to spread the net wide as one cannot predict where the next breakthrough will come from, said Prof Lane. Hence the focus on hot areas like cancer, for which top scientists like Neal Copeland and Nancy Jenkins had arrived in Singapore from the United States last year, with their army of research mice. "They sold their house, quit their jobs and are committed to Singapore in a big way," said Prof Lane.
Mr Yeo saw no reason to focus on niche research areas like Hepatitis B and head injuries.
"Why should we waste our time on Hepatitis?" asked Mr Yeo. "Why should we waste our time on head injuries? How many head injuries are there?"

In responise, Dr Lee said in an email to Today that, unlike herself, Mr Yeo had not been to hospital, seeing patients.
"Five per cent of ethnic Chinese are Hepatitis B carriers with a high risk of liver cancer and/or liver failure. Multiply that by the total number of Chinese worldwide," she said.
Similarly, she added that head injury might not be a glamourous area for research but it was one of the main causes of disability in children and otherwise healthy adults. In addition, NNI has an established track record in head injury research, which gives Singapore a competitive advantage.

"What is Philip Yeo's definition of success — and can he show at least some glimpse of it?" she asked.

In her interview with Reuters, Dr Lee had hoped that "maybe they (the Government) would have a rethink".

Nation Builder

2006-12-13T14:23:00.000+08:00

The December 2006 copy of Time magazine featured "60 Years of Asian Heroes" which covered nation builders, business leaders, artists & thinkers, athletes, and explorers. Sharing company with Ghandi, Corazon Aquino, Deng Xiaoping, General Vo Nguyen Giap and Mohammed Ali Jinnah was Lee Kuan Yew.

"Lee Kuan Yew - Smart, tough, pragmatic—an enduring symbol of Asia itself" by Simon Elegant

The first time I met Lee Kuan Yew I was under strict orders not to open my mouth. It was 1987, I was a wire-service reporter, and Singapore's patriarch was in the middle of one of his periodic campaigns to show the Western press who was the boss in his city. When my father, also a journalist, secured an interview with Lee for a book he was writing and asked if I could tag along, Lee's people eventually agreed—but only on condition that I not utter a single word. At one point during the interview, Lee launched into a withering criticism of arrogant Western journalists who imposed their values on others. I opened my mouth to say something, but one stern look of warning from Lee was enough to make me snap my jaws shut.

Lee is famous for his formidable personality and unshakeable faith in his own convictions. Combine those qualities with a burning intelligence, a cold-eyed pragmatism and an unrelenting focus on his goals and you have some sense of the man who almost single-handedly transformed a sleepy tropical port into one of the world's most economically vibrant city-states. Yet that achievement, extraordinary as it is, is not what makes Lee unique. Today, at 83, after some 50 years of public life, Lee can securely count himself as the one and only Asian who has played witness, sculptor and adviser to all the great historical shifts Asia has undergone over the decades: the rise of nationalism; the end of the cold war; the growth of prosperity; and the emergence of China as a new global power. It is all this that makes Lee not just an elder statesman and a voice for Asia, but an enduring symbol of the region's pragmatism and resilience.

Like most people, Lee was profoundly shaped by his early experiences—and the Cambridge-educated lawyer cut his teeth as a politician in a very rough school indeed. Amid the turmoil of independence from Britain in the 1950s, Lee faced down and ultimately defeated a deeply entrenched communist movement at a time when the red banners of Marxism seemed to be advancing inexorably throughout Asia. When he found himself Prime Minister in 1965, Lee applied the same tough approach to governing the tiny new nation. Although he called himself a socialist until the early 1970s, his actions were purely capitalist, forging Singapore's export-led economy by courting foreign investment and never wavering in his focus on three things: long-term planning, meritocracy and zero tolerance for corruption. The results have been dazzling: Singapore's GDP per capita exploded from a few hundred dollars in 1965 to around $29,500 today, just a few notches below its former colonial master Britain.

Last year, I had the opportunity to meet Lee again—this time for an extensive interview during which I was allowed to speak. I found him mellower than at our first meeting nearly two decades ago. He even choked up at one point as he talked about the death of a close friend. But the steely, uncompromising core that will always be bedrock Lee still rose to the surface. Asked about what his critics call a low tolerance for dissent in the city he virtually created, Lee wouldn't give an inch: "I'm not guided by what Human Rights Watch says. I am not interested in ratings by Freedom House or whatever. At the end of the day, is Singapore society better or worse off? That's the test." That test, even Lee's fiercest detractors would concede, Lee has passed spectacularly.

Unemployment Is Good

2006-11-25T09:41:00.002+08:00

Chua Mui Hoong’s recent article in the Straits Times (Review, 24 Nov 2006) contains a spirited defence of the various fee hikes instituted by the government since this past general election: June-electricity tariffs up by 2.3 per cent; July-taxi fares went up, flag-down fare increased by $0.10 cents to $2.50, peak hour surcharge increased from $1.00 to $2.00; August-Electronic Road Pricing fees at 6 key expressway gantries raised; October-bus and train fares go up by 1 to 3 cents; December-local postage go up 9%; Next year-GST to go up from 5% to 7%.
Her basic argument is as follows:
“If price hikes were severe after elections, then inflation rate should go up a year after elections. But the data show otherwise. Since 1980, the inflation rate has consistently gone down one year after all elections.”
The article considers the history of fee hikes after each general election, and attempts to refute the politically “seductive argument” put forward by “cynics” to the effect that fee hikes have always been the consequence of PAP win at the polls. It is also notable her statistics also show that as unemployment goes up, inflation goes down. Ergo, unemployment is good for the economy.

The Man Who Loves Singapore

2006-11-21T08:59:00.000+08:00

This is what a Finn by the name of Mika Sampovaara wrote that was published by the Straits Times on Saturday, November 18, 2006:

He left welfare state to come to Singapore

I would like to commend Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for sticking to the Singaporean economic model.

I read with interest his views regarding Scandinavian welfare states. I am from one of them: Finland.

While it is true that there is more 'welfare' in Scandinavia, it comes at a price. Public spending in my country stands at 25 per cent of GDP, twice that of Singapore.

The government in Finland spends vast amounts of money on free health care and education, nearly twice the 8 per cent of GDP spent in Singapore. Having been to Changi hospital I can say that health care here is no worse than in my country and the charges are very reasonable. My point is it doesn't have to be free.

It's a question of choice and pricing. The public sector typically does not run the most efficient services, because the services are non-competitive.

Singapore runs a tighter ship, because it's only partially subsidised. Compulsory savings schemes for health care and pensions are a far better way. So is taxing consumption over income.

Many people in my country give up half or more of their gross incomes to finance the almighty welfare state. This serves to promote equality of sorts and creates a vast middle class. It also stifles entrepreneurism and leads to voluntary unemployment. The cost of living is higher too, with GST at 22 per cent.

I disagreed with the crushing taxes in my country. It is for this reason that I came to Singapore, and was happy to give up the benefits I had paid for over the years.

Long live the Singaporean model.

Mika Sampovaara

So who is this Mika? Apparently, he is a derivatives trader. Want to know more? Read this news extract:

Owner allegedly attacked after her pet dashed into man's path
By Chong Chee Kin

"Her dog crossed his path and it may cost him an arm and a leg for lashing out - not at the dog but its owner. Mika Johannes Sampovaara is accused of attacking Madam Mindy Tan Lay Eng outside her home in Roseburn Avenue in Siglap.

Her golden retriever apparently ran out of the house and into his path while he was out walking his dog at about 8pm on Feb 4 last year.

The 35-year-old permanent resident of Finnish descent then allegedly punched Madam Tan around her left eye, drawing blood at her eyelid. Next, he allegedly shoved her hard on her shoulder, causing her to fall to the ground. He could go to jail for that. Instead, he is offering her $38,000 as compensation and an apology.

But she wants more: $50,000.

No mention was made in court yesterday of what exactly provoked the alleged assault, or if her dog attacked him.

Sampovaara faces two charges - causing hurt to Madam Tan, and using criminal force on her.

Yesterday, his lawyer, Mr Godwin Campos, asked District Judge F.G. Remedios for more time to let his client 'negotiate' with Madam Tan. Sampovaara wanted to compound the offences by offering $38,000 compensation and an apology to Madam Tan. Compounding an offence involves paying compensation or apologising to the alleged victim, to consider withdrawing the charge. If the alleged victim is agreeable, the prosecution can apply to the court to withdraw the charge. If the judge grants the application, it amounts to an acquittal.

In this case, the judge agreed to give more time for negotiations though he noted the case has been before the court for a while. Sampovaara was charged in July 2005.

The judge adjourned the hearing for three weeks until Feb 2 2006 after Madam Tan's lawyer, Mr Anand Nalachandran, who was holding a watching brief, did not raise any objections to the request. If convicted, Sampovaara could be fined $1,000 and jailed up to one year."

Channel NewsAsia later reported that Sammpovaara got off with a $1000 fine. Tan may take a civil suit against Sampovaara for the injuries she suffered.

Coincidence? At least one interneter thinks not. "I dont think anybody ever said Singapore is not a paradise for high income high net worth individuals, especially foreigners who eat here, shit here, punch people here and get away with light sentence. Somehow, I dont think he gave up his Finnish citizenship, and probably intends to return to Finland after he is done milking Singapore. What a hypocrite."

A Difference In Perspective

2006-11-17T09:01:00.000+08:00

Many woes 'which may get worse'
Straits Times, 16 Nov 2006

The Chairman of a group of Muslim professions see a gloomy future for his community, saying that all signs point to a worsening situation over time. And what is needed, said Mr Imram Mohamed from the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP), is a mindset change or the community will continue to be beset by its many problems.

A disproportionately high number of Malay-Muslims are in drug inhabilitation centres and prisons, as well as in the low-income group. Youth delinquency, promiscuity and teen pregnancy are prevalent. The community's educational achievements lag behind those of others, especially at higher levels.
"All indications are, the situation will get worse over time," Mr Imran told about 500 people at a dinner to celebrate the 15th anniversary of his self-help group. "It is crucial that this trend be reversed if we are not to end up as a largely under-classed community, having to depend on handouts from others."

AMP was formed in 1991 by a group of Malay-Muslim professionals who wanted to contribute to the community independently of government-led efforts. It runs, among others, a range of social assistance and worker training programmes, and has been working closely with Mendaki to solve the community's problems.
However, Mr Imran, a retired airline executive and former Nominated Member of Parliament, seems disappointed with the progress made.

"Our community has not responded well to the new economy and is not poised to meet the challenges of globalisation and stiff comepetition," he said, describing the Malay-Muslims' socio-economic situation as "far from satisfactory".
Mr Imram, however, acknowledged that AMP staff and volunteers, Malay-Muslim MPs and other community organisations have contributed to help the needy. Many in his community enjoy the tangible benefits from Singapore's prosperity, he said. Also, the community cooperates closely with political leaders. "The positive outlook, however, stops there," he added.

He suggested two ways to lift the community from the bottom of the socio-economic ladder.
One, the Government could work with employers and unions to lift the wages or low-income workers.
Two,the community itself has to undergo a mindset change. AMP believes the prevalent mindset, which promotes mediocrity, is the main obstacle to success, said Mr Imram.

Malay-Muslims must believe "that it is as important to do well in this life as in the next," he said, calling on Malay-Muslim organisations and religious teachers to help push this view.

The impact on their guest of honour was not lost.

The presence of a Malay-Muslim professional class is "living proof" of the community's capabilities, the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Dr Balakrishnan made the off-the-cuff response to the AMP chairman Imram Mohamed.

The minister had prepared a speech for the AMP anniversary celebration. But after listening to Mr Imram, he put it aside and said: "Let me respond not as a minister, let me respond... as a brother or as a cousin who I hope understands some of your anxieties but also has your interests at heart."
Describing Mr Imram's speech as "sincere,heartfelt", he said it referred to "real problems and real challenges facing the Malay-Muslim community."

The minister did not agree with Mr Imram's point that lower-income workers should be cushioned from the impact of globalisaion and foreign workers, by being given higher wages. Protecting them from competition would not solve the problems they faced, he said. "The long term solution remains more education and creating more professionals."

Balakrishnan also said that another way to get ahead is for Malay-Muslim Singaporeans to participate fully in all opportunities available to them. "In order for a minority community to do well in a multiracial, globalised environment, we need to engage with the other communities and we need to integrate with the mainstream of social life."

On Handling The Brutal Truth

2006-11-03T08:54:00.000+08:00

Original article printed in "TODAY", 3 Nov 2003, by Val Chua:

Emotions ran high on a balmy Sunday night as the normally stoic Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew nearly broke down while recounting the ordeal his wife went through in London recently.

The troubles that the couple faced - including joining a queue in a free hospital - when Mrs Lee was hit by stroke two Sundays ago, revealed how differently two systems worked.

"I cannot tell you how restless and unhappy we felt," he said at a community event in Jalan Bukit Merah yesterday.

"We run a (healthcare) system where you have to co-pay ... but you get the attention. There, no attention, just join the queue," he said grimly.

The first sign of trouble was that there was no private hospital with CT scan facility at night in London, he told residents and community leaders.

So, Mrs Lee had to go to the NHS hospital nearest to the Four Seasons Hotel where they were staying - a free facility called the Royal London Hospital - and join the queue.

"We waited 45 minutes for the ambulance for a 10-minute drive," said Mr Lee in his first public appearance since the couple returned on Friday.

"In Singapore, within half-an-hour, you would be in SGH (Singapore General Hospital), TTSH (Tan Tock Seng Hospital) ... and within one-and-a-half to two hours flat, you'd know what went wrong."

When Mrs Lee reached The Royal London Hospital at 12.30am, it happened to have three cardiac arrest patients.

Mr Lee was told his wife's brain problem was "not as important" as the cardiac arrest cases, he recounted solemnly. She would have had to wait till 8am the next morning for her CT brain scan if 10 Downing Street had not intervened to get her early attention. High Commissioner Michael Teo had sought help from 10 Downing Street at 2am on Sunday and she received treatment at 3.30am on the night itself.

"Once upon a time, it was a wonderful hospital. But after 40 plus years ... the system cannot deliver. There's no connection between those in the system and the patients," he said.

But it's the way free healthcare systems work, he added, noting that Singapore must not go down that path, even though there are calls for free C class wards in public hospitals here.

"It's how the system works ... They did not discriminate against us," he noted of his London experience.

This contrasted sharply with how quickly Singaporeans - including national carrier Singapore Airlines - reacted to the situation.

Even though doctors initially advised that Mrs Lee stay put in London for three weeks, Mr Lee decided fly her back once her condition stabilised.

And then there was the big worry that she would get a spasm onboard, he recounted.

But he needn't have worried. Within 48 hours, SIA had fitted out SQ321 with medical support of oxygen tanks and other fixtures for a drip.

"No other airline would have done this," Mr Lee said, looking visibly touched.

On board were also two Intensive Care nurses from Changi General Hospital, two doctors, as well as officials from SIA who made sure all the equipment worked.

"Everyone knows his job," said Mr Lee. "Within 12 to 13 hours, we'd reached Changi Airport. It was a big relief," he said. "Twelve to 13 hours. Your heart stops beating sometimes. We landed at Changi Airport. Great relief. I had my granddaughter (Li Xiuqi) with me. She is very fond of her grandmother. She was so relieved."

Mrs Lee was whisked off in an ambulance to Singapore General Hospital, where she is recovering.

"I think this experience has changed my granddaughter's view of Singapore," Mr Lee said.

The overseas ordeal has made him even more assured that Singapore has what it takes to succeed, despite the downturn. "It's how we respond in an emergency that determines how we fight back. And I have enormous confidence that we can fight back."

The Singapore system - with its efficiency and fighting spirit - must be kept, he said.

"You slacken, you choose the easy way, and you'd be finished," he said.

Choking back tears, he added: "I have immense confidence that in an emergency, our people respond ... If we can do that, we can succeed."

Here's the internet version of the aftermath making its rounds, after news broke today that Editor Mano Sabnani has been axed:

LKY's press secretary summoned Shaun Seow, Mano Sabnani, Rahul Singh, Bachchan Singh and Val Chua for a dressing down at the Istana. He chided the newspaper for running provocative stories that are out of bounds.

TODAY was asked to explain what service it does to the nation and why it shouldn't be closed down. Mediacorp was ordered to supervise TODAY more closely or it will be punished too. Also, all reports on local news must be written by locals, no foreigners allowed.

The chief editor, Mano Sabnani, was demoted. He still held the title, but he must from then on report to Shaun Seow, CEO Mediacorp Channel News Asia. Shaun was previously in the news when his wife Zahara Latif poured boiling water on her maid and pushed her down a flight of stairs. Zahara paid a huge sum to the maid and pleaded mental unsoundness and got off with a light sentence. Others were less fortunate.

The deputy editor Rahul was demoted to night desk to be together with the other night editor Bachchan Singh.

The reporter Val Chua changed to writing advertising features for DBS and other banks. Her press pass was withdrawn and she could no longer report news. She kept her job and thence reported directly to an old ex-Reuters editor hired in September by TODAY to consolidate operations.

TODAY was told it had crossed the line and the media license will be withdrawn if it writes in such a way as to provoke bad feelings which may lead to public unhappiness.

Enough To Make One Puke

2006-10-20T17:14:00.000+08:00

Ever peered into the mind of an elite?
RJC student Wee Shu Min has the "perfect" pedigree: student from the Gifted Education Program program, topped O-levels in Singapore in 2004, PM's Book Prize winner, her dad is an "elected" Member of Parliament (Ang Mo Kio GRC's Wee Siew Kim).... the list goes on. Yes, she could be someone who is expected to join the top echelons of the civil service and possibly get co-opted into politics to run the country some day. And this is what she wrote in her blog (http://www.suchvividnothing.blogspot.com/) before it was hastily taken down:

Thursday, October 19, 2006

mom's friend sent her some blog post by some bleeding stupid 40-year old singaporean called derek wee (WHY do all the idiots have my surname why?!) whining about how singapore is such an insecure place, how old ppl (ie, 40 and above) fear for their jobs, how the pool of foreign "talent" (dismissively chucked between inverted commas) is really a tsunami that will consume us all (no actually he didn't say that, he probably said Fouren Talern Bery Bad.), how the reason why no one wants kids is that they're a liability in this world of fragile ricebowls, how the government really needs to save us from inevitable doom but they aren't because they are stick-shoved-up-ass elites who have no idea how the world works, yadayadayadayada.

i am inclined - too much, perhaps - to dismiss such people as crackpots. stupid crackpots. the sadder class. too often singaporeans - both the neighborhood poor and the red-taloned socialites - kid themselves into believing that our society, like most others, is compartmentalized by breeding. ridiculous. we are a tyranny of the capable and the clever, and the only other class is the complement.

sad derek attracted more than 50 comments praising him for his poignant views, joining him in a chorus of complaints that climax at the accusation of lack of press freedom because his all-too-true views had been rejected by the straits times forum. while i tend to gripe about how we only have one functioning newspaper too, i think the main reason for its lack of publication was that his incensed diatribe was written in pathetic little scraps that passed off as sentences, with poor spelling and no grammar.

derek, derek, derek darling, how can you expect to have an iron ricebowl or a solid future if you cannot spell?

if you're not good enough, life will kick you in the balls. that's just how things go. there's no point in lambasting the government for making our society one that is, i quote, "far too survival of fittest". it's the same everywhere. yes discrimination exists, and it is sad, but most of the time if people would prefer hiring other people over you, it's because they're better. it's so sad when people like old derek lament the kind of world that singapore will be if we make it so uncertain. go be friggin communist, if uncertainty of success offends you so much - you will certainly be poor and miserable. unless you are an arm-twisting commie bully, which, given your whiny middle-class undereducated penchant, i doubt.

then again, it's easy for me to say. my future isn't certain but i guess right now it's a lot brighter than most people's. derek will read this and brand me as an 18-year old elite, one of the sinners who will inherit the country and run his stock to the gutter. go ahead. the world is about winners and losers. it's only sad when people who could be winners are marginalised and oppressed. is dear derek starving? has dear derek been denied an education? has dear derek been forced into child prostitution? has dear derek had his clan massacred by the government?

i should think not. dear derek is one of many wretched, undermotivated, overassuming leeches in our country, and in this world. one of those who would prefer to be unemployed and wax lyrical about how his myriad talents are being abandoned for the foreigner's, instead of earning a decent, stable living as a sales assistant. it's not even about being a road sweeper. these shitbags don't want anything without "manager" and a name card.

please, get out of my elite uncaring face.

In the inevitable tsunami of backlash from furious interneters, her father MP Wee did no better than her precious elitist daughter by declaring that:

"What she said did come across as insensitive. The language was stronger than what most people could take.
But she wrote in a private blog and I feel that her privacy has been violated. After all, they were the rantings of an 18-year-old among friends.
I think if you cut through the insensitivity of the language, her baic point is reasonable, that is, that a well-educated university graduate who works for a multinational company should not be bemoaning about the Government and get on with the challenges in life.
Nonetheless, I have counselled her to learn from it. Some people cannot take the brutal truth and that sort of language, so she ought to learn from it.
I will not gag her, since she's 18 and should be able to stand by what she says.
The new media of the internet is such that if you don't like what she has said, you have the right of rebuttal.
Hopefully, after the discussion, everyone will be the richer for it. As a parent I may not have inculcated the appropriate level of sensitivity, but she has learnt a lesson, and it's good that she has learnt it at such an early stage in life."

RJC principal Winston Hodge put out a more palatable statement:
"We are disppointed with Wee Shu Min's comments on Mr Derek Wee's posting on the Web.
We have counselled Shu Min and have converyed to her the importance of sensitivity and empathy, qualities that she should have exercised in her response to Mr Wee.
We are confident that she has learnt from this experience and will the wiser for it."

A History of Defamation

2006-10-19T10:25:00.000+08:00

The Writ of Summons served by Lee Kuan Yew (NRIC S0000003E) on FEER and Hugo Restall includes in Appendix A a list of the Defamation suits covering 1965 to present. The Writ is issued by DREW & NAPIER LLC, which is the law firm of Davindar Singh and Hri Kumar, both affiliated with ruling party PAP as former and current Members of Parliament.

#1
Proceedings: 720 and 721 of 1965
Defendants: Tan Sri Syed Ja'afar Albar, Utusan Melayu, Editor of Utusan Melayu
Gist of Offensive Words:
That the Plaintiff is acommunist who is out to destroy Malaysia
Result: Settled. Defendants apologized and paid indemnity costs.

#2
Proceedings: 2647 of 1972
Defendants: Barisan Socialis Malaya, Yeo Ah Ngoh (Editor of Barisan News), Dr Lee Siew Choh
Gist of Offensive Words:
That the Plaintiff behaves like a gangster and scoundrel. He uses tactics such as long term detention and brutal treatment against those who oppose him.
Result: Judgement. Damages of $50,000/-

#3
Proceedings: 219 of 1977
Defendants: Teng Ah Boo
Gist of Offensive Words:
That the Plaintiff is corrupt. He uses his postion to obtain favours for M/s Lee & Lee
Result: Judgement. Damages of $100,000/-

#4
Proceedings: 1023 of 1972
Defendants: Chan Yang Ling
Gist of Offensive Words:
That the Plaintiff is corrupt. He uses his position to obtain favours for his brother and M/S Lee & Lee.
Result: Judgement. Damages of $65,000/-

#5
Proceedings: 28 of 1977
Defendants: J B Jeyaratnam
Gist of Offensive Words:
The Plaintiff is guilty of corruption and nepotism. The Plaintiff had procured the grant of favours to M/s Lee & Lee and his family.
Result: Judgement. Damages of $130,000/-

#6
Proceedings: 1025 of 1977
Defedants: Hwang BAn Cheong
Gist of Offensive Words:
The Plaintiff is corrupt. The Plaintiff had procured the grant of favours to M/s Lee & Lee
Result: Judgement. Damages for $65,000/-

#7
Proceedings: 9332 of 1984
Defendants: Seow Khee Leng
Gist of Offensive Words:
The Plaintiff is corrupt.
Result: Judgement. Damages for $250,000/-

#8
Proceedings: 230 of 1985
Defendants: Dr Lee Siew Choh
Gist of Offensive Words:
That the Plaintiff covered up the investigations into Phey Yew Kok. That the Plaintiff is corrupt.
Result: Settled. Damages of $30,000/- and an apology.

#9
Proceedings: 231 of 1985
Defendants: Quek Teow Chuan
Gist of Offensive Words:
That the Plaintiff has embezzled public funds.
Result: Judgement. Damages of $400,000/-

#10
Proceedings: 3336 of 1987
Defendants: Derrick Gwyn Davis, Publisher of FEER, Printer of FEER, Author of article
Gist of Offensive Words:
The Plaintiff had threatened to use the ISA against 4 Catholic priests; that the Plaintiff was against the Catholic Church.
Result: Judgement. Damages of $230,000/-

#11
Proceedings: 1754 of 1988
Defendants: J B Jeyaratnam
Gist of Offensive Words:
The Plaintiff had encouraged the suicide of Teh Cheang Wan for the improper purpose of covering up an embarassing scandal to the government and the PAP.
Result: Judgement. Damages of $260,000/-

#12
Proceedings: 1488 of 1994
Defendants: Executive Editor (Vinocur), Chief Executive, Publisher and a journalist of the International Herald Tribune
Gist of Offensive Words:
The Plaintiff was guilty of nepotism
Result: Judgement. Damages of $300,000/-

#13
Proceedings: 1974 of 1994
Defendants: Executive Editor,Editor for Asia,Publisher and and journalist of the International Herald Tribune
Gist of Offensive Words:
The Plaintiff sought to suppress legitimate and democratic political activity in Singapore by the subtle means of suing political political opponents for defamation, and relying on a compliant judiciary to grant judgements in his favour.
Result: Judgement. Damages of $300,000/-

#14
Proceedings: 1116 of 1996
Defendants: Tang Liang Hong, Editor, proprietors, publishers and printers of Yazhou Zhoukan
Gist of Offensive Words:
The Plaintiff was guilty, or reasonably to be suspected, of corrupt or otherwise criminal conduct in respect of the purchase of private properties in 1995
Result: Judgement. Damages of $550,000/-

#15
Proceedings: 172 of 1997
Defendants: Tang Liang Hong
Gist of Offensive Words:
The Plaintiff was guilty of misconduct in relation to the HPL issue and that this would be his "death blow".
Result: Judgement. Damages of $250,000/-

#16
Proceedings: 2523 of 1996
Defendants: Tang Liang Hong
Gist of Offensive Words:
The Plaintiff had committed criminal offences by defaming Tang and assassinating his character.
Result: Judgement. Damages of $270,000/-

#17
Proceedings: 181 of 1997
Defendants: Tang Liang Hong
Gist of Offensive Words:
The Plaintiff had abused the process of the Court by suing Tang for defamation.
Result: Judgement. Damages of $200,000/-

#18
Proceedings: 182 of 1997
Defendants: Tang Liang Hong
Gist of Offensive Words:
The Plaintiff had lied to Nanyang University students when he assured them that they would not be arrested.
Result: Judgement. Damages of $230,000/-

#19
Proceedings: 1459 of 2001
Defendants: Chee Soon Juan
Gist of Offensive Words:
That the Plaintiff was dishonest, unfit for office and has misled Parliament.
Result: Settled. Apology and damages.

#20
Proceedings: --
Defendants: Bloomberg
Gist of Offensive Words:
That the Plaintiff had procured the appointment of Mdm Ho Ching as the Executive Director of Temasek Holdings Ltd and was guilty of nepotism.
Result: 1. Published apology on its website. 2. Paid damages; and 3.Indemnified the Plaintiff for costs.

#21
Proceedings: --
Defendants: The Economist
Gist of Offensive Words:
That the Plaintiff condoned the appointment of Mdm Ho Ching to Temasek Holdings Ltd, not on merit, but for corrupt nepotist motives for the advancement of the Lee family.
Result: 1. Published apology on its website. 2. Paid damages; and 3.Indemnified the Plaintiff for costs.

#22
Proceedings: --
Defendants: FinanceAsia.com
Gist of Offensive Words:
That the Plaintiff had corruptly and improperly caused Temasek Holdings Ltd to be owned and managed for the benefit of his family.
That the Plaintiff was dishonest and unworthy of the high office he held and continued to hold in that he behaved corruptly and improperly despite taking the public stand in support of clean, corrupt free Government in Singapore.
Result: 1. Published apology on its website. 2. Paid damages; and 3.Indemnified the Plaintiff for costs.

Truths About Temasek

2006-10-17T10:49:00.000+08:00

The Temasek Holdings representative wrote the following letter in response to a letter to the forum, maybe she should also address the concerns of the deputy secretary general of the Democrat Party, Korn Chatikavanij.

"I REFER to the letter, 'Did Temasek take unnecessary risk?' (ST, Oct 14).

As a long-term international investor, Temasek complies fully with the laws and regulations in the different jurisdictions we invest in.

Our investment in Shin Corp in Thailand is no different. It was based on commercial principles and was consistent with best practices in international mergers and acquisitions.

Following advice from our legal and financial advisers, the consortium, which included Thai co-investors, completed its purchase and General Tender Offer in accordance with market practices and in compliance with the laws and regulations of Thailand, including guidelines imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Our investment in Shin Corp was not predicated on which government was in power. Temasek is investing for the long term, and therefore factors possible changes in government in our investment considerations.

In March, almost all of the remaining shares were tendered to the consortium at the close of the General Tender Offer. Post the tender offer, the consortium owns 96 per cent of Shin Corp. This was far beyond anyone's expectations.

The consortium has said that it would like to keep Shin Corp listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand. This means that we would like to reduce our shareholding in Shin Corp at the appropriate time and in an appropriate manner for orderly market conduct.

This intention remains unchanged. Indeed, Temasek believes it is good for listed companies to have a healthy float of retail public and strong institutional shareholders.

As an investment house anchored in Asia, we are convinced that it makes sense for us to re-invest in Asia to grow together. We look forward to playing a constructive role as a responsible long-term investor in the various communities in the region."

Myrna Thomas (Ms)
Managing Director
Corporate Affairs
Temasek Holdings

The Thai perspective
Was it a professional and proper transaction, as Singaporean leaders claim?
By Korn Chatikavanij, deputy secretary general of the Democrat Party. The Nation, Oct 12, 2006

I think it is fair to say that there are many questions that need to be answered before we can conclude, as Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong did on Friday, that the Shin Corp transaction was "professional and proper".

Indeed, I would be surprised if, in spite of his rhetoric, Lee would be genuinely satisfied that the deal's due diligence process was of the quality that he has the right to expect from Temasek, a lead investor for Singapore Inc.

If we were to accept statements by Khun Boonklee Plangsiri, Shin's chairman at the time of the deal, then the management of the underlying companies was not involved in due diligence.

Khun Boonklee declared right up to the announcement of the transaction that management was not aware of any discussions taking place regarding a sale.

Either way, Temasek is at fault. Conducting due diligence on the senior management of a target firm is usually the top priority in a friendly takeover deal, as it is the easiest and least costly way of finding out how a company is being run and what its prospects are. This is a no-brainer in any M&A practitioner rulebook.

Assuming Khun Boonklee was telling the truth about the lack of due diligence involving Shin and its subsidiaries, the implications for Temasek's investment procedures must surely be a cause for concern for Lee.

The Singaporean public, whose money has been entrusted to Temasek to manage, must also be worried. This can only mean that Temasek went into this deal with no idea about the internal affairs or the financial health of Shin and its subsidiaries.

Temasek may not even be aware of the legal case pending in the Administrative Court regarding ITV's concession payments. Simple, legal due diligence would surely have led to potential liabilities at least being shared with the prospective sellers.

Information that is publicly available could be inaccurate and out-of-date. Temasek also completely missed the Thai Air Asia ownership requirement.

Those are issues that call into question claims that the deal was "professionally" handled. But there are even bigger questions relating to whether the deal was "proper".

The word "proper" can mean "correct according to procedures" or, more commonly, it is taken to mean "decent or ethical". This definition raises some issues:

1 Lee has himself acknowledged that in the months leading up to the share purchase, Thaksin's dirty laundry was already being hung out for all to see.

Temasek should therefore have been aware that many people would perceive the deal as the acquisition of "tainted goods". Singaporeans should certainly be asking Temasek whether it is proper for their national reserves to be used in that way.

2 In setting up convoluted structures to buy shares, Temasek would have been fully aware that they were relying on legal advice to take advantage of what at best were loopholes in the Thai Alien Business Law and in the Thai definition of "foreign". Again, would Lee confirm that taking advantage of loopholes that are clearly against the spirit of the law in Temasek's modus operandi?

3 Having made the purchases, Temasek was obliged by Thai law - which is not dissimilar to Singapore law in any respect - to treat minority shareholders fairly by buying shares from them at the same price Temasek paid to the major holders in what is known as the General Tender Offer.

Again Temasek failed to do that. Temasek asked Thailand's SEC for a waiver against having to tender for shares from minority holders of two of Shin's listed subsidiaries, Shinsat and ITV. Temasek's reason was that these companies were not the "real" targets of the acquisition.

Subsequent to that, Temasek made an offer to minority holders of AIS - the declared target - that was a full 30 per cent below the market price of AIS's share on the day of the original transaction.

That Thailand's SEC allowed Temasek to do this is a separate issue that I hope will soon be dealt with. The fact that Temasek clearly offered a price far below the implied price paid to the Shinawatra family clearly cannot be considered "proper".

Indeed, when JP Morgan was asked to give independent advice to minority shareholders in AIS, it said Temasek's offer was "unfair".

Moreover, it should be pointed out that though Shinsat and ITV were not the "real" targets, control has nevertheless changed hands and minority shareholders were deprived of their right to exit.

The new owners have been entirely silent as to their intentions towards the companies they "unintentionally" acquired. It has been more than nine months, and ITV has lost more than 70 per cent of its market value since the beginning of the year. Many minority shareholders who were cheated by the process are still waiting for an answer.

4 Last but not least, Temasek is aware that neither Thaksin Shinawatra nor his wife Pojaman had any right to act on behalf of Shin as decision makers. We are led to believe by Thaksin that all decisions and negotiations were made by his children - something that is entirely unbelievable.

Thaksin's eldest son has gone on record to say that the decision to sell Shin was made by his "elders". If Thaksin or his wife were those "elders", then there will be serious repercussions. It is a serious crime for the prime minister and his spouse to engage in undeclared private business.

The premier's role is to uphold the interest of the general public, not the interest of his purse. It cannot by any stretch be considered proper for Temasek to have knowingly negotiated a transaction in a way that was unconstitutional.

More importantly, such a deal would be improper, if not illegal, given the controversy surrounding the deal, for Temasek to remain silent on the issue.

In my perhaps naive opinion, I think the best course of action for Temasek would be to come clean on all issues relating to the deal and the true nature of its Thai "partners".

This would be the start of a more transparent relationship between our two countries. In Thailand, our willingness to forgive and compromise knows no bounds.

One reason why the situation has gone from bad to worse for Temasek is the company's reluctance to be up-front. Coming clean would be the most "professional" response to mistakes made, and certainly the most "proper" one under such circumstances.

It would also help ameliorate any misunderstanding arising from the Shin deal, and serve as a gesture of goodwill between the two countries. After all, Singapore and Thailand have been and will continue to be major partners in the world economy.

B Korn Chatikavanij

An Apology, Kind Of

2006-10-03T08:52:00.000+08:00

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had sought to find out why Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had made certain remarks recently about the state of ethnic Chinese in Malaysia. On 2 Oct 2006, Mr Lee wrote back to Mr Abdullah, to explain both the context and the reasoning behind what he had said. The following is the text of his letter:

Dear Prime Minister,

Thank you for your letter of 25 September 2006.

I made the remarks in a free-flowing dialogue session with former US Secretary of Treasury Larry Summers before many foreign delegates attending the IMF/WB meeting.

To put what Reuters reported into context, I set out the transcript of the relevant passage:

"Let me sum it up nicely, why you must have a government in Singapore which is really firm, stout-hearted, subtle and resolute. My neighbours both have problems with their Chinese. They are successful, they are hardworking and, therefore, they are systematically marginalised, even in education. There are quotas to prevent you. So, you've got to make money to go abroad or go to one of the private universities which are being set up. And they want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese, compliant. So, every time, we say 'No' to some scheme to knock down the Causeway and build a bridge, he says, 'Oh, you're not cooperative, you're only thinking of yourself'. For no rhyme or reason, we knock down a causeway, nearly 100 years old, which served us well. He wants to build a bridge because it looks pretty and he says ships will sail and his containers can move from the East Coast to the West Coast via this. But we saw no ... So, we said, "All right, if you give us commensurate benefits, we'll agree". But you need a government who'll be able to, not only have the gumption, but the skill to say 'No' in a very quiet, polite way that doesn't provoke them into doing something silly."

On the bridge and the half bridge to remove the Causeway, you made the position of your government clear that Malaysia respects legally binding agreements and acts in accordance with international law. This made unnecessary a reference to ITLOS and the International Court of Justice that would otherwise have been unavoidable. This respect for the law is the basis for sound long-term relations between us.

I was explaining to a liberal audience of westerners who wanted to see a stronger opposition in Singapore why Singapore needs a strong majority government, not a weak coalition that will hamper us in defending our national interests.

Singapore needs a strong government to maintain good relations with Indonesia and Malaysia, and to interact with Indonesian and Malaysian politicians who consider Singapore to be Chinese, and expect Singapore to be 'sensitive' and comply with their requests.

On numerous occasions UMNO leaders, including Dr Mahathir and many others, have publicly warned Malaysian Malays that if they ever lose power, they risk the same fate as Malays in Singapore, whom they allege are marginalised and discriminated against. And from time to time when Malaysian politicians attack Singapore fiercely over some bilateral issue, some of them tell us privately that we should just accept this as part of Malaysian politics and not react to these attacks.

Singapore understands the reality of Malaysian politics. We have never protested at these attacks on our multi-racial system or our policies, except to clarify our own position when necessary. But we have to explain to our people the root cause of these difficulties in our bilateral relations. Otherwise Singaporeans will believe that their own government is doing wrong, either to our own people or to Malaysia.

As for the international audience, with so many foreign embassy staff and foreign correspondents reporting on Singapore and Malaysia, plus tens of thousands of expatriate businessmen working in our two countries, these people will come to their own judgement of the true position regardless of what I say.

I have not said anything more than what I have said many times before. In fact I have said less than what I had written in my memoirs published in 1998. I had no intention to meddle in your politics. Indeed I do not have the power to influence Malaysia's politics or to incite the feelings of the Chinese in Malaysia.

Since you took over as Prime Minister in November 2003, relations between our two countries have much improved. Singaporeans and, I believe, Malaysians too, appreciate this.

I am sorry that what I said has caused you a great deal of discomfort. After a decade of troubled relations with your predecessor, it is the last thing I wanted.

Yours sincerely,

Lee Kuan Yew

Singapore has also moved to placate Indonesia after similar comments made by Lee Kuan Yew on Jakarta's treatment of its ethnic Chinese, a Singapore official has said.

Indonesia summoned Singapore's ambassador last week to seek clarification of reports that Lee had told a forum that ethnic Chinese minority communities in Indonesia and Malaysia were being systematically marginalised.

In a diplomatic note, Singapore said it had no wish to interfere in Indonesia's domestic affairs and was aware of the improving situation for Chinese in Indonesia, Indonesian foreign ministry spokesman Yuri Thamrin told AFP.

"So (the note) was about acknowledgement of the positive situation in Indonesia with respect to the Chinese, and the second point is that there was not at all any intention to interfere domestically," he said.

"There is a wish to maintain good relations with Indonesia," he added.

The spokesman said that the remarks had not taken into account "the changing situation in Indonesia, and that's why we were a bit confused".

Pictures Worth A Thousand Words

2006-09-18T08:35:00.000+08:00

Cordoned by plain clothes police.

Cordoned by uniformed police.

Into the night.

"No group is oppressed, suppressed or depressed. Instead we have a political culture that values integrity, meritocracy and fairness."
- MM Lee Kuan Yew, PAP 50th Anniversary, Nov 2004

Pictures taken at Hong Lim Green vicinity, designated venue for "speaker's corner", where 6 SDP members braved a standoff with the police for three days and nights, ending on the morning of 19th Sept 2006.

Singapore IMF activist ban slammed

2006-09-16T10:27:00.000+08:00

POSTED: 1246 GMT (2046 HKT), September 15, 2006
SINGAPORE (Reuters) -- World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz said on Friday that Singapore had damaged its own reputation by imposing "authoritarian" restrictions on the entry of activists for the World Bank/IMF meetings.

Wolfowitz said the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund did not plan to postpone their annual gathering, but he had unusually sharp words for the Southeast Asian host country.

"Enormous damage has been done and a lot of that damage is done to Singapore and self-inflicted. This could have been an opportunity for them to showcase to the world their development process," Wolfowitz said at a meeting with activists.

"I would argue whether it has to be as authoritarian as it has been and I would certainly argue that at the stage of success they have reached, they would do much better for themselves with a more visionary approach to the process."

He said the bar on entry for some activists was "a violation of the understanding that we had drawn up" with Singapore.

Singapore objected to at least 27 activists who were accredited to the meetings on the grounds they posed a threat to security and public order, putting them on a blacklist of people to be assessed by immigration and possibly refused entry.

Some would-be participants in the have already been deported or refused entry.

Asked by a civil society activist whether the IMF and World Bank would consider postponing the meeting and hold it somewhere "where it can be held with proper conditions," Wolfowitz said: "I honestly don't think that is feasible or I would consider it."

Responding to appeals, Singapore said it would allow 22 of the blacklisted activists to enter, but the remaining five would be "subject to interview and may not be allowed in."

Garry Rodan, of Murdoch University, Australia, said the World Bank and IMF had been naive about Singapore.

"Singapore has always made a virtue out of the fact it is different, and sticks to its guns, no matter how controversial, examples being the caning and execution of foreign nationals."

While Wolfowitz and Rato were speaking, about two dozen activists staged a protest in the 8 x 8 meter (8.7 x 8.7 yard) area the authorities had set aside for protest in the cavernous Suntec City hall where the meetings take place.

Activist lined up wearing gags inscribed "NO VOICE," after duly registering with the authorities one by one.

"These limits are ridiculous. Singapore is a developed country; it needs a developed perspective on citizens speaking up," said Haidy Ear-Dupuy of the NGO Forum on Cambodia.

On Batam, an Indonesian island a 40-minute ferry ride south of Singapore, a few hundred activists held a protest meeting because of the curbs on protest in Singapore.

Analysts said the meeting is turning out to be a public relations disaster for Singapore, which has spent about S$135 million ($85 million) on the event, hoping to showcase its financial industry and tourism appeal.

Instead, the world press has focused on Singapore's restrictions on free speech and right of assembly.

"It is a PR disaster. It represents a certain blindness on the part of the Singapore government towards matters of public opinion, which can be traced to the fact that they are so used to ignoring it," said Singapore political commentator Alex Au.

Rodan said Singapore would have expected lots of feel good stories about the financial sector and investment opportunities.

"But it appears to have backfired," he said.

On Tuesday, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong explained the decision to ban outdoor protests on Bloomberg Television, saying the Government would be practising double standards if it relaxed restrictions.

'We have very strict rules for our own locals and we can't have two standards, because otherwise we'll be in deep political trouble with our citizens.'

-- Straits Times, 10 Sept 2006, Singapore takes flak for ban on protests

Dealing with Democratic Legacies

2006-08-24T16:51:00.000+08:00

Following is the speech delivered by Workers' Party's Sylvia Lim at the closing dinner of the Academic Conference of the Harvard Project for Asian and International Relations, 21 Aug 2006.

Your Excellencies, President SR Nathan and Ambassador Patricia Herbold, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen:

Recently I spent 3 weeks in the USA on an exchange program. I was joined by 20 colleagues from different countries. As we got to know one another over those weeks, we came to realise that though we were culturally diverse and our countries were at different stages of development, our societies faced issues with common themes.

Many of us came from countries which had been colonized by Britain. During the years of British rule, organs of State and government processes followed British models with some adaptation. Hence, my colleagues and I were able to find similar institutions in our countries and use the same terminology when talking about governance e.g. terms like Parliamentary democracy, Hansard and judicial independence. Though we came from Singapore, Jamaica, Pakistan and Zimbabwe, we understood each other immediately.

The desire for self-determination made our countries seek independence from Britain. However, many of the legacies remain, particularly the public institutions. But the formal institutions tell only half the story. The way these institutions now operate and how the people actually experience them is unique to each country.

Under the British model, Parliamentary democracy installs checks and balances through the separation of powers between the 3 branches of government – the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. For the checks to be effective, there are several assumptions made. This evening, I would like to touch on 2 of the assumptions:

First, that the legislature is elected by the people through free and fair elections.
Secondly, that there are rigorous checks on the executive.

Status of Elections

There is a constant battle about how elections can be made more democratic.

At one end of the spectrum, some colleagues of mine had to contend with the very real possibility of being murdered by political opponents and having their homes torched by arsonists. Others lived in dictatorships, where ballots were apparently cast by phantom voters or persons who were already deceased. In some countries, the elections are run by the ruling party. It is not uncommon to see ruling parties use their positions as government to entrench themselves politically. The use of the incumbent’s advantage happens in most countries. It is a question of degree. Nevertheless, these practices are objectionable, as they make voting less free by unfair pressure on voters to resist such inducements.

Even in the First World, the electoral process is not without its problems. During my recent travels in the USA, my colleagues and I detected increasing cynicism among Americans towards the electoral process. It costs a lot these days to run for state or federal office, leading to the common belief that successful candidates are beholden to big sponsors and big business. There is also a real threat of public apathy and disengagement – it seems that there are people would rather go on holiday than vote! If voter turn-out is low, how valid is the winner’s mandate? I wonder what Ambassador Herbold would say if I suggested that voting in the USA be made compulsory.

Checks on the executive

Besides the formal checks by the legislature and the courts, it is clear to most Asians that the prevailing culture of a society greatly impacts how much accountability the executive government gives.

Two key factors of culture come to mind. First, how much information is available in the public domain, and secondly, the role of the mass media in the society.

In many Asian countries, the citizen has access only to information which the executive chooses to disclose. Classifying information is deemed to be the government’s prerogative, with the citizen a passive bystander in the process. There is no equivalent of a Freedom Of Information Act for citizens to compel disclosure, nor is there any automatic time-frame for de-classifying information unlike in the USA. This severely cripples the ability of the citizen to lay his hands on concrete facts to call the government to account.

Besides access to information, the role played by the mass media can be decisive in keeping governments accountable. One need only recall Watergate and the pressures facing the Washington Post editors and journalists as they uncovered the break-in at the Democratic Party headquarters in 1972. If such an event were to happen in this region, how far would it be reported? Each Asian country has its own barometer of tolerance of media control. In the case of state-owned media or media which needs to be licensed by the authorities, their latitude to report also depends on how much discretion the authorities have to issue or withhold licences. There are still serious constraints in many Asian countries which lead the mass media to expound the official view disproportionately, leaving their citizens poorer for it.

Thankfully, the advent of new technology has been a driving force for change. The use of the Internet to “leak” information and to disseminate non-official views is now widespread. This serves as a pressure point for the mainstream media to be more balanced to remain credible. The authorities are also responding to Internet criticisms. These are healthy signs.

Conclusion

In conclusion, what I have talked about assumes that building democratic societies are universal goals. Is this true of Asian societies? There have been views expressed by some Asian leaders that Western democracy promotes individualism, which is inconsistent with collectivism and Confucian values. My view is that if democracy embodies citizen participation in public life and in determining the kind of society we have, there is enough scope within it to cater for Asian values. All politicians should face their electorates squarely and seek mandates which are truly democratic. To this extent, democracy has value for all societies.

Thank you.

Anatomy Of A Speech

2006-08-21T16:54:00.000+08:00

"Official text" of speech delivered by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at his National Day Rally 2007 on 20th August as posted on Channel NewsAsia website:

e. e.g. mr brown’s column in TODAY
i. Column hit out wildly at the government, in a mocking tone
ii. Hence MICA replied
iii. Some feel that reply was too harsh
iv. My view
(1) mr brown is very talented
(2) He is entitled to his views, and to express them
(3) But when he attacked the government, it had to respond
(a) To set record straight
(b) To signal that this is not the way to conduct responsible public debate, especially in the mainstream mass media

Transcript of audio file from Channel NewsAsia:

".... So I give you the example of MrBrown's column in Today. Some of you may have read it , some of you may not, but it hit out wildy at the government and in a very mocking and dismissive sort of tone. So MICA replied, how can you not reply? And some Singaporeans feel we were too harsh. We should have been gentler, or maybe just even accept it. It's just niceness, he didn't mean us any harm.
Well, my view is like this. MrBrown is a very talented man. In fact he is Mr Lee Kin Mun. If you listen to his podcasts, they are hilarious. But when, and he is entitled to his views, and entitled to express them; but when he takes on the government, and makes serious accusations, as he did in this case, because he said the government suppressed information before the election which was awkward and only let it out afterwards. Then the government has to respond. First thing to set the record straight, and secondly to signal that this is really not the way to carry on a public debate on national issues."

Report of what was aired on TV by Dominique Loh/Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia:

The Prime Minister said that mr brown is entitled to his views and to express them.

But when he attacked the government in a mocking tone in a mainstream newspaper, the government had to respond and set the record straight, even when some may feel the government's reply may be harsh.

PM Lee said: "By all means, criticise the government and leaders, but be prepared to stand by your criticisms. But in fact we have some serious decisions to make. Because we have to decide: how far to go, what tone to set. And it's not all just fun and games. I give you an example: you put out a fun podcast, you talk about 'bak chor mee'; I will say "mee siam mai hiam", then we compete. Then what will I do? I will hire Jack Neo to be my National Day Rally adviser. It will be a fun time, we will enjoy thoroughly, go home totally entertained. But is this the way to deal with serious issues?"

"Official text" for above paragraph:

c. But have to decide - What tone do we set? How far do we go?
i. You put out a funny podcast
ii. I reply with a funnier podcast
iii. If we compete on that basis, will ask Jack Neo to be my adviser
(1) NDR will be highly entertaining
(2) But is this the way to deal with serious issues?

What was actually said on national TV:

"But in fact we have some serious decisions to make. Because we have to decide: how far to go, what tone to set. And it's not all just fun and games. I give you an example: You put out a funny podcast, you talk about "bak chor mee"; I will say "mee siam mai hum**", then we compete. Then what will I do ? I will hire Jack Neo to be my National Day Rally adviser. It will be a fun time, we will enjoy thoroughly, go home totally entertained. But is this the way to deal with serious issues?"

** According to the Tues 22 Aug 2006 Straits Times report of the speech, we are told his press secretrary clarified that the Prime Minister meant to say "laksa mai hum".

On Thu 24 Aug 2006, it was observed that the transcript on Sprinter, official government source for the speech, does not the carry the complete reference to "mee siam" anymore. Zapped. Just like that.

A Voice From The Past

2006-08-10T09:43:00.000+08:00

David Saul Marshall was the leader of the Singapore Labour Front who became Singapore's first Chief Minister in 1955. From 1978 to 1993, Marshall served as Singapore's Ambassador to France, Portugal and Switzerland. As Singapore's ambassador, Marshall always defended his country's interests, despite his open differences with Lee Kuan Yew's style of government. When the latter abolished trial by jury, his plaintive cry was "The last nail has been driven into the coffin of justice." He died in 1995 as a result of lung cancer.

The following is an except from an interview conducted with David Marshall on 5 May 1994 at the offices of Singapore law firm, Drew & Napier. The interview was part of an assignment for a junior college student, which he completed with two others.

THE PAP GOVERNMENT HAS INDEED DONE A GREAT DEAL FOR SINGAPORE. HOWEVER, THERE IS AN INCREASING DEGREE OF DISCONTENT GROWING AMONGST OUR YOUTHS AGAINST THEM. WHY DO YOU THINK THIS IS HAPPENING?

Our lives are empty. We don’t understand the joy of living is not in the gold coins. It is not in the bank account. The joy of living is in human relations. We are not in appreciation of this miracle of life.

We are giving a lop-sided view, an unfairness to the government! We come out of a morass of imperial subjugation where people were dying of starvation and now?

You know, when I won a case once years ago, I was presented with a lovely porcelain Buddha with a big flowing belly and ears that reached to his shoulders and a chubby face.

I said to my client, “Look, you Chinese got a real feeling for aesthetics. How can you worship something so obscene?”

He said, “Mr Marshall, try and understand. China is a land of starvation where millions of people die for lack of food, and to be able to eat that much, to be that fat, that is heaven!”

Now, that is the attitude of our government: to be able to eat that much, that is heaven and you should be content.

So are youths not content? They are not anti. Our youths frankly, very honestly respect the pragmatic achievements of the government, and I’m grateful, but they feel empty.

There isn’t this joy of living which youth expects and youth needs – to learn the joy of living. How do you teach it?

I think you teach it through respect for the individual. That’s our tragedy. If you want to put it in a nutshell, our tragedy is that we emphasise the primacy of society as against respect for the individual. Mind you, both are right.

I mean both sides have the liberty. Of course, there should be respect for the needs of society over the right of the individual but you must respect the individual too in seeking the expression of the needs of society. Here, we have no respect for the individual.

Cane them! Hang them! There are more than a hundred queuing up to be hanged, you know that?

[Minister For Law] Jayakumar said, “I have plugged the loop-hole whereby they could escape being hanged and just have twenty years of imprisonment!”

Oh, wacko the ducks – you need a monument!

The joy of hanging people; flogging them, every stroke must break the skin. I don’t like it. I don’t believe it is a deterrent. I see no proof. Look, it seems to me logic! If every year we have more death sentences, how can you say death sentence is a deterrent? If it were, there should be less death sentences.

But you know I’m in a minority and my father had one saying which I’d like you to publish. It is a beauty. He was a true democratic heart although he didn’t know it.

He used to say, “David, if ten men tell you your head is not on your shoulders, shake it and make sure. Don’t accept it. Just shake it and make sure!”

Well, I’ve shaken my head again and again and again and I still think I’m right. I know I’m in the dog-house.

The government doesn’t see I do respect them immensely. They don’t see I’m a genuine friend. They only see me as a critic and to be a critic is to be an enemy who must be erased and destroyed. There is no such thing as an honest critic to the PAP. It’s a blasphemy to criticise the emperor, spoilt son of heaven.

[Lee] Kuan Yew says you mustn’t lampoon a Chinese gentleman. Oh, dear me! Ya, what happened? What happened to China?

In Europe, they institutionalised the court jester and the court jester had total immunity against any result from his public criticism of the kings and emperors and the courtyard. Open public criticism – that was his job! They tried to laugh it off but at least there was one person to prick the bubble of their overgrown egoism.

And which civilisation has progressed better for the development of humanity? The Western civilisation or the Chinese civilisation?

You talk of Asian values. I only know two Asian values and, I wish someone would really pinpoint them instead of pontificating ponderously in humbug and hypocrisy.

Family values - I think we have more family cohesion in Asia than in Europe; more family warmth and I like that. I accept that there is a greater tradition of family warmth and family cohesion.

Two, we have a greater passion for education. My secretary – I asked her once what her background is. She said her mother is a washer-woman and, here is this lovely secretary doing a damn good job. She was educated. How her mother could save enough to give her the education?

So these are the only two values I know. Somebody tell me what other values that are Asian, which everybody talks and nobody mentions the exact parameters.

And you know we use this concept of family cohesion to place on our youths the burden of caring for aging and ailing parents and grand-parents.

The young have got their own lives to make. To carry in your own homes aging irritable ailing parents and grandparents can destroy the family life of the young.

But then, the alternative is for the government to pour so much mountains of gold into building homes for the aged. That’s sacrilege – gold is to be gathered and not to be spent.

I want to see more crèches, more homes for the aged.

Our Prime Minister [Goh Chok Tong] talks about gracious living. Where is the gracious living?

So I am a bad boy, I’m ostracised. The Straits Times makes slimy remarks about me.

The [press are] running dogs of the PAP.

One System, Two Judges

2006-08-01T08:56:00.000+08:00

Singaporeans across the island could not help but notice that ever since Yong Pung How was replaced in April 2006 by Mr Chan Sek Keong as Singapore's new Chief Justice, the Singapore's courts, renowned for their tough laws and strict sentencing, have been showing a softer, more humane, touch when dealing with young Singaporeans who run foul of the law.

Some examples quoted include:

* An 18-year-old girl shed tears of relief when she was given two years' probation, instead of a jail term, for multiple counts of counterfeiting currency and using fake S$50 bills.

* A polytechnic student, whose mother was jailed for maid abuse, was given another chance by a district judge who placed her on probation for similar offences.

* The High Court judge reduced a woman's 33-month jail term to probation for seven credit card fraud charges because of a sanguine probation report that she deserves another chance.

* A Singaporean blogger has received a stern warning but escaped imprisonment for Sedition after posting cartoons mocking Jesus Christ on his online journal, instead of a possible three years' jail and/or S$5,000 fine.

Yong, a long-time friend of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew (Lee said Yong lent him his lecture notes to read during varsity days), was known to be very firm on the use of punishment as a deterrent to crime. He even declared that his sentencing was sometimes correlated to the type of breakfast he had for that morning.

New Zealander Peter Jenkins, who operated the Sensible Sentencing Trust website, wrote about his visit to Singapore's lower courts.

"I witnessed a sentencing session where 20 offenders were dispatched in the space of less than an hour," he said.

The sentences were very much tougher than in New Zealand, he added, giving the following examples:

1. Shoplifting goods to the value of S$45 - three months.

2. Four assaults (30 months each) to be served consecutively not concurrently as would have been in New Zealand, making a total of 90 months or over seven-and-a-half years.

3. A sexual assault - 10 years.

4. A number of other offenders - shoplifting and other relatively minor charges plus some with drugs charges - were also sentenced for sentences ranging from six weeks or more (for a first offender).

5. A repeat offender who stole numerous ATM cards and withdrew S$25,000 from them was jailed for eight years. Punishment for rape is not less than eight years, not more than 20, plus at least 12 strokes of the cane, he observed.

6. A man with previous convictions for armed robbery and housebreaking who vandalised a welfare home in which he had been placed, causing S$4,000 damage, was sentenced to 42 months in jail - and eight strokes of the cane.

"Another thing I could not help but notice about the court on arrival - there were no intimidating low-lives hanging around who are often found lounging around outside NZ courts. And there was no graffiti inside or outside the court," Jenkins added.

Yong's own daughter caused some unhappiness when she was appointed CEO of the IDA (Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore). Fully aware that the IT industry knew she lacked the qualifications or experience to lead the country in information technology development, she proclaimed in the press that she "didn't know what CDMA was", but she "could always hire someone who knew".

Where's The Defamation Part?

2006-07-31T15:10:00.000+08:00

On 30 July 2006, Dr Chee Soon Juan and Ms Chee Siok Chin filed their affidavits for the summary judgement hearing scheduled for 3 August 2006. The affidavit presented their case against the Lees. During the May 2006 General Election, Father Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Son Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had sued Dr Chee and Ms Chee for defamatory remarks published in the Singapore Democratic Party newsletter.

The first part of the affidavit has this introduction:

A. Test of what is defamatory

1. In the Halsbury Laws of Singapore, the test of whether a statement is defamatory or not, the Courts must consider:

a. What meaning the words would convey to the ordinary person.

b. Whether the reasonable person would be likely to understand them in a defamatory sense.

c. The views of the community as a whole, and not just that of a limited class.

Read the article printed in the New Democrat and try to spot the defamation if you can:

The Government's Role in the NKF

In all the hand-wringing and breast-beating by the Government over the NKF issue, Singaporeans must not lose sight of one thing: Such a scandal is inevitable given the kind of secretive and non-accountable system bred by the PAP.

The Government now tries to exone-rate itself by playing the innocent and gullible party duped by greedy NKF officials.

It forgets that in April 2004, Minister Khaw Boon Wan had, in reaction to public unease about the NKF, sought to appease Singaporeans by telling them that the Ministry of Finance "would have reacted many years ago" if there was any breach of rules by the NKF.

Mr Khaw categorically endorsed the NKF's dealings and called on the charity to "continue" to remain "transparent" in its operations.

At the same time the Second Minister for Finance, Mr Lim Hng Kiang, said that the NKF had "quite a sound record" because it spends "more than 80 percent of its funds on its beneficiaries" whom we now know are not kidney patients.

Clearly, alarm bells were raised. People could see that something was wrong and they had expressed their unhappiness over the years.

And yet, the Government which had the power to do something, chose not to. Not only did it choose not to rein in NKF but it also continued to praise the charity and encouraged people to donate to it. With assurances from not one but two Ministers, the charity went on its merry way.

The question that is on everyone's lips is: If Mr TT Durai had not taken the legal suit, would the Government have bothered to look into the NKF records? NKF would in all likelihood have continued to operate with the Government's blessings.

The NKF fiasco is not about bad practices. It is not even about negligence on the Government's part.

It is about greed and power.

It is about the idea that the political elite must be paid top dollar, no matter how obscene those amounts are and regardless of who suffers as a result of it.

It is about a system engineered over the decades by the PAP that ensures that it and only it has access to public information and by fiat decides what is allowed and what is not.

It is about what a "democratic society, based on justice and equality" should not be.

Singaporeans must note that the NKF is not an aberration of the PAP system. It is, instead, a product of it.

To ensure that there is transparency and that Singaporeans are kept informed of matters directly affecting them and their future, the Government must:

One, disclose the breakdown of the cost of building HDB flats and the profits HDB makes.

Two, reveal where and how GIC uses our savings.

Three, disclose the salaries of the top executives of Temasek Holdings and other GLCs.

Four, declare the assets and incomes of its Ministers.

Five, reform the election system to ensure that it is free and fair.

It goes without saying that someone must be held accountable over the whole sordid NKF affair. However, real accountability starts much higher up.

Man Punches MP

2006-07-25T10:03:00.000+08:00

In what must be the local version of a "Man Bites Dog" story, the press reported that PAP Member of Parliament Seng Han Thong, who was attacked by his Yio Chu Kang constituent, wants to close the episode and move on.

It was Mr Seng's first public comments on the assault which took place last Thursday, 13th July 2006.

The punching incident took place at about 9.30pm on 20 July at a Meet-the-People session at the PAP's Yio Chu Kang branch office.

74-year-old Koo Tong Huat had asked to see his MP in private. The former Comfort taxi driver wanted Mr Seng to help him reinstate his taxi licence which was revoked four years ago. Comfort Delgro terminated his services for writing a threatening letter to a female passenger after she complained about him.

Koo was believed to have been upset that his MP failed to help 'clear his
name' when in fact Mr Seng did file an appeal with ComfortDelgro. ComfortDelgro had replied to Mr Seng and Koo to say that it stood by its earlier recommendations.

We are told that before Mr Seng could explain, Koo punched him in the face.

Two days after the incident, Koo reportedly wrote a letter of apology to Mr Seng, only to retract it the very next day.

Police are investigating the matter but Mr Seng said the assault would not affect the way he conducts his Meet-the-People sessions.

Mr Seng said: "I'll like to move on because I have many other pressing issues to deal with. I'll take this case as closed and I'll leave it to the Police to decide the next course of action."

The last time a member of the public reacted so exuberantly was when the NKF building was spray painted.

The Great Affective Divide

2006-07-24T09:33:00.000+08:00

Before Mr Brown, there was a Catherine Lim who spoke up, albeit without the benefit of the new online technology. Yet there are some who say that her article reproduced below gave cause for then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong to change out his velvet gloves for brass knuckle busters, the weapon of choice of his predecessor.

The PAP and the people - A Great Affective Divide
By Catherine Lim

IT IS no secret that while the PAP Government has inspired in the people much respect for its efficiency and much gratitude for the good life as a result of this efficiency, there is very little in the way of affectionate regard. It is also no secret that the Government is not much bothered by this attitude. The familiar PAP stance is: better to be unpopular and do a good job than to be popular and lead the country into chaos and ruin. At a time of peak economic prosperity and social stability, an estrangement between the government and the people must appear odd. Whence arises this Great Affective Divide?

The answer lies partly in Singapore's history. In its early years, the PAP leadership faced enormous hardships including the traumatic expulsion from Malaysia, the earlier-than-expected withdrawal of the British forces resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs, the threat of Communist influence in the unions and schools and the increasing hostility of the Chinese-educated for the newly emerging, socially ascendant English-educated. On top of all these problems was the ultimately daunting one of nature's remissness: a total lack of natural resources.

With characteristic energy and enthusiasm, the PAP leaders set about the task of taking the beleaguered country out of the woods. From the start, they decided that there was only one way to do it: establish the primacy of economic development and link it with political security to form a tight, incontrovertible equation of national survival, so that whatever fitted into the equation would be rigorously promoted and whatever threatened to disrupt it would be slapped down ruthlessly. Thus a linguistic and cultural issue --that of the English language - was resolved in its favour on the economic grounds that its adoption and use as the main language would enable the country to plug into world trade and technology. The dissenting voices of the Chinese educated were seen accordingly as subversive of the well-being of the country, and duly dealt with.

Over the years, this simple but highly effective approach has taken the country from one astonishing level of achievement to another, until today, it takes its place among the most successful nations in the world, ranking 18th among 230 countries in terms of per capita income.

Clearly, such a purposeful, uncompromising commitment to the economic imperative calls for special qualities of mind and temperament. The PAP leaders are distinguished for their intelligence, single-mindedness, sternness of purpose and cool detachment. Their methods are logic, precision,meticulous analysis and hard-nosed calculation and quantification. Their style is impersonal, brisk, business-like, no-nonsense, pre-emptive. Their pet aversion is noisy, protracted debate that leads nowhere, emotional indulgence, frothy promises, theatrics and polemics in place of pragmatics. This PAP approach, by reason of its amazing effectiveness, has been raised to o political credo that uniquely defines the Government.

But while the PAP ideology remains the same, the people have not. Higher education, a more affluent lifestyle and exposure to the values of the western societies, have created a new generation that is not satisfied with the quantitative paradigm but looks beyond it to a larger qualitative one that most certainly includes matters of the heart, soul and spirit. While idealism, charisma and image have a special appeal for the young, feeling in general is an essential element in everybody's life, occurring at the deepest and most basic level of human need.

The absence of this affective dimension in the PAP framework is what has alienated the people from their leaders. It is easily seen that the main criticisms levelled against the PAP point to a style deficient in human sensitivity and feeling -- "dictatorial", "arrogant", "impatient", "unforgiving", "vindictive".

The Government, puzzled and exasperated by the charges, has often invited these disaffected to come forward to explain their stand clearly and support their criticism with hard data, for instance, the oft-heard complaint that the authoritarian style of the Government has denied them freedom of expression.

But the disaffection remains largely coffee-house and cocktail party rhetoric only. Singaporeans continue to prefer the cover of anonymity. One reason may be the fear that the outspoken person will be marked out and victimised; another may be the sheer presence of so much proof of concrete well-being, such as a good job, a good bank account, a comfortable lifestyle.

Whatever the reason, the negative feelings go underground. Now subterranean hostility is all the more insidious for being that, and has away of surfacing in the most trenchant way, for example, applauding any rambunctious opposition party member in pre-election rallies. A once-in-five-years occurrence, it shows all the intensity of unbottled resentment. The most serious consequences, as the Government is very well aware, is the giving of the vote to the opposition, simply to deny the Government majority that would presumably make it more arrogant than ever.

The Great Affective Divide has created a model of government-people relationship that must be unique in the world: solid, unbreakable unity of purpose and commitment on the economic plane, but a serious bifurcation at the emotive level, resulting in all kinds of anomalies and incongruities. A kind of modus vivendi appears to have developed, by which each agrees to live with the other's preference as long as both work together for the good of the country. Hence the Government continues to say: "We know you dislike us, but...", and the people continue to think: "We are totally grateful to you for the good life you've given us and will vote you again, but ..."

Judging by the results, it is not too bad an arrangement, and many governments who were wildly popular one year and fell the next must be envious of the PAP for being returned to power at each election by a people who allegedly don't like them. The conclusion is that in the large equation of Economic Prosperity and Party Continuity, the factor of feeling cannot be a significant one.

Or can it? Is the equation as stable as it looks?

Concerned Singaporeans must be aware of the emergence of a secondary equation that could bust the major one and create a whole range of unexpected problems. It is the equation of the PAP with Singapore. While in other countries, political parties come and go, but the country remains the rallying point for the people's feelings, in Singapore, the Government has become synonymous with the country. Indeed, Singapore is often seen as the creation of the PAP, made to its image and likeness. Hence, dislike of the PAP, even though it does not translate into dislike of Singapore, effectively blocks out any spontaneous outpouring of patriotic emotion. The best evidence is in the attitude towards the national flag. Singaporeans continue to be reluctant to put it up in their homes on National Day for fear of being thought PAP supporters and sycophants.

If loyalty towards the country is blocked, it has to be directed elsewhere. In Singapore, it is directed at the good life which the country has come to represent. Hence, the object of the people's fervour is not the Government, nor the country, but the good life made possible by the first in its successful leadership of the second. There is by now an almost adulatory quality about the attachment of Singaporeans to the affluence which their parents never knew and which came their way so quickly. It has been wryly described as the new religion of "moneytheism".

This kind of loyalty is, of course meretricious. It changes with its object. Hence, when the good life diminishes, so will it. When the good life disappears, so may it. But the most insidious aspect is its mobility. It will uproot and move with the good life. Hence, if economic prosperity is no longer in Singapore but moves to Canada, Australia, the United States, China, it will re-locate itself accordingly. This is already happening, say some cynical observers: the current buying up of properties and businesses in other countries by the more affluent Singaporeans may be more a quiet preparation for this eventuality than a straightforward investment.

Such a volatile, mobile loyalty is of course a travesty of the patriotism it has displaced and a mockery of all the earnest effort that the Government and the people have put into the building of the country over three decades.

Even if such a sinister scenario does not arise, a growing emotive estrangement between the Government and the people is not a healthy thing. It could create a schizoid society where head is divorced from heart, where there is a double agenda and double book-keeping with people agreeing with the Government in public but saying something else in private.

Neither side of course wants this to happen. Both want this discomfiture to go away. The slogan of "a gentler, wiser society" borrowed by the Prime Minister to signal a new dispensation of greater sensitivity, concern and communication, reinforces an earlier one of "gracious society". The new concern with the aged, the handicapped and the destitute is clearly an attempt to put a human face on public policy that is often accused of being elitist. The new encouragement of the arts is an acknowledgement that man does not live by bread alone but also by creative expression, energy and passion. In the process of narrowing this Affective Divide, the Government will learn that lecturing and hectoring are sometimes less effective than a pat on the back, that mistakes may be just as instructive as success and are therefore forgivable, that efficiency and generosity of spirit are not mutually exclusive, that compassion is not necessarily a sign of effeteness.

The people, on their part, will learn to praise and commend as readily as they are to criticise and complain, to appreciate the hard work of the leaders and possibly the personal sacrifice and frustrations that must lie behind some of the achievements that have contributed to the good life and above all, to realise that whatever the Government now says about its accepting the fact that it does not have the people's regard as long as it has their respect, it needs and wants both.

The Great Affective Divide is an incongruity, to say the least, at a time of phenomenal achievement and intense awareness of the need for a national identity. If openness and tolerance are to be the new temper of the times, they must, first and foremost, address this problem, a definite thorn in the side of the body politic.

A Singapore Martyr

2006-07-19T17:15:00.000+08:00

Chee Soon Juan drew largely negative responses for his election tactics in May, and it is understandable that his personal and political motivations were difficult for the general public to fathom. The following article provides a rare insight that may prove many Singaporeans wrong, and that the country may view him with different eyes in the future.

Far Eastern Economic Review
July/August 2006
By Hugo Restall

STRIDING into the Chinese restaurant of Singapore’s historic Fullerton Hotel, Chee Soon Juan hardly looks like a dangerous revolutionary. Casually dressed in a blue shirt with a gold pen clipped to the pocket, he could pass as just another mild-mannered, apolitical Singaporean. Smiling, he courteously apologizes for being late—even though it is only two minutes after the appointed time.
Nevertheless, according to prosecutors, this same man is not only a criminal, but a repeat offender. The opposition party leader has just come from a pre-trial conference at the courthouse, where he faces eight counts of speaking in public without a permit. He has already served numerous prison terms for this and other political offenses, including eight days in March for denying the independence of the judiciary. He expects to go to jail again later this year.

Mr Chee does not seem too perturbed about this, but it drives Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong up the wall. Asked about his government’s persecution of the opposition during a trip to New Zealand last month, Mr Lee launched into a tirade of abuse against Mr Chee. “He’s a liar, he’s a cheat, he’s deceitful, he’s confrontational, it’s a destructive form of politics designed not to win elections in Singapore but to impress foreign supporters and make himself out to be a martyr,” Mr Lee ranted. “He’s deliberately going against the rules because he says, ‘I’m like Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi. I want to be a martyr.’”

Coming at the end of a trip in which the prime minister essentially got a free ride on human rights from his hosts—New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark didn’t even raise the issue—this outburst showed a lack of self-control and acumen. Former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, the man who many believe still runs Singapore and who is the current prime minister’s father, has said much the same things about Mr Chee—“a political gangster, a liar and a cheat”—but that was at home, and in the heat of an election campaign.

Mr Chee smiles when it’s suggested that he must be doing something right. “Every time he says something stupid like that, I think to myself, the worst thing to happen would be to be ignored. That would mean we’re not making any headway,” he agrees.

But one charge made by the government does stick: Mr Chee is not terribly concerned about election results. Which is just as well, because his Singapore Democratic Party did not do very well in the May 6 polls. It would be foolish, he suggests, for an opposition party in Singapore to pin its hopes on gaining one, or perhaps two, seats in parliament. He is aiming for a much bigger goal: bringing down the city-state’s one-party system of government. His weapon is a campaign of civil disobedience against laws designed to curtail democratic freedoms.

“You don’t vote out a dictatorship,” he says. “And basically that’s what Singapore is, albeit a very sophisticated one. It’s not possible for us to effect change just through the ballot box. They’ve got control of everything else around us.” Instead what’s needed is a coalition of civil society and political society coming together and demanding change—a color revolution for Singapore.

So far Mr Chee doesn’t seem to be getting much, if any traction. While many Singaporeans don’t particularly like the PAP’s arrogant style of government, the ruling party has succeeded in depoliticizing the population to the extent that anybody who presses them to take action to make a change is regarded with resentment. And in a climate of fear—Mr Chee lost his job as a psychology lecturer at the national university soon after entering opposition politics—a reluctance to get involved is hardly surprising.

Why is all this oppression necessary in a peaceful and prosperous country like Singapore where citizens otherwise enjoy so many freedoms? Mr Chee has his own theory that the answer lies with strongman Lee Kuan Yew himself: “Why is he still so afraid? I honestly think that through the years he has accumulated enough skeletons in his closet that he knows that when he is gone, his son and the generations after him will have a price to pay. If we had parliamentary debates where the opposition could pry and ask questions, I think he is actually afraid of something like that.”

That raises the question of whether Singapore deserves its reputation for squeaky-clean government. A scandal involving the country’s biggest charity, the National Kidney Foundation, erupted in 2004 when it turned out that its Chief Executive T.T. Durai was not only drawing a $357,000 annual salary, but the charity was paying for his first-class flights, maintenance on his Mercedes, and gold-plated fixtures in his private office bathroom.

The scandal was a gift for the opposition, which naturally raised questions about why the government didn’t do a better job of supervising the highly secretive NKF, whose patron was the wife of former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong (she called Mr Durai’s salary “peanuts”). But it had wider implications too. The government controls huge pools of public money in the Central Provident Fund and the Government of Singapore Investment Corp, both of which are highly nontransparent. It also controls spending on the public housing most Singaporeans live in, and openly uses the funds for refurbishing apartment blocks as a bribe for districts that vote for the ruling party. Singaporeans have no way of knowing whether officials are abusing their trust as Mr Durai did.

It gets worse. Mr Durai’s abuses only came to light because he sued the Straits Times newspaper for libel over an article detailing some of his perks. Why was Mr Durai so confident he could win a libel suit when the allegations against him were true? Because he had done it before. The NKF won a libel case in 1998 against defendants who alleged it had paid for first-class flights for Mr Durai. This time, however, he was up against a major bulwark of the regime, Singapore Press Holdings; its lawyers uncovered the truth.

Singaporean officials have a remarkable record of success in winning libel suits against their critics. The question then is, how many other libel suits have Singapore’s great and good wrongly won, resulting in the cover-up of real misdeeds? And are libel suits deliberately used as a tool to suppress questioning voices?

The bottling up of dissent conceals pressures and prevents conflicts from being resolved. For instance, extreme sensitivity over the issue of race relations means that the persistence of discrimination is a taboo topic. Yet according to Mr Chee it is a problem that should be debated so that it can be better resolved. “The harder they press now, the stronger will be the reaction when he’s no longer around,” he says of Lee Kuan Yew.

The paternalism of the PAP also rankles, especially since foreigners get more consideration than locals. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund will hold their annual meeting in Singapore this fall, and have been trying to convince the authorities to allow the usual demonstrations to take place. The likely result is that international NGO groups will be given a designated area to scream and shout. “So we have a situation here where locals don’t have the right to protest in their own country, while foreigners are able to do that,” Mr Chee marvels. Likewise, Singaporeans can’t organize freely into unions to negotiate wages; instead a National Wages Council sets salaries with input from the corporate sector, including foreign chambers of commerce.

All these tensions will erupt when strongman Lee Kuan Yew dies. Mr Chee notes that the ruling party is so insecure that Singapore’s founder has been unable to step back from front-line politics. The PAP still needs the fear he inspires in order to keep the population in line. Power may have officially passed to his son, Lee Hsien Loong, but even supporters privately admit that the new prime minister doesn’t inspire confidence.

During the election, Prime Minister Lee made what should have been a routine attack on multiparty democracy: “Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I’m going to spend all my time thinking what’s the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters’ votes, how can I solve this week’s problem and forget about next year’s challenges?” But of course the ominous phrases “buy votes” and “fix them” stuck out. That is the kind of mistake, Mr Chee suggests, Lee Sr would not make.

“He’s got a kind of intelligence that would serve you very well when you put a problem in front of him,” he says of the prime minister. “But when it comes to administration or political leadership, when you really need to be media savvy and motivate people, I think he is very lacking in that area. And his father senses it as well.”

However, the elder Mr Lee’s death—he is now 82—is a necessary but not sufficient condition for change. Another big factor is how civil society is able to use new technologies to bypass PAP control over information and free speech. The government has tried to stifle political filmmaking, blogging and podcasting. Singapore Rebel, a 2004 film about Mr Chee by independent artist Martyn See, was banned but is widely available on the Internet.

Meanwhile, pressure for Singapore to remain competitive in the region has sparked debate about the government’s dominant role in the economy. Can a top-down approach promote creativity and independent thinking? The need for transparency and accountability also means that Singapore will have to change. That is the source of Mr Chee’s optimism in the face of all his setbacks: “I realize that Singapore is not at that level yet. But we’ve got to start somewhere. And I’m prepared to see this out, in the sense that in the next five, 10, 15 years, time is on our side. We need to continue to organize and educate and encourage. And it will come.”

He doesn’t dwell on his personal tribulations, but mentions in passing selling his self-published books on the street. That is his primary source of income to feed his family, along with the occasional grant. As to the charge of wanting to be a martyr, once he started dissenting, he found it impossible to stop in good conscience. “The more you got involved, the more you found out what they’re capable of, it steels you, so you say, ‘No, I will not back down.’ It makes you more determined.”

Perhaps it’s in his genes. One of Mr Chee’s daughters is old enough that she had to be told that her father was going to prison. She stood up before her class and announced, “My papa is in jail, but he didn’t do anything wrong. People have just been unfair to him.”

So This Is Sedition?

2006-07-14T15:05:00.000+08:00

The Straits Times reported in March 2006 that a 21-year-old accounting student, known only by his internet handle “Char”, faced possible sedition charges for posting offensive pictures of Jesus on his blog.

Sometime earlier in February, during the height of the Mohamed cartoons furore, "Char" had an online argument with a fundamentalist Christian. The Christian found Char’s blog, which contained the drawing by Jared von Hindeman.

It is open to interpretation if the cartoon is a metaphor for the "corrosive effect of religion upon reasoning", or just a picture of Jesus munching on some kid’s brain, but the Christian decided to find it sufficiently offensive to demand that Char remove it from his blog. Char responded by posting three more Jesus-themed pieces sourced from the Net, and that’s when the police got involved.

Char had his desktop computer and laptop taken away as evidence after he was called in for questioning in March. Three days later, he was asked to report to the Police Cantonment Complex where he was formally arrested and released on police bail, which was extended to four weeks to let him travel to the US. He faced a possible fine of up to $5,000 or a prison term of up to 3 years under the Singapore sedition act.

When he reported to the police on his return in April, he was told his bail had lapsed and that he might be called for further investigation.

On 8 July 2006, Char reported that he got off with a police warning.

Char's story:

Here goes: Three months back (today's the third month anniversary of my case. whee.), I kind of made an enemy online, thanks to a little flaming session. Back then, it was the height of the Jyllands-Posten/Muhammed pictures issue, and following some moronic arguements of his (We'll call this guy FundieP) on Christianity against someone else, I couldn't help but step in, and pretty much publicly humiliated him.

Dumb thing however, was that FundieP knew of my blog, thanks to a sigining off signature generated automatically. And being the fundamentalist Christian he was, he sent me a mail, requesting that an earlier cartoon I had on the blog be removed. [Police annex A, taken from hamncheez.com - cartoon of a zombie version of Jesus biting on a little boy's head. Boy is asking "why is my messiah trying to eat my brain?" and line below says "on the third day, Jesus rose from his tomb"]

Well, to those who know me, I'm strongly anti-fundamentalist, so I dumbly didn't reply to that mail, and instead went to search for a couple more pictures to agitate FundieP. Bad idea. [Police annex B, C, D respectively: licenceplateworld.com - picture of licenceplate saying "jesus loves you, everyone else thinks you're an asshole"; somethingawful.com - fake CNN image of Jesus on paper; and somethingawful.com - edited photo of Last Temptation of Christ, with Jesus looking at a KFC bucket.]

Well, FundieP made a police report. About 2 weeks later, I had the police knocking, got my computer siezed, was arrested and dumped into hotel Cantoment for 3.5 hours, and let out on bail for breaching 4(1)(c)-290 - our beloved sedition act.

[4. —(1) Any person who — (c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction for a first offence to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both, and, for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years; and any seditious publication found in the possession of that person or used in evidence at his trial shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs.]

6 days before I was due for a three and a half week US trip.

I was pretty much a nervous wreck those few days, I eventually went, although it took 2 of my best friends (and an insanely high US phone bill) to convince me that I would need the trip - my passport wasn't impounded, and the police extended the bail to 4 weeks to let me fly, although I almost wanted to call the flight off.

Switch back to present, and well, I've told the story to only a select few so far, but to be honest (and to sound stupid), I never actually decided to read the entire Sedition Act till today, after 3 months. Sure, I read the earlier portions (about section 1-5, but not the later portion. Yes, berate me on my stupidity, but I was seriously freaked out for that long to not notice article 6.

[Evidence. 6. Cap. 97. (2) No person shall be convicted of any offence referred to in section 4(1)(c) if such person proves that...he did not know and had no reason to believe that the publication had a seditious tendency.]

and, linking back,

[Seditious tendency. 3. —(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency — (e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.]

While Malays and Islam are interwined, it would take a long shot to link Christianity as a dividing issue between races or classes of the population of Singapore.

For an additional note, the Da Vinci Code would be probably be more seditious, if one goes by the severity of the "evidence" - mildly put, it virtually criminalises Christianity as a conspiracy, and that Christianity itself is illicit (Of course, all monotheist religions claim that all other religions are illicit anyway), plus, its publicity is about a few hundred times more (now showing?) than my now-defunct blog.

(anyway, I called the police today to ask on the case, as well as my computer, and the investigating officer sounded pretty miffed, just telling me that the case was still "under investigation")

The Best People To Run Singapore

2006-07-11T17:00:00.000+08:00

Are scholars the best people to run Singapore, asked Seah Chiang Nee in his article published in Malaysia's Sunday Star.

Then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew enunciated the reliance on scholars some 40 years ago, based on the his assumption that academic achievement is the best criterion for good political leadership, as was practised in the system of Mandarin scholars during the days of imperial China.

The route to success in Lee's meritocracy starts with a scholarship from the Public Service Commission. The returning graduates from top universities worldwide are posted to key appointment in the civil service first, and then onto the commercially run statutory boards and government linked companies. Wherever they end up, they are compensated handsomely, and they are moved quickly up the organisational hierarchy until they reach the creme de la creme of postings, the Ministership.

Lee believed that, paid premium rates, these people will deliver, and to an extent there were some instances of how this has worked well in the past.

But not all business opportunities can be addressed by just relying on problem-solving technocrats or technically competent managers. Singapore's billionaire tycoon Quek Leng Beng claimed that scholar-managers might have cost some of his companies millions in lost opportunities.

"Some of my managers involve themselves in too much detail and are afraid to make mistakes," he told The Business Times. "One guy, a scholar with an impressive list of paper qualifications, used to hand me reports of at least 10 pages on anything I wanted. In turn, he demanded reports of at least 20 pages from his subordinates. So he had piles of reports on his table and when I asked him if he has time to read all these reports, he replied that he did not."

For each one of the failures exemplified by Quek's hire, there must be tens more sitting in high offices of the civil service and statutory boards, where they remain immune to critical assessment and protected by the vested interests of political patronage. Goh Chok Tong confessed to what the general public already knew, that the ruling party's political new blood were swept into parliament by manipulating the GRC system, which original intent was to ensure the minorities in Singapore's multi-racial melieu had a representation in government. Lee Kuan Yew himself had lay blame on the "viscereal" motivations of the electorate that they will only support candidates of their own racial genre. Goh was more candid: if the new political aspirants were not guaranteed a high (paying) office, they apparently had let it be known they will not stand on the PAP ticket. One of them, a CEO of the Port of Singapore Authorities (PSA), was actually approached ten times, according to PM Lee Hsien Loong himself, before she agreed to "stand for elections". Since the majority of these "candidates" did not have to fight for their place in parliament or receive any electoral votes from the ballot box, it is a rhetorical question the "mandate" they secured will be reflected in the relation with the constitutents on the ground.

We are told, by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew no less, that the ruling party co-opted all the best brains in Singapore. Yet the many strategy mishaps in the May elections, and continued mishandling of public sentiments in respect of grouses on rising costs of living and unemployment woes, will strain the credibility of this brainpower, or lack of it. K Bhavani, four times elected President of the Institute of Public Relations of Singapore (IPRS), singled handedly created the island's worst PR fiasco. Since she is the official Press Secretary of Minister for Information, Community and the Arts Lee Boon Yang, one must really wonder where the thinking stopped.

One of the state's better-known (retired) permanent secretaries, Ngiam Tong Dow, doesn't think too much about the PAP policy of putting all the scholars into the civil service. According to him, "This belief that a monopoly of talent is the way "to retain political power forever" was a short-term view. It is the law of nature that all things must atrophy."

Ngiam's proposition is worrying because it implies that Singapore today is in the controlling hands of atrophied Mandarins, and given that Lee Kuan Yew pronounced in the May 2006 elections that "you cannot chanage out a government through an election", what political options are there left for the Singapore citizenry?

Singaporean - A Second Class Citizen

2006-07-09T08:03:00.000+08:00

On the very same day mrbrown's column was predictably exorcized from the Friday 7th July 2006's edition of TODAY, not a single word in print made reference of the event. The silence was deafening.

Instead, the front page showcased two strongly worded critical commentaries on government policy, one from an ex-civil servant and one from a visiting foreigner.

Former Permanent Secretary Ngiam Tong Dow attacked on two fronts:
- NWC had contributed to the high wages in Singapore;
- PTC should "take a sabbatical" and leave public transportation fares to market forces. The Public Transport Council oversees the bus and MRT fare revisions; significantly, the recent proposal for raising taxi fares lead by government linked company ComfortDelgro, was not mentioned in the article.

The report told how Ngiam recounted in his new book that "the then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew urged his Cabinet to set MRT fares at levels much higher than bus fares", as he was worried that "if initial fares are not set at fair economic value...we would be stuck with uneconomic fares forever". Ngiam allegedly claimed that, "By not biting the bullet at the beginning, public transportation fares are held political hostage".

On NWC, he wrote that the National Wage Council was instrumental in increasing wages across the board, regardless of productivity and competitiveness. As a result, Singapore is in the "bind of a high cost economy".

Visitor Mr Peter Schwartz, co-founder and chairman of the Global Business Network who was in town as a member of the Research, inovation and Enterprise Council to discuss research and development proposals in strategic areas identified by Singapore, said that "Singapore is not too good at dealing with scruffy people, you don't like people like that too much around here". According to Swartz, if the government wants digital media to take off, Singapore's tolerance levels will have to change as he claims that digital media workers have "hair down to here and smell of pot". Swartz went further to "encourage Singapore to overcome its obsession with success."

Swartz's words remind one of "mendicant professor" Enright, who once lectured as Professor of English at the Singapore University.

In November 1960, Dennis Joseph Enright gained notoriety in Singapore after his inaugural lecture at the University of Singapore, titled "Robert Graves and the Decline of Modernism". His introductory remarks on the state of culture in Singapore became the subject of a Straits Times article "'Hands Off' Challenge to 'Culture Vultures'" published the next day.

Among other things, he had said that it was important for Singapore to remain "culturally open", that culture was something to be left for the people to build up, and that for the government to institute "a sarong culture, complete with pantun competitions and so forth" was futile. Some quotes include:

"Art does not begin in a test-tube, it does not take its origin in good sentiments and clean-shaven, upstanding young thoughts."

"Leave the people free to make their own mistakes, to suffer and to discover. Authority must leave us to fight even that deadly battle over whether or not to enter a place of entertainment wherein lurks a juke-box, and whether or not to slip a coin into the machine."

Immediately after the ST article was published, Enright was summoned by the Ministry for Labour and Law regarding his foreigner work permit, and was handed a letter there by the Minister for Culture S. Rajaratnam, which had also been released to the press. This letter admonished Enright for "involv[ing] [himself] in political affairs which are the concern of local people", not "visitors, including mendicant professors", and said that the government "ha[s] no time for asinine sneers by passing aliens about the futility of 'sarong culture complete with pantun competitions' particularly when it comes from beatnik professors."

With some mediation from the Academic Staff Association of the university, it was agreed that to put the matter to rest, Enright had to write a letter of apology and clarification.

Enright gave his account of the incident in his "Memoirs of a Mendicant Professor" (Chatto & Windus, 1969, pp. 124-151).

Drawing The Line In The Sand

2006-07-03T08:58:00.000+08:00

Creator of the by now classic "Bak Chor Mee" podcast which has been downloaded more than 200,000 times, MrBrown is finally drawing flak from a supposedly "enlightened" establishment. The predictable result was documented by Reporters San Borders. Following is the missive which fired the first salvo:

Letter from K BHAVANI
Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts

Quote:

Your mr brown column, "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!" (June 30) poured sarcasm on many issues, including the recent General Household Survey, price increases in electricity tariffs and taxi fares, our IT plans, the Progress Package and means testing for special school fees.

The results of the General Household Survey were only available after the General Election. But similar data from the Household Expenditure Survey had been published last year before the election.

There was no reason to suppress the information. It confirmed what we had told Singaporeans all along, that globalisation would stretch out incomes.

mr brown must also know that price increases in electricity tariffs and taxi fares are the inevitable result of higher oil prices.

These were precisely the reasons for the Progress Package — to help lower income Singaporeans cope with higher costs of living.

Our IT plans are critical to Singapore's competitive position and will improve the job chances of individual Singaporeans. It is wrong of mr brown to make light of them.

As for means testing for special school fees, we understand mr brown's disappointment as the father of an autistic child. However, with means testing, we can devote more resources to families who need more help.

mr brown's views on all these issues distort the truth. They are polemics dressed up as analysis, blaming the Government for all that he is unhappy with. He offers no alternatives or solutions. His piece is calculated to encourage cynicism and despondency, which can only make things worse, not better, for those he professes to sympathise with.

mr brown is entitled to his views. But opinions which are widely circulated in a regular column in a serious newspaper should meet higher standards. Instead of a diatribe mr brown should offer constructive criticism and alternatives. And he should come out from behind his pseudonym to defend his views openly.

It is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government. If a columnist presents himself as a non-political observer, while exploiting his access to the mass media to undermine the Government's standing with the electorate, then he is no longer a constructive critic, but a partisan player in politics.

Unquote:

The responses from the men and women in the blogosphere came in fast and furious, and more than 500 posted strong comments on Mr Brown's blog with 2 days, many highlighting Bhavani's obvious error in challenging him to about "come out from behind his pseudonym". Mr Brown is well known by his real name on and off-line, and has been interviewed on national television and in the local print media. Even more vitriolic were comments about Bhavani's uncalled for reference to "the father of an autistic child". The pictures and trials of litte daughter Faith are all documented online and well known to many parents. Incredulous comes to mind when it was revealed that that Bhavani is supposedly President of the Institute of Public Relations of Singapore (IPRS). Who else is more qualified to initiate a PR disaster of such epidemic proportions?

For the many Singaporeans who cared enough about the issue to write to the Today broadsheet, they received the following standard reply:

Dear [ ]

Thank you for your feedback. We will not be publishing any correspondence on this issue. Should you feel strongly, you may want to wish to redirect your views to the source of the letter.

With regards.
shavone yeo
editorial assistant
did: 6236 4878
fax: 6534 4217
news desk: 6236 4888
email: shavone@newstoday.com.sg
MediaCorp Press Ltd - http://www.todayonline.com

~~~~~ source of the letter ~~~~~

Someone actually received a reply from Bhavani, although this has not been verified. The irony in the official email tagline could not have been more appropriate:

Dear Ms ______

Thank you for your feedback.

Mr Brown gave his take on several issues in his column last week. I responded, on behalf of the Government, to his column as it was necessary to address these issues.

Yours sincerely

Bhavani
K BHAVANI | Press Sec To Minister and Director, Corporate Communications Department | Organisation Management Division
Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts
6837 9865, 6837 9837
www.mica.gov.sg

Creative People, Gracious Community, Connected Singapore

When asked by reporters to comment on the suspension of mr brown's column, Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lee Boon Yang had this to say:

"I think he made very unfair, unjustified comments on key government policies, and various allegations which are unfounded, of course, all under the guise of humour," said the minister on why the Government had to set the record straight.

"I think we are duty-bound to give a response to mr brown, to address his comments, and we did. We sent our response. We were just exercising our right of reply."

Dr Lee said the mainstream media must be be objective, accurate and responsible for its views.

He added that as the Internet was often a free-for-all arena, certain critical and humourous elements were acceptable. It was not the Government's intention to chase after every posting on the Internet, said the minister.

Asked if the Government's actions contradicted his earlier statement about taking a lighter touch with bloggers, Dr Lee told reporters: "I said that we will look at how we can have a lighter touch in regulating the internet during the election. Mr brown's comments was not posted on his blog. If he had posted the same comment on his blog, we will treat it as part of the internet chatter, and we would have just let it be. But he didn't post it - he wrote it and published it in the mainstream newspaper. That's the difference."

The Truth about GRCs

2006-06-28T13:09:00.000+08:00

Not too long ago, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew took pains to try to convince some 30 year olds that the GRC system was necessary to ensure minorities were represented in parliament. He blamed it on "viscereal" motivations on the part of the electorate.

Straits Times June 27, 2006
GRCs make it easier to find top talent: SM
Without good chance of winning at polls, they might not be willing to risk careers for politics

By Li Xueying

SENIOR Minister Goh Chok Tong yesterday gave a new take on the role of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) in Singapore politics.

Their role is not just to ensure minorities are adequately represented in Parliament, he said. They also contribute to Singapore's political stability, by 'helping us to recruit younger and capable candidates with the potential to become ministers'.

'Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics,' Mr Goh said at an event marking the appointment of members to the South East Community Development Council (CDC).

'Why should they when they are on the way up in the civil service, the SAF, and in the professions or the corporate world?

'But he was quick to add that GRCs themselves do not guarantee victory.

'A minister wins only because he has won the people's trust and the Government has delivered good results for the people. If a minister performed poorly, it could result in his losing the GRC to an opposing team with a strong leader,' he said, in what appears to be an oblique reference to comments made against GRCs in the general election held this May.

Since GRCs were introduced in 1988, critics and the opposition have attacked them, saying they allow rookie People's Action Party (PAP) candidates to get into Parliament on the coat tails of heavyweight candidates in their team.

Also, they do not lend themselves to a level playing field, they add, as the opposition struggles to find the specified minority-race candidates.

Mr Goh carried four new faces into Parliament in the six-man Marine Parade GRC team, which was unchallenged at the 2006 polls.

A Bad Omen

2006-06-14T10:47:00.000+08:00

Fengshui masters think the Marina Bay Casino's design is a disaster.

The casino-resort at Marina Bay, which will be built on a 50.9-acre waterfront site near the financial district, is likely to cost more than 5 billion Singapore dollars ($3.16 billion), Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar told a news conference on Friday 26 May 2006. Las Vegas Sands Corp., owner of The Venetian in Nevada, won a hotly contested license to build Singapore's first casino, which could be the world's costliest casino resort project by the time it opens in 2009. Currently, the world's most expensive casino is the $2.7 billion Wynn Las Vegas that was completed late last year.

The design of the Marina Bay integrated resort is a talking point - especially the 50-storey-high sky park.

The 1ha sky park, larger than two football fields, is one of the most prominent features of the $5 billion resort, which Las Vegas Sands won the bid to build. Linking the tops of three 50-storey hotel towers, the park overlooks the museum, retail and convention spaces and boasts a 360-degree view of the city and the Singapore Strait.

United States-based architect Moshe Safdie designed the resort. He said the greenery at the summit fits Singapore's image as a 'garden city'. The Sands claimed they consulted a fengshui master, but said he was out of town and could not be contacted for comment.

But those interviewed by the local press were not enthusiastic about the design.

Geomancer Victor Li, who has worked with The Raffles Hotel and The Grand Hyatt Singapore, said: "On their own, the three tall buildings look like three ancestral tablets and, with the sky garden, it looks like a broken flyover, with 'neither head nor tail'." He said the Mandarin phrase 'neither head nor tail' has a negative connotation, usually used to describe things that are incomplete and imperfect.

The flatness of the rooftop is another problem.

Master Tan Khoon Yong of Way Onnet Group said it resembles a blade that will affect all buildings surrounding the IR, especially the Swissotel Stamford. "Also, because the rooftop is flat, it restricts the development and growth for the IR," he said.

While geomancer Adelina Pang has no problem with the flat roof, she warned that the garden should not have ponds or water features, because this would symbolise a drowning building.

Out of the 40 people interviewed by The Sunday Times, 22 were impressed by the design, while 18 disliked it.

Ms Loke Mei En, 33, a hedge fund manager, said: "It looks embarrassing. The design is haphazardly put together. It's an aberration on our waterfront."

Others liken the towers to 'joss-sticks' and a 'glorified factory'.

Geomancer Gwee Kim Woon says the buildings are positioned in a shape of a bat. The Mandarin word for 'bat' sounds similar to the Mandarin word for luck, so bats are often associated with luck.

As for the lotus-shaped Art- Science museum, people from both camps supported the idea of a bloom along the waterfront. Architect John Ting said: "To us in Asia, the lotus is providential and if you know how to capitalise on the concept of a lotus, it can be iconic."

But architect Tay Kheng Soon feels the project might be too striking for its own good. "Because it is so outstanding, it is likely to be mistaken as the icon of Singapore. No self-respecting city has a casino as its icon."

Master Chong Swan Lek, 66, commenting on the negative remarks, said it is not a geomancer's job "to tell the architect what to do". His input to the Sands project, however, had the designers splitting one original hotel block into three to let the qi (wind) through. Asked if geomancy could reduce gambling's social ills, he said "You would have to tighten the law".

On the gaps, which critics say are wind tunnels that bring bad luck to the financial district:
Master Chong: We split them so that the qi (wind) could pass through. The Swissotel does not even face the IR. It faces Maybank, the mouth of the Singapore River, not the lagoon. The IR actually becomes the kao san (backer). They got it wrong.

The pools in the garden:
Master Chong: The garden has water and plants, like a mountain. We have water, and the water flows to the MICE (meetings, incentive travel, conventions, exhibitions) business.

50-storey Sky Park critics claim looks like a broken flyover and a blade cutting into the fortune of surrounding buildings:
Master Chong: It's like a scholar's hat, meaning the IR will bring new learning to Singapore.

The three hotel towers that look like three ancestral tablets:
Master Chong: You look properly, they are three warriors standing a foot apart. They are guarding the gaeway to Singapore. Tablets are are straight up, these are curved.

On the three domes:
Master Chong: They are like three coins. In fengshui, when a household has problems, you give them three coins. They ward off evil and bring prosperity.

Lotus shaped ArtScience Museum:
Master Chong: Its five fingers complements the Esplanade. Water flows in and is recycled. Money flows into the casino and back to Singapore, so it won't flow out into Batam and Bintan.

Minister Salaries in Perspective

2006-06-05T10:03:00.000+08:00

Hefty pay raises awarded in July 2000 to what were already some of the highest-paid government officials in the world sparked a rare display of public indignation, with Singaporeans criticizing the move on the Internet and even in the pro-government media.

Under the new pay scale, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong saw his annual salary increase 14% to 1.94 million Singapore dollars from S$1.69 million (US$1.1 million from US$971,264), while the salary for the most junior minister increased 12% to S$968,000, putting Singapore's ministers well ahead of their counterparts in the U.S., the United Kingdom and many other countries in the salary league tables.

As of June 12, 2004, the President of the United States of America draws an annual salary of US$400,000; the vice president's salary is US$181,400.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair - about US$262,000 annually,
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi - about US$307,000
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad - about US$65,000
Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra - about $32,188
Philippines President Gloria Arroyo - about US$24,000

According to Asiaweek Mar 16, 2000, the monthly Singapore salary figures then were:

GOVERNMENT
Head of Government $43,365 (S$76,322)
Finance Minister $35,886 (S$63,159)
Member of Parliament $5,346 (S$9,409)
Government Clerk (Entry-level) $503 (S$885)

PROFESSIONS
Bank Manager $4,145 (S$7,295)
Architect $3,216 (S$5,660)
Civil Engineer $3,184 (S$6,660)
Doctor $4,386 (S$7,719)
Lawyer $4,053 (S$7,133)
News Reporter $2,047 (S$3,603)
State Professor $4,921 (S$8,661)

CORPORATION
CEO $11,131 (S$19,590)
Controller $6,667 (S$11,734)
Human Resources Director $5,190 (S$(9,154)
Systems Director $5,190 (S$9,134)
Manufacturing Director $6,740 (S$11,862)
Sales Director $4,186 (S$7,367)
Factory/Plant Manager $4,639 (S$8,165)
Sales Manager $3,962 (S$6,973)
Accountant $2,290 (S$4,040)
Systems Engineer $2,290 (S$4,036)
Software Developer $2,792 (S$4,914)
Field Services Engineer $2,008 (S$3,535)
Production Supervisor $1,847 (S$3,251)
Executive Secretary $1,701 (S$2,994)
Secretary $1,326 (S$2,334)
Chauffeur $975 (S$1,716)

Singapore Courts Questionned

2006-05-11T11:33:00.000+08:00

Does Singapore have a sound legal system or is Singapore just another autocracy with a leadership that subverts the law to preserve its own power?

Should its court orders relating to commercial and other matters be enforced in countries that do have excellent legal systems? These are matters over which a Canadian court has been asked to rule in a case that is potentially damaging to the Singapore Government, still smarting from the 66.1% results from the election of 7 May 2006.

Canadian oil and gas company EnerNorth Industries had been invited by Singapore's Oakwell Engineering to set up a joint venture in 1997 to finance, build and operate two mobile power plants in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Oakwell had neither the financial or technical resources to complete the contract it had been awarded. The Indian federal and state governments and the Electricity Board refused to provide the licences and agreements and fulfil their other commitments, and by 2002 it was clear to EnerNorth that plans for the power plants would not be realised. EnerNorth did not secure the agreed financing and Oakwell subsequently sued it in a Singapore court in 2003, obtaining a favourable $US5.4 million judgement, amount being what EnerNorth agreed to in buying up Oakwell's share in the JV. In the Settlement Agreement under which Oakwell sold its interest in the project company, both parties agreed that their previous contracts were "terminated" and "discharged" and that Enernorth was "released" from any obligations under them. The key provision in the previous contracts that the Settlement Agreement discharged was the provision that obligated Enernorth to procure financial closure.

Under Singapore contract law it was not open to appeal judge Lai Kew Chai to imply into the Settlement an unconditional obligation to procure financial closure for the project within 6 months of the Settlement Agreement; in doing so, Lai Kew Chai committed a clear legal error under Singapore law. EnerNorth's appeal was not successful.

As EnerNorth has no assets in Singapore, Oakwell applied to Ontario's Superior Court of Justice in Canada for the Singapore judgement to be enforced there, so it could pursue EnerNorth's Canadian assets. The Canadian court ruled that the Singapore judgement should be enforced. EnerNorth appealed.

What was the basis for EnerNorth's appeal? In 2003, Canada's Supreme Court said Canadian courts can only recognise a foreign judgement if the legal system that produced the judgement meets Canada's constitutional standards. And so EnerNorth's lawyers, in their written submission, argued that Singapore's legal system is not on a par with Canada's and so the Singapore decision against their client should not be enforceable in Canada.

The submission says the Singapore judgement "was granted by a corrupt legal system before biased judges in a jurisdiction that operates outside the law".

It presents evidence that it says reveals "Singapore is ruled by a small oligarchy who controls all facets of the Singapore state, including the judiciary, which is utterly politicised. The judiciary bends over backwards to support the Government's and ruling elite's interests."

Dr Ross Worthington, an expert on governance who has written extensively about Singapore, and is employed by the World Bank, said in an affidavit on behalf of EnerNorth that "all aspects of the governance of Singapore, including the judiciary, are carefully manipulated and ultimately controlled by a core executive of individuals who use their powers to maintain their own power and further their own political, economic, social and familial interests".

EnerNorth's submission also cites the regular use of defamation actions by senior Government figures to bankrupt opposition politicians, thereby disqualifying them from sitting in Parliament. Mentioned is the case of J. B. Jeyaretnam, when as Singapore's only opposition member of Parliament, was sued for defamation by a Government minister and ultimately bankrupted. During the May elections, political party SDP was also slapped with a defamation lawsuit.

EnerNorth's submission also cites the Societies Act, which requires that organisations of more than 10 people must have a Government-appointed representative, and no public meeting can proceed unless the police first issue a permit that specifies the duration of the meeting, the names of the speakers, their topics and the length of time they will speak.

Also cited is the state of Singapore's media — all outlets of which are owned either directly or indirectly by Government-linked companies — as is the change to the constitution so that Singaporeans who remain outside the country for 10 or more years can be stripped of their citizenship. It is a move that takes aim at Government critics who have gone into self-imposed exile.

Judicial independence is questioned: it is pointed out, for instance, that up to half the Supreme Court judges at any time are under contract and do not have security of tenure, including the chief justice. They are appointed by the executive and beholden to it.

A further EnerNorth contention is that Oakwell is part of the Koh Brothers Group, which is heavily reliant on Singapore Government contracts. EnerNorth also says that at the time of the first judgement, directors in the group included a former member of the Government's Inland Revenue Authority, a senior parliamentary secretary, a senior minister of state and ambassador, and a former president of the Government-affiliated National Trade Unions Congress.

And then there is the matter of the first presiding judge, Lai Kew Chai. Before his appointment to the bench, he practised at the law firm Lee & Lee, the firm founded by former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew and later run by his wife. It was this same judge, who on J. B. Jeyaretnam's appeal from a lower court, increased the fine that he was required to pay that led to his expulsion from Parliament.

So does Singapore have a fair and independent judiciary on a par with Canada's or, for that matter, Australia's? Should its decisions against Canadian or Australian companies be enforced in their home countries?

The full submissions of Oakwell and EnerNorth are available at http://www.enernorth.com/litigation.html

These Pictures Don't Lie

2006-05-02T09:47:00.000+08:00

Campaigning started immediately after nomination day 27th April 2006, and will run the bare minimum of 9 days until 6th May 2006, when the people of Singapore, at least those fortunate enough to be afforded the opportunity to vote, makes their fateful choice for their future.

Singapore's ruling People's Action Party (PAP) was denied an automatic return to power for the first time in 18 years after opposition groups contested more than half of the parliamentary seats up for grabs in the May 6 elections. Three opposition parties are fielding a total of 47 candidates, more than half of the 84 seats in parliament.

This is the first time since 1988 that the PAP, which has dominated Singapore politics since independence in 1965, was not automatically returned to power on nomination day.

This is the turnout at the PAP rally on 1st May 2006:

This is the turnout at the Worker's Party rally on 30th April 2006:

Seeking a "resounding mandate" from the people of Singapore is Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, son of Lee Kuan Yew, 82, currently holding title of Minister Mentor.

Speaking at the PAP lunch time rally on 3rd May 2006, Lee Hsien Loong said: "Right now we have Low Thia Khiang, Chiam See Tong, Steve Chia. We can deal with them. Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes, how can I solve this week's problem and forget about next year's challenges?"

The End Or Beginning In Sight?

2006-04-28T08:38:00.000+08:00

19 Apr 2004: The Straits Times published journalist Susan Long's report, titled "The NKF: Controversy ahead of its time?"

20 Apr 2004: Minister Lim Hng Kiang claims the NKF spends more than 80% of its funds on its beneficiaries, which is within the guidelines set for charities. He also sympathised with its 'dilemma' in whether to disclose the salary of its CEO, explaining that "If they don't, then I think there will be critics who say they are not transparent. If they disclose, I think there will also be critics who will say that whatever they pay will be too high."

22 Apr 2004: NKF sues Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and Ms Long for defamation.

11 Jul 2005: The trial begins. Durais' $600,000 annual salary is finally unveiled as well as other sordic details, like his denial of first class air travel for which he successfully sued two Singaporeans for disclosing same. Among those in the gallery was NKF patron, Mrs Goh Chok Tong, wife of the Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong.

12 Jul 2005: Durai drops his suit against SPH.

13 Jul 2005: NKF HQ building vandalised by graffiti in a remarkable demonstration of public outrage.

14 Jul 2005: Durai and the NKF board resign after meeting with Minister of Health Khaw Boon Wan. Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan had earlier said the government cannot force any decisions on the NKF.

16 Jul 2005: Mr Gerard Ee, president of the National Council of Social Service, is announced as NKF's interim chairman and CEO. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong told the press his wife, who is the former patron of NKF, regretted saying that the charity's ex-CEO Mr TT Durai's annual pay package of some S$600,000 was "peanuts".

18 Jul 2005: Ho Ching, ranked by Fortune magazine as the fifth most powerful woman in business outside US in 2004 and wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, writes a full page letter in the Straits Times calling for continued support of NKF.

20 Jul 2005: New interim NKF board introduced.

21 Jul 2005: Minister Khaw Boon Wan reads out TT Durai's daughter emotional appeal to PM Lee in parliament, pleading "to restore his reputation and honour, if no wrong doings were found". Khaw criticizes Straits Times coverage of the unfolding drama.

25 Jul 2005: Senior consultant dermatologist Professor Goh Chee Leok takes over as interim CEO.

18 Aug 2005: Interim NKF board calls in the police to investigate "certain matters of grave concern" involving how the old NKF was run.

19 Dec 2005: KPMG releases 322-page report on the old NKF and finding that only 10 cents on the dollar actually went to the patients.

21 Dec 2005: Khaw Boon Wan says that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has completed its investigations and he "will be pressing for charges to be made" as NKF had employed Indian nationals under false declarations, a criminal offence.

25 Jan 2006: Durai and former chairman Richard Yong are seen entering the COrrupt Practices Investigations Bureau (CPIB).

11 Apr 2006: The Busines Times reported that the NKF has hired law firm Allen & Gledhill to look into possible legal recourse against the former board of directors.

17 Apr 2006: Duai is arrested and called to CPIB to have charges read to him. Medical administrator Mrs Eunice Tay takes over as NKF's new CEO.

18 Apr 2006: Durai and former board member Matilda Chua are charged in court. Yong and former NKF treasurer Loo Say San are also expected to be charged.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

2006-04-14T08:02:00.000+08:00

A group of 10 Singaporeans born after 1965 met with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in a televised forum broadcast nationally on the evening of 12 April 2006. Among the issues the participants raised was the perenial question on whether there is a climate of fear in Singapore.

Kian Beng: Mr Lee, what good does it do for PAP to win all 84 seats? It will probably just increase the dissatisfaction on the part of the Singaporeans.

Ching Wern: I think all I want to ask is whether you think the complete elimination of the opposition is really what you think is best for Singapore?

MM Lee: You will never completely eliminate the opposition.

Ching Wern: Why not? It seems like you almost have done that!

MM Lee: You may eliminate them temporarily from Parliament. I eliminated or they eliminated themselves in 1965 when Barisan had 13 out of 51 seats and they said bogus Independence, fake - we leave. So we fielded in all the by-elections. And from 55 to 81, in three elections we swept the polls with opposition.

Mabel: But is that the state that you really want Singapore politics to have... bearing in mind that your GRC system results in walkovers. You have a young generation of people who really don't care about politics. Or, they're even fearful if they do get to vote. So is this the system that we really want?

MM Lee: Are you fearful to vote against the PAP?

Mabel: Perhaps, yes. Honestly -- a little bit.

MM Lee: Why? Tell me why. What will happen to you? How will we know that you voted against us?

(Group laughs)

MM Lee:No,no - Let's pursue this "Because I'm afraid!" You tell me you've gone through O levels, A levels, university, working in 93.8 Live and you're afraid that if you vote against the PAP, something will happen to you?

Ching Wern: I think this is the impression that the PAP has created.

MM Lee: (Laughs) No, you're spreading the impression.

Ching Wern: No - you can ask everyone of us here...

Pearl: Add to that effect that there isn't a level playing field for the opposition in the terms of upgrading.

MM Lee: There is no level playing field for any government helping opposition to win votes.

Ching Wern: I think going back to the point when you say how will the PAP know who we voted for? What SM said just yesterday about the area at Realty Park - 60 per cent - if more than 60 per cent of them vote for the PAP, they will get the upgrading. So how does the PAP know it's 60 per cent? So how can the residents not be fearful?

MM Lee: We can guess from our campaigning and our house-to-house visits. But we won't know who comprises that 60 percent right?

Ken: You don't need to know that to strike fear though.

MM Lee: Come off it. You mean to tell me - you're one of the 40 percent that voted against the PAP and something happens to you?

Ken: Well, I've never voted for that matter. But I mean, we talk to 100 voters in the course of our work and it seems - no comment or if I vote against the PAP, I may...

MM Lee: Let's get down. What are the 100 of voters? You name the 100 of voters - a few of them. Tell me.

Ken: Well, I mean I can't name them by name but...

MM Lee: No,no. You tell me who you've spoken to and they say we're afraid to vote against the PAP?

Ken: Well, a few weeks ago, The Straits Times did a report. We polled 100 voters...

MM Lee: No, no, never mind the Straits Times poll. You made a statement just now, look, I started life as a cross-examiner right? You made a statement just now that "I spoke to 100 people and they're all afraid". I say name them, tell me who.

Ken: Why should I name them on national television?

MM Lee: No. Therefore you tell me - it's not "I who spoke to them - the Straits Times carried the poll". And you carried out the poll?

Ken: I was one of the reporters who...

MM Lee: No, did you carried out the poll?

Ken: Yes I did.

MM Lee: And how did you carry out the poll?

Ken: We went out and we asked 100 voters what they thought.

MM Lee: How many voters did you ask?

Ken: Well, we have to get more than 100...

MM Lee: No, how many voters did you ask?

Ken: About 120.

MM Lee: You yourself personally?

Ken: I spoke to about 40?

MM Lee: You spoke to 40. And did they tell you, you noted down, grievances?

Ken: Ya. I do have most of their names - ya. Some of them didn't want to identify themselves.

MM Lee: What did they tell you?

Ken: Well they said, well we ask them, you know - who do you think will win? We were not asking what your vote is but, you know, who you think will win in this coming election. And some of them say: "Oh it's hard to say." Some of them say: "Oh I think Low Thia Khiang still has enough to hang on." And some just say: "Oh, I better not say otherwise..."

MM Lee: So when they say some of the 40 - "I better not say" - you assume that they're scared to tell you?

Ken: Yes, because it's not something that you can prove in a court of law, but it's something you can...

MM Lee: But that's the point I'm saying. You're in the media, you're in the Straits Times - you're purveying an unnecessary falsehood. We have said categorically - the vote is secret. This started off with Jeyaratnam saying "Oh, they're afraid". So we said, "Right - here're the boxes - count, finish the count - lock up." Go to Supreme Court - it's locked up, time's up, incinerator, you can see. All election agents watched - it's burnt. And you're going out as The Straits Times man - how many said we're afraid. They just said, "No, no I don't want to say something". And on that you started off with a statement - 100 told you they were afraid.

Ken: No, I didn't say that.

MM Lee: You said that - it's on...
Please, I haven't lost my memory. We can go back on the tape.
As I told you I allow my grandchildren to speak back to me. But from time to time when they're out of bounds, I put them down. And when you make that statement without any evidence I have to put it to you, get to the bottom of it and you interviewed not 100 but 40. And a few of them said "Oh I'd rather not say" and therefore you assumed that they were afraid. How are they afraid, because we terrified them? Isn't it your job to say that it's nothing to be afraid? Are you afraid? Surely you're not?

Sidenotes:
The statistics of votes analyzed by the authorities appear in three forms:
1) Total votes per electoral area (GRCs, SMCs),
2) Total votes for individual constituencies (division within a GRC) and
3) Total votes in Bloc areas, Private Estates (comprising 150-200 units of private housing units) or Residential Zones (comprising about 10 or more blocks).

Another topic of contention brought up in the dialogue was the system of GRC, which MM Lee insisted was instituted to help minorities get elected into parliament. The number of candidates per GRC has been increased every election from 3 in 1988 to SIX in 2001.

It was started with ten GRCs in 1988 with THREE candidates each. All ten GRCs were contested and the closest fight was at Eunos.

Eunos (75,723)
Chew Heng Ching [PAP] 36,500 votes, 50.89%
Tay Eng Soon
Zulkifli Mohammed

Lee Siew Choh [WP] 35,221 votes, 49.11%
Mohd Khalit B Md Baboo
Francis Seow

In the next Election in 1991, number of GRCs were increased to 15 and each GRC was increased to FOUR candidates each. Only 5 GRCs were contested, 10 GRCs were not contested. The closest fight was still at Eunos but without Francis Seow.

Eunos (92,728)
Chew Heng Ching [PAP] 45,833 votes, 52.38%
Charles Chong You Fook
Sidek B Saniff
Tay Eng Soon

Lee Siew-Choh [WP] 41,673 votes, 47.62%
Mohamed Jufrie Mahmood
Neo Choon Aik
Wee Han Kim

In the following Election in 1997, number of GRCs remained at 15 but number of candidates in each GRC had been increased to FIVE each. Only 6 GRCs were contested, 9 GRCs were not contested. The closest fight was still at Cheng San with Jeyaratham and Tang Liang Hong.

Cheng San (103,323)
Abdul Rahim Bin Osman [WP] 44,132 votes, 45.18%
Huang Seow Kwang
J B Jeyaretnam
Tan Bin Seng
Tang Liang Hong

Heng Chiang Meng [PAP] 53,553 votes, 54.82%
Lee Yock Suan
Michael Lim Chun Leng
Yeo Guat Kwang
Zainul Abidin Rasheed

In the following Election in 2001, five GRCs were increased to SIX candidates each. Nine GRCs remained with FIVE candidates each Only four GRCs with 5 candidates each were contested. None of the opposition contested in GRCs were able to get more than 27% of the votes casted.

The Thoughts of Lee Kuan Yew

2006-03-29T15:45:00.000+08:00

As Opposition Leader:
"But we either believe in democracy or we not. If we do, then, we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from the any democratic processes, other than by the ordinary law of the land, should be allowed... If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought, and no excuse, whether of security, should allow a government to be deterred from doing what it knows to right, and what it must know to be right... "
- Opposition Leader Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, April 27, 1955

"If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him, when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law - if that is not what we have always cried out against in Fascist states - then what is it?… If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies - even those who do not subscribe to our views - as much constitutional rights as you concede yourself."
- Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, Sept 21, 1955

"Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love-it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they're conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict."
- Lee Kuan Yew as an opposition PAP member speaking to David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly, Debates, 4 October, 1956

"I pointed to an article with bold headlines reporting that the police had refused to allow the PAP to hold a rally at Empress Place, and then to the last paragraph where in small type it added the meeting would take place where we were now. I compared this with a prominent report about an SPA rally. This was flagrant bias."
- Lee Kuan Yew complaining about the Straits Times in 1959.

"Repression can only go up to a point. When it becomes too acute, the instruments of repression, namely the army and the police, have been proved time and time again in history to have turned their guns on their masters."
- Lee Kuan Yew, Straits Times, May 5, 1959

"If I were in authority in Singapore indefinitely without having to ask those who are governed whether they like what is being done, then I would not have the slightest doubt that I could govern much more effectively in their interests."
- Mr Lee Kuan Yew, 1962

As Leader of Ruling Party:
"We must encourage those who earn less than $200 per month and cannot afford to nurture and educate many children never to have more than two... We will regret the time lost if we do not now take the first tentative steps towards correcting a trend which can leave our society with a large number of the physically, intellectually and culturally anaemic."
- Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, 1967

"I make no apologies that the PAP is the Government and the Government is the PAP."
- PM Lee Kuan Yew, 1982, Petir (in 'Parties and Politics,' Husin Mutalib)

"If you don't include your women graduates in your breeding pool and leave them on the shelf, you would end up a more stupid society...So what happens? There will be less bright people to support dumb people in the next generation. That's a problem."
- PM Lee Kuan Yew, National Day rally, 1983

"We have to lock up people, without trial, whether they are communists, whether they are language chauvinists, whether they are religious extremists. If you don't do that, the country would be in ruins."
- PM Lee Kuan Yew, 1986

"I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn't be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn't be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters - who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think."
- PM Lee Kuan Yew, Straits Times, 20 April 1987

"Every Singaporean who owns a flat can double his value in today's terms within the next 15 to 20 years. In other words, in the next 20 years, we can make everybody worth twice as much, at least."
- PM Lee Kuan Yew, National Day Rally, 1990

As Senior Minister:
"(Liberal democracy) will lead to indiscipline and disorderly conduct which are inimical to development."
- Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, The Economist, Aug 27, 1994

"They say people can think for themselves? Do you honestly believe that the chap who can't pass primary six knows the consequence of his choice when he answers a question viscerally, on language, culture and religion? But we knew the consequences. We would starve, we would have race riots. We would disintegrate."
- SM Lee Kuan Yew, The Man & His Ideas, 1997

"I have developed a deep aversion to welfarism and social security...What we have attempted in Singapore is asset enhancement, not subsidies. This has kept the people self-reliant, keen and strong...Most have hoarded their growing wealth and have lived better on the interests and dividends they earn."
- SM Lee Kuan Yew, 'The Man and His Ideas', 1997

"Supposing Catherine Lim was writing about me and not the prime minister...She would not dare, right? Because my posture, my response has been such that nobody doubts that if you take me on, I will put on knuckle-dusters and catch you in a cul de sac...Anybody who decides to take me on needs to put on knuckle dusters. If you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you, try. There is no other way you can govern a Chinese society."
- SM Lee Kuan Yew, The Man and His Ideas, 1997

"If you are a troublemaker...it's our job to politically destroy you. Put it this way. As long as JB Jeyaratnam stands for what he stands for - a thoroughly destructive force - we will knock him. Everybody knows that in my bag I have a hatchet, and a very sharp one. You take me on, I take my hatchet, we meet in the cul-de-sac."
- SM Lee Kuan Yew, The Man And His Ideas, 1997

"If nobody is afraid of me, I'm meaningless."
- SM Lee Kuan Yew, 'The Man And His Ideas', 1997

"If, for instance, you put in a Malay officer who's very religious and who has family ties in Malaysia in charge of a machine gun unit, that's a very tricky business. We've got to know his background... I'm saying these things because they are real, and if I don't think that, and I think even if today the Prime Minister doesn't think carefully about this, we could have a tragedy."
- SM Lee Kuan Yew, Straits Times, September 19, 1999 on Malays in the Singapore Armed Forces

"I was instrumental in getting John Olds and I defend every single cent that we paid him."
- SM Lee Kuan Yew on why DBS paid a reported $10.9m in total to ex-CEO John Olds and ex-President Ng Kee Choo in 2000, Straits Times, May 23, 2001

"I ignore polling as a method of government. I think that shows a certain weakness of mind - an inability to chart a course whichever way the wind blows, whichever way the media encourages the people to go, you follow. You are not a leader."
- SM Lee Kuan Yew, Success Stories, 2002

As Minister Mentor:
"Political reform need not go hand in hand with economic liberalisation. I do not believe that if you are libertarian, full of diverse opinions, full of competing ideas in the market place, full of sound and fury, therefore you will succeed."
- Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, Straits Times, Aug 17,2004

"If I have to shoot 200,000 students to save China from another 100 years of disorder, so be it."
- MM Lee Kuan Yew endorsing the Tiananmen Square massacre, Straits Times, Aug 17,2004

"There is nothing to prevent you from pushing your propaganda, to push your programme out to the students or with the public at large...and if you can carry the ground, if you are right, you win. That's democracy."
- MM Lee Kuan Yew telling students to form political parties, Straits Times, Feb 1,2005

"I see the marketplace of ideas, as in the Philippines, and I see chaos."
- MM Lee Kuan Yew, Time Magazine, Dec 5,2006

Comic Relief Part II

2006-03-24T16:23:00.000+08:00

Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent of the Straits Times wrote: "I think its pointless to vote for an opposition candidate who clearly lacks the ability to scrutinise and critique policies in an intelligent way."

Perhaps she hasn't been covering speeches from the ruling party's policy makers.

"Only 5% are unemployed. We still have 95% who are employed."- Transport Minister Yeo Cheow Tong.

"Singaporean workers have become more expensive than those in the USA and Australia."- Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan.

"Retrenchment is good for singapore. If there is no retrenchments, then I worry."- Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong.

“People support CPF cuts because there are no protest outside parliament."- Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

"We started off with (the name) and after looking at everything, the name that really tugged at the heartstrings was in front of us. The name itself is not new, but what has been used informally so far has endeared itself to all parties."- National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan on the $400,000 exercise to rename Marina Bay as Marina Bay.

"...I regret making the decision because, in the end, the baby continued to be in intensive care, and KKH now runs up a total bill of more than $300,000..."- Health Minister Lim Hng Kiang, regretting the decision to save a baby's life because Kandang Kerbau Hospital ran up a $300,000 bill.

"Save on one hairdo and use the money for breast screening."- another gem from Lim Hng Kiang

"We are not considering a casino but an IR- an integrated resort. IRs are quite different."- Communications Minister George Yeo.

"Contrary to public perception, the White Horse classification is not to ensure that sons of influential men gets preferential treatment. Instead it is to ensure that they do not get preferential treatment."- Member of Parliament Cedric Foo.

"If we want to be a world-class city, if we want to be a nation that has got very good standards of public hygiene and cleanliness, the best place to start with is the public toilet."- Member of Parliament Amy Khor.

"If you don't include your women graduates in your breeding pool and leave them on the shelf, you would end up a more stupid society...So what happens? There will be less bright people to support dumb people in the next generation. That's a problem."- Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in 1983.

One Man's View on Religion

2006-03-02T15:14:00.000+08:00

Former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, 82, was featured in the 12th December 2005 edition of the Time Magazine, and the closing paragraphs of the interview provided an insight of his view of religion:

TIME: Do you think of yourself as a religious man? Do you have a religious faith that keeps you going, sustains you?

LEE:"We do psychometric tests on our candidates for important jobs. There is a scale of values: social, aesthetic, economic, religious, etc., six values. I cannot judge myself, but I believe I would not score very high on religious value. I do not believe that prayer can cure, but that prayer may comfort and help. At the same time, I've seen my closest friend [former Finance Minister] Hon Sui Sen on his deathbed; he had had a heart attack and was fighting for his life, doctors were there, the priest was there, but there was no fear in his eyes. He and his wife were devout Catholics. They were both convinced they would meet again in the hereafter. I believe a man or a woman who has deep faith in God has an enormous strength facing crises, an advantage in life.

Many years ago I read a book - The Real Enemy by Pierre d'Harcourt, a French Catholic. He recounted his experience in a Nazi concentration camp. There were two groups of people in his camp. Those with convictions survived, and those who had no deep convictions died. The two groups who had convictions were the deeply religious - of whom he, a Catholic, was one - and the communists. They had the same unshakeable conviction that they will triumph. The others - famous doctors, talented musicians and so on - they woud trade their food for cigarettes, knowing that if they did that, one morning they would not be able to go out into the cold for the roll call. But they had given up. The communists and the deeply religious fought on and survived.

There are some things in the human spirit that are beyond reason."

His friend Mr S Rajaratnam, who would have turned 91 years old on Saturday 25th Feb 2006, died of heart failure at 3.15 pm on Wednesday. Speaking to journalists in Jakarta, where he heard news of Rajaratnam's death, Mr Lee said the sorrow he felt went back 8 years.

The two had met in 1952, when Mr Rajaratnam was a journalist and Mr Lee a trade union lawyer. In 1959, Mr Lee persuaded Mr Rajaratnam to stand for elections and they went on to shape the early history of Singapore.

Mr Lee said, "Well in the case of Mr S Rajaratnam, mentally his brain died several years ago. When I last saw him in 1998, he could not recognise me. And he could not speak to me. So this is just.. the end. In fact it came then - because when the brain stops to function, then you only have the body.

"So I have got used to it now for 8 years. So my sadness went back to that period....I'm sad for him and the people who had to look after him for all this period."

The 3G Generation

2006-02-24T13:57:00.000+08:00

In the run up to an imminent election this year, the Government, through Minister of Manpower Ng Eng Hen, accused the Worker's Party of planting 'time bombs' in their Party Manifesto that would destroy key pillars of Singapore's stability and success. Ng identified as 'dangerous and wrong' four proposals by the opposition party: to scrap grassroots organisations, ethnic integration policies and the elected presidency, and to raise subsidies.

The "R-21" rating system was first introduced by George Yeo's MITA (Ministry of Information, Communications and The Arts) in 1991 with the R(A) rating (the "A" stands for "artistic") to allow those aged 18 years and above to watch more adult type films, i.e. featuring frontal nudity and explicit sex scenes. Swift public objection resulted in the rating system being quickly revised and the age limit was lifted from 18 to 21 years old. Movies rated R(A) are supposed to be shown downtown, and not in neighbourhood cinemas. Unlike other countries, where such movies are shown in special adult cinemas, R(A) movies in Singapore can be showing next to the cinema hall running a Disney cartoon. If ever there was a time bomb planted to undermine Singapore society, this must be it.

On Monday 20th February, The Straits Times reported that a 17-year-old studying information technology at Nanyang Polytechnic, going by the name of Tammy, had filmed a 10-minute mobile phone video with her boyfriend, which recorded close ups of her engaging in fellatio, and front and rear penetration.

Her phone was subsequently stolen and the culprit posted the video on the internet. The rest, as they say, is history.

Since the report, several teachers have told The Straits Times that they are seeing the same or worse in their schools. Many teenagers – girls as well as boys – have been caught with pictures and video clips showing themselves and their partners naked or having sex.

Said a discipline teacher in one of the top junior colleges here: “In the last half year alone I have checked the phones of five of my students after some complaints about them storing porn. One had naked pictures of herself and her boyfriend in different positions, and two of the boys had pictures of naked women on their phones, one of them of his girlfriend. What is disturbing is that... the boys were showing them off to their friends.”

Teachers say they attempt to counsel students and their parents, but admit that parents often have no idea about the technology their children are using. They are shocked when presented with the evidence.

Another secondary school teacher discovered pictures of naked girls on a male student’s phone. “He had taken pictures of several of his girlfriends and was showing them off to his friends. He didn’t think that what he was doing was wrong and he wanted to file a report against me for looking into the contents of his phone,” the teacher said. One of the boy’s girlfriends, also a student at the school, was not ashamed of her pictures being circulated. “She was proud of it. She said it was artistic.”

Youth counsellors say students are resorting to such measures to gain popularity. Veteran youth counsellor Carol Balhetchet said: “The new technology makes it all very easy, and with "celebrity bloggers" revealing it all, it has become acceptable, even cool.”

Something is Rotten

2006-02-03T11:02:00.000+08:00

Last September, when Danish daily Jyllands-Posten commissioned and published a series of 12 cartoons on Prophet Mohammed, it probably did not realise that it would bring Europe's free speech advocates almost to the brink of war with conservative Muslims.

Masked gunmen took over an office used by the European Union to protest the publication of cartoons deemed insulting to Islam. About five gunmen stormed the building, closing the office down, while 10 other armed men stood watch outside. One of the militants said they were protesting the drawings, one of which depicted Islam's Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban shaped as a bomb.

While the Danish newspaper has not apologized for printing the cartoons, it has issued a statement acknowledging that the cartoons "offended many Muslims, which we would like to apologize for."

Paul Belien at The Brussels Journal singles out the courage of Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who has refused to capitulate to the bullies:
"He is one of the very few European politicians with guts. If anyone deserves a prize for his valiant defence of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, it is certainly Mr Rasmussen. He did not give in to pressure from Muslim fanatics, nor from the appeasers at the UN, the European Commission and the Council of Europe. In the past weeks Denmark has shown that all is not yet lost in Europe. If something is rotten now it is not in Denmark."

But an editorial in yesterday's (2nd Feb 2006) edition of France-Soir staunchly defended the decision to publish, asking: "Islam forbids any representation of the Prophet ... The question is, are all those who are not Muslims obliged to honour that prohibition? Can you imagine a society that added up all the prohibitions of the different religions? What would remain of the freedom to think, to speak, or even to come and go freely?" it asked.

In Singapore Madam Zuraimah's letter to the press about her aversion to pet dogs landed two young men in jail. Where is the rot?

Other examples of how Islamic fanatics react to perceived slights on their religious practices:

# 1988 Ayatollah Khomeini issues fatwa against Salman Rushdie after publication of his book "The Satanic Verses"

# 2001 The author Khalid Duran faces mass condemnation from Muslims for his book which sought to explain Islam to Jews, culminating in alleged death threats for his apostasy

# 2002 Fatwa issued against the Nigerian journalist Isioma Daniel after she suggested that Muhammad might approve of the Miss World contest

# 2004 Extremist kills the Dutch director Theo Van Gogh after he made "Submission", a ten-minute film about the abuse of Muslim women featuring Koranic verses written on female bodies

# 2005 Swedish museum is forced to remove a painting depicting a couple making love while covered in verses from the Koran

Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo made this revealing remark at the 4th Asia-Pacific Roundtable meeting:
"When Salman Rushdie's book "Satanic Verses" was published some years ago, Singapore banned it because we knew it will cause trouble. In contrast, we did not ban "The Last Temptation of Christ" because the Christian ground and the Muslim ground are different.

The Great Singapore-NKF Subsidy

2006-01-03T16:38:00.000+08:00

The closing weeks of 2005 saw a deluge of dastardly revelations in the press about the questionable practices of NKF and its CEO TT Durai. The source of much public ire was the long awaited "A Report on The National Kidney Foundation" dated 16 December 2005 by the KPMG investigation team which contains such entry:

"6.11 High gross profits earned by the NKF on chargeable drugs

6.11.1 The NKF reported in its Investment Report 2004 that it enabled its patients to save in excess of $3.5 million in treatment costs by providing subisdies for costly medication and by bringing down drug prices.

6.11.2 We found that the amount of such savings was derived from the difference between the prices charged by NKF and a notional market price of drugs based on estimated annual consumption in 2004 instead of the difference between the prices charged by the NKF and the actual prices of drugs paid by the NKF. These savings were reflected in invoices given to patients. (see table)

6.11.3 We found that the stated cost of drugs dispensed to patients as reflected in the invoices closely approximated the market price of the drugs.

6.11.4 As mentioned above, the market price was a notional market price determined by the NKF. The NKF, being a substantial and significant purchased, enjoyed subsidies and rebates from its drug suppliers. Instead of passing these costs savings to its kidney patients, we found that the NKF charged its patients a premium for certain drugs."

On 21 Dec 2005, a Mr Subramaniam volunteered to explain in the Straits Times that the way the NKF treated the definition of subsidy and the way KPMG did were from"different perspectives".

The NKF defined subsidy as the difference between the amount a patient would pay for treatment and drugs elsewhere in Singapore and the amount they paid the NKF. "In my understanding of NKF's view, subsidy must be tested against the market rate and not the net amount incurred."

The logic is not new, as it was first introduced to a hapless public a year earlier by civil servant Desmond Wong who wrote:

HDB pricing keeps new flats affordable to most Singaporeans (ST Aug 6, 2004):

I REFER to the letters, 'What goes into pricing of HDB flats' (ST, July 23) by Mr Hiong Kum Meng and 'Subsidy should be based on flat's building cost' (ST, July 27) by Mr Mohamed Rafiq Hamjah.

Mr Hiong concluded that the increase in HDB resale prices has outstripped wage growth, based on a comparison of changes in the Resale Price Index with changes in average nominal wages between 1993 and 2003.

We would like to explain that resale flats are transacted in the open market on a willing buyer-willing seller basis. The prices are not set by HDB. Prices can fluctuate, depending on factors such as the economic outlook, employment situation and sentiments in the property market.

What is important is that HDB prices its new flats so that the majority of Singaporeans can afford one. From 1993 to 2003, the prices of new four-room flats increased by 2.6 per cent per annum, below the annual increase of 5.3 per cent in average wages cited by Mr Hiong. New-flat prices did not rise as steeply as resale-flat prices, because HDB prices new flats below their equivalent market price, that is, at a subsidy.

Mr Mohamed asked why HDB's subsidy for new flats is related to the market price and not the building cost of a flat. Today, first-time HDB flat buyers can buy either resale or new flats. Those who opt to buy resale flats from the open market can take up a housing grant of $30,000 or $40,000, which allows them to enjoy a discount off the market price of the flat.

Those who opt to buy new flats from HDB also enjoy a discount off the equivalent market price of the flat.

The difference between what the buyer pays HDB for his flat and what it is actually worth in the market is a direct and real subsidy provided by HDB to the buyer.

Like the housing grant for resale flats, the provision of such a market-related subsidy in the case of new flats has enabled HDB to keep its flats affordable for the majority of Singaporeans.

DESMOND WONG
Deputy Director (Marketing & Planning)
for Director (Estate Administration & Property)
Housing & Development Board

It hadn't always been like this. HDB had a nobler beginning.

The Housing Development Board was established by the first People's Action Party (PAP) government on February 1, 1960, to provide low-cost public housing. The Lands Acquisition Act of 1966 granted the Board the power of compulsory purchase of any private land required for housing development. The prices paid by the board were about 20 percent of the estimated market value of the land, which was in fact if not in form being nationalized. Between 1960 and 1979, the percentage of land owned by the government rose from 44 to 67 percent, increasing the government's control over that scarce resource and benefiting low income voters, who supported the PAP, at the expense of the much smaller number of private landowners. Rents for Housing and Development Board apartments were subsidized, and selling prices for the apartments were set below construction costs and did not include land acquisition costs. Purchase prices for HDB apartments in the 1980s were 50 to 70 percent below those of privately owned apartments.

Death of an ex-President

2005-12-08T14:33:00.000+08:00

Former Singapore President Devan Nair died in Canada at age 82 on 7th November 2005. CV Devan Nair had resigned his presidency amidst tumultuous clouds of accusations and chose to live out his remaining years abroad.

Devan Nair was a member of the Anti-British League, a cover for the Malayan Communist Party, and in 1951 was detained on St John's Island. Out of prison, he continued with left-wing union activism.

In 1954, Lee Kuan Yew asked Nair to join him so the unions could provide the mass base for a new party. Although he was closer to the People's Action Party after it came into power in 1959, Nair was not willing to desert his communist friends. He went back to teaching, but was soon drawn back out into the political fray by Lee.

The two remained close after Singapore won its freedom from Britain. Together, they fought off an attempted communist takeover, weathered Singapore's ejection from the neighbouring federation of Malaysia and transformed their country from a run-down sea port to an economic dynamo bristling with skyscrapers. "I supported him because he was an eloquent champion of the dreams I had for Singapore," Nair said.

But as Singapore grew prosperous and stable and the communist threat faded, Nair began to have doubts about his captain's iron-fisted methods. Perhaps sensing his ally's doubts, Lee asked Nair to leave his power base as head of the trade union congress and move into the presidential palace. As Nair puts it, "He kicked me upstairs."

In 1985, a drinking problem led to Nair's resignation. Then-Prime Minister Lee said in Parliament proceedings on 28 March 1985, "Mr Speaker, honourable members will want to join me in wishing him fortitude in his task of rehabilitation. With the help of his wife and family, he must find the strength and stamina to break his dependency."

A few years later, Mr Devan Nair was to dispute the diagnosis of alcoholism and a nasty public exchange of letters ensued.

In an interview with Globe and Mail, Canada, March 29, 1999, Nair said he was the target of a rumour-mongering campaign that labelled him a drinker and womanizer. He said he was neither, and he suspected that Lee had government doctors slip him hallucinatory drugs to make him appear befuddled. According to him, "Lee Kuan Yew decided: This man is going to be a threat, so I'd better begin a total demolishment of his character. He's very good at that."

Lee sued the Globe and Mail and Nair for defamation, alleging that the article brought him into hatred, ridicule and contempt.

Nair countersued, seeking damages on the basis that Lee's lawsuit was an abuse of process. In turn, Lee brought a motion to have Nair's counterclaim thrown out of court. Lee argued that Nair's counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and constituted an inflammatory attack on the integrity of the government of Singapore.

In deciding whether to grant Lee's request to throw out the counterclaim, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice simply had to satisfy itself that Nair had a reasonable cause of action. Therefore, Nair was required to demonstrate that the two elements of the tort of abuse of process had been set out in his statement of claim.

They are:
(1) Lee was using the court process for an improper purpose; and
(2) Lee had made an overt threat, separate from the proceedings themselves, in furtherance of his improper purpose.

With respect to the first part of the test, Nair claimed that Lee did not really care what the readers of the Globe and Mail thought of him. Rather, the real purpose of the lawsuit was to silence, not only Nair, but all of Lee's critics and opposition in Singapore, a country in which freedom of political expression is not as valued as it is in Canada. In this regard, Nair alleged, Lee's action was part of a pattern of using the libel process to silence his critics and opposition and was "a mere stalking horse intended to further foster and continue a climate of fear and intimidation".

On the second part of the test, Nair claimed that Lee's lawsuit was just the latest in a series of acts and threats designed to intimidate his critics. In this regard, Nair alleged that when he spoke out politically against the Lee government in the late 1980's, Lee attempted to silence him by tabling a white paper in Singapore's parliament which included extracts of a confidential nature from Nair's personal medical records and correspondence. Nair claimed that Lee also arranged to have his pension withheld. Nair eventually left Singapore and came to Canada, where he did not speak out again until interviewed by the Globe and Mail. He claimed that Lee's latest libel action, brought in the country in which he sought freedom from political threats and overt legal actions, was intended to be a threat which was on-going and pervasive.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to throw out Nair's counterclaim, holding that he had met both parts of the test necessary to plead the tort of abuse of process and had therefore disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

Nair, who migrated to Canada with his wife, was philosophical about his place in Singapore's history.

He once said his only regret in life was to allow himself to be persuaded to occupy a highly ceremonial office so contradicted by his temperament. But he blamed no one. And after he had said his piece for what it was worth, Nair added that he expected "to fade away, like all old warriors, into the past." Some verdicts, he said, "are best left to history."

Picture Says It All

2005-12-06T16:05:00.000+08:00

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, left, bows in front of the German flag during the welcoming ceremony.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, left, walks in front of the honour guard as Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, right, is stopped by a member of the protocol, center, in the Chancellory in Berlin on Thursday, Dec. 1, 2005. Instead of bowing in front of the German flag according to the international protocol Singapore's Prime Minister kept on walking and left Chancellor Merkel behind. It was Merkel's first welcoming ceremony with military honours for an international guest after being elected Chancellor.
(AP Photo/Herbert Knosowski)

Under Arrest

2005-11-28T15:53:00.000+08:00

A one-minute mobile phone video clip showing a woman forced to strip naked and do ear squats inside a Malaysian police station has sparked an uproar with both the Malaysian government and opposition calling for the police to be taken to task. “This should not have happened. If police personnel are really involved, then this is police abuse,” Malaysian Home Minister Azmi Khalid told a press conference in Parliament after viewing the clip.

The 71-second video clip shot in a Multimedia Messaging (MMS) format was shown to several MPs as well as reporters by DAP’s Seputeh MP Teresa Kok at the Parliament lobby.

Kok, at a separate press conference with Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang said she believed the woman in the video clip was not one of the Chinese women nationals who had lodged reports recently against Petaling Jaya police for being falsely detained, stripped and abused. “Nevertheless, is it standard practice for police to ask detainees to strip naked and to do ear squats?” she asked.

"Squatting is a form of body-cavity strip search which women undergo before being confined at an immigration detention centre, police lock-up or prison cell," a source said. The repeated squats are supposed to "force" women detainees to discharge concealed objects. "Some may argue it is improper, but it applies to the daily operations at prisons."

Stripping a woman detainee in a police lock-up and making her do ear squats in the nude may be "standard operating procedure" to the police, but is it legal?

"No," said human rights lawyers. "Where in the Lock-up Rules 1953 does it say that a body cavity search can be done?

"While the police claim that such searches are part of their standard operating procedures (SOPs), they must realise that their SOPs are not the law of the land. Any SOP has to be based on valid laws," said lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad.

"Ear squats and body cavity searches are not written in the Lock-up Rules 1953, which govern the custody of the prisoner," said lawyer M. Puravalen.

Amer Hamzah added: "The mere fact that the police had conducted such searches previously as part of their SOPs does not make such searches legal, if in the first place there is no law to allow such searches."

He said that although the Police Act allowed the Inspector-General of Police to issue administrative orders which are known as "Standing Orders", they must not be contrary to the existing laws of the country.

Furthermore, he said Standing Orders had no force of law.

Amer Hamzah pointed out that the only law which allowed for a search to be conducted was in the Criminal Procedure Code, which in Section 20 says that "the police may search the body of such person and place in safe custody all articles other than the necessary apparel found on the person".

However, the law did not require detainees to be stripped naked before they could be placed in the lock-up.

Furthermore, Rule 7 of the Lock-up Rules 1953 states: "Every prisoner shall be searched on admission and all clothing and property, other than one set of clothing, shall be removed."

"The rule is silent as to whether a detainee can be subjected to a strip search or cavity search. In my view, the rule then must be read in conjunction with Section 20 of the CPC," he said.

"If the law is silent on the matter, this does not make strip searches legal. If there is any doubt in the law, the doubt is supposed to go in favour of the prisoner," Amer Hamzah said.

Both lawyers said that if strip or cavity searches were necessary, then clear and express provisions should be made, like in the Prison Regulations 2000, which spell out how searches are to be conducted in prisons.

In that regulation, the search has to be made "with due regard to decency and self-respect", and "no prisoner shall be stripped and searched in the presence of another prisoner".

However, these regulations are only applicable to prisons, not police lock-ups.

“If the orang asing (foreigners) think we are zalim (cruel), ask them to go back to their own country,” Deputy Internal Security Minister Datuk Noh Omar declared during a Press conference in the Parliament lobby.

Nearly 20 years ago across the Causeway, another female was also subject to abuse by "law enforcement" agents. Following is an extract from the abridged version of lawyer Tang Fong Har's experience while detained for 87 days without being charged at the infamous Singapore Whitley Road Detention Centre, first published in the August 1989 issue of Index on Censorship, a UK-based non-government organisation. Tang was one of 22 people held in 1987 for "communist conspiracy to overthrow the Singapore government." In April that year the author, a lawyer aged then 31, together with eight other former detainees issued a declaration of innocence. All were at once rearrested, except Tang Fong Har, who was out of the country:

I FELT really frightened, cold, angry and sleepy. It was the longest night in my life. After my 'medical' examination, I was led out of the room and down a passage. After some turns, I reached a door, which opened onto a flight of stairs leading to the basement.

As I walked, without my glasses, I heard noises everywhere. I was approached several times by different men, each of whom said in a haughty manner, "So you are Tang Fong Har'" and then walked off. The basement was pitch-black except for the glaring lights. I was led into a room.

It was very dark except for the two spotlights, and it was filled with cigarette smoke - there seemed to be about seven or eight people there. The air-conditioning was very strong, and the floor was bare concrete. I felt cold and fearful.

After what seemed an eternity of eerie of silence, a voice boomed - "So, Tang Fong Har, at last you are here.' Then there began a series of questions and outrageous allegations. I could not hear properly as I was disoriented and I was not allowed to wear my glasses.

The hurling of questions, allegations, and loud noises went on for some time. I was so stupefied that I kept quiet. When I felt that I could not keep quiet anymore, I told them I needed my glasses as they affected my hearing.

My glasses were then returned. I saw four people seated at the table, which I was standing fairly near. Two or three other people were standing nearby in sports jackets, shoes and socks. Barefoot and in prison garb, I felt humiliated and very cold. I was shivering and I tried very hard to stop my teeth from chattering but I could not, and the interrogators just watched me as I was in near-spasms trying to control the cold.

At one point during the interrogation I was threatened with indefinite detention and asked whether I intended to emulate Chia Thye Poh. They warned me that if I chose to remain quiet, they could wait for 20 years or more, just as they had waited for Chia Thye Poh.

I refused to believe it but somehow my heart went cold. I felt I could not stay in this place for another minute, let alone 20 years. I also felt immense admiration for Chia Thye Poh. The male interrogator throughout made snide remarks about lawyers and the legal profession and belittled my work in the Law Society.

In the midst of the accusations being hurled at me, I retorted "Now, look here..." or words to that effect. I never completed my sentence: one of the interrogators slapped me across my left cheek, not with a flick of his wrist but with the full force of his body.

I fell to the ground and my glasses landed on my chest. I was completely shocked by the assault and wished that I could faint as I felt that I could not take any more. I had never felt more humiliated in my life.

The female Chinese then made a show of helping me to stand and said something like "It's ok. Take it easy. Why don't you co-operate?" I can't remember whether the interrogator who slapped me remained in the room after this. However, I remembered his face and subsequently I came to know his name: S. K. Tan.

I was then questioned on my 'escape' from Singapore on May 21 and my whereabouts from then until my return on June 8. I also had to account for my movements since my return. They assured me that I had not been arrested because of my work in the Law Society or for helping Mr Corera, the Workers Party candidate for the Alexandria constituency in the 1984 general election.

However, I was not informed about the allegations and charges against me until the detention order was served on me. The circle of questions/statements/allegations went on for some hours. Every time I went to the lavatory, I vomited and I felt even colder when I returned. I had looked at myself in the toilet mirror and I was a ghastly sight.

This was the first time in public that I was bra-less and I stooped whenever I walked so as to hide my breasts. My posture was a semi-permanent curve soon after. I could not stop the trembling. I vomited countless times, and by the morning of the third day I had my period and I stained the prison pants.

I continued vomiting until the fourth day, by which time I felt quite famished. I had never felt more terrible in my life. Some 10 hours later, I was led out of the basement and into one of the rooms off the passage, and was given a chair.

Setting A Price On National Service

2005-11-22T17:15:00.000+08:00

Straits Times
Nov 20, 2005
Pianist pays NS dues - 28 years later
He is fined for defaulting on his NS after he decides to return, as his aged parents are finding it difficult to visit him in London

By Kristina Tom

AFTER staying away from Singapore for nearly 30 years because he defaulted on his national service, pianist Melvyn Tan has finally paid his dues.

The 49-year-old, who has lived in the United Kingdom for the last 37 years, has paid a fine for not fulfilling his national service duty and will be performing at the Esplanade next month.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, a visibly relieved Mr Tan said that he is glad to have put the past behind him.

He has not stepped onto Singapore soil all these years because he had feared that he would be arrested and thrown into jail.

But his 86-year-old father and 80-year-old mother are getting too old to make the regular trips to London to visit him at his home in Notting Hill, London.

So he decided to take a 'risk'. After informing the authorities of his intention to return, he came home in April for a court hearing.

The hearing lasted 30 minutes but he had never been so nervous in his life. 'It was very, very nerve-wracking,' he said.

To his relief, he was asked only to pay a fine.

He claims that he cannot remember the amount.

Under the Enlistment Act, those who evade national service can be fined up to $5,000 or sent to jail for up to three years, or both.

Although Mr Tan became a British citizen in 1978, he was still a Singapore citizen when he failed to fulfil his NS duties, making him answerable for the offence in a Singapore court.

In 1994, The Straits Times quoted a lawyer who said that one of his clients, a 39-year-old French citizen, was arrested at the airport on arrival, fined and made to complete nine months of training.

Mr Tan, who has an elder sister, was studying at Anglo-Chinese School when he left Singapore to study at the Yehudi Menuhin School in Sussex. He was then 12 years old.

After he finished his course, he stayed on in England to study at the Royal College of Music instead of coming home to serve national service in 1977.

He said: 'When I was at the Royal College and I got my final call-up, I was just on the brink of starting a career. I thought about it and thought about it and realised that I was not going to get this chance again.

'So I made that very difficult decision to not return. It meant I could never come back.'

Mr Tan first made his mark in the classical world with his performances on the 19th-century fortepiano, the precursor to the modern concert grand.

In the 1980s and 1990s, he produced a series of recordings that popularised the early music movement, regarded as a slightly eccentric niche within the music world.

He has about 30 recordings to his name and a regular touring schedule in Europe.

Along with Seow Yit Kin and Margaret Leng Tan, he has helped Singapore to gain recognition on the global piano scene.

The pianist is wasting no time in reconnecting with the Singapore music scene.

He goes back to England tomorrow, but will return early next month to sit on the jury of the National Arts Council's biennial National Piano and Violin Competition, which starts Dec 7 and ends Dec 18.

He said that he is getting to know Singapore, which he describes as 'unrecognisable', all over again. And, of course, he has been feasting on his favourite foods such as popiah.

But the best part about being able to come home as a free man was showing up at his mother's 80th birthday party on Thursday.

His parents still live in his childhood home in Lengkok Angsa, off Paterson Road. 'There were a few tears,' he said. 'She was just delighted. It was the best birthday present she's ever had.'

Singaporeans -- both on Internet forums and The Straits Times Forum pages -- gaped and raged at what they see as a punishment which makes a mockery of the country's NS policy. Journalist Ben Nadarajan wrote in the Sunday Times 27 Nov 2005: "So when someone chickens out of his duty, we expect him to be punished with something more painful than a mere blanket party. To see him get away with a mere fine, especially one which hardly burns a hole in his pocket, makes us wonder what we keep going back for. The fact that Tan cannot even remember how much he was fined -- when the court hearing was just six months ago -- suggests how insignificant it is to him."

A pathetic attempt to quench the understandable fury of Singapore men who dutifully served their time in Temasek Green, many of whom actually died in the course of serving National Service, was offered by officialdom in this response:

"All able-bodied male Singapore citizens are required to serve national service to contribute to the peace, security and stability of the country. Singaporeans enjoy the socio-economic benefits that this stability brings and are expected to shoulder the responsibility of national defence.

Mindef takes a serious stand on all defaulters who evade their national-service duty. Defaulters will have to bear the consequences of their action and will be dealt with by the courts under the Enlistment Act.

They are, on conviction, liable for an imprisonment term not exceeding three years or a fine not exceeding $5,000, or both. The exact sentence will be determined by the courts.

Besides having to answer to the courts for their national-service offences, defaulters will also have to serve their national service if they are still liable for national service.

In the case of Mr Melvyn Tan, although he had renounced his Singapore citizenship in 1978, he remained liable for the national-service offence and has been dealt with by the courts in accordance with the Enlistment Act.

Colonel Benedict Lim
Director, Public Affairs
Ministry of Defence "

Surrendering to the daily avalanche of accusations in the press that he received special treatment, Tan cancelled a sold-out concert and withdrew as a juror at the national piano and violin competition; he was replaced by Australian pianist Caroline Almonte.

In a letter published in The Sunday Times, Tan said he was "saddened and dismayed" by the controversy. "In light of the sentiments prevailing, I have decided it is best I defer my public appearances, for the debate on national service to continue without my further aggravating it," Tan wrote.

It is noteworthy that Defense Minister Teo Chee Hean had made it known he was "personally in favor of imposing custodial sentences for people who knowingly and deliberately evade national service."

National service of up to 2 1/2 years is compulsory for all male Singaporeans and permanent residents aged 16-40. Last year, the Defense Ministry said it would cut the required length by six months because military technology has improved.

Comic Relief

2005-10-31T08:48:00.000+08:00

The following blog entry of Singapore's notarious blogger resulted in her loss of income from (at least) two sponsors (ST, 30th Oct 2005):

"Woah, woah! HOLD ON DUDE. You mean only handicapped people can use handicapped toilets?

Didi was smiling away and telling his story as if it is very funny (which it is lar, if your point is to laugh at that suay man), but I was really quite pissed off because this is the second time I heard a story about handicapped people scolding others for using their toilets.

Another one was my friend who was using a cineleisure handicapped toilet... When he walked out, he was severely lectured by a man who was wheel-chair bound, the latter chiding him for making him (latter) wait.
I don't know if it is the same grumpy, crazy person who did these two scoldings, but if it is not, then it seems a little too much of a coincidence.

When I expressed that this siao-eh (as an individual) was ridiculously unreasonable, my brother said, "No, the man shouldn't have used the handicapped toilet what, it says on the door that it is for the handicapped."
How come people have this notion that only the disabled can use facilities for the disabled?"

The blogosphere was livid in acrimonious negative reaction, but the best response came in what must be a stroke of genius in toilet humor:

XX came home from school one day and said to her mom, 'I can count faster then all the kids in my primary six class, do you think it is because I am smart?'
Her mother replied, 'Of course it is, dear.'

The next day, XX said, 'I can say the alphabet faster then anyone in my class, do you think it is because I am smart?
Her mother replied, 'Of course it is, dear.'

The next day XX came home from her gymnastics and asked her mother, ''I have a larger chest then all the kids in my class, do you think its because I am smart?'
Her mother replied, 'No dear, I think it is because you are eighteen years old.'

XX was headed to KL. She got on the plane and sat down in business class.
A few minutes later, a flight attendent came up to her and told her that her ticket was for economy and she had to move from the seat. She refused. The flight attendent was persistant, but XX replied, "No, I want to sit here, I've always wanted to see what it is like in business class."

The flight attendent was getting frustrated. Finally, after quite some time, she convinced her to move. Another passenger who overheard the conversation asked the attendent, "How did you get her to move?"

The flight attendent replied, "I told her that business class doesn't stop in KL."

XX was swerving all over the road and driving very badly, so she got pulled over by a police.
The police walked up to her window and asked, "Miss, why are you driving so recklessly?"
XX said, "I'm sorry sir, but wherever I go, there's always a tree in front of me and I can't seem to get away from it!"
The police looked at her and said, "Miss, that's your air freshener!"

Q: Why can't XX dial 911?
A: She can't find the eleven.

Q: How do you drown XX?
A: Put a scratch-n-sniff sticker at the bottom of a toilet bowl.

Q: Why did XX climb up to the roof of the bar?
A: She heard that the drinks were on the house.

Q: How do you confuse XX?
A: You don't have to. She is born that way.

Q: What does XX and a beer bottle have in common?
A: They're both empty from the neck up.

Q: To XX, what is long and hard?
A: Primary Six.

The Hangman Cometh

2005-10-28T17:24:00.000+08:00

A 25-year-old Australian drug trafficker will be hanged after the Singaporean Government rejected pleas for clemency.

The Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, and the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, unsuccessfully made representations for the death penalty, imposed after Nguyen Tuong Van was found guilty of carrying nearly 400 grams of heroin, to be lifted on compassionate grounds.

Nguyen, a salesman and former boy scout who lived in Melbourne, was arrested while in transit at Singapore's Changi Airport. He said later that he was carrying the heroin to help pay debts of his drug-addicted twin brother.

"He will be hanged as a result of this decision," the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, said yesterday. "There is no further appeal."

Hopes were raised that Nguyen would be spared after he co-operated with police. Australian Federal Police interviewed Nguyen in jail and he reportedly gave them detailed information about the Sydney drugs syndicate involved. Singapore's constitution allows for a Presidential pardon if an accused furnishes information that leads to the arrest of key figures.

Amnesty International believes more than 400 people have been executed in Singapore between 1991 and 2003. That’s approximately 30 a year. Singapore's Think Centre said that in the past five years 101 Singaporeans and 37 foreigners had been executed - 110 for drug-related offences and 28 for murder and arms-related offences.

Executioner Mr Darshan Singh will lead Nguyen Tuong Van to the gallows, and utter the last words that the Australian drug trafficker will hear: "I am going to send you to a better place than this. God bless you."

In a matter of weeks, he will place a rope around the 25-year-old's neck and say those words he has spoken to more than 850 condemned prisoners during his 46 years as Singapore's chief executioner.

Mr Singh has officially retired from the prison service but is called on to carry out executions, for which he receives a fee of $400. Until now, his indentity has been a closely guarded secret in Singapore.

Officials rarely comment on capital punishment, which is carried out without publicity behind the walls of Changi prison.

But The Australian revealed that the 73-year-old grandfather, who lives in a modest, government-owned apartment near the border with Malaysia, has been asked to execute Nguyen unless the Singapore Government gives an unprecedented last-minute reprieve.

Mr Singh told The Australian that under the Official Secrets Act he was forbidden from speaking about his work.

A colleague and close friend, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told The Australian that Mr Singh wanted to give up his hangman's responsibilities and live quietly in retirement but the authorities were having trouble finding anyone to replace him.

"He tried to train two would-be hangmen to replace him, a Malaysian and a Chinese, both in the prison service," the colleague said. "But when it came to pulling the lever for the real thing, they both froze and could not do it.

"The Chinese guy, a prison officer, became so distraught he walked out immediately and resigned from the prison service altogether."

Nguyen will meet Mr Singh a few days before he is executed and will be asked if he would like to donate his organs.

On the day before his execution, Mr Singh will lead him to a set of scales close to his death-row cell to weigh him.

Mr Singh will use the Official Table of Drops, published by the British Home Office in 1913, to calculate the correct length of rope for the hanging.

On the day of Nguyen's execution, Mr Singh will be picked up by a government vehicle and driven to the prison, arriving at 2 a.m. to prepare the gallows.

Shortly before 6 a.m., he will handcuff Nguyen's hands behind his back and lead him on his final short walk to the gallows, just a few metres from the cell.

Mr Singh joined the British colonial prison service in the mid-1950s after arriving from Malaysia. When the long-established British hangman Mr Seymour retired, Mr Singh, then 27, volunteered for the job. He was attracted by the bonus payment for executions.

Mr Singh is credited with the dubious record of being the only executioner in the world to single-handedly hang 18 men in one day - three at a time.

They had been convicted of murdering four prison officers during a riot on the penal island of Pulau Senang in 1963.

He also hanged seven condemned men within 90 minutes a few years later. They had been convicted in what became known as the "gold bars murders", in which a merchant and two employees were killed during a robbery.

One of the most controversial executions in his career was the 1991 hanging of a young Filipina maid, Flor Contemplacion, who was convicted of the murder of a co-worker, Delia Maga, and her four-year-old charge, on what many claimed was shaky evidence. Diplomatic relations between Singapore and the Philippines were soured for many years as a result.

He carries out the executions wearing simple casual clothes, often just a T-shirt, shorts, sports shoes and knee-length socks.

To mark his 500th hanging four years ago, four of his former colleagues turned up at his home to celebrate the event with a couple of bottles of Chivas Regal.

Mr Singh boasts that he has never botched an execution.

"Mr Seymour taught him just how long the drop should be according to weight and height and exactly where the knot should be placed at the back of the neck," his colleague said.

"Death has always come instantaneously and painlessly. In that split second, at precisely 6 a.m., it's all over."

When his colleague asked him why he had stayed so long in such a gruesome job, he replied: "It's all I know. It has become my bread and butter."

"He also used to cane convicted criminals after training in this cricket field," the colleague said.

"The pay then was 50 cents per stroke. He could wield a cane as well as he could wield a cricket bat."

Mr Singh lives happily with his second wife and is close to their three adult adopted children.

His first wife left him years earlier because she could not accept what he did. He had kept it a secret from her for years.

Mr Singh reportedly spends time getting to know the condemned prisoners, especially those who do not receive visitors or religious support.

"He is a very kindly man and although it's his job to end their lives he does feel for them," his friend said. "Mr Singh tries to comfort them if they are completely alone in the world at such a horrible time."

Despite the personal efforts of Australian Premier John Howard, and both Pope John Paul and his successor, Pope Benedict, interceding for Mr Nguyen Tuong Van, the latter's fate was sealed in the following letter sent by post to his mother, Madam Kim Nguyen, who fled Vietnam alone in a boat in 1980 and gave birth to her twin sons in a transit camp in Malaysia, before the three were accepted as refugees into Australia:

18 Nov 05

Ministry of Home Affairs
Changi Prison Complex.

Dear Madam,

1. This is to inform you that the death sentence passed on Nguyen
Tuong Van will be carried out on 2 Dec 2005.

2. We will arrange for additional visits from 29 Nov till 1 Dec 2005.
Approved visitors may register for their visits between 8.30am and 9.30am and between 12.30pm and 1.30pm at the Prison Link Centre, Changi (990 Upper Changi Road North Singapore 506968).

3. You are requested to make the necessary funeral arrangements for him, however if you are unable to do so the state will assist in cremating the body.

Please do not hesitate to contact our officers in charge if you have
any queries.

Yours Faithfully,
Chiam Jia Fong
Superintendent
Institution A1, Cluster 1,
Singapore's Prison Service.

Jail Bait

2005-10-24T14:38:00.000+08:00

First it began with an itch. Then there was bleeding. And pain. Panic? Fear? Not Amy - she was nonchalant, just as she is about teenage, unprotected sex. Amy (not her real name) is only 17 but already claims to have had sex with more than 10 men.

At the polyclinic, the Government doctor told her she had contracted genital warts, a form of sexually transmitted infection (STI). "He gave me some medication. After that, the swelling went down," said Amy.

At that time, she said she had a steady boyfriend who was four years older than her. He was a friend's friend whom she had met at a chalet gathering. They had been dating for four months and were sexually intimate.

Since then, Amy said she has had sex with other partners. Despite her past experience with an STI, Amy remains nonchalant about the need to practise safe sex. They usually have sex at the boy's place. Amy said that most of them are older and are working. Sometimes, they buy her things, like clothes, bags and handphones. She lives with her parents in a four-room flat. Amy's father is a taxi driver and her mother is a housewife. She has a brother and a sister, both younger and still in school. All are blissfully aware of her sexual escapades.

Said Amy: "I'm usually out, either working or with my friends. I don't really talk to my family much. We have nothing much in common. My parents are quite conservative so I don't think they can accept my life and what I do."

"Get 'attached' in less than a week. And have sex in less than a month. That is what some young, reckless Singaporeans are doing," according to Ms Theresa Soon, a senior executive at the Department of STD Control (DSC) Clinic. They change partners at 'an amazing rate', have unprotected sex and are at risk of contracting a myriad of sexually-transmitted infections.

Ms Soon told The New Paper on Sunday that most of the young Singaporeans she sees have had more than one sexual partner. "They would befriend someone, become steady in less than a week, and have sex in less than a month. They would break up shortly after, and the cycle continues," she said. "Sex to them is just part and parcel of a boy-girl relationship. Most of the time, when we ask if they have been 'forced' into having sex, their reply would be no. It was a mutually agreed upon decision."

Such behaviour is worrying, even as the government is continuing to bring in the "buzz" to the once stead island. Following the "bar-top dancing" will be the Crazy Horse nude review, and the twin "Integrated Resorts" with the hospitality services casinos worldwide are renown for. Community centres routinely offer dance classes on "how to move like a hooker".

In 2002, there were 238 youngsters between the age of 10 and 19 with STIs. Last year, the figure nearly tripled to 653, say statistics from the DSC Clinic. Between January and August this year alone, there have been 468 cases. In particular, female patients are almost twice as many as male patients. This year, for example, there were 297 teenage girls with STIs, compared to 171 males.

On Wednesday 12th Nov 2005, a court was told that a 14-year-old girl who needed money to pay her bills had sex with at least five men. Five delinquent girls at the Pertapis Centre for Women and Girls off Yio Chu Kang Road also admitted offering sex for money. The oldest was in her late teens and the youngest, 14.

Social workers blame their nonchalant attitude on several factors: neglectful parents; the lack of stigma of losing one's virginity and having pre-marital sex as well as the pervasive message of one-night stands on TV and the Internet; and widespread consumerism and advertisements that encourage instant gratification.

Ms Ong Lea Teng from the Singapore Planned Parenthood Association is especially critical of Internet chatrooms, which makes it easy for girls to befriend teenage boys or men. "The thinking of some girls is that since they are doing it, they might as well get something out of it."

Sociologists blame parents. Said Dr Paulin Straughan from the National University of Singapore: "Why would a 14-year-old prostitute herself? The family must take responsibility. We cannot expect society to police the young for us... We cannot expect the schools to be the moral guardians."

Agreeing, Mr Alfred Tan, executive director of Singapore Children's Society, said: "Often, kids who get into trouble have no relationship with their parents. How do you bring up the subject of sex or values when you don't even talk to your children about everyday things in the first place?"

And parents have no way to shield their children from undesirable influences.

Said consultant psychiatrist Brian Yeo: "Society evolves and becomes more liberal and open. What parents can do is be good examples themselves, teach their children from young what's right and what's wrong and be aware of what they are doing."

A Rare Public Rebuke

2005-10-14T13:48:00.000+08:00

"US envoy slaps Singapore over freedom of speech"
By John Burton in Singapore, FT.com
Updated: 1:42 p.m. ET Oct. 12, 2005

The outgoing US ambassador to Singapore has criticised the city-state's restrictions on free speech in a rare public rebuke by a US official of one of Washington's closest Asian allies.

Ambassador Frank Levin said Singapore's 20th-century political model may prove inadequate for the 21st century, warning that the government "will pay an increasing price for not allowing full participation of its citizens."
Singapore bans demonstrations of five or more people.

The ambassador told an audience at a farewell dinner that he was "embarrassed" when police asked him if he wanted to press charges against six demonstrators protesting the Iraq war in front of the US embassy in 2003.

[ The six Singaporeans had wanted to register their unhappiness over the impending war in Iraq in front of the US embassy in Singapore. They were prevented by the police from doing so and ended up "helping the police with investigations." The police authorities investigating the source of SMS messages that were apparently being transmitted, asking protestors to go to US embassy, issued a statement "urging" people not to send such SMS messages and reiterated that public protests in Singapore were illegal. ]

"I said 'no.' I mean, go ahead, hold the signs and say something if you want to," said Mr Lavin, who will become under-secretary for international trade at the US Commerce Department.

Mr Levin said it was "surprising to find constraints on discussions here" given Singapore's strong international links in the economic sector. "In this era of Weblogs and Webcams, how much sense does it make to limit political expression?"

Singapore's one-party political dominance provides "enormous strengths," such as "very high quality leadership," but it also has weaknesses since "the lack of open and vigorous debates might reduce a government's popularity if it doesn't let ideas or views be properly aired."

Lee Hsien Loong, the Singapore prime minister, said last week that he did not believe that Singapore should adopt an "idealised form" of liberal democracy, explaining it was unsuitable for the country.

US-Singapore ties have strengthened during Mr Lavin's four-year tenure as ambassador, including the signing of bilateral free-trade agreement and a new security framework that might lead to an increased US military presence in the city-state.

Recent US ambassadors to Singapore, including Mr Lavin, have normally been highly supportive in their comments on Singapore. Mr Lavin's predecessor, Steven Green, left his post to become head of a Singapore-listed venture capital fund and was appointed a special advisor to the Singapore government and its honorary consul-general in Miami.

But Patricia Herbold, Mr Lavin's successor, has suggested that the Bush administration might be preparing to take a tougher line on Singapore's human rights record.

Ms Herbold, a lawyer and Republican fundraiser, told a US Senate hearing on her confirmation that she would continue a dialogue that Washington has with Singapore regarding the openness of its society and its political system.

US-Singapore relations have improved steadily since late 1980s, when Singapore accused the US of interfering in its internal affairs by alleging that the US embassy had secretly provided financial support to an opposition politician.*

At the time, Singapore relaxed its ban on demonstrations and allowed a large protest rally to take place in front of the US embassy.

Click here for a different take on the same speech.

Authorised Protest Activities:

*In May 1988, the government sanctioned a protest by the NTUC (Government controlled National Trade Union Congress) against the US because it accused the Americans of supporting former solicitor-general Mr Francis Seow. The then Deputy Prime Minister, Ong Teng Cheong, led a noisy demonstration against American interference in Singapore's affairs. It was the deceptively unassuming Ong who marshaled 2,000 trade unionists to stand in approved areas with anti-Uncle Sam banners. "Don't smile," said the DPM. "This is serious business." Unfortunately, a cameraman caught Ong doing just that.

Also in early 1988, some 4,000 NTUC members gathered outside the United States Embassy in Singapore to protest the decision to remove the GSP. Until 1989 Singapore and the three other NIEs enjoyed trade preferences with the United States under the United States Generalized System of Preferences. In 1989, the four Asian NIEs were removed from the program because of what some observers have seen as their major advances in economic development and improvements in trade competitiveness.

A Real Rogues' Gallery

2005-09-20T11:03:00.000+08:00

Mr Chua Cher Yak, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau's (CPIB) chief, retired on 1 July 2005 after more than 11 years on the job. He said: "Our job is driven by political will. We can only be as effective as the Government wants us to be." Last year, CPIB investigated 295 cases, and all were completed within two months, resulting in 156 people being prosecuted.

Tan Kia Gan was the Minister for National Development until he lost the 1963 elections.

While a director on the board of Malaysian Airways, Tan took strong objection to the purchase of Boeing aircraft. A few days later, a Mr Lim, a business friend of Tan, contacted First National City Bank, Boeing's bankers, to offer his services for a consideration. The bank knew of the Government's strict stand against corruption and reported the matter. Lim refused to implicate Tan Kia Gan and Tan could not be prosecuted.

But then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was convinced Tan was behind it, and issued a statement to say that, as the Government's representative on the board of Malaysian Airways, he had not discharged his duties beyond reproach. He was removed from the board and from all his other appointments.

Wee Toon Boon was Minister of State in the Ministry of the Environment in 1975 when he took a free trip to Indonesia for himself and his family members, paid for by a housing developer on whose behalf he made representations to civil servants. He also accepted a bungalow worth $500,000 from this developer and took two overdrafts totalling $300,000 in his father's name against the personal guarantee of the developer, to speculate in shares.

He was charged, convicted and sentenced to four years and six months in jail. Upon appeal, the convictions were upheld but the sentence was reduced by 18 months.

In December 1979 Phey Yew Kok, President of the NTUC and a PAP MP, was charged on four counts of criminal breach of trust involving a total sum of S$83,000.

He was also charged on two counts under the Trade Unions Act for investing $18,000 of trade-union money in a private supermarket without the approval of the minister. As was normal in such cases, he was released on bail, but unusually he was not asked to surrender his passport.

Devan Nair, as Secretary-General of the NTUC, was close to Phey Yew Kok and believed in his innocence. He wanted the CPIB to review the case, saying that an innocent man was being destroyed on false charges. But after he read the evidence shown by the CPIB in confidence, Devan did not pursue the matter further.

Phey Yew Kok decided to jump bail, and his two sureties lost their $50,000 deposit. Some say he was last heard of in Thailand, eking out a miserable existence as a fugitive, others claim he is operating a transport company in Taiwan.

The most dramatic catch was that of Member of Parliament Teh Cheang Wan, then Minister for National Development, who once threatened to withhold emergency lift services from HDB wards that fail to vote for the ruling party.

In November 1986, one of his old associates admitted, under questioning by the CPIB, that he had given Teh two cash payments of $400,000 each, in one case to allow a development company to retain part of its land which had been earmarked for compulsory government acquisition, and in the other, to assist a developer in the purchase of state land for private development. These bribes had taken place in 1981 and 1982.

Teh denied receiving the money and tried to bargain with the senior assistant director of the CPIB for the case not to be pursued.

A week later, on the morning of Dec 15, Teh took a massive overdose of sodium amytal. Teh preferred to take his life rather than face disgrace and ostracism.

In 1991, the Director of the Commercial Affairs Department (the anti-graft and investigative arm of the Ministry of Finance) and former public prosecutor Glenn Knight Jeyasingam was charged in the subordinate court before District Judge Alfonso Ang. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced three months imprisonment for two offences.
The first charge made was essentially that Jeyasingam did attempt to cheat Managing Director of Trans-Island Bus Services Ltd Ng Ser Miang, with the intention of inducing Ng to effect an investment of Singapore $3 million in the Batam Island Fantasy Resort.
The second charge essentially was that Jeyasingam, did knowingly use, with intent to deceive the Ministry of Finance, a vehicle invoice of Ching Dtien Company, to mislead into the granting of a government vehicle loan of $65,000.

Jeyasingam joined the Attorney General's Chambers on April 3 1970 and reached the position of Senior State Counsel. On October 16 1984 he was appointed director of CAD, responsible for the setting up of the department for the investigation and prosecution of commercial crimes. In 1989 he received a strong commendation from the Minister of Finance for outstanding leadership in setting up CAD, and in 1990 he was awarded the Public Administration Medal (Gold).

In 1995, a senior Public Utilities Board (PUB) official was given the maximum 14 years jail and ordered to forfeit US$9.8m received as bribes in Singapore's biggest corruption case. The sentence is the longest, and the kickbacks accepted by Choy Hon Tim from local and foreign contractors over a period of 18 years, a record high, judging from past corruption cases. Choy, the former Deputy CEO of PUB received the money through former PUB clerk Lee Peng Siong who had been an Australian citizen since 1983. Lee who was a consultant to PUB paid the money for pre-received information on the PUB tenders. The scandal resulted in the barring for 5 years five well-known contractors implicated in the bribery - Britain`s BICC, Siemens, Pirelli, and Japan's Marubeni Corporation and Tomen Corporation. The ban came when BICC announced planned to expand its operations in Asia with a US$31m investment in Indonesia and the Philippines. Lee, who was promised immunity from prosecution, remained free in Australia.

Tough Laws

2005-09-13T12:27:00.000+08:00

On 12th September 2005, Channel News Asia reported that two bloggers(sic) were charged with sedition for posting racist comments online.

Lawyers say the last time the sedition act was invoked in Singapore was at least 10 years ago.

25-year-old Nicholas Lim Yew and 27-year-old Benjamin Koh Song Huat were accused of posting racist comments on an online forum and on their blog site. They were both charged with committing a seditious act, by promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between races in Singapore.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, describes sedition thus:
"Critical speech, political organization, and mere association between individuals may be considered as "sedition." And though such behaviours may be common in a free society, in societies where sedition laws exist the acts and behaviours which qualify are highly subjective, and typically left to the whims of state agents. Legal definitons of sedition often include subversion of a constitution, or incitement to rebellion or insurrection toward the lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws."

From the perspective of the Singapore Sedition Act:

3. — (1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —

(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;

(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;

(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;

(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;

(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency —

(a) to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures;

(b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects;

(c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or

(d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore,

if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.

(3) For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence under this Act, the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted to do or made any preparation to do or conspired with any person to do any act or uttered any seditious words or printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported any publication or did any other thing shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact such act had, or would, if done, have had, or such words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency.

Investigations into the case began after "someone" called the police hotline at the ungodly hour of 3 a.m. on June 19 to complain that Koh's blog on www.upsaid.com "discussed topics that would disrupt racial harmony".

Inquiries into that complaint led the police to an online pet forum, www.doggiesite.com, where Lim, a marketing executive, allegedly posted racist remarks.

Koh faced three charges while Lim faced two for remarks made between June 12 and June 17 this year. If convicted, they could be fined up to $5,000 per charge or jailed up to three years, or both.

According to court documents, Lim's forum message began with: "The masses are idiots. 'Nuff said". He went on to make disparaging remarks about Muslims. Then, turning his attention to the Chinese and Indians, he wrote that listening to the complaints of "Chinese and Indians ... was no less irritating". Koh was more pointed. Peppering his blog entry with vulgarities, he directed his tirade at Malays and Muslims. His blog had a picture of a roasted pig's head with "a Halal look-alike logo", according to court documents.

Dr Ang Peng Hwa, director of the Singapore Internet Research Centre at Nanyang Technological University, said someone could "technically" be charged if a racist remark was overhead and reported to the authorities.

"(But) only when the audience size is large enough will the impact of the statement be meaningful," said Dr Ang.

"Many bloggers do not know the law, unlike trained journalists. People assume there is a cloak of secrecy. But you can still track people down. There are a lot of remarks out there (on the Internet) that are defamatory, inflammatory racist remarks. These are not taken seriously in many parts of the world," said Dr Ang. "They are seen as rants and people usually ignore them."

"Singapore is an unusual case."

The source of the hubris stems from a letter written to the Forum pages of the Straits Times:

UNCAGED PET SEEN IN TAXI

ON JUNE 3, while I was on a bus, I noticed a taxi with a small dog in it.

The dog was not in a cage and was standing on the backseat beside its owner.

I am curious to know if cab companies allow uncaged pets to be transported in taxis. Dogs may drool on the seats or dirty them with their paws.

Zuraimah Mohammed (Mdm)

Readers were told by the newspaper with circulation exceeding 100,000 that Madam Zuraimah's concerns had a religious basis. Ustaz Ali Haji Mohamed, chairman of Khadijah mosque, was quoted as saying: "There are various Islamic schools of thought which differ in views. But most Muslims in Singapore are from the Syafie school of thought. This means they are not allowed to touch dogs which are wet, which would include a dog's saliva. This is a religious requirement."

Aftermath:
On Oct 7, Benjamin Koh Song Huat,, 27, was sentenced to a month's imprisonment while Nicholas Lim Yew, 25, was fined $5000 and jailed for a day, both for posting comments alledgedly attacking the Muslim ethnic Malay community.

Benjamin's online problems started after a trip to East Coast Park in June when he was walking his dogs and had a run-in with some Malay families, who shy away from dogs on religious grounds. He went home later that day and "blasted away" on his blog, and supposedly advocated desecrating Islam’s holy site of Mecca in his online journal. Then came the Internet community's reaction.

"People started posting comments and made nasty remarks about me and my parents. I thought it was another blog war and I didn't really bother," he said. "But the comments didn't stop." Eventually, Koh locked his blog a week later to prevent anyone from posting comments and put up an apology.

It appeased some — but there were others who were still baying for blood. At the end of June, plainclothes police officers went to his home to question him, after a 21 year old female Malay media executive, who subsequently spoke to the press under the pseudonym of "Kalin", dialed 999 to lodge a complaint.

Koh maintained during a 40-minute phone interview that he was not a racist. He said he has many Malay friends from his days at Swiss Cottage Secondary School. So, when news of his arrest broke, he got calls from one of them. "They called me, laughed and said: 'You racist? Come on lah'," said Koh. His friend IT manager Mohammad Hisham Bin Abu Bakar accompanied him to the court sentencing.

Two days before the Muslim new year celebrations of Hari Raya, Koh told Today about the three weeks in his 2m-by-4m jail cell: "I was having a panic attack and it took two officers to calm me down. The psychological relief was the window above my cell."

The former kennel keeper was so nervous that he flushed down the toilet the six slices of bread given for his first meal. He had no appetite and just wanted to sleep. What ate into him were not only the four walls but fear. He was worried about how the Malay prison officers would treat him.

Though by nature a jovial and outgoing man, he made it a point to avoid interacting with other inmates. Kept in solitude, Mr Koh said he only came out of the cell to shower or to borrow books to read. Prison officers nicknamed him "The Blogger" and those who did not read his blog wanted to know what he had written.

Regaining his freedom, however, is not the close of the chapter for Mr Koh, who blogged for the first time after a four-month break the night he was released from Queenstown Remand Prison. In a short entry, he informed his friends of his return to cyberspace. "I now feel demoralised about writing. The feeling (to write) is there but I have to censor myself. Freedom of speech here is a very debatable term. I don't think I am one to censor myself, though of course I must be more careful now."

"I have been punished and it's time to move on," he said. "The racist label was what I hated. I am not a racist. I am not Pauline Hanson or Hitler. But the label will stick with me. I probably will take some time to get over it."

Quite understandably, when his Malay friends invited him to the Hari Raya gatherings at the coming weekend, he said "no".

"I want to go but their relatives will be there. Our generation can understand my situation but I will still feel embarrassed with their relatives around," he explained.

White Elephants

2005-09-08T12:07:00.000+08:00

Singapore tabloid "Today" reported that growing public reaction over the authorities' investigation into the "white elephants" episode has compelled the police to justify their ongoing actions. What is significant here is the comparative lack of public reaction over the overwhelming police response to the 4 person protest held outside the CPF building recently.

In a statement issued yesterday, 7th September 2005, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) said "the Police must be fair and transparent at all times and not investigate cases selectively".

The statement went on to explain that because someone had called "999" to complain about the animal cut-outs displayed on July 28 outside the Buangkok MRT station, the police had to determine whether any offence had been committed under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act.

The placards, stuck along the road divider outside the train station operated by SBS Transit, were taken down on the very same day — after Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Vivian Balakrishnan visited the Punggol South constituency and caught the implicit message that residents would like to see Buangkok station open after two years of waiting. Commented Dr Balakrishnan, "Let me say that your message is taken, you don't need to convince me. I understand your wish to have the station open, I understand your frustration -- the thing is ready and yet the gate is not open but the PM has said two or three years, Mr Yeo Cheow Tong has said that once you have 2,000 units. It's just a matter of time."

Transport Minister Mr Yeo showed how the fine line is drawn in policy making: "I have said that when the number of units there reaches 2,000 to 3,000, we would open it. Today, within the 400m radius, there are only something like 600 units. So, it's well below. But, of course, if you extend the radius to 500 metres, we get close to 2,000. So I have asked the LTA, 'between 400 to 500 metres, is the cut-off so precise? What happens if we pull the line to 500 metres?'"

The minister seem to be blissfully ignorant of the Marina Bay Station operating at the end of the North South line in desolate Marina South, with nary a housing unit in sight. Completed in 2003, Buangkok Station is still not operational, the official reasoning being that there are not enough commercial or residential developments within 400 metres of the area.

Since the police began doing their job, several Singaporeans have written in to express their surprise at the police's decision to conduct a full-fledged investigation as a result of just one caller's complaint. The police action at the CPF building was also initiated by a phone call to the police.

More than 10 people, including residents and grassroots leaders, have been questioned since the police started their investigations last week, sources told Today.

If the police do determine that a crime has been committed, they may refer the case to the Attorney-General's Chambers, which guides law enforcement agencies on their investigations besides prosecuting criminal matters in court.

Under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act gazetted in 2001, entertainment accessible to the public should not be carried out in a manner that is indecent, immoral, offensive, subversive or improper.

In addition, exhibits may not be put up in public without a permit. The offence carries a maximum fine of $10,000.

It should be pointed out that, as Presidential hopeful Andrew Kuan found to his chagrin when he reported a case of forgery, when a matter has been brought to the attention of the police, latter may, after investigating, close the case without persecution and no explanation given to parties involved.

Punggol South MP Charles Chong ventured further to predict that a feedback forum may be in order as soon as the case is closed so that residents can air their views on the issue. He appeared highly conversant about how the system works.

Chong said that complaints from residents tapered off in 2003, but flared up again recently when the transport fare hike was announced.

Said Mr Chong, "The bus fare went up, ERP gantries went up -- it sort of resurrected a lot of their frustrations … Every day when they see the site and not being able to use it and incurring higher transport costs for a station that's further away, I think this has irritated quite a lot of them."

For a parliamentarian of many years' standing, Chong had a curious perspective of law and order in the well disciplined city: "Throughout this whole experience, there are some who feel the letter of the law should be observed. Others feel there can be some easing of rules."

Aftermath:
In a statement to the media on Oct 6th, the police said that while the investigation into the "white-elephants" incident established that there was an infringement of the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act, it noted that "the placards did not cause public annoyance or nuisance". Under the Act, an offender can be fined for up to $10,000 for putting up exhibits in public without a permit. After "considering the circumstances", the police decided to issue a "stern warning" to the offender.

Unperturbed by the admonishment, Sunny Leow, 54, who chairs the Punggol South Citizens' Consultative Constituency, challenged the 999-caller who complained about the cut-outs to come forward. "We want to know why he was offended and say sorry," he was quoted as saying. His MP Charles Chong told the press his "insurgents" will gather in Bangkok for their annual retreat where, as he quipped, "white elephants are revered."

Recently, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng, who helms Singapore's Home Affairs Ministry, had made it clear that the law cannot be selective: "We cannot apply the law to some and turn a blind eye to others. If we do, then the law becomes the real white elephant."

8 Days In August

2005-08-19T15:35:00.000+08:00

5th August, Friday
The political establishment turned decidedly less cordial after Andrew Kuan, a card carrying member of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) who served five terms as a town councillor and finance committee chairman at Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council, declared himself as a contender in what had been seen as a second-term shoo-in for the 81-year-old government-backed incumbent, S.R. Nathan, a former internal security chief.

Almost daily since Kuan's name was first mentioned by the Straits Times on Friday 5 August, Singaporeans were been treated to an uncomely spectacle – one lone man in the cross-hairs of the political machinery coming out with all guns blazing, almost as if they were in panic mode.

PAP politicians and the media alike badmouthed Kuan in a feeding frenzy. He was described as arrogant, too full of himself, and then dirt was dug up by the New Paper about events at a condominium management council. Mr Kuan claimed that some members had an "axe to grind" after he had made an "unpopular decision" to get another committee member removed.

Kuan was 51, Chinese, and showed up to submit his papers for eligibility with the former Archbishop of the Anglican Church in tow. Immediately, he was attacked in the press by the incumbent's supporter as playing the race card.

Andrew Kuan had to obtain a COE – not a certificate of entitlement to buy a car, but a certificate of eligibility – before he can stand for election.

The committee determining eligibility had to decide firstly, whether his job (2001 - 2004) as the Group Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Jurong Town Corporation (JTC), which Kuan says has $11 billion in assets, is equivalent to management experience leading a company with at least $100 million in paid-up capital – one of the statutory requirements for eligibility.

Secondly, whether he is a person of "good character and standing" – the other statutory condition.

Aside from the Certificate of Eligibility, all potential candidates had to submit a deposit of S$37,500 on Nomination Day. A Political Donation Certificate issued by the Registrar of Political Donations was also needed. This is required under the Political Donation Act, which seeks to prevent foreigners from interfering in Singapore's domestic politics through funding of candidates and political associations.

7th August 2005, Sunday
Firing the first salvo, the Straits Times reported that some grassroots leaders Kuan had worked with described him as "conceited". Minister Lim Swee Say was quoted by the Sunday Times as saying that Singaporeans should not hope for a contest in the presidential election just for the sake of it. Singaporean media reported extensively on the circumstances surrounding Kuan's departure from his condominium's management council in 2001.

9 August 2005, Tuesday
Even Singapore Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong chimed in and called for all candidates to be open about about their records, so that Singaporeans can make a informed judgement on them. Prime Minister Lee said he didn't know Mr Kuan well but he hoped Mr Kuan will be open about his employment history.
"I'm quite sure he will want to tell Singaporeans all about it. How he came to take up these jobs and in some cases, changed them very quickly and what the reason was. I think if I were him, I would also encourage his employers to come forward, speak freely and tell Singaporeans what they know about him," said PM Lee.
On the incumbent, Mr Lee made clear his desired outcome by saying he had no doubt that Mr Nathan had the full support and confidence of Singaporeans in the last six years of his first term. And he was glad that Mr Nathan had put himself forward for a second term in office. Nathan's personal comment on the subject in April (see below) seemed to vanish into thin air.

11th August, Thursday
Right on cue, Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) a called a news conference to provide details on the circumstances leading to Mr Kuan's resignation in July last year. It was claimed that Andrew Kuan was asked to leave JTC Corp as the board was not satisfied with his job performance.
Chong Lit Cheong, CEO of JTC Corp and government scholarship holder, said: "Quite a fair bit of hand holding is required and as a leader, CEO, I cannot be hand holding all my directors."

According to Chong:
- 51-year-old Andrew Kuan was appointed JTC's group chief financial officer in June 2001;
- After his first year, JTC was not satisfied with his performance but gave him another chance;
- Things did not improve and Mr Kuan was asked to resign in September 2003.
- He asked for an extension till March, but later made a request to stay on and serve his three-year term;
- Come June, he still did not resign and was given the ultimatum to do so or face termination;
- He finally tendered his resignation in July - after 37 months with JTC.

In response, Kuan put on record that he had worked at JTC Corporation for 37 months, extending his contract several times, and he was given performance bonuses and a raise during this period.

During his tenure with the statutory board, he was invited to sit on the editorial board of advisers for CFO Asia, a finance magazine published under The Economist Group. The magazine's managing editor, Mr Justin Wood, described his two-year working relationship with Mr Kuan as "very positive, very useful and constructive".

12th August, Friday
Meanwhile, water treatment company Hyflux, where Kuan worked as the regional chief financial officer for Hyflux-Isithmar's Joint Venture in the Middle East, released a statement saying ''We would definitely not have offered him the position if we had known of his personal ambitions. We are disappointed that he was not honest with us and have taken us for a ride.''

The Presidential Elections Committee called for JTC's assessment of Mr Kuan - which was submitted on Thursday 12th.

13th August, Saturday
Presidential Elections Committee rejected his application for a Certificate of Eligibility claiming that his seniority and responsibility as JTC's Group Chief Financial Officer were, in the opinion of the Committee, not comparable to those required under the Constitution.

Under the Presidential Elections Act, the decision of the Presidential Elections Committee in awarding the Certificate of Eligibility is final, and is not subject to an appeal or review in court.

Game Over
Garry Rodan, Director of Murdoch University's Asia Research Centre in Australia, said the government's response to Kuan's bid throws into question its promise for greater openness.
"If he is deemed ineligible for the contest in spite of a lack of any wrongdoing on his part, then the government displays a complete lack of confidence in the Singapore people to judge for themselves," he said.

Back in 14th April 2005, Chinese Daily Muzi News (LatelineNews) wrote:
The retirement of 81-year-old S.R. Nathan by the end of his term in August would pave the way for elections for the post, whose significance is often debated in a country dominated by a single party since independence in 1965. When asked by reporters whether he would stand for re-election Nathan, a former ambassador to the United States, expressed his wish to retire.
"I'm 81, you know? Everybody is speculating. I'm not speculating. I'm hoping to look into retirement," Singapore's Straits Times newspaper quoted Nathan as saying in Malaysia.
Nathan's health report card reveals he is diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, elevated cholesterol level, prostatic enlargement and diverticulosis of the colon.

Exciting Times

2005-08-12T09:56:00.000+08:00

News Flash: Police Send In Riot Squad To Deal With 4 Protesters
11 Aug 05, Source:www.infoshop.org

“This section go to the right! The rest go left! No one is to come through!” barked the corporal to his men, clad in full riot gear – truncheons, shields, head gear, and shin guards.

The threat? Four (yes, 4) activists who had assembled outside the Central Provident Fund Building in downtown Singapore to protest against the non-transparent and non-accountable nature of the way the Singapore Government deals with public funds. Two of the protesters were women.

The number of police officers numbered at approximately 40.

Mr Charles Tan, Ms Chee Siok Chin, Ms Monica Kumar, and Mr Yap Keng Ho were wearing T-shirts with the words: “NKF” (National Kidney Foundation), “HDB” (Housing De
velopment Board), “GIC” (Government of Singapore Investment Corporation), “CPF” (Central Provident Fund), “Financial Reserves” – “Be Transparent Now!”

These state-run organisations (NKF is closely associated with the Government) are run in a secretive manner. For example, the GIC (chaired by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, former prime minister and paramount leader of Singapore) uses the country's financial reserves in investments all the world but refuses to give an account for its dealings.

Associate Professor Mukul Asher at the National University of Singapore noted about the funds invested by the GIC: “There is…no transparency or public accountability concerning where these funds are invested.” The Asian Wall Street Journal remarked: “Where do the CPF funds go? No one is exactly sure since the government, amazingly, won’t give the public a precise accounting of how it uses the public’s money.”

The protest started off with the four activists standing quietly outside the building wearing their T-shirts. After about 30 minutes, two police cars arrived with lights flashing, carrying a few senior officers.

This was followed by a few police vans carrying uniformed officers, including those from the riot squad. After forming up, the officers cordoned off the entrance to the building.

“Who's in charge?” Deputy Superintendent Dominic John Baptist asked the protesters, his hands quivering.

“All of us,” replied Mr Yap Keng Ho.

“I'm ordering all of you to disperse.”

“On what grounds?” asked Ms Chee Siok Chin.

“Public nuisance. Someone called to complain,” the DSP replied.

“But as you can see , we are standing here peacefully and we have not...” Ms Chee started to explain.

“Disperse now! Are you going to be here? Leave!” ordered the officer.

“Sir, can I ask you under what law...” Ms Chee persisted.

“The offence is public nuisance under the Miscellaneous Offences Act. It is a seizable offence, which means you may be arrested.”

The protesters complied and left the area. The police continued to follow them and after a few metres, stopped them and confiscated the T-shirts they were wearing.

“Will we get the T-shirts back?” the protesters enquired. The police didn't bother to reply.

Several questions need to be asked from this episode :

One, did the police have the right to order the protesters to leave especially when there were only four of them? The law clearly states that only five or more people gathered in a public place constitutes an illegal assembly.

Two, did the police see the protesters creating a commotion and making a nuisance of themselves? Throughout the protest all four protesters stood silently until the police started questioning them.

Three, why is the Singapore Government so afraid of four peaceful protesters that it had to send in the riot squad? Signs of insecurity perhaps?

Although the foursome was dispersed by the officer accusing them of causing a public nuisance, a reading of the law would seem to say they did no wrong:

Nuisances
11. —(1) Any person who commits any of the following offences shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000:

(a) without authority in the case of public property, or without the consent of the owner or occupier in the case of private property, affixes or causes to be affixed any advertisement, bill or notice, or any paper against or upon any building, wall or fence, or writes upon, defaces or marks any such building, wall or fence with chalk or paint, or in any other way;

(b) bathes or washes himself, or any other person, animal or thing on any public road, or in, upon or by the side of any public tank, reservoir, watercourse or stream;

(c) obstructs or causes trouble or inconvenience to a person bathing at any place set apart as a bathing place by wilful intrusion, or by washing any animal at or near that place, or in any other way;

(d) being the owner or person in charge of any animal does not, if the animal dies, dispose of its carcase in such a way as not to be a common nuisance;

(e) places any dead animal on or near any public road;

(f) spits in any coffee shop, market, eating house, school house, theatre or public building, or in any omnibus, railway carriage or other public conveyance, or on any wharf or jetty, or in any public road, or on any five-foot way or sidewalk of any public road, or in any other place to which the public has or may have access;

(g) suffers to be at large any unmuzzled ferocious dog or other animal, or sets on or urges any dog or other animal to attack, worry or put in fear any person or animal.

Listen to what Lee Kuan Yew in 1956, speaking as an opposition PAP member, said to then Chief Minister David Marshall:

"Repression, Sir, is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love-it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they're conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict."

A Poor Reminder

2005-08-05T16:16:00.000+08:00

In his article "Following Singapore's lead on the road of development" (Earth Times, January 15, 2001) Singapore's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Kishore Mahbubani, wrote:

"This careful attention to meeting the physical and material needs of the population is matched by equal care and concern for the people's social and spiritual needs. In this, however, Singapore has consciously moved away from the welfare-state prescriptions of OECD societies. There are no homeless, destitute or starving people in Singapore. Poverty has been eradicated, not through an entitlements program (there are virtually none) but through a unique partnership between the government, corporate citizens, self-help groups and voluntary initiatives. The state acts as the catalyst--matching financial support, sponsoring preventive and social care, and ensuring that basic needs are provided for. Remarkably, the poorest 5 percent of households have about the same levels of ownership of homes, television sets, refrigerators, telephones, washing machines and video recorders as the national average. Perhaps this, combined with the tough law-and-order regime, explains why Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world."

Thus there is this myth that Singapore is a rich country and its citizens are well-taken care of. Nothing could be further from the truth. The 1998 United Nations Human Development Index showed that Singapore ranked 28 on the list behind countries like Barbados and Malta.

One reason why the poor in Singapore are not more visible is that the Ministry of Community Development and Sports conduct frequent raids through its Destitute Persons Service, looking for and picking up vagrants. If Singapore seems to have less destitute, it is not because the numbers are not present. The real reason is that the Singapore Government is just much more efficient in clearing the streets of homeless people.

Below are some statistical indicators of the poor in Singapore:

In 1999, nearly 2,000 children did not attend school because their parents could not afford it. Mohammad Hirwan was one such child. His parents earned about $1000 a month, hardly sufficient for a family in Singapore. As a result the boy's parents had to take him out of school when he was nine. His siblings did not fare any better. All of them dropped out of school because of poverty.

In 1990, the richest 10 percent of households earned 15.6 times more than the poorest 10 percent. (Households with no income-earners are excluded from this category.) By 2000, the gap widened: the richest 10 percent earned 36 times more than the poorest 10 percent. The average household income of the bottom decile decreased by 48.4 per cent, while the overall decrease was only 2.7 per cent.

According to the 2000 Census, 12.6 per cent of households earned less than $1,000 per month. A monthly gross total household income of $1,500 and below is considered “poor” in Singapore.

A more recent survey found that 16 per cent of the respondents had family members who often went hungry.

In 2003, a study found that Singaporeans aged between 20 and 49 years made up 70 percent of suicide cases from 1997 to 2001. They also constitute the main bulk of cases of attempted suicides. A newspaper report highlighted that more people are being diagnosed with mental disorders due to financial woes.

The unemployment rate for the bottom 10 per cent increased from 28.2 per cent in 1998 to 44 per cent in 1999 - an increase of about 56 per cent compared to 42 per cent for the total labour force.

In 2004 it was recorded 37,823 households could not afford to buy their own flats or rent homes in the open market. The latest inflation data for Singapore shows that the rise in consumer prices for the lowest 20 per cent income group was more than seven times that of the top 20 per cent income group.

Tale Of Two Cities

2005-08-03T11:02:00.000+08:00

A Thai national had this to say about Singapore laws:

[Singapore has always had the right balance between law, human rights and issues such as entertainment. Readers may scoff at this but Singapore is actually a very decent and fair place to live. Yes, you may say that the people are controlled but at least the Singapore government has got the balance right - unlike Thailand which goes from a totally lawless society to a draconian place where you can't get a drink after midnight. Sure, Singapore has some very harsh laws but this should only worry you if you are a criminal, drug user, or you chew gum. Personally the ban of chewing gum isn't such a bad thing because it does keep the environment much cleaner. I actually admire the law and justice system in Singapore because it punishes those according to the crime and no one escapes no matter who they are."

Julia Elizabeth Tubbs, a British lawyer, knocked down and killed South Korean housewife Oh Eun Sook, 35, her two-year-old daughter, Shyn Ji Yun and five-year-old son Shyn Hong Wook while driving into the Anchorage condominium at Alexandra Road in Feb 2000. She was originally charged with three counts of causing death by dangerous driving. Tubbs claimed trial to an amended charge of causing death by negligence and was acquitted because the prosecution "failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that she had been negligent and failed to keep a proper lookout.
Chief Justice Yong Pung How upheld the lower court's acquittal after the prosecution appealed. CJ Yong praised District Judge Audrey Lim's original ruling "for her high quality grounds of judgment" (Straits Times 29 Jun 2001).

Marco Eldon Kerkmeester, 35, an IBM sales director from New Zealand was charged in court with having transmitted a hoax e-mail message which led to the Sept 12 Singapore Airlines flight to Johannesburg being delayed for six hours. The prosecution withdrew the charge against Kerkmeester after receiving a psychiatric report that said he was of unsound mind when he sent the message. He was given a discharge amounting to an acquittal and walked out of court a free man on 12 October . (Straits Times 13 Oct 2001)

Max Ulrich Villinger, 55, the German chief executive officer of logistics company Schenker (Asia) Pacific was fined the maximum of S$1,000 and disqualified from driving for six months, after he pleaded guilty to careless driving on 23 May 2001. Villinger was driving a BMW car when he hit Madam Ara Yacob as he was turning out of Kheam Hock Road. She died the same day from serious injuries inflicted by the accident. (Straits Times 12 Sep 2002)

Student at the German International School in Singapore Julia Suzanne Bohl made headlines on 13 March 2002 when she was charged with drug trafficking after police seized 687 grams (24.2 ounces) of marijuana and other drugs in her apartment, located in a wealthy part of the city-state. But the German woman Bohl, who was 22 when arrested, escaped hanging after laboratory tests showed the amount of pure drugs found in her apartment weighed only 281 grams, less than the 500 grams limit for cannabis which warrants the mandatory death sentence in Singapore. She was released on Friday 15 July 2005 after her five-year jail sentence was reduced by nearly two years for good behavior, prison spokeswoman Lim Soo Eng told Reuters. Singapore stirred up a diplomatic storm with the Netherlands in 1994 when it ignored Western appeals to make an exception to its tough anti-drug rules and hanged Dutchman Van Damme for trafficking 4.32 kilograms (9.5 pounds) of heroin.

Meanwhile a 72-year-old Singapore woman unwittingly rented out her house in Joo Chiat to Chinese immigration offenders, charging them between S$130 and S$150 a month. Tan Siew Yoke was sentenced to six months' jail. (Straits Times 24 May 2001)

A Matter Of Choice

2005-07-27T16:03:00.000+08:00

The ruling People's Action Party emerged victorious in Cheng San in the 1997 elections, though with just 54.8% of the vote.

"It cannot be said that people voted freely without their minds being trammeled by worries and fears of the consequences of voting against the PAP," said Jeyaretnam, who failed in his comeback after a 10-year hiatus. "The marvel is, in spite of all that, we managed to get almost 45% of the vote."

Chee Soon Juan of the SDP professed concern for the country's future: "It's a tragedy -- when we're talking about competition in the 21st century -- to use the upgrading of homes as the final bait."

Chee referred to the primary issue in the campaign -- and one which the PAP wielded effectively -- the upgrading of government flats, a program started in 1989 to bridge the gap between old and new apartments. The PAP sent forth a clear message: wards that did not vote for its candidates would be placed last in line for the upgrading program.

Said Goh to those who might have been leaning toward the opposition: "In 20, 30 years' time, the whole of Singapore will be bustling away, and your estate, through your own choice, will be left behind. They become slums."

This remark raised eyebrows and drew a rebuke from the United States Secretary of State Madeline K Albright.

Lim, a 33-year-old bus company worker, lived in the MacPherson ward. In the past five years, the government built four additional Housing and Development Board apartment blocks in MacPherson, added two children’s playgrounds, two power substations and a multi-story carpark. Ten HDB flats were upgraded, 15 others almost finished, and four about to be started.

Due in part to the upgrades, the value of Lim’s three-bedroom flat appreciated by more than $100,000. The government program extended Lim’s master bedroom, upgraded the toilet, brought elevators to every floor (previously they stopped at every other one) and spruced up the exterior. The work was done by the town council. MacPherson is headed by the recently re-elected Matthias Yao, 40, an up-and-comer in the ruling party.

In the Potong Pasir constituency, which is represented by oppositionist Chiam See Tong, 61, of the Singapore People’s Party, improvements have been more modest. In five years Chiam had overseen the construction of two walkways, five covered linkways, reroofing of 17 apartment blocks, expansion of playgrounds and installation of booster pumps to increase water pressure.

Longtime Potong Pasir resident Lian, 37, who works for the Singapore Armed Forces, said his neighborhood is “a fine place.” But he reckoned that the upgrading of flats has passed Potong Pasir by because it is opposition territory. “Chiam is very popular,” said Lian, “but he can’t do much. His hands are tied. He doesn’t have as much funds as the PAP constituencies.”

Chiam complained of the “very unethical disbursement of public funds.Town councils run by the PAP have almost unlimited funds. Their main source of money is the Ministry of National Development,” of which MP Mathias Yao is senior parliamentary secretary. Chiam had to make do with the maintenance rates collected from residents and the $280,000 that each town council receives annually from the government. “The world is divided between those who support the PAP and those who don’t,” said Chiam. “If you don’t vote for the PAP, you don’t get the facilities. These facilities are provided by public funds, yet the government is using public funds to gain votes.”

Prime Minister Goh countered that “you can argue that the money belongs to the people, but you still have to queue up to receive it.” Those who support the government and its programs most strongly, he said, get served first.

During a speech at the Nanyang Technological University, Goh argued against "Western-style" democracy: "Do you think we could have done even half of what was achieved in the last 30 years if we had a multi-party system and a revolving-door government?" he asked the students. "Do you think we could have done just as well if we had a government which was constantly being held in check by 10 to 20 opposition members in the last 30 years?"

Opined one local analyst: "If the government has its way, there is no place for an opposition in Singapore. It defines the opposition as inimical to stability and the Asian way of democracy -- of consensus. People who are articulate and vociferous and who rock the status quo are not wanted."

The PAP's answer to an alternative voice in Parliament is to select its own. Nominated MPs are appointed by the president based on nominations from a Special Select Committee. They can't vote on issues related to budgets or defense, but can debate and question the ruling party.

That won't satisfy everyone. In a Internet chat group, an "ashamed and disappointed Singaporean" lamented: "We have good government and the PAP has done a lot for the country, I concede that. But why do I have this bitter taste after watching the way the PAP conducted themselves during the elections?" On the brighter side, he could probably look forward to his apartment being upgraded.

The Price of Truth

2005-07-25T15:55:00.000+08:00

Aeromodelling instructor Piragasam Singaravelu had to pay $22,000 in damages and another $10,000 for the apology notices for saying he had seen NKF CEO TT Durai in the Singapore Airlines (SIA)first-class cabin. His price for telling the truth pales in comparison to what Tan Wah Piow paid.

Tan was the student leader of the University of Singapore Student’s Union (USSU) in 1975 when he was caught up in the workers’ labour problems at American Marine. His nemesis was Phey Yew Kok, Secretary General of Pioneer Industries Employee’s Union (PIEU). Tan found himself jailed for 6 months for 'rioting' even though he was nowhere near the office where he was supposed to have 'broken some chairs' -- but the word of Phey Yew Kok, then PAP MP, now a fugitive in Taiwan, carried the day. The judge chose to believe Phey.

An Australian Queen's Counsel, Frank Galbally, who observed the trial for the Australian Union of Students, said: "In Australia, the case would be laughed out of court ... the evidence and procedure ... would, in my opinion, have aborted any trial in Australia ... [The three accused] did not get a fair trial. ... In my opinion, it is just a political trial."

Tan is now a partner of a law firm. The British national lives with his wife and 19-year-old son in London. He keeps in touch with Singapore politics through the Internet and visits the region often, usually to meet his 92-year-old mother, who lives here.

Extracted from USSU publication, “Awakening”, Issue 25, Tuesday 4th Feb 1975

36th Day of the Trial 3rd Feb 1975

Seow Yuet Leng a worker from Eminence Factory and a temporary representative of the PIEU branch, was testifying for the defence and told the court what she saw inside the PIEU premises on 30th Oct 1974.

On the 29th noon she was told by the secretary at Eminence that the Union called her and asked her to go for a meeting on the 30th October. She asked Lai Ah Choon on the night of 29th to accompany her there.

“When we reached PIEU at about 10.45 am I saw about 100 people in the field. Lai saw a Chinese male friend and went over to talk to him. I sat on the bed. After about 10 minutes she came over to sit on the flower bed. 5 minutes later we saw that the crowd had gathered in the field. We went up but could not hear what they said because we did not join them.”

“I went round the crowd once, then I held Lai by the hand and asked her to go into the premises. We then released our hands. When we reached the door I saw Robert Leow at the door. We were asked to go in.
When I went in, Lin Chin Siew asked why I was with those people in the group, and then Robert Leow had asked me to go in. We went into A department, Robert Liew went in first, followed by myself and then Lai.
Robert Leow told me that he went to the Ministry of Labour on the previous day. He said that he met Mr Leow there and he did not promise the $40 increase. He only promised an increase of 10%. He said that he was not sure whether the 10% will be added to the basic pay or on that with the extra. Confirmation of this increase could be made after the manager’s father return from America. He did not know when he will return from America.”

“Then there was a sound from outside – someone closing the door. Following this there were people knocking at the door. The door was knocked twice or thrice, pause then knocked 2 or 3 times, pause and carried on that way.
Then a person walked into the passageway. He walked a little faster than normal. Robert Leow stood up. He told us to wait for a while and he went out. He went up to the Hall. I also saw Lawrence Quek walking in that direction, to the hall. I then came out with Lai. While walking to the hall along the passage way, I saw Kwek listening into the phone in the passage way. Lai was just behind me. I wanted to go into the hall and I pulled the door a little. Kwek had his body leaning against the opened door.”

WP: Before you came out of department A, did you see any of the accused persons?
YL: I did not.
WP: Did you see me while walking along the passageway to the hall?
YL: I did not.
WP: Did you see anyone carrying a stick along the passageway?
YL: I did not.

When asked, Yuet Leng said that Kwek was then leaning over the counter phoning with his shoulders bent beside me.

"I had just stood still when Lawrence Kwek stood beside me. At that time the door had come closed. We were all in the hall.
After Lawrence Kwek came in to stand beside me, he said something in English. I did not understand what he said. He then punched the glass on the door with his right hand and shook his hand from the wrist a few times.
He then said, “Overturn the tables and chairs” and he himself overturned a table with his left hand. We stood there for a while. Lawrence Kwek wanted them to go in. They went in.
At that time I was very frightened. I heard “pomp” once and saw a person kicking the glass from outside."

WP: Other than Lawrence Kwek, were the tables overturned by anyone else?
YL: Yes.
WP: (Where) was Robert Leow and Lin Chin Siew at that time?
YL: They were in the hall too.

“I spoke in Lai in Cantonese that if she doesn’t run, I will run. I then ran out to the door, opened it and walked out.”

WP: Did you notice anything on the floor of the hall as you ran towards the door?
YL: Yes. The overturned tables and chairs. There were also pieces of paper.

“I went to the left after I had crossed the drain. When I was in the field, a Chinese man in his 20’s approached me. He said, “Miss, can I take a picture as a souvenir?” I scolded him. “You don’t take. What picture do you want to take.” He smiled and walked away.

“A few girls came up. One girl (she identified as Kim Hong, one of the USSU students) asked me what happened. I was too frightened and did not say anything immediately. Lai told them that he was the Assistant General Secretary. The short girl asked, “Why did they want to break it like that?” She added, “It appears to me they want to falsely accuse the workers with this matter.” I said, “I don’t know.”

“While we were there another middle-aged man came to talk to us. He left the site at about 12.55 pm.”

“At about 1 pm I went back to work. I spoke to four or five workers and told them about the event at PIEU that morning.”

WP requested for these 4 workers to be his witnesses.

Judge: If you are interested in staying till February, it’s your business.

SG: I object. He is calling these stupid and useless witnesses of his defence to prolong the trial because he knows that he had not handed in his assignments and that he is going to fail.

Raman (lawyer for one of the defendants) strongly protested. He said that these witnesses referred to by Wah Piow were also his witnesses and as such the SG’s suggestion was unfair.

The Judge said he will decide on this later.

Yuet Leng named the four girls as Wu Ching Ying, Wong Chin Liang, Chen Siew Fong and Lee Pui Liang.

“I told them that the Assistant General Secretary at AUPE, Lawrence Kwek broke the glass with his hand. I also told them that after he overturned the table he asked the union officials to overturn the tables and chairs. Lee asked me why they did all those things and I told them them I did not know and that I was very frightened at that time. I also told them about the 10% wage increase.”

Eugenics in a Multiracial Society

2005-07-21T10:25:00.000+08:00

Mr Michael D. Barr, Department of History, University of Queensland, wrote in the Journal of Contemporary Asia v29, n2 (1999) an article titled "Lee Kuan Yew: Race, Culture and Genes."

The thesis claims to be an attempt to "advance their understanding of Singapore's idiosyncratic version of multiracialism by casting new light on the thinking of its primary architect, Mr Lee Kuan Yew."

In it Singapore's multiracialism is said to encourage a high consciousness of one's race even as it insists on tolerance. Detractors allege a covert form of discrimination in favour of the majority Chinese and against the minorities, especially the Malays. It was written at a time when the Singapore government had an unofficial policy of excluding Malays from the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) because of concerns about their loyalty. Malays were not required to serve the mandatory National Service in the Singapore Armed Forces, they were assigned to the Police Special Constabulary or Civil Defence Force. Despite much progress in this area, it was a sobering thought that, in the wake of September 11, the predominantly Malay police security personnel assigned to guard the residences of Singapore's Ministers were replaced by Gurkhas from Nepal.

The section on Cultural Eugenics makes interesting reading:

Quote:

The last plank of Lee's racial logic is his view of cultural eugenics and dysgenics. Lee believes that some cultures have social customs which are naturally eugenic while others are burdened with dysgenic sexual mores. He believes, for instance, that the Catholic Church suffers from a dysgenic culture: "All the bright young men became Catholic priests and did not marry. Bright priests, celibate, produce no children. And the result of several generations of bright Fathers producing no children? Less bright children in the Catholic world."

Of more practical relevance to the development of Lee's politic I thought is his view that the genetic quality of the Malays is low because of their dysgenic Culture. In 1989 Lee confirmed his general agreement with Mahathir Mohamad's The Malay Dilemma, which argued in part: "Malays abhor the state of celibacy. To remain unmarried was and is considered shameful. Everyone must be married at some time or other. The result is that whether a person is fit or unfit for marriage, he or she still marries and reproduces. An idiot or a simpleton is often married off to an old widower, ostensibly to take care of him in his old age. If this is not possible, backward relatives are paired off in marriage. These people survive, reproduce and propagate their species. The cumulative effect of this can be left to the imagination."

Of these and other arguments which purportedly account for the supposed backwardness of Malays, Lee said: "From that book I realised that [Dr Mahathir] believed in it as a medical man - that these were problems of the development of the Malay race, Anthropological problems, and these were strongly-held views. Indeed, I found myself in agreement with three-quarters of his analysis of the problem - that the Malays had always withdrawn from competition and never really entered into the mainstream of economic activity; that the Malays would always get their children or relatives married off regardless of whether it was good or bad."

The Ashkenazi Jews, on the other hand, are among an elite of races which have a thoroughly eugenic culture: "From the 10th to 11th century inEurope, in Ashkenazim, the practice developed of the rabbi becoming the most desirable son-in-law because he is usually the brightest of the flock. ... So he becomes the richest and wealthiest. He marries young, is successful, probably bright. He has large numbers of children and the brightest of the children will become the rabbi and so it goes on."

The Chinese also have benefited from centuries of practising cultural eugenics, though his logic works only if you assume that a person's economic status directly reflects his or her-intelligence and energy: "In the older generations, economies and culture settled it. The pattern of procreation was settled by economics and culture. The richer you are, the more successful you are, the more wives you have, the more children you have. That's the way it was settled. I am the son of a successful chap. I myself am successful, so I marry young and I marry more wives and I have more children. You read Hong Lou Meng, A Dream of the Red Chamber, or you read Jin Ping Mei, and you'll find Chinese society in the 16th, 17th century described. So the successful merchant or the mandarin, he gets the pick of all the rich men's daughters and the prettiest village girls and has probably five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten different wives and concubines and many children. And the poor labourer who's dumb and slow, he's neutered. It's like the lion or the stag that's outside the flock. He has no harems, so he does not pass his genes down. So, in that way, a smarter population emerges."

If Lee believes that this is the natural order of affairs for Chinese, it is no wonder that he raised the possibility of reintroducing polygamy as part of his eugenics programme. Lee's propensity to identify intelligence with economic status seems to have been a deep-seated trait which had been with Lee since childhood. In his old age he told his authorised biographers, "In primary school, I had no trouble doing well. Probably because my fellow students were poor and they were not very bright and advantaged ... I had no trouble staying ahead of the class." It must be acknowledged that Lee was speaking retrospectively, and that his words stop just short of explicitly drawing a direct, let alone a causal link between the economic status of parents and the intelligence of children. His words are not, therefore, unequivocal proof that Lee formed these ideas in childhood. They do, however, suggest that many of his ideas of the elite are built upon the prejudices associated with economic class. For all of Lee's supposed empirical reasoning and his theorising, his elitism and geneticism looks suspiciously like the conceit born of a pampered and privileged childhood.

A Matter of Opinion

2005-07-20T09:37:00.000+08:00

Ms Ho Ching, wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Executive Director of Temasek Holdings chimed in with her own unsolicited full page letter on the NKF saga in the tabloid Today, dated 18th July (my comments in italics):

I write in my personal capacity.

I have been a long-time admirer of the National Kidney Foundation (NKF).

The NKF has been outstanding in supporting kidney and other patients. They and their supporters have been tireless not just in raising funds. They have played a key role in providing life saving dialysis services for kidney patients and more.

They also counsel and sometimes cajole or even berate patients and their families to take responsibility for themselves and make an effort to live.
[What the NKF chairman Richard Yong actually said: 'If you want to die, go and die by yourself; don't come to us'.]

Patients and their families, including their children, are encouraged to work together to contribute to their own support, and not give up.

This helps them retain their self-respect and live their lives confidently as full members of society. I cheer the NKF for this enlightened philosophy.

Taking on a dialysis patient is almost like adopting a chronically and critically ill child. You take responsibility not just to give money at the spur of the moment in a flash of sympathy, or to organise dialysis sessions for the week in a spurt of enthusiasm.

You know that it is a serious life-long commitment of support. You know that any interruption of that support means fear, a loss of hope, and a death sentence of sorts. Many long-time Giro donors understand this.

The NKF has wisely built up strong reserves over the years. It is a sensible and responsible approach. The NKF's fears are understandable. No one likes to have the dreadful responsibility of deciding which patients should live when money dries up in an economic downturn.
[The strong reserves referred to is $262 million. Because patients are required to co-pay part of the dialysis expenses, NKF out of pocket per year is only $7 million per annum, which means they have enough for 30 years without soliciting an additional cent.]

What if 10 per cent or 20 per cent of their patients or their patients' breadwinners lose their jobs in an extended downturn? Surely, you hope to continue dialysis for them even if they cannot co-pay their part?
[Even if NKF were generous enough to subsidize the full cost of dialysis, estimated at $30 million/year, it was shown in court that the reserves will be good for 9 years!]

I would like to recommend that the NKF consider building and managing its reserves as an endowment. It also needs a sufficient buffer to weather a deep recession.

Perhaps this was what it had been trying to do. Perhaps the prolonged years of difficulties during the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s and the earlier brink of the 1985 recession have spurred the frenetic pace of fund raising in recent years.

But this funding model needs to be properly modelled, analysed and communicated.

When the NKF completes its review and puts together its plans, do share them. I am sure Singaporeans and many others share a chord of sympathy for your cause.

On the issue of CEO pay, I believe that even charities ought to be managed professionally. How else can we extend high quality and impactful services including specialist educational and therapy support to those in need? After all, we do not expect CEOs of publicly-funded hospitals to be poorly paid, do we?
[The pay in question is $25,000 a month plus an annual 12 month bonus. Undisclosed to the board and public, there were additional income from several paid directorships each worth up to $25,000/year. How much is enough?]

Indeed, the NKF is more like a community hospital with multiple centres for high-quality, life-long critical care. It operates and manages dialysis centres to provide vital life-saving services at the highest safety levels. It does this with a heart, looking after the emotional and psychological well--being of its patients, too. Taken as a whole, the NKF has certainly done very well for its patients.

True, there will be volunteers, much admired and respected, with independent means who could help charities without having to take a single cent in salary.

There are also others - much loved and lauded - who for religious reasons or perhaps in memory of a parent, child or friend, would give selfless service to others. Society owes them all a debt of gratitude and applauds their spirit of charity.

But we should not then believe that all those involved in charitable causes should in turn be charitable cases themselves.
[The corollary of this is that those involved in charitable organisation should not seek to enrich themselves:
Q. I suggest to you, sir, that contrary to the suggestion in your affidavit indicating that you were making a sacrifice, the truth of the matter is that you wanted a situation where you would have both the benefit of pay from NKF plus the benefit of income outside NKF?
A. If there was a possibility to do so, I would have done so.

Q. So the answer is yes, is it not, that you wanted a situation where you wanted both the benefit of pay from NKF as well as income outside NKF?
A. Yes, that is true.]

Skilled specialists and experienced managers would soon turn to other careers and job opportunities if they cannot earn a living commensurate with their skills and ability. And we would all be the poorer for it as services drop in quality or wither away.

Sometimes, in a life-threatening illness, all the money in the world will not be able to bring a loved one back.

Mr Durai has helped make a difference in the NKF where medical science has offered a lifeline, though at a cost of tireless fund raising for life time dialysis support. I would not begrudge Mr Durai a proper and well-earned compensation and bonus. He probably earned less than what he would have earned if he had continued in his profession as a lawyer.
[Based on his performance in court, many doubt he will be employable in the legal profession. Typical exchange in court:

Q: You are aware, are you not, both as a lawyer and as a result of your many successful libel claims against a number of people … and we will come back to that in a moment … the difference between specific and general charges?
A: I am afraid not.

Q: You are not? Do you not know what the relevance of the word "specific'' is in the context of meaning?
A: Yes.

Q: You do; right? Therefore, you also know the relevance of the word "general'' in the context of meaning?
A: I cannot … I am not very conversant with that.

Q: In other words, if I said that A stole money on 5th July from B, that is a specific charge. Whereas if I said that A is a thief, then it is a general charge. You follow that, do you not?
A: Not exactly.

Q: Sorry?
A: Not exactly.]

Yes, some of the things that Mr Durai has allegedly done rather raise a questioning eyebrow or two. Some may have crossed the line of proper conduct in respect of conflicts of interest as well. If so, they should be corrected.

It is also important to put in place a set of practical governance guidelines to minimise conflicts of interest, especially for an institution of public trust.

While the leadership of a CEO is critical to shape and drive any organisation, it is equally important that the board balances its support and guidance for its CEO, with its fiduciary duty. It has to serve as an impartial guardian of stakeholder interest in a public institution.
[If Durai's testimony under oath is to be believed, the NKF board is very supportive of its CEO:

Q. The position is this, is it not, while you were expected to be and paid as a full-time CEO, you were earning fees outside NKF, which was not disclosed to the NKF or to the public; is that correct?
A. That is correct. The NKF board gave me the liberty of doing so.

Q. Are you saying that the NKF board actually allowed you to do this?
A. Yes, I was given the freedom of doing anything of my own together with my job.]

As a civilised society, we should not lightly condemn anyone in the court of public opinion without the benefit of due process and the right to a fair hearing. Even murderers have that right.
[The due process extended to TT Durai in his defamation suit:

Q. Mr Durai, the consequences are this. If you withdraw, you will expose yourself to a claim for costs because of the withdrawal, and the defendants will be entitled, as a matter of law, to costs unless His Honour rules otherwise.

If you do not withdraw, notwithstanding the state of play and your answers, then, to use a term used in defamation, you aggravate matters and your costs may go up to an indemnity basis. I want to be fair to you to tell you that that is how it might be played out going forward.

Having regard to the questions I have asked you and your answers, having regard to what I have told you about costs, and having regard to his Honour's very fair counsel about you thinking about it, please tell us what your answer is.

A. Your Honour, I will withdraw this claim.]

If there has been corruption or misuse of funds, then let the relevant authorities investigate and take the case through due process for a fair and proper judgment. There may have been errors of judgment. Most of us can accept and forgive this.
[TT Durai sued two individuals for saying he flew First Class on NKF business. Sample of his "error of judgement":
"No, I want to explain because at that point of time I was not travelling or I was not travelling using NKF's monies to buy a first-class airfare ticket. What happened, your honour, when I travelled to a location on a business class airfare, I paid the difference and then travelled on first class. That's what happened during those occasions. When I used to go to Madras, I used to take a night flight. The difference in price was only $50. I paid the difference myself and travelled and came. So the NKF did not pay for my full...for a first class airfare ticket at that point of time."]

On the other hand, we should resolutely guard against those with serious faults of character and not put them into positions of trust. But let's be fair and keep an open mind, and give the benefit of doubt until the full facts are known.

These deliberations and decisions have important long-term considerations and impact. They should be taken calmly and steadily, away from the acid of hate and anger of betrayal.

Understandably, many feel betrayed. They feel they have been deceived into making donations of hard-earned money. However, this is no excuse for vandalising the NKF facilities, or heaping abuse on NKF staff. Two wrongs won't make a right.
[Does the end justify the means? On Thursday 14th July, the NKF CEO and board approached Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan for "advice" on how to respond to the public anger. Without mincing words, Mr Khaw told them: "The status quo will not do." When asked if they should step down so that a new board and CEO could be appointed, he replied, "This would certainly be very helpful."]

Let us not forget there are real patients who continue to need dialysis support. I urge the staff of NKF to continue to support them well, and not let this wave of fury shake them from their mission and professionalism to serve their patients well.

I am sure it would be a tremendous comfort to both the patients and their caregivers if the rest of us can keep calm and give them our moral support.

Finally, whatever the transgressions or shortcomings, I want to put on record my deep gratitude for Mr Durai and the NKF and their supporters, including numerous donors, media artistes and volunteers as well as board members and patron.
[Among his supporters were Mrs Goh Chok Tong, the senior minister's wife, who defended Mr Durai's salary, saying,
“For a person who runs a million-dollar charitable organisation, S$600,000 is peanuts as [NKF] has a few hundred millions in reserves.”]

Together, they have been tireless in their efforts and contributions all these years to make a difference in the lives of many kidney patients in need.

I do hope that every one of us, including Mr Durai and the NKF, will emerge the stronger, wiser and better from this serious and unfortunate setback.

I am also grateful to all the volunteers and professionals working in the various other voluntary welfare organisations. They too have given tireless and dedicated service of time, effort, money, love and emotions, to the young and old, to those sickly and in need, in their respective worthy causes.

Whatever their faults and foibles, the volunteers, staff and professionals in our VWOs have collectively given hope to many amongst us, and made this island a better place.

In turn, I hope Singaporeans and my fellow men will join me too in supporting them, and show them our generosity and warmth of the human spirit.

Many drops an ocean make, and many hands will lighten the load. On my part, I will continue to donate to the NKF and other favourite charities.

The Aftermath Of Disgust

2005-07-14T08:58:00.000+08:00

SO DISGUSTING
By Low Ching Ling and Celine Lim
The New Paper, July 14, 2005

The vile words were splashed in bold red on the white walls of the building.

In what was a bold public display of disgust against the National Kidney Foundation and CEO T T Durai, someone - or some people - sprayed paint on the outer walls of its Kim Keat Road headquarters early this morning.

The New Paper rushed down at about 6am after a reader noticed the vandalism and called our hotline. A wall of red graffiti greeted us. On one part of the outer front wall were the words 'NKF=liar' written in English, and 'big liar' in Chinese - all spray-painted in bold. The word 'liar' was also written in bold on every alternate pillar. The culprits also vandalised the side of the building with the words 'Save Singapore' and 'Liar'.

A motorcyclist who was delivering newspapers was overheard uttering: 'Now the whole world knows.'

Said police spokesman Debbie See: 'At 5.20am, the police received a call about graffiti on the walls of the (NKF) building. 'We're still investigating.'

The graffiti invited curious stares from morning joggers and passers-by. An SBS Transit bus driver even stopped his bus for about a minute to look. A jogger who declined to be named said: 'The people who did this are very daring. The building is along the main road and they might have been seen.'

Cabby C W Heng, 50, who lives nearby, felt it was a juvenile act.
'They destroyed the property and the NKF will have to use public funds to fix it. If they want to express their unhappiness, they can write to the newspaper forum or call the radio station. It's a barbaric act.'

NKF spokesman Michelle Ang said security guards were informed about the vandalism some time after 5am by police officers. She had left the building some time after midnight and did not see any
graffiti then. The graffiti has since been removed, but Ms Ang was not able to say when and by whom.

She said: 'It's very unfortunate this has happened. Whatever the public read about the court proceedings is only one side of the story. 'We really hope they won't forget what the NKF has achieved in the provision of dialysis and in helping kidney patients over the years.' Ms Ang confirmed that some donors are planning to cancel their contributions to NKF. The staff have also received abusive calls from angry donors.

Cries of anger and threats to cancel donations to NKF rang out in one Shenton Way office yesterday when the news broke of Mr Durai being paid $25,000 a month. Mrs D Sim, 50, an administrator, said: 'Everybody in my office wanted to stop their monthly Giro payments to NKF as we were so angry.'

We spoke to nine people and the general feeling was that the public's trust in NKF has been badly shaken. At least five were upset with Mr Durai's salary and how NKF spends its money. Property agent Ray Lee, 40, said: 'NKF is always educating the public that every single cent counts. But I didn't know how the money I donated was used. Now it has come to light.'

Despite feeling disgruntled over Mr Durai's 10-to-12-month bonus, Mr Lim M O, 50, a businessman, will continue his yearly donations of $50 as his late mother had kidney problems.

Mr Saravanan M Govindasamy, 35, a prisons officer, will wait for NKF's explanation before deciding his next move. He said: 'We can't penalise the needy, sick people out there who need our donations.'

On Day Three 3,800 members of the public withdrew their donations from the NKF, and an online petition demanding the resignation of TT Durai drew 30,000 signatures on the first day.

On Day Four, the beleaguered NKF CEO and his entire board resigned. Durai, true to his characteristic liberty with facts, told reporters he was stepping down after 30 years for new blood to take over. The surprise element was that Patron Mrs Goh Chok Tong also decided to step down, adding fodder to the rumour mill.

Skeletons in NKF Cupboard

2005-07-12T11:00:00.000+08:00

On April 11 1997, in a casual conversation with Mr Alwyn Lim (then NKF volunteer and current Vice-President) at the former Marco Polo Hotel, Mr Archie Ong Liang Gay, a former volunteer of the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and real estate consultant, commented that NKF "squandered monies" and that Mr T T Durai, its Chief Executive Officer, "jets here and there in first class".

Durai and five members of the NKF Executive Committee successfully sued Mr Ong for slander on the basis that his remarks could damage the credibility of NKF and Durai, its CEO since 1992.

Mr Ong, in a public apology published on 18 April 1998, had to withdraw his remarks which allegedly implied that:

1. The NKF, which is a charitable organisation supported by the public, has squandered monies received from members of the public intended for the purpose of the NKF; and

2. Mr Durai as CEO of the NKF, travels on NKF business in first class and thus squanders NKF monies.

As compensation, Mr Ong had to pay the legal costs of the two suits against him. In another case in December 1998 NKF also took legal action in Singapore courts against aero-modelling instructor Piragasam Singaravelu, who said he had seen Durai in the Singapore Airlines (SIA)first-class cabin. Mr Singaravelu had to pay $22,000 in damages and another $10,000 for the apology notices.

On Day One of NKF's defamation suit against Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), for an article by senior correspondent Susan Long published on April 19 2004, which stated that a $900 gold-plated tap had been installed and later replaced in the private bathroom of his penthouse office suite, on the 12th floor of the $21 million building, Mr Durai, under questioning by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, admitted he had flown first class on some airlines.

His explanation: The NKF board allowed this as long as he did not bust the Singapore Airlines business-class rate.

Mr Singh countered: "Isn't it your duty as a trustee of people's monies to make sure that you get best value on a business-class seat instead of deploying this clever tactic... using it for first class on another plane?"

Mr Durai replied: "This is a decision made by the board. I used the entitlement." The entitlement, he added, kicked in only in the past two years. Previously, when he flew first class, he had paid the difference out of his own pocket, he maintained.

Mr Singh noted that although he now flew first class, Mr Durai did not correct his chairman Richard Yong's assertion in the April 19 2004 article that "there is no such thing as first-class travel".

"The reason you hide the truth is because you know that that is the wrong thing to do, using people's money, and you know that is mismanagement of donations."

Mr Durai was asked if he should now "do the right thing" by the two individuals who had paid him damages and costs for saying what he had now admitted in court. He said no, sticking to his claim that at that time, he did not travel first class using NKF funds and when he did so, he paid the difference himself.

The NKF, which is entirely dependent on public funds, offers dialysis treatment to kidney patients. Two out of every three Singaporeans contribute to it.

Gasps could be heard in the courtroom when it was revealed that on top of his $25,000 a month salary, the NKF CEO also received 10 to 12 months in yearly bonuses. That makes his annual salary between $550,000 and $600,000, or $1.8 million in total over the past three years, 2002 to 2004, a period when thousands of Singaporeans lost their jobs due to the economic recession and disastrous job retructuring exercises.

Mr Singh told the court he had on previous occasions asked Mr Durai three times, twice in court, to disclose this closedly guarded secret of the National Kidney Foundation. Mr Durai argued that he was not required by law to tell the public what he earned, even though he conceded that they paid his salary. Also, he wanted to protect his personal privacy.

Mr Singh asked: "The man who earns $1,000 a month who donates $50... every month thinking that it is going to save lives, should they not know that that is the kind of money you earn?"

Replied Mr Durai: "I don't see the need for him to know." He denied Mr Singh's charge that he refused to disclose his salary as he knew he would lose moral authority with donors.

Singaporeans are familiar with the glitzy NKF Fund raising charity shows which feature television personalities in "death defying" acts like climbing on a ladder of swords. But NKF's bread and butter is the $3 to $5 monthly Giro donations from about one million ordinary Singaporeans. With such a big base of small heartland givers - its website says nearly two out of every three Singaporeans are donors - the pennies add up. Incredulity greeted news of its amazing $189 million in reserves when it was revealed during the 35th anniversary celebration on April 7, 2004.

Even when administering its dialysis and patient rehabilitation programmes, the NKF approach is not without controversy.

NKF demands that patients co-pay for dialysis, hold down jobs and stick to their diet - or pay more. Patients' fees, for example, are reduced by $50 to $100 as an incentive, if they find a job, get promoted, tie the knot, give birth, or even when their school-going children score A grades.

Each patient is admitted for life - or until they are lucky enough to get a kidney transplant. Chairman Mr Yong says patients themselves pay from nothing to $800 each month for three-times-a-week dialysis which would cost at least $3,000 each month outside.

As Mr Yong says: "We don't dialyse them to go home and sleep. We want them to have jobs, bring home the bacon, contribute to the economy, have normal relations with their spouses and their children to do well in school. We say openly to them: 'If you want to die, go and die by yourself; don't come to us'."

As a result, 93 per cent of NKF dialysis patients work, support their families and lead productive lives, compared to less than 60 per cent worldwide.

The general philosophy, at least for patients, is: No free rides.

On the second day of hearing, TT Durai withdrew his suit against SPH and ended the court case dramatically when more revelations put to challenge the transparency that NKF claims to maintain:
- Durai had 4 to 5 paid directorships (each paying up to $25,000 per annum) not disclosed to the board;
- Durai had undisclosed commercial dealings with an ex-NKF female employee and current board member whose company he invested in sold call centre services to NKF;
- Durai admitted NKF only had 2000 patients, not bothering to correct the 3000 figure used by NKF;
- Durai had 8 cars at his disposal, yet the road tax, repairs and maintenance of his private Mercedes 200 was charged to NKF.

Tony And The Slapping Incident

2005-07-01T15:30:00.000+08:00

Tony Tan was party to the much talked about "slapping incident", publicly aired for the first time in Goh Chok Tong's 2003 National Day Speech, and documented on page 150 of Ross Worthington's book "Governance in Singapore", Publisher: Taylor & Francis, Inc, Dec 2002:

"A major issue that has shaped bureaucratic/ministerial relationships for much of the past 10 years is the place and power of Lee Hsien Loong within the ministry and his possible future. While Lee has many supporters, he has also alienated many because of what is seen as his arrogance and the autonomy he demonstrates in his relationship with other cabinet ministers; characteristics which, seven years after he joined the cabinet under Goh's sponsorship, he had not curbed. One significant example of this was consistently reported by several respondents.

In 1990, an incident occurred in a pre-cabinet meeting which was the beginning of entrenching further among the many in the core executive, resistance to Lee Hsien Loong's long term ambitions for prime ministership.

Prior to this meeting Lee Hsien Loong had gone to the office of Richard Hu, the Minister of Finance, and removed a number of files without Hu's permission. At that time Lee's office was on the 48th floor of what is now Temasek Tower and Hu's was on the 50th floor. At the pre-cabinet meeting Hu took Lee to task for doing this and was supported by Tony Tan.

Lee's response was aggressive and insulting, he directly insulted Tan and Hu, a man of his father's age. This was a double insult to Hu, who was Lee's superior in cabinet and a person of an age who should of itself deserve respect in Chinese society.

Suppiah Dhanabalan intervened and chastised Lee for his behaviour, demanding that he apologise to Hu, withdraw his remarks and not interfere in other minister's portfolios. A heated exchange occurred into which a number of other issues intruded and eventually Lee lost his temper, and reportedly reached across the table and slapped Dhanabalan across the face. This caused an uproar in the cabinet and Lee was severely chastised by Goh Chok Tong. Dhanabalan stormed out of the room and did not return for some time. Lee, in response to a demand from Goh, subsequently apologised to Dhanabalan, Hu and Tan.

Hu, Dhanabalan and Tan all initially stated that they would leave the cabinet as a result of this incident. Goh later took up the matter with Lee Kuan Yew who reportedly verbally thrashed his son over the matter. This was apparently followed by a more sober, educational but equally critical assessment from Lee Hsien Loong's mother, a talented though background political adviser. Lee Kuan Yew reportedly met later that day with Hu, Tan and Dhanabalan apologised for his son's behaviour and requested that they not resign, supported by a similar request from Goh Chok Tong.

All held out for some time, but eventually Hu agreed to stay, but Dhanabalan and Tan both resolved to leave. This they did the following August 1991 elections, all without a public word against Lee Hsien Loong, continuing to subscribe to the tenet of all secrets staying within the PAP family."

Tony Tan was Lee Kuan Yew's first choice to be his successor. After his resignation, he returned to banking to run the Overseas Chinese Banking Corporation.

In 1992, Lee Hsien Loong was diagnosed with lymphoma, but was pronounced cured after two years of treatment. B.G. Lee told reporters that when he fell ill, it is claimed he advised Goh Chok Tong to bring in Tony Tan to strengthen the cabinet. On June 28, 1995 Goh announced that the PAP's 55-year-old chairman, Tony Tan, would become a Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister.

Office Of The President Of Singapore

2005-07-01T14:51:00.000+08:00

With the coming end of S R Nathan's term in August, the race is supposed to be running hot for the next elected president. Fresh fodder for the rumour mill comes from the extension of the date for Tony Tan's stepping down from his DPM post. Tony Tan, 64, had planned to retire when Lee Hsien Loong became prime minister in August 2004, but he was asked to stay on till 30th June 2005 to complete his assignment in home security.

The following extracts from an extended interview with the late President Ong Teng Cheong (OTC) in Asiaweek dated March 10, 2000 provide rare insight about what the job entails:

How are the President's duties spelt out?

OTC: At the first opening of parliament after I was elected, I was given a speech prepared by the government. I read the speech carefully. Besides ceremonial functions, it said that I'm supposed to safeguard the reserves and to help society become more compassionate and gracious. So I decided that, well, if that is what is said in the speech, then that's going to be my job. And I am going to do it. That's what I tried to do. In fact, during the six years I was president, I was very busy.

What does an Elected President do?

OTC: Well, I got involved in a lot of things. The Istana presidential palace and other places had to be renovated. All this had to be planned and these places got ready one by one, so that ceremonial functions and other business could go on as usual. I had to press the government to finalize the procedures for the protection of the reserves. A lot of the teething problems and misunderstandings were because there was a lack of clearcut procedures ofwhat to do. Towards the end of my term, I pressed the prime minister for a White Paper to be tabled in parliament that would set out all the principles and procedures for the elected president. Then I will announce my decision to step down. I want to get the job done.
The thing is that the elected president is supposed to protect the reserves, but he was not told what these are until five years later. From the day the Constitution was amended in 1991 to provide for an elected president, he was supposed to fulfil that role. My predecessor, Wee Kim Wee, although he was not elected, was supposed to play that role during the last two years of his term. But he did not actively check. So, when I came in in 1993, I asked for all this information about the reserves. It took them three years to give it to me.

How much is a President told?

OTC: I do not know. Don't ask me, because I don't have the answer. I've been asking them. In fact, in 1996, exactly halfway through my term, I wrote prime minister Goh a letter. At that time, everybody was expecting a general election in December or January. After the election, a new government would be sworn in. When that happens, all the reserves, whether past or current, become past reserves and are locked up on the changeover date. As president, I have to safeguard them and they can only be drawn upon with my permission. So I said to Mr Goh: It's already halfway through my term, but until today I still don't know all these figures about the reserves.

Is the President kept informed of developments?

OTC: I wouldn't be able to say that. Even in my last year as president, I was still not being informed about some ministerial procedures. For example, in April last year, the government said it would allow the sale of the Post Office Savings Bank POSB to DBS Bank. In the past, when there was no elected president, they could just proceed with this kind of thing. But when there is an elected president you cannot, because the POSB is a statutory board whose reserves are to be protected by the president. You cannot just announce this without informing him. But I came to know of it from the newspaper. That is not quite right. Not only that, but they were even going to submit a bill to parliament for this sale and to dissolve the POSB without first informing me.