Pseudonymity

A Change of Address

2006-11-23T09:00:00.000+08:00

Those who have followed my blog would know that I had spent a month from July-Aug'06 experimenting over at Wordpress.com before returning to Blogger. I was still fiddling with my Wordpress blog while I was blogging over here. I guess I couldn't get it off my system. I've decided to go back to my Wordpress blog to give it another go. ;-)

Please point your links & feeds to this URL: http://pseudonymity.wordpress.com/

At present I've not updated my Wordpress blog with new posts but I will be doing so very soon. I'm just doing some cleaning-up & updating over there.

I would like to thank the people who have "switched" back & forth with me for their understanding & patience. Sorry for any inconvenience caused okay people!! And welcome to future readers who stumble upon or get referred to my blog. :-)

25 Nov@7.52pm update: Heads-up folks!! I've started blogging over at my wordpress blog. I've started over there with a bit of sex in the city and a video message by Chee Soon Juan from prison. ;-)

Light a candle for innocent victims of online child pornography

2006-11-17T20:15:00.001+08:00

There's a 4yr old girl in my block whom I see almost everyday. She plays in the corridor. She's chubby, cute and very friendly. Whenever she sees me she'll give a smile that can warm any heart.

One day I saw her sitting on the steps looking dejected. I sat next to her and asked why she looked so unhappy. And she told me, Blossom had left the Powerpuff Girls. She was obviously distressed. So I told her to watch the next episode 'cos I believed Blossom will get back with Bubbles & Buttercup. She felt a bit better after that.

But I was also very worried and concerned for her 'cos whenever I see her she's playing alone outside her house. Out of sight from her mom. I found that very disturbing as it only takes a blink of an eye for a kid to disappear either on his/her own or taken by somebody else. So whenever I see her I tell her to be very careful and not stray far from her house.

I thought about this incident when I came across this campaign for innocent victims of online child pornography. Click the banner below.........................

Watch CNN report on LEEs vs FEER

2006-11-17T00:02:00.001+08:00

I didn't catch this CNN report recently so my thanx to t3htarik who posted this on YouTube. Its about the defamation lawsuit brought against the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) by Singapore's first & current Prime Ministers, father & son, Lee Kuan Yew & Lee Hsien Loong. Refer to FEER Saga in the sidebar on your right about this case. For now here's the CNN report.........

S'pore ranks 105th in the world in terms of income equality

2006-11-16T23:28:00.001+08:00

Singapore's tax proposals add to worries over its great divide
By John Burton in Singapore, Financial Times
Published: November 15 2006

Plans by Singapore to raise its sales tax while lowering corporate taxes have added fuel to a debate over an income gap that is becoming the city-state's biggest economic and political problem.

Although Singapore is Asia's richest country after Japan on a per capita basis, it ranks 105th in the world in terms of income equality, based on United Nations data.

The income disparity poses a political threat to the long-ruling government of the People's Action party, which lost votes in the last election in May over the issue.

Singapore has long resisted introducing a full-scale social welfare system, saying it would sap workers of initiative. "But it has got to the stage where they realise that they need to build a secure social welfare net. That's a breakthrough," said Manu Bhaskaran of the Centennial Group, an economic consultancy.

Lee Hsien Loong, prime minister, this week said Singapore would increase its sales tax from 5 per cent to7 per cent to help finance more government spending for the poor while suggesting corporate tax rates would be cut to enhance the country's competitiveness in attracting foreign investment.

The proposals have not gone down well with the public, judging by postings on the internet, the main forum of local debate given Singapore's state-controlled media. A frequent complaint is that an increased sales tax would hit low-income groups the hardest.

"A consumption tax is regressive," said Song Seng Wun, regional economist with CIMB-GK Research in Singapore. "Inflation is higher for the bottom 20 per cent of the population, at 2.2 per cent against the Singapore average of 0.5 per cent."

But Mr Bhaskaran believes that the government might try to tailor social welfare spending to minimise the impact of the tax on the poor. "It depends on what offsets the government offers," he said.

Mr Lee said the government would "tilt the playing field in favour of low-income groups" by offering education and housing grants, and wage subsidies.

The government blames the growing income disparity on the effects of globalisation affecting its open economy. The income gap is now at its widest since independence in 1965, with a noticeable deterioration since the late 1980s. There are worries the gap could widen further due to an ageing population and Singapore's low birth rate.

Pay for low-skilled workers has fallen. Singapore does not have a minimum wage or comprehensive unemployment insurance and a large influx of temporary foreign workers has put downward pressure on wages. The government says its stance is necessary to keep Singapore competitive against low-cost countries in the region.

Most welfare costs are taken care of by a mandatory savings scheme that pays for mortgages and healthcare as well as pensions. But workers who contributed to the system when wages were low are finding it difficult to survive in retirement as living costs have risen sharply.

Mr Lee said Singapore could not afford to adopt a Scandinavian-style welfare system because it would drive up costs and "no investments will come".

Instead, Singapore is expected to adhere to its current model of combining targeted government welfare support with efforts by private charities to provide additional aid to the needy.

The government believes continued economic growth will eventually benefit low-income groups. "I don't see the income gap widening forever," said Mr Lee.

But some economists ask whether a higher sales tax may harm efforts to attract more tourists, since prices tend to be higher already than neighbouring Malaysia or Thailand.

Opposition groups say Singapore can afford to spend more on its poor since the government's financial reserves are among the largest in the world when measured against gross domestic product.

Each day is a struggle

2006-11-14T15:07:00.001+08:00

I've not been blogging much lately as much as I would like to. Not that there isn't anything to blog about. Man that would be the day!!! :-)

But I still keep up with the news and goings-on from several sources. Be it the Internet especially local blogs, et.al. and as usual I "cautiously" read and watch the local news. I say "cautiously" 'cos the local news media being what it is, in bed with the ruling party, and the bias stinks like shit especially its coverage of domestic politics, etc, etc.

I've mentioned before I'm an average joe....wait...make that a below average Singaporean trying to survive each day as best I can. I don't go out much. Heck, I haven't stepped into a cinema in ages!! Except for those obscenely highly paid ruling party ministers; the rich "elite" and those who generally have money to burn, most Singaporeans will agree that stepping out of the house can pretty quickly burn a hole in your pocket!! Unless of course you're just going to the park or beach or even downstairs your neighbourhood for a walk or something. Come to think of it, even then you still spend some money!! :( :)

With each day a struggle to get by, I'm just too exhausted physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually.

Doesn't mean I'm gonna stop blogging or anything. Well, my apologies if this is too depressing a post but I thought of just sharing my thoughts. ;-)

Web's love affair with blogging

2006-11-09T14:10:00.001+08:00

Blogosphere sees healthy growth
BBC News Online
Nov 8, 2006

The web's love affair with blogging shows no signs of abating according to the latest report from blog tracking firm Technorati.

Every day 100,000 new blogs are created and 1.3 million posts are made, it found during its quarterly survey.

Postings intensify around significant events such as the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in the summer.

There has also been an increase in the number of blogs being written in the Farsi language.

Farsi - a Persian language spoken in Iran and Afghanistan - has moved into the top ten languages of the blogosphere for the first time.

"It indicates that blogging continues to play a critical role in debates about the important issues of our time" said David Sifry, the founder of Technorati.

Technorati is now tracking more than 57 million blogs, of which it believes around 55% are 'active' - updated at least every three months.

While the daily figure of 100,000 new weblogs is down on the 160,000 total from June 2006 it does not indicate a slowdown in growth rates.

It just means that more spamblogs or splogs - fake blogs used for promotion of affiliated websites - are being filtered out of the index.

Technorati ranks blogs depending on how many sites link to it. The blogging elite - weblogs which have more than 500 other blogs linking to them - number about 4,000.

Many of these blogs have been in existence for several years and tend to have new posts at least twice a day.

"Some of these are fully-fledged professional enterprises that post many, many times per day and behave increasingly like our friends in the mainstream media. The impact of these bloggers on our cultures and democracies is increasingly dramatic," said Mr Sifry.

English and Japanese remain the two most popular languages in the blogosphere. Despite problems for bloggers in China, Chinese remains at number three.

While the above report is about the blogosphere as a whole, here's an abstract from a paper written by James Gomez about democracy and the Internet in Singapore.............

Although the issue of political expression by ordinary internet users in Singapore has received the attention of some scholars, very little has been specifically written on the impact of their use during general elections in the city-state.

Since the arrival of the internet in Singapore in 1995, the People’s Action Party (PAP) government has actively sought to control the supply of political content by internet users during election time.

This paper looks at how online political expression and the regulations to control it have shaped up during the last three general elections in 1997, 2001 and 2006. In absolute electoral terms there seems to have been no impact over the last three general elections.

However, as a supplementary medium for alternative information during elections, the internet has made some headway. It remains to be seen if this headway will have an impact on the absolute electoral results in future elections or become the target of more control.....continue reading

In his own words - WP member's resignation

2006-11-09T10:42:00.000+08:00

Goh Meng Seng, who was part of the Workers' Party's Aljunied GRC team which contested in the 2006 General Election, has resigned from the party. The news of his resignation is not on the scale of Donald Rumsfeld's but nevertheless I was quite surprised.

What follows is Goh Meng Seng's reasons for his resignation in his own words. In his clarification, he refers to two reports by TODAY & Straits Times who are part of the pro-PAP govt news media. Nonetheless for the benefit of readers, I've re-produced both the reports below......

My Resignation from Workers' Party

I did not expect to write this so soon as I wanted to wait until the present parliamentary sitting is over before I make any public statement on my resignation which I think is not news worthy at all, but may be a distraction to Sylvia Lim's maiden speech in parliament.

Anyway, for some reason, the ST reporter got to know about it sooner than I desire. I granted the interview with the view that it is better to make it clear right from the start rather than allowing the reporter to write with all sorts of speculations in mind.

The following are just some facts that I need to clarify:

1) I resigned from Workers' Party on the day when the misinformation of I threatening to sue an internet forummer was reported in Today. This is due to my private assessment on the damage done to WP's public image despite the fact that I have clarified the facts on the matter to the Today's reporter. I guess Today will never make any reports on misinformation about any PAP MPs or ministers with their clarifications put side by side. Well, this is life in Singapore.

2) For some reasons, ST chose not to report the specific reason I gave them about the damage done by the Today's report on the misinformation (though with my clarifications by the side).

3) Neverthless, damage has been done on WP's image. I have talked about the importance of accountability for all my adult life and I think in view of the situation then, I will have to practice what I preach. It is a matter of personal integrity to me. If I do not practice what I preach, on what moral grounds do I stand when I question the ruling party about accountability in their governance?

4) This is the reason that I resigned. The speculation proposed by the ST reporter that I quit because I am unhappy about the rules which are going to be implemented (over internet engagement) is totally unfounded. It is only healthy that people have diverse views about anything in a political party. The most important thing is that, at the end of the day, we will come to a consensus and move on from there. It would be a total disaster for a political party to have members agreeing 100% on everything everytime.

5) None of the CEC members have requested me to resign over this matter. In actual fact, some has tried in private to convince me to stay on. My heart felt thanks to them but I think it is an important political point to be made.

6) For those people who like to speculate all sorts of things and come up with all sorts of conspiracy theory, they will be very disappointed. This is a simple resignation over a simple reason.

The most common reaction from people is that I am quitting politics altogether. Some will be relieved and some will be disappointed to learn that this is definitely not the case. ;)

My political vision and dream is to work towards an alternative political system for Singapore, to initiate positive change or reform to Singapore's political system. Joining a political party to provide meaningful political competition to the ruling party is merely one of the many ways or possibilities in achieving this goal.

I have written in this blog about the delimma between the choices of partisan politics and NGO's role of creating more political awareness among the populace. In order for the reform to the political system to be successful, it will need the backing and support of Singaporeans. This could only achieve when the political consciousness and awareness of our citizens are raised to a certain level.

Beside exploring the idea of forming or joining NGO, I have even explored into the possibilities of forming an independent alternative private think tank for all alternative parties. Political parties need policy research capabilities in order to perform their duties effectively. PAP, as the ruling party, has the support of the government funded think tanks to provide them this policy research capabilities. Alternative parties are deprived of such much needed resources.

I could even help out any political parties in various areas so to help the system grows. There are so many other ways one could contribute to the ultimate aim of reforming the political system beside standing in the frontline as a candidate during GE.

Of course, I may not discount the possibility of joinging any political party again or even form my own political party in future, but I think there are so many options available for anybody who want to do their part in initiating changes to the political landscape!

Goh Meng Seng

An update: An intense debate & discussion is taking place here at Sammyboy.com.
**********
Workers' Party netiquette comes under fire

TODAY, Wednesday • October 25, 2006

Tor Ching Li
chingli@mediacorp.com.sg

SOME Workers' Party members have recently become entangled in an Internet forum "brawl", with mudslinging and name-calling aplenty — to the extent of sparking a thread on the Young People's Action Party online forum entitled "WP members being complained (sic) on internet forums". This has garnered more than 80 postings since Oct 14.

One netizen, Mohammad Razari — who claims to be a third-year Singapore Polytechnic electrical engineering student residing in Hougang Ave 1 and says he is a former participant in WP's outreach programmes — sent a complaint letter to WP chairman Sylvia Lim and secretary-general Low Thia Khiang, citing what he thought to be unacceptable online conduct by WP members such as party webmaster Goh Meng Seng.

He said Mr Goh, a computer retail businessman, was narrow-minded to have called a forum participant "scheming" and "lacking in integrity" after "losing an argument". He also thought Mr Goh had threatened to sue another forum participant for implying that Mr Goh visited the www.sggirls.com forum.

In general, WP members were accused of being "argumentative", attempting to "sow discord" between various party supporters and even of taking the guise of online "clones" — or posting replies under alternative usernames — to "influence perception".

These online rumblings are reflected on Sammyboy threads called "Complaint letter to WP Central Executive Committee" and "Any respond (sic), follow up from Sylvia and WP?" with more than 40 and nearly 200 postings respectively.

When approached by Today for a response, Mr Goh clarified he had "categorically said (he) will not sue" the forum participant for his misinformed statement. He explained the SG Girls forum shared the same database as www.sgforums.com, and that he does not frequent the former site.

As for his harsh words used on the forum participant, Mr Goh said: "What I said could have been harsh but you have to look at it in context. People who argue with me will find me argumentative. But since his agenda is questionable, I am not going to engage him in discussions any more."

Mr Goh, who has been active in the forum scene since 2003, said he still thinks Internet forums are a good venue to answer critics and eventually win them over. Nevertheless, he added that postings on such freewheeling forums "have to be taken with a pinch of salt".

As with all things online, not every posting can be taken at face value. WP Youth Wing president Perry Tong recently filed a police report after someone impersonated his identity on the Sammyboy online forums — also on Oct 14, coincidentally.

In the impersonated posting, "Perry Tong" sent WP member "Melvin Tan" a message that read: "We must keep 'forumers' here constantly updated about WP activities. Keep clear of mudslinging and personal attacks. I have already instructed Meng Seng and Andrew to stop."

In an email response to Today, WP chairman Ms Lim said: "We are aware that there is activity in the Sammyboy forums involving WP members. Such communications are engaged in the personal capacity of the members concerned as we have not appointed any official spokesman for Internet communications. The official position of the party is to be found on our website and official statements issued."

Ms Lim added the party is reviewing some existing "general guidelines" for office bearers regarding Internet communications, "with a view to issuing some guidelines to all members".

In view of the online backlash to WP's presence, Internet observer Siew Kum Hong said: "One really has to be very disciplined and restrained when participating in such forums. If one engages long enough in such a medium, it is inevitable there will be a backlash from the community. It's then a question of how one deals with it. This is probably why you don't see the PAP MPs engaging in such Internet forums."

In channels such as blogs or websites — which are employed by PAP MPs, such as the www.p65.sg site — one can control one's message and how one chooses to engage the public, he said.

Nanyang Technological University Associate Professor in Political Science, Prof Ho Khai Leong believes both extremes — that of the MPs' aim to "reach, teach and preach" and the netizens' mission to "analyse, scrutinise and criticise" — will help mould cyberspace.

He said: "Both these approaches, in their extreme forms, will no doubt invite criticisms, which I think is healthy. As political blogs and bloggers and forumers mature and become more mundane — as we are seeing in many blogs — the more serious and thoughtful blogs and forums will make the more absurd and outlandish ones irrelevant in our everyday discourse of politics in cyberspace."
**********
Senior WP member quits over Net fracas

Senior Workers' Party member Goh Meng Seng takes responsibility for tarnishing the party's reputation by making critical remarks against online forum participant

Straits Times, Wednesday, November 8, 2006

By Peh Shing Huei & Ken Kwek

Senior Workers' Party member Goh Meng Seng has quit the party, taking responsibility for Internet postings he said had tarnished the WP's reputation.

"I need to be accountable for it," said the 36-year-old, who was part of the WP's Aljunied team in the last polls.

However, sources say he was also unhappy with impending party guidelines to curtail members' postings on the Internet, a claim he denied.

Mr Goh, an active netizen, had attracted brickbats recently on online forums for harsh language, calling a forum participant "scheming" and "lacking in integrity."

A netizen even fired a letter to party chairman Sylvia Lim, complaining about WP members' online behaviour.

Mr Goh told The Straits Times yesterday: "It has created a bad image for the party and the party must come first. Someone must be accountable."

He stressed that he was not pushed out of the party and that his comrades had asked him to stay.

His resignation two weeks ago came as a shock to party members. He was a central executive committee (CEC) member and part of the WP's "A team" led by Ms Lim, which claimed 43.9 per cent of the valid votes in Aljunied GRC during May's General Election.

Mr Goh, who joined the WP in 2001, said it was not an easy decision to quit. "I may not be a veteran who has been with the party for over 40 years. But there is still an emotional attachment," he said.

"I have no regrets," he said repeatedly, adding in Mandarin: "Tian xia mei you bu san zhi yan xi." The Chinese proverb he quoted states that there is no banquet in this world that lasts forever.

He said he has not thought of joining another opposition party and will still help out with WP activities.

Ms Lim told The Straits Times last night the party is "always sad to lose people."

Added WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang: "I have to respect his choice. I respect the individual's choice, and he has made his contributions to the party in the past." He did not want to elaborate on the reasons behind Mr Goh's departure.

On the party's Internet guidelines, he said: 'There was some feedback from younger members of the party who are active on the Internet, that perhaps we should have certain "netiquette."

"Since it's something from the ground that younger members would like to see, the CEC will take it up and see what is the best we can come up with."

Defendants boycott trial in kangaroo court

2006-11-08T21:21:00.001+08:00

Media Release: Defendants boycott trial
SDP
8 Nov 2006

This statement was read out by Mr Gandhi Ambalam in court today.

We, the Defendants, wish to make the following statement:

Under Article 12 of Republic of Singapore Constitution, citizens are entitled to a fair trial and equal treatment under the law. In this trial you, Judge Eddy Tham, have ruled on dozens of occasions that our questions to Prosecution witnesses irrelevant. This has prevented us from adducing evidence to establish our defence on two fronts:

One, that the police have acted at the behest of the PAP to victimize us for our election activity on 22 April 2006. By preventing us from cross-examining the police witnesses on this matter, we are unable to show that we have been discriminated against and victimized by the PAP.

Two, that the police have no intention to grant a permit on any occasion for outdoors political speeches. Thus we cannot be accused of not having a permit. By disallowing our questions to elicit information from the police about this matter, the Judge has effectively undermined our defence and passed a guilty verdict.

These and other decisions and actions by Judge Eddy Tham clearly show that we are not receiving a fair trial. We have no reason to expect that an appeal will make any difference.

In the circumstances, we are left with no choice but to boycott the rest of the trial. We will therefore not participate in the remainder of the proceedings and will remain silent to protest our treatment in this Court.

Signed,
Gandhi Ambalam
Chee Soon Juan
Yap Keng Ho

8 November 2006

Depeche Mode: Going strong after more then 25 years

2006-11-08T13:31:00.001+08:00

It was the beginning of the 1980s when I first heard the music of Depeche Mode. I've been hooked ever since!! They've been around now for more then 25 years. Back then not many people thought they'll last this long. But they did. And thank god for that!! ;-)

Recently, Depeche Mode won Best Group at the MTV Europe Music Awards 2006. Here are a selection of their music videos I would like to share with current & new fans-in-the-making. You can view many others over at YouTube.

The first song is a live version of Everything Counts which introduced me to DM. Its followed by A Question of Time; Personal Jesus; and I Feel You...

Police Sergeant says there's no difference between the PAP and Government

2006-11-07T18:47:00.001+08:00

Police shocker: No difference between PAP and Government
SDP
6 Nov 2006

Sergeant Kenny Quek raised eyebrows in court today when he told the Judge that there was no difference between the PAP and the Government.

This comment was made under questioning from Mr Gandhi Ambalam who, together with Dr Chee Soon Juan and Mr Yap Keng Ho, are charged with speaking in public without a licence on 22 Apr 06 during the 2006 general elections in May.

Sgt Quek said that he saw the Defendants "conveying a message to listeners for a period of time" on the said morning and decided to warn the Defendants for committing an offence.

He added that he also heard Mr Ambalam say that he was not going to "apologise to the Government" over the NKF article published in The New Democrat, the SDP's newspaper.

(This was obviously not true as the Government had not demanded any apology from the SDP over the said article. It was PAP leaders, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong, who had sued the SDP, not the Singapore Government).

Mr Ambalam then asked the police witness whether he knew the difference between the PAP and the Government, to which the officer replied that there was none. This drew an audible chuckle from those present in the courtroom.

"That's the kind of education system we have here," Mr Ambalam lamented.

Dr Chee then picked up the point during his cross-examination and told Sgt Quek that since the witness was a police officer, he was also a Government servant. By extension, Sgt Quek would see himself as a PAP servant since he saw no difference between the Government and PAP.

The witness then quickly retracted his statement and corrected himself, insisting that the PAP and the Government "were two different matters."

Even the Judge had to ask the witness to clarify his statement as he had recorded earlier that the witness had said that the two entities were one and the same.

Based on this Dr Chee then proceeded to question the witness on whether the police would have taken action if it had been someone else instead of SDP members who carried out the activity on 22 Apr.

The Judge repeatedly ruled the question irrelevant and refused to allow Dr Chee to adduce evidence that the police had acted in a discriminatory fashion.

"This is especially significant given the fact that Sgt Quek felt that the PAP and the Government are the same political entity," Dr Chee argued.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the police, under the instructions of the PAP, decided to take action against the SDP in order to cripple its election effort, Dr Chee pointed.

Under the Constitution, he continued, citizens should all be treated equally under the law and the police had an obligation to be even-handed.

The event had taken place with the elections as a backdrop and that the SDP had wanted to campaign on the sensitive NKF scandal.

The Judge, however, remained adamant in refusing to allow Dr Chee to pursue this line of questioning.

"If that's the case, then I have no further questions," Dr Chee concluded.

An update on Nov 8@1420hrs: A little fish finding her way in the world has two posts about the differences between government and a political party: What is in a government? and Speechless.

Economic might has allowed Singapore to slip under the world's human rights radar

2006-11-06T21:59:00.001+08:00

Spotlight on Singapore: Money talks, silences human rights
by Bernadette Radford with inputs from Shipra Dingare
Human Rights Features, 2-6 Oct’06
Weekly series for the UN Human Rights Council
South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre

The annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in Suntec City, Singapore, revealed the jarring contrasts of the wealthy city-state. On the one hand, Singapore's affluence and modernity was on parade, with lush new landscaping and newly renovated bridges and flyovers, traversed by the world's most powerful financiers and businessmen in over 800 limousines and BMW sedans. Simultaneously, Singapore banned outdoor demonstrations so as not to detract from the pageantry, and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng asserted in January 2006 that protestors breaking the law would face full penalties including caning for those who engage in violence.

Indeed, Singapore managed to assert its authoritative muscle, denying anti-poverty activists entry to the main venue, leading even the IMF and the World Bank to record their disapproval of such strong arm measures. This state of affairs reflects the attitude of Singaporean authorities: economic progress has first priority, with human rights a distant second.

Democracy is also not a high priority in Singapore; the recent celebrations marking Singapore's 41st year of independence simultaneously marked the 41st year of rule by the authoritarian People's Action Party (PAP). Citizens are not permitted to circulate newspapers, make broadcasts, hold demonstrations or even speak to a public audience without prior government authorisation. The treatment of opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, arrested in March 2006 for questioning the independence of the Singaporean judiciary and summoned to court in May for speaking publicly without a permit, attests to these realities. Migrant workers are particularly vulnerable in Singapore and are frequently subject to physical abuse and exploitation.

So why is the international community so reluctant to speak out in the face of so much oppression? The answer is simple. The economies of the world's most powerful voices are tightly intertwined with commercial interests in Singapore. The European Union (EU) and the United States have substantial business interests in Singapore, which would be compromised if they were to condemn the oppression perpetrated by the Singaporean government.

A vital trade and business link

The IMF-World Bank meeting was a premier opportunity for Singapore to present itself as a world convention and exhibition centre, as well as an international hub for business and banking. As a small city-state with few primary resources, Singapore's development strategy has of necessity focused outward, relying on external investment and trade. In this it has been notably successful. After borrowing from the World Bank in the 1960s and 70s, loans ceased by 1980 and Singapore remained resilient during the East Asian Crisis of the 1990s. Since then it has hosted IMF and World Bank seminars on crisis prevention and management. Currently, over 7,000 multinational corporations from the US, Japan, and Europe are invested in Singapore. Businesses take advantage of low tax rates and tariff barriers as well as liberal investment laws.

Singapore is also a crucial actor in world trade. The port of Singapore is one of the busiest in the world, facilitating total trade of 716 billion Singapore dollars (about US$438 billion) and trade growth of 14 percent in 2005, with future growth expected at seven to nine percent. Singapore is also a member of the ASEAN Free Trade Area and has concluded bilateral free trade agreements with countries including Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Jordan, India, and Panama, among others. The US, the EU, Japan, China and Malaysia all have important trade links with Singapore. The US and the EU each receive 10 to 13 per cent of Singapore's exports annually and each provide between 12 to 14 percent of its imports.

Singapore is Europe's largest trading partner among the ASEAN countries and the 11th largest importer from the US. Malaysia is Singapore's primary trade partner and has offered no criticism of human rights abuses in Singapore. This is not unexpected, given Malaysia's own human rights record.

However, the silence of countries that profess great concern for human rights issues is somewhat more conspicuous.

Why the US and the EU need Singapore

In 2004, the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (USSFTA) came into force, marking the first free trade agreement between the US and an Asian nation. Two years later, US and Singaporean government officials applauded the 13 percent growth in trade between the two countries since the agreement came into force. The USSFTA particularly aims to increase the trade in services, of increasing importance to both countries. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the "strong economic ties" are broadening into new sectors, such as information technology, health, and education. But the US has more to gain from Singapore than bilateral trade benefits. Economically, it is hoped that the USSFTA will provide a springboard for further trade agreements which will lead to "a network of FTA's in the region" and better trading relationships with countries like Indonesia. Strategically, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs views US-Singapore relations as increasingly "multi-faceted," encompassing not only economic but also defence interests. It should also be noted that increased cooperation between the US and Singapore has arisen out of the global campaign against terrorism.

In its determination to cement relations with Singapore, the US has essentially ignored Singapore's human rights record. While the US State Department's human rights country reports annually acknowledge violations there, including infringements on freedom of the press and abuse of foreign workers, the deliberations of the US Congress subcommittee on commerce, trade and consumer protection on the USSFTA featured little anxiety regarding Singapore's human rights record.

The statement of Thea M Lee, chief international economist of the American Federation of Labour and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), urged Congress to reject the USSFTA, highlighting its effective failure to commit the parties to international labour standards. However, the legislation passed easily in both the House and the Senate.

The EU appears similarly determined to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in Singapore. In an overview of relations with Singapore, the EU describes the country as "an important trading partner" and emphasises its strategic position for facilitating trade between Europe and Asia. The 2003 launch of "A New Partnership with South East Asia" described Singapore as crucial for the sound implementation of the programme. Growing recognition of mutual economic interests led to the establishment of Singapore-EC Consultations (SECC) in 2000, which led to joint development projects in the region. Recently, Singapore has been urging the EU to forge a bilateral free trade agreement. There are hopes on both sides that relations will embrace common endeavours in transport, intellectual property, and research and development.

Clearly, the governments of the EU and the US have given priority to strong economic relations with Singapore rather than human rights issues. In this, the influence of the business community is readily apparent.

Singapore's response

Singapore's reaction to peaceful protests fits the pattern of past responses to criticisms on human rights issues. The Singaporean government has masked abuses with the flawed ‘Asian values’ discourse. Censorship measures, authoritarian governance and laws governing freedom of speech and freedom of assembly have been excused as the "Asian way." Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew claimed that Asians have "little doubt that a society with communitarian values, where the interests of society take precedence over that of the individual, suits them better than the individualism of America." When Reporters Sans Frontières' Annual Press Freedom Index ranked Singapore 147th, Information Minister Lee Boon Yang insisted that Singapore did not operate according to "Western" values. He said that journalists in Singapore do not have an "adversarial role" and instead contribute to "nation building." After a recent visit to Australia and New Zealand, Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong expressed the view that rule by a single party was more efficient and better for Singapore.

Break the silence

The parade of power and wealth in September 2006 demonstrated that human rights abuses in Singapore continue to be tolerated by the international community. It shows that economic might has allowed Singapore to slip under the world’s human rights radar. The new beginning epitomised by the Human Rights Council must be used to ensure that such States receive the attention and censure they deserve.

Textbox

Good for corporations, bad for human rights

WHILE the World Bank has taken to professing concern for human rights issues, its concern was clearly not an obstacle to the choice of Singapore as a meeting venue. The World Bank and IMF could not have been unaware that Singapore would place restrictions on the right to protest.

In a case decided late last year, the Singapore High Court refused to uphold this constitutionally
guaranteed right and stated that the police could legitimately disband peaceful protesters, even if they numbered only four.

That human rights are not a prerequisite to being a top business destination appears to be the consensus in the business community. According to the World Bank ranking of 155 countries, Singapore is among the easiest places to do business, second only to New Zealand.

Singapore is also renowned for labour laws that are favourable to employers. The negative impact these laws have on workers is less well known. There are few restrictions on a corporation's ability to hire and fire and no minimum wage. Furthermore, there is a large pool of domestic foreign labourers who are virtually unprotected by Singaporean law and are frequently subject to exploitative work conditions.

Although Singaporean courts are known to support the government’s agenda of silencing critics of the regime through defamation actions, the Hong Kong based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy recently named Singaporean courts the best in Asia. Such assessments highlight efficiency but leave other important issues ignored, such as judicial independence or the role of the courts in perpetuating unfair governmental restrictions.

For all current and new James Bond fans

2006-11-05T13:20:00.001+08:00

I've been a huge James Bond fan for god knows how long!! I've watched every one of the 20 Bond movies many times over and never tire of it!! So one can imagine how excited I am about Casino Royale, with Daniel Craig as agent 007!!

In anticipation of the release of the 21st Bond movie in Singapore on 16 Nov, here are a couple of videos for all Bond fans (and new fans in the making!!) out there. The first is a trailer for Casino Royale. The other two are documentaries about 30mins each. Enjoy!! ;-)

"We're Winning This Thing" in Iraq

2006-11-04T23:14:00.000+08:00

Here's a video from Vanity Fair about the Iraq war. It maybe short but it sure as hell makes its point loud and clear!!

Also from Vanity Fair.....

As Iraq slips further into chaos, the war's neoconservative boosters have turned sharply on the Bush administration, charging that their grand designs have been undermined by White House incompetence.

In a series of exclusive interviews, Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, David Frum, and others play the blame game with shocking frankness.

Target No. 1: the president himself.......continue to read Vanity Fair's exclusive Now They Tell Us

Controlling what you hear & see - A voice from the past

2006-11-03T13:26:00.000+08:00

Since my post on the TODAY saga, I've been trying to recall where i've read about an incident which happened a few years ago that exposed our pro-PAP govt media.

But I couldn't put my finger on what that incident was. An online search led me to what took place 6yrs ago.

A local radio journalist with 93.8FM (its called 938Live now) went on-air to voice her displeasure with the radio station's management on the morning of Dec 11, 2000 and Think Centre, a local human rights NGO, exposed; pursued and publicised the incident.

In a report on that same day, Think Centre wrote "At 9.30am, the radio presenter announced that News Radio 93.8 FM’s management was unhappy with the earlier report and has asked that only a re-edited version of the programme be aired. The re-edited version took away any mention of JB Jeyaretnam and his letter to PM Goh. UN’s Kofi Anan’s Human Rights message was also excluded.......The programme ended with the presenter once again announcing that the second airing of International Human Rights Day report was re-edited on the request of News Radio 93.8 FM’s management."

You can read a fuller account of this over at Think Centre's Radio Programme Re-edited.

It was truly a Uniquely Singapore moment! ;-)

S'pore is a leading surveillance society says Privacy International study

2006-11-02T20:48:00.001+08:00

Click to enlarge map

I'm not surprised. Back in Aug'06, I wrote a post titled Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? - Privacy in a Police State. I'm bringing this up 'cos Privacy International has released a study today in which Singapore is ranked one of the world's leading surveillance societies.

Known as the Privacy and Human Rights Global Study, Singapore fares badly in practically every category: Constitutional protection; statutory protection; privacy enforcement, visual surveillance, etc, etc. Its overall score is one of the worst at 1.4 which is considered an "endemic surveillance society".

You can view the full results in this ratings table. And read the country report on Singapore from page 44. Both documents are in PDF.

Bringing TODAY to its knees

2006-11-02T10:46:00.000+08:00

Firstly, I would like to thank the anonymous individual who alerted me to this by leaving a comment in my last post. He/she referred me to a message posted over at Sammyboy.com's Alfresco Coffeeshop.

Before getting to that message, I think a bit of background is in order to put the message in context and give readers a clearer picture of what this is all about.

As TODAY archives its report after awhile, I'm posting this report here in full. I'm no conspiracy theorist but I had my suspicions when I read this report..........

Key changes at MediaCorp

Moves in line with aim to become Asia's top media company

Wednesday • November 1, 2006

AS THE world neatly folds into one long, connected information superhighway, homegrown media conglomerate MediaCorp yesterday announced key structural and management changes to position itself as Asia's top media company.

Said Mr Lucas Chow, CEO of MediaCorp: "As digital technology brings about greater media convergence, we ourselves are forging our own media platforms more closely together. The changes we're implementing capture that spirit of convergence."

Among the key changes announced yesterday was the company's move towards providing the consumer with more choices of where and how to consume their news, with an aggressive plan to merge its news operations across television, radio, print, the Internet and mobile devices.

Said Deputy CEO (News, Radio, Print) Shaun Seow, who will lead the integration charge for MediaCorp: "The aim is to serve audiences better by tapping on the strengths of the different media, and creating a seamless experience for the consumer. We want to be the leading English news provider for Asia, and we believe that it is an achievable target."

A committee is looking at the integration initiative, which will lead, among other things, to a "newsplex" housing all the different newsrooms under one roof in MediaCorp's new premises at Bukit Batok.

Mr Murali Subramaniam will leave his position as Today's Associate/Day Editor to take up appointment as VP (Editorial Operations) to assist in the integration efforts from Jan 1, 2007.

MediaCorp's efforts to raise the bar will also come from the recruitment of experienced staff such as Mr P N Balji, ex-Editor-in-Chief of Today, who has rejoined MediaCorp as its Editorial Director. He will assist Mr Seow to improve editorial standards across the board.

With Mr Mano Sabnani resigning his editorship, Mr Balji will be devoting a significant part of his time to growing Today. He will be assisted by Mr Walter Fernandez, fresh from helming Channel News-Asia's International desk.

Mr Fernandez assumes the newly-created No 2 position of Managing Editor at Today, and has set his sights on establishing a vibrant electronic presence for one of Singapore's fastest growing newspapers. Mr Fernandez will work closely with Mr Rahul Pathak, who will continue to be Today's Associate/Night Editor.

Mr Chow said: "By increasing the bench strength of our journalists, we will strive to become Asia's premium brand for news — whether it's in the form of video, audio or text. I am especially proud of the strides made by Today, which has just been pushed up to the No 2 position in Singapore after just six years. Everyone in Today, past and present, has contributed to its success, and I would like to wish Mano well in his future endeavours, even as I welcome Balji back to MediaCorp."

Added Mr Balji: "There is a new leadership at MediaCorp. The statements that have come from this new leadership excite me. As the media undergoes deep and dramatic changes, there is a great opportunity to unify and exploit the different platforms to provide a real information highway.

"Today, the print arm of MediaCorp, can become an integral part of this highway and show that print can survive in a fast-changing media jungle."

Mr Sabnani, who leaves the company after more than three-and-a-half years at the helm as mananging director (MD) and Editor-in-Chief of Today, said he was pleased with the progress the newspaper had achieved during his tenure.

"When I came on board in 2003, there were still questions asked of whether the newspaper would survive or fail," he said. "In our last financial year, we made $5.8 million in profits and we just moved ahead of Lianhe Zaobao as Singapore's second best read newspaper. I am very proud of the team that made this happen and wish Today all the best in its future growth."

Mr Philip Koh, who is concurrently MD of MediaCorp Publishing, the magazines subsidiary, will oversee Today's publishing and business development functions.

MediaCorp is also confident the move will provide synergistic opportunities for its newspaper and magazine publishing.

Reporters Without Borders, in its latest World Press Freedom Index 2006, ranked Singapore's news media 146 out of 168 countries.

In the section on Singapore, RSF wrote "....when it comes to domestic politics Singapore’s press, still controlled by associates of Lee Kuan Yew, is in the grip of a rigorous self-censorship. The government threatens journalists, foreign media and opposition with defamation suits seeking dizzying amounts in damages."

Here's the message I referred to at the beginning of this post. It is difficult to verify it 'cos no whistleblower's going to go public if its true. On the other hand, I wouldn't dismiss it offhand either given the state of our local news media.....

Source: From ManoSabnani at Sammyboy.com

Hello everyone

I registered this nickname a little more than a week ago after I heard that there were parties inside Mediacorp who were making a move to sack Mano Sabnani as Today's chief editor. Little did I know how ugly it would become.

On the surface, the corporate communications machine of Mediacorp will present everything as very nice and orderly. What you read here will be a reasonably accurate account related to me of what actually happened and not what you will read in Today, Channel News Asia, Straits Times or Business Times.

I had waited until I got a clear picture from my contact before I post this, therefore there was bit of a delay.

Mano is not a bad person. He may be dull and unexciting, even a coward before the civil servants who oversee him, but he was treated as pariah by his peers.

On Oct 31, Today had a senior editors' meeting which Shaun Seow presided. Mano lost his editorial independence not during the recent Mr Brown affair, but some years earlier, during the Val Chua affair. For those of you not familiar with the matter, just do a Google search on Val Chua, Mano Sabnani and you will find a lot of material on the Net. Since the Val Chua affair, Mano had to report to Shaun within the Mediacorp stable. All reports involving cabinet ministers must be vetted by Shaun and his team at Mediacorp HQ, not at Today.

There are no real editors at Today, they are all a bunch of word processors. They send good reporters like Derrick Paulo and Ansley Ng to cover political happenings, then censor and rewrite everything to suit their political masters.

In fact, Derrick Paulo mounted a campaign within the Today office to protest the newspaper's suspension of Mr Brown. He got many of his colleagues to wear brown on a day when Shaun was to give a talk to the staff there. What he did not know was that had severely undermined Mano, who was already being pushed out by the other senior people in Mediacorp. They saw how weak Mano was in front of Derrick and took full advantage of the situation.

Shaun is a former president scholar and his entire career is scripted to perfection. As long as he serves his political masters, his career will be smooth. Even the conviction of Zahara Latif for maid abuse within the Seow household did little more than embarrass him. Goh Chok Tong wrote a letter to support Zahara during her mitigation hearing.

During the Oct 31 meeting, Mano was not able to speak because his ex-gratia payment was held back unless he played ball. Shaun humiliated Mano by paying lip service to his contribution and saying how the newspaper will move ahead without him. Most of the editors were too afraid for their jobs and kept generally quiet as they watched Mano run to the ground and abused. This coming from Shaun, was no surprise, for like Zahara, he is an abuser. Shaun is many years younger than Mano and behaved like an arrogant brat wielding too much power for his own good.

Worse was to come. After a polite round of applause for Mano's three years in the newspaper, they proceeded to the newsroom where Mano's resignation was announced to all the staff. All of Today's staff gathered outside Mano's room. Shaun announced the changes and talked about new directions, while Mano sat inside his room (glass walls) in full view to all the staff, with his face buried in his hands in front of his computer screen.

Somebody in the crowd interrupted Shaun when he felt that Shaun had gone too far. He asked for the real reason why Mano was leaving. Shaun then said that there are many confidential things that cannot be publicised.

Slowly there was a pair of hands clapping, then more and more. They wanted Mano to come out and address them. Mano came out, and keeping in mind that his payment has been withheld, said he had nothing to say. They wouldn't let him go and kept clapping. Mano had no choice but to respond. So he said to the staff that they should not worry about him and move on. His voice was shaking, then he went back into his room a sad and broken man, humiliated and traumatised.

Led by Shaun and director Philip Koh, Today brought back PN Balji, who was the founding editor of the paper. Balji is a much more colourful character than Mano but is of questionable character. Balji is closely tied to TT Durai, the disgraced head of the former National Kidney Foundation. The auditor's report into the NKF fraud and deception showed that Balji was one of the parties who flew first class with Durai. Together with Durai and his gang, they abused the charity's funds, but while Durai is now in the docks, Balji has gotten away scot free because he knows how to butter up his political masters.

More worrying for many of the Today staff is that a new guy named Walter Fernandez was brought in from Channel News Asia where he was a faithful lap dog of Shaun Seow to oversee Today's day-to-day operations. Walter is a scholar and another spineless idiot who is where he is only because he knows how and whose balls to carry.

I will update further when I hear of more developments.

Calling All Bloggers

2006-10-28T00:38:00.000+08:00

Back in May, I posted on this blog information on Amnesty International's Irrepressible campaign. This campaign is heating-up and just yesterday the human rights NGO issued a call to bloggers..........

Free speech online 'under threat', Oct 27, BBC News

Bloggers are being asked to show their support for freedom of expression by Amnesty International.

The human rights group also wants web log writers to highlight the plight of fellow bloggers jailed for what they wrote in their online journals.

The organisation said fundamental rights such as free speech faced graver threats than ever before.

The campaign coincides with the start of a week-long UN-organised conference that will debate the future of the net.

Watching words

"Freedom of expression online is a right, not a privilege - but it's a right that needs defending," said Steve Ballinger of Amnesty International. "We're asking bloggers worldwide to show their solidarity with web users in countries where they can face jail just for criticising the government."

Mr Ballinger said the case of Iranian blogger Kianoosh Sanjari was just one example of the dangers that some online writers can face. Mr Sanjari was arrested in early October following his blogging about conflicts between the Iranian police and the supporters of Shia cleric Ayatollah Boroujerdi.

Amnesty wanted bloggers to publicise cases such as this, said Mr Ballinger, and to declare their backing for the right to free speech online.

The human rights group is also taking its campaign to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) - a group set up by the UN to act as a debating body for national net policies. The first big meeting of the IGF takes place in Athens from 30 October to 2 November.

"The Internet Governance Forum needs to know that the online community is concerned about free expression online and willing to stand up for it," said Mr Ballinger.

Many governments were using technology to suppress the free flow of information among their citizens, said Mr Ballinger.

"People have been locked up just for expressing their views in an email or a website," he said. "Sites and blogs have been shut down and firewalls built to prevent access to information."

Hi-tech firms such as Yahoo and Google have been criticised for the help they have given to nations such as China which works hard to monitor online discussion.

In May 2006, Amnesty International started a campaign that aimed to expose the ways that governments use the net to quash dissent. Co-ordinated via the Irrepressible.info website, the campaign asks websites to use an icon displaying text from censored sites.

Pledges gathered from those backing this campaign will be presented at the IGF.

And that's not all folks! Take part in a 24-hr International Cyber-Demonstration from 11am (Paris time) on 7 Nov'06 to 11am on 8 Nov'06 (SGP time - 6pm on 7 Nov'06 to 6pm on 8 Nov'06) as Reporters Without Borders issues another call.....

Reporters without borders urges internet users to join in 24-hour online demo against internet censorship

No one should ever be prevented from posting news online or writing a blog, but they are in the 13 countries singled out by Reporters Without Borders for a 24-hour online protest against Internet censorship.

Worldwide, 61 people are currently in prison for posting “subversive” content on a blog or website. Reporters Without Borders is compiling a list of 13 countries whose governments are “Internet enemies” because they censor and block online content that criticises them. The Internet scares. Censors of every kind exploit its flaws and attack those who pin their hopes on it. Multinationals such as Yahoo! cooperate with the Chinese government in filtering the Internet and tracking down cyber-dissidents.

The defence of online free expression and the fate of bloggers in repressive countries concern everyone. So Reporters Without Borders is offering Internet users tools to campaign against Internet predators and is calling on them to participate in an INTERNATIONAL CYBER-DEMO.

Everyone is invited to support this struggle by connecting to the Reporters Without Borders website (www.rsf.org) between 11 a.m. (Paris time) on Tuesday, 7 November, and 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 November. Each click will help to change the “Internet Black Holes” map and help to combat censorship. As many people as possible must participate so that this operation can be a success and have an impact on those governments that try to seal off what is meant to be a space where people can express themselves freely.

Protests will also be staged by Reporters Without Borders bureaux around the world to condemn Internet censorship and ethical misconduct of the Internet giants when operating in one of these countries.

Reporters Without Borders will publish the list of the 13 Internet enemies on 7 November and at the same time will launch its blog platform, rsfblog, and an Arabic-language version of its press freedom website.

The agency Saatchi & Saatchi has created an Internet ad calling on the entire Internet community to take part in the 24-hour campaign. All media, websites and blogs that want to support this large-scale protest are invited to get in touch with Cédric Gervet at +33 1 4483-8474.

Freedom of expression is not a luxury. It is everyone’s right!

Firefox 2.0 burnin' down the house!!!

2006-10-25T09:15:00.001+08:00

One of the first things i did this morning was to download & install the much anticipated upgraded version of Firefox called Firefox 2!!

Man i haven't been this excited since 2002 when i first began using Firefox!! :-)

Here's a post titled Firefox - Moving the Internet Forward by Mozilla CEO, Mitchell Baker, on today's official release of Firefox 2.

Ho Ching must step down as head of Temasek

2006-10-20T21:41:00.001+08:00

Media release from SDP.......

Mdm Ho Ching must step down as head of Temasek
20 Oct 06

Given the revelations of the scandalous deal between Temasek Holdings and Shin Corp which continue to trickle from Bangkok, it is impossible for Singaporeans not to take notice.

The transaction has not only provoked outrage among the Thai people, leading to the souring of relations between Singapore and Thailand.

This reinforces the Singapore Democrats' stand that the Government has to get out of being directly involved in business as it arouses, not without reason, suspicion in the countries in which it makes deals.

In addition, with the questionable performance of the Temasek-linked companies and some high profile debacles, including

- The sinking of Micropolis which cost Singaporeans $630 million

- The ill-advised acquisition of Optus by SingTel which stands to face a write-down of between $5 billion to $8 billion,

- And the present eruption of the Shin Corp deal in which due diligence was not exercised which may yet incur a loss of up to $3 billion

It is clear that Madam Ho Ching, wife of PM Lee Hsien Loong, has failed as head of Temasek. Her decision to buy into Shin Corp has even provoked a criminal investigation into the deal in Thailand.

And while Mr Thaksin Shinawatra and his family are laughing all the way to the bank, Temasek has lost the hard-earned money of Singaporeans which now looks unrecoverable.

While all these developments have taken place, the Government and the company continue to remain tight-lipped apart from the few platitudes offered by the Prime Minister that serve no purpose or have any meaning.

In light of all this the SDP calls on Madam Ho Ching to resign as chief executive of Temasek Holdings.

In addition, in the interest of transparency and accountability Singapore should hold its own public inquiry into the affair and have Temasek come clean about all the related matters. There are reports that the non-transparent deal was influenced by members of the Lee family.

If Temasek is indeed a commercial entity that adheres to the corporate code of conduct, then it will make itself transparent to its shareholders, that is, Singaporeans.

Singaporeans must be given all the information to determine for themselves if there were any wrong-doings by all the players involved.

Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

S'pore PM slams foreign media for exposing PAP govt's dirty tricks

2006-10-19T00:40:00.000+08:00

First here's a Oct 16 press release from FORUM-ASIA........

Singapore denies fundamental freedoms: Detained civil society activists suffer 'soft torture' before deportation

The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) strongly condemns the Singapore government’s detention and deportations of civil society activists during the recent International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank annual meetings in the country. This denial of the fundamental freedom of expression is a cause for serious concern.

FORUM-ASIA raises concerns about the harsh and intimidating treatment of activists and speakers from civil society organisations.

First-hand testimonies from some of the deportees have indicated blatant practices of 'soft torture' disproportionate to the situation and station of these activists and speakers. Most of them had travelled to or transited through Singapore to attend the International People’s Forum meetings in Batam, Indonesia, an event parallel to the IMF-World Bank meetings. A number were also going to attend smaller-scale civil society meetings in Singapore.

These detentions came after an official blacklist of 27 activists or speakers already accredited by the IMF-World Bank were made known to these two institutions. When the detentions and deportations occurred from a period lasting from 13-18 September, it was then made known that the Singaporean authorities also had unofficial blacklists of dozens, if not hundreds, of other civil society activists and speakers.

The blacklists resulted in these actions: about two dozen activists and speakers were detained and deported; a number of them were detained for up to 38 hours before being deported. Some had their personal equipment such as cellphones confiscated; most were not allowed to contact anyone such as their family, friends, colleagues or employers. All were questioned, put in holding cells with harsh white fluorescent lights turned on continually, and closely monitored including trips to the restrooms; all have had their luggage ransacked; and only those with longer hours of detention were provided with the bare minimum of food and water. Those holding valid visas had them cancelled by the Singaporean authorities. Most or all of the detainees did not have access to the consuls or embassies of their home countries.

We draw attention to the Singaporean government's practice and culture of denying fundamental freedoms to those in their custody. By detaining and deporting these individuals, the Singaporean government has shown that they do not respect international human rights laws.

As a member of the United Nations (UN), Singapore has contravened Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. By its actions, the government has also contravened Articles 1, 5, 8 and 12 of the UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Furthermore, by blacklisting and preventing civil society activists to participate in events related to development, the Singapore government has also violated Articles 2 and 8 of the UN Declaration on the Right to Development.

Fundamental human rights are indivisible and non-derogatory; individuals; groups and governments are not allowed to degrade anyone's fundamental human rights. With the above violations and ‘soft torture’ practiced, internationally-recognised rights, freedom of expression, assembly, association and access to information, were undermined in one broad sweep. The Singaporean government's restriction on and treatment of these activists is not acceptable and the authoritarian mindset giving rise to this behaviour must not be encouraged.

The Singapore government should allow and encourage its citizens and all civil society activists to exercise their fundamental rights, not trample and violate them. Civil society activists and dissenters who express different opinions and views are human beings with rights. When there are doubts one should resolve the issue in favour of expression rather then suppression.

The Singapore government should set priorities to remove outdated policies, laws and restrictions on public speech, gatherings and assembly. These outdated policies and practices only exist to darken Singapore's image as a developed nation with opportunities for all.

FORUM-ASIA deplores deeply the actions of the Singaporean government during the period 13-18 September 2006. We hope that the Singaporean authorities will not repeat this sort of behaviour during future international or regional meetings that it hosts. It should also reform its practices for future events that may involve foreign civil society actors, such as during the forthcoming ASEAN Summit in 2007.

And PM Lee has got the cheek to say with a straight face that the foreign media had an "agenda".........

Singapore PM criticizes foreign press "agenda"
AFP
Oct 19, 2006

Foreign journalists had an "agenda" to make Singapore open up during recent World Bank-IMF meetings in the city-state, local newspapers quoted Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong as saying.

He was commenting on extensive reporting by foreign press of Singapore's reluctance to admit 27 activists accredited by the World bank and International Monetary Fund for a formal dialogue during the institutions' September meetings.

Singapore initially said it had security concerns about the 27, but then agreed to admit 22 of them after World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz said his hosts had caused "enormous damage" to their own reputation.

"The foreign media had another agenda -- they wanted Singapore to open up, to conform to their standards, their norms," the Today newspaper quoted Lee as saying.

"Whatever line we drew, they wanted to push us, to go a little bit further. But we had to decide where the line was, and stick to it."

Lee was speaking at an event to thank volunteers who helped out at the IMF-World Bank gathering.

Singapore's approach to free speech also came under attack during the international meetings from local pro-democracy activist Chee Soon Juan.

Chee -- who was protesting against poverty and restrictions on free speech -- engaged in a three-day standoff with police who stopped him from marching to the conference venue.

Despite appeals from the World Bank, Singapore refused to waive its long-standing restrictions on outdoor protests during the meetings.

Police defended their strict security measures, saying Singapore was a high-profile terrorist target.

"The IMF-World Bank wanted us to be a bit more open, and we tried our best to accommodate. But in the end, we were responsible for the safety of the delegates and we could not shirk the responsibility of whom to let in," Lee was quoted as saying.

Singapore prides itself on its image as an efficiently-run, regional commercial hub that is one of Asia's wealthiest nations.

But Wolfowitz, in his remarks during the IMF-World Bank meetings, suggested the way Singapore handled the activist issue was worthy of a less-developed authoritarian state.

Lee, in a speech to editors earlier this month, said that in Asia, "the countries which have been most successful at improving the lives of their people do not always have the most aggressive media ... Each country will have to evolve its own model of the media that works for it."

Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in May placed Singapore 140th out of 167 countries in its World Press Freedom Index for 2005, due to the "complete absence" of independent media in the city-state.

Singapore ranked below Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Russia, Sudan and Yemen.

To Nanyang Chronicle: Don't do a disservice to your fellow students

2006-10-18T21:25:00.000+08:00

I first saw this over at SDP's website.

In its current issue, the Nanyang Chronicle published a piece titled Protest or performance art? by Daniel Ong. (You can access the PDF version of the Chronicle here. The article is on pg.26)

The writer practically regurgitated whatever has been published & broadcasted through our pro-PAP govt media. It was like reading bias propaganda bullshit from the Straits Times. In fact, I might not be too far off the mark 'cos one of the Chronicle's "teacher advisors" is Ben Nadarajan, a Straits Times journalist.

According to its website, the Chronicle is "a student-run campus newspaper published by the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, on a bi-monthly basis. The Chronicle started publication in July 1994 with the aim of providing timely campus news and information as well as being the voice of the campus population. The paper also provides practical training for undergraduates who are keen to work in the field of journalism after graduation."

I wouldn't have blogged about that inane piece if not for the fact that its published in an educational institution and targeted at students. Nationally, they're already exposed to such bullshit & propaganda from the bias local media, day in & day out, year after year.

The SDP asked ".....would an alternative view be allowed to be published?". Unfortunately, I don't think any would be published.

Nevertheless, here's a request to the editors of the Chronicle: Surprise me by answering SDP's question in the affirmative and publish an alternative view. You'll be doing a disservice to your fellow students by not doing so.

Thank You to Lee Kuan Yew & Lee Hsien Loong

2006-10-17T22:27:00.001+08:00

I've not been able to blog for the past few days even though my head is filled with a few things to write about. I'm unwell. Furthermore, life is a constant struggle trying to make ends meet. Hey i'm a below-average joe in sunny Singapore.....wait a sec...make that hazy Singapore!! :( :)

I noticed Mr Wang and Singabloodypore have highlighted the fact here & here that some local blogs have been mentioned in the court filing by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in his case against the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER). (See FEER Saga on your right)

Lee's son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, is also suing FEER. Lee Jr's court filing also mentions the same blogs as in Lee Snr's court filing. In fact, Junior's is practically a cut & paste job. Talk about father & son spending quality time together! Sheesh!! :) (See pages 10-12 in their court papers in PDF here & here)

My blogs are among those mentioned in their court papers. A few months ago, I took a short break from Blogger to just experiment over at Wordpress.com with Pseudonymity. I posted the FEER article, which inspired father & son to spend "quality time" together in their favourite hobby of suing the crap out of people for defamation, in both blogs.

There's nothing like being mentioned in court papers filed by a tinpot dictatorship. My thanks to the Minister Mentor & Prime Minister for bestowing such an honour on me. I couldn't have done it without you two. No, seriously, I couldn't have. :)

Funds Parked in Singapore Belongs Mainly to Embezzlers

2006-10-12T20:42:00.001+08:00

Funds Parked in Singapore Belongs Mainly to Embezzlers
by Padjar Iswara and Ewo Raswa
TEMPO Interactive
Oct 12, 2006

Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) suspects that a large part of the Rp506.8 trillion in funds parked in Singapore is owned by former embezzlers of state and private national banks.

Teten Masduki, the Coordinator of ICW, said that there were in fact some law-abiding Indonesians who have assets and save their funds in Singapore.

However, the amount of these funds is relatively small compared to that of former embezzlers.

“It’s a pity to see they still save their money there,” Teten told Tempo.

His remark was in response to the result of Merrill Lynch and Capgemini’s survey which reported that one-third of 55,000 Singapore’s rich people are Indonesians.

The number reaches a total of 18,000 and their status is that of permanent residents (foreigners who have permanent stay permits) in Singapore.

The global financial organization estimates that the amount of assets of Indonesian people in Singapore is S$87 billion, or around Rp506.8 trillion.

According to Teten, embezzlers prefer to deposit their funds in Singapore because they feel safe there although the origin of the funds is illegal.

The reason for this is that Singapore does not have a Money Laundering Law nor is it yet willing to sign an extradition agreement with Indonesia.

Through such an agreement, Indonesia can force Singapore to surrender bad debtors, including return of assets and funds.

Teten acknowledged that Indonesians also save funds in Singapore because of other factors, for example business.

This is because the business and investment climate in Singapore is very attractive.

“In addition, legal certainty is also good, far better compared to in Indonesia,” he said.

Sofjan Wanandi, Head of Indonesia Entrepreneurs Association, made similar comments.

A lot of Indonesians save their money in Singapore because the investment climate is extremely interesting.

The country’s government provides facilities including tax and business credit allowances.

“Singapore also provides legal certainty to investors.”

Worried Temasek ready to pay fine and reduce holding in telecom firm to 49%

2006-10-12T20:27:00.000+08:00

DAMAGE CONTROL
The Nation
Oct 12, 2006

S'pore urges talks to save Shin buyout

Worried Temasek ready to pay fine and reduce holding in telecom firm to 49%

A top-level official in Singapore has approached Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont to discuss the controversial Shin Corp deal in the hope of resolving ownership issues in an amicable manner, a government source said yesterday.

Surayud is likely to assign his deputy MR Pridiyathorn Devakula, who is also the finance minister, to look into the matter, the source said.

"One likely recommendation from the Thai government is that Temasek Holdings of Singapore should comply with the Thai foreign ownership law by quickly reducing its stake in Shin Corp, which is estimated at 96 per cent, to below 49 per cent," he said.

Temasek got itself into hot water with its Bt140-billion takeover of Shin Corp, which was owned by the Shinawatra and Damapong families.

The Commerce Ministry's Business Registration Department has found that Temasek relied on nominees to skirt a legal ban on foreign companies owning more than 50 per cent of a telecom business.

A Singapore investment banker said he had overheard that Madame Ho Ching, the CEO of Temasek, had been following political developments in Thailand very closely and had expressed her willingness to seek a compromise.

"Temasek, from what I have heard, is willing to pay a fine or make other concessions in order to end the controversy rather than allow the issue to drag on," he said.

If Temasek reduced its holding in Shin Corp from 96 per cent to 49 per cent by selling some 1.5 billion shares, it would suffer a huge loss. It paid Bt49.25 a share, for a total of Bt140 billion-Bt150 billion, but now Shin Corp is trading on the stock market at Bt28.25 a share.

The Thaksin Shinawatra government and Temasek had been sitting on the nominee investigation, hoping the issue would go away after Thaksin staged a comeback with an election victory. But the September 19 military coup has sent Thaksin into exile in London.

With a fresh government installed, the probe into the Shin-Temasek scandal has taken on a new life.

Besides, Singapore faces public outrage here over its perceived attempt to dominate Thailand's businesses involving national security.

"The Thai government is expected to tell the Singapore government and Temasek that current anti-Singapore sentiment needs to be dealt with quickly," the source said.

"There is a lot at stake for Singapore and Thailand relations, depending on a compromise on the Shin deal."

Of particular concern are Shin Satellite and iTV, both listed subsidiaries of Shin Corp. They are considered politically sensitive state concessions while the cellular service business of Advanced Info Service, Shin Corp's flagship unit, is in a more liberalised industry.

It is widely believed that under close scrutiny many foreign-invested Thai companies would fall afoul of the foreign ownership law, which has been criticised as vague and subject to abuse.

Noted economist Ammar Siamwalla said the Thai government must enforce the rule of law in all the nominee cases by doing away with all the violations.

The government could offer clemency to all foreign companies, giving them three years to cure the ownership or nominee structure to comply with the regulations, he said.

Within 10 years, Thailand should be in a position to enforce the law strictly regarding foreign ownership.

"But we need to state clearly which businesses we would like to protect for national security reasons and which businesses we would like to free up. I don't care if they want to liberalise all businesses. But we have to spell it out and stick to the enforcement," Ammar said.

"The government must uphold the spirit of the law, instead of interpreting it in the srithanonchai [tricky] way," he added.

Singapore - A safe haven for the rich and crooked?

2006-10-11T09:53:00.000+08:00

Back in July'06, I posted an article "Singapore none too fussy about the source of wealth in its financial sector" by Michael Backman. Its worth reading again (or for those who haven't read it before) in light of the staggering figures cited in the Reuters report below........

YOU are an Indonesian businessman. You've bribed a state bank official to give you a $US200 million ($A265 million) loan without sufficient collateral, or a risk assessment, for a business venture you know won't get off the ground.

The authorities have found out and you're facing arrest. You need somewhere to go where authorities can't touch you. So where do you go? The answer is Singapore . Why? Because it is a half-hour flight from Jakarta , or 45 minutes by ferry from the Indonesian island of Batam , and, most importantly, it does not have an extradition treaty with Indonesia.....click here to continue

Take note the figures in this Reuters report are in US$............

A third of Singapore's rich are Indonesians - Merrill

By Reuters
Tuesday October 10

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - A third of Singapore's high net worth individuals are of Indonesian origin, according to a report by Merrill Lynch and Capgemini.

At the end of 2005, Singapore had an estimated 55,000 high net worth individuals, holding assets worth $260 billion, the report said.

A third of these individuals were Indonesians with permanent resident status in Singapore -- 18,000 in all -- with assets worth $87 billion.

"Singapore has a very open immigration policy to attract talented foreigners and that has also attracted a lot of high net worth individuals from Indonesia," Tho Gea Hong, market director for Merrill Lynch Global Private client, told a news conference.

High net worth individuals are defined as people who have net financial assets of at least $1 million.

Tho said the number of high net worth individuals in Singapore has risen 13.4 percent from 2004. A total of 1.3 percent of these individuals are ultra-high net worth individuals, with assets exceeding $30 million.

Kong Eng Huat, Market Managing Director, South Asia, for Merrill Lynch Global Private Client, said Asia-Pacific excluding Japan would need 10,000 bankers to serve a million high net worth individuals, compared with an estimated 5,000 bankers now.

He said Merrill expects its Singapore headcount to increase by 20 to 25 percent over the next few years because of strong growth in the wealth management business in Asia.

The launch of the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network

2006-10-10T17:53:00.001+08:00

Amnesty International Australia launched the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) today as part of World Day Against the Death Penalty.

ADPAN, which consists of "activists, NGOs and lawyers from many countries across the region will support national and regional campaigns to end capital punishment".

Tim Goodwin, AI Australia's Anti-Death Penalty Campaign Coordinator, reports on this "new Asian coalition which will campaign for an end to executions"...........

Coalition for an end to executions

People have different reasons for campaigning against the death penalty. So when I met Yoo In-tae at a regional anti-death penalty meeting in Hong Kong, I didn't ask why he was leading the current push in South Korea to abolish this brutal punishment.

It was enough to know that as a Member of Parliament he had introduced the latest abolition bills in South Korea's National Assembly and that he was building support for a final vote. I didn't know that 32 years ago he was nearly hanged.

Yoo In-tae was sentenced to death by a military court in 1974 for violating martial law. He was tortured into giving a false confession and sentenced to death along with eight other people. The following morning those eight people were executed.

I have been working against the death penalty in Asia for many years, but his speech and story still shocked me. There was the injustice of his trial, and the brutal deaths of the people he had sat with in the dock. There was the hideous lottery of life and death that we still see in nearly every active death penalty system in the world.

Yoo In-tae spent four and a half years on death row, and during that harrowing time he was supported by an Amnesty International campaign. Today Amnesty International South Korea is working with him in the campaign for abolition.

Regional activism

Amnesty International convened the Hong Kong meeting, held in July 2006, to address the lack of regional organisations and human rights frameworks to help build momentum for abolition. This region has the highest execution rate in the world and is resisting the worldwide trend towards abolition, which is why we need a stronger, regional voice against the death penalty.

The meeting brought together Amnesty International researchers, the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty and campaigners from Mongolia, India, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, Hong Kong, the Philippines and Australia. About half of the participants were from Amnesty International sections and half from a range of legal, religious and human rights groups.

A significant part of the meeting was set aside for presentations from each country to build up a picture of the trends across the region and the common issues we need to address.

Participants from the Philippines described their recent success in abolishing the death penalty, which culminated on 6 June in a vote for abolition in both houses of Congress. This victory was the outcome of several years' work in building coalitions, raising awareness across the country and lobbying at all levels of government and the bureaucracy. It lent a welcome air of hope to our meeting.

Sharing concerns

Conversely, in India in recent years the government has taken a retrograde step in applying the death penalty to a wider range of crimes, including terrorism and drug offences. In the eyes of many activists, the death penalty is being used politically - as an attempt to demonstrate a tough stance on crime and to distract attention from the failures of India's criminal justice system.

Activists from Mongolia, Singapore, Japan and India spoke of the difficult task of generating debate about the death penalty when government secrecy prevents the real story from being told. One participant would have broken the law if she had told us how many people were executed in her country and how they were killed.

The governments of India and Singapore will not confirm how many people they have executed. In Japan, even a prisoner may not know he is about to be executed.

These presentations reminded me of two contradictions: first, that the death penalty is needed to deter crime even though that penalty is kept largely hidden from the community, including from would-be criminals; and second, that governments claim they retain the death penalty because of demand from the public, even though the public is never properly informed about it or able to discuss it.

When my turn came, I described last year's unprecedented campaign against the execution of Van Tuong Nguyen in Singapore, with widespread support from the public, parliamentarians and other organisations. I described Amnesty International's longstanding concern - illustrated by Van Tuong Nguyen's case - that the Australian Government could not mount a credible argument against individual executions if it did not take a consistent and principled position against the death penalty everywhere.

I described how we had worked with the victims of both terrorist violence and drugs in our campaign, and argued that we must continue to counter the claim that the death penalty is a necessary response to the drug trade.

Forming a network

A number of common themes emerged from the presentations, including:

* drugs and the death penalty
* transparency and secrecy
* mandatory penalties
* public awareness
* unfair trials, including national security cases
* working with the victims of crime, and
* building coalitions, including with legal, religious and women's organisations

There was consensus on the need to work together and internationalise our concerns about the death penalty. We need to create an Asian regional voice for change. We agreed to form the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) to exchange information, coordinate activities and begin working on these common issues.

ADPAN will be launched on 10 October, the World Day Against the Death Penalty, with a range of individual and group activities in as many countries as possible across Asia. I left the meeting with a great sense of hope that ADPAN will help build bridges between abolitionists across Asia and produce a more effective campaign within the region.

I also left with a sense of encouragement about the work we are doing in Australia. The Singapore participants said our campaigning had encouraged their efforts, and that its echoes are still being heard across the region.

As an abolitionist country, Australia is in a unique position to support anti-death penalty campaigns across Asia, although we still need to continue raising awareness in our own community about the cruelty and injustice of the death penalty.

Finally, I was reinforced in my conviction that Amnesty International plays a unique and valuable role in the global abolitionist campaign. We initiated the meeting and are supporting the formation of ADPAN. In at least six countries in Asia our colleagues are playing leading roles in coalitions against the death penalty.

We still have a long way to go in Asia, but these new connections will certainly strengthen our work for a world, and a region, without executions.

Read the 2004 Amnesty International report Singapore - Death Penalty: A Hidden Toll of Executions

FEER publishes complete response, correspondences with LEEs lawyers, MICA & court filings

2006-10-06T13:09:00.001+08:00

On Sept 28, the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) released a short statement in response to the magazine being banned in Singapore by the PAP government.

In that statement, FEER said it'll publish a complete response today, Oct 6. Along with the Editor's Letter, FEER's response on its website also includes correspondences with the LEEs lawyers; the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts; and court filings AND three new articles, Financial Center Pipedreams by Hugo Restall; The Charade of Meritocracy by Michael D. Barr & Singapore's Founding Myths vs Freedom by Garry Rodan.

What follows is the Editor's Letter by Hugo Restall..........

The Singaporean government’s recent decision to ban the REVIEW and the defamation lawsuits against us by its two most powerful politicians take us back to a time when the city-state was a poor speck of a country sitting on one of the fault lines of a fractious region. Besieged from without and within, the government of the young People’s Action Party resorted to Draconian colonial-era laws to crush dissent. Today, Singapore is an affluent and peaceful society with ample means to protect itself, and its Southeast Asian neighborhood has progressed from confrontation to cooperation. So why is it still using repressive measures against a monthly magazine that employs a total of three full-time journalists and has 1,000 subscribers in the country?

The July article that started this most recent dispute with Singapore, “Singapore’s ‘Martyr,’ Chee Soon Juan,” sought to raise a similar question, only it focused on the methods used to silence the leader of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party. We put it to Mr. Chee himself, and he laid the blame squarely on the country’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who now holds the title of “minister mentor.”

The ruthless suppression of dissent must be kept up, he said, because as long as Mr. Lee is alive, a new generation of leaders is unable to emerge and distance themselves from his record. Mr. Lee’s past actions, which have led to human rights abuses and statist management of the economy, haunt the government. Mr. Chee believes that is the true reason dissidents like himself are hounded: “If we had parliamentary debates where the opposition could pry and ask questions, I think he is actually afraid of something like that.”

After the article was published, we received letters from Davinder Singh, a lawyer for Mr. Lee and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, claiming that these sentiments and several other sections of the essay defamed the two men. Mr. Singh demanded apologies, removal of the article from our Web site, and an undertaking to pay damages and legal costs.

We did not comply with these demands, and proposed instead to publish a clarification that the REVIEW did not intend the article to express the defamation alleged by Mr. Singh. After several rounds of correspondence with Mr. Singh, all of which is posted on our Web site www.feer.com, we heard nothing more for 10 days. Then the Singaporean Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts announced new conditions to be imposed immediately on the REVIEW, requiring us to appoint a legal representative in Singapore to accept lawsuits, and post a S$200,000 ($126,000) bond to cover damages from such lawsuits—even those relating to already published articles—if we wished to continue circulating. This order had no basis in Singapore’s own law, which stated clearly that such regulations could be imposed only on publications that publish at least weekly or which have been found to have engaged in domestic politics. We have also posted all of our correspondence with the ministry on our Web site.

The timing and substance of this move were in our view no coincidence. It followed hard upon our refusal to apologize and pay damages. Moreover, to sue the REVIEW in Singapore, the Lees would have to serve the papers in Hong Kong, where the magazine is based, since we do not have any employees in Singapore. This means we could challenge that service and/or the enforcement of damages in Hong Kong.

With Singaporean efficiency, the government bureaucracy leaped into action on the Lees’ behalf, imposing conditions with retroactive effect in order to force the magazine to put its head on the block for the Lees to chop off. When the REVIEW refused to comply with these conditions, the Lees proceeded with their lawsuits anyway. This episode tells us much about the use of official power to chill free speech in Singapore.

The Lees’ court filings of Aug. 22, which we have posted on our Web site, claim that the REVIEW article carried the message that Mr. Lee Sr. is “unfit for office because he is corrupt.” We believe that no rational subscriber to this magazine would read the article in the way the Lees allege. Reporting an opposition MP’s claim that a leader’s policies may have led to human-rights abuses and the concealment of government errors is very different from alleging he is corrupt. Mr. Lee’s probity is legendary; we do not believe that his faults include personal corruption, and it strikes us as fantastical to allege that such an allegation was made by the REVIEW.

The lawsuits also make reference to the section of the article that notes “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 lawyer claims that this means that Mr. Lee Sr. “has set out to sue and suppress those who would question him as he fears such questions would expose his corruption.”

Mr. Lee certainly has an impressive record of suing his critics, as do other Singaporean officials, but since we don’t believe he is corrupt, we could hardly have meant that these lawsuits were intended to conceal corruption. Rather we asked the question, one that is legitimate and in the public interest, whether Singaporean officials have used libel lawsuits as a tool to suppress legitimate criticism.

Even defending oneself vigorously in Singapore can incur punishment. For instance, in a case involving a REVIEW article from 1987, a London queen’s counsel vigorously cross-examined the prime minister. After finding for Mr. Lee, the court awarded him aggravated damages in part because the barrister’s questions were calculated to “increase the hurt to his feelings.”

Finally, the Lees’ lawsuits against us allege that the REVIEW defamed them by referring to the scandal of the National Kidney Foundation and Chief Executive T.T. Durai. We noted that this case was exposed only because Mr. Durai, having prevailed in one defamation case, filed a second against a major bulwark of the regime, Singapore Press Holdings, which he lost. The obvious and legitimate question asked by the opposition is, how many more Durais are there in Singapore officialdom who are getting away with abuses because of the lack of an independent media and a vigorous opposition?

Corruption undoubtedly exists in Singapore, as the National Kidney Foundation scandal shows, but asserting this is not a slur—no country is entirely free of this taint. The key thing to watch is whether a government uses sunlight as a disinfectant, or sweeps its errors under the rug. Singapore’s use of press restrictions and politically motivated libel actions makes us wonder whether its reputation for clean government is deserved. For instance, in July, Minister Without Portfolio Lim Boon Heng encouraged the local media to focus more on good news and stop trying to uncover abuses: “If you want to do investigative reporting, there must be something which is wrong which has not been attended to. I think there are not many issues in Singapore that fall under this category.”

Mr. Lim’s words reflect Singapore’s deliberate program to neuter the domestic and international media. Over its 60 years, the REVIEW has often borne the brunt of this campaign. In a 1995 column for the Independent newspaper, the late Derek Davies, a former editor, recalled that in 1976 Mr. Lee Sr. threatened the magazine with ruin if it commented on sensitive matters. Then in 1985, Mr. Lee confided he had a new plan:

“He told me that he was determined to set things straight with the foreign press before he handed over power to the younger generation,” Mr. Davies wrote. “He was drafting a new press law aimed at the pockets of owners and publishers, not editors. If any publication was deemed to be ‘engaging’ in Singapore’s domestic politics, its circulation (and its profits) could be cut to a trickle, while denying it the right to claim it had been banned.”

The new law was passed in 1986, and as a commentator noted in the Times of London the following year, there was little doubt what engaging in domestic politics meant: “As a rule of thumb, any article with which Singapore disagrees and which does not carry its views is deemed to be an interference in its internal affairs.” It wasn’t long before the REVIEW fell afoul of the stricter standard. In 1987, Mr. Lee sued for libel over its coverage of the detention without trial of Catholic social workers, claiming he was portrayed as intolerant of the church and religious freedom. The government restricted the REVIEW’s circulation to a tiny number, and when Mr. Davies withdrew all distribution, it pirated the magazine with the advertisements blacked out.

Sadly, the government’s efforts at controlling coverage of Singapore have been largely successful. For local journalists, whose coverage is controlled by the government through Singapore Press Holdings, resistance is futile. And given that Singapore represents an important market for media in the region, many foreign publications are wary of offending the government. Correspondents who want to tackle controversial subjects find that even carefully nuanced articles involve so much back-and-forth with the lawyers that the effort hardly seems worthwhile. When something critical does make it into print, the appearance of a letter from Mr. Singh demanding an apology and damages has in recent years too often resulted in immediate capitulation.

We respectfully submit that balanced coverage of Singapore in the international media requires deeper reporting and tougher analysis of government actions, as well as an occasional opportunity for opposition politicians to speak for themselves without fear of financial ruin. This is one reason for the REVIEW’s decision to defend itself against these latest defamation suits.

In this issue, academics Michael Barr and Garry Rodan take on two taboo subjects in Singapore: the racial composition of its educational system and the government’s control of the local media. Mr. Barr examines whether Singapore’s claim to be a meritocracy stands up to scrutiny given the striking inequality between the races as shown by the educational advantages enjoyed by ethnic Chinese. Mr. Rodan looks at how the government controls the flow of information for the purpose of protecting and reinforcing the founding myths of the PAP regime.

These articles go straight to the heart of some of the most sensitive issues the Singapore government doesn’t want discussed: race, language, religion and culture. These topics are sometimes said to be “out of bounds.” As Mr. Lee Sr. once explained, “They are not cerebral matters which we can discuss in a Western salon. In our society, these are visceral matters. People take their religion very seriously. It is extremely dangerous to treat this just as another conversational subject.”

Mr. Lee apparently still sees the country he shepherded to independence as fragile and vulnerable. Yet having enjoyed almost 40 years of PAP rule, Singapore has had plenty of time to tame its ideological and racial demons. If after four decades the society remains so volatile that one can’t even discuss sensitive topics openly, the government must have failed in its duty to build a harmonious society.

We don’t think that’s the case. There is much to admire in Singapore’s development under the PAP, and the REVIEW has a responsibility to its readers to provide a balanced view of this record. When honest criticism is forbidden, however, balance is hard to attain. We come back to Mr. Chee’s appraisal that the real impediment to Singapore’s emergence as a self-confident, pluralist society is Lee Kuan Yew himself. After all his contributions, the minister mentor is tarnishing his legacy with attacks on the REVIEW, the international and regional press, Mr. Chee, and others who pose no threat to Singapore. We believe most Singaporeans recognize this and yearn for a fully free democracy. We look forward to that day, when we hope the REVIEW will circulate in Singapore once more.

H.R.

Singapore’s Founding Myths vs. Freedom by Garry Rodan

2006-10-06T13:08:00.000+08:00

And the final article.......

Singapore’s Founding Myths vs. Freedom

FEER, October 2006

By Garry Rodan

The Singapore government hoped for significant returns when it invested approximately $85 million to host the September 2006 meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. And this seemed like a reasonable expectation. After all, the 16,000 delegates represented a captive audience to promote the Singapore’s finance and tourism industries.

What transpired, however, was a public-relations disaster for the ruling People’s Action Party. Singapore’s extensive curbs on political expression were to consume much of the international media attention before and during the meetings.

Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng warned that public protests may “attract severe punishment, including caning and imprisonment.” Under Singapore’s Public Entertainment and Meetings Act, a security permit from police is required for more than four people to gather in a public place. Authorities claimed that outdoor protests would disrupt local residents and could be exploited by terrorists.

Far from winning new admirers by hosting the meetings, Singapore’s authorities managed to alienate existing ones. Leading American neocon Paul Wolfowitz, now president of the World Bank, slammed immigration restrictions on activists as “authoritarian.” Mr. Wolfowitz accused Singapore authorities of reneging on a 2003 agreement to allow attendance of accredited activists, adding: “Enormous damage has been done and a lot of that damage has been done to Singapore, and it’s self-inflicted.” Belated approvals for 22 of the 27 banned activists to enter Singapore limited—but didn’t undo—the damage.

Many international NGOs conducted their activities from the nearby Indonesian island of Batam. Meanwhile, international media attention turned to the attempted illegal march and rally by Singapore Democratic Party leader, Chee Soon Juan, and six others to highlight curbs on freedom of speech, association and assembly. Encircled by 30 police, the protesters were physically prevented from even beginning their march from a city park. Without taking a single step they had proven their point and the government’s contempt for voices of protest was vividly projected to the world.

Additional limits to political expression in Singapore are imposed through stringent media regulation and frequent litigation by government leaders. None of this is abating. Indeed, this publication was recently banned in Singapore, as editor Hugo Restall explains in this edition. But why does the ruling PAP persist with such tight controls over expression given that it enjoys widespread political support inside and outside Singapore? How can we understand the sorts of pr disasters described above?

Any attempt to answer these questions needs to grasp that suppression of dissent in Singapore is discriminating. The PAP has over the last four decades displayed special anxiety toward certain criticisms and scrutiny, while it is less severe in its reactions to others. In particular, it reacts robustly to questioning of the PAP’s governance virtues and the integrity of the political, legal and bureaucratic institutions it has crafted. It is especially protective of two foundational myths of the PAP, which provide the rationale for the ruling party’s monopoly of power.

The first myth is that public institutions are autonomous, efficient and administered by a meritocracy. In this construction, the integrity of any institution is directly linked to the character of its officials and vice versa. The second posits that unless all politics is channeled through clearly defined and regulated formal political institutions then Singapore’s social and political stability will be at risk. This concept of politics is a compartmentalized and highly regulated one.

However, the veracity of such defining stories about the essence of the regime’s character and purpose are impossible to fully ascertain given the constraints on inquiry and debate into them. This is not by accident, since if these myths could not hold up to scrutiny then the rationale of the de facto one-party state would be undermined. Insulating these myths from scrutiny may reflect a lack of confidence in the ability of Singaporeans to assess competing claims about key institutions. It might also reflect a lack of confidence in the ability of the institutions to withstand critical scrutiny. Whatever the case, reinforcing foundational myths involves continual vigilance in monitoring and restricting public debate on PAP governance and institutions.

Paradoxically, dissent itself can actually be functional for the promotion and reinforcement of these myths. For instance, the high-profile defamation suits against critics not only impair or punish government opponents. These trials also avail the ruling party of opportunities to articulate the proclaimed attributes and qualities of the governance system. This explains what otherwise appears to be an inordinate scale of resources and political investment devoted by the PAP to such trials.

Similarly, the extensive system of licenses and regulations pertaining to any form of political expression enables authorities to do more than just limit such activities. It provides opportunities for authorities to echo political leaders’ notions about threats to social and political order posed by civil society activism, public rallies, Internet Web blogs and other independent political expressions.

PAP sensitivity to scrutiny of key state institutions goes a long way toward explaining why J.B. Jeyaretnam and Mr. Chee have encountered more difficulties than most opposition politicians. They are depicted as engaging in “gutter politics,” periodically contrasted for the worse with Singapore’s two opposition members of parliament—Mr. Jeyaretnam’s successor at the helm of the Workers’ Party, Low Thia Khiang, and the leader of the Singapore People’s Party, Chiam See Tong.

In recent decades, Messrs. Jeyaretnam and Chee have consistently probed, questioned and criticized various aspects of the governance system, honing in on the processes accompanying bureaucratic, administrative and political decisions. They have each endured a raft of problems with authorities in trying to conduct political organization and communication—including a string of defamation cases awarding massive damages to PAP leaders. These ultimately resulted in the bankruptcy of the opposition politicians and hence their ineligibility to contest elections.

The most recent demonstration of the difficulties in scrutinizing the PAP’s governance claims without being open to defamation allegations by PAP leaders was provided in the run up to the May 2006 general elections. Mr. Chee led an SDP campaign questioning the response time of the government to problems over disclosures and uses of public funds by the multimillion dollar charitable organization, the National Kidney Foundation. Any chance of a robust debate about the performance of the government and state regulatory institutions was blunted following legal suits by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

Questioning the associated meritocracy myth has proved especially hazardous for the international media. Examples of this include responses to articles by the International Herald Tribune in August 1994 and Bloomberg in August 2002, respectively seen to imply nepotism in the political rise of Lee Hsien Loong and in the appointment of Lee Hsien Loong’s wife, Ho Ching, to the executive directorship of the government-linked holding company, Temasek Holdings. The IHT was ordered to pay over $604,000 in total damages, while Bloomberg settled out of court for around $380,000.

Observations about how the governance system treats PAP leaders was at issue in a $555,000 defamation suit against the Hong Kong-based Yazhou Zhoukan for publishing comments in September 1996 by Singapore lawyer Tang Liang Hong. These related to a controversy over a prelaunch discount sale offer of condominium units by Housing Properties Limited taken up by Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong and various other members of the Lee family. One of the directors of HPL was Lee Suan Yew, the elder brother of Lee Kuan Yew.

Then Prime Minister Goh’s instigation of an investigation into the propriety of the offer and the timing of disclosures by HPL to the Stock Exchange of Singapore, conducted by the finance minister and the head of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, cleared the Lees of any impropriety. However, Mr. Tang maintained that an inquiry conducted by either the Commercial Affairs Department or the Corrupt Practice Investigation Bureau would be more convincing since they were more detached from government. Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong sued Yazhou Zhoukan for approximately $555,000 for defamation and extracted an apology from the magazine.

Given the frequency with which Singapore’s courts have been deployed to quell criticism of key institutions, it’s not surprising that questioning the judiciary’s independence is treated most seriously. There is no better illustration of this than in the case against the IHT for a 1994 op-ed article in which Christopher Lingle didn’t even mention Singapore or its courts by name. He referred to the use in the region by some authoritarian regimes of “a compliant judiciary to bankrupt opposition politicians.” Lee Kuan Yew insisted this was an oblique reference to Singapore and sued the IHT and Mr. Lingle. In the prosecution’s determination to prove this point, it documented 76 separate articles from the Straits Times between 1972-94 to establish that government critics had in fact been regularly prosecuted in Singapore’s courts. Likewise, in Annex A of the Aug. 22 court filing against the review, the plaintiffs’ lawyers enumerated 22 of the defamation actions previously taken by Mr. Lee since 1965.

Mr. Lee’s eagerness to draw the world’s attention to such a history and to volunteer that Singapore’s legal system was the premier candidate for Mr. Lingle’s description might appear puzzling. However, the trial provided a stage for Mr. Lee to assert the independence of the judiciary, to sound a stern warning to others who might want to question this, and to reinforce claims important to Singapore’s economic brand, namely that the integrity of the city-state’s governance regimes distinguish it within the region.

Yet this strategy is not without contradictions and it faces challenges from political and economic forces. Ironically, one challenge emanates from the increasing use of the courts by Singapore’s political opponents to question, counter and challenge the PAP’s foundational myths. Mr. Chee used his February Bankruptcy Petition Hearing, for example, to circulate his court documents to the international media, and he outlined how and why he didn’t believe Singapore’s judicial system was independent when dealing with opposition politicians. He was also able to remind the international media of the criticisms leveled at the Singapore judicial system by Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists and the New York Bar Association. Mr. Chee was not intimidated by the prospect, and subsequent reality, of a suit for contempt of court.

Lee Kuan Yew has since secured a summary judgment for his defamation case against Mr. Chee and his sister and SDP colleague, Chee Siok Chin, arising out of the last election campaign. However, while the Chees were thus denied their request for a public hearing, their detailed defense of what they regard as fair comment on a matter of public interest was posted on various Web sites. Moreover, they are challenging the decision to award a summary trial as unconstitutional. In effect, the Chees are taking a foundational PAP myth seriously to see where it leads.

Meanwhile, economic globalization is contributing to a growing scrutiny of, and challenge to, Singapore’s governance system. Currently a request for review by the Toronto-based oil and natural gas company, EnerNorth Industries, is pending before the Canadian Supreme Court. It is seeking to overturn a decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to abide by a Singapore High Court ruling. This went against EnerNorth in its dispute with Singaporean company Oakwell Engineering and it faces the prospect of having its assets seized under Canadian law to pay for that judgment. However, EnerNorth’s appeal centers round the contention that: “Singapore is ruled by a small oligarchy who control all facets of the Singapore state, including the judiciary, which is utterly politicized.”

There is also increasing international scrutiny of the governance rules and regulations pertaining to Singapore’s domestic market. Already this includes critical attention by the International Monetary Fund and U.S. negotiators involved in the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. Concerns have been raised about levels of transparency, possible conflicts of interest pertaining to appointments within the state and the advantages open to government-linked companies by virtue of political networks to which they belong.

The second foundational PAP myth about the threat to political and social order posed by political pluralism has also manifested itself in a range of measures curbing political expression. The most explicit symbol of this myth is to be found in the Societies Act, which bars political activity by groups not specifically registered for this purpose. In effect, this outlaws civil society—both as an alternative to formal politics or as a complement to it.

Whereas in a liberal democracy widespread political engagement by social groups is viewed as functional for the political system, the PAP worries that this opens the door to “hidden agendas” and special interest politics. As Lee Hsien Loong stated in 2001: “It will be very tragic if Singaporeans are divided into many special interest groups and each one asserts its demands, and you’re unable to form a consensus.”

Attempts by political parties to engage with the general public, particularly by the SDP, have been frustrated by administrative and other impediments. Such were the difficulties experienced by the SDP in obtaining permits for public meetings that they have on occasions deliberately violated the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act. This resulted in prosecutions of SDP members and two prison terms in 1999 for Mr. Chee. The SDP has generally been deploying nonviolent civil disobedience to highlight administrative impediments to free speech and collective action.

One of the contemporary challenges for the PAP in the control of political expression has been the Internet. The essence of the government’s response has been to superimpose the spirit of the Societies Act on cyberspace. This includes the requirement for registration with the Singapore Broadcasting Authority of political Web sites and the barring of nonparty political associations from political promotion, advertising or campaigning during elections. As Senior Minister of State Balaji Sadasivan explained: “In a free-for-all Internet environment, where there are no rules, political debate could easily degenerate into an unhealthy, unreliable and dangerous discourse, flush with rumors and distortions to mislead and confuse the public.”

These controls have proved remarkably effective. However, during the May election, individuals defied the government edict barring political blogging and podcasting. There were around 50 Web sites and blogs producing political or semipolitical content during the election, according to the Institute of Policy Studies in Singapore. Among other things, this provided venues for critical analysis and views to be aired by individuals and it enabled videos of sizeable opposition rallies, blanketed in the state-controlled media, to be made available. This is an important development, since it challenges the PAP preference for all forms of political expression to be channeled through state-controlled institutions and the idea that the alternative is dangerous. A more serious challenge, though, would involve the technology’s facilitation of collective political action or mobilization. The PAP’s priority will be to prevent this.

Clearly the PAP’s determination to insulate its foundational myths remains resolute and attempts to challenge these continue to attract a harsh response from Singapore’s authorities. However, because of economic globalization and the use of new technologies, that exercise is likely to require continued refinement and creative energy.

Mr. Rodan is director of the Asia Research Centre and professor of politics at Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.

The Charade Of Meritocracy by Michael D. Barr

2006-10-06T13:07:00.000+08:00

Here's the second article..........

The Charade Of Meritocracy

FEER, October 2006

By Michael D. Barr

The legitimacy of the Singaporean government is predicated on the idea of a meritocratic technocracy. A tiny number of career civil servants play a leading role in setting policy within their ministries and other government-linked bureaucracies, leading both an elite corps of senior bureaucrats, and a much larger group of ordinary civil servants. Virtually all of the elite members of this hierarchy are “scholars,” which in Singapore parlance means they won competitive, bonded government scholarships—the established route into the country’s elite.

Scholars not only lead the Administrative Service, but also the military’s officer corps, as well as the executive ranks of statutory boards and government-linked companies (GLCs). Movement between these four groups is fluid, with even the military officers routinely doing stints in the civilian civil service. Together with their political masters, most of whom are also scholars, they make up the software for the entity commonly known as “Singapore Inc.”—a labyrinth of GLCs, statutory boards and ministries that own or manage around 60% of Singapore’s economy.

The basis of the scholars’ mandate to govern is not merely their performance on the job, but also the integrity of the process that selected them. The educational system is designed to cultivate competition, requiring top students to prove themselves every step of the way. Singapore’s schools first stream students into elite classes after Primary 3 and 4. They then compete for entry into special secondary schools and junior colleges, before vying for government and government-linked scholarships to attend the most prestigious universities around the world.

These scholarships typically require several years of government service after graduation, and the scholars are drafted into the Administrative Service, the officer corps of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), or the career track of a statutory board or GLC. The government insists that all Singaporeans have equal opportunities to excel in the system, and that everyone who has made it to the top did so purely by academic talent and hard work. Other factors such as gender, socioeconomic background and race supposedly play no more than a marginal role, if they are acknowledged as factors at all.

On the point of race, the Singapore government has long prided itself on having instituted a system of multiracialism that fosters cultural diversity under an umbrella of national unity. This is explicitly supposed to protect the 23% of the population who belong to minority races (mainly ethnic Malays and Indians) from discrimination by the Chinese majority.

But this system conceals several unacknowledged agendas. In our forthcoming book, Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethnicity and the Nation-Building Project, Zlatko Skrbiš and I present evidence that the playing field is hardly level. In fact, Singapore’s system of promotion disguises and even facilitates tremendous biases against women, the poor and non-Chinese. Singapore’s administrative and its political elites—especially the younger ones who have come through school in the last 20 or so years—are not the cream of Singapore’s talent as they claim, but are merely a dominant social class, resting on systemic biases to perpetuate regime regeneration based on gender, class and race.

At the peak of the system is the network of prestigious government scholarships. Since independence in 1965, the technique of using government scholarships to recruit cohorts of scholars into the administrative and ruling elite has moved from the periphery of Singaporean society to center stage. Even before independence, a makeshift system of government and Colombo Plan scholarships sent a few outstanding scholars overseas before putting them into government service, including most notably former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. Yet as late as 1975 this system had contributed only two out of 14 members of Singapore’s cabinet. Even by 1985, only four out of 12 cabinet ministers were former government scholars.

By 1994, however, the situation had changed beyond recognition, with eight out of 14 cabinet ministers being ex-scholars, including Prime Minister Goh. By 2005 there were 12 ex-scholars in a Cabinet of 19. Of these, five had been SAF scholars, including Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. A perusal of the upper echelons of the ruling elite taken more broadly tells a similar story. In 1994, 12 of the 17 permanent secretaries were scholars, as were 137 of the 210 in the administrative-officer class of the Administrative Service.

The government scholarship system claims to act as a meritocratic sieve—the just reward for young adults with talent and academic dedication. If there is a racial or other bias in the outcomes, then this can only be the result of the uneven distribution of talent and academic application in the community. As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong put it when he spoke on national television in May 2005, “We are a multiracial society. We must have tolerance, harmony. … And you must have meritocracy … so everybody feels it is fair….” His father, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, was making the same point when, in 1989, he told Singapore’s Malay community that they “must learn to compete with everyone else” in the education system.

Yet if Singapore’s meritocracy is truly a level playing field, as the Lees assert, then the Chinese must be much smarter and harder working than the minority Indians and Malays. Consider the distribution of the top jobs in various arms of the Singapore government service in the 1990s (based on research conducted by Ross Worthington in the early 2000s):

• Of the top 30 GLCs only two (6.7%) were chaired by non-Chinese in 1991 (and neither of the non-Chinese was a Malay).

• Of the 38 people who were represented on the most GLC boards in 1998, only two (5.3%) were non-Chinese (and neither of the non-Chinese was a Malay).

• Of the 78 “core people” on statutory boards and GLCs in 1998, seven (9%) were non-Chinese (and one of the non-Chinese was a Malay).

A similar outcome is revealed in the pattern of government scholarships awarded after matriculation from school. Of the 200 winners of Singapore’s most prestigious scholarship, the President’s Scholarship, from 1966-2005 only 14 (6.4%) were not Chinese. But this was not a consistent proportion throughout the period. If we take 1980 as the divider, we find that there were 10 non-Chinese President’s Scholars out of 114 from 1966-80, or 8%, but in the period from 1981-2005 this figure had dropped to four out of 106, or 3.8%. Since independence, the President’s Scholarship has been awarded to only one Malay, in 1968. There has been only one non-Chinese President’s Scholar in the 18 years from 1987 to 2005 (a boy called Mikail Kalimuddin) and he is actually half Chinese, studied in Chinese schools (Chinese High School and Hwa Chong Junior College), and took the Higher Chinese course as his mother tongue. If we broaden our focus to encompass broader constructions of ethnicity, we find that since independence, the President’s Scholarship has been won by only two Muslims (1968 and 2005).

If we consider Singapore’s second-ranked scholarship—the Ministry of Defence’s Singapore Armed Forces Overseas Scholarship (SAFOS)—we find a comparable pattern. The Ministry of Defence did not respond to my request for a list of recipients of SAF scholarships, but using newspaper accounts and information provided by the Ministry of Defence Scholarship Centre and Public Service Commission Scholarship Centre Web sites, I was able to identify 140 (56%) of the 250 SAFOS winners up to 2005.

Although only indicative, this table clearly suggests the Chinese dominance in SAFOS stakes: 98% of SAFOS winners in this sample were Chinese, and about 2% were non-Chinese (counting Mikail Kalimuddin in 2005 as non-Chinese). Furthermore I found not a single Malay recipient and only one Muslim winner (Mikail Kalimuddin). A similar picture emerges in the lower status Singapore Armed Forces Merit Scholarship winners: 71 (25.6%) of 277 (as of late 2005) scholars identified, with 69 (97%) Chinese winners to only two non-Chinese—though there was a Malay recipient in 2004, and one reliable scholar maintains that there have been others.

The position of the non-Chinese in the educational stakes has clearly deteriorated since the beginning of the 1980s. According to the logic of meritocracy, that means the Chinese have been getting smarter, at least compared to the non-Chinese.

Yet the selection of scholars does not depend purely on objective results like exam scores. In the internal processes of awarding scholarships after matriculation results are released, there are plenty of opportunities to exercise subtle forms of discrimination. Extracurricular activities (as recorded in one’s school record), “character” and performance in an interview are also considered. This makes the selection process much more subjective than one would expect in a system that claims to be a meritocracy, and it creates ample opportunity for racial and other prejudices to operate with relative freedom.

Is there evidence that such biases operate at this level? Unsurprisingly, the answer to this question is “yes.” Take for instance a 2004 promotional supplement in the country’s main newspaper used to recruit applicants for scholarships. The advertorial articles accompanying the paid advertisements featured only one non-Chinese scholar (a Malay on a lowly “local” scholarship) amongst 28 Chinese on prestigious overseas scholarships. Even more disturbing for what they reveal about the prejudices of those offering the scholarships were the paid advertisements placed by government ministries, statutory boards and GLCs. Of the 30 scholars who were both prominent and can be racially identified by their photographs or their names without any doubt as to accuracy, every one of them was Chinese. This leaves not a shadow of a doubt that those people granting government and government-linked scholarships presume that the vast majority of high-level winners will be Chinese.

The absence of Malays from the SAFOS scholarships and their near-absence from the SAF Merit Scholarships deserves special mention because this is an extension of discrimination against the admission of Malays into senior and sensitive positions in the SAF that is officially sanctioned. The discrimination against Malays has been discussed in parliament and the media, and is justified by the assertion that the loyalty of Malays cannot be assumed, both because they are Muslim and because they have a racial and ethnic affinity with the Malays in Malaysia and Indonesia. Current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has historically been a vocal defender of this policy.

This discrimination hits Malay men hard, first because it deprives many of promising careers in the army, and second—and more pertinent for our study of the elite—it all but completely excludes potentially high-flying Malays of a chance of entering the scholar class through the SAF. A Chinese woman has a much better chance of winning an SAF scholarship than a Malay man.

Yet even before the scholarship stage, the education system has stacked the deck in favor of Chinese, starting in preschool. Here is the heart of Singapore’s systemic discrimination against non-Chinese. Since the end of the 1970s, the principles of “meritocracy” and “multiracialism” have been subverted by a form of government-driven Chinese chauvinism that has marginalized the minorities. It was not known to the public at the time, but as early as 1978, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew had begun referring to Singapore as a “Confucian society” in his dealings with foreign dignitaries. This proved to be the beginning of a shift from his record as a defender of a communally neutral form of multiracialism toward a policy of actively promoting a Chinese-dominated Singapore.

The early outward signs of the Sinicization program were the privileging of Chinese education, Chinese language and selectively chosen “Chinese values” in an overt and successful effort to create a Mandarin- and English-speaking elite who would dominate public life. Two of the most important planks of this campaign were decided in 1979: the annual “Speak Mandarin Campaign” and the decision to preserve and foster a collection of elite Chinese-medium schools, known as Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools.

The SAP schools are explicitly designed to have a Chinese ambience, right down to Chinese gardens, windows shaped like plum blossoms, Chinese orchestra and drama, and exchange programs with mainland China and Taiwan. Over the years the children in SAP schools have been given multiple advantages over those in ordinary schools, including exclusive preschool programs and special consideration for preuniversity scholarships.

For instance, in the early 1980s, when there was a serious shortage of graduate English teachers in schools, the Ministry of Education ensured there were enough allocated to SAP schools “to help improve standards of English among the Chinese-medium students, in the hope that they will be able to make it to university”—a target brought closer by the granting of two O-level bonus points exclusively to SAP school students when they applied to enter junior college. By contrast, neither Indians nor Malays received any special help, let alone schools of their own to address their special needs. They were not only left to fend for themselves, but were sometimes subjected to wanton neglect: inadequately trained teachers, substandard facilities and resources and the “knowledge” that they are not as good as the Chinese.

This account of discrimination against non-Chinese might lead the reader to assume that the quarter of Singaporeans who are not Chinese must form a festering and perhaps even revolutionary mass of resentment. Such an assumption would, however, be a long way from the mark. Non-Chinese might be largely excluded from the highest levels of the administrative elite, but just below these rarefied heights there plenty of positions open to intelligent and hardworking non-Chinese—certainly enough to ensure that non-Chinese communities have much to gain by enthusiastically buying into the system, even after the glass ceilings and racial barriers are taken into account. There are many grievances and resentments in these levels of society but the grievances are muted and balanced by an appreciation of the relative comforts and prosperity they enjoy. For most, any tendency to complain is subdued also by knowledge that it could be worse, and the widespread assumption among members of minority communities that it will be if they seriously pursue their grievances. As long as the Singapore system continues to deal such people a satisfactory hand, if not a fair one, it should be able to cope with some quiet rumblings in the ranks.

While this discrimination is not sparking a reaction that threatens the regime in the short term, the resulting injustices are certainly undermining the myth that the regime operates on meritocratic principles. This is worrying in the longer term because this myth, along with the capacity to deliver peace and prosperity, is one of the primary rationales by which Singaporeans reluctantly accept the many unpopular aspects of the regime, such as the lack of freedom and democracy, the intrusion of government into most aspects of private life, the pressure-cooker lifestyle and the high cost of living.

The rhetoric of meritocracy has given Singaporeans the consolation of believing that their ruling elite are the best of the best and can therefore be trusted almost blindly on important matters, even if they are highhanded and lack the common touch. As this illusion gradually falls away—and today it is already heavily undermined—the trust that Singaporeans have for their government is becoming increasingly qualified. It remains to be seen how long the regime can avert the logical consequences of the contradictions between the myth and the reality.

Mr. Barr is a lecturer at the University of Queensland and author of Lee Kuan Yew: The Beliefs Behind the Man (Routledge, 2000) and Cultural Politics and Asian Values: The Tepid War (Routledge, 2002).

Financial Center Pipedreams by Hugo Restall, Editor of FEER

2006-10-06T13:06:00.000+08:00

Three new articles accompany the FEER editor's letter. I dunno when all these will be archived so I'm publishing them in this blog. Starting with Hugo Restall's Financial Center Pipedreams.......

Financial Center Pipedreams

October 2006

By Hugo Restall

There is no denying that for financiers, Singapore has plenty of buzz these days. When a large European bank held a reception there recently for its prime brokers to meet potential hedge fund clients, it expected a couple hundred people. Instead more than 700 showed up. The influx of fund managers and private bankers has helped create a shortage of high-end housing, and as a result prices have risen 20% to 30% in the last year. Office rents just posted a 13% quarter-on-quarter rise, the highest ever, and are expected to break through their 1996 peak within the next couple years.

So is Singapore succeeding in its ambition to become a regional financial center? In some ways, yes. It has certainly enhanced its attractiveness to certain segments of the financial sector. But at the same time it seems to be falling further behind in the race to become the pre-eminent integrated hub. The analogy some use is that Singapore is becoming the Zurich to Hong Kong’s London, or the Greenwich, Connecticut to Hong Kong’s Manhattan.

For high net-worth individuals, Singapore’s banking secrecy laws make it highly attractive as a place to stash funds out of sight of their own country’s authorities—especially since some havens like Switzerland have recently watered down their guarantees of confidentiality. The super-rich of Southeast Asia have long used Singapore as a bolt-hole, both from political instability and the long arm of the law. Now new money is flowing in not only from Europe, but also from China. That’s because since the 1997 handover, wealthy Chinese trust Hong Kong less as there is a perceived risk that mainland authorities will exert their authority there.

Meanwhile, Asia is in the middle of a hedge-fund boom, with assets flowing in at a rate of $12 billion to $15 billion per year. Singapore has offered tax breaks, simpler registration, and even mandates to manage some of its own massive pool of pension savings as enticements for fund managers to locate there. Since many of these individuals trade from wherever they happen to be and spend much time travelling around the region, they can essentially live wherever they want.

That means Singapore’s clean environment and efficient urban planning come into play. With Hong Kong’s air quality deteriorating rapidly and the government so weak it is unable to undertake the building of a cultural center in West Kowloon, it is no wonder that those who can move are doing so. Employers are beginning to rethink whether they need to pay Hong Kong’s higher costs in order to be close to the market. The exodus looks much like the way U.S. hedge funds have moved out of New York City to the suburbs or other cities.

However, the appearance that everything is going Singapore’s way is misleading. For one thing, the benefits of attracting fund managers are small. In this year’s budget, the government announced preferential tax treatment, meaning that the local coffers will only get a small bite of this growing pie. The local market may also get a slight boost, but the biggest pluses is the extra consumption and employment in the local economy. In fact, the bid is reminiscent of Singapore’s past efforts to attract targeted industries like the Internet or biotech. It usually ends up paying top dollar, and then repenting at leisure as it turns out that it jumped on the bandwagon too late.

Meanwhile, Hong Kong is actually solidifying its position as the premier financial center for East Asia. Its stock market is outpacing rivals in the race to become large and liquid enough to intermediate the huge flows of capital needed to reform China’s state-owned enterprises.

One proof of that should come later this month, when what could be the world’s largest IPO is scheduled. Hong Kong retail investors are already lining up to buy into Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. With $815 billion in assets, the bank is the largest on the mainland, is expected to raise as much as $21 billion, about $17 billion of that in Hong Kong and the remainder in Shanghai.

A flood of IPOs—$21.2 billion worth last year—is fueling Hong Kong’s self-confidence as the pre-eminent regional financial center. No longer does the city look over its shoulder at Shanghai. Instead it is Wall Street that it starting to get twitchy about the Hong Kong market’s ability to handle such massive offerings.

Meanwhile, the Singapore exchange, with a total market capitalization about one-quarter the size of Hong Kong at the end of last year, gets a few smaller Chinese companies listing, and for a while local investor interest was keen in these shares. But a derivatives trading scandal involving China Aviation Oil in late 2004 nearly blew up the company, and also raised questions about whether the Singaporean regulators were lowering their standards to attract listings. Trust in Chinese companies coming to Singapore evaporated almost overnight, and oversight had to be tightened in order to rebuild it.

Even in terms of being a center for fund management, Hong Kong is arguably maintaining or enlarging its lead over Singapore. It still attracts the larger funds, which want to be physically close to the main market so they can have plenty of contact with the managers of companies. Singapore doesn’t hold much appeal because its market is dominated by stodgy government-linked companies.

The real potential for a breakthrough lies in the development of an Asian bond market. The issuance of local currency bonds has more than quadrupled in the last 10 years from a very low base. Everyone agrees that the region would benefit hugely if it could reduce companies’ reliance on bank debt by making bond issues more accessible. So can Singapore take the lead?

It seems unlikely however that Singapore could develop this market on its own. One hurdle is the lack of a benchmark government security issued in a convertible local currency. India and China are the two giant sovereign issuers with the potential to create a market. And both are going to want to create their own financial centers.

Last March, India announced its intention to create a road map for convertibility of the rupee. Ultimately that will boost Mumbai’s ability to cut out Singapore as a gateway to India.

And there is talk of Chinese companies being allowed to issue yuan-denominated bonds in Hong Kong. It is not inconceivable for Beijing to make a pragmatic decision to promote Hong Kong as a bond trading center. Already Hong Kong banks are beginning to conduct yuan-denominated business.

The other countries in Southeast Asia are hardly likely to welcome Singaporean control over their access to capital. While relations are stable, the recent outburst of public anger in Thailand at the sale of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s family stake in Shin Corp. to the Singaporean government holding company Temasek shows the depth of suspicion lurking beneath the surface. Effigies of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his wife Ho Ching, the head of Temasek, were burned in the streets of Bangkok. Temasek has repeatedly faced problems investing abroad because it is perceived as an agent of the government, with political as well as commercial motivations. The conflict with Malaysia over the trading of Malaysian shares in Singapore in the 1990s also shows the regional unwillingness to cede market leadership to the city state.

Singapore is thus paying a price for its government-led economic model, which is intertwined with its system of social control at home. Instead of nurturing a domestic entrepreneurial class with its own vested interests, it has kept the commanding heights of the economy under the control of Singapore Inc. Therefore its financial institutions have not been welcomed abroad in the way that Switzerland’s have.

Individual institutions will also have to consider the political problems of doing business in Singapore. Market players were shocked this month by the sudden resignation of Morgan Stanley Asia economist Andy Xie, reportedly after he sent an internal email disparaging Singapore’s financial center ambitions: “Actually, Singapore’s success came mainly from being the money laundering centre for corrupt Indonesian businessmen and government officials. Indonesia has no money. So Singapore isn’t doing well. To sustain its economy, Singapore is building casinos to attract corrupt money from China.” Mr. Xie could not be reached to comment on his resignation.

Such undiplomatic remarks from an economist would never be welcomed by an investment bank. But Mr. Xie’s resignation suggests just how sensitive the political climate there is for financial institutions. For hedge funds, then, the question is to what extent they could take bets against the Singapore economy or prominent Singaporean companies without wearing out their welcome. Such concerns don’t enter the picture in Hong Kong, and indeed mainland China is not so thin-skinned. Ten years after the handover, Hong Kong’s freedom of information has unexpectedly proved resilient, while Singapore has failed to liberalize.

So it is difficult to see Singapore continuing to enjoy its current success. Fund managers may be happy to receive tax breaks, but their mobility and fickleness means there is not much of a network effect to keep them in Singapore for the long term. Meanwhile Indonesia is exerting pressure to conclude an extradition treaty and amend its secrecy laws in order to stop the outflow of illicit funds.

Singapore deserves credit for financial market deregulation since 1998 and the opening of the local banking sector to foreign competition. But as long as it pursues a strategy that alienates its neighbors, it will be unable to realize its ambition of becoming a fully fledged financial hub. Ultimately such centers depend on cooperative relationships, while at the moment Singapore is still seen as an opportunistic player.

Mr. Restall is editor of the review.

Temasek Holdings might have overstepped foreign ownership laws

2006-10-02T18:41:00.001+08:00

Thai probe turns up heat on Temasek's Shin deal

by Khettiya Jittapong

BANGKOK, Oct 2 (Reuters) - A Thai Commerce Ministry probe into Temasek's purchase of the country's biggest telecoms firm has found that the Singapore state investment arm might have overstepped foreign ownership laws, an official said on Monday.

The investigation centred on Kularb Kaew, a holding company set up as part of Temasek's $3.8 billion purchase of Shin Corp from the family of now-deposed Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in January.

Non-Thais have in the past been able to control Thai affiliates through chains of holding companies, but the tax-free nature of the Shin sale deal -- and then the coup against Thaksin -- forced unprecedented scrutiny of the deal.

At the heart of the matter lies the question of whether Kularb Kaew, which is controlled by a Malaysia-based Thai who was a partner in the Shin deal, is a Thai company or a Temasek proxy.

"We have found some evidence, especially the way Kularb Kaew transfered money to buy Shin Corp, which might go against Clause 36 of the Alien Business Law," Dusit Uchupong, deputy director general at the ministry's Business Development Department, told reporters.

Given that the Commerce Ministry has no legal jurisdiction, the panel's findings have been forwarded to the police, he added.

"The ball is in hands of the police. Our department has no authority to decide whether the laws were violated or not," he said.

Complex Deal

Thai nationals are prohibited from "holding shares for" or assisting foreign nationals in ways that would enable foreign nationals to circumvent the laws.

Under Thai law, proxies of foreign firms face a three-year jail term and/or a fine of up to 1 million baht ($27,000) if found guilty of owning more than 49 percent of a Thai company.

A preliminary Commerce Ministry inquest has already ruled Kularb Kaew a non-Thai firm.

Shin Corp, which has major interests in Advanced Info Services , Thailand's largest mobile phone firm, was acquired through several affiliates of Temasek.

Under the complicated structure of the deal, Shin is 96.29 percent owned by two registered Thai firms, Cedar Holdings with 54.53 percent, and Aspen Holdings with 41.76 percent.

Aspen is owned directly by a Temasek subsidiary. Cedar is 49 percent-owned by Cypress Holdings, another Temasek subsidiary.

Unlisted Kularb Kaew owns 45.2 percent of Cedar, and Siam Commercial Bank PCL has 5.8 percent.

Surin Upatkul, the Malaysia-based Thai businessman who owns 68 percent of Kularb Kaew and who is now a Shin Corp director, has denied acting on behalf of Temasek.

Thai officials have not yet said what they would do if Kularb Kaew is found to be a Temasek proxy, although chief telecoms regulator Choochart Promphrasid said in August AIS would face legal action. ($1 = 37.59 Baht)

Why I'm Banned in the USA by Tariq Ramadan

2006-10-01T21:01:00.000+08:00

Why I'm Banned in the USA
By Tariq Ramadan
Sunday, October 1, 2006
Source: Washington Post

LONDON

For more than two years now, the U.S. government has barred me from entering the United States to pursue an academic career. The reasons have changed over time, and have evolved from defamatory to absurd, but the effect has remained the same: I've been kept out.

First, I was told that I could not enter the country because I had endorsed terrorism and violated the USA Patriot Act. It took a lawsuit for the government eventually to abandon this baseless accusation. Later, I reapplied for a visa, twice, only to hear nothing for more than a year. Finally, just 10 days ago, after a federal judge forced the State Department to reconsider my application, U.S. authorities offered a new rationale for turning me away: Between 1998 and 2002, I had contributed small sums of money to a French charity supporting humanitarian work in the Palestinian territories.

I am increasingly convinced that the Bush administration has barred me for a much simpler reason: It doesn't care for my political views. In recent years, I have publicly criticized U.S. policy in the Middle East, the war in Iraq, the use of torture, secret CIA prisons and other government actions that undermine fundamental civil liberties. And for many years, through my research and writing and speeches, I have called upon Muslims to better understand the principles of their own faith, and have sought to show that one can be Muslim and Western at the same time.

My experience reveals how U.S. authorities seek to suppress dissenting voices and -- by excluding people such as me from their country -- manipulate political debate in America. Unfortunately, the U.S. government's paranoia has evolved far beyond a fear of particular individuals and taken on a much more insidious form: the fear of ideas.

In January 2004, I was offered a job at the University of Notre Dame, as a professor of Islamic studies and as Luce professor of religion, conflict and peace-building. I accepted the tenured position enthusiastically and looked forward to joining the academic community in the United States. After the government granted me a work visa, I rented a home in South Bend, Ind., enrolled my children in school there and shipped all of my household belongings. Then, in July, the government notified me that my visa had been revoked. It did not offer a specific explanation, but pointed to a provision of the Patriot Act that applies to people who have "endorsed or espoused" terrorist activity.

The revocation shocked me. I had consistently opposed terrorism in all of its forms, and still do. And, before 2004, I had visited the United States frequently to lecture, attend conferences and meet with other scholars. I had been an invited speaker at conferences or lectures sponsored by Harvard University, Stanford, Princeton and the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Foundation. None of these institutions seemed to consider me a threat to national security.

The U.S. government invited me to apply for a new visa and, with Notre Dame's help, I did so in October 2004. But after three months passed without a response, I felt I had little choice but to give up my new position and resume my life in Europe. Even so, I never abandoned the effort to clear my name. At the urging of American academic and civic groups, I reapplied for a visa one last time in September 2005, hoping that the government would retract its accusation. Once again, I encountered only silence.

Finally, in January, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Academy of Religion, the American Association of University Professors and PEN American Center filed a lawsuit on my behalf, challenging the government's actions. In court, the government's lawyers admitted that they could establish no connection between me and any terrorist group; the government had merely taken a "prudential" measure by revoking my visa. Even then, the government maintained that the process of reconsidering my visa could take years. The federal court -- which issued a ruling recognizing that I have been a vocal critic of terrorism -- rejected the indefinite delay. In June, it ordered the government to grant me a visa or explain why it would not do so.

On Sept. 21, the long-awaited explanation arrived. The letter from the U.S. Embassy informed me that my visa application had been denied, and it put an end to the rumors that had circulated since my original visa was revoked. After a lengthy investigation, the State Department cited no evidence of suspicious relationships, no meetings with terrorists, no encouraging or advocacy of terrorism. Instead, the department cited my donation of $940 to two humanitarian organizations (a French group and its Swiss chapter) serving the Palestinian people. I should note that the investigation did not reveal these contributions. As the department acknowledges, I had brought this information to their attention myself, two years earlier, when I had reapplied for a visa.

In its letter, the U.S. Embassy claims that I "reasonably should have known" that the charities in question provided money to Hamas. But my donations were made between December 1998 and July 2002, and the United States did not blacklist the charities until 2003. How should I reasonably have known of their activities before the U.S. government itself knew? I donated to these organizations for the same reason that countless Europeans -- and Americans, for that matter -- donate to Palestinian causes: not to help fund terrorism, but because I wanted to provide humanitarian aid to people who desperately need it. Yet after two years of investigation, this was the only explanation offered for the denial of my visa. I still find it hard to believe.

What words do I utter and what views do I hold that are dangerous to American ears, so dangerous, in fact, that I should not be allowed to express them on U.S. soil?

I have called upon Western societies to be more open toward Muslims and to regard them as a source of richness, not just of violence or conflict. I have called upon Muslims in the West to reconcile and embrace both their Islamic and Western identities. I have called for the creation of a "New We" based on common citizenship within which Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Muslims and people with no religion can build a pluralistic society. And yes, I believe we all have a right to dissent, to criticize governments and protest undemocratic decisions. It is certainly legitimate for European Muslims and American Muslims to criticize their governments if they find them unjust -- and I will continue to do so.

At the same time, I do not stop short of criticizing regimes from Muslim countries. Indeed, the United States is not the only country that rejects me; I am also barred from Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and even my native Egypt. Last month, after a few sentences in a speech by Pope Benedict XVI elicited protests and violence, I published an article noting how some governments in the Muslim world manipulate these imagined crises to suit their political agendas. "When the people are deprived of their basic rights and of their freedom of expression," I argued, "it costs nothing to allow them to vent their anger over Danish cartoons or the words of the Pontiff." I was immediately accused of appeasing the enemies of Islam, of being more Western than Muslim.

Today, I live and work in London. From my posts at Oxford University and the Lokahi Foundation, I try to promote cultural understanding and to prevent radicalization within Muslim communities here. Along with many British citizens, I have criticized the country's new security laws and its support for the war in Iraq. Yet I have never been asked to remain silent as a condition to live or work here. I can express myself freely.

I fear that the United States has grown fearful of ideas. I have learned firsthand that the Bush administration reacts to its critics not by engaging them, but by stigmatizing and excluding them. Will foreign scholars be permitted to enter the United States only if they promise to mute their criticisms of U.S. policy? It saddens me to think of the effect this will have on the free exchange of ideas, on political debate within America, and on our ability to bridge differences across cultures.

Straits Times deserves the public tongue-lashing

2006-10-01T11:28:00.001+08:00

Theatreworks delivers a much deserved public tongue-lashing against the Straits Times, Singapore's widely circulated national newspaper whose reportage is heavily controlled & influenced by the ruling Peoples Action Party government...............

In the Spirit of Free Expression ......

Theatreworks refers to The Straits Times article entitled, "Theatre director slams Life! , arts council over media invitation" dated 27 September 2006.

To clarify Theatreworks' position, we had stated in our letter to Straits Times Life! that 'we do not welcome her (Ms Hong) to the Diaspora performances". The phrase "do not welcome" does not mean 'barring'. Theatreworks believes in the spirit of free expression, and understands that any attempt at denying media presence and/or critical comment would be futile.

In this same spirit of free expression, we have chosen to post our stand on our website. We will continue to do so, as and when there is a need for diverse views from those expressed by the mainstream, for instance a major media. By harnessing the website in this manner, it is one way to ensure diversity of opinion in Singapore.

Importantly, we need to consider the larger question of what is behind the immediate conflict that has occurred; and to look at how we can achieve deeper, improved and sustained trust and communication between artists and media, as suggested by Alvin Tan of The Necessary Stage. So, once again, we invite those who are interested to be a part of this discussion, to write to Tay Tong at taytong@theatreworks.org.sg

Thank you.
Statement

Theatreworks condemns the environment generated by the attitudes of The Straits Times Life! editors and writers. It also condemns the cooperation of the National Arts Council with The Straits Times Life! at the potential expense of its constituency, the Singapore artists. In a country where the main press is dominated by The Straits Times, its reporters can have a powerful public voice and may generate a slanted perspective about Singapore theatre. Hence deep, sustained communication or dialogue with the majority of Singapore performing artists is essential. In the last years, The Straits Times Life! can be said to have built an environment where commercial entertainment has robbed the Singapore theatre scene of its vibrancy in the public’s eyes. In particular, the statements made by reporter Hong Xin Yi in the recent Singapore Theatre Festival could have generated a backlash against Singapore plays and other new performances made in Singapore.

Theatreworks views this as increasingly intolerable for a responsible public newspaper. Hong Xin Yi’s statements adds onto the bullying techniques of senior writer Ong Sor Fern as well as the “silence” of Life! editor Sumiko Tan towards negotiating these conflicts between reporters and individual arts groups.

In a series of events, Theatreworks had written to the National Arts Council that Hong Xin Yi’s presence, as opposed to any other journalist from The Straits Times, would not be welcomed at the recent production of Diaspora. In addition, before the production opened, we also declined all requests for interviews by Hong Xin Yi because of our concern that there might be inaccurate representation of the work. Hence, Theatreworks preferred not to have any presence in the Straits Times Life! as we understand that she is the only arts reporter for theatre. This was not an attempt at denying media presence nor critical comments for such an attempt would be futile. Every other media requests were accommodated by Theatreworks (Channel News Asia, Business Times, Lian He Zhao Bao, Today and IS Magazine just to name a few). This production of Diaspora was landmark, not so much in its artistic content nor form, but it was the first arts event commissioned by government institutions for an international gathering of delegates who were not meeting on arts and culture.

Subsequently, the National Arts Council quietly gave tickets to Hong Xin Yi for the 20th Sep 06 performance. This was done without informing Theatreworks who had made the artwork Diaspora. This action was kept clandestine without any indication on the public list of invitations. Theatreworks only found out much later and was shocked that such actions had been taken. No prior notice was given to Theatreworks who had already expressed reservations about Hong Xin Yi’s presence.

In the final analysis, Theatreworks understands that the National Arts Council has its obligations to the press. However it is the manner in which these obligations were carried out that has led to much misunderstanding. Implicit in this manner is perhaps a statement that the press is more important to the National Arts Council than the artists, who are the cultural capital of Singapore.

Theatreworks had also expressed very strongly its stand about Hong Xin Yi to the editors of Life! There was no attempt by the editors at initiating any negotiations with Theatreworks to understand each other’s position better before 20th Sep 06. Theatreworks had attempted through a phonecall to the editors but was simply told to reconsider its position. This can be interpreted as a “superpower” attitude where the problem lies with the “petulant” artist rather than both sides having to reconsider their positions.

As a matter of fact, it is almost impossible to ever reach Sumiko Tan through email or phone. This is a drastic turnaround after Richard Lim’s editorship where he was accessible to artists who could voice legitimate concerns to him directly.

Hong Xin Yi’s subsequent review about Diaspora on 22nd Sep 06 left a general negative impression in the minds of some readers. In particular, it commented in passing that the writing was melancholic, simplistic and sentimental. Without attributing the writing to any specific individual (the undersigned wrote the script of Diaspora), it is hoped that such an action is not taken as a reprimanding rap on the knuckles of an independent arts group. This is especially disturbing in a country where there are few public dialogues and where public opinion is often harnessed through The Straits Times.

Ong Keng Sen
Artistic Director
Theatreworks

"Trouble is brewing in cyberspace for free speech advocates"

2006-10-01T04:28:00.000+08:00

Free speech and the New Internet

While new technology online could provide security, writes Dennis Posadas, it also could expose cyber dissidents

By Dennis Posadas
AsiaMedia Contributing Writer

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Trouble is brewing in cyberspace for free speech advocates.

Dissenters in authoritarian countries are currently able and willing to air their views through the Internet to a worldwide audience because their identities remain anonymous to some extent. This anonymity is due in large part to a portion of the current Internet infrastructure called a proxy server.

A proxy server acts like a calling office that rents out its phone numbers to other people; outsiders only know that the number belongs to a calling office, rather than who is on the line. On the current Internet, proxy servers used by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) lend out a temporary Internet Protocol (IP) numbers to whatever personal computer or mobile phone is logged in at that moment; once that user logs off, the IP number is given to another subscriber.

But the current version of the Internet (IPv4) will eventually be replaced by something called the New Internet (IPv6). The New Internet will do away with proxy servers, making all IP numbers fixed and permanent to each PC or cell phone around the world.

Although some encryption may be possible, dissenters and free thinkers in authoritarian states will no longer be able to hide the identities of their computers and cell phone numbers, once the infrastructure for the New Internet is laid out.

The current Internet has been in use for around three decades, and has held up remarkably well. Serious problems, however, will start to become apparent in the next few years. IPv4 can only allocate around a billion usable IP addresses, which may seem like a lot, until you consider a country like China, where more than a billion people may eventually want to connect to the Internet. If each Chinese citizen decides to get an Internet-enabled cell phone or PC, other users around the world will not have enough IP addresses to use. This is somewhat akin to having only four digits to use for telephone numbers; once your mother, siblings and relatives each get their own four digit phone numbers, there are virtually no numbers left for anyone else.

Proxy servers are a stopgap measure to extend the life of the current Internet by allowing hundreds, if not thousands of client devices, such as cell phones and PCs, to reuse a single IP address. While proxy servers have helped protect the identities of dissidents, the anonymity has also allowed hackers to have a field day impersonating web sites, phishing and stealing identities. This is similar to calling your friend, only to find out that several people are sharing your friend's phone number.

On the New Internet, the good news is that there will be no question about who is misusing a particular IP address; hackers and other criminals will have a hard time hiding from prosecution. The bad news is that not everyone who wants to remain anonymous online is a criminal; the implications for free speech and privacy in cyberspace could be serious.

Again, take the case of a country like China. Chinese ISPs are required to maintain records of all information posted on their servers and all users who have connected to their servers for a period of 60 days. Suspicious activity must be reported by ISPs to the authorities. The rental of telecommunications equipment is tightly controlled.

The growth of the Internet in China has been nothing short of spectacular. The first Chinese Internet facility was setup in 1993. The Economist reported in April that China's Internet population grew last year to 111 million users and 45.6 million Internet-enabled computers.

In countries run by authoritarian regimes, the Internet is the only place for ordinary citizens to air their grievances and be heard by a wide audience. It is therefore a medium of speech that must be protected; a virtual town hall which often serves its citizens better than the real thing.

While cost considerations may prevent them from immediately doing so, authoritarian countries, particularly those that are already blocking sites and spying on their citizens, could shift their entire Internet infrastructure to the New Internet. And it is certainly plausible that these countries will exploit the sudden lack of anonymity of Internet users. Dissidents and free thinkers may then lose their desire to express their opinions freely.

It is imperative that countries such as the United States, whose government is built on a strong bedrock of democracy, should take the lead in developing the New Internet to reasonably protect the rights of individual users, especially those living in authoritarian countries. Even at a symbolic level, a technology as pervasive as the Internet should represent man's highest aspirations for freedom and individual achievement. There is no room in this ubiquitous technology, for authoritarian thinking and the thwarting of civil liberties.

PAP govt bans FEER; FEER responds

2006-09-29T20:17:00.001+08:00

Here's a statement from Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) in response to the news that the PAP government has banned FEER from being sold or distributed in Singapore...........

Statement of the Far Eastern Economic Review
September 28, 2006

The Singaporean government today announced that it has banned the Far Eastern Economic Review from the country. It has explicitly warned that not only is the Review Publishing Company forbidden from importing or distributing the Hong Kong-based monthly, but Singaporeans will also commit a criminal offense if they import or reproduce the magazine for distribution.

In its September issue, the Review urged the Singaporean government to reconsider its decision to impose punitive regulations on the Review. These retroactive regulations furthered the interests of individual members of the government and harmed the magazine financially, but were never justified by the government under the applicable law. Today’s statement shows that the government has refused to reconsider its repressive approach toward the media.

We regret that this action infringes on the fundamental rights of our Singaporean subscribers and further restricts the already narrow scope of free expression in Singapore. The Review will publish a more complete response to the government’s actions in the next issue of the magazine to appear on October 6.

Do read my earlier posts regarding the PAP govt's hit job on FEER:

Pathetic LEEs are at it again - Target FEER

PAP takes aim at FEER after it publishes article on Chee Soon Juan & S'pore
politics

"A colour revolution for Singapore" - FEER talks to Chee Soon Juan (The real reason behind the ban on FEER)

Singapore bans Far Eastern Economic Review magazine

by Sara Webb

SINGAPORE, Sept 28 (Reuters) - Singapore's government said on Thursday that it had banned the sale and distribution of the Far Eastern Economic Review, a monthly magazine owned by Dow Jones & Co. , as it failed to comply with its press regulations.

On Aug. 3 the government ordered five foreign publications -- the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER), Time, Newsweek, Financial Times and the International Herald Tribune -- to post bonds of S$200,000 ($126,000) and appoint representatives in Singapore.

Later in August, Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, both filed defamation suits against FEER's publisher and editor over an article that it published in July about opposition politician Chee Soon Juan, according to court documents.

The Ministry of Information, Communications, and the Arts said in a statement on Thursday that it had revoked its approval for FEER's sale and distribution in Singapore because the magazine had failed to comply with the government's conditions.

"It is a privilege and not a right for foreign newspapers to circulate in Singapore," the ministry said, adding that it was now an offence for any person to sell or distribute, import, or subscribe to the Far Eastern Economic Review.

The Hong Kong-based Far Eastern Economic Review said it was unaware of Singapore's decision.

Singapore's leaders have won hefty damages in the past from media groups including the Economist, the International Herald Tribune, Bloomberg and FinanceAsia.

Media watchdog Reporters Without Borders, which ranks Singapore 140th out of 167 countries for press freedom, slammed the government's decision in August to issue restrictions for the five foreign publications.

"The authorities are looking for effective ways, including fear of prosecution and heavy fines, to intimidate these publications into censoring themselves," the media watchdog said at the time, as the S$200,000 bonds would serve as security in any future government lawsuit for alleged defamation.

PM's wife, MM's daughter-in-law, and Temasek Holdings' CEO, Ho Ching in the firing line

2006-09-25T14:42:00.001+08:00

Pick up the newspapers or watch the news on TV and you'll see the cover-up still continues as the local media conveniently leaves out the involvement of Temasek Holdings. Sickening bastards.

Anyway, here's a report from the Sydney Morning Herald.......

Madame Ho's Temasek still in the firing line after Thai coup

September 25, 2006

The fallout from the Thai coup is yet to hit Singapore's Madame Ho, writes Eric Ellis.

THAILAND'S military junta has gone out of its way to assure that it's business as usual in Bangkok.

The baht has wobbled, likewise the stock exchange, but neither with symptoms to have neighbours sniffling with the contagion they caught here during the late 1990s financial crisis. The coup has been smooth as silk, as Thais like to say.

But there is one woman in Singapore who desperately hopes the generals are as good as their word, the person whose dealmaking with Thailand's ousted Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, precipitated the coup.

Her name is Ho Ching. She is chief executive of the Singapore Government-owned Temasek Holdings, which controls a $100 billion-plus portfolio, including Optus.

She bought Thaksin out of his family businesses, Shin Corp, in March in a highly questionable $4.5 billion transaction that outraged Thais.

The Singapore company bought the Thai leader's controlling half share in Shin Corp and then quickly snapped up most of the rest on the stockmarket. Temasek now controls 96 per cent.

As Thaksin banked Temasek's tax-free cash, Thais burnt Madame Ho's effigy on Bangkok streets, traducing the reputation created for her by Singaporean spin doctors as a safe pair of hands. It was, at best, a spectacular misjudgement.

Far from being the great buy Temasek claimed, the deal ignited six months of political turmoil, culminating in the coup. Thais stopped using the television, airline, finance and technology businesses Temasek bought.

Now Shin buyers wear a $US2 billion ($2.6 billion) paper loss on the deal after less than six months.

As Thai regulators deepen their probe into the transaction and Thaksin's "rampant corruption", Temasek and its partners reportedly face fines of up to $US2 billion if it's proved, as many suspect, that Thai licensing laws have been breached. Or have the deal declared illegal, the assets nationalised.

Coups d'etat tend to arouse shrill demonstrations of nationalism; Temasek is the convenient foreign villain, its predicament entirely self-inflicted.

In these post-Enron days where blameless corporate governance is paramount, if the chief executive blows $2 billion in six months, the bloodletting in the boardroom would be swift and brutal. But even if her Thai adventure worsens, that seems unlikely to happen to Ho, who is the wife of Singapore's Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong; the daughter-in-law of the nation's long-time strongman, Lee Kuan Yew.

At 54, Ho is no Singapore Girl. Dour and grim, with a penchant for unflattering grey business suits, she's been Temasek's unsmiling CEO since 2001, presenting as an untouchable corporate dominatrix protected by the formidable Lee family edifice.

The Lees, as compliant Singaporeans famously know, don't make mistakes. Any questioning of their methods - as bankrupted opposition politicians and the foreign press have frequently discovered - hazard libel suits heard in Singapore's courts, where the Lees' history of success is unparalleled.

Not that the Singaporean media does much questioning either. The day's newspapers after the coup did not report Temasek's obvious dilemma, odd given that ultimately it is Singapore taxpayers' money Ho has hazarded.

It was left to a sole letter writer, presciently published a week before the coup, who suggested that an alliance with the much-hated Thaksin might not be a wise risk for the national nest egg. "Hitching our investment bandwagon to the first family is a double-edged sword," wrote Danny Chua in Today.

"We can go higher with their rising star but when they fall, we can fall too. Our investment must stand up to scrutiny in the eyes of the law. There must be compliance with corporate governance and transparency. We must be able to sleep peacefully, knowing that we have done the right thing."

Singapore loves to control and, when it can't, to quietly work its power relationships behind the scenes. Temasek claims to be independent of government but often seems to follow government policy in its investment portfolio, spending to boost neighbours.

And in Thaksin, Singapore found an autocrat after its own heart, rare in a region where mostly-Chinese Singapore isn't much liked, derided though grudgingly admired as rich and arrogant.

Thaksin was a big fan of the Lee's long-ruling People's Action Party and its compliant "Singapore System". Thaksin and Lee were allies in pushing EU-style ASEAN integration and there was resentment in Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur of a supposed Singapore-Bangkok axis within the group. Not any more.

Serious questions abound for a Singapore that likes to lecture the world about "best practices" of corporate governance it supposedly employs.

Temasek is suspected of funding Thai partners in the Thaksin deal, the implication being to avoid breaching foreign investment laws.

And where did Temasek pay Thaksin? Thailand's central bank limits personal cash transfers to $US1 million a year - thus it would take about 2000 years to transfer Thaksin's pile - and needs special permission from the central bank to go higher.

But Thailand's central bank governor is seen as a cleanskin, and a contender to be appointed caretaker prime minister by the generals.

Thaksin presumably knew that so it raises questions whether Temasek paid some of the funds offshore, in a foreign tax haven perhaps, avoiding Thai rules altogether.

And then there's impact beyond Bangkok. Economic contagion seems to have been contained but the bloodless ease in which Thaksin has been removed, the popularity of the coup, has been noticed in Jakarta and Manila, both struggling to secure their own democracies.

Temasek is in serious trouble in Thailand. It's suddenly friendless, losing its main political ally in Bangkok and his cronies, and runs the risk of having its assets seized as the Thaksin probe deepens. The deal itself is a fait accompli; Thaksin banked his $US2 billion months ago and, now in gilded exile in London, is unlikely to offer to return Temasek's cash.

If Temasek and Thaksin fall out, the legal implications are fascinating. For the moment however, the silence from Temasek has been deafening. It simply says it is "monitoring events". With $4 billion of other peoples' money in the balance, it might've added "anxiously".

Eric Ellis is South-East Asia Correspondent for Fortune magazine.

Straits Times subtle, yet glaring, front page cover-up; Sept 16 photos of parliament house

2006-09-22T10:51:00.000+08:00

There's a front page story in today's Straits Times titled Thaksin gives up fight as military tightens grip. Towards the end of the report, there's a paragraph that says "A probe into whether deposed Mr Thaksin's family legitimately paid no tax on the US$1.9 billion (S$3 billion) sale of the firm he founded should be finalised this month, the (Thailand) auditor-general said yesterday."

Apart from those who are interested in such matters, I doubt many Singaporeans will notice a cover-up by the Straits Times. Even though they quote Thailand's auditor-general, the Straits Times conveniently leaves out the fact that it was Temasek Holdings which bought a 49% stake in Thaksin's Shin Corp for US$1.9 billion. Temasek Holdings' name does not appear anywhere in the report. And they call this journalism. I call it prostitution.

Here's a report from the Financial Times and what the prostitutes at the state-controlled Straits Times don't want to report.............

Singapore may see worst fallout from Thai coup
by John Burton in Singapore
Financial Times, 20 Sept 2006

Singapore could suffer the most among countries in the region from the military coup against Thaksin Shinawatra, the Thai prime minister, who forged close ties with the city-state and sold his telecommunications group to Singapore's state investment company.

It was the $1.9bn sale of a 49 per cent in Shin Corp by Mr Thaksin's family to Temasek Holdings in January that triggered the political crisis that led to the coup after it was revealed the family paid no taxes on profits from the deal.

Mr Thaksin was seen by Singapore as its strongest supporter for closer economic integration of the Association of South-east Nations, which provoked talk of a Singapore-Bangkok axis within the group.

The ousted Thai leader also expressed admiration for Singapore's political system, telling Singapore officials that he wanted to model his Thai Rak Thai party on the long-ruling People's Action party.

Mr Thaksin decided to sell Shin Corp to Temasek to dispel allegations of conflicts of interest between his family's corporate holdings and his government duties as he prepared to stand for a third term as prime minister.

The deal turned out to be the most controversial conducted by Temasek since Ho Ching, the wife of Singapore's prime minister, became the group's chief executive in 2002 and launched an ambitious global acquisition strategy.

Public protests in Thailand over the deal have led to a nearly 40 per cent fall in Shin Corp's share price since then. In April, Lee Hsien Loong, Ms Ho's husband, told parliament that "Temasek invested in Shin Corp because it saw value in the investment" but added it was not government policy "to second guess Temasek's risk assessments".

A former senior Singapore official, however, criticised Temasek's handling of the deal in light of Mr Thaksin's growing unpopularity at the time. "Temasek did financial due diligence, but not political due diligence," he told the Financial Times. Temasek said it had considered all aspects in concluding the deal.

A Temasek-led consortium increased its stake to 96 per cent in Shin Corp under a mandatory offer, but the takeover has been investigated by Thai regulators over whether Temasek used proxy companies to avoid a 49 per cent ceiling on foreign ownership in strategic industries. Temasek said it fully complied with Thai law.

Michael Montesano, a Thai specialist at the National University of Singapore, believed it was unlikely a new government would nullify the Shin Corp deal, but Temasek might have to reduce its stake if it was found in breach of foreign shareholding limits. Temasek said it was premature to comment on the coup's impact.

Most regional governments expressed concerns about the coup and called for a restoration of democracy in Thailand.

Indonesia's defence minister, Juwono Sudarsono, said the Thai coup illustrated one of the pressures facing south-east Asia's civilian democratic governments. "If there's a lesson it is this: politicians and parliamentarians must get their act together and consolidate party building and deliver on performance," he said. "Otherwise people turn to the military for decisiveness and stability."

In the Philippines, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the president who declared a brief state of emergency to crush an alleged coup attempt early this year, was keen to quell speculation the Thai coup might encourage the military to attempt a similar takeover.

Additional reporting by Shawn Donnan in Jakarta and Roel Landingin in Manila

And here are a few more of my own photos from Sept 16. John Burton of the Financial Times is in two of the photos as he was covering the peaceful protest......

Police gather in front of Parliament House...........

The paranoid state of affairs gives one the impression that the police are expecting an imminent attack on Parliament House.........

....do these guys look like suicide bombers or any criminal elements to you!! Out of the 6 protesters, 4 of them made their way to Parliament House. The photo shows 3 of them while the 4th individual can be seen in the 5th photo. The police told them not to gather & stand around there but to disperse.

John Burton (left) speaking to Gandhi Ambalam, one of the protesters .

John Burton speaking to the policeman-in-charge at the spot while the protesters observe.

At the same time, Chee Soon Juan was stopped and detained here by the police from walking to Parliament House by himself.....

....a close-up shows Chee Soon Juan (right, face blocked by plainclothes police officer) speaking to another plainclothes officer (left, facing Chee) of a higher rank.

In the blazing hot sun, a supporter holds an umbrella over Chee Siok Chin somewhere along South Bridge Road. She's surrounded by a cordon of policewomen and even more police. She was also trying to walk to Parliament House by herself when she was stopped & detained here by the police.

To the arrogant idiots in power..........

2006-09-21T00:44:00.000+08:00

Press Statement by the Organisers of the International Peoples Forum vs IMF-WB
Asrama Haji Batam Centre, Batam, Indonesia
18 September 2006
Source: Bank Information Centre

Today we conclude the International Peoples Forum vs. the IMF and World Bank (IPF), which was convened in Batam from September 15th to17th. Over 500 Indonesians participated in the Forum as did around 200 individuals from 25 countries representing at least 100 organisations.

The IPF, like other similar fora, has successfully demonstrated to the world that many diverse civil society organisations and social movements can meet in peace and unity, and have meaningful, in-depth and informed discussions on the policies and practices of International Financial Institutions (IFIs). Despite the many hindrances suffered by IPF convenors and participants in organising and traveling to the Forum, we met in a spirit of solidarity and cooperation to share information, insights and strategies on critical issues facing communities and peoples affected by World Bank and IMF operations.

We find the World Bank and IMF responsible for policies and actions that lead to the intensification of poverty and deprivation, the violation of basic human rights, the curtailment of basic political and civil liberties, the undermining of national sovereignty and democratic governance, and the subversion of the right to development.

We call attention to the numerous obstacles we faced in preparing the Forum which, among other things, forced us to cancel outdoor events and caused at least 100 international individuals to forfeit their participation. Our reports indicate that at least 54 individuals from 17 organisations were either banned from entering Singapore, detained at the Singapore airport without explanation, subjected to custodial interrogation and, regrettably, some were even deported. Furthermore, many continue to face problems entering Singapore as they travel home. We have yet to receive any explanation from either the Singapore government or the World Bank and IMF on why this has happened.

We take the World Bank and IMF to task on not meeting its promises to engage respectfully and openly with civil society organisations. The credibility of these promises has been seriously damaged ever since the World Bank and IMF were made aware of the restrictions Singapore would place on the freedom of assembly for civil society during the Annual Meetings. After it became clear to us that Singapore would not allow the Forum to take place within its borders, we moved the IPF to Batam , Indonesia. We pledge solidarity with those committed to building a vibrant civil society in states that restrict essential rights such as the freedom of speech and we appreciate the Indonesian Government for allowing us to host the Forum in Batam.

In response to the banning and mistreatment of our colleagues, we launched a boycott of official engagement between the World Bank and IMF and civil society at the Annual Meetings. After individuals were 'un-banned,' we re-affirmed the boycott and labeled the actions of the Singapore Government as 'too little too late'. Each and every participating organisation will now and in the future critically re-examine its relationship vis-à-vis the World Bank and IMF and our future engagements, while not losing our focus on holding these institutions accountable for negative impacts associated with their operations.

As a result of our analyses on the World Bank and IMF and drawing on our experiences in the last weeks, we make the following demands.

First, on the policies and practices of the World Bank and IMF, we re-invigorate The Global Call to Action Against the IFIs. In particular, we stress the urgent need for:

* 100 percent cancellation of multilateral debt;
* open, transparent and participatory external audits of IFI lending and policies;
* stopping the imposition of policy conditions that undermine economic sovereignty and exacerbate crises in health and education;
* discontinuing the privatization of public services; and
* ending IFI involvement in environmentally destructive projects.

Second, in response to the restrictions placed on the IPF initiative:

* We demand from the World Bank and IMF an explanation as to why they proceeded with Singapore as the venue of the Annual Meetings when restrictions on civil society engagement were evident months in advance.
* We demand the full disclosure of all information pertaining to civil society participation including the Memorandum of Understanding between the World Bank and Government of Singapore and official and un-official lists of so-called 'banned individuals' .

* Third, to ensure that there is full accountability and transparency of the IFIs to peoples and communities that are affected by IFI operations:

We call on the governments that are members of the World Bank and IMF Boards of Directors to keep these institutions fully accountable for their impacts on human rights, equity, and the sustainability of development.

Police State at Work

2006-09-18T14:06:00.000+08:00

I was at Speakers' Corner on Sept 16 for a very, very long time. Observing the proceedings from the very beginning. An eye witness to history. History which is still being written. A stand-off between the police and the peaceful protesters developed sometime on the afternoon of Sept 16.

A stand-off between the unreasonableness and repressive measures by the PAP government is facing-off with the resolve and determination of a peaceful group of individuals, led by Dr Chee Soon Juan, in exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly.

At the time of writing, the stand-off and peaceful protest has not ended.

Blogs and websites like SDP, Singapore Election Watch, Intelligent Singaporean and Yawning Bread have been doing a wonderful job of posting photos, videos and reports of the happenings at Speakers' Corner. I am sure there are many more websites and blogs out there doing a commendable job of countering the bullshit our local media's been putting out.

I took quite alot of photos myself but since I'm extremely unwell at the moment, I would like to share some of these photos with you for now. Keep in mind when looking at these photos that these are not terrorist or criminal elements but Singapore citizens peacefully exercising their rights and the PAP's efforts to silence them.................

Police patrolling the grounds of Speakers Corner. Clark Quay MRT station is behind.

Police stopping to check visitors.....

......asking them for identification, like NRICs, and taking down their particulars

Police stationed outside Clark Quay MRT station to try to deter visitors to Speakers Corner

Dr Chee Soon Juan and his colleagues arriving at Speakers' Corner

The Six making their way......

.......wearing t-shirts and holding placards

Media and people gather as they reach their destination

Plainclothes and uniformed police ring the Six. All they were doing was just trying to walk.

Policewomen create a cordon around Chee Siok Chin

Stand-off..........

......continues into the night of Sept 16 and beyond

Police recording the proceedings

Chee Siok Chin being escorted to the toilet by the police. They do not allow her to walk anywhere without their presence...........

......even at the toilet located within Speakers Corner. The lady-in-white is a police Assistant Superintendant....

....to the point of waiting just outside the women's toilet!

Police escorting Chee Siok Chin back to original spot

PS on Sept 21@12:58am: By now you would have learned from other sources about the end of the peaceful protest which lasted from Sept 16 - 19. Many local blogs and websites have carried numerous photos and reports about the historic protest. Mine is a small and humble contribution. In the next few days or weeks, depending on my health, I will post the rest of the many photos I took on that very first day. :-))

Too Little Too Late - International NGOs deliver a Slap to PAP govt, IMF & World Bank

2006-09-17T10:30:00.000+08:00

Statement of the IPF Convenors' Committee, International Peoples' Forum vs the IMF-World Bank, in response to Singapore 2006 Organizing Committee's Sept. 15 statement (Source: Bank Information Center)

16 September 2006, Batam, Indonesia

Too Little Too Late

The organizers of the International People's Forum (IPF) in Batam, Indonesia will continue their boycott of all official events of the Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank in Singapore. This boycott continues despite the Singapore government's September 15 press statement that it will now allow 22 of 27 officially blacklisted individuals to enter the country.

The Singapore government's decision, "based on input by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB)", is nothing but a desperate face-saving exercise for the Singapore government, World Bank, and IMF. We will not allow these three actors to cover up for actions which we consider to be egregious violations of democratic principles, and which have been met with universal condemnation. The statement fails to address the central concerns raised by the
163 civil society organizations around the world that signed a statement this week boycotting the IMF/World Bank meetings. Nor does the government's decision acknowledge the enormous hardships faced by the many civil society representatives who were denied entry to Singapore.

The Singapore government's decision is both too little and too late.

The government continues to ban five of the 27 individuals on their official blacklist from entry into Singapore. There has been no action regarding the numerous persons who are not on the official blacklist, but who were nonetheless detained, subjected to custodial interrogation and refused entry into Singapore. Over the past few days, reports have come in from over two dozen of these people about the high-handed and objectionable manner in which they were interrogated at Singapore's Changi airport - despite the fact that many of them had no intention of attending the Annual Meetings. It is clear to us that there are several blacklists - official and unofficial - and that the government's intention to curb the exercise of democracy and free speech within its territory extends beyond those on its official blacklist. In this regard we express our full solidarity with Singaporean civil society groups who experienced the same violations.

Neither the Singapore government nor the IMF/World Bank have publicly disclosed the names on the official blacklist. Nor have they provided an acceptable explanation for the violation of civil liberties resulting from their paranoia. The government's decision to permit entry to 22 barred individuals is no indication of its commitment to transparency or democracy.

The democratic process has not been upheld even in this most recent development. No apology has been made to affected individuals. No restitution has been made for the hours spent in detention, for deportation, or for the re-routed or cancelled flights. Furthermore, the broader group of individuals who have been detained or refused entry have not yet been informed that they may now enter Singapore. In fact, the Singapore government made no attempt to communicate with any of the banned 27 directly. They continue to use the World Bank/IMF as their mouthpiece.

We feel that the World Bank/IMF will use these recent developments to burnish their "democratic" credentials by claiming that they were responsible for the Singapore government's change of heart. However we all know that these developments would not have occurred had the World Bank/IMF not chosen Singapore as the venue for their Annual Meetings in order to shield themselves from protests and demonstrations. The two institutions cannot be absolved from their deep complicity in the violations of our civil and political rights.

For us, there is no other principled way to address these recent developments than to continue our boycott.

Signed,

The International People's Forum vs. the IMF and World Bank
Batam, Indonesia

NOTE: 2 of the 27 people banned by the Singapore government will deliver this statement today to the international community presently in Suntec City, Singapore where the IMF-WB Group Annual Meetings are being held.

Remember, remember, the 16th of September

2006-09-16T00:24:00.000+08:00

Click HERE to listen to a podcast by Chee Soon Juan

FYI: This post will remain at the top till 16 Sept, 2006 (Sat)

Good to see that SDP's website is back again after that sudden disappearance. And with that came this news of the Empower Singaporeans Rally and March scheduled for Sept 16, 2006 (Sat)........

Rally and March set for 16 September
6 Sep 06

The Empower Singaporeans Rally and March planned by Singaporean activists is fixed for next Saturday, 16 September 2006.

The event will commence at 11 am at the Speakers' Corner at Hong Lim Park. Singaporeans are strongly encouraged to turn up to support the struggle for democracy in Singapore.

The peaceful rally will also highlight the economic hardship of many Singaporeans. Not only are the poorest of the poor suffering under the PAP, but many working- and middle-class Singaporeans are also reeling from the uncaring economic policies of this Government.

Singaporeans need a voice and there is no better opportunity than this rally and march to tell the PAP that we, the citizens of Singapore, demand – not request – our rights for free and fair elections, a free media, and freedom of peaceful assembly.

Participants are encouraged to wear white T-shirts or tops, and bring along signs calling for democracy in Singapore.

The event will begin with speakers addressing the relevant issues. The schedule for the rest of the day will take place as follows:

11:00 am - Assembly and rally at Speakers' Corner

1:00 pm - Walk to Parliament House

1:30 pm - Rally outside Parliament House

2:30 pm - Walk to Suntec City

3:00 pm - Rally outside Suntec City

4:00 pm - Walk to Istana

5:00 pm - Rally outside Istana

6:00 pm - End and dispersal

This rally will be an historic occasion and will mark the beginning of the campaign for political and civil rights in Singapore.

Citizens of other countries are so concerned that they have taken the trouble to come to Singapore to make their voices heard. Are we that apathetic and uncaring that we are even afraid of speaking out for our own country, in our own country?

If you are a Singaporean, you must care. Because if you don't, no one else will.

UPDATES:

You can help - Click on the image above, print and distribute the flyer. Thank you.

Keep coming back for regular updates. Other blogs such as Singapore Election Watch and Singabloodypore have regular updates and news reports as well. And don't forget SDP website.

PAP govt harassment begins: Police steal flyers from activists

Chee Soon Juan distributing pamphlets at Raffles City - Police statement

Singapore police investigating politician over rally plan

Chee Soon Juan to police: If you are sincere about security, let's talk

John Aglionby from the Guardian sees the IMF, World Bank and political activists become unlikely allies in the fight for freedom of speech in Singapore

Open letter from SDP to World Bank and IMF chiefs

A final note for this post (I said post not blog!!! :>): I can't recall the original date but I guess it was either on 6 Sept or 7 Sept when I originally posted this on my blog. Since then I've placed it at the top. Anyway, the day has arrived. Whatever happens, big or small, history will be made in less then 12 hours. I'll leave you now with two very good articles by Alex Au aka Yawning Bread: Peaceful streets and Noisy when people throw stones at tinpots.

Police say NO to Street Party by Substation; PAP Government's authoritarianism on display for world to see

2006-09-15T16:48:00.000+08:00

Press Release by the Substation

Police say “No” to The Substation’s request for road closure; Street Party cancelled.

After months of planning and negotiations with the authorities, the police have turned down our application to close down Armenian Street for a “Street Party” — a collaboration involving several individual artists, arts groups and civil society organisations (CSOs).

It would have featured musical performances on the street, and a range of activities by artists and civil society organisations indoors. It was scheduled for 30 September, several days after the conclusion of the World Bank and IMF meetings. In their response to our application, the police said that only if ALL activities were held indoors, would permission for the event be granted. If the entire event had no CSO involvement, we believe we might have had a better chance of getting permission for the road closure. However, we decided that the event wouldn’t have the same meaning if we couldn’t have at least some performances on the street, and we wouldn’t go ahead without CSO involvement.

Therefore we decided to cancel it. While we are of course deeply disappointed, we want to try again and organise a Street Party in the future. We think it is important for two reasons: (i) we strongly believe in the value of such a community-wide arts and civil society gathering, and (ii) we believe that if successful, it would set a positive precedent for engagement between the arts, civil society and the authorities. Indeed, government leaders have been consistently encouraging civic participation and constructive debate about society. And it’s not as if there haven’t been road closures for arts events before: in 2002, we got permission to close Armenian Street to stage a tribute to our late founder, Kuo Pao Kun.

In this press statement we would like to explain our motivations for organising the Street Party, assert the values we believe it represents, and summarise our negotiations with the authorities.

Since the beginning in 1990, The Substation arts centre has always recognised that art cannot be separated from its social contexts and the circumstances in which it is produced. The Substation’s vision and role — a vision that continues to be urgent and relevant today — is to be an open space that fosters cultural diversity: a place where a wide range of artists, audiences, activists and the public can meet to make art and exchange ideas not just about art, for art’s sake, but to reflect on art’s larger purposes. This approach has led to the emergence, with instrumental support from The Substation, of some of the most exciting artists working in Singapore today — a number of whom are represented in our first international biennale of contemporary visual arts.

It was in this spirit that we decided to organise an event involving the closure of Armenian Street, in front of our building. Our plan was to bring together the diverse arts and civil society groups, and to affirm ourselves as a community of active citizens. Precisely because we hardly ever come together as a community, we believed the Street Party would be especially significant, as it would encourage Singaporeans to appreciate the values of civic participation. Moreover, we wanted to create a strong sense of community ownership of public space, and that’s why closing the street — even if only for one day — matters so much.

It bears repeating: the arts and and civil society are inseparable. In supporting the biggest cultural event of the year, the inaugural Singapore Biennale, the government confirms this. Organised to coincide with the World Bank and IMF meetings, and funded mainly by the government, this biennale, like almost every other biennale in the world, showcases many artists whose work is deeply concerned with social and political issues.

In planning for our Street Party, we worked closely with the authorities, taking into consideration their sensitivities about security during the WB/IMF meetings, and we made compromises. At first we wanted to hold the Party just after the WB/IMF meetings. After discussions with the police, we rescheduled it to the 30th, well after the conclusion of the meetings. We had also initially wanted to organise booths on the street, creating something like a flea-market of arts and civil society organisations. Again, in response to police advice and as a compromise, we decided to move all CSO activities indoors. But what we did not want to compromise on is the involvement of CSOs — their participation is essential.

During this whole process our engagement with the police and other authorities have been very positive. We are encouraged by the open communication that we have had with them, and believe this is something to build upon. We plan to apply to them again in the future with another proposal for a Street Party.

We intend to convene a meeting on 5 October 2006 with the participants from the Street Party, which will be open to the press and the public. The purpose is to discuss everyone’s concerns in the wake of the cancellation of the event. The list of participants (arts groups and CSOs) is below. These organisations may be issuing press statements of their own.

A big thank you to all the participating organisations and individuals for their invaluable support.

The Substation

Participants of the Street Party: Migrant Voices, Vegetarian Society, Pelangi Pride Centre , PLU, Crashout, TWC2, Nature Society, Green Volunteers Network, Singapore Environment Council, Sea Shepherd, STITCH, Cat Welfare, Think Centre, SADPC, AWARE, Youth Employment Singapore, Village Xchange, Footprint Singapore, Magdalena (Singapore), Mercy Relief, The Society for Reading & Literacy, ONE (Singapore), ADLUS, p-10, Spell #7, WITA

**********

Singapore activist ban "authoritarian": Wolfowitz
By Geert De Clercq, Reuters, 15 Sept 2006

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz on Friday called Singapore's restrictions on the entry of activists for the World Bank/IMF meetings "authoritarian."

But he said the World Bank and IMF did not plan to postpone their annual gathering, which is being hosted by the Southeast Asian city-state this month.

"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 in response to questions from civil society organizations at a town hall meeting in Singapore.

"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 added that the bar on entry into Singapore for some activists "is 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 and put them on a blacklist of people to be assessed by immigration and possibly refused entry.

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

"NO VOICE"

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."

Roberto Bissio, coordinator of NGO network Social Watch, asked how any international organization could have a meeting outside its home base when the host country is allowed to set the rules.

"We have urged the Singapore authorities to reconsider their position and I hope they will. If they don't, I think they would be making a mistake," IMF Managing Director Rodrigo Rato said.

"The people who have been accredited by us are people who work with us regularly and we don't have any doubt about their capacity to behave and to be respectful of the country's laws."

But he added the meeting would not be suspended. "The meeting is going to be held because there are many issues that need to be discussed and here we are discussing with you," he said.

At that point, about a quarter of the more than 100 civil society activists got up and left the room in protest.

While Wolfowitz and Rato were speaking, about two dozen activists staged a protest in the designated 8 x 8 meter area that the Singapore authorities have set aside for protest.

Wearing white gags inscribed "NO VOICE" -- and after duly registering with the Singapore authorities one by one -- the protesters lined up quietly.

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

**********

World Bank chief says Singapore damaged reputation

by Ian Timberlake, AFP, 15 Sept 2006

SINGAPORE (AFP) - World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz has said Singapore has damaged its reputation with the reluctance to admit 27 activists accredited for the Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings.

Wolfowitz's comments were his strongest yet over the spat that has overshadowed the run-up to next week's meetings in Singapore, which also refused to relax its tough rules on public protests during the events.

The World Bank said he had got a pledge Thursday night from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong that each case would be looked at individually, but said the city-state should have handled the matter differently.

"Enormous damage has been done ... A lot of that damage has been to Singapore and it's self-inflicted," he said at a meeting with non-governmental organizations.

"I would certainly argue that at the stage of success they've reached they'd be much better for themselves if they (took) a more visionary approach to the process," he said.

Singaporean officials could not immediately comment on Wolfowitz's statement.

"This is a very serious matter," IMF managing director Rodrigo Rato said at the same meeting with more than 30 representatives of non-governmental organizations.

Rato said activists accredited by the two financial institutions are people they regularly work with.

"And we don't have any doubt of their capacity to behave," he said.

Wolfowitz said Singapore appears to have reneged on a 2003 memorandum of understanding that granted open access to activists accredited for the World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings.

He said the wording of the memorandum "seems very clear to me."

The local organizing committee said Thursday that "Singapore is aware of its obligations under the MOU and will continue to honour them."

But it said the memorandum of understanding also obliges Singapore to take all necessary precautions to ensure people's safety.

Police have said Singapore is a high-profile "terrorist" target.

Activists allege some people on their way to the IMF-World Bank meetings have been deported and accreditation has been withdrawn from others.

Police confirmed that an Indian activist and two Filipinos have already been deported after being denied entry at Changi Airport because "they posed a potential security and public order threat to the annual meetings."

A Singapore artist alleged that he and two other Singaporeans were questioned by police over anti-IMF leaflets they planned to distribute during the group's annual meeting.

Since independence in 1965, Singapore has grown from a Third World country to an Asian economic powerhouse.

Political stability has been the bedrock of the economic success of the city-state, which never borrowed from the IMF during its rise to become one of Asia's wealthiest nations.

But critics say this came at a price, in the form of restrictions on freedom of speech and political activity.

NGOs boycott meetings

2006-09-15T14:36:00.000+08:00

NGOs boycott World Bank meetings
John Aglionby in Jakarta
Thursday September 14, 2006
The Guardian

More than 80 non-governmental organisations announced they were boycotting the International Monetary Fund and World Bank annual meetings that began today in Singapore, in protest at the host government banning at least 27 accredited activists and many others from entering the country.

The NGOs were to make a formal statement on Friday but organisers told the Guardian this afternoon that 80 groups had already agreed to the boycott and more were expected.

"We estimate this means at least half of the 500 NGO activists due to attend the meetings will not do so," said Donartus Marut, of the International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development.

Oxfam, Greenpeace and the World Development Movement (WDM) are among the more prominent organisations now avoiding the official meetings, although some still intend to go to Singapore in an unofficial capacity or hold events away from the official venue.

"We're joining the boycott to show solidarity with our partners and allies who were denied access to exercise their fundamental rights, through freedom of expression and association, to attend the meeting," said Taylor Thompson of Oxfam.

Among the 27 activists is a Briton, Martin Powell, of WDM. Murray Benham, WDM's head of campaigns, said he could not understand why the organisation was banned.

"We've clearly got a long history of criticising the bank and the fund and recently issued a report calling for the bank and fund's abolition and replacement with other mechanisms," he told the Guardian. "But you wouldn't have thought a fairly academic report would put us beyond the bounds of acceptance."

Singaporean police have said the banned activists pose a threat to security, law and order. They have banned all outdoor demonstrations in connection with the meetings and have designated an area the size of a volleyball court for indoor protests.

In the past week the World Bank and IMF have repeatedly issued strong statements condemning Singapore's decision.

The World Bank's president, Paul Wolfowitz, today told about 50 activists that the ban meant Singapore was reneging on a three-year deal.

"The most unfortunate thing is what appears to be a going-back on an explicit agreement," he said. "So far we've had no satisfactory explanation why."

Mr Wolfowitz is scheduled to meet senior Singaporean ministers later today and is expected to protest against the ban.

Shortly before the meeting the government softened its position slightly, saying it might allow the activists in if they travelled to Singapore.

"We will assess at the point of entry whether they pose a security or safety risk," the Singapore organising committee for the event said in a statement. "If we judge the risk to be acceptable for that particular activist, we are prepared to allow him or her in. However, we cannot guarantee that all 27 activists will be admitted to Singapore."

Singapore has also banned the holding of a civil society forum that traditionally is held in parallel to the official meetings. Some 800 NGO activists are instead gathering on the neighbouring Indonesian island of Batam from tomorrow until Sunday.

Following alleged pressure by the Singaporean authorities the Indonesian police have ordered all outdoor events at the forum to be cancelled.

Visit these websites for regular updates from civil society organisations:

Bank Information Centre

International People's Forum vs the World Bank & IMF

Welcome to the Soviet Union

2006-09-14T20:05:00.001+08:00

In my earlier post today, I highlighted what seems to be a "threaten & intimidate dirty ops" by the Singapore authorities against Singaporean activists.

Just now, I saw the following CNA report........

Chee Soon Juan to go ahead with planned march and rally on Saturday
Posted: 14 September 2006 1908 hrs

SINGAPORE: Singapore Democratic Party leader Chee Soon Juan says he's going ahead with a planned march on Saturday, despite a ban on this and other outdoor protests by the police during the IMF/World Bank meetings.

Dr Chee told journalists at a news conference he called on Thursday that the gathering will start at the Speakers Corner at 11 am this Saturday.

The group will then walk to Parliament House, Suntec Convention Centre and then, the Istana.

At each of the stops, a rally will be held.

Issues expected to be brought up are poverty and income disparity in Singapore.

At the same news conference, Dr Chee's sister Chee Siok Chin told reporters her pass as a civil society representative for the Alliance for Reform & Democracy in Asia was rejected by the host government, despite the IMF/World Bank accrediting her.

Dr Chee's application, as a representative of the Open Singapore Centre, was rejected by the IMF/World Bank.

Separately, three Singaporean political activists who had been planning to distribute pamphlets on the IMF and World Bank this weekend were taken in by the police for questioning last night.

Police confirmed that they got a tip-off about a disturbance at Suntec Singapore, and the 3 men came in to give statements and left. - CNA /dt

The last two paragraphs made me sit-up and wonder if there was any connection to the news on Mr Seelan Palay in my earlier post. So I headed to the police website and found this statement. One does not need to be a political scientist or special detective to know that it was referring to Mr Palay who was also detained at Clementi police station yesterday night...........

Three Singaporean Men Assisting In Investigation
SPF Media Releases, 14 Sept 2006

Police have interviewed three Singaporean men following a tip-off that some disturbances may be caused at the Suntec City Convention Centre.

As a security precaution, Police traced the identity of three men on receiving the information. They were contacted and asked to come to be interviewed by the Police. The three men, a Chinese National Serviceman in his late teens; a Sikh in his late 20s - a part-time tutor, and an Indian in his early 20s - a student, voluntarily agreed to provide their statements at Clementi Police Division yesterday evening (13 Sept 06). Some pamphlets concerning IMF-related issues, and some computer hardware have been seized for investigations. Police are investigating the offence under Sec 151A of the Penal Code Cap 224 - printing & possessing material which may incite violence or counsel disobedience to the law.

The three men left the station early this morning (14 Sept 06) after providing their statements.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
SINGAPORE POLICE FORCE
14 Sept 2006

The Singapore authorities have always had the tendency to use very alarming language for just about everything and anything under the sun. In this case, what is possibly a distribution of harmless pamphlets by Singaporean activists is turned into something akin an operation against JI militants!!

Don't miss reading these: Police acted without proper authority in questioning activists and S'pore Govt revokes Chee Siok Chin’s WB-IMF accreditation

World Bank's Wolfowitz Says Singapore (Government) Backtracked on Agreement

2006-09-14T17:02:00.001+08:00

In the Bloomberg story below, Sandy Krawitz of Action Aid International is quoted as saying "people who come here are very well educated and they are not wild-eyed activists with Molotov cocktails ready to throw over a car,''...."They are people who really want to make a difference in the world. Singapore has this unfounded fear, which is very unfortunate.''

Now, contrast what Krawitz said with that of Viki Esther Chang, founder of the local environmental NGO, Climate Change Organisation. Chang was quoted in a report by TODAY as saying "Being a civil society, we are not some gangsters in the streets protesting. I don't think stripping in front of a fast food restaurant will make people listen to you. Why should we go for shock value when there are civil ways of doing things?"

Maybe Chang has hugged one too many trees. Either that or she didn't realise that she has painted EVERYBODY who protests/demonstrates in the streets as gangsters. She's just repeating the same old mantra put out by the PAP government and amplified & repeated day in and day out by the local media: ALL protests/demonstrations are violent & ALL demonstrators/protesters are rowdy and crazy.

The PAP government could have allowed ALL accredited members of civil society organisations to come to Singapore; they could have allowed outdoor protests; authorities could have worked with organisers of these protests so that everything goes off smoothly & peacefully BUT apply the law on those who do turn rowdy and violent.

The PAP government could have but they didn't. Instead, what they have done through their actions is to expose themselves and all their cheap & dirty tricks that lie beneath the surface. Hats off to them! :-))

Oh by the way, Krawitz staged the first "caged protest" at Suntec.

World Bank's Wolfowitz Says Singapore Backtracked on Agreement

By Chan Sue Ling

Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz said Singapore may have backtracked on an agreement to let all accredited members of civil society groups attend meetings of the bank and the International Monetary Fund in the city-state.

Singapore police on Sept. 11 told the World Bank and IMF it objected to 28 of the more than 700 civil society representatives from 68 countries who have been accredited for this week's event because of their involvement in riots at other international summits. Singapore earlier agreed to let all accredited representatives attend the meetings, according to the World Bank.

"This is an important lesson to be learned about planning in the future,'' Wolfowitz said at a briefing for civil society groups in Singapore today. "The most unfortunate thing is what appears to be going back on an explicit agreement. The delegates in question were accredited. So far, there has been no satisfactory explanation.''

Singapore, which forbids the public outdoor assembly of more than four people without a permit, wants to avoid the violent protests that marred previous trade and finance summits in Hong Kong last year and in Seattle in 1999. The city-state has put its reputation "on the line'' to stage a successful meeting.

The government will issue a statement later today, K. Bhavani, a spokeswoman, said.

Indoor protests are allowed with a permit from the police and a 538-square-foot area, about the size of a squash court, has been sealed off for civil society representatives to protest. The space, in the Suntec Singapore International Convention & Exhibition Centre, where the IMF and World Bank meetings are being held, isn't visible from the main entrance.

Outdoor Protests

The World Bank has said the city-state should allow accredited civil society representatives to hold outdoor protests during the event.

Both the World Bank and IMF said they wanted discussions and dialogue from the civil society groups because they provided valuable feedback on policies and help chart future programs.

A Web cast is being arranged for tomorrow's so-called town- hall meeting, during which IMF Managing Director Rodrigo de Rato and Wolfowitz will speak, to include those who have been turned away from Singapore.

Both are still holding discussions with the Singapore government on the entry of the activists.

The decision to turn away some representatives happened at the last minute, Kevin Kellems, acting vice president for external affairs, communications and United Nations affairs for the World Bank, and Masood Ahmed, director of external relations for the IMF, said at the briefing today. The police said the objections were made because the 28 individuals posed a security and law-and-order threat to the event.

"Insufficient Clarity"

"Words like security, words like undesirable, words like troublemaker are sort of general characterizations but never have I seen a consistent or coherent explanation,'' Kellems said, referring to the Singapore police's description of the 28 people. "There's insufficient clarity.''

The city-state has said it will deploy at least 10,000 personnel to prevent terrorist attacks and illegal protests at the meetings, which have drawn at least 15,976 visitors, more than previous overseas meetings by the two institutions held in Prague and Dubai.

"Throughout Asia and Australia and New Zealand, we were extremely unimpressed by the approach of the Singaporean government to engaging with civil society groups", said Paul O'Callaghan, executive director of Australian Council for International Development. "At the last minute, a whole group of people have been refused entry to the country without any explanation.''

"Unfounded Fear"

The Australian Council for International Development has made several attempts to come to an agreement with the government since March, through letters to the Singapore government and the Ministry of Finance, O'Callaghan said.

The "people who come here are very well educated and they are not wild-eyed activists with Molotov cocktails ready to throw over a car,'' said Sandy Krawitz from South Africa-based Action Aid International, which is boycotting the official meetings. "They are people who really want to make a difference in the world. Singapore has this unfounded fear, which is very unfortunate.''

Other groups are holding meetings on the Indonesian island of Batam, about 40 minutes by ferry from Singapore. About 700 other activists from more than 70 civil society organizations worldwide are expected to gather in Batam.

Threats & intimidations of Singaporean activists occurring behind the scenes

2006-09-14T13:21:00.000+08:00

Woke up this morning to read this piece of very disturbing news from the SDP website........

Singaporean activist arrested
13 Sept 06

Singaporean activist Mr Seelan Pillai has been arrested. The SDP can confirm that Mr Pillai, who started the 400 frowns campaign to counter the Government's 4 million smiles project, is now under custody at the Clementi Police Station.

When contacted the police would not reveal anything more other than to say that Mr Pillai's family has been informed of his arrest.

The activist's arrest comes in the wake of unpopular decisions the PAP Government has been making to clampdown down on attempts to organise protests by local and international civil society groups.

Mr Pillai is also an animal rights supporter as well as a music artist. He has also taken part in anti-death penalty campaigns.

The Singapore Democrats registers its concern over the arrest and calls on the police to be forthcoming with information on what Mr Pillai is being arrested for. The SDP also states that Mr Pillai must be accorded all the rights of an arrested person, including the right to legal counsel.

So i put my ear out into the grapevine.....

Apparently, Seelan Palay (in the 400 frowns website his name is spelt Palay and not Pillai) was released yesterday night after questioning but his PC has been taken away. It seems other Singaporean activists have also been questioned by the police. Furthermore, all these intimidation tactics by the PAP government seems to have something to do with the upcoming rally & march on Sept 16.

As is common with the grapevine, information is sketchy and coming in trickles but it looks like an investigation aka "threaten & intimidate dirty ops" against Singaporean activists is going on behind the scenes and right under the noses of the IMF-World Bank meetings.

Read also Mr Wang's post The Story goes on and on......

Pathetic LEEs are at it again - Target FEER

2006-09-13T23:35:00.001+08:00

I wasn't off target when i wrote on 3 Aug the PAP takes aim at FEER after it publishes article on Chee Soon Juan & Singapore politics. As the report below shows, the father & son tag team of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew & Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong are at it again, using their tried & tested method of defamation suits through a compliant judiciary.........

Singapore leaders launch libel suit against magazine
by Fayen Wong, Reuters
Wednesday September 13, 7:57 PM

SINGAPORE, Sept 13 (Reuters) - Singapore's prime minister and his father, the founding father of the city-state, have filed a defamation suit against the publisher and editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER), according to court documents.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and former premier Lee Kuan Yew filed the libel suit against Hong Kong-based Review Publishing Company Ltd and FEER editor Hugo Restall on Aug. 22 for an article published in July on opposition politician Chee Soon Juan.

The article -- under the headline "Singapore's Martyr: Chee Soon Juan" -- criticised the Singapore government's handling of a pay-and-perks scandal at the country's largest charity. The magazine also quoted Chee attacking the Lees.

The Far Eastern Economic Review declined comment on the case.

The suit is the latest in a series brought by Singapore's leaders against foreign media and opposition politicians.

Court documents showed that the Lees' lawyers first sent a letter to Review Publishing on July 18, demanding the removal of the article from FEER's Web site. The Lees also asked Review Publishing to issue an apology and pay compensation by July 24.

But Review Publishing proposed publishing the Lees' letter on its Web site to allow the leaders to give their position to readers and suggested publishing an interview with Lee Kuan Yew.

The suit said FEER attempted to profit from their libel by proposing to interview Lee Kuan Yew and circulate their correspondence on its Web site.

Court documents showed that the Lees' lawyers made an application on Aug. 25 to serve the summons to Review Publishing and FEER's editor in Hong Kong. Review Publishing, owned by Dow Jones & Co., does not have a representative in Singapore.

Chee, an acerbic critic of the government, has had several run-ins with Singapore's leaders. He was slapped with a defamation suit in 2001 for accusations against Lee Kuan Yew and former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and was declared bankrupt because he was unable to pay damages.

On Tuesday, Singapore's High Court ruled that Chee and his sister had defamed the Lees in a separate case. No damages have been announced yet.

Singapore has for decades taken a tough stance on foreign media when they report on local politics. International media organisations have been banned, slapped with defamation suits or seen their circulations restricted when they published articles deemed offensive by the government. (Additional reporting by Sara Webb)

PAP's Prostitutes

2006-09-13T10:23:00.001+08:00

Warning: Very harsh, and vulgar, language ahead

I suggest you read my 9 Jun post Judiciary has not moved to check the Executive's misuse of the law before you go on. And sadly, what I said in my post on 2 Aug has come to pass.

Yesterday, the local news broadcaster CNA ran a short report........

Summary judgement granted in defamation suit against Chee Soon Juan, sister
By Noor Mohd Aziz, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 12 September 2006 2020 hrs

SINGAPORE : The High Court has granted summary judgement in the defamation suit brought by the Prime Minister and Minister Mentor against Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) leader Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin.

The leaders had sued SDP and its executive committee in April, for allegedly defaming them in the party newsletter.

All but Dr Chee and his sister Chee Siok Chin had apologised.

After considering the case, Justice Belinda Ang granted the summary judgement. Damages will be assessed later.

This came after several hearings in court, including a judge disqualifying himself from the case, and Dr Chee questioning the constitutionality of such summary judgements.

On Monday, Dr Chee's lawyer M Ravi failed to show up. And on Tuesday, Dr Chee had applied to have the case adjourned and to change his lawyer, but both requests were dismissed.

A summary judgment is allowed when there are no disputes over the facts of a case, or if the other party has admitted certain facts.

- CNA /ls

That was followed today by a report by TODAY......

Chees lose, SDP takes hit
Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@newstoday.com.sg

When the court ruled yesterday that Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan and his sister, Ms Chee Siok Chin, had defamed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, the siblings were nowhere to be seen.

For the second day in a row, their lawyer M Ravi did not show up in court. On Monday, the Chees produced a note from a dentist saying Mr Ravi needed a day's rest.

Yesterday, they said they had discharged their lawyer and said they needed time to find a new one. The Chees stormed out of the closed-door hearing even before Justice Belinda Ang rejected their application.

In the verdict read in their absence, the Chee siblings were ordered to pay damages — the amount will be assessed later — and bear the full costs of the hearings. They were also told to stop repeating the allegations made in their party newsletter.

The party was also sued and will have to pay damages too. It may be wound up if unable to do so.

The proceedings, which began on Aug 3, have been interrupted more than once. Justice Woo Bih Li, who originally heard the case, disqualified himself on the request of Mr Ravi, with whom he had had run-ins, in the past. Justice Woo wanted to avoid any perception of bias.

On Monday, Dr Chee claimed Mr Ravi was "physically and mentally exhausted". Yesterday, he wanted to discharge his lawyer. When Mr Davinder Singh, acting for the two ruling party leaders, opposed the application, the Chees said they "did not want to be part of the proceedings" and walked out of the courtroom.

Outside, Dr Chee told reporters Mr Ravi was still unwell but as the court wanted to "persist" with the proceedings, he had no choice but to seek an adjournment.

Today understands that the lawyers for the two People's Action Party leaders pointed to the past adjournments and objected to Dr Chee's "delay tactics".

The siblings were sued over an article in the party's news- letter, The New Democrat, which linked the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) affair to the Government.

Lawyers for the government leaders sought a summary judgment. This can be made when there are no disputes about the facts of the case, the other party has admitted certain facts or there are previous judgments relevant to the case. The lawyers led by Mr Singh cited a local defamation suit involving Microsoft about seven years ago, where a summary judgment was passed.

The lawyers said the statements linking the NKF saga with the Government were defamatory, implying that it was corrupt and tried to cover up the scandal. And they said the Chees were unable to cite alternative meanings to the offending statements, if they had not been intended to defame the PAP leaders.

The Chees were also unable to prove the statements were true, and their defence of fair comment and qualified privilege had "no basis either in law or on evidence". Mr Ravi could not be contacted.

Today understands that the damages to be paid by the Chee siblings and the party will be assessed at a later hearing.

Political observers are watching the developments closely, as they could mean the end of the road for the 26-year-old opposition party if it is unable to pay.

And let's not forget the Straits Times. They had a very prominent report in today's edition titled Chees defamed PM and MM, court finds. At the time of writing, I can't find a copy of the report online. I will post it here if I do. But suffice to say, the report is typical of the Straits Times. CNA, TODAY and the Straits Times jointly present one-side of the story. And only one-side. That of the ruling Peoples Action Party.

Unfortunately, majority of Singaporeans will see and read ONLY these reports. Sadly I'm afraid, most will not go beyond these reports to find out the other side of the story. There are those die-hard, mudderfucking lapdogs who will side with the ruling party. There are those who know about the ruling party's dirty tricks but say the SDP should've just kept quiet instead of courting trouble. And there are those who simply don't care. The majority will not give a damn about the underlying issues such as, the PAP's misuse of the law and abuse of power and the judiciary's & local media's slavish attitude and lack of independence, among others.

I'm not a member of the Singapore Democratic Party. But that doesn't matter. I don't have to be a member or supporter to see that what has happened is fucking injustice perpetrated by these bastards in power. And equally worse and as guilty as these bastards in power, are those prostitutes, who help the bastards stay in power to continue the injustices and many abuses of power. Among them, the local media & the judiciary. The local media reports and broadcasts whatever favors the PAP and the judiciary's conduct and passing of such judgements ensures the PAP never loses such cases. Both these institutions have, in effect, prostituted themselves to the ruling Peoples Action Party. Bloody mudderfuckers.

Unfortunately, the only time the majority of my fellow countrymen/women will overcome their fear or collective stockholm syndrome and do something is when the fucking house is on fire. (Go here for a definition of stockholm syndrome)

Here's the other side of the story............

Judge gives summary judgement without Chees' lawyer present
12 Sep 06

Judge Belinda Ang refused to grant Dr Chee Soon Juan and Ms Chee Siok Chin time to look for another lawyer to represent them in their defence against the lawsuits by Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong.

Instead she awarded the case to the Lees in a summary judgement. Summary judgement is a hearing in the judge's chambers where witnesses cannot be called and the Lees cannot be put under oath and cross-examined. In other words, the Chees were denied a trial.

Dr Chee told the court on the morning of 11 September 2006, the scheduled date for the summary judgement hearing, that their lawyer Mr M Ravi was unable to attend court as he was not feeling well.

The Judge then directed that a medical certificate (MC) be produced. When the session was reconvened in the afternoon, Dr Chee presented the certificate from a dentist that indicated a one-day rest for Mr Ravi.

The Lees' lawyer, Mr Davinder Singh, insisted that the hearing continue the following morning. The Judge acquiesced.

Dr Chee arrived in court this morning and informed Judge Ang that Mr Ravi was still unable to attend court. He asked the judge to please give Mr Ravi time to recuperate as the lawyer had been under intense pressure handling cases such as the Falungong trial, the impending execution of Nigerian Mr Amara Tochi, and this present lawsuit by the Lees.

Dr Chee pointed out that these were high profile matters that few lawyers, if any, in Singapore would dare take up and that Mr Ravi had worked tirelessly to serve his clients. He also cited that in the Falungong case, the police were harassing the lawyer and his clients.

From all this, Dr Chee added, Mr Ravi was mentally and physically very weak and exhausted. The lawyer's dental problem was just a symptom of a more serious health issue.

Mr Ravi had also consulted a general practitioner on the evening of 11 September. The doctor diagnosed the lawyer as suffering from asthenia, a medical condition where one feels general fatigue and weakness.

But at every step of the way, the Lees' lawyer objected and said that the story was nothing more than a ploy to delay the proceedings.

At this point, Dr Chee shot back and told Mr Singh that this was the lowest form of argument any lawyer could make.

He told the Senior Counsel that he was happy to engage Mr Singh in a political fight at any other time and place (Mr Singh is a former PAP MP). But at the moment, a fellow legal officer's health was in question and it was unbecoming of a lawyer such as Mr Singh to cast such aspersion on a fellow professional.

Dr Chee said that Mr Ravi would have been present if at all possible but his health was in serious question. Dr Chee asked for some compassion and good sense to allow Mr Ravi to recover and continue arguing the case

Mr Singh pointed out again that his clients' instructions were to proceed with the summary judgement hearing.

Dr Chee said that if that was going to be the case he had no choice but to discharge Mr Ravi and look for another lawyer. He asked for a two-week adjournment to be able to do this.

Again Mr Singh objected and insisted that his clients wanted to proceed with the hearing immediately.

Dr Chee pointed out that he and Ms Chee would be without legal representation if that happened. He said that he was asking for only two weeks to try to get another lawyer and that this was not an unreasonable request.

Mr Singh vehemently objected.

Dr Chee then asked for permission to leave the courtroom because he did not want to be present arguing the matter further without a lawyer.

And so Judge Ang sat in her chambers with Senior Counsel Singh, and with no other parties present – away from the public and away from the media – during which she:

One, denied the Chees' application for a two-week adjournment to look for another lawyer.

Two, consented to the Lees' insistence to proceed with the summary judgement hearing despite the absence of legal representation of the Chees.

Three, awarded summary judgement to the Lees.

How much more tragic can it get?

Singapore becoming an international embarrassment due to PAP govt's actions

2006-09-10T15:43:00.001+08:00

Singapore bans Britain’s World Development Movement from attending IMF meeting

The Singapore ban on WDM will not work.

Faced by the ban - by the Singapore government of participants attending the annual meetings of the World Bank and IMF – Britain’s World Development Movement today brought forward the issue of its blockbuster report ‘Scrap the World Bank and IMF’.

WDM director Benedict Southworth said ‘Our government cannot allow critical voices on aid, trade and debt to be silenced by the Singapore regime. The development agenda has been a centrepiece of the Chancellor’s strategy and it would be both a tragedy and a comedy if authoritative and respected critical voices were silenced while he is chairing the key IMF decision making committee.’

WDM debt campaigns officer Martin Powell, who is to represent WDM at Singapore, said ‘Our government is yet to tell us that we have been banned. Our hope is that the government will finally add its voice to those of the World Bank and the IMF who have called for the banned participants be allowed to attend. Our government must move swiftly to agree with the Singapore authorities that both the World Development Movement and our colleagues from the global South who face a parallel ban will be permitted to participate in the annual meetings process.’

Editors Notes

* Gordon Brown chairs the key IMF decision making committee (the IMFC) which meets on the 17th September during the IMF and World Bank Annual Meetings (16th-20th September). Reform of the IMF is on the agenda.

* Martin Powell is WDM’s debt campaigns officer and joint chair of the Jubilee Debt Campaign. He has attended the last three annual meetings of the World Bank and IMF. Benedict Southworth is director of the World Development Movement.

* WDM is the only UK organisation that has been banned. The Italian group CRBM was banned as were Focus on the Global South, Freedom from debt coalition (Philippines) and INFID, Indonesia.

About WDM
Founded in 1970, WDM campaigns to tackle the root causes of poverty. WDM believes that charity is not enough and aims to change the policies that keep the developing world poor. It is a democratic and politically independent organisation with 15,000 supporters and a strong role for its 100 local groups across the UK.

Click here for a 4-page briefer and read the main report here.

NGO ban 'will embarrass Singapore' - Bangkok Post

Singapore's banning of 19 accredited activists from a giant world financial conference ignited predictions Saturday that the move would backfire and embarrass the city-state, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

"The world will see the reality of Singapore," said Sinapan Samydorai of the Asian Forum on Human Rights and Development, with the city-state so saturated in security that members of the public will be subject to random searches.

More than 16,000 delegates from 184 countries were starting to arrive during the weekend for the September 11-20 seminars and annual meeting of the IMF and World Bank.

Members of civil society organizations (CSOs) were also expected following the government banning of 19 representatives deemed possible security threats by police despite the urgings of the IMF and World Bank to allow them to attend.

Among those prohibited was Antonio Tricarrio, coordinator of the Campaign to Reform the World Bank, who described the Singapore government's stand as a "major blow" to the two institutions and "terribly embarrassing."

The prohibition followed Singapore's refusal to comply with World Bank requests to allow outside protests and has relegated the more than 500 CSOs to two rooms in the corner of the Suntec City lobby. They will be allowed to engage delegates in front of the rooms.

Earlier this month Peter Stephens, with the World Bank's Singapore office, said the body was working to ensure that "diverse civil society voices are very much heard before, during and after the annual meetings."

In contrast, police said on Friday, "While we welcome bona fide travellers to visit Singapore during the event, those who are deemed undesirable will not be eligible for entry."

"Whether the activists, many of whom are familiar with street protests outside venues, will comply with the restrictions is unknown," Samydorai said.

More than 10,000 police and military will be on the lookout for unlawful gatherings boosted by helicopters hovering above.

Gatherings of more than four people outside without a police permit have long been banned in the city-state, determined to boost its image as a safe destination for high-profile conventions.

With the city under siege, financial firms have told their staff to go on leave or work from home to cope with the security measures, access blocks and traffic.

Giant UBS is having nearly half of its staff either go on leave or work from other sites, including their homes and even overseas offices. The bank is asking staff to work in shifts.

The government has spent 60 million US dollars on the event since it was awarded the bid six years ago.

"UBS's approach to contingency arrangements is based on pragmatic measures designed to minimize the logistical issues of getting staff to and from the Suntec area," The Business Times quoted chief operating officer Teo Lay Sie as saying.

UBS employs nearly 1,800 people in the city-state, with the vast majority at Suntec city.

At Kim Eng Securities, executive vice-president Tan Pei San said more staff than usual are taking leave during the IMF/World Bank meetings.

Other staff of the securities firm have been encouraged to work staggered hours.

"We can't stagger hours of our trading staff," he told the newspaper.

Despite the measures banks and businesses are taking in the Suntec City area, they do not want to deter customers.

"The measures we have established will provide the environment for us to ensure it is business as usual," Teo said.

To minimize clients' inconvenience, UBS has informed them to avoid coming to the Suntec area as access is expected to be very difficult.

Retailers in the area are hoping the delegates and their spouses will compensate for the drop in local shoppers and are offering tempting discounts.

"There may be some difference in the number of shoppers because the security arrangements will cut out drivers from entering the Suntec area, but we hope that the delegates will make up for it," Alan Tan, OSIM's head of marketing said.

OSIM will have 12 of its massage chairs ready to soothe weary delegates at the meeting, Tan said.

World Bank president criticises Singapore govt's actions

2006-09-09T11:10:00.000+08:00

Singapore rapped over protest ban
BBC News, Sept 8

World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz has criticised Singapore for banning accredited activists from its annual general meeting in the country.

Singapore authorities have blocked the 19 civil society representatives from attending the event amid claims that they pose a security risk.

Mr Wolfowitz told BBC World he hoped Singapore would reconsider its stance.

On the agenda for next week's meeting are plans to tackle corruption and reform of the bank's voting structure.

In an interview with BBC World Business Report, Mr Wolfowitz said Singapore had made a "bad" decision when it blocked activists that had been invited to the event.

"I hope Singapore's authorities will change their minds and allow the people in that we have accredited as originally agreed," he added.

He added that was important for the organisation to hold a "strong dialogue" with such groups.

"We may not always agree with what they have to say, but it is very important to have that discussion," Mr Wolfowitz said.

Protest ban

The comments followed Singapore's refusal to lift a ban on public protests.

Following the ban, pressure groups and non-governmental organisations decided they would demonstrate on Batam Island instead - an Indonesian island located close to Singapore by boat.

But now Indonesian police have decided to ban international NGOs from protesting there as well, saying the demonstrations could become violent and act as a deterrent to tourists.

The local organisers of protests - the International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID) - have said they will continue their Indonesia-based protests regardless, despite receiving a letter from the police asking them not to.

During the next week's talks the Bank and member nations plan to push on with developing new plans to help poor countries tackle corruption, as part of a wider initiative to address corruption and improve governance.

Mr Wolfowitz has argued that fighting corruption is a key step for developing countries to perform well economically.

Controversial plans

However, some countries are worried that tackling corruption may slow down the speed at which aid is delivered.

There had been fears that some World Bank schemes might be cut off suddenly at Mr Wolfowitz's behest however he now seems to have assuaged many concerns.

One World Bank official said Mr Wolfowitz had "come far since the beginning of the year, when he went forward on his own and got into a big fight with the board".

At a World Bank meeting in April Mr Wolfowitz stressed his concerns about corruption, saying that the bank would reinforce its governance and anti-corruption measures on all bank projects including loans, grants, research and technical assistance.

The bank recently announced an amnesty to those who had committed corruption in the past by defrauding the bank, if they admit their wrongdoing and declared a commitment to rules in future.

In announcing the Voluntary Disclosure Program in August Mr Wolfowitz said it would "prevent and deter corruption".

Other issues to be discussed at the World Bank and IMF's annual meeting in Singapore will include the structure of both organisations, voting reform and the role played by developing nations

Attempts to silence civil society

2006-09-09T04:17:00.001+08:00

Press Release: Singaporean and Indonesian authorities crack down on civil society--Credibility of WB-IMF Annual Meetings threatened

50 Years is Enough Network - Bank Information Center – Development Gap –
Environmental Defense – Gender Action – Jubilee USA – Oil Change International

Singaporean and Indonesian authorities crack down on civil society

Credibility of WB-IMF Annual Meetings threatened
September 7, 2006

While “good governance” tops the agenda of the World Bank and IMF’s upcoming Annual Meetings in Singapore, authorities in Singapore and in neighboring Indonesia are attempting to silence civil society. Indonesian police officials have revoked permission to hold the International People’s Forum (IPF), a major civil society conference planned to coincide with the Meetings. In addition, the government of Singapore has reportedly “blacklisted” 20 civil society representatives, who will be denied entry into the country despite having accreditation from the Bank and Fund to participate in the Meetings.

For months, civil society organizers have been planning the IPF and had discussed the event with local and national authorities. Over 1000 participants were expected to attend from more than 40 countries around the world. The conference was to take place in Batam, a special economic zone which is a ferry ride away from Singapore.

“The IPF would have been a space to discuss policies promoted by the World Bank and IMF and promote alternative models of people-centered development,” said Sameer Dossani, Executive Director of the 50 Years is Enough Network.

In recent years, the Bank-Fund Annual Meetings have been a place for public debate around the operations of the Bretton Woods Institutions. Singapore was a controversial choice for the Meetings, given its autocratic style of governance. Earlier this year, the Minister of Home Affairs threatened that protestors could face caning and imprisonment. The latest events highlight the need to protect public participation and raise questions about the sincerity of the Bank’s commitment to guaranteeing that civil society has a voice in development debates.

“The crackdown on civil society highlights the irony of the Bank’s choice to hold its meetings in a place as repressive as Singapore while claiming to be a champion of good governance,” said Manish Bapna, Executive Director of Bank Information Center. “As authorities are denying public rights to freedom of speech and assembly, the Bank is commending Singapore as the world’s most business-friendly country.”

Shalmali Guttal of Focus on the Global South added, "It is surprising that Indonesia, which was one of the worst hit countries during the Asian financial crisis, would be intolerant of public debates on alternative development and finance policies. In recent years Indonesia has made great strides towards popular democracy. We would hope that the government would continue this trend and appreciate the importance of freedom of expression and assembly."

Read the IPS news report Space for Dissent Narrows on Eve of Bank/IMF Meet

Propaganda & dirty politicking heats-up as IMF-World Bank meetings approach

2006-09-08T17:47:00.000+08:00

First a report by AFP published today..............

Singapore under fire as World Bank-IMF protest

Furious activists accused Singapore of leaning on Indonesia to ban a conference that was meant to coincide with World Bank-IMF annual meetings in the wealthy city-state.

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) also alleged a blacklist against campaigners by Singapore, a day after senior officials at the Bank and International Monetary Fund issued their own letter of protest.

IMF external relations director Masood Ahmed and his Bank counterpart, Kevin Kellems, said Wednesday they were "very surprised and disappointed" by Singapore's decision to forbid entry to several NGO members.

"While we understand and agree that security at the meetings is of paramount importance, Singapore's authorities have not shared any information that would make us ... consider these individuals as potential threats," they said.

"Blocking entry of any of these individuals into the country, or into the annual meetings venue, would undermine engagement with civil society."

About 20 NGO members who were already accredited by the World Bank and IMF to attend the September 19-20 annual meetings have now been "blacklisted" without explanation, campaigners alleged.

The letter from the World Bank and IMF officials underscored that Singapore, as the host, had agreed to abide by the organisations' promises of access to NGO representatives.

But Sameer Dossani, executive director of the 50 Years is Enough Network, which campaigns for the "profound transformation" of the World Bank and IMF, said the Washington bodies should not be surprised.

"If the Bank is interested in accountability and preventing corruption, why are they holding their meetings in a police state that has openly said it plans to cane protestors?" he said.

Dossani's group was among signatories to a press release that accused Indonesia of revoking police permission for a gathering of NGOs that is traditionally held alongside the annual meetings.

They said that months of planning had gone into the "International People's Forum" (IPF), which would have drawn over 1,000 participants to the Indonesian island of Batam, a short ferry ride from Singapore.

Batam was chosen after Singaporean authorities made clear that the conference would not be welcome in Singapore itself.

"Everything was moving forward just fine until two weeks ago when we started making press statements, and the Singapore authorities immediately put pressure on the authorities in Batam to stop this (IPF) from happening," Dossani said.

The campaign groups noted that Batam's economy relies heavily on Singaporean tourists, while Singapore is a major investor in Indonesia itself.

Bank Information Center, which campaigns for "social justice" in countries where the World Bank and IMF do business, said Singapore's zero tolerance for dissent made a mockery of the annual meetings.

"The crackdown on civil society highlights the irony of the Bank's choice to hold its meetings in a place as repressive as Singapore while claiming to be a champion of good governance," said Center executive director Manish Bapna.

"As authorities are denying public rights to freedom of speech and assembly, the Bank is commending Singapore as the world's most business-friendly country," he said.

In an annual report this week, the World Bank said Singapore was the planet's easiest place to start and operate a business.

Singapore has mounted its biggest-ever security operation to secure the 16,000 delegates from more than 180 countries expected to attend this year's World Bank-IMF meetings.

Aubeck Kam, director of the Singapore Police Force operations department, vowed last week that his officers would "use all necessary means" to stop any violence.

FYI: A late night report by local pro-govt broadcaster CNA on the "Police firm on banning undesirable groups from IMF/WB meetings". There also seems to be different versions of the above AFP report. Here's one. But the message is essentially the same: The police state is screwing-up alot of things big time for all the world to see. What is unfortunate is the fact that most Singaporeans are either oblivious, ignorant or just don't give a damn at all. And we have our pro-govt "nation building" media to thank for that.

**********

And here's another classic example of that phrase "There are no journalists in Singapore. Only propagandists"..............

Old pros at protests do it all for camera

SHIELDS, batons, water cannons, pepper spray and intimidating uniforms taking on the defenceless protester.

By Faith Teo, The New Paper

07 September 2006

SHIELDS, batons, water cannons, pepper spray and intimidating uniforms taking on the defenceless protester.

Don't be fooled by that image of cruel policemen beating them up.

This is the response those people, feigning pain, are trained to achieve.

They can be seen in action during the IMF-World Bank meetings. But they are not genuine protesters who are passionate about the cause they are upholding.

Meet the 'professional victim', a term used by an American anti-riot expert.

Mr Robert Taylor, formerly a police officer in Washington DC, trains the police on various law enforcement skills, including crowd control.

TRAVEL

'Professional victims travel from event to event to cause trouble. They claim that they are getting exposure for their organisations or causes, but in fact it's all about them.

'These people make names for themselves as protesters. They become famous because of it.

'It's all about their egos and they see themselves as celebrities. They will protest against anything and everything. But if the media isn't present, you won't find them there.'

They sometimes double up as trainers of less experienced locals. They teach them rioting tactics. With 24 years of experience, Mr Taylor has seen his fair share of tricks by these protesters.

'They like to disrupt traffic, and if someone incites them, they'll get violent, breaking down barriers and blockades.

'They'll throw anything from rocks to packets of urine and faeces at law enforcers.

'They might handcuff themselves and plonk themselves on the road, have mass sit-ins, appear in areas that they are not supposed to be in, enter buildings and lock themselves in, anything they can think of.'

Their aim is to make it as difficult as possible for the police to remove them.

Said Mr Taylor: 'There's a trick I've often seen, where they form a human chain by sticking their arms into pipes and handcuffing or chaining their hands together inside the pipes.

'It takes a long time for police to cut through these pipes and chains, and that is the protesters' aim.'

To gain sympathy, these protesters like to play victim, said Mr Taylor.

He said: 'These protesters will always say that they have been treated badly by the police, that the police started it, that they have been hurt. They like to parade their injured.

'But they have had more than fair warning. They have been advised or ordered to disperse and leave the vicinity, they know the rules, what not to do, what time to leave by. They are not victims.'

Mr Tom Archambault, another American who has trained police officers for more than 20 years, has been commander or observer at high-profile riot situations, including at World Trade Organisation and G-8 meetings.

He told The New Paper about the general rules of engagement he trains police to practise, a system he calls 'ask-advise-order'.

'Police everywhere will do everything they can to end a confrontation peacefully, until they exhaust all verbal communication possibilities.

'At the first stage, protesters are asked to leave the area because they are not supposed to be there. If they don't listen, they are advised to leave or face police action.

'The final warning comes as an order, where protesters are ordered to leave within a certain time frame or face removal by force.'

While many protests start peacefully, they may escalate into full-blown riots when protesters are incited.

CONTAGIOUS

'Agitation is very contagious, and trained instigators rile people up easily,' said Mr Archambault.

While we cannot reveal police counter-tactics for security reasons, both experts said that the police are trained and ready for any problem.

For the IMF-World Bank meetings here from 11 to 20 Sep, outdoor protests are banned. There will be a designated area within the convention venue for registered protesters to congregate.

Mr Taylor advised the public not to stay on and watch the protests out of curiosity because they might be caught in a quickly escalating violent situation.

Police spokesman Toh Boon Ngee also said: 'People who find themselves in the middle of or close to a violent demonstration or other protest actions should quickly move away from the scene for their own safety.'

**********
Ready for action

FOR the upcoming IMF-World Bank meetings from 11 to 20 Sep, the Special Operations Command's Police Tactical Troop will be using its new anti-riot vehicles (PTTVs).

The PTTVs, each carrying up to 20 men, have high-definition video cameras mounted on them. The cameras are controlled from inside the custom-made vehicles and can zoom in to record individual faces and movement in the crowd.

The 10-tonne PTTVs are designed to mount road kerbs and small obstacles, and the air quality inside is protected by special filters.

The men's all-black uniform protects them from projectiles, hits, and potentially harmful fluids.

I don't dispute the fact that there are some protesters as described in the TNP report. But not ALL of them are like that and not ALL protests are violent and unruly.

But since our "nation building" local media takes its cue from its master, the PAP government, only the government's view will be put across. And in colour with graphics to boot! Those who read yesterday's edition would have seen colourful drawings depicting these "professional victims" accompanying the report.

Well, that's local journalism for you....i mean, local propaganda. And there'll be more of such propaganda in the days to come.

China, Singapore, Taiwan - Politics with Chinese characteristics

2006-09-07T12:24:00.001+08:00

Singapore Military Juggles Ties with Taiwan, China
Fayen Wong
Reuters
Aug 25, 2006

KAOHSIUNG, Taiwan—A dark-green army truck zips through the hilly countryside in southern Taiwan before disappearing behind the high walls of an unmarked military base—the largest of Singapore's three army camps in Taiwan.

For nearly 30 years, the island state of Singapore, which lacks the space for large-scale military manoeuvres, has trained its troops in Taiwan under the code name Operation Starlight.

But Singapore has begun scaling back its military presence in Taiwan in recent years as it sought to warm relations with China, which regards Taiwan as a renegade province.

"In recent years, Singapore's close military links with Taiwan have occasionally been an irritant in the city-state's relationship with China," Tim Huxley, a defence expert who has written books on Singapore's military, told Reuters.

The city-state has over the past decade quietly built defence links with other countries to train its troops overseas such as in Australia, New Zealand, Brunei and Thailand.

It also sends air force contingents to the U.S. and France following arms purchases and hopes to soon formalise an agreement with India to train its troops there as well.

Singapore began Operation Starlight in 1975 when Taiwan, eager to cultivate ties abroad after it lost its United Nations seat to China, offered Singapore military training bases.

It was a welcome offer. Singapore faced communist threats from Malaysia and Indonesia and was keen to build up its fledgling army. But it lacked the space in an island so small a fighter jet can fly over it in less than two minutes.

Analysts estimate that by the mid-eighties, at the peak of the operation, Singapore sent about 15,000 conscripts a year to Taiwan for large-scale war games.

But the training camps in Taiwan became a sensitive issue over the past decade as Singapore, which is 75 percent ethnic Chinese, sought to forge warm ties with China where Singaporean government companies are investing billions of dollars.

Despite its military cooperation with Taiwan, Singapore staunchly supports the "one-China" policy, opposes Taiwanese independence and does not have diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

China Offers Training Bases

It's a diplomatic juggling act that could result in Singapore finding itself in an uncomfortable position if cross-strait relations flare up and it is forced to take sides.

"Singapore is aligned with the U.S. and it also has strong ties with China. But if there was a war between China and Taiwan, Singapore could be unwillingly dragged in," Huxley said.

In terms of trade, Taiwan is Singapore's eighth-largest partner, while China comes in third after the U.S. and Malaysia.

The Singapore Ministry of Defence declined all comment on issues related to Taiwan, despite repeated requests.

While China has in the past turned a blind eye to Singapore's close economic and military ties with Taiwan, it has been less tolerant of any dealings with Taipei since the self-ruled island's leaders started a pro-independence movement.

In 2004, China angrily cancelled the visit of the Chinese central bank governor when Lee Hsien Loong visited Taiwan shortly before becoming Singapore's prime minister,

London-based Jane's Defence Weekly reported in 2001 that Beijing had offered Singapore the use of Hainan island as an alternative training site to Taiwan.

The offer was the first by China to a foreign country and appeared to be an attempt to discourage Singapore's military ties with Taiwan.

"We have never discussed this," Singapore Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean said in June after being asked about the offer.

Huxley that said while Singapore has tried to cut back its dependence on Taiwan, the government had done so carefully, citing reduced training needs rather than any desire to pacify China. At the same time it has tried to avoid offending Beijing.

"As we build new military relationships with countries like India, it will get more difficult for us to not look like we're snubbing China," said Bernard Loo, defence analyst at Singapore's Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies.

Clandestine Operation

Singapore's operations in Taiwan remain shrouded in secrecy.

In his book about Singapore's military, Huxley wrote that during their time in Taiwan, Singaporean troops wear Taiwanese army uniforms distinguishable only by a separate insignia. Several former Singapore soldiers have confirmed this practice.

"Singapore keeps an extremely low profile about its military ties with Taiwan because it does not want this issue to jeopardise its relationship with China," National University of Singapore analyst Khoo How San told Reuters.

Defence analysts estimate the number of troops sent to Taiwan for training has been slashed by half to about 7,000 annually.

The bulk of Singapore's army now goes to Australia, where up to 6,600 soldiers train at Shoalwater Bay in Queensland every year and about 400 vehicles for a light armoured battalion are stored, according to Singapore's defence ministry Web site.

Back in Hengchun where Singapore's largest army base in Taiwan is located, that shift has hurt local business.

"The town used to be teeming with Singaporean soldiers about twenty years ago. Business was brisk at many of these eateries and karaoke bars," Xu Xiu-feng, 42, a restaurant owner said.

"But now this is just a sleepy town," she added.

Strange Occurrences in a Singapore Court (...and SDP's website???)

2006-09-06T20:34:00.001+08:00

I've been trying to access the Singapore Democratic Party website since yesterday night but nothing appears except a "bad request"/"page cannot be found" message. I hope there's a simple explanation as to what's wrong with the website. Maybe it'll be okay after a few hours or so. Or maybe, there's some dirty tricks operation being conducted by you-know-who as the IMF-World Bank meetings approach. Apart from that, the website also contains much news & reports on the PAP government's shennanigans and bullshit. And one of it is the ongoing case against Falungong practitioners.......

Strange Occurrences in a Singapore Court
The Epoch Times
Sept 5, 2006

Singapore is a powerful city-state that uses torture and the threat of long jail sentences as tools to suppress the freedom of speech of its people. The government of Singapore would like its citizens to believe it uses such instruments to maintain social freedoms and economic prosperity. Most citizens of Singapore do not fully understand that the use of such tools to suppress its citizen's right to free speech is morally wrong.

During the case against Falun Gong practitioners Ng Chye and Erh Tiong, who had displayed a protest banner on the streets outside the Chinese Embassy, I saw many strange events that one would not expect to see in a democratic society and/or its courts of law. The events I witnessed in this case have led me to believe that the court system in Singapore was being influenced by forces outside of Singapore, most likely from China.

Strange Phenomenon 1: Using the Smallest Court to Hold a Hearing on a Very High-Profile Case

The Singapore police accused the two Falun Gong practitioners who were peacefully protesting outside of the Chinese Embassy on July 20, 2006, exercising their democratic right to practice their freedom of belief. Their protest consisted of displaying a banner bearing in Chinese the words, "Hunger Strike on 7.20 Stop the inhumane treatment of Falun Gong in China." This statement was allegedly "insulting" and resulting in "harassment" toward the Chinese Communist Party. It was these allegations that resulted in the arrest of Ms. Ng Chye Huay and Mr. Erh Boon Tiong.

The court hearing on the case was held on August 28th. The courtroom where the hearing was held holds only six to eight people and is tucked away in the farthest corner of the Subordinate Court building. The nearly 100 Falun Gong practitioners who had come from as far away as Hong Kong, Macao, Japan, Britain, Taiwan and the United States to hear the case in person in court had no other option but to stand outside of the court and wait for news from the inside.

The presiding judge in the case refused to move the hearing to a larger courtroom to accommodate the large number of interested spectators including elderly people.

Strange Phenomenon 2: Witness Forced to be Deported

When the case against the Falun Gong practitioners had first been established, there had been three defendants. Ms. Chen Peiyu, a 73-year-old woman who had been handcuffed and detained in July 2005 for handing out leaflets, had her status changed to "witness" without any reason given by the courts. Several days before the hearing, Ms. Chen was arrested by Immigration officials and deported from Singapore.

Ms. Chen traveled to Indonesia but was refused entry and had to return to Singapore. After talking with their superiors, immigration officials granted her an extension. But soon, she was forced to go to Malaysia.

In order to attend the court hearing, Ms. Chen again returned to Singapore. Upon her arrival in Singapore, custom officials attempted to withhold her passport.

After several rounds of discussions with the custom officials, Ms. Chen eventually re-entered Singapore. But the custom officials had only granted Ms. Chen a three-day-permit, so short that it expired before the hearing occurred.

Strange Phenomenon 3: Judge Cannot Read Official U.N. Documents

The defense attorney asked the attorney for the prosecution, "Did you not know that it is a fact that the CCP is persecuting Falun Gong? The defendants are simply stating the truth. Does stating the truth constitute 'insult' and 'harassment'?"

The attorney for the prosecution indicated that he was not clear nor was he sure that the CCP's persecution of Falun Gong was real.

The defense asked the attorney for the prosecution, "If I can provide proof of the CCP's persecution of Falun Gong, will the charges be dropped?" The prosecuting attorney answered "yes." It was at this time that the defense attorney then proceeded to present his evidence of the CCP's persecution of Falun Gong.

The defense submitted to the court the United Nation's official report documenting the CCP's persecution of Falun Gong which has occurred since 1999. The presiding judge in response to this submission stated that unless the author of the document could testify in court personally, the document could not be accepted as evidence.

Can an upright Singapore judge's knowledge and common sense really be so poor? Or has Singapore, much like China, also implemented an Internet blockade of information from around the world regarding the persecution of Falun Gong in China?

Strange Phenomenon 4: All Reasonable Requests Raised by the Defense Lawyer Denied

The request of the defense to move the hearing to a larger courtroom was rejected by the court. The request of the defense to submit as evidence the report of the United Nations on the persecution of Falun Gong was also rejected by the court. Both requests appear to be reasonable as submitted. The reasons of the court for rejecting these requests remain unknown.

Against the rules of the court and standard courtroom proceedings, a witness for the prosecution appeared before the court before the trial. Under the order of an unknown court official, court staff confiscated all Falun Gong books at the entrance to the courtroom.

The court's public affairs office published distorted reports regarding the court's proceedings. It is difficult to describe in detail all that happened in this case which would be considered as outside the realm of standard courtroom procedure.

The senior defense attorney said that he had never seen such unfair treatment to a defendant in a court of law. He continued saying that such treatment was "unimaginable." During his preparations for the defense and during the trial itself, the defense attorney felt pressure from the courts as if he were also being persecuted by the government.

The defense attorney felt enough pressure that he worried about his license being suspended for his efforts to carry out a strong defense. He even considered an appeal to the United Nations regarding this additional issue. For an attorney who is familiar with the law and the courts to feel such pressure, it is hard to imagine the pressure that must be felt by a common person, such as the defendants in this case, trapped within the system.

Final Comments

This courtroom experience in Singapore gives one concern regarding the future of the people of Singapore. This author, who used to have a favorable impression of Singapore based on its past public and economic achievements, cannot help but worry about its future after witnessing this bewildering trial. This author can only ask, "In Singapore, where the social stability and economic prosperity of the country are not built on a basic respect for human rights, can its people really enjoy freedom and democracy?"

George Monbiot - If the IMF wants to reform itself, why not try democracy?

2006-09-05T20:35:00.000+08:00

Don't be fooled by this reform: the IMF is still the rich world's viceroy

What will be passed off as a democratisation is in fact a way of ensuring the poor global majority continue to have no say

George Monbiot
Tuesday September 5, 2006
The Guardian

The glacier has begun to creak. In the world's most powerful dictatorship we detect the merest hint of a thaw. I am not talking about China or Uzbekistan, Burma or North Korea. This state runs no torture chambers or labour camps. No one is executed, though plenty starve to death as a result of its policies. The unhurried perestroika is taking place in Washington, in the offices of the International Monetary Fund.

Like most concessions made by dictatorial regimes, the reforms seem designed not to catalyse further change, but to prevent it. By slightly increasing the shares (and therefore the voting powers) of China, South Korea, Mexico and Turkey, the regime hopes to buy off the most powerful rebel warlords, while keeping the mob at bay. It has even thrown a few coppers from the balcony, for the great unwashed to scuffle over. But no one - except the leaders of the rich nations and the leader writers of just about every newspaper in the rich world - could regard this as an adequate response to its problems.

The fund is a body with 184 members. It is run by seven of them - the US, Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Canada and Italy. These happen to be the seven countries that (with Russia) promised to save the world at the G8 meeting in 2005. The junta sustains its control by insisting that each dollar buys a vote. The bigger a country's financial quota, the more say it has over the running of the IMF. This means that it is run by the countries that are least affected by its policies.

A major decision requires 85% of the vote, which ensures that the US, with 17%, has a veto over the fund's substantial business. The UK, Germany, France and Japan have 22% between them, and each has a permanent seat on the board. By a weird arrangement permitting rich nations to speak on behalf of the poor, Canada and Italy have effective control over a further 8%. The other European countries are also remarkably powerful: Belgium, for example, has a direct entitlement to 2.1% of the vote and indirect control over 5.1% - more than twice the allocation of India or Brazil. Europe, Japan, Canada and the US wield a total of 63%. The 80 poorest countries, by contrast, have 10% between them.

These quotas no longer even reflect real financial contributions to the running of the IMF: it now obtains much of its capital from loan repayments by its vassal states. But the G7 nations still behave as if it belongs to them. They decide who runs it (the managing director is always a European and his deputy always an American) and how the money is spent. You begin to wonder why the developing countries bother to turn up.

In principle, this power is supposed to be balanced by something called the "basic vote" - 250 shares (entitling them to $25m worth of votes) are allocated to every member. But while the value of the rich countries' quotas has risen since the IMF was founded in 1944, the value of the basic votes has not. It has fallen from 11.3% of the total allocation to 2.1%. The leaked paper passed to me by an excellent organisation called the Bretton Woods Project (everything we know about the IMF has to be leaked) shows that the fund intends to democratise itself by "at least doubling" the basic vote. That sorts it all out, then - the 80 poorest countries will be able to claim, between them, another 0.9%. Even this pathetic concession was granted only after the African members took a political risk by publicly opposing the fund's proposals. Doubtless the US government is currently reviewing their trading status.

All this is compounded by an internal political process that looks as if it was contrived in North Korea, not Washington. There are no formal votes, just a "consensus process" controlled by the Dear Leaders of the G7. The decisions taken by each member state cannot be revealed to the public. Nor can the transcripts of the board's meetings and the "working papers" on which it bases its internal reforms. Even reports by the IMF's ombudsman - the "independent evaluation office" - are censored by the management, and their conclusions are changed to shift the blame for the fund's failures to its client states. Needless to say, the IMF insists that the states it lends to must commit themselves to "good governance" and "transparency" if they are to receive its money.

None of this would matter so much if it had stuck to its original mandate of stabilising the international monetary system. But after the collapse of the Bretton Woods agreement in 1971 the IMF more or less lost its mission to maintain exchange rates, and began to look for a new role. As a paper by the law professor Daniel Bradlow shows, when it amended its articles of asso-ciation in 1978 they were so loosely drafted as to grant the IMF permission to interfere in almost any aspect of a country's governance. It lost its influence over the economic policies of the G7 and became instead the rich world's viceroy, controlling the poorer nations at its behest. It began to micro-manage their economies without reference to the people or even their governments. Since then, no rich country has required its services, and few poor countries have been able to shake it off.

This casts an interesting light on the decision - to be endorsed at the IMF's meeting in Singapore next week - to enhance the quota for the four middle-income countries. After the fund "helped" the struggling economies of east and south-east Asia in 1997, by laying waste to them on behalf of US hedge funds and investment companies, the nations of that region decided that they would never allow themselves to fall prey to it again.

They began indemnifying themselves against the fund's tender loving care by building up their own reserves of capital. Now, just as China and South Korea have ensured that they will never again require the IMF's services, they have been granted more power to decide how it operates. In other words, they are deemed fit to govern when - like the G7 - they can exercise power without reaping the consequences. The smaller your stake in the outcome, the greater your vote.

None of this seems to cause any difficulties to the gatekeepers of mainstream opinion. On Saturday a leading article in the Washington Post observed that "to be legitimate, multilateral institutions must reflect the global distribution of power as it is now, not as it was when these institutions were set up more than half a century ago". What a fascinating definition that is, and how wrong we must have been to imagine that legitimacy requires democracy. Hurrah for corporatism - it didn't die with Mussolini after all.

I am among those who believe that the IMF is, and always will be, the wrong body - inherently flawed and constitutionally unjust. But if its leaders and supporters are to persuade us that it might, one day, have a legitimate role in running the world's financial systems, they will have to do a hell of a lot better than this.

Joseph Stiglitz on Globalization and Its Discontents

2006-09-05T12:45:00.001+08:00

I read this book titled Globalization and Its Discontents by Joseph Stiglitz a few years ago when it was first published.

Stiglitz was the winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics. He was also a member and later, chairman, of the Council of Economic Advisers from 1993-97 during the Clinton administration. And from 1997-2000, he was the chief economist and senior vice-president of the World Bank.

For those who may get turned off thinking this book is highbrow stuff with alot of language only economists and Martians understand, I highly recommend it 'cos its written in a way that makes it very readable for ordinary people like you and me.

And you can also watch and listen to him speak online about globalization and its discontents at this lecture he delivered at Wheaton College on Sept 18, 2003.

"First world" PAP government playing "third world" dirty tricks

2006-09-05T04:03:00.001+08:00

Anti-WB/IMF Protestors Have Nowhere to Go
Kalinga Seneviratne

SINGAPORE, Sep 3 (IPS) - Threatened with arrests and canings, activists planning demonstrations at the annual meet of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB), to be held here this month, are organising a parallel event on the nearby Indonesian island of Batam. But, even in that ‘free trade zone' they are going to be less than free.

Commander Anggaria Lopis, a spokesman for police in the Riau Islands province (where Batam is located) told the ‘Jakarta Post' newspaper on Thursday, that permits would not be issued for holding the parallel event.

Freedom of expression laws, introduced in Indonesia after the fall of dictator Suharto in 1998, have done away with permits for public gatherings or demonstrations. All that is needed is to inform police three days beforehand so that security arrangements can be made. However, Indonesian law does not allow foreigners to protest on the streets. Thus, foreigners taking part in a proposed anti-IMF/WB protest rally on Sep.18 could be breaching Indonesian law.

Except for the restrictions on foreigners demonstrating, Batam might have been the ideal location for the parallel International People's Forum (IPF) being planned by a consortium of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community-based organizations from around the world, coordinated by the Jakarta-based International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID).

Singapore and Batam present either side of the development coin. Affluent, savvy Singapore creams away the benefits of globalisation while impoverished Batam is exploited by the same forces. The two islands are living examples of how IMF/WB policies create wealth for some at the cost of others.

Thanks to easy investment rules and cheap labour in Indonesia, Batam has developed rapidly into a manufacturing centre especially for the electronics and garments industries. Less than an hour away by ferry, the island has also developed an unsavoury reputation for pandering to the needs of affluent Singaporean men who want to evade the sanitised environment of their ‘nanny state' -- fuelling the rise of sex and gambling industries.

Lopis told Jakarta Post that if foreign NGOs insisted on coming to Batam, police will close down the forum. "It's not true that they have been permitted to hold the forum in Batam. The forum is of no benefit to Batam," he was quoted as saying in the newspaper.

The IPF organizers believe that Singapore has put pressure on the Indonesian government to stop the protests. Singapore, with its management expertise, is formally collaborating with Indonesia to develop Batam into a major special economic zone capable of attracting foreign investors from Japan and other major industrialized countries.

There already have been demonstrations outside the Singapore embassy in Jakarta urging the Singapore government to allow outdoor protests on the island republic during the meeting. In fact, the police spokesman made the statement to Jakarta Post following this demonstration.

According to INFID, over 1,000 people are expected to attend the Sep. 15-18 IPF, with about 300 of them coming from some 40 countries.

Donatus Marut, co-chair of the international steering committee of IPF told Singapore's ‘Today' newspaper that Indonesian government officials have suggested shifting the forum from Batam. Marut was due to discuss the arrangements for the forum with Jakarta police officials before meeting Singapore embassy officials on Monday to explain their plans. "The protests are against IMF and the World Bank and not against Singapore," he said.

Over 16,000 people from 184 countries are expected to attend the week-long IMF/WB talkfest beginning on Sep.13. This is the biggest international gathering hosted so far by this affluent city state of four million people and the government has already spent some 60 million US dollars on it in the hope that it will establish Singapore's growing reputation as an efficient and safe place to hold international conventions.

The event is also shaping out to be the country's biggest security operation ever, with the entire police force along with 23,000 National Servicemen deployed to prevent terrorist attacks or illegal demonstrations. Early morning drills have been held near the convention centre, where Molotov cocktail-wielding demonstrators (played out by police reservists) have been confronted by regular police officers in full battle gear. Ships entering the bustling Singapore harbour, this month, may be searched. Surveillance helicopters will be hovering overhead and residents can expect to be checked randomly on the roads.

Singapore police chief Soh Wai Wah says that IMF and WB-accredited activists will be given permits and allocated a designated area at the conference venue to "gather" and "engage" the delegates. According to guidelines issued by the police, licenced activist groups must not move out of the designated areas, and are not allowed use of amplification systems or burn items or behave in a manner that would "provoke a breach of peace."

A spokesman for the IPF organizers told IPS that civil society groups first considered holding the forum in Singapore but, after seeing the conditions imposed on them, they decided to hold most of the events in Batam "since the WB and IMF deliberately wanted to get a shield from a nanny state". The spokesperson said, since any event with the presence of foreign speakers needed Singapore government clearance, IPF could not risk allowing Singapore to control the agenda.

"Although Singapore could have maximized our potential coverage because the big media outfits will flock there, IPF is also organizing media events in Batam and has invited foreign media there," said the spokesman, adding, "some media people will be shuttling from Singapore to Batam and vice-versa."

Ramches Merdeka from the NGO Children's Protection Forum and a member of the IPF organizing committee told Jakarta Post on Thursday that even though the Indonesian police has been threatening to close down the forum, they are going ahead with preparations since they have no official word, as yet, from the police.

"If they do it (ban the protests), Indonesia will revert back (sic) to the time under former president Suharto," he said. According to him the foreign ministry has said that they have no objection "as long as the protests don't target Singapore."

Rally and March to go on despite repression

2006-09-01T15:43:00.001+08:00

Media Release: The march will go on
SDP
1 Sep 06

Despite the police rejecting the permit, the planned rally and march during the WB-IMF meeting in September 2006 will proceed.

The excuse that the police give for the banning of peaceful assembly in Singapore because of "security reasons" is a lame one. The Government is on record as saying it will not authorize public gatherings of any sort at any time.

In other words, the PAP has decreed a blanket ban on peaceful assembly.

This contravenes the Singapore Constitution and goes against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations of which Singapore is a member.

The gathering of Singaporeans at this rally and march will be a peaceful one, one that is well within the rights of each and every citizen of this country.

It is unthinkable that foreigners are allowed to protest while the owners of this country are prohibited from doing the same. It is like having guests in our homes and dining at our table while our caretaker whom we have employed turns around and locks us, the owners and hosts, up in the toilet.

No, Singaporeans will not be silenced any longer. We will not be treated as second-class citizens any longer. We refuse to live in such humiliation and fear any longer.

We will say to one and all, here in Singapore and to the rest of the world, we Singaporeans want democracy and we want it now. The PAP repression must end.

The Empower Singaporeans Rally and March in September 2006 will allow Singaporeans to speak with pride and humble resolve to bring freedom to our country.

The Government may have the physical strength to forbid the peaceful assembly, but that will be no match for the moral authority of citizens, the moral authority of justice and the truth, that will be brought to bear on the occasion.

Chee Soon Juan

Details of the March and Rally will be announced on this website soon.

******

Letter from the police

28 Aug 2006

Dr Chee Soon Juan

Dear Sir,

APPLICATION FOR RALLY AND MARCH AT THE WB-IMF MEETING

I refer to your application letter for a police permit to dated 22 August 2006.

We regret to inform you that your application is not successful.

Yours faithfully,

MARC E KWAN SZER
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OPERATIONS (LICENSING)
SINGAPORE POLICE FORCE

Sex, drugs and foreigners

2006-08-31T16:12:00.000+08:00

The title of this post isn't as vulgar as it sounds. It just concerns serious issues raised by the National Solidarity Party.........

NSP Reaction To PM Lee’s National Day Rally 2006
Press Release, Tue, Aug 22, 2006

It is heartening to hear the PM expressed his optimism of a 3-5% "sustainable long term growth for Singapore." However, the wages of blue-collar workers continue to be depressed by a determined labour policy scourge of keeping wages for this group of workers low to render Singapore labourers more cost-competitive.

It is thus of immense concern that the blue-collar workers will not substantially benefit from the rosy economic statistics without needing increasing government handouts. And this is to say nothing of the constant threat of unemployment and retrenchment, which with the present policies is made insurmountable.

The emphasis of high quality growth sectors in areas like biomedical science, environmental and water technologies and interactive and digital media will inescapably drive the higher limits of the salary scale in Singapore rapidly up, invariably leading to a higher cost of living for all Singaporeans. Workers in the lower rungs will experience even more hardship.

We urge the government to resolve the woes of these workers by taking concrete steps to close the salary gap. For a start, the inexorable tide of cheap and readily available foreign labourers has to be checked. Singapore workers must be allowed the benefit of a prioritised job placement ahead of their foreign counterparts.

The government must seriously incorporate a decent minimum wage structure, coupled with the correct motivational approach for these workers. Persisting in labelling these workers struggling to find meaningful employment as either "choosy" of lacking in the right attitude and mindset is counterproductive.

We accept that global competition is useful for the progress of Singapore, and that foreign talents are a necessary component of a progressive nation. However, we propose that the domain of such competition be limited to the top 15-20% of the high-end professions (doctors, engineers, and big time businessmen, to name a few). We further inject the emphasis that only the right foreign talents be accepted in order to maintain a high standard of competition and to impart esteem to the policy.

We caution the government against a wholesale introduction of foreign competition to every sector and every level of the job market. Such a policy is detrimental to the interest of the majority of our local workers in their bid to make a decent living, and is destined to alienate the locally born Singaporeans. This will only serve to accelerate their departure from the country, exacerbating the chronic brain drain.

Government initiatives like the Overseas Singaporean Unit (OSU) are commendable. However, the government must realistically face up to the truth that the environment in the motherland has simply become less and less attractive for many. As a case in point, businessmen often find themselves competing against GLCs backed by state resources. Faced with powerful monopolies or controlled competitions, many have to compromise their plans, or take the painful decision to leave their birthplace behind.

The sad state of Singapore's population replacement figures aggravates the situation. The Total Fertility Rate of Singapore has seen better days within a short span of 4 decades; from more than 3 in the 60's to an incredible 1.2 today. It is all the more inexplicable that the trend has not been taken too seriously despite the regular population census.

It is highly regrettable that the psychological origins behind this anomaly (for such a young nation) was met inappropriately by material incentives like the Baby Bonus and infant-care subsidies, which has proven to be overrated.

The government has now chosen to vigorously promote the introduction of immigrants into Singapore as yet another quick medicine. However, the government has the obligation to foretell the future consequences such a move will have on Singapore's social fabric - What is to become of the 'indigenous' population who finds themselves in the numerical minority? Will immigrants readily accept naturalisation, or will they 'come and go' as they please, using Singapore as a convenient liability-free springboard to greener pastures? How will our cultural heritage resist being rendered irrelevant by immigrants with little or no historical attachments to that which has defined Singapore?

Many nations are discovering that a liberal immigration policy is no panacea to population growth. And that is to say nothing of the cost of social integration.

In conclusion, the NSP would like to urge the government to look at the issues of wage depression, aversion for procreation, and the departure of aspiring Singaporeans in a more down-to-earth manner. NSP will like to continue to emphasise that intangibles like more media freedom and more space for political expression are sine qua non of a progressive nation. Economic and political liberalisations are different sides of the same coin.

Central Executive Council
National Solidarity Party
A Member of the Singapore Democratic Alliance

Don't miss the latest Feature article from the NSP titled The Great Subutex U-Turn - Injecting The Macabre Facts.

Bovine scatology......in other words, Bull Shit!

2006-08-31T15:48:00.000+08:00

I posted on Aug 24 a ruling party minister's reply and now the police have confirmed it yesterday. First, the World Bank was told to go fly some kites when they requested that outdoor demonstrations be allowed. Now, the SDP has been denied a police permit for their rally & march.........

Singapore opposition politician vows to hold illegal protest
AFP
Aug 30, 2006

An opposition Singapore politician vowed to stage a protest march during upcoming IMF and World Bank meetings even without a required police permit.

Police said earlier Wednesday they rejected Chee Soon Juan's application to hold the protest at next month's meets on security grounds.

"Yes, we will go ahead... The world must know about this," the secretary general of the Singapore Democratic Party said, criticising a blanket ban on public demonstrations and other political restrictions in the city-state.

Chee, who has served three jail terms - a total of about two months - for speaking publicly without a permit, said he is prepared to risk arrest again.

"It is our right to be able to do that (hold a protest). They (police) will just have to do what they have to do. We will continue to fight for our right as citizens of this country," he told AFP.

However he said he was exploring going to the courts over the rejection of his application.

Police would not hesitate to take the necessary action to enforce the ban on public demonstrations if anyone, including foreign nationals, was caught trying to protest without a permit, said police operations director Aubeck Kam.

Kam said Chee's application was denied for fear it will disrupt preparations to secure more than 16,000 delegates to the September 19-20 meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

Previous meetings of the IMF and World Bank have attracted large anti-globalization protests, some of them violent.

"No licence, no permit will be issued ... if it is attempted to be carried out, it will be illegal," Kam told a media briefing on security preparations for the event, the biggest that Singapore has hosted.

"We will enforce the law."

In Singapore, public protests involving at least five people are regarded as illegal unless a police permit has been issued.

Any person who organizes or helps in organising the illegal assembly faces up to six months in jail or a fine or both.

Chee, a vocal critic of the ruling People's Action Party, said the march was aimed at exposing the government's curbs on free speech and what he claimed was the poverty situation in the wealthy city-state.

He was declared bankrupt in February for failing to pay 500,000 Singapore dollars (318,000 US) in defamation damages to former prime ministers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong.

Ahead of general elections in May, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father Lee Kuan Yew filed another defamation suit against Chee for allegedly implying they are corrupt.

For years, the PAP govt with the help of our "nation-building" media have fed Singaporeans a steady diet of violent protests & demonstrations all over the world. And terrorism is being used to justify repressive actions by governments against their people as well.

I'm as concerned as the next fellow on the streets about a terrorist attack or demonstrations and protests gone wild. Who wouldn't be. But there have also been peaceful protests & demonstrations all over the world in countries where terrorism is also a concern. And they have pulled it off rather than throw a blanket ban on them.

As I've mentioned in my Aug 24 post, the police should work together with the organisers & participants of outdoor protests to make sure all goes smoothly. And those who do make trouble should be dealt with instead of banning every Tom, Dick & HARRY! By working together, the police would be able to do their job plus the organisers & participants can put out their messages and air their grievances without anything untoward happening. It can be a win-win situation for both parties.

Thing is, there's one major PARTY which sees otherwise. The laws that prohibit such activities are written and passed in a parliament dominated by the ruling Peoples Action Party. They are so blinded by power that they see a win-lose situation - people win; PAP lose.

I can go on & on but i'll just end here with the SDP's Chee Soon Juan writing about bovine scatology among other things. :-)