This article was first re-published from Ms Catherine Lim’s website on TOC in April 2008. We re-post it here as we feel Ms Lim’s article is just as relevant now as it was in 2008 – given recent events which have taken place.
We thank Ms Lim for allowing us to reproduce it here, do visit her website for more of her writings.
The following article, like previous ones, was turned down for publication by the Straits Times. It looks like I should stop being thick-skinned and give up sending my commentaries to them!
‘Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.’
Something could get rotten in the state of Singapore as a result of the very unfortunate Mas Selamat scandal.
Scandal it is, in terms not only of its shocking nature—the most dangerous political prisoner and terrorist operative in Singapore makes a laughably easy escape in a super efficient, technologically advanced city state—but also of the serious doubts it is raising in the public’s perception of government accountability, and the damage that these doubts could do to the government-people relationship.
Up to this point, the relationship has been fairly stable and amicable, transcending whatever conflicts that have arisen over the years when the people expressed their unhappiness about the government’s decisions on various issues, such as those related to foreign workers, ministerial salaries, the casinos, Shin Corp, etc.
In each case, public debate has followed a predictable pattern: first, the people are allowed to speak their minds freely through the permitted channels including the forum pages of newspapers, TV debates, the feedback units, and dialogues with government representatives; next, at an appropriate point, the Prime Minister himself and his ministers enter the fray with patient, sustained explanations and persuasive arguments, and finally the matter comes to a close, usually with a gentle but firm message from the Prime Minister himself that in effect says, ‘Trust us; let’s move on.’
An expansion of this simple admonition could go something like this: ‘You have consistently re-elected us, thus acknowledging that we are a competent, responsible, trustworthy government. So even if we make unpopular decisions, it is only for the good of the society. And even if we cannot answer all your questions, it is only for reasons of national confidentiality and security. Therefore trust us, and we will continue to do our job well.’
In the Mas Selamat case, the government is precisely using this approach. But this time, it falls far short of the expectations of an increasingly articulate electorate, including, in the most surprising way, members of the PAP government itself, who seem to have suddenly become more alert, discerning and courageous, voicing reservations and asking questions in Parliament about government accountability that, in the past, could only have been expressed privately. Was the apology from the Minister of Home Affairs, followed by a detailed factual account of the escape, enough? Was the promise of corrective action to prevent such incidents in the future enough? Would not the findings of a Commission of Inquiry comprising members selected by the government itself raise more questions?
The voices raised in question and doubt, both in Parliament and the media, were expectedly measured and polite, in keeping with a tradition of deference to a powerful government that does not tolerate strident dissent. But politeness may soon give way to the persistence and boldness that come from conviction. The signs are that the voices, especially of the younger generation, will become a force to be reckoned with, because they are part of a whole new culture spawned by the Internet and globalization, with all that this implies of greater knowledgeability, awareness and sophistication.
Thus, a serious disconnect between the government and the people has arisen: while the government is still operating from the old perceptual paradigm carried over from a simpler, more innocent era, the people are developing a new one in keeping with the times. They are increasingly aware of new expectations and needs in their roles as citizens in a democratic society, and will no longer respond uncritically to the government’s usual exhortations of ‘Trust us’, ‘Also trust those we have picked to work for us,’ ‘Don’t forget what we have achieved,’ ‘Look at things in perspective’, ‘Let’s move on to more important, bread-and-butter matters,’ etc.
The Mas Selamat incident could cause the two paradigms to move so far apart as to make the disconnect permanent. Thus the incident may be seen as a watershed in the history of the government-people relationship, resulting either in a strengthening and maturing of the relationship on the one hand, or irreparable damage on the other.
Clearly, what the people expect, by way of an appropriate government response, is a large public gesture commensurate with the incident which in its magnitude has no precedent. That gesture will be no less than an offer of resignation from the Minister of Home Affairs himself. Whether the offer is accepted by the Prime Minister or the people is a separate matter. The personal integrity of the Minister is not in question. But in the conduct of the public life of a society, when something of this gravity happens, the symbolism is necessary. A symbolic act in public will have high visibility and emotive power, even in a pragmatic, down-to-earth society like Singapore, and can unite a people in times of trauma, giving a sense of something very like closure. Only then will Singaporeans regain their trust in the government and their belief in the honour, dignity and accountability of high office.
______________________________________________
Note: Headline picture is not from Catherine Lim’s article.
________________________________________________________
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Such is the expected. Their policies are so complex that even news workers and MP may not understand them. So what’s the use of explaining to the bunch of “idiots” who will just send them into parliament again
I have an observation which I believe many would have noticed, and that is; the Citizenry is extremely disappointed with the uniquely disappointing Leadership in the Mas Selamat Escape Inquiry Reports. And the Escape itself.
patriot.
Catherine Lim did not reiterate a important point. How do trust a secretive government that lack transparency, accountability and responsibility when they are business-man themselves running Singapore Inc with profitability (economic) that determine the pay of ministers and gahmen ? This is the worse in conflict of interest. As and when they behave like business-man and government are up to their discretion and liking.
This is where the governance failed.
Even worse, when these gahmen blatantly proclaim that they think like real business-man (no free lunch, economic growth, etc) and doing deal secretly using government power (Shincorpse, etc)
Hope that Catherine Lim write about this.
Among us, we can probably get the feel of what sentiments are like in respect of this COI thing, WKS resignation etc.
But I would be keen to know how do our kopitiams ah peks and market aunties feel about them too.
Anyone can feed.
Hi Whitley-Gate,
A 57 year old Ah Pek from heartland kopitiam like me would say,
“When you lose your money, you lose nothing;
When you lose your health, you lose something;
When you lose your integrity, you lose everything.”
As far as I’m concerned, they have lost everything! Especially Respect and Moral Authority! Their expression of irritation and pomposity in answering questions (raised especially by opposition members) after having screwed up so badly is more unbelievable than the escape of Mas Selamat Kasturi itself.
The way the man slapped the book on the table when answering Low Thia Kiang’s question on matching pay to accountability shows much of his character!
Is it the job of ministers to answer valid question or are they paid to beat around the bush and ask MPs questions in return? Why can’t we just get straight answers like a spade is a spade?
Like the GST, the Budget fiasco, the outvestments of GIC & Temasek and many other cock-ups, they will try their best to “siam” or avoid the issue and hope that we can accept it as an “honest mistake” and just “move on”.
The shameful “Mas Selamat Scandal” be the straw that breaks the camel’s back! Baby-Boombers, X-Gen, Y-Gen, old or young, I think everyone feels that enough is enough! It’s about time that they learn to show respect for the intelligence or, at least, the commonsense of Singaporeans!
The handling of Mas Selamat is another truth of MM’s prophesy of a “dose of bad government”! And yes, for our complacency, we truly deserve the taste of this nauseating medicine!
The bad taste in the mouths lingers on . . .
Time for another pay hike? 3rd increase? Or will it be done quietly this time?
We can buy expensive actors, yes men and wayang with $,$$$,$$$ salary but INTEGRITY? That’s a different quality altogether!
A quality that “siam” and “elak” or passing the buck won’t hold.
feedmetothefish
These are emotional times for us, Singapore.
An escaped terrorist. A looming inflation. Conspiracies. Expensive ministers. Complacency. Dastardness. Helplessness.
I’m just waiting for the icing on the cake when MM Lee decides what he thinks about this entire episode. Another lesson in the vocab currency? Say maybe …”Leadership”? I hope he’ll be courageous enough to gatecrash his son’s “party” and bring the “house” down. Party on!
To-date, we still do not know for sure whether Mas Selamat had really escaped from the detention centre.
In my opinion, the Investigation report is really a farce. It has failed in its duty to remove any doubt about the Mas Selamat’s escape. Instead of providing answers, it raises more questions. The mysteries of the open window, sawn handle, running tap, toilet rolls, failed cameras, etc. are left hanging to everyone’s imagination.
If the conspiracy theory regarding Mas’s extermination is true, then the whole Escape saga must be Singapore’s biggest political scandal. Remember Durai’s scandal would have remained a secret if he had not been exposed by a corporation with the right powerful connections. Can we say the same for this saga ?
For one, I’m yet to be 100% convinced that Mas really escaped. Are you ?
SPH broke the story at NKF. Mas selamat will be a different kettle of fish. Read Chua Lee Hoong’s article today. She censured the netizens, something that even her ex-boss at MGA refused to do. With ex-ISA people seconded to Straits Times, what kind of earth shattering news can you expect from them? I think Today has a better chance. Let us netizens soldier on for Truth, Justice and remove this sense of hopelessness in singapore. I look at the cabinet ministers and I feel jaded, and with Chua Lee Hoong in our Straits Times – shit! She has forgotten Took Ling How, Richard Yong creeping past ICA – I hope she stands for election – looks like PAP material.
If you have served in the army, and you have gone thru the Standardard Obsticle Course (S.O.C), and if you remember clearly of how your tried the scale the 2M wall; with respect to the area on the top of this 2M wall and with the panel space of the window that Mas slipped out; how is it physically possible for him to go thru it, turn his body around so that he lands on his legs?!? Would it be possible that in Mas’s scenario that it’s more likely for him to land on his head first?? Anyone??
With billions of dollars lost in careless investments such as UBS, CITI and ML and with rising inflations that has yet to be put under control. What has the gahment really do? Giving some vouchers and telling every sinkies they are going to get their growth dividends. What about rising fuel costs and basic food like rice? Fuel increases raises prices for almost everything. Even RICE is rising so rapidly. What can the gahment do? What are their policies? Growth dividend should not be touted as a solution by the gahment to rising inflation because it is surplus that the gahment collects from GST and Taxes. What did the gahment actually do to curb inflation and helping the needy sinkies? What additional measures have they done that are respectable? The middle class which forms the bulk are also having a hard time and little is done to help them.
In short, it is the middle class that vote this Pappies in and now they should realise the damage they done to themselves. Hope it served as a reminder to them too about complacency.
Whitley, i can answere you, ther are much more ppls. feel unhappy then you can expected, well, i actively hang-out n socialize in those place.(just sit at any hawker center, pay a little attention to what they say
A note to TOC, if only you guys can print out in paper with chinese version(charge a very very very small token sum)…….. I ‘m very sure tis will be the hardest impact to the ‘CHENG-HU’……My 1/2 cent worth.
whitley, talk to any taxi driver in sg….u be surprise out of 100, i think 99.9 of them is unhappy…. Shop proprietor in heartland (they are more caution n afraid so every 100. i give about 70 will show unhappiness)… colleauge studen 100 only 35(for those who show unhappiness usually very vocal n agressive type)…..enough????..
“With billions of dollars lost in careless investments…”
Citigroup recently wrote off a huge amount of losses from capital raised late last year (http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1013355.shtml). How much of that was our money?
Now, we’ve been told Temasek’s into oil and gas exploration. Those from this industry can attest to the high risks and capital investments involved. Yes, the returns may be high if we hit the right spots, but how will we know if we pump in more than we gain in this venture?
Something is seriously wrong with the focus up there. The basic business of the Govt is the country and the people, not doing business. Yes, we must invest, we must be forward-looking, but has enough been done in reviewing what we do or choose to do, and the impact on people now and in the years to come? Or is the review process something like the COI or the security audit at Whitley in this case?
I think the whole idea of leadership is grossly misunderstood by our Government. Leadership means leading people to somewhere. It doesn’t mean one-upmanship against thy neighbour. It certainly doesn’t mean topping charts and scoreboards everywhere. It may not even mean winning. A leader exists because of the followers and their needs. Did we tell the Govt “please top the charts everywhere”? Did we say “please amass wealth at all costs for the nation”? Did we say please grow the population to 6.5b? Did we say “We want casinos”? If the underlying assumption of the Govt is that we must win, that we must get ahead of others; if the Cabinet is made of scholars and straight A students whose only goal in life is to beat others to something, this is what we get, and it doesn’t necessarily translate into a happy nation, only happy “leaders”.
Logicalman,
well said. We want a happy nation not happy rich leaders! We people did not ask so much from the gahment. They assume we do. Tell them to poll nationwide about our expectation. They have lost touch with the common folks. That’s really is a reality.
FG
I have a sense that the local media has been ordered to play up the non-answer of WP sec gen Low Thia Khiang to LHL’s question in Parliament.
They desperately need a distraction, a bogeyman, to distract everyone from the real issue. If you read the papers, you see how often Low TK’s non-answer is being mentioned – in fact, it’s been mentioned everyday since it happened.
It got splashed in the front page, no less, of the Straits Times the day after Parliament.
And today’s (Saturday, April 26) TODAY paper has it on its front page as well.
The propaganda wheels are in spin now – full throttle.
It went up a notch today with Chua Lee Hoong’s piece in the ST, which, funnily, started with her saying:
“Reading Internet postings often makes my blood boil.”
Sad thing is, Chua Lee Hoong does not realise that reading the ST nowadays does excatly the same thing to Singaporeans.
Really sad.
They’re demonising the Internet – without mentioning that “the Internet” also comprises people/bloggers/politicians such as Catherine Lim, Siew Kum Hong and Cherian George – and even the PAP’s own P65 MPs and a minister (George Yeo).
Talk about being stupid, eh?
Dear ordinaryman,
A free or even paid tabloid may not work that well. Firstly, hard to find advertisers who are willing to openly identify with alternative views on home issues, even if they do support them. Secondly, even with sponsorship, we will not be able to compete with Today or MyPaper in terms of frequency and distribution.
Better leverage on the cost-effectiveness of the Internet and remain an online-only avenue, especially since Singapore has one of the highest internet & mobile phone penetration rates. To reach out more, apart from advertising through other sites and portals, put out mobile and multi-lingual editorials. For mobile access, publish to Avantgo for easier subscription by users. Of course, it’s important to ensure that the quality of language and content remain consistently high so as to attract the better educated voters out there.
For supporters of this site and others like MrWang, Mr Brown, etc link to one another. Within 3 years, there should be substantially greater mindshare and penetration.
I think most of the heartlanders are fed up of the government not because so much of mas selamat issue, but it is the rising cost of food, transportation, HDB pricing,recently kindergarten fees,(gehmen ask us to produce more, and increase kindergarten, fees, who can afford ??)CPF annuity issue,ERP at neughbourhood, health care cost,and yesterday, MOM minister said increase workers wages, would not help curb rising cost, so I ask the minister what can help curb the rising cost.If ministers can cut their salary by 30%, I say you are really the first world ministers,no 1.If not you are the blood suckers.Now it is a good time for oppositions WP, SDP, SPP ,NSP to make this an issue and every Sunday visit kopitiam, hawker ctr, make your presence felt, and work towards a better future for us by denying pap 2/3 majority the next GE.This is the time, don’t misss it.
Feverguy,
The Government is obsessed with their performance on the global stage, how they are seen in others’ eyes. Our expectations probably rank somewhere down there, if at all. Look at how much resources is wasted on this whole Mas Selamat saga, and we are not even convinced that there’s this guy who’s a wanted & highly dangerous terrorist who actually escaped and now threatens our security. Expectations? Irrelevant up there.
Andrew,
Low’s non-answer & PM’s challenge reminds me of kidstalk.
Kid A: I think you should do this.
Kid B: Why should I? Would you? I dare you do it.
Sometimes, silence is golden. Many may have felt that Low lost a golden opportunity to push for some kind of a punishment for WKS, or that he chickened out. But by remaining silent, he’s wise. There’s so much to be said that it cannot possibly be answered with a Yes or a No, as evident from the postings on this and many other sites. In fact, by his silence, Low’s saying, “I rest my case”. What more can be said to a team who adamantly refused to do what’s honourable and right, and saw no need for any corrective actions other than to punish those unnamed people of little consequence? There’s a saying that goes like this, which I learnt from my primary school chum:
“Do not argue with a fool. The onlooker doesn’t know the difference.”
Of course, the national media will seize any opportunity to make the opposition look bad, but come on, who are they kidding?
“PAP’s own P65 MPs”
That’s like a school project from a bunch of kids eager for their teacher’s approval and A grading. For serious, objective views, read Siew Kum Hong.
“CPF annuity issue”. Oh yes, they got away with that too, when news of Mas Selamat broke. Last heard, ST featured an uncle who’s a security guard, saying that the scheme is very easy to understand and is helpful. Strange, how come the majority of us still don’t get it? And before I even receive any booklet from CPF telling me more about this scheme, how they compute the premium and returns, what options and how to exercise them, and implications thereof, my wife received a tax assessment from IRAS before she even submitted her tax return, yes before 15 Apr 2008 Talk about efficiency. Might as well do away with e-filing, and transfer the Comptroller to Head of ISD.
I posted the following comments at the P65 Blog in response to Dr Lam Pin Min’s article “Accountability, Responsibility & Culpability”. I am awaiting his reply.
April 26th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Dear Dr Lam,
The above exchanges and those in parliament have selectively focused on the guards at WRDC not following SOPs and bad judgement by the superintendant of WRDC. Framing the context as such facilitates the argument that senior managment at the highest levels, such Wong Kan Seng and the ISD director, do not need to take responsibility for the lapses that occurred at the operational level.
However the following lapses at the systemic and policy levels suggest that someone higher up must take the rap.
1. Did complacency set in at a systemic level?
When asked whether MHA conducted regular audits at the WRDC prior to the escape of Mas Selemat, Wong Kan Seng admitted that “the only thing ought to have been done better is a regular system check and audit”.
2. Was there any bad judgement at the policy level?
When asked on “the oversight role of the MHA vis-a-vis the ISD”, Lee Hsien Long only stated that the ISD “reports to MHA and is accountable to MHA for its performance”. He did not specify what MHA’s responsibility entails other than that “MHA monitors ISD by tracking whether Singapore stays safe”.
This perceived unclear jurisdiction suggests why the police appeared inapt in the days following the escape by releasing (mis)information in drips and draps. Speculation arises over how such a confused state of affairs could occur. Were the ISD and MHA talking to each other?
On a separate issue, the composition of the “independent” COI raises serious doubts over possible conflicts of interest. Dr Choong May Ling, Deputy Secretary for Security in the Ministry of Home Affairs, was appointed as one of the three-member COI to investigate and report on her minister, who retains the discretion to release the findings as he sees fit. Nevertheless, Wong Kan Seng argued that the COI comprises “persons who are not about to put their own considerable achievements and good reputations at risk” and that there are “no grounds to doubt the impartiality or independence” of the COI. Why can we not apply the same argument in the case of a judge who has to excuse himself/herself from presiding over a case so to avoid any doubts over possible lack of impartiality?
Based on the perceived systemic and policy lapses above, public doubts over the wisdom of appointing Dr Choong would appear even more justified. Some less informed members of the public may even question whether Dr Choong was in some way responsible for these lapses.
The more government try to degrade the opposition party, the more people wake up from the make-believe world of PAP. And we know it always back-fire because people are far more educated and intelligent enough to seek the real truth themselves rather than rely on blind faith.
Now, the government try to shift the focus of blame for Selamat’s escape entirely to the opposition party and insulting the intelligence of the party. This practice of distraction is old-trick and people are already tired of it.
Yeap, but people in blogosphere not stupid. The government only make themselves look stupid and inept. What’s more, people around the world, Singaporean emigrated around the world are assessing this site everyday to know what happening.
“To decide whether this was an innocent mistake, Singaporeans must know the answers to these questions. In the interests of transparency and accountability that Mr Low upholds, he must share with Singaporeans the answers that he received from Mr Gomez” – Wong Kan Seng, May 2006
How ironical that the same words by WKS still are relevant in his own mistakes. If anything this is
turning out to be a shakespearean tragedy. It makes me very angry that the ministers manipulate the public. Of course the public is so gullible as well. And the Straits Times cannot be bothered with public opinions. I say down with Straits Times!
Sgcynic, well said. The keyword here is “selective”. Impartiality, on the other hands, requires a no-holds-barred approach. Take the case of NKF. If Durai was still in charge, and some lower-downs were appointed to do some audit, would anything good materialize? The Government will do well to learn from NKF what transparency, accountability and responsibility are all about.
A pub in Malacca provides bad service. Band sings like shit, like the worst ever person on American idol. Proprietor shrugs his shoulder. “What to do, it happened”, he says.
Pub customers go somewhere else.
A pub in Singapore provides bad service. Band sings like shit, like the worst ever person on American idol. Proprietors his shoulder. “What to do it happened”, he says.
Customers keep going back to this pub because ALL other pubs are closed down when they try to open. Some pub owners are put under ISD, some are bankrupt on trumped up charges, all kinds of rules are invoked to close down competing pubs.
Motto of the story — When you have one can’t sing all will have to suffer. Only one fami-lee can open pub. Singaporeans pay and pay to use only one pub where the services is useless.
After a few years — Malacca has a thriving entertainment and night-life sector.
What u guys think of the punishment given out to those reponsible ?
If the guards are to be punished and also the junior officers must take the rap, then i believe their so called pension or gratituity must also be withdrawn from them. Punishment must be of the highest standard for a uniform organisation and anything less is not befitting it.
Are the top management of MHA have enough guts to do that? My guess is they are gutless coz doing that may spill more beans from these people. So the punishment is very light i suppose e.g. more extra duties, rank demotion or maybe more painful no bonus for the year. Will it be more?
MHA has to prove itself by being more transparent of the punishment that is going to be given out and anything less is very damaging to already fragile reputation.
It will be interesting to hear from the guards and officers themselves. I am sure they are mature adults and can speak for themselves, not kids that need a guardian to explain what happened.
Regardless, as many have pointed out, the issue is not about the incompetence of the guards or failure in operations at Whitley. It’s about systemic and structural failure that is the responsibility of the overseeing body and ministry. It is at this level that the minister and director of ISD have fallen short.
And after burning millions of taxpayers’ money and in the process hurting the businesses and livelihoods of our cross-border traders during the ensuing causeway jam, we are still none the wiser about Mas Selamat. Is he the terrorist he’s alleged to be? Are there verifiable evidence that will stand the scrutiny of an international judiciary? Did he really escape? Why is there no one speaking from Mas Selamat’s side? Even if his family is sure he’s a terrorist and is ashamed of him, they should come forward to say something.
Compare with the issue involve ST correspondent Ching Cheong, accused of spying by China. Ample coverage was given, and we heard from his wife, family, boss and all. For a man accused of terrorism, Mas Selamat was dirt until this saga erupted. Still, nothing was heard from this man and his version of things.
By the way, SPH said this in defence of Ching: “Until we see incontrovertible evidence, we stand by our belief that he has always acted in the best interests of The Straits Times” (ref: http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/05/31/afx2064468.html)
We need to see incontrovertible evidence about Mas Selamat, and of course, that there is no systemic and institutional failure beyond the responsibility of the minister and director of ISD.
It’s funny, reading the Straits Times:
In yesterday’s piece titled “Ministerial responsibility: The UK example” (April 25) by senior ST writer Chua Mui Hoong, she said:
“SINGAPOREANS this week are seized over the issue of ministerial responsibility when things go wrong on their watch.”
In today’s article titled, “That escape: Crucial issues aplenty, so let’s move on” by Chua Mui Hoong’s sister, Chua Lee Hoong, the second Chua said:
“I concur fully with unionist G. Muthu Kumar, who said there are far more important concerns for workers, like rising food costs. ‘People don’t bother about this Mas Selamat… they’ve got no time to think about this.’”
Well, I sometimes do wish the ST would make up its mind what it is that they want to say.
Are Singaporeans “seized over the issue of ministerial responsibility” or “they’ve got no time to think about this”?
This is what you get when you try too hard to dance to the tune of your pay masters.
i really hope tat more pp will get to know how the gahment work . really sick of them.hope the opp will like malaysia win big !!! god bliss .
shameless Chua Lee Hoong,
“I concur fully with unionist G. Muthu Kumar, who said there are far more important concerns for workers, like rising food costs. ‘People don’t bother about this Mas Selamat… they’ve got no time to think about this.’””
Are you kidding Singaporean ? Why didn’t I see you saying that in election where PAP spend almost all election period grilling James Gomez for what this consider a trival mistake rather than focus on bread and butter of country’s issue ? His’s mistake is nothing compared to PAP, just like a ant to a elephant.
Are you saying that Selamat is a trival issue ? It is serious because the integrity, credibility, moral authority of the whole government is at stake. If they can’t even take responsibility, why do you think these coffers will take responsibility for the country ?
I posted the following on the p65 forums under MP Lim pin min’s article at around 2am, 26th April. It has yet to be published. Is he sleeping too?
”
Hahaha I think it’s very sad. The ST and the government can continue to think that the noise is made by a few bloggers and kopitiam crowd but look at the response here. Is this disconnect?
1. Dear MP Lam. I get the feeling that PAP looks down on opposition MPs from they way they answer their questions. I would like to point out that the opposition have every right to be in the parliament, having been voted in repeatedly. No walkovers or GRCs for them! If they are that incapable, why isn’t PAP able to win back the constituencies? ST consistently portrays the opposition in a bad light and I fear the PAP MPs have been brainwashed into thinking that of the opposition too. But my honest advice is to treat them as equals. They are not out to “tekan” the government. I would like to see the day PAP answers an opposition MP’s question without beating around the bush. Just look at WKS’s answer to LTK. It’s a simple yes/no question, but look at the answer. If WKS had said “he is still alive”, rumours would have been dispelled. However, he chose not to answer it. The people are thinking why he don’t dare to say? I believe the opposition have the best interest of the country at heart.
2. Even if I agree with you that WKS should not resign because of the escape, but have you thought about the follow up to the escape? Touch your conscience. Do you think it was a good follow up? 4 hrs to release the news. Description comes out in bits and pieces. and then we find out it was wrong??? You’ve locked him up for so long, you don’t even know about his limp? You don’t even know what he was last wearing? Now you tell us he left his pants behind. alamak.. seriously lah. Took more than a day to tell us his height and the mole. Do you think WKS should take responsibility for this?
3. I read that MPs were sleeping during Monday’s sitting. COI report! Of the great escape!!! sleeping??!! Can you confirm this please? It’s really a simple yes/no question; I hope you can tell me. Please don’t ask me whether I believe what I’ve read or not, like what WKS did to LTK. Or perhaps you could not see the rest of the MPs from your seat? Or you failed to notice? Perhaps you can ask your fellow MPs, I’m sure together you can find out whether there were MPs sleeping during the sitting.
“
To Logicalman, do not underestimate those chinese educated or less edu.elder singaporean.U be surprise they do share the same sentiment tat mention here…just that both are of different world, not connected……..
food for thought,do visit this so-call low level place, find out yourself…. i can easily name a few place if u need to know…..
Thanks, Ordinaryman. I agree with you, That’s why I suggested multi-lingual content. I agree that there will be others who have no access to online materials, but for TOC or others to attempt to have a print edition will be suicidal.
Firstly, the capital and ongoing operational outlay will be high, given that ads will be hard to come by, and we all know why. I don’t know what resources TOC has, but even if it has a large amount of resources to spare, it can be better used to grow the online influence, especially to non-English speaking/reading electorate.
Secondly, even if we have a print edition, it has to be as visible as the SPH news publications, which are pushed out daily in at least 5 different formats/channels. Are there enough content to justify daily publishing? If you read ST for example, some days news are really recycled content repackaged in a new way, or some really inconsequential headlines. We don’t want TOC to look like that, do we?
TOC is both a forum and a portal for alternative analyses. Good to stay that way, but draw more its site. For instance, closer to next GE, resources can be channeled to buy ads or even do an SMS campaign. Frankly, I have seen Ah Peks and Aunties SMSing like college students. A mobile-friendly TOC will be ideal for reaching out to the mobile electorate. Conversely, ad space may be sold to leading Opposition parties to generate revenue, and content can be syndicated both ways.
Of course, if by the time the next GE is just round the corner, and the Govt bans SMS campaigning, we will know why. If anything, the time to go mobile and multi-lingual is now, not closer to the next GE. And someone said the Opposition should capitalise on this and go talk to coffeeshop uncles and aunties on weekends. I say, hold the horses. No need to stir up further unhappiness now, since the ground already seems to smell something fishy.
Let’s be objective. See how the Govt will move from here to tackle the “more important” bread and butter issues as the ST correspondent said. See how they propose to tackle rising cost of living by not proposing wage increase or removing GST for basic goods and services. I suspect the Govt will focus next on Olympics, YOG and F1 which doesn’t concern the man in the street, unless one “kenna langga” by an F1 participant. We should keep pressing for solution to rising cost of living, the bread and butter issues that they are throwing up as a smokescreen.
Committee of Citizen Statement On The Committee of Sensible Inquiry
On The Ministerial Statement Made In Parliament On The Committee Of Inquiry Findings On The Escape Of Mas Selamat
Dear President, MM, SM, PM, PAP ministers, MPs, NMPs, Fellow Singaporeans,
The Committee of Sensible Inquiry (CSI) was convened to vet the report submitted to DPM, Wong Kan Seng. This is necessary as the citizens feel that the DPM’s choice of the COI members constitutes potential conflict of interest between the DPM, the government and the citizens. As such, transparency, accountability and liability will be subject to less than independent scrutiny.
After having exercised due diligence over the COI’s report, the following points of contentions and unexplained circumstances are herein, put forward for public awareness and discussion.
1. Reference: Statement Points 13 & 14
Mas Selamat was escorted to locker room to change into civilian clothes. He stood behind a column of lockers to change.
CSI’s query:
WRDC is a detention centre with well-established prison protocol. Therefore, detainees there won’t get any privilege of privacy. Given common sense, a detainee’s clothes are subject to checks, for those stripped and for those put on, unless there is no visible clothing on him/her.
2. Reference: Statement Point 16
The guard waited for a few minutes outside the urinal cubicle door with the sound of the tap water running and Mas’ trousers slung over the top of the cubicle door.
CSI’s query:
a. The urinal cubicle is not equipped with toilet bowl nor shower. We find it inconceivable that the guard would wait for a few minutes, knowing very well that the most Mas can do inside was passing urine, which at most would take less than a minute.
b. It is human knowledge that men do not remove their trousers to pass urine under normal circumstances. The guard, being a man, is fully aware of this anomaly if indeed, Mas did remove his trousers. The guard would had sense this foul play and done the necessary, unless he was aware that Mas was engaged in some self-service acts.
c. The cubicle door does not extend to the ceiling and the sound of the running tap water was not possible to mask the purported escape as the guard was in such close proximity. The handle-less window, although without grilles, would not facilitate an easy escape without creating noises. The sound of the running tap water cannot possibly be as loud as a torrential rain unless designed and equipped to be so.
d. The woman ISD officer outside when alerted, had to summon an Assistant Case Officer to check on Mas. This is totally unbelievable when the gurkha guard was right outside the cubicle door to do it immediately.
e. CSI is of the opinion that the guards and the ISD officers are such professionally trained security personnel to be able to commit such incoherent errors.
f. The uninstalled window grille is not crucial to the escape as the meticulous planning and design of the overall security measures make it impossible to escape from the detention centre.
3. Reference: Statement Point 19
The COI finds no conclusive evidence of the escape route Mas took after climbing out of the toilet window. It surmises that Mas could have climbed onto the roof of an enclosed staircase and walkway at the section where the perimeter fencing converges with this enclosed staircase and walkway. Mas could have jumped over the perimeter fence. COI observed that the baju kurong which Mas was wearing, was found in the forested area outside the perimeter fence.
CSI’s query:
a. The fact that no conclusive evidence of the escape route can be established may also point to the fact that the escape did not occur at all.
b. Where the enclosed staircase and walkway converge with the perimeter fencing, this so-called weakness would had been factored with the appropriate security measures in the planning stage.
c. No evidence was presented on the distance between the closest jump-off point and the perimeter fence. Whether it is possible to simply jump over the fence is a critical factor that must be established to support this theory.
d. The baju kurong which Mas was reported wearing and which was found outside could had been placed there prior to the search if the escape did not occur in the first place.
4. Reference: Statement Point 25
In my view, the security weakness of this window is the single most crucial factor which enabled Mas to escape. The omission to fully secure this ventilation window in the Family Visitation Block toilet used by detainees was a glaring weakness which should have been rectified, and not dealt with in an ad hoc manner by sawing off the window handle.
CSI’s query:
CSI emphasized that the uninstalled window grille is not crucial to the escape as the meticulous planning and design of the overall security measures make it impossible to escape from the detention centre. That the supposedly highly qualified superintendent of WRDC did not see it necessary to grille the window supports our notion. Therefore, this cannot be a source to channel the blame.
5. Reference: Statement Point 32
The CCTV coverage of the area was in the midst of being upgraded. At the time of the escape, there were two CCTV cameras mounted at the location where Mas climbed out of the Family Visitation Block. However, these cameras were not commissioned yet. The system is still in its testing and validation stage. As such, there was no recording or active monitoring of these cameras.
CSI’s query:
Given that WRDC is such an important detention centre housing terrorists, it is simply beyond logic to have non-active monitoring nor recording cameras even in this case where upgrading is on-going.
There was no mention of the other cameras in the vicinity. Is the DPM suggesting that all cameras were not functioning nor recording at that time, in the midst of the upgrading? Not commissioned does not necessarily mean that they are not working.
Since no escape point could be confirmed in the first place, this is subject to further clarification. It is also possible that no evidence of escape could be presented from the recordings, which explained for the non-commissioned cameras.
The Post Incident Response
CSI strongly chastises the DPM and his subordinates for the rather mediocre and comical info provided to the public over the days after the escape. This is unbecoming of a ministry handling national security. Descriptions on Mas were simply confusing. This can only be excusable if Mas was new to the detention centre.
CSI is of the opinion that to escape from the centre is near impossible if unaided. Not unless all the security measures failed at the same time and the centre is unmanned. The only other explanation for this episode is that no escape took place.
CSI unreservedly thank all those activated and involved in the manhunt including the innumerous sufferings and inconveniences endured in this episode. The government is expected to compensate all as a token of appreciation.
Other highly suspect and contentious misdemeanor identified by CSI:
1. The appointment and composition of the COI is highly questionable with conflict of interest and collusion a distinct possibility. Of equal glaring concern is that the DPM chose to stick to his choice when this anomaly was highlighted. However, the greatest concern is that the PM did not object to this when it is so obvious that accountability and integrity are at stake in this matter involving the DPM, which will ultimately reflect on the government.
2. That the COI’s findings was accepted wholesale by the DPM and in turn, by the PM, is shocking and beyond comprehension. With so many points of contentions, the citizens are hard pressed to demand for transparency. A separate COI comprising neutral parties is the only solution for a credible report, more so, in this case involving the integrity and accountability of the highest office in Singapore.
3. It is puzzling and highly controversial that the DPM chose to exonerate the director of ISD prior to the release of the COI report. There is no doubt of questionable integrity at a time when the DPM himself is subject to accountability and liability pending the COI report.
Compounding the question of integrity is the fact that the PM saw it fit and proper to endorse his continued confidence for the DPM despite all these disturbing facts of controversial proceedings. As such, the PM’s integrity is now also under the spotlight and subject to scrutiny.
4. Despite the systemic failures of the current incident along with many previous failings, the DPM was not censured nor penalized or demoted. Incoherently, the PM has embarked on a crusade of exonerating ministers from being accountable for the mistakes of their subordinates despite declaring that ministers are ultimately responsible for their ministries.
5. Both the PM and the DPM have been exemplary in dodging issues raised by channeling accountability and blame to the guards and the superintendent of WRDC only. Of paramount concern is that this seemingly promiscuous delegation of responsibility has been well-received in parliament with no objection nor abstention of support.
6. The citizens are highly concerned and disoriented that their $10,000+ per day PM is uttering less than creditable arguments. With 2 casinos in mind, he exhibits pre-occupation with gambling matters in using the throwing of dice to decide on possibly difficult decisions, where a 1 means a straightforward decision while a 6 denotes 6 variable choices of decisions. Very confounding and challenging to try not to get a 6 indeed.
7. CSI reminds the government that this matter is not properly settled yet. Any call to move on from here will only add fuel to the fire, which in due course, will be difficult to put out. It is in the interest of Singapore that a further thorough investigation be expedited to restore integrity and accountability.
Dear Logicalman,
Thanks for your vote of confidence.. :) But TOC is not a vehicle to champion any political cause. We are just a bunch of bloggers who’re concerned about issues facing our nation. TOC is just a blog, like many others – except that Singaporeans are using it to voice their opinion on issues.
And indeed, we welcome that.. :)
As for Chinese articles, yes we are hoping to be able to do that. If you know of anyone who can write in Chinese or who can do translation of our English articles into Chinese (on a volunteer basis), please do let us know.
(You can reach us at theonlinecitizen@gmail.com )
Regards,
Andrew Loh
http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=/2008/4/26/columnists/insightdownsouth/21061581&sec=insightdownsouth
A good article from across the causeway. If this goes on further, then the repercussions will be felt in GE 2011. For me, I had enough with PAP.
Read this. WKS is not only incompetent for MSK’s escape.
“Why Wong Kan Seng is incompetent – and not just for the JI escape.”
One thing:
If ministers are not responsible for what their subordinates do or don’t do, then does that mean that if and when Mas Selamat is caught, Wong Kan Seng will also not claim credit for it – unless he himself personally capture Mas Selamat?
You cannot say that when he escaped, it’s not my fault.
But when he is caught, it is my credit!
I dunno leh. This type of “responsibility” means one thing only lor: Heads I win. Tail I also win. Liddat I oso want to be minister.
Millions dollar salary. ZERO accountability. Something go wrong, it’s my subordinate’s fault. Something go right, it is because of my leadership!
PAP has lost my respect.
I followed up with the post at the P65 Blog (for details, see post 23 above).
April 26th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Dear Dr Lam,
My request for your views (posted on April 26th, 2008 at 11:35 am) has been published without any reply from you. It reminds me of something similar that I read in this morning’s Today: when the crucial time came to correct possible public misconceptions and restore public trust, you seemed to have chosen to respond but with pin-drop silence to hard-hitting questions.
My view? “No answer. So I think that settles the point.”
The Government (or the Party?) propaganda machinery is really working in full speed. Be it in the print, broadcast or online media. Now, they have also invaded into the home of every Singaporean. I just received this print flyer in the mailbox. I wondered why this information has to be sent out at this point in time.
The content is as follows for your reference:
On the First Page:
BENEFITS FOR ALL SINGAPOREANS IN 2008
The Government will share over $3 billion with Singaporeans in 2008. Most households will receive benefits that are higher than the increase in costs of living. [Emphasis is mine]
There are a cartoon showing slices of cakes and they have words written as such.
Workfare Income Supplement: $300 million
GST Credits and Senior Citizens’ Bonus: $560 million
U-Save, S&CC and Rental Rebates: $200 million
Property Tax Rebates: $100 million
Medisave: $226 million
Income Tax Rebates: $380 million
Growth Dividends: $865 million
Post-secondary Education Accounts: $500 million
On the second page, it has a table titled “Growth Dividends” and another table called “2008 GST Credits and Senior Citizens’ Bonus”.
On the third page, it has detailed tables and write-ups on the following:
- Post-Secondary Education Accounts Top-Ups
- Workfare Income Supplement
- Medisave Top-Ups
- Utilities-Save, Service and Conservancy Charges and Rental Rebates
- Property Tax Rebate
- Income Tax Rebates
For the last page, it has two large tables showing two examples of benefit calculations. The page is titled as “Examples of what Singaporean households will receive in 2008″.
Example 1
Low-income Family Living in a 3-room HDB flat: Receives $4,900
Example 2
Family of 5 Living in 5-room HDB Flat: Receives $4,800
All in this information is in English. Funny thing is that they are NOT using the strange term used by MOM – “residents” this time round.
Are they trying to remind Singaporeans of their “rewards” from the Government? And as such, are they using this kind of information to shift attention from their lack of responsibility in their handling of the recent issues and events. Guess that we will receive more junk in our mailboxes soon. What a waste of paper.
Blackshirt,
Sze Hian will have an article about the leaflet this coming Monday.
Watch for it.. :)
With reference to my earlier posting (no. 41), Dr Lam has posted his reply and I have also written in in response:
Lam Pin Min Says:
April 26th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
This particular entry has attracted many comments from netizens. Since its posting 3 days ago, I had received a total of 73 responses, making it the most commented posting in this P65 blogsite.
First and foremost, I would like to thank everyone for contributing to the discussion so far, as well as spending your precious time to read and pen your thoughts. To me, this is a positive sign, indicating that Singaporeans are not apathetic to the issues affecting the country.
My writing of this posting is personal, without any instigation, collusion or complicity from anyone. Having sat through the briefings and parliamentary sittings, I thought it would be appropriate to share my own thoughts and assessment of this incident. Some bloggers have commented that there will not be anything new coming from a PAP MP and that we are just “yes” men, echoing what the bosses have already said.
Well, to put things in perspective, I was equally concerned and skeptical about the escape of M.S. How could anyone escape from custody just like that in Singapore? We see that only in the movies, but in Singapore? Highly implausible. Could there be any connivance, collusion or assistance rendered to M.S to facilitate the break out?
However, with the information furnished, I was able to make my own judgment, which in this case, happened to concur with the recommendations and conclusions from the COI. I supposed I had the privilege of following the findings closely and to be able to piece all the puzzles together, thereby allowing me to make my own conclusion.
From the many comments received, I observed that very often, people tend to jump to conclusion based on scanty information and / or misinformation. Strangely enough, many of the queries raised have already been discussed at length and reported in the papers. There are credible explanations for some of these perceived irregularities.
On the issue of accountability and culpability (and also to answer to Sgcynic’s, Jimmy’s and Peter’s queries), the COI found that no systemic failure led to the escape of Mas Selamat. The COI’s assessment is that the custodial protocols and procedures over handling of detainees were generally sound. Rather, it was the operational lapses of individual officers that led to his escape. To me, this observation is fundamental and critical in deciding the extent of culpability within the organisation.
Many bloggers (such as Sgcynic, Justspeaking and Ronin), have also queried the impartiality of the COI in this particular case. One must understand the sensitivity of the installation and organisation in question, which in this instance are the WRDC and ISD. For those of us who had done national service, we all know that certain information and operations can be highly sensitive in the SAF, with considerable implications on national security. The functions of the ISD and the WRDC fall under this “highly sensitive” category too. It is therefore not unreasonable to appoint members with high integrity and sterling credentials to form the COI so that thorough investigations can be conducted without fear of compromising and safeguarding sensitive information.
It is imperative for all of us to view the circumstance leading to the escape of M.S in perspective before making surly remarks and jumping into conclusion. Please do not think that I am being defensive and not receptive to criticism and comments. I just felt that it is my duty and obligation to help clarify any doubts and misinformation. I do not think it is proper to allow the promulgation of erroneous information which can lead to unwarranted divide in the bloggosphere.
Having said that, I really appreciate all the feedback from netizens. Please feel free to contribute constructively and discuss on any issues. I will try to address them to the best of my ability. Cheers.
My posting:
April 27th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Dear Dr Lam,
Thank you for your effort in posting a reply.
Your underlying argument is that “the COI found that no systemic failure led to the escape of Mas Selamat. The COI’s assessment is that the custodial protocols and procedures over handling of detainees were generally sound. Rather, it was the operational lapses of individual officers that led to his escape. To [you], this observation is fundamental and critical in deciding the extent of culpability within the organisation.”
To me, it was most unfortunate that the whole process of commissioning the COI left room for the impartiality of the COI to be questioned. This, I feel, is fundamental and critical in determining whether the COI’s findings have the full trust and confidence of the public. I would also like to point out that the term “generally” implies “not all instances” in civil service nuancing.
I have not heard your views on the perceived confusion of the police following Mas Selamat’s escape. This, I believe, was not
under the purview of the COI. Wong Kan Seng’s reply in parliament goes: “I think that is something that is beyond me. The officers concerned must have had a lot of confusing information at the time. And in this whole process they did not have the accurate information.” Do you buy such an explanation? Should Wong Kan Seng and the police superintendent
be satisfied with such an excuse or should they investigate the matter fully? Otherwise, the public would be justifiably concerned about possible police confusion should a terrorist attack take place.
Talk about irony.
Where is the Party that steadfastly refused to play the welfarism card?
Boo hoo.
It’s my personal view. Those “political link” blog, like the YPAP blog are more like a punch bag for all Singaporeans.
Initially, which is a year back, I believe YPAP blog should be a good blog to express views through an informal channel, however, I was wrong. I felt that what I have written is being dismissed on the spot. They are all out to support their “own kind” and what they reply most probably found in the papers. As for P65, I went in, glance through and give a click on X on my right.
I believe all bloggers and readers, like me, are all out to look for a neutral view; what most Singaporean think and believe. So, I do surge Singaporeans to choose their material and invest their time on the right blog. Only when the blogging community has become a sizeable one, I believe they will be the one scrambling through the blogs.
PS. Hehe, it will be good to provide links so we can comment what they have written on a second party blog.
i think one fine day, some big screw up with your cpf money will happen, and they will just say:
“LET’S MOVE ON”
now, this terrorist will come back with a vengence, the economy will be affected then, and the answer you will EVER likely get is:
“LET’S MOVE ON” HAHAHAHA
I wrote an article about having 20 oppositions in parliament in Lam ‘s blog (PAP).One writer straight away asked me stop talking abt oppositions as they are a bunch of rubbish, and not credible . Why when we are talking abt oppositions,the pap straight away say they are not credible ?? This shows that they are really arrogant,if Low TK said to PM Lee, yes u should sack wong kan seng, would the PM listen to Low ?? Given their arrogance, and big head, why should Low answer to him, if the responce is negative.
There is something wrong with government when they view opposition party as nothing but trouble-maker. The role of opposition party is to question the government policy and ensure that there is check and balance in the government. May I ask who is the real trouble-maker ? Who create the trouble of Selamat’s escape ? Ironically, one thing that I that I discover is that whatever thing say against the opposition party is the exact thing that happened to the ruling party. The ruling party are just describing themselves and I find it amusing because those heinous remarks fit them perfectly more than opposition party.
PAP is putting a great defensive battle everyday, and the approach they use is to degrade everyone except themselves.