Andrew Loh –
On 10 July 2010, the Straits Times published a report – “Law Ministry rebuts lawyer’s claim”, by Zakir Hussain.
The report is essentially a regurgitation of the Law Ministry’s statement in response to earlier remarks made by Mr M Ravi, lawyer for death row inmate, Malaysian Yong Vui Kong. Mr Ravi had raised questions about the clemency process in Singapore. He had also voiced concern about Law Minister K Shanmugam’s comments about Yong, which were made while the Court of Appeal was still deliberating Yong’s case.
Say what?
The sub-heading in Mr Hussain report reads, “Convicted drug trafficker’s lawyer attributed comments to Law Minister he didn’t make”.
What comments were these? The report doesn’t say. But it does say that Mr Shanmugam made the following statements at a public forum on the 9th of May:
“Yong Vui Kong is young. But if we say, ‘We let you go’, what is the signal we are sending?”
“We are sending a signal to all the drug barons out there: Just make sure you choose a victim who is young, or a mother of a young child, and use them as the people who carry the drugs into Singapore.”
“You will get 10 more. You will get a whole unstoppable stream of people coming through as long as we say we will not enforce our laws.”
When the Online Citizen contacted Mr Ravi, he said these were precisely the statements he had attributed to the Law Minister. So did Mr Shanmugam make or not make them? And if not, why did the Straits Times attribute them to him, not once, but twice?
A Deafening Silence
Mr Hussain called Mr Ravi at 10pm on the 9th of July, presumably to solicit his views about the Law Ministry’s statement. Mr Ravi returned the call at 11. He was later told that the Straits Times would run another story incorporating his comments the following week. Mr Hussain sent Mr Ravi a list of questions on Sunday.
By then, Mr Ravi had decided to put out a press statement. A copy was sent to the Straits Times.
On Tuesday, we had confirmation from Mr Hussain that the Straits Times would neither run Mr Ravi’s statement, nor write an article about his response to the Law Ministry’s comments.
The Online Citizen sent Mr Hussain the following questions:
1. On 10 July, your report titled “Law Ministry rebuts lawyer’s claim” was published in the Straits Times on page A6. I would like to ask if you’d check the facts of what the Law Ministry said before you wrote/published the report.
2. Was the report entirely the one you submitted to your editor?
3. May I know who your editor is?
4. I notice that the ST has not carried or reported on M Ravi’s subsequent response – in a press statement – to the Law Ministry’s remarks carried in the abovementioned report on 10 July. May I know why the ST is not carrying or reporting on M Ravi’s press statement so far (this email is sent to you on 14 July 2010)?
When contacted, Mr Hussain declined to answer any of our questions.
A question of facts
In his report, Mr Hussain quoted the Law Ministry thus:
“Further, Yong had also trafficked in other drugs such as Ketamine, Ecstasy, Ice and Erim 5 when he was arrested.”
Yong was never charged for any of these offences. He was never tried and thus, never had the opportunity to defend himself. The Law Ministry however, has clearly decided that he is guilty. It has tainted public perception of Yong by including such allegations in its statement.
What was Mr Hussain’s purpose in parroting the Ministry’s stance? Did he check the facts? Ascribing guilt to Yong, and embellishing the facts, in such a manner is not only inaccurate, but also downright shoddy and unprofessional.
Mr Hussain’s report also says:
“Yesterday, the ministry also pointed out that evidence in court showed that Yong had trafficked in heroin on other occasions before he was arrested in June 2007.”
This is a curious statement for several reasons:
- The only charge brought against Yong was for trafficking in 47.27g of heroin in June 2007.
- As far as we know, the so-called “evidence” is the testimony of Yong’s accomplice, Chai, who was arrested together with Yong in June of 2007. According to Mr Hussain, Chai ‘was granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal’. Under Singapore’s law, the testimony of a co-accused can be used as evidence for conviction in Singapore’s courts.
- One would ask: If Yong had indeed ‘trafficked in heroin on other occasions’, why was he not stopped and arrested by the police or the CNB on any of these occasions? Why was he allowed to traffic in heroin ‘on other occasions’?
The question then is: Why did Mr Hussain not delve deeper into these issues instead of just parroting what he has apparently been fed by the Law Ministry?
What is news?
On 5 July 2010, Mr Ravi made a trip to the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, and held a press conference there. He urged the Malaysian government to intervene and help save Yong from the gallows. (See TOC’s report here.)
Virtually every single Malaysian newspaper carried the news the following day. The Straits Times only got its act together two days later – on the 7th of June – with an AFP report buried in its World/Regional news section. The report did not mention Mr Ravi, neither did it include the basis on which Mr Ravi urged the Malaysian government to intervene.
Clearly, editors at the Straits Times did not think the news worthy of too much space. So it is puzzling that it would subsequently devote a half-page spread in its “Prime News” section to the Law Ministry’s rebuttal. Has the story become more important simply because the Law Minister is now scrambling to defend himself? And if so, shouldn’t both sides of the argument be heard? Why the refusal to publish Mr Ravi’s response?
A Singapore minister recently praised the mainstream media for being “accurate, timely and balanced in its reporting”.
This latest episode, however, shows the Straits Times is nothing of the sort. Instead of checking its facts and reporting them fairly, the Straits Times has instead help propagate inaccuracies.
Which master, and what purpose, does the Straits Times serve?
———-
Read M Ravi’s press statement in response to the Law Ministry’s comments, which the Straits Times has refused to carry or report on, here.
———
Here are the Straits Times reports mentioned in the article above:
Straits Times, 7 July, AFP report on M Ravi’s KL press conference:
Straits Times, 10 July, Law Ministry’s response to M Ravi’s remarks made in KL:
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
Just like the master that it serves, the ST and its editorial staff including the reporters – are nothing more then puppets on the wayang stage managed by the Pro Alien Party.
Can they be allowed to write anything according to their own conscience ?
One can only wonder what can possibly make these supposedly intelligent beings bother to be employed into such an hypocritical environment.
Surely, money cannot be the driving factor when the remuneration is not exactly exciting.
Perhaps it is the low standards required from the editorial staff and the non-demanding work ethics that maybe the attraction.
So much for being the leading paper of a First World Disneyland managed by politicians with a Third World mentality.
First, Vincent Cheng was not allowed to speak at NLB. He was CENSORED.
Then, bookstores were told to pull Alan Shadrake’s book on death penalty off their shelves. The book was CENSORED.
Then, Martyn See’s film on Dr Lim Hock Siew was banned. In other words, it was also CENSORED.
Now, we have the Straits Times not allowing M Ravi to rebut the Law Ministry’s remarks. M Ravi is CENSORED.
Mr Zakir Hussain, too bad, man. You’re not a “journalist”. You’re nothing but just a parrot.
Then again, the Straits Times is more and more becoming like a zoo – an animal farm where all the animals in there wag their tails when they see their masters, the men in white.
Zakir Hussain must be one of the best lapdogs in the farm.
Our law minister should not be trusted. Uniquely Singapore. Our world class press fully deserves the world rankings it got. In fact, we will be moving “up” the ranking.
ST prostitutes. hang them all!
LKY’s legacy. Let’s see how long it lives on and at what point will it all come tumbling down. I will keep a bottle of champagne unopened to celebrate the day when it eventually arrives.
Zakir Hussain, 25
Journalist at The Straits Times Political Desk, English/Malay Newspaper Division.
Zakir graduated from Oxford University with a Bachelor of Arts in Modern History and Politics. He is studying for a Masters of Science in Journalism at Columbia University, USA.
“I’m glad for the opportunity to study and follow the media in the UK – it’s developed my interest in journalism and let me hear from, meet and question newsmakers and journalists in person outside the classroom. In my first year at Oxford, I’ve listened to journalists from Jon Snow to Yvonne Ridley debate and interviewed CNN international correspondent Nic Robertson for the student newspaper Cherwell on reporting from the frontline, in his words “doing what we all enjoy, finding and telling the truth”. The presence of a rival student newspaper made chasing that campus scoop worthwhile, and travelling on a student budget during vacations didn’t just offer much to write about – it was a great way to see how the other side of the developed world, and the developing one, live. And notwithstanding the differences between the undergraduate essay and the newspaper article, looking back on my recent internship, small tutorial group sizes and heavy reading lists were great training for conducting interviews and writing pieces that required much research in a short time!”
From “http://student.brightsparks.com.sg/profile/sph/schquote.php”
What a tragic waste of talent.
Don’t be too upset about all the controls which are in place. What the government does not seem to grasp is the fact that the more you supress a peoples, the more they will seek alternative ways to express themselves. The powers that be also don’t seem to comprehend that the cost of embracing one knucklehead will result in the loss of the respect of the rakyat.
PAP, I call on you to embrace the rakyat. It is ok to make a mistake. But it’s not ok to treat us all as fools! Remember the first word of your party name. Remember who you are supposed to represent. Remember that you are one of us.
Remember our anthem’s call. All as one! Together! Equal in the struggle for the good of our nation. Don’t throw away all our elders have struggled so hard to achieve, just for the sake of one man’s ego!
Thanks for this interesting article!
I have a story on Ravi’s response to your law minister here: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/137274
We’be been carrying articles on this case, from all sides – including the government’s.
in his words “doing what we all enjoy, finding and telling the truth”
1)Sure enjoys the money he gets…
2)Finds the truth…but doesn’t publish it….
3)Tries to tell another truth….then goes back to No.1, enjoying.
Should send a copy of what is going on to Columbia Uni’s Student Newspaper.
They will see what a fine person Hussain is becoming.
Should ask him to read the new book on The Jolly Hangman or is it. Wow, what a disgrace and a letdown by the system.
The Government formed by the Pro Alien Party is no better then the Stalinist Government of Communist Soviet Russia.
It can only survive by total dominance and control of all apparatus of State – not satisfied with dominating Parliament by ‘fixing’ the election process, it has also to insist on picking the candidates to the Judiciary “for the approval” of the President; and will surely have a hidden hand in deciding who is the appropriate candidate to be nominated to the position of the Elected Presidency.
The clearly written provisions of the Constitution allow the President to exercise his discretion – even if he is dependent on the Cabinet for advise – and it is amazing to learn – from the previous Attorney-General – that the ‘de facto’ situation is that it is the Cabinet that makes the decision for the President to approve.
If such a clearly written Constitutional provision can be abrogated by the Pro Alien Party, can we trust the independence of the Judiciary – when the candidates to the Bench are selected by the Prime Minister and “recommended for the approval” by the President ?
With the separation of powers in a Democracy absurdly skewed in practice – is there any sense of civilised law and order in Singapore ?
Is the Pro Alien Party BIGGER than Singapore and itself above the Law ?
I didn’t know you had to go to Oxford to be a parrot.
What a waste of money.
This is a language game I like to play everytime I read a straits times or channelnewsasia report that uses the word ‘rebut’. Instead of ‘Law Ministry Rebuts Lawyer’s claims’ , I would replace ‘rebut’ with ‘deny’ and ask myself if the meaning, vibe, accuracy is any different. (After all, ‘deny’ means refuse to recognise or acknowledge) So in this case, we’ll re-read it as ‘Law Ministry Denies Lawyer’s Claims’. Totally changes the meaning doesn’t it. I encourage everyone to play this game!
want to send signal to the drug barons send the signal directly loh.
S’pore should do more to weed out the root of the problem instead of seating far far away- talking.
a signal that the drug barons are untouchable.
there is MIW “untouchable”, there is drug baron “untouchable”. in a clash i wonder which side will win.
:D
Another whore of PAP
The Law Minister & ministry probably think the majority of Singaporeans are stupid and only trained lawyers can interpret his prejudicial wrong doing. It’s very clear what type of law system Singapore practices-dynastic law. Simple. They know it but they have become unafraid cos they know they can do anything and nothing will happen. Corrupted to the core.
Reporter in Singapore… their hands are tight… we must understand.
Editor? Their hand are tight too. Who’s fault? We know.
so stop blaming the reporter and editor. Do you believe if they want to publish the story, they will be allow to do so?
Let’s move on and do what we can do.
If we think that there is better opposite than PAP then vote them in. If not, then what choice do we have?
Dear Zakir,
Pls allow me to say something, hopefully it makes sense to you and also makes you truly do some thinking about your profession/job as a “journalist”.
I wonder how you sleep at night, knowing that here is a boy who is about to be put to death, his neck and spine broken, and awful things happening to his body, for having committed his first major mistake in his life – while there you are playing hard and fast, playing politics, and allowing yourself to be used in this propaganda to save the face of a minister whose only concern is his own hide.
Being a journalist (of which I do not think you are one) requires integrity, responsibility, and honesty.
Even more so when what you report, the way you report it, has a bearing on whether this boy lives or dies. You are highly educated (as one other commenter has pointed out). Why then allow yourself to be used as nothing more than a doormat and involve yourself in the misreporting and misrepresentation of the facts of his case, propagating the lie that he is more guilty than he is.
Don’t kid yourself. You are no journalist. You bring shame on the profession.
Do we really feel so strongly about the “wrongs” the current crop of politicians are “perpetrating”?
I used to generalize opposition politics as being no choice at all. But now I begin to see the light. If the choice is between one lacking in intellectual wisdom and one who is morally corrupt, then the choice is clear. A strong and vocal opposition IN GOVERNMENT (even if not as competent) MUST exist if our country is to survive and prosper.
Now with all this “bitching” going on, the only question really is, “What will YOU do when the next election is around the corner?” Will each one of us get off our backsides and go around to EVERY single neighbor and remind them about the story of YVK?
The Greeks had a saying, “Quis custodet ipsos custodes?” “Who guards the guards?”
Which master, and what purpose, does the Straits Times serve?
——
Aiyah. This sort of question no need to ask mah. It is obvious which master the Newspaper Authority of Singapore… oops! I mean The Straits Times, serves.
This is not the first case of untimely, inaccurate and unbalanced reporting. It won’t the the last, not even second, third or xxxth last.
And it is not just gahmen ministers whose statements do not need to be checked for facts by ST parroters.
In the subject that I take an interest in, which is health, I find that ST parroters also never consider it necessary to check the statements of medical doctors. If you are a doctor, you can say what nonsense and falsehood you want and it gets published as fact. If you are a non-medical / alternative health practitioner, either you don’t get published or, if you do, there will be lots of counter statements from doctors saying that you are wrong.
So what do you expect parroters to do? Conduct their own research and point out that doctors and other experts – and OMG even $,$$$,$$$ gahmen ministers – are wrong?
Remember! They are only parroters. Their role is to parrot. Where got time to conduct research and discover the truth? And where got balls to publish the truth?
Remember also that part of the career path of these $$,$$$ parroters includes the possibility of becoming $$$,$$$ MPs and $,$$$,$$$ Ministers.
BTW I used to work in SPH, at Business Times. I left in 1989.
After having written the above, I remmeber one parroter who used to “check the facts”. This happened during the 1980s when I covered various overseas trips by LKY and GCT. While I would just write and submit my articles, I learnt that one of my colleagues from another newspaper would first check with the press secretary of LKY / GCT before he submitted.
That guy is no longer working in the newspapers. No prizes for guessing where he is now.
“If the choice is between one lacking in intellectual wisdom and one who is morally corrupt, then the choice is clear. A strong and vocal opposition IN GOVERNMENT (even if not as competent) MUST exist if our country is to survive and prosper.”
Indeed, no one trusts a person or organization which has no integrity.
As I recall, the really good reporters honed their skills in walking the fine line between directives from above and the need for the public to know.
Men and women like Peter Lim, Balji and Cathrine Lim (and others like them) have been true to their profession and morals. It is these people who in part provided the glue by which we built a moral backbone.
Typical reporter who wants to be invited to tea. When you drink the tea and accept their offer, you promise to swallow your conscience, pride, honour, integrity and become a bootlicker who declares to serve the Master Mentor, valueing nothing more than money and self interest..
The ST should refute this TOC article which is very highly critical of its integrity.
Wan Lau ….. Mr. Stupid Tom and Mr.Piss And Piss stay under one roof now?
Wan Lau… To: Killer and Murderer, “18th level of hell” always open for u…..
Notwithstanding what we have seen, so far, Singaporeans are still holding the trump card, but it can be used to effect only when we are all united.
Let’s show the papy hypocrites and their cronies the people power – vote the papies OUT in the coming general elections, by VOTING for the opposition.
Don’t be fooled by any hypocrital talk – offer of goodies – from the hypocrites.
When would TOC start sending emails to the Ministers, and monitor their replies? It is a very great idea to do that, and I am eagerly waiting for TOC to start the process!!!!
Moderating Editor: We have already sent out a couple of letters and are monitoring the progress before publishing the count.
All our ministers along with their bootlickers are rotten to the core. They all have to go!
The main problem is there is no community in the internet. That is why this article only has a limited reach. So if only 1 in 1,000 knows that strawberry flavor ice cream is made out of chemicals. Does it change the opinion of the 999?
The internet needs to talk to each other. But look what do you have today? So many people reading in their echo chambers.
There is no incentive to come together. Worse of all some no longer see the value of interacting and sharing with those who may not really know them. They prefer to be by themselves.
Applelover,
There is a community here on theonlinecitizen and there are lots of room for us to progress, in terms of participation or subscriptions.
There are probably many people out there who may not be aware of this website and it would help if we spread the word around, by telling friends and/or colleagues of its existence/presence.
There is strength in numbers and we need to build on that.
They have lost all credibility as reporters and journalists in my opinion….just like those currently in charge as our government leaders.
Did anyone read the article about they young chap who escaped with a $1000 fine for molesting the friend of his girlfriend?
-
One of the mitigating point brought across by the trial judge was the age of the young offender.
-
It allowed the young man to escape being slapped with a jail term and a fine of up to $10,000.
-
If such an offender can use his young age as a mitigating point to escape the punishment for the crime, then I do not see why Vui cannot be given the same and be sent to a long jail term instead of death.
Dislike lapdogs 14 July 2010
Then, bookstores were told to pull Alan Shadrake’s book on death penalty off their shelves. The book was CENSORED.
No it isn’t. At least, not officially. iirc, the bookshop was threatened that something might happen if they didn’t pull it off the shelf.
tbh, it is WORSE then being officially censored. It basically created a climate of fear so that people start to self censor.
ST is just one of many tentacles? a lky the pap pappy has made them ST and all pap govt agencies like MDA, IDA brain-teasers beyond our shores into the international arena! Strange is he sill leads the way and they still follow him for the bread & butter! says a whole lot about this man and his ideal ideas doesn’t.
like a cancer, pap is liken to such mutant once healthy cells that destroys the cell nucleus until the whole becomes subordinate to it. but this cancer DOES NOT KNOW that when the whole body dies, IT IS DEAD TOO!
stranger still is this guy also does not know this? but the “what nefarious disease” does know that what it kills will ultimately be it’s own end when there is nothing more to kill?
all this will be far too “cheem” or deep for shallow mutant minds to know. simply because it’s only function is to seek out VULNERABLE hosts TO mutate and destroy. nothing more! nothing less! such IS the purpose of evil of self-righteous minds to make prey of the vulnerable good!
it is thus why many in the human race is what it is today. ALWAYS LEARNING but NEVER KNOWING, UNDERSTANDING NOR wiser! as the very moment a person think he is wise, he has lost it! and the one who thinks he is wiser and the wisest, surely does not have it! why?
a truly wise person don’t make small of others. ’cause he knows that wisdom may come and go. let alone not make “big’ of self! and here is one that has been at it all of his life? why? the wise knows when the flesh and adverse circumstances fails him, he may lose his wisdom. lky and his “kingdom” come and it WILL go as the annals of History is FULL of proof of this. one like him only know of life here and nothing more. such people are dangerous. why? ’cause to them they “have all to but nothing to lose now”! that’s the most obvious sign of an evil mind! ST in just walking in the footsteps of this darkness?
Dear Zakir Hussain and editor ST
.
i would like to thank you both for a job well done.Your inability to present the news fairly shows the high standard of journalism we are reading daily.
In fact i have so much praise for u guys that WEF today i will stop buying the ST
I will instead put the 90 cts in any donation box for the poor and needy.
thank u both for opening me eyes
ST should be officially renamed ‘STRAY TIMES’ as its cohort or reporters and writers are in the habit of straying from the truths.
Some among them are so good that they ended as MPs and MIllioNISTERS.
In a clemency appeal, the President should be advised by these following people and be allowed to make an independent decision.
The Cabinet, which has crafted the law such that it has removed discretionary powers from the Court, should not be involved in presidential clemency appeals. [Otherwise, we may as well call it "Cabinet clemency appeal" instead.]
The president should be advised by the people who’re most involved in the trials.
[REMEMBER THAT CLEMENCY APPEALS ARE NOT ABOUT GUILT. THAT IS ALREADY SETTLED. THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY.
CLEMENCY APPEALS ARE ABOUT MERCY IN SPITE OF THE GUILT.]
1. The Attorney General.
2. The Defence Counsels.
3. The Judge who made the decision in trial.
The president should also be given discretion to hear from the victims or the family of victim [IRONICALLY IN YONG'S CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO SUCH VICTIMS OR SUCH FAMILY OF VICTIMS OF HIS CRIME].
The president should also be given discretion to hear from the family of the accused as well.
Only then, WITH THE CABINET REMOVED FROM THE WHOLE PROCESS, can there be true clemency – in truth and in spirit – where all sides are taken into consideration by the president.
At the moment, the president is advised by the Attorney general and the Cabinet – both of which wants the accused dead.
Someone please tell me this is fair.
The Straits Times is totally irrelevant for objective news and reporting.
The only time for reading the ST is for the classifieds
Many know what ST is all about—a zero credibility propaganda machine.
Sadly there are others state-programmed zombies that buy into ST wholesale.
How do you tell who is the zombie–ask them about Chee S.J and they will give you the ST version of him.ST is all they read in their life after leaving school.
MCQ?
Ans: None of the above!
Doesn’t the PAP and the Straits Times realize that today,we can easily get alternative sources of information?But,then they tell us not to blindly swallow what is on the Net.
So,the ST has become,in this Age of the Internet,the only reliable source of information?If so,it should not have any fear or favour in its reporting.
The ST must really demonstrate its accuracy,timeliness and balance in order to gain credibility.
Andy 15 July 2010
“…so stop blaming the reporter and editor.”
Sorry, but journalists have a duty to do balance reporting.
The good thing is that it is common knowledge that we can’t trust the Straits Times for unbiased reporting
A bad law leads to a lot of problems.
The govt would say Yong knew that drug trafficking could get death penalty and yet he did it. But it would not admit the law is bad in the first place.
Let’s stop griping about what the law should be. It is what it is and if we REALLY hate it then there IS something we CAN do to make the change or at least send the right message to the powers that be.
YVK has a very short time to live. So we must focus our arguments on what is relevant in demonstrating the failure of the lawful process in his case.
What we need to emphasize now I that Yong’s sentence must receive due consideration of the fact that his due process has been corrupted.
That is to say that I agree that YVK has been lawfully found guilty and lawfully sentenced.
BUT he has been UNLAWFULLY pocessed.
And ALL elements of ANY legal case MUST proceed ENTIRELY WITHIN the law without exception. Any breach results in the loss of the moral AND legal authority of the system to pass judgement and execute sentence.
Straits Times – “accurate, timely and balanced”?
Dunno ’bout dat but it is good for dog poo!
I think AG advises the Cabinet and the Cabinet ‘advises’ the president. AG is the legal adviser for the Cabinet. The Cabinet would likely to focus on national interest. Theoretically, it is not very wrong for the Cabinet to decide on clemency. Wish that the ministers are more kind hearted. I hope the ministers who are Christians should speak strongly for the clemency.
What “Constitution” suggests is a good idea.
Colin, we should appeal the govt to change the law.
I believe that change is essential to survival. However healthy change should be the result of evolution and not revolution (any historian can point us to the correct examples).
We should endeavor to be a constructive part of that process.
However, we all know that the greatest pain known to mankind is the pain of a new idea. It will be difficult for the powers that be to accept the changes that necessairly must take place.
We need to act in a way that reflects the necessity of change but at the same time act is a way that reassures the policy makers that we have a mature attitude and tempered agenda. It is as much our responsibility to pave the way for the evolutionary process.
PRP,
If I read things right, governments in general will change laws when faced with inevitable truths. These truths may linked to the operation of the law itself, or may come from a different angle – say voter dissatisfaction, or lobby groups with enough economic clout to influence decisions.
In either case, it actually comes down to those OUTSIDE the government who have to highlight the necessity of change.
If enough of the population lobby our parliamentary representatives, then they will have to act. However, in Singapore especially, we the population are apathetic.
Joe Girard (the world’s greatest salesman) says that on average, each person knows 250 other people, and that like-minded people tend to group together. Can you imagine if just ONE of us can be BOTHERED to discuss these matters with all our friends?
Writers such as Alan Shadrake (Once a Jolly Hangman) and many more on the net already provide us with lots of interesting and substantiated materials to use.
Other sites (http://www.sgdi.gov.sg/) provide lots of useful information of how to reach our elected representatives. Just type “mp” in the [Job Title / Post] field.
Then send them a nice note (NB: NICE note please) stating your concern. Remember a note that conveys a sense of maturity and reason will go a longer way.
They may throw the first notes into the bin, but if enough come, they will have to take notice.
Lastly, you will need to coordinate actions. One should not coerce others into writing such notes. But if everyone can agree to write with the same subject heading, it will be sufficient.
I encourage you to talk to all your friends. Whatever it is that you do in your own time, talk to your “kakis”. Educate them and see how they react. Like-minded people will usually “clump” together, so you should be generally surprised how many of your friends will agree with you.
@Richard, if most share the same thinking as you, why they pay and pay to read the newspapers everyday almost religiously?
I dun buy the news. I read at friends house for free. So, I really don’t buy the news at all.
;)