On 23 April this year, I wrote an article entitled, “Have we lost our ability to appreciate?” It was a reflective piece questioning if we are able to appreciate the good things which Singapore offers. One of these things which I mentioned was the Youth Olympic Games (YOG). In that article, I said: “The Youth Olympics, which will take place from the 14^th to 26th August this year, is another thing we can and should be proud of. And I commend the MCYS team, especially Mr Teo Ser Luck, for successfully winning the bid to bring the games here.”

It’s been three months since I wrote the piece – and many things have gone wrong with the YOG which makes me no longer proud of it. Let me explain my change of heart.

The first instance was when the Straits Times reported the “Give way to YOG vehicle” scheme. “The ruling, which will come into effect during the Youth Olympic Lane validity period between August 5-26, could see motorists face a $130 fine should they fail to give way.”

The ruling riled motorists, especially that they could be fined if they did not give way to these vehicles.

The second instance was Minister for Community, Youth and Sports (MCYS) criticizing Singaporeans for the lukewarm attitude towards the Games and in particular foreign-born sportsmen representing Singapore. The Straits Times, on 23 June, reported the minister, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan thus:

“Dr Balakrishnan referred to those who view Singapore’s foreign-born athletes as ‘less of a Singaporean, or less of a champion’, as ’small-minded’, ‘unfair’ and ‘very, very selfish’.

‘To deny them the right to call themselves Singaporean is very, very selfish. It’s very unsportsmanlike… They have made great sacrifices to be here,’ he added.”

Then came the tickets farce. First, it was initially reported in May that there were 320,000 tickets up for sale. In July the number inexplicably became 245,000. No explanation of what had happened to 75,000 of these tickets.

Following that, it was trumpeted by the Straits Times that the “YOG tickets [were] selling fast”. “If you want tickets to catch the Youth Olympic Games, you will have to act fast,” the paper said. “Tickets sales to the first Youth Olympic Games have been brisk, with more than 100,000, or close to 50 per cent of tickets, having sold out.”

As it turned out, 80,000 of those 100,000 tickets sold were bought by the Ministry of Education.

In essence, only 20,000 – or some 6 per cent – of the tickets have been bought by the public. A very dismal figure indeed. And to add to the farce, the MOE refuses to disclose how much it paid for the tickets. In the end, as reported by the press, students may end up paying for these tickets.

And speaking of students. Besides being asked to volunteer their time and energy for the Games, they’re also asked to “test” the operational readiness of the Games Village. But here’s the catch. Although the students are used to “test” the Village for the organizers, these same students are made to pay for the one-night stay – to the tune of S$188 per student. 1,000 students are being used as guinea pigs, as it were, to make sure the Village runs smoothly when the athletes arrive.

Obviously, our state-controlled media was trying to put a brave-faced spin on things, but alas, more was to come.

And it came in the form of a budget over-run. Initially the budget for the YOG was S$104 million. In July, it was revealed that it had ballooned to S$387 million. The permanent secretary of the MCYS tried to explain that “the benefits will still continue to outweigh the increased cost.” “Besides $260 million (or 70 per cent of the budget) worth of contracts that has been awarded to local companies, the YOG is also expected to attract about 40,000 foreign visitors, generating a $57 million boom in tourism receipts,” the Straits Times reported.

The question which went unasked and unanswered was: Where did the increase of S$283 million going to come from? In the Budget for 2010, MCYS was allocated some S$1.97 billion. And out of this, S$104 million was for the YOG and the rest for all the other programmes under MCYS’s purview.

Now that the MCYS has to allocate an extra S$283 million to the YOG presumably from its allocated budget for 2010, how will this affect the funding for other areas, such as Comcare (which is for the needy and the poor) and the People’s Association and other areas?

The minister has not addressed these. Neither have the mainstream media asked him about this.

And then there is that cringe-worthy promotional video, featuring local celebrity JJ Lin. It’s been panned by just about everyone who’s seen the clip. Indeed, the artificiality of the video comes across loud and clear and instead of getting Singaporeans excited about the YOG, it has made many embarrassed that it’s being shown on national tv.

Finally, there’s that online poll by Channelnewsasia. As of the time of this writing, 90 per cent (some 3,500) of voters say they were “not interested at all’ in catching any of the games during the YOG.

The YOG has become a litany of screw-ups, one after another. From its Public Relations effort, to the promotional video, from its allocated budget to the pathetic sales of the tickets.

And so, no, I am no longer proud of the YOG.

It has become a total farce and a national embarrassment.

The minister in charge should be held accountable for the utterly horrendous organization of it.

Will he be held responsible and accountable? From recent experience with the floods, the Changi Depot security breach, Mas Selamat’s escape, this seems unlikely.

On the contrary, the local media will undoubtedly bury its head in the sand and continue to trumpet the “success” of the YOG – even as the total lack of enthusiasm among Singaporeans is palpable. In the end, we are made to live with this national embarrassment and a minister who has proved himself to be inept.

He couldn’t even get the planned Sports Hub deal done. The S$1.87 billion project at Kallang will only see the light of day in 2013 – a delay from the initial target of 2011.

And oh, it too has overshot its projected cost – from S$1.2 billion in 2008 (CNA) to S$1.87 billion in 2009 (Straits Times).

———-

Cartoon from My Sketchbook.

Related posts:

1. Million-dollar salaries but monumental screw-ups
2. Singapore Government screw-ups
3. YOG – another farce?

All cartoons by Joshua Chiang

—————

—————

————-

- ———–

————-

————-

————-

————-

Related posts:

1. Orchard Road flooded (Updated)
2. Letter to TOC (Updated)
3. I am not going to be cowed: Alan Shadrake (Updated)

He’s been sitting on death row since 2007 at Changi Prison awaiting the day he would be hanged.

For someone so young, that in itself is torture.

His family, particularly his brother Yun Leong and sister Vui Fung [picture right, campaigning in Sabah], has been campaigning tirelessly for Vui Kong’s sentence to be commuted and he be given a second chance.

The Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC) and The Online Citizen (TOC) lend our voices to the plea.

We would like to ask you, our readers and your friends, to help support the call as well.

SADPC and TOC will be holding a petition signing event at Speakers Corner on 1 August to garner signatures to appeal to the president to grant Vui Kong a reprieve. The signatures collected will be sent to the campaign in Malaysia to be delivered eventually to the president of Singapore, Mr SR Nathan.

Besides the signing of the petition, participants will also be able to say a message of support which will be recorded on video. We will use these for a second campaign clip. [Here's our first campaign video.]

Please do give an hour or so of your time to lend your voice to Vui Kong’s family and to Vui Kong who cannot speak for himself as he sits alone on death row.

The details of the event are as follow:

Event: Give Vui Kong A Second Chance

Date: 1 August 2010

Time: 4pm – 6pm

Venue: Speakers Corner (Hong Lim Park)

How to get there: Take the NEL to Clark Quay MRT station and use Exit “A”. It’ll bring you directly into Speakers Corner.

Programme:

1. Petition-signing, an appeal to the president of Singapore to grant Vui Kong’s clemency appeal.
2. Announcement of continuation of Facebook photo project
3. Recording of messages on video from participants
4. Short speeches
5. Taking of a group photo (6pm)

The clemency appeal must be submitted to the president by 26 August. And depending on how the president decides, Vui Kong could be hanged anytime after that.

This could be the final opportunity for us to do something to save Vui Kong.

Please come join us this Sunday.

Thank you.

*In the meantime, please sign the online petition here.

Related posts:

1. Raffles Institution’s students take to Speakers’ Corner this Sunday
2. NTU students protest at Speakers’ Corner
3. Going to Speakers’ Corner? Inform the Hong Lim Gardener

With only days to go before the Games kick off on 14 August, it seems most Singaporeans aren’t excited or interested in the Games – despite heavy advertising and with the YOG budget having exceeded initial estimates, from S$104 million to the current S$387 million.

Related posts:

1. Fear, apathy – and being interested
2. HDB: 95 per cent happy with their flats – really, or just half the story?
3. 4.8 per cent jobless but worse is yet to come

For want of 10 cents, I once nearly made a mess of myself. It could have been worse. I could have made a mess of the place I was at – the Maxwell Road Food Centre.

I am talking about those public toilets operated by turnstiles. You deposit a coin and the turnstile lets you in.

From the toilet operator’s – in this case the National Environment Agency – perspective, this system is fantastic. It gets to collect money automatically, without even having to engage a low wage worker. And the money is no small change. Just five toilet users per minute adds up to $30 per hour, to a couple of hundred dollars per day!

For that sum of money collected, the toilet user or “customer” gets zero “customer service” in return. If you have a very full bladder but don’t happen to have 10 cents, that’s your problem. What if you are on the verge of diarrhoea? It may no longer be only your problem!

This is no a small issue. For it is a symptom of a much bigger one, where services are provided primarily from the perspective of convenience and profit for the service provider, while the welfare of the customer takes a back seat. This is one of the fundamental reasons why service standards in Singapore are generally poor. There is no service culture.

A case in point. Last year, I wrote a number of letters to the press pointing out that the Fairprice X-tra outlet at AMK Hub consistently failed to implement its “Express Lane” service by serving customers with more than 10 items in their shopping baskets.

After my second letter was published, because the situation did not change for several weeks after Fairprice said it would look into the matter, the communications manager and communications director invited me to tea, purportedly to hear my feedback. But even before we met, they had already decided what to do – change the signage from “Express Lane. Not more than 10 items” to “Serving single basket shoppers only”.

I pointed out that a single basket could hold 50 or even 100 small items. They pointed out that, from the operations viewpoint, it is easier to do it this way than for cashiers to face the unpleasant task of re-directing shoppers who abuse the Express Lane. In fact, with the “single basket” system, there is nothing for cashiers to implement, since those lanes are blocked by railings and trolleys cannot get through anyway.

Oh well. People like me who qualify for the Express Lane are only small customers. Better for Fairprice to lose me than to lose those aunties who queue up at the Express Lane with full baskets. I felt so foolish to think that I mattered.

Also at AMK Hub, the DBS Bank near the basement has ATMs that allow only minimum withdrawals of $200. The first time I discovered this was very late one night. I did not have $200 to withdraw. So I had take the bus home and then walk a few hundred metres to use the ATM “near” my house. When I raised this matter with the bank, the customer service officer pointed out that there are other ATMs in the building. True. But at past midnight that night, most of those other ATMs were no longer accessible, except for one outside the building, quite far away. Walking there and back would have meant that I missed my last bus home.

To DBS’ credit, it did not seem to have introduced similar ATMs elsewhere. But whoever thought of that idea in the first place was clearly thinking more about the bank’s – rather than its customers’ – convenience.

I never knew what banking convenience could mean until last year, when I acquired a Citibank credit card and used a non-DBS/POSB ATM for the first time. Whoa! I encountered a cash deposit machine (in Singapore) that has the flexibility to accept not just $10 notes and higher denominations, but also $5 and $2 notes. Previously, I only saw such machines in Malaysia.

And the first time I withdrew money from a Citibank ATM, I was most pleasantly surprised. The $300 that I withdrew did not come as six pieces of $50 notes (as what DBS/POSB would have given me), but included five pieces of $10 notes, just in case I needed small change. “How very thoughtful,” I thought to myself. For once, I felt cared for. I felt served. And I could not help but wonder why this service had to come from a foreign and not a local bank.

Still on the subject of banks, have you noticed that nowadays, most banks have their counter services on the upper level? While the ground floor is reserved for marketing investment products? Never mind if fewer people use the investment services. They have greater value.

Yes, banks now have ATMs, internet banking and other convenient services that make it largely unnecessary for people like me to use their counter services, except when I wish to cash a cheque. But who are the people who now need to walk up and down that flight of stairs? People like my sister who are uneducated (she does not feel comfortable to use an ATM card) and old!

Many years ago, my sister ran a hawker stall and I once accompanied her to renew her hawker licence. As you know, most government departments have long stopped handling cash. And it so happened that day that the NETS payment system was down. But can any government department exercise flexibility? Sorry. No cash. Wait.

Fortunately, the system was up and running again after about half an hour, so it wasn’t too bad. While waiting, I asked the officer what if the system was down for a long time. “Pay by cheque,” he replied matter-of-factly, as if the average hawker carries a cheque book.

Cashless payments remind me of the National Library. Ah! Finally they got the system sorted out and users can now pay their overdue fines using a choice of cards: NETS, Cashcard, Transit Link, etc. But boy did they take a long time. I remember for a good many years, it used to be Cashcard or nothing. I remember once walking a great distance to buy a Cashcard, for $10 or whatever sum, I forgot, just to pay a few cents worth of fines. (I had the option of paying later, but heck, I wanted to get it done with.) And then, as a step improvement, some library branches accepted more types of cards than others. If I am not wrong, it took more than 10 years from the introduction of cashless payment to reach today’s standard of convenience and service.

It may seem that I am harping on the distant past. But I bring this up to show how deeply rooted this attitude is. The government’s insistence on cashless transactions long ago set the precedence of putting the service provider’s convenience ahead of the user’s.

Meanwhile, another unhappy trend crept in – the privatisation of public services. And so we now have public transport, healthcare, telecommunications, electricity and more essential services all run by corporations with profits as top priority and public service somewhere further down. This is another topic for another time.

For now, let me end off with another example. If you ride the MRT around the Northern part of Singapore, you will hear announcements advising that if you wish to go to Johor Baru, you should alight at Woodlands Station and take Bus Service 950.

This sounds like a helpful public service announcement. It is not. Because if you do wish to go to Johor Baru, the far better option would be to alight at Kranji Station, which is closer to the customs checkpoint and which has three bus services – SBS 170 and CW1, plus SBS 160 across the road – heading towards Johor Baru. At Kranji, you just walk out of the station and chances are, there are buses waiting for you. In contrast, at Woodlands, you need to walk a long way to the Service 950 bus stop… and wait. If you are unlucky (as I once was), you might meet an extra long queue and need to wait for the second bus to come before you can board.

Why, then, are commuters being given this piece of poor advice? Ahhhhh! It’s because Service 950 is run by SMRT, the same company that runs the train that they are riding. So what sounds like a public service announcement, for the benefit of the public, is in fact an advertisement, for the benefit of the transport company. Don’t be fooled!

Yeah, you still get served in the end. But only after the service provider has served itself.

Related posts:

1. PTW Week: World class service?
2. Service of celebration and thanksgiving
3. Blog Feature: National Service

As you can see, almost a full page was devoted to this campaign, and a nation-building campaign it must be for the newspaper to violate human rights and the laws of Vietnam so blatantly.

Barely six months ago, I noted that Vietnam — rightly — treats this kind of quickie “matchmaking” as human trafficking. As you can see from Should Singapore’s Home Minister be thrown into a Vietnamese jail? , four men were sentenced to a total of 25 years in jail. I also opined that the Sunday Times and the Singapore government abet this crime through their editorial and government policies.

Read Yawning Bread for the full article.

Related posts:

1. Singaporeans in the UK celebrate National Day
2. National service, national responsibilities
3. Transgender women in Singapore launch campaign to end discrimination

I remember in the ’80s when I would look forward to each National Day Rally on television. Lee Kuan Yew was gonna speak and I’d always found him to be a great orator, someone who enthralls me each time. I would be glued to the screen listening to every one of his words, even to the point where if I needed to use the toilet, I would run there and be back as soon as I can, so that I wouldn’t miss a word he says.

But to be clear, i was never a fan of his. I just loved listening to him speak.

Fast forward to 2010 and I can’t even bare to read what he says anymore.

Most of what he says nowadays is irritating, shallow and most significantly, condescending. I’ve lost count of the number of times he has put Singaporeans down with degrading remarks, using words and analogies including dogs, maids, daft, lazy, ignorant and more.

While some of his supporters may try and explain that he is just trying to inspire or urge Singaporeans to be more productive, competitive and hardworking, I feel it actually is the contrary. Lee Kuan Yew’s words are borne out of hubris and arrogance. And with such overwhelming power and authority, he is fast nursing a society which is fast becoming dysfunctional – just as any father with such attitudes would.

It breeds deference where there should not be, where even when he is wrong, no one dares speak up against him. Or when he makes a declaration, no one – least of all the media – dares question or challenge his claims.

This is where the danger lies for Singapore.

That after 50 years, we are still under the thumb of one man who, as with all who stays in power for so long, has become a world unto himself. And we live in this world of his, warts and all.

Nah, Mr Lee, I do not and will not subscribe to your view that one should not retire and that one should never stop working. Instead, I believe, unlike you, that there is more to life than just feeding the economy beast, or being a cog in your economic wheel.

Lee Kuan Yew is no sage and if we continue to live and believe as he does we will all soon find that our lives have become meaningless. That all we do is this relentless and endless pursuit of thhis thing called “a brighter future” – a utopian future which we never seem to be able to reach or arrive at.

This is because there is no such future.

It is the job of politicians like Lee Kuan Yew to make us believe that there is.

Happinness and satisfaction and contentment is now. It is not in the future. There is no need to be running after this “brighter future” because we will never reach it.

It does not exist.

When we are able to see this, we are content with the here and now. We realise that life is so much more. That at the end of the day, it is the simple things which makes us happy – family, friends, helping others, spending time with loved ones.

And we do not need “economic success” in order to be these or to do these things.

I am happy where I am – and I am no big-time businessman, or a top civil servant, or a great scholar, or am earning millions.

In fact, I am on the brink of being broke most of the time.

Yet, I am contented. I am happy.

I am most happy when I see my mom. When I speak to my sisters and see them happy. When I see my nieces and nephews. Or when I chit chat with my friends.

I am consciously aware of not being a part of this dysfunctional family of Lee Kuan Yew. Dysfunctional to the point where we become arrogant, self-centred, back-stabbing, competitive to the point where we feel it is right and proper to house our foreign workers in a cemetery, where we pay our maids such a pathetic salary, where we even reject their request for a single day off per month, where we hang young boys, where our suicide rates are so high, where we cut the pay of older workers for no other reason than that they are old.

And so on and so on.

Singapore is a sad place now. It has become a hotel. Our home hijacked by one man who sees himself as our “father”. Indeed some have called him so.

It is pathetic.

I hope Lee Kuan Yew would leave the stage soon.

I no longer admire him or the way he speaks or what he says.

In fact, I am convinced that he is the biggest stumbling block to Singapore and Singaporeans achieving their full potential.

Lee Kuan Yew to me is no sage.

Indeed, he has become something of a joke to me. A sad relic of an old man trying to feed his ego by claiming the limelight almost on a daily basis now.

It is a sad sight indeed.

And now, whenever he comes on the telly, I would turn the telly off or walk away.

The man is nothing but an ego trip.

————-

Read Sam’s Thoughts: The day Lee Kuan Yew gutted me

Related posts:

1. PAP will win next two elections: Lee Kuan Yew
2. “We now have Ukrainians serving in the army” – Lee Kuan Yew
3. Singapore beyond Lee Kuan Yew

The SSC replied to her email informing her that the event is organized by the Singapore Youth Olympic Game Organising Committee (SYOGOC) and that it will bring “your feedback to the attention of the team concerned.”

Here is “Bystander’s” letter to the SSC:

Hi there

Just to let you people know that we are not happy with the YOG cost overruns from $100m to $300m, without any explanations to taxpayers who are paying for this event.

From netizens reporting, Singapore has to build a sports stadium for Jamaica, free of charge, in return for this Central American country to promote this YOG in that part of the world, and complaint from one European YOG ambassador that the venues are of only school type standard, arises whether expenses for YOG are appropriately used with care. Would like  to emphasise it is taxpayers money being used, would rather funds are used to subsidize the living expenses of poor, elderly residents living in one-room rental flats, rather than to be used on glamorous, one time short lived glory of events like YOG, which is of lesser importance to the world athletics at large.

Also the two mascots are an embarrasment to us, they are far too kawai or cute, for God’s sake YOG is for young adults, not for children.  We do not have to copy cat China in designing mascots, at least show some level of creative originality and sophistication. We see this event organised on half hearted measures on a big wasteful budget, and the most glaring embarrasment is the lack of a National Stadium as a showcase to the world for such an event.

Yog is not even reported yet in the internaional newspapers, to rub salt into our wounds, so to speak.  It is a real disappointment to us, even before the start of the Games.

Related posts:

1. Tan Kin Lian writes to the PM
2. Dr Chee writes open letter to all opposition supporters
3. Resident upset with noisy foreign neighbours

‘You ask me to stop working all of a sudden, I think I’d just shrivel up, face the wall and that’s that. But I’m still functioning, if not at the rate at which I was functioning, say, 20 years ago … I have aches and pains, but nothing terminal and I can keep going.

‘I think the Japanese solve it by giving the old people robots and gadgets to work with. So they are still productive. They take less pay.

‘Now this is where, in Singapore, it becomes very painful. You are (a) superior, suddenly your junior overtakes your position and you have less pay and he is the boss. So they find the psychological switch unpleasant.

‘I think we have to develop that approach to life: You’ve reached the maximum you can do at your age in that position, you move sideways and you take less pay and you move gradually to less and less pay because you are moving slower and slower, especially if you are doing physical work.

‘But that’s very hard to get across and many of our workers have preferred retirement and then they die early. If you keep doing what you were doing for almost the whole of your life, the chances are you will stay interested and engaged.

‘There’s something to do tomorrow and you keep going. If you start saying ‘Oh, I’m old’ and you start reading novels or playing golf or playing chess or Scrabble, you’re on your way down.”

-MM Lee, who is 86, when asked for his comments on how an ageing population might affect the push for higher productivity

Cartoon from My Sketchbook

———-

Nation Builders by Martyn See:

Related posts:

1. Retire later, die earlier
2. Wall Street suffers biggest ever one-day fall – Dow Jones crash 778 points
3. TOC turns 3 – and memories of an elite uncaring face

Mohamad Khan -

Recently the local papers have been telling us “great” news. The information I gathered from the articles I read are about how our economy is booming and how we as a nation are poised to take over the world as the fastest growing economy provided we let in 100,000 foreigners.

I’ve got many foreign friends and I agree out of necessity we do need them. But we are bursting at the seams here. Our infrastructure just isn’t able to accommodate this rapid massive increase in population. No government in the world can prevent floods but they could have prevented this flood of immigrants. Now Singaporeans and Foreign Talents (FTs) are battling it out. It’s like the proverbial line, “This town isn’t big enough for the both of us, someone’s gotta go – and it isn’t gonna be me.”

It’s too crowded here. I mean it’s already bad enough that squeeze into the trains and buses like sardines in a can. Getting a seat is a thing of the past. Somehow being handicapped, elderly or pregnant also does not guarantee you a seat either. I mean I am no economics graduate. I’m just a simple guy giving my laymen’s point of view. There just isn’t any space and it’s getting worse.

You see guys maybe I’m being selfish for wanting a little personal space. Maybe I am not being far-sighted enough for failing to recognize the importance of being an economic powerhouse. All I see is that with higher GDP it means less space for me.

I’ve got evidence too. We are officially the 3^rd most populous nation in the world. We can expect more to come. Best part is we are targeting the 6 million mark which means it gets worse. Of course we are told (by the powers that be) to be thankful and compare ourselves to Macau and Monaco which are in 1^st and 2^nd spot respectively. Well I don’t think Monaco residents and Macau residents have to worry about taking long train journeys and such. The area of Macau is only 29.3 sq km. Monaco is even smaller with just 1.95 sq km of land (See here). So you can literally walk from one end to the other. No need to jostle for space on trains or buses for minutes to close to an hour. So now we can clearly see that it is getting crowded around here.

I mean so what if our GDP is skyscraper high? I don’t understand it one bit. All I see are things getting more expensive while sadly our median salary remains the same. So is this high GDP growth any good to you or me? Food getting more expensive then drinks eventually it’s our flats. What else is going to rise in price? Why can’t our salary reflect that? Since there is so much GDP in the “air” shouldn’t I be seeing bonuses? Or a big fat increment?

So forgive me if I don’t share your enthusiasm when I’m told of this wonderful GDP increase because every time it occurs things just get worse.

Related posts:

1. Myths and misconceptions about pursuing high growth indefinitely
2. Growth at all cost
3. High cost of living – what the government can do

British author’s critique of death penalty leads to arrest

(New York, July 28, 2010) – Singapore officials should cease using criminal defamation and contempt laws to silence government critics, Human Rights Watch said today. The arrest of Alan Shadrake, the 75-year-old British author of Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock, a critical review of Singapore’s death penalty law and its administration, further narrows the space for reporting and analysis of issues the government prefers to keep under tight control, Human Rights Watch said.

On July 16, 2010, the day before the book launch, the Media Development Authority, responsible for regulation of Singapore’s media and publishing industry, filed a police complaint against Shadrake for criminal defamation and contempt of court. The defamation charge is still under investigation. On the same day, Singapore’s attorney general submitted an affidavit saying that Shadrake should be “committed to prison or receive such other punishment … for his contempt of court … for bringing into existence, publication and distribution of the Book which contains passages that scandalize the Singapore Judiciary.” Supporting documents add that passages “undermine the authority of the Singapore courts and public confidence in the administration of justice…” If convicted, Shadrake faces a potential two-year sentence and fines.

“Free speech is an endangered species in Singapore,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “It’s sadly predictable that the government did not hesitate to threaten prosecution, fines, and imprisonment against an author whose views run contrary to its own.”

Authorities arrested Shadrake, a death penalty opponent, on July 18, seized his passport, and released him on bail the following day. The court hearing on the contempt charge is set for July 30, but in the interim the 75-year-old author has been subjected to several days of police interrogation without benefit of counsel. Shadrake stated that the lengthy interrogation sessions left him exhausted, and his lawyer reported that he had been placed on a heart monitor.

Once a Jolly Hangman is based on interviews with a longtime executioner at Changi Prison who has now retired and with dozens of lawyers and death penalty opponents. Shadrake also reviewed years of court case files. He is outspoken in his suggestion that Singapore death penalty sentencing decisions are not always made through impartial and independent examination of the alleged crimes.

Human Rights Watch considers criminal penalties for defamation to be disproportionate and unduly harmful to freedom of expression. Many states have abandoned such laws, recognizing that civil defamation is generally adequate to protect the reputation of others.

Scandalizing the court, the contempt charge applied in Shadrake’s case, is a relic of British colonial law no longer in use in the UK or in other commonwealth countries such as Brunei, Hong Kong, New Zealand, and Canada, but retained in Singapore. And although Singapore’s constitution protects free expression, it also specifically protects against contempt of court.

Another well known case was that of the academic Christopher Lingle and the International Herald Tribune, who were fined for contempt when Singapore’s High Court deemed that a reference in an October 7, 1994 op-ed article to “intolerant regimes” and a “compliant judiciary” could only refer to Singapore. In the 2009 case of Attorney-General v. Hertzberg, the High Court rejected the proposition that contempt had to pose a “real risk” to the administration of justice and affirmed that conviction could be based merely on the “inherent tendency” of words to suggest bias, impropriety, or other judicial wrongdoing.

“All the government’s action will do is jail yet another author, while ensuring that Shadrake’s book will be a best seller outside Singapore, most likely in Southeast Asia’s airport bookstores” Robertson said.

Although media reports state the book is not banned in Singapore, it is apparently hard to purchase because the government has advised bookstores not to stock it.

The death penalty is a touchy issue for Singapore officials, who rigorously defend the state’s mandatory death penalty for murder, treason, and some 20 drug-related offenses. The latest high-profile case on Singapore’s death row involves a Malaysian, Yong Vui Kong, due to be executed in August for a drug-related offense committed when he was 19. Singapore refuses to make public statistics on executions in the city-state, but is believed to have one of the highest per capita execution rates in the world. Human Rights Watch opposes capital punishment in all circumstances because of its cruel, inhumane, and irreversible nature.

Singapore’s drug law, which carries a mandatory death penalty for some offenses, also fails to meet international human rights standards, Human Rights Watch said. The mandatory nature of this penalty effectively obstructs judges from considering the circumstances of a case or handing down lighter sentences. The United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has stated that the death penalty should under no circumstances be mandatory by law, regardless of the charges involved.

“If the government is truly concerned with protecting its reputation, it could do better than to jail authors and execute drug offenders,” Robertson said. “Abandoning criminal punishment for defamation and prosecutions for criticizing the judiciary would be a good start.”

For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Singapore, please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/en/asia/singapore

Related posts:

1. Breaking News: Gopalan Nair pleads guilty to contempt charges
2. WP: Political films “an expression of diverse opinion in a healthy democracy”
3. The legal canon of death

The Supreme Court reserved judgement Wednesday in a hearing on the pardon process for Malaysian death row convict Yong Vui Kong, who is asking for his execution to be stayed on the grounds that he had been denied a fair clemency process.

The 22-year-old – sentenced to death in 2008 for drug trafficking – was asking the High Court to grant a judicial review on his clemency process, which he claimed had been prejudiced by the actions of a Cabinet minister.

If the High Court finds in Yong’s favour, another hearing will be arranged – allowing the court to review his claims that his clemency process had been tainted.

In Wednesday’s hearing, which was closed to the public, Yong’s lawyer M Ravi presented arguments in an attempt to persuade Justice Steven Chong that his client has valid grounds to file for a judicial review.

Ravi told the judge that public comments made by Law Minister K Shanmugam and his ministry in May had prejudiced his client’s clemency plea even before it had been filed.

Yong was awaiting the outcome of his appeal which he made in March when Law Minister K Shanmugam spoke publicly on his case on May 9.

Shanmugam, responding to a question at a public dialogue session, had said that to pardon Yong would be “sending a signal to all drug barons out there” that they should choose as drug mules people who are “young or a mother of a young child”. ““Yong Vui Kong is young. But if we say ‘we let you go’, what is the signal we are sending?” the minister had said.

The Ministry of Law later issued a statement saying the minister had “reiterated the policy and philosophy behind the death penalty and why Singapore adopted a tough stance.”

The Court of Appeal subsequently quashed Yong’s appeal, announcing its judgement five days after the comments.

In his court submissions, Ravi cited as context the timing of the comments, the influence and importance of the Law Minister in the Cabinet, the lack of contrarian views from other Cabinet members, and the rebuffing of Yong’s earlier clemency plea.

Given these circumstances, he argued that it was “reasonable inference that [Shanmugam’s] remarks reflect the views of [the] Cabinet and that [the] Cabinet intends to reject [Yong’s] clemency petition even before it has been filed.”

This represents a “usurpation of the Elected President’s clemency powers” and “a de facto preemptive exercise by [the] Cabinet of the Elected President’s Constitutional prerogative,” he said in his submissions.

As such the “constitutional process for handling [Yong’s] clemency petition has been irreversibly tainted to the prejudice of [Yong],” he said.

Senior state counsel David Chong, responding for the Attorney General, argued that the High Court was not in a position to grant a judicial review to Yong.

The clemency process was not subject to judicial review, he said, citing two cases in Malaysia that provided precedent on the matter.

In those cases the Malaysian courts found that the clemency process was not reviewable, he said.

However, he conceded that there have been no similar cases in Singapore that could provide legal precedence.

In response, Ravi cited cases in England, India and South Africa in which judges ruled the clemency process to be reviewable by the judiciary. He also clarified the Malaysian cases raised by Chong, citing differences between them and his client’s case.

Chong also argued that under Article 22P of the Singapore Constitution, the President has no discretion in deciding the outcome of a plea for pardon.

In addition, Article 22K grants the President immunity from most types of legal proceedings, which therefore makes Yong’s case unreviewable, he said.

Ravi argued in response that if the Cabinet is the effective decision maker in the granting of pardon – as then-Attorney General Walter Woon had asserted in March – then the judiciary would have the authority to review Cabinet actions for bias.

The lack of such an authority would represent a breach of natural justice, he said.

It is unclear when the High Court would announce its ruling on the case, but Justice Chong said he would try to expedite the judgement, following a marathon six-and-a-half-hour-long hearing in chambers.

On a related note, the Malaysian government, The Online Citizen understands, has written to the Singapore government on the matter of granting clemency to Yong. On 5 July, the Malaysian Foreign Minister had promised to “do everything possible within our powers or diplomatic means” to seek clemency for Yong.

Yong’s family has also written to the president. (See The Star Online report.)

—————

Download Mr M Ravi’s submissions here.

Download the Attorney General’s submissions here.

Related posts:

1. Lawyer M Ravi files judicial review on Yong Vui Kong’s case
2. High Court grants rare stay of execution
3. Singapore’s Court of Appeal reserves judgment in Vui Kong’s appeal hearing

Several Singaporeans living overseas and in Singapore have contacted The Online Citizen to tell us that they have received letters from the CPF Board asking them to pay their CPF Medisave arrears, incurred many years ago.

For example, Jane (not her real name), has been married to a European citizen, working and living in Europe, since 2003.

She had not received any letters from the CPF Board for several years, until the recent demand letter arrived at her European address. The letter said: “Failure to pay Medisave contributions is an offence under the CPF Act and is liable for composition fine and possibly Court action.”

She was self-employed and was struggling to pay her full Medisave contributions consistently, as she had to support her bankrupt father, ailing mother and sibling who was studying.

About eight years ago, under threat of being charged in court, she struggled to pay about $500 a month under an installment plan worked out with the CPF Board for about a year, but was unable to continue for the rest of the agreed installment period of about 2 years.

Her outstanding Medisave arrears is now about $12,000.

As she is only earning about 1,000 Euros a month now, she is not able to pay her Medisave arrears.

She is afraid that if she is charged in court, and if a warrant of arrest is issued, as we understand is normally the case for those who don’t turn up, she fears that she may be arrested if she comes home to visit her family.

She wonders if her only solution to her “Medisave” predicament is to give up her citizenship.

Or is she condemned to a lifetime exile form her country of birth?

Since she is living in Europe and will not return to Singapore, even if she is able to pay her Medisave arrears, what is the point of asking her to contribute, as she may never be able to use her Medisave which is restricted for use in Singapore and 12 approved hospitals in Malaysia since March this year?

Another example is John, who is a retired civil servant, and receives a pension and free lifetime medical benefits.

He too has been served with letters of demand and threat of court action for Medisave arrears incurred as a self-employed person.

When he told the CPF Board that it was pointless for him to contribute to Medisave even if he could afford to, because he gets free medical treatment, he was told that he could use his Medisave for his wife.

When he told them that his wife was also a civil service pensioner with free medical benefits, he was told that he could use it for his children.

When he told them that he has no children, he was told that it was required by law to contribute to Medisave.

I wonder how many people in Singapore or Singaporeans living overseas, owe Medisave, and have received letters of demand.

Are these letters of demand being sent to Singapore permanent residents (PRs) living in Malaysia, who owe Medisave too?

How many will be served with court action?

Self-employed persons are required to contribute to Medisave if they earn more than $6,000 a year.

If you earn just $500 a month, how do you survive?

If you are struggling to survive, how can you afford to make Medisave contributions?

Related posts:

1. CPF – F1 or F9 : Pay up to 22% to use MediSave?
2. Activists charged for protest
3. How is allowing Medisave to be used overseas connected with GIC losing S$7.3 billion?

The party had already commenced the night before with throngs of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) crowd from different parts of the European Union (EU) and beyond descending upon one of the most popular gay capitals in Europe – London. It was London’s Gay Pride Parade 2010 in celebration of 40 years of gay liberation.

Amidst the air of jubilance and nervous anticipation of what the day will bring, I joined in for the first time in a gay pride parade which marched from Baker street to Trafalgar Square. The scene was a sea of rainbow flags and blaring music from incredulously colourful floats. I was extremely heartened and secretly envious that the LGBT crowd could march proudly in public with their partners and family members, both young and old, in tow.

Members of the LGBT parade contingent enthusiastically engaged fellow comrades and curious onlookers lining the parade route by giving out pro-LGBT brochures and badges. It was a casual and friendly atmosphere designed to put everyone and anyone at ease, but under the enduring truth that as “Love is a human right”, LGBTs deserve the same rights to love and be loved regardless of their sexuality.

As the crowd congregated at the parade destination of Trafalgar Square, feelings of camaraderie climaxed; the crowd grooved to the music projected from the center stage of the mega outdoor party. The party spirit was stoked by the heat of the summer sun and the abundance of love and unconditional acceptance that was in the air.

A reporter at the event asked me for my sentiments as an Asian about this annual event, and many from the local community quizzed me about the general acceptance of Singaporeans toward the LGBT community. Many of them found it incomprehensible that our globalized and cosmopolitan society still criminalized sex between mutually consenting adults and were quick to offer their sympathies that I would be returning to Singapore to live under such a legally repressive environment.

As tourists marvel at the modernity and ever changing landscape of Singapore, and as we gallop ahead in the development of our sophisticated business and research infrastructure and climate, the legal standpoint on LGBT issues (i.e. section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code) has not turned a page as Singapore chronicles chapters upon chapters in her other areas of development and progress (for example, the presence of  casinos in the integrated resorts).

As London’s Gay Pride 2010 goes into yet another chapter of UK’s history, Singapore is still stuck in a limbo about her official stand towards LGBTs in our society, due to the preservation of section 377A of the penal code. Perhaps it is time for decision-makers to take direction from our very own citizens: our citizens who have demonstrated the capacity to embrace liberalism by participating in the Pinkdot campaign to support their LGBT family members and friends; our citizens who cheered on the first LGBT contingent made up of only two but extremely brave souls who marched proudly  with the rainbow flag through the Chingay 2010 parade to demonstrate the true diversity that exists in our society.

I’d just like to share with you some thoughts of another fellow Singaporean who attended the London parade. Preferring to remain annonymous, he commented, “The main impression I got from the pride parade was the sense of total freedom enjoyed – freedom to celebrate who you are and what you do without fear of repercussions and reprisals. Everyone is just having a good time, without having to look over their shoulders. There were gay, straight, bi, whatever, just enjoying the festivities for the sake of it, and not having to prove a point (too much) or even think that it was a political statement. I hate how everything back home is reduced to a matter of politics and policy, including the area of who to love.”

In a society where change is a part of our culture, it is now time to cease being ironic, to legally acknowledge and accord every LGBT citizen of Singapore his equal right – the human right to love and be loved for who they truly are.

————

The author is a returning Singaporean student who completed his tertiary education in Europe. He hopes to maintain awareness about the injustice done to the local LGBT crowd associated with keeping section 377A of the Penal Code of Singapore through his short article. He hopes that section 377A of the Penal Code could be repealed as a first step for the open social acknowledgement and acceptance of the Singaporean LGBT crowd.

Related posts:

1. TOCI Special Report: Singapore Day 2009 in London
2. “Free Education for All” – students protest in London
3. Has Singapore a future?

Spiegel -

The Straits Times yesterday (26 July) ran a curious little piece on its review pages. Tucked into a bottom left, quarter-page slot, an NUS academic asked in an op-ed, with discomfiting earnestness: “The YOG is coming. Are you excited yet?”

Yes, we’ve gotten to that point. Hard to miss the grinding screeches of barrel bottom scraping when even custodians of our lauded ivory towers have been roped in to grease palms and man pumps.

(By the way, I know it’s copy editors who pen the headlines.)

For Associate Professor Ang Swee Hoon, this is a familiar gig. In May she exhorted via the Today newspaper: “YOG needs more marketing ‘oomph’“. With just under three months to go to the Games, the marketing expert called out the organisers on their promotional strategy, criticised the lack of visible YOG landmarks and thought the mascots were underutilised, before driving a stake through their PR team:

“An inspirational event like the YOG needs an inspiring campaign. While this would require resources, it is not too late to furnish a compact, but impactful, campaign between now and August, one that will make Singaporeans truly feel they have a stake in the success of the YOG.”

But even the best-laid plans often turn rat shit. Turns out this little summer picnic will cost us three times more money than previously thought, ticket sales are piss poor, few can be arsed to even watch it on TV, and the official cheer was a dud.

So yesterday Prof Ang drew on her proverbial pen and threw the last roll of the dice.

“Next month, Singapore will host the first Youth Olympic Games (YOG)…This is no mean feat. Kudos goes to the committee that fought hard to convince the IOC that Singapore has the resources…Being the first of its kind, the YOG is like a new animal species…”

So far so good. The elephant in the room – namely why she had to write this article in the first place – glibly ignored.

“…the Games will be competing with the National Day celebrations. However, such seemingly poor timing need not necessarily be so. There are opportunities for synergy here…we should look forward to not only celebrating our national birthday, but also to a post-National Day party of sorts in the YOG.”

Cheap marketing tips, check. Remind us, why it had to fall to you to tell us this stuff? Doesn’t the YOG organising committee have their own PR?

“Yet another another reason why we should be proud of hosting the YOG: It outperforms the SEA, Asian and Commonwealth Games in terms of the countries participating…Truly this is an international sporting extravaganza.”

Oh yes, like how hundreds of millions adore the World Cup finals for its offering of a grandiose 32 teams, not so much the top talent and quality of football.

“The time is now for the general public to respond and show support for the Games…we need organic buzz.”

Oh, so it’s our fault, really, for not having our interest piqued. For my abject apathy, I’m truly apologetic.

“Singaporeans should spontaneously be generating more excitement for the Games.”

Woah, slow down Harvard…I mean British Columbia. How is it spontaneous if we simply do as you tell us?

“We should be telling friends about the sporting events we are buying tickets for, educating our children about the significance of hosting the Games, and buying souvenirs to commemorate it.”

Psst. You giving your game away, Prof. Isn’t good marketing and advertising supposed to be a little more…subtle? You know, like those geeky sciency myths about subliminal messages, or stuff like harnessing star power, herd behaviour, peer pressure or some such. Try using the subjunctive next time?

“More importantly, we should feel in our hearts a sense of awe that our country has been chosen to initiate this new series of games.”

More importantly, we should be paying a visit to the psychiatrist sharpish if we still feel anything for an underwhelming decision the International Olympic Committee made over two years ago.

“Are we one people? Are we proud of Singapore and what we have achieved? If so, we should rally behind the YOG.”

I always thought the nationalism/patriotism card was well underrated. Maybe because it turns out so flaccidly banal in the hands of anyone other than the most mesmerising of demagogues (There, I stopped just a step short of invoking Godwin’s Law).

“Be part of this history making. Be part of this legacy.”

Pretty dire stuff. Then again, she could consider moonlighting writing narration for ESPN adverts.

Almost in spite of that performance, Prof Ang’s bio blurb read: “The writer…specialises in advertising, consumer behaviour (my emphasis) and branding.” She can’t possibly think insipid tabloid-style guff buried in one of the least read sections of a newspaper could actually mould consumer behaviour, can she? If she doesn’t, as she ought to, why bother wasting those column inches with a fistful of stock PR gags?

Curious indeed.

______________

Related posts:

1. Press Muse – Cynical studies
2. Press Muse: Speaking “truth” for power
3. Press Muse: Age of extremes

You know the recent floods are mighty serious when Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew weighs in on it.

On 22 July, Today quoted him as saying: “…whatever we do when we get extraordinary rains like we had recently, no amount of engineering can prevent flooding… Singaporeans expect everything to be perfect, which we try to do. But some things are beyond (that) – it’s is an act of God, unless you want to lose half the roads and have canals.”

We can only speculate if MM Lee is aware of the gravity of his statement. By publicly declaring that the floods are an act of God, Singapore’s most senior statesman has effectively provided the blanket dismissal of any monetary claims to be made by citizens and businesses affected by the floods, which could have been leveled against insurance companies and even the Public Utilities Board. Those affected are now pretty much on their own, by MM Lee’s inconclusive definition, since there is still no clear indication of on the cause of all the flood incidents to date.

Indeed, the “act of God” statement was challenged immediately. Today carried three letters in its Voices section on 22 July, each with a different suggestion on possible solutions to the flooding. The nation seems more interested in solving the flood problem than MM himself, who have so far only managed this shrug of a shoulder.

As my old geography teacher would say, while flooding is a natural occurrence, it becomes a disaster only when it crosses the path of human development. In its history, humanity’s strife has been less about preventing natural disasters from occurring, but protecting lives and livelihood from these occurrences.

MM Lee’s warning about losing roads to canals (forget the irony that, not so long ago, for a brief period, part of Orchard Road became a canal) felt more like the same extreme-ends ultimatums that Singaporeans have been constantly fed with – bear with the floods, or walk to work everyday. Perhaps it is not something for a man in his position, but the statement hardly reflected any imagination for the technical feats we can possible deploy to save lives and livelihood.

In truth, it would cost us seriously as a nation to protect us from floods, but there is really no way to defer this cost. The floods are no longer affecting our residential areas, but our central business district. Our efficient, business-as-usual, 24/7 reputation is at stake, and the longer term effect it had on our economy needs to be factored in the sums.

For the moment, the floods seem to have ebbed, but with the odd weather patterns that are knocking at our doorstep, there can be no telling when we will have to face this again. It would be more sensible for us to see it as necessary expenditure. We are faced with the reality of three options – major drainage upgrading, a comprehensive compensation plan for present and future victims to ensure a swift return to normalcy, or suffer the long term blow to the economy.

Sadly, all that seems to be the last thing on the minds of our politicians. Today reported on 20 July that 11 Members of Parliament (although the official record seems to indicate seven) raised queries about the floods, to which the Environment Minister replied with a to-do list for PUB, capped with an endnote that PUB is not the only one responsible, but residents and businesses also need to play a part to ensure that they are warned about floods and are adequately prepared to respond.

Flooding started on 16 June, and these concerns are now raised in Parliament? We should also note that the first to face public outcry was the CEO of PUB – not the Environment Minister or the MPs of the affected areas. And if these MPs have been busy on the ground helping their residents or canvassing for disaster funds since then, the media must have been really respectful of their private endeavours, since there was no coverage on them. Just as the floods are ebbing, another flood of politicians and their comments enter the fray. And of course, MM Lee deals the finishing touch. Should we ask why?

For lack of a better word, it is politicking. Votes count, and showing concern for citizens earns brownie points, even if that concern is nothing more than hand-wringing from a safe tower. So does showing a solid action plan, never mind that the plan is not based on a clearly defined problem to solve. Indeed, ambiguity helps to diffuse attention and provides space for maneuvering should the situation repeat itself. And of course, managing expectations, for the benefit of similar situations in the future, is best done out of the heat of the crisis.

Could the need for an ambiguous problem be the reason for the retraction of earlier claims about debris causing the 16 June Orchard Road flood, and that no conclusions were drawn for more recent floods? You are entitled to have your own take on that.

So, as a national issue, the floods are bigger than we thought. For the population and particularly those affected, this is the time to muster another level of determination, for odd weather seems here to stay and, by the rhetoric thrown around, most significantly by MM Lee’s decree, we evidently should not depend on our politicians to provide assistance, must less shield us from it.

And as for our politicians, God bless them all. This is a time when Singaporeans, weaned off the forced diet of ambiguous answers and dramatic ultimatums, or perhaps just plain tired of popularity posturing, will question the sincerity of every action and word. Failure to realise that might not lead to failure at the polls (feel free to wonder why), but it will surely lead to a lowering of confidence, and by unfair default, a growing impatience with the government agencies tasked to deliver the related public service.

Related posts:

1. Floods: Monitor or don’t monitor also flood?
2. Floods – are we prepared?
3. Woman hits man in the privates – with her heels

By Dr Wong Wee Nam

“You only have power over people so long as you don’t take everything away from them. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything, he’s no longer in your power — he’s free again.”

– Alexander Solzhenitsyn

I first met him at the wake of the late Dr Lee Siew Choh in July 2002. That was 20 years after he was released from an almost 20-year detention. I saw a friend sitting at another table and went up to say “hello” to her. He happened to be sitting at the same table and she introduced us.

That was the first time I saw how he looked like.

I have heard of him when I was a young boy. He was the son of a famous fishmonger in the market where I had lived. The father was famous because he had a clever son. Not a lot of poor people then had children who are doctors.

I also heard of him as a young boy because of his reputation as a doctor. Not only did his clinic dispense free medicine for the needy and the real indigent, he also gave them transport money to go home. This is not surprising from a doctor who believes that the most common cause of anemia is not iron deficiency but poverty.

It was understandable that I did not recognize him. After all, his pictures had never been splashed in the newspapers or over the TV. Nothing much was heard about him when he was incarcerated and nothing was seen or heard after his release.

In spite of the news blackout and the low profile he has kept, he is still a political legend, being the second longest political detainee after Chia Thye Poh. Therefore, my reaction was one of excitement mixed with surprise and discomfort when he was introduced to me.

He put me totally at ease when he asked in a very soft and friendly voice if I was the same one who wrote letters to the press. I was humbled by his sincerity and modesty.

Subsequently, I met him occasionally at medical seminars and talks. We only exchanged some pleasant words and never discussed current affairs. He told me he read my articles on the blogs but never did he once try to engage me on those topics. At this stage of his life, I suppose he had transcended all these concerns.

Remarkably, in my encounters with him not once had he expressed any hatred for anyone or any organization for having deprived him of 20 years of the prime of his life.

In 1963, he was arrested because he was deemed a security threat to the interests of Singapore. To be kept in prison for 20 years, he must have had a pre-detention life that is more colourful or at least equal to that of Mas Selamat.

Yet, when I looked up as many books (even books written by his ex-comrades) as I could on the era, I could find very little mention on him. Surely a security threat who warranted 20 years of detention would have enough open records of his activities for any movie director to make an equal number of political thrillers. Maybe one day the archives will let us know of his clandestine activities, if any.

Recently at a launch of the book The Fajar Generation, he made a speech. Martyn See, the filmmaker, recorded the speech and put it on Youtube. The video is now banned. It cannot be for security reason that the video is banned. The speech was not fiery, there was no angry condemnation of government, no incitement to violence, no call to arms, no cry to overthrow anyone and no rousing appeal to unite and rally the audience for a cause. Indeed the speech was milder than any election rally speech by a mile.

For months after the speech was made and aired, no investors pulled out of Singapore for security concerns and in fact, the economy recovered. Yet for inexplicable reason, the video was banned.

Perhaps there is a reason. The video is in danger of changing people’s perception of Dr Lim Hock Siew. He comes off as a very calm and dignified person. There is no anger or bitterness. His intellect is intact and his mind is very clear. Beneath the frail frame is a man with strength of character. He looks so kind and fatherly that one wouldn’t see him as capable of slapping a fly or killing a mosquito, let alone hurting a fellow human being. Behind a soft-spoken exterior one can discern a man full of indomitable courage.

Watching him talk reminds me of a story written by Zhuang Zi （庄子）in his chapter “Autumn Water” （秋水）:

When Confucius was traveling in the State of Kuang, he was surrounded by the troops of Sung. Nevertheless, he continued singing and playing his lute, totally unfazed. Zi Lu, his disciple, asked, “Master, why are you enjoying yourself?”

Confucius said, “For a long time, I’ve tried to stay out of hardship but failed. This is due to fate. I’ve tried to succeed but failed. This is due to the times.

“During the times of Yao or Shun, there was no hardship. This had nothing to do with a person’s wisdom. During the reign of King Jie and King Zhou, people did not achieve success but this was not due to lack of wisdom. It was due to time and circumstance.

“To travel across the water and not shrink from the sea serpent or the dragon is to have the courage of a fisherman. To travel on land and not be afraid of the rhinoceros or tiger is to have the courage of a hunter. To meet clashing blades and face death unflinchingly is to have the courage of martyr.

“To understand that hardship is a matter of fate and success is a matter of the times; and to able to face enormous difficulties without fear or terror is to have the courage of a sage.”

知穷之有命，知通之有时，临大难而不惧者，圣人之勇也。

Dr Lim Hock Siew may or may not be a sage but he must be a remarkable man. He was stored away for 20 years and then led a quiet life for the next 28 years. Yet when he made his speech at a book launch, he created enough anxiety for the video to be banned.

Truly remarkable!

Related posts:

1. Why censorship is evil (by Siew Kum Hong)
2. Attacks on Siew Kum Hong
3. Will Siew Kum Hong get another term?

The Prime Minister, on 15 July, was reported by the Straits Times as having said that the 100,000 foreign workers who are set to enter Singapore “was unavoidable as the labour market was bursting at the seams.” (Link)

However, if one takes a look at this Ministry of Manpower report, the story may be a totally different one. If the labour market is indeed “bursting at the seams”, why is it that according to MOM:

-       Although total employment change grew by 36,500 to 3,026,500, the seasonally adjusted number of unemployed residents has increased.

-       Mature residents remain the largest unemployed group.

-       Degree holders had the smallest improvement in unemployment rate and their share among resident job seekers increased.

-       The long-term unemployed’s share in the unemployed pool increased.

-       Long-term unemployment rate for degree holders and younger residents increased.

-       61% of the long-term unemployed were aged 40 and over.

-       The number of production and related workers and clerical, sales and service workers laid off increased.

-       PMETs accounted for more than half those made redundant.

-       Mature residents formed a higher share among residents laid off and was also higher than their representation among resident employees, and the re-employment rate decreased.

To further unpack the government’s claim that the job market is “bursting at the seams”, we need to take a closer look at the labour statistics. This is an exercise in number-crunching and we hope readers will bear with us. It is, however, well worth going into to come to a more balanced view of the situation.

Unemployment

• The seasonally adjusted number of unemployed residents rose from 61,100 in December 2009 to 66,200 in March 2010.

• Mature residents aged 40 and over remained the largest group among unemployed residents – 29,800 or 47% – in March 2010.

• 10,200 or 34% of unemployed mature residents have a degree, polytechnic diploma or upper secondary education.

• 21,100 unemployed residents had a degree or polytechnic diploma.

• Degree holders formed the second highest number of unemployed residents, at 15,600.

• The number of unemployed with secondary education stands at 15,900.

• Degree holders experienced the smallest improvement in unemployment rate from 3 to 2.8% than all the other education groups.

• Degree holders’ share among resident job seekers rose from 18 to 25%.

Long-term unemployment

• The number of residents who had been looking for work for at least 25 weeks’ share in the unemployed pool rose from 19 to 23%.

• The long-term unemployment rate for younger residents aged below 30 edged up from 0.7 to 0.8%.

• The majority – 61% or 8,900 – of the long-term unemployed were aged 40 and over

Redundancy

• The number of production and related workers laid off rose for the second consecutive quarter.

• The number of workers in clerical, sales and service positions made redundant, increased compared to the fourth quarter of 2009.

• PMETs accounted for slightly over half – 51% – of the residents made redundant in the first quarter of 2010.

• Mature residents in their 40s (33%) or older (28%) formed a higher share among residents laid off in the first quarter of 2010 than in the fourth quarter of 2009 (29% and 26% respectively). This was also higher than their representation among resident employees at 27 and 25% respectively

Re-employment

• The re-employment rate within 6 months of redundancy fell from 52% in December 2009 to 50% in March 2010

In light of all the above statistics, is the labour market really “bursting at the seams”? Should we then again blame those who are unemployed for being “choosy”? Or should we repeat to them the mantra of “upskilling” and “upgrading”?

Perhaps it is time for the government to explain the above statistics, which are from the MOM itself, and give Singaporeans a more balanced view of the situation.

And our local media should not just parrot what it is given and instead ask these hard questions so that S’poreans have a more accurate picture of the labour scene.

In our next article, part three on the topic of jobs and wages, we take a look at the latter and what the NTUC has been doing (or not doing) with regards to it.

——-

Read Part 1 of this article: Fastest growing economy – what about jobs and wages?

Related posts:

1. Fastest growing economy? What about jobs and wages?
2. 5 Minutes with… Leong Sze Hian on the economy and jobs
3. Economy recovering, but labour statistics getting worse?

“It’s in the interest of buyers to have low COVs, but it’s in the interest of sellers who own the flats to have high COVs… So, between these two groups, we must let them fight it out… The Government prefers not to interfere.”

Mah Bow Tan, Today, 26 July 2010

——–

Read also:

Siew Kum Hong:
The “market” as deus ex machina (or, The Scapegoat For Rising Housing Prices and Other Inconvenient Realities)

““Leave it to the market” is a rationale that is often trotted out, to justify why the Government should not intervene in something or other, be it rising housing prices or rising COE prices. But government policy can have a huge impact on prices (and sentiment, which can drive prices in markets like property), as implicitly acknowledged by Mr Mah when he talked about ramping up supply as a way to moderate price increases.”

Mr Wang:
The Little Story of One HDB Flat

“The Singapore government can tell you lots of stories about how PRs form only a small percentage of HDB resale buyers; that the PRs are not the cause of HDB prices shooting up etc. These are mostly self-serving stories, designed to make Mah Bow Tan look less incompetent and to ward off criticisms of Singapore’s foreign talent policy.

If you have your nose on the ground, you know better.”

———–

Cartoon by Joshua Chiang.

Related posts:

1. HDB prices hit record high
2. High HDB prices driven by speculators, hurting genuine home seekers
3. US ambassador says “US will fight” if China invades Taiwan

It was a huge step for her – this shy, awkward girl who hates being in the limelight, hates talking to strangers, hates making a fuss of anything. I messaged her. She told me she had decided to be brave. She would stand up, speak out, do everything necessary to help save her brother, Vui Kong.

This past week, she showed me she meant what she said.

Read about what else Vui Fung did to save her brother’s life here: Lianain Films.

Related posts:

1. High COV? Fight it out, says Mah
2. PAP pondering how best to fight to stay in power
3. US ambassador says “US will fight” if China invades Taiwan