From Yawning Bread...

My guess is that most bloggers do not know that certain laws restricting what can be said over the internet kick in once a parliamentary election is called. Some bloggers will be surprised that some of the things they say about Singapore politics may expose them to prosecution.

The last time there was a parliamentary election (also called a general election) in Singapore, which was on 3 Nov 2001, blogging was not yet a household word. Some of today's most prolific bloggers were probably not yet out of school.

In 2001, websites offering political content were relatively few, and news about the amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act, amendments which specifically dealt with internet communications, were still fresh in webmasters' minds, having been passed only in August of the same year.

Today, blogging has exploded, and unlike webmasters in the early days of the internet, most bloggers are writing without looking over their shoulders at Big Brother. While the Sedition Act is no doubt well known among bloggers due to the publicity about the 3 guys recently charged and sentenced, their offences related to foul language stirring up race and religious hate, not political news or commentary.

The coming general election will thus be the first time that bloggers will have to watch what they publish with regard to electoral politics. It may also offer a test as to the boundaries of the law, for, in my opinion, the law is poorly drafted. In a number of ways, it is not appropriate to the nature of the internet.

Needless to say, it is much too sweeping, and thus injurious to Singapore's political maturity. If some bloggers respond with civil disobedience, we're in for some interesting times.

* * * * *


The Parliamentary Elections Act

The law in question is the Parliamentary Elections Act, particularly Sections 78A, B, C and D.

Section 78A devolves to the 'minister' -- I think the specific minister is the Prime Minister -- the power to make detailed regulations. Since these regulations would be made pursuant to the law, they would have the same force as the law. Yet the Regulations are nowhere to be found on the freely accessible part of the government website.

I sent an email enquiry to the Elections Department on a Monday, asking them to point me to the Regulations. Four working days later, when I commenced writing this article, I still had not received a reply.

It was only through the assistance of a lawyer friend of mine that I obtained a copy of the Regulations. He found it on Lawnet, a database generally accessible only to lawyers.


No election advertising

Section 78A of the Parliamentary Elections Act says,

78A.—(1) The Minister may make regulations —

(b) regulating election advertising and the publication thereof during an election period on what is commonly known as the Internet by political parties, candidates or their election agents and relevant persons, including prescribing the features that must or must not appear or be used in any such election advertising.

(2) Any person who contravenes any regulations made under subsection (1) (b) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.

The bold italics have been put in by me, since these terms will be explained below. These explanations are based on the definitions contained within the same Act.

Election advertising:

This is a very broad term to mean any material that can reasonably be regarded as intended "to promote or procure the electoral success ... for one or more identifiable political parties, candidates or groups of candidates", or may "enhance the standing of any such political parties, candidates or groups of candidates with the electorate in connection with any election."

This seems to suggest that even praise for a candidate's wit, eloquence or sartorial flair would fall within the meaning of this term, let alone more substantial discussion that makes a party or candidate look appealing and vote-worthy.

Election period:
This is the period beginning with the day the writ of election is issued by the President for an election and ending with the close of all polling stations on polling day.

Relevant persons:
In the Act, the definition is very wordy, but basically it means every person or group of persons (other than political parties, candidates and election agents) who publishes anything on the internet.

As I've mentioned above, Section 78A devolves the details to the Regulations. So now, let's take a look at what the Regulations say.

6. For the purposes of section 78A (1)(b) of the Act, no election advertising may be published or caused to be published on what is commonly known as the Internet during the election period by or on behalf of any relevant person.

-- Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218, Sections 78, 78A and 102) Parliamentary Elections (Election Advertising) Regulations

That's it! And since the definition of "election advertising" is very broad, and "relevant person" means you and me, there's not a lot that we are allowed to say!


No election advertising on polling day

Next, let's look act Section 78B of the Parliamentary Elections Act. This section is titled "Election advertising ban on polling day".

You may wonder why there needs to be a special section that bans election advertising on polling day when it is already banned since the notification of elections.

This is because the ban effective since the notification of elections is only on "relevant persons", i.e. you and me. Political parties and candidates can still transmit election advertising during the election period except on polling day.

In that sense, Section 78B does not really affect those who aren't standing for election, but there is still something there that may interest us, for it limits the meaning of "election advertising".

Section 78B (2) provides a few permissible communications on polling day. These include:

(d) the transmission by an individual to another individual, on a non-commercial basis on what is commonly known as the Internet, of his own political views;

(e) the publication of any news relating to an election in a newspaper in any medium or in a radio or television broadcast;

If these are permitted on polling day, it stands to reason that they should be permitted on all other days through the election period, despite the broad definition of "election advertising". This suggests that you should be able to express your own political views or report on rallies and what candidates have said in their speeches (being "news")

But don't write in a such a way that looks as if you're helping to promote them. This is easier said than done though; see the section 'Ridiculous' below.


Sections 78C, D and E

Section 78C of the Parliamentary Elections Act says "No person shall publish or permit or cause to be published the results of any election survey."

This can reasonably be assumed to forbid any online poll on your website or blog.

Section 78D extends the ban to exit polls from polling booths on polling day.

Section 78E softens the law somewhat by saying that if you have exercised due care and taken reasonable steps to comply with the law, or if the breach happened due to circumstances beyond your control, you can use those as your defence.

* * * * *

Ridiculous

The extremely broad meaning of "election advertising" will no doubt have a chilling effect, once again, on speech. Its catch-all meaning is ridiculous. What if you really, really agree with a particular party's position? Can't you express those personal views?

What if you think another party is talking rubbish? If you point out that the party is spouting rubbish, won't you in effect be promoting their opponents?

What if you report on what you saw first-hand at a political rally, and described how the audience was huge, cheering every word of a certain political candidate? This may be factual, but the transmission of these facts will naturally tend to "enhance the standing" of the candidate or party, which is covered within the meaning of the disallowed "election advertising".

What if you had a hyperlink to someone else's blog, which contains an online poll?

There are so many areas where the law flies in the face of reasonableness, let alone free expression.

The way the law is worded, it seems to be based on a model of politics where political parties and their candidates may speak, but ordinary folks can only listen. The spoken-to should more or less gag themselves. It's kind of the like the model Confucian classroom, where the teacher may speak but all the kids have to keep quiet or simply recite after the teacher. By banning the expression of analysis and commentary, the effect is to delegitimise analytical thought.

Is this the best way to encourage political awareness and participation? Will citizens feel engaged or disengaged as a result?

In any healthy democracy, citizens try to persuade each other of the course to take and the leaders to favour. This naturally includes persuading each other whom to vote for. It is absurd that this is against the law in Singapore.


Pushing the envelope

Some bloggers may want to push the envelope, and indeed, Singapore will be better off if brave souls expand the space for political expression.

It is possible to exploit some grey areas in the law, though at what point taking advantage of a grey area becomes civil disobedience is difficult to discern.

One grey area I can immediately think of comes out of the time-fence of "election period". If you write anything that is ardently in favour of a certain party or candidate before the election is called, it should be fine.

Yet, blogs often contain an archive of postings. What if you had written a political commentary before the election is called, but it still remains accessible during the hustings?

Others may take this grey area further. They may write their commentary after the election is called but change the time-stamp to before the election period. Of course they will need to be smart to do this. For one, they will have to ensure that the article does not reference any event or statement that only occurred after the election is called, for that will be proof that it was written within the election period. For another, they will need to reserve some item numbers before hand, because even if one changes the time stamp, the item numbers still run in chronological order. Naturally it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this can be achieved by writing a short, non-political item now (before the election is called), and then later editing the item to hold the future political commentary.

Then there may be others who think the easiest way may be to try to slip past the "relevant persons" rule. They may quickly set up an anonymous blog on a foreign server, making very sure that it is not traceable to them, but when the time comes, establish hyperlinks from their known blog to the anonymous blog. That way, they can put fearless election commentary on the anonymous blog, maybe even an online poll.

Of course you can be fearless without going through so much trouble, continuing to write for your own blog. Naturally, you should always take care not to endorse any party or candidate, nor ask readers to vote in any particular way. Write about the rallies you attended; report on the speeches and audience reactions you saw. Declare that as "news!" Stay within first-hand reporting and commentary, the latter being "transmission.... on a non-commercial basis.... of [your] own political views." If the effect is to make one side look good, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may. Argue, if necessary, that it was not "intended" to promote or enhance, but merely to express your personal views and observations.

Whichever route you wish to take, bloggers, start making preparations now!

© Yawning Bread

SINGAPORE : The Singapore Democratic Alliance has joined in the debate over the Workers' Party recent manifesto.

It urged the public not to be swayed by criticisms levelled by the People's Action Party at the manifesto, saying this is an election tactic.

In a statement issued by SDA Chairman Chiam See Tong on Thursday evening, the SDA said it is not for the PAP to say that it is right and the WP is wrong.

Instead, he said this is a decision for the voters to make at the polls.

Speaking up for the WP, Mr Chiam said it advocates things that are good for the workers, which the PAP had similarly promised in the past but reneged on.

He says these included a cut in the employers' CPF contribution which he said went against previous PAP manifestos.

Mr Chiam said the WP's call to have more subsidies for the needy is "relatively mild" compared to what was outlined in PAP's past manifestos.

These, the SDA Chairman said, detailed the state's duty to provide for the sick, those who are unable to work for one reason or another, the young, aged or disabled through industrial injuries.

Just last month, the opposition parties had come to an agreement to avoid three-cornered fights in the constituencies they are eyeing for the next general election.

Mr Chiam said: "I think it is to show Singaporeans that the opposition is working together, they are united. The unity of the opposition is what the people want. On our part, we have already got 4 opposition parties to come together. The way the PAP minister attacked one opposition party, I think it is only right we speak up."

Mr Chiam said the SDA's own manifesto will be out in due course.

In the past week, the PAP had criticised the Workers' Party manifesto, saying it contains 'four time bombs' that are dangerous to Singapore.

These include abolishing grassroots committees, removing the ethnic quota for public housing, doing away with the Elected Presidency and having more subsidies for the needy. - CNA/de/dt

Two ways to view at an objective fact.

On one hand, the national propaganda machine, the Straits Times:

Birth rates show only a slight increase
37,593 babies registered last year but 1.13% rise still below replacement needs
By T. Rajan

MORE babies were born in Singapore last year, but the annual increase was slight despite measures to boost Singapore's dwindling baby count.

A total of 37,593 babies were registered, an increase of 419 over 2004, according to latest official figures. This is an increase of 1.13 per cent.

At a replacement rate of 2.1, Singapore needs 50,000 babies a year to renew the population.

The 2005 figures from the Registry of Births and Deaths are, however, provisional numbers and may be revised upwards because not all actual births are immediately registered.

Analysts interviewed yesterday feel it is too early to tell if the baby-friendly incentives, introduced in August 2004, have succeeded in convincing Singaporeans to have more babies.

Said Professor Gavin Jones, a researcher at the National University of Singapore's Asia Research Institute:

'The key point is, it takes nine months for a baby to be produced. Some people take some time to get ready before they decide to have a child.'

However, in August last year, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan applauded the 3 per cent rise in birth rates between May and July.

He had called the increase, over the same period in 2004, an 'encouraging sign'.

Singapore's birth rate has been falling for the past few years and last year, the total fertility rate dropped to an all-time low of 1.24 children for each woman residing here.

To reverse the trend, Singapore revised its pro-baby policy in August 2004 and gave more incentives.

Cash gifts were extended and given to the first and fourth child as well. Other measures include longer maternity leave of 12 weeks, instead of eight, and a lower maid levy.

Thomson Medical Centre says the pro-baby incentives were a factor but not the main reason couples gave for having a baby.

Said its spokesman: 'The decision on having a baby goes beyond the initial financial outlay of having a baby. The baby bonus is more of a bonus than the main reason to start a family or to have more children.'

The hospital has seen deliveries shoot up by 23 per cent, from 5,393 in 2004 to 6,628 last year.

On the other, Today:

WHEN the last series of statistics on Singapore's birth rate came out in September, there seemed to be little to smile about.

Announcing a rate of 1.24 children for each Singaporean woman in 2004, it marked a record low for Singapore's already-troubled birth rate.

Worse still, there seemed to be little indication of any effects from the $300-million Baby Bonus package put into effect in August 2004, following a lengthy study by population committee appointed by then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in 2003.

But a cacophony of tiny cries from hospitals around the country suggests that the alarming slide may have come to a halt.

According to checks done by Today, most hospitals in Singapore have seen an increase in the number of babies born since 2004 — a rise of between 10 and 20 per cent.

Thomson Medical Centre, for example, delivered 6,628 babies in 2005. This is an increase of 1,235 babies, or 23 per cent, compared to 2004.

Also, from August 2004 to July 2005, the private hospital delivered 6,112 babies — 49.7 per cent of which came from first-time mothers. This was up from 5,313 babies for the period August 2003 to July 2004, of which 48.7 per cent were first-time mothers.

Part of this increase could be due to the Baby Bonus measures.

"We feel that the increase in the number of deliveries at Thomson Medical Centre is attributable in part to the Baby Bonus package. We are very pleased with the Government's $300-million package and believe that it has and will continue to have a positive effect on the national birth rate," its spokesman told Today.

There were 1,670 deliveries at the Singapore General Hospital from August 2004 to July 2005. This is a rise from the 1,523 deliveries recorded for the period August 2003 to July 2004.

At the KK Women's and Children's Hospital, the number of first-time visits for outpatient pregnancy consultation has gone up by 5 per cent in the first half of 2005, as compared to the same period in 2004.

Even fertility experts like Associate Professor PC Wong, who is the chief of the Obstetrics and Gynaecology department at the National University Hospital, reported seeing a 30-per-cent increase in couples seeking treatment — from 45 couples before the Government's pro-baby measures, to 60 couples from Oct 2004 onwards.

Under the package, first-time parents get a cash incentive of $3,000.

There is an additional $6,000 grant for the second child, if the parents co-save the same amount. The Government will provide up to $18,000 cash and matching contributions if the baby is the third or fourth child. Maternity leave was also increased from two to three months.

Understandably, many first time mothers "pooh-poohed" the suggestion that the Baby Bonus made a difference.

One first-time mother said that while the bonus has helped defray the costs of buying basic necessities such as diapers and milk powder, it was not the main motivator.

"I'm enjoying it and I like it, but it was not a deciding factor for me to have a baby. I don't really think anybody will plan to have a baby because of the Baby Bonus," she said.

If the numbers do bear out, it will come as a welcome relief to Singapore, which has one of the lowest birth rates in the world, way below the required replacement rate of 2.1.

But National University of Singapore sociologist Paulin Straughan is adopting a wait-and-see attitude before breaking out the cigars.

"Well, so far so good, but let's see if it keeps up and translates into a net gain in fertility," she said.

But the academic was quick to add that the policy remained an important one as it "positions the family as a key aspect of our society".

"It sends the message that the state and society are behind parents and hence will be a much-appreciated gesture," she added.

What I want to know is if hospitals report 20% increases in deliveries, how come a measely 1.13% increase in official birth rate

What I want to know is how an increase of 419 babies born (from 37174 last year) can square with a 20% increase in deliveries

What I want to know is how a 3% increase in March to July 2005... is massively underwhelmed such that the actual rate for the entire year was only 1.13%

News From Russia...

13:58 2006-01-25

A tiny Singapore opposition party has drawn sharp criticism from the prime minister and other government leaders for challenging long-running policies in the run-up to expected parliamentary elections. One minister described the proposals of the Workers' Party as "time bombs," and local media on Wednesday quoted another as saying they were "poison in a concoction of medicine."

The group holds just one of the 84 elected seats in Singapore's Parliament. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong must hold parliamentary elections by mid-2007. Some political analysts expect the elections to be announced sooner, possibly in the weeks after Lee presents a new budget in Parliament on Feb. 17, so that the government can benefit at the polls from Singapore's current economic health.

The ruling People's Action Party, which holds all but two of Parliament's 84 contested seats, has won every election since splitting from Malaysia in 1965. It is expected to retain its overwhelming dominance.

Opposition leaders say tight political controls make it difficult to get their word out, but the government says Singaporeans are free to voice their ideas. The government acknowledges that it does not seek a Western-style democracy or unfettered political debate, which it says could disrupt public order or undermine economic growth in the affluent city-state.

The government has been particularly critical of the Workers' Party's call for an end to ethnic quotas in public housing complexes, saying it could undermine racial integration in Singapore, which is made up of about 80 percent ethnic Chinese, along with large Malay and Indian communities.

"You leave it laissez faire and choose their freedom, then you go to the expression, 'birds of the same feather flock together,' and you have Indian town, Chinese town, Malay town," television news station Channel NewsAsia quoted Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan as saying Wednesday.

"I'll put it as poison in a concoction of medicine," Khaw said of the opposition proposal. Singapore experienced deadly race riots in the mid-1960s, but has remained calm since then amid vigorous economic growth.

The government has also criticized a Workers' Party proposal to dismantle government-backed grass-roots committees and allow citizens to organize themselves in times of crisis, such as the spread of SARSб or severe acute respiratory syndromeб in 2003.

"It seems that the government perceives Singaporeans to be a docile lot with no initiative who need to depend on" the committees, Sylvia Lim, chairman of the opposition party, said in a statement. The Workers' Party, whose symbol is a yellow hammer, also wants to raise subsidies for the poor. The government, which has its own proposals for helping low-income workers, says the idea is vague, reports the AP.
N.U.

Time to leave blogger? What do you think?

Reporters Without Borders today accused the Internet’s biggest search-engine, Google, of “hypocrisy” for its plan to launch a censured version of its product in China, meaning that the country’s Internet users would only be able to look up material approved of by the government and nothing about Tibet or democracy and human rights in China.

“The launch of Google.cn is a black day for freedom of expression in China,” the worldwide press freedom organisation said. “The firm defends the rights of US Internet users before the US government but fails to defend its Chinese users against theirs.

“Google’s statements about respecting online privacy are the height of hypocrisy in view of its strategy in China. Like its competitors, the company says it has no choice and must obey Chinese laws, but this is a tired argument. Freedom of expression isn’t a minor principle that can be pushed aside when dealing with a dictatorship. It’s a principle recognised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and features in the Chinese national constitution itself.

“US firms are now bending to the same censorship rules as their Chinese competitors but they continue to justify themselves by saying their presence has a long-term benefit. Yet the Internet in China is becoming more and more isolated from the outside world and freedom of expression there is shrinking. These firms’ lofty predictions about the future of a free and limitless Internet conveniently hide their unacceptable moral errors,”

The California-based Google announced on the 25th of January it would soon launch a China-based Google.cn to improve and speed up its service for Chinese customers. It admitted it would be censored in line with Chinese law but said that while such filtering was against its principles, it was much better that not providing any service at all.

Up to now, Google has only censored its news site, Google News, by removing material from sources banned by the Chinese authorities. It has not censored its standard US-based search-engine, accessible at www.google.com/intl/zh-CN, and is the last of the world’s major search-engines not to have done so inside China. Yahoo ! has been working with Chinese censors for more than three years.

By offering a version without “subversive” content, Google is making it easier for Chinese officials to filter the Internet themselves. A website not listed by search-engines has little chance of being found by users. The new Google version means that even if a human rights publication is not blocked by local firewalls, it has no chance of being read in China.

Reporters Without Borders wrote to Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin in May last year asking if they were going to censor their tool for the Chinese market and expressing concern at some recent Google decisions.

In July 2004, the firm took a share in the Chinese firm Baidu, which operates a highly-censored search-engine. Soon afterwards, Google was allowed to open an office in China under a conditional agreement with the authorities.

Reporters Without Borders published six recommendations on 6 January for ensuring that Internet firms respect freedom of expression when working in repressive countries.

Channel News Asia (CNA) on 13 Jan reported that Liberty League (LL), a non-profit organisation (NPO) had received a $100, 000 grant from the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC). 3 days later, on 16 Jan, pleinelune, a contributor to this blog alerted readers about Leslie Lung. On 17 Jan, Fridae, Asia’s Gay and Lesbian Network published an article on its portal, citing religious links between LL and Exodus International, a coalition of Christian Ministries. Fellow contributor, akikonomu had on Monday, presented his take on the issue. Today has, in today’s edition, printed NVPC’s reasons for funding LL. Likewise, I would like to share my perspective on the matter.

Initially, the mainstream public received news that the government has taken a new initiative towards people with gender issues. It appears that the government is taking a more relaxed stance. The report also suggests that people who are facing such issues have the choice of consulting LL. It provides these people with a solution of sorts. LL's founder Leslie Lung indicated that the group’s approach would be similar to that of “Alcoholic Anonymous self-help principles” somehow implies that homosexuality is a disorder. This comparison drew flak from the gay community.

With reference to pleinelune’s entry, it was pointed out that Leslie Lung was an ex-transsexual. With this information, the credibility of the LL and even NVPC is questioned. It was also duly pointed out that homosexuality is not a disorder, unlike alcoholism. Though I do not speak for the gay community, it can be noted that the community would not be too happy about the government’s supposed objective.

Fridae then confirmed that Leslie Lung was indeed an ex-transsexual who had change his mind about a sex-change operation in 1984, 3 days prior the scheduled surgery. Fridae also uncovered the religious link to the coalition of Christian Ministries, Exodus International.

Subsequently, PLU insinuates that by funding LL, the government is promoting “a religious cause founded on unscientific and psychologically damaging methods”. PLU reprinted Leslie Lung’s past along with the anti-gay sentiment of a Christian group. I would like to be unbias here, however, it seems that PLU from then on, went to great lengths to discredit the NVPC and Leslie Lung. PLU's almost immediate retaliation to the grant by NVPC questioned the former’s status as a non government body. PLU also introduced issues such as LL being a private limited, and its $10 startup capital which were really, irrelevant.

If PLU’s intentions were to inform the public about LL’s links with a religious link headed by an ex-transsexual, it appears that the approach has been over zealous. Prior to PLU’s involvement, all other reports received were somewhat informative. With PLU’s involvement it seems that unhappiness aimed at organizations were revealed. PLU’s good intentions were lost along the way with almost convenient government bashing.

Could it be that PLU is displeased that LL had been funded by NVPC? After all, PLU has never managed to get itself registered as a society. An ex-gay group headed by an ex-transsexual have instead been funded by the government. Bear in mind the recent PLU/NLB fiasco.

Furthermore, the objective of LL appears to be one that is in conflict with PLU’s. While LL seeks to adapt individuals toward being heterosexual, PLU’s mission is one of public education and advocacy. PLU's strategy seemed to take the form of onslaught slamming. This method of handling, in my opinion, puts PLU in a bad light.

Now that the NVPC, has spoken and declared that its funding for LL was on the basis that “supports secular causes that benefit society”, all who are likely to approach LL have been warned. Its statement today gives the impression that the LL is targeting a fraction of people grappling with gender issues. “Anti-gay” is not the objective. People can choose to approach LL or not. People have a choice.

To be fair, NVPC has not acknowledged that LL’s founder was an ex-transsexual. Perhaps with the NKF issue still fresh in everyone’s mind, NVPC chose to declare the funding and its amount. NVPC also revealed that the efficacy of LL programmes would be assessed before funds are disbursed.

Whether the government funded LL knowingly or unknowingly, the issue is for each one of you to decide.

I do not think the gay movement in Singapore is infantile. Rather it is PLU's approach that somehow deem the gay movement infantile.

Blogger requested in email to cease criticisms of PLU

Yesterday evening, pleinelune, who speaks for gay lobby group PLU on Singabloodypore, emailed me, requesting that "for the sake of community image" and the image of PLU, I should not expose the public to further criticisms of PLU's modus operandi and public statements. Somehow, the image of PLU and the community is threatened every time I comment that I do not agree with their policies or actions. Newsflash: PLU does not have a mandate for sole representation of the community. Newsflash: Even in a one-party state, people are allowed to openly raise disagreements with party policy. Newsflash: Wong Kan Seng, Minilee, and Papalee have NOT said that criticisms by Singaporeans will lead to a diminishing of the public image of Singapore.

Most recently, Alex Au issued a statement that the NVPC is not a real NGO, because it gets funding from the government. His usual spokespersons on Singabloodypore also maintained that as the offices of NVPC are located in a ministry building, NVPC is not an independent organisation.

I have taken pains to point out this line of argument is untenable. Alex Au, with more than 10 years in activism and what his defenders call "constructive engagement" with the government, wouldn't know an NGO if it came up and slapped him with a trout. I pointed out several NGOs which receive substantial proportions of their budgets from governments:

1. A quarter of the US$162 million income in 1998 of the famine-relief organization Oxfam was donated by the British government and the EU. Applying Alex Au's logic, Oxfam is not independent!
2. The Christian relief and development organization World Vision US collected US$55 million worth of goods in 1998 from the American government. Therefore they are run by the government!
3. Médecins Sans Frontières gets 46% of its income from government sources. It's a stooge of the French government! It's NOT an NGO!

Gentle bloggers, these are facts that one can easily look up on the internets. Did Alex Au conduct due diligence before he accused NVPC of being non-independent due to government funding?

I have also commented that PLU's second press release "Behind the Liberty League Scandal", was a strategic failure. When the Ministry pulled a reporter's news story off the papers at the last minute, PLU went ballistic and accused the government of censorship, of poor governance of NVPC, and said "the hole is being dug deeper and deeper".

PLU's defenders then went on to say that MCYS and NVFP ganged up on the lobby group. Presumably, that's why the news article was pulled off. And presumably that's why PLU has issued a statement that preemptively cuts any lines of communication and goodwill it has with the bureaucracy.

1. NVPC is an NGO. It is not a "government body", as PLU's statement erroneously claims. Did PLU do any research before typing out its statement? The ministry provides the funds, but it is up to NVPC to spend it, as it wishes. There is no issue of governance here, merely an issue of poor judgement: NVPC foolishly funded a sex ed quack.

That Liberty League is a Pte Ltd is irrelevant. As long as it declares itself a non-profit to NVPC, it is obliged to provide full and regular accounts. That it has only $10 in startup capital is irrelevant. It will find the rest of the money elsewhere, in order to match NVPC's funding, dollar for dollar.

2. I don't know if there was a secret agreement by MCYS and NVFP to oppress gay people. Certainly it's nice to think so, and even to speculate on the basis of insufficient information. I don't know if MCYS called off the news story because it supports NVFP, or whether it needed time to conduct investigations with NVFP on the Liberty League, or whether it needed time to spin an appropriate response. Certainly it's nice to think of the possibilities, and even to speculate on the basis of insufficient information. Or even to blog about it.

It would be prudent, if one wanted to do more than blog about it (like say, issue a press statement), to make inquiries about the status of the investigation by MCYS and NVFP. PLU did not do so, and instead chose to issue its statement. For all we know, MCYS and NVFP could be doing background checks on Liberty League; making Leslie Lung conform to the rules; finding a way to drop the Liberty League quietly; anything. In fact, there is insufficient evidence for myself or PLU to guess what is going on.

Yet PLU has chosen to interpret the removal of the press story as outright censorship, whereas it could be a media blackout. One would assume that as PLU had cooperated with the reporter to write her story, it would've contained all the errors I have pointed out, like the insistence that NVFP is a government body, or that in effect the Ministry has sanctioned Liberty League for schools as a semi-official sex ed course, for example.

3. It's very nice to preemptively tag the issue as a "scandal" and frame it as a scandal, even before the public gets to know about it and get all worked up over it. Along with the insinuations of a ministry pulling the strings of an NGO, and the claims of press censorship, this is a particularly nice and constructive way to engage the issue with the government, and to persuade the bureaucrats to listen to your lobby group in the future.

By pointing out these flaws in PLU's statements and operations, I have once again undermined the image of PLU, an image so precious to them, they're asking me - through their proxies - very nicely to keep quiet. I'm sure the very possibility that mistakes should be pointed out when they're made doesn't matter. Or perhaps we're witnessing the doctrine of PLU exceptionalism - it is free to criticise the government, but for the sake of 'unity', no one is allowed to criticise them in public.

PLU is too weak to stand up to public scrutiny! The Government has always been hostile to PLU! Don't give PLU any more trouble by criticising it! I fail to understand how by pointing out the flaws in PLU's very open actions, that I'm washing its dirty linen in public. Or that it's a very bad thing.

As a blogger and contributor to Singabloodypore I take this request to stop talking about PLU as an insult to myself and to the ideals of SBP. They suggest I voice out my dissention privately to their organisation in the future, instead of subjecting it to public scrutiny. Actually, I find their suggestion very humorous.

I concede your point about PLU having to be open to criticism. Every organisation, every society has to be. However, the issue of washing our dirty linen in public comes into question. Yes, PLU has made mistakes, but it is ineffective to publicly denounce PLU in front of anti-gay people. We are only penalising ourselves.

No. I hold that the more mollycoddled PLU is, the less its mistakes are pointed out as such, the more its defenders penalise it. I don't wish to see PLU as a monolithic party that is more interested in party unity than an open marketplace of ideas. I would hate to think of PLU as having a monoculture, and dominated by groupthink, where no one dares to tell its leaders that what they're doing might be not quite right.

See also:
More reasons why the gay rights movement in Singapore is infantile.

From Singapore Windows

Associated Press
January 13, 2006
SINGAPORE

A LAWYER and human rights activist said Friday, Jan 13, he planned to campaign against the execution of two convicted heroin traffickers.
M. Ravi said he would seek the help of international human rights groups on behalf of Nelson Malachy, 33, who is stateless, and Nigerian Amara Tochi Iwuchukwu, 19, both on death row for smuggling 727 grams (26 ounces) of heroin into the city-state.

Singapore has a mandatory death penalty for anyone found guilty of trafficking more than 15 grams (0.5 ounces) of heroin.

Iwuchukwu was caught at Singapore's Changi Airport in November 2004 with heroin estimated by authorities to be worth S$1.5 million (US$970,000; €795,930) after arriving from Dubai. Malachy was subsequently arrested after Iwuchukwu identified him to authorities as the person he was supposed to deliver the drugs to.

The pair, who are not represented legally by Ravi, were convicted in July and sentenced to death. Their appeals will be heard in court on Feb. 20.

"The mandatory death penalty should be opposed especially because it does not allow for the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing," Ravi said at a lunch hosted by the Foreign Correspondents Association, adding he hoped the case would create debate about capital punishment in the city-state's media.

He said he intended to work with London-based human rights group Amnesty International and the European Commission-funded Center for Capital Punishment Studies in appealing for clemency.

The lawyer has failed in three previous cases to save drug smugglers from the gallows - including convicted heroin trafficker Nguyen Tuong Van of Australia, who was executed on Dec 2.

If anybody has access to the original ST article, please post it here.

SINGAPORE : Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has urged the opposition Workers' Party to revise their manifesto as it contains dangerous and critical ideas.

He said these destroyed the fundamental principles Singapore had built and thrived on.

The PAP government described the Workers' Party manifesto as containing four "time-bombs", including removing the ethnic quota for HDB housing and the elected presidency.

Mr Lee said the suggestions in the Workers' Party manifesto had undermined the basic principles on which Singapore depends.

He said this was a very serious matter.

Mr Lee said he expected the Workers' Party and its chief Low Thia Khiang to respond properly.

Mr Lee said: "Where do they stand? Either you rethink your position and publish a revised manifesto, version 1.2, there is still time or if they want to stand by that, explain what they mean, justify, defend and we will join issue and we will fight the elections on these issues.

"They should fight the elections on these issues because this is not just a matter of you talking casually at the coffeeshop after drinks. It is a manifesto for the General Election and he is offering himself as an alternative, it has to be scrutinised." - CNA/de

This article amuses me greatly because it is essentially, one party telling the other how to organise their elections. And if you read the original ST article, it was laced with propaganda and explosive[literally] images. Made for a good laugh over breakfast.

Also, there is this idea that if we change anything about Singapore, it will immediately collapse and everyone will starve and die.

Right.

Addicted to Regulation

Singapore government is addicted to using regulation to solve or forestall problems. In recent months we saw the passage and reminder of a series of laws. Some of these are:

1) some schoolgirls were warned by police that they might break law if white elephant T-shirts were worn en masse. (To me, this really sound like bullying by the police.)

2) potential violent protestors, locals or foreigners, were reminded that they could be caned or jailed.

3) new law to punish Singaporeans who had sex with underaged girls abroad

4) tougher penalties for draft dodgers

5) possible jail term for bus and taxi fare cheats.


Regulation is addictive because:

a) it is a quick fix to solve or preempt problems

b) with all the fines and penalties it fattens the state coffers

c) it is probably gratifying for some to see the populace being prgrammed to become obedient and submissive subjects of the state .


However, like most addictions, it has its adverse effects:

1) the government would appear to be run by 3rd world leaders who typically are unwilling or unable to run the system by any other ways except through threats and the rule by fear.

2) those who find it too restrictive will leave the country, causing brain drain.

3) it leaves no room for flexibility and creativity, which means Singapore will be ill-prepared for the challenge of the 21st century: a race on ideas and innovations.


If the Singapore government is serious about building Singapore into a world-class city, then it should cure itself of its addiction.

There has been a flood of information about the LL issue in the past few weeks, so hopefully, this will clarify things a little bit.

I'm also adding all related links to this issue, hopefully in chronological order:

The CNA article that started it all
Pleinelune's response
The Sayoni article(duplicate of one in SBP) that got tomorrowed
News Article from Fridae.com
Media Release from PLU
PLU's email to redqueen and signel
Yawning Bread's article - "Government gives $100K to a religious and anti-gay group"
Liberty League's funding raises questions - Fridae.com

Liberty League Website

The 3 layers of the Liberty League issue

Because the Liberty League issue evolved over a period of a week, the discussion about it in various web forums got rather confused. Different commentators focussed on different aspects of the case at different times. The result is that the nub of the matter is no longer clear.

Here, I am going to try to correct the situation by giving some structure, chronologically and logically, to the case.

You will also notice, however great my disagreement with the ideology of Liberty League and the ex-gay movement in general, it's actually tangential to the matter. They can believe what they want to believe, but what concerns us as Singaporeans are the decisions and actions of the government.

You will see below that the debate comes in three different layers.

1. That the decision to give government funding to Liberty League was unwise;
2. That a government ministry and its quasi-independent body that dishes out funds on its behalf, failed to perform due diligence before giving out public money, and the grant was in technical breach of its own eligibility criteria;
3. That it was unacceptable for the government to censor an emerging newspaper story.

It is possible for reasonable people to disagree on one level and agree on another, which is why the debate gets confused so easily. Thus it is advisable when evaluating the issue, to say exactly which level you agree with and which you disagree with.

* * * * *

On 13 January 2006, TV network ChannelNewsAsia reported that the government had given a grant of S$100,000 to Liberty League. See report.

Since People Like Us (PLU) was familiar with the name Leslie Lung, the person behind Liberty League, the group began making some enquiries.

Separately, unknown to PLU, a reporter also thought the story quite strange and started doing her own checks. She would later contact PLU.


Key background:

The Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) gave a grant of $100,000 to Liberty League, a group that appears to espouse an fundamentalist Christian ex-gay objective.

The grant was funnelled through the National Volunteer and Philanthropic Centre (NVPC).


1. Unwise decision

What was uncovered about Liberty League can be seen in the earlier article Government gives $100K to a religious and anti-gay group See also PLU's press release. At first, the chief concern was that Liberty League would not be a suitable organisation giving talks to school children about sexuality issues, since they appear to espouse a distinctly Christian point of view (when the majority of Singaporean children are non-Christian) and adopt a stridently anti-gay position. Such an approach hurts rather than helps the psycho-social development of gay and lesbian teenagers, at the same time as it fosters homophobia among their peers [1].

So the first level of disagreement would be that it was very unwise of the government to give endorsement and financial support to this group.


2. Technically faulty decision

Further investigation revealed that Liberty League should not even have qualified for the grant, based on the criteria listed on the website of the National Volunteer and Philanthropic Centre (NVPC), a sub-unit of the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS).

It appeared that 3 of NVPC's own criteria were breached, for the website said applicants must show that

* it is a new initiative, significantly different from anything offered by other parties;
* it is non-profit;
* it is secular.

More details of each of these 3 breaches:



In a letter published in the online edition of the Straits Times, on 17 Jan 2006, Sarah Wong posed about 10 questions regarding the Liberty League matter.

Her top-most question, in a nutshell, was why are we paying an outside organisation to give talks when we've already paid teachers to teach the subject?

Another question was, what kind of teaching can we do when the law is so out of date?


(a) It's neither new nor different

It is common knowledge in Singapore that another group 'Choices' have been giving these talks for years in schools. Moreover, Leslie Lung himself had been giving such talks personally, as the article Government gives $100K to a religious and anti-gay group described in depth. So, how can this be a "new" initiative?

(b) Is it really non-profit?

Liberty League Pte Ltd does not indicate anywhere that it is a
non-profit company. Normally, non-profit companies are not "Pte Ltd", but just "Ltd", (or "companies limited by guarantees" in technical jargon).

(c) It is not secular

As can be seen from the details in the Media Release, Liberty League is Christian-linked and religiously motivated. Furthermore, PLU had in hand a written first-hand account from a school student who was in the audience listening to Leslie Lung speak in one of his earlier lectures. There was repeated mention of God, Christianity and the Bible.

The above suggests at least 3 possibilities:

1. the NVPC had been misled;
2. the NVPC had failed to do proper background checks;
3. the NVPC made special exceptions for Liberty League
(in which case, why?).

This is the second level of our concern: a possible failure of good govenance procedures, and possible absence of due diligence.



Not that Choices is any better. It too spreads the message that homosexuality, masturbation, etc are all deviance. It's strategy is to lay guilt on very thickly.

Then it is wants people to "come to Christ" so that they can be relieved of that guilt.


People Like Us decided that we ought to play the role of concerned citizens fully. The group asked for a meeting with NVPC (the email copied the Minister, Vivian Balakrishnan, as well) in order that we may exchange thoughts and present to them what we knew.

The meeting was not pleasant. NVPC (plus one MCYS representative) took the position that they would not tell us anything at all. Everything was confidential. They would not exchange thoughts nor truly engage with us on the ground that everything was "confidential".[2]

From the start, the body language was extremely frosty and suspicious. I had the feeling they came to the meeting with the view of "let's find ways to shoot the messenger before we get shot".

But it doesn't matter; our conscience is clear. We have done our part as citizens. If nothing is done despite our giving facts to NVPC and MCYS, then we know, and we will be in our right to say, where the failure lies.


3. Censorship

Meanwhile, separate from what PLU was doing, the reporter tried to get MCYS [3] to give her a comment in response to her questions. For 3 days, they did not respond. Nonetheless, MCYS was aware that a news story was brewing.

The newspaper story was supposed to be in Friday's edition (Jan 20), but minutes before it was to be filed, a call came from a ministry to stop the story.

What exactly was the motive behind this Stop order, we don't know.

This is the third and most serious level of concern. It is now an issue of transparency and accountability with public money and public trust.

© Yawning Bread





The body language of the NVPC officer suggested to me that it was a surprise for him to learn that Liberty League was a Private Limited Company. More - with just $10 in paid-up capital.

Why is this important?

Because NVPC's grant conditions say that the recipient has to match NVPC's funding with 30 to 50% of their own money.

This means Liberty league has to come up with $43,000 to $100,000 from their side.

It can either come from capital, donations, loans or earnings.

There's clearly insufficient capital. They'll find it hard to ask for donations, because they're not registered as a charity. They can ask for loans but how will they pay them back?

As for earnings, e.g. charging the schools for giving talks, this would raise an even bigger question. Sarah Wong, in her letter to the Straits Times had already asked why we're paying a group to teach what teachers are themselves paid to do? Now we want the schools to pay for talks that the NVPC is funding?

I posed the question to NVPC - have you thought about how they're going to deliver their side of the bargain? If after you've given out $100,000 and it's been spent, there's not a lot of recourse, is there?



Footnotes

1.

One person I know wrote a letter to the Minister, Vivian Balakrishnan, pointing out to him that by spreading a message that is professionally discredited and known to cause long-term mental distress, Liberty League and its funder, MCYS, could be accused of tort. Tort means causing damage or injury by a willful or negligent act, and is a basis for a civil suit.

2.

This explanation is not as good as it sounds. For example, I asked them what were the grant conditions given to Liberty League? What were they actually supposed to do in return for the grant? They repeated that it was confidential and they had to seek Liberty League's permission to reveal their communication.

I said to them, it cannot be confidential because when they're disbursing public money, they should be accountable publicly for it. I wasn't asking them what Liberty League said in its application. I was asking them what NVPC said at the moment that it acted in its official capacity. The terms and conditions of that contractual arrangement should be a matter of public record.

They had no real reply to this and just stonewalled the rest of my requests.
Return to where you left off

3.

My understanding from unofficial sources is that the reporter first approached NVPC for a comment, but the immediate reaction from NVPC was that "the matter has gone up to MCYS", which was why for the following 3 days, the reporter was expecting a comment from the ministry, not from the immediate grant-giver, NVPC.

This throws some interesting light on NVPC itself. On its own website, www.nvpc.org.sg, it claims to be a "non-profit, non-government organisation", yet the moment a slightly challenging question is posed to them, the matter is passed "up to" the ministry. How "non-government" is that?
You draw your own conclusions.

This is a letter to the Economist on Devan Nair.

Devan Nair

SIR – In your obituary you wrote “by Mr Nair's account, Mr Lee promised to crush him [J.B. Jeyaretnam], crying ‘I will make him crawl on his bended knees and beg for mercy.’ That image had haunted Mr Nair before, as the worst expression of arrogant colonialism” (“Devan Nair”, December 24th).

This and many other statements Mr Nair made after his bout of alcoholism in 1985 were unfounded. One statement he made in 1991 forced Mr Lee Kuan Yew to sue him and the Canadian Globe & Mail in Toronto. The matter was settled when Mr Nair's two sons issued this statement, reported in the Globe & Mail on July 1st 2004:

“Mr C.V. Devan Nair, aged 80, has been diagnosed as suffering from the beginning stages of dementia, an ailment which affects his memory. He is no longer able to give evidence in court proceedings.

“On March 29th 1999, the Globe & Mail published an article by Mr Marcus Gee. The article quoted Mr Nair as saying that Mr Lee Kuan Yew had Singapore government doctors slip hallucination drugs to Mr Nair to make him appear befuddled.

“Having reviewed the records, and on the basis of the family's knowledge of the circumstances leading to Mr Nair's resignation as president of Singapore in March 1985, we can declare that there is no basis for this allegation.”

Yeong Yoon Ying
Press secretary to Minister Mentor
Singapore

Apology: We recognise that the statements attributed to Mr Lee in the obituary on Devan Nair and which are referred to in Mdm Yeong Yoon Ying’s letter above, are false. We apologise to Mr Lee for having published them, and we unreservedly withdraw them. We have agreed to pay Mr Lee damages and to indemnify him for all costs incurred by him in connection with this matter.
And the government scores the defamation goal again!

Picked up on a rumour from newsintercom.org. At the moment it is merely a rumour... It was clearly a discussion and as far as I am aware no information, minutes or policies have been announced. So it was probably just a cosy chat. But why the silence? A lot of 'silence' around the sg blogosphere these days from the so called 'elite'.

Blogging and the Law

On 18th January 2006, the Institute of Policy Studies organised a closed-door discussion on the topic of Blogging and the Law.

This is according to local bloggers mrbrown and Mr Miyagi.

They didn't say much about what happened in this closed-door event except for some pictures. However the title of this closed-door event is interesting to say the least. Considering the venue, it's very likely that the powers-that-be are considering legislating blogging. It's pretty clear that this was mooted by the recent blogging/hate/Sedition Act cases.

In 2005 I wrote on this very specific issue. In it I proposed a self-policing or moderation policy as opposed to a throw-the-book approach that the PAP has adopted (clearly a political Send-A-Message).

However it would seem that the government is going to take this one step further by considering legislation on blogging, possibly also in view of GE2006.

To me, legislating blogging is missing the forest for the trees and reflective of the PAP's neanderthal style. It's analogous to flocking to a commotion in the street, seeing a loon hurling racial epitaphs at no one in particular, then getting offended and braying for a law to clamp down on talking in public!

While technology has changed, human nature hasn't. Social ills and bad behaviour remain constant. There are enough laws to come down hard on these things. Bad behaviour exists everywhere, virtually or otherwise. If you open the floodgates of law on blogging, where does it stop? Websites? Forums? Mailing lists? Usenet?

From Scottish TV's Scotland Today.
20 January 2006 10:57

A Scots engineer arrested during a drug operation in Singapore has been jailed for eleven months. Construction supervisor Jason Taylor, from Aberdeen, originally faced being jailed for up to ten years after he was caught with a small quantity of cocaine.

Singapore is home to some of the world's toughest drug laws. Last year the authorities there executed an Australian man after he was convicted of heroin trafficking. His death provoked international outrage.

But the country's strict stance on drugs would have been well known to Aberdeen man Jason Taylor. The 33-year-old construction supervisor - originally from Dyce - had been in Singapore for three years and had told friends he loved the country.

He was arrested along with several other foreigners during a drug raid in the city-state last month. It is believed Taylor and a Malayan woman were spotted coming out of a known drug den which was being targetted by the narcotics bureau. Police stopped the taxi he was travelling in, searched and found a small quantity of cocaine and placed him under arrest.

Today Taylor appeared at a District Court in Singapore to learn his fate. He had already pleaded guilty to possessing a packet containing 0.71 grams of cocaine. He faced up to ten years in prison and a fine of up to £7,000. Instead he was jailed for 11 months.

This is the email received over the Signel mailing list, from Yawning Bread aka Alex Au. It illuminates certain facts about the Liberty League issue that should shed light on how our respected government works.

Personally, I am rather disappointed at how the whole thing turned out. Deja vu, for those who remember the PLU/NLB scandal.

PLU is now at liberty to tell you a bit more about what had been happening during the last few days.

Our concern was to try our best to get the grant decision reversed. Not only was the cause unworthy and potentially deleterious to the schoolchildren who would be brainfucked, it was also, as we found on closer examination of the facts, a case of a technically erroneous decision.

It was unjustifiable because in 3 different ways, Liberty League should not have qualified even based on the technical criteria, let alone the qualitative consideration of suitability.

NVPC's own website www.nvpc.org.sg states that for the New Initiative Grant, applicants must show that
- it is a new initiative, not similar to anything done by others before;
- it is non-profit;
- it is secular.

It's common knowledge that Choices have been giving these talks for years in schools. Moreover, Leslie Lung himself had been giving such talks personally, as first-hand accounts have shown. How can this be a "new" initiative? BTW, Leslie claimed on CNA it has never been done before - look up the signel posting.

Liberty League Pte Ltd does not indicate anywhere that it is a non-profit company. Normally, non-profit companies are not "Pte Ltd", but just "Ltd", (or "companies limited by guarantees" in ACRA jargon). For example, it is NKF Ltd, not NKF Pte Ltd.

And of course, I don't have to elaborate the point that it is most assuredly religiously motivated. We didn't just have circumstantial evidence; we had a first hand account from a school student who was in the audience listening to Leslie Lung speak in one of his earlier lectures. There was repeated mention of God, Christianity and the Bible.

Acting not just as gays and lesbians, but as Singaporeans, our concern was what kind of half-cocked background checks did NVPC do before they dished out $100,000, when we as outsiders and amateurs could find all this information in one afternoon? Did this government body do due diligence?

Separately, a reporter from one of the newspapers, herself intrigued by the CNA story, sat at a computer and did a simple google search of Leslie Lung and Liberty League. Within minutes, what she saw troubled her.

She approached PLU for the story and we were pleased to cooperate.

In the meantime, PLU decided that we would play the role of concerned citizens fully. We asked for a meeting with NVPC (the email cc'd Vivian Balakrishnan as well) in order that we may exchange thoughts and present to them what we knew.

The meeting was not pleasant. NVPC (plus one MCYS rep) took the position that they will not tell us anything at all. Everything is confidential. But we were supposed to tell them what we knew. The body language was terribly defensive. But the body language was enough to tell us that they hadn't known that Liberty League was a Pte Ltd company, that its paid up capital was $10.

(This is important, because NVPC's own website says grant receivers have to co-pay 30 - 50 percent of the project cost. So if the grant is $100K, Liberty League ought to be able to come up with $43K to $100K on their own.)

But despite the frosty and suspicious reception, it doesn't matter. Our conscience is clear. We have done our part as citizens. If nothing is done despite our giving facts to NVPC and MCYS, then we know, and we will be in our right to say, where the failure lies.

Working in parallel, for 3 days, the reporter tried to get MCYS to give her a comment in response to her questions. For 3 days, they did not respond. Nonetheless, MCYS was aware that a news story was brewing.

The newspaper story was supposed to be in friday's edition (Jan 20), but minutes before it was to be activated, a call came from a ministry to stop the story. The newspaper editor complied.

What exactly was the motivation behind this Stop order, we don't know.

But anyway, what started off as an issue about the wisdom of giving $100,000 to a group that in our view wasn't suitable, became a story about possible failure of checks within the government... and has now, with censorship, become an issue of transparency and accountability.

The hole is dug deeper and deeper.

It is not a gay issue anymore. It's now an issue about govenance and accountability with public money and public trust.

Media release received via email. It had been written and was ready to go for a local newspaper until being pulled at the last minute by an allegedly unknown ministry.

So in addition to this matter being a question of good financial governance, it could well be a question of free speech too.

People Like Us Press Release
19 Jan 2006, 20.30h

Singapore govt gives $100,000 to Christian anti-gay group
By giving $100,000 to Liberty League, as reported by ChannelNewsAsia (CNA), the Singapore government is helping to promote a religious cause founded on unscientific and psychologically damaging methods.

Liberty League intends to "promote gender and sexual health" through "conduct[ing] sexuality talks in schools" - CNA report.

However, Liberty League's website promotes a book 'Freedom of Choice'. The book's subjects were almost totally from the Christian group, Choices, which runs programmes teaching that homosexuality is a psychological dysfunction. The book thus promotes this kind of pseudo-therapy propagated by fundamentalist Christian groups.

Mr Leslie Lung, the founder of Liberty League has long been known to be associated with "ex-gay" ministries. The "ex-gay" or "reparative therapy" movement is strongly associated with the more extreme churches in the United States. Liberty League's website itself uses terms such as "sexual brokenness", "addiction and abuse".

In a seminar organised by the Graduates Christian Fellowship on 13 October 2005, which described homosexuality as a psychological problem, Liberty League was touted as resource for counseling. It was recommended by Mr Tan Thuan Seng, the President of Focus on the Family, Singapore (FOTF-Sg) who is known to regularly give anti-gay talks in Christian circles.

FOTF-Sg is an affiliate of Christian- and US-based Focus on the Family as can be seen from the latter's website. The anti-gay, proselytising stance of Focus on the Family is well known. One may therefore infer that since it was recommended by FOTF-Sg, Liberty League shares a similar position regarding faith and homosexuality.

Liberty League is also lauded on the website of Exodus Singapore, the Christian ex-gay group, . It too speaks of "sexual brokenness" and teaches "God's plan for sexuality". On its Policy page, it says, "Exodus Asia Pacific cites homosexual tendencies as one of many disorders that beset fallen humanity. Christ offers a healing alternative to those with sexual and relational problems."

An 18-year-old student who had attended one of Mr Lung's earlier talks in her school wrote in her report (deposited with People Like Us) that she had to "sit through a one-hour treatise on why homosexuality was wrong, and if we had any same-sex attractions, we should immediately seek help and 'turn straight'.

"He made several references to God and the Bible during the talk," she wrote, and that "it was pretty insensitive to everyone non-Christian."

It should be noted that in his statement to CNA, Mr Lung spoke of "coming out of [homosexuality]". At first glance, this phrase appears similar to "coming out" - the well-accepted process of healthy psychological development for gay and lesbian persons - but it is in fact a trojan horse for the opposite: destructive self-denial of a person?s own sexuality.

PLU finds it reprehensible that while the World Health Organization and reputable psychological associations no longer treat homosexuality as a disorder, the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) would still fund an organization that has been founded on this unscientific and damaging premise.

The government needs to explain why the NVPC thinks $100,000 is money well spent when given to a disguised religious cause based on unscientific psychotherapeutic approaches that seek to deform young people's sense of self-worth and psychological health.

PLU also notes that the published guidelines for eligibility for funding from the NVPC include the stipulation that all programmes must be secular, and believes the government needs to explain its grant to Liberty League when even 18 year-old students can so clearly spot its religious agenda.

The government also needs to explain how this grant is consistent with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's claim that the government is not homophobic, made in a comment to the Foreign Correspondents Association on 6 October 2005.

For more information, please contact:

People Like Us www.plu.sg

We have touched on this subject before but the proposals that Dr Chee has mentioned at the end of this piece are new. There is also the issue of how many people gathering is considered to require a permit. I had previously thought that it was 5 or more but it is stated here that it is 4 or more. I can merely assume that this is in light of the recent dispersed protest outside the CPF building following the NKF scandal.

By John Burton in Singapore
Published: January 18 2006 01:09 | Last updated: January 18 2006 01:09

Violent protesters at the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Singapore could face caning and imprisonment, a minister said yesterday.

The warning came as Singapore suggested it might impose restrictions on an agreement with the IMF and the World Bank to allow demonstrations during their meetings in September.

As part of a policy of constructive engagement, the World Bank and IMF have allowed non-governmental organisations to hold rallies at annual meetings as long as the groups are accredited by the two organisations.

But Wong Kan Seng, the home affairs minister and deputy prime minister, said Singapore reserved the right to vet further the accredited group to determine “the potential impact on law and order as well as the suitability of the proposed [rally] location” before a police permit would be issued. Violent protesters would face the threat of caning and imprisonment, as prescribed under Singapore law, he said.

Singapore acceded to the request by the IMF and World Bank allowing demonstrations to gain the right to host what is expected to be the biggest meeting in the city-state’s history.

Demonstrations are normally banned in Singapore, where outdoor political gatherings of four or more persons are illegal without a police permit.

The last police licence for a demonstration was issued in the late 1980s to the state-affiliated trade union movement, which rallied outside the US embassy to protest against alleged interference in Singapore’s affairs.

Chee Soon Juan, head of the opposition Singapore Democratic party, has suggested that he would use the IMF/World Bank gathering to stage non-violent civil disobedience activities in protest against what he says is government repression. Mr Wong has warned the government will crack down on such protests.

The birth of a new blog that has pleinelune as a contributor. Its aim is to empower Asian queer women.

Welcome to Sayoni, a Singapore-based platform for lesbian, bisexual and transsexual Asian women.

Founded by a group of women from diverse backgrounds, age, economic status and race, we aim to empower queer women with a two-prong approach to encourage dialogues within our community and to educate by informing the public.

OUR VISION
To empower queer women towards greater involvement and presence in the community

OUR MISSION
To provide resources and communication channels that would contribute to self-confidence, participation and voice.

Inspired by Giti Thadani’s book, Sakhiyani, the author gives the ancient myth of ‘Sayoni’ an unique interpretation, regarding it as a symbol of relationship and sexual play between women, and as mythical evidence that queer-ness were very much a part of ancient civilisation.

Yoni is Sanskrit for vagina / womb / origin of life. The ‘sa’ prefix denotes the joint existence of two yonis, hence Sayoni is an ancient name for the unique concept of the ‘two revolving yonis’ of Ushasa-naktam, a pair of cosmic twin goddesses mentioned in the text of Rig Veda. They are regarded as so deeply entertwined that even their yoni’s revolve around one another. Separately, these deities are known as Ushas and Nakra.

To us, the word is a fitting representation of female rights and sexuality, often suppressed and ignored in Asian societies. Our logo is a reflection of our goal, with two soft blue revolving petals symbolising the meaning of Sayoni , and a bold colour wordmark that embodies the spirit of a confident, modern women-loving women.

By John Burton in Singapore For The Financial Times.
Published: January 18 2006 01:27 | Last updated: January 18 2006 01:27

The opening of a light-rail commuter station would be a routine event in most countries, but the inauguration of a suburban stop for Singapore’s MRT system last weekend drew attention because of its role in a growing debate about free speech.

Residents near the Buangkok station had been lobbying for more than two years for its opening after SBS Transit decided to mothball the already-built station because usage was expected to be low, and this would cause operating losses for the transport operator.

The visit of a government minister to the area last year provoked a cheeky protest, with cartoon cut-outs of a white elephant posted around the closed station greeting his arrival.

Singapore’s no-nonsense government took the matter seriously. The police launched an investigation to try to identify the culprits and issued a warning to local grassroots leaders.

The police still had their eye on the troublesome area even after the government decided to open the station. A plan by a group of female high-school students to help raise money for charity by selling white elephant T-shirts at the station’s inauguration ceremony was seen as a potentially subversive act.

The police warned the students that if they wore the T-shirts “en masse, it might be misconstrued by some as an offence” since Singapore bans protest demonstrations.

The students complied by not wearing the T-shirts, although they were allowed to sell them, and issued an apologetic statement saying: “We are in no way attempting to judge or condone the Buangkok MRT incident.”

Singapore’s approach towards public protests has been influenced by the old Chinese saying that “a single spark can start a prairie fire”, or what Catherine Lim, a local novelist and social critic, describes as the government’s “nip-in-the-bud-ism”.

The episode would appear to bolster claims by critics that Singapore still has far to go to achieve an open society that tolerates differing views.

The debate on free expression comes as concerns are being raised about whether political curbs will affect Singapore’s future economic competitiveness as it seeks to rebrand itself as a global centre for creativity and innovation.

The government of Lee Hsien Loong claims it is promoting increased political openness, but critics say the pace of change remains slow.

Ms Lim says in spite of the apparent economic success of Singapore’s alternative model to liberal democracy, it threatens to create a monolithic society that lacks the flexibility to handle new challenges.

“I’ve come to believe with a heavy heart that even if the government wanted to do something about it, Singaporeans are so used to the government making decisions for [them], any major change will be viewed with alarm,” she told a recent forum at the Institute of South-east Asian Studies in Singapore.

The issue of whether Singapore is being damaged by public apathy has been raised by a recent financial scandal at the city-state’s largest charity, the National Kidney Foundation, which enjoyed strong government support.

When several people alleged that funds were being misused, they were successfully sued for damages by T.T. Durai, the NKF head. The government failed to probe deeply into the allegations until a libel case filed by Mr Durai against a local newspaper led to a trial that revealed discrepancies in the charity’s management.

Critics have focused on the incident as an example of a lack of checks and balances in Singapore and the risks faced by whistleblowers.

Singapore also suffered a setback in its quest to become a regional educational centre when Britain’s University of Warwick decided not to open a branch campus in the city-state because of worries about academic and political freedom.[update:CNA]

Government officials say political openness should be seen in the context of good governance and not as an end in itself. Singapore should be “cautiously radical rather than ideologically revolutionary” on political freedom because of its multi-ethnic society, Vivian Balakrishnan, a former dissident turned government minister, told the ISEAS forum.

But George Soros, the US financier who is supporting global democracy initiatives, recently told a Singapore audience that countries lacking transparency and free debate faced the risk of a public backlash during economic turndowns. The warning comes as Singapore is suffering from increased social inequalities between rich and poor.

Although Mr Soros said Singapore was not an open society, it “is a prosperous society, and prosperity and open society go together. So I hope that Singapore will become an open society.”

Related Article:
Warwick Uni and local institutes tie up to offer masters programme By Jason Tan, Channel NewsAsia

An article that I believe we missed in December 2005.

Absence of the Rule of Law and the Actualisation of Human Rights

A Contradiction that Must Be Resolved
International Human Rights Day on December 10 should be a moment in Asia to reflect soberly as to why on this continent, where more than half of the world's population live, basic human rights are denied to most people. Although there are complex factors that contribute to this denial of people's rights, one factor stands clearly above all others: The rule of law does not exist in most parts of this vast continent.

The nexus between the rule of law and the actual realisation of human rights is not something to which the global human rights community has paid sufficient attention. The result is that where enormous attempts have been made to propagate the basic ideas of human rights, as enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and other covenants and conventions adopted by the international community under the sponsorship of the United Nations, the effort to create the conditions that are necessary for the actual realisation of human rights compares very poorly to the hard work that has been undertaken to create an awareness of human rights. The result is that people whose rights are so blatantly and continuously violated ask their governments as well as the United Nations, "Where are my rights?" To this question, neither the governments nor the United Nations and the international community are able to give a satisfactory answer as of now.

Burma, Nepal and Cambodia are among the countries in Asia that have no possibility of enforcing the rights of their people. Various political obstructions stand in the way of creating a type of state that is capable of undertaking the responsibilities necessary for the realisation of people's rights. While democratic and human rights jargon may be used by these states, they are preventing the development of the elementary forms of state development within which citizens can approach their state with even a most rudimentary level of confidence and belief that the state intends to respect their rights. From the point of view of accountability for respecting human rights, these states do not even have the basic structures to make such accountability possible. The international community, in approaching such countries, should take into consideration this key issue which, without resolving it, regardless of the efforts of the international community, is likely to bear few tangible results. The example of Cambodia, where enormous international efforts and resources have been allocated over the last 10 years, demonstrates the type of internal contradictions that prohibit even small positive developments in this country. The same problems are evident in Burma and Nepal as well. We thus urge the United Nations and the international community to pay special attention to these three countries and to develop a more comprehensive strategy to assist the development of state institutions to which people can seek redress to protect their rights.

Many other countries in the region reflect how the absence of the rule of law in varying degrees obstructs the realisation of human rights. India and China are the countries with the largest populations in the world. Although the political systems and the history of their justice systems differ, there are similar patterns of obstructing the rights of people in both countries through defects in their rule of law systems.

India, for instance, claims long years of legal and constitutional development and the development of judicial institutions from colonial times up to now. However, enormous delays that affect India's justice system and vast defects in India's policing system deprive ordinary citizens of their basic rights. India today stands as a glaring example of the adage that justice delayed is justice betrayed. Thus, those who suffer violations of their rights naturally have a deeply inherent pessimism about the possibility of actually achieving these rights. Moreover, the corruption and inefficiency embedded in India's policing system is a constant source of torture, particularly for India's poorer and marginalised sections of society, such as the country's minorities. The discriminatory psychology of caste is inbuilt into the policing system of India as well. Those who are considered to be Dalits and lower castes are among the people who are most brutalised by torture and are denied all of their rights. Other minorities, such as India's adivasis, or indigenous people, and Muslims, Christians and Sikhs, are also denied the possibility of equality and fairness in their relationships with the police and justice within the basic institutions of the judicial system. It should be noted that although a request has been pending by the U.N. special rapporteur on torture to visit India since 1997 the government of India has not made this visit possible.

The denial of justice in China takes place in a different manner. China's struggle to build a system based on law instead of the arbitrary rule of individuals extends back more than two decades. Although some progress has been made in this direction, China, however, is far from establishing a system based on the rule of law. When social order is maintained without the rule of law, there are hardly any effective means of redress for people who feel that their rights have been violated. China does not recognise a separation of powers between the institutions of the state, and therefore, the independence of the judiciary from the executive does not exist. This present reality prevents the possibility of the judiciary intervening as an adjudicator on basic rights issues and obstructs the development of the rule of law in the country. This contradiction is a matter that China's people and the authorities will have to resolve in the future. The recent visit of Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special rapporteur on torture, reflects the results of these contradictions. He notes that the use of torture is still widespread, though it is not always for political reasons. The general contradiction of the police and other institutions, such as prisons and rehabilitation centres and the like that are operating outside of the basic framework of the rule of law, will remain sources of torture and other violations of human rights. This contradiction cannot be cured by the imposition of the death sentence as China does now. The wide use of the death penalty is only a reflection of executive action to resolve perceived problems in an arbitrary manner rather than through institutional processes that strengthen the state and society.

Moreover, the rule of law is seriously flawed and torture is endemic and widespread in the following countries as well: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia in addition to the countries mentioned above. The key issues are the extremely arbitrary nature of policing systems; the lack of effective redress mechanisms in justice systems; enormous obstacles faced by people, particularly the poor, which constitute the majority of the population in these countries, to have access to the law; enormous delays in judicial systems; an absence of protection to the complainants and victims, particularly when they make complaints against state authorities; and the weak development of the legal profession in these countries, either due to intense pressure that intimidates lawyers or the lack of traditions of fearlessly defending people seeking justice. The net result is that, despite ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and other U.N. conventions and covenants against discrimination, people have little or no possibility of actually asserting these rights. While a facade of compliance to international treaty bodies is maintained, the observations and recommendations of these U.N. bodies are shamelessly flouted and ignored over and over again, thus, in effect, mocking the international effort to make it possible for everyone to enjoy their basic rights.

Meanwhile, the denial of human rights in Singapore belongs to a special category. Singapore makes it effectively impossible for people to live in an environment in which individual rights can exist. The ruling party is also virtually the state. Freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and the capacity to assert one's rights do not exist in this environment at all. The absolute denial of rights makes it impossible for the realisation of any of the rights enshrined in the international covenants and conventions. In fact, the official political ideology does not recognise the validity of these covenants and conventions.

Under these circumstances, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) calls upon the peoples of Asia, as well as all others concerned with the actual realisation of human rights, to pay special attention to the link between the rule of law and human rights. Finding ways to resolve this contradiction is the path that has to be tread if human rights are to be a practical reality. As a symbolic means of stressing this issue and keeping it alive for discussion in the immediate future, the AHRC has launched an Asian Charter on the Rule of Law. This effort is a follow-up to AHRC's earlier effort to work towards drafting a People's Charter on Human Rights. We urge everyone to support this effort and to make the theme of improving the rule of law for the achievement of human rights a central theme of engagement in the coming year.

This year on International Human Rights Day the AHRC is presenting a report on the state of human rights in 10 Asian countries -- Nepal, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, the Philippines, South Korea, Cambodia and Indonesia.

　

# # #

About AHRC The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

I understand that pleinelune has posted a CNA article of the issue here. Here are the details as per the reporting from Fridae.

A group which plans to help gays and lesbians "understand" their sexual identity has received a S$100,000 (US$61,500) grant from the Singapore government. Fridae has however undercovered that the group is an advocate of reparative therapy and is linked to an international Christian group which dedicates itself to "correcting" homosexuality

Twenty-five-year-old John Yeo was happy and felt a sense of comfort when he heard on the news that the government is funding a non-profit group to “help gays and lesbians understand their sexual identity.”

Leslie Lung, the founder and executive director of the group, has been featured several times in various newspapers as an ex-transsexual who changed his mind three days before his sex-change operation in 1984 after having a spiritual encounter. He is also the author of Freedom of Choice (above), a collection of 20 essays about how people ''overcame'' their struggles including homosexuality.

According to a Channel News Asia (CNA) report last Friday, Liberty League (LL), has received a S$100,000 (US$61,500) grant from the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre which is funded by the Ministry of Community Development Youth and Sports.

The group which aims to “promote gender and sexual health for the individual, family and society” as stated on its web site, hopes to conduct sexuality talks in schools, organise support groups for parents of homosexuals and to work with organisations such as the Girls' Brigade to educate teenagers on sexuality and biology.

It also reported that 70 per cent of LL's “clients” are gays, lesbians and transsexuals who are “grappling with their gender identities.”

It is the first time a grant and public “recognition” has been given to a non-profit group for its work in this area.

Yeo’s initial thoughts that gays and lesbians might have finally been accepted came to an end after he learnt from an Internet discussion group that the founder and executive director of the group, Leslie Lung, is an advocate of reparative therapy.

Observers were quick to point out that Lung, 41, has been featured several times in various newspapers as an ex-transsexual who changed his mind three days before his sex-change operation in 1984. He claimed that he had a spiritual encounter despite being professionally diagnosed as being a transsexual and having lived as a woman for four years prior to his scheduled surgery.

He said in a 2003 interview in the Straits Times about the turning point: “One of the key thoughts of the Bible is that a man shouldn't put on woman's clothes. I've always thought that ridiculous but suddenly I saw the principle behind the commandment. God is telling us not to do the opposite. Suddenly I knew that the operation would not be right.”

He also cited attending a self-help group after meeting Sinclair Rogers, a Singapore-based American pastor who himself “came out of transsexualism” and later founded Choices, an ex-gay ministry directly affiliated to Exodus International, the largest ex-gay organisation in the world.

Lung is also the author of Freedom of Choice, a collection of 20 essays about how people “overcame” their struggles including homosexuality, transsexuality and masturbation.

When asked if the group “champions gay and lesbian rights,” Lung told CNA that they “champion human rights really.”

“It's about people being able to say, I'm human and sexual orientation is so wide. Being gay and lesbian is part of it; coming out of it is part of it as well."

Some in the gay community have however highlighted that being a former transsexual does not qualify one to counsel others about their homosexuality.

He is a “former transgender person, who now claims to be ex-gay… transgender doesn't equal homosexual. I can buy that he used to live as a woman, and now lives as an effeminate man, gender can be fluid like that, but that has nothing to do with homosexuality.” One wrote in an Internet discussion group.

Lung said in the interview, "This is very much based on the Alcoholic Anonymous self-help principles. So people come; it's an environment that is friendly, warm, based on friendship, encouraging people to take small steps to talk about the issues, recognise why they are doing certain things, find resolutions."

Eileena Lee, the founder of RedQueen!, a list for queer women in Singapore, however disagrees with the premise of the principles his proposed "gender health" programme is based on. She points out homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism – not unlike heterosexuality – is not an addiction and thus using similar principles to treat alcoholics is not a viable “solution” if one is needed at all.

While it is not clear from Liberty League's web site whether they are running Christian based programmes, the Exodus Asia Pacific web site (www.exodusasiapacific.org) which lists Liberty League as an “outreach ministry of Exodus Asia Pacific into Asia Pacific region” states that it views ''homosexual tendencies as one of many disorders that beset fallen humanity'' and that ''Christ offers a healing alternative to those with sexual and relational problems.''
She also told Fridae in an interview that it is of great concern when a group which professes to want to help LGBT equates sexual minorities with alcoholics.

Lee advises those who intend to attend LL’s programmes to ask questions about whether the group is “truly about human rights” and if they would “support each individual’s decision to be who he/she wants to be – even if it means embracing a gay identity.”

On its web site, the American Psychological Association (APA) along with American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, stated that “together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals in the United States have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a cure."

In response to an "ex-gay" advertising campaign, the APA also released a statement in December 1998 saying: "The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient."

While it is not clear from LL's web site whether they are running Christian based programmes, the Exodus Asia Pacific web site which lists LL as an “outreach ministry of Exodus Asia Pacific into Asia Pacific region” states that it views “homosexual tendencies as one of many disorders that beset fallen humanity” and that “Christ offers a healing alternative to those with sexual and relational problems.”

It goes on to state that it believes that the “sexually broken person” is “freed to know and experience true identity as discovered in Christ and His Church” and the process “entails the freedom to grow into heterosexuality.”

When asked if he would recommend reparative therapy to anyone who is gay or lesbian, Rev Yap Kim Hao, a retired Bishop of The Methodist Church in Singapore, said: “Definitely not. I feel sorry that they are struggling and even Leslie admits that he has attractions towards the same sex although he is really transsexual.”

Explaining reparative therapy from a Christian perspective, Rev Yap said that their approach “to either suppress their natural inclinations or to change (their) sexual orientation to heterosexuality” is based on their perspective that sex, especially homosexual sex, is sinful and that they believe that they should be celibate in order to “find favour with God.” He warned that while some might be able to abstain for a while, “sooner or later they will be caught in the homosexual act.”

He is referring to the embarrassing episodes of scandal and failure leaders of the "ex-gay" ministries have long been embroiled in. In addition to scandals where high profile leaders such as John Paulk have been caught with their “pants down,” the "ex-gay" ministries have been setback by the new formation of groups of former "ex-gays" who say the ministries do not work.

Meanwhile, others have questioned the suitability of the group to receive funding from a governmental agency as many feel the group has not been sufficiently forthright about its potentially religiously motivated agenda and advocacy of a programme that experts say is harmful.

Alex Au, who is regarded as Singapore’s pioneer gay activist, told Fridae: "It is difficult to understand why the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Council would give S$100,000 to a group that clearly is out to promote a certain religious point of view. If the NVPC had done their homework, they should know that this is the discredited ex-gay movement in another guise.

"This ex-gay campaign is one of the hate crimes committed by some extremist churches. Professional psychologists around the world consider any attempt to remake sexual orientation to be very deleterious to a person's psychological well being. Such programs have no scientific basis at all and are motivated entirely by religion."

According to the NVPC web site, it is stated that groups applying for the New Initiative Grant (formerly known as the Volunteer Initiative Grant) are required to be secular among other conditions. In a press release dated Jan 6, 2006, LL revealed that it is a recipient of such a grant.

When contacted yesterday, an officer replied that the Ministry of Community Development Youth and Sports, and National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre will look into the enquiry but did not respond to Fridae by press time.

Gay group, People Like Us, plans to issue a statement and action alert later this week.

It was only a matter of time...

Benjamin James Saram From Today Online.

I remember watching the excellent television miniseries, Hitler: The Rise of Evil, which screened last year. It examines that dark period when millions were killed in the name of racial purification and nationalistic ambition.

One particularly powerful scene showed a young Adolf Hitler, homeless after being rejected by the Academy of Visual Arts in Vienna, huddled against the winter cold in an alley with other beggars. His companion rails against the perceived imbalance of wealth in Europe, as Jewish aristocrats walk past in their fur coats and top hats. Hitler takes this all in, and with the Anti-Semitic speeches of Karl Lueger, then Mayor of Vienna, it forms the basis of his beliefs. The rest, as they say, is history.

I've been reminded of The Rise of Evil twice by events that took place right here over the course of 2005.

The first was the case of Gan Huai Shi, better known as Racist Blogger No 3, who was hauled before a judge to answer charges under the Sedition Act for writing a blog — incidentally called "The Second Holocaust", which preached hatred against Muslims. It was revealed during his trial that the seeds of racism were planted when he was a child as the result of a traumatic incident.

The second event happened over the holiday period. Apparently during the countdown festivities on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve along Orchard Road, several men took advantage of the packed crowds to spray women with canned foam and molest them while they were incapacitated.

According to several anecdotal accounts, a lot of these perpetrators were foreign workers. Police later clarified that the eight men apprehended were a mix of Singaporeans and foreigners.

Of all the opinions offered on the issue, the one that caught my attention was written by popular blogger Wendy Cheng (aka "Xiaxue"), who espoused banning the sale of aerosol foam and/or foreign workers from street parties in Singapore.

One particularly acrid remark posted on Dec 27 read: "I heard Orchard road was full of them (foreign workers), molesting and spraying our girls!! Why are we sharing Orchard road with them?!"

She also applauded the new dance club in town, the Ministry of Sound, for its exclusivity, asking rhetorically, "would you like to party with Foreign Workers?"

At the height of her tirade, she questioned why foreign workers are allowed at public events, stating that they terrorize girls, and "don't contribute to shopping centre sales". She drew a variety of reactions from readers, many of whom supported her views. But perhaps sensing that her posts may have become too offensive, she toned down her rhetoric and backpedalled by saying that "they (foreign workers) aren't all bad".

Ironically, it is this "toned down" final post on the subject that I find most chilling. She had written, on Jan 3: "Realise that we practice discrimination every single day. We discriminate (sic) looks, education, intellect, dressing, and a lot more.

"Modelling agencies do not employ the ugly … Mensa does not welcome people with low IQ … Platinum card owners do not allow the poor to join their ranks … SIA does not employ short girls …

"Is it really ok to discriminate these other things and not race? Food for thought."

That a tertiary-educated 22-year-old (supposedly with an IQ in the top 2 per cent of the population) would be capable of such xenophobic views does not scare me. What does chill me is that she thinks her views are comparable to how corporations select their staff and how banks apply demographic segmentation for marketing reasons.

(And for the record, Mensa does not reject people who get a low score on the IQ test. All aspirants who don't make the 98 per cent percentile cut for full membership may join as associates, which allows them access to all activities.)

What makes all this even scarier is that her blog boasts a hit rate of roughly 70,000 daily, and she has won several blog popularity awards over the years. When enough people tune in to one person's view and start feeling an affinity with that person, should we as Singaporeans not be worried? What if some misguided young person reads this stuff and it shapes his attitude towards foreign workers? What if he grows up to be a policy maker?

Ms Cheng's convictions, like Gan's, were not formed overnight. On her blog, she alludes to being molested, and witnessing people being molested, by foreign workers and other assorted louts since childhood.

However, just like Gan needs to learn that a long-ago act he felt wronged his family is not representative of the entire racial community, Miss Cheng needs to learn that migrant workers are not responsible for all, or even a majority of, sexual crimes here.

Of greater worry, according to 2004 statistics on the Singapore Police Force website, is the increase in molest cases reported in nightspots, the very places which Miss Cheng says are "safe" because foreign workers are generally excluded from them (economically, at least).

I do not dispute that a number of women during the street parties were accosted by foreigners. I believe the judiciary will come down hard on the perverts (Singaporeans included) caught, and rightly so. Perhaps legislation should be introduced to make penalties for outrage of modesty harsher if committed at large public events. The authorities should also look into ramping up security at such events.

The bottom line is, there are several ways to combat the scourge of sexual crime. Pinpointing specific nationalities or races as convenient suspects, however, is not one of them.

Especially if your blog readership consists of younger persons who may not have the maturity to handle anecdotal information with objectivity.

You do not want to be the one who inspires another Hitler.

This was contributed by a reader

Found a rather interesting article while surfing today. Yes I am aware of a certain blogwar going on but I have also read certain comments made by a rather popular blogger before they were deleted.

The Farce City by Ana Jumari

Almost 30 years later, New York Times writer Steven Erlanger (NY Times, May 13, 1990) points out that "Singaporean officials now like to speak of the city-state as a mosaic of cultures --- a successful amalgam of immigrant peoples who have made an implausible nation succeed through hard work, tough government, anti-Communism and free enterprise."

Looks great on the brochure doesn't it?

And for the longest of time, I've had to grapple with the fused idea that my country is both "multi-racial" and "Chinese". Which is it? Define "multi-racial." Four ethnic groups crammed on this little island. This island renowned for "political stability."

One interesting question: Isn't this all a masquerade?

Ku Klux Klansman, Black Nationalist, Serb, Bosnian, Yugoslav, Palestinean, Israeli --- ethnic discrimination amasses libraries of books in the histories of this planet. And people wonder what it is about Singapore that keeps its people so harmonious. Think it's the water? *shrug*


"Singaporeans are not blind to the racism that exists but [choose] to be blind --- for a simple reason -- harmony and peace." -- Vin

Every single day, four different races ride in the same buses, the same trains. And every single day, each is gossiping about the other.

I have come to realize a sad fact growing up in this country -- native Malays and Indians will always be second-rate citizens wherever we go. And if I know it, most of my comrades here know it, too.

[...]

" ... the thing about racism is not to let it get to you, but to keep going in spite of it and prove the attitudes wrong. If you let it get to you, then --- these chauvinists have succeeded in their hate campaign. Little solace, but all I can say is, welcome to the unfortunate real world of Singapore, my friend."

I have only posted extracts here but to read the complete article ....

First spotted on chlim01 is bored

The city-state is keen to attract more conferences and other big events to boost tourism - Singapore ready to cane World Ban/IMF protestors

What sort of tourists are they hoping to attract - sadomasicistic? Sounds like a very welcoming place.

SINGAPORE, Jan 17 (Reuters) - Singapore's government said it is prepared to cane or imprison protesters who commit violent crimes during the annual World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings, to be held in the city-state in September.

The World Bank and IMF expect about 16,000 people to attend their annual meetings, which often attract anti-globalisation demonstrations and other protesters.

Tightly controlled Singapore bans public demonstrations or protests, and uses punishments including caning and the death penalty to curb crime.

"The Police would not hesitate to investigate and prosecute any breach of our laws," Wong Kan Seng, Singapore's Minister for Home Affairs, told Parliament on Monday, according to a written answer to questions distributed by the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts on Tuesday.

"This is especially so for any person or groups committing violent crimes such as vandalism, arson, and causing hurt which would attract severe punishment, including caning and imprisonment," Wong said.

Singapore attracted worldwide attention in 1994 when an American teenager, Michael Fay, was caned for vandalism.

The city-state is keen to attract more conferences and other big events to boost tourism. The World Bank/IMF meeting is an opportunity for it to show off its modern infrastructure.

Govt cannot claim that it was “misled” in NKF scandal: Chee
16 Jan 06

Friends, ladies and gentlemen,

Before I tackle the question of the Government’s role in the NKF scandal, let me give you a quick round-up of the developments thus far. First, here was the list of abuses and misuse of donations that was revealed in the KPMG audit:

· Durai’s annual salary and bonuses: $600,000 a year.

· Durai given backdated salary increments; in 1997 given increment 39% backdated by 11 months.

· He was paid $187,000 for "overtime" between 1997 and 2003.

· In 1999 his leave was raised from 21 to 31 days per annum which was then backdated to 1992. He cashed the unused leave for $423,000 between 1995 and 2003 when NKF employees were not permitted to do so.

· He charged an average of $32,952 a month to his corporate credit card in 2004.

· Durai received numerous salary increments.

· He flew first class as did other Board directors and senior volunteers.

· Matilda Chua, a former employee, was given a backdated raise when she resigned.

· She received an additional 6 months' bonus of $75,000 and an ex-gratia payment of another $75,000 on her departure.

· She also cashed in her unused leave for $79,195.

· She then came back as a member of the Board.

· NKF signed 2 contracts worth $7.5 million with companies owned by Durai's personal friend.

· Matilda Chua had an interest in one of the companies.

· Durai and others went on a study tour of Las Vegas in 2004 for $70,000.

In 2004, however, the Government was still defending NKF. Ministers Khaw Boon Wan and Lim Hng Kiang were still singing the praises of an organization and its staff when the rot had already set in. Mr Khaw lauded NKF’s operations and wanted the organization to remain transparent. He said: “I take my hat off to the NKF.” Mr Lim assured everyone that NKF was on “quite a sound record.”

I highlight these statements made by the Ministers not to show how silly they now in retrospect because Mr Khaw Boon Wan has admitted as much. Words like “duped”, “misled”, “naïve”, and “oversight” were used liberally in the aftermath of the KPMG exposē.

Parliamentary statements in 2004, however, indicate otherwise.

For example, in Parliament on 19 April 2004, NMP Braema Mathi had raised the concern of NKF’s computation of the amount of donated money going to the beneficiary. Second Minister for Finance Lim Hng Kiang brushed off the matter and concluded that NKF was” on quite a sound record.” The following was the exchange:

Braema Mathi: “…NKF, in the public domain, has made two announcements of 52 cents coming back to the beneficiary, as well as 56 cents…What I am raising here with this incident is that different definitions do go into making up what comes back to the beneficiary in terms of a precise dollar value. There needs to be greater consistency in the factors that go into such computation.”

Lim Hng Kiang: “…[NKF] put up the press release and explained the differences between 52% and 56% go to the beneficiaries. I recall also that they indicated in the press release that about 26% goes to the reserves. So, actually, if you add up the two numbers, nearly 80% goes to the beneficiaries. I think that puts NKF on quite a sound record.”

The NMP also brought up the question of transparency and suggested that NKF reveal the salary of its CEO. Mr Lim left it to the NKF to decide whether it wanted to tell the public (remember, this was in spite of the misgivings many quarters had over NKF). He said:

“…this is a decision by NKF whether to disclose the salaries of the CEOs. Here, I have some sympathy for their dilemma. If they do not disclose, then there will be critics who say they are not transparent. If they disclose, there will also be critics who will say that whatever they pay are too high. So I think they are caught between a rock and a hard place. I think it is their decision not to disclose.”

If there was ever any doubt that concern was brought to the direct attention of the Government, it was removed by this statement from Ms Braema Mathi: “NKF's reserves…[are] in dire need of better governance.”

To put the public’s unease over the NKF’s compliance with regulations, Mr Lim Hng Kiang told Parliament in 2004:

Lim: “Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important to have clear guidelines on the raising and utilisation of funds to maintain public confidence in our non-profit organisations and their programmes. There are essentially three questions the public is most interested in. First, what methods are used to raise the money? Second, how much of the charity dollar is used to raise funds? And, finally, how is the money spent or saved?”

Of the three questions, the third is the most relevant to the issue today: Was NKF in compliance with regulations over how the money spent or saved?

PAP MP Charles Chong asked Minister Lim point-blank: “Sir, could the Minister tell us whether the National Kidney Foundation is in full compliance with all the current guidelines that he mentioned just now in the collection and utilisation of the funds that it receives from the public?”

Mr Lim did not mince words: “Mr Speaker, Sir, the NKF is in full compliance with the regulations.” (emphasis added)

From the above parliamentary exchanges, it can be seen that the Government was alerted to questionable practices in the NKF. Not only did Mr Lim ignore these warnings he categorically told Parliament that he had “full confidence” that NKF had complied with regulations.

Then there was the matter of the National Council of Social Services (NCSS). On Dec 31, 2001, the NCSS revoked the IPC status of NKF. The NCSS took action because it saw the problems within the NKF. And yet, within a month the Ministry of Health reinstated the NKF’s IPC status.

Now read what Mr Lim told Parliament in 2004: “[The Ministry of Finance] has certain criteria by which [it] evaluates applicants who want IPC status, and these criteria are set by IRAS, and we make sure that people who apply have to qualify before they are given this IPC status.” (emphasis added)

In other words we are given to believe that there was an active search for answers from the NKF before NKF was given clearance to reclaim its IPC status.

Before we go further, let’s do a quick recap. There were several occasions in which NKF’s operations were questioned:

· Criticisms by NKF volunteers which led to Durai taking defamations suits against them in 1997 and 1998.

· Letters to the press from 2002-2004 questioning NKF’s practices.

· NCSS revoking NKF’s bid for IPC status.

· Statements in parliament pointing to problematic operations in NKF.

With all these warning signs, can the Government claim that it was “misled” and that it was an “oversight” that allowed the abuses to continue for years?

What is especially noteworthy is that the Government not only ignored these warnings, it actually overruled the NCSS. This indicates that the Government felt that the concerns of NCSS were misplaced. Remember that Mr Lim had told Parliament that the MOF “makes sure” that applicants for IPC status the criteria that it sets before approval is given. How can the Government say that it “makes sure” and gives the assurance that the NKF was in “full compliance” with the guidelines, but then later claim to have been “misled”?

Think about it this way. A driver speeding along a highway comes across a sign asking him to slow down. He continues to speed on. Another signpost reminds him to slow down again, and again he speeds on. The third signpost comes up and this time the driver stops, gets out of his car, takes the signpost down and then speeds down the road again. Further down the road someone frantically waves to the driver to pay attention to the fourth slowdown sign. The driver acknowledges the person and the sign, but then picks up speed. Not long after he crashes and kills someone.

Can the driver now claim that he was “misled” and that it was an “oversight” that he didn’t slowdown? What do you think the judge would say?

There are several urgent questions that need to be asked:

1. Why did Lim not make greater effort to look into the matter of how the expenditure was computer when it was pointed out to him that there were discrepancies? Even if the audited reports did not raise any alarm, there were plenty of other sources that had, repeatedly through many years, drawn the attention of the Minister to the problems. Why were these ignored?

2. Not only were warnings ignored, the Government actually overruled NCSS’ decision to rein in the NKF. Did the Government seek the feedback of NCSS and find out why it had revoked NKF’s IPC status? If it did, what did the NCSS tell the Government? If not, why not?

3. What questions were asked of NKF before the IRAS reinstated the NKF its IPC status?

4. Why is the MOF keeping so quiet?

The scary part is that if TT Durai had not sued, NKF would have gone on merrily doing what it did.

Clearly there was no transparency. The mystery over what happened when the Government overruled the NCSS and reinstated NKF’s IPC status remains. The Government said it was all right for NKF not to reveal Durai’s despite mounting evidence that there was abuse.

Will there be any accountability? Going by what Mr Khaw has said, we shouldn’t hold our breath. After all, how can we hold people who have been duped and misled – the victims – responsible?

Now think of everything else that is going on right now. The Government won’t open the books of the GIC, HDB, CPF, etc. and insists that everything is all right just as Messrs Khaw and Lim were telling us that everything was all right with NKF.

And when questions are asked, lawsuits start flying. Suits lead to silence. Silence is taken as support.

PAP MP Halimah Yacob said of the NKF matter: “There was a total failure of checks and balances and all those who were supposed to supervise and act as guardians of the public interest failed in their task. The public was completely misled and their trust was abused.”

Wise words no doubt. Pity that she cannot see that it is the very organisation that she belongs to and works for that ensures the total eradication of a checks-and-balance system, system that only democracy provides. But listen to what her bosses say:

1. Lee Hsien Loong: Singapore “doesn’t aspire to be a Western-style democracy.”

2. Goh Chok Tong: “[Singaporeans] have rejected Western-style liberal democracy and freedoms.”

3. Teo Chee Hean: “A two-party system would put us on the dangerous road to contention when we should play as one team.”

4. George Yeo: Singapore cannot function “solely one a one-man-one-vote democracy.”

5. Lee Kuan Yew: “We haven’t found it necessary yet [to change the one-man-one-vote system]. If it became necessary we should do it.”

With these pronouncements and the ability to make, amend, and break the law at will, it is realistic to bring about a state of democracy and everything else that goes with it, including transparency and accountability, checks-and-balance, etc?

So what’s the solution?

Train activists in nonviolent action. That’s the only way the Singaporeans are going to be able to demand transparency and accountability and checks and balance in Parliament.

We need to empower ourselves. We need to break the mental shackles of fear and helplessness. We need to say that we will not submit to intimidation and repression any longer. I leave you with a quote by a 16th century French philosopher Etienne de la Boatie:

He who dominates over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least…among the infinite numbers of dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power you confer on him to destroy you. How has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you, except through you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you? If you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you? If you were not traitors to yourselves?

We, the people, need to demand change. As Frederick Douglass, a black American abolitionist once said: " Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”

Originallty posted to me from Free Speech Singapore.

Weekend • January 14, 2006
VAL CHUA
Assistant News Editor
val@newstoday.com.sg

CONTROVERSY has trailed the Buangkok MRT station for the past two-and-a-half years — right up to its long-awaited opening day.

On Friday, while preparations went into overdrive for the carnival to celebrate the opening of the $80-million station on Sunday, drama knocked on its doors yet again. This time, it was over some "Save the White Elephants" T-shirts that former Raffles Girls' School (RGS) students were planning to sell at the carnival.

That day, the students and Punggol South organisers received a reminder from the police that they needed a fund-raising permit before they could sell the T-shirts to the public, in line with existing regulations. The 27 students were also told that they might break the law if the T-shirts were worn "en masse".

The last minute reminder had apparently caught the 17-year-old students — who had created the T-shirts last year after the infamous white-elephant incident — off guard. When contacted, a police spokesperson confirmed that the advisory was sent out.

"In view of the nature of the event, we had advised the organisers that they should be aware that the wearing of T-shirts en masse may be misconstrued by some as an offence under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public & Order & Nuisance) (Assemblies & Processions) Rules. Should Police receive any report or complaints, we would have to look into the matter. This is consistent with all reports made to the Police," he told Today.

But the police have no objections to the fund-raising initiative per se, and are prepared to expedite the permit, which normally takes three days to process.

"In this case, we have made an exception for the students. We have communicated to the event organiser that the fundraisers can still apply for a permit on Saturday, as long as they are able to produce a memo of understanding with the charitable organisation," said the police spokesperson on Friday night.

The latest drama caps the bumpy ride surrounding the Buangkok MRT station, which will finally open after two-and-a-half years of lobbying, including the placement of eight cut-outs of white elephants in August, which resulted in the police issuing a stern warning to a grassroots leader.

The then-RGS girls were inspired by the incident to create the T-shirts, selling them at $12 each, to raise funds for Youth Guidance, a charity that helps youth at risk. They managed to sell all but 60 of some 300 T-shirts.

Calling themselves Project White Elephant, the girls — formerly from class 415 in RGS — had said in a Lianhe Zaobao interview that they had always taken a strong interest in current affairs and the Buangkok incident had caught their attention.

They wanted to "galvanise the youth of today to rise up from the apathy they are stereotyped with and take an active role in airing their views".

In an infosheet which they sent to potential buyers of the T-shirts, they had said: "Even though the White Elephant has become our mascot and symbol for the project, we are in no way attempting to judge or condone the Buangkok MRT incident.

"Rather, we are using the accidental fame of the elephants to spark interest in our project; they also serve as a reminder that legal boundaries are important and should be adhered to even while expressing one's views and opinions about political issues."

Impressed by their entrepreneurial spirit and derring-do, Punggol South grassroots leaders had invited the team to set up a stall at the opening ceremony of the station.

Commenting on the latest police advisory, a grassroots leader remarked: "There's no reason for them to protest, because the station is going to be opened!"

Some 5,000 residents and non-residents — who had each bought tickets at $3 — are expected to turn up this Sunday. A 240m long ribbon will be placed around the station, allowing for some 400 residents to cut the ribbon alongside guests of honour.

Of the latest controversy, Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC MP Charles Chong advised the students: "The (fund-raising) permit is not a new requirement. We would urge them to get it."

He also assured the authorities that the participants had been given T-shirts to wear — but they are purple in colour, with "no animal images on it".

Related Links:
Singapore Windows Police hunt white elephants
after rare protest
Singapore Angle How it all started

SINGAPORE : Focus groups to help gays and lesbians understand their sexual identity are just one of the things that newly set up Liberty League plans to put in place.

The non-profit organisation has received a S$100,000 grant from the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre.

Liberty League says it is the first community service group of its kind in Singapore.

Its mission is to promote gender and sexual health for the individual, family and society.

To achieve this, it will conduct sexuality talks in schools.

It will also work with organisations such as the Girls' Brigade to educate teenagers on sexuality and biology.

The group will address issues related to romantic relationships, be they heterosexual or otherwise.

It says another important aspect of its work is focus groups for gays, lesbians and transsexuals who are grappling with their gender identities.

Currently, 70 percent of those it works with fall into this category.

There will also be support groups for parents of homosexuals.

Said Leslie Lung, founder and executive director of the Liberty League , "This is very much based on the Alcoholic Anonymous self-help principles. So people come; it's an environment that is friendly, warm, based on friendship, encouraging people to take small steps to talk about the issues, recognize why they are doing certain things, find resolutions."

Does it mean that Liberty League champions gay and lesbian rights?

Leslie Lung explained, "We champion human rights really. It's about people being able to say, I'm human and sexual orientation is so wide. Being gay and lesbian is part of it; coming out of it is part of it as well."

In a conservative society like Singapore, the league's work can be expected to be controversial.

But the NVPC's S$100,000 start-up grant has helped given the low-profile group a public platform for its work.

The money comes from the Ministry of Community Development Youth and Sports; a ministry official also sits on the panel that approves the grants.

Said Tan Chee Koon, chief executive officer of the NVPC, "Among teenagers, there are some who are confused about sexuality issues, and do need to seek clarification and help to work them through their confusion."

She added, "They need to go to some non-threatening parties to talk about their concerns."

Asked about the nature of the group's work, and those it will be working with, Mrs Tan says the NVPC is all for work that benefits the community.

She said, "We don't sit in judgment on this score but of course it must be for the public good. It must benefit the community; it must be about good works. But if somebody in this case seeks to go out to affirm gender -- in their case healthy sexuality and gender affirmation -- we are neutral on that score."

Mrs Tan added, "When I look at the grant, we are like social investors that invest in non-profit initiatives, which if they prove to be successful, the outcome is that lives are rebuilt, needs are met, volunteers are raised and community resources mobilised."

Liberty League will be officially launched on 25 January. - CNA /ct

*facepalm*

So the government is now trying a new tactic. Instead of prosecuting gay people for having sex, for giving blood, and just simply existing, they are now trying to make them straight.

It made my jaw drop, at first, to see this matter discussed so openly on CNA. For a moment, I thought my wildest dreams had come true, and the government was actually relenting on gay people - and giving funding to an actual support group.

Then I saw Leslie Lung's name, and it all crashed down around me.

Newsflash: Liberty League is an ex-gay group, insidiously hiding their real intentions behind polished words and a $100000 grant. At first, their statements sound promising - "clarification", "human rights".... then you read past all that glitter, and the real meaning surfaces. Phrases like "coming out of it" are a dead giveaway. Their statement reads: " ..... explore issues of sexual brokenness, orientation, gender identity and addiction." Addiction? Interesting.

What nauseates me is not so much that this is yet another Christian ex-gay group [because, make no mistake, this IS a thinly disguised diversity-intolerant Christian gay group] trying to "stamp out" homosexuality, but how the government, the media and Liberty League are colluding to make this appear all rosy and inviting.

If anyone knows anything about Leslie Lung, the founder, is that he is a self-proclaimed "ex-transsexual", who is preaching the message of heterosexuality to anyone who listens. He is the author of the book "Freedom of Choice", a collection of greatly exaggerated, depressing stories, mostly about being gay. He also travels around, preaching in schools and such. I know, because I was one of those girls once who were trapped in a hall listening to his ignorant words. That he, would actually set up a gay-affirming group, is beyond imagination to anyone who knows him. I've met him, and his new-found "heterosexuality" does not seem to have extended to his effiminate behaviour. The psychologist must have had a hard time trying to change that - that's the way he was born, after all.

I just hope that girls and boys out there, who might be struggling with issues of same-sex attraction and not knowing the real nature of Liberty League, will never fall into their hands. For it will certainly destroy them emotionally and psychologically.

Ont. energy firm challenges $5.4M judgment

Richard Foot, CanWest News Service
Published: Wednesday, November 16, 2005

A Canadian company wants an Ontario court to dismiss a multimillion dollar judgment reached against it in Singapore on the grounds Singapore's justice system is corrupt and unlawful.

The landmark case has wide implications for Canadians doing business overseas. Never before, say lawyers for both sides, has a commercial case dealt with the question of whether a foreign judgment can be enforced in Canada because the courts that issued it may be inherently unfair.

Lawyers for EnerNorth Industries Inc., a Toronto-based energy services company, will make that argument before the Ontario Court of Appeal in April, in a bid to avoid paying a $5.4-million US judgment awarded to Oakwell Engineering Ltd., a Singapore firm.

One of EnerNorth's lawyers, David Wingfield, said if the Singapore decision is upheld in Canada, a precedent will be set which would turn the Canadian courts into "little more than a glorified sheriff's department for all foreign legal systems -- no matter how odious or compromised they are by reason of government influence or monetary bribery."

Oakwell's lawyer, Ed Babin, said Canadian courts enforce judgments from other countries all the time and that refusing to do so in this case would carve out "a dramatic change" in the law.

In 1997, EnerNorth embarked on a project with Oakwell to finance, build and operate two power plants in India. In 2002, after the project ran into problems, Oakwell sued EnerNorth in the Singapore courts -- where each company had previously agreed they would settle any disputes.

The trial and appeal courts in Singapore allowed Oakwell's claim, awarding it damages against EnerNorth. Because EnerNorth's assets are in Canada, Oakwell asked a Canadian court to enforce the decision.

Last August, Ontario Superior Court Justice Gerald Day agreed with Oakwell's request, dismissing arguments by EnerNorth that the Singapore judgment is tainted by that country's allegedly corrupt and biased legal system.

"If this court were to accept the argument of general bias in this case, it would mean that no judgments from Singapore courts would be enforceable in Ontario," wrote Day in his decision,

But in documents filed with the Ontario Court of Appeal, EnerNorth's lawyers say Day failed to apply the proper legal test required of Canadian courts when enforcing foreign judgments.

In 2003 -- in a case involving a decision from a U.S. court -- the Supreme Court of Canada said Canadian courts can only recognize a foreign judgment if the foreign legal system meets Canadian constitutional standards.

The Singapore decision is the first foreign judgment, issued in a country other than Britain or the U.S., to be tested under this principle, said Wingfield. EnerNorth says Singapore's justice system fails to meet Canadian standards by almost every measure.

"Singapore is ruled by a small oligarchy who control all facets of the Singapore state including the judiciary, which is utterly politicized," the company's court documents say. "The judiciary bends over backwards to support the government's and ruling elite's interests."

The documents also say Oakwell is a subsidiary of a Singapore conglomerate whose owners have close ties with Singapore's government and ruling party and that the judges who presided over the case in Singapore also have close ties with Singapore's leaders.

Day said he could find "no cogent evidence" that there was specific bias toward Oakwell by the Singapore courts. However, EnerNorth says evidence of general bias, or systemic corruption, is enough to reject the judgment in Canada.

"EnerNorth is faced with having its assets seized under Canadian law to pay a judgment that was granted by a corrupt legal system before biased judges in a jurisdiction that operates outside the rule of law," the company's documents say

.

© The Edmonton Journal 2005

A Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) forum highlighted the government’s role in the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) Scandal; as well as transparency and accountability issues clouding statutory boards and Government Investment Company (GICs).

The event at Hotel Phoenix, Rose Room, on 13 January, 7 pm which attracted about 80 people lasted approximately two and a half hours.

The three speakers, in chronological order are Ms Chee Siok Chin, an SDP member; Mr M Ravi, a human rights lawyer and civil rights activist and Dr Chee Soon Juan, the secretary general of SDP.

MS Chee, who is also the moderator of the forum and one of the protestors outside the CPF building last year explained the purpose of the demonstration and the court actions taken afterwards. She went on to describe how other governmental various bodies such as GICs, HDBs and CPF are non-transparent by refusing to disclose their financial statements.

Her highlight of the speech was however targeted at the judiciary when V.K Raja released, in a 40 page report on the protestors’ originating motion, vigorously defended the public institutions instead of their freedoms to assemble that was protected under the Constitution.

Mr M Ravi delivered a humorous speech peppered with innuendoes and local slangs on how Singapore lawyers are cowed by fear. He also talked about the separation of powers and the need for a parliament with a strong opposition.

He went on to mention an impending case in Canada whereby EnerNorth Industries Inc., a Toronto-based energy services company will appeal before the Ontario Court of Appeal in April, in a bid to avoid paying a $5.4-million US judgment awarded to Oakwell Engineering Ltd., a Singapore firm. The company argued that Singapore justice system is corrupt and unlawful. Ravi explained that the results of the trial would have serious repercussions on the business community in Singapore.

Dr Chee who was the last speaker of the forum presented the audience with convincing evidence of warning signs on NKF such as volunteers’ complaints, questions by NMP Braema Mathi, letters to press by the public and NCSS revoking NKF IPC status. The ministers had however, prior to the scandal, publicly supported the NKF. His presentation effectively summed up the topic of the forum.

Related Links:
'Corrupt' ruling appealed, Ont. energy firm challenges $5.4M judgment, Canada.com
Judiciary steps into politics with decision on protests, SDP Media Release, 11 Dec 2005

Singapore govt considers bonus for low-wage workers - I guess this means that the elections are only a few months away. March 2006 seems to be the month doing the rounds at the minute. First spotted on Sg-Review.

SINGAPORE, Jan 12 (Reuters) - Singapore said on Thursday it would consider giving low-wage workers a one-off bonus as part of a S$1 billion ($612 million) programme to help the city-state's poorest.

Coming ahead of parliamentary elections widely expected in the first half of this year, the measures were proposed by a government committee set up to help low-skilled workers cope with economic restructuring in the city-state.

Chaired by Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen, the committee suggested paying the lowest 10 percent of Singapore income earners -- who take home S$900 or less a month -- a bonus capped at the equivalent of one month's salary. Those earning earnings between S$900 and S$1,200 a month would get a payment capped at half a month's salary.

About 300,000 people could be given the bonus.

The committee also recommended state grants to help low-income families buy their first government-built homes.

Singapore is Asia's second-wealthiest country in terms of gross national product per capita.

But its unemployment rate has hovered at about 3 percent since 2002 as manufacturers shifted thousands of jobs to low-cost countries such as China, Malaysia and India.

The government is due to give its response to the recommendations in its budget statement due in February.

Economists expect government spending to boost growth in the first half this year, ahead of general elections that Singapore's media said could be held as early as March 18 this year. The government has already earmarked more than S$2 billion to upgrade public housing, and has also said it will share a likely budget surplus with the elderly and soldiers.

And below I have added what the Peoples Action Party does during the years between 'elections'.

An Honest Day's Pay for an Honest Day's Work?
By Sylvia Lim

Sylvia, Chairman of the Workers' Party, is a Law Lecturer and a former police inspector

Singaporeans cannot afford to be arrogant these days. From being one of the 4 Asian tigers of the 1990s, Singapore's economic growth has been falling behind the rest of the developing Asian economies since the Asian financial crisis in 1997 (M Bhaskaran, 2004). Competition from low-cost countries who have built up capabilities has forced painful restructuring of businesses in Singapore in order to attract job-creating investments and to reduce off-shoring of existing Singapore jobs.

Faced with pressures to reduce costs, businesses invariably look at manpower costs. At the national level, policies have been changed to reduce wage bills e.g. reversal of the decision to restore the employers' Central Provident Fund contributions back to 20%, discouraging seniority-based wages and promoting flexi-wages.

To what extent will pro-employer policies be pursued at the expense of workers? Changes to the Employment Act passed by Parliament on Sep 21, 2004, should raise alarm bells for Singapore workers.

What happened in Parliament

By the amendments, the Commissioner for Labour was given the power to allow certain employers not to pay for extra work done by non-executive workers earning not more than $1,600 per month. Such extra work would include working overtime and working on rest days and holidays. Prior to the changes, such employees were statutorily protected under the Employment Act when they did extra work, being entitled to be paid not just their basic hourly pay but also 1.5 to 2 times their basic pay. The recent amendments are so wide that it is likely that, with the Commissioner's approval, the worker may receive no pay at all for the extra work done.

In moving the amendments, Acting Minister for Manpower told MPs that employers needed flexibility to deploy their work force. According to him, business cycles would mean there would be busy periods and lull periods. Therefore, employers should be allowed to give workers time-off during lull periods and, correspondingly, extra work done during busy periods would not be paid but would be compensated by time off during lull periods. The purpose of this restructure, as is the often-cited purpose in Singapore for any wage restructure, is to save jobs.

In exercising his power under the amended Section 41A of the Employment Act, the Commissioner for Labour will exempt employers from paying workers for extra work after considering "the operational needs of the employer and the interests of workers".

In opposing the amendments, Workers' Party Secretary-General and MP for Hougang Low Thia Khiang highlighted that the change would have the effect of removing protections for the low wage earners who had the weakest bargaining power with their employers, particularly in this lacklustre job market. Instead of having the law to safeguard them, the amendment would expose them to exploitation.

Impossible task for Commissioner for Labour

As businesses are generally run to derive maximum returns for shareholders, many employers would guarantee their employees only the minimum required under the law. Now that the law has allowed the Commissioner to grant exemptions, it is certain that employers would want to put up cases for exemption.

How will the Commissioner perform this virtually impossible task of excusing employers from paying employees, and say that it is for the employees' own good? The justification will probably come down to one of employers' costs. If the wage bill eats into the employer's profits, such that retrenchments are an option the employer is considering, then the Commissioner may exempt the employer from paying employees for extra work in order to forestall the retrenchments.

What severity of employer's "operational needs" would justify the Commissioner's exemption of employers? Would it be just to ensure the company breaks even, or to ensure that profitable companies keep up their profit margins to maximise shareholder's returns? Singapore has already seen pre-emptive retrenchments in profitable government-linked companies such as the PSA (Port of Singapore Authority), which were supported by the government as necessary moves. There is hence no assurance that, after all the pain of working extra for free, the worker's job is secure.

How the worker will be affected

Arguments that the worker will be compensated with time-off in lieu of pay are little comfort to him due to the heavy price he will have to pay.

First, he may be required to work longer hours within a working day or week, for no extra pay. For instance, he may be required to work for longer than 8 or 9 hours per day, or longer than 44 hours per week. Secondly, he may be required to work on rest days or on holidays, for no pay.

Prior to the changes, workers working extra hours sacrificed rest, and family and social life, because they were assured of supplementary income. Now, they may be required to do extra work for no pay, to be compensated by time-off, which will probably be given at a time of the employer's choosing. The time-off could be given even several months down the road.

On the other hand, there may also be workers who hold a second job due to the low wages they earn in the first job. By impinging on their time after work and on rest days / holidays, their ability to earn extra income will be curtailed. This could be dire for some families.

It is interesting to note here that, according to the Labour Force Survey Report 2003 (Ministry of Manpower), the average working hours for the poorly educated was higher (51 hours per week) than the national average (49 hours). The Report attributed this to the fact that more hours had to be put in to earn a living for the less educated (and presumably, poorer paid). Cleaners, labourers and related workers worked an average of 58 hours per week, with the average for female workers in this category being 62.3 hours per week.

Some might argue that the worker could always leave for a more scrupulous employer if things got too bad. If jobs were in abundance, probably so, but a lot would depend on prevailing market conditions and the mobility of the particular worker.

In the current employers' labour market where good jobs are not easy to come by, many workers may not be able to be choosers. Two days after the changes were passed in Parliament, the local media highlighted the outsourcing of jobs by SATS (Singapore Airport Terminal Services, a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines). A cleaner earning $1,400 per month whose job was outsourced told the media that she had been offered the same job by the new contractor for less than $1,000 per month and had to take it because she needed the job to support a child.

Having a balanced labour policy in Singapore

Attempting to allay employees' worries about outsourcing, Minister without Portfolio (the Head of the Labour Movement) told the press in September that outsourcing would create new jobs, though these opportunities may not be what the retrenched workers are looking for.

It will be critical in the coming months and years to track not just the number of jobs and employment/unemployment figures. Since international definitions used in Singapore define a person as employed so long as he has worked at least one hour for profit in the week preceding the employment survey, it will be equally important to ascertain the quality of the employment available. Another key indicator is how long an unemployed person takes to find re-employment, a longer period having great impact on worker skills and employability, and serious consequences on families.

According to the Labour Market 2nd Quarter 2004 Report (MOM), the long-term unemployment rate (those unemployed for 25 weeks or more) among Singapore residents was 1.7%, higher than 1.5% a year ago. Close to three in every ten unemployed residents (29% or 30,000) have been looking for work for at least 25 weeks, as compared to 25% (or 26,000) a year ago. Long term unemployment affected mainly the less educated (those with secondary and below secondary qualifications) or the matured (aged 40 & above). Respectively, they formed 66% and 60% of the long term unemployed. This presents unique problems in Singapore due to the fact that persons aged 40 and above in Singapore tend to have heavy financial commitments.

What about the recent scintillating GDP (gross domestic product) growth figures? A leading economist has noted that the income generated in Singapore (in growth industries such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals and semi-conductors), showed a higher profit component (40 to 45%) relative to the wage component, when compared to other economies such as Malaysia, USA and Korea (less than 40%). In other words, the income earned was being recorded as profits for businesses rather than as salaries earned by employees. Further, he noted that foreign-owned companies generated a disproportionately large share of profits in Singapore and few Singaporeans hold shares in these companies. While the generation of economic growth has been the government's priority, it has been suggested that more attention should be paid to ensure a reasonably fair and equitable distribution of the gains of economic development, particularly how to increase indigenous Singaporeans' share of economic growth (M Bhaskaran, 2004).

A Future of Fending For Yourself?

Globalisation has brought realities to relatively high-cost Singapore. Job losses to lower cost neighbours are ievitable. The Workers' Party accepts that dogged, old-fashioned protectionism may not be a practical solution. Everyone, including workers, has to bit the bullet and become more cost-efficient.

While businesses are expected to always have the bottom-line in mind and to try to keep costs low, what should the role of government be in all this? Can it just let market forces push workers into a corner? The Workers' Party believes that, at the minimum, the government should ensure that its citizens are paid fairly and treated with dignity, and have protection against oppressive employers. To this end, removing the right to be paid for extra work probably went too far. Further, it may be timely that a new labour watchdog to ensure fair labour practices and seen by workers as impartial should be set up. This could come by way of an independent official (Labour Ombudsman) reporting to Parliament.

As increasingly pro-business policies are pursued in Singapore, workers will be forced to take much more initiative to eke out a living by any means available. Some will be better able to cope than others.

In good times, both employers and workers are happy to work towards increased profits and income for all. In tough times calling for restructuring, employer and / or employee will have to lower their expectations. In Singapore, prevailing pro-business policies and limited industrial activism will mean that the trend of worker sacrifices will continue. How much more will Singaporean workers stomach?

Friday • January 13, 2006

Derrick A Paulo
derrick@newstoday.com.sg

Another day, another forum and the same question: Is Singapore really an open society?

Speaking at the Singapore Perspectives conference organised by the Institute of Policy Studies, author Catherine Lim and Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (Iseas) political scientist Ho Khai Leong said yesterday that the new administration has taken only "half steps" towards a more open society, in which political freedom is like a "stream which meanders and sometimes disappears into the ground altogether".

Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Vivian Balakrishnan countered that political openness was not an end in itself but part of the process of good governance.

According to Dr Lim, though, even if Singapore is to a certain extent succeeding in showcasing an alternative model to Western democracy, it is likely in the long run to lead to its own ruin.

The need for authentic expression was too important, she said. "It can neither be intimidated into permanent silence nor seduced by material wealth," she said. "And if it is, we are all worse off for it."

She called on the Government to let mavericks and "troublemakers" play their roles, as they give society a certain rambunctiousness. That kind of environment, she noted, nurtured a leader like Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

The alternative, she said, is a monolithic society, which makes standard copies of its leaders.

She also had a bigger concern.

"I've come to believe with a heavy heart that even if the Government wanted to do something about it, Singaporeans are so used to the Government making decisions for us, any major change will be viewed with alarm," said Dr Lim.

Another participant asked: "Are we depending too much on the Government changing, and not on ourselves changing?"

Dr Balakrishnan agreed.

"In a democracy, the people get what they deserve. The people decide whether they go along with policies. The people provide candidates for elections," he said.

Dr Ho, meanwhile, said there is now a greater need for openness due to "new realities" created by issues in the past year, such as academic freedom and the National Kidney Foundation scandal.

The latter "confirmed many Singaporeans' suspicion that something is rotten in the state of Denmark", said Dr Ho.

However, Iseas director K Kesavapany said later that "credit should be given where credit is due". "Did the Government sweep it (NKF) under the carpet?" he asked.

Wrapping up, Dr Balakrishnan emphasised results over openness or even partisanship.

"I don't really care whether the PAP is in power 50 years from now. I do care whether the Government 50 years from now is a Government with competence, honesty and commitment, one which is pragmatic and recognises the world as it is," he said.

"As for political dissidents, there will always be a place for them. But up to a point, they have to ask themselves: Are they willing to take responsibility, do more, get their hands dirty and have their results judged in real life — tangible outcomes, not mere theories."

So what is an open society?

In Karl Popper's definition, found in his two-volume book The Open Society and Its Enemies, he defines an "open society" as one which ensures that political leaders can be overthrown without the need for bloodshed, as opposed to a "closed society", in which a bloody revolution or coup d'état is needed to change the leaders. Democracies are examples of the "open society", whereas totalitarian dictatorships and autocratic monarchies are examples of the "closed society".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_society

Soros criticizes Singapore's lack of political freedom

(Japan Economic Newswire Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)SINGAPORE, Jan. 11_(Kyodo) _ U.S. billionaire financier and philanthropist George Soros on Wednesday criticized Singapore government leaders for using libel lawsuits to crush opposition politicians.

"Obviously, Singapore does not qualify as an open society," Soros said in response to a question at a forum on global open society in Singapore.He observed that politicians from opposition parties have been slapped with lawsuits for libel, which often resulted in exorbitant financial penalties leading to their bankruptcy, and as a result barred them from running in political elections."The use of libel and financial penalties can be a tremendous hindrance to freedom of speech and freedom of expression," said Soros, who is founder and chairman of the Open Society Institute.But he added, "Singapore is a prosperous society, and prosperity and openness go together...I hope Singapore will become an open society."Speaking to reporters later, Soros said, "When people who express critical views are sued, and sued out of existence by imposing financial penalties, they are prevented from participating in political life.""That is the deficiency of the system which I think by now could be abandoned."In its annual report last year, the U.S. State Department criticized Singapore for using libel suits to intimidate the opposition, saying the threat stymies opposition parties.Singapore has been ruled by the People's Action Party since independence, and opposition parties are generally weak and fragmented.Under three decades of rule by Singapore's first prime minister Lee Kuan Yew until 1990, Singapore was transformed from a colonial backwater to become Southeast Asia's most advanced economy. But critics say the economic wealth that Singapore enjoys today has come at the price of political freedom.Lee's elder son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who took office in 2004, has promised to pursue greater "openness" and a kinder, gentler style of rule in which citizens would have more say in the political process.

Related Coverage:
Yahoo Singapore not an open society: George Soros
Business Day‘Singapore not an open society’

Radio Rendezvous interview with M Ravi who has recently published a book 'Hung at Dawn'.

click here to download the MP3 file. (approx. 15 minutes)

Discusses the death penalty, the media, case law, recent attacks made on him in the local press, his new book etc...

Received via email from Amnesty International. A good round-up of the events of 2005. Any thing that you feel should be included, contact Amnesty International direct via email please.

SINGAPORE

Dear Friends,

Singapore: I write in the wake of two events in recent weeks that have added during 2005 to more open challenges to, or questions about, Singapore's human rights and political status quo. First, the execution of Australian Van Tuong Nguyen, aged 25, and the raw edge that his senseless death leaves. But there is one certainty: Singapore is now recognised internationally as a leader in executions, and other cases (see below) may receive more publicity as a result. And second, the death in Canada of former Singapore President C V Devan Nair, who became a severe critic of then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, was persecuted and went into exile. Extensive media coverage of his death referred -- at least in the international media -- to Mr Nair's continuing criticism of former political ally Mr Lee and their rival libel suits into recent years. Mr Nair was a founder of the independent Singapore and an acknowledged trade union leader. He was buried December 10, Human Rights Day, in Hamilton, Ontario.

In October, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong again called for a more "inclusive" society, while stating that a free-wheeling democracy and gay-[p]ride parades would not work in Singapore. Those engaged in last year's unprecedented challenges comment that, nevertheless, there is no real movement in that direction by the government. The Star article on C V Devan Nair wrote that "PAP dissenters like Nair, Ong Teng Cheong and J B Jeyaretnam show how politics is shifting in the minds of the new generation....[T]he PAP will find that governing in the new era isn't easy at all". (18/12 www.singapore-democrat.org)

[...]

The following information has come to me from reliable sources in recent months, though is not always validated by AI or falls within the context in which AI works. I would appreciate any updating. For the latest AI documents, please check our website at www.amnesty.org, or www.amnesty.ca, or www.asipacific.amnesty.org The North American academic study group on Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei now regularly summarises relevant AI information. (no website?; editor Ron Provencher rprovenc@juno.com)

Margaret John
Coordinator for Singapore and Malaysia
Amnesty International Canada (English speaking)

DEATH PENALTY & related: "underbelly...exposed"; "Barbaric, pure and simple".

- Van Tuong Nguyen: The campaign to save the 25-year-old Australian involved a small but growing number of Singaporeans and became a public issue in Australia itself for citizens, government, religious communities, NGOs and media. AI Australia spearheaded the campaign with letter-writing, candle-light vigils, government approaches and other events. AI's International Secretariat issued worldwide appeals.

But despite widespread and high-level appeals, Van Tuong Nguyen was executed on 2 December under the Misuse of Drugs Act for drug trafficking. AI considered his case met Singapore's criteria for an expectation of clemency: he had shown remorse, confessed at the earliest opportunity and cooperated fully with the authorities. The Singapore High Commissioner to Australia defended the death penalty as not a breach of international law and claimed it had a deterrent value. ((ST 1/12) AI continues to urge a moratorium on all executions with a view to complete abolition.

For the second time this year, campaigners in Singapore against the death penalty -- including the Anti Death Penalty Committee, the Think Centre and opposition leader Dr Chee Soon Juan -- spoke publicly at home and abroad and held public events. Dr Chee rejected suggestions that his comments made him a traitor out to undermine Singapore. Senior nun Sister Susan Chia described the death penalty as cruel and inhumane and a violation of the right to life. The sister asked Singapore's leaders to seek alternatives. Nuns in her constituency had cared for Van Tuong Nguyen's mother, Kim Nguyen, and his twin brother, while they were in Singapore. Some Singaporean campaigners stressed the utter cruelty of the death penalty or its lack of deterrent effect. Others accused the Singapore government of hypocrisy in maintaining a relationship with drug-trafficking in Myanmar. The fairness of trials -- especially the presumption of guilt and the mandatory death penalty -- were referred to. The Think Centre highlighted its continuing campaign on Human Rights Day, December 10, saying that no human right was more sacrosanct than the right to life.

The AI Australia campaign, organised by Anti-Death Penalty Coordinator Tim Goodwin, reached many Australians, thousands of whom became participants. Many have now joined the AI Australia Anti-Death Penalty network. Hundreds of Australians sent letters to the Singapore authorities, and some 450, 000 signatures were collected on what was reportedly the biggest petition ever. Australia's Catholic bishops and the Vatican were among those who called for clemency. Australian government leaders, the UN Special Rapporteur on executions, and human rights organizations within and outside Singapore all appealed.

Among Canadian letter-writers, lawyer Fergus O'Connor wrote: "we have learned that state killing is divisive and not purposive.....[D]rugs are a health problem....To employ the death penalty in a drug case is grossly disproportionate punishment." The Canadian government assures me that it is active on human rights in Singapore. However, I have been given no information on action on specific cases, and the Canadian government appears to fear that such action could be damaging.

Every Singapore campaigner or observer will be aware of the massive media coverage by Australian and international media, with frequent interviews with Tim Goodwin and references to AI's 2004 report Singapore: The death penalty -- A hidden toll of executions (ASA 36/001/2004) Every day, hard-hitting articles were published to a previously unknown extent. Representative among them was coverage by Eric Ellis, who wrote: "The looming execution has sparked yet another debate over Singapore's capital punishment program, leading the country's critics to wonder whether Singapore could become 'a better place than this'.....The underbelly of this city-state has been exposed by the Nguyen matter and Singapore's tight leadership coterie -- so used to control -- is powerless to do much about it....It's been a bad few months for Singapore's image abroad". (Bulletin 30/11) Michael Grattan in The Age writes: "Singapore's attitude is barbaric, pure and simple."


- Iwuchu Amara Tochi, 19 and Okele Nelson Malachy, both Nigerians , both facing the death penalty for drug trafficking, along with other foreigners, are highlighted by the Think Centre through its online petition. www.petition.com/TCAction/petition.html

- Briton Michael McCrae, accused of murdering his Singapore driver, has been brought back to Singapore from Australia -- prior to the execution of Van Tuong Nguyen -- and charged in court. He was accompanied by an official from the British High Commission. He was to undergo a psychiatric test after claiming he was suffering from stress at the time of the alleged offence. (AFP 5/10)

- G. Kirshnasamy Naidu was accused of murdering his wife, Chitrabathy Nanayanasamy in May 2004. He said he was a happy man as his wife "died in my arms". (ST 6/10, 10/11) )

- The lawyer of Filippina domestic Guen Aguilar, was to consider seeking a lesser charge to save her from the death penalty on the grounds of her psychiatric report. She is accused of murdering a compatriot. (Inquirer News Service 15/10)

- Indonesian maid Barokah, charged with murdering her 75-year-old employer, faces the death penalty if convicted. (ST 21/10)

- Liew Meng Choon, 65, was arrested after the death of his wife, following an argument. (ST 27/10)

- Lim Ah Seng, 37, was charged with the murder of his Indonesian wife, Riana Agustina, 26, after a four-hour stand-off. (vinita@newstoday.com.sg 4/11) )

- A Chinese national was stabbed to death in December. He was an "overstayer" in his mid-twenties. The owners of the flat in which he was staying could face legal problems for harbouring an illegal immigrant. (ST 10/12)

- Ngu Mei Mei was charged with ordering her Indonesian maid Yanti to climb from a window to hang out laundry December 2003. Yanti fell to her death. Ngu Mei Mei faces a possible three-month jail sentence and/or S$250 fine. (ST 16/12)



FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

- The European Union sent a delegation to Singapore in November, which met with Dr Chee Soon Juan and J B Jeyaretnam as well as with government representatives.

- Dr Chee Soon Juan, leader of the Singapore Democratic Party, met with the European Union delegation to Singapore in November. He was criticised by the government for his efforts, including media work in Australia, on behalf of Van Tuong Nguyen. He was said to have undermined Singapore by aligning himself with other Western democracies. (ST 24/11). Dr Chee called upon Singapore to end the death penalty and "become a democracy....Drug abuse in rates in countries such as Finland, Japan, Mexico, and Sweden, where there is no death penalty,...are not higher than the rates in Singapore." (Australian 24/11) Dr Chee protested the Straits Times' refusal to publish in full his letter regarding attacks on him following his allegations that Singapore has investments with Burmese drug dealer Lo Hsing Han. (www.singapore-democrat 13/12)

Dr Chee is quoted by Reuters as calling for civil disobedience against "unjust laws" and asserting that the coming election will not bring reform. Referring to Gandhi's non-violent opposition to British colonisers and the US civil rights movement, he said Singapore needed "free speech and a free press". (Reuters 24/11)


- J B Jeyaretnam: Met with a member of the European Union delegation to Singapore in November. A consensus resolution at the Inter-Parliamentary Union's 177th session in Geneva in October was adopted:

- Deeply regretting that Mr Jeyaretnam, who is now 75 years old, was not granted a discharge [from bankruptcy]...so that he remains debarred from practising as a lawyer and may be debarred from standing in the next elections.

- Cannot share the Speaker's view that this case involves purely private interests without any political connotation.

- Deeply regrets having to conclude, as it did in 2002, that the state of affairs in the bankruptcy proceeding clearly suggests that Mr Jeyaretnam was targeted for the purpose of making and keeping him bankrupt, thereby debarring him from politics.

J B Jeyaretnam issued a statement 12 December regarding the government's portrayal of an earlier Privy Council ruling: "the PAP government is resorting to chicanery to hide the truth from Singaporeans about the Privy Council's verdict on the 'convictions' I suffered at the hands of the Singapore courts....It is completely dishonest".

A government spokesperson was quoted by the Star in January as asserting that libel law is "what keeps the system clean and honest". Pointing to libel law used against people voicing concerns about benefits enjoyed by staff of the National Kidney Foundation, the Star posed the question as to whether the defamation law protects wrongdoings by "the rich and powerful". (1/1)

- .Martyn See: announced that a new 49-minute DVD is now available, an interview with former prisoner of conscience Said Zahari, who was arrested in 1963 in Operation Coldstore with more than one hundred people, all allegedly involved in "leftist" or "communist" activities. He was held without charge or trial 17 years under the ISA . Only Chia Thye Poh was held longer. Martyn See writes: "Ex-detainees...are often reluctant to publicise their experiences. Zahari's 17 Years marks the first time that an ex-political detainee has broken his silence on film."

A number of Canadian writers and artists have become active about Martyn See's situation. AI Canada participants in the annual December 10 Human Rights Day Write-a-Thon sent letters to the Singapore authorities about the case and an AI appeal was placed on the website of Singapore Democratic Party. As yet, he has not been prosecuted under the Films Act. The case was also included on the AI Asia Pacific Regional Office website in Chinese, as well as in the AI members' newsletter. The Films Act was expected to be brought up at a meeting of legal and media professionals at Singapore's Supreme Court to debate the relationship between the law and the media. (ST 21/10)

- Three of four peaceful demonstrators, who were asked to disperse by police in August, filed a motion in court against the Home Minister and the Police Commissioner. Ms Chee Siok Chin, Ms Monica Kumar and Mr Yap Keng Ho had staged a public protest in the wake of reports of the National Kidney Foundation's (NKF) spending on luxury items and a S$600,000 salary for its CEO. The organization's patron, the wife of senior minister Goh Chok Tong, had called the salary "peanuts". The three protesters said they were asking for Court guidance on "whether or not the police acted unlawfully" in asking them to disperse. (AP 30/9) High Court judge V K Rajah ruled that Singapore citizens had no right to stage protests because this would undermine the stable and upright stature of Singapore. (www.singapore-democrat.org) The Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) expressed alarm over the court's ruling, saying it "signals that Singapore citizens cannot express their concerns over the government and its policies even through peaceful protest, even though this right is supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution. " (www.seapabkk.org) The Singapore Democratic Party will hold a public forum 13 January to discuss the NKF concern and larger issues of government transparency and accountability.

- Outgoing US Ambassador to Singapore Frank Lavin warned that the government "will pay an increasing price for not alllowing full participateion of its citizens".His successor, Patricia Herbold, a lawyer, said she intended focussing more on openness in Singapore and its political system. (FT 13/10)

- Warwick University, UK, decided not to set up a campus in Singapore due to concerns about limits on academic freedom. (FT 14/10) Journalist Professor Cherian George was accused of advocating support for a civil disobedience campaign after writing an article on the subject. (FT 20/10)

- Singapore government criticised Reporters Without Borders (RSF) for giving it low marks on press freedom. RSF had placed Singapore at 140 out of 167 countries. The MInister for Information, Communications and the Arts claimed "our globalised economy thrives on a free flow of information". (AFP 24/10) Former PM Goh Chok Tong defended Singapore's pro-government media, saying that a liberal press was not necessarily good for every country. (AFP 1/11) RSF requested a meeting with Prime MInister Lee Hsien Loong during his visit to France in order to convey concrete recommendations for the improvement of press freedom in Singapore. (IFEX 29/11 http://.www.rsf.org)

- Bloggers are amongst those Singaporeans who increasingly press for greater freedom of expression. A ST letter from Teh Peijing from Texas, USA, calls for changes to the law, especially with regard to defamation suits. (5/10) Several writers asked whether more needs to be done to promote racial integration and whether the Sedition Act is necessary (referring to two bloggers sentenced for seditious acts) (ST 10?/ 10) Servicemen have been barred from posting unauthorized accounts and pictures on the Internet in what AFP termed "a further tightening of restrictions on the growing blogging community". (AFP 20/11)

- Journalist Cherian George called attempts by opposition activists to inject civil disobedience into Singapore's body politic an "intriguing challenge to the PAP's ideological hold." (ST 10/10 -- article based on an academic paper in Asia Research Institute's working paper series www.ari.nus.edu.sg)

- Theatre Director Benny Lim of The Fun Stage was ordered to remove all mention of the death penalty in a play shortly to be staged. "Human Lefts", which dealt with Shanmugam Murugesu's execution in May, was also barred from referring to any political leader. (Reuters 3/12) An art display featuring nooses had Nguyen's execution number removed by Lasalle-SIA College of the Arts, which threatened legal action if an Australian newspaper published a picture of the work. (Age 4/12)

Andrew Kuan, who appplied unsuccessfully in 2005 to stand as a candidate for the Presidency, withdrew his defamation suit against MP Inderjit Singh, will pay legal costs and provide a written apology, saying "Mr Singh has kindly agreed to forgive me and to reduce the amount of costs he is entltled to recover from me". (ST and Chan news asia 10/1)



DETAINEES

- Jehovah's Witnesses: Latest information puts 13 individuals, all under 25, in Singapore's Armed Forces Detention barracks. Eight expect to be charged a second time after the completion of their first sentence.

- Suspected Islamic militants: 36 alleged terrorists are reported detained indefinitely under the ISA. Mohammad Sharif bin Rahmat was detained under the ISA in November. Ali Ridhan bin Abdullah was released after reportedly responding positively to religious counselling. Seventeen others are under Restriction Orders, which ban them from leaving Singapore without permission. (AFP 4/11)

- The 1987 detainees: In his book The Justice Game, Geoffrey Robertson QC, who acted for the 1987 ISA detainees, quotes then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew as saying "It is not the practice, nor will I allow such subversives to get away by insisting that I produce evidence that will stand up in a court of law". Robertson comments: "Never have I acted for such good people....The struggle to free the detainees was a game which Lee Kuan Yew, himself an able lawyer, regularly played and always won." The Justice Game, with its many references to Robertson's missions for AI and to injustice in Singapore, is described as "an attempt to explain why justice matters...because we have an elemental need for reassurance that there is some chance of winning a legal contest against the powers that be". (Vintage, 1999 ISBN 0099581914)

- Said Zahari will shortly publish the second part of his memoirs as one of Singapore's longest-held prisoners of conscience -- 17 years -- under Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew without charge or trial. In the book, he refers to now Minister mentor as an "Anglo-American pawn" acting on behalf of "neo-colonial political, economic and strategic interests of Britain and the USA during the Cold War. He relates the physical and psychological tortures inflicted on fellow detaines such as Lim Chin Siong and his resulting mental illnesses, and calls for the abolition of the Internal Security Act. Said Zahari has lived in Malaysia since 1994. (www.Malaysiakini.com 9/1)


ILL-TREATMENT/TORTURE

- Human Rights Watch issued a 124-page report on foreign domestic employees: Domestic Workers Suffer Grave Abuses. HRW reports on physical and sexual violence, food deprivation and confinement, listing 147 individuals who had died from workplace accidents or suicide since 1999. The report points to payment of only half the wages received by Singaporeans in similar occupations. Contracts for the 150,000 workers (primarily from Indonesia, Philippines and Sri Lanka) will in January allow them one day off each month.(http://hrw.org/reports/2005/Singapore1205/.) Singapore authorities told the BBC that the report was a "gross exaggeration". (7/12)

- Police are now allowed to carry Taser X26 stun guns, which are imported from the USA. The guns send a 50,000-volt electric current through the body in five seconds. (ST 28/9)

- A clemency petition was submitted in October to the President to spare mentally-impaired teenager Iskandar Muhamad Nordin from the cane. He had been sentenced to two years in prison and nine strokes of the cane for molesting a woman, and had tried to represent himself in court. (2 /10 u-wen@newstoday.com.sg) Deputy Prime Minister and Law Minister S. Jayakumar commented that it was "neither desirable nor practical...." for the law to go easier on offenders with a low IQ. (ST 19/10)

- Mohamad Yazid Gani was sentenced to the maximum 24 strokes of the cane and 13 years' jail, after attacking an apparently drunk woman who later died. He had been previously imprisoned for heroin possession. (ST 11/10 )

- Chua Beng Hin, 42, found guilty of paying three teenagers to kill his former girl-friend, was sentenced to five years and six strokes. (AFP 18/11)

BUSINESS

- Canadian company EnerNorth Industries Inc. applied to an Ontario (Canada) court to dismiss a US $5.4 million judgment against it by a Singapore court, payable to Singapore company Oakwell Engineering Ltd. EnerNorth claimed that the Singapore justice system is corrupt and unlawful: "Singapore is ruled by a small oligarchy who control all facets of the Singapore state including the judiciary, which is utterly politicised." (Edmonton Journal 16/11)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Straits Times,Jan 7, 2006
Ex-detainees to speak at local forum
By Ken Kwek

FORMER journalist and opposition figure Said Zahari is among a group of former political detainees who will speak at an arts forum next month.

Organised by The Necessary Stage, the forum on Feb 26 is part of the Singapore Fringe Festival.

The other speakers include two other ex-detainees, lawyer Tan Jing Quee and former trade unionist Michael Fernandez. Also on the panel is playwright Robert Yeo, who wrote Changi, a tragic drama about political detention in which the lead character was inspired by Mr Fernandez.

They will take part in a discussion entitled 'Detention - Writing - Healing'.

Mr Fernandez, 71, who was detained from 1964 to 1973 on suspicion of being a communist, said the forum was not a platform to argue his case politically or to refute the charges previously made against him.

'It is simply an occasion for healing, for sharing one's experience with a younger generation of Singaporeans who weren't around during those tumultuous years.'

Mr Said, 77, a Singapore citizen with Permanent Resident status in Malaysia, said he was 'rather surprised' to be invited to a public forum to air his views in Singapore, given his criticism of issues such as the Internal Security Act, which gives the Government powers of detention without trial.

'Such an event would not have taken place in the country even five years ago,' said Mr Said, who is now an academic in Kuala Lumpur. 'Perhaps there is a slightly more open political climate now,' he added.

The former editor of the Malay newspaper Utusan Melayu was also president of opposition party Parti Rakyat Singapura. In 1963, he was arrested in Operation Cold Store, a government security operation which saw 111 left-wing politicians and trade unionists being nabbed for suspected subversive activities.

He was released in 1979 at age 51 and became editor of the economic journal Asia Research Bulletin. He moved to Kuala Lumpur in 1992 and took up a fellowship four years later at the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. The first volume of his memoirs Dark Clouds At Dawn was published in 2001. The second installment will hit Malaysian bookstores next month.

He is also the subject of a new film by local filmmaker Martyn See, titled Zahari's 17 Years.

Mr See, 36, has not decided when or where he will premiere his 50-minute film, but said he hoped it would not suffer the same fate as his last film.

Singapore Rebel, about opposition leader Chee Soon Juan's clashes with the Government, was deemed an illegal 'party political film' and banned by the Board of Film Censors last March.

Of his new film, Mr See said: 'Most Singaporeans, especially those from the younger generation, don't know who Said is. But his story is relevant, and offers an important if different view of Singapore's history.'

Wow. This is something indeed. One does wonder though, whether this will go the way of the PLU/NLB fiasco.