MM Lee had to say what is favorable for his political party and we cannot expect him to admit that something has gone wrong here. For those who have time, I suggest you look up research papers by academics who have looked closely at the problem. I said in my previous posting that globalisation is half the explanation and the other half is our govt policy response to globalisation and the widening income gap. The PAP did not change their old schemes in a big way as the world transformed in the past 20 years. Where did I get this from? Some of it from researchers in LKY School of Public Policy! They took a good look at the problem and concluded that the PAP policy responses were the main cause of the social divide.

Source: Lucky Tan

The income divide in Singapore is real and sad. The senior government officials and Ministers would not nor dare admit it because most of them are looking out only for their own pocket. Once the system is greased through and through, who would want to rock the boat?

To change the situation, it has to start first at the ballot box. However, to make changes at the ballot box, voters must first decide, are we happy with this system? Do we want our children to live in this type of society in the future?

When everything is just money and money and people at the top flush ?? conscience down the drain, then I think this country is doomed.

Arthur

REJECTED
Ms. Khin Ohmar, Burma/Myanmar
Mr. Nay Vanda, Cambodia
Mrs. Manichanh Philaphanh, Lao PDR
Sister Crescencia L. Lucero, Phillipines
Mr. Sinapan Samydorai, Singapore

INCLUDED BUT GAGGED
* Ms. Yuyun Wahyuningrum, Indonesia
* Mr. Moon Hui Tah, Malaysia
* Ms. Sawart Pramoonsilp, Thailand
Ms. Tran Thi Thu Thuy, Vietnam
Dato Paduka Zainal Momin, Brunei

* walked out

Source: ThinkCentre

At 11:30pm, Thurs, Thai foreign Ministry officials informed organizers of APF that 5 out of 10 civil society representatives were rejected from the interface meeting with ASEAN heads of government. The remaining representatives were told to be ready for pick up at 7.A.M., nearly 5 hours before the scheduled meeting.

These representatives arrived at the Dusit Hotel and were instructed that they would not be permitted to speak at the event. The only person from civil society allowed to make a statement would be Dr Surichai Wangaeo of Chulalongkorn University, who was originally appointed as moderator of the Interface.

The representatives were further shocked to learn that Singapore and Myanmar had selected substitutes from government-sponsored agencies. Singapore selected a substitute from a charity and the Myanmar regime selected Sitt Aye and Win Myaing, of the Anti-Narcotics Association (Win Myaing is a former high-ranking police officer).

These developments rendered the interface, an important space for civil society to engage with government officials, utterly meaningless. Therefore, the representatives of Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia decided to walk out of the meeting.

We feel strongly that the rejection of our democratically-selected representatives is a rejection of both civil society and the democratic process. Our delegates were selected during the 3-day APF/ACSC, Oct 18-20. Through this action, the governments concerned are fundamentally undermining the spirit and content of the ASEAN Charter that they ratified a year ago.

The behaviour of the governments of Cambodia, Laos, Singapore, Philippines and Burma in rejecting their civil society representatives sabotages the credibility of the ASEAN Inter-governmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) which is being inaugurated today.

Civil society has been committed to the objectives of a people-centred ASEAN as enshrined in the Charter. We have remained determined in our commitment to the essential dialogue process despite the insults and obstacles generated by some officials. We were flexible when 2 out of 10 representatives were rejected in February. Civil society engaged with governments for the past few months in order to improve the relationship, however it is clear that the commitment to engagement has been one-sided, now that 5 out of 10 have been rejected, and the rest were essentially gagged.

We are deeply disappointed at the irresponsibility and apparent irrationality of the governments’ position. At this time of crisis, we were absolutely committed to an opportunity to present civil society’s solutions. The tactics of the governments concerned prove they are not open to discussing solutions to the urgent problems confronting ASEAN – both governments and peoples.

Finally we plead with these leaders to stop trying to kill the spirit of an ASEAN community. Such moves not only hurt the development of the region but also the credibility of individual member states and ASEAN as a whole.

Southeast Asian nations inaugurated a human rights commission Friday which was immediately blasted by representatives of civil society organizations who walked out of a meeting to protest being cold-shouldered by five regional regimes.  A shadow was immediately cast over the body when the governments of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Singapore and the Philippines rejected members of civil society groups from their respective countries they had been scheduled to meet, said Debbie Stothard of The ASEAN People’s Forum, an umbrella group of non-governmental organizations.  The governments said they would not take part in the dialogue if the five activists were present, she said. Instead, Singapore and Myanmar flew in substitutes from government-sponsored agencies, with Myanmar including a former high-ranking police officer, Stothard said.  When the meeting took place without the original civil society representatives, those from Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia walked out in protest.

Source: AFP

After the opening ceremony, the representatives of the 10 summit nations signed into being the Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights.  Correspondents say the new commission is in part a response to criticism that the region is soft on human rights abuses by member nations such as Burma.

But observers have queried whether it will have sufficient powers to make a real difference.  The commission has no power to punish members such as Burma who violate rights and is meant to promote rather than protect human rights, activists say.  Rights campaigners have said half the Asean governments have rejected representatives nominated by regional rights groups for the commission and replaced them with their own. 

This appears to be a feel-good gesture – not to make campaigners feel better, but for the leaders to sleep better at night.

There was an interesting find from a member of SPUG forums.  Quoting from the Singapore Police website:

On 31st January 1974, a team of four terrorists comprising two Japanese Red Army (JRA) members and two Popular Front For The Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) members made a futile attempt to explode three oil tanks containing 5000 tonnes of crude oil each in the Shell refinery in Pulau Bukom. The aim of the JRA was to overthrow the Japanese “imperialist” government while the PFLP wanted to retaliate the “imperialist countries that were oppressing the Arab masses”.

In their bid to escape, they hijacked a passenger ferry named Laju and took the Singaporean crew members on board hostage. After six days of intense negotiations, the terrorists agreed to release the hostages in exchange for free passage to Kuwait with a party of guarantors which included Mr S R Nathan, the director of MINDEF’s Security and Intelligence Dept, Mr Yoong Siew Wah, the director of Internal Security Dept and Supt Tee Tua Ba, OC Marine.

On 8th February 1974, the four terrorists boarded the plane for Kuwait, together with the party of guarantors, thus ending the hijack incident.

It is no wonder that Mr Yoong was so upset when he discovered that the book “Men in White” gave him unflattering mention.  In his blog, he described it as “underbelly attack on his reputation from not entirely unexpected quarter.”  To recap, the authors had alleged in page 441 that Mr Yoong was asked to quit CPIB in 1971 after he was “suspected” of using his personal influence to assist his friend Mr Francis Seow, then the ex-Solicitor General of Singapore in a case.  Mr Yoong rebuked the allegations as baseless.

Mr Yoong wasn’t asked to resign and had in fact gone on to be Director of the ISD.  He later offered himself as a hostage to save the lives of the Laju crew (and probably earned himself a National Day Award that same year).  Understandably, Mr Yoong saw it as an “underbelly attack”.  The man had served the government and its leaders so impeccably well so how could they character-assassinate him?  His sacrifice is no small feat.  I mean, how many others have actually been so selfless in the face of grave physical danger?  Definitely not the Lees, or any of our multi-millionaire Ministers for the matter.

Who is the main accuser, the one whom Mr Yoong saw as “not entirely unexpected”?  According to Mr Richard Lim, one of the authors for “Men in White”, the material for the disparaging statement was taken from a speech made by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew at the Select Committee Hearing of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill which was published in the Straits Times on 10 October 1986.  So why did Lee Kuan Yew forsake his faithful soldier and servant then?

I gather that there is more to it than meets the eye.  I am sure it wasn’t a case where Lee Kuan Yew’s staff writer made a factual error in his boss’ script in 1986.  Did Mr Yoong offend the Lees during his career as Director ISD or as Deputy Commissioner of Hong Kong?  Or perhaps Lee Kuan Yew never did forgive Mr Yoong over the latter’s cordial relation with Mr Francis Seow. 

Whatever it is, the warning is clear — once you serve the Lees to do their dirty work (especially detaining people without trial), you can forget about receiving any honourable favours in return.  During Mr Yoong’s time at the helm, there were detainees from Operation Coldstore and of course Mr Chia Thye Poh.   Could Mr Yoong have done anything in his power to right the wrongs?  Only he would know.

Questions over the rights to air the English Premier League (EPL) as well as other sports channels will be raised when Parliament sits on Monday.   At least three MPs will ask the Acting Information, Communications and the Arts Minister about the recent successful bid by SingTel over the EPL rights.  Other questions tabled include concerns over the prices of HDB flats, the revenue generated from the Formula 1 night race, as well as the recent controversy over the Ms Singapore World pageant.

Source: CNA

Against the backdrop of such topics of ‘national concern’, Singapore’s key exports fell for the 17th consecutive month in September as demand from crucial markets including the US and European Union continued to decline.

Non-oil domestic exports fell 7.2 percent in September from a year earlier to 12.81 billion Singapore dollars, IE Singapore said in a statement.  The decline was sharper than the average 6.0 percent fall forecasted by analysts in a Dow Jones Newswires poll.  In all, total trade in September shrank 19.0 percent to 68.28 billion dollars from the same period a year ago. 

Let’s face it, despite the earlier evidence of recovery Singaporeans are not out of the woods yet.  Our parliamentarians are apparently unfazed, preferring instead to focus on sundry matters and other knick knacks.  

 

Mr Shah N, 33 had been trying to take his daughter’s stroller out of his car boot at a multi-storey carpark in Block 625A along Choa Chu Kang Street 62. As there was not much space between the boot and the back of the lot, he decided to stand on the wire mesh behind it. Unfortunately, the wire mesh gave way and he ended up falling through the gap.

Source: TNP

And get this – the town council says the mesh not designed to take weight of a human.  Then why use it in the first place? 

I gather there will be an inquiry soon, just like the one conducted after missing railings led to an 7-year-old girl falling four storeys from her block of flats.  What was the verdict then?  According to CNA, the inquiry concluded that this was an “isolated incident due to human error” rather than a fault in the system.

We can expect another similar conclusion, that the system was perfect, but humans are not (how else to scapegoat the grunts?).  But what kind of system will result in missing railings and ground meshings that cannot support the weight of pedestrians?  Obviously one that is less than perfect!  It appears the only way to shake things up would be from within the walls of the Parliament.  We need change, we need renewal.

A group of Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) leaders and activists were acquitted of holding a procession without a permit.
In his written judgment, District Judge John Ng noted that the [SDP] group had walked mainly on pedestrian pathways and did not attract “any significant” attention of the public.

Source: Today

I am proud to know John personally.

Arthur

SINGAPORE, Oct. 5 (Xinhua) — The Singapore Red Cross (SRC) has launched two month-long public appeals for survivors of Typhoon Ketsana and the Padang earthquake respectively.  According to a statement by the SRC on Monday, this comes on the back of the Philippines Tropical Storm appeal, which was launched just four days earlier.  The “Typhoon Ketsana Flood” appeal will collect donations for survivors of Typhoon Ketsana, specifically for those in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The “Padang Earthquake” appeal will collect donations for the survivors of the Padang earthquake.   The Singapore government has contributed 50,000 U.S. dollars to kick-start SRC’s Typhoon Ketsana Flood appeal.  The appeal begins on Monday for a month, ending on Oct. 30.

Source: Xinhua

Civic Advocator urges its readers to respond to this call.  Details can be found in the Singapore Red Cross Society website.

We help ourselves. Don’t expect others to help

Tom Wright painted a bleak picture of Singapore’s property sector going forward at The Wall Street Journal. His article ended with the following:
“I’m yet to see the light at the end of the tunnel [for Singapore],” says Mr. Tan, the high-end broker.
We would expect people to continue to dig the dirt and tell it to [...]



Our skin isn’t as thick as it should be

The Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) organised a seminar on March 4 to discuss Singapore’s political blogosphere.  Tan Tarn How, Senior Research Fellow and Research Assistant Tan Simin presented their paper on trends observed in the blogosphere.  As reported in the TOC, the researchers identified the following limitations:

The online-offline firewall, while somewhat alleviated by offline [...]



Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew – The answer to the African problem?

Recently, I followed a thread “Democracy and Economic Growth” which started in PoliticsForum.org.   Apparently, members there often question the role of democracy in a developing nation. “During the wave of democratization in Africa during the 90s, many people had renewed hope for the continent, immediately equating newly established democracies to economic growth. Are these democracies [...]



Tell Singapore government: Ask them a question or give a suggestion

We informed people about the “Tell Singapore Government” subsite and have received some interesting reaction at some forums.
See: 3in1 Kopitiam, Sam’s Alfresco Coffee, Singapore Kopitiam, SgForums
Our responses to some of the comments are listed below. If we are not answering some other specific questions, that is because we do not know how.
 

Petitions

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

I don’t know

Our Singapore

As seen by people

• 
  

• Purpose

To observe, analyse, present our position, and call for action. Read our articles, give your views, and learn together with us.