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.

SINCE the Singapore police force started arming officers with Taser stun guns about four years ago, the stun guns have seen action on more than 40 occasions – without causing death. In response to The Straits Times’ queries, the police said: ‘To date, there have been 44 instances where the deployment of the Taser has either saved lives or prevented serious injuries compared to other options of force.’

Source: The Straits Times

The stun guns work by propelling two barbed darts, which hook onto the suspect’s skin or clothes and send a 1,200-volt electric current through the body for five seconds.   This results in temporary incapacitation by inducing involuntary muscle contractions.

ST carried this report after an earlier report on Trusco, a Singapore-based law enforcement solutions provider that has brought in the latest range of taser devices and we take a sneak peek at what they can do.   Will Singapore police be tempted to use the device during APEC Singapore?  After all, G20 protesters were warned they would face police armed with 50,000-volt Taser stun guns and Singapore may take after this strategy to deter would-be protestors.

My concern is on the use of such devices against peaceful protestors in Singapore.  Is there any one or any body that can effectively object to and prohibit the police from using these inhumane devices of pain?

People traffickers are licking their lips as the world economic downturn pushes more people to migrate in search of work, Australia’s foreign minister told Asian ministers Wednesday.

Stephen Smith told a gathering of ministers and high-level officials from more than 60 countries, mostly from the Asia-Pacific region, that the patterns of illegal migration were changing and the region had to keep up.

He also announced new Australian aid for the Rohingya minority in Myanmar, hundreds of whom were set adrift in unseaworthy boats by the Thai military after illegally landing on Thai territory late last year.

Source: AFP

Hundreds of migrants from Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslim minority were rescued in Indian and Indonesian waters between December and February after being abandoned at sea with few provisions by the Thai military.  Scores are feared to have died as they drifted in open wooden boats for weeks before being rescued.  Thailand denies violating their human rights but has admitted it towed the migrants out to sea.  The Rohingyas’ stateless status is one of the main reasons for their desperate attempts to illegally seek work abroad.  It is heartwarming that the Australians are taking a more proactive approach versus merely ’speaking out’ as what the toothless ASEAN nations have shown to be so good at doing. 

Another concern that should receive urgent attention are the opportunistic traffickers who have the least regard for human lives.  In this regard, Singapore’s co-operation with Malaysia is commendable and I hope it will be the norm rather than the exception.  Human smuggling is a cross-border concern and ASEAN countries need to work closely together.

A 25-YEAR-OLD shopping centre in Tampines Street 11 is transforming itself into a fully-fledged e-neighbourhood.  By end-August, the 225 stalls and shops in blocks 137, 138 and 139 will:

• Sport cashless payment terminals, accepting contactless cards, such as EZ-link transport cards. These will work despite the wet environments of fishmongers or stalls of cooked food hawkers;
• Be captured on a web portal, where information, such as the stores’ location, opening hours and the kind of goods they sell, will be shown.
• Have online commerce options, so people can make orders through the portal, pay and pick up the goods later.

Source: The Straits Times

Call me a conspriracy theorist, but I really couldn’t help but wonder — is Tampines a ‘Big Brother’ pilot project?  After all, with all the electronic transactions taking place and wireless data flying all around, who’s to say that someone isn’t mining the information?  Don’t forget that when you buy your EZ-link card, you may leave behind a trace of your identity (e.g. when u pay for it using NETS) and so using the EZ-link card itself tantamounts to you using your own literal calling card.  With all the data, one could potentially conceive a profile of a resident – what he likes to eat, to do, how frequent he goes where to get what, what information he seeks or likes to share.  To push this a little further, even more information will be available if we start micro-chipping residents!

On a more serious note, I do hope that there are clear privacy policies and that these are communicated to residents.  It all seems so snazzy and exciting but we cannot allow wool to be pulled over our eyes.  At this point, there’s no one taking care of citizen’s privacy so we owe it to ourselves and our families to advocate what should be accorded to us as basic human rights.

Lee Kuan Yew had reportedly said (Straits Times, 20 April 1987):

I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters – who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think.

Singapore’s Botanic Gardens had an important role to play in the rubber revolution in Southeast Asia. Not many Singaporeans may be aware of these milestones. So the Singapore Botanic Gardens is having an exhibition entitled “The Seed that Changed the World” till the end of this month.

Source: CNA

Indeed, since 1859, it has evolved into a much-loved civic space and one of the country’s top attractions. This exhibition is meant to highlight the Garden’s significant role in Singapore and apparently in the region. Unfortunately, a blot has been made in page of its history when it ‘honoured’ Myanmar’s Prime Minister Thein Sein last month.  Consequently, I cringed when I came across the title of the exhibition – The Seed that Changed the World. It is delusional to aspire that the Garden to be a seed of change when it honours a man who stands in the way of democratic change and basic human rights.

The secret legal opinions issued by Bush administration lawyers after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks included assertions that the president could use the nation’s military within the United States to combat people deemed as terrorists and to conduct raids without obtaining a search warrant.
That opinion was among nine that were disclosed publicly for the first time Monday by the Justice Department, in what the Obama administration portrayed as a step toward greater transparency. The opinions showed a broad interpretation of presidential authority, asserting as well that the president could unilaterally abrogate foreign treaties, deal with detainees suspected of terrorism while rejecting input from Congress and conduct a warrantless eavesdropping program.

Source: IHT

Well President Barack Obama certainly has my vote.  He continues to demonstrate resolve in effecting change and in this case, to make governance more transparent to the American public. Without transparency, ‘public accountability’ is a misnomer. 

I also found the U.S Attorney General’s comments insightful.  He said before the release of the documents: “Too often over the past decade, the fight against terrorism has been viewed as a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties. Not only is that thought misguided, I fear that in actuality it does more harm than good.“  Can the same apply to Singapore’s fight against the scourge of terrorism?  Can we not resort to the use of the ISA but instead investigate and trial suspects in open courts?

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.