The man nominated to be the next United States Ambassador to Singapore has said that he would use ‘public diplomacy’ to promote greater press and political freedom in Singapore. Speaking at his nomination hearing on Tuesday, Ambassador-designate David Adelman, 45, said that these were the areas in which ‘Singapore needs the most improvement if it were to live up to the ambitions Americans have for democracy’.

Mr Adelman, a lawyer and Georgia state senator, made the remarks in response to a question from Virginia Senator Jim Webb, who asked if the US should engage Singapore in areas like democracy and press freedom.  ‘Make no mistake, currently Singapore is not a multi-party democracy,’ said Mr Adelman.  ‘And I intend, if confirmed, to use public diplomacy to work towards greater press freedoms, greater freedom of assembly and ultimately more political space for opposition parties in Singapore to strengthen Singapore into a multi-party democracy.’

Reform Party chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam welcomed a vow by David Adelman, President Barack Obama’s pick as Singapore envoy, to encourage the government to allow greater openness.  “The Reform Party welcomes the ambassador’s statement that he will use public diplomacy to work towards a genuine multi-party democracy in Singapore,” Jeyaretnam said in a statement.

We can only hope that the new ambassador will be a real change agent here.  However, the ambassador should recognise that democracy here should be for Singaporeans.  He should not try to pursue one that Americans “have ambitions for.”  Singapore does not need to live up to the Americans’ expectations.

Our nation is young and less mature than the West, what they have created and moulded over two centuries cannot and must not be forced on to us.  Opposition parties here must remember this, as they engage the new ambassador in his ‘public diplomacy’.

SHE had started piano lessons at a music school in Punggol Plaza three weeks ago and was already showing a flair for the keys. But while on the way to her weekly class on Tuesday evening with her grandfather, a car ploughed into Zhao Lin Qian, killing the five-year-old instantly. The pair were believed to have been jaywalking across the two-lane Punggol Field Road at about 8pm when she was hit. There was a pedestrian crossing as well as an overheard bridge nearby, but they had not used either.

Source: ST

I believe the print copy reported that the grandfather was ‘enraged’.  The grandparents arrived from China and were helping to take care of the deceased.   It was his first time accompanying her to class and he did not know how to get there, so Lin Qian led the way.  Mr Zhao added: ‘The car was going very fast and it just hit her. What could I have done?’ 

Well, you could have gotten her to stick to the pavements.  Perhaps it’s normal to jaywalk in China and hence his outrage that a car could even hit his grand-daughter who was ‘merely’ jaywalking.

Now don’t get me wrong.  The driver is in the wrong, and I think the choice of his car doesn’t help him (he was driving a Subaru Impreza).  But no punishment meted out by the courts could ever compare with the anguish he is facing now and for the rest of his life.   And the life of this young 27-year old hangs in balance, a jail term could destroy his career and dreams.

Why can’t pedestrians stick to the pavements?  I once nearly knocked down a woman who was arguing with her partner at the road side.  She threw herself onto the road but fortunately her partner dragged her back on to the side.  Who protects me if I hit her?

Perhaps public education and fines are passe in this day and age.  What does the Traffice Police have to say?  According to the ST report, ”the Traffic Police reminded all pedestrians that they should use designated crossings.”  And “motorists should also be alert and anticipate sudden occurrences on the road, such as people darting out, and slow down or prepare to brake when necessary.”  Wow, that could work in utopia, I guess. 

Our millionaire Transport minister should think of better ways to keep our roads safe for drivers and pedestrians (locals and foreign talent included).

Lithuania has been spotlighted over controversial legislation voted in by its conservative-dominated parliament in July, which is due to come into force in March 2010 unless President Dalia Grybauskaite manages to overturn it.

This new law bars the public dissemination of information deemed favourable to homosexuality on the grounds that it could harm the mental health and physical, intellectual and moral development of minors.

‘When lawmakers adopt homophobic laws, nobody can be certain that groups of people who hate us won’t take that as a green light to move against us,’ said Mr Simonko.

Source: ST

This issue on gay rights is complicated.  Personally, I wouldn’t want literature that promote homosexual activities distributed to my children.  Why?  Well, I want them to be like me, to marry someone of the opposite sex.  It’s my preference for my children.  Period. 

I am, however, dead set against homophobic laws that breed hatred towards the gays.  We are all humans regardless of orientation and no group should ever be victims of hate crime.  Do we have such laws in Singapore?  Most (or all) gays will say that Section 377A, which criminalises sex between mutually consenting adult men, is one such legislation.  To tell you the truth, I’m not sure how a homophobic law looks like.  Perhaps laws that are reminiscent of apartheid laws?  Conversely, would its repeal be seen by hereosexuals as a ‘green light’  for homosexuals to move for more rights in society?  Probably so.

And so here we are, in a stand-off where the going concern of S377A could decide what happens next.  While I abhor S377A, a ridiculously non-enforceable piece of legislation, I know that it plays a central role in maintaining some wacked form of equilibrium in our society.  I have no solution in mind.  I just want my kids to grow up ’straight’ and to also not hate the gays.   Is that too much to ask for?

A SINGAPOREAN man caught with a child porn video on his mobile phone at Darwin airport has been convicted and fined $5,000 reported Northern Territory News.  Rahmat bin Amin, 44, had a 20-second video called ‘12-year-olds’ on his phone, showing a young girl having sex with a man. He pleaded guilty in Darwin Magistrates Court to importing the video.

Source: ST

This is interesting news.  Why would the Australians check Rahmat’s handphone?  I mean really, have your handphone ever been checked while passing through an airport?  Unless, of course, Rahmat attracted the attention of the airport authorities as a result of some serious immigration-related matter or offence.  Another possibility did cross my mind – that Rahmat was the victim of racial/religious profiling by the Aussies. 

Well, I shan’t guess further given the lack of details.  A related concern is on how porn appears to be getting to your youths via the mobile phone.  A Sunday Time check with 15 teens who surf on their phones showed at least seven have visited porn sites, and two have watched or tried accessing content. Mr Poh Yeang Cherng, manager of Touch Cyber Wellness and Sports, estimated that the number of young people surfing for porn on cellphones could be higher than those doing so via personal computers. The mobile platform is “subject to less control and moderation”.

The response from MOE?  Mr Boo Hian Kok, principal of Beatty Secondary School, said “We can’t carry out spot checks to see what students have on their phones. The important thing is education; to teach kids to make good choices based on good values and a strong moral compass.”  Parents  also have a big part in this, although people like Rahmat, a father of two, are hardly good role models.

On the on hand, parents need to be strict but yet not lose trust in their children.  On the other hand, which growing child isn’t curious about the birds and the bees?  So how?  Perhaps this advice offered by one “Cabbage” is most satisficing:

• Kids: Go encrypt your porn. Don’t get caught, yeah?
• Parents: At least your kids aren’t doing the real thing. Yet.
• Over-paranoid parents: Ban them from hi-tech phones, simple.

Mr Khaw joins other ministers and MPs like Foreign Minister George Yeo and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Teo Ser Luck who have started blogging to engage the public in a more personal way. He said he wants to use such online platforms to share the Ministry of Health’s (MOH) plans, get feedback and suggestions and ‘forge consensus’. He added: ‘I hope to anchor in this platform a large constituency of Singaporeans who are interested in health matters, whom we can directly engage through this medium.’

Source: ST

Mr Khaw said he hoped to be open with the workings of the ministry through the blog, which was set up earlier this month and is not a personal one. ‘Every health policy should be based on sound arguments and we do not monopolise wisdom,’ he wrote. ‘If our policy is flawed and can be enhanced, we welcome comments and will adopt practical suggestions.’

If it’s not a personal blog, I suppose Mr Khaw will not be giving his personal take on policies and responding to public comments. Something which he may have learnt from Mr Yeo’s experience with Mr Chee Soon Juan perhaps? So what is the value of this MOH blog? Mr Khaw wants to share the MOH’s plans, get feedback and suggestions and ‘forge consensus’. Can’t this be done via MOH’s website? Perhaps the Minister doesn’t really understand the concept of blogging.

This lame effort by MOH to connect with the online citizenry is evidence of the PAP’s continuing failure to understand new media. This is their achilles’ heel, one which opposition parties should take full advantage of during the next general elections.

The UK Daily Mail reported that the Orthodox Church would be unwavering in its stance considering homosexuality. Spokesman Father Georgy Gulyaev of the Donetsk Diocese of the Orthodox Church said: “Thank God it’s impossible under Ukrainian law for Elton John to adopt a child.   The Church is strictly against same-sex marriages and the damage they cause. It’s written in Holy Scriptures that homosexual marriage and relations is a sin.  It is a sin, it is against nature, and it represents the dead end of human development.”

Source:  NY Daily News

According to the Church, “This is definitely a sin, there is no other word for it, and the church will never agree that people who have created same-sex “marriage” could also dare to adopt children.  This applies to all, including Elton John. He is a sinner.”  I wonder if a local Church, or Mosque or Temple for that matter, can just speak up on a social issue such as this openly (e.g. via the media). 

When blogging about the news portal Singanews, Sam wrote that people who subscribe to “mainstream family values”, whether or not a discursive camouflage for Christian doctrine, deserve to participate and be represented in the public domain.   They certainly do – everyone should and must have a voice in society.  And how can one separate family and personal values from religion?  Can Muslims separate family virtues from Islamic principles?

I await the day where there is true freedom of speech.  We can all agree to disagree without the need for any one opinion-maker to be demonised.  Only when there is freedom of expression would religious individuals desist from using secular forms as cover to articulate their views.

According to complementary Reuters articles today, Hollywood appears to have a new foe: capitalism. One article is about Oliver Stone’s new film, which portrays socialist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a “champion of the poor” who is “unfairly demonized by the U.S. media.” Another article reports on Michael Moore’s latest “documentary,” where he concludes that “Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil.” Both films premiered at the Venice film festival this weekend.

Source: The Alantic

The first Reuters article focuses on Stone’s complaint that U.S. distributors are showing little interest in his film “South Of The Border.” That’s probably not surprising, considering the U.S. is not on very good terms with Chavez.  Michael Moore takes a different route in endorsing socialism — by attempting to tear down U.S. capitalism. His film responds to the financial crisis by portraying Wall Street and banks as gamblers whose negligence almost destroyed the nation.

I wonder if we would get to see the films here in Singapore.  I guess we should, given that the contents do not feature Singapore opposition politicians.  Capitalism does have it evils as profit-centric policies and social policies tend to be at odds.  The former usually prevails over the latter resulting in social and income divides.  It is a shame if such revelations are censored by the capitalists.

FORMER information minister Zainuddin Maidin cited the split with Singapore in making his point in a column on Tuesday that it was important to learn lessons from the past.  In the column, published a day after Malaysia’s 52nd National Day, he said former prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman had to throw Singapore out of Malaysia because it was a ‘thorn in our flesh’.  Wrote Mr Zainuddin: ‘If 50 years of independence have given a deeper understanding of the poison sowed by Kuan Yew 40 years ago, the recent events mentioned would not have occurred.’

Source: ST

Mr Zainuddin was formerly the chief editor of Utusan, a newspaper owned by Umno. He was information minister during the premiership of Tun Abdullah Badawi. 

He alluded to concerns among Umno leaders that Malaysian minorities are questioning the position of Malays and Islam, and clearly suggests that Lee Kuan Yew had a role: ‘The special position of Malays and Islam and the other sensitive issues that Lee Kuan Yew disputed then, causing the outbreak of the May 13th incident, have again become the subject of hot debate following incidents involving the dumping of a cow’s head by protesters that challenged the Hindus, and the wrapping of a pig in the Umno flag that challenged the Malays.‘

Indulging in the politics of mass distraction is common to both Malaysians and Singaporeans alike (re: PM Lee’s National Day Rally speech).  In this case, however, I cannot but be concerned with Mr Zainuddin’s piece.  Channeling ethnic antagonism towards Singapore is highly irresponsible.  Blood ties bind the 2 nations in this peninsular and any ethnic arguments can travel up and down the causeway very easily.

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.