Crossed lines

Over the weekend, there were several pieces in ST that would be of interest to civil society. The first was a piece about when civil society activists would be perceived as moving into the political space. The other, more useful, piece is by a law don who talks about Singapore’s approach to contempt of court laws.

The first piece is pretty much old hat, drawing a great deal from a speech by PM Lee Hsien Loong to the Harvard Club (circa 1991) and an article by ex-Cabinet minister George Yeo (circa 1999). Law Minister K Shanmugam was interviewed for the piece and Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Lawrence Wong gave a statement.

Nothing very new at all from them except that a new term has crept in: partisan politics. Said Mr Wong in the ST article: “NGOs should not be used as a cloak for partisan political objectives. Similarly while individuals in NGOs are free to express their views, they should not use their organisations to pursue a party political agenda.”

It’s like what Muslim Affairs Minister Yaacob Ibrahim said a week earlier regarding the Nizam saga. The accusation was that Mr Nizam Ismail formerly of the Association of Muslim Professionals pushed for “race-based” politics (although it would be clear to anyone that the AMP is a “race-based’’ organisation). Going by what Mr Nizam said, he wanted Malay issues discussed across race lines instead of just community lines. Doesn’t sound that bad, does it? Then again, the G said his call echoed a failed proposal made a long time ago for a collective leadership in the community, which might well rival that of elected Malay MPs. And that, the G said, is bad.

G funding, Dr Yaacob said, should not be used for “the purpose of creating a platform for people to be involved in partisan politics.”

Ministers must have some kind of template…

What is partisan? According to the Oxford dictionary, it’s about strong support for a party, person or cause, especially in politics. So it isn’t about whether you are an outright fan or card-carrying member of this or that party, but also whether you support some political cause (which might not even be championed by any party).

Anyway, how do we count the ways?

The rights of foreign maids and foreign workers – political parties won’t touch this with a 10-foot pole because they won’t look patriotic. Abolition of Section 337A – another hot potato best fought between the evangelical right and the gay community. Independence of the judiciary – too dangerous because it is protected by the law. What about a group lobbying for minimum wage legislation – a favorite of opposition parties. If an NGO has a similar cause, would that be considered even more partisan because it is similar to a party’s platform?

The other phrase is “for political ends/purposes”. That’s the accusation the Home Affairs and Manpower ministry have levelled at NGOs who have been pressing the issue of alleged police brutality against the Chinese SMRT bus drivers. The NGOs, the ministries said, were exploiting vulnerable foreign workers to make their case about suppression of labour rights in Singapore. It’s a very big statement, which led to a retort from the groups which insisted that what they wanted was clarification of police processes.

Said Maruah, a human rights group: “We are troubled that the government sees the involvement of civil society in pushing for greater transparency as casting aspersions on the integrity of the police and “working for their own political ends.”

What’s the political “end’’ here? Getting the G to fess up that there are few labour rights here so that it will be kicked out at the next GE? Laying the groundwork so that NGO members can get elected on an independent platform at the next GE? Would such groups have to form a political party and make it a truly partisan party political cause – and fight in the political arena? Now, was anyone waiting for something like this to be said by the G? (It used to be uttered like a reflex action…) Well, it hasn’t done so…

Anyway, if the G did say something like this, it means that every NGO which has a cause that will have it butting heads with the G would have to form a political party. Like nature/heritage societies? Save Bukit Brown, green spaces, the birds etc… Butting heads with Singapore Land Authority and Urban Redevelopment Authority and the like. Haven’t heard that members should form some kind of Green Party…

But, as the ST report points out, perhaps a lot depends on who is the one doing the speaking and lobbying. So it is okay for a Tommy Koh or a Ngiam Tong Dow to utter a completely contrarian view but not some nobody (never mind the quality of the view). Even Catherine Lim wasn’t let off in the past, although in recent time, her writings have not raised the same kind of ruckus. She seems to have been deemed “acceptable’’. Or has she earned her spurs in some way. Or the G has realised that there are too many Catherine Lims out there to discipline.

How should the twain meet? Actually it all boils down to the evidence, the facts. Statements made must be backed by proof, and not bare assertions – which both sides are sometimes guilty of.

After denying political pressure initially, the G came clean (almost) on exerting pressure on AMP to get Mr Nizam to resign, even implying that funds were hanging in the balance. Likewise, the NGOs should reply to charges of “hindering’’ police processes, in the SMRT case. Sometimes, there is no proof, you know, when something smells fishy? Then the civil way is to ask questions than make accusations – but answers must also be forthcoming.

As for G funding, all NGOs, including arts groups, which get any should take note. There’s now a new OB marker that has been thrown into the works. If you take G money, you can’t do things that the G doesn’t want you to do. There’s some justification for that. You take money because you’ve convinced someone about your cause – so you shouldn’t deviate from that or it will be like biting the hand that feeds you. Of course, you can be far more circumspect about taking the money and specify that it is only for this or that programme and not tantamount to a total gag order or a pair of handcuffs. And get it down in black and white.

Frankly, what would happened if the AMP declined to pressure Mr Nizam to quit? Would the G really have pulled funding from AMP and leave hapless Malay/Muslim families depending on AMP’s work in the lurch? It didn’t come to that but it would have been interesting to see the result of such a confrontation. The bet is, the G would lose. Evidently, it never envisaged the AMP not doing as asked.

Then there is this business of whether you can really speak for yourself or would be seen as speaking for an organisation. Mr Shanmugam said it depended on popular perception. So never mind if Mr Nizam swore with hand on heart that he is speaking in his personal capacity, it will be perceived as a view of the AMP. It’s not unlike the position of The Straits Times. It can swear all it wants about being independent, but everyone still thinks it’s a G mouthpiece anyway. The thing is, going by what Mr Shanmugam said, plenty of backbenchers should get out of NGOs and such. Does anyone doubt that they are involved or invited into NGOs because they are representatives of the ruling party? When they speak, it is with the party behind them – never mind if they too swear with hand on heart that they are speaking for themselves. There will be exceptions, of course, for MPs who were already active in NGOs and VWOs before they entered politics. They’ve earned the spurs to speak as independent minds.

As for the second piece on contempt of court, what was interesting is how the onus is actually placed on the state to prove that supposedly offensive remarks were not “fair criticism’’ and would actually lead to the judiciary to be regarded with contempt. Go read it.

The Law ministry is apparently looking at codifying the law on contempt and the writer, law don David Tan, noted that a court of appeal had actually suggested that Parliament consider legislative changes to allow for defences to scandalising contempt. Perhaps, that is what the Law ministry is up to. It had better get a move on.

This article first appeared on http://www.breakfastnetwork.sg

Town councils: People vs Politicos

Looks like the people and the politicos are at odds when it comes to the “fundamental nature’’ of town councils, going by a poll in ST published today. Most of the 50 people polled wanted town councils to be “apolitical’’, harkening back to the old days when the Housing Board and National Development Ministry ruled the roost with MPs conducting meet-the-people sessions in their wards. The politicos, however, didn’t think such a turnaround was needed and suggested that maybe more oversight of town councils’ activities can do the trick.

If the poll is correct, it seems that the people had never quite imbibed the notion of town councils as political entities in the first place. It was intended for MPs to show their mettle, so to speak, by demonstrating their ability to run housing estates. MPs must show that they are not just talk (in Parliament), but action (on the ground) as well. Of course, those with long memories will recall that it had looked like a way to warn residents that electing opposition politicians might lead to dirty corridors and rubbish piled up in the chutes…

That didn’t happen.

Remember in those days how there was so much discussion about how town councils will be akin to “local governments’’ with representatives elected from residents who live there? There was all this expectation that residents themselves will have control over their neighbourhoods. Doubt that this is happening anywhere. Do you know your town councillors? In fact, do residents even scrutinise town council annual reports and act as the real overseers of their estate?

Instead, town councils have succeeded in becoming so partisan that political party members are employed in town councils or as their managing agents, whether in the People’s Action Party or opposition side. In fact, it is so partisan that the PAP actually started a company to serve their IT needs!

You know what? Residents don’t care who looks after them, so long as the rubbish is collected and void deck is clean. It might be the HDB, the town council or a private company from outer space doing the cleaning and residents wouldn’t bat an eyelid so long as things run smoothly. It is when things don’t or some aberration is brought to their attention, that people sit up and look at what’s happening.

That’s when they will find out (or not) the number of relatives, friends, party members or partisan companies employed by town councils for no other reason than political affiliation. Then again, so what if the void deck is clean and the rubbish is cleared and the S&C charges aren’t unreasonable?

It’s a little disappointing that people don’t look beyond their immediate comfort zone.

The town council “experiment’’ has actually not been too bad from the residents’ point of view. MPs are kept on their toes because residents know where to go to when they want to complain about bad estate upkeep. The MP is also, ah, a cleaning and maintenance contractor… Plus, residents can always threaten with the vote: Raise my service and conservancy fee and I’ll kick you out! Maybe it’s a good thing that residents aren’t so political. Imagine a whole housing estate lobbying for lowered fees… town councils will be ham-strung no end…

Back to the apolitical/political nature of town councils. For the best analysis, read the piece by Eugene Tan in today’s edition of TODAY.In the wake of the ministry’s review of the AIM saga in which a PAP owned company was providing services to PAP-run town councils, the key question really revolves on the oversight role the State should play in ensuring that residents get essential services despite changes in political “ownership’’.

The ministry has recommended another “strategic’’ review which all and sundry hopes will be non-partisan and inclusive. MND Minister Khaw Boon Wan will be making a statement in Parliament on Monday and the Workers’ Party, the one which raised the issue, has applied for an adjournment motion so that more time can be spent discussing the town council issue.

Perhaps, someone will do something about the role of HDB residents themselves in ensuring town councils are politically accountable to them. So many suggestions and tweaks have been suggested – centralise this, decentralise that, allow this and disallow that… But nothing has been said about the rights and responsibilities of residents whom the town councils serve.

Coming Home

When you’ve been away for three days and you’ve deliberately switched off on the news from Singapore, what do your eyes automatically turn to when you are confronted with a load of old newspapers?
This morning, I scanned through the weekend’s news and came up with the following responses:
a. Alamak, another cyclist died! Third one! Changi!
b. A third backside burnt by acid? Who the hell is this fella who’s been dumping stuff on MRT seats? And how come the G still doesn’t know what that liquid is?
c. Waaah…these two valets! Stupid to go take the Ferrari for a drive…Such an expensive car, sure got safety features.
d. Who is this designer who crashed his car into Geylang shophouse? And how come the media never identified the type of car? Can’t see from the photo, just that it’s dark blue.
Odd that it wasn’t the Malaysian elections which took my attention, it was what was happening to people here. On any other day, I would have been devouring news of the Malaysian GE – so nail-biting, so exciting, with washable indelible ink, allegations of foreigners awarded citizenships to vote, suspicious packages etc.
(Random thought: So the opposition is making inroads into neighbouring Johor – now what would happen to Iskandar then with its billions of Singapore investments? We’ll have to start making friends with the Democratic Action Party fellows – and risked being black-balled by the Barisan National types? Tricky.)
Also, I would be wondering what I should say about the AIM saga. Imagine so many months and the MND comes up with – everything’s clean and above-board BUT another review needed!
(Random thought: I guess its directive to review the “fundamental nature’’ of town councils didn’t include what it now calls a “strategic review’’ needed. Probably good, as such a review – about a possibly “non-political’’ town council – should be more inclusive than an MND one with only officials involved reporting to a minister who belongs to the ruling party.)
There are other big pieces that I should spend some time thinking over, like ST’s pieces on the line between civil and political space and a law don’s view on contempt of court in Singapore. But too taxing! Later!
Back to the people stories!
Of course, you must read The New Paper for such people stories and I go…
a. Sheeesh, I almost forgot about dengue. It’s on TNP’s Saturday front page on people who refuse to open their doors for mozzie inspections. Already, 5,300 cases or epidemic-like proportions and people won’t open their doors! Break in and enter dey! Who are these Yishun residents!
b. Now, why didn’t I think of joining the gold rush? What, like $51 a gram? Goldsmiths running out of stock liao!
When you come home from abroad, it’s the little things that matter to you, I suppose. Your safety, your neighbourhood, people you know…I suppose when I get old(er) I will start scanning the obituary pages to find out which of my contemporaries had died while I was away.
They tell me I’m home. And I’ve only been away three days.
Now I wish the media had said something about the weather. Is it still as upside down as ever?

This article first appeared on http://www.breakfastnetwork.sg

Hong Lim Park event no. 2 – The protest

The red balloons were replaced by placards emblazoned with angry slogans. Young smiling faces were replaced by older ones, sterner-looking. No cupcakes were given out but tee-shirts were sold as well as hard-to-find books by political dissidents and such like.

It was a sea change in mood, from a carefree picnic in the morning to a carefully orchestrated protest in the evening. Organisers of the alternative May Day rally put the crowd figure at 5,000 to 6,000, more than their first protest in February which they said numbered about 4,000.

But it seemed less than that, with the crowd thinning as the evening wore on.

From 4pm, speaker after speaker took to the microphone, including an assortment of “lay’’ people as they were described – a single mother of an eight-year old, a stay-at-home mom, a 66 year old retiree, a 35 year old graduate who is a cab driver.

They were there to say no to the 6.9 million population figure, a repeat of February’s theme. Each “lay’’ person had a personal story to tell, stories full of anger and angst. About bringing up children single-handedly, about not being able to find a job despite a degree (the young cab driver by the way served in the army for 10 years before he got out into the private sector and couldn’t find employment), about discrimination against older women who want to rejoin the workforce.

Here is anger: “I challenge the minister to a debate on television about the CPF!’’ said a 66 year old self-employed man upset at CPF rules which do not allow full withdrawal at age 55. His “hati panas already’’,  he declared.

Here is angst: “Why are the smiles on the faces of foreigners here bigger than mine? When can I put the smile back on my face?’’ was how a single mother concluded her speech which were peppered with anecdotes about single mothers not being eligible for baby bonuses or a HDB rental flat.

Several times, speakers reiterated that they were not being xenophobic. It was like a mantra. They were just against the G’s policy on the use of foreign workers which were squeezing locals out of a job.

The crowd paid rapt attention, breaking out into shouts and applause. Every time the G was “whacked’’, they cheered. A heartland crowd it was, who lapped up the speeches made in dialects. One grandmother who spoke actually sang a few lines in Teochew, much to the merriment of the crowd. What was missing was a full Malay speech. Mr Nizam Ismail, formerly of the Association of Muslim Professionals, had pulled out at the last minute. As for Tamil, lawyer M Ravi obliged with a speech hich few understood but most appreciated going by the sustained applause he received.

Meanwhile, people with placards walked round.

“Singapore needs public transport, not world class transport’’

“It’s dangerous to be right when the Government is wrong.’’

“What do you call the natives of this wealthy island? Singapooreans.’’

There were less polite ones as well.

At another corner, a 20m long white cloth had been laid out for people to pen their feelings about the 6.9million.

The better-known speakers had more to say about policy.

Financial consultant Leong Sze Hian pointed out what he saw as contradictions in G statistics, especially on employment figures. Why weren’t they broken down further to make clear the number of both employed citizens and PRs? And what about a proper breakdown of the cost of building HDB flats?

Organiser Gilbert Goh, who counsels the unemployed, wants a quota set for employment pass holders, like for S passes and work permits. He maintained that he knew of companies with 100 per cent foreign workers 

Lawyer M Ravi referred to recent warnings to bloggers as an example of civil society being “under threat’’. There is no freedom of speech nor of assembly. There is no parliamentary ombudsman nor  a human rights commission. He told the crowd to give the G a “red card’’ at the next election.

Former presidential candidate Tan Jee Say, the last speaker, was more explicit. The Population White Paper, he alleged, was a PAP plot to tighten its grip on Singapore by adding new citizens to swell the pro-PAP voting ranks.

He called for the People’s Action Party to be booted out at the next general election, maintaining that the opposition was ready to form the next Government or at least, more ready than the PAP itself was in 1959 when it took power. He rattled off some figures: nine opposition figures who held senior positions in G agencies, seven PhD holders. There were about 25 to 30 people in the opposition ranks, he said, ready to take over – as a coalition Government.

“You can only change policy, in the political way,’’ he said during a press conference later. As for the formation of a coalition government, he wouldn’t be too pessimistic about the willingness of political parties to collaborate, he said responding to a question.

When organiser Mr Goh pledged that the May Day protest would be an annual event, members of the public pressed for more such protests. What about National Day, someone asked? It was the grandmother, a member of Function 8, who replied. She thought it was a good idea.

Looks like Hong Lim Park is coming alive.

The G is probably regretting designating Speakers’ Corner a free speech space.

Pse go to www.breakfastnetwork.sg for report on event No. 1 and plenty plenty pix of both.

 

About that third chestnut…

I tried cracking the third chestnut too early. It’s a much bigger chestnut than I thought.
The G has responded in a letter to ST’s Forum Page today – to say that Mr Nizam was using AMP as a cover for race-based politics. Don’t get irritated but if you want to read about this, you will have to go to http://www.breakfastnetwork.sg

regards
bertha

Cracking three hoary old chestnuts

Chestnut No. 1:
Whoever said politics in Singapore isn’t exciting hasn’t been following news events recently. A confrontation appears to be looming between the establishment and civil society groups over the same hoary old chestnuts – freedom of expression and the ability to criticise the judiciary and institutions without running afoul of the law or being branded as renegades out to erode confidence in the system.

These tussles have never quite died down but it seems the civil society types are upping the ante and gaining more traction. Their amplifier is the internet and social media, aided by an environment which is admittedly less respectful of authority and more inclined to criticism than conciliation.

The wonder is that civil society groups are leading the charge rather than the opposition political parties in questioning the agenda and actions of the G and, yes, sometimes making statements bordering on the scurrilous. The parties are keeping quiet and seems content with organising policy forums and presenting policy papers. Perhaps, the political parties prefer to be seen as professional politicos in public and leave the guerrilla warfare to groups and individuals, whether or not they are aligned to the opposition cause.

The G is getting a drubbing by bloggers, cartoonists, online sites, advocacy groups and the like. The level of vitriol is increasing and will not go down despite the G’s recent actions and statements. Either a consensus or compromise must be reached on the rules of engagement or there would be no end to the scepticism over the citizens’ to ability to engage the G outside G-sanctioned parameters.

The statement by the Manpower and Home Affairs ministries to a joint statement by some civil society groups and individuals over allegations of police brutality towards a couple of SMRT bus strikers was a super quick response. Clearly, there is official irritation at how that the SMRT saga hasn’t died down.

The thing is, in the digital age, nothing dies. The MSM may decide to “end’’ public discussion but online, news will surface and old news rehashed and sometimes passed off as new. Given that people do not make news reading a daily habit, any satisfactory solution or compromise reached can be easily missed. Nuances will be lost, the tone revised. Anger resurfaces.

Yet the noise in Singapore is no different from the noise wherever there is an educated populace. The only difference is that Singapore is a smaller place than most. Noise can reach all parts of the island in double quick time, moving from the virtual to the real world. The G’s protective stance towards public institutions is correct. It will not do for public trust in agencies that enforce the rules to be eroded. But the question is: How should it react to those who want fuller answers from agencies in the spotlight?

By accusing advocacy groups of exploiting foreign workers “for their own political ends’’, as they did in the SMRT bus drivers’ case, they are reverting to their old tactic of labelling aggressive critics as having “an agenda’’.

Here’s what happened for those who haven’t caught up:

Police internal watchdogs have investigated the allegations of brutality against the two Chinese nationals who spoke in a video that made the rounds of the Internet. They found them to be “baseless’’. A statement was issued last weekend in which MHA noted that “neither He nor Liu had made any allegations of physical abuse during Police investigations even though they had had many opportunities to do so”. They could have spoken up while they were in the lock-up, in court, while out on bail, when a doctor saw one of them for grastic pains, when they were on trial. Neither they nor their lawyers no the Chinese embassy did so.
(The possible cynical retort to the above could be: They were too scared lah.)

The ministry pointed out that even after the videos were released, both men and their lawyers did not report the allegations to the authorities, although the lawyers would have known that would be the proper course of action.
(Again, the possible cynical retort could be: They were too scared lah. Also once the allegations were out in the open, then the expectation would be that the G wheels will start grinding)

But when the two men and their lawyers spoke to police internal affairs, their statements were found to be “inconsistent’’. They subsequently retracted their accusations.
(Possible cynical retort: They got scared again lah)

One of the bus drivers, now back in China, have again repeated the allegations, denied retracting them and insisted that when he said he would not pursue his accusations of police abuse, this did not mean that “those things never happened’’. Implicit (or explicit) in his remarks was he feared what would happen to him if he pursued the case, giving grist to the mill to those who believe that Singapore is a lawless country which punishes real and imagined critics mercilessly.

The advocacy groups have weighed in, asking for clarifications and more details about the investigation into the statements on police brutality: How were they baseless or inconsistent?

Seems they trust the word of the Chinese drivers more than the police. Can the police give more details than what they already have in the interest of placating the groups? Would that not, however, would be setting a precedent of sorts? Surely detailed police investigations cannot be released on demand, unless demanded by a court?

Thing is, the groups have found the wrong examples if they want to make a political point about suppression of labour rights and other wrongs. It is unlikely that the police would have done anything untoward towards foreign nationals in a high profile case, especially with diplomats from a big country watching.

The groups might be better-off if they had Singapore workers instead of the bus drivers as their “poster boys’’. If suppression of labour rights and the role of MOM and unions is an endemic problem here, there would be rather more Singapore workers who could be held up as examples.
Of course, this is not to say that everything is hunky dory here. If anything, the actions of the SMRT bus drivers have led to changes and brought to light several worker-management issues. Manpower officials will probably be more alert to disgruntlement in the worker rank and file. Unionists will also have to think about going back to basics, whether in ensuring better salaries for locals or watching the impact of foreign workers on the livelihoods of members – which appear to have passed them by over the years!

Now what?

The majority of Singaporeans probably have enough faith in the integrity of the institutions but there will always be some who don’t. Since it’s clear who some of these people are, is there some way the G could unbend enough to sit down with them to talk? Advocacy groups are good for the development of civil society but not if they are so apart from decision makers that the adversarial relationship leads to just more words and no action. They are volunteers with special causes, giving off their time and energy.They shouldn’t be dismissed like just so much trouble makers.
Note also that they are unlike political parties which have as their ultimate goal the formation of an alternative government.
The sit down and talk proposal is probably idealistic and even naïve but it is made in good faith. We don’t need too many fractures in society.

Chestnut No.2
Now what about the actions taken against online cartoonist Lester Chew who is “helping police’’ with investigations with regards to the Sedition Act? The Attorney-General’s Chambers gave the longest response so far on how it wants to deal with comments and criticisms. Here’s a look:

a. Every day, there are hundreds of commentaries, if not more, on socio-political matters both in the mainstream media and online. Many of these do not contravene the law, and no legal action will be taken by the Attorney-General’s Chambers on behalf of the State, even though some may contain factual inaccuracies. Some of these statements may defame or otherwise cause damage to an individual; whether any action is to be taken is generally a matter for that individual.

In other words, you can say what you want so long as you don’t break the law. No one will come after you even if your sometimes inaccurate. Beware though the consequences of defamation. The G can’t sue, but individuals sure can.

b. However, racial and religious harmony is vital to our society and has enabled Singaporeans to live together in peace over the years. Words or deeds touching on race or religion have the potential to create fault lines within our society. Such bonds, once frayed, let alone sundered, cannot easily be repaired and we must therefore remain vigilant against any threats to racial and religious harmony.

Very clear. No one would object to this.

c. Where statements are made, or actions are taken, which insult a particular religion or race, or seek to engender hatred amongst races or religious groups, or which suggest that the Government is using race or religion for its own purposes, then a response will follow. Where the statements or actions are heinous, a firm line will be taken. For example, the burning of the Koran or the Bible will not be allowed in Singapore under the cover of freedom of speech or expression.

Here’s the problem : what’s an insult or could engender hatred to some could be satirical to others or even humorous. Or justified as “awareness raising’’. Think Porn Masala. Second thing: That the G is using race or religion for its own purposes. What does this mean? That the G is using race or religion as a policy tool to benefit itself or protect its members? If people are questioning the G’s use of race and religion, then there is something wrong in the first place – there is no agreement on both sides on the rationale, much less the use.

d. On the other hand where comments are made in the heat of the moment, or by relatively immature persons who did not know better, a more nuanced response may follow. Much will depend on what is uncovered by investigations

There is a bit more clarity here. You are forgiven if you “let yourself go’’ in the heat of the moment. That is, you misspoke and didn’t go on and on. Then age matters. The young and immature will be forgiven, maybe counselled? but they won’t get the book thrown at them in the face – or not full on anyway. That leaves the older folk whose racist remarks ecetera form a pattern or a trend.

e. Similarly, the rule of law is another fundamental tenet of our society and action will be taken in respect of any statement or action that seeks to impugn or undermine the independence of the Judiciary. Unwarranted allegations of bias or partiality strike at the heart of the judicial process, threatening the very institution that protects the rights of all Singaporeans.

Okay, this is the famous contempt of court thing that keeps cropping up which critics say is a muzzle on freedom of expression. In this, they have on their side that a member of the British House of Lords who has described the Singapore version as “outmoded and archaic’’. Plus, in Britain, there is a move to remove the offence of “scandalising the judiciary’’. The AGC is sticking to its guns on this so it’s not likely to be abolished. But one thing is happening: The Law Ministry is looking into “codifying’’ the law of contempt which it has described as a priority. Now just what is “codifying’’? Making the lines clearer? The ministry had better work a lot faster then.

Chestnut No. 3
In the wake of Mr Nizam Ismail’s departure from the Association of Muslim Professionals, Ms Braema Mathi of Maruah has written to ST Forum page to ask for a clear stand on the participation of politicians in groups that receive state funding. Apparently, Mr Nizam’s participation in opposition forums and his sometimes controversial views have led to some pressure on him to leave.
That, plus a statement from a minister that state-funded groups should not be used as a platform for people to be involved in partisan politics.

Ms Mathi’s query deserves an answer. She did not give a number on how many People’s Action Party MPs are involved in volunteer groups , but the bet is probably quite many. Ms Mathi said that MPs’ participation would elevate their political profile and hence, the profile of the PAP. In other words, the charge of using a VWO as a platform for partisan politics would apply to them too.

How will the G answer? That the PAP MPs were “invited’’ by the groups who already know that they are partisan? So there is a difference between an aspiring politician who intends to make use of a platform and an elected one whose presence was asked for to burnish a VWO’s credentials? If so, then there should be no objection to Opposition MPs sitting on board state-funded groups as well. Are there any?

Even if the G somehow makes the case for elected PAP MPs, it has to reckon with aspiring PAP politicians now sitting on VWOs. Using the Mr Nizam example, they should be booted out too, especially if they speak at PAP-organised forums or join in partisan political activities. Looks like a whole can of worms is about to be opened.

Maybe every state-funded VWO should ask members for their political affiliations and screen them all out just to be safe. Maybe this is why no one wants to be in politics or get involved in politics. Maybe it’s best to stay apolitical.
That is surely not what the G wants.

Or maybe that really is its aim – to make sure politics in Singapore is as unexciting as can be.

Rules of engagement need negotiation

Sometimes, a word or two whispered in the right ear will do the trick. Sometimes, the whisper can be as simple as “What’s he doing in a place like that?’’ Depending on the status/standing of the whisperer, the person being whispered to would have to guess at what the whisperer truly meant. An innocuous question? Or one that has deeper meaning?

Seems that Mr Nizam Ismail, a now former director of the Association of Muslim Professionals, has been the subject of some whispering. He told The Straits Times that AMP had informed him over the weekend that two ministers had “expressed concern” about some critical views he had put forth online and his participation in the two events. He declined to name the ministers.

ST reported: He said he was presented with two options. One, if he did not “tone down” his activities, the Government would withdraw funding from AMP. Two, dissociate himself from AMP if he wanted to continue with civil society activities.
Of course, no one in the AMP or the G is going to admit to “political intervention’’ as Mr Nizam has described it. He quit, they said. The retort would be: Did he really have a choice?

Muslim Affairs Minister Yacob Ibrahim gave a roundabout response, or at least, that was how the ST report appeared:

Asked by reporters last night on the sidelines of a dialogue organised by government feedback unit Reach, Dr Yaacob said: “AMP is an important partner. In our discussions with AMP, we have never touched on their internal organisation, how they are being managed.”

(Okay, so he’s saying it doesn’t matter who is doing what in AMP, so long as the work gets done properly. Mr Nizam was head of AMP’s research arm and its former ex-chairman)

He also noted that the association has “written in its Constitution that whoever is involved in AMP must be non-partisan and we assume therefore not involved in politics”.

Some questions:
a. What’s non-partisan? A card-carrying member of a political party? By extension, this should disqualify AMP members who are members of the ruling parties too. Are there any? Mr Nizam has said he is not a member of any party, nor intending to be one.
b. What’s getting involved in politics? Seems Mr Nizam’s participation at the Population White Paper protest and a Workers’ Party forum counts. Would it help if he made it clear at those forums that he was speaking in his personal capacity and his views do not represent those of his organisation? Not enough? Well, Mr Nizam is going for a hattrick; he’s down as a speaker for the May 1 rally at Hong Lim Park. Would he still be speaking? Nothing to prevent him now really….Or he could ask if he could speak at the NTUC-organised May Day rally!
c. If getting involved politics – broadly defined – means running afoul of the constitution of an organisation, then too many people will be disqualified and proscribed from speaking up. Or should they only do so at government-sanctioned events, like the Singapore Conversation series.
He said the Government was more concerned with the work they do as they receive public funds.
Dr Yaacob added: “Money which is given by the Government to Malay-Muslim organisations must be for the purpose of voluntary work that will help the community move forward. It is not for the purpose of creating a platform for people to be involved in partisan politics.”
(Okay, the AMP gets funding in the form of a $1m matching grant yearly for five years. Other organisations which get any form of G funding might want to take note, like arts groups.)

So did Mr Nizam quit voluntarily or was he pushed?This is what he himself said in a posting today:

“I received a surprise phone call from Mr Azmoon Ahmad, Chairman AMP on 20 Apr 2013. He informed me that he received separate phone calls from two Ministers to the effect that they were concerned about (1) my participation as a speaker at the Hong Lim Park protest; (2) my participation as a panelist at a Workers’ Party Youth Wing Youthquake Seminar and (3) my critical leanings on social media. Mr Azmoon had relayed a message that he said he received for me to “take it easy” and refrain from such activities. Otherwise, the Government will withdraw all funding from AMP. This puts AMP in a difficult situation. Mr Azmoon also painted the alternative that if I were to continue with my civil society activities, he suggested that I “disassociate” myself from AMP.”

Mr Nizam also cited instances when he alleged that threats to pull funding was made:

“For instance, State funding of AMP’s programs were cut in the wake of a proposal for a collective community leadership during AMP’s 2nd Convention in 2000. Threats of funding cuts were also made in reaction to a proposal for an independent Community Forum made by AMP during its 3rd Convention in 2012, as that was seen as a threat to the State-sponsored Community Leadership Forum (CLF) – which ironically, was perceived to be set up as a reaction to the Collective Leadership proposal made earlier by AMP.”

At least, Mr Nizam doesn’t need a lawyer which is what Demon-cratic cartoonist Leslie Chew now has. Online media (link to yahoo) said he was held in custody and questioned over the weekend, and was released at 8.45pm on Sunday after posting bail of S$10,000. The police confiscated his handphone, computer and hard disk. He was also asked to surrender his passport to the police at the Cantonment Police complex.

Mr Chew has been warned twice over his cartoon strips, first for scandalizing the judiciary with a cartoon strip that refers to the removal of a judge and second, for running foul of the Sedition Act with a second strip that talks about the Malay community’s fertility rates. He has refused to take them down, nor apologise for them. Crossing the Sedition Act can lead to $5,000 fine or up to three years, or both.

In his defence, Mr Chew pointed to the disclaimer in each of his cartoons which says that the portrayals in them “are purely fictional”. “I also explicitly stated that Demon-cratic Singapore is an entirely imaginary country and is not the Republic of Singapore,” Mr Chew said. He added that most fans know that Demon-cratic Singapore is fictional and “just for laughs” said Chew.
“Even when there are new readers who thought otherwise, they are usually quickly reminded by other readers that everything on my Facebook page is fictional.”

Hmm. Wonder what sort of defence this is. It’s a silly person who can’t connect his cartoons to Singapore developments. He might be better off suggesting that his cartoons are satirical takes and produce evidence to show that his audience treated them this way.
As if both incidents are not enough to make one wonder about the G’s approach to differing views, then comes an intriguing message from the organisers of that May 1 protest in Hong Lim Park: Foreigners, please do not attend.

The NParks has told organisers to get a police permit because a “Police Permit must be obtained if permanent residents of Singapore are speaking or organising a demonstration, performance or exhibition, and/or if foreigners are speaking or participating in or organising activities at Speakers’ Corner.’’ (link to transitioning.org site)

No foreigner is behind the rally or will be speaking, the organisers claimed. They didn’t apply for a permit for the first rally in February either. Like the Nizam case of getting “involved in politics’ , just what amounts to “participating in’’ activities at Speakers Corner? A curious tourist looking on? Would having a police permit mean that security measures must be taken to ensure that foreigners are screened out? The organisers do not want to apply for one. They should. To see if they get it and whether it comes with strings attached. They should cover their bases.
What to make of all this after all the warning letters shot into the blogosphere in recent time?

A coming confrontation between civil society and the G? The G attempting to impose some order on what it deems as freewheeling, chaotic discourse? Or part of the process of a maturing society, in which both sides are negotiating the rules of engagement?

Hopefully, the last option.

Torn up over tourism

How should Singapore present itself to the rest of the world? As a glitzy Dubai or a charming Penang? Singapore Tourism Board chief Lionel Yeo thinks we can be both and wants to ratchet up Singapore-flavoured offerings. It marks a change from the days when we were told to be enthusiastic about international attention on Formula One (Oh! Look at the numbers tuning in worldwide!) and how casinos will bring in the well-heeled.

Thing is, can we be both? Or is it already too late?

In the international eye, Singapore is probably more Dubai than Penang – efficient, fast-paced, haven for billionaires. Expensive clubs. Designer boutiques. Playground for the rich and famous. The tourism strategy has brought in a lot of money, as well as foreigners – both the spending kind and those needed to staff the low-wage positions in the hospitality industry. For the rest of us, we can only look in. Not rich enough to play; too rich to want a job tending bar and waiting tables. We might feel proud about how far we have come, as we cruise along the East Coast Parkway and gape at the skyline. We might even feel like tourists in our own country!

What about the new effort to display our local offerings then? Here’s the good: our local designers can expect a leg-up. Also, heritage and conservation, something increasingly dear to Singaporeans, will now have…. an economic dimension! We need to preserve them…because they bring in the tourists!

Okay, enough of that.

Anyway, that was what was reported in ST yesterday. Today, however, the media reported that at a tourism conference, expectations were scaled back on tourism numbers and spending in the future. That’s because those big ticket draws are already in place and have contributed to the spurt in numbers. A rising rate of growth would be “unsustainable’’. (Did anyone heave a sigh of relief at the propect of a not-as-crowded future?). Besides, neighbouring countries are also putting up theme parks and F1 races. Singapore’s first-mover advantage will be eroded.

Media reports said STB estimated that visitor arrivals could grow at 3 to 4 per cent and tourism receipts at 4 to 6 per cent annually over the next 10 years. This contrasts with the record growth posted between 2002 and last year, when visitor arrivals grew at a compounded annual rate of 6.6 per cent. Tourism receipts also grew at a corresponding 10 per cent in the same period.

According to Second Minister for Trade and Industry S Iswaran, Singapore should concentrate on “high-yield growth’’ (code words for big spenders) and those who come “regularly’’. He wants the industry to create more content for visitors in the lifestyle and business sectors. One example, according to ST, is the Fort Canning Centre and Black Box Theatre, which the STB and National Parks Board are looking at turning into a museum with modern art, for an Asian audience.

One wonders if the big spenders will really be interested in experiencing the Singapore way of life and take tours of the HDB heartland and what not. As for those who “come’’ regularly, they would have “been there, done that’’.

Or maybe the new direction is just a marketing gimmick – to tell big spenders that besides the main showpiece of glitzy stuff, there are still those “curiosities’’ they might have missed. So why not have a cheng teng cocktail at a hawker centre and gawp at the locals in their flip flops? If or when that happens, hopefully, prices of our local deserts won’t be jacked up. According to an ST report, there was a suggestion to create more places like “Newton Circus’’. Hey, there might be a good idea – keep the tourists at these high-priced places with a Singapore flavour! No need for them to import inflation into the heartland!

Does anyone remember the old days when Singapore was merely positioned as a Garden City? That was a good one. Very few of our neighbours can replicate that, unless they want to tear down whole buildings and start re-landscaping. So beautiful, our Singapore. Air-con city in a tropical paradise….Can brand like that also leh!

Mr Yap said something refreshing published in ST yesterday: “The STB cannot do our work in a way that ignores what locals care about. It’s about striking a balance…and being respectful to how Singaporeans feel about what is going to happen to their city.’’

That’s something to think about. Because while we might be consulted – and want to be consulted – about our own living surroundings, we tend to leave the business of luring foreign tourists to agencies, forgetting that their actions would affect the place we live in – and even our way of life.

This article first appeared on http://www.breakfastnetwork.sg
Also on Breakfast Network: The coming storm over City Harvest Church saga/Aren’t medics trained to deal with asthmatic soldiers?

More in breakfastnetwork.sg

Dear Bertha Harian reader,

I put up Parts 2 and 3 on the Pulau Ubin saga because the first part was first posted here. The next two parts were actually first posted on the Breakfast Network site. (Yep, been having some difficulty figuring out what goes here and what goes there!)

Anyway, if you are only reading this blog and not the site, then you might want to go over there and aaahhh…catch up? Better still, there’s a free email newsletter you can subscribe to when you get there.

http://www.breakfastnetwork.sg/?p=3568 – this is one of my favorites….On the teaching of Singlish.

http://www.breakfastnetwork.sg/?p=3602 – this is on the Boston blasts…

Enjoy.

bertha

Unsettled over re-settlement Part 3

Now we know exactly who is eyeing that 4-hectare piece of land in Pasir Ris that residents are hankering to preserve. It is for the Overseas Family School, which will have to move from its Paterson Road premises by 2015. For nine months, the G has been locking horns with residents who want to preserve the forested area. Over that time, the management of the school must be anxiously looking at the fracas because it will mean so little time for construction. As for an alternative site, it appears that there are very few places that can house a school with more than 3,000 students.

This is an interesting case because as one property expert was reported saying in Today, it was “a little unusual for the Government to put off the development of a land parcel if there is a real need for a new development”. If the residents got their way, then will a precedent be set? One can imagine developers and other investors shaking their heads over the G’s change of heart – all because of some tree huggers and bird watchers! He said: “If word gets out that the authorities will delay (the development of a plot of land) just because of some special interest groups, where does this leave us?”

Hmm. It will leave us with a reminder that there is a democratic process in Singapore and that the people who live here want a say in what happens to their surroundings. TODAY had an interesting commentary which tries to explain this angst we have about our neighbourhood, especially areas we think are worth preserving as part of our heritage. This has surfaced most recently over the fate of Pulau Ubin and its residents.

Said the commentary: “The fate of the island is held in suspension, contingent on the country’s housing needs, and this uncertainty has a long-term profound impact on Singaporeans’ sense of belonging and psyche.

“The lesson here is not that spaces must be sacrificed for the country’s housing needs but that spaces, regardless of natural or heritage worth, are transient in Singapore and it is better not to get too attached to them.’’

The island has been held in bureaucratic limbo over the years and while exhortations that it will be kept “rustic’’ have been made, they just do not go far enough as a stamp of permanence.

“One cannot expect citizens to sink roots into the land or be called to defend it without expecting them to be angry, even confrontational, when spaces like Pulau Ubin and Bukit Brown are vulnerable,’’ the commentary said.

“It is thus important for civil servants and civil society activists alike to understand that the bridges of communication must always be kept open in order for dialogue to take place. Without this dialogue, both parties will become more entrenched in their positions and less willing to compromise.’’

Nobody has a monopoly over the definition of the national interest. The old norm that economic development must over-ride all other considerations is increasingly being questioned now that the country has passed the survival stage. Questions of identity and belonging loom large.

The Bukit Brown, Pulau Ubin and Pasir Ris examples makes official decision-making “messier’’ for sure, and will make bureaucrats pause the next time they see a “development’’ opportunity in a piece of green space. The stakeholders, that is, the people who live here, want to have a say. Both sides will have to talk it out and decide together what would be in their best interest.

In the case of the Pasir Ris greenbelt, one side might have to give way or some compromise be sought.

The greenbelt lobby is digging in its heels. Said a spokesman: “We have also made it categorically clear that there are no justifiable grounds for the authorities to clear the Pasir Ris greenbelt at all for whatever reason, whether it is to build an international school or for that matter any other urban development like private condominiums, which are sheer commercial profit-driven enterprises.”

How to talk like that?