Politicians and activists both have a role in S'pore

It appears I have upset a few anonymous readers (presumably SDP supporters or members) for suggesting in my previous post that Chee Soon Juan should concentrate on being a political activist rather than a politician.

My suggestion is not new. I know several other people — none of whom are PAP supporters — who have suggested the same thing.

I believe there are two main ways of engaging in politics in Singapore, and elsewhere: One, by contesting elections; and two, through civil society activism. (The PAP, through the Catherine Lim affair in the 1990s, believes only the first is valid. I strongly disagree.)

Fortunately in Singapore, both avenues are available to citizens. In some countries like China, North Korea and Cuba, only the second method is possible, albeit very difficult. One reader pointed out that Chee and company will never get their application to start a civil activist group approved. For someone who advocates non-violent civil disobedience, this should be the least of his concerns.

To build a democratic society — as we have all pledged to do — Singapore needs both politicians and political activists. Neither is more or less important than the other. In fact, the two often have a symbiotic relationship.

Thus, when I say that Chee should quit politics and start an activist group, I mean him no disrespect. For the reasons explained in my previous post, I believe he will serve Singaporeans better as a non-partisan political activist.

Since Chee likes to compare himself with Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr, he would be aware that neither of these men was a politician, nor did they have plans to become one. They were above partisan politics.

I have seen Chee speak on several occasions, and I know he is not the crazy person that most Singaporeans think he is (probably stemming from the way the media paints him to be). I agree with many of his beliefs on freedom, democracy and human rights. Unfortunately, unless these ideals are translated to dollars and cents for "pragmatic" Singaporeans who make up the majority of the electorate, he will make no headway at the polls.

Having said that, there is a great and pressing need for more political education in Singapore. Most Singaporeans are not aware of their civil and political rights. They don't know where the law stands on issues. I frequently get asked by well-meaning friends: "Won't you get in trouble for criticizing the government on your blog?" I also know of ex-colleagues in the Civil Service who think civil servants and NTUC members must vote for the PAP during elections. (That is not true, by the way.)

Chee and his colleagues could help fill this gap. In fact, they are already doing this quite well. The One Nation Under Lee film which they supported (or some believe, made) is an excellent example. That film chronicles all the strong arm tactics used by Lee Kuan Yew to suppress dissent in Singapore during and after his reign. These are important historical issues that every Singaporean, regardless of political affiliation, should at least be aware of.

It would be much less distracting if Chee didn't appear to be doing that to win votes at the polls.

.

Chee should quit politics and start an activist group

A familiar script is to be played out in the coming week, with the Lee & Lee vs Chee & Chee lawsuit being heard in court. For those who don't already know, Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kuan Yew are suing Chee Soon Juan, Chee Siok Chin and the entire Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) for libel, stemming from a pre-2006 election article in the SDP newsletter.

At the same time, the Chees and SDP are embroiled in another controversy -- the making and "illegal" screening of the film, One Nation Under Lee (available on YouTube). The film chronicles all of Lee Kuan Yew's alleged political sins, including jailing of many political opponents, whom he called Communists and terrorists. Although no political logos are shown in the film, it is obvious that this film paints Chee Soon Juan as a hero for his advocacy of non-violent civil disobedience, comparing him with the likes of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

Chee likes to compare himself with Gandhi and King. I think that is getting a bit too big headed. Those two men are giants who will not find a match for several generations to come.

I feel that the Chees and all the Tak Boleh Tahan members who are in SDP should all quit the party and start an activist group. That is what they are best suited for. They can still get their foreign funding (in fact it will be easier as they will not be subject to the Political Donations Act) and the prickly Lees won't see them as a political threat (although I don't see why they do now).

In the meantime, the other opposition parties can get on with their work of actually winning seats in the next elections, without having to be grouped together with Chee, who is frankly unelectable.

Not too long ago, I was chatting with a CEO friend of mine, who remarked that he could never vote for Workers' Party because he didn't agree with Chee Soon Juan's antics. I had to point out to him that Chee Soon Juan is with the SDP, not the WP. Now if a CEO can get confused about such things, I'm guessing that many other Singaporeans will also make that same mistake..

.

Loser generals

From the wires:

Myanmar junta distributes foreign aid - with generals' names on it

YANGON (Myanmar) - MYANMAR'S military regime distributed international aid Saturday but plastered the boxes with names of top generals in an apparent effort to turn the relief effort for last week's devastating cyclone into a propaganda exercise.

The United Nations sent in three more planes and several trucks loaded with aid even though the junta took over its first two shipments. The government agreed to let a US cargo plane bring in supplies on Monday, but foreign disaster experts were still being barred entry.

State-run television continuously ran images of top generals - including the junta leader, Senior Gen. Than Shwe - handing out boxes of aid to survivors at elaborate ceremonies.

One box bore the name of Lt Gen Myint Swe, a rising star in the government hierarchy, in bold letters that overshadowed a smaller label reading: 'Aid from the Kingdom of Thailand.'

'We have already seen regional commanders putting their names on the side of aid shipments from Asia, saying this was gift from them and then distributing it in their region,' said Mr Mark Farmaner, director of Burma Campaign UK, which campaigns for human rights and democracy in the country.

'It is not going to areas where it is most in need,' he said in London.

What a bunch of sad losers these idiotic generals are. Now we know why they are holding up aid agencies' access to their suffering people -- they are too busy pasting their stupid names on the boxes.

.

Appeal for help for Myanmar

The reclusive Myanmar authorities are slowly revealing the horrifying extent of the destruction caused by the Tropical Cyclone Nargis, which hit the country over the weekend.

The latest reports were that 22,500 Myanmarese people have perished, with 10,000 dead in one city alone. 41,000 others are still missing and at least 25,000 homes have been lost.

Relief organisation World Vision estimates that over 2 million people have been hit by the effects of the cyclone. James Tumbuan, World Vision's National Director in Yangon said, "Yangon totally collapsed. Getting drinking water is a real problem."

Tumbuan said thousands of people are now camped in government schools in and around Yangon.

The Singapore Government has pledged US$200,000 for relief efforts in Myanmar.

I'm sure much more will be needed. I'd encourage those of us with the means to help out too. In these situations, the best way to help is to donate money to reputable aid organisations who are able to reach the victims, both during the immediate aftermath as well as during the reconstruction phases.

World Vision is one such charity which I regularly donate to. Donations can be made via credit card, Internet banking or cheque. Please click here for more details.

.

How good leaders manage failure

This was an article snippet posted as an anonymous comment on Tan Kin Lian's blog. I thought it is so appropriate in light of our recent "Toilet Break" affair.

(Former President of India APJ Abdul Kalam at Wharton India Economic forum, Philadelphia , March 22,2008)

Question: Could you give an example, from your own experience, of how leaders should manage failure?

Kalam: Let me tell you about my experience. In 1973 I became the project director of India 's satellite launch vehicle program, commonly called the SLV-3. Our goal was to put India 's 'Rohini' satellite into orbit by 1980. I was given funds and human resources -- but was told clearly that by 1980 we had to launch the satellite into space. Thousands of people worked together in scientific and technical teams towards that goal.

By 1979 -- I think the month was August -- we thought we were ready. As the project director, I went to the control center for the launch. At four minutes before the satellite launch, the computer began to go through the checklist of items that needed to be checked. One minute later, the computer program put the launch on hold; the display showed that some control components were not in order. My experts -- I had four or five of them with me -- told me not to worry; they had done their calculations and there was enough reserve fuel. So I bypassed the computer, switched to manual mode, and launched the rocket. In the first stage, everything worked fine. In the second stage, a problem developed. Instead of the satellite going into orbit, the whole rocket system plunged into the Bay of Bengal. It was a big failure.

That day, the chairman of the Indian Space Research Organization, Prof. Satish Dhawan, had called a press conference. The launch was at 7:00 am, and the press conference -- where journalists from around the world were present -- was at 7:45 am at ISRO's satellite launch range in Sriharikota [in Andhra Pradesh in southern India ]. Prof. Dhawan, the leader of the organization, conducted the press conference himself. He took responsibility for the failure -- he said that the team had worked very hard, but that it needed more technological support. He assured the media that in another year, the team would definitely succeed. Now, I was the project director, and it was my failure, but instead, he took responsibility for the failure as chairman of the organization.

The next year, in July 1980, we tried again to launch the satellite -- and this time we succeeded. The whole nation was jubilant. Again, there was a press conference. Prof. Dhawan called me aside and told me, 'You conduct the press conference today.'

I learned a very important lesson that day. When failure occurred, the leader of the organization owned that failure. When success came, he gave it to his team. The best management lesson I have learned did not come to me from reading a book; it came from that experience.

It's interesting that in Singapore (at least in the Government), it seems the opposite is practised. When some amoeba civil servant comes up with a great idea, the government mouthpieces boast that "Minister Chin Tua Liap mooted the idea".

But if a disgraceful prison break occurs, the blame is contained within the detention centre and no higher. And the Government's logic is that blaming the Minister will lower morale of the staff. So better to blame the underlings and "move on".

.

Freedom House Press Freedom Report on Singapore

Singapore

Status: Not Free
Legal Environment: 24
Political Environment: 24
Economic Environment: 21
Total Score: 69

Media freedom in Singapore continued to be constrained in 2007, with the vast majority of print and broadcast journalists practicing self-censorship for fear of harsh defamation charges, while a government review raised concerns of increased restrictions for online content in the future. The Singapore Constitution provides the right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 14, but also permits restrictions on these rights. In addition, the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act, the Defamation Act, and the Internal Security Act (ISA) constrain press freedom, allowing the authorities to restrict the circulation of news deemed to incite violence, arouse racial or religious tensions, interfere in domestic politics, or threaten public order, national interest or national security. The judiciary lacks independence and systematically returns verdicts in the government’s favor, further undermining press freedom in the city-state. Singapore law does not recognized journalists’ rights to protect the identity of their sources and in May 2007, Reuters correspondent Mia Shanley was forced to reveal an anonymous source in a commercial case under an order from the Court of Appeals.

Films, television programs, music, books and magazines are sometimes censored; all films with a political purpose are banned unless government-sponsored. In April 2007, the government banned a film by filmmaker and blogger Martyn See about Said Zahari, a journalist and political activist who was held without trial for 17 years under the ISA. Although Zahari's 17 Years, was banned under the Film Act from being screened in Singapore, it could still be viewed on the Internet. The Singapore government and ruling party members are quick to sue critics under harsh civil and criminal defamation laws in order to silence and bankrupt political opponents and critical media outlets. Foreign media in Singapore are also subject to such pressures and restrictive laws. In October 2007, the Financial Times published an apology and agreed to pay damages to the ruling Lee family for a September article that suggested nepotism factored into various appointments allocated to several of its members. Foreign publications are required by the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts to post a bond of S$200,000 (approximately $127,200) and appoint a local legal representative if they wish to publish in Singapore. In August 2006, after the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) published an interview with opposition party leader Chee Soon Juan, it and four other foreign publications were informed they would no longer be exempt from the regulations as they had been previously and needed to post a deposit. When the FEER did not comply, its circulation permit was revoked, effectively banning the publication, a ban which remained in effect throughout 2007, though the publication was accessible online. In a corresponding defamation suit filed by the prime minister and his father over the article, a June 2007 ruling by the Singapore High Court rejected the magazine’s application for a Queen’s Counsel from the United Kingdom to represent it.

Nearly all print and broadcast media outlets, Internet service providers, and cable television services are either owned or controlled by the state, or by companies with close ties to the ruling People's Action Party. Annual licensing requirements for all media outlets, including political and religious web sites, have been used to inhibit criticism of the government. Internet use is widespread in Singapore, but the government attempts to restrict and control it by licensing Internet service providers. Websites offering political or religious content are also required to register with the government’s Media Development Authority (MDA), thus making a website's owners and editors criminally liable for any content that the government finds objectionable. Although the ruling party has been successful in curbing dissenting opinion among traditional print and broadcast media, the Internet has proven more difficult to control. Bloggers and discussion groups still offer alternative views and a virtual channel for expressing dissent. During the year, an online petition against a proposed salary hike for government ministers collected thousands of signatures as well as comments criticizing the hike and the authorities’ lack of accountability. In March 2007, the MDA announced that it was seeking to expand the jurisdiction of its Media Market Conduct Code from the traditional print and broadcast sectors to new media markets. Although the MDA said its review was intended "to better address competition issues that may arise under the new landscape", international watchdog groups expressed concerns that the revisions would be used to limit ownership and stifle online dissent. The internet was accessed by over 66 percent of the population in 2007.

Download the full report here.


---------------

Singapore was ranked 153rd out of 170 countries.

Have Singaporeans really moved on?

Scanning the forum pages of our English dailies, I notice a glaring absence of any letters about Mas Selamat-gate.

This could be due to one of two things:
1. Singaporeans have really moved on, as SM Goh Chok Tong and Straits Times' political editor Chua Lee Hong exhorted us to; or

2. The media is rejecting all letters about the issue, and is failing its national duty of reflecting the views of Singaporeans.

Which one is it?

p.s. those who read the Chinese, Malay and Tamil press, do share the situation on that front.