The Anti Neo-Democracy Theorist

Statement of the Far Eastern Economic Review
September 28, 2006

The Singaporean government today announced that it has banned the Far Eastern Economic Review from the country. It has explicitly warned that not only is the Review Publishing Company forbidden from importing or distributing the Hong Kong-based monthly, but Singaporeans will also commit a criminal offense if they import or reproduce the magazine for distribution.

In its September issue, the Review urged the Singaporean government to reconsider its decision to impose punitive regulations on the Review. These retroactive regulations furthered the interests of individual members of the government and harmed the magazine financially, but were never justified by the government under the applicable law. Today’s statement shows that the government has refused to reconsider its repressive approach toward the media.

We regret that this action infringes on the fundamental rights of our Singaporean subscribers and further restricts the already narrow scope of free expression in Singapore. The Review will publish a more complete response to the government’s actions in the next issue of the magazine to appear on October 6.

FEER magazine banned in Singapore-Not good lah. In this new economy, we need up to date information and analysis on Asia Pacific region, especially investors and students. We can’t be frogs in a well…..

Seriously, does the government want to encourage people to read stupid magazine like Cosmopolitian and trashy magazines as opposed to a serious and respected magazine like FEER?

Okay, I think that the government does have the full right to reply to the FEER and FEER should/have allowed that.

HK magazine loses permit to sell

This is so hilarous, Mr Brown has reached a new height!

An Interesting Letter in the Straits Times Forum: I must agree there is significant financial aid assistance and visibility too in my college, however, whether such aid is as readily available as Ms Oliveiro suggests is really up to individual school. Harvard, after all, is one of the richest school in the United States.

Sep 27, 2006
NUS can be pro-active to help needy students

I REFER to Associate Professor Ang Siau Gek’s letter “Undergrad-burglar may yet complete studies” (ST, Sept 22). While it was reassuring to learn that NUS has funds to help poor undergraduates, what was disquieting was that So Weng Kei did not make use of them.

While I commend NUS on its efforts to raise funds for financial aid, it can also be more aggressive in finding and helping poor students.

NUS’s website for students has links to residential life and off-campus accommodation, policies on photocopying and extra-curricular activities, loss of matriculation cards, and other issues affecting student life. Under the label “Useful Links”, I learn about “NUS Corporatisation”.

Nowhere on this webpage is the issue of financial aid prominently highlighted. I clicked on the link “Office of Finance” and was referred to a page which talked about “financial planning, budget management, development of financial systems, financial control and reporting, and payroll administration”.

I finally found a link to the “Financial Aid Directory”. It was link No.34, buried under a myriad of topics. Imagine my disappointment when all it led to was a one sentence paragraph which says that “a Student Financial Aid Unit has been set up within the Registrar’s Office to provide a visible and integrated approach to assist students with financial difficulties or concerns”.

Does this sound like a “visible” approach?

In contrast, on the webpage for my school at Harvard University, student financial aid is one of only eight prominent links on the page. Click on this and you are referred to further links to information on applications, loans, work study, fellowships, and other sources of funding. Indeed, on Harvard’s main website, “Admissions and Financial Aid” is the second tab you see next to “Home”.

Every year I receive a handbook on how I may finance my studies. I am also sent financial aid forms. The Associate Dean of Student Affairs and the Director of Student Services make themselves available regularly and remind us to come to talk to them on any issue.

Approachable departmental administrators are known to be a student’s first resource on financial aid issues. Several of my friends had face-to-face discussions on their financial situation with the Administrative Dean herself. Therein lies the recognition that “copyright and photocopying”, “information on bird flu”, university “corporatisation” and “Constitution, Statutes, and Regulations” would be of little concern to a student who cannot afford to be one in the first place.

The first step to improving NUS’s ability to find and help needy students would be to make financial aid information far more prominent on its website.

Highlighting this will let all students know that seeking financial aid is a normal part of student life at NUS, and that it’s nothing to be embarrassed about. There should be a direct link to the Student Financial Aid Unit prominently highlighted on NUS’s main webpage.

The second thing NUS needs to do is to make its administration seem more approachable so that students who need financial aid will not be discouraged from seeking help.

Harvard alumni NUS President Shih Choon Fong may want to take the lead on this issue by emulating the example of Harvard Interim President Derek Bok. President Bok will be meeting students this semester. He will be seeing us on a first-come first-served basis.

Vernie Alison Oliveiro (Ms)
Massachusetts, USA

Pay and Pay lah

SINGAPORE : Electricity tariffs will go up by an average of 2.3 percent or 0.49 cents per KWh (kilo-watt hour) between October 1 and December 31 this year.

SP Services explains that electricity price is pegged to the forward price of fuel, which is higher for the next quarter at $88.52 per barrel, compared to $87.49 per barrel previously.

Fuel cost makes up 55 percent of the cost of electricity.

The tariffs are reviewed every quarter and adjusted in line with fluctuation of fuel oil prices.

The tariff adjustments have been approved by industry regulator Energy Market Authority.

The next review will be in December.

- CNA /ls

Interesting Article in THE NATION, Thai’s independent paper

EDITORIAL
Pull the plug on Surakiart’s UN bid

The CDRM should withdraw support for the former deputy PM’s candidacy in the race to succeed Kofi Annan

The Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy (CDRM) left many baffled with its recent announcement that the country would continue to support former deputy prime minister Surakiart Sathirathai in his bid to become the next UN secretary-general, replacing Kofi Annan who plans to step down in coming weeks. General Sonthi Boonyaratglin’s advisers said that he wanted to show that he was a “gentleman” - not a bully out to destroy all things Thai Rak Thai.

If that is the case, Sonthi has demonstrated unusual magnanimity - given the fact Surakiart had gone out of his way to defend ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra to his last political breath.

Besides going on a live CNN newscast to slam the junta as the coup was unfolding, Surakiart was instrumental in the redrafting of Thaksin’s speech that was to be delivered to the UN General Assembly but cancelled once it became obvious that the CDRM had taken full control of government. Thaksin was looking to use this speech to attack Sonthi for staging the coup.

Up to his last day in power, Thaksin was telling the world that he was a democratically elected leader and that those who opposed him were undemocratic. Never mind the fact that he had destroyed democratic institutions, rolled back civil liberties and intimidated his critics.

While Sonthi may want to project the image that he is a good sport, Surakiart’s return to the race for the UN’s top job could be problematic. UN members will definitely ask Surakiart about Thaksin’s rule and it would be interesting to hear what he has to say about his former boss. What will he tell them about the coup leaders?

Moreover, instead of letting the Foreign Ministry’s permanent secretary make the announcement in regard to Surakiart’s future, Sonthi made it a point to reconfirm Surakiart’s candidacy by issuing a formal order as leader of the military council.

Ever since Surakiart was endorsed by Asean, the ambitious former deputy prime minister presented himself as the Asean candidate. He fooled himself into believing that the endorsement was a binding commitment, refusing to entertain the idea that perhaps he should step down from the race if and when it became clear that he would have no chance of winning.

The past two straw votes saw Surakiart finish a distance third, with three “discourage” votes coming from some of the 15-member UN Security Council (UNSC).

The argument that Surakiart cannot withdraw because he is an officially endorsed Asean candidate and that he would need the approval of the association’s leaders to stand down is nonsense. Asean doesn’t really care, and they would be more than willing to put forward an alternative candidate.

Singapore, the Philippines and Indonesia are said to have expressed interest in fielding one of their own if and when Surakiart withdraws from the race. Besides, there are at least a few Thai nationals who are better qualified and who would stand a far better chance of winning than Surakiart. Hundreds of millions of baht in taxpayers’ money have already been spent on Surakiart’s expensive trips to foreign capitals to beg for support.

Sonthi and the generals owe it to the people to curb this type of wasteful spending.

Surakiart has run a very aggressive and lavish campaign over these past two years, to the point where it has put Thailand in an embarrassing position. Indeed, there has hardly been a dull moment in Surakiart’s campaign as the work of spin-doctors has been complemented by half-truths and diplomatic strong-arm tactics, such as when Thai officials were dispatched to Sri Lanka to try to get Colombo to withdraw its candidate.

The upcoming straw vote tomorrow must be Surakiart’s last chance. Surakiart must voluntarily stand aside and let Asean endorse another candidate if the UNSC denies him a passing grade. Failing that, the CDRM must spell out in plain language to Surakiart that he will not be allowed to continue to embarrass himself and Thailand in the eyes of the international community, and withdraw support for his candidacy.

Not Singapore, but thailand lah…
From The Nation, Thailand’s independent media

DEMOCRACY DEMO
Protesters defy junta restriction

Activists ignore ban and criticise ‘rape of Thailand’
As many as 50 university students and some academics openly defied the military yesterday and demonstrated against last week’s coup and its “illegitimate leaders” at Thammasat University.

About 200 people witnessed the demonstration, which included the singing of pro-democracy songs.

There were no arrests, although several intelligence officers were present and recorded the event.

Foreign and local journalists covered the peaceful outdoors protest-cum-discussion at Thammasat, a hotbed for student activism against several dictatorships over the past three decades.

The demonstration defied prohibitions imposed by the Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy (CDRM) on political activity and gatherings of groups of five or more.

Police had been requested to stay away by Thammasat University assistant rector Prinya Thewanaruemitkul. He assured them matters would not get out of control. There was no comment from senior police.

Students and lecturers - mostly wearing black - urged some 200 listeners to resist the CDRM and denounced the coup and its leaders as illegitimate and a threat to democracy.

Students held hands and sang pro-democracy songs while vowing to continue the fight to end the new dictatorship.

“We no longer need to wear the shirts of losers - political activists who accepted the coup. The choice in our world is not just between Thaksin or tanks,” said Arunwana Sanitkawathee, a Thammasat journalism student.

The senior argued Thais were too used to Superman-like heroes coming to their rescue.

They were happy the junta had freed them of Thaksin Shinawatra but should remember that he, too, was considered a hero not so long ago, Arunwana said.

Arunwana said it was not the job of the military to educate the public by censoring news.

Chulalongkorn University sociology graduate student Methas Buachum declared the coup was akin to the “rape of Thailand”.

“Martial law is passed at will and we’re susceptible to ‘rape’. The military and tanks are a symbol of senselessness and violence,” Methas told the crowd.

Chulalongkorn political science lecturer Kanokrat Lertchoosakul warned the coup was no guarantee Thaksin would not return to power. “The coup is not the beginning of [political] reform,” she said.

People must protect their political rights and right to political participation, she said.

“The junta has no legitimacy,” said Chanya Yimprasert, a labour activist.

Thammasat graduate student and rally organiser Uchaen Cheangsane said: “Today our political rights have been curtailed by a military regime that tore up the Constitution. What we’re doing is intentional defiance of junta orders.”

Some claimed the CDRM had been plotting a coup for as long as eight months and that its stated reasons for the overthrow were not genuine. A similar demonstration is slated to be held at the Chulalongkorn political science faculty at 4pm tomorrow. Political scientist Prapas Pintoptaeng, Giles Ungpakorn and doctoral student Sirote Klamphaiboon will speak.

Pravit Rojanaphruk,

Subhatra Bhumiprabhas

The Nation

Forward for youths?

Firstly, our world has become more uncertain. Technology is advancing relentlessly, markets are changing unpredictably, and we can no longer take our prosperity and security for granted. The Government has no monopoly of knowledge and ideas. To understand and tackle our challenges fully and vigorously, we need to draw on the expertise and resources of all our people.

Secondly, Singaporeans are now better educated and more informed. Their desire to be involved is much stronger. The younger generation would like more `space’ and a culture which encourages them to express themselves freely, make mistakes, voice diverse views and experiment. These are positive trends.The Government will therefore continue to do its utmost to build a civic society. We will promote a political culture which responds to people’s desire for greater participation, in a manner which supports Singapore’s growth as a nation.

-PM Lee he Harvard Club of Singapore’s 35th Anniversary Dinner, 6 Jan 2004, 7 pm

Reminding them of the seriousness of his pledge to engage them, he said: ‘We’re looking for a young generation to come along and take the team forward. And if you go to another country…will you be heard? What will be your impact on public life on the community in a country with a few hundred million people?’

They must, instead, stay and make a difference.

‘If I say I don’t like this, I’m fed up, let’s go, I think that’s a great pity. We would have lost somebody in whom we’ve put a lot of hope, and I think Singapore will be worse off.

‘But if we say this is not good, I’m going to make a nuisance of myself until I fix it, that’s different. Then I think there’s hope for Singapore. You stand your ground and you make it better. What is it you are unhappy with, let’s get that changed…You must have the optimal degree of unhappiness - just right, and the conviction to make a change.’

-PM to young: Help make Singapore better Sept 24, 2006 dialogue with the youths

Mr Low, pressing his point about why young Singaporeans believed opposition parties had an insignificant role to play in the growth of the nation, also cited the social studies classes taught in schools, which did not delve very much into the history of Singapore opposition politics.

He remarked: ‘What’s your imression of the opposition from the social studies classes? You’ll know that Singapore is almost equivalent to the PAP. Without PAP, it’s as though there is no Singapore, right?’

But not all is lost, Mr Low said, because not all Singapore youth are politically apathetic or want only material wealth. He said he believed the generation still had ‘people who are public-spirited, who are prepared to come forward, who are concerned about society’.

-WP Low Thia Khiang during April 23 2006 when introducing new WP candidates

Singapore

a grouping of unnerving, complicated people
Flushed out of their sleep
Swallowed by the megalomaniac city
Supernaturated from their brief sleep

I see dead people
Not dead people
but people with a purpose in life

What purpose you may ask?
Why don’t you ask them?
“No purpose”, “More money”, “God’s will”

Are common phrases heard
But what is sad that
Some say, “I don’t care at all”
“Why should I” they say

Singapore-a grouping of unnerving, complicated people
The Merlion overlooks

Today’s news that the military has staged a coup in Thailand should worry everybody. The fall of democracy comes in the wake of the Prime Minister of Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra and his opponents’ inability to solve the political impasses that plagued the country in the last few months.

The roots of the fall of Thai democracy should be primarily attributed to Thaksin’s failure to consolidate the fledging democracy in Thailand. Critics point out his blatant vote buying in the rural regions, his political actions against Thailand’s independent media, his use of former business dealings to aid his cronies and his purposeful cultivation of social and economic cleavages between Bangkok (where most people support the Democrat Party) and the rural regions to maintain power weakened the democratic institutions of his country. In addition, his poor engagement with civil society activists over the last January’s sale of his family’s 49 per cent stake in Thailand’s biggest telecommunications company to Temasek, Singapore’s state investment group, raised the stakes of the political game and made the rise of consensus politics, a vital component in a working democracy, impossible.

However, the opposition should take some blame too in the fall of Thai democracy. By repeatedly disputing the legitimacy of the April elections in the courts and being adamant about the removal of Thaksin at all costs, the opposition raised the fatigue of the populace’s support for a democratic system which requires for all political actors to respect institutionalized rules and the electoral outcomes. Even more shockingly, opposition Senator Mechai Viravaidya welcomed Mr Thaksin’s departure, despite doubts about the methods used. “I’m delighted he’s gone,” he told the BBC. “It would have been great if he had resigned voluntarily, but apparently he was too stubborn. But at least it’s better than an assassination.” In the words of Professor Juan Linz of Yale University and Professor Alfred Stephan of Columbia University, for a democracy to consolidate constitutionally, all significant actors must be habituated to the rule of law where democracy becomes “the only game in town.” Clearly, some members of the “democratic” opposition in Thailand do not think so.

What are the ramifications of the fall of Thailand’s democracy then for the world? First, there would likely be economical instability and uncertainty in the coming days in Thailand. Stock markets are predicted to fall across the regions and it is unsure whether the new regime would be committed to open markets as Thaksin’s government was.

Second, the coup might set back the democratization of the ASEAN region severely. Thailand, under a democratic regime, plays an important role in encouraging the Burmese government to open up economically, socially and politically. Will it continue to play this role under a military regime? What will happen to the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, a government-in-exile based in Thailand?

In addition, will the Malaysian, Singapore and Indonesian government be affected by the collapse of the Thaksin’s government in Thailand and reverse the current credible process of opening up their polity?

Third, for the United States, Thailand has always been seen as a stabilizing and democratic force in a region that has seen transitions to democracy, political instability and continual repression of basic human rights in recent years. Will the region be less secure with Thailand under a military regime? The larger question to ask is “will the regional grouping of the Association of South East Asia Nations (ASEAN) be taken seriously if one of its main leaders may become less committed to international norms and values?”

More importantly for Thailand, will it see another exodus of brain drain such as the times where seventeen coups that took place between 1932 and 1991 in Thailand? As Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore points out in his autobiography, From Third World to First, Thailand has been blessed with cosmopolitan and highly educated political leaders in recent history. Will this continue if academic and social freedoms are undermined in Thailand under this new regime?

It might be wise to heed the words of Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, in his recent Straits Times article, “We need to think more critically about how democracy and good governance can be achieved together, rather than yield to the illusion that if people surrender their freedom, they will get peace, prosperity and justice in return.”