The Anti Neo-Democracy Theorist

Will Philip Jeyaratnam get his way? Remember Francis Seow and why no mention of him in the ST article? Perhaps is time to let the Law Society speak again? What do lawyers such as Mr Wang say about this?

ST
Oct 28, 2006
Law Society seeks voice on non-legal issues

By K.C. Vijayan

LAW Society president Philip Jeyaretnam has called for the body to be given the freedom to speak out on issues outside the legal profession, but the Law Ministry does not look likely to agree.

Since 1986, the society has been bound by tight laws limiting its scope to comment on matters like civil liberties, after it went head-to-head with the Government in a tussle over the issue.

The Law Society had sparked the row with its outspoken opposition to, among other things, laws curbing foreign publications that commented negatively on Singapore’s domestic politics.

At the time, Mr Wong Kan Seng, who was acting community development minister, criticised the society for getting involved in issues of public policy not directly related to the profession.

A clause in the Legal Profession Act was then added, so that the society would be permitted to comment on only legislation ’submitted to it’. The clause had previously empowered the group to speak on all legislative matters.

Malaysia and Brunei subsequently imposed similar restrictions on their own legal associations.

In the latest issue of the society’s journal, Law Gazette, Mr Jeyaretnam said the profession ‘ought to be freed to express its views on civil liberties while keeping out of partisan politics”.

He described the restriction as being ‘at odds with the proper role of the legal profession in society’.

Mr Jeyaretnam said the society’s work record over the past few years had demonstrated that it has a special role to play in the justice system, including seeking reform and change ‘even on such contentious matters as police custody’.

He also pointed out that professional law bodies in Britain and Australia had recently spoken out on proposed anti- terrorism measures, regardless of whether their views were sought by their governments.

‘Lawyers do have special expertise that justifies having a voice on constitutional and civil liberty issues,’ he said.

Lawyers welcomed his views, arguing that the present climate is different from that in the 1980s.

Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore president Subhas Anandan said he did not support the 1986 changes in the first place, but added that he doubted whether lawyers would speak out even if the law was changed.

The Law Ministry does not appear to share the society’s views.

Contacted by The Straits Times, a ministry spokesman said ‘the rationale for the 1986 amendment still stands’.

The spokesman said the Law Society’s activities should stay within the specific purposes set out in the Legal Profession Act, which concern the regulation of the legal profession, maintaining professional standards and advancing lawyers’ professional interests.

She said the Law Society was not meant to serve as a ’special interest group to speak out collectively on any particular issue unconnected with these purposes’.

‘There is no restriction on lawyers expressing their views in their individual capacity on any matter and many have in fact done so,’ she said.

‘When the Law Society submitted views and suggestions on its own accord to the Ministry of Law relating to the administration of justice and practice of law in Singapore, which are matters within its statutory powers, the Ministry of Law has considered them carefully.’

It is in some of these situations, that I feel that PAP MPs are not uniformly good. I really admire PAP MPs like Halimah Yaacob who really empathise with fellow Singaporeans. I have seen how she cuts to the chase and offers immediate and concrete support and solutions for her constituents and Singaporeans.

Another MP like that is former MP Leong Horn Kee. Not all PAP MPs are uncaring and not alternative MPs are potentially that good. But sometimes is frustrating to see MPs like Wee elected who seem to be uncaring compared to good potential MPs like Sylvia Lim and Steve Chia. Perhaps in the greater good for Singapore, we should have a fairer electoral system and a more even playing field for all candidates so as to elect the best people into parliament. Even simple things like scrapping or twerking the GRCs can help to reward good alternative potential MPs to enter parliament.

Another Proposal: Make our Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) have some form of proportional representation. We can tinker with the rules to make it benefit the incumbent (PAP) but also to give some representation to the other party contesting. We can give any party who cross the 40% threshold one seat out of the five or six members in the GRC.

The ward he or she represents will be the area(s) that have the highest opposition votes. In that case, there will be more incentive for better people to join the opposition and to reward the efforts of Singaporeans who work hard in getting elected. In addition, we ensure that votes are not lost and gerrymandering effect lessen; people who vote opposition should have a voice to represent them in parliament.

For example in the last election, there was only one GR constituency that garnered 40% for one party and above; the Aljunied GRC. 4 out of the 5 seats in Aljunied would go to PAP (the party will decide who will “fill the list” out of the 5 candidates) amd 1 seat will go to WP. WP could hold the ward of Cheng San, assuming that CS was the place where the highest percentage of votes went to the opposition.

Predictably, Slyvia Lim would be chosen by WP to fill that seat. In this way, at least the 44% of Aljunied GRC voters would have at least one voice in Parliament. And although 40% represents an artifically high threshold for winning one seat (most countries under similar systems as Singapore is usually 33%-look at Chile 3 members GRC system-and even that is very high); my argument is that is fair that at least ONE seat can represent the 40000++ voters who voted for WP.

If 3 parties contests in a GRC and if the results are 43%-42%-15%, to make electoral rules simple, the party with 43% will still take all 4 seats versus the one seat for the second highest party.

On another note, I am very worried about how young Singapore woman, especially high achievers, are being more elitist in their outlook. At the very least, Singapore males go through NS where they meet a wide range of people from different strata of society (not always true for scholar types but almost always true for everyone else).

The Straits Times (Singapore)
October 26, 2006 Thursday
Wee Siew Kim apologises for remarks

BYLINE: Ken Kwek

MP WEE Siew Kim has said sorry for remarks he and his 18-year-old daughter, Shu Min, made about Singaporeans who worry about jobs.

In a statement issued to The Straits Times last night, he apologised for the comments he made in an earlier interview on his daughter’s criticism of another blogger, Mr Derek Wee, 35, on her Internet journal.

‘We both apologise to the people whom we have offended, and especially Mr Derek Wee,’ the MP said.

Miss Wee, a Raffles Junior College (RJC) student, had last week called Mr Derek Wee ‘old’ and ‘undermotivated’ after he wrote in his blog that the Government should try to be more understanding of Singaporeans’ employment woes.

Many on the Internet slammed her for her remarks. She subsequently shut down her blog and was later counselled by her tutor at RJC.

In an interview with The Straits Times published on Tuesday, her father tried to smooth things over by acknowledging that she had used insensitive language.

However, he said he stood by his daughter’s ‘basic point’, saying well-educated Singaporeans such as Mr Derek Wee should ‘get on with the challenges in life’ rather than complain to the Government about them. ‘I think if you cut through the insensitivity of the language, her basic point is reasonable,’ he had said.

‘Some people cannot take the brutal truth and that sort of language, so she ought to learn from it,’ he added.

The MP’s comments drew further criticism, especially online.

Yesterday, in his apology, he said: ‘I should not have said what I did about people’s inability to take the brutal truth and strong language.’

Random Next Blog

I decide to do a little experiment today. By clicking the “Next Blog” icon on my blog, I wanted to see what kind of random blogs I get, who wrote them and where they are from. The results surprised me.

Out of the 20 blogs I continuously click,
Their countries of origin were

7-USA
1-Canada
3-Espanol aka Spanish (not sure from which country exactly)
1-Taiwan
6-Singapore
2-Not sure where from

What kind of information
2-Picture Blogs/Travel Blogs
5-Personal Trivia Blog aka Xiaxue Type
7-Serious Blogs
1-Sketchy Blog
1-Advertisment Blog
3-Can’t read Spanish

What was so surprising is that there are so many Singapore blogs, 6 out of 20 is quite a lot, considering that our population is less than 4 million compared to 300 million Americans.

Out of the 6 blogs, 3 of them are blogged by overseas Singaporeans, 1 by an Belgium expat in Singapore and 2 by young Singaporean students. Interesting eh?

Also interesting were the amount of Serious blogs out there, not only commenting on their lives, but also on the war in Iraq, the nature of comparative literature and Singapore’s social affairs.

A Overseas Singaporean student blog is also interesting. The blog tells of his recent exploits around the America-Mexico border (would not say which sch he is from). Very interesting.

Why don’t you try that today and tell me what you find?

Latest Reporters without Borders’ Ranking out on Freedom of the Press.

Singapore fell to 146, behind Zimbabwe, Sudan and Somalia. Our press has less freedom than Mugabe’s regime?

It is also interesting that developed countries such as Australia fell because of their anti terror laws? So much for protecting domestic freedom under the guise of fighting terrorism?

That’s what RSF says about America:

“Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.” The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism.

Freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf was imprisoned when he refused to hand over his video archives. Sudanese cameraman Sami al-Haj, who works for the pan-Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera, has been held without trial since June 2002 at the US military base at Guantanamo, and Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has been held by US authorities in Iraq since April this year.”

IT is also interesting to note that Eastern European countries have improved on their RSF ranking. Without being the focus of much of the problems in the world, I predict that no only will EE countries be more politically open in the future, it will also be one of the most dynamic regions in the world. Estonia and the Czech Republic are probably also one the best places to invest in the world today. So is Ireland, who has topped the rankings this year.

Ireland is the Celtic Tiger of Europe and growing at a rate of a developing country, but yet still maintains a politically open society. Who says you can’t have economic growth and political freedom at the same time?

Today is the anniversary of Hungarian Revolution against Soviet Rule

BBC has multiple coverage of this event.

I thought the one on Brain drain from an authoritarian state like that of the failed revolution is interesting. The Tiananmen Incident during 1989 in China also led to a severe brain drain in the academics and professional sectors. Wonder does it happen to Singapore too, especially in the 80s and 90s?

Rob Bronwnlow of Taipei Times wrote an interesting article on Oct 1 on how a Rev Hung helps out Vietnamese Refugees in Taiwan after escaping from Vietnam many years ago.

The strength of NGOs in Taiwan is commendable. I wonder how our similar NGOs are doing? I think the TWC is doing well in helping our foreign workers but a lot of Singaporeans still have a colonial mentality towards maids lah.

Will Hong Kong become a fully democratic polity? I think it would but time is a main factor.

1) HK has the underlying institutions of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly to sustain a participatory democracy. Most of the criticisms of HK government by civil society and the media have been non violent and civil. There is also an active civil society scene in Hong Kong.

2) Tsang has to live up to his promise to see that Hong Kong opens up even more. With a prior commitment by leaders of HK to install universal suffrage in their lifetime (whatever that means), civil society and opposition legislators can constantly use accountability politics to persuade HK leaders to install universal suffrage. Even independents who are not elected in the HK legislative bodies (a little like our NMPs) are calling for Tsang (see below article) to install universal suffrage.

3) It is unlikely even if an opposition party wins in Hong Kong, they can easily secede from mainland China. It is likely that the Democrat Party, if gained power, would have to come to some sort of political compromise with the leaders in Beijing. This would diminish the DP’s moral legitmacy but it would keep HK going.

4) If the welfare system in HK can be improved, it would help to sustain a functioning democracy by preventing too many losers. On the other hand, a populist government might even tax HK (horrors to HKers) but can help to close the large income gap in HK.

Interesting Article in HK Standard
Tsang hits back at critics over universal suffrage

Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam- kuen, reacting to strong criticism he had sidestepped the question of political development in his policy address, said Thursday the introduction of universal suffrage would not immediately solve all of Hong Kong’s problems.

Michael Ng

Friday, October 13, 2006

Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam- kuen, reacting to strong criticism he had sidestepped the question of political development in his policy address, said Thursday the introduction of universal suffrage would not immediately solve all of Hong Kong’s problems.

He told legislators at a question-and- answer session his government’s aim is to find a model of democracy that will best suit Hong Kong’s needs.

Democratic Party legislator Yeung Sum opened the attack, accusing Tsang of intentionally dodging the issue of universal suffrage in his address Wednesday.

“There was nothing in the policy address to indicate the government was working on it. Would your government introduce any proposal on universal suffrage in the near future?” Yeung asked. Tsang responded by saying there were seven paragraphs in his address relating to universal suffrage. He said while he totally agreed universal suffrage is a common desire shared by everybody, he is trying to find the best arrangement in accordance with set procedures laid down by the Basic Law.

“However, I hope legislator Yeung does not expect Hong Kong to become fully prosperous and free of problems once universal suffrage is introduced. As we have seen even countries which practice full democracy have problems to overcome,” Tsang said.

Tsang said one of the problems faced by the government is that even the public cannot agree on how the Legislative Council should be elected as proposals put forward by the Democratic Party and the former chief secretary Sir David Akers-Jones both lack support.

As such, he hopes all parties will raise more proposals for public discussion, adding that not only he but also the central government are concerned at arriving at a suitable formula.

“They too hope for the issue to be settled appropriately,” Tsang said.

The Frontier’s Emily Lau, who branded the Commission on Strategic Development a blackbox operation lacking in transparency, chipped in to say the concept of universal suffrage is not as difficult as Tsang was suggesting. “We just want a one-person one-vote system. I hope the chief executive would not say this is complicated,” Lau said.

Medical sector legislator Kwok Ka- ki urged Tsang to clarify whether his earlier promise, in which he said he hoped to see the introduction of universal suffrage during his lifetime, is still valid.

“You once promised us and the local public that universal suffrage will be introduced during your lifetime. I hope this was not an empty promise or a philosophical discussion,” Kwok said.

Tsang reiterated the Commission on Strategic Development is now seriously studying the issue of political reform and he hoped all legislators would actively participate in its discussions.

“Incidentally, I have confidence universal suffrage will be introduced in my lifetime but the most important thing for me now is to do more exercise so that I will not suddenly die in anger,” he said to laughter from the chamber.

In a briefing with foreign journalists, Tsang said the government is studying how Western-style democracy has been applied in Asian political settings.

“I do believe we need a model of our own. But in doing so, we have to see what are the drawbacks and what are the strengths of the other systems applied in the region,” he said.

Tsang said the political models adopted by Japan, Taiwan and Singapore would not suit Hong Kong.

“None of them seems to be fully palatable from our point of view,” he added.

Tsang said for the remaining eight months of his tenure, he would stick to pragmatic issues and would not indulge in empty talk or ideological slogans. “Over the next eight months I will adopt an apprehensible and workable policy direction to resolve our short- term problems,” he said

Who says Singaporeans are not creative? Listen to latest Mr Brown show, “Thank you for democracY”

Damn Funny!

In cheers to my brother’s birthday, I decide to run an old article of his which is great

Reminds me that Prof. Barr could be a little late on his article on President’s Scholars and racial discrimination in the FEER

It’s a good thing the rising tide lifts all boats.
Written for Friday Matters for Straits Times, but not published.

It’s a good thing the rising tide lifts all boats.

It would suck if, in the future, the country we knew as young children and fresh immigrants became so alien to us as to become unrecognizable. When Singapore became independent in 1965, as a country we were committed to the idea of meritocracy and rapid social mobility, and to the kind of country that would give us. After all, at that time, there was no reason to oppose the idea that the son (or daughter) of a labourer might eventually rise to a position of wealth and even political influence. And this was so, for many of the wealthiest and most powerful among us today rose from humble origins. It is a credit to them that they wear their power and wealth lightly, recognizing that success and good things were granted them by a society that placed no institutional barriers in their way and rewarded instead of oppressed intelligence and hard work.

But what if Singapore had taken a slightly different path? What if meritocracy had led us instead in the direction of increasing social inequality and slowing social mobility as it has done in many countries larger, wiser, and older than us? The country that the generation which saw independence imagined in Singapore’s future would be a very different place.

Singapore’s rising tide might have raised only the fifty-foot luxury yacht in Sentosa Cove instead of also raising the bumboats and the tugboats and those small boats made of peely-painted plywood you see hanging out in the waters of the Singapore River off Clifford Pier. If history as it played out in other nations of the developed and developing worlds remains true to form, this hypothetical Singapore would find that all except the richest and best educated citizens were slowly becoming poorer and poorer. Under such conditions, the household income of the poorest members of our citizenry might be declining even as the country as a whole faced living standards undreamed of in the dark days of our separation from Malaya. Where the smartest and hardest-working rapidly rose to positions of power and general eminence, it is not difficult to imagine that they also became increasingly adept in holding on to their wealth and influence.

The trendy, expensive eateries and shopping centres for which Singapore is justly famous would be frequented by the young and the wealthy, who would get there in taxis and tremendously expensive cars. Older Singaporeans who had seen Singapore change from a country of flatted factories turning out textiles and (later) electronic goods would be bewildered and left behind by the new knowledge economy. What, they might wonder, is this marvelous new “biotechnology industry” (for example) that the government keeps talking about, and—more important—can it be eaten? Together with the poor and even the middle-class, the old would bumble around on cheap but inconvenient public transport, wistfully looking in at one of the highest living standards in Asia and, some say, the world.

If our publicly-funded education and scholarship systems were not as accessible and non-discriminatory as they are today, we might even find the children of the wealthy and well connected dominating the best schools and the most prestigious scholarships. Living in Districts 9 and 10 would become prerequisites for doing two (or even three) S-papers and then getting into the best overseas universities on the most lavish scholarships—without costly private tuition it would be impossible otherwise for even the most naturally gifted to cope.

And of course, were this all to actually be true, worse—much, much worse—would lie in store. Social stratification would begin inexorably to creep into the egalitarian and meritocratic society that was born in 1965. Public parks and hawker centres would be the only places where the rich would come into contact with the poor, the old, and the obsolete, but they would never do that since these places lack air-conditioning and anyway do not have the cultivated and refined air of country clubs, alumni associations, and fine dining establishments like those sprinkled so liberally around the Sixth Avenue and Holland Village.

Age would not, as our heritage of Asian values tells us, be revered for accumulated wisdom and experience—we would instead revile it for the obsolescence and poverty it implies. We would look with pity at the less educated pioneers of Singapore bewildered by credit card debt, investment vehicles, and six-dollar gourmet coffees from unpronounceable places in South America. We would vow never to let ourselves be left behind like that, to be true riders of the knowledge economy’s many and various waves. And then we’d order another double decaf grande vanilla soy latte with a hazelnut shot.

We should all give thanks that luck and wise governance have ensured that none of this has come to pass in Singapore. Otherwise, things would really suck.

Soon Sze Meng and Vaughn Tan

Is it as easy as the WP propose? I do not think there is a “solution” to the haze problem because law enforcement on the local level is just not good enough, not even during the autocratic periods of Suharto. In my opinon, the Open list Proportional Representation system that will be adopted in next Indonesia election will accelerate decentralization of politics in Indonesia. It will mean less oversight for the political parties and will acceleate fragmentation of the already fragmented party system. Bad move for Indonesia and more bad air for Singapore in the future?

Learn more about Open List PR here.
If you do not know, Singapore has a first past the post system with multi member districts.

The Straits Times (Singapore)
October 14, 2006 Saturday
WP: S’pore Govt must act more urgently and firmly

Peh Shing Huei

THE Workers’ Party (WP) says that the Singapore Government owes it to its citizens to ‘adopt a greater sense of urgency and firmness’ in solving the haze problem.

In a statement signed by party chairman Sylvia Lim, the opposition party yesterday questioned the progress made since the early 1990s when the smoke from forest fires in Indonesia first hit Singapore.

‘Singaporeans have been more than patient. Fourteen years on, what progress has been made?’ asked Ms Lim, who is also a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament.

She added: ‘The PSI levels in Singapore continue to reach unhealthy levels, reducing visibility and creating health problems such as respiratory difficulties and eye irritation. Singaporeans have been suffering physical damage, inconvenience and expense for years.’

The problem requires regional commitment to solve, the party said, adding that it hopes that the meeting of Asean environment ministers this weekend in Pekanbaru will not be a futile one.

‘While respecting the sovereignty of our neighbour Indonesia, the Singapore Government owes it to Singaporeans to adopt a greater sense of urgency and firmness in working out effective solutions to the haze problem,’ said the WP.

It has proposed setting some milestones. These include a timeline for Indonesia to ratify the Asean Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution and a schedule and implementation plan from the Indonesian government on prevention, detection and putting-out of fires.

The WP also said there should be a commitment from the Indonesian government to improve its laws and prosecute those who start forest fires. There should also be contributions from Asean countries, including Singapore, to help Indonesia.

Asked what she thought the Singapore Government should do if the Indonesians could not be persuaded to act, Ms Lim told The Straits Times: ‘The Asean countries have to discuss and find ways to get Indonesia to comply.’

But she added: ‘The problem is hard to solve.’