Time to work towards getting the ‘old Clement’ back?

I was working this morning (well, sort of) at Vivo City. It was the National Heart Fair 2007 and I’m on their PR account. It was an extremely hot morning, and when I managed to escape into the mall for the air-con, I came across the Paths Market. It’s a bi-monthly market area for the disabled and local artists to showcase and sell their creations. A wonderful idea, actually. They had handicraft gifts and silk scarves from Cambodia, ‘samsui’ dolls made by old ladies in Singapore, handicraft gifts made by Hearing Impaired folks, along with some really cool artwork made by a down-syndrome girl, a chronic-depressive middle-aged Indian man, and caricatures by a man suffering from some form of epilepsy. It wasn’t the first time that I’ve been to this fair, but this time it was different.

I was with my sister, and for some reason, we decided to enquire about the possibility of volunteering. We met the organiser, Elim Chew, of ‘77th Street’ fame. She brought us on a little tour and filled us in to all the various stories of the participants. It was rather touching.

The problem, however, is that although I would normally be touched on hearing stories like these, it usually doesn’t amount to much more than a warm fuzzy feeling which subsides after a few minutes and is forgotten til the next time I hear another similarly touching story. I suspect that many people are the same way. Some of course go a little bit further, and tell themselves that something should.. something must be done to help. But soon, that is forgotten, and we go back to living our own lives.

I guess my problem is the result of my many negative experiences in the UK. First, there was the problems in the church I attended in London. I arrived in the UK on a ‘spiritual high’, full of idealism and enthusiasm. (I had been, from the time I became a Christian until then, under excellent teaching and preaching of the Word, and had been attending Bible College.) Having accepted a request to serve there by the Pastor (from Singapore) who was responsible for the founding of the church in London, I headed the Youth/Student Ministry at the church – speaking weekly on various topics during the Saturday meetings. I loved that group of people (in fact I remember one of them telling me that the reason why they kept coming back and were drawn to me was the belief/feeling that I really genuinely cared for them). However, with the constant opposition by a particular member of the church leadership (who was extremely difficult, sometimes hostile, towards the students) in relation to issues like evangelism among others, the constant gossip that they and their wives were sprouting, the continuous politics (which even led to good and faithful people being ‘forced out’ of the church), and their uncanny penchant for controversial issues and debate (on issues such as Calvinism, KJV only, Apologetics, Eschatology, Exegesis, just to mention a few), I left the church a year later, discouraged, jaded, completely disillusioned with Conservative Christianity (or what claimed to be Conservative Christianity).

It didn’t help that the problems continued even after I had left. I suppose I didn’t help myself by looking for another Conservative church in Birmingham, where I was studying. There I accepted an invitation to preach and everything seemed to go well, until these issues surfaced once again. This time it revolved around a guy ‘S’ and 2 ladies, ‘J’ and ‘L’.

S was a builder. I met him on one of those Saturdays that I went down to the Birmingham City Centre to ‘NetCast’ (ie evangelise). We got to talking, he allowed me to share the Gospel with him, and I had the wonderful privilege of leading him to Christ. Soon thereafter he began attending my church. He was provided with a pew bible (again a KJV). He then kept calling me every night asking me all these questions, and telling me how he was really excited to read his bible. Unfortunately there was a problem. You see, he was practically illiterate and couldn’t understand the complexities of the language of the KJV. My solution was simple. I got him large print NIV. Problem solved, so I thought. Unfortunately to the interim Pastor at the church, I had committed a heinous crime – I gave someone (and therefore endorsed) a non-KJV bible!

J was a middle-aged lady who wondered into our church one morning. I was preaching that week, and after the service, I went to speak to her. She wasn’t a Christian, but expressed a desire to know more. As such, I invited her back to the Pastor’s house for lunch (as was customary for us every week). There I had the opportunity to share with her the Gospel in its entirety, and was given the joy of leading her to Salvation. As was customary in the church, because of their beliefs on propriety, I had to ‘release’ her to another lady in the church to conduct her ‘discipleship’. This was taken up by the Interim Pastor’s wife, who in my opinion didn’t do a great job of making her feel a part of the church and she eventually fell by the way side. Then came L. L was a fellow-student at University. We met purely by accident when she showed up at my door looking for anyone who was a Singaporean. You see, she was a representative from the Singaporean Students Society (SingSoc). One night, we had a conversation on the phone which, for some reason I am unable to recall, led to the topic of Christianity. I took the opportunity to share with her the Gospel and she accepted Jesus into her heart.

Soon we commenced an unofficial ‘discipleship’ course (partly prompted by what happened with J). She started attending a nearby Pentecostal church as many of her friends (mostly fellow-Singaporeans) were attending. Despite having a different theological standpoint from them, I didn’t see any harm from her attending that church. As far as I was concerned, the one thing that was of utmost importance was her understanding and acceptance that the sole source of all faith and practice is the Bible and the Bible alone. Once she had that foundation, it didn’t really matter which church she attended. I believed that if there was in fact some problem with the church, in relation to unbiblical beliefs or practices, the Holy Spirit himself would be able to convince her to leave. That is His role, not mine. If He were to do so, it would certainly be much more powerful ad convincing then any argument I could offer.

Needless to say, on these issues the Interim Pastor didn’t see eye to eye with me. In fact that would be an understatement. He expected me to tell her that that church (the Pentecostal one) was theologically in error, and that she should leave immediately and join my church. When I refused, I was threatened with removal from ministry. And because I’ve never been one to back down when threatened, I moved on. The same feelings of discouragement, disillusionment, and hurt came flooding in once again.

This ushered in what proved to be the lowest point in my life.

I was in a relationship at that time which, despite starting very beautifully, was turning into a nightmare. We had met in the London church and, after about a year as friends, decided to get together. By the time that all this was happening, we were engaged, she was back in Singapore, in depression over what she perceived to be a bleak job situation, while I was trying to cope with all these ‘disappointments’ in UK and yet be strong and supportive of her. At the worse times of her depression, she would call me up to 6 times a day, telling me how she hated herself, hated life, wished she was dead, and had attempted to make that a reality. I felt completely helpless. Worse still, at the end of each month, when the phone bill arrived, I could be sure that I would receive a ‘poison’ email blaming me for the numerous phone calls! She called me so many terrible things that I remember becoming so callous and thinking that no one could possibly say anything that could hurt me. I also remember breaking down at numerous points because of the strain, especially during the examination periods. But what could I do? I was so many miles away. I couldn’t possibly walk out on her could I? So I tried, as much as possible, to keep everything inside. I guess being from a Conservative (Fundamentalist) church helped (after all they continuously frown at the emotionally-driven Charismatics).

Eventually, we broke up after more than 3 years together. Suddenly that bottle that I kept all these emotions in broke along with it and I started to feel all these raw emotions. I was on the verge of depression myself.

Then came the events that finally pushed me over. I met K and we got attached. She was someone in my church and looked and played the part of an angel. She was an amazing pianist, looked like the sweetest thing, but alas, it was too good to be true. It was a very destructive relationship. She was a ‘nymph’ and evidently was attached to someone in Singapore at the time. So naturally, it ended bitterly. But that wasn’t the end of it. Then came the aggressive smear campaign. Naturally, she managed to get a substantial amount of support (after all, she looked and behaved like an angel and I do look like a rebel without a cause). That, as well as all the events mentioned above, was just what I needed to push me over the edge. I myself fell into depression and became suicidal.

To cut the story short, I came to a point where I decided I had to get out of it and subsequently I willed myself out of it. However, I haven’t been the same since. I am still calloused and, as a result of all the pain suffered, feel unable to love or care for others. In an effort to prevent the past from repeating itself, I have gone to the other extreme – I don’t let anyone in and don’t allow myself to invest in anyone (with one exception – my cousin – which backfired drastically and has since reaffirmed my commitment to not care for anyone). I suppose this is one reason why I have decided to be single (for the most part) for the last few years (although some people refuse to believe me).

OK. Fast-forward to today.

I’ve kind of made a rather uncharacteristic decision today (by present standards) with the help of my sister, I volunteered – decided to invest my time and effort into others again.

At the very least, I will be helping the Hearing Impaired group. I used to work as a Sign Language Interpreter and so I would have an immediate and natural place to start. I noticed how the people manning that particular booth were all hearing impaired. As such they weren’t able to communicate effectively with patrons and as a result, many left. It’s a start. Perhaps in due time I would regain the ability to care for others – regain that portion of myself.

I guess.. Only time will tell..

Pay poor countries for saving forests: Yudhoyono

I thought this report on the AsiaOne website was absolutely hilarious! Allegedly, the Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has asked the UN to “think outside the box” and compensate poorer countries such as Indonesia as an incentive for them to preserve their rainforests.

The rationale? – The rainforests soak up greenhouse gases and if countries that ‘talk the talk’ of global warming etc should ‘put their money where their mouths are’.

This, though hugely opportunistic, is ingeniously so. Kudos!

Of course President Yudhoyono would agree with the opportunistic part, he said, “I count myself as an optimist who sees today a larger window of opportunity to strike a global consensus to tackle global warming,' Dr Yudhoyono said.

Shaming Disgraced Barristers Online – Plans announced by the UK Bar Standards Board

In an article on the Online edition of The Times yesterday, the UK Bar Standards Board announced plans to have the names of barristers facing disciplinary action would be published on their website along with the charges, time and date.

A number of thoughts came to mind when I first read the article. Firstly, I thought it was interesting how the justifications provided for these proposals were to encourage more “transparency”. That sure sounds good to me, doesn’t it to you? Not that I disagree with the proposals (I reserve expressing any opinion on that bit), but I do think its very amazing how easy it is to “spin” things in one’s favour.

Second, and more importantly, is the fact that there does not seem to be any opposition expressed by members of the Bar in UK or the public at large. Perhaps it is still “early days” and that such criticisms will come in due course. After all, this is one of the issues that Singaporeans are all too familiar with, and which often results in criticisms from “the West” of the way we do things here – we shame people. Of course I do believe that there are always valid grounds to do so, but it surprises me that a society that is significantly more “Rights conscious” than ours (I think they go overboard actually) have not yet challenged these proposals, seemingly letting them slip under the metaphorical radar. Off the top of my head I can think of criticism that they would/should put forward – the right to privacy, the right to a fair trial, and the list goes on.

One can imagine how problematic such a practice, if published online can be. Even if it is the mere listing of information that a particular barrister is due to face a hearing, with no indication of guilt either way, is likely to cause people to become suspicious – thus he would be unfairly prejudiced. In addition, even with a system of updating such information either through the subsequent publishing of the results of such hearing – not guilty or insufficient evidence, etc – seven days after the conclusion of the hearing would be unsatisfactory a solution as it presupposes that people will continue to visit the website regularly (and not the one-off or “once in a blue moon” kind of visit). The only practice which I believe to be acceptable (under what I understand to be the UK public’s position on Human Rights) is the listing of barristers who have been disbarred. This would serve as a warning to the public and prevent rogue barristers from practising “without a licence”.

The fact that such details are removed after 2 years or in the event of a successful appeal, is also unsatisfactory not merely for the reasons highlighted above, but because, as most people are aware, information posted on the Internet is at times – permanent – especially when they have been either copied and uploaded on another person’s website or when they are taken up by web-crawlers and search engines. It is likely to keep appearing whenever that person’s name is entered to the subject box of a search engine – extending his punishment, shaming, or being falsely accused – indefinitely.

As mentioned above, I do not express an opinion here as to whether practices of shaming people for offences and/or successful prosecution is right or wrong – it is widely accepted practice in Singapore. We are also rather open about it purpose and don’t attempt to sugar-coat it. The purpose of my writing the above is to highlight the inconsistencies which I see coming from a society which purports to be more rights conscious than us, even presuming to possess the moral authority to criticise our practices at times. How audacious, arrogant and hypocritical!

Ad-blockers may lead to increased litigation

I found this article published on CNET’s website which takes up the discussion of whether ad-blocking software applications would lead to litigation. Similar lawsuits have been lodged in relation to other ad-circumventing technologies. In 1979 (when I was only 1yrs old), the movie studios sued Betamax, claiming that its VCR users would fast-forward through commercials. They lost. The courts being of the opinion that only 25% of users did so. However, in 2003, ReplayTV, which sells digital video recorders, were made to drop a feature called Automatic Commercial Advance after facing a lawsuit from major TV networks and movie studios over that and other issues. The lawsuit was dismissed the following year.

But before you decide to brush it off as “in America anything is possible”, there are some valid reasons for why preventing ad-blocking applications is necessary and perhaps reasonable. Any lawsuit would likely invoke two arguments--that copyright infringements are taking place (through derivative works), and that the Web site's terms of service agreement is being violated.

In a 2003 American appeals court decision related to a copyright dispute over the file-sharing service Aimster, 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner concluded that commercial-skipping creates "an unauthorized derivative work, namely a commercial-free copy that would reduce the copyright owner's income from his original program, since 'free' television programs are financed by the purchase of commercials by advertisers." By "derivative work," he was referring to a concept from copyright law that says it's generally unlawful to make a new work out of an existing copyrighted one without permission.

The second argument claims that a Web site's terms of service are a "browsewrap" or "clickwrap" agreement that are legally binding. A "clickwrap" license that requires a visitor's agreement to proceed. These are normally included in the online application form for many online services or softwares (where you have to click a box saying that you have read and understand the terms and conditions – of course none of us really bother to read them, and they tend to be in legal language (considering the fact that they are legal documents) and so many wouldn’t even likely understand them).

Many Web sites prohibit any kind of ad-blocking in their terms of service agreements. MySpace.com prohibits "covering or obscuring the banner advertisements on your personal profile page, or any MySpace.com page via HTML/CSS or any other means." I’m sure that Google, hotmail, Yahoo!, MSN, Facebook, etc all have similar terms.

The reason why I think that at least a certain amount of advertisement, although admittedly annoying, is necessary and reasonable is because many of these online services are offered to users for free. As such, they make a substantial portion of their revenue from such online advertising. The reason why many advertisers are willing – many times competing – for advertising spaces on such websites is primarily because of the website’s user base. Now imagine if there were ad-blockers readily available to block out advertisements from such websites. Wouldn’t everyone use them? What would then ensue? Would advertisers want to continue advertising? What would then happen to such websites?

Of course a balance has to be struck, but it is important to be reasonable, understand the mechanics of the businesses involved, and then to accept that online advertising is a necessary evil at times. We cannot expect to get a free meal with no strings attached. This is life.

IM as Evidence

Instant Messaging (IM) has become a very popular medium of communication nowadays among friends, students, colleagues and even business associates. Better than the email which, although appears instantly in the recipient’s inbox, inevitably involves time lag to allow for its composition, opening, digesting of information and eventual reply. This multilayered technology thus provides the convenience of email coupled with the immediacy of a phone call. As I’m studying Evidence at the moment, it does make me wonder whether IM information would be admissible as evidence and whether it would be viewed as reliable.

The cases which I have come across are all from America and involve privacy concerns. This is unlikely to be an issue in Singapore as we do not have any explicit privacy laws here. However, there are certainly problems in relation to the reliability of such information, stemming from the ability to trace and record them.

Essentially, IM messages are no more than words on a screen. They can be sent by a variety of devices and they are mainly free online services that do not require much subscriber information. Sometimes the setting up of an account requires no more than a screen name and password. The content of the text passes through the ISPs and can only be found on the computing device of the participants if some effort has been made to preserve them. This of course presupposes that the IM service used has a recording or archiving function and that it has been enabled (I remember that ICQ and MSN either did not have one in its earlier years and that it is common requirement even nowadays for people to specifically enable such features).

If no archiving functions are available, the only foreseeable (and easiest) means by which such information can be recorded is by copying-and-pasting them in a WORD document. However, this method is likely to raise a number of concerns in relation to its integrity and reliability. For example, the cut-and-paste method may suffer from incompleteness (missing sections), inaccuracies (omitted words or cut off sentences or misinterpretations of the shorthand or acronyms adopted), or they may even be subject to editing. Even if no human input or error is involved, the information could be altered by the spell checker on WORD. Such alterations may go unnoticed.

Of course one method to avoid such concerns may be to use a screen or video capture of the conversations as they take place, or screen prints, or a third party software designed to archive IM conversations, but all these necessarily involves advanced planning. Unless it’s a stake-out or sting operation, I suspect that the majority of instances where such information (or any information) is relevant is after the fact of a crime or civil wrong.

To my knowledge there have been no Singapore (or Commonwealth) cases on point (Of course, I may be completely wrong on this), but it is certainly an interesting area to think about and I’m sure that as the technology becomes even more prevalent, it will only be a matter of time before the courts will have to deal with it.

Expressing Freedom

A few weeks ago, I was with a group of peers at a "old-style kopi tiam" -type cafe discussing the issue of freedom of expression in Singapore. Some of them expressed the commonly-held belief that we, as a society, as a country, are not free when it comes to the media – since it is the government-controlled disseminator of political propaganda. I believe that we can and should look at this issue from a few perspectives: (1) Historical and Political; (2) Legal; (3) The Reality of a Free Press. (All references are cited at the bottom for readers to verify) (I apologise that this is a very long entry).

1. Historical and Political

In 1984 the government created a massive conglomerate known as the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) which controls all the newspapers in Singapore. It also installed Lim Kim San, a former PAP minister and president of Singapore, former chief of the Internal Security Department – Singapore’s dreaded secret police, and close associate of MM Lee (then PM), as the Chairman.

Management shares in SPH were issued to persons who were approved by the government, and they cannot be transferred without similar approval[1]. Naturally, editorial control rests in the hands of the PAP leadership, through its nominees. The government makes no apology for this. SM Goh reasons that the Western role of the press as an “adversarial watchdog of the government” is unsuitable for Singapore. He argues that the role of the press in Singapore is to help the ruling party “forge consensus”[2]. In summary, the press is not to engage in criticism of government officials and policy. This has also resulted in the selective coverage of opposition views in the newspapers.

These structures led the late David Marshall, former senior counsel and Chief Minister of Singapore, to characterise the Singapore press as “Either PAP wallahs or boot lickers… They are running dogs of the PAP and poor prostitutes.[3]”

However, to fully appreciate the rationale for these statements listed above, it is imperative that one consider Singapore’s historical development. Singapore was a British colony between the years of 1824 and 1963. In 1963, as part of her bid for independence, she merged with Malaysia. Independence from Malaysia was gained, rather unexpectedly, in 1965. As a result, Singapore was suddenly faced with various serious problems. The separation from Malaysia meant a loss of the potential common market, calling into question Singapore’s survival as a city-state. In addition, the Communists, who were a close ally in the run up to independence, now became a threat to the security of this infant and fragile state. Also, although the period of membership in Malaysia was brief, it had nevertheless given Singapore’s minority Malay population a taste and sense of its own interests and political significance as a community in the larger regional picture. These culminated in a series of very disruptive racial riots in 1960s. All this was further exacerbated by the prospect of sever loss of employment and national revenue with the British bringing forward its military withdrawal from Singapore.

Political

In order to ensure her survival, Singapore had to be quick to translate her historical conditions conceptually through the construction of a national ideology. The PAP government thematised the historical conditions into an ‘ideology of survival.’ First, if Singapore was to survive, the population must be transformed into a tightly organised and highly disciplined citizenry, all pulling together in the same direction with a sense of public spiritedness and self-sacrifice in the national interest[4]. Secondly, economic development at a national level and ‘making a living’ on the individual level was imperative.

Ideology

In spite of the Singapore government’s repeated claim that they are unencumbered by ideology[5], its ideological success, it is suggested[6], may be interpreted to fall within the neo-Marxist conception of the processes of ideological formation in the development of a new social order[7]. Marx suggested that after a revolutionary group has captured state power, the very first item on the political agenda is to ‘universalise’ the historically determined ideas and interests which have led to this group securing power[8]. This meeting of the government and the governed at the ideological level should result in a high degree of legitimacy for the government. In addition, where specific but effective coercion is used only against those who do not share the same normative value, a high degree of social stability will result.

It is further suggested that the new normative order will only come about if there is material comfort and development. Thus, it must necessarily be supported by the ruling government’s ability to improve the material life if these ideas and values are to retain its ideological currency[9]. Subsequent economic success will ‘validate’ and legitimise the ideological concepts themselves. SM Goh (then PM) said in an article in the local newspaper, “What they want is a good government which produces results,” “They want a government to concentrate on the basics, like better pay and lower cost of living, better neighbourhood schools for their children and better jobs. They want a safe, stable society, one good for their children to grow up in.”[10] PM Lee Hsien Loong (then Deputy PM) echoed this in his speech at the opening of the National Youth Seminar, “At the most fundamental level, the strategic challenges facing Singapore have not changed – to make a living for ourselves, to ensure the security of our homes and families, to build ourselves a better future in an uncertain world.”[11]

Pragmatism

Since the necessity of economic growth has been ideologically raised to the ‘only reality’, any process that contributed to economic growth was therefore ‘practical’, indeed ‘necessary’ for the survival of the nation state. The ideological effect of ‘Pragmatism’ generated a ‘crisis mentality’ in government and subsequently became the term used to gloss over government policy[12]. Pragmatism here refers to the more, colloquial meaning of the term – akin to a modern business man: worried about the “bottom line,” the “results,” not caught up in senseless philosophical hair-splitting[13].

After four successive clean sweeps in the general elections between 1968 and 1980, the PAP began to take the electorate’s support for granted, with apparent disregard of the latter’s sentiments or sensitivities. It saw its role in the notion of ‘trusteeship’ rather than to respond to people’s expressed preferences at any one time. SM Goh (then PM) said, “As a custodian of the people’s welfare, it exercises independent judgement on what is in the long-term interests of the people and acts on that basis.” This has entailed “administering bitter medicine to overcome economic challenges” and “tough policies necessary for economic development.” “With a comfortable majority and strong mandate, we have been able to take a long-term view in addressing our economic problems.”[14] Assured of its own ‘correctness’ and of the ‘necessity’ and ‘rationality’ for continuing economic growth, the government’s execution of its public policies was relentless. ‘We made tough but unpopular policies; became a refrain of the Party/government.’[15]

These policies were not to be without political costs. The rapid economic growth which had greatly improved their material life, and an annually replenished, better-educated voters with no experience of past economic and political struggles but a ‘keener awareness of the negative effect of an over-regulated society,’[16] led to PAP wining by a smaller majority then it had previously been used to in the 1984 elections. A post election survey showed that the result was a venting of deep dissatisfaction with the style of the PAP government, described as ‘arrogance of power, an inflexible bureaucracy, growing elitism, and the denial of consultation and citizen participation in decision-making[17].’

Obviously, the PAP’s approach based on ‘pragmatism’ to ensure ‘survival’, had lost much of its ideological currency. The need to establish a new ideological consensus with the electorate became an explicit item on the political agenda[18]. As a Minister said, “We just can’t always be telling them to compare their situation to that of the 50s and ask them to be grateful.’[19] The search for appropriate and effective replacement national ideology began with moral education through religious knowledge and Confucianism in schools, in the early 1980s. This subsequently failed and evolved into the currency of Shared Values and communitarianism.

In addition to this new ideology, in 1990, SM Goh (then Deputy PM) promised, as one of three goals for the 1990s, to “practise a more constructive, participatory-style democracy.” This “gentler” approach along with policies of consultation points towards an increase in the scope for freedom of speech and the right of political participation beyond the vote. Indeed, it can be seen as a slight shift in the conception of such rights from a more “negative” attitude to more “positive” terms, with the state facilitating and promoting its exercise.

Another feature of the neo-marxist conception of the processes of ideological formation is that moral leadership also underwrites the leaders’ ability to improve the economic well-being of the people[20]. This coincides with the PAP ‘confucianising’ itself, having failed to ‘confucianise’ the masses. As such, they believe themselves to be ‘honourable men’ or ‘junzi’. The epitome of this is in the then PM Goh’s proclaiming that ‘Lee Kuan Yew is a modern Confucius.’[21]

Along with these methods, a hegemony/consensus relationship develops between the government and the governed. Here, those who delineate will be brought ‘back into check’, while those who abide by the new order results in a condition of ‘high consensus’[22]. The depth of ideological hegemony/consensus of the PAP government was clearly evident in the common sense of the population as reflected in its electoral popularity. This process can be clearly observed in Singapore’s political climate, and has led to Singapore being described by some as ‘The Air-Conditioned Nation’[23] – possessing a society with a unique blend of comfort and central control[24].

No one can deny that our government has managed to transform all the political and security threats that we encountered in the early years and made Singapore into the success that it is. It is within this context of preventing those kinds of turmoil from repeating themselves that we, as a nation, have the regulations and restrictions in place – that’s what they have been predicated upon. Being such a small national, we are clearly more vulnerable to such incidences completely destabilising the entire country and undoing all the good work that our forefathers have toiled all and hard for. I believe that this rationale is sound and most of us would accept it.

2. Legal

Although it has been said that the concept of “freedom” is not strong in the Singaporean imagination[25], the founding document and supreme law of Singapore, the Constitution, explicitly set out to create fundamental liberties and freedoms. What follows are some explanation of the Constitution of Singapore with specific attention being devoted to Freedom of Speech and both the formal and informal ways in which this right is regulated. It will be apparent that although her political and legal philosophies may differ, Singapore’s approach to human rights in practice is not very much different from its western counterparts e.g UK and the US.

The Constitution of Singapore

The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore was drafted by the departing British and was adopted upon independence in 1965. Parts II and III declare Singapore as a sovereign republic and seeks to protect that sovereignty. However, the Constitution goes much further to declare freedom at a personal level[26]. Part IV includes fundamental liberties or freedoms of: (1) liberty of person and the prohibition of slavery (Art 9 and 10); (2) freedom from discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, descent or place of birth (Art 12); (3) freedom of movement and the right to remain in Singapore (Art 13); (4) freedom of speech, assembly and association (Art 14); and (5) freedom of religion. These rights work together to create a sphere within which individual citizens are assured of certain freedoms.

There are however some points of note which are worthy of discussion here. The provision of these freedoms are far from being unique to Singapore. There are many counterparts in other constitutions, especially those granted independence by the British in the post-World War II period and those having adopted the “Westminster” style of government. The provisions here also have some correspondence with the provisions contained within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Bill of Rights. This may indicate that Singapore, although having not ratified any of the international conventions on civil and political rights subsequent to the UDHR, is committed to the protection of human rights. This can be seen by the fact that Singapore has chosen to maintain the Constitution as it was drafted by the British while breaking bonds with another symbol of its colonial past – Privy Council – abolishing it as the highest court of appeal in 1994. The significance of this can also be seen to provide evidence that Singapore does not view ‘culture’ as stagnant, and is willing to embrace at least some characteristics of its colonial heritage.

Secondly, it should be noted that the rights contained in Singapore Constitution are “negative” in nature. This means that they act to prohibit the state from interference, rather than impose duties upon the state to actively assist in its promotion as in the case of “positively” formulated rights.

Thirdly, it is notable that the Constitution not only creates these fundamental liberties, but it also qualifies them. It is explicit that the fundamental liberties in the Constitution are not meant to be absolute. It must be remembered that this does not mean that they are not held to be universal. The latter is in relation to its existence, the former, extent and limits. Thus, the criticism levelled against Singapore in this area is that the rights are more tightly circumscribed than in other societies. However, it must be observed that even in countries where there are no explicit qualifications in their human rights documents, implicit restraints have been deemed warranted. The approach in America provides a case in point. Freedom of speech (formulated in more or less absolute terms) is liberally applied to public officials and figures. It extends to excuse mistakes made by the press and statements that would, under Singapore law, be defamatory. Even so, the American exercise of freedom is not absolute, no matter how the rhetoric of rights resounds. A qualification is implied. In relation to public officials, the press in America can be sued if there was actual malice in the making of a defamatory statement. As such, it is clear that limits, whether broader or narrower, are found and enforced in this area in all societies, irrespective of whether the freedoms are written into the Constitutions in absolute or qualified terms.

Formal Qualifications to Freedom of Speech

Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution provides: “(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression; (b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and (c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations. (2) Parliament may by law impose… such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence…” (emphasis mine)

Security

The Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Official Secrets Acts are relevant here. These, as mentioned above, give the government far-reaching powers to detain, without trial, anyone deemed to be a threat to Singapore’s national security. It should firstly be remembered that these two pieces of legislation were vestiges of Singapore’s colonial past. Secondly, it must be noted that these laws are still not unique to Singapore – every country has laws in place to prevent the sharing of national secrets. Thirdly, as mentioned above, during the early years of Singapore’s development as a nation-state, the government faced many problems with the communist rebels trying to cause chaos. It was in this state of ‘emergency’ that these laws were exercised. It is worthy of note that the ISA has not been exercised by the Singapore government since the 1980s.

The aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the United States on the World Trade Centre, known as 9/11, has seen the enactment of the so-called Patriot Act and other measures which bear a uncanny resemblance to the laws in Singapore in this area[27]. This is ironic considering these laws have been previously criticised in the United States as well as other Western democracies.

Press Control

The Controls of the press in Singapore operate at two levels: (1) the older and more common are the various licensing and national security laws. Press laws inherited from the British require all newspapers to be licensed[28]. These licences can be revoked at any time, effectively killing the publication. Journalists must also beware the ISA, under which they can be detained indefinitely without trial. They can be fined or jailed if they are found to be in contempt of court. The Official Secrets Act deters reporters from acting on leaks in information, while libel laws compel them to take extreme care with any information that could hurt an official’s reputation.


The government has not been trigger-happy in its use of the almost limitless powers it possesses; they prefer to have the editors independently come to the right conclusions[29]. This is where the second level of controls come in. Singapore’s press system is not sustained just by coercion, but by consent. At the corporate level, publishers can hardly complain about the PAP’s press model. MM Lee understood perfectly that the media business is, first and foremost, a business: that a press allowed to make money out of a system will support that system; and that publishers value their bottom-line more highly than they do their editorial freedom[30]. Thus in 1984, the SPH was formed giving it a monopoly of the newspaper market. This resulted in making SPH one of the most profitable newspaper companies in the world[31]. Furthermore, by granting them attractive par and bonuses, and stock option schemes, journalists in the national press have little incentive to jump ship to an anti-government vehicle, even if one existed[32].


The editorial positions of the national press have been described variously as prostitution and self-censorship, but editors believe they are practising responsible and intellectually-honest journalism. Editors see the press as having both a contributing role and a vested interest in Singapore’s success. Their support for the ruling party and its programmes is significant and seems genuine. They point to the PAP’s record of good government, and say that it does not warrant the kind of negatively and cynicism that is second nature to journalists in many other countries. Indeed, the PAP does not just deliver on its threats; it also delivers on its promises[33].

3. The Reality of a Free Press

The fact that the press has particular political leanings should not come as too much of a surprise. It is submitted that the very notion of a ‘free press’ is questionable. Even in the UK, where such values are claimed to be valued much higher, newspapers are not entirely independent. The Telegraph, for example, is commonly referred to as the Tory-graph, for its Conservative tendencies. In fact, the only national daily that has an official editorial policy which is politically non-aligned is the Independent.
Proprietors of newspapers do tend to exercise editorial control on political grounds. Under the current legal provisions, they are free to be fair and balanced if they want to be, but they are not under an obligation to.


The PAP, unlike most authoritarian regimes, does not suppress the press in order to cover up corruption or hide its mistakes. It does so out of a conviction that the press has a narrow and short-term view of the public interest, and that this can obstruct good government. Unlike the classic liberal formulation, where the press is seen as a pure expression of democracy, in the Singapore model the elected government is the embodiment of democratic expression. The government, thus expresses the will of the people, and must be protected from the unelected press, which is prone to being swayed by private commercial interests, narrow ideological missions, or the journalists’ inflated egos[34]. Cherian says that:

“The PAP therefore maintains that the press should be independent, but subordinate to an elected government. In practice, this means that the tone of stories is crucially important. Stories can be critical, but must be respectful towards the country’s leaders. They cannot ridicule or lampoon, or erode public respect for those in office. If disagreement persists, it is the government’s duty to make a final decision, and journalists should not use their access to the public to continue plugging their contrary point of view. If they do, they would be judged to be engaging in politics, the proper place for which is in the electoral battleground[35].”

It may come to as a surprise to many, especially Singapore’s critiques, that in the pages of The Straits Times, more than anywhere else, is where Singaporeans read alternative views and participate in public debate[36]. One clear evidence of the newspaper’s freedom to report and the government’s second level controls at work, can be seen in the way the Straits Times reported on the case of Francis Seow, the former leader of the Law Society and opposition candidate now living in the US after having been convicted in absentia on tax charges. In his semi-autobiographical book, To Catch a Tartar, gives this account of his trial for tax evasion:

“They (the income tax authorities) rudely served me with summons to appear before the subordinate courts to answer six alleged tax evasion charges, when only 14 days into the aforesaid period of 35 days (originally given to him) had barely elapsed… It was most irregular.”

Seow goes on to allege that, but not substantiate, executive interference in speeding up his prosecution.

Given that many imagine the Straits Times is a government-controlled press that does not have any freedom, it would be expected that there was a suppression of all facts that might support allegations of irregularity. However, this did not occur. An article in the Straits Times 17 March 1998 contains a statement by Seow’s counsel that the tax authorities “instead of waiting… slapped charges on my client .” Also, in an article titled “Magistrate Grants 3-week Adjournment Then Reverses Decision”, reported was the fact that the court’s recall of Seow and changing the dates of the proceedings. As such, there does not seem to be very much different between Seow’s “free” account and that of the apparently “government-controlled” Straits Times reported account. The newspapers did not give an opinion on what Seow saw as “rude” or “irregular”, but all the essential facts were present. Its reports also did not make allegations of political mechanisms were used to effect the outcome. Attention was drawn to the fact that the initial decision was changed, along with the reasons given. In fact, its arguable that the Straits Times' account was more free of bias than Seow's. From the information given, readers would be able to draw their own conclusions.

An American Example

This was an interesting series of videos I found on YouTube called “OutFoxed” which, despite targeting the Fox news network owned by Rupert Murdock, is really about how ALL media in America (no less) is biased. I place them here for anyone who is interested to view and also to dispel the belief that the seemingly free media as is perceived to exist in America is better and desirable in Singapore. Enjoy.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hkh853zz3Bg



http://youtube.com/watch?v=GF2LramU0ew



http://youtube.com/watch?v=0kDGKW5CSGk



Unfortunately, these are the very things (cast as objectivity) that we hope we have in Singapore news (i.e. criticisms of politicians).Although all they are doing is promoting one political ideology while putting the other down.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=trwzGWtuUMs



http://youtube.com/watch?v=JjgZlHCldBo



http://youtube.com/watch?v=SKiAXCVKBfE



http://youtube.com/watch?v=X-6ucoo1Mdo



http://youtube.com/watch?v=Eo_9EZh-9aU



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Jqak4B2p6g



One comment that I thought was particular thought provoking was that of a commentator stating that the reason why Fox is so effective in promoting propaganda is because people don’t realise or suspect it. The irony is that in Singapore, the majority of people mistakenly believe that everything is propaganda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhF84BEtbyE



It seems that everyone of the news stations in America “fell” in line to declare Bush the winner of the presidential election in 2000 (despite the available information being allegedly inconclusive) could be interpreted to suggest that all the news stations are guilty of bias. This would then seem to suggest that it is so common place (even in countries with a supposedly free media) that the accusations being levelled at the Singapore media is completely unfounded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZp0ftiZg2c



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8Wu7_TE5Wg



This video suggests again that ALL of America’s are falling in line and following the lead of Fox news. ALL of them are politically biased in favour of the American government (the Republicans). Of course this could be (as they suggest) because there’s a lot of money to be made by doing so, or that that is precisely what the MAJORITY of the American people want to hear. You decide. But whichever way you decide, don’t make the mistake of thinking that any media is objective, or that they are better than Singapore’s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSiONYN3dJA



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba3u-zOYi6g




End Notes:

[1] Tan, T.L., 1990, The Singapore Press: Freedom, Responsibility and Credibility, Times, 6.
[2] Sunday Review, 16 July 1995, “How The Press Can Best Serve Singapore? Be Fair, Be Trusthful, Be Part of a Virtuous Cycle.”
[3] Tay, S.C., 2004, Imagining Freedom, Eastern University Press, 98.
[4] Chua, B.H., 1995, Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore, Routledge, 18.
[5] Some of the contradictions of policies implemented by the Singapore government may lend support to the claim of an absence of ideological commitment over a sustained period of time.
[6] Chua, B.H., Op Cit., n.51, 1.
[7] This does not surprise some observers as they remember that the PAP was in coalition with communists during its initial ascendancy to power, and party leaders have admitted to having learnt some valuable lessons from them.
[8] Chua, B.H., Op Cit., n.51, 2.
[9] Ibid., 3.
[10] Straits Times, 29 Dec 1994, “There are limits to openness”.
[11] George, C., 2001, Singapre: The Air-Conditioned Nation, Landmark, 16.
[12] Ibid., 19.
[13] Ibid., 229.
[14] Ibid., 18.
[15] Chua, B.H., Op Cit., n.51, 20.
[16] Ibid., 23.
[17] Ibid., 21.
[18] Ibid., 11.
[19] Straits Times, 19 Sept 1984.
[20] Chua, B.H., Op Cit., n.51, 3.
[21] Straits Times, 24 Apr 1990.
[22] Chua, B.H., Op Cit., n.51, 3.
[23] This description of Singapore is derived from comments made by Singapore’s former Prime Minister, Lee Kwan Yew when the Wall Street Journal asked several 20th Century luminaries to pick the most influential invention of the millennium. He named the air-conditioner. “The humber air-conditioner has changed the lives of people in the tropical regions,” he said. “Before air-con, mental concentration and with it the quality of work deteriorated as the day got hotter and more humid.. Historically, advanced civilisations have flourished in the cooler climates. Now, lifestyles have become comparable to those in temperate zones and civilisation in the tropical zones need no longer lag behind.” (Cherian, G., 2001, Singapore: The Air-Conditioned Nation, Landmark Books,14)
[24] Cherian, G., 2001, Singapore: The Air-Conditioned Nation, Landmark Books, 15.
[25] Tay, S.C., Op Cit., n.21, 81.
[26] The two different levels correspond to the government being empowered to take charge of the nation-state (national level) and the individual being empowered to resist that same government in respect of the declared areas of personal freedom (personal level). These are seen as interlocking each other.
[27] Tay, S.C., Op Cit., n.21, 87.
[28] Although there is now no longer the requirement in the UK that newspapers or printing presses be licenced.
[29] Newspaper editors are expected to have an instinctive grasp of Singapore’s national interests and how to protect them. They interact regularly with cabinet ministers to keep these instincts honed.
[30] George, C., Op Cit., n.71, 67.
[31] SPH was expected to make net profits of around S$375 million in the financial year ending in Aug 2000. Net profits in the half-year to Feb 2000 were slightly over S$200 million, on turnover of S$493 million.
[32] George, C., Op Cit., n.71, 68.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid. 69.
[35] Ibid., 70.
[36] Ibid.

The Empire Strikes Back!

Although this report appeared in the online version of UK’s Independent newspaper, I remember hearing a similar story run on the BBC news while still a student in Birmingham, UK. The current story, based on studies by demographers from Manchester University, believe that Leicester will be the frist British city where the white population will find itself a minority within approximately 12 years. This will be followed by Birmingham 5 years later. That’s both the British cities which I lived in, and it certainly brings to reality my oft-used description of where I studied – Indian, UK.

I also remember driving to certain residential areas within Birmingham and seeing signs stating “No Whites Allowed” as well as occasionally coming across a story in the local newspaper of a white male getting beaten up along Broad Street (the main street in Birmingham, where all the clubs were located) and the police suspecting and investigating a possible racial motive (talk about reverse racism! Everyone expects it to be white on black/colour). In addition to those memories, is the memory of countless Indian or “Balti” (allegedly an invention from Birmingham) restaurants, often outnumbering MacDonald’s outlets. And not to mention, the fact that it was declared on national TV (again by the BBC) that Britain’s official national food was not fish and chips as many would have thought, but… wait for it… CHICKEN TIKKA MASALA!! A Balti dish!!

In the area of education, it has long been reported that there is a shortage of teachers in England. I believe that this could largely be the result of the fact that Britain has such strong laws restricting the parent’s ability to discipline their children. This is a direct cause of the ill-disciplined and abusive school children, leading again to a reluctance for many to join the teaching profession. The solution? Britain has been “importing” Indian teachers to teach their children the full range of subjects, including English! Just imagine them with all their thick Indian accents! (I guess it wouldn’t make much of a difference considering that many Brits don’t speak (proper) English anyways!)

Hmmmm… Is all this a case of the Empire strikes back?!

New EU Directive, if passed, would give temporary workers same rights as permanent staff.

The Times carried a report in yesterday’s online edition highlighting a new EU Directive that aims to give temporary or part-time workers the same rights as permanent workers. These are to include perks like holiday entitlements, sick pay and even pensions.

Of course the Unions have received the news with great joy (why wouldn’t they?) claiming victory over unscrupulous employers who exploit “the scandalous lack of protection given to temporary and agency workers, which creates difficulties for good employers who have to compete” – this referring to the fact that many employers offer employees or potential employees with only temporary or contract work to escape from the giving of those perks as mentioned above. But is this new piece going to solve any of the problems highlighted? I very much doubt it. I think it will make it worse.

Firstly, as mentioned in the article, employers are likely to cut back on the number of part-timers they take in, requiring existing employees to make up the hours. This would, in the CBI’s estimation, result in a quarter of a million temporary workers losing their jobs. Secondly, I actually think that, provided one is hard working enough, he could earn much more than a permanent employee under the present system. The reason why I say this is because if you were to take the salaries of many professionals (e.g. lawyers), minus tax etc and then divided by the number of hours that they are already required to work, it would seem that working those same hours on a minimum wage could be more profitable (unfortunately this may not apply to the Europeans and Brits because of their work ethic). With that in mind, employers may not be so unscrupulous after all. To expect them to then have to provide medical benefits etc would certainly be too costly and unreasonable.

In other words, this may lead to more people being unemployed and others being overworked.
For many of us Singaporeans who have lived, studied, and found work (or attempted to find work) in the UK, we know that the EU has a penchant for the ridiculous – with many of its laws often puzzling us. They seem to constantly implement rules and regulations which complicate and unsettle the status quo, making things more unstable (economically – by making the EU more exclusive and creating more barriers to entry) and extremely inefficient.

To us, medical benefits are not even expected for many permanent employees, let alone temporary ones. This even though, we do not have free medical care in Singapore as they do in the UK. The same goes for sick pay, holidays, and pensions. What pensions? The Government is now encouraging people to work in old age, by raising the retirement age yet again. Despite civil servants officially being required to work a 5 day week, many in the private sector are working much longer hours at no extra pay. The system works efficiently – no additional perks, no medical benefits, no demonstrations, no strikes – just like clockwork.

One can also be sure that having a system like the one proposed by the new directive would inevitably lead to abuse. Bearing in mind that the Europeans probably do not share our work ethic, I’m sure that many will be tempted to “call in sick” more often (especially since its common practice to “self medicate” for approximately a week and not be required to get a medical certificate from your doctor each and every time you’re taken ill).

HIGHS and LOWS...

It's been almost 3months since my last entry. So much has happened that I can't even begin to put it into words. Some good, some bad. Actually, everything's been rather good until recently. I got my dream job, I'm relishing life as a student, I'm enjoying my FREEDOM, and meeting lots of new people...

I recently started using my Facebook account, and was very happy to receive a "fortune cookie" (after adding the fortune cookie application on my account) stating that my "life will be happy and peaceful". But if the last few days are anything to go by, this year is not likely to play out that way.

It seems that controversy always has a habit of following me around. I'm sure that if anyone knew my track record of attracting such problems, he would naturally conclude that I must be doing something wrong, or at least that it must be somewhat intentional on my part. After all, its often said that where there’s a spark, there’s a fire. But this isn’t necessarily true.

On the one hand, its natural and expected that when you have a group of friends, everyone is intrigued and excited by the topic of women (or men.. basically relationships) . People will be very quick to link members of the group to someone (of the opposite sex). It not only provides everyone with something to talk about, but the collective teasing effort can bring the rest of the group closer together. However, despite appreciating the utility of such tendencies, there are inevitable consequences. People get hurt.

Such talk, although admittedly very fun (if it doesn’t involve you) and seemingly harmless/non-malicious (it is assumed), never leads to nothing good. For example, it could sow the seed of “feelings” which weren’t meant to be there to begin with. These 2 may get together but soon the cracks will appear. Another possibility is that it ends any possibility of a friendship between the 2. I don’t think I need to elaborate further as I’m sure many of us have had similar experiences.

I, for one, really hate it when people try to get involved in my personal life. Although I may seem very “open” with my thoughts, my opinions or life experiences, I am actually a rather private person. If anyone were to stop and think about it, it will become apparent that while I may say a lot, I say nothing at all (nothing very personal at least). You may come away thinking you know me, but not truly know me at all. I may seem like I’m always ready to go out with people or meet people, but in reality, I love my time alone. As Alan Shore from Boston Legal once said, “I love isolation. I especially like it in relationships.” The reason for all of this is simple - self-preservation. I guess I have serious trust issues. Bitten too many times I suppose (I’ve lost much of my ability to care for others). Also its because I like my freedom (I've also been caged up for far too long).

Previously, my solution was to stay away from groups (also not to get too close - and not to invest my time and life in others). I usually have 1 or 2 good friends, or friends in completely different groups. I avoided SingSoc and church groups like the plague. However, I realised that this wasn’t a good way to live and therefore decided to start off differently this time (although this solution made perfect sense to me after all the hurt that I was put through). I thought to myself, I shouldn’t be so anti-social and therefore should try to be more “trusting”.

Furthermore, there was the promise brought by my knowing some people beforehand (I met through someone I trust). Initially all was well. In fact, it was great! Everyone seems nice and very willing to support each other (which is why I’ve always maintained that it would be ideal to work together in groups). Events over the last couple of weeks and weekend especially, have shaken this belief. Now only time will tell whether I have indeed made a mistake or not.

On the other hand, I admittedly enjoy getting to know people on a one-on-one basis – irrespective of whether it is a guy or girl (Of course, if it is a guy I will not likely run the risk of being accused of making advances). I therefore can appreciate why I have a tendency to get myself into such “situations”. This time though, I have tried to be careful and take certain precautions. I have also constantly been vocal about my contentment with my present relationship status; I have stated to everyone in no uncertain terms that I am not pursuing anyone at the moment; I have tried not to be the one to call girls. I do not see any possibility for me to have led anyone to believe otherwise (unless that person has decided to completely ignore all such clear statements. If such is the case then I believe that I am completely vindicated.) A balance must be and has been struck between being friendly while keeping a safe distance. This time, however, it seems that, despite these precautions, my clear expression of my intentions and actions have been misinterpreted and misunderstood – hence the unhappy and messy situation I now find myself in.

In the recent weeks, I have been accused of being unkind and mean. The latest accusation coming over the weekend is that I’m apparently going after a girl on my course or that I have the intention to do so. It baffles me how some people seem to know better what is actually going on in my mind much better than I do – that they know that I’m interested in someone before I do and presume to know of intimate thoughts going on in my head that I’m not even aware of. Worse still the anger and hostile towards me because it is believed that I’m attempting to deceive.

As I think about it, I wonder why I even owe anyone an explanation at all. Even if it were true that I was attempting to pursue this girl as they think I am, why would I have to explain myself to anyone? And if it were true that I was pursuing her, is it not within my right to keep it to myself? And yet still, if all of these suspicions were true, does anybody have a right to expect an explanation of me, or does it warrant such hostility? (especially since (as far as I'm aware) I'm not in a relationship with anyone at the moment and therefore am not accountable to anyone) It all seems utterly childish and ridiculous to me.

Perhaps, it is the case that I failed to select the right person/people to be friendly towards. In that case I shall learn from this experience and hopefully not make a similar mistake in the future. I guess that friendship and concern expressed may not always be received with the right perspective and/or returned in kind. So what am I to do next? One option is to turn my back to the whole situation and the individual involved. After all, as far as I'm concerned (I believe) I have not done anything to encourage the attention that I received; I hate being accused of things I have not done, having intentions that I do not; and most of all I cannot/will not tolerate people who are either possessive or behave as though I owe them something. Its just not on and its not going to fly with me.