TR EMERITUS

After last year's hullabaloo about the rising COVID infection rate among Singapore's low-wage migrant workers, what has now become of them? These workers come mainly from South Asia to work in the dangerous industries of construction and shipping. They number more than 300,000, and almost half of them contracted the virus because they live in crowded dormitories. Though most of those infected displayed mild or no symptoms, several continue to experience the long-term effects of the sickness, such as debilitating pain and fatigue, months after testing positive. The authorities responded by ordering the private dormitory operators to control and restrict the workers' movement. The workers were not allowed to use communal facilities or gather in the hallways; they had to keep to their bunk rooms, which accommodated as many as ten of them. When the COVID situation in Singapore stabilized, nothing was more telling of the exploitative treatment of these workers than the fact that they were released to go to work six months before they were allowed to leave their dormitories for a monthly visit to a purpose-built "recreational center." Work is good for their mental health, you see. The authorities have also responded by rolling out seven Quick Build Dormitories. They have more spacious rooms, with en-suite bathrooms. In other words, more comfortable jails. Activists working for migrant workers' rights have continuously called attention to these abuses. Their proposed solutions—allowing workers to live among the general population and to change employers—aim to give the same rights to migrant workers as those of native-born ones. The aim is laudable but insufficient. Because what is the condition of the Singaporean worker? For those who have received some material benefits from the current economic system, they are well-fed but overworked asses. One telling clue: the birthrate remains stubbornly low despite all kinds of official incentives. Another clue: 1 in 5 young Singaporeans want to emigrate. Then there are those who have been crushed by the system. At the last budget debate, the government still refuses to legislate a minimum wage. If you stop being productive because work in a capitalist system is alienating, and take up drugs, you are treated inhumanly in the prison named Drug Rehabilitation Center. The solution must be more radical because the problem is deeper. And the problem lies in the present economic arrangements that oppress native-born and migrant workers alike. When the aim of the system is to maximize profit, you can tell the private dormitory operators what you like, they will still find ways to cut corners and costs. When local households are squeezed to be ever more productive, you can put in any safeguards for domestic helpers that you wish, the Singaporean householder will still make the helper do everything, including dangerous chores, that they themselves have no time for. A sensible, a human, system cannot be built on the profit motive. It must be built, instead, on some idea of the common good. It must put the fruits of the workers' labor into their own hands and abolish the distinction between workers and bosses. Impossible? Listen to what Robert LaMonte, who worked as an editor for the International Socialist Review in the 1910's, had to say: "Old age pensions and insurance against sickness, accident and unemployment are cheaper, are better business than jails, poor houses, asylums, hospitals." These progressive reforms serve the purpose of capital in relieving class tensions and redirecting radical energies. Present-day progressives work for such reforms, but Socialists must make only what LaMonte called "impossible demands," demands that show up the limits of reforming the system. Jee Leong Koh .  Read More →

Roy has to pay $1,000 a month to the prime minister. It will take him another 12 years to be relieved of the unjust debt. We should help Roy clear his debt and shame our prime minister for bullying a poor citizen. He has got it all wrong. Take Roy's money to donate to charity? Roy needs charity. And what kind of public institutions do we have? Tan Tock Seng Hospital sacked Roy just because he was sued by the prime minister. Shame on its management.   Teo Soh Lung      Read More →

One of most prominent moments in the Godfather came when Michael Corleone tells his finance that his father, the Godfather of the Corleone family, advised Michael’s adopted brother Tom, to study law because “A lawyer with brief case steals more than a Gangster with a Gun.” This gem of wisdom from the most famous fictional mafia don is often used as the centre of political jokes in Singapore. Singaporeans often quip that Singapore is a gangster town, its just that the gangsters all wear white (the standard dress code of the ruling People’s Action Party). It’s often said (in hushed tones) that Lee Kuan Yew was the biggest gangster in town and the only difference between Mr. Lee and his contemporaries was that he used “legal” means of dealing with political opponents. Unlike, say, the military rulers of Burma, Mr. Lee never sent troops in the streets to shoot people. However, if you said something he didn’t like, chances were, you end up with a hefty fine for libel imposed by the courts. The late Mr. Lee was a good lawyer who, unlike his regional contemporaries, understood that Singapore needed the good will of the international community and that would require making sure that everything would be done legally. Being the good lawyer that he was, Mr. Lee understood that power was not so much a case of the letters of the law but how they were applied. If you look at the cases where the Singapore government has sued people, it’s hard to argue that they were technically wrong because if you followed the letter of the law, they were correct. It just so happened that whoever they were suing would inevitably be political opponents or publications that had given political opponents a voice. Even the most recent case, which involved the current Mr. Lee suing a blogger, Mr. Leong Sze Hian for the crime of sharing a post of his social media followed this pattern. The judgement in the matter can be found at: [LINK] Think of this as a more advanced version of Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations,” defense. Technically he was not wrong because if one looked at the letter of the law, the definition of “sexual relations” did not constitute what he had received from Ms. Lewinisky, even if most of us would find it hard to imagine how one could be on the receiving end of a b**j** with someone one was not having a sexual relationship with. The government’s use of lawsuits has become the stuff of legend. The late Mr. Lee famously bankrupted the late JB Jeyaratnam who was our first opposition member of parliament. Some of the most respected publications like the New York Times, the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Asian Wall Street Journal (now known as Wall Street Journal Asian Edition) were all taken to task in Singapore’s court system and made to pay hefty sums to Singapore’s political leadership. The libel laws have been such that being an editor is a tough job in Singapore. One has to ensure that news is published but it’s done in such a way where one does not get sued. Editors er on the side of caution or as said officially, one learns to be “responsible.” The late Mr. Lee made a name for suing. His immediate successor used them a less often because by then, most of us knew what was good for us and editors had become responsible. It is, however, a slightly less rosy picture for the current Mr. Lee in as much as the internet and social media has allowed more people to enter the fray. Even someone as obscure as me can become a publisher. All I did was to sign up on the blogger platform with my gmail account. Sure, I don’t make money from blogging but who cares? I’m just a small and insignificant fry. Online sites, like TREmeritus and the Onlinecitizen have grown, thanks to an army of volunteers. If the editors of the mainstream were trained to be “responsible”, the same cannot be said about the team at these websites. Mr. Lee has threatened to sue and sued bloggers. In some cases, as in the case of Mr. Alex Au and Yawning Bread, the threat of a law suite was averted when Mr. Au apologized and took down offending post. However, the threat of legal action made it such that Mr. Au’s brand became even more prominent (or as one of my friends often says – it showed he was important enough for him to be threatened.) In a sense the internet has shown that the government is at a loss as to how to deal with people who are not motivated by that most effective of incentives – money. However, even more worrying for the government is that the internet has given “dissidents” a means of finding a way where a crippling law suite is no longer crippling. First incident came in 2014 when the government took Mr. Roy Ngerng to court for defemination. Mr. Ngerng, wrote a post, which effectively accused to Prime Minister of misappropriating the national pension fund. Mr. Ngereng, who was at that time working for the National Health Care Group as an insignificant worker was promptly terminated. One would have imagined that a jobless worker would have capitulated at thought of having to fight a law suit, let alone face the prospects of the damages the court would have awarded the Prime Minister. However, Mr. Ngereng took to crowdfunding and as the article from the Straits Times states, he raised more than his estimated cost: [LINK] While Mr. Ngereng lost his legal battle and now lives in Taiwan, the point became clear. There are enough members of the public who were willing to support Mr. Ngereng when he was facing the prospect of a law suit from the government. Admittedly, Mr. Ngereng’s accusations were serious and he didn’t have the means of proving them in court. However, while that may have been legally true, it became clear that there were enough people who saw this as the powers that be bullying an ordinary person. Mr. Leong's case, seven years later, has certain elements which Mr. Ngereng's did not have. Firstly, this is about a post that happened three years ago. Mr. Leong did not write the post, he merely shared it without comment on his Facebook. When he was told to remove it, he did so within three days. Yet, despite his efforts to comply with the letter of the law, Mr. Leong was sued for damaging the Prime Minister's reputation. : [LINK] The message should be clear, the public or at least enough of the public is willing to support people whom it perceives as being bullied. The lesson the government will inevitably learn is that it needs to tighten its grip on the internet. One should not be surprised if laws on crowdfunding tighten. The argument will be made that this is to protect the public from unscrupulous people and the definition of “unscrupulous” will made to include anyone that the government or courts deems so. This will inevitably be the wrong lesson. The right lesson would be one that involves acknowledging that the public is losing its fear and losing tolerance with “bullying” techniques. One has to figure out new ways of doing things and just as the government has always had the letter of the laws on its side, the public is also learning to use the laws for itself. The government needs to get innovative instead of relying on the playbook written for a different era.   Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be.      Read More →