TR EMERITUS

Singapore's Constitution Part IV (14) upholds every citizens' freedom of expression. And by 'every', the range includes all citizens from top to the bottom, from the father of modern Singapore Lee Kuan Yew to the aunties who work as cleaners at food-courts. At the same time, there is chapter (14) (2) that governs the misuse of the liberty. "Parliament may by law impose on the [freedom of expression rights], 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." If I am not wrong, I may suppose that this chapter (14) (2) also extend to every citizens, ranging from MM Lee Kuan Yew to the cleaning aunties at food-courts. Again, if I am not wrong, I think the Internal Security Department (ISD) was interested in Mark's remark due to their conviction of a possibility that what Mark has said may not be in "the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality..." Of course, there won't be such conviction in the ISD in the first place if they did not received complaints from some Singaporeans. A few weeks ago, Lee Kuan Yew made a statement on Sri Lanka which was perceived by some as insensitive. I suppose no Singaporeans have written to ISD or the Foreign Minister to complain that such statement may not be in "the interest of Singapore [...] friendly relations with other countries..." And so the ISD has no need to call up Mr Lee for investigation (assuming that the ISD is daring enough). Nobody complained, so no case. So Mark's case is not a matter of the Singaporean government being bias against his remark. The main cause that Mark was called up by the ISD is not due to the remark he made but due to the bias that some Singaporeans have against that remark. Some Singaporeans, like most of those from Mark's congregation, have no problem with Mark's remark. But some do. In the same way, some Singaporeans do not have problem with Mr Lee's remark, but some do. But in this case, those who have problems with Mr Lee's remark did not write to ISD or the Foreign Minister to complain, hence there is no problem. From these events, I see that there is a general sense of bias against religious issue but not international issue among Singaporeans; It is okay to have international strain but not okay to have religious strain. So, my question to those Singaporeans who wrote to the authorities to complain against Mark is this: Why are you bias against Mark's remark but not Mr Lee's remark? Both issues involve first and foremost the dignity of human persons; unless you think that Sri Lankans are lesser humans and hence they don't deserve the same degree of sensitivity for their dignity? So why one and not the other? My point is this. I do not have problem with Mr Lee's as well as Mark's remarks. Each entitles to his own freedom of expression. I don't think there should be a problem in the first place. The problem lies in those who wrote to the authorities. They have to justify their biasness. If not, then their complain is arbitrary and their bias is itself an insensitivity. "Sensitivity" should not be used so arbitrarily as the excuse to persecute one over the other. We must not instil fear in the name of unchecked sensitivity among the people to curb them from expressing what they think is true to them. Straining the liberty of individual is being insensitive itself and is against the Singapore's Constitution. When a remark is seen as resentful, then one should be allowed the space to clarify. This opportunity allows individuals, be it Mark or Mr Lee, an opportunity to explain and not be ostracized or denied their civil right. We should allow space for conversation and dialog. This should be the mark of civility. Add to that, clause (15) of the Constitution protects individual's right to "profess and practise his religion and to propagate it." Singaporeans (especially those who wrote to the authority to complain against Mark and who cannot justify their biasness against religious from international issue) need to read this clause within the local context. The local context consists of religions that are exclusive in nature. The major religions in Singapore claim exclusivity for their own religious belief. Each religion sees itself doctrinally different from other religions. In other words, the exclusive nature of these religions are part of what they are. If these exclusive religions are forced to be separated from their exclusive nature, then there is a violation of clause (15) as well as clause (14). Given this religious context in Singapore, the locals have to understand that clause (15) is not merely upholding individual's right to religious practice. It is precisely in upholding this right that the clause is also upholding the exclusivity of these religions in the same breath. If the society needs to find out the troublemakers that are raising tension in the community, I would point my finger to those who wrote to ISD and yet unable to justify their biasness against Mark but not Mr Lee. These troublemakers and their concern for "sensitivity" stemmed from arbitrariness. Since it is arbitrary, then they do not have valid or justified reason to create tension among local communities. If they do, which they did, then they are in fact threatening "the interest of [...] public order or morality..." Mark is in the same way just as right as Mr Lee. If anyone think that their remarks are wrong, please ask for clarification. Do not start shouting "Insensitive!" like uncivilized hooligans in some fantasy country with major religions or political views that are all inclusive in nature. Religious harmony in a pluralistic society like Singapore cannot be fostered through complaints or the curbing of individual's liberty to express their exclusive religious and political view. To adopt that is to defeat both the "religious" and the "harmony" in the real sense of the words. Hence the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony and the ISD should not encourage the citizens to cultivate such intolerant attitude by entertaining these petty, unjustifiable and bias complaints! The authorities as representing the sovereign state of the country, that look into the welfare of all citizens, should be objective and impartial in their administration. They should not only investigate those who are being complained but also on those who complain since it can be the case that it is the latter group that attempts to stir social unrest. Real religious harmony is fostered through an open space for continuous dialog as well as the attitude to accept and understand. Those who so cherish religious harmony should be harmonious in nature in spite of difference in understanding one another's religion or political standing.   Joshua Woo  Read More →

The recent police investigations into one of Singapore's leading socio political blog "The Online Citizen" (TOC) has sparked an outcry among netizens. Mr Andrew Loh, the Chief Editor of TOC admitted lately on his blog that it was put on "hiatus" two weeks ago because he has been questioned by the police over the distribution of anti-PAP fliers deemed to be of a seditious tendency. Thousands of fliers were distributed in Seng Kang and Marine Parade calling on Singaporeans to vote against the PAP in the coming election. The incident occurred in April and till today, the culprit is still not caught. TOC was one of the first sites to reproduce the fliers in cyberspace. However, Mr Andrew Loh, a former member of the opposition Workers' Party told the police that he has no idea who is behind the distribution of the fliers. Many netizens wonder what the fuss is about and whether the investigation is justified in the first place. sunnyhor wrote: "I hope the police can do much better jobs to catch those robbers who are slashing people recently ?? better than check on some bonkers who are anti pap ! why waste time on him ??" K is cynical about the investigations: "The police (and by their proxy assumption, the government) does not blink an eye when fliers are distributed by certain religious groups claiming miraculous cures such as the blind can see, the deaf can hear, the crippled can walk and promised to cure anything from cancer to AIDS. Looks like it is easier to get away with religious fraud than actual criticisms/discussions of the ruling party!" SPF Clowns minced no words: "These stupid SPF clowns are all under our joker WKS. No wonder crime rate going up. We can no longer be safe here, with all the murder and robbery under these fools. All these PAP idiots will ruin the Sinkapore. Vote PAP out." In the meantime, Mr Andrew Loh appeared to be nonchalant about the ongoing police investigations against him as he made an open plea for volunteers and funds to help TOC prepare for the coming general election. Though TOC is not a registered society, it has a core group of dedicated members with close links to the Singapore opposition and hundreds, if not thousands of volunteers, making it a formidable force to be reckoned with in Singapore politics. Its strident criticisms of the PAP even earned the wrath of PAP minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan who slammed it for "irresponsible reporting" in Parliament not too long ago.     Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →

OPINION The famous American writer Napolean Hill once wrote: "Big pay and little responsibility are circumstances seldom found together." What he meant is that there is usually a correlation between the amount of responsibility one has and his/her renumeration. In other words, we should expect leaders who are highly paid to hold far greater responsibility than those who are paid less and rightly so. When you are paid an astronomical salary to do a job, it is expected that you will accept all responsibility for it as well, including mistakes. The recent flooding at Orchard Road is another sign of how adept our political leaders have become at shirking their public responsibilities towards tax-paying citizens. When trouble arises, their natural instinct is to take cover first. Humility is a dirty word in the PAP's dictionary. In any other developed country like Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong or Taiwan, the Minister of Environment will be found at the scene of the flooding almost immediately to coordinate relief operations. An official apology to the public followed by resignation or sacking by the Prime Minister is the expected outcome to appease public anger, but not in Singapore where political leaders are shielded from public scrutiny by a compliant media and defamatory lawsuits and almost never held accountable for their words, actions and misdeeds despite being paid obscene salaries which will make Barack Obama blush. This is no ordinary mistake: the flooding right at the heart of Singapore's shopping district has caused millions of dollars in losses and damages and till today, nobody has accepted responsibility for it. Let us review what the PAP's response to the flooding. When the news first broke, there were no immediate comments from the PAP minister in charge Yaacob Ibrahim for three entire days! He is nowhere to be seen, heard or found let alone did he visit the retailers affected by the flooding like what Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao did in the aftermath of the Sichuan earthquake in 2008. As usual, Prime Minister Lee was "missing in action" too. Only two days later did PUB bother to call a press conference to explain the cause of the flooding. While PUB CEO Mr Khoo Teng Chye admitted that they were "caught off guard" by the floods, he did not offer a public apology. Mr Yaacob was not present at the conference as if the entire matter has nothing to do with him when he should be the one answering queries from the media. The state media is quick to lay the blame on PUB and leave Mr Yaacob out from the picture completely who only commented publicly on the flooding at the sideline of a community event three days later to distance himself from it. Short of accepting responsibility for the lapse in general maintenance resulting in the flooding and apologize for it, Mr Yaacob was quick to find excuses to exonerate himself from any blame, dressing the screw-up as another "learning experience": “Every event is a new learning experience for us. This rainfall was totally unexpected, I can be very honest about it. If you look at rainfall patterns, we’ve never seen such a pattern. Having said that, it means there are new things happening, so the approach we should be taking is to learn from this, improve upon it, and assure Singaporeans that we’ll do our best to prevent this as much as possible,” he said. [Source: Sunday Times, 20 June 2010] He still has the cheek to heap generous self-praise on his subordinates for their efforts in controlling the flood: "“I think the response by the PUB, by the agencies, has been commendable. We have done our best to help the businesses affected, the people affected,” he added. Now who is ultimately responsible for managing environment resources in Singapore. Who is the overall in charge? Who does PUB report to? Who heads the Ministry of Environment? Why have such a ministry when there appears to be nobody leading it in times of trouble? Who is accountable for preventing such flooding in the first place? Sorry Mr Yaacob, your "best" is simply not enough. To put it bluntly, your performance as the Minister of Environment has been dismal, if not pathetic so far. How can Mr Yaacob not seen such a rainfall pattern at all? Below is the list of flash floods which had occurred during Mr Yaacob's tenure as the Minister of Environment: 19 December 2006: there was mayhem after 365mm of rain – third-highest recorded in the last 75 years – fell over 20 hours. 28 August 2007: 143mm of rain fell in seven hours, roughly 80 per cent of the average for the month, again there were flash floods. 28 November 2007: 99mm of rain was dumped in Orchard Road in just a few hours. Basement stores in Lucky Plaza and Liat Tower were flooded. 5 April 2009: 97.6mm fell, more that half of the average rainfall for the entire month, causing flash floods in MacPherson and Upper Paya Lebar.    19 November 2009: 110mm of rain – about six times that of a normal storm – fell in two and a half hours, leading to flash floods in Bukit Timah that caused at least $1 million in damage to cars alone. [Source: The New Paper] One need not be a metereologist to realize that flash floods and heavy rainfalls in excess of 100mm are relatively common in tropical Singapore, as in other countries in the region. Back in December 2006 when heavy rain caused excess water from the MacRitchie and Upper Seletar reservoirs to overflow and flood the surrounding areas, Mr Yaacob said in an interview with Channel News Asia: “You can’t design for rainfall of this level, it is just too huge. The thing we can accept is that we can only design our canal of a certain size, and at the end of the day, we have to live with some of these occurrences which occur once in 50 years or so. I know it is inconvenient to some Singaporeans, but on the part of PUB and NEA, we’ll do our best to alleviate the problem as quickly as possible.” He used the same excuse during the Bukit Timah flooding in December last year, describing it as a “freak” event that occurs once in fifty years: “What happened was very unusual. The intensity was tremendous. We knew the diversion canal was not big enough to take this. It is not possible… to plan for every event. Thursday’s weather… occurs once in 50 years.” he added. How many "once in a fifty year" flooding can tiny Singapore continue to experience? Similar-sized Hong Kong is hit by a dozen of typhoons a year, but its Central Business District was never flooded at least in the last decade or so. It is indeed a "freak event" that Singaporeans continue to pay more than $2 million dollars a year for the service of Mr Yaacob who cannot even come up with decent, logical and reasonable excuses to convince the people. Is it acceptable for Singaporeans to live with such flooding which occurs once every few months? A leader should lead by example and be brave enough to own up to mistakes and accept responsibility for them, what's more a public official who is paid by the people to serve them. Ministers and civil servants must be held to higher standards and be fully accountable to the public, not shirking responsibility to their subordinates and outsiders the moment trouble arises. With literally zero accountability to the public and no fears of ever losing their jobs, it is hardly a surprise that a culture of complacency has permeated the entire government and civil service. How can we expect improvements to be made when one can get away with almost any mistake and still continue to bring home fat pay cheques and bonuses at the end of the year? Don't expect heads to roll even if the entire Singapore is submerged under flood waters one day. Under Singapore's unique "meritocracy", the higher one's position is, the harder will be one's rice-bowl. Mr Yaacob's rice-bowl is probably made of platinum. That is why he is still learning from so many "new experiences" at the expense of ordinary Singaporeans who continue to live under the wrath of Mother Nature.     Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →