TR EMERITUS

Written by Our Correspondent Singapore's sole broadcasting station Mediacorp, which is owned by Temasek Holdings, said that it is unable to bring live telecasts of the next World Cup held in South Africa next year to Singapore due to "substantial costs". The World Cup is the largest sporting event in the world with an expected viewership of more than 2 billion people. Earlier, both SingTel and Starhub had announced that they have yet to reach an agreement with the organizers FIFA for television rights to screen the World Cup in Singapore due to "financial considerations". As of today, 202 countries in the world have already penned a deal with FIFA. Singapore remains one of the few countries together with war-torn Somalia which have yet to do so. Soccer fans have written in to the Straits Times to vent their frustration with many calling on the authorities to step in to exert pressure on the telcos to bring free World Cup telecasts to Singapore. Faced with mounting public anger, the Vice-President of Network Acquisitions, Joy Olby-Tan wrote a letter to the Straits Times Forum today clarifying that there is "no specific Fifa ruling for any match to be provided free of charge by Fifa to any broadcaster, nor is there a mandate for any match to be aired on a free-to-air basis." "Any match carriage is subject to a commercial agreement between the broadcasters and Fifa. Therefore, MediaCorp needs to balance the substantial costs of bringing in the World Cup matches for viewers with revenues from advertisers and sponsors," he concluded his brief letter. The term "free telecast" is a misnomer in Singapore because all Singaporeans have to pay a mandatory TV licence fee of about $110 to the government yearly whether one owns a television set or watch locally produced programmes and news on television. The World Cup will be screened for free in more than a dozen Asian countries as of now such as China, Australia and New Zealand with more following suit next year. According to Radio New Zealand International, football fans in the entire Pacific region will have uninterrupted and free television coverage of all 64 matches from the World Cup: "Football fans in the Pacific region will have uninterrupted television coverage of next years world cup in South Africa. This follows a deal between the Oceania Football Confederation and Fiji’s MAI television to broadcast the 64 matches from the World Cup free to viewers in the region." [Source: Radio New Zealand] The two giant telcos in Singapore - SingTel and Starhub are owned by the government indirectly via its sovereign wealth fund, Temasek Holdings, which is headed by the Prime Minister's wife, Ho Ching.  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent A netizen using the moniker of "MrBell" posted a question on the Facebook of YPAP member Mr Sear Hock Rong asking him if there is a conflict of interest between his job and his grassroots work at Eunos: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=77865194499&topic=13034 Mr Sear caused an outcry in cyberspace when it was revealed that he taunted an online critic of the PAP Mr Alex Tan with his past detention during National Service. Mr Sear posted comments on the YPAP Facebook to Mr Tan beginning with the following address: "Alex Zhixiang Tan who was charged with 'general disobedience'" Mr Sear had defended himself on the ground that it was Mr Tan who started using vulgarities on the YPAP Facebook. Mr Tan has since been banned from posting on it. According to "MrBell" who obtained the information from website of Mr Sear's company, who holds many positions in Eunos grassroots organizations: He is the Chairman of Eunos Community Club Youth Executive Committee and Secretary of Eunos Zone ‘2’ Residents’ Committee and Eunos Civil Defence Executive Committee. He is also a member of the Eunos Community Club Management Committee and Eunos PAP Community Foundation Management Committee. http://www.r2e.com.sg/about/mds.php Mr Sear is an MD of R2E Concepts: http://www.r2e.com.sg/about/mds.php R2E Concepts clientele includes: Eunos Citizens' Consultative Committee, Eunos Zone '1' Residents' Committee, Eunos Zone '3' Residents' Committee, Eunos Zone '5' Residents' Committee http://www.r2e.com.sg/clientele.php "MrBell" asked if there is a "conflict of interests" in this case: "In what way has Mr Sear, being the grassroot leader of Eunos, sitting in multiple committees in Eunos community, has influence the decisions in the various Eunos RCs and committees to use R2E Concepts' services whose MD is also Mr Sear?" Mr Seah had not replied to the question posed on his Facebook yet, however his fellow YPAP member Mr Edgar Khieu had jumped to his defence. Mr Khieu said it is not a concern that Mr Sear's company counts some Eunos grassroots organizations as its clients: "There are proper protocols involving conflict of interests. In the event of a committee member's personal interests are involved, the member in question must sit out a vote on the decision. PA also requires a declaration of conflict of interests and also there are audit procedures to ensure there are no irregularities in the process." He also appears to insinuate that the question itself may be "defamatory" in nature: "I believe that the books are open for inspection and they are audited according to PA guidelines. If you feel there is a conflict of interest or are accusing the various committees of wrong doing, kindly make the relevant reports. However if you are hinting without any basis that there is wrongdoing, you might be defaming the people involved in making the decisions."   DISCLAIMER: All the information published here from comments posted on Mr Sear Hock Rong's Facebook which is in public domain and are used solely for the purpose of reporting. Copyright © The Temasek Review, 2009   Related articles: 1. YPAP member demands Temasek Review apologize for "putting PAP in a bad light" 2. Identity of YPAP member who leaked Alex Tan’s DB record on Facebook 3. Alex Tan to YPAP members: Don’t be cowards on Facebook 4. Alex Tan challenges YPAP to public debate at Speaker’s corner 5. YPAP member slammed by netizens for revealing critic’s detention record 6. YPAP member resorts to smearing critic’s character to silence him 7. PAP MP De Souza: More robust debate from PAP than opposition MPs  Read More →

OPINION In his interview with the PAP mouthpiece Petir which was strangely given extensive publicity by the Straits Times yesterday, Law Minister K Shanmugam said that the PAP has to convince younger voters that "Singapore, more than most countries, needs a strong leadership and a political system that allows for effective and speedy decisions to be made." Though Mr Shamugam did not elaborate more on what he meant specifically, it appeared that he was referring to Singapore's one-party system which allows the PAP to dominate the political landscape for fifty continuous years without any checks and balances. While it is true that such a system of governance allows for "effective and speedy decisions to be made" since there is no opposition to challenge the ruling party, it doesn't mean that the decisions made are always sound or beneficial to the people. In fact, many problems besieging Singapore today is a result of hasty decisions made by leaders in the past with little or no deliberation at all. Neither were the citizens consulted on major decisions concerning the fate of their nation. For example, when the "Stop at Two" policy was introduced in the 1970s, nobody questioned its long-term implications for Singapore. There was no opposition in parliament then which enabled the PAP to pass its bills and policies quickly and easily. Unfortunately, the unwanted effects of the policy only manifests itself years later resulting in Singapore's low birth rate which caused the ruling party to turn to immigration to boost the population, thereby creating another problem in the process. Had there been an opposition in parliament, it would have challenged the "Stop at Two" policy and forced the ruling party to rethink about it. Though it might take months of debates which would delay the policy's implementation, we can save ourselves from being stuck in the quagmire we are in now years later. Another policy blunder was admitted by MM Lee himself lately - that of Singapore's "bilingual policy" which would not be necessary if Lee did not crack down on Chinese education years earlier. Singapore used to have the best Chinese education in Southeast Asia before independence. After the PAP came to power in 1959, it tried to control and co-opt the Chinese educated elites, many of whom were affiliated with the opposition Barisan Sosialist. Chinese schools were shut down, independent Chinese newspapers were closed and journalists were thrown into jail. Eventually, even Nan Tah or Nanyang University, the beacon of Chinese education in Singapore was forced to merge with Singapore University to form the National University of Singapore in 1980. Due to the lack of career prospects for those schooled in Chinese education, many Singaporeans switched to English schools and the Chinese medium schools, deprived of state support, were left to flounder. Lee were to make a stunning policy reversal a few years later after he realized the importance of the Chinese language with China opening its economy to the world, but it was too late. The last-minute introduction of SAP schools and a bilingual language policy to place more emphasis on the Chinese language as a mother tongue was not enough to create another generation of Chinese educated elite as young Singaporeans grew up speaking English rather than Mandarin as their lingua franca. The solution to a problem was to become another problem by itself years later and this would not have happened if the government had taken time to ponder over its policies again and again after consulting with the relevant experts and the people. There is an old adage - "more haste, less speed" which cannot be more true in this instance when the ruling party had demonstrated its "effectiveness and speed", but the end result is less than desirable. Nobody in this world has a monopoly on wisdom. Being humans, everybody will have their own blind spots. That's why it is crucial to have an opposition in parliament to constantly remind leaders of their blind spots, especially in the formulation and implementation of policies which affect millions of people. A "strong" leadership or government is not one which dominates parliament and controls all institutions and pillars of the state including changing the Constitution at its wimps and fancies. A government which thinks it is right all the time and acts arbitrarily on behalf of the people is not exhibiting strong leadership but tyranny. A strong government is one which dares to face the opposition in parliament and uses persuasion to win its detractors over rather than dirty underhanded tactics to "fix" the opposition should more of them get elected into parliament. A strong government is one which adheres to the laws of the country and allows for free and fair elections instead of using the GRCs to ensure and perpetuate its dominant position. A strong government is one which is accountable and transparent to the people and whose leaders will apologize and resign to take responsibility for their mistakes. A strong government is one which is not afraid of criticisms and will not resort to controlling and muzzling the media to serve as its mouthpiece. And lastly, a strong government is one which respects the will of the people and leaves office peacefully should it be voted out of office one day instead of calling in the army to remove the legitimate government by force. By all accounts, the PAP government is not a strong government at all. In fact, it is a weak, cowardly, insecure, paranoid and repressive government which can only maintain its gripe on power through rampant gerry-mandering, pork barrel politics, fixing of opposition, silencing of critics and manipulating public opinion through the control of the media. As Law Minister, Mr Shanmugam should lead by example and show us how "effective and speedy" he is by abolishing the unfair laws and rules which favors the ruling party: 1. Announce polling date 6 months in advance to give the opposition adequate time to prepare for the elections. 2. Announce the electoral boundaries 6 months in advance so that the opposition can decide on the seats to contest. 3. Increase the duration of the campaign period from the minimum 9 days to at least a month in line with other first world democracies like Australia, Japan and Canada. 4. Allows all political parties equal access to the use of the media to reach out to the voters. 5. Refrain from using defamation lawsuits to cripple political opponents at the slightest sign of disagreement or dissent. Is Mr Shanmugam a strong leader on his own or is he simply following the orders of others? It is time for him to walk his talk. Copyright © The Temasek Review, 2009   Related articles: >> Shanmugam wants PAP to provide greater political education to Singaporeans >> Educate students about politics, says Shanmugam  Read More →