TR EMERITUS

From our Correspondent In an opening address at the New York State Bar Association International Section held in Singapore Swissotel from 26 to 29 October 2009, Singapore Law Minister K Shanmugam said that the Singapore government does not seek to ban press criticism of the Government or policies, but demands the right of reply. Outlining the Government's stand, he said: 'Our approach on press reporting is simple: The press can criticise us, our policies. We do not seek to proscribe that. But we demand the right of response, to be published in the journal that published the original article. 'We do not accept that they can decide whether to publish our response. That irks the press no end,' he added. If the press crossed the line and alleged, for example, that someone was corrupt, or made some other personal attack, then it would face a libel suit. The allegation must then be proven. Does Mr Shanmugam really believe that the press - both local and international will dare to criticize the Singapore government given its proven low tolerance for criticism and dismal track record of suing the media for defamation? The Singapore media will never dare to criticize the government because it is already muzzled by virtue of the fact that the sole media company running all the print publications in Singapore - SPH, is under the control of the ruling party. Self-censorship is pervasive throughout the Singapore media. Articles on politics are almost always slanted in favor of the ruling party which can do no wrong while the opposition is often ridiculed, discredited and demonized. Negative news on the Singapore government are quietly censored while positive ones are highlighted and given extensive publicity. For example, despite her questionable performance as Temasek Holdings' CEO, the state media still tries to put a positive spin on Ho Ching. Wall Street Journal was the first to break the news of GIC's substantial losses in its investments last year. The Straits Times did not even carry a report on it (though Chinese paper Lianhe Zaobao did so). A plethora of foreign publications were sued successfully by the Singapore government over the years - Far Eastern Economic Review, Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Bloomberg, Asia Times, International Herald Tribune etc. All these are reputable international publications which are circulated freely even in places like China. Few of them are ever sued by other governments. What does that say about Singapore? The end result is that foreign journalist are shunning reporting on Singapore altogether. While China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia and even Vietnam are regularly featured in the front pages of the Economist, Newsweek and Times, Singapore hardly warrants a brief mention. Instead of ranting at the foreign media for portraying Singapore as a "repressive" state which had made him appeared defensive, vindictive and petty, Mr Shanmugam should take a leaf out of Chinese President Hu Jintao (who incidentally earns much less than him). In an opening speech to a meeting of global media leaders on 9 October in Beijing, President Hu pledged that China would protect the rights of international news organisations reporting in China though their coverage is largely critical of China's human rights record. “We will continue to make government affairs public, enhance information distribution, safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of foreign news organisations and reporters, and facilitate foreign media coverage of China in accordance with China’s laws and regulations," he said. This is real tact, diplomacy and statemanship. Resorting to bullying tactics to coerce the foreign media to toe the Singapore government's official line will only sully its tarnished image further. Perhaps the next time the Young PAP go on another "study trip" to visit China's Communist Party, Mr Shanmugam can consider tagging along as well. It will prevent him from making Singapore a laughing stock again in future conferences like this.   Related articles: >> Hu Jintao pledged to protect foreign media >> Shanmugan peeved at Singapore media's world press freedom index >> Chief Justice on independence of Singapore judiciary >> Temasek Review writes to Reporters without Borders  Read More →

OPINION At the Opening of the seasonal meeting of the New York state bar association International Section, Singapore's Law Minister Mr Shanmugam told the delegates that Singapore's (political) stability can be seen by the billions of dollars invested in Singapore annually by international organizations. "Our main selling point is that there will be good value added when they invest here, their investments will be protected, and that we are a stable democracy," he added. Mr Shanmugam cannot be more wrong. For those who are aware of Singapore's political system, it is neither stable nor is it a democracy. A diplomatic term to use will be a "sham democracy".  To put it bluntly - Singapore is a one-party state, a dictatorship or more realistically a "feudal dynasty". Mr Shanmugam may be able to pull a wool easily over the eyes of politically naive Singaporeans back home, but surely he has to work harder to convince the astute Americans that Singapore is anything remotely linked to a democracy. According to former Thai Minister Anand Panyarachun, there are seven main pillars for the artchitecture of democracy: elections, political tolerance, rule of law, freedom of expression, accountability and transparency, decentralization and civil society. Robert Alan Dahl, the Sterling Professor of Political Science from Yale University defines democracy as according to the following five criteria: Effective Participation - Citizens must have adequate and equal opportunities to form their preference and place questions on the public agenda and express reasons for one outcome over the other. Voting Equality at the Decisive Stage - Each citizen must be assured his or her judgements will be counted as equal in weights to the judgements of others. Enlightened Understanding - Citizens must enjoy ample and equal opportunities for discovering and affirming what choice would best serve their interests. Control of the Agenda - Demos or people must have the opportunity to decide what political matters actually are and what should be brought up for deliberation. Inclusiveness - Equality must extend to all citizens within the state. Everyone has legitimate stake within the political process. It is obvious that save for periodic elections which are neither free or fair, Singapore does not satisfy both sets of criteria for democracy to exist and flourish. Singapore only appears to be politically on the surface so long as the strongman is still around to hold the fort. Unlike established democracies with an institutionalized system of power transfer which allows for different political parties to assume power peacefully, Singapore has been ruled by a single party since independence. In an ideal democracy, there will be competing centers of power who are able to replace the incumbent should it fall from power (and grace). In Singapore, the entire political milieu is dominated by one single party which is in control of all critical state institutions such as the police, media and grassroots organizations. There is no division of power between the executive and the legislative. Neither is there a credible and strong opposition to check on the ruling party in a system which lacks accountability and transparency. The people are politically weak, ignorant and apathetic. All these structural flaws are recipes for a disaster waiting to happen. As former Thai Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun said during the Third Amartya Sen Lecture Series last year: "An apathetic electorate is easy prey for any organized group to seize power by force or fraud, giving rise to totalitarianism." Singapore is able to exist as a near totalitarian state so far because its citizenry is largely ignorant of its implications. In a way, it is lucky that the present batch of leaders are relatively capable and decent, but what if a rogue leader will to assume power one day - he/she will have unlimited power and nobody can remove him/her from office. The opposition is too weak to field enough credible candidates to challenge the ruling party partly because Singaporeans are either too afraid or disinterested to participate in politics. The GRC system greatly enhances the chances of the ruling party as they are able to change the electoral boundaries as and when is needed to suit their own partisan interests. Heavy-weight ministers are put in each GRCs to "protect" the weak candidates who may otherwise lose in a straight one to one contest in a single ward. The election campaigning is only 9 days long which gives little time for the opposition to highlight the important issues to the people. The mainstream media is entirely controlled by the ruling party and is blatantly biased towards it. Ruling party candidates are always portrayed in a positive light while opposition ones are smeared, demonized or in the words of Prime Minister Lee, "FIXED". Then, there is the use of the infamous defamatory lawsuits to cripple the opposition. Many credible candidates in the past such as J.B. Jeyaretnam, Tang Liang Hong and Dr Chee Soon Juan are kept out of parliament or barred from elections as a result of being made a bankrupt. The greatest potential danger to Singapore's future lies in the complete absence of a civil society to check and rein in on the excesses of the executive. Brainwashed by years of state propaganda, Singaporeans continue to retain a blind faith in the ruling elite. A rogue leader will have no problems controlling the populace because they are politically naive to begin with. As we can see from above, Singapore's political stability is only a mirage which can vanish anytime without its people realizing why for most are still blissfully unaware of the inherent structural weaknesses in its obsolete and archaic political system. The Freedom House rankings for 2009 placed Singapore together with Iraq at 151 out of 195, below Haiti, Colombia, Kenya, Moldova, Guinea, Pakistan and others, he added. Mr Shanmugam said the government approach to such rankings was "to ignore the criticisms which made no sense, and it continued to do what was better for the city-state, and Singaporeans also knew better." If the criticisms make no sense, then why is Mr Shanmugam speaking at the opening address of the New York Bar Association to defend his regime's dismal record in human rights and political freedoms? Only he knows if his party is doing what was better for Singapore or for its own political survival and hegemony. Lastly, Mr Shanmugam cannot claim to speak for all Singaporeans. Though the majority of Singaporeans remain deluded, there are some who knew better what kind of government Singapore has - far from being a "stable democracy", it is a perfect totalitarian state which would have made Stalin or Mao proud.   Related articles: >> Shanmugan peeved at Singapore media's world press freedom index >> Chief Justice on independence of Singapore judiciary >> Temasek Review writes to Reporters without Borders   EDITORS’ NOTE: If you like our work and would like to support us, please transfer your donations via paypal to our account ([email protected]). Any amount will be greatly appreciated! Alternatively, you can also help boost our advertising revenue by clicking on the ads displayed. Thank you! Join our tweet at: http://www.twitter.com/temasekreview  Read More →

By Mex Cooper from The Age Federal police were on hand to protect Tiger Airways staff when they told a planeload of Melbourne-bound passengers they would be stranded in Hobart for three days. Disgruntled passenger Mike Waters said the 9.15pm flight to Melbourne from Hobart was cancelled on Friday night when a flight attendant became ill. He said passengers were initially told the flight would still be departing but after a two-hour wait were then told to go to the Tiger Airways ticketing desk where about five police officers appeared to be standing guard. Some passengers were then informed they would not be able to fly home until today and were taken to stay in a hotel about 20 kilometres from Hobart. Mr Waters said among the frustrated passengers was a best man who missed his friend's wedding and a woman who was due to start a new job today. The 58-year-old said he and his wife had been on a two-day visit to relatives and he was left in Hobart without his diabetes and blood pressure medication, a change of clothes, or access to shops. Instead, the couple had to fork out money to pay for the four-star hotel accommodation and dining. A Tiger Airways spokeswoman said the airline had not called in the police officers who are permanently stationed at the airport. She said Tiger did not have any crew based in Hobart and when a cabin crew member became ill, he could not be replaced. "We need a certain amount of cabin crew to fly each flight by law," she said. "Tiger Airways apologises to affected passengers but this situation was outside our control." The spokeswoman said some of the 140 passengers had been able to re-book on flights leaving Saturday and Sunday but some were unable to fly until today. Passengers will be compensated for accommodation up to $120 per night and were offered a flight refund or credit to fly another time, she said. Mr Waters said according to Tiger Airways compensation form it could be up to two months before he receive a refund which would probably not cover the $500 he was now out of pocket. Asked if he would ever fly Tiger again, Mr Waters said "absolutely not". "I was a great believer in Tiger and had flown four or five times, I told everyone they were great," he said. "They seem to do the flight OK when it runs well but there is no contingency plan in an emergency." Mr Waters and his wife returned to their Croydon home last night after paying for a Virgin Blue flight. Another angry passenger told The Age that police had to calm about 100 Tiger Airways passengers left waiting for hours at Sydney Airport yesterday. The passenger said the Melbourne-bound passengers became irate when Tiger staff could not explain the reason for their delayed flight which was due to take off just before 4pm. He said airport security and police arrived to quell rising tensions as passengers demanded answers. The Tiger Airways spokeswoman said the four-hour delay had been caused by a potential safety scare. She said the airline had to check no water had contaminated the fuel following storms in New South Wales and the police officers were always present at the airport. Source: The Age  Read More →