TR EMERITUS

By Frank Ching from South China Morning Post The reaction to the beating up of three local journalists covering protests in Urumqi , the capital of Xinjiang , has underlined differences in values between Hong Kong and the mainland 12 years after the implementation of the "one country, two systems" policy. The three journalists, two from TVB and one from Now TV, were tied up, kicked and punched by police in Urumqi. Regional authorities, instead of apologising, blamed the journalists. Xinjiang Information Office director Hou Hanmin said they had been inciting demonstrators. A rare protest, sponsored jointly by the Hong Kong Journalists Association and the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Hong Kong, was held outside the central government's liaison office on Sunday. Meanwhile, local politicians, even pro-Beijing ones, have been united in criticism of the Xinjiang government. Even Ta Kung Pao, a pro-communist newspaper here, carried a commentary that termed the Xinjiang charge of incitement "a fabricated accusation". It said: "Hong Kong reporters are only outsiders there [in Urumqi]. How can they incite people to cause trouble?" Many people in Hong Kong have called on Beijing to investigate. However, it is highly unlikely that it will do so. Beijing is not in the habit of admitting official wrongdoing, either by its own officials or by those in the provinces. Coercive measures are often taken in the name of maintaining stability. The beating up of three journalists will not be considered a big thing. It is important to understand that what happened in Urumqi on September 4 was by no means an isolated incident. It is part of a pattern, showing how Chinese authorities view and treat the media, which is controlled by the state on the mainland. Two days after the beatings, five other Hong Kong journalists were at a railway station in Urumqi, where police used tear gas to disperse hundreds of people. The five were whisked away to a police station. They were subsequently released and told it was a misunderstanding - but one that prevented them from doing their job. And, last month, two Beijing-based journalists working for the Hong Kong media were held in their hotel room in Chengdu , Sichuan province , and prevented from covering a politically sensitive trial. The central government, instead of reining in provincial authorities, appears to support them. A Foreign Ministry spokeswoman defended the treatment of the reporters in Urumqi, saying: "It was proper and necessary for the police to implement some contingency measures. I hope reporters can co-operate and understand." The problem of journalists working on the mainland is by no means limited to those from Hong Kong. The Foreign Correspondents' Club of China says at least 32 foreign journalists were attacked or had photos or equipment destroyed in the 12 months following the Olympic Games last year. Some people, such as Tsang Hin-chi, a former member of the NPC Standing Committee, have called for calm and asked the journalists to take the national interest into account. But Tsang should understand that the national interest does not lie in covering up abuses of power; it lies in strengthening the rule of law, upholding press freedom and maintaining political accountability. It is the responsibility of Hong Kong journalists and politicians to help the mainland reform the behaviour of police, information officers and government officials. Such incidents reflect a conflict of values between the mainland and Hong Kong. Basic freedoms - of the press, of speech and of assembly - are taken for granted here. These are recognised by the Chinese constitution but, in practice, they do not exist on the mainland. People in Hong Kong must remain vigilant to safeguard their rights and freedoms, both while here and on the mainland. By Frank Ching from South China Morning Post The reaction to the beating up of three local journalists covering protests in Urumqi , the capital of Xinjiang , has underlined differences in values between Hong Kong and the mainland 12 years after the implementation of the "one country, two systems" policy. The three journalists, two from TVB and one from Now TV, were tied up, kicked and punched by police in Urumqi. Regional authorities, instead of apologising, blamed the journalists. Xinjiang Information Office director Hou Hanmin said they had been inciting demonstrators. A rare protest, sponsored jointly by the Hong Kong Journalists Association and the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Hong Kong, was held outside the central government's liaison office on Sunday. Meanwhile, local politicians, even pro-Beijing ones, have been united in criticism of the Xinjiang government. Even Ta Kung Pao, a pro-communist newspaper here, carried a commentary that termed the Xinjiang charge of incitement "a fabricated accusation". It said: "Hong Kong reporters are only outsiders there [in Urumqi]. How can they incite people to cause trouble?" Many people in Hong Kong have called on Beijing to investigate. However, it is highly unlikely that it will do so. Beijing is not in the habit of admitting official wrongdoing, either by its own officials or by those in the provinces. Coercive measures are often taken in the name of maintaining stability. The beating up of three journalists will not be considered a big thing. It is important to understand that what happened in Urumqi on September 4 was by no means an isolated incident. It is part of a pattern, showing how Chinese authorities view and treat the media, which is controlled by the state on the mainland. Two days after the beatings, five other Hong Kong journalists were at a railway station in Urumqi, where police used tear gas to disperse hundreds of people. The five were whisked away to a police station. They were subsequently released and told it was a misunderstanding - but one that prevented them from doing their job. And, last month, two Beijing-based journalists working for the Hong Kong media were held in their hotel room in Chengdu , Sichuan province , and prevented from covering a politically sensitive trial. The central government, instead of reining in provincial authorities, appears to support them. A Foreign Ministry spokeswoman defended the treatment of the reporters in Urumqi, saying: "It was proper and necessary for the police to implement some contingency measures. I hope reporters can co-operate and understand." The problem of journalists working on the mainland is by no means limited to those from Hong Kong. The Foreign Correspondents' Club of China says at least 32 foreign journalists were attacked or had photos or equipment destroyed in the 12 months following the Olympic Games last year. Some people, such as Tsang Hin-chi, a former member of the NPC Standing Committee, have called for calm and asked the journalists to take the national interest into account. But Tsang should understand that the national interest does not lie in covering up abuses of power; it lies in strengthening the rule of law, upholding press freedom and maintaining political accountability. It is the responsibility of Hong Kong journalists and politicians to help the mainland reform the behaviour of police, information officers and government officials. Such incidents reflect a conflict of values between the mainland and Hong Kong. Basic freedoms - of the press, of speech and of assembly - are taken for granted here. These are recognised by the Chinese constitution but, in practice, they do not exist on the mainland. People in Hong Kong must remain vigilant to safeguard their rights and freedoms, both while here and on the mainland.  Read More →

From our Correspondent When film-maker Martyn See produced a 26 minute documentary on Singapore's opposition politician Dr Chee Soon Juan in 2005, he probably did not expect that it would turn into 2 year nightmare for him. After all, Singapore was a self-proclaimed first world country which loved to compare itself with liberal democracies of the West such as Switzerland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Britain, Canada and the United States. A film about any political figures in these countries will probably not raised an eyebrow. Michael Moore released a documentary lampooning ex-U.S. President George W. Bush just before the Presidential election in 2004 and he managed to make a profit out of it. In modern Singapore, however, Martyn was judged to have committed a heinous crime according to the unrevised Film Act then. For showing his film to an audience overseas, he was taught a lesson he would never forget for the rest of his life. Now, what crime did Martyn commit exactly? He did not assault anybody. He did not steal or rob. He did not run away with his clients' money like some lawyers (who are still not impeached by the Law Society for 'bringing the profession into disrepute') The Media Development Authority (MDA) felt otherwise to lodge a police report against Martyn See and he was called up for a police interview at Cantonment Police Complex in May the same year. It was only after 16 months of investigation, three interrogation sessions and 120 questions did the police finally decide to close their case against him. Writing about his ordeal on his blog, Martyn said: “This whole episode has been rather surreal, but no less worrying (I still haven’t told my mother about it). It would have been out-of-whack in any First World nation, but it actually did happened in modern-day Singapore – the production of one short video featuring an opposition figure sparked off a ban, a police inquiry and much undue publicity for everyone involved.” Does Martyn's offence, if there is any in the first place, require such a lengthy, thorough and meticulous investigation by our most esteemed Singapore police force? How much precious resources and time was devoted to his case when they can be better utilized elsewhere? (such as catching loanshark runners) As Martyn admitted himself, the film would not raise a ruckus if it was approved and shown to an audience no more than 80 people. With the police involved, the case was blown up and the film is now watched by more than 500,000 people on Youtube. Being paid for entirely by taxpayers' monies, the police should at least offer an explanation to the public why it is necessary to spend 16 months on the case which ended with a "stern letter of warning" to Martyn See. Is the police action warranted? Is it tantamount to harrassment and intimidation? Was Martyn's personal rights being infringed about by the interrogation sessions? Besides Martyn's case, the police has also called up artist Seelan Palay for investigation lately. His crime: for showing a film he produced - "One Nation Under Lee" indoors at a private function for invited guests only. There are no provisions in the Film Act for screening home-made films indoors, but MDA still sent officials down to the event to confiscate the videos. Needless to say, the case against Seelan is still "under investigation". Why is the Singapore police spend time and energy to pursue, investigate and intimidate harmless young men for making films? It's not as if they are producing pornographic films for distribution or sale. It is time that Singapore has a human rights commission like Sukham in Malaysia or an independent police commission to serve as a watchdog on the Singapore Police Force. Even then, the new media and the Singapore Law Society have to collaborate closely with the commission to hold the police accountable to the public. In Malaysia, whenever activists are hauled up by the police, the Malaysian Bar Association will send its lawyers immediately over to provide legal aid and the new media will publish the story the very next day. What happened to Martyn and Seelan can well happen to us, our children and friends one day. These cases must be highlighted and publicized to the public and allow Singaporeans to judge for themselves whether the police is justified to launch an investigation in the first place. The Singapore police should realize that their salaries are being paid by the citizens of Singapore and not the ruling party. Their primary responsibility is to protect the people and not to cause them any unnecessary stress or inconvenience.  Read More →

From our Correspondent According to latest data released by the Ministry of Manpower, unemployment rates have increased for all education-groups though the resident unemployment rate eased slightly in June 2009 from three months ago, The employment data comprise all persons in employment i.e. employees and the self-employed. A local (also known as resident) employee is any Singapore citizen or Permanent Resident who is employed by an employer under a contract of service or other agreement entered into in Singapore. [There is no data on the unemployment rates for Singapore citizens] Residents with below-secondary qualifications had the highest unemployment rate among the education groups in Jun 2009, with their rate rising by a larger extent than those who are better educated. For this group of residents, the unemployment rates are higher for those in their 30s and 40s.  Secondary educated residents also experienced an above-average rise in unemployment rate. The below-secondary educated formed the largest group (32,600 or 28%) among unemployed residents in Jun 2009, most of whom were aged 40 & over (24,900 or 21% of all unemployed residents). Together with the secondary educated (28,000 or 24%), the less educated formed slightly over one in two of the job seekers. Degree holders also formed a sizeable group (28,800 or 25%) among the unemployed though the unemployment rate for degree holders was still below the national average. Younger degree holders posted the smallest increase in unemployment rate while older degree holders experienced a sharper increase in unemployment resulting in their share of unemployed residents rising from 6.8% to 8.5% for those in their 30s and 5.5% to 6.3% for those aged 40 & over. Despite signs of the economy rebounding, long-term ong-term unemployment among the jobless in Singapore has worsened, Despite signs of the economy rebounding, long-term unemployment among the jobless in Singapore has worsened with the less educated group being the hardest hit. Some of these chronically unemployed residents may be laid off as a result of structural changes in the economy and may not necessarily be able to find a job again when the economy recovers. Furthermore, they have to face renewed competition from a relentless influx of foreigners, many of them semi-skilled professionals which are competing directly with locals for the limited jobs available. The problem is exacerbated by a weak re-employment market. Based on CPF records, only 43 per cent of the residents retrenched in the first quarter were re-employed by June. This means that 57% of those retrenched are still without a job. Given the fact that Singapore workers are not entitled to any retrenchment benefits, they will either have to dip into their own savings or depend on family members for support during their search for another job. Reference: Labor Market, 2nd Quarter 2009 by MOM  Read More →