TR EMERITUS

By Fang Zhi Yuan Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, the Minister of Community, Youth and Sports had finally broken his silence on the AWARE fiasco. Speaking on the sidelines of his visit to Nee Soon South on 26 April 2009, he said: “There will always be some issues where you cannot get everybody to agree. We need to be able to learn to live and let live, to agree to disagree, and to do so agreeably. But don’t let these single issues polarise or divide us and become the be-all and end-all of your social activism or your organisation.” (read article here) The minister also emphasised that it is important for all Singaporeans to remember and also remain sensitive to the fact that they are living in a multi-racial and multi-religious society. While I concur with Dr Vivian's views and applaud the government's decision not to intervene in the AWARE saga, I hope Dr Vivian and his ministry will study the ramifications of this unfortunate episode and respond accordingly to it. Though the controversy which AWARE found itself embroiled in is purely an internal matter to be resolved by its members, we cannot ignore its implications for the larger civil society. There is no denial that the present exco of AWARE was voted in legitimately during the March AGM in accordance to the rules set under its Constitution. However, whether they have acquired the moral legitimacy to lead the organization is another matter. From the press conference called by the new AWARE exco, it appeared that the takeover was orchestrated behind the scenes by Senior lawyer Dr Thio Su Mien who was "disappointed" with the direction AWARE is heading under the old committee. She had allegedly written an email to her friends a few months earlier urging them "to join it and change its focus to other problems of women and families." (read article here) Several new faces turned up at the AGM and voted their representatives into the exco six of whom are members of the Church of Our Savior (COOS). In a sermon delivered on 25 April 2009, an influential pastor from COOS said: "We are in a season where things are being shaken. As a church, we believe in what the ladies are doing and Alan (husband of Josie Lau) of course is part of the process as well and so we want to just lift them up for what the Devil is trying to do, God will turn it in the glory of its name." (watch the video on SG Gutter Press here) I am curious to know the identity of this "Devil". Is the pastor referring to the AWARE old guards or anybody who refuses to endorse their uncompromising stance on homosexuality? It is obvious that the COOS is aware of the "constitutional coup" launched by some of its members to take over AWARE and has given them its blessings and support. There is a difference between members from the same Church participating in the AWARE elections in their own individual capacities and a group hatching a well-thought and organized plan beforehand with the sole aim of seizing control of the organization. Will this unprincipled takeover of a secular organization by a faith-based group to "correct" perceived indiscretions on the part of the ex-office holders set a precedent for similiar "intervention" by religious organizations to extend its influence to the wider society via proxies which are secular in name only? We are moving down a slippery slope here. A Pandora's box has been opened in this instance which will have a detrimental impact on the secular nature of our society if the perpetuators are allowed to get away with their actions. Worshipping of "idols" is mentioned in the same breath together with homosexuality as "sinners" by the COOS paster to his congregation. Will our national institutions and NGOs be infiltrated and even taken over like AWARE one day by such moral vigilantes in order for them to push their agenda to a wider audience? Religious organizations are free to set up their own NGOs to promote their own teachings, but while its members should be permitted to hold leadership positions in secular groups, a clear demarcation must be drawn between what is permitted and what is not. I would like to pose the following questions to Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: 1. Should the COOS's views on homosexuality be allowed to spread beyond the confines of the Church under the guise of secularism? 2. Is it acceptable for a faith-based group to hijack a secular group which it finds disagreeable? If Dr Vivian's answers to the above two questions are "no", it is time for the government to send a strong message across that such actions are not to be encouraged, tolerated or promoted. I am disturbed that the other Churches and religions have been keeping surprisingly quiet so far. Does silence imply that they acquiesce in the takeover of AWARE by a faith-based group? They should step forward to clarify their stance on the matter. Will they follow the example of COOS members should they find a NGO promoting a cause which seems contrarian to their teachings? In multiracial and multicultural Singapore, there is no place for religion in civil society. Let us continue to keep them in their own separate domains for it has served Singapore well since independence. No group or religion should be allowed to impose their value systems on another. Everybody should be allowed to have their voices heard and a space which they call their own in an inclusive society where nobody is marginalized or discriminated against because of their beliefs, values or sexual orientation.  Read More →

By Cheong Suk-Wai, Senior Writer (from Straits Times) PENANG'S fourth Chief Minister, Mr Lim Guan Eng, may be called The Comeback Kid not only for his perseverance during a rocky political career but also for his dry rejoinders to pesky reporters' questions. 'I never miss a beat,' the 48-year-old likes to say. He has been detained twice - in 1988 and 1998 - under Malaysia's Internal Security Act and its Sedition and Printing Presses And Publications Act. One of his detentions was due to having been outspoken in defence of the grandmother of a girl who had been allegedly raped by a Malacca chief minister. The Malacca-born, Monash-educated accountant worked in a bank before throwing himself into politics in 1986. Married to fellow parliamentarian Betty Chew, they have four children. He is the elder son of Mr Lim Kit Siang, 68, the former long-time secretary-general of the largely non-Malay Democratic Action Party (DAP). Mr Lim is truly a chip off the old block, from the slicked-back hair to his rapid-fire rat-a-tat-tat way of speaking. Still, the younger Lim, who has been the DAP's secretary-general since 2004, says humbly: 'I'm a shadow of (my father).' In town on April 17 to address a think-tank conference here, Mr Lim spoke to The Straits Times about what it is like leading an opposition state government, his triumphs and woes, and his hopes for Malaysia:   With so little political stability in Malaysia today, how hard has it been for you to hang on to your investors, such as Intel? Intel has not closed down.   Yes, but you had a big crisis recently when it wanted to lay off many workers. What they said is that they just transferred (some) divisions across to Kulim, which is just on the border between Penang and Kedah. It's only 1,000 workers affected. But Kulim is not in Penang. Yes, but it's on the border. We still have 6,000 (Intel workers) in manufacturing. And they have expanded their main research (wing). So I think you should not miss the woods for the trees.   How far have you gone with your idea of competent, accountable and transparent governance? We've made tremendous progress. We've implemented an open tender system through the Internet, so there's no human contact (which breeds) corruption.   What of your civil service, which has been described as incompetent and uncooperative despite your best efforts. Well, I admit it's tough...The only way to (proceed) is to show commitment, leadership by example and fairness.   What's your greatest achievement as chief minister to date? One of my first tasks was to ask for a list of the hardcore poor. There were 324 families on it. But to ensure that there were no families left behind, we did an extensive survey and found 728 (hardcore poor) families. We have succeeded in raising (their incomes) to above RM500 (per family).   What did you do, exactly? Just topped up the difference (between what they earn and the RM500 (S$207) benchmark).   But you're not teaching them to fish. There are two aspects to this: One is fish nets and the other is fish. How can you get people to fish when they don't even have the strength to fish? To those who criticise me (by saying) that these measures are cruel (because) they teach people to be reliant, I ask them: Have you been poor? Can you work on an empty stomach? Please, lah.   What are your other big plans for Penang? We have launched the Penang Wireless Initiative. We hope that in two years' time...when you turn on your notebook, you can connect to the Internet any time, any place, anywhere. But only in Penang. Best of all, we're giving it (for) free.   Why is free Wi-Fi such a priority? It excites the Malays. Everybody is excited about education because it touches them, their children.   But they can't even afford laptops. We will buy them laptops. That's a lot of fish. Why do you have to talk about giving each one a laptop? We don't - we (provide computer terminals) in our community centres.   Doesn't your hinterland include opposition-held Kedah? No, no. I cannot extend so far. I can only look after my own. I cannot use resources from one state government to (help) another, you know. That is corruption.   Your government has been rocked by allegations of corruption by your former deputy chief minister... The point is, would you find a person like him leaving BN if it was (similarly) affected?   But (the former deputy chief minister) didn't want to leave at first. But finally, he left, didn't he?   There's a difference between that and quitting immediately. True. But that is his problem. The point is the matter was addressed by the government.   How powerless do you feel, having to defer to Pakatan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in selecting a new deputy chief minister? I don't find that deferring to him...That position is allotted to (Mr Anwar's) Parti Keadilan Rakyat...and they have decided to choose only a Malay to hold the post now. Now, if I appoint somebody without the blessings of Mr Anwar, do you think that member would dare to accept? I'm not going to sacrifice long-term unity for short-termism.   But you may not have that long a term. I have at least five years. That's long enough for me to try and implement changes.   What, then, are your concerns about Malaysia's future? How did we get so very far behind (Singapore)? We are swimming in oil revenue. We are swimming in natural resources. What has Singapore got? (But) look at this little red dot now - whooo, it's not little by any standards. Our best and brightest (are) flocking to Singapore.   What would you consider Penang's unique selling propositions? You've got to start (with) the reason Sir Francis Light chose Penang - for its scenic beauty and logistics. And throughout the years, our social harmony has resulted in (us being cited as a) Unesco World Heritage Site...Our vision is to transform Penang into an international location of choice for investors, destination of choice for tourists and a habitat of choice for those who desire sustainable living.   I walk around Penang a lot and I have to say its pavements are the pits. Why aren't you fixing these? Ah, so you see why we all bang our heads against the wall. I don't deny that we face problems. We must address the three Cs problem - cleanliness, congestion and crime. This is what we have accumulated over 51 years. You can't clear up overnight.   But you managed to tackle hardcore poverty in one year. Yeah, but that was easy...You can clean up the beach, but can you educate people to stop throwing things (there)?   How do you live in your father's shadow? Very well...There's no quarrel, contradiction or rivalry.   How do you settle differences between yourselves? If we can bridge it, we bridge it. If not, we agree to disagree. To wit, he's quick REPARTEE is Mr Lim Guan Eng's forte, as seen below:   Changing mindsets'It's just like trying to push an elephant up the hill. And you risk getting crushed by it.'  His greatest challenge as chief minister 'You talk about political tsunamis and physical transformation. That's as easy as twiddling thumbs. The hardest is mindset change.'   His greatest challenge as DAP chief 'To prove to the Malays that we are not anti-Malay.'   Barisan Nasional's track record on tackling poverty 'They never thought of giving money to the poor. They only thought of giving money to themselves.'   The federal government's probing of the Selangor chief minister's allegedly dodgy giveaways of automobiles and cattle 'That's why I say the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (should be called) the Malaysian Commission for Cars and Cows.'   Being a leader and not just a politician 'We may be good at 'speechifying', but that does not mean we are not deep thinkers.'   How hard it is to be the son of Lim Kit Siang 'Oh, it's not easy. It's never easy to grow and flourish under the banyan tree.'   Allegations that his father is nepotistic 'It's a funny thing when the father doesn't give anything to his son. Instead, he sends him to prison.'   EDITORS' NOTE: We find it strange that Cheong chose to ask this question about nepotism to Guan Eng when she dared not surface it in Singapore about a particular family. Guan Eng has our respect. Guan Eng was not appointed to the post of DAP's Secretary General by his father. He won the elections to its exco square and fair. Despite Guan Eng's barb against Barisan Nasional, he should be thankful that his adversary is not the PAP. Had he been in Singapore, he would never be able to make a political comeback. He will probably end up as a bankrupt, marginalized and ostracized by mainstream society for the rest of his life. Source: Straits Times  Read More →

Original Article by K J HERE 政府为通过公共秩序法(POA) 而作出无力的辩解，已全面和正确地被反对党和网民所谴责，读者们仔细地去阅读这些人的反应是重要的。 公共秩序法(POA)是关于保存PAP的统治。 为此，POA是关于我们大众公民的。 请注意：POA不仅是关于维护我们种族和宗教的“和谐”。如果有需要，现有的法律可以维护和谐，这些法律以往一向也是如此有效。 POA也不仅是关于即将来临的APEC会议或者青年奥林匹克运动会，和伴随这些事件的抗议者，因为POA将在本地永久实行。 POA是关于保存PAP的统治。 为此，POA是关于我们大众公民的。 在互联网上，公民己经设法索还他们的一些声音，他们也开始讲话和被听见。现在没有经过一个星期，而政府的失策不被网民所暴露和被详尽的研究，与及主流媒介的诡计不连续地被揭穿。您会宁愿生活在新加坡，是吗？ 无论如何，您可以到哪里去呢？ 现在， PAP的家谱看上去不再那么卓越和它的纪录不再那么优秀，与及主流媒介不外是依从政府的劳仆。这即是説：主要由政府制造的辉光，与及媒介宣传人员的每日崇拜和教唆，都特快地减少了。 以上各项是应该减少的。 我们的政府就是象所有好的政府，担任政府职务的人难免有错误，和易于犯错。 并且象所有政府，它天生的冲动是倾向于权力和暴政。 这就是为什么民主和维护民主的结构必须建立，和必须成功。 民主是重要的，民主开始于拥有自由和公平的竞选，它将引致强大的反对党，与及民主终结于人民更加自由。在目前，这三部分全部离弃了我们。 在互联网上，被唤醒的和有见识的公民现在可以看到政府真正地是什么样的，他们也许震惊到出来参与行动，因而对PAP保持它的权力构成威胁。 这就是为什么POA立法被通过，用来抑制异见，压制行动，和束缚公民。 但这绝对容易的暴政并非隔夜涌现的。 政府在过去四十年间，对公共秩序、诽谤判决、和集选区(GRC)的不断立法和阴险的修改法例， 对广播和报业媒介、公开娱乐、和民间社团的发出牌照和限制性法例，更不必提及政府在这些法律之后有极大的斟酌权(discretionary powers)，以上种种都正逐渐地但肯定地加强了PAP对国家的控制，确立了它在议会之内和外的权力，减弱了国家的重点机构，并且压制了公民。 那样，我们很久已经被带上了口套。 他们是好或是坏地创造了我们今天居住的新加坡。 这绝对容易的暴政，它本身己体现于法律部长摆在我们面前的极其明显但不花力气的选择： 很好，问一问你们自己两个问题： 在我们的区域内，您宁可生活在那个国家？并且在50和60年代全世界独立的国家之中，您宁可生活在那个国家？ 换句话说： 有些人不可能简单地离开，有些人真实地想要居留。 但要居留变成永久的内心决斗：良心对抗怯懦，良心对抗满足。 要居留就是要居住在被压迫的环境之下。 这是可哀的，并且这是错误的。 再次引述法律部长的言论，正如TODAY报纸所报导： 它归结为对政府有多少信任，但记住新加坡这个小国家要面对的局限和地缘政治的挑战。 这不是恳求信任。 这是摆出一个半遮半掩的威胁，再次玩弄我国脆弱的把戏(vulnerability game)，并且勾起他们所制造的围困思路(siege mentality) 。 信任我们，否则。 信任他们或者居住在被压迫的环境之下。多么慷慨的选择。这做成令人嘲笑的信任。 并且我们是被政府如何看待的呢？ 政府宁可不信任它的人民。 从我们在官方电脑上的身份证(NRIC)到我们的健康记录，从种族特征测验到学校分流，从军役磨练到奖学金束缚，从HDB居所的分派和CPF储蓄的扣锁，从对座邻居通过对面窗栏恒定的注视，对怎样爱我们的恋人以便繁殖国家理想的家庭结构，到24/7在网上和离线的监视，以上一切都包含有内部安全法例(ISA)的威胁和重复在我们的头脑里的半夜敲门而无法摆脱的忧惧。最终使到我国到处弥漫著有损尊严的恐惧气候，每一步都是法例的地雷，每一步都碰着国家恩赐的高墙，每一步都再次走进政府逃不脱的手腕之内。 这不是关于信任。这是关于政府的努力去施加和集中它的权力。这权力是由高度不信任的政治(a politics of deep mistrust)所支持的，使公民居住在恒定的威胁和长期被监视的状态之下。 当他们撬起并且威胁暴露每个人皆有的私事和不慎重的行为时，他们便禁闭了您的言行。每个人都是潜在的人质，而政府自己违犯法规的行为则处于他们无所不在的权力之外，而不受监察。与此同时，他们又柔和地诱骗我们： 信任我们，否则。 否则，政府可以信任我们仅此一次吗？不可以吗？为了新加坡公司(Singapore Inc.)的所有利益，从而生产、处理、标记和排序了一群温顺的、受磨练的，非政治化的新加坡人。但新加坡公司的利益是为了谁呢？ 如果我们哀悼我们的现状，这也是因为我们自己应受责备。 我以前曾写过，充满热情的思想本身就是行动主义，当每个人忘记了改变现状不仅来自议会和街道抗议时，那么政治行动主义的实质便被阉割了，其实改变现状也可以来自好思考的每个人，因为每个人是一个政治体，行动起源于个人的想法，良心和知觉。 但现在要使我们的想法、良心和知觉能够成功实现，与及使用不同的方法为我们的目标而尽力：我们就耍尊敬自由。而POA和它的支持者则使自由受到耻辱。 除非您相信政府的花言巧语，自由并不是一个崇高的论调，自由是基本的需要，公民没有自由便丧失尊严。 所谓的生计政治(politics of bread and butter)与自由权利是一致的：这二者一起构成适当和完整的人生。二者缺其一只剩下人生的一半吧了。 为什么尊严被受歧视呢？ 阿尔伯特Camus曾经有如下的观察：世上没有两种政治，只有一种，并且它是那种做了一个承诺的政治: 尊敬的政治。的而且确地不可以有自由而没有尊敬。尊敬在言词上，尊敬在行为上，尊敬在我们的心目中。 没有心胸，便没有尊敬。与那些有钱的白衣人并无不同。 我们要尊敬自由。 今天政府针对您认为与您无关的其他人。 (反对党成员被威逼和破产时，我们身在那里？) 好象不关你的事，好象压迫是件非常美好的事。 明天他们会针对您并且仅是您一个人。 他们针对您，坦白地说，因为他们能够如此，并且他们针对您，因为您让他们如此。 还记得这句说法吗：全民皆绵羊的国家会产生豺狼的政府？ 看看法律多么快被修改和通过。 这是我们的白衣人的议会，不代表人民，而代表他们自己。 看看您的基本权利多么快速地消失了。POA只是许多例子中的一个，并且毫无疑义地许多这样例子将会加重地和压迫地出现。 为什么会如此呢？ 由于我们蒙蔽自己而看不到事实： 许多法例外表上是为了维护和平和繁荣而通过，但这些法例也一律地压抑了反对党，击碎了持异见者，和保证了PAP持续的统治。 由于您被培养去蔑视自由，并且，因为您被鼓励去喜欢自受奴役和束缚。 这是最强有力的思想控制形式，也是最佳的思想灌输。 反对党是微弱的，因为我们保持了沈默，亦因此我们保持了他们微弱。 我们曾责骂道：这些法例对反对党是适用的。但归根究底，这些法例对我们是不适用的。 现在我们讲话时，如果我们肯开口的话，我们只会讲失望的、愤怒的、幻灭的、和绝望的语言。独立四十年后，我们仍然如以往一样的依赖，如果不是更甚地去依赖。 我们的建国努力变为建立了一个强横的政权。 这目前的被压迫境况是由于您保持沈默而发生的。 您将被迫至哑口无言，并且您将被迫至脆弱无助。 反对党己经公然反对POA; 他们以往一向总是如此反对。请支持反对党，这是个开始。 尊敬那些尊敬自由的人，他们的力量来自您的手。 也要尊敬您自己的自由，因为自由的存亡未定。你要任意走动和被聆听，并且应该热情地去如此做，不用恐惧。因为自由不是崇高的论调。  Read More →