This seems to suggest two trends: first, an increasingly determined and assertive LGBT community, the product of more of its members shedding the layers of fear and self-doubt engendered by anachronistic societal attitudes; and second, growing (if still relatively weak) acceptance by the wider public.  Indeed, a survey by the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in 2010 indicated that there had been a slight increase in those harbouring “positive” attitudes towards LGBT compared with five years before (though it has to be said that this change was statistically non-significant after controlling for demographic changes) as well as the number of those who think that being gay is “acceptable” outnumbering those that do not.

However, such weakish trends are not irreversible.  First, the NTU survey confirmed what was already known in other parts of the world - that people who had more contact with the LGBT community were likely to be less prejudiced, and that religiosity was likely to be the biggest factor colouring negative attitudes towards homosexuality.  These two factors are at odds with each other in Singapore, as despite the fact that the number of interactions between straight people and the LGBT community is increasing, religiosity is also on the rise, given the fast growing Christian as well as the Malay-Muslim populations.

Second, despite official assurances that the government will not enforce the notorious 377A article of the Penal Code criminalising homosexual acts, fears that its hand might someday be forced were reinforced by the legal establishment's worrying affinity of late for a literalist interpretation of the statutes. If the courts and the police were to maintain the strict approach they took in the prosecution of the recent under-aged prostitution case, a single complaint or investigation related to 377A could similarly result in the mass prosecution of scores of members from the LGBT community.  Even the implied threat of this is likely to have a chilling effect on the community.

The government should do better. Its ambiguous stance over 377A is not – as many have rightly pointed out – tenable, but nevertheless in taking such a position, it has already conceded that criminalising homosexuality is outdated.  It should go further and give up the discredited notion that underpins the retention of 377A: the idea that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, a notion which the NTU survey has pointed out is a significant factor inveighing against wider acceptance of the LGBT community. (This is not to mention another equally valid reason, which is that the government has no business to intrude on the privacy of the bedchamber.)

The justifications the government has for its current stance are weak. Its stated reason – that it is afraid of getting too far ahead of sentiment – does not justify a supposedly rational and technocratic government defending a fallacious notion (that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice) which is shaded more by prejudice than fact.  Its probable unstated reason – that this may lead to a slippery state of having to grant more gay "rights" – is a red herring: the question of what sort of rights the LGBT community should have, such as the right to marriage or civil unions, is still a contested one even in countries that have accepted their LGBT minorities. However, what is fundamentally not in question in such countries is the right of the minorities to embrace their sexual orientation without fear of persecution.

As a first step, the government could commission an official inquiry to examine the case for retaining 377A. At an analogous period in the UK during the 1950s, when attitudes towards homosexuality were still largely negative but when nevertheless a sense of uneasiness had already crept in, the British government commissioned the celebrated Wolfenden report to look into reforming its statutes. This eventually led to the decriminalisation of homosexual acts in 1967, a decade-long process that changed law and public opinion for the better along the way. The Singapore government should try to find it within itself to take that first step towards creating a level playing field for sexual minorities – which is a moral obligation that it owes to any minority group at risk of being treated unfairly.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

The government’s cautious step forward is a welcome one, given the well-worn and familiar arguments against the mandatory death penalty.  The chief drawback is that it leaves no room for judicial discretion and the consideration of mitigating conditions, such as the age of the defendant or his personal circumstances, as well as the possibility of rehabilitation.  It is therefore needlessly arbitrary and cruel.  The government has now proposed to legislatively vest the courts with the discretion to take into account specific mitigating considerations when passing sentence.

Unfortunately, the conditions for opting out of the mandatory death penalty – in drug trafficking cases – outlined by the government may be so overly stringent that only a small minority of deserving cases would benefit.  The first condition is if the accused suffers from a mental illness which precludes him from taking full responsibility for his actions. It is a criterion likely to have been brought about by a controversial case in 2011 when charges against a low IQ individual were inexplicably lessened by the prosecution, even though he had initially been in the dock for the same charges as a co-accused who received the death penalty.

The second condition – that of “substantive co-operation leading to concrete outcomes, such as the dismantling of [drug] syndicates or the arrest…of syndicate members” – may simply be out of reach for the majority of drug couriers as these are usually low-level runners who were picked or manipulated precisely because they have little knowledge of the syndicate.  While this stipulated condition does afford the courts some leeway, the latter’s tendency to take a literalist interpretation of the statutes means that most drug couriers will probably be consigned to the gallows anyway.  Indeed the government has stressed that the mandatory death penalty will continue to apply in most cases.

But it is these very offenders who may deserve a reprieve, as the mandatory death penalty lacks all sense of proportionality.  A young unwitting drug mule (a typical profile of those arrested for trafficking) caught with 30 grams of morphine, for example, gets no more sentencing consideration than a serial killer, while this does nothing to deter the real traffickers who put him up to it. Furthermore, the defendant is saddled with an unusually onerous burden of proof by the statutes: if caught in possession of a drug, he is automatically presumed to be responsible for it and to know its nature, and if caught with a certain amount he is presumed to be trafficking.

The failure to address this worrying lack of proportionality indicates that the government is still largely driven by an overwhelming focus on perceived deterrence rather than ensuring substantive justice. Indeed, when presenting its reforms, the government repeatedly cited the mantra that the mandatory death penalty had a serious deterrence effect.

The problem is that there is little evidence for this – partly because it is difficult to show what might be the outcome without the mandatory death penalty – but it is nevertheless a mindset that is strongly supported by a society that seems to hold the perception that Western liberal democracies are ‘overrun’ by crime because their laws are too ‘soft’.  Yet the truth is that effective law enforcement and an expeditious court system may play far more important roles in deterring potential offenders. Civil society groups campaigning against the mandatory death penalty and capital punishment therefore still have a long way to go.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

Of the two parties in the dock, SMRT’s response seemed more terse and defensive. It pointed out that reports had shown that the December incidents were largely due to bad luck: a confluence of “isolated and latent material defects” in the rail component that failed coupled with the “coincidental existence” of two other adjacent defective components.  The company insisted that while it needed to improve, its maintenance regime had “worked well in the past 25 years”. Its re-statement of the obvious – that there are “challenges” arising from the “aging…MRT system and…rapidly increasing ridership” – might have raised questions of whether it should have done a better job preparing to meet these trends.

On the other hand, LTA came across as being more contrite and keen to rectify past faults. It sought to convey in detail how it would work with SMRT to improve contingency plans and maintenance regimes.  Significantly, it stated that it would shift to a more proactive regulatory approach to “safeguard commuters’ interest”, addressing an oft-heard criticism that it had been too passive towards its charges in the past.  On 16th July it announced that it would fine SMRT $2 million – the maximum penalty – for the two disruptions in December, astutely adding that the monies would be given to the Public Transport Fund for needy families.

Commuters would certainly be hoping that LTA keeps to its promise.  Given that SMRT’s response reeked of an attempt to deflect blame, it seems necessary to have a proactive and stern regulator to keep it (as well as SBS Transit, the other main rail and bus operator) in line. Before the December incidents, LTA’s relatively limp responses to commuter complaints about the public transport operators seemed to be due to regulatory capture: with the government’s majority stakes in both the main operators, the latter’s interests (and profits) appeared paramount to commuters’.

With the tide of public anger unstoppered since last December, LTA’s political masters at the Transport Ministry are likely to back a stricter approach to the operators.  Despite the justifiable anger at LTA and the Transport Ministry, they should be given a chance to show that they can turn things around.

But they also need to ensure that LTA has the proper tools to do its job.  The maximum $1 million fine for a disruption seems fairly trivial in light of the seriousness of the December incidents, and the ministry should consider raising it.  It should also consider a “zero-tolerance” approach to regulating safety and standards, by setting a detailed code of transgressions and penalties, and enforcing these sternly to keep the operators on their toes.  LTA’s current code seems to be vague and soft.

Whether that would hold in the longer term is another issue.  That the COI, with its narrow focus on technical and procedural failings, did not delve into broader structural issues may have been a missed opportunity.  It did provide some hints, such as suggesting that SMRT should return to its roots as “principally an engineering and operations company”, which seemed to refer to criticism from some quarters that the company had been too focused on chasing profits through avenues such as advertising.  That seems like sound advice, and the LTA should make sure that the public transport operators adhere to it.  Commuters will certainly be watching closely.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

For example, paragraph 3 of the Agency’s rebuttal says: “… under the Work Pass Conditions, the employer must ensure that all outstanding salaries and moneys due to the foreign employees are paid before the employee’s repatriation.”

This was not the case for Rana. The Nepalese had to apply for a Writ of Seizure & Sale in a bid to claw back the S$6,865 that a Woodlands coffee shop owner owed him. Getting this writ is costly. There is the stamp duty charge, the bailiff’s attendance fee, the accumulating living expenses burdening the jobless foreigner who lacks a Temporary Work Permit. Such lurking costs are prohibitive. Rana returned to Nepal an indebted person without the “outstanding salaries and monies due to [him]”.

Mr Jolovan Wham, the executive director of the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME), a Singapore non-governmental organisation which provides aid to migrant workers, told publichouse.sg, “MOM needs to provide figures on employers who were prosecuted and taken to task for cancelling work permits without paying their workers.” He added, “The workers’ problems and grievances go beyond just ‘outstanding salaries and monies due to the foreign employee’, and MOM has failed to address this.”

The lived experience of Rana Kumar Rai is symptomatic of a broader problem with the Singapore taskforce’s response. There is a fissure between the letter of the law and the facts of raw reality.

Another example of how relying on the rules alone may not be sufficient is how employers are able to place employment bars on workers. The Agency said, in reply to the US report, “This is untrue. Singapore employers do not possess powers to place employment bars on foreign workers. Employment bars are imposed by MOM on foreign workers who have been found to have infringed Singapore laws and regulations.”

Although there are regulations barring the employer’s abrupt termination of a worker’s contract, Mr Wham explains that “employers only need to give one day’s notice, or one day’s salary in lieu of notice to workers who are in employment for less than 26 weeks.”

“While employers do not possess the powers to place employment bars on workers, they have considerable influence on MOM to do so, and this needs to be addressed,” Mr Wham says. “Employers may lodge police reports and submit negative feedback about workers and MOM may blacklist them based on such feedback. This method of blacklisting is unjust because the workers are no longer around to respond to the employer’s negative feedback and allegations.”

Another matter the Ministry for Manpower (MOM) also needs to address is the withholding of work permit cards and passports of workers by their employers. It is an issue which have been highlighted many times by the NGOs. “Almost all of the 2,000 workers that HOME sees every year on average have had their work permit cards and passports held by their employers,” Mr Wham says. “Workers who make official complaints about employers who hold on to their identity documents risk incurring the displeasure of their employers. They may subsequently be dismissed and repatriated. Even though the MOM acts on the complaints of workers whose passports and identity cards have been taken, they do not provide protection to workers who are repatriated when they have lodged a complaint about it. This needs to be addressed.”

Repatriation companies, which employers can engage to deal with “problem workers” are “still not outlawed,” Mr Wham says, even though their activities, which involve the confinement of migrant workers, are illegal. “Conducting just one operation to inspect what is an undesirable and illegal operation is insufficient as a response,” says Mr Wham.

As for the matter of human trafficking itself, Mr Wham says at the fundamental level, even Singapore’s definition of what constitutes human trafficking “is not in line with international and United Nations standards.”

“This means that many cases would have gone undetected,” Mr Wham explains. “Worse still, trafficked victims may have been criminalised. Law enforcers are not sufficiently trained to identify potential victims, and those who are undocumented especially are usually treated as immigration offenders only.”

Perhaps the Singapore Government should show a more concrete commitment to protecting the rights of the migrant workers, who are often heavily disadvantaged in disputes with their employers, by ratifying certain International Labour Organisation conventions and to make information such as statistics on human trafficking more easily available to the public, on top of enforcing what the regulations and the law say.

In a previous article, we explored ways to ensure that the regulations were not toothless. Perhaps a more preliminary and more fundamental step involves recognising that the letter of the law lacks bite in the foreign labour market: the rapid flow of people enticed by imperfect information and imperfect translations. Singapore’s taskforce should persist with and deepen its engagement with organisations like HOME and Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2). Such organisations have their ears close to the ground. These ears are sensitive to the muffled stories of manipulation and the wrenching disappointment of deceived workers, like Rana Kumar Rai.

Like the signs at construction and road repair sites, Singapore’s efforts to forge a just labour landscape untainted by exploitation is very much a work in progress, with lots more to be done.

So, instead of taking issue with the US State Department’s annual report each time it is released, Singapore should look into the real problems and correct the abuse and exploitation of these workers in a more concrete way.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

Although the predominant printed press touts this change as a revamp, the change should be more accurately couched as tweaking. The 3Ms still form the bedrock of the national healthcare. The class-centric system of wards still control the reins of the government’s cautious subsidies.

To butt us out of the inertia of the status quo, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) unveiled a healthcare plan in March 2012. “The plan is a culmination of a nine-month study conducted by the party’s Healthcare Advisory Panel,” the party said. The group comprises of eminent medical practitioners and healthcare specialists who are concerned about the current state of medical care in Singapore.

The SDP’s plan promulgates a radical break from the architecture of 3Ms. Although co-payments are still a feature, the SDP wants compulsory coverage for Singaporeans that is limited by neither a citizen’s age nor a ceiling on the claimable amount. The contributions that citizens will be pooling together do not discriminate based on age, unlike Medishield whose premiums increase as age increases.

Intrigued by this alternative plan, publichouse.sg has conducted an interview with Dr Chee Soon Juan, the SDP’s secretary-general. Dr Chee contrasted not just the financial approaches but also the philosophical fundamentals of the status quo and the SDP’s proposal.

Publichouse.sg recognises that such a debate is paramount and should not be suspended in the theatre of political rivalries. Hence, we are keen on examining the lived experiences and expert opinions of our fellow Singaporeans in subsequent reports on the healthcare system that keeps our city throbbing with life.

We would thus like to invite members of the public to write in to us and share their experiences of the healthcare system in Singapore. We hope to publish a series of such stories in the lead-up to the short film which is focused on the SDP’s national plan.

If you wish to join in or share your experiences or views, email us at: publichousesg@gmail.com.

The following are snippets from the interview with Dr Chee for the short film. This interview will be a springboard for further investigations into the relevance and viability of the SDP’s national healthcare plan.

The film, produced by the team at publichouse.sg, will be released in a few weeks here on this website.

{youtube}DZ-yExVAong|600|450|0{/youtube}

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

The AGC objected to this on the basis that it “scandalises our Courts” and warned that it would proceed with contempt of court charges if the offending post was not taken down.  Several days after receiving the AGC’s letter, Mr Au removed the post and apologised.

But that did not prove to be the end of the matter. Mr Au subsequently posted an article in July criticising what he thought was the authorities’ liberal use of contempt of court charges to stifle debate about possible defects in the judicial system, arguing that “more leeway” should be given to comment in matters about public institutions.  This triggered a typically belligerent reply from the AGC insisting that there had been “no curtailment of free speech” but that Mr Au had “deliberately misrepresented the facts” in his original post.

Mr Au responded again, arguing that the AGC was taking too stringent an approach to criticism: revelations about abuses are usually built on accusations that might not at first be fully supportable by facts, but which may lead to further inquiries that eventually uncover wrongdoings.  Furthermore, he pointed out that the AGC’s position was that only the judiciary should be allowed to police itself, which may not be prudent as public scrutiny has to be an important element in probing things that the people within the institutions may not be able – or willing – to own up to.

The exchange has raised some important questions, the first of which is over the boundaries for debate. In recent years the AGC has adopted the mantra (which it invoked in its letter to Mr Au) that any “accusation of bias” in the judiciary would “diminish it in the eyes of the citizen, lower it and ultimately damage the nation”.  This, as Mr Au has rightly pointed out, is virtually a zero tolerance approach towards criticism of the judiciary.

Yet surely the legitimacy of a public institution is best served by winning the argument against its critics rather than by proactively stifling them.  Taking the latter course will only foster resentment while doing little to correct prejudices – a cursory look at the online reactions to the AGC’s treatment of Mr Au would provide some evidence of that.  It should be pointed out that the courts in countries such as the US and UK are frequently the objects of political haranguing but are among the most well-regarded public institutions in those countries.  If the authorities are as confident about the integrity of Singapore’s judiciary as they claim, there is little to suggest that the same would not happen in Singapore if debate about the courts is given a wider berth.

The second key issue is over the AGC’s use of contempt of court charges against critics of the judiciary.  Its invocation of the charge over Mr Au’s original article is somewhat curious: while it claimed that it was doing so to protect the reputation of the courts because of judges “not being to respond”, it is instructive that Mr Au mentioned the judiciary exactly once in his piece (in his sentence that “the police, prosecutors and judges are indulgent…” quoted in the second paragraph above; the other mentions of “courts” were when he quoted statements made by other people).  The bulk of Mr Au’s article was largely devoted to questioning the AGC’s conduct, in particular its decisions (in cases both past and present) on what to charge defendants with, rather than criticising judicial decisions on the cases.  In this regard, it does not seem clear whose reputation the AGC was out to protect.

The problem is that contempt of court laws, as they currently stand in the statutes, seem like an unusually blunt instrument.  The authorities have prosecuted in this manner with varying degrees of severity: British writer Alan Shadrake was imprisoned for several weeks in 2010 for alleging judicial bias in death row cases; the Wall Street Journal suffered financial penalties in 2008 for publishing letters from opposition leader that incidentally criticised the judiciary; in a slight variation, the AGC brought charges of “insulting” a judge against ex-Singaporean Gopalan Nair in 2008, which resulted in a jail term of several months.

Such an approach seems to be bounded by few limits, which is likely to have an unhealthily negative effect not just on public debate but possibly on the reputation of Singapore’s judicial system as well.  It may be prudent to put some restrictions on contempt of court laws: for instance, the UK’s Contempt of Court Act in 1981 established a benchmark for “strict liability”, allowing contempt charges against publications that have created “a substantial risk” that the course of justice would be “seriously impeded or prejudiced”.  The Act also applies only to “active” or ongoing cases; past cases, such as the one raised by Mr Au in June 2012, would not be applicable.

Furthermore, the precedent established by the UK courts in cases since the Act was passed in the 1980s has given much latitude to publications made as part of a discussion in “good faith” of matters of general public interest.  A similar reform in Singapore is sorely needed if Singaporeans are to have a proper debate on one of the most important public institutions in the country.  Guaranteeing that, in turn, can only be salubrious for the reputation and legitimacy of the courts.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

Vui Kong was a naive 19-year-old when he was lured into becoming a drug mule. His boss started by asking him to collect debts, then told him to deliver “gifts” (drugs). These bad people avoided coming into direct contact with the drugs themselves by placing the risk instead on their mules. Such gangs usually target vulnerable people and I am very sorry that my little brother became their unwitting sacrificial lamb.

Over the past six years, my whole family has been worrying about Vui Kong. We’ve never given up on him and have worked hard for him. This is because we believe my brother was tricked. He was naive and incapable of understanding the seriousness of his crime. Vui Kong didn’t know his boss was making use of him when he delivered the ”gifts” (drugs). Till now, Vui Kong’s mother remains unaware that he faces the death penalty. She suffers from severe depression and my family has kept her in the dark. We hope Vui Kong will now be able to escape death so we no longer have to lie to our mother.

Yun Leong's letter, page 2

Vui Kong has embraced Buddhism. Over the past years, he’s become a vegetarian and spends his time studying Buddhist scripture, like a monk. Knowing this gives my family comfort. He is a completely different person from who he was in the past. Vui Kong has repented and is sorry for his past stupidity. We hope authorities can forgive him as he has now turned over a new leaf. Please give Vui Kong, a first-time offender, a second chance. He has changed and will spend the rest of his years doing what he can to support the anti-drug campaign. I believe Vui Kong, who is now a devout Buddhist, can use his experiences to reach out to other young people. He can use himself as an example to tell society about the evils of the drug trade and prevent would-be victims from becoming mules.

I hope the authorities can take into consideration Vui Kong’s youth, family background and other circumstances, before handing out punishment to Vui Kong. He is not a drug lord. He has cooperated and helped identify the real mastermind. I hope that now that the law is going to change, the courts can rethink his punishment and give a repentent Vui Kong, a chance to live.

Yong Yun Leong

Larger copies of the letter is in the attachments below.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

However, the Government did not lend the money to Indonesia. Subsequently, the former prime ministers sued Chee. However, the case never went to trial as the courts passed summary judgement in favour of the two plaintiffs.

In 2006, after failing to pay the damages, Chee was declared a bankrupt.

In a separate matter, also in 2006, Chee and 12 other defendants were sued for defamation by then-prime minister Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kuan Yew for an article in the SDP’s newsletter, The New Democrat, for drawing parallels between the National Kidney Foundation case and the PAP’s governance.

Eventually, all the CEC members apologised and paid undisclosed amounts of damages to the Lees, except the SDP, Chee Siok Chin and Chee.

Subsequently, the court again granted summary judgement on the case and ordered the defendants to pay a total of S$650,000 to the Lees.

The SDP says the Lees have not initiated proceedings to claim the damages thus far.

Because of his bankruptcy status, Chee was banned from participating in the general election last year and also from travelling out of Singapore. His appeals to be allowed to do the latter have been repeatedly rejected by the authorities.

In his offer to Goh and Lee Kuan Yew, which Dr Chee has communicated to the Official Assignee at the Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office, Chee is offering S$30,000 to settle the matter and clear himself from bankruptcy.

In a press release on 26 July, the SDP says Chee is making the offer because he “wants to discharge himself from bankruptcy as he intends to contest in the next general elections due in 2016.”

“To do this, he will try to raise the money from the sales of [the book] Democratically Speaking to pay off the damages,” the SDP added.

The 16-chapter book marks Chee’s 20th year since he entered politics in 1992.

“During the period, I have raised a plethora of issues – from the high-profile to the more obscure, crossed swords with the rulers of this country and partaken of significant political events in Singapore,” Chee says in an extract from the book. “I hope that I have been able to influence, to whatever degree, Singapore’s politics; it certainly has influenced me.”

In the past 20 years, Chee says, one word “has always occupied the centre” of his political work. “Indeed, it is more than a word. It is a belief, a way of life that has eluded this nation and her people. It is a goal to which I have dedicated my life to achieving. That word, that belief, that goal is democracy.”

And in his campaign to bring democracy to Singapore, Chee and his party had engaged in civil disobedience, holding high profile protests – most notably the Speakers’ Corner protest in September 2006 during the IMF/World Bank meeting in Singapore which drew international attention.

In the last few years, however, the SDP has adopted a less confrontational approach and has focused itself on policies and offering alternative ideas in several areas.

Its latest policy alternative, for example, is its National Healthcare Plan, which is a collaborative work with a group of doctors. The plan, which seeks to overhaul the current system which has raised serious concerns, has attracted praise for its boldness.

The SDP is also believed to be working on comprehensive policy alternatives in other areas as well, such as public housing which is another major concern among Singaporeans.

"We are building up slowly but surely, and with each passing month and year, we are gaining momentum to becoming an alternative national party," Dr Chee says. But in order to achieve this, it is important for the party’s leader to have the people’s support. “It is important, therefore, that I am eligible when the next GE comes around,” Chee explains.

The launch of the book will be held on Sunday, 5 August. More details here.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

"Of course I take great happiness and great solace in fighting for the rights of our people," M Ravi says. However, he says he also has to be "practical" in how he is able to take up pro bono cases. He explains that his corporate work enables him to do this but that he must strike a balance between the two. It was only recently, he says, that he took stock of these. To alleviate the stress from his heavy workload, he practises dance, something which he has loved all his life, doing yoga, writing and just being with friends.

Read the full report and video on Yahoo Singapore: "I was under a lot of pressure".

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

According to the MND's Press Release dated 24 July 2012, the Minister had called for an internal audit last month (June). This followed a report on the purchase, in the local media, on 22nd June.

But on July 4th, the Minister had blogged that he had 'accepted NParks' explanation' that NParks had no particular brand in mind, that the quotation on the Government website adopted general specifications to ensure that as many dealers as possible could submit bids, as it was considering all brands.

If the Minister had blogged about his acceptance of the purchase after he had called for an internal audit, it could mean that he had arrived at a conclusion even before the results of the audit came out. Was the internal audit affected by the Minister's defence of the purchase?

What guidelines, if any, are in place regarding blogging by public officials holding positions of influence, on matters relating to their official duties?

The total cost of purchasing the Brompton foldable bicycles may only be $57,200, but what it has done is cast a shadow on the entire government tendering process, including disclosure of bidding, short GEBIZ window and award of tender. Even if we set aside the issue of corruption, a tendering process that awards the contract to the sole bidder regardless of price is not one that safeguards the prudent use of public funds. How does the government intend to improve the purchasing process?

How the Minister for National Development and the Government respond to these legitimate queries from the general public will help to restore confidence in the fairness of thegovernment tendering process.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

“If the issue that we are concerned about is that of an ageing population and shrinking workforce, it may not be cost-effective to try to reverse the declining TFR,” the association says. It points out that the TFR has been below replacement rate since 1975, and that attempts to address it have failed thus far. Besides, it says, studies “Studies indicate that increasing the TFR from 1.2 to 1.85 (a highly ambitious target) will only ameliorate the situation marginally.”

In 2004, AWARE’s position paper, Beyond Babies: National Duty or Personal Choice?, concluded: “The quality of life is the single most important reason why Singaporeans are not having more children.”

To address Singapore’s declining birth rate, Aware says the issue must be approached holistically instead.

To do this, cost-effective measures must be emplaced to tackle other core issues that affect the TFR, including the ageing population and the shrinking workforce.

Gender equality was also raised as the current state policies fail to cover fathers. Hence, Aware proposes that policies need to be induced to mediate gender equality. For instance, it is suggested that fathers receive at least two weeks of paid paternity leave, with the cost shared by the employer and State. The current model “perpetuates a familial form that is premised on the traditional role of men as breadwinners and women as caregivers,” Aware says, “and is neither realistic nor fair, given the aspirations and talents of our well-educated women and men.”

Providing universally accessible childcare support is another thing the Government could do.  “To build a truly inclusive society, policies should not differentiate between citizens along socioeconomic or other lines,” Aware says.

A more inclusive approach should consider facilitating flexible working arrangements and support from employers for a healthy work-life balance; the expansion and improvement of childcare facilities; and the introduction of anti-discrimination protection for mothers.

Various efforts should also be made to make sure that there is a fairer distribution of benefits and support. For example,  Aware highlights childcare subsidies, and motherhood and housing benefits that are only available to wedded mothers. It also wants the Government to “[review] the current overarching policy that limits the definition of family to married parents.”

“The declining TFR has been attributed to people getting married later,” Aware says. “But even if declining TFR is caused by later marriage, given the high cost of living, the emphasis on education and work, and the national ethos to be self-reliant, it may not be possible or cost-effective to try to reverse this trend.”

Instead, AWARE urges the State to support and promote the use of technologies that enable older women to have babies and for the Government to increase the subsidies for such treatment, which are generally expensive.

To read the full text of Aware’s submission, click here.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

At the  “Walk-in Shavees” queue on Sunday, 21 Bangladeshi workers offered to have their heads shaved in support of the cause.  The workers received much encouragement from the audience and were commended for their efforts.

When asked for their reasons for joining the event, one worker replied simply, “To support the Children’s Cancer Foundation!”

Eric Tay, the workers’ supervisor, explained that many of these workers have been in Singapore for as long as 16 years and wanted to show their appreciation by giving back to the Singaporean society.

“When I asked who wanted to shave their head, they all volunteered,” he said. “They really wanted to do this.”

The Singaporean owner of an engineering and construction firm further stated that he was proud to have them working for him.

“This kind of feeling (of being able to give back) cannot be found anywhere,” Tay explained.

Yvonne Gabrielle, 23, who also participated in the charity event, had a very different reason for turning up on Saturday.

“At first, it was so that I could tell my future kids that I was bald at least once in my lifetime,” she says.

“But now, it is a renouncing of vanity, reminder of the transient and an encouragement to cancer patients and survivors, especially my mom.”

Noticeably, many of those who volunteered were students. A group of enthusiastic 17-year-old boys were among the crowd of walk-in shavees. In all, the event brought people from all walks of life, who have different reasons, to help support one cause.

According to the Hair for Hope website, the top individual donation comes from Mr Jimmy Kwang who has contributed almost S$62,000. IBM Singapore Private Limited, the top donating corporation, has given almost S$110,000.

Join the Hair for Hope Facebook page here.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

Yaacob's latest attempt at persuading and convincing netters to create this code came on 28 July.

"But again, we're not interested in building this code of conduct from the top and then enforce it down," he said. "We believe as netizens, all of us should come together and develop a code of conduct or what we call netiquette that we can all agree upon. It is supposed to be a bottom up process."

The Internet community - at least some prominent bloggers - have rubbished the idea and have unequivocally rejected it. This message should have been loudly delivered to Yaacob as his deputy Chan had held a meeting with some bloggers recently on it. But it seems that the message has not gotten through and Yaacob is once again beating the drums of self-regulation.

One of the greatest obstacles to any such code, or any attempts to regulate online behaviour, is the issue of trust. The Government does not trust the Internet community, especially and particularly socio-political bloggers and commenters; these netters too do not trust the Government. Why should they after all that they have been accused of, and when examples of them being painted in a particularly negative way all these years are not few? And who is to say that the creation of such a code will not be used or abused by the Government for something more sinister?

The Government has, unfortunately for it, created so much distrust that it will take time for anyone on "the other side" to even hold out a hand to it, let alone shake it. Yaacob seems rather oblivious to this sentiment. Just look at the way he's been banging on wanting this code - as if his political life depended on it - since November last year.

But beyond the issue of trust, one wonders what the urgency is for several ministers to continue to insist on this code.

One thought is that the Government is trying to vicariously ride on the street cred of the more prominent bloggers to give such a code a semblance of authority in light of recent events involving racial insensitivities. Anyone who infringes the code or steps out of line will be chided, condemned or even ridiculed by the creators of and subscribers to such a code. The Government's hands remain clean. The bad guys are among the netters themselves.

Quite a neat trick - but it fools no one.

And how exactly would such a code be created? There are thousands of what Yaacob calls "netizens". I take this to mean anyone and everyone who uses the Internet. Is it even possible for these thousands of Internet practitioners to come together and discuss the details of such a code?

And what would be the topics of discussion? There would be many, I would imagine. But here's the catch: how do we even begin to discuss these things when we do not know what and where the out-of-bounds (OB) markers are?

Take an example: What and where - exactly - are the OB markers for online discourse on religion? What about discourse pertaining to the judiciary, race, politics?

There are just too many "invisible" OB markers for anyone to meaningfully consider having a code. You can't devise a code when there are invisible OB markers - markers which are like buried and camouflaged land mines which only come to attention when you've stepped on it.

And what about the vague but broad provisions in our defamation and libel laws?

So, instead of harping incessantly on wanting a code of conduct for online practitioners, perhaps the Government should first and foremost look at its laws and regulations in many other areas and see if these can be more clearly - and in some cases, more strictly - defined or curbed.

And while we're talking about a code, again I would urge the Government to look into its own backyard. In recent (and not-so-recent times) the state-controlled media have been guilty of unprofessional conduct (think, STOMP), propaganda (think, Straits Times' front page on WP "facing allegations of dishonesty" during the by-election in Hougang), and generally being of poor standards.

Perhaps, since the state-controlled media reaches a much wider daily audience, the Government should address that first.

Meantime, leave the Internet be.

If there is anything the Government should do, it should be this: grow a thicker skin. And stop attempting to nip whatever organic growth there is online in the bud. In addition, the Government could also do well to be more transparent, forthcoming and honest in its intentions on a myriad of other issues too.

Instead of trying to - or be seen to - curb online discourse, the Government should instead be opening up more political space for Singaporeans, and to remove the restrictions on Singaporeans' civil liberties.

These, in my opinion, are the more serious issues which ministers like Yaacob should be more concerned about.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

So try to imagine my shock when I discovered that Yale-NUS’ student activism scene would bear little resemblance with its American counterpart.

To be fair, Singapore’s Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, did say (back in July) that “Yale-NUS College will not be a replica of Yale College in the US, but it'll be a bold effort to create something new and different.” He added that the venture  is not without risk, but the government believes this is the right way forward.”

So, following PM Lee’s comments, can one conclude that “something new and different” constitutes bans on political protests and forming partisan political societies? And so, are these bans what the government believes to be “the right way forward”?

What is more concerning is the fact that Yale-NUS proposes to be Singapore’s first liberal arts college! What is a liberal arts college without the liberal freedoms of expression in speaking up and taking a stand to address relevant socio-political issues?

This disconcerting move has understandably come under fire from both human rights advocates and Yale’s own professors who say that Yale’s “mission as a haven for free thought and expression is incompatible with Singapore's tightly controlled political system, which includes restrictions on public assembly, limitations on free speech, and laws that criminalize homosexuality.”

Although the Singapore government and private donors wholly fund Yale-NUS, Yale’s faculty’s concerns are very well founded as Yale-NUS represents Yale’s values and brand as a liberal institution.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) also issued a press release on the 19th of July condemning this move, saying that this news displays “disturbing disregard for free speech, association, and assembly”, and that “Yale is betraying the spirit of the university as a center of open debate and protest by giving away the rights of its students at its new Singapore campus.”

Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at HRW, added, “Instead of defending these rights, Yale buckled when faced with Singapore’s draconian laws on demonstrations and policies restricting student groups.”

The Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) secretary general, Dr Chee Soon Juan, also issued a statement, saying:

“The ban is disturbing on two levels. First, would you care to point out what Singaporean law prohibits the conduct of partisan political activities by students or bans the formation of political parties and groups in universities?

In fact, under the Singapore constitution, Article 14 guarantees that "every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression" and "all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations." It is the ruling People's Action Party that has hijacked the constitution and laid down these repressive laws.

If Yale wants to be a truly law-abiding corporate citizen then it should respect the constitution which is the "supreme law of the Republic of Singapore ", not unconstitutional pronouncements made by the ruling party.

It seems like this ban by Yale-NUS on political parties is yet another pronouncement made arbitrarily by the ruling party to safeguard its authoritarian control in Singapore. Tragically, Yale seems a rather willing partner in the exercise.”

Dr Chee also questioned whether Yale-NUS students would get a second-rate academic experience because of these restrictions, asking, “If it is all right for Yale students to organise themselves and for political parties, like the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, to engage in partisan politics in the Yale campus, why is it different for Singaporeans? Are Singaporean students – who, by the way, pay good money to participate in the programme offered by Yale – not entitled to similar educational experiences as their counterparts in the US? Are you not short-changing your students in Singapore?”

I echoed these sentiments at a forum held on Saturday, at the Singapore Management University’s (SMU) Lee Kong Chian School of Business. Organized by The Singapore Globalist – an international affairs publication – the forum featured Edgar Liao, NUS History Lecturer; Sugumaran Devaraja, Executive at OneAsiaConsult and founder of SMU’s political club, ‘Apolitical’; Genesis Shen, NUS Law Student and active member of Young PAP; and Bernise Ang, founder of Syinc – a non-profit organization that seeks to empower young people and effect meaningful change.

The topic of discussion was student activism.

The one and a half hour session evolved into a heated debate on the restrictions of Singapore’s authoritarian ruling party and the effects these constraints have on the scope for student activism.

I posed a three-part question to the panelists on the Yale-NUS situation and it was Mr Shen who volunteered to respond to my questions. And his answers baffled me.

My first question was on the controversial restrictions imposed by Yale-NUS. “Do you think that this encroaches on a potential student’s right to freedoms of expression and speech?” I asked.

I continued, “Do you think that these constraints constitute a deficit in the scope of exposure a potential student will get in terms of socio-political activism. And lastly, following the theme of student activism, will this move eventually make students of Yale-NUS socially inactive and politically apathetic?”

It is a simple question, really. Yale-NUS’ restrictions on student activism obviously curtail any potential student’s fundamental freedoms of expression and speech and limit students’ exposure to socio-political activism. And it is entirely possible that these constraints may cause political apathy and social inactivity among potential students.

In his reply,, Mr Shen launched into a defence of how Singapore is a multi-racial country and ignored my questions entirely. Mr Shen would have probably gone on and on preaching the benefits of living in Singapore if the moderator had not interjected.

Moderator: “Mr Shen, if you could answer the question…”

Mr Shen, in a hesitant tone: “Well…uh, freedom of expression? It will happen. We didn’t have freedom of expression ten years ago. Freedom of speech and expression. It will happen.”

Another participant interjected at this point and asked, “How? How will this happen?”

Mr Shen, looking flustered,  blurted, “It will happen lah!”

Sadly, we cannot blame Genesis Shen alone for his answer, which is nothing more than a speculative one, although he seems genuinely convicted by his beliefs. Instead, it seems that Mr Shen’s attitude is due to the socio-political environment in which Mr Shen is conditioned.

This is, I think, another kind of apathy. The kind where you are conditioned to believe in something blindly, as opposed to looking at the real picture and forming your own opinions based on your own experiences.

And sadly, this is probably the kind of socio-political conditioning that Yale-NUS students will spend their formative university years in.

The MLC's goals, as Tan [Cheng Han] says in the MLC's press release, are to "raise the media literacy level of Singaporeans so that everyone can benefit even more from the Internet, and traditional and new media."

"In cyberspace and the real world where people are constantly interacting and sharing information, appropriate social norms and discernment are important," he added.

Read the full article by Andrew Loh on Yahoo Singapore: Media Literary Council formed, bloggers frown on move.

While it may be too early to judge the MLC, there are probably two main doubts about the new body.  The first is the question of its composition: it is dominated by the education and traditional media establishment, with only one member that fits the description of a blogger, and even then, not a fairly well-known one. Though the MLC has promised to consult more widely among the online community, it would not be surprising if the latter does not vest the MLC with a good deal of legitimacy.

The second is that the MLC’s stated remit seems to overlap considerably with that of the now defunct Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS), a body set up in 2007 to advise the Government on how to deal with new media that submitted its report in 2008.  There does not seem to be much substantive difference between the two bodies, despite the MLC’s supposed inclusion of traditional media as well, and it is difficult to see the MLC renewing AIMS’ more adventurous suggestions for online engagement that were rejected by the Government in 2009.  Furthermore, it is noteworthy that some of the AIMS’ recommendations that were accepted seem to have fallen by the wayside, such as the "dedicated coordinating agency" for the protection of minors from ‘harmful content’ on the Internet.

The worry is that the MLC could recommend further regulation of the Internet to the Government under the guise of paternalistic attempts to safeguard civility on the Internet.  Cyberbullying is an obvious target, but there is no strong indication that the current self-regulatory model does not work: all but the worst cases can be handled by forum moderators deleting hate comments or by Facebook users deploying tighter filter controls on their pages.

On a broader level, initiatives such as the MLC are patently unnecessary.  The online community is more or less a reflection of its underlying real world society, albeit an unfiltered version because of the lower costs of speaking up and the immediacy in which that speech is recorded and transmitted for all to read.  Hence the task of raising “media literacy” – that of encouraging people to think more critically about content put out in the media – should be centred in the offline world, in schools that encourage children to read more widely and think critically about issues, or in newspapers that question Government spin and have the courage to undertake investigative journalism.  Trying to encourage more ‘literacy’ on the Internet is unlikely to have much effect if no attempts are made to change offline institutions such as schools and the media.

[Click here for slideshow of male athletes at the London Olympics ]

Lusting after women is socially acceptable male behaviour. And why shouldn’t it be? At a base level, we are creatures of instinct who need this drive so that we will do what Mother Nature programmed us to do—find mates we are attracted to, have sex and keep the human race going.

But lusting after men, at least openly, is not quite socially acceptable female behaviour. We all know that a man who is highly sexed is called a stud, whereas a woman who is the same—is called another four-lettered word beginning with ‘s’.

And why? Women need and have sexual urges too, because, last time I checked, they make up half of the ‘sex’ bit.

Not surprisingly, gender attitudes come into play.

Emancipation has come a long way since the advent of the birth control pill gave women more sexual choices, but the stain of guilt and shame still hangs over the heads of women in society.

If a man manages to make it with any of the women’s beach volleyball teams, he is going to be one massive hero in the locker room or on his whatsapp group. If a woman boasts of a similar conquest (“I did the US swim team!”), she might not find herself the object of such favour. Remember the scorching former porn star Grace Quek a.k.a. Annabel Chong received at the hands of the tabloids in 1997, when she gangbanged 251 men? Quek’s intention was to subvert gender stereotypes, as she explains in the documentary Sex: The Annabel Chong Story: “I hope to complicate people’s basic assumptions about … the nature of female sexuality.” Her message never properly got across, partly due to her own misguided choice of media—pornography—but also because her extreme act was completely overshadowed by the moral scandal of a woman—an upper middle class, educated Singaporean woman, no less—having a voracious sexual appetite and being audacious enough to flaunt it.

Although deeply embedded patriarchy in most societies has a hand in this (men traditionally have had more power through holding positions of authority and controlling finances), men are not to be bashed for these double standards. Unfortunately, a woman’s harshest critics are usually other women; and the first person to sling the ‘s’-word at a woman is, sadly, likely to be a woman herself.

This is not about the now outdated feminist cliché of ‘if men can do it, women should be able to do it to.’ It’s not about having the freedom to have indiscriminate sex. There are matters of conscience at hand—like, if you are in a relationship, to remain true to the level of commitment you and your partner have agreed upon. And of course there are health and safety issues.

It’s about normalising a woman’s sexual desire so it can live in the open and not hide under a veil of bashfulness or shame. It’s about both men and women acknowledging and being comfortable with female desire so we see just as many images of gorgeous men as we do gorgeous women, all the time and not just on occasions like Olympic season. It’s so the ‘s’ word disappears from our vocabulary.

And, should a change like this fully come about, I can foresee good things stemming from it. Female desire can be a powerful force. For instance, if you want me to buy a car, drape one of those Olympic male divers on it, and I’m halfway sold.

On one hand, there are compelling Christian reasons to retain tithing. It’s a way of training generosity and checking self-centredness. It teaches Christians to put God first in their lives, and their own material needs second. Tithing loosens one’s attachments to worldly comfort and possessions. It reminds one that such possessions are not ‘mine’ because all good things rightfully belong to God, thus forcing one to be less selfish. Tithing can, if motivated by the right reasons, be quite admirable and morally idealistic.

There are practical reasons for regular tithing as well. Simply put, if a church wants to maintain and expand its charitable activities, it needs a regular income. The more ambitious its mission, the more money it needs. And CHC is nothing if not ambitious – annual blood donation drives, multiple programmes to help the disadvantaged and marginalised of society, and massive recruitment ambitions like wanting to expose 50,000 new friends to Christ, are just some of its goals. Blogger Yongsheng also notes that land prices are rising, making it more expensive to find space for an ever-expanding congregation.

So when does tithing cease to be good or pragmatic?

Tithing based on the prosperity gospel, for instance, is questionable. Prosperity theology is a worldview some Christian churches like CHC subscribe to. It emphasizes God’s approval of material prosperity, asserting that people should tithe because doing so will earn them material rewards from God. Pastor Kong says in one sermon that “prosperity is our rightful inheritance” and in another that “God will reward those who faithfully give their tithes and their offerings.”

[Watch these sermons here and here.]

While it is valid for prosperity theology to celebrate honestly acquired wealth, portraying material reward as an incentive to tithe undermines the very purpose of tithing. Tithing becomes motivated by self-interest rather than selflessness. And while the Bible doesn’t consider prosperity immoral in itself, it doesn’t promote it as the main goal in life either, much less the main goal of tithing. After all, as Randy Alcorn – an American Protestant author and director of Eternal Perspective Ministries - says, “Instead of assuming that God wants us healthy, we need to realize that he may accomplish higher purposes through our sickness than through our health” , through our poverty than through our prosperity. Every life, whether lived in poverty or wealth, can be meaningful. Hence those who tithe as a means to prosperity do so without truly understanding biblical values. The prosperity gospel has been accused by many Christians such as Alcorn of distorting biblical teachings, of worshipping money and not God.

Churchgoers therefore should be more wary of what their leaders’ priorities are. Materialistic or spiritual? Having a lot of money isn’t inherently unreligious, but the way you use your money is a sign of what your priorities are.

There is a lot of potential for money to be used inefficiently or dishonestly in organisations like churches or religious organisations. Effective fund-raising creates the problem of excess. If you can raise so much money so easily, why bother using it carefully and efficiently?  The power of charisma and the ability to evoke God’s name to support whatever you do throws in another problem: if you can command unquestioning trust, are there any moral limits to how you use your funds?

Given such potential abuses, here’s what churchgoers and churches can do to keep things on track.

Firstly, churchgoers need to be more open to the idea that their religious leaders have vices as well as virtues. As CHC member Joseph put it, “The main thing to remember is that we come to serve God, not man.” We must not take it as a given that religious leaders always have good intentions, and we should express our doubts when their activities appear questionable.

Secondly, churchgoers should demand more financial accountability from their leaders. Robert Kee, founder of Operation Hope Foundation which seeks to “transform the lives of orphans and the poor in developing countries” suggests that we demand more information about exactly how our money is spent, since charities often “write about what they do but not how” they do it.

Andy, an ex-member of CHC, confirms that members often don’t expect business-like accountability from the church ― they don’t insist that if “you tell me to donate to the Building Fund, it must go to the Building Fund, or I will sue you.” Many are fine with CHC sharing its funds between the Crossover Project – which is at the centre of the controversy surrounding CHC leaders - and the Building Fund and don’t press for details on where exactly the money goes, highlighting the trust they have in their leaders. It is this trust that Kee would like to see replaced with a healthy dose of scepticism.

Thirdly, on an organisational level, churches can help keep their finances in line by appointing an independent audit committee, possibly consisting of members from other churches, or by engaging independent companies to do the audit and management checks. Such committees will ensure that there are proper invoices for every transaction, insist the projects be closed rather than open-ended with fixed annual budgets, assess any requests to change the budget, and so on.

Ultimately, in a money-driven world where financial resources affect our ability to improve our surroundings, ambitious churches understandably need lots of money to fund their projects. They naturally turn to their people because, due to the separation of church and state, they don’t get funding from the government. It is their people whom they need to survive, and it is therefore only their people who, by calling for change for within, can make them sincerely reconsider their practices.