Will these risks make us more prone to economic, social, political and psychological weaknesses, which may be exploited? What are the implications of the Government's immigration and foreign labour policy on social and industrial harmony?

The public dialogue – organised by Online|Offline and The Online Citizen - seeks to discuss the implications of being overly reliant on foreign workers.

Speakers

Dr. Vincent Wijeysingha

Vincent is a politician and civil activist from Singapore. He is currently the Treasurer of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and was a candidate in the 2011 Singapore general election. Vincent studied at Victoria School in Singapore, before heading to the United Kingdom where he studied at the University of Lincoln and received his doctorate from the University of Sheffield. Vincent lived in England for almost 16 years before moving back to Singapore. He was formerly the Executive Director of Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2), a non-government organization advocating the rights of low-waged migrant workers. Vincent also lectures and publishes scholarly papers on social work.

Tony Tan

Tony was awarded a Singapore Armed Forces Merit Scholarship to study engineering at the University of Cambridge and graduated with first class honours. Upon graduation, he served in the SAF and was promoted to the rank of major when he was 27. He ended nine years of his career in the civil service at age 31 and is now a business owner. Tony is a member of the National Solidarity Party (NSP). In the last General Election, he contested in Choa Chu Kang GRC. He is married with 2 boys.

Leong Sze Hian

Sze Hian is the Past President of the Society of Financial Service Professionals. He is also an alumnus of Harvard University, and has authored 4 books, and has been quoted frequently in the media. He has been host of a money radio show, a daily newspaper money column. Sze Hian is a Wharton Fellow, SEACeM Fellow, columnist for The Online Citizen and Malaysiakini, and has been invited to speak more than 100 times in about 25 countries on 5 continents. He has served as Honorary Consul of Jamaica and is a founding advisor to the Financial Planning Associations of Brunei and Indonesia. He has 3 Masters, 2 Bachelors degrees and 13 professional qualifications.

Braema Mathi

Braema is a former Nominated Member of Parliament in Singapore, a two-term former President of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), and former Vice-President of Action for AIDS. She led Transient Workers Count Too and its precursor, The Working Committee 2 (TWC2) from 2002 to 2007, and is a founding member of MARUAH (Singapore Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism). Braema is also the Regional President of the International Council of Social Welfare (Southeast Asia and Pacific) and has previously worked as a teacher, a journalist, in senior management and in research.

Moderator

Ravi Philemon

Ravi  is a blogivist - an activist with a blog. He has championed several social causes, including the call for parity in public transportation for persons with disability, and for appropriate shelter for the homeless. He is one of the founders of the socio-political discussion platform, 'onlineloffline', and is a member of National Solidarity Party.

Date: 15 December 2012

Time: 2 - 5pm

Venue: Park Mall, 9 Penang Road, #13-15 (nearest MRT station: Dhoby Ghaut)

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

About Online|Offline

Online|Offline is a local socio-political discussion platform. The idea for it was hatched during the time of the last by-election in Hougang, on 25 May 2012. Despite being new, we have so far hosted discussions on topics such as xenophobia, press freedom and local political leadership, where our special guests included Members of Parliament.

Governance requires not just political but also moral authority. Without moral authority, the PM will find his power undermined and challenged from within and outside of his party. Singaporeans will lose even more confidence in his leadership and ability to take our country forward. The end-result is that our nation will go further in the wrong direction. A by-election is the only way that Mr Lee can stem the erosion of his moral authority.

Of course, Mr Lee is anxious to avoid elections especially at this time. For all his expressions of contrition and promises to make amends at the end of the last general elections, nothing has changed. It is nearly two years since the 2011 GE and Mr Lee's broken promises are still fresh in the minds of Singaporeans:

Wages are still down, inflation is running up, HDB prices continue to escalate, public transport is still as crowded, healthcare costs remain as expensive as ever and the PAP is going ahead with its dangerous plan of bringing in more and more foreigners even though our country cannot sustain it.

Singaporeans are fed up. They want change. The SDP stands at the vanguard of change. We have advocated a series of alternative policy plans that have given our fellow Singaporeans a clear view of what that change looks like. We want:

Ministerial salaries to be brought down and pegged to the wages of the lowest 20 percent earners (see Ethical Salaries For A Public Service Centered Government),

The national budget to be re-prioritized to invest in education, SMEs and the needy (see Shadow Budget 2012: Securing Our Future),

To implement a single-payer system to make our hospitals and healthcare system non-profit making and affordable for everyone (see The SDP National Healthcare Plan: Caring For All Singaporeans),

To introduce Non-Open Market flats to make HDB prices affordable for our people (see Housing A Nation: Holistic Policies For Affordable Homes),

The Government to give Singaporeans priority in employment and stop forcing a 6.5 million population on our country by indiscriminately bringing in foreigners (see Singaporeans Come First).

The SDP has been working to raise the standard of opposition politics in Singapore and to be the party that Singaporeans are looking for: competent, constructive and compassionate.

Chee Soon Juan

Secretary-General

Singapore Democratic Party

"We were supposed to be grateful for the economic success, not do the unthinkable," he explains in our video interview below. The "unthinkable" in this case was criticizing the ruling party for its past wrongs and stepping in to help with social issues, such as workers' disputes, something which he felt the union was not actively doing. It was because of his involvement with one of the disputes, which somehow turned violent, that led to his incarceration.

Upon his release, Wah Piow received a letter from the SAF drafting him into the army. This was "highly irregular ", he told us, and he decided that the best course of action was to leave for the UK, where he is safe from a state that has not taken kindly to his defiance. He continues to stay there now with his family, practicing law.

It seems however that he was gone but not forgotten. He was named the "ringleader" of a "Marxist Conspiracy" in 1987, ten years after he had left the country. Operation Spectrum saw the arrest of 22 men and women, some of whom were involved in social activism at the time. The papers then claimed that these men and women were following Wah Piow's orders in a plan to wrest power from the ruling party and turn Singapore into a Marxist state. It is a claim which he denies and mocks. He was never a Marxist, he laughs. He was an architecture student who was involved in activism for a mere 3 months before he was arrested and made an example of.

All 22 men and women were released after a gruelling process which saw their reputation dragged through the mud by the local press, without them being accorded the right to an open trial to defend themselves.

We met up with the man recently in Malaysia, where he is launching two books, Smokescreens and Mirrors, an updated version of his autobiography "Let the People Judge" and "Escape from the Lion's Paw", a compilation of accounts by exiles of Singapore in which he contributed to.

{youtube}OOai0VbcjnE|600|450|0{/youtube}

You can purchase the two books at http://www.ethosbooks.com.sg/store/mli_dynamicIndex.asp

In the early 1900s, the Chinese diaspora brought this ceramics technology to Singapore and established more than 20 wood-fired dragon kilns, which produced bowls, latex cups for rubber tapping, roof tiles, flower pots, crockery and other items. There were at least nine kilns in the Jurong region, which was known for its good quality white clay.

The early days

The early 20th century was a prolific time for Singapore’s dragon kilns. At its peak, Thow Kwang Dragon Kiln at Jalan Bahar was fired once every two weeks, with a few thousand pieces each time, to produce latex cups, pipes and other household items.

But the dragon kiln was back-breaking business. In an interview with Lianhe Zaobao in 1989, Mr Chua Soo Kim, one of the Chua brothers who owned Sam Mui Kwang Pottery Works at Jalan Hwi Yoh, described the traditional process of collecting local clay, kneading, stirring and watering the clay to make it pliable for use.

All this was done by hand (approximately two days for 60 tons of clay) but after the 1970s, machines were used for this task. Workers were also needed to mould the clay and pack the objects into the kiln, before firing it non-stop over three to seven days, unpacking and then checking the items for sale.

Earlier accounts conjure a similar picture of this laborious process. On 24 September 1949, the Singapore Free Press featured a report by Marian Wells, on her visit to a modest-sized brick kiln of “sixty feet long” (approximately 18m) which “on the far end, at the downward slope” had “a fireplace strewn with ashes” from the previous day’s firing.

Wells describes the clay excavation—“men and women were unearthing lumps from ten to fifteen-feet deep holes and carrying their loads to long atap sheds”—and how the workers removed stones and foreign particles, and used their feet to pound the clay, before drying, moulding, carrying, packing and firing the objects.

New technology

But the industry was not to last. Even with the availability of local clay and good water conditions at Yio Chu Kang, Jurong and Jalan Bahar, the traditional dragon kilns were no match for new brick-making techniques.

In February 1965, the Ceramics (Malaysia) Ltd factory was built in the Jurong Industrial Estate in Singapore. No longer done by hand, each brick was now cut from an extruded section of clay with wires. The new factory’s kiln was fired with Sabo-burners (using oil), and could be mechanically loaded with 44,000 bricks. On 12 February 1965, in a three-page spread, the Straits Times proclaimed to the newly independent Federation of Malaysia that this new Ceramics plant could produce 8,000 bricks per hour, 2 million bricks monthly, and 24 million bricks annually.

This increased production of bricks (and by association, public housing) was touted as playing “a vital role in city building”, and part of Singapore’s drive towards more high-tech industries and more cost-efficient use of land.

But these new techniques, along with competition from the region and decreased demand for latex cups, signalled the end of the thriving dragon kilns in Singapore.

The last dragons

By the 1980s, only three dragon kilns remained: Sam Mui Kwang (三美光), Guan Huat (源发) and Thow Kwang (陶光).

But only Sam Mui Kwang Pottery Works was fully-functioning. Built in 1938, it remained owned and operated by the Chua family—and even till 1989, it was fired three times a month, producing around 5,000 glazed and unglazed flower pots each month.

It had been paying a monthly rental of $55 to its previous landlord, and when the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) acquired the land in 1986, it charged Sam Mui Kwang $50 rental per month. However, in 1990, the rental was increased to the market rate of $12,000 a month—and the family could no longer afford to pay. Served with a gradual phasing-out eviction notice, the Chua family finally dismantled the kiln and moved out on 1 December 1994.

Today, only two kilns remain. The older one is Thow Kwang Dragon Kiln at Jalan Bahar, which was built in 1944 and bought over by Mr Tan Kin Seh in 1965. Today, Thow Kwang does not operate commercially but the owner Mr Tan Teck Yoke maintains the kiln his father bought, allowing clay artists to use it and keep the heritage alive.

Also at Jalan Bahar is Guan Huat Dragon Kiln. It was built in 1958 by Mr. Lee Yong Lee and his friends, and used to be fired twice a month for the production of latex cups, water containers, pipes, flower pots and crockery. However, it fell into dis-use (probably by the 1980s and the 1990s), and was over-run by the surrounding vegetation.

But in 2001, the kiln was jointly restored by the Singapore Tourism Board, the then Ministry of Information & the Arts, the Urban Redevelopment Authority and other supporting participants - National Heritage Board (NHB), the then Land Office, Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts and other individual artists. In 2004, Focus Ceramic Services won the tender to run Guat Huat Dragon Kiln as the Jalan Bahar Clay Studio for potters and other artists.

Heritage, art and market forces

Still, the kilns’ existence is precarious. In 1989, with the impending demise of Sam Mui Kwang Pottery Works, there were various forum letters calling for the preservation of the kiln and recognition of its heritage value, both for locals and tourists—but market forces prevailed, and forced the kiln to close. 23 years later, will the same fate befall the last two kilns?

Compared to JTC’s proposed CleanTech industrial park, the ceramics painstakingly produced from the dragon kilns are clearly not as commercially viable. Also, although the two dragon kilns have received the NHB heritage plaque, the Straits Times reported in 2011 that such heritage plaques do not ensure the sites’ preservation. Only those gazetted as national monuments or UNESCO World Heritage Sites are protected from eventual redevelopment.

In light of this, a group of artists have banded together to organise the Awaken the Dragon community art project in the months leading up to January 2013. Supported by volunteers and facilitators, the artists have been busy conducting clay workshops for people of all ages, and in various languages (including dialects and sign language!) in community centres, schools, offices, museums, old folks’ homes and even private homes.

"The workshops have been going very well. Participants, many who are playing with clay for the first time, enjoy the opportunity and are making wonderful artworks," said Woon Tien Wei, 37, on behalf of co-organisers Post-Museum. "They are also very excited about the festival and can't wait to see the firing of the dragon."

Through this participatory process, the organisers hope to increase people’s appreciation for ceramics, the unique glazing of wood-fired clay, and the rich history of Singapore’s dragon kilns—while they still exist.

“We want to tell the story of the dragon kilns—and we also want people to make something while the story is being told,” said co-organiser and ceramist Michelle Lim, 29. “When you do that, the tactile quality of clay goes into your memories. We want people to be able to tell their children, and their children’s children about this.”

“The only thing that lasts longer than ceramics—is a story.”

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

Awaken the Dragon is a not-for-profit community art project which aims to invite 3000 members of the public to make a collective clay sculpture, which will be fired in the Guan Huat Dragon Kiln in a 3-day festival in January 2013. The project is organized by Michelle Lim and Post-Museum, supported by the National Arts Council, Arts Fund, Central Singapore Community Development Council, National Museum of Singapore, Australia High Commission, KLEI, Focus Ceramic Services and other supporters. For more information about their workshops, click here.

Pictures from Awaken The Dragon Kiln Facebook page.

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

References:

“An echo of the past in Singapore's hills” - The Singapore Free Press, 24 September 1949

“Ceramics Process”, “Jurong's new giant complex”, “Factory uses latest methods” - The Straits Times, 12 February 1965, Pages 10-12

“'Dragon' kiln may be spared” - The Straits Times, 24 June 1988, Page 26

“龙窑几番新 陶艺世代传” - 联合早报 (Lianhe Zaobao), 8 January 1989

“Dying trades” - Straits Times, 9 August 1989

“‘Hidden dragons’ to get heritage marker” - Straits Times, 16 October 2011

The Workers’ Party, in a statement released on Sunday, pointed to this as well.

“The two public transport operators (PTOs) remain very profitable,” the party said. “SMRT and SBS Transit turned a profit of $119.9 million and $36.7 million respectively in the last financial year, while providing shareholders a return on equity (ROE) of 15.1% and 11.3% respectively over the same period. In contrast, the median ROE for Singapore Exchange-listed companies over the past year was 7.8%.”

In a 10-minute exchange with this writer, Mr Gan says that in fact there is no confirmation or certainty that there will be a fare increase next year.

What Mr Lui meant, Mr Gan explains, is that the current fare formula does not show the link between wages and fares and thus it might be good to make this clearer in the formula.

What the government is trying to do is to "to review this formula." Mr Gan also said the trains service are subsidising the bus service as “the buses do not make money”, he said he was told.

Mr Lui’s remarks on 7 December have attracted criticism, especially online, with many questioning the rationale and the timing of such an announcement, given the recent strike incident at SMRT and the continuing problems with the transport system.

"Any fare adjustment will allow the two operators to have more resources in time to come to make further salary adjustments,” Mr Lui said. “We recognise that the drivers need to be paid more. (The) question is where is that money coming from?” (TODAY)

What is also unclear is the relationship between wages and fares, given the seemingly contradictory statements made by different officials.

In March, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam announced a S$1.1 billion Bus Services Enhancement Fund for the transport companies. Part of this is to help them purchase 800 new buses.

“IF THE Government does not step in to help public transport operators SBS Transit and SMRT improve bus services,” the Straits Times reported Mr Tharman’s explanation, “commuters will have to pay 15 cents more in fares per journey to get the better service they want.”

In February, Mr S Iswaran, Second Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Trade and Industry, said “part of this funding is also designed to address some of the operating cost implications over the next 10 years.”

It would thus seem that the government is also lending a helping hand to the operators in terms of wages as well, which would be part of their operating costs.

In May, however, commenting on the wage increase for its workers by SMRT, Mr Cedric Foo, the chairman of the Transport GPC, said he didn’t “think there's a direct correlation between drivers' wages and bus fares”, when he was asked if the pay rise would mean increased fares.

So, do fares have any linkage to wages for transport workers? And since the government is already heavily subsidising transport operators’ costs (for as long as the next 10 years), why’re transport operators still allowed to increase fares? These are some of the questions which the public are asking.

But they are not new questions. The operators are allowed a window each year to submit applications for fares “review”, a euphemistic term for fare increase. This has always raised the ire of commuters and members of the public. This time, however, the anger is more pronounced, given the numerous breakdowns, bad maintenance regimes, and bad Human Resource management in the SMRT which resulted in Singapore’s first strike in two and a half decades.

As for Mr Lui’s remarks about possible fare increases next year, Mr Gan says, “I think people have misunderstood.”

What is on record is that fares have been raised 8 times since 2000.

“Commuters should not be expected to pay higher fares, especially when service standards remain unsatisfactory,” the WP said, “as they have been since the last fare hike. The Government and PTOs must put the public interest before shareholders’ interests. If PTOs are unable to do so because of their obligations to shareholders, public transport should be taken out of private hands and run by a not-for-profit corporation which focuses on providing efficient and quality public transport, instead of generating shareholder returns.”

Meantime, here is the 10-minute exchange between this writer and MP Gan Thiam Poh in Hougang on Sunday morning.

{youtube}CQxRsyQ2Psg|600|450|0{/youtube}

The bus journey was uneventful except for the massive traffic jam along the PIE exiting to Stevens Road. I checked my Facebook newsfeed to kill time. On his status update, a friend doubted he could ever afford a brand new car in Singapore. Another friend commented with a LOL abbreviation followed by the Hokkien phrase ‘tan ku ku’. I replied with a  sign.

There was a robust debate on the PSLE. Some people said that it should be scrapped. A few others defended it. A bureaucrat friend suggested that it should be constantly assessed for relevance and in the next breath reiterating its usefulness.

I was suddenly reminded of this moment of claustrophobia and hopelessness I felt one afternoon in United Square, standing amidst a sea of uniformed kids coming in and out of the enrichment centres concentrated there. The bus journey took longer than it should. I stifled a yawn.

I reached my office and stopped to have a small chat with the cleaner. He heard from the radio that there was a plan to increase the pay of those earning less than a thousand dollars and looked forward to the extra $50 to augment his $800 salary. He smiled. I offered a weak that-is-good-for-you and walked away with a tinge of shame and guilt.

I met my former colleagues and wasted no time in our updates. A friend wanted to buy a house near her mother’s but could not afford the Cash on Valuation (COV). She decided to buy one in a new development in Punggol instead. That was far from ideal but beggars could not afford to be choosers, we laughed. Executive condominiums could only be a distant dream.

We decided to walk down to the nearby nasi padang stall for lunch. I had fried chicken, braised squid, some vegetables and potato cutlet with my plain rice. The lady at the counter  told me that the meal cost $8. I let go an instinctive Wah! and the lady informed me “nowadays everything so expensive, abang”. That same meal would cost me less than $6 a year ago, I made a mental comparison.

In the afternoon, my former colleagues suggested that I followed them to the Marina Bay City Gallery for a recce trip. I accepted the invitation, knowing that I was free for the day. Reaching the Gallery, I was amazed at the vision the Government has for the Marina Bay area. Standing proudly is the Marina Bay Sands (MBS) complex, the new tourist icon.

I know this is because all the new Singapore postcards at Changi Airport feature it prominently. Also, my colleagues back in Jakarta would always make it a point to have a picture taken against the MBS skyline whenever they are here for meetings. How apt, I thought, considering the Singapore Story has always been about economic growth and money. The PM and other politicians always reminded us about this.

At night, we decided to have Thai food in Ngee Ann City. For a Thai restaurant, the service staff was almost entirely Filipino. We laughed at the fact that service would be almost non-existent if the staff was made up of Singaporeans.  Food and service were indeed good and we left contented. I made my way home.

Upon reaching my block, I cleared the mailbox. Many junk mails there were, including flyers for 600 square-feet apartments going for $700 000. Another flyer was on an upcoming New Year Party which was organised for the residents. It would be attended by the Grassroots Advisor, who happens to be my MP as well. Last year, he was only an MP, but this year the powers-that-be decided a differentiation was needed. I went up to my flat.

After a quick shower, I went to my 9 year-old’s room. He was fast asleep. I looked at him contemplatively, and gave him a peck on his forehead. I wondered what it would be like for him ten, twenty years down the road in this country I call home. I wondered if I have to make a choice.

Kamal Mamat works at a regional organisation based in Jakarta, Indonesia.

What are these questions about AIM (and the PAP) which the public is asking? There are many but I feel the main question is this one:

Did not the 14 PAP town councils realise the conflict of interests in awarding the contract to a PAP-owned company? If it did, why did it still go ahead and award the contract to AIM? If it did not, why did it not? Is it possible that 14 town council chairmen, and the PAP which comprises experienced politicians and distinguished lawyers and businessmen and businesswomen, were not aware of this conflict of interests?

This question leads to others – such as: In awarding the contract to a PAP-owned company, with a termination clause which empowers AIM to end its services to the town councils, does this not leave the residents at the mercy of this private entity?

How is it that a software, developed presumably with the money collected from residents, is then sold to a PAP-owned company which would benefit financially from it – leading to another question of whether it is right for residents to effectively and inadvertently (and unknowingly) support a political party which they might not actually support?

Donations or financial benefits to political parties (or to any entity, in fact) must be stated upfront, openly and clearly, especially when public funds are involved. AIM stood to profit from the contract, and being a PAP-owned company, the PAP thus also stood to benefit. But being a political party, it must be open with residents and inform residents that such a sale will or may benefit the party financially. Given that on average the opposition parties attracted 40 per cent of the popular vote in each constituency during the last elections, the question of the PAP benefiting financially from such a deal is a pertinent one – for not every resident would want to pay towards financially benefiting the PAP, directly or indirectly.

The termination clause also throws up a similar question: the computer system was presumably developed with funds collected from the public (or residents) and is supposed to be used for the benefit of the residents. However, with the termination clause, a new town council with a new composition of members which takes over might not be given access to the system – as indeed happened in this Aljunied case. How then do residents benefit from having paid towards such a system?

Were residents explicitly informed that only PAP-controlled town councils will be given access to use the computer system, which was developed with the residents’ money?

Would this not thus mean, in effect, that if residents chose to vote a non-PAP team or candidates to run their estate, residents would or could be “punished” by having to put up with first the withdrawal of the computer system, and second, to put up with inconveniences?

Contrary to what Dr Teo said, such an arrangement – to give AIM the ability to terminate its services on the basis of a change in the composition of the town council management – does not serve residents’ interests at all.

As mentioned, there are many questions to be answered by the PAP and AIM – how is it that a company with a $2 paid-up capital, with no prior experience in running such a system, a company apparently without any staff or office space or even a decent email account facility (despite being “in business for 20 years”) is awarded a contract worth not a small sum of money?

How is it that AIM was awarded the contract even though it submitted its bid one week after the closing date?

Why were there, apparently, such scant information given to potential bidders in the tender notice?

How is it that “being backed by the PAP” is a tender requirement, or an advantage in bidding for such a contract? Is the PAP a renowned expert, or made up of experts, in such IT systems? To cite “being backed by the PAP” as an advantage in awarding the contract is in fact a very questionable thing to do, especially when one of the bidders is indeed “fully owned” by the PAP.

Ms Fu and Mr Puthucheary have completely missed the issues, as you can see – and they are serious matters of public interests.

I am therefore quite aghast that the minister and the MP apparently do not see the serious issues involved here, and instead seem to suggest that the matter is simply one of whose responsibility it is to run or manage the town council.

The computer system is, presumably, being used by the other PAP town councils presently. If and when any of these town councils should come into the hands of any of the opposition parties, residents’ interests would again be put in jeopardy if and when AIM chooses again to exercise its termination clause.

The question is not one of who terminates the service first – for the termination clause allows AIM and the town council to do so anyway. But being a PAP-owned company, it is hard to fathom that AIM would be or would want to be of service to opposition town councils; or that an opposition town council would want to engage the services of a PAP-owned company.

The question therefore is not about this. Terminating the service to opposition town councils could be taken as a given.

The main question is one of an apparent conflict of interests in awarding the contract for such a service to a company owned by a political party with a vested interest in the running of town councils.

Ms Fu, Mr Puthucheary and Dr Teo Ho Pin surely couldn’t have missed this point.

So, why not address these matters head-on, instead of obfuscating the matter by harping on irrelevant points?

To answer Ms Fu's question which she raised in her note - "Why take aim at AIM?" - the answer is: Isn't it obvious?

Doing the Right Thing.

Many a time we have been reminded by our leaders that we must do what is right. This is because we want fairness for all.

The recent controversy of town councils (TCs) allowing the ruling political party company (AIM) to buy over and manage the IT software programs of TCs, beg a few questions, especially when the company may not serve ‘due to material change’, an opposition ward.

This soft ware is developed using public funds by town councils. Is it right for the TCs to give up ownership in this manner?

For the good of all Singaporeans the administration of public institutions like TCs should be seamless when transiting after each Election.

So did the Town Councils as public institutions do the right thing, selling to a company owned by a political party with its own agenda?

People are also puzzled by why the software programme was sold to a dormant $2 company owned by the ruling political party. This company obviously could not manage and sub the job back to NCS.

Another question asked: the TCs have been successfully using the IT program supported by expertise from NCS, the developer of the system. Why introduce a ‘middle man’? Surely, if the IT software program needs an upgrade or redevelopment it is better the TCs, as ‘user’ should be working directly with the developer eg NCS. The TCs already have the experience getting the first software done.

NEXT, did this arrangement having the middleman raise costs for the TCs, which their constituents will ultimately bear? As AIM is now the owner, is it going to pay the costs for any upgrade or new software development? How much is AIM then going to charge the TCs, which now is at the mercy of AIM?

As TCs are public institutions, citizens are certainly uncomfortable with political party owned companies transacting with the TCs

Much more clarity and transparency are needed.

As Alex Au said at a forum recently, being housed 8 to a room is actually not the worst that could happen. This writer, along with the migrant workers NGOs, have seen tiny rooms which had many workers squeezed into them. 20 to a room. Even 40 to a room, sleeping on bare concrete floors, or – as we once witnessed - on triple-decker beds. These places are littered all over Singapore, from Chinatown to Little India, or any industrial estate, or shophouse.

In this short video [below], taken on 9 December, I visited one of these so-called dormitories. [This dorm was apparently for construction workers.] It was a very small room, with 8 double-decker beds crammed into it. This would mean up to 16 workers could be housed there. There were little storage space, in terms of cupboards or shelves, and thus the workers’ possessions are strewn and hung everywhere.

There also didn’t appear to be a proper laundry area, or space for drying their clothes outside the dorm. So, laundry has to be dried indoors.

The cooking area, or kitchen, is within the same space as the sleeping area, without any separation between the two areas. The walls and floor in the kitchen were in a terrible state, as you can see in the video and the pictures.

With just one window for ventilation, and with the cooking and drying of laundry done indoors and in the same space, the air in the room has a certain smell of staleness. Indeed, the odour attaches itself to you even after you leave the room.

While one does not expect workers to be housed in five-star accommodation, one would expect at least a basic level of comfort, reasonable space and storage facilities. But the problems do not just apply to this particular dormitory.

The Manpower Ministry really needs to step up its enforcement of basic standards for workers’ accommodation. There is no use in talking about “proper channels” and avenues to address grievances when the basics are not enforced.

But the bigger question which we need to ask is this: with the government saying it is not lowering the number of migrant workers by any significant amount, where are we going to house these workers and those who will arrive? And by this, I mean a decent standard of accommodation.

What the government could also do perhaps is to allow independent inspection of dormitories by third parties, such as the NGOs, or even reporters. At the moment, access to such dorms is limited to a selected few, such as MOM. It was reported that reporters were not allowed into the dormitory which housed the SMRT drivers during the strike.

When workers “take the law into their own hands”, often it is the last resort, and probably after a prolonged period of frustration. While we may say we have “zero tolerance” for such actions by workers, we should also pause and consider that perhaps they do have a point.

After all, are we not a first-world country, aspiring to be a compassionate society as well? Why then do we not accord basic decent living conditions to those who work for us? Why do we need for them to take drastic actions before we ourselves act?

As we admire the Gardens by the Bay, or Universal Studios, or our spanking new condominiums, or the highways we travel on, or our new HDB flats, or the next shopping mall which springs up overnight, do spare a thought for those who help make these possible.

The very least, really, we can do is to treat them as and like fellow human beings.

Leave the tough talk aside, especially when we fail to provide them the very basic.

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

{youtube}f_tYNzyEY0E|600|450|0{/youtube}

For a while there was hope—ministerial salaries were cut, there was a cabinet reshuffle that saw unpopular ministers who had aggravated and alienated voters sidelined, senior politicians started Facebook pages in an attempt to ‘get with it’, and we got a ‘caring’ budget that generously addressed the concerns of Singaporeans across society.

In the socio-political sphere, diverse liberal voices were going strong in social media, civil society was seeing a lot of activity, and opposition parties were stronger than they’ve been since the 1960s. For a while it appeared as though Singapore was riding a wave of change—the phrase ‘new normal’ arose to describe this fresh feeling in the air, and it even looked—momentarily—that the PAP might succeed in silencing its critics by delivering to them what they had been campaigning for, thus leaving them with less or very little to complain about.

Then the honeymoon ended.

And we are seeing the notorious ways of the PAP return with an old, familiar clang. Two defamation suits have appeared in the last few weeks, levelled against blogger Alex Au and SDP’s Vincent Wijeysingha; migrant workers who dared to stand up against exploitative employers and went on strike were deported; a threat of imposing a ‘code of conduct’ on the internet has been looming (and, one suspects, not implemented only because it’s an impossibility); and in a year rocked by a soap opera of scandals—the use of state-controlled media to smoothen out or explain away the ones that made the party look bad, such as the Michael Palmer affair and now the AIM debacle, stood out in stark contrast to the way every other scandal was inflamed and milked for every shred of dignity it tried to cling on to.

And still we hear cries for the PAP to change.

But why would they? Just like a spouse one has been married to for decades is never going to change, the PAP that Singapore has been married to for 50 years is never going to change. They believe in their way of doing things, and their position of power remains unassailable. If we stay with them, we have to take them for who they are and make the relationship work. Staying with them and complaining just spreads the unhappiness. Staying with them and tuning out, becoming apathetic, leaves life too stale and vacuous. If we can’t (or feel we shouldn’t) accept them for who they are, then it’s time to move on.

So we need something to move on to. For a number of Singaporeans that has meant packing up and moving to a foreign land. For those of us who have chosen or who have no choice but to stay, we need to continue to build real alternatives to the PAP and stop viewing them as the only party that can ever govern Singapore.

We need to keep strengthening the opposition, so that one day, one of them can actually run the country. Not be a co-driver, a check and balance, a gratuitous NMP, or a rebel that takes the PAP down a peg or two—but a real government.

Because that’s the only way we’ll find a different path from the one we have now.

Even Lee Kuan Yew said that the only way for politicians to change things in Singapore is to get into Parliament. Outside that, they might have some influence, but they have little power.

With a by-election likely in Punggol East, and several opposition parties eyeing the seat, a chance lies before us to fortify the opposition one bit more. And its good to see that the opposition parties are starting to differentiate themselves, so that they are not just a blanket non-PAP force, but entities in their own right. So voters aren’t just voting for a kneejerk grass-is-greener change, but a more informed change in a specific direction.

And we need to stop feeling surprised or disappointed when the PAP does things their same old way. They have little reason to change, and, just like the rest of us, aren’t going to give up their views just because some of us disagree with them, however justified we may be.

A strong Singapore government that is not the PAP might seem like a long way off. But we need to believe it is possible first and then we can work to make it happen.

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

Cartoons from : My Sketchbook.

In the early 1900s, the Chinese diaspora brought this ceramics technology to Singapore and established more than 20 wood-fired dragon kilns, which produced bowls, latex cups for rubber tapping, roof tiles, flower pots, crockery and other items. There were at least nine kilns in the Jurong region, which was known for its good quality white clay.

The early days

The early 20th century was a prolific time for Singapore’s dragon kilns. At its peak, Thow Kwang Dragon Kiln at Jalan Bahar was fired once every two weeks, with a few thousand pieces each time, to produce latex cups, pipes and other household items.

But the dragon kiln was back-breaking business. In an interview with Lianhe Zaobao in 1989, Mr Chua Soo Kim, one of the Chua brothers who owned Sam Mui Kwang Pottery Works at Jalan Hwi Yoh, described the traditional process of collecting local clay, kneading, stirring and watering the clay to make it pliable for use.

All this was done by hand (approximately two days for 60 tons of clay) but after the 1970s, machines were used for this task. Workers were also needed to mould the clay and pack the objects into the kiln, before firing it non-stop over three to seven days, unpacking and then checking the items for sale.

Earlier accounts conjure a similar picture of this laborious process. On 24 September 1949, the Singapore Free Press featured a report by Marian Wells, on her visit to a modest-sized brick kiln of “sixty feet long” (approximately 18m) which “on the far end, at the downward slope” had “a fireplace strewn with ashes” from the previous day’s firing.

Wells describes the clay excavation—“men and women were unearthing lumps from ten to fifteen-feet deep holes and carrying their loads to long atap sheds”—and how the workers removed stones and foreign particles, and used their feet to pound the clay, before drying, moulding, carrying, packing and firing the objects.

New technology

But the industry was not to last. Even with the availability of local clay and good water conditions at Yio Chu Kang, Jurong and Jalan Bahar, the traditional dragon kilns were no match for new brick-making techniques.

In February 1965, the Ceramics (Malaysia) Ltd factory was built in the Jurong Industrial Estate in Singapore. No longer done by hand, each brick was now cut from an extruded section of clay with wires. The new factory’s kiln was fired with Sabo-burners (using oil), and could be mechanically loaded with 44,000 bricks. On 12 February 1965, in a three-page spread, the Straits Times proclaimed to the newly independent Federation of Malaysia that this new Ceramics plant could produce 8,000 bricks per hour, 2 million bricks monthly, and 24 million bricks annually.

This increased production of bricks (and by association, public housing) was touted as playing “a vital role in city building”, and part of Singapore’s drive towards more high-tech industries and more cost-efficient use of land.

But these new techniques, along with competition from the region and decreased demand for latex cups, signalled the end of the thriving dragon kilns in Singapore.

The last dragons

By the 1980s, only three dragon kilns remained: Sam Mui Kwang (三美光), Guan Huat (源发) and Thow Kwang (陶光).

But only Sam Mui Kwang Pottery Works was fully-functioning. Built in 1938, it remained owned and operated by the Chua family—and even till 1989, it was fired three times a month, producing around 5,000 glazed and unglazed flower pots each month.

It had been paying a monthly rental of $55 to its previous landlord, and when the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) acquired the land in 1986, it charged Sam Mui Kwang $50 rental per month. However, in 1990, the rental was increased to the market rate of $12,000 a month—and the family could no longer afford to pay. Served with a gradual phasing-out eviction notice, the Chua family finally dismantled the kiln and moved out on 1 December 1994.

Today, only two kilns remain. The older one is Thow Kwang Dragon Kiln at Jalan Bahar, which was built in 1944 and bought over by Mr Tan Kin Seh in 1965. Today, Thow Kwang does not operate commercially but the owner Mr Tan Teck Yoke maintains the kiln his father bought, allowing clay artists to use it and keep the heritage alive.

Also at Jalan Bahar is Guan Huat Dragon Kiln. It was built in 1958 by Mr. Lee Yong Lee and his friends, and used to be fired twice a month for the production of latex cups, water containers, pipes, flower pots and crockery. However, it fell into dis-use (probably by the 1980s and the 1990s), and was over-run by the surrounding vegetation.

But in 2001, the kiln was jointly restored by the Singapore Tourism Board, the then Ministry of Information & the Arts, the Urban Redevelopment Authority and other supporting participants - National Heritage Board (NHB), the then Land Office, Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts and other individual artists. In 2004, Focus Ceramic Services won the tender to run Guat Huat Dragon Kiln as the Jalan Bahar Clay Studio for potters and other artists.

Heritage, art and market forces

Still, the kilns’ existence is precarious. In 1989, with the impending demise of Sam Mui Kwang Pottery Works, there were various forum letters calling for the preservation of the kiln and recognition of its heritage value, both for locals and tourists—but market forces prevailed, and forced the kiln to close. 23 years later, will the same fate befall the last two kilns?

Compared to JTC’s proposed CleanTech industrial park, the ceramics painstakingly produced from the dragon kilns are clearly not as commercially viable. Also, although the two dragon kilns have received the NHB heritage plaque, the Straits Times reported in 2011 that such heritage plaques do not ensure the sites’ preservation. Only those gazetted as national monuments or UNESCO World Heritage Sites are protected from eventual redevelopment.

In light of this, a group of artists have banded together to organise the Awaken the Dragon community art project in the months leading up to January 2013. Supported by volunteers and facilitators, the artists have been busy conducting clay workshops for people of all ages, and in various languages (including dialects and sign language!) in community centres, schools, offices, museums, old folks’ homes and even private homes.

"The workshops have been going very well. Participants, many who are playing with clay for the first time, enjoy the opportunity and are making wonderful artworks," said Woon Tien Wei, 37, on behalf of co-organisers Post-Museum. "They are also very excited about the festival and can't wait to see the firing of the dragon."

Through this participatory process, the organisers hope to increase people’s appreciation for ceramics, the unique glazing of wood-fired clay, and the rich history of Singapore’s dragon kilns—while they still exist.

“We want to tell the story of the dragon kilns—and we also want people to make something while the story is being told,” said co-organiser and ceramist Michelle Lim, 29. “When you do that, the tactile quality of clay goes into your memories. We want people to be able to tell their children, and their children’s children about this.”

“The only thing that lasts longer than ceramics—is a story.”

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

Awaken the Dragon is a not-for-profit community art project which aims to invite 3000 members of the public to make a collective clay sculpture, which will be fired in the Guan Huat Dragon Kiln in a 3-day festival in January 2013. The project is organized by Michelle Lim and Post-Museum, supported by the National Arts Council, Arts Fund, Central Singapore Community Development Council, National Museum of Singapore, Australia High Commission, KLEI, Focus Ceramic Services and other supporters. For more information about their workshops, click here.

Pictures from Awaken The Dragon Kiln Facebook page.

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

References:

“An echo of the past in Singapore's hills” - The Singapore Free Press, 24 September 1949

“Ceramics Process”, “Jurong's new giant complex”, “Factory uses latest methods” - The Straits Times, 12 February 1965, Pages 10-12

“'Dragon' kiln may be spared” - The Straits Times, 24 June 1988, Page 26

“龙窑几番新 陶艺世代传” - 联合早报 (Lianhe Zaobao), 8 January 1989

“Dying trades” - Straits Times, 9 August 1989

“‘Hidden dragons’ to get heritage marker” - Straits Times, 16 October 2011

What are these questions about AIM (and the PAP) which the public is asking? There are many but I feel the main question is this one:

Did not the 14 PAP town councils realise the conflict of interests in awarding the contract to a PAP-owned company? If it did, why did it still go ahead and award the contract to AIM? If it did not, why did it not? Is it possible that 14 town council chairmen, and the PAP which comprises experienced politicians and distinguished lawyers and businessmen and businesswomen, were not aware of this conflict of interests?

This question leads to others – such as: In awarding the contract to a PAP-owned company, with a termination clause which empowers AIM to end its services to the town councils, does this not leave the residents at the mercy of this private entity?

How is it that a software, developed presumably with the money collected from residents, is then sold to a PAP-owned company which would benefit financially from it – leading to another question of whether it is right for residents to effectively and inadvertently (and unknowingly) support a political party which they might not actually support?

Donations or financial benefits to political parties (or to any entity, in fact) must be stated upfront, openly and clearly, especially when public funds are involved. AIM stood to profit from the contract, and being a PAP-owned company, the PAP thus also stood to benefit. But being a political party, it must be open with residents and inform residents that such a sale will or may benefit the party financially. Given that on average the opposition parties attracted 40 per cent of the popular vote in each constituency during the last elections, the question of the PAP benefiting financially from such a deal is a pertinent one – for not every resident would want to pay towards financially benefiting the PAP, directly or indirectly.

The termination clause also throws up a similar question: the computer system was presumably developed with funds collected from the public (or residents) and is supposed to be used for the benefit of the residents. However, with the termination clause, a new town council with a new composition of members which takes over might not be given access to the system – as indeed happened in this Aljunied case. How then do residents benefit from having paid towards such a system?

Were residents explicitly informed that only PAP-controlled town councils will be given access to use the computer system, which was developed with the residents’ money?

Would this not thus mean, in effect, that if residents chose to vote a non-PAP team or candidates to run their estate, residents would or could be “punished” by having to put up with first the withdrawal of the computer system, and second, to put up with inconveniences?

Contrary to what Dr Teo said, such an arrangement – to give AIM the ability to terminate its services on the basis of a change in the composition of the town council management – does not serve residents’ interests at all.

As mentioned, there are many questions to be answered by the PAP and AIM – how is it that a company with a $2 paid-up capital, with no prior experience in running such a system, a company apparently without any staff or office space or even a decent email account facility (despite being “in business for 20 years”) is awarded a contract worth not a small sum of money?

How is it that AIM was awarded the contract even though it submitted its bid one week after the closing date?

Why were there, apparently, such scant information given to potential bidders in the tender notice?

How is it that “being backed by the PAP” is a tender requirement, or an advantage in bidding for such a contract? Is the PAP a renowned expert, or made up of experts, in such IT systems? To cite “being backed by the PAP” as an advantage in awarding the contract is in fact a very questionable thing to do, especially when one of the bidders is indeed “fully owned” by the PAP.

Ms Fu and Mr Puthucheary have completely missed the issues, as you can see – and they are serious matters of public interests.

I am therefore quite aghast that the minister and the MP apparently do not see the serious issues involved here, and instead seem to suggest that the matter is simply one of whose responsibility it is to run or manage the town council.

The computer system is, presumably, being used by the other PAP town councils presently. If and when any of these town councils should come into the hands of any of the opposition parties, residents’ interests would again be put in jeopardy if and when AIM chooses again to exercise its termination clause.

The question is not one of who terminates the service first – for the termination clause allows AIM and the town council to do so anyway. But being a PAP-owned company, it is hard to fathom that AIM would be or would want to be of service to opposition town councils; or that an opposition town council would want to engage the services of a PAP-owned company.

The question therefore is not about this. Terminating the service to opposition town councils could be taken as a given.

The main question is one of an apparent conflict of interests in awarding the contract for such a service to a company owned by a political party with a vested interest in the running of town councils.

Ms Fu, Mr Puthucheary and Dr Teo Ho Pin surely couldn’t have missed this point.

So, why not address these matters head-on, instead of obfuscating the matter by harping on irrelevant points?

To answer Ms Fu's question which she raised in her note - "Why take aim at AIM?" - the answer is: Isn't it obvious?

Doing the Right Thing.

Many a time we have been reminded by our leaders that we must do what is right. This is because we want fairness for all.

The recent controversy of town councils (TCs) allowing the ruling political party company (AIM) to buy over and manage the IT software programs of TCs, beg a few questions, especially when the company may not serve ‘due to material change’, an opposition ward.

This soft ware is developed using public funds by town councils. Is it right for the TCs to give up ownership in this manner?

For the good of all Singaporeans the administration of public institutions like TCs should be seamless when transiting after each Election.

So did the Town Councils as public institutions do the right thing, selling to a company owned by a political party with its own agenda?

People are also puzzled by why the software programme was sold to a dormant $2 company owned by the ruling political party. This company obviously could not manage and sub the job back to NCS.

Another question asked: the TCs have been successfully using the IT program supported by expertise from NCS, the developer of the system. Why introduce a ‘middle man’? Surely, if the IT software program needs an upgrade or redevelopment it is better the TCs, as ‘user’ should be working directly with the developer eg NCS. The TCs already have the experience getting the first software done.

NEXT, did this arrangement having the middleman raise costs for the TCs, which their constituents will ultimately bear? As AIM is now the owner, is it going to pay the costs for any upgrade or new software development? How much is AIM then going to charge the TCs, which now is at the mercy of AIM?

As TCs are public institutions, citizens are certainly uncomfortable with political party owned companies transacting with the TCs

Much more clarity and transparency are needed.

Until that happens, the ruling PAP is perched on the cliff edge. All it needs is another sex or impropriety scandal during the interim. With one more resignation, the public anger may boil over to reach a critical mass.

In any democratic society with a free press, one would expect the mainstream print and audio-visual media to be saturated with critical articles, demanding satisfactory responses from the prime minister downwards.  Well, readers know more than me that this is not the case in Singapore.

Furthermore, in a democratic society, an issue attracting such a high level of public concern on governance would naturally propel the ruling party, for its own selfish electoral survival at the next elections, be it general election or by-election, to do any one of, if not all, of the following:

(1) The PAP should at least admit to 'errors of judgement', dismantle AIM, return the profits, revert to the pre-AIM status quo, and resolve the Aljunied Town Council controversy;

(2) Agree to reveal all similar commercial vehicles controlled by the PAP, or its nominees, and subject them  to public scrutiny;

(3) Ensure an appropriate resignation of at least one senior minister to satisfy the public demands for accountability;

(4) Arrange a special parliamentary session for an open debate on the issue; and

(5) Order a public independent inquiry with remit to investigate not just the issues arising from the AIM saga, but all similar institutions. The inquiry should have the power to summon witnesses and demand materials; it shall have the power to coerce the co-operation of all involved. The inquiry should be televised and a report should be ready within six months.

But Singapore is not a democracy as is understood in any other democratic society elsewhere. These expectations, at least for the time being, can only remain the aspirations of the people.

However, as the issue cannot be wished away by the PAP, what next?

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

The above article was written before 9 January, when the Prime Minister called for a review of the AIM transaction and "the fundamental nature of town councils" by the Ministry for National Development.

What PM Lee could have done

The problem with defamation suits is that they represent asymmetrical power at its worst: the monetary and personal costs of fighting the case in court are disproportional given that the government has close to unlimited resources. In that sense, the mere threat of a lawsuit is a sufficiently large deterrent to shut down most commentators regardless of the merit of their statements, because people individually have much less to gain and much more to lose in court. Defamation suits are far from the only means by which the government can engage and reason with dissent. PM Lee could have had his press secretary publish a letter to clarify the facts publicly, and let the facts do the work. He could have spoken up against claims he perceived to be untrue in an interview or a speech. He could have easily drawn attention to the accounts themselves to prove the accusations wrong, if they are indeed so. Any of these responses would have lent his attempt to facilitate a ‘national conversation’ more credibility; instead he chose to do what would only convince the public promises of reform and engagement are, once again, mere gestural political tactics.

Some habits die hard

To understand this uniquely-PAP habit of suing for defamation, it is instructive to go back to an interview between Lee Hsien Loong and Charlie Rose in 2010:

LEE HSIEN LOONG:  We are very sensitive.    

CHARLIE ROSE: Tell me about the sensitivity.    

LEE HSIEN LOONG: The whole of our system is founded on a basic concept of meritocracy.  You are where you are because you are the best man for the job and not because of your connections or your parents or your relatives. And if anybody doubts that I as prime minister is here not because I am the best man for the job but because my father fixed it or my wife runs Temasek because I put her there and not because she’s the best woman for the job, then my entire credibility and moral authority is destroyed.  I’m not fit to be where I am. And it’s a fundamental issue of fitness to govern.  First you must have the moral right, then you can make the right decisions.  It’s a basic Confucian precept.    

CHARLIE ROSE: Only when you have to moral right can you make --  

LEE HSIEN LOONG: Then can you govern and make the country right. And in Singapore people expect that.  So if there’s any doubt that this is so, and people believe that I’m there because my father fixed it or the whole system is just make-believe, then the system will come down.   It’s not tenable. If it’s true, it better be proven and I better be kicked out.  If it’s not true, it better also be proven to be not true and the matter put to rest.    

CHARLIE ROSE: So if some journalist writes about nepotism and you think it’s not true --  

LEE HSIEN LOONG:  Well, then we sue him!   (LAUGHTER)  

CHARLIE ROSE:  Yes, you do.

What we can distil from the above conversation are many long-held assumptions held by the establishment, for whom PM Lee happens to be the spokesperson in this interview.

The contradictions of meritocracy as the basis for political legitimacy

The first among these is the assumption that political legitimacy comes from “being the best man for the job”. When PM Lee speaks of the “moral right” to govern, he is referring to the moral authority of a government that confers it political legitimacy. In the case of Singapore, the basis for this moral authority and political legitimacy is meritocracy, a principle that has been enshrined as the only viable principle of governance, repeatedly justified on the grounds of our “unique” vulnerability and resource scarcity.

Appealing as it is as a principle, meritocracy is, to quote Amartya Sen, “essentially underdefined”. It is nothing more than “the preferred view of a society” at a given point in time. The merit of actions, and derivatively that of persons performing those actions, cannot be judged independent of the way we understand the nature of a good society. To the extent that the incumbents maintain ideological hegemony over what constitutes “merit”, or hamper public deliberation on what constitutes good society (by means of petty defamation lawsuits, for instance), the internal contradictions of meritocracy as a principle of governance will persist to engender instability to that very idea.

In democratic elections, the people are given the power to decide what counts as “merit” and who possesses it. Insofar as the PAP’s claim to meritocracy is not reflected in its approach to inter-party competition and competitive electoral processes, any claim that its elected leader is “the best man for the job” opens itself to questions and skepticism from the public. Such double standards further weaken the justifiability of meritocracy as a principle of governance.

The upshot is this: assumption that political legitimacy can rest almost entirely on the principle of meritocracy is a questionable one. More than that, it has inspired among our political leaders a sort of hypersensitivity to dissent that is quite uncalled for. This acute sensitivity is perhaps best expressed by PM Lee himself in the interview: “…if anybody doubts that I as prime minister is here not because I am the best man for the job… then my entire credibility and moral authority is destroyed.” From the establishment’s point of view, it follows that any doubt of the incumbent’s political legitimacy, especially those that question the incumbent’s personal “moral right” to govern, cannot be tolerated.

The tenuous nature of PAP’s political legitimacy

When it comes to defending its political legitimacy, the PAP appears to be guided by a simple, in fact simplistic, political calculus: If limiting freedom of expression is what it takes to keep its legitimacy secure, it is that which must be done. If it can prove an attack on its moral reputation is untrue, it would go to the courts to make that point. In doing so the government loses as it wins.

As Cherian George pointed out in a recent article, defamation law was never a convincing test of truth. When a defendant loses a defamation suit, it merely implies a failure to substantiate allegations to the satisfaction of the court, not necessarily that what was asserted were untruths. Discerning Singaporeans will not be convinced, solely on the result of a defamation suit, of the falsity of Alex Au’s claims against the official account. On the contrary, in trying to defend its legitimacy through such blunt weapons as defamation suits, it has demonstrated an intolerance that reminds Singaporeans once more that nothing has changed post May-2011.

If the accusations were untrue, this government has also lost the opportunity to demonstrate a clearer perception of truth produced by “collision with error” [1] within the space of public deliberation. To wield the defamation law against unsubstantiated attacks each time it arises betrays insecurities that draw our attention only to the tenuous nature of the PAP’s political legitimacy.

What the PAP needs: an immunity to taking offence

What the establishment should come to realize is that political legitimacy comes not just from the moral reputation of political leaders, a meritocratic system, and consent expressed through regular elections. Political legitimacy comes from public reason and democratic approval, the latter of which will be granted only if the public believes that the establishment earns its electoral mandate under conditions of genuine, unfettered discourse. Trust and social capital do not come from government-led “national conversations”, much less from the reactive wielding of the defamation law.

Without a more tolerant stance on what constitutes permissible speech, this society’s ability to direct its own future through meaningful contention with itself is unnecessarily stymied. It is time the establishment realizes that control of the media, restriction of political discussion to political parties, cooptation of civil society, and uneven access to information and resources between political parties… are all inimical to the long-term political legitimacy it is trying to secure.

Discursive participation and deliberation must proceed on the basis that no one should be penalized or excluded for expressing views that might challenge or even offend the establishment. To this end, the least that our political leaders can do is this: develop an immunity to taking offence. In Rowan Atkinson’s (our dear old Mr Bean) words:

We need to develop our immunity to taking offence, so that we can deal with the issues that perfectly justified criticism can raise. Our priority should be to deal with the message, not the messenger… If we want a robust society, we need more robust dialogue that must include the right to insult or offend… the freedom to be inoffensive is no freedom at all.

And if this is too much to ask of the PAP, the day will come when people stop asking for change – which, by the way, is precisely what we are starting to see.

-----------

[1]: “… the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” – JS Mill, On Liberty (1869).

I am not a lawyer but I assume that most rational people understand that laws governing sexual behavior are based on the principle of ‘consent.’ Hence as long as an act is performed by two ‘consenting’ adults (usually anyone considered 18-years old and above) it is legal. However, if the law deems one of the parties unable to provide consent it is illegal, hence the prohibitions against sex with children and the mentally disabled.

However, this does not seem to be the case in Singapore. As Professor Thio Li-Ann so famously said in 2007, during the debate on the repeal of 377A, “We must reject the argument from consent.” She argued that the argument ‘from consent’ was ‘morally bankrupt’.

Say what you like about Professor Thio’s position on 377A, but it seems that the laws in Singapore agree with her. If you look at the difference between 377A (illegal for two consenting adults to have sex in the privacy of the bedroom) and the immunity from marital rape (legal for one adult to rape another as long as he’s the husband of the woman he’s raping), consent is clearly not applied as the founding principle of the law. We also need to ask if our laws governing sexual behavior are relevant to modern life.

The best place to answer these questions might be to look at a list of countries that have made marital or spousal rape a criminal offense and compare it with a list of countries that permit same-sex sexual activity.

The first thing that is clear is that the principle of ‘consent’ applies in the major economies of the world (US and Europe). In these countries, same-sex sexual activity is legal and marital rape is a criminal offense.

The argument that many so called “conservatives” have used is that Singapore is an “Asian” society and Western standards are not necessarily applicable. So, we look closer to home. Hong Kong, which is the closest rival to Singapore in terms of its economic development, permits same-sex sexual activity and outlaws spousal rape.

There are of course countries in the region that either don’t permit same-sex, sexual activity or make marital rape a crime. India’s Supreme Court famously declared same-sex sexual activity  unconstitutional. However, the Indian Penal Code does not prosecute marital rape (though in light of the recent national outrage against rape, things may change).

Malaysia famously prosecuted a former deputy prime minister for ‘illegal’ homosexual activity.

In this case, Malaysia argues that it is predominantly an ‘Islamic’ society with strict prohibitions against homosexuality; hence same-sex sexual activity is illegal in Malaysia. This appears to be true in the majority of Islamic nations.

In the ASEAN Region, Singapore and Brunei stand out as the two countries that ban same-sex sexual activity and do not recognize marital rape as a crime. Once again, Brunei argues that it is an Islamic society and Sharia principles are the foundation of its legal code. Singapore by contrast is a secular state and does not have religion as its founding principles.

The key argument against the repeal of 377A has always been that Singapore is a conservative society and it is against public morality. However, the question of what or whose “public morality” our laws are based on has never been discussed. The situation with marital rape in Singapore is a curious one. In many ways, Singapore is like the major economies around the world. Like women in these regions, women in Singapore enjoy a high degree of legal rights, especially when it comes to the ownership of property. However, if you look at the laws governing marital rape, it seems that the one property a woman has to surrender is her body.

Singapore, as we’ve often heard, is no longer a third-world backwater. Surely it’s time we brought our legal code up to that fact?