There's no confusion because that's how life is. My husband is a businessman. He has friends who are business partners and friends who are clients. When they do business, he wears his businessman hat. When they go out for drinks, he wears the friend hat. That's how we all keep sane.

But the government is telling us that we can only have one identity. That if we join a political party, we are politicians everywhere we go and whatever we do. If we are a member of any group, that becomes our be-all and end-all identity.

They tell us that we cannot speak at any functions as ourselves. Apparently, there's no longer such a thing as "me". I have become my position as part of a larger organisation.

We are also sold on the idea that any contact at all with an opposition political party immediately makes us 'political', and makes everything we do 'politicised'.

According to this logic, if I'm a member of a society that's devoted to the welfare of oysters, and I'm invited to speak at an opposition party event, that immediately 'politicises' my oyster-loving society! Our oysters are now anti-PAP! Now when we champion for the rights of oysters, we might be subject to ministers calling us up to threaten to hold a free-for-all oyster buffet!

---------

But what is even worse is that apparently, these standards don't hold if you're a member of the PAP. But as sensible people know, you can't have it both ways.

Let's say we all decide to swallow this koyok, that if we join a political party or any other organisation, we can't wear any other hats. In this scenario, I'll forever be the "oyster girl". Fine.

Then let that be the case for everyone, not just me. No member of the PAP can divorce their PAP identity from anything else that they do. If they sit on the board of directors of a company, then they are there in their capacities as PAP members or MPs or ministers. The company then, necessarily, becomes affiliated with the PAP. If bad advice is given, then the PAP has given the company bad advice.

If a PAP member serves oysters at her child's  birthday celebration, she has to expect my Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Oysters to complain that she's politicising her son's birthday by using the PAP to endorse the eating of shellfish.

From now on, if we hear of any PAP member claiming to speak "in my personal capacity" at any event, let's call him or her out on it. Point out that his or her identity as a PAP member politicises everything, since that is how 'politicising' works. If this is how they want to play it, then everyone can play at the same game.

-------

I'd like to end on a philosophical note. We are all bigger than ourselves. We all hold multiple identities within us. This makes us human, and it makes us capable of living with other human beings. It allows us to identify with others, and to take on various roles that multiply the good we can contribute to the society we live in.

We are mature enough to understand and accept that people have public and private lives, public and personal selves.

It's insulting for our political leaders to try to stifle our participation in multiple organisations by saying that we can't be both politicians and caring human beings. And, of course, it's even more insulting how they claim that this rule doesn't apply to their own party members.

The PAP should take a leaf from Walt Whitman's book (below) and acknowledge what all Singaporeans already do - that we are a mature people who can wear different hats at different times. Even if those positions sometimes appear to be in conflict. After all, sons can teach their fathers and good leaders follow, not lead.

Do I contradict myself?

Very well then I contradict myself,

(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

- "Song of Myself", from Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman

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

Angela Oon writes here in her personal capacity. (Yes, there really is such a thing.)

She tries to write in simple language that is accessible and unpretentious. She agrees with Clarence Thomas that "there are simple ways to put important things in language that's accessible".

The biggest example of such crossing from one side to the other, as it were, takes place in Singapore every five years. This is when grassroots volunteers exchange their apolitical status for a very political one in support of the ruling PAP at election time. You can see these volunteers at the PAP rallies every night, all decked out in the party’s white uniform, with the lightning badge pinned to their shirts.

In fact, the umbrella organisation which these grassroots outfits fall under is the People’s Association (PA), which is supposedly apolitical. But this claim was called into question by the revelation by the very senior member of the government, Lee Kuan Yew, in 2009, when he said, referring to what the Chinese government had learnt from Singapore:

"They discover that the People's Action Party (PAP) has only a small office in Bedok. But everywhere they go, they see the PAP – in the RCs (residents' committees), CCCs (citizens' consultative committees), and the CCs (community clubs)."

The RCs, CCCs, and the CCs are the grassroots organisations which permeate all our housing estates.

It is worth noting that Lee did not say, “But everywhere they go, they see the Government…” but that he said instead, “But everywhere they go, they see the PAP…” – the PAP being a political party, and how the political, by Lee’s own admission, has permeated the supposedly apolitical grassroots organisations.

The line, clearly, has been crossed – and crossed a long time ago, in fact.

Nizam Ismail’s unacceptable behaviour, it seems, was that he participated in two events – the first Hong Lim Park protest against the population White Paper; and speaking at a forum held by the opposition Workers’ Party (WP). These had led, Nizam says, to whispers from government ministers to AMP about the Government’s unhappiness about it. The fear is that Nizam had used the assistance the government gives to AMP to “to carry out political agendas.” At least that is what the fear seems to be, as articulated by the minister for Muslim affairs.

If, however, taking part in the activities of a political party makes one a suspect of having “political agendas”, the others – supportive of the ruling party – could be suspected of having similar “political agendas”, whatever that means.

[By the way, the Government has not explained or clarified what it means by “political agendas” or “political ends” when it accused NGOs and activists of this.]

Malminderjit Singh is one such example. He is the president of the Young Sikh Association. His other involvement includes having volunteered with SINDA, the self-help group for the Indian community (and which receives government funding), and in fact was the “recruitment head” for the SINDA Youth Club in 2010-2013; and as a panel member of the Young Changemakers of the National Youth Council.

In October 2012, Singh was elected chairman of the PAP Policy Forum.

One can’t help but see the similarities between Ismail’s case and that of Singh’s. Yet, one is accused of “crossing a line” while the other is not.

Where indeed is this mysterious “line” we speak of? It seems that one could indeed be an activist and participate in politics – as long as the politics one is involved in is in support of the ruling party, or its approved entities, or candidates.

Here is an example.

UN Women, formerly known as Unifem, was created in 2010 as a United Nations “entity for gender equality and the empowerment of women.”

The president of the UN Women National Committee Singapore – or UN Women (Singapore) - is Trina Liang-Lin. Her resume is an impressive one indeed, as you can see here. Nonetheless, it could be argued that she is best known as the president of UN Women.

In the 2011 presidential elections, Liang-Lin "was one of 10 individuals chosen to speak at a rally in support for Presidential candidate and now President Tony Tan of the Republic of Singapore.” From news reports, she was identified mostly as the president of UN Women, such as this one by My Paper.

Liang-Lin spent a part of her rally speech focused on women’s issues, which she undoubtedly champions as president of UN Women. She also unequivocally urged Singaporeans “to give a strong endorsement to Dr Tony Tan.”

Here is a video of her speech, hosted on the “officeofdrtonytan” Youtube channel:

{youtube}5tUQWzBPNf8|600|450|0{/youtube}

Did Liang-Lin cross the line from social activism to political activism? Apparently, she did.

Sometimes, crossing that line can be a dangerous thing.

In the abovementioned Straits Times report, the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Lawrence Wong, was reported to have said:

In particular, please note the second point the minister made – that “we may end up with… ethnic-based groups being used for political purposes.”

It is a point made by the Director of Corporate Communications at MCCY in a letter to the Straits Times forum page on 29 April:

"If any ethnic community were to organise itself politically, other communities would respond in kind. This would pull our different communities apart and destroy our racial harmony."

This brings us back to the Tony Tan presidential campaign again.

“Presidential hopeful Tony Tan has been endorsed by the Federation of Tan Clan Associations, which has over 10,000 members, in his bid to become Singapore's third elected president,” the news reported in August 2011.

The president of the federation said,

“I would strongly urge all chairmen of Tan clan associations to call on their members to support and vote for (Tony Tan).”

Now, recap what Minister Wong said – about ethnic-based groups pursuing “a partisan political agenda”. This, clearly, was what the ethnic-based Tan clan federation was doing, championing a “partisan political agenda” in exhorting – very publicly – its members to vote for a particular political candidate.

It is a dangerous thing to do indeed – just consider the consequences if there were non-Chinese candidates in that presidential election. What would they have done to garner similar support from their ethnic communities? It is a no-brainer.

Yet, there was not a squeak from anyone from the Government then – including Wong – warning the federation or Tony Tan himself of “crossing the line”. In fact, the federation’s actions were more serious than perhaps other instances because the federation is an ethnic-based organisation, the very type which Wong warned of getting involved in “partisan political agendas”.

So, what am I saying here?

Well, two things.

One, that when we speak of “crossing a line”, as the Straits Times did, let us be fair and report factually and as completely as possible. The Straits Times report on 4 May is a thoroughly and terribly skewed one, ignoring the clear examples mentioned here. Clearly, “crossing the line” is not limited to critics or organisations critical of the government. Many who are supportive of the government have also “crossed the line”.

The Straits Times’ reporters really need to widen their perspectives, and inform themselves better before churning out kindergarten-standard pieces which do not befit a national broadsheet. Instead, they are an embarrassment.

Second, and this is the more important point: in the current discourse about “crossing the line”, are we really interested in the issue? Or are we more interested in politicising the issue? There is a difference – for if we are interested in how one should not “cross the line”, then we should look at ALL incidences, instead of selecting a few examples to skew the discourse. But if we are only interested in politicising the issue, then there is no point to the discourse.

And politicising the issue is – sadly – what seems to be the aim here. For there seems to be a certain hypocrisy in the selective condemnation of some, and not of others which, invariably, seems to include those who cross the line in support of the ruling party or its approved entities and personalities, even when their doing so has serious and dangerous consequences for our society as a whole.

So, what – really - are we interested in here: demonising critics of the Government, or do we want an honest discourse on a serious matter?

PS: This writer has written to the MCCY to ask for its position on the Tan clan federation support for Dr Tony Tan during the presidential election. He has yet to receive a response from the ministry.

In a press release issued earlier this month, the organizers also put forth three demands in tandem with their efforts to end the atrocities and human rights violations committed against Eelam Tamilians:

In standing with the international community who are outraged by this miscarriage of justice, there is a need to put forth 3 demands:

1. That the internally displaced persons who are detained in various camps in Sri Lanka against their own will, with concerns of safety and security for women and children especially, be allowed and assisted to be relocated to their own lands.

2. That a United Nations (UN) led international probe be launched to investigate the alleged war crimes by the Sri Lankan army as well as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

3. That the Government of Singapore, being a respected voice in the international community, speak up on the side of right and justice and issue a statement in support of demands 1 and 2 above.

It was definitely interesting to witness a group of silent protesters, sitting on newspapers in an almost desolate park, wearing grim but determined expressions. I must say that just witnessing this noiseless assembly was an invaluable experience that spoke volumes about the fact that even in Singapore – with its fast-paced life, high standards of living, and increasingly expensive costs of living – we have truly altruistic people, who lend support to such causes.

I was most heartened by two middle-aged women who could not sit (due to knee problems), but still joined the cause and stood for a good hour, in silence.

The oath of silence ended at 5pm, with the group greeting each other with the event title (“Speak in Tamil and love the Tamil people”). I chatted with some of the participants and discovered why they felt convicted to take part in this event:

One particularly impassioned participant, Ms Sivasakthy, said that she could not simply stand and watch while “our people suffer.” She added, “We should take the initiative to lend support to such causes. We should work together to make sure that the Eelam Tamilians get their freedom. They (Eelam Tamilians) have no hope – they live with a constant phobia – it is impossible to live like that! They need their independence.”

“I feel that Singaporeans – especially the youth – are not aware of such international atrocities, because they don’t teach it in school, and sometimes, even their parents don’t know about it. The news too is a contributing factor to the lack of awareness – newspapers play the blame game of who is responsible for the war, and, in the process, fail to highlight the true plight of the Eelam Tamilians. So we can’t blame the people. They only act based on the news they receive. So we have to take it upon ourselves to educate others. We have to teach the young ones to respect humans”, Ms Sivasakthy declared.

A young Singaporean, Ms Gouthami, an undergraduate pursuing a degree in accounting and finance at the Singapore Institute of Management, brought her entire family along in support of the Eelam Tamilians. “I have always wanted to do something for the Tamil people – my people,” she said. “And I feel very happy that I can contribute to the discourse, with my family.”

Ms Gouthami admitted that she expected more people to join an event supporting such a deserving cause, but opined that Singaporeans are perhaps not informed about such issues and events because local news programs fail to inform audiences of them. She added that the situation in Sri Lanka is, in her opinion, not holistically covered by local media outlets. “Tens of thousands of people have died,” she said, “and they should get justice. No one should be a slave to another. We should lend our support to humans who are oppressed.”

Mr Balachander, a foreign worker from Tamil Nadu, took leave from work to join the event. He said that he felt heartened to see Singaporeans taking up this cause, as they (foreign workers) are unable to do so (due to local laws that bar non-citizens from organizing any type of protest/demonstration).

However, Mr Balachander also expressed his concerns about why it has taken Singaporeans so long to call for change. He mused that while an event of this caliber is definitely a step forward, it is confusing as to why most Singaporeans are generally apathetic about this issue.

These comments got me thinking. Are the majority of Singaporeans hesitant to support such causes? If so, why? Why doesn’t the government of Singapore lend its voice in support of the oppressed Tamilians in Sri Lanka? Why doesn’t local mainstream media provide extensive coverage to the situation in Sri Lanka? Is the abundance of news sources distorting the reality of what is happening in that country? Speaking of which, what is happening in Sri Lanka?

…to Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka has been entangled in a civil war for the past two decades – a war which has claimed the lives of more than 64,000 people (mostly minority Eelam Tamilians), and displaced over one million people (with 80 per cent of people being Eelam Tamilians), since 1983. Relations between the Sinhalese and the Tamil people have been strained since the nation’s independence, and the cruel civil war served to separate these two groups further, and it was the Tamil-speaking civilians who bore the brunt.

The war officially ended in 2009, with total victory for the Sri Lankan government. Civilian casualties are estimated to vary from 6,500 to 40,000 – in addition to the 70,000 Sri Lankans killed towards the end of the war.

The government of Sri Lanka has yet to release an official casualty figure – evading international calls for accountability and rehabilitation of displaced civilians. On top of this, there have been continued human rights violations on civilians by both the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE (for more information on the extent of these violations, click HERE).

Channel 4’s two-part documentary, ‘Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields’, served as a trailblazer in raising awareness about the continued abuse of civilians at the hands of the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Gruesome war footage that captured the violence that unfolds in the lives of the ordinary induced a greater understanding on ground realities and has outraged the international community.

There have been calls by various human rights organizations across the world, for the two warring factions in Sri Lanka to put an end to such oppression. And the organizers and the participants of yesterday’s events have joined the ranks of these concerned communities, in calling for reforms.

But how is observing silence helping the cause? Shouldn’t we speak up for displaced Eelam Tamilians? What is the significance of an oath of silence?

The Significance of Silence

I must add here that I, too, undertook an oath of silence from 5pm on the 26th of April to 2pm on the 27th of April. Unfortunately for me, I had already planned to meet a few friends for dinner, and forced myself to go on with my plans. I did consider abandoning my oath, in favor of being able to converse with my companions, but ultimately chose to honor my vow despite foreseeable difficulties in communication.

And it was difficult. The first few hours were fun enough, but my patience soon ran thin when I realized that my limited knowledge of sign language was not helping at all.

I couldn’t converse fast enough (my friends had to wait for me to write a response to a question), I couldn’t order food, I couldn’t voice my opinions, I couldn’t express my emotions.

The next morning, I couldn’t, to my utter despair, even tell my mum that I needed five more minutes of sleep (I do suspect she recognized my frantic hand gestures but chose to ignore them, but that is another story). Communicating – or rather, trying to communicate – without speech is terribly infuriating. Especially, if you’re a chatterbox like me.

And I’d be lying if I said that I didn’t utter a single word (or three) during my vow of silence. The words, “oh”, “wait”, and “bye” did escape my lips. And this, to me, was much more infuriating – the fact that I wasn’t able to strictly keep to my vow.

Regardless, it was with much relief that I broke my vow after 21 hours of (almost) silence. I can finally speak and, most importantly, be heard!

And this is the significance of silence. If I myself feel such a strong sense of liberation after breaking my self-imposed oath of silence, how will the Eelam Tamilians – who don’t even have that basic right to speak and be heard – feel? They are not heard, no matter how much, or how loud, they shout. They go through far, far worse: losing their families, their homes, being physically, mentally, and sexually abused. And yet, they are not heard.

This is precisely why we should lend our voices to human rights causes such as the Eelam Tamil people issue. This is not an issue just for Tamilians, or Indians, or Singaporeans. We need to stand in solidarity with such oppressed people in our capacity as world citizens – as fellow members of the human race. Our geographical and mental distance, or detachment, from the issue should not factor into whether we advocate for the rights of others. Humanitarianism, justice, and equality are universal values, which should be upheld by every human, regardless of race, religion, or nationality.

So now I will exercise my duties as a world citizen. I will speak. I will do my part in raising awareness on this poignant issue. I will definitely be signing the petition demanding the relocation of internally displaced Eelam Tamilians into their own lands; a UN-led investigation into alleged war crimes by the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE; and for urging the government of Singapore to speak up on the side of right and justice.

Will you?

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

More pictures here, on Ravi Philemon's Facebook page.

Here's a video of the event:

{youtube}W0sv_5U6M5s|600|450|0{/youtube}

The coincidence of time and space seems uncanny. The cheerful character of StandUpFor.SG stands in glaring contrast to the protest’s strident indignation. These juxtapositions piqued my curiosity. Hence, on Monday evening two days before the picnic and protest, I was seated amongst the prospective volunteers.

Entering the volunteer briefing, I clutched a set of questions: Why this time and place, especially for a mere picnic? Who funds the event? Are there any significant stakeholders giving this project a leg up?

The volunteer briefing clarified a few things. First, Hong Lim Park will be more than a congregation of picnic-goers. There will be a picnic. There will be more. At the organisers’ request to retain the element of surprise, I have to withhold the details.

This also explains the registration fee of $8. The money will partly defray the event’s expenses. For the group's 2012 National Day movement that invaded train carriages, urging people to cheerfully give up seats to pregnant mums and the elderly, this team of friends and colleagues ran the event at a loss. In a similar vein, the May Day gathering at Hong Lim Park has not benefited from governmental sponsorship. Moreover, the organising team does not hold monolithic political views. When speaking to the team members, I learnt that they are split on matters such as minimum wages.

So what is the bottomline for StandUpFor.SG on Labour Day? The organisers want to carve out a space for “powerful conversations” which nourish trust. Trust, in turn, supplements rest, a rare gem as we labour from day to day.

“I feel at rest when I know people have got my back,” a volunteer shared during the briefing session.

Recently, this movement has had to watch its back.

It was not a smooth glide putting together this May Day event. Hong Lim Park has a political cachet. This has ushered in scrutiny from many parties, from the government to activists. Authorities have interrogated the organisers for a clearly-stated purpose. For the National Day courtesy movement, StandUpFor.SG ran into difficulties while negotiating with SMRT. Now, other concerned Singaporeans are harshly suspicious towards this movement.

Tomorrow will be the day of reckoning: the juxtaposition of two fora, each with its own distinct tenor but both seeking to whittle apathy in our republic.

StandUpFor.SG craddles the vision of nourishing our sense of community. It is not vacuous frivolity. For Labour Day, a group of Singaporeans have backed this grand vision with deliberation and dedication. Owing to the sizeable logistics, I can understand why picking another day and venue after receiving all the recent flak is untenable.

Towards the end of the briefing, one prospective volunteer raised her hand. She asked what concrete result, what specific endpoint StandUpFor.SG hopes to achieve.

With a convicted smile that was tampered with fatigue, the organiser replied, “I don’t know. Let’s see what people choose and create.”

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

Visit the two Facebook pages for the two different events on Labour Day at Hong Lim Park:

StandUPFor.SG Facebook page.

Population White Paper protest: "For A Better Singapore" Facebook page.

The AGC replied to A&G on 16 May that it had no objection to this. However, the AGC said it did “not necessarily agree” with the CPE’s position on two points, namely:

- That the Government’s presence before the Court is necessary.

- That it would be “just and convenient” to determine the questions arising from the case, with the Government.

At the heart of the case is the question of whether a public body, such as the CPE which is a statutory board under the Ministry of Education, can sue an individual for libel or defamation.

There is also the issue of whether it is fair for public bodies to use public funds for this, while individuals may not have such resources.

In her submissions to the Court, Ms Han said, “Because the actions and policies of public bodies have such high impact and stakes, it is unacceptable that they can silence criticism through fear in the form of litigation.

“My constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression protects the ordinary citizen against such potential abuse, and because public bodies have more than enough means to defend themselves and their reputations in the first place, my constitutional right should be upheld against being sued for defamation by any public body.”

There are more than 60 statutory boards in Singapore – which provides public service from housing to healthcare to education and the Arts - and the Court’s ruling will have impact on criticisms of these public bodies, and the rights to free expression of members of the public. If public bodies, funded by the public, can sue for defamation or libel, it might lead to a stifling of criticisms, or genuine grievances, especially from those who do not have such an amount of resources. In short, public bodies can use the threat of lawsuits to silence criticisms.

In the United Kingdom this year, both the Appeals Court and the UK government affirmed that “organs of government – both central and local – cannot sue for defamation.”

In a 1993 ruling, Lord Keith of Kinkel said, "It is of the highest public importance that a democratically elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism."

M Ravi, lawyer for Ms Han, said, “The fact that the government is intervening in this matter shows that the matter has a sufficient public interest. This reinforces our position that the CPE, being a public body, cannot bring an action for defamation.”

The pre-trial conference will take place on 29th May whereby the AGC will inform the Court that it wishes to be joined as a party in the case.

Read the details of the case here: “Blogger files high court application…”

At first glance, one is right to dismiss Tharman’s statement as self-serving politician speak. But this “dominant party” concept warrants closer scrutiny. The interview, which covers a range of subjects, appears to be an attempt by the establishment to launch a “new look” PAP. Tharman is setting up stall for the 2016 general elections, while at the same time presenting himself as the left-of-centre leader of a supposedly refreshed party. Firstly, he emphasized that the PAP today is “unrecognisable compared to 20 years ago”, hence an attempt to disassociate himself with the Lee Kuan Yew-Goh Chok Tong era.  Next, he said that the PAP would be inclusive by welcoming “diverse opinions” – ostensibly an important departure from Lee Kuan Yew’s approach.

It is important to note that Tharman had chosen his words with great care, as he often does. He was not merely saying that Singapore needs a strong government. He wants the PAP to “retain a dominant position” and “play a dominant role”, yet “without wanting to completely dominate”.

The qualification “without wanting to completely dominate” is clearly intended to appease those critical of the PAP. Yet it is devoid of content, and in any event, self contradictory to his core idea. The idea of a “dominant party” is itself a perversion of democracy, because democracy involves the contests of competing ideas on a level playing field where there is equality of arms. It is precisely for this reason that within capitalism itself, cartels and monopoly tendencies are outlawed.

The term “dominant party” is at times used by journalists and academics to describe the political environment in some countries, Singapore included, where an incumbent party is so entrenched that it is deemed by observers as almost impossible for challengers to dislodge. Taiwan during Chiang Kai Shek’s era was an example. There are many possible reasons how such dominance came about. But Tharman was not using the term “dominance” as a casual description of Singapore’s political landscape. He was prescribing the dominance of the PAP for Singapore. This is a subtle, yet crucial difference.

I have respect for Tharman as an economist, and will readily agree that some aspects of his economic policies are left–of-centre. Yet by drumming up the PAP as the dominant party for Singapore, he has inadvertently moved to the right.

For  someone like Tharman, who in his younger days in the United Kingdom, was exposed to progressive strains of thought on participatory democracy through his acquaintance with those associated with the  Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, I find his aspiration to retain the “dominant” status of the PAP disconcerting. The young Tharman would have scoffed at a patronising term such as “responsible opposition”, but now as a member of the elite, he embraces the language of the oppressor as his own.

“The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought” describes “dominance” as follows:

"The behaviour pattern by which, in social animals, individuals establish the hierarchy of the group. In some birds, including domestic fowls, a pecking order develops, with one bird dominant to more or less fixed positions in the chain. Rats and some other mammals behave similarly. Dominance is maintained by aggressive or threatening, behaviour on the part of one animal, and by submission on the part of its inferior. In most cases, particularly in the wild, this aggressive behaviour becomes ritualized and ceases when the threatened individual is seen to submit, so violent combat is rare. ….”

This description of dominance in the animal kingdom has an uncanny resemblance to Singapore’s political history of the past 50 years. Tharman may recall that many of his close comrades were themselves given the knuckle-duster treatment by the obnoxious Internal Security Department. One may also recall how dominance was maintained by the combative Lee Kuan Yew who articulated the following during his heyday:  “Anybody who decides to take me on needs to put on knuckle-dusters. If you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you, try. There is no way you can govern a Chinese society.”

The end result of that “aggressive, or threatening” behaviour, as in the animal kingdom was “submission”. And in the context of Singapore, it was the culture of silence which permeates throughout the island state for the best part of the last 50 years until most recently.

As long as Tharman signs up to the PAP’s dominant party doctrine, he cannot deviate far, and disassociate himself from the knuckle duster approach, even if he swaps it with a pair of velvet gloves.

It is clear that the PAP is desperately trying to re-invent itself into a voter-friendly party  masquerading as a national institution representing all Singaporeans. Tharman’s equation of PAP’s interests with that of the interests of Singapore is one such manifestation.

The next general election in 2016 will provide a golden opportunity for Singapore to redefine its political destiny by entrenching the rule of law, participatory and parliamentary democracy free from the dictates of its erstwhile dominant party. The real interests of Singapore lie in breaking up the hegemony of the PAP, but this can only be achieved if the electorate delivers a strong government, ideally with non-PAP Members of Parliament taking up more than two-thirds of all Parliamentary seats.  Only then can a new government abolish  all undemocratic Constitutional amendments, and laws introduced by the PAP during the period of its reign.

This is a project which can only be delivered by the collective efforts of all Singaporeans, and certainly only through a strong coalition of opposition parties, NGOs, and netizens where the common platform is based on the protection of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

This will also mean that whatever the result of the next general election, opposition parties, its leaders and prospective parliamentary candidates should not enter into any coalition arrangement with the PAP for reasons of expediency. Rather, they should focus on a social contract with the electorate to protect our fundamental human rights by making a clean break with the politics of dominance.

In this easy-to-read, 267-page memoir, we get an honest and touching narrative of the life and thoughts of a man who believes with every fibre of his being in standing up for justice. We learn about his formative years as a law student in Cardiff, where his ideas of rights and freedom grew; of his encounters with JB Jeyaratnam, of the great lengths he goes to in order to fight death penalty cases—sacrificing his time, money and sometimes his well being—as well as of his life with manic depression.

In a frank chapter called ‘Bipolar Politics’, he shares an understanding of bipolarity that takes it beyond the realm of a mental condition and into a spiritual plane, describing the intense awakenings he experiences and the heightened intuition, creativity and energy they bring. This helps the common reader see bipolarity and M. Ravi’s view of it in a deeper light. It also connects with the incredible passion that we see him pour into his work — and is what makes M. Ravi such a zealous lawyer.

He also talks frankly about his family and those close to him, and lays bare the alcoholism, abuse and poverty he was exposed to as a child. He writes a lot about his late mother, with whom he had a close and loving relationship, her own struggle with manic depression—and her eventual suicide. All these incidences, and M. Ravi’s perspective of them, is conveyed plainly, in an informal manner, and often with a touch of humour. Even so, itholds profound insight and covers serious issues of morality, justice, spirituality and passion.

This is a man who completely devotes himself to the cause, who will singlehandedly raise international awareness, hold vigils, give talks, work pro bono, travel abroad, lobby governments—to give a forgotten someone a second chance at life. Even amongst lawyers who champion human rights in Singapore, his conviction stands out. Some might even say that he embodies the noblest expression of the legal profession.

Anyone interested in the person M. Ravi and in his more prominent human rights cases should read this book to understand what moves the man and the lawyer, and why he continues to soldier on today.

“The practice of law is indeed important, and for many people their lives are made much better or much worse by their knowledge of the law or what law can help them to get or achieve. But we must always keep that perspective in mind, that these are all just a myriad of dots and only when we can connect all the dots can we get a view of the significance of the whole.” – M Ravi, Kampong Boy.

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

To order the book online, click here: Ethos Books.

Video of the book launch of Kampong Boy:

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

The biggest example of such crossing from one side to the other, as it were, takes place in Singapore every five years. This is when grassroots volunteers exchange their apolitical status for a very political one in support of the ruling PAP at election time. You can see these volunteers at the PAP rallies every night, all decked out in the party’s white uniform, with the lightning badge pinned to their shirts.

In fact, the umbrella organisation which these grassroots outfits fall under is the People’s Association (PA), which is supposedly apolitical. But this claim was called into question by the revelation by the very senior member of the government, Lee Kuan Yew, in 2009, when he said, referring to what the Chinese government had learnt from Singapore:

"They discover that the People's Action Party (PAP) has only a small office in Bedok. But everywhere they go, they see the PAP – in the RCs (residents' committees), CCCs (citizens' consultative committees), and the CCs (community clubs)."

The RCs, CCCs, and the CCs are the grassroots organisations which permeate all our housing estates.

It is worth noting that Lee did not say, “But everywhere they go, they see the Government…” but that he said instead, “But everywhere they go, they see the PAP…” – the PAP being a political party, and how the political, by Lee’s own admission, has permeated the supposedly apolitical grassroots organisations.

The line, clearly, has been crossed – and crossed a long time ago, in fact.

Nizam Ismail’s unacceptable behaviour, it seems, was that he participated in two events – the first Hong Lim Park protest against the population White Paper; and speaking at a forum held by the opposition Workers’ Party (WP). These had led, Nizam says, to whispers from government ministers to AMP about the Government’s unhappiness about it. The fear is that Nizam had used the assistance the government gives to AMP to “to carry out political agendas.” At least that is what the fear seems to be, as articulated by the minister for Muslim affairs.

If, however, taking part in the activities of a political party makes one a suspect of having “political agendas”, the others – supportive of the ruling party – could be suspected of having similar “political agendas”, whatever that means.

[By the way, the Government has not explained or clarified what it means by “political agendas” or “political ends” when it accused NGOs and activists of this.]

Malminderjit Singh is one such example. He is the president of the Young Sikh Association. His other involvement includes having volunteered with SINDA, the self-help group for the Indian community (and which receives government funding), and in fact was the “recruitment head” for the SINDA Youth Club in 2010-2013; and as a panel member of the Young Changemakers of the National Youth Council.

In October 2012, Singh was elected chairman of the PAP Policy Forum.

One can’t help but see the similarities between Ismail’s case and that of Singh’s. Yet, one is accused of “crossing a line” while the other is not.

Where indeed is this mysterious “line” we speak of? It seems that one could indeed be an activist and participate in politics – as long as the politics one is involved in is in support of the ruling party, or its approved entities, or candidates.

Here is an example.

UN Women, formerly known as Unifem, was created in 2010 as a United Nations “entity for gender equality and the empowerment of women.”

The president of the UN Women National Committee Singapore – or UN Women (Singapore) - is Trina Liang-Lin. Her resume is an impressive one indeed, as you can see here. Nonetheless, it could be argued that she is best known as the president of UN Women.

In the 2011 presidential elections, Liang-Lin "was one of 10 individuals chosen to speak at a rally in support for Presidential candidate and now President Tony Tan of the Republic of Singapore.” From news reports, she was identified mostly as the president of UN Women, such as this one by My Paper.

Liang-Lin spent a part of her rally speech focused on women’s issues, which she undoubtedly champions as president of UN Women. She also unequivocally urged Singaporeans “to give a strong endorsement to Dr Tony Tan.”

Here is a video of her speech, hosted on the “officeofdrtonytan” Youtube channel:

{youtube}5tUQWzBPNf8|600|450|0{/youtube}

Did Liang-Lin cross the line from social activism to political activism? Apparently, she did.

Sometimes, crossing that line can be a dangerous thing.

In the abovementioned Straits Times report, the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Lawrence Wong, was reported to have said:

In particular, please note the second point the minister made – that “we may end up with… ethnic-based groups being used for political purposes.”

It is a point made by the Director of Corporate Communications at MCCY in a letter to the Straits Times forum page on 29 April:

"If any ethnic community were to organise itself politically, other communities would respond in kind. This would pull our different communities apart and destroy our racial harmony."

This brings us back to the Tony Tan presidential campaign again.

“Presidential hopeful Tony Tan has been endorsed by the Federation of Tan Clan Associations, which has over 10,000 members, in his bid to become Singapore's third elected president,” the news reported in August 2011.

The president of the federation said,

“I would strongly urge all chairmen of Tan clan associations to call on their members to support and vote for (Tony Tan).”

Now, recap what Minister Wong said – about ethnic-based groups pursuing “a partisan political agenda”. This, clearly, was what the ethnic-based Tan clan federation was doing, championing a “partisan political agenda” in exhorting – very publicly – its members to vote for a particular political candidate.

It is a dangerous thing to do indeed – just consider the consequences if there were non-Chinese candidates in that presidential election. What would they have done to garner similar support from their ethnic communities? It is a no-brainer.

Yet, there was not a squeak from anyone from the Government then – including Wong – warning the federation or Tony Tan himself of “crossing the line”. In fact, the federation’s actions were more serious than perhaps other instances because the federation is an ethnic-based organisation, the very type which Wong warned of getting involved in “partisan political agendas”.

So, what am I saying here?

Well, two things.

One, that when we speak of “crossing a line”, as the Straits Times did, let us be fair and report factually and as completely as possible. The Straits Times report on 4 May is a thoroughly and terribly skewed one, ignoring the clear examples mentioned here. Clearly, “crossing the line” is not limited to critics or organisations critical of the government. Many who are supportive of the government have also “crossed the line”.

The Straits Times’ reporters really need to widen their perspectives, and inform themselves better before churning out kindergarten-standard pieces which do not befit a national broadsheet. Instead, they are an embarrassment.

Second, and this is the more important point: in the current discourse about “crossing the line”, are we really interested in the issue? Or are we more interested in politicising the issue? There is a difference – for if we are interested in how one should not “cross the line”, then we should look at ALL incidences, instead of selecting a few examples to skew the discourse. But if we are only interested in politicising the issue, then there is no point to the discourse.

And politicising the issue is – sadly – what seems to be the aim here. For there seems to be a certain hypocrisy in the selective condemnation of some, and not of others which, invariably, seems to include those who cross the line in support of the ruling party or its approved entities and personalities, even when their doing so has serious and dangerous consequences for our society as a whole.

So, what – really - are we interested in here: demonising critics of the Government, or do we want an honest discourse on a serious matter?

PS: This writer has written to the MCCY to ask for its position on the Tan clan federation support for Dr Tony Tan during the presidential election. He has yet to receive a response from the ministry.

The AGC replied to A&G on 16 May that it had no objection to this. However, the AGC said it did “not necessarily agree” with the CPE’s position on two points, namely:

- That the Government’s presence before the Court is necessary.

- That it would be “just and convenient” to determine the questions arising from the case, with the Government.

At the heart of the case is the question of whether a public body, such as the CPE which is a statutory board under the Ministry of Education, can sue an individual for libel or defamation.

There is also the issue of whether it is fair for public bodies to use public funds for this, while individuals may not have such resources.

In her submissions to the Court, Ms Han said, “Because the actions and policies of public bodies have such high impact and stakes, it is unacceptable that they can silence criticism through fear in the form of litigation.

“My constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression protects the ordinary citizen against such potential abuse, and because public bodies have more than enough means to defend themselves and their reputations in the first place, my constitutional right should be upheld against being sued for defamation by any public body.”

There are more than 60 statutory boards in Singapore – which provides public service from housing to healthcare to education and the Arts - and the Court’s ruling will have impact on criticisms of these public bodies, and the rights to free expression of members of the public. If public bodies, funded by the public, can sue for defamation or libel, it might lead to a stifling of criticisms, or genuine grievances, especially from those who do not have such an amount of resources. In short, public bodies can use the threat of lawsuits to silence criticisms.

In the United Kingdom this year, both the Appeals Court and the UK government affirmed that “organs of government – both central and local – cannot sue for defamation.”

In a 1993 ruling, Lord Keith of Kinkel said, "It is of the highest public importance that a democratically elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism."

M Ravi, lawyer for Ms Han, said, “The fact that the government is intervening in this matter shows that the matter has a sufficient public interest. This reinforces our position that the CPE, being a public body, cannot bring an action for defamation.”

The pre-trial conference will take place on 29th May whereby the AGC will inform the Court that it wishes to be joined as a party in the case.

Read the details of the case here: “Blogger files high court application…”

The report has a rather curious title, “Trust in public institutions: Can S’pore afford cracks?” Can any country, at all, afford “cracks” in the trust for their public institutions? One would think not. At least, that would not be desirable – except at times when that trust is not deserved. And that is a point which commentaries and reports such as the one by the Straits Times have missed.

Some have laid the blame of this supposed erosion of trust in our public institutions on this broad group called “online cynics”, without also questioning why such erosion has taken place. But if one were to look at the root cause of this, the answers would be quite apparent, and they could be manifold.

One reason could be the failures of recent years in public policies. These have become a popular litany and there is no need to regurgitate the list here.

But what should concern the government, the public service and the public is not why there is distrust of public institutions, but how the coupling of public institutions as, effectively, an extension of the People’s Action Party (PAP) – whether as a government or as the ruling party – has now led to this erosion of trust.

In short, we should take a long hard look at the very heart and purpose of our public institutions – and question if they have become perverted by the ruling party to serve its own partisan political agenda throughout the last 50 years or so. We should question if this is desirable and how we should loosen the grasp of the ruling party on these institutions.

When or if these institutions start serving a partisan political agenda, contrary to its purpose and role as publicly-funded entities, then it is only right that citizens withdraw their trust and support for such entities.

Ditto if such organisations or entities start to fail to live up to standards and expectations, for example:

- When public housing prices spiral out of control and public flats are no longer within the reach of many, trust in the HDB or the Ministry for National Development should not be continued. Indeed, the minister for the ministry ought to be questioned, and removed if necessary.

- When public transport start breaking down, leaving hundreds of thousands stranded – not occasionally but regularly – then similarly, trust in the operators and ministry ought not be given blindly.

- When the income gap continues to widen, trust in the government should not be absolute.

- When the huge influx of foreigners land on our shores, giving rise to serious negative consequences throughout our society, at every level, surely trust in the government must be withdrawn.

- When the grassroots oganisations practises partisan politics, then the public must question them and indeed withdraw their trust in these organisations.

These are a few examples of issues which have arisen in the last few years. And they – and others – have nothing to do with “online cynics” but everything to do with an incompetent government and faulty policies.

To point the finger elsewhere is to delude oneself. It is to live in the proverbial Ivory Tower and be oblivious to reality.

Nah, any erosion of trust in our public institutions need to be more closely looked at and understood. It is simplistic to jump to nonsensical conclusions, such as fingering the cause to be some dubiously termed group called “online cynics”.

But truth be told, if a government is incompetent, why should anyone continue to trust it? In the same way, if public institutions are found to be wanting, why should the public continue to place trust in them?

If we continue to place our trust in them even as things around us deteriorate, wouldn’t that just give these institutions a false sense of approval?

So, contrary to the rhetoric and commentaries of late, erosion of trust in these institutions is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it may be just the thing to signal to these institutions that there may be something wrong with them, and perhaps prompt them to change for the better, just as Singaporeans in one GRC and two SMCs withdrew their support (and trust) in the PAP by voting against it.

The real question then is whether these institutions, like the PAP, are prepared to change, or will they be more interested in placing blame elsewhere and, like Ms Sim, deride those who point out their failings.

“Under the licensing framework, online news sites will be individually licensed if they (i) report an average of at least one article per week on Singapore’s news and current affairs 1 over a period of two months, and (ii) are visited by at least 50,000 unique IP addresses from Singapore each month over a period of two months. Currently, these sites are automatically class-licensed under the Broadcasting Act. When MDA has assessed that a site has met the criteria to be individually licensed, MDA will issue a formal notification and work with the site to move it to the new licensing framework."

The new rules also require websites “to take down content that breaches certain standards within 24 hours of being notified.” (Straits Times)

Under the Broadcasting Act, failure to comply with regulations can result in a fine of S$200,000 and/or a 3 year jail term.

The minister overseeing these new regulations is Mr Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister for Communications and Information (MCI). Mr Yaacob explains that the new rules are to “give some form of parity between online news sites and traditional mainstream media newspapers and TV broadcasters.”

The new rules mirror somewhat the ones for “self-classification” which Mr Yaacob’s ministry introduced for the Arts in March. There, Arts groups are divided into two tiers and they are given licenses to “self-classify” their works.

“The new licence scheme comes in two tiers. All arts groups and companies can join the scheme and qualify for the first tier. Those with a good track record showing three or more years of compliance with regulations will be offered a second-tier licence.”

To ensure they exercise responsible self-classification, those in the ‘first tier’ group will have to provide a $1,000 “performance bond” signed by a guarantor.

The licences, which are valid for a one-year period, are “renewable subject to an annual review, in which the MDA will evaluate whether licensees comply with regulations and accurately classify performances.”

While the new regulations for the Internet do not adopt the same exact self-regulatory framework as that for the Arts, they apparently are aimed at getting practitioners to similarly self-regulate, to meet certain “standards” (determined by the MDA), failing which websites would be required to be licensed and to post a $50,000 “performance bond” with the authorities.

In short, the Government seems to want to force self-regulation, rather than leave it to online practitioners to decide if self-regulation is warranted, a position which it previously urged but which was dismissed by bloggers and netizens.

It is obvious that the new rules are to set and control the tone of discourse online, a concern which the Government has had for a while now. The rise of social media, as an increasing number of Singaporeans get their news online, has now prompted the Government to let go of its promised ‘light touch’ on the Internet, even though Mr Yaacob denies that the Government is reneging on this promise.

In fact, the new regulations are more insidious in that websites now sit on what is essentially a time-bomb – post a “news” article once a week for two months and reach 50,000 unique visitors a month, and the MDA sword will come down on you.

The problem here is that a website has no control over who or how many visitors will visit it. To avoid licensing, websites will have to keep constant eye on the numbers – to make sure they do not breach the numbers, if they do not want to fall under the new rules.

It is mad.

In an obvious attempt to perhaps assuage the public which might raise a howl over the new rules, the MDA statement on Tuesday lists only 10 sites which it says fall under the new framework. 9 of these sites are Government-controlled news sites. The only exception is Yahoo Singapore, which has given rise to speculation that the real targets of the regulations are the non-government linked news sites.

It is well-known among some that the Singapore government has been “concerned” about Yahoo Singapore news for a while. The site is seen as a bastion of free expression and an independent news source.

Strangely, however, the MDA told the media that popular socio-political website, The Online Citizen (TOC), “does not fall within the online licensing framework.” But it quickly added, “Should MDA determine later that it ought to be individually licensed, it will be notified.”

That is how much power MDA is given to lord over what are independent platforms.

In 2011, TOC was gazetted by the Prime Minister’s Office as a “political association” and came under the Political Donations Act. It would be a double-jeopardy, so to speak, if TOC was also required to be licensed under this new licensing framework.

TOC will, again, have the distinction of being one of the rare websites in the world to be given such a “recognition” by a government.

MDA’s unexplained determination that TOC and presumably other popular websites such as Temasek Review Emeritus and The Real Singapore do not come under the new rules is perplexing, given that these sites apparently meet the requirements in the new legislations.

Is the MDA being arbitrary in its enforcement? Or is it leaving any actions it is contemplating to take to a later, more appropriate, time, perhaps closer to the next general election?

And this is another valid concern – that the new rules are politically-motivated, or at least can be abused politically to the ruling party’s advantage.

As blogger and the former Chief Editor of TOC, Ravi Philemon, explained on his blog:

“In this 'new normal', it may not take very much for members from the public to lodge a complaint about TOC or TRE nearer the next General Election, and if MDA assesses that such websites have to move to this new licensing framework at that time by placing a $50,000 performance bond, it may place a very heavy burden on these socio-political websites, and they may choose to cease operating at such a crucial time of national self-determination.  The online world is the most open 'public square' Singaporeans have for public discourse, and this new licensing framework for online news sites is a great impediment to this.

“This new regulation of MDA's is a tool which can be misused for political reasons, and there are no safeguards against MDA acting arbitrarily to move socio-political websites to this new framework.”

Imagine MDA – by its own determination – issues orders for various websites to apply for licensing and to post the $50,000 “performance bond”, a few weeks before a general election. In the 2006 General Election, the Government banned all podcasts, and in the 2011 elections, it introduced the Cooling-Off Day where all websites, except for “registered news sites”, were banned from reporting or publishing commentaries of the elections.

There is a high possibility that the Government will enforce these new regulations more widely among the blogs and websites as the next elections draw nearer.

After the elections of May 2011, the prime minister admitted that his Government had not “interpreted [ground feedback] correctly”. That is, the Government had lost touch with the ground – and this was confirmed by the decline in votes for Mr Lee’s party, the People’s Action Party (PAP).

These new regulations are another sign that the Government continues to be oblivious to the changing aspirations of Singaporeans – for a free environment, which includes a free mainstream media, for expression.

At the same time, it is not surprising that the Government is seeking to tighten its control over Singaporeans’ behaviour. In 2 more years – when there is a very high likelihood of the next elections being called – Singapore will be celebrating its 50th year of independence from colonial rule.

The PAP Government would want to be able to celebrate this historical and important milestone by winning the elections convincingly. And you can only win elections by winning public opinion, and public opinion is increasingly being shaped by social and the online media.

Hence, the need to control it.

But, as my friend and fellow editor at Publichouse.sg, Biddy Low, posted on her Facebook wall, the Government seems to be more interested in reining in what irks it than to seriously look at the important things which face our society and country. And in its ignorant and desperate bid to control public opinion through ill-thought out legislations, it once again shows that it continues to be out of touch with the common man and woman.

And there is perhaps no greater danger to a country than a government which is woefully and hopelessly out of touch, and being so installs curbs which not only stalls our society’s progress but in fact reverses it.

Mr Yaacob claims that the new rules are to bring “consistency” between the online media and the mainstream media. Unfortunately, it seems that the Government wants to drag down the independent online media to the atrociously low standards of Singapore’s mainstream media instead – a fact proved by the miserable rankings our press freedom has consistently achieved in ratings by international agencies, and the low regard Singaporeans have for the likes of the government-controlled broadsheet, the Straits Times.

Biddy says it best, but sadly her eloquent and accurate message will be lost on those who continue to hide themselves in their bureaucratic Ivory Tower:

“You know what pisses me off most about the new MDA ruling? Not the ruling itself, which I think is going to be as effective as Donald Trump's hairpiece. But how the online platform has repeatedly been described by our ministers as malignant and lacking in reason and credibility.

“Go ahead and focus on the worst side of this democratic platform online. It does not reflect badly on the resilient, smart and eloquent men and women who have contributed. What it does reflect, is how you would listen to the guy spouting xenophobic rants, but not the activist calling for the abolishment of the death sentence. How you would react to the person who makes malicious personal attacks, but not the ones asking for better workers' rights, local and foreign alike. How you would ignore the issue of the relevance of some laws, brought up to you in your face, but spend so much time in the media's watchful eye complaining about the unruly crowd.

“All it convinces me of is that ‘engagement’ to the incumbent is just a dog and pony show when right from the start, no compromise was to be given and we remain where we started.

"Which is actually good, ‘cause nothing is better to behold than the truth.”

These are the MDA people – the “senior management” - who want to decide what you can write, read, see or hear:

It is scary, isn’t it?

{youtube}ksw2UqTyhhc|600|450|0{/youtube}

READ ALSO: http://thehearttruths.com/2013/05/29/letter-to-mda-feedback-on-new-licensing-framework-for-online-news-sites/

At first glance, one is right to dismiss Tharman’s statement as self-serving politician speak. But this “dominant party” concept warrants closer scrutiny. The interview, which covers a range of subjects, appears to be an attempt by the establishment to launch a “new look” PAP. Tharman is setting up stall for the 2016 general elections, while at the same time presenting himself as the left-of-centre leader of a supposedly refreshed party. Firstly, he emphasized that the PAP today is “unrecognisable compared to 20 years ago”, hence an attempt to disassociate himself with the Lee Kuan Yew-Goh Chok Tong era.  Next, he said that the PAP would be inclusive by welcoming “diverse opinions” – ostensibly an important departure from Lee Kuan Yew’s approach.

It is important to note that Tharman had chosen his words with great care, as he often does. He was not merely saying that Singapore needs a strong government. He wants the PAP to “retain a dominant position” and “play a dominant role”, yet “without wanting to completely dominate”.

The qualification “without wanting to completely dominate” is clearly intended to appease those critical of the PAP. Yet it is devoid of content, and in any event, self contradictory to his core idea. The idea of a “dominant party” is itself a perversion of democracy, because democracy involves the contests of competing ideas on a level playing field where there is equality of arms. It is precisely for this reason that within capitalism itself, cartels and monopoly tendencies are outlawed.

The term “dominant party” is at times used by journalists and academics to describe the political environment in some countries, Singapore included, where an incumbent party is so entrenched that it is deemed by observers as almost impossible for challengers to dislodge. Taiwan during Chiang Kai Shek’s era was an example. There are many possible reasons how such dominance came about. But Tharman was not using the term “dominance” as a casual description of Singapore’s political landscape. He was prescribing the dominance of the PAP for Singapore. This is a subtle, yet crucial difference.

I have respect for Tharman as an economist, and will readily agree that some aspects of his economic policies are left–of-centre. Yet by drumming up the PAP as the dominant party for Singapore, he has inadvertently moved to the right.

For  someone like Tharman, who in his younger days in the United Kingdom, was exposed to progressive strains of thought on participatory democracy through his acquaintance with those associated with the  Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, I find his aspiration to retain the “dominant” status of the PAP disconcerting. The young Tharman would have scoffed at a patronising term such as “responsible opposition”, but now as a member of the elite, he embraces the language of the oppressor as his own.

“The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought” describes “dominance” as follows:

"The behaviour pattern by which, in social animals, individuals establish the hierarchy of the group. In some birds, including domestic fowls, a pecking order develops, with one bird dominant to more or less fixed positions in the chain. Rats and some other mammals behave similarly. Dominance is maintained by aggressive or threatening, behaviour on the part of one animal, and by submission on the part of its inferior. In most cases, particularly in the wild, this aggressive behaviour becomes ritualized and ceases when the threatened individual is seen to submit, so violent combat is rare. ….”

This description of dominance in the animal kingdom has an uncanny resemblance to Singapore’s political history of the past 50 years. Tharman may recall that many of his close comrades were themselves given the knuckle-duster treatment by the obnoxious Internal Security Department. One may also recall how dominance was maintained by the combative Lee Kuan Yew who articulated the following during his heyday:  “Anybody who decides to take me on needs to put on knuckle-dusters. If you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you, try. There is no way you can govern a Chinese society.”

The end result of that “aggressive, or threatening” behaviour, as in the animal kingdom was “submission”. And in the context of Singapore, it was the culture of silence which permeates throughout the island state for the best part of the last 50 years until most recently.

As long as Tharman signs up to the PAP’s dominant party doctrine, he cannot deviate far, and disassociate himself from the knuckle duster approach, even if he swaps it with a pair of velvet gloves.

It is clear that the PAP is desperately trying to re-invent itself into a voter-friendly party  masquerading as a national institution representing all Singaporeans. Tharman’s equation of PAP’s interests with that of the interests of Singapore is one such manifestation.

The next general election in 2016 will provide a golden opportunity for Singapore to redefine its political destiny by entrenching the rule of law, participatory and parliamentary democracy free from the dictates of its erstwhile dominant party. The real interests of Singapore lie in breaking up the hegemony of the PAP, but this can only be achieved if the electorate delivers a strong government, ideally with non-PAP Members of Parliament taking up more than two-thirds of all Parliamentary seats.  Only then can a new government abolish  all undemocratic Constitutional amendments, and laws introduced by the PAP during the period of its reign.

This is a project which can only be delivered by the collective efforts of all Singaporeans, and certainly only through a strong coalition of opposition parties, NGOs, and netizens where the common platform is based on the protection of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

This will also mean that whatever the result of the next general election, opposition parties, its leaders and prospective parliamentary candidates should not enter into any coalition arrangement with the PAP for reasons of expediency. Rather, they should focus on a social contract with the electorate to protect our fundamental human rights by making a clean break with the politics of dominance.

Further, we believe that the introduction of the licensing regime has not gone through the proper and necessary consultation and had been introduced without clear guidance. In a typical public consultation exercise, a government agency will publish a draft regulation with detailed explanation and issue a press release to invite members of the public to send in feedback for consideration. We observe this is not the case for the licensing regime.

We call on the Ministry of Communications and Information to withdraw the licensing regime. We call upon our elected representatives to oppose the licensing regime.

It is in the interest of Singaporeans and the long-term future for Singapore that the licensing regime be withdrawn.

The new licensing regime has the very real potential to reduce the channels available to Singaporeans to receive news and analysis of the sociopolitical situation in Singapore and it is in the interest of all Singaporeans to guard against the erosion of news channels that Singaporeans should rightfully have access to.

These new regulations significantly impact Singaporeans’ constitutionally protected right to free speech, and they should not be introduced without the most rigorous public debate and discussion.

The new regulations, and the manner in which they have been imposed by regulatory fiat, are unacceptable in any developed democracy.

Leong Sze Hian - http://leongszehian.com/

Andrew Loh - http://publichouse.sg

Ravi Philemon - http://www.raviphilemon.net/

Kumaran Pillai - http://sgvoize.wordpress.com/

Terry Xu - http://theonlinecitizen.com/

Richard Wan - http://www.tremeritus.com/

Choo Zheng Xi - http://theonlinecitizen.com/

Howard Lee - http://theonlinecitizen.com/

Rachel Zeng - http://rachelzeng.wordpress.com/, http://singaporeantideathpenaltycampaign.wordpress.com/

Roy Ngerng - http://thehearttruths.com/

Kirsten Han - http://spuddings.net/

Gilbert Goh - http://www.transitioning.org/

Nizam Ismail - http://nizamosaurus.wordpress.com/

Lynn Lee - http://www.lianainfilms.com/

Biddy Low - http://publichouse.sg/

Alex Au - http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/

Martyn See - http://singaporerebel.blogspot.sg/

Howard Lee - http://theonlinecitizen.com/

Elaine Ee - http://publichouse.sg/

Lim Han Thon - http://publichouse.sg

Joshua Chiang

Donaldson Tan - http://newasiarepublic.com

Stephanie Chok - http://littlemskaypoh.wordpress.com

Jolovan Wham - http://www.workfairsingapore.wordpress.com

If you would like more information or for media enquires, please contact Howard Lee at howard@theonlinecitizen.com

The report has a rather curious title, “Trust in public institutions: Can S’pore afford cracks?” Can any country, at all, afford “cracks” in the trust for their public institutions? One would think not. At least, that would not be desirable – except at times when that trust is not deserved. And that is a point which commentaries and reports such as the one by the Straits Times have missed.

Some have laid the blame of this supposed erosion of trust in our public institutions on this broad group called “online cynics”, without also questioning why such erosion has taken place. But if one were to look at the root cause of this, the answers would be quite apparent, and they could be manifold.

One reason could be the failures of recent years in public policies. These have become a popular litany and there is no need to regurgitate the list here.

But what should concern the government, the public service and the public is not why there is distrust of public institutions, but how the coupling of public institutions as, effectively, an extension of the People’s Action Party (PAP) – whether as a government or as the ruling party – has now led to this erosion of trust.

In short, we should take a long hard look at the very heart and purpose of our public institutions – and question if they have become perverted by the ruling party to serve its own partisan political agenda throughout the last 50 years or so. We should question if this is desirable and how we should loosen the grasp of the ruling party on these institutions.

When or if these institutions start serving a partisan political agenda, contrary to its purpose and role as publicly-funded entities, then it is only right that citizens withdraw their trust and support for such entities.

Ditto if such organisations or entities start to fail to live up to standards and expectations, for example:

- When public housing prices spiral out of control and public flats are no longer within the reach of many, trust in the HDB or the Ministry for National Development should not be continued. Indeed, the minister for the ministry ought to be questioned, and removed if necessary.

- When public transport start breaking down, leaving hundreds of thousands stranded – not occasionally but regularly – then similarly, trust in the operators and ministry ought not be given blindly.

- When the income gap continues to widen, trust in the government should not be absolute.

- When the huge influx of foreigners land on our shores, giving rise to serious negative consequences throughout our society, at every level, surely trust in the government must be withdrawn.

- When the grassroots oganisations practises partisan politics, then the public must question them and indeed withdraw their trust in these organisations.

These are a few examples of issues which have arisen in the last few years. And they – and others – have nothing to do with “online cynics” but everything to do with an incompetent government and faulty policies.

To point the finger elsewhere is to delude oneself. It is to live in the proverbial Ivory Tower and be oblivious to reality.

Nah, any erosion of trust in our public institutions need to be more closely looked at and understood. It is simplistic to jump to nonsensical conclusions, such as fingering the cause to be some dubiously termed group called “online cynics”.

But truth be told, if a government is incompetent, why should anyone continue to trust it? In the same way, if public institutions are found to be wanting, why should the public continue to place trust in them?

If we continue to place our trust in them even as things around us deteriorate, wouldn’t that just give these institutions a false sense of approval?

So, contrary to the rhetoric and commentaries of late, erosion of trust in these institutions is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it may be just the thing to signal to these institutions that there may be something wrong with them, and perhaps prompt them to change for the better, just as Singaporeans in one GRC and two SMCs withdrew their support (and trust) in the PAP by voting against it.

The real question then is whether these institutions, like the PAP, are prepared to change, or will they be more interested in placing blame elsewhere and, like Ms Sim, deride those who point out their failings.

“Under the licensing framework, online news sites will be individually licensed if they (i) report an average of at least one article per week on Singapore’s news and current affairs 1 over a period of two months, and (ii) are visited by at least 50,000 unique IP addresses from Singapore each month over a period of two months. Currently, these sites are automatically class-licensed under the Broadcasting Act. When MDA has assessed that a site has met the criteria to be individually licensed, MDA will issue a formal notification and work with the site to move it to the new licensing framework."

The new rules also require websites “to take down content that breaches certain standards within 24 hours of being notified.” (Straits Times)

Under the Broadcasting Act, failure to comply with regulations can result in a fine of S$200,000 and/or a 3 year jail term.

The minister overseeing these new regulations is Mr Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister for Communications and Information (MCI). Mr Yaacob explains that the new rules are to “give some form of parity between online news sites and traditional mainstream media newspapers and TV broadcasters.”

The new rules mirror somewhat the ones for “self-classification” which Mr Yaacob’s ministry introduced for the Arts in March. There, Arts groups are divided into two tiers and they are given licenses to “self-classify” their works.

“The new licence scheme comes in two tiers. All arts groups and companies can join the scheme and qualify for the first tier. Those with a good track record showing three or more years of compliance with regulations will be offered a second-tier licence.”

To ensure they exercise responsible self-classification, those in the ‘first tier’ group will have to provide a $1,000 “performance bond” signed by a guarantor.

The licences, which are valid for a one-year period, are “renewable subject to an annual review, in which the MDA will evaluate whether licensees comply with regulations and accurately classify performances.”

While the new regulations for the Internet do not adopt the same exact self-regulatory framework as that for the Arts, they apparently are aimed at getting practitioners to similarly self-regulate, to meet certain “standards” (determined by the MDA), failing which websites would be required to be licensed and to post a $50,000 “performance bond” with the authorities.

In short, the Government seems to want to force self-regulation, rather than leave it to online practitioners to decide if self-regulation is warranted, a position which it previously urged but which was dismissed by bloggers and netizens.

It is obvious that the new rules are to set and control the tone of discourse online, a concern which the Government has had for a while now. The rise of social media, as an increasing number of Singaporeans get their news online, has now prompted the Government to let go of its promised ‘light touch’ on the Internet, even though Mr Yaacob denies that the Government is reneging on this promise.

In fact, the new regulations are more insidious in that websites now sit on what is essentially a time-bomb – post a “news” article once a week for two months and reach 50,000 unique visitors a month, and the MDA sword will come down on you.

The problem here is that a website has no control over who or how many visitors will visit it. To avoid licensing, websites will have to keep constant eye on the numbers – to make sure they do not breach the numbers, if they do not want to fall under the new rules.

It is mad.

In an obvious attempt to perhaps assuage the public which might raise a howl over the new rules, the MDA statement on Tuesday lists only 10 sites which it says fall under the new framework. 9 of these sites are Government-controlled news sites. The only exception is Yahoo Singapore, which has given rise to speculation that the real targets of the regulations are the non-government linked news sites.

It is well-known among some that the Singapore government has been “concerned” about Yahoo Singapore news for a while. The site is seen as a bastion of free expression and an independent news source.

Strangely, however, the MDA told the media that popular socio-political website, The Online Citizen (TOC), “does not fall within the online licensing framework.” But it quickly added, “Should MDA determine later that it ought to be individually licensed, it will be notified.”

That is how much power MDA is given to lord over what are independent platforms.

In 2011, TOC was gazetted by the Prime Minister’s Office as a “political association” and came under the Political Donations Act. It would be a double-jeopardy, so to speak, if TOC was also required to be licensed under this new licensing framework.

TOC will, again, have the distinction of being one of the rare websites in the world to be given such a “recognition” by a government.

MDA’s unexplained determination that TOC and presumably other popular websites such as Temasek Review Emeritus and The Real Singapore do not come under the new rules is perplexing, given that these sites apparently meet the requirements in the new legislations.

Is the MDA being arbitrary in its enforcement? Or is it leaving any actions it is contemplating to take to a later, more appropriate, time, perhaps closer to the next general election?

And this is another valid concern – that the new rules are politically-motivated, or at least can be abused politically to the ruling party’s advantage.

As blogger and the former Chief Editor of TOC, Ravi Philemon, explained on his blog:

“In this 'new normal', it may not take very much for members from the public to lodge a complaint about TOC or TRE nearer the next General Election, and if MDA assesses that such websites have to move to this new licensing framework at that time by placing a $50,000 performance bond, it may place a very heavy burden on these socio-political websites, and they may choose to cease operating at such a crucial time of national self-determination.  The online world is the most open 'public square' Singaporeans have for public discourse, and this new licensing framework for online news sites is a great impediment to this.

“This new regulation of MDA's is a tool which can be misused for political reasons, and there are no safeguards against MDA acting arbitrarily to move socio-political websites to this new framework.”

Imagine MDA – by its own determination – issues orders for various websites to apply for licensing and to post the $50,000 “performance bond”, a few weeks before a general election. In the 2006 General Election, the Government banned all podcasts, and in the 2011 elections, it introduced the Cooling-Off Day where all websites, except for “registered news sites”, were banned from reporting or publishing commentaries of the elections.

There is a high possibility that the Government will enforce these new regulations more widely among the blogs and websites as the next elections draw nearer.

After the elections of May 2011, the prime minister admitted that his Government had not “interpreted [ground feedback] correctly”. That is, the Government had lost touch with the ground – and this was confirmed by the decline in votes for Mr Lee’s party, the People’s Action Party (PAP).

These new regulations are another sign that the Government continues to be oblivious to the changing aspirations of Singaporeans – for a free environment, which includes a free mainstream media, for expression.

At the same time, it is not surprising that the Government is seeking to tighten its control over Singaporeans’ behaviour. In 2 more years – when there is a very high likelihood of the next elections being called – Singapore will be celebrating its 50th year of independence from colonial rule.

The PAP Government would want to be able to celebrate this historical and important milestone by winning the elections convincingly. And you can only win elections by winning public opinion, and public opinion is increasingly being shaped by social and the online media.

Hence, the need to control it.

But, as my friend and fellow editor at Publichouse.sg, Biddy Low, posted on her Facebook wall, the Government seems to be more interested in reining in what irks it than to seriously look at the important things which face our society and country. And in its ignorant and desperate bid to control public opinion through ill-thought out legislations, it once again shows that it continues to be out of touch with the common man and woman.

And there is perhaps no greater danger to a country than a government which is woefully and hopelessly out of touch, and being so installs curbs which not only stalls our society’s progress but in fact reverses it.

Mr Yaacob claims that the new rules are to bring “consistency” between the online media and the mainstream media. Unfortunately, it seems that the Government wants to drag down the independent online media to the atrociously low standards of Singapore’s mainstream media instead – a fact proved by the miserable rankings our press freedom has consistently achieved in ratings by international agencies, and the low regard Singaporeans have for the likes of the government-controlled broadsheet, the Straits Times.

Biddy says it best, but sadly her eloquent and accurate message will be lost on those who continue to hide themselves in their bureaucratic Ivory Tower:

“You know what pisses me off most about the new MDA ruling? Not the ruling itself, which I think is going to be as effective as Donald Trump's hairpiece. But how the online platform has repeatedly been described by our ministers as malignant and lacking in reason and credibility.

“Go ahead and focus on the worst side of this democratic platform online. It does not reflect badly on the resilient, smart and eloquent men and women who have contributed. What it does reflect, is how you would listen to the guy spouting xenophobic rants, but not the activist calling for the abolishment of the death sentence. How you would react to the person who makes malicious personal attacks, but not the ones asking for better workers' rights, local and foreign alike. How you would ignore the issue of the relevance of some laws, brought up to you in your face, but spend so much time in the media's watchful eye complaining about the unruly crowd.

“All it convinces me of is that ‘engagement’ to the incumbent is just a dog and pony show when right from the start, no compromise was to be given and we remain where we started.

"Which is actually good, ‘cause nothing is better to behold than the truth.”

These are the MDA people – the “senior management” - who want to decide what you can write, read, see or hear:

It is scary, isn’t it?

{youtube}ksw2UqTyhhc|600|450|0{/youtube}

READ ALSO: http://thehearttruths.com/2013/05/29/letter-to-mda-feedback-on-new-licensing-framework-for-online-news-sites/

What sort of comments would fall under the new rules? And what would happen to them? Who is to be held responsible for these comments?

Be that as it may, what you the reader should be concerned about is how the new legislation affects you. Clearly, the target is not just the websites. It is also the wider audience who visit and participate in the discourse on these ‘news sites’.

And this is why you too should be disturbed at the wide berth the government has given itself with this new set of rulings.

Will websites be required to provide details of the reader who post what would be deemed inappropriate comments, or comments which the authorities find do not meet its “standards”?

But more than that, you should truly ponder on what these curbs mean to you.

The next time you want to post a comment about an issue which is close to your heart, would you? Or would you refrain from doing so? Will you pause because you want to think through your comments, or will you pause because you are afraid to post any comments at all?

And then ask yourself: why should you, as a citizen of this country, be subject to such state-imposed fear? Why should those who should be your servants in turn lord over your very right to speak up – a right which is guaranteed in our Constitution?

Ask yourself: why should a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in a statutory board have such immense power over you?

These new regulations from the MDA are insidious in their aim to curtail our rights to speak and speak freely which, ironically, was something Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong urged in his first National Rally speech back in August 2004 where he proclaimed:

“It's a signal – speak, speak your voice, be heard, take responsibility for your views and opinions.”

10 years on, where are we on this? The government, instead, has now chosen to curb discourse in the only alternative space which we Singaporeans have. And not only for those of us who blog and write and report on issues which we are all concerned about, but the government also wants to curb your right to participate in dialogue, discourse and expressing your views on these matters which concern you.

This insidious and abhorrent aim of the government is clear from the deliberately vague wording of its press release, and the broad powers that it has given itself.

In the final analysis, the question is this: do you want yourself and your children, the young ones whom we are responsible for and for whom we are supposed to build a better future for, to be subject to the irrational control of the government, and have fear instilled into their hearts and minds?

Some of us bloggers have stood up and are standing against the new regulations because we know that contrary to what the government has said so far, the new licensing regime is and will be used to snuff out alternative viewpoints and information which the State disapprove of.

If you care about how our minds should be free and our hearts should be courageous, then do support us as we fight to bring rationality to the matter, and to a government on the verge of running irrationally amok, dangerously bestowing itself with so much power that our very rights as citizens are at risk.

Article 14 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore guarantees that “every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression”.

We must not let this right be so easily usurped by unelected bureaucrats, without any engagement, discussion, debate or dialogue. For if we do, then what is the value of our Constitution and what it guarantees us as citizens, especially if you cannot even post comments on websites?

Surely, it is not the intent of our Constitution to forbid this.