This leads to workers having to toil round the clock with little time for adequate rest to recover. With such relentless physical assertion demanded on the human body, the level of alertness inevitably declines and accidents are waiting to happen.

Similarly with the construction sector, almost without exception, injured workers whom Healthserve have seen and helped, spoke of having to work an average of ten to twelve hours per day with no rest days in between just to earn a few dollars more as they are saddled with huge debts to pay off.

If there seems to be many lessons from the past, it is obvious that stakeholders and employers are slow to learn them. That productivity will increase in tandem with workers' general well-being does not seem to feature at all in the greedy pursuit of mammon at the expense of workers' health and safety concerns.

Are human lives so cheap and expendable? Surely, this is not acceptable. As Mr Ho noted, "checks are not enough" but neither is it enough that "each individual needs to feel personally motivated to work safely" as workers surely do not enjoy equal powers with employers.

Vincent Law

Director, Community Health Resource

Healthserve

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

The above letter by Mr Law was sent to the mainstream newspapers as a reply to media reports on this media release by the WSH Council and the Ministry for Manpower.

Mr Law's letter has not been published by the mainstream press.

Singaporeans want, and deserve, a politics that is truly befitting of a First World country. Detention without trial, criminalisation of legitimate political activity and defamation suits have no place in a Singapore that needs to be democratic, confident and forward-looking.

The SDP is committed to working towards a new politics in Singapore and we have shown this by offering coherent and comprehensive policy plans, conducting dignified forums on "sensitive" issues and attracting Singaporeans of intellectual and professional gravitas.

I look forward to being formally cleared of my bankruptcy so that I am eligible to stand in the next general elections in 2016 and lead a party that would rival the PAP as the potential ruling party.

For more information, please visit www.yoursdp.org.

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

Letter, dated 7 September, from the Official Assignee to Dr Chee.

7 September 2012

Dear Dr Chee

We refer to your email of 5 September 2012.

2. Please be informed that the Official Assignee ("OA”) conveyed your offer of composition of $30,000, on 17 August 2012 (the same day we replied to your email of 8 August 2012) to all your creditors, namely, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Goh Chok Tong and the Attorney-General’s Chambers. We invited them to respond with their views on your offer and their counter-proposals (if any) by 7 September 2012.

3. You may wish to note that the OA has rejected DBS Bank Ltd’s claim filed against your estate in bankruptcy, as the debt claimed was incurred after the making of the Bankruptcy Order against you and is therefore not provable in your current bankruptcy.

4. Your three creditors have since replied on 30 August 2012 and 3 September 2012, informing us that they have no objection to your offer of composition of $30,000. Please let us know when you will be remitting the sum of $30,000 to our office. Upon receipt of the sum, we will need to ask your creditors to formally vote on the offer. Once they have voted their acceptance of your offer, the OA will process the necessary paperwork to effect the annulment of your bankruptcy.

5. Please note that a certificate of annulment issued under section 95A(1) of the Bankruptcy Act will be binding on your creditors insofar as it relates to any debts due to them which are provable in this bankruptcy.

Yours faithfully

Lydia Loh

For OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE

World Suicide Prevention Day is an initiative of the International Association for Suicide Prevention (IASP) in collaboration with WHO. The theme they have chosen this year is "Suicide Prevention across the Globe: Strengthening Protective Factors and Instilling Hope." This comes close to our very own message of “Hope, Heart and Home” in this year’s National Day Rally Speech. As Singapore becomes increasingly affluent, we should not forget the individuals with a different kind of “high net worth” – our senior citizens, who have worked and built this country. Do they have a home with hope and heart in what is supposed to be their golden years?

A worrying trend in Singapore is the higher prevalence of suicide mortality among the elderly, as compared to the rest of the population. The suicide mortality rate among those aged 50 years and above is about 6.45 times higher than that seen in the rest of the population.

The unacceptably high suicide rates among the elderly may worsen when citizens aged 80 and above number some 180,000 by 2030, more than double the current 73,000.

There are many risk factors associated with suicide, such as a history of self-harm, previous suicide attempts, psychological conditions, and stressful life experiences. Such factors are aggravated for the elderly in Singapore, who are rendered even more vulnerable by the lack of socio-economic support and social inclusion. While policy emphasis on the family as the first line of support may work for those with families with adequate capacities, what happens to the elderly without such families?

It has been estimated that by 2030, only 45% of persons over the age of 65 in Singapore would be living with families, compared to 70% in 2005. Thus, it is unrealistic to expect older persons to rely on families as their main source of care and support; it would also be socially irresponsible to neglect older members of our society who cannot rely on familial care.

Depression is not confined to the elderly who live alone; those who live with family or friends may be affected by the death of a spouse, by social and economic changes, or by sheer loneliness.

Family members and physicians often fail to detect symptoms of depression or suicidal intent. The Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) has seen a steady rise in the number of older persons who attempt suicide. Generally, more females than males attempt suicide (except those aged 50 and above). Significantly, suicide mortality by older women (aged 65-69 and 70-74) in 2011 has doubled, as compared to 2010.

These trends in elderly suicides call for urgent redress. Immediate measures can include educating physicians, care givers and family members to spot signs of depression or suicidal intent among the elderly. Longer term steps, some of which have been mentioned in Parliament, include:

• Provision of adequate economic support to the elderly

• More efforts to diagnose and treat depression among the poor, the elderly and other vulnerable  groups

• Bridge systemic gaps in the mental health system

• Invest in comprehensive care services for the elderly

• Expand outreach efforts to create community spaces and activities for the elderly

Most crucially, the elderly must have adequate financial resources of their own. Research shows that 75% of elderly people currently depend on their children for their expenses, while receiving only 12% from CPF. Anecdotally, some suicides were committed by elderly parents who did not want to be a burden on their children when they became sick.

A truly inclusive Singapore must include older citizens, because ageing is an inevitable part of life. Elderly suicide rates are a telling indicator of how well Singapore fares as a home with hope and heart. It should be included as one of the indicators to measure our success in achieving this vision.

Vivienne Wee is an anthropologist and Research & Advocacy Director at AWARE; Nadzirah Samsudin is the Research and Advocacy Executive at AWARE; Priyanka Bhandari is a volunteer at AWARE.

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

Read also: "Elderly suicides a worrying trend" by TODAY.

For one thing, content in the local newspapers has altered significantly. Today, newspapers are splashed with images of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and with regular reports of the prominent opposition leader and her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD). This is a stark contrast to the previous media environment where authorities were intolerant of any reference to the opposition party, let alone The Lady, as Aung San Suu Kyi is affectionately known by her supporters.

Kyaw Zwa Moe, managing editor of the Irrawaddy magazine, an exiled news organization, tells publichouse.sg that restrictions on reporting on Aung San Suu Kyi and the opposition has relaxed considerably but some issues are still considered sensitive, especially concerning “corruption of the current government officials and the ex-generals, power struggle in the government, and ethnic issues.”

The removal of the censorship cap allows journalists and reporters more freedom but it also calls for self-regulation and judgment in identifying what is deemed treading too far out into the waters. This is mainly due to the 16-clause guideline set out by the government following the removal of the censorship law.

As mentioned by the Democratic Voice of Burma, one such clause disallows “wording that encourages, supports or incites individuals and organizations that are dissident to the state”, while another prohibits “things that will damage ties with other countries.”

Thomas Kean, editor of the English language edition of the Myanmar Times, a local newspaper, explains, “While the government has given us a set of 16 rules to abide by, they are very general and it will be up to editors and journalists to identify what the limits are during this transition period until the new publishing law is promulgated and comes into effect.”

On the 10^th September, The Irrawaddy reported that Burma’s Information Minister, Aung Kyi, has welcomed local journalists and editors to participate in the drafting of the new press law, which could come into effect next year.

In any case, the progression of the media scene has affected the practice of news organizations and this is particularly seen in exiled media organizations where many journalists are no longer blacklisted or have the fear of being prosecuted.

“In the past year, people in Burma are more willing to talk to the press and the exiled media groups. Irrawaddy was also allowed to visit the country to gather information and report,” says Moe.

“I managed to interview many people, including opposition (members) and activists groups as well as leading members of the ruling party, Union Solidarity and Development Party. So, it's good for us exiled media to directly access sources inside Burma.”

One concern over the media however is the need to reinforce better journalistic ethical standards. There is very little training or the understanding of these journalistic standards and thus, the only option is perhaps to learn through experience.

As Kean puts it, “Some of these concerns should be addressed by improving access to training for current and future journalists. At present, there is very little training available, particularly on topics such as ethics and media-related laws, and journalists are forced to learn on the job.”

Moe, on the other hand, feels that the relaxation of the rules for the press presents a perfect opportunity for journalists to improve.

“Good journalism was killed by the five-decades long dictatorial rule,” he says.

“To rebuild good and professional journalism, the country does need freedom of the press, which will create a perfect environment for Burmese journalists to improve their skills and professionalism.”

The removal of the censorship law also provides insight into the type of media Burma will aim towards. Mr Thiha Saw, vice president of the Myanmar Journalist Association, said to The New York Times, “We won’t be as free as the Philippine press or the Thai press, but we will be much more liberal than Cambodia, Vietnam or Singapore.”

Kean says, “U Thiha Saw is being realistic here and saying what is possible in the short to medium term. It's extremely unlikely that we'll quickly transition to a relatively free press of the kind you might find in western countries.”

Moe feels that the most important direction the country’s media should head towards is one that is free from two types of people - the censor and the censored.

“We believe,” he says, “that a country with press freedom will help build democracy, prosperity and pluralism in the country.”

Aung San Suu Kyi has regularly reiterated the need for “cautious optimism” about the opening up of her country. It may thus be too early to see if Burma on the whole is on track to full democracy and in particular a freer press.

As Kean says, “The Ministry of Information has said it will submit a new print media law to parliament later this year and we are hopeful that (that) will be a positive step for the industry and for press freedom.”

World Suicide Prevention Day is an initiative of the International Association for Suicide Prevention (IASP) in collaboration with WHO. The theme they have chosen this year is "Suicide Prevention across the Globe: Strengthening Protective Factors and Instilling Hope." This comes close to our very own message of “Hope, Heart and Home” in this year’s National Day Rally Speech. As Singapore becomes increasingly affluent, we should not forget the individuals with a different kind of “high net worth” – our senior citizens, who have worked and built this country. Do they have a home with hope and heart in what is supposed to be their golden years?

A worrying trend in Singapore is the higher prevalence of suicide mortality among the elderly, as compared to the rest of the population. The suicide mortality rate among those aged 50 years and above is about 6.45 times higher than that seen in the rest of the population.

The unacceptably high suicide rates among the elderly may worsen when citizens aged 80 and above number some 180,000 by 2030, more than double the current 73,000.

There are many risk factors associated with suicide, such as a history of self-harm, previous suicide attempts, psychological conditions, and stressful life experiences. Such factors are aggravated for the elderly in Singapore, who are rendered even more vulnerable by the lack of socio-economic support and social inclusion. While policy emphasis on the family as the first line of support may work for those with families with adequate capacities, what happens to the elderly without such families?

It has been estimated that by 2030, only 45% of persons over the age of 65 in Singapore would be living with families, compared to 70% in 2005. Thus, it is unrealistic to expect older persons to rely on families as their main source of care and support; it would also be socially irresponsible to neglect older members of our society who cannot rely on familial care.

Depression is not confined to the elderly who live alone; those who live with family or friends may be affected by the death of a spouse, by social and economic changes, or by sheer loneliness.

Family members and physicians often fail to detect symptoms of depression or suicidal intent. The Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) has seen a steady rise in the number of older persons who attempt suicide. Generally, more females than males attempt suicide (except those aged 50 and above). Significantly, suicide mortality by older women (aged 65-69 and 70-74) in 2011 has doubled, as compared to 2010.

These trends in elderly suicides call for urgent redress. Immediate measures can include educating physicians, care givers and family members to spot signs of depression or suicidal intent among the elderly. Longer term steps, some of which have been mentioned in Parliament, include:

• Provision of adequate economic support to the elderly

• More efforts to diagnose and treat depression among the poor, the elderly and other vulnerable  groups

• Bridge systemic gaps in the mental health system

• Invest in comprehensive care services for the elderly

• Expand outreach efforts to create community spaces and activities for the elderly

Most crucially, the elderly must have adequate financial resources of their own. Research shows that 75% of elderly people currently depend on their children for their expenses, while receiving only 12% from CPF. Anecdotally, some suicides were committed by elderly parents who did not want to be a burden on their children when they became sick.

A truly inclusive Singapore must include older citizens, because ageing is an inevitable part of life. Elderly suicide rates are a telling indicator of how well Singapore fares as a home with hope and heart. It should be included as one of the indicators to measure our success in achieving this vision.

Vivienne Wee is an anthropologist and Research & Advocacy Director at AWARE; Nadzirah Samsudin is the Research and Advocacy Executive at AWARE; Priyanka Bhandari is a volunteer at AWARE.

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

Read also: "Elderly suicides a worrying trend" by TODAY.

“There will be no sacred cows…there will have to be a systematic willingness to go through all policies and programmes we’re about to embark on,” the minister in charge in 2002, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, said then.

It was a view echoed then by Minister Khaw Boon Wan as well.

There seems to be less a willingness to slaughter these cows now.

And then there is the media, particularly Channel Newsasia, which seem to have gone the extra mile in excluding some segments from the telecast dialogue with the prime minister. Bloggers who were initially invited to participate in the session were later uninvited. The reason? Oh, the prime minister had already spoken to some bloggers at the Istana about a week earlier. This is not quite true, actually. The 19 guests invited to the Istana were invited because they had posted comments on PM Lee’s Facebook page. That was what we were told by the admins of PM Lee’s Facebook page.

There was nothing mentioned about bloggers – although there were a few who were bloggers, myself included – but this was not the reason why we were invited, as far as what I was told.

And after Minister Heng himself said that the NC is not a partisan undertaking, when he explained why bloggers and opposition members were not included in the committee, we find that several People's Action Party (PAP) members were among those in the dialogue with PM Lee on CNA. This itself coming on the back of a Facebook posting by NC committee member, Sim Ann, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Education & Ministry of Law, who alluded to critics as those who only "cow peh cow bu" (literally, "cry father, cry mother"). In local parlance, it is a derogatory and condescending remark.

If we want a serious conversation, such things must not happen and there must be honesty and transparency. Uninviting your guests is a thoroughly disrespectful thing to do. Period. And this sort of thing cannot but give rise to cynicism and distrust – the very two things which the government must want to avoid.

Trust, especially, is of utmost importance in such a national undertaking.

There must be good faith above all else.

I had called for exactly such a national dialogue in this article for Yahoo back in June. And when it was announced that the government would indeed be embarking on such an initiative, I was surprised (because I didn’t think it really would do so) and was quietly happy – that we would now be able to discuss and debate the real issues.

I also mentioned some areas which we should be talking about - such as in economic policies, media freedom and independence, space for civil society and civil liberties, political and artistic expression.

In short, the fundamentals.

After all, the aim of the NC is to decide where Singapore wants to be in 20 years, and what kind of society we want to be. Necessarily, thus, this would and must start from the foundations – the fundamentals – which would undergird all that we do as a society.

But so far, the NC seems to be focused on the mundane, the issues which we have already been talking about the last few years – public housing, education, birth rate, etc. Nothing wrong with these, except that they come at the total exclusion (for now) of the other issues – civil liberties, the rights of being Singaporean, our economic policies, freedom of expression, freedom of information, etc.

I would like to see, for example, a discussion on what perhaps we should have as inalienable rights which would be enshrined in unequivocal language in our Constitution – protected by an independent judiciary, along with a legal system which is fearless in advocating and protecting these rights.

A Singapore in 20 years, in my view, must be one where the Singaporean is an empowered species – his empowerment protected by the force of law, never to be taken away by any government or power.

That is a Singapore which is worth talking about.

For if we do not grant power back to the people, the people – us, Singaporeans – will forever have to bend over in begging and petitioning the government every now and then for what we want our society to be.

And the danger of this disempowerment is that we the people are at the mercy of faulty and discriminatory policies. These in turn lead to potentially catastrophic consequences for us all - resulting, for example, in depressed wages, crowded public transport, spiraling housing prices, all from one immigration policy which did not come to light until 2 million foreigners were already on our shores.

But I am not naive. No political power will divest control willingly or do so magnanimously.

This is not to say that a national conversation is useless. Instead of criticising it, those of us who care should seize the agenda, put the issues we are concerned about on the table by blogging about it, emailing it to the government ministries and make them public on our blogs, speak to MPs (both opposition and ruling party), organise forums, create a movement.

In short, don’t let the government get away with a superficial, public relations exercise couched as a genuine conversation for change.

There are those of us who want to see genuine change because our country desperately needs it. The government must recognise this as well and be open – genuinely open – to talking about these and even accepting these.

Otherwise, the resulting sentiment, after this one-year of conversation, will be one where more unhappiness and cynicism would have emerged. And this will do no one any good at all.

I, for one, would like to see this NC initiative succeed, truth be told. Not because it will make any political party look good or bad, but because as a citizen of this country, I shudder to think of the consequences for my country if it continued to be led by one party which has shown to be less than capable in many areas in recent times.

But if the conversation is going to trudge meaninglessly along superficial discussions, then no one would want to be part of this – and the government will have to contend with something even bigger come 2016.

For the moment, the national conversation feels like it is indeed going nowhere. And this is not good.

Lim, a Filipino-American mother of eight, fell in love with Asia when she was a child living in the Philippines. She says, “Being half Asian may have had something to do with the resonance I feel with this part of the world and the commitment I have to lessening the suffering [here].” When her sister died from complications giving birth, a grieving Lim and her husband decided to sell their home in Hawaii and move to Bali, Indonesia.

In 1994 she began providing free health services for pregnant women and young children from her house near Ubud, a historic town in the foothills of Bali’s mountains. Over the next decade the demand for services grew and in 2011 alone she and her team had 33,000 patients visit the Yayasan Bumi Sehat clinics. Health services provided included births, prenatal checks ups, pediatric care, ambulance transport, vision tests, treatment of general illness or injuries and much more.

When the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami struck, Lim and a team of other midwives responded by setting up a clinic in Cot, in the Aceh region of Sumatra, that still exists today. In addition to medical aid, she and her team also operate a Youth Education Center at the Nyuh Kuning clinic in Ubud which offers English classes, computer skills, and organic farming training to local children. They also offer sexuality education classes for local youth several times a year at the Youth center, and Lim is currently working on creating a sex-education comic book to appeal to the adolescents in her community.

When Lim is not using her midwifery skills, she is also attempting to lower the incidence of smoking in her local community. Indonesia is home to 57 million smokers and Lim and her team do what they can to encourage new fathers to quit smoking. “We midwives are often asked by the new fathers: ‘What can I do to repay the kindness you have given my wife and baby?’ This is when we ask them to stop smoking. Their hearts are wide open from the birth so it is an excellent time for them to let go of a bad habit”, says Lim.

Finding sufficient funds to keep providing these essential services is always a challenge. “Being popular means more and more patients. The current clinic is busting at the seams”, says Lim. Due to the cases of babies being held as collateral in hospitals, Lim believes small independent community health centers are more trusted by the local women and their families. “Maybe [local women] have no money to make a donation but when the mango tree in their yard bears fruit they remember the midwives and they share.” With the help of the CNN hero award money Lim and her team recently raised enough funds to purchase the land they need for a new clinic to replace the current clinic in Nyuh Kuning.  In addition to building the new clinic and keeping the existing operations running, Lim intends to open a clinic in the Philippines, all of which requires ongoing financial support.  “Healthcare may be a human right but it’s not free,” she says. “Thank Heaven for the donors.”

For more information on how to donate and help Yayasan Bumi Sehat, please visit here.

Yet comparatively little is publicly known about Mr Menon or his jurisprudential views, given his largely private sector background before he became Attorney-General in 2010.  Even his time as a Judge of Appeal (he left the Attorney-General’s Chambers for the bench only recently in May 2012) has been unusually short, so there is not much of a track record to examine there.  (Mr Menon also served as judicial commissioner – a part-time position meant to test a nominee’s suitability for appointment to a permanent position – of the Supreme Court between April 2006 and March 2007.)

Arguably, the same was true of perhaps the most famous of his predecessors, Chief Justice Yong Pung How, who spent much of his career away from the practice of law before he took office.  But a case should be made for a different approach, given that nowadays the public expects to be able to scrutinise officials more closely than they did previously.

In this context, Mr Menon’s appointment is significant in several aspects.  First, it seems to mark a reversion to tapping talent from outside the public sphere. The outgoing Chief Justice, Mr Chan Sek Keong, spent more than half of his lengthy career in public service, first as a judge followed by Attorney-General, prior to being appointed in 2006.  In this, Mr Menon’s elevation appears to more closely resemble that of Mr Yong’s, who had been plucked from the banking sector in 1989 by his former classmate and then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to head the judiciary.  This may suggest a return to a more overtly political rationale for choosing nominees.

Second and perhaps more importantly, the change of guard at the top of the judiciary comes at a time when glimmers of a more liberal jurisprudence are beginning to be discerned in the normally conservative establishment.  The government’s hardnosed stance on issues like the death penalty and gay rights are starting to face some pushback, a development that has stemmed in good measure from some surprising rulings by the courts.

For example, a Court of Appeal judgment delivered by Chief Justice Chan in 2009 unexpectedly opened a path to challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty, though the latter was affirmed in 2010 in a subsequent trial.  Still, the encouragement that it gave to anti-death penalty campaigners might have been a factor in the government’s decision earlier this year to relax the rules regarding the application of the mandatory death penalty.

Another significant development came in August 2012 when the Court of Appeal ruled against the government in a case over the section 377A of the penal code (which criminalises homosexual acts). Embarrassingly for the government, the judges explicitly contradicted its longstanding positions on the issue, such as its promise not to enforce the law, in addition to criticising the prosecution’s handling of the case.

Whether such a trend would be reversed under the incoming Chief Justice would be a question of interest to many civil society activists.  It is for reasons such as these that appointments such as the Chief Justice should be more thoroughly scrutinised.  One way would be for the MPs on the Government Parliamentary Committee on home affairs and the law to be allotted time and a public venue to question the nominee about his views on jurisprudence and legal cases.  Though Parliament has no legal authority to veto the appointment, what matters is that the public gets to hear from the nominee and learn more about his views – which are likely to have a significant impact on their lives – before he takes office.  This would in any case also be in line with the government’s own pledge of being more accountable and open.

For one thing, content in the local newspapers has altered significantly. Today, newspapers are splashed with images of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and with regular reports of the prominent opposition leader and her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD). This is a stark contrast to the previous media environment where authorities were intolerant of any reference to the opposition party, let alone The Lady, as Aung San Suu Kyi is affectionately known by her supporters.

Kyaw Zwa Moe, managing editor of the Irrawaddy magazine, an exiled news organization, tells publichouse.sg that restrictions on reporting on Aung San Suu Kyi and the opposition has relaxed considerably but some issues are still considered sensitive, especially concerning “corruption of the current government officials and the ex-generals, power struggle in the government, and ethnic issues.”

The removal of the censorship cap allows journalists and reporters more freedom but it also calls for self-regulation and judgment in identifying what is deemed treading too far out into the waters. This is mainly due to the 16-clause guideline set out by the government following the removal of the censorship law.

As mentioned by the Democratic Voice of Burma, one such clause disallows “wording that encourages, supports or incites individuals and organizations that are dissident to the state”, while another prohibits “things that will damage ties with other countries.”

Thomas Kean, editor of the English language edition of the Myanmar Times, a local newspaper, explains, “While the government has given us a set of 16 rules to abide by, they are very general and it will be up to editors and journalists to identify what the limits are during this transition period until the new publishing law is promulgated and comes into effect.”

On the 10^th September, The Irrawaddy reported that Burma’s Information Minister, Aung Kyi, has welcomed local journalists and editors to participate in the drafting of the new press law, which could come into effect next year.

In any case, the progression of the media scene has affected the practice of news organizations and this is particularly seen in exiled media organizations where many journalists are no longer blacklisted or have the fear of being prosecuted.

“In the past year, people in Burma are more willing to talk to the press and the exiled media groups. Irrawaddy was also allowed to visit the country to gather information and report,” says Moe.

“I managed to interview many people, including opposition (members) and activists groups as well as leading members of the ruling party, Union Solidarity and Development Party. So, it's good for us exiled media to directly access sources inside Burma.”

One concern over the media however is the need to reinforce better journalistic ethical standards. There is very little training or the understanding of these journalistic standards and thus, the only option is perhaps to learn through experience.

As Kean puts it, “Some of these concerns should be addressed by improving access to training for current and future journalists. At present, there is very little training available, particularly on topics such as ethics and media-related laws, and journalists are forced to learn on the job.”

Moe, on the other hand, feels that the relaxation of the rules for the press presents a perfect opportunity for journalists to improve.

“Good journalism was killed by the five-decades long dictatorial rule,” he says.

“To rebuild good and professional journalism, the country does need freedom of the press, which will create a perfect environment for Burmese journalists to improve their skills and professionalism.”

The removal of the censorship law also provides insight into the type of media Burma will aim towards. Mr Thiha Saw, vice president of the Myanmar Journalist Association, said to The New York Times, “We won’t be as free as the Philippine press or the Thai press, but we will be much more liberal than Cambodia, Vietnam or Singapore.”

Kean says, “U Thiha Saw is being realistic here and saying what is possible in the short to medium term. It's extremely unlikely that we'll quickly transition to a relatively free press of the kind you might find in western countries.”

Moe feels that the most important direction the country’s media should head towards is one that is free from two types of people - the censor and the censored.

“We believe,” he says, “that a country with press freedom will help build democracy, prosperity and pluralism in the country.”

Aung San Suu Kyi has regularly reiterated the need for “cautious optimism” about the opening up of her country. It may thus be too early to see if Burma on the whole is on track to full democracy and in particular a freer press.

As Kean says, “The Ministry of Information has said it will submit a new print media law to parliament later this year and we are hopeful that (that) will be a positive step for the industry and for press freedom.”

“There will be no sacred cows…there will have to be a systematic willingness to go through all policies and programmes we’re about to embark on,” the minister in charge in 2002, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, said then.

It was a view echoed then by Minister Khaw Boon Wan as well.

There seems to be less a willingness to slaughter these cows now.

And then there is the media, particularly Channel Newsasia, which seem to have gone the extra mile in excluding some segments from the telecast dialogue with the prime minister. Bloggers who were initially invited to participate in the session were later uninvited. The reason? Oh, the prime minister had already spoken to some bloggers at the Istana about a week earlier. This is not quite true, actually. The 19 guests invited to the Istana were invited because they had posted comments on PM Lee’s Facebook page. That was what we were told by the admins of PM Lee’s Facebook page.

There was nothing mentioned about bloggers – although there were a few who were bloggers, myself included – but this was not the reason why we were invited, as far as what I was told.

And after Minister Heng himself said that the NC is not a partisan undertaking, when he explained why bloggers and opposition members were not included in the committee, we find that several People's Action Party (PAP) members were among those in the dialogue with PM Lee on CNA. This itself coming on the back of a Facebook posting by NC committee member, Sim Ann, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Education & Ministry of Law, who alluded to critics as those who only "cow peh cow bu" (literally, "cry father, cry mother"). In local parlance, it is a derogatory and condescending remark.

If we want a serious conversation, such things must not happen and there must be honesty and transparency. Uninviting your guests is a thoroughly disrespectful thing to do. Period. And this sort of thing cannot but give rise to cynicism and distrust – the very two things which the government must want to avoid.

Trust, especially, is of utmost importance in such a national undertaking.

There must be good faith above all else.

I had called for exactly such a national dialogue in this article for Yahoo back in June. And when it was announced that the government would indeed be embarking on such an initiative, I was surprised (because I didn’t think it really would do so) and was quietly happy – that we would now be able to discuss and debate the real issues.

I also mentioned some areas which we should be talking about - such as in economic policies, media freedom and independence, space for civil society and civil liberties, political and artistic expression.

In short, the fundamentals.

After all, the aim of the NC is to decide where Singapore wants to be in 20 years, and what kind of society we want to be. Necessarily, thus, this would and must start from the foundations – the fundamentals – which would undergird all that we do as a society.

But so far, the NC seems to be focused on the mundane, the issues which we have already been talking about the last few years – public housing, education, birth rate, etc. Nothing wrong with these, except that they come at the total exclusion (for now) of the other issues – civil liberties, the rights of being Singaporean, our economic policies, freedom of expression, freedom of information, etc.

I would like to see, for example, a discussion on what perhaps we should have as inalienable rights which would be enshrined in unequivocal language in our Constitution – protected by an independent judiciary, along with a legal system which is fearless in advocating and protecting these rights.

A Singapore in 20 years, in my view, must be one where the Singaporean is an empowered species – his empowerment protected by the force of law, never to be taken away by any government or power.

That is a Singapore which is worth talking about.

For if we do not grant power back to the people, the people – us, Singaporeans – will forever have to bend over in begging and petitioning the government every now and then for what we want our society to be.

And the danger of this disempowerment is that we the people are at the mercy of faulty and discriminatory policies. These in turn lead to potentially catastrophic consequences for us all - resulting, for example, in depressed wages, crowded public transport, spiraling housing prices, all from one immigration policy which did not come to light until 2 million foreigners were already on our shores.

But I am not naive. No political power will divest control willingly or do so magnanimously.

This is not to say that a national conversation is useless. Instead of criticising it, those of us who care should seize the agenda, put the issues we are concerned about on the table by blogging about it, emailing it to the government ministries and make them public on our blogs, speak to MPs (both opposition and ruling party), organise forums, create a movement.

In short, don’t let the government get away with a superficial, public relations exercise couched as a genuine conversation for change.

There are those of us who want to see genuine change because our country desperately needs it. The government must recognise this as well and be open – genuinely open – to talking about these and even accepting these.

Otherwise, the resulting sentiment, after this one-year of conversation, will be one where more unhappiness and cynicism would have emerged. And this will do no one any good at all.

I, for one, would like to see this NC initiative succeed, truth be told. Not because it will make any political party look good or bad, but because as a citizen of this country, I shudder to think of the consequences for my country if it continued to be led by one party which has shown to be less than capable in many areas in recent times.

But if the conversation is going to trudge meaninglessly along superficial discussions, then no one would want to be part of this – and the government will have to contend with something even bigger come 2016.

For the moment, the national conversation feels like it is indeed going nowhere. And this is not good.

Lim, a Filipino-American mother of eight, fell in love with Asia when she was a child living in the Philippines. She says, “Being half Asian may have had something to do with the resonance I feel with this part of the world and the commitment I have to lessening the suffering [here].” When her sister died from complications giving birth, a grieving Lim and her husband decided to sell their home in Hawaii and move to Bali, Indonesia.

In 1994 she began providing free health services for pregnant women and young children from her house near Ubud, a historic town in the foothills of Bali’s mountains. Over the next decade the demand for services grew and in 2011 alone she and her team had 33,000 patients visit the Yayasan Bumi Sehat clinics. Health services provided included births, prenatal checks ups, pediatric care, ambulance transport, vision tests, treatment of general illness or injuries and much more.

When the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami struck, Lim and a team of other midwives responded by setting up a clinic in Cot, in the Aceh region of Sumatra, that still exists today. In addition to medical aid, she and her team also operate a Youth Education Center at the Nyuh Kuning clinic in Ubud which offers English classes, computer skills, and organic farming training to local children. They also offer sexuality education classes for local youth several times a year at the Youth center, and Lim is currently working on creating a sex-education comic book to appeal to the adolescents in her community.

When Lim is not using her midwifery skills, she is also attempting to lower the incidence of smoking in her local community. Indonesia is home to 57 million smokers and Lim and her team do what they can to encourage new fathers to quit smoking. “We midwives are often asked by the new fathers: ‘What can I do to repay the kindness you have given my wife and baby?’ This is when we ask them to stop smoking. Their hearts are wide open from the birth so it is an excellent time for them to let go of a bad habit”, says Lim.

Finding sufficient funds to keep providing these essential services is always a challenge. “Being popular means more and more patients. The current clinic is busting at the seams”, says Lim. Due to the cases of babies being held as collateral in hospitals, Lim believes small independent community health centers are more trusted by the local women and their families. “Maybe [local women] have no money to make a donation but when the mango tree in their yard bears fruit they remember the midwives and they share.” With the help of the CNN hero award money Lim and her team recently raised enough funds to purchase the land they need for a new clinic to replace the current clinic in Nyuh Kuning.  In addition to building the new clinic and keeping the existing operations running, Lim intends to open a clinic in the Philippines, all of which requires ongoing financial support.  “Healthcare may be a human right but it’s not free,” she says. “Thank Heaven for the donors.”

For more information on how to donate and help Yayasan Bumi Sehat, please visit here.

Yet comparatively little is publicly known about Mr Menon or his jurisprudential views, given his largely private sector background before he became Attorney-General in 2010.  Even his time as a Judge of Appeal (he left the Attorney-General’s Chambers for the bench only recently in May 2012) has been unusually short, so there is not much of a track record to examine there.  (Mr Menon also served as judicial commissioner – a part-time position meant to test a nominee’s suitability for appointment to a permanent position – of the Supreme Court between April 2006 and March 2007.)

Arguably, the same was true of perhaps the most famous of his predecessors, Chief Justice Yong Pung How, who spent much of his career away from the practice of law before he took office.  But a case should be made for a different approach, given that nowadays the public expects to be able to scrutinise officials more closely than they did previously.

In this context, Mr Menon’s appointment is significant in several aspects.  First, it seems to mark a reversion to tapping talent from outside the public sphere. The outgoing Chief Justice, Mr Chan Sek Keong, spent more than half of his lengthy career in public service, first as a judge followed by Attorney-General, prior to being appointed in 2006.  In this, Mr Menon’s elevation appears to more closely resemble that of Mr Yong’s, who had been plucked from the banking sector in 1989 by his former classmate and then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to head the judiciary.  This may suggest a return to a more overtly political rationale for choosing nominees.

Second and perhaps more importantly, the change of guard at the top of the judiciary comes at a time when glimmers of a more liberal jurisprudence are beginning to be discerned in the normally conservative establishment.  The government’s hardnosed stance on issues like the death penalty and gay rights are starting to face some pushback, a development that has stemmed in good measure from some surprising rulings by the courts.

For example, a Court of Appeal judgment delivered by Chief Justice Chan in 2009 unexpectedly opened a path to challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty, though the latter was affirmed in 2010 in a subsequent trial.  Still, the encouragement that it gave to anti-death penalty campaigners might have been a factor in the government’s decision earlier this year to relax the rules regarding the application of the mandatory death penalty.

Another significant development came in August 2012 when the Court of Appeal ruled against the government in a case over the section 377A of the penal code (which criminalises homosexual acts). Embarrassingly for the government, the judges explicitly contradicted its longstanding positions on the issue, such as its promise not to enforce the law, in addition to criticising the prosecution’s handling of the case.

Whether such a trend would be reversed under the incoming Chief Justice would be a question of interest to many civil society activists.  It is for reasons such as these that appointments such as the Chief Justice should be more thoroughly scrutinised.  One way would be for the MPs on the Government Parliamentary Committee on home affairs and the law to be allotted time and a public venue to question the nominee about his views on jurisprudence and legal cases.  Though Parliament has no legal authority to veto the appointment, what matters is that the public gets to hear from the nominee and learn more about his views – which are likely to have a significant impact on their lives – before he takes office.  This would in any case also be in line with the government’s own pledge of being more accountable and open.

The church’s withdrawal of the first letter to Function 8 came to light after Alex Au [http://yawningbread.word.press.com] wrote about it on his website.

In his article on 18 September, titled “Lunch menu a 4-point letter”, Au said, “In the warmly-worded letter, the archbishop expressed his support for the rally and, I am told, endorsed the call for the abolition of the law in question.” That law is the ISA, which abolition was called for by speakers at the rally in June.

Au goes on to say, “A few days later, government officers, believed to be from the Internal Security Department, paid a call to the archbishop. It was apparently suggested to him that the church might be being made use of by Function 8 — a rather strange way to see things when it was a totally unsolicited letter. How could Function 8 be trying to make use of the church when they didn’t even ask for such a letter?”

The archbishop’s decision to withdraw the original letter came, according to Au, after “the archbishop was summoned to lunch with Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean”. Teo is also the Minister for Home Affairs. Chia was “told to show up alone,” Au wrote.

The archbishop’s press statement accuses Au and Function 8 of “irresponsible” action. “Au's article confirmed my fear that the group would use my letter in a manner that I did not agree with, and make use of the Office of the Archbishop and the Catholic Church for their own ends.”

The statement added, “These irresponsible actions can easily cause serious misunderstanding between the Catholic Church and the Government, and damage the longstanding trust and cooperation between the two. It is most regrettable that Au and the group have acted in this manner.”

In a response on 20 September posted on his website, Au rebutted the archbishop, “He described as ‘irresponsible’ my publication of the chronology of events and his assumption that it was Function 8 which told me about it.”

Au continued, "On the contrary, I think it is the responsible thing to do to expose these hidden events to public scrutiny. They show Singaporeans the inner workings of how our country is governed, and transparency is essential to a healthier democracy. The very fact that powerful forces would want these goings-on to be kept from the public eye is itself suspicious."

"Do note that not only was the original letter supportive of the rally against detention without trial,” Au said, “his second letter said the organisers were free to tell the rally participants that the archbishop had sent a letter of support. What can he possibly mean when he now says that he was afraid of his first letter being used ‘in a manner that I did not intend’?"

Chia had, in his statement said that his decision to withdraw his original letter was “so as not to inadvertently embroil the Catholic Church and the office of the Archbishop in a political event which was being staged by the group.”

This is not the first time that the Catholic Church has backed away from expressing its support for the former detainees of 1987. Most of the 22 detained then were church workers, some of them doing so full-time and others on a volunteer basis. They were accused of being part of a “clandestine communist network” out to “topple” the government.

The former detainees, who were never charged or brought to trial in open court, have always maintained their innocence.

On 14 June 1987, less than a month after the initial wave of arrests, the Catholic Church had printed a pastoral letter from the then archbishop, Gregory Yong, in the Catholic News magazine. In that letter, the Church said, “We affirm our confidence in and continued support for all Catholic organisations mentioned in the Ministry’s statement.”

“To the best of our knowledge, the full-time workers have been fully committed to the work of the Catholic organisations in which they served,” it added.

“We hope and pray that justice will be done and be seen to be done. We also hope the detainees will be treated justly and humanely.”

Archbishop Yong, however, later ordered that the printed copies of the Catholic News which carried the letter “was not to be circulated.” His order came after he had had a meeting with the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew earlier, according to the then Associate Editor of the Catholic News, Edgar D'Souza, who was also the Press Liaison officer to the archbishop.

“Archbishop Gregory Yong was summoned to a meeting with Lee Kuan Yew,” D'Souza told publichouse.sg in May this year. “After that meeting, the Archbishop apparently did an about turn and withdrew his support for the church workers that had been detained.”

“Later, the Archbishop and his Vicar General (second in command in the Archdiocese) came to see me in the Catholic News office,” D'Souza explained. “The Archbishop appeared to be very distraught. He asked me if the next issue of the Catholic News had already been printed. When I told him it had, he asked to look at it. He looked at the front page that carried the full text of his pastoral letter and the photos of the four church workers who had been detained.

“Archbishop Yong then instructed me that this particular issue of the Catholic News was NOT to be circulated and he held me responsible for ensuring this was done.”

In his press statement, Chia said, “The Catholic Church has always maintained the position that it will not involve itself in political activities.”

This seems to be a change in the Church’s position from 1987. Then, Yong’s pastoral letter affirmed, “The Catholic Church, however, must continue its mission of spreading its teachings on matters pertaining to justice as they apply to social, economic and political issues.”