Our response is as follows:

1. Archbishop Nicholas Chia’s initial letter to us, and the subsequent one withdrawing the first letter, were not marked “private and/or confidential”. Indeed, in discussing his first letter, members of Function 8 concluded that it was intended to be made public on 2 June 2012, the 25th anniversary of Operation Spectrum. The retraction of the first letter made us cancel the plan. The organisers of the 2 June event subsequently decided that we would try to have a private dialogue with the Ministry of Home Affairs.

2. Archbishop Nicholas Chia assumed that Mr Au could only have obtained an account of what he wrote in his article from Function 8. Has His Grace forgotten that his second letter was cc to a third party and that his staff and others within the Church may also have sight of the letters?

3. What was his initial letter intended for and what are the unintended manners in which it could possibly be used to ‘harm the social harmony in Singapore’?

4. Finally, we do not understand how His Grace can draw the conclusion that the disclosure of his own letter can “inadvertently harm the social harmony in Singapore” and that the fact that Mr Au has now written an article confirms the correctness of his earlier decision to withdraw the letter.

In the midst of a national conversation called by the prime minister, we believe there is no room for whispered meetings on the issues above. We request Archbishop Nicholas Chia to publish his first and second letters and advise on what transpired between the time his first letter was written and his second letter so that the public can judge for themselves whether the actions or inaction of Function 8 and Mr Au were “irresponsible and regrettable”. For clarity, His Grace should also make known to members of the public if his first letter to the organisers of the 2 June event was solicited or unsolicited.

Function 8 Ltd

20/9/2012

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

From TODAY:

MARUAH, one of the organisers of the rally against the Internal Security Act, has issued a statement in response to Archbishop Nicholas Chia's comments on a blog post written by Mr Alex Au. Mr Au, in his post published on Tuesday, had suggested that the Archbishop was pressured by the Government into retracting a letter he had sent to the rally organisers expressing his support.

Here is MARUAH's press statement in full:

"MARUAH, a human rights NGO, is a partner with Function 8, in particular for the June 2nd 2012 event to mark the 25th Anniversary of the alleged Marxist Conspiracy. MARUAH's position is that it is timely for a Commission of Inquiry to be set up to review the detentions under Operation Spectrum.

As part of this collaborative effort MARUAH was informed of the letters that the Archbishop had sent to Function 8 and we are aware of the contents. The letters reflect diverse views on key content areas in relation to preventive detention without trial. Both organisations made a decision not to publicise the letter(s) till we sought clarifications from Ministry of Home Affairs and other relevant parties. This decision was taken as we feel it is a better way forward as both organisations are mindful of the previous pain within the Catholic community over what happened in 1987 where the Church, the government, the detainees and the community were involved. We agreed that after these approaches to reach out for dialogues had been tried and tested we would review this incident of the letters. It is unfortunate that the matter of the letters was leaked to the media before we could receive clarifications from the relevant bodies. Both organisations had wanted to focuson seeking a dialogue rather than dealing with the Archbishop's letters a public manner through the media.

Having said that, MARUAH has to state that we are deeply disappointed with the remarks of the Archbishop in his response to the media queries. An opportunity to understand the change in the position of the Archbishop vis-a-vis preventive detention without trial was missed. We are still clueless as to whether there was intervention by the State in this matter and if so, on what grounds and to what extent. Instead civil society has been vilified in the Archbishop's remarks which are the opposite of our intentions to preserve harmony by seeking clarifications.

Nevertheless, it is more important to move forward. We are keen to have dialogue with the Ministry of Home Affairs on our ongoing efforts at public education and advocacy on preventive detentions without trial. We will also be very happy to meet the Archbishop in relation to this matter.

More importantly, it is very important to us, and to many other Singaporeans that an independent Commission of Inquiry be set up as we are perturbed by the many contradictions in this case. This was the work that began on June 2nd between MARUAH and Function 8, to ensure that the rights of those detained are protected and fulfilled through an inquiry.

Braema Mathi

President

MARUAH Singapore"

More than three months have passed and we have not heard from the Archbishop.

Out of respect for His Grace, we had voluntarily not publicized our letter of response to his letter of withdrawal, and had hoped for the courtesy of a reply from him in due course. However, MHA’s unwarranted allegations have now forced us to show details of our letter to the Archbishop in order to clear the allegations against us. This letter is reluctantly attached with parts blacked out to protect the direct contents of the Archbishop’s original letter and the identity of the person who was copied in his letter of withdrawal.

MHA further claimed that Function 8 had publicised the matter through blogger Alex Au. Function 8 and MARUAH as partner organizations had, on the 3rd of September 2012, decided to try arranging for a private dialogue with MHA and other relevant organisations. We were in the process of drafting letters. There is no conceivable reason why we would choose to trip ourselves up by having the matter aired in public. Why has MHA made publicity of this matter the focus of conversation when the more pertinent question is one of transparency in executive action in engaging civil society?

We trust that the government wants to generate a meaningful national conversation at this time. MHA said that “government ministers meet regularly with religious leaders in Singapore”. We hope that theywould also engage civil society groups for “frank exchange of views especially on sensitive subjects”.

We hope this ‘national’ conversation can be conducted with dignity and civility over tea and certainlynot through the national papers. We continue to request a meaningful dialogue with MHA and other affected parties on this matter away from the noise of what has turned into an ugly public dispute. Assuch, we hope that this will be the last public statement we have to make as an organization on this matter.

In ending, we state categorically that we continue to applaud the Catholic Church for her good work carried out in our society to uphold social justice, caring for the poor and the weak. At no time will we allow ourselves to be set against the Church by inappropriate and unjustified allegations by any party.

Issued by

Function 8 Ltd

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

Letter from the organisers of the 25th anniversary commemorative event at Speakers' Corner on 2 June 2012, to Archbishop Nicholas Chia on 1 June 2012.

Dear Monsignor Nicholas Chia

May we first say that we were very happy to receive your letter of 25th May 2012 in support of the commemoration event of Operation Spectrum to be held on 2 June 2012 and your wish for [-----blanked out by organisers-----]. We received and appreciated it as a gesture on the part of the Catholic Church in Singapore to recognize truth and acknowledge the injustice suffered by the former detainees of Operation Spectrum and their families.

Needless to say, we are deeply disappointed and puzzled to receive your letter of withdrawal, just five days later.

Whatever might have transpired to pressurize the head of the Catholic Church in Singapore to withdraw the letter, we would like to think that you can now understand why the detainees had to make their “confessions” under the duress of torture and the threat of indefinite detention without trial.

We do not regard the event we are organizing as “political activities”, but as an effort to achieve restorative justice. This is a human and necessary stage in the healing process for the former detainees of Operation Spectrum, their families and friends. We are somewhat amazed and dismayed that you seem to suspect – without giving any reason (and indeed there is none) – that there is any ulterior motive to use your letter outside of the event, in any way at all.

How did you come to this conclusion? We had not even solicited the letter from you in the first place.

We note that you have copied a Mr [----blanked out by organisers----] in your letter of withdrawal and are puzzled as to his role in this matter when he was not copied in the first lett er. Should we also copy this response to Mr [----blanked out by organisers---]? Out of courtesy, we will await your response.

Lastly, while we can understand that Christians are obliged to “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s”, in the context of Singapore, we are curious to know what you think they should “render to God” in this same context.

Yours sincerely,

The Organisers

Function 8, a group made up of former detainees of the Internal Security Act (ISA), had planned a commemorative event for the 25th anniversary of the alleged and so-called “Marxist conspiracy” arrests of 1987. The event was to take place on 2 June 2012.

Prior to that event, the archbishop had – unsolicited - evidently sent a letter of support to the group. A purported second letter from the archbishop was sent to Function 8 giving the group permission to make it known – at the event – that the archbishop had sent a letter, presumably of support.

Five days later, the Archbishop retracted the letter and asked for it (the original letter) to be returned to him.

Function 8 did as requested and returned the letter to the archbishop.

It is now known that the Minister for Home Affairs had met with the Archbishop – perhaps days prior to the event at Speakers’ Corner and presumably before the Archbishop’s retraction of his original letter. The Ministry, in a statement on 20 September, said “government ministers meet regularly with various religious leaders in Singapore.”

The statement does not shed any light on when this particular meeting took place, or who were at the meeting besides the minister and the archbishop, it also does not say what were said or discussed between the two men. In other words, the ministry’s statement revealed little.

What is notable is that the ministry’s statement does not refute the sequence of events leading to the archbishop’s withdrawal of his original letter, as laid out by Au in his original blog post. (See here.)

Au wrote:

“A few days later [after the archbishop had sent his original letter of support for the event], 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…”

Sometime later, Au said, “the archbishop was summoned to lunch with Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean.”

“I don’t know what transpired at the lunch, but the result was soon apparent. A fresh letter from the archbishop was sent — this time by registered mail, no less — to Function 8, withdrawing the first letter and asking for it to be returned. It said that the first letter “does not express my sentiments” or something to that effect. What was particularly notable however was that this fresh letter was written in civil service style, with four numbered paragraphs and curt language.”

What has raised questions, and as Au had asked in his blog post, is whether the archbishop’s retraction of his original letter was decided on after the meeting with the Minister, that is, Teo Chee Hean. And if it was, what were the archbishop’s reasons? Also, what did the minister say, if he did at all, to the archbishop to result in the archbishop withdrawing his letter to Function 8?

To reiterate, the MHA’s statement on 20 September does not – at all – refute the sequence of events as reported by Au.

It does not even refute the accusation by Au, as reported by Today, of the “the Government's ‘arm-twisting’ of Archbishop Nicholas Chia.”

The archbishop has since accused Au and Function 8 of “irresponsible actions” in making known that he had sent a letter purportedly supporting the 2 June event which, incidentally, had also called for the abolition of the ISA.

It should also be noted, as some have indeed, that the archbishop’s statement was uncharacteristically strongly-worded. Some have observed that the tone of the statement bears a disconcertingly similar tone to the one issued by the MHA a day later. (See here.)

It is also puzzling why the archbishop:

1. Issued such a strongly-worded statement condemning former church workers who had acceded to his request to return the original letter and had not made it public at the 2 June event – and this after he had reportedly expressed his support for them.

2. Had jumped to the conclusion that it was Function 8 which had “used” the letter “in a manner which [he] did not agree with”, an allusion to the assumption that Function 8 had “leaked” the letter to Au. This despite the fact, as Function 8 later revealed, that the archbishop’s letter asking for a return of his original letter had also been copied to a third person. (It is unclear who this third person is, however, except that he is a male.] It was thus apparent that Function 8 was not the only party which would have known about the letter of support. What made the archbishop, a leader of a religious organization, make such an unsubstantiated accusation?

3. Would withdraw his support, just days after purportedly expressing it, for the event when only last year, in a National Day message to church followers, he had said, "As Catholics, we have an obligation to raise our voices on behalf of those who cannot, taking action to correct injustices in our society..." Why would the archbishop apparently abandon his belief to “correct injustices in our society” in such a dubious fashion?

4. Why the archbishop had not sought to resolve things in a private manner with his former church workers, instead of issuing such a strongly-worded letter which made some serious but so far unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations.

But to point the finger at the archbishop would be to miss the real issue here – and this is the MHA’s opacity in revealing what really took place and its hand in the whole saga.

The MHA’s assertion that “[this] deliberate breach of the Archbishop’s trust confirms the objective of this group to publicly involve the Catholic Church and the Archbishop in their political agenda”, does not hold any water either, on close inspection.

For one, Function 8 did not solicit any support – in any form – from the archbishop or the Catholic Church for its 2 June event. Indeed, in the 25 years since their incarceration under the ISA, the former detainees have not sought any such support, as far as this writer is aware. How then could they be accused of wanting “to publicly involve the Catholic Church and the Archbishop in their political agenda”?

And what exactly is this “political agenda” which the MHA is accusing the group of?

Second, the archbishop’s original letter of support, as Au himself noted, was already known to some, including some outside of Function 8. Remember that the archbishop himself had copied his letter, asking for retraction of his original letter, to a third party, a male, who apparently was not a member of Function 8.

“We note that you have copied a Mr [----blanked out by organisers----] in your letter of withdrawal and are puzzled as to his role in this matter when he was not copied in the first letter,” Function 8 wrote on 1 June in reply to the archbishop’s request to withdraw his letter. (See here.)

Who is this rather mysterious third person? Is he the minister, or someone from the MHA or the Internal Security Department or is he someone who is with the Government or any Government department?

Why would the archbishop copy his letter to such a third party if it was a private correspondence resulting from his personal reflection on its contents, as the archbishop himself said in his statement:

“I had earlier decided to withdraw my letter to this group as, on reflection, its contents did not accurately reflect my views on the subject, and if used in a manner that I did not intend, may inadvertently harm the social harmony in Singapore.”

Wouldn’t it be a more rational thing to do to keep this correspondence private between himself and the group, especially when his decision to withdraw the letter is a result of personal reflection?

In any case, one wonders why the leader of such an august organization had, apparently, not thought through his actions, and would withdraw his views only days later.

There are many unanswered questions in the ongoing saga.

Questions such as:

What was in the archbishop’s original letter of support? Did it express support for the call to abolish the ISA? Did it express support for the former detainees’ seeking of justice for 1987’s detention?

When did the Minister for Home Affairs meet the archbishop? What prompted the meeting? Who were present at the meeting? Was the archbishop asked to go alone to this meeting? What was said at the meeting? Was the event of 2 June raised?

Was the archbishop asked or “advised” to withdraw his purported letter of support to the 2 June event? If he was, who asked or “advised” this? What were the reasons for doing so?

Was the archbishop given advice on writing his statement, released on 19 September, a day before the MHA released its own statement which, incidentally, cited the archbishop’s statement as well? Why does the archbishop’s statement bear such uncanny similarity in tone to the MHA’s statement?

Why has the Minister or the MHA not refute Au’s sequence of events and allegations of “arm-twisting” of the archbishop by the Government?

What is this “political agenda” which the MHA has accused Function 8 of?

The issue thus is not one of “mixing politics with religion”, as the Government would have us believe. For at no point did Function 8 or Au made any allegations that the Church was not supporting Function 8’s event or its cause, or that the Church should stand by its religious beliefs and teachings and confront the Government on its behalf. And above all, Function 8 did not solicit any support from the archbishop or the Catholic Church for its event or indeed its cause.

The issue here is one of the Government’s opacity in operating behind-the-scenes and not being accountable, leading to the perception that it is using fear-mongering tactics by invoking the “politics/religion” argument and accusation to silence legitimate queries into its actions.

In short, invoking “the need to keep religion and politics separate” without being transparent and open about its dealings is disingenuous. Keeping religion and politics separate also means necessarily, one might argue, that the Government explains in clear and simple terms its actions so that no doubts or “conspiracy theories” abound in the vacuum of clarity.

This opacity is, in fact and instead, what would cause social disharmony and social disquiet.

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

Read also:

Function 8 and Archbishop Nicholas Chia: Truth Murdered.

MHA walks into t a minefield.

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

To be sure, the government is making an attempt to improve on its earlier effort. The watchword of the National Conversation seems to be “engagement”, particularly of sizeable segments of the population that may feel politically under-represented (though noticeably this did not extend to members of the political opposition). The drawn out structure of the Conversation, which will consist of an online solicitation of opinions, dozens of dialogue sessions with ordinary folks from all over the country and lastly a national survey, is likely to involve a lot more Singaporeans than the Remaking Singapore Committee did.  Furthermore, compared with the Remaking Singapore Committee, the National Conversation committee is more representative, having included members outside of the establishment, such as students and cabbies.

Still, the doubts over the National Conversation are the same as those that shadowed its forerunner.  The key one is over outcomes: whether it can actually deliver meaningful change.  Aspirations that are thought to have broad social consensus, such as those for more freedom of expression or a stronger safety net, remain likely to trigger misgivings amongst the conservative political establishment.

Even if it is assumed that the ministers leading the current initiative are of a keenly liberal bent, the older guards in the Cabinet remain likely to have a veto over the final product.  It is instructive that a majority of the more liberal suggestions made by the Remaking Singapore Committee – such as for the government to define the out-of-bounds markers for political debate, creating an Economic Relief Scheme for the structurally unemployed and subsidising the MediShield premiums of low-income groups – went unheeded.

Furthermore, the Conversation, by definition, also has a moral obligation to give voice to minorities that have traditionally been marginalised by the establishment and the majority of the population – sexual minorities, single parents, the indigent (particularly the homeless, since officially Singapore has no “homeless” folk) or long-term unemployed. Sadly, at this point it appears unlikely that any people from these groups will be included.

The second important issue is over process: how should the National Conversation committee arrive at its conclusions. On what basis are the merits of a viewpoint to be judged – is it because many people hold the same view, or because the idea is deemed a “good” one, but because it happens to agree with the pre-conceptions of some committee members?  The very ambition of the Conversation is likely to make this a tricky issue, as the committee has to encompass and compress the viewpoints of the thousands of citizens that it engages.  More likely than not, it will incur a good measure of unhappiness from those it has talked to who feel that they have been disregarded.

This leads to the final issue, that of substance: whether the Conversation is really necessary.  More than one commentator has pointed out that the initiative is a poor substitute for the democratic process.  There is already a fount of opinions about alternative policies and ideas for the nation sitting on the benches opposite the ruling party in Parliament.  The very fact that nearly 40% of the electorate voted for opposition parties and their manifestoes has imbued them and their ideas with a certain degree of legitimacy.  That should have instead been the government’s starting point when it comes to having a dialogue on the future of the country.  Moreover, even if it is accepted that the Conversation is a necessary device for reaching out to Singaporeans, the government has somewhat undermined its legitimacy by excluding members from any opposition party from the committee.

Despite these doubts, there are probably still many who hope that the Conversation does succeed in bringing about some positive changes for the country. Whatever its outcome though, it seems likely to be remembered in the final analysis as yet another top-down initiative by the government to increase the populace’s buy-in of the system, because the ruling elite would not unbind the stifling political restraints that would allow a genuine sense of ownership to organically develop from the bottom-up.

While there is certainly much to criticise about American anti-terrorism methods and the reprehensible treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, it should not detract from the problematic aspects of the ISA raised by the report.  It rightly pointed out that the ISA “specifically excludes recourse to the normal judicial system” as detainees have “no right to challenge the substantive basis for their detention through the courts”. Hence, while the initial detention may be for up to two years, the Home Minister may renew it for an unlimited number of additional periods with the President’s consent.

Without detainees having recourse to the judiciary, it seems disingenuous for the Singapore government to assert that the ISA provides “a proper legal framework, and prescribes rules, for preventive detention”.  The reality is that the secrecy with which arrests and detentions under the ISA are made make it impossible to judge whether this is the case – the very act of detention implies guilt, one that suspects often find difficult to shake off.

The practice of the ISA therefore leaves an uncomfortable amount of room for arbitrariness.  Indeed, the Act has been used more as a broadsword than a scalpel – it has been swung at anything from alleged Communists in the 1960s to 1980s to alleged terrorists in the 2000s after the Communist threat waned.

This is especially problematic because there is still public distrust lingering from the detention of Singaporeans in the 1980s for alleged Marxist conspiracies.  Quite a few ex-detainees have repeatedly said over the years that their confessions while in detention – in most cases the only piece of evidence justifying their detention under the ISA – had been coerced under torture, charges that have yet to be addressed by the authorities.

Ironically, such allegations of arbitrariness and mistreatment may prompt comparisons with America’s Guantanamo, albeit admittedly a legalised version.  It may thus be little surprise that, despite the Singapore government’s well-worn contention that “trade-offs between rights are inevitable”, fewer and fewer Singaporeans seem to think that the ISA is an acceptable part of that bargain.  Public events involving ex-detainees have garnered significant support and attention in recent years; opposition parties who have called for the abolition of the ISA won the sizeable followings in last year’s elections.  Singapore’s closest neighbour, Malaysia, from whom it inherited the ISA when they separated in 1965, has moved to abolish its own ISA and to replace it with specific anti-terrorism legislation.

It is not inconceivable for the Singapore authorities to do the same, especially since the elimination of the ISA still leaves them with an impressive array of powers that security officials in more civil liberty conscious countries can only wish for.  As the State Department’s report pointed out, the police have the discretion to search a person, home, or property without a warrant if they believe that it is necessary to preserve evidence; security agencies such as the Internal Security Department have highly sophisticated capabilities for surveillance and wire-tapping that they do not require warrants for.  It is therefore up to the government to make the case for retaining the ISA beyond the usual simplistic arguments that it puts out.

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

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

“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.

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.

Our response is as follows:

1. Archbishop Nicholas Chia’s initial letter to us, and the subsequent one withdrawing the first letter, were not marked “private and/or confidential”. Indeed, in discussing his first letter, members of Function 8 concluded that it was intended to be made public on 2 June 2012, the 25th anniversary of Operation Spectrum. The retraction of the first letter made us cancel the plan. The organisers of the 2 June event subsequently decided that we would try to have a private dialogue with the Ministry of Home Affairs.

2. Archbishop Nicholas Chia assumed that Mr Au could only have obtained an account of what he wrote in his article from Function 8. Has His Grace forgotten that his second letter was cc to a third party and that his staff and others within the Church may also have sight of the letters?

3. What was his initial letter intended for and what are the unintended manners in which it could possibly be used to ‘harm the social harmony in Singapore’?

4. Finally, we do not understand how His Grace can draw the conclusion that the disclosure of his own letter can “inadvertently harm the social harmony in Singapore” and that the fact that Mr Au has now written an article confirms the correctness of his earlier decision to withdraw the letter.

In the midst of a national conversation called by the prime minister, we believe there is no room for whispered meetings on the issues above. We request Archbishop Nicholas Chia to publish his first and second letters and advise on what transpired between the time his first letter was written and his second letter so that the public can judge for themselves whether the actions or inaction of Function 8 and Mr Au were “irresponsible and regrettable”. For clarity, His Grace should also make known to members of the public if his first letter to the organisers of the 2 June event was solicited or unsolicited.

Function 8 Ltd

20/9/2012

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

From TODAY:

MARUAH, one of the organisers of the rally against the Internal Security Act, has issued a statement in response to Archbishop Nicholas Chia's comments on a blog post written by Mr Alex Au. Mr Au, in his post published on Tuesday, had suggested that the Archbishop was pressured by the Government into retracting a letter he had sent to the rally organisers expressing his support.

Here is MARUAH's press statement in full:

"MARUAH, a human rights NGO, is a partner with Function 8, in particular for the June 2nd 2012 event to mark the 25th Anniversary of the alleged Marxist Conspiracy. MARUAH's position is that it is timely for a Commission of Inquiry to be set up to review the detentions under Operation Spectrum.

As part of this collaborative effort MARUAH was informed of the letters that the Archbishop had sent to Function 8 and we are aware of the contents. The letters reflect diverse views on key content areas in relation to preventive detention without trial. Both organisations made a decision not to publicise the letter(s) till we sought clarifications from Ministry of Home Affairs and other relevant parties. This decision was taken as we feel it is a better way forward as both organisations are mindful of the previous pain within the Catholic community over what happened in 1987 where the Church, the government, the detainees and the community were involved. We agreed that after these approaches to reach out for dialogues had been tried and tested we would review this incident of the letters. It is unfortunate that the matter of the letters was leaked to the media before we could receive clarifications from the relevant bodies. Both organisations had wanted to focuson seeking a dialogue rather than dealing with the Archbishop's letters a public manner through the media.

Having said that, MARUAH has to state that we are deeply disappointed with the remarks of the Archbishop in his response to the media queries. An opportunity to understand the change in the position of the Archbishop vis-a-vis preventive detention without trial was missed. We are still clueless as to whether there was intervention by the State in this matter and if so, on what grounds and to what extent. Instead civil society has been vilified in the Archbishop's remarks which are the opposite of our intentions to preserve harmony by seeking clarifications.

Nevertheless, it is more important to move forward. We are keen to have dialogue with the Ministry of Home Affairs on our ongoing efforts at public education and advocacy on preventive detentions without trial. We will also be very happy to meet the Archbishop in relation to this matter.

More importantly, it is very important to us, and to many other Singaporeans that an independent Commission of Inquiry be set up as we are perturbed by the many contradictions in this case. This was the work that began on June 2nd between MARUAH and Function 8, to ensure that the rights of those detained are protected and fulfilled through an inquiry.

Braema Mathi

President

MARUAH Singapore"

More than three months have passed and we have not heard from the Archbishop.

Out of respect for His Grace, we had voluntarily not publicized our letter of response to his letter of withdrawal, and had hoped for the courtesy of a reply from him in due course. However, MHA’s unwarranted allegations have now forced us to show details of our letter to the Archbishop in order to clear the allegations against us. This letter is reluctantly attached with parts blacked out to protect the direct contents of the Archbishop’s original letter and the identity of the person who was copied in his letter of withdrawal.

MHA further claimed that Function 8 had publicised the matter through blogger Alex Au. Function 8 and MARUAH as partner organizations had, on the 3rd of September 2012, decided to try arranging for a private dialogue with MHA and other relevant organisations. We were in the process of drafting letters. There is no conceivable reason why we would choose to trip ourselves up by having the matter aired in public. Why has MHA made publicity of this matter the focus of conversation when the more pertinent question is one of transparency in executive action in engaging civil society?

We trust that the government wants to generate a meaningful national conversation at this time. MHA said that “government ministers meet regularly with religious leaders in Singapore”. We hope that theywould also engage civil society groups for “frank exchange of views especially on sensitive subjects”.

We hope this ‘national’ conversation can be conducted with dignity and civility over tea and certainlynot through the national papers. We continue to request a meaningful dialogue with MHA and other affected parties on this matter away from the noise of what has turned into an ugly public dispute. Assuch, we hope that this will be the last public statement we have to make as an organization on this matter.

In ending, we state categorically that we continue to applaud the Catholic Church for her good work carried out in our society to uphold social justice, caring for the poor and the weak. At no time will we allow ourselves to be set against the Church by inappropriate and unjustified allegations by any party.

Issued by

Function 8 Ltd

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

Letter from the organisers of the 25th anniversary commemorative event at Speakers' Corner on 2 June 2012, to Archbishop Nicholas Chia on 1 June 2012.

Dear Monsignor Nicholas Chia

May we first say that we were very happy to receive your letter of 25th May 2012 in support of the commemoration event of Operation Spectrum to be held on 2 June 2012 and your wish for [-----blanked out by organisers-----]. We received and appreciated it as a gesture on the part of the Catholic Church in Singapore to recognize truth and acknowledge the injustice suffered by the former detainees of Operation Spectrum and their families.

Needless to say, we are deeply disappointed and puzzled to receive your letter of withdrawal, just five days later.

Whatever might have transpired to pressurize the head of the Catholic Church in Singapore to withdraw the letter, we would like to think that you can now understand why the detainees had to make their “confessions” under the duress of torture and the threat of indefinite detention without trial.

We do not regard the event we are organizing as “political activities”, but as an effort to achieve restorative justice. This is a human and necessary stage in the healing process for the former detainees of Operation Spectrum, their families and friends. We are somewhat amazed and dismayed that you seem to suspect – without giving any reason (and indeed there is none) – that there is any ulterior motive to use your letter outside of the event, in any way at all.

How did you come to this conclusion? We had not even solicited the letter from you in the first place.

We note that you have copied a Mr [----blanked out by organisers----] in your letter of withdrawal and are puzzled as to his role in this matter when he was not copied in the first lett er. Should we also copy this response to Mr [----blanked out by organisers---]? Out of courtesy, we will await your response.

Lastly, while we can understand that Christians are obliged to “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s”, in the context of Singapore, we are curious to know what you think they should “render to God” in this same context.

Yours sincerely,

The Organisers

Function 8, a group made up of former detainees of the Internal Security Act (ISA), had planned a commemorative event for the 25th anniversary of the alleged and so-called “Marxist conspiracy” arrests of 1987. The event was to take place on 2 June 2012.

Prior to that event, the archbishop had – unsolicited - evidently sent a letter of support to the group. A purported second letter from the archbishop was sent to Function 8 giving the group permission to make it known – at the event – that the archbishop had sent a letter, presumably of support.

Five days later, the Archbishop retracted the letter and asked for it (the original letter) to be returned to him.

Function 8 did as requested and returned the letter to the archbishop.

It is now known that the Minister for Home Affairs had met with the Archbishop – perhaps days prior to the event at Speakers’ Corner and presumably before the Archbishop’s retraction of his original letter. The Ministry, in a statement on 20 September, said “government ministers meet regularly with various religious leaders in Singapore.”

The statement does not shed any light on when this particular meeting took place, or who were at the meeting besides the minister and the archbishop, it also does not say what were said or discussed between the two men. In other words, the ministry’s statement revealed little.

What is notable is that the ministry’s statement does not refute the sequence of events leading to the archbishop’s withdrawal of his original letter, as laid out by Au in his original blog post. (See here.)

Au wrote:

“A few days later [after the archbishop had sent his original letter of support for the event], 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…”

Sometime later, Au said, “the archbishop was summoned to lunch with Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean.”

“I don’t know what transpired at the lunch, but the result was soon apparent. A fresh letter from the archbishop was sent — this time by registered mail, no less — to Function 8, withdrawing the first letter and asking for it to be returned. It said that the first letter “does not express my sentiments” or something to that effect. What was particularly notable however was that this fresh letter was written in civil service style, with four numbered paragraphs and curt language.”

What has raised questions, and as Au had asked in his blog post, is whether the archbishop’s retraction of his original letter was decided on after the meeting with the Minister, that is, Teo Chee Hean. And if it was, what were the archbishop’s reasons? Also, what did the minister say, if he did at all, to the archbishop to result in the archbishop withdrawing his letter to Function 8?

To reiterate, the MHA’s statement on 20 September does not – at all – refute the sequence of events as reported by Au.

It does not even refute the accusation by Au, as reported by Today, of the “the Government's ‘arm-twisting’ of Archbishop Nicholas Chia.”

The archbishop has since accused Au and Function 8 of “irresponsible actions” in making known that he had sent a letter purportedly supporting the 2 June event which, incidentally, had also called for the abolition of the ISA.

It should also be noted, as some have indeed, that the archbishop’s statement was uncharacteristically strongly-worded. Some have observed that the tone of the statement bears a disconcertingly similar tone to the one issued by the MHA a day later. (See here.)

It is also puzzling why the archbishop:

1. Issued such a strongly-worded statement condemning former church workers who had acceded to his request to return the original letter and had not made it public at the 2 June event – and this after he had reportedly expressed his support for them.

2. Had jumped to the conclusion that it was Function 8 which had “used” the letter “in a manner which [he] did not agree with”, an allusion to the assumption that Function 8 had “leaked” the letter to Au. This despite the fact, as Function 8 later revealed, that the archbishop’s letter asking for a return of his original letter had also been copied to a third person. (It is unclear who this third person is, however, except that he is a male.] It was thus apparent that Function 8 was not the only party which would have known about the letter of support. What made the archbishop, a leader of a religious organization, make such an unsubstantiated accusation?

3. Would withdraw his support, just days after purportedly expressing it, for the event when only last year, in a National Day message to church followers, he had said, "As Catholics, we have an obligation to raise our voices on behalf of those who cannot, taking action to correct injustices in our society..." Why would the archbishop apparently abandon his belief to “correct injustices in our society” in such a dubious fashion?

4. Why the archbishop had not sought to resolve things in a private manner with his former church workers, instead of issuing such a strongly-worded letter which made some serious but so far unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations.

But to point the finger at the archbishop would be to miss the real issue here – and this is the MHA’s opacity in revealing what really took place and its hand in the whole saga.

The MHA’s assertion that “[this] deliberate breach of the Archbishop’s trust confirms the objective of this group to publicly involve the Catholic Church and the Archbishop in their political agenda”, does not hold any water either, on close inspection.

For one, Function 8 did not solicit any support – in any form – from the archbishop or the Catholic Church for its 2 June event. Indeed, in the 25 years since their incarceration under the ISA, the former detainees have not sought any such support, as far as this writer is aware. How then could they be accused of wanting “to publicly involve the Catholic Church and the Archbishop in their political agenda”?

And what exactly is this “political agenda” which the MHA is accusing the group of?

Second, the archbishop’s original letter of support, as Au himself noted, was already known to some, including some outside of Function 8. Remember that the archbishop himself had copied his letter, asking for retraction of his original letter, to a third party, a male, who apparently was not a member of Function 8.

“We note that you have copied a Mr [----blanked out by organisers----] in your letter of withdrawal and are puzzled as to his role in this matter when he was not copied in the first letter,” Function 8 wrote on 1 June in reply to the archbishop’s request to withdraw his letter. (See here.)

Who is this rather mysterious third person? Is he the minister, or someone from the MHA or the Internal Security Department or is he someone who is with the Government or any Government department?

Why would the archbishop copy his letter to such a third party if it was a private correspondence resulting from his personal reflection on its contents, as the archbishop himself said in his statement:

“I had earlier decided to withdraw my letter to this group as, on reflection, its contents did not accurately reflect my views on the subject, and if used in a manner that I did not intend, may inadvertently harm the social harmony in Singapore.”

Wouldn’t it be a more rational thing to do to keep this correspondence private between himself and the group, especially when his decision to withdraw the letter is a result of personal reflection?

In any case, one wonders why the leader of such an august organization had, apparently, not thought through his actions, and would withdraw his views only days later.

There are many unanswered questions in the ongoing saga.

Questions such as:

What was in the archbishop’s original letter of support? Did it express support for the call to abolish the ISA? Did it express support for the former detainees’ seeking of justice for 1987’s detention?

When did the Minister for Home Affairs meet the archbishop? What prompted the meeting? Who were present at the meeting? Was the archbishop asked to go alone to this meeting? What was said at the meeting? Was the event of 2 June raised?

Was the archbishop asked or “advised” to withdraw his purported letter of support to the 2 June event? If he was, who asked or “advised” this? What were the reasons for doing so?

Was the archbishop given advice on writing his statement, released on 19 September, a day before the MHA released its own statement which, incidentally, cited the archbishop’s statement as well? Why does the archbishop’s statement bear such uncanny similarity in tone to the MHA’s statement?

Why has the Minister or the MHA not refute Au’s sequence of events and allegations of “arm-twisting” of the archbishop by the Government?

What is this “political agenda” which the MHA has accused Function 8 of?

The issue thus is not one of “mixing politics with religion”, as the Government would have us believe. For at no point did Function 8 or Au made any allegations that the Church was not supporting Function 8’s event or its cause, or that the Church should stand by its religious beliefs and teachings and confront the Government on its behalf. And above all, Function 8 did not solicit any support from the archbishop or the Catholic Church for its event or indeed its cause.

The issue here is one of the Government’s opacity in operating behind-the-scenes and not being accountable, leading to the perception that it is using fear-mongering tactics by invoking the “politics/religion” argument and accusation to silence legitimate queries into its actions.

In short, invoking “the need to keep religion and politics separate” without being transparent and open about its dealings is disingenuous. Keeping religion and politics separate also means necessarily, one might argue, that the Government explains in clear and simple terms its actions so that no doubts or “conspiracy theories” abound in the vacuum of clarity.

This opacity is, in fact and instead, what would cause social disharmony and social disquiet.

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

Read also:

Function 8 and Archbishop Nicholas Chia: Truth Murdered.

MHA walks into t a minefield.

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

To be sure, the government is making an attempt to improve on its earlier effort. The watchword of the National Conversation seems to be “engagement”, particularly of sizeable segments of the population that may feel politically under-represented (though noticeably this did not extend to members of the political opposition). The drawn out structure of the Conversation, which will consist of an online solicitation of opinions, dozens of dialogue sessions with ordinary folks from all over the country and lastly a national survey, is likely to involve a lot more Singaporeans than the Remaking Singapore Committee did.  Furthermore, compared with the Remaking Singapore Committee, the National Conversation committee is more representative, having included members outside of the establishment, such as students and cabbies.

Still, the doubts over the National Conversation are the same as those that shadowed its forerunner.  The key one is over outcomes: whether it can actually deliver meaningful change.  Aspirations that are thought to have broad social consensus, such as those for more freedom of expression or a stronger safety net, remain likely to trigger misgivings amongst the conservative political establishment.

Even if it is assumed that the ministers leading the current initiative are of a keenly liberal bent, the older guards in the Cabinet remain likely to have a veto over the final product.  It is instructive that a majority of the more liberal suggestions made by the Remaking Singapore Committee – such as for the government to define the out-of-bounds markers for political debate, creating an Economic Relief Scheme for the structurally unemployed and subsidising the MediShield premiums of low-income groups – went unheeded.

Furthermore, the Conversation, by definition, also has a moral obligation to give voice to minorities that have traditionally been marginalised by the establishment and the majority of the population – sexual minorities, single parents, the indigent (particularly the homeless, since officially Singapore has no “homeless” folk) or long-term unemployed. Sadly, at this point it appears unlikely that any people from these groups will be included.

The second important issue is over process: how should the National Conversation committee arrive at its conclusions. On what basis are the merits of a viewpoint to be judged – is it because many people hold the same view, or because the idea is deemed a “good” one, but because it happens to agree with the pre-conceptions of some committee members?  The very ambition of the Conversation is likely to make this a tricky issue, as the committee has to encompass and compress the viewpoints of the thousands of citizens that it engages.  More likely than not, it will incur a good measure of unhappiness from those it has talked to who feel that they have been disregarded.

This leads to the final issue, that of substance: whether the Conversation is really necessary.  More than one commentator has pointed out that the initiative is a poor substitute for the democratic process.  There is already a fount of opinions about alternative policies and ideas for the nation sitting on the benches opposite the ruling party in Parliament.  The very fact that nearly 40% of the electorate voted for opposition parties and their manifestoes has imbued them and their ideas with a certain degree of legitimacy.  That should have instead been the government’s starting point when it comes to having a dialogue on the future of the country.  Moreover, even if it is accepted that the Conversation is a necessary device for reaching out to Singaporeans, the government has somewhat undermined its legitimacy by excluding members from any opposition party from the committee.

Despite these doubts, there are probably still many who hope that the Conversation does succeed in bringing about some positive changes for the country. Whatever its outcome though, it seems likely to be remembered in the final analysis as yet another top-down initiative by the government to increase the populace’s buy-in of the system, because the ruling elite would not unbind the stifling political restraints that would allow a genuine sense of ownership to organically develop from the bottom-up.

Events in the past 2 years, in particular, show that Singaporeans are no longer as fearful of associating themselves with the opposition as before. Two of these episodes involved the man whom Lee had once declared to be "kaput" ("finished") in politics - Dr Chee Soon Juan, who was assailed (some say assaulted) with defamation suits, jail time, and virtually torn to shreds by the state-controlled mainstream media.

The first episode indicating that things are changing happened in February of 2011. Dr Chee, faced with a 20-week jail term if he could not pay a fine of S$20,000 after being convicted "on four counts of speaking in public without a permit", went public to seek help. The SDP launched an online fundraising campaign to raise the amount.

The party urged Singaporeans to contribute to the fund "to keep Dr Chee out of prison so that he is available to lead the SDP during the upcoming GE." The General Election, as it turned out, was called barely 3 months later.

"This is a historical development in that it is the first time that Singaporeans have rallied together to show such encouraging support for an opposition cause," the party said in a statement after the target sum was reached.

In September 2012, Dr Chee made an offer to Lee and former prime minister, Goh Chok Tong, of S$30,000 to settle an outstanding debt of S$500,000 which was the result of a defamation suit brought by the two PAP men against him. The reason, Chee says, is to be discharged from bankruptcy so that he can lead the SDP, as a candidate, in the next general elections, due by 2016.

Surprisingly, the two accepted Chee's offer.

Chee, who had recently launched his book, Democratically Speaking, then went on a book-selling endeavour around the town areas to raise the money on 11 September. On 24 September, the SDP announced on its website: "Not only has the target been reached but it was achieved in record time - 10 days!"

"The outcome signals the intense desire of Singaporeans wanting to see the democratic movement in Singapore accelerate and they want to help clear Dr Chee's bankruptcy," the SDP said.

"I want to thank everyone who chipped in," Chee said in his thank you note. "It was a stunning success and it was the effort of the people who showed that they wanted to write the story of Singapore's Democracy."

On 27 September, Chee - accompanied by party members and supporters - went to the Insolvency and Public Trustees' Office (IPTO) to remit the $30,000 to settle his case with Lee and Goh.

"What seemed impossible is now reality," Chee said after handing over the sum to the Official Assignee.

The success in raising a total of S$50,000 by the SDP is particularly instructive for observers of the political scene in Singapore. It is also worth noting that the first episode occurred before the general election of May 2011, which many described as a turning point for Singapore politics. Perhaps the change actually took place much earlier, within the hearts and minds of Singaporeans.

Perhaps too Lee and Goh realised that the tide has turned and that to reject Chee's offer would do the PAP more damage than good. Better to be seen to be magnanimous than to be seen to be vindictive and unforgiving.

The politics of Singapore, as many Singaporeans have been calling for, must be gentlemanly.

Whatever the reasons the two PAP men may have had for accepting the offer, what is more important is the change in Singaporeans' attitude towards the SDP and Dr Chee in particular. Certainly, the party still has some ways to go to reach out to the masses to have wide-spread support, especially with the mainstream media still stubbornly shunning reporting on SDP's activities. But for a party which had been the target of much of the PAP's (unbridled) wrath, the support it is seeing is momentous. Such support is not only in monetary terms but also in other ways as well. For example, the party also, for the first time, managed to gather a group of 8 practising doctors to devise an alternative National Healthcare Plan. And in recent times, its public events - such as the forum on Malay issues several weeks ago - saw standing-room only turn-outs.

Associating with the much-maligned party is no longer anathema, it would seem.

Indeed, the party is on the cusp of a new beginning, emerging, as it were, from the crucible of fire which few other parties have gone through. How it will move forward remains to be seen, of course. But one thing is for sure, contrary to what some might think, the SDP is not a spent force. Instead, it is - strangely enough - a breath of fresh air in an arena dominated by the unchanging PAP and the moderate Workers' Party.

Singaporeans want to be a part of the decision-making process of their country. This much is clear. And if one thinks the idea of democracy resides only within the hearts and minds of the young, Chee's recent encounter with an elderly lady at Raffles Place, where he was selling his book to raise the S$30,000, tells a different story.

"She came up to me and gave me S$5," Chee said. "I could tell that she was a cleaning lady because of the outfit that she was wearing. She told me that she couldn't afford the book but just wanted to help me discharge my bankruptcy. I told her that I couldn't accept the gift as it was a lot of money for her. It was probably her three meals for the day. She turned to me and told me in Hokkien (a local dialect): 'I too have a share in our country. You cannot deny me my share. I want to see you succeed. I want to see democracy in our country.'"

Perhaps Chee said it best himself when addressing some people's perception that he had "learnt his lesson" and that he has "changed":

"No, I haven't changed. What has changed is your perception of me."

In December, Chee will have spent 20 years in politics in Singapore.

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

Join publichouse.sg's Facebook page here.

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

{youtube}nwCSo7v4EyE|600|450|0{/youtube}

{youtube}djS0-zy3lfM|600|450|0{/youtube}

His party has marshalled a panel of doctors to help craft a healthcare policy radically different from the one currently in place in Singapore. Many of these doctors have, in their day to day practice, encountered patients who struggle to pay for medical treatment and who even refuse treatment because they know it will devastate them financially.

The SDP’s National Healthcare Plan ultimately seeks to keep the costs of healthcare low, reversing the trend of rising healthcare costs and profit-driven healthcare provision. The SDP’s proposal is driven by the belief that no one should be refused healthcare on the basis of being unable to pay for it.. Something that so heavily determines our lives should be made available to us as unconditionally as possible.

The publichouse.sg team has created a short video report, which includes an interview with Dr Chee,  about the proposal which the SDP and the group of doctors  have drawn up. They propose tightening regulation of the private healthcare sector in order to keep costs down, to cut the defence budget and increase its healthcare spending to 70% of the national total healthcare expenditure, to scrap the 3M system and introduce a single-payer scheme managed solely by the government. The goal  of these changes is to reduce healthcare costs for everyone and create a more people rather than profit centric system.

Dr Wong Wee Nam, one of the doctors involved in crafting the SDP's plan, wrote to Health Minister, Gan Kim Yong, in August, to have a dialogue with the SDP on the healthcare system in Singapore.

"Though it has been claimed that our healthcare system provides every Singaporean with good quality and affordable care, we do not think it is good enough," Dr Wong wrote in his letter to the minister. "We certainly would like to know more about your ministry's Health Vision 2020 so that together, we could come out with a better plan for our people." (See here.)

The minister has yet to respond to the invitation.

The executive summary of the SDP’s National Healthcare Plan can be found here.

We intend for this 10-minute video to be a catalyst for us to think about what healthcare policies we want for ourselves, and to spur debate about the pros and cons of different healthcare systems.

Watch the video below and do share your thoughts.

You can also write to us at: publichousesg@gmail.com.

{youtube}HiK95cAxxjE|600|450|0{/youtube}

However, because of their determination to fight for universal justice (替天行道), they are regarded as heroes by the common folks and strikes a chord with generations of oppressed people because the stories are about the heroism of the common man that even peasants can identify themselves with.

The historical background that formed the basis of the book was the reign of the useless Emperor Huizong, of the Song Dynasty. After he ascended the throne, he robbed and exploited the people so much that he aroused peasants to rise up against him. Water Margin is a fictional account of one of the uprisings led by a hero named  Song Jiang.

This book is not just an ordinary Chinese kungfu novel. The reason why it is one of China’s four greatest novels and the story an enduring one is because of its serious underlying theme which carries a universal and eternal message. For generations after generations and dynasties after dynasties, the inspirational message is to oppose oppression and fight for the rights of the people. It is about the spirit of the people and that everyone can decide his destiny. It is about democracy – consensus and equality, group decision against dictatorship. “Within the four seas, all men are brothers” 四海之内皆兄弟也。

The Water Margin is not just a political novel; it is also a political primer. It is about how a revolution comes about – by being forced by oppression. It is about how disparate and weak little groups can gel to form a formidable force. Lu Xun, the great modern Chinese writer, described the book as having a reformist spirit.

The book was popular during the Yuan Dynasty because it contained inspirational stories extolling the virtue of heroism against domination. For this reason it was banned during the Yuan and Ming dynasties. Even Chairman Mao Zedong was an avid fan. He told a lot of people so, including Edgar Snow, the first westerner to interview him. By his own admission Mao had read the book more than ten times and drawn many political lessons from it. He had advised people to read it as a book of politics.

He proclaimed, “The Water Margin reflects the political situation of its times. The Golden Lotus reflects the economic situation of its times. Both books must be read.” (20/2/1956)

“《水浒传》是反映当时的政治情况的，《金瓶梅》是反映当时经济情况的。这两本书不可不看。”

We now turn back to Wang Lun, the Scholar in White. During the oppressive reign of Emperor Huizong, there were more than ten opposition parties fighting against the established order. Each group established its various bases on the many mountains in the country and each was led by very strong leaders. Nevertheless, the parties were weak and ineffective because they were disparaged and fragmented.

Amongst these opposition parties, the biggest and the richest was the one at Liangshan Marsh led by Wang Lun. Unfortunately Wang Lun lacked talent and was intellectually sub-standard. Even worse, he was small minded and was therefore ineffective.

To the credit of Wang Lun, he had foresight to choose Liangshan as his base. This mountain stronghold was very secure, easy for fugitives to escape to and difficult for enemy forces to attack. There was an early warning system in place and no directional landmarks in the marsh. So it was impossible for any enemy force to launch a surprise raid.

In spite of these advantages, Wang Lun never made it big. In fact, in the book, he never even became the 108 heroes of Water Margin. There is a good reason for it. Though he ran the biggest opposition outfit and all the other opposition parties looked up to him, he was a small minded person. His fault was that he was satisfied with his lot and simply turned away talents and people whom he considered better than him. As a result his party could not grow. Furthermore, since he was not willing to provide the leadership, there was no opposition unity to talk about to challenge the government forces.

Two incidents illustrate this negative trait of Wang Lun.

In the first, a fugitive by the name of Lin Chong went up to Liangshan to seek refuge. Lin Chong was a government military instructor with exceptional fighting skills. He would have been an asset to Wang Lun. Yet when Wang met him, his first thought was that Lin was definitely more skilful than them and no one would be able to stop him should he challenge them for power. (His actual thoughts were: 我又没十分本事，杜迁、宋万武艺也只平常。如今不争添了这个人，他是京师禁军教头，必然好武艺。倘若被他识破我们手段，他须占强，我们如何迎敌?).

He thus feted Lin, told him that he lacked accommodation and food and then gave him gifts of silver and silk and bade him to seek refuge in another place.

In the second incident, when the "Righteous Seven" led by Chao Gai came to Liangshan for refuge, Wang Lun again tried to send them away again with gifts. He used the same excuse he had used on Lin Chong earlier. Lin Chong became even more incensed with Wang Lun for his narrow-mindedness and self-interest. Under some instigation, Lin Chong finally killed him and Chao Gai was voted the new chief.

For this reason Wang Lun left behind a poor reputation. Nowadays the phrase “Scholar in White, Wang Lun” is used to describe a mediocre person who squeezes out or rejects others who are more capable than himself or someone who preserves his own position by elbowing out others except those who are inferior to him.

Needless to say, under a mean character like Wang Lun, Liangshan did not grow into a formidable force. It was only after his assassination that opposition unity became a reality. All the chieftains from the  ten opposition camps then decided to throw their lot in with Chao Gai and his group at Liangshan marsh and the rebels became a force that could match the government forces.

For his decisive act, Lin Chong became a popular legendary folk hero in the folklore of China.

Advising his comrades, Chairman Mao Zedong said, “Don’t become like the Scholar in White Wang Lun from The Water Margin. He does not allow revolution. Any person who does not allow revolution puts himself in a dangerous position. Wang Lun didn’t and he paid for it.”  (Selected Works of Mao Zedong.)

{youtube}URJob0X8pzk|600|450|0{/youtube}

I wish to clarify that HOME was not aware of funds available for the TIP programme until my meeting with the MOM director. I was genuinely surprised that we were not invited to apply for this funding, especially since HOME is an anti-human trafficking organization that has been acknowledged internationally by Mrs Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State. Incidentally we had just completed our research on the labour trafficking of domestic workers without any TIP funds from the government.  We will soon make an application with hope for an approval for the funding of our anti -human trafficking programme.

As we respect the efforts of MOM to resolve the concerns of the Panasonic workers, we also empathise with the plight of these workers. They paid approximately $7000 to their agent in China to get work at Panasonic.  When they found out that the local agency collected S$3000 a head from the Chinese agent in excess of two months’ salary equivalent, three workers lodged a complaint at MOM.  Despite the local agent’s own admission via video recording, the attending IO dismissed the complaint and accepted the agent’s explanation that the $3000 payment receipt included a refundable portion back to the Chinese agent upon the completion of the probationary period of the worker.  We hope that MOM would call on the local agent to substantiate his explanation with payment and receipt records to show that the workers were not overcharged in Singapore.

HOME is appreciative of MOM's support to us over the years, and its assurance that we will continue to collaborate as equal partners in the interest of the welfare of migrant workers in Singapore.

Bridget Tan

President and Founder

So, while decriminalising employers who fail to buy medical insurance premium for workers appears to short-change workers, however, Mr Tan clarified in the same speech that such administrative infringement may yet attract a jail term as well for the "failure to bear the cost of upkeep and maintenance of Work Permit holders, including medical treatment".  This is indeed reassuring.

Such negligence by errant employers when workers fall ill or suffer injuries inevitably result in loss of man hours and lower productivity, in addition to adverse effects on the morale and well-being of the workers.  Unlike Singaporeans, foreign workers do not have subsidised medical care and healthcare benefits and when they have fully utilised their insurance coverage, they are left vulnerable. HealthServe seesk to meet this gap by providing basic medical services at nominal rates.

Secondly, it is felt that the maximum fine of $6,000 imposed on persons involved in the illegal importation of workers are grossly disproportionate relative to the huge profits syndicates make.

Syndicate leaders are essentially businessmen who take risks for profits.  Based on anecdotal accounts, foreign workers each pay between S$6,000 to S$10,000 to obtain employment in Singapore.

Assuming an average of ten workers, syndicates probably make profits in the range of $50,000 to $90,000 a month.

Illegal importation causes harm to many foreign workers who are deceived into incurring onerous debts.  Their passports are retained unlawfully the moment they arrive.  They are subject to psychological abuse in the form of harassment and because of fear of flouting local laws willingly submit to living and working in slave-like conditions under unwarranted threats of severe criminal punishment.

Thirdly, the presumption clause for submitting a forged or false certificate and the onus on workers to prove their innocence, does not have a harmful and abhorrent effect on society and hence, unjustifiable.

Common sense tells us that responsible employers would do due diligence in assessing the authenticity of the educational certificates submitted by the worker or his agent as they are running legitimate businesses and could ill-afford to hire workers with dubious educational backgrounds.

In the case of labour trafficking, foreign workers who apply for employment through agencies is likely (if they are aware of such forgery) to be under duress, lied to or placed under unconscionable pressure to allow the agency or employer to proceed with the work permit application.  To be sure, submitting of forged certificates is an act that should not be condoned.

There have been anecdotes of workers hired for simple service jobs who later discovered that their agents had submitted post-graduate certificates without their knowledge.  In these cases, it should have been obvious to the employer that the agent or the worker has forged certificates.

In fact, HealthServe has helped a Nepalese worker caught in such an unfortunate quandary.  A Masters degree was submitted without his knowledge to apply for an "S" pass but he worked in an HDB coffee shop slogging 18 hours daily until his employer owed six months salary arrears. After he reported his employer to the MOM, he was barred from having a temporary work pass permit as he is not from an approved source country.

He was denied access to dignified work.  He could not recover any money despite the court ruling in his favour.  He had no money to send home. All his dreams of providing for his family were shattered.  He went home a frustrated and broken man, empty-handed. [Read the story here: How the system failed this worker.]

Presumptions may be defended, as in the Misuse of Drugs Act, on the grounds that the misuse of drugs has an abhorrent effect on society while, on the other hand, the submitting of forged certificates clearly do not.  Besides, by reason of parity against crimes such as rape or murder where such presumptions do not exist, it is unreasonable to have a presumption for a less morally repugnant offence.  The said presumption is therefore unjustified.

Furthermore, it is unlikely that such a presumption would be a deterrent because in reality, foreign workers would not have known of or understood its significance.  Innocent foreign workers might not be linguistically able to explain the circumstances of their employment application. The outcome would then be a high rate of questionable convictions.

It is important for the MOM therefore, to exercise discretion from prosecuting cases where the intent of forgery is not manifestly clear, or where strong mitigating factors are present.  At the same time, the MOM needs to recognise that for many of the low-income foreign workers, the circumstances of their employment are tainted with fraud, duress or pressure from various other sources.  More often than not, the worker is the victim in a much larger, oppressive scheme.

The writer is involved in accessing and developing community health resources for vulnerable migrants, disadvantaged local poor and needy.