“Team is confident that David’s death was not due to suicide…”

“Team is confident that David’s death was not due to suicide…”

Wednesday, 15 April 2009

The Verification Team in the case of the death of David Widjaja, an Indonesian undergraduate who died in Nanyang Technology University (NTU) of Singapore has established that David had been killed, rather than committed suicide.

The leader of the Verification Team, Iwan Piliang, announced this at the press conference held at Restoran Munik, Jl Matraman Raya, Jakarta Timur, on Monday (13 April 2009). David’s father, Hartono Widjaja, and his wife was present, along with his brother William Hartono.

According to Iwan, the team has done a reconstruction of the events surrounding David’s death. From the reconstruction, the team is confident that David’s death was not due to suicide as alleged by NTU. The autopsy that David’s family received indicated 36 gaping wounds, of which 14 were from stab wounds.

“In general, the injury is at the hands. The rest were bruises, including the neck region and internally,” Iwan explained.

The team, along with the family and correspondent, have also visited Singapore. The team had wanted to meet with the NTU officials, but were not entertained. A similar request to meet Professor Chan Kap
Luck, who was reported to have been wounded by David before he died, was also declined.

Meanwhile, the leader of Komnas Anak, Seto Mulyadi, and Bung Tomo of Bambang Sulistomo also voiced their support for a thorough investigation to provide satisfactory closure to this case. According
to Seto Mulyadi, David was an Indonesian asset whose efforts in winning the Mathematics Olympiad should be appreciated by the government.

“The Education and National Ministers should have given the family legal help, including financing for a lawyer. But nobody has bothered so far; POLRI (Indonesian Police), Depdiknas (Education Ministry) and
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono should be actively involved and aiding the family, since it concerns the sovereignty of the country,” he added.



Original article:

Jakarta - Tim Verifikasi Kasus Kematian David Widjaja, mahasiswa RI yang tewas Nanyang Technology University (NTU), Singapura meyakini David dibunuh bukan bunuh diri.Dari hasil otopsi, di tubuh David ditemukan 36 luka tusukan.

Demikian disampaikan Ketua Tim Verifikasi Kasus Kematian David, Iwan Piliang, dalam jumpa persnya di Restoran Munik, Jl Matraman Raya, Jakarta Timur, Senin (13/4/2009). Orang tua David, Hartono Widjaja dan istri, serta kakaknya, Wiliam Hartono ikut hadir dalam jumpa pers tersebut.

Menurut Iwan, tim verifikasi ini sudah melakukan rekonstruksi kematian David. Hasil rekonstruksi, tim meyakini David tewas dibunuh bukan bunuh diri seperti dinyatakan oleh NTU. Dari hasil otopsi yang diterima keluarga, di tubuh David terdapat 36 tusukan, 14 di antaranya luka oleh pisau.

“Umumnya luka berada di bagian tangan. Sisanya, luka memar, termasuk di bagian leher dan luka dalam,” jelas Iwan

Tim bersama keluarga dan wartawan juga bertandang ke Singapura. Kunjungan tim ini untuk bertemu dengan pihak NTU, namun tidak diberi waktu. Penolakan tidak hanya oleh pihak NTU, tapi juga dari Profesor Chan Kap Luk. profesor yang diberitakan ditusuk oleh David sebelum mahasiswa ini meninggal.

Sementara itu, dukungan atas pengungkapan kasus tewasnya David Hartono ini juga mendapatkan dukungan dari Ketua Komnas Anak, Seto Mulyadi dan putra pahlawan Bung Tomo, Bambang Sulistomo. Kak Seto, panggilan akrab Seto Mulyadi menyatakan, David yang pernah menjadi juara Olimpiade Matematika merupakan aset bangsa Indonesia, seharusnya usahanya dihargai pemerintah.

“Sudah seharusnya Menteri Pendidikan dan Nasional turun tangan dan memberikan bantuan hukum, termasuk membantu pendanaan lawyer. Tapi ini semua pihak terkesan lepas tangan, Polri, Depdiknas dan Presiden SBY harus turun tangan, karena ini menjadi persoalan bangsa,” imbuhnya.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27010.1

A colonial mindset? No, it’s merely pragmatism.

A colonial mindset? No, it’s merely pragmatism.

I think it would be too much of a stretch to call Singapore’s dependence on foreign talent as indicative of a ‘colonial mindset’. I can understand your sentiments, but the government’s desire to bring in professionals and sportsmen from other countries to boost its own image and status reflects its thoroughly pragmatic approach more than anything else. You would have to explain what you mean by the colonial mindset before using the term to avoid any confusion.

It is a celebrated fact of Singapore’s history that it managed to stand up on its own feet almost by itself after being given independence by the British and separating from Malaysia to reach the position it is in today. Many Western countries admire the ‘Singaporean model’ and some even try to internalise parts of it. I certainly do not think that we Singaporeans still consider our country to be enchained to any colonial power for our survival. We have broken loose, long ago.

What you should have attacked really is the philosophy of pragmatism that the government functions upon. We prioritise economic development over social and political progress, because it is the more practical concern. Singapore needs to survive, and for that we need to encourage MNCs to enter and do business freely. The arts and sports are secondary considerations, not imperatives. Our education system must be designed to produce competent leaders of the future, and so much be highly structured around this aim. A more democratic political system would distract the leaders from the project of nation-building (as our current PM said) and so is a nuisance. Everything must be centrally managed, because we cannot afford to allow any one sector of our society to govern itself and potentially run havoc. Singapore is like a small boat that can easily shake and capsize if just a few people start jumping in it – in the astute words of Kishore Mahbubani.

Understanding this master plan, how is this country going to produce the requisite talents necessary to sustain itself? We live in such a stifling environment, where creativity and risk-taking attitudes are given little space to thrive. It is a clichéd saying that creativity comes from chaos, and this might make many of our leaders squeamish. But what cannot be denied is that a degree of freedom is necessary if excellence in sports or academia is to manifest itself. Look at the countries that produce great talents in these fields, examine the societies that give birth to them. What do they have that we don’t? Size, a PAP politician would say, something that will always disadvantage us, and so we cannot make such comparisons. But is this really true? Just because we are small and have no natural resources except our people, does that mean that we are forever doomed to focus on mere survival?

The real problem is that our leaders, going back to the founding fathers, have always been burdened with a survival instinct. We came out of desperate situations, and so we desperate seek to survive. Anything beyond is simply a luxury. City states do not survive for long, and they are worried every day about Singapore’s survival. So how does encouraging sports help? It didn’t matter too much in the past. But today it does. It enhances the country’s image. It is an advertisement to the world. It sets us apart from our neighbours and so makes the country as a whole a more attractive place to stay. We need sports. Ditto for the arts. It is all in the name of survival. That is what Singapore’s pragmatism ultimately boils down to.

Nobody was complaining in the 80s and early 90s when Singapore still had an edge over its ASEAN neighbours. But now they have caught up, and our advantage has been largely eroded. This is the primary concern for the government: how to keep the country ahead of the pack. If it takes foreigners to achieve that, then so be it. The same pragmatic approach that we lauded in the past when it justified restrictions on civil and political liberties in the name of social stability we now rebuke for its prioritisation of foreigners over locals. We feel cheated. But it is all for the betterment of the country, the government would say (along with some placatory words about retraining the local workforce and providing unemployment aid).

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26996.1

A 'White Curtain' has descended...

The passing of the Public Order Act (POA) on 13 April 2009 is a sad day for freedom and democracy in Singapore. The Act, in the guise of maintaining public safety and order, will slowly erase any semblance of individual freedom guaranteed under our Constitution.

Winston Churchill, in his speech on 5 March 1946, said an 'Iron Curtain' had descended across Europe just to warn the world about the increasing influence and control of Soviet Union on Central and Eastern Europe. A similar 'White Curtain' has descended on Singapore too. Singaporeans should be warned that the POA will restrict our basic citizen rights further.

To the outside world, Singapore is seen as 'clean and white' and full of law-abiding citizens. But behind the 'White Curtain' lies a nation legislated beyond comprehension, silenced and highly strung.

Under the POA, an illegal 'assembly' could mean a gathering of only ONE person and a 'procession' could comprise of just TWO! Sadly, the highest paid Government in the world has also the lowest tolerance for dissent.

The new 'Move On' power now allows the police to ask a person to leave a premise in the interests of 'public safety, public order, and the protection of the rights and freedom of other people'. What about the rights and freedom of the poor guy slapped with the 'Move On' order? Doesn't that deserve protection too? The right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly guaranteed under Article 14 of our Constitution apparently does not apply to that poor chap if the police think otherwise.

To complete the whitewash of our rights, a public-spirited citizen can no longer film any law enforcement activity even if that person witnessed a serious case of police brutality. It is sad that justice for victims like Ian Tomlinson and Oscar Grant could never happened behind this White Curtain.

Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam, in taking the POA, said in Parliament:

"The approach is to seek the optimal balance between the freedom to exercise political rights while not affecting public safety security and not affecting stability. Have we gotten that balance right? Well, ask yourselves two questions. In our region, which country would you rather be in? And amongst the countries in the world which became independent in the 1950s and 60s, which country would you rather be in? The answer to these questions would be the answer to the main question I asked."

Have we really gotten that balance right? It seems to me that this Government likes to pick and choose any country in turmoil to justify the need to restrict civil liberty on its own citizens without first understanding the cause of the unrest overseas. Does it mean that any outbreak of protest in this world must impel Singapore to tighten its public order laws?

The event unfolding in Thailand is not about lax public order laws. It is about the need to uphold democracy. NCMP Sylvia Lim said in Parliament:

"If there is a lesson to be learnt from Thailand, it is about upholding democracy. It is not about the consequences of having weak public order laws because the Thai people felt cheated. The Thai police and army are not weaklings either. They are more battle-hardened than our equivalent as they have been fighting Muslim separatists for many years. Many of these security people are just sympathetic to the 'Red shirt' cause. Does the PAP government think that slapping a 'move on' order on 100,000 Thais will work?

The Singapore Government should not take advantage of the situation in Thailand to justify the implementation of draconian laws to inhibit the basic rights of citizens further. The Thais may be exercising their basic human rights to the extreme. On the other end, Singaporeans, who have done nothing remotely close to what the Thais are doing, are being penalised further for nothing. As long as this government respect and uphold democracy, the problem we are seeing now in Thailand will not happen here. But if the government wants to tinker with individual freedom and democracy to an oppressive level, it will actually become the source of public order problems."

So has Singapore really opened up in recent years?

Mr Shanmugam said the opening of Speakers' Corner in 2000 was the start of the process by the Government to liberalise the political space.

The Minister went to say that restrictions were also lifted on speeches by elected MPs at community events albeit with conditions attached. Constituency activities organised by MPs and held in the constituency were also exempted from police permits - again with conditions attached.

Indoor political activities are now exempted from permits too. You can even demonstrate at Hong Lim Park provided there is no community event going on there.

And finally (drum roll please), the outright ban on party political films was lifted on 23 Mar 2009.

Apart from the Speakers' Corner experiment, which was a baby step in the right direction, there is nothing worth shouting about in the 'opening up' of our political space so far. Most of the previously banned activities are harmless and should not be restricted in the first place.

And remember, it is technically a 'procession' when you go out walking with your date. If you are single and you enjoy loitering outside some shops, you could be deemed as an illegal 'assembly'.

Strange but that is life behind the 'White Curtain' after 13 April 2009.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sunkopitiam&msg=27096.1

Anti-LGBTQ is anti-feminist

There's been far more traffic here lately than in the past, due to the events with AWARE. One thing I'd like to address is where this website is coming from. Some of the Internet commentariat seem to believe this is a gay rights website.

As a matter of fact, Glass Castle is primarily a woman-centred, feminist website focused on gender equality. However, as I've argued many a time, no advocacy for women's rights is complete without advocacy for LGBTQ rights. Primarily, this is because lesbian, bisexual, queer and trans women are women. Their rights are women's rights. This isn't a site that's intended to talk about issues relating to straight and cis (i.e. non-trans) women only.

Further to that, I would argue that heteronormativity (which considers one particular model of heterosexuality the norm and other sexualities deviant), cissexual supremacy (which assigns non-trans identities a position of superiority over trans identities) and gender oppression (misogyny and sexism both) are intimately related. They are all part of the same theoretical edifice which holds that women and men come in two distinct, binary, complementary flavours, each with their own neat little roles. Dismantle any one part and the rest is undermined, to the benefit of all women.

And even, I would argue, to the benefit of all men, of any sexuality. A straight cis boy can be subject to transphobic, homophobic and misogynist bullying - the word "sissy" sums it up - whatever the truth about his sexual orientation and gender identity. Consider what happened in Gitmo, where detainees were dressed in women's clothes in an attempt to humiliate them - that particular form of ill-treatment would not have been possible if being made to perform femininity wasn't regarded as a degradation. And everyone's favourite example of gender discrimination - the reservation to male persons only of National Service - is based on the misogynist idea of feminine inferiority and masculine nobility.

Advocacy for women's rights which ignores LGBTQ rights is incomplete at best, and may be downright detrimental at worst. (And the same may be said for human rights perspectives which don't take into account feminist and LGBTQ perspectives, amongst many other things.)

Anti-LGBTQ is anti-feminist.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27084.1

Lessons from Ian Tomlinson’s death: Implications of the new Public Order Act giving police powers to stop filming of ongoing “security” operations

Lessons from Ian Tomlinson’s death: Implications of the new Public Order Act giving police powers to stop filming of ongoing “security” operations

Under the new Public Order Act, the police will have powers to stop the filming of ongoing security operations and seize such materials so that operations are not compromised.

Police could even take such a person, who is believed to have such a film or picture, into custody if he refuses to stop filming or surrender his materials. (read report here)

The law was put in place to prevent filming of police using force to apprehend unarmed, peaceful protestors which have greatly embarrassed the Singapore police in the past as during the Tak Boleh Tahan campaign and IMF meeting where clips depicting the police’s arrest of SDP protestors were widely circulated on the internet.

With the passing of the new law, third parties who are not part of the protest proper risked being arrested and charged themselves if they are caught filming the police “operations”.

The recent death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests in London illustrates why this law leaves too much power in the hands of the police:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECMVdl-9SQ

Ian Tomlinson, a 47 year old newspaper seller had been on his way home from work when he was confronted by lines of riot police near the Bank of England.

He was attacked from behind and thrown to the ground by a baton-wielding police officer in riot gear, dramatic footage obtained by the ­Guardian shows. Moments after the assault on ­Tomlinson was captured on video, he ­suffered a heart attack and died.

However, in an official statement on the night of Tomlinson’s death, the Metropolitan police made no reference to any ­contact with officers and described attempts by police medics and an ambulance crew to save his life after he collapsed – efforts which they said were marred by ­protesters throwing missiles as first aid was ­administered .

Peter Smyth, the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, referred to Tomlinson’s death as “one small incident” on the BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

The video was shot by a 27 year old fund manager who submitted it to The Guardian. A day after the video was published, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) began managing an investigation by City of London police into the ­circumstances of ­Tomlinson’s death.

The Ian Tomlinson case has sparked widespread outrage in England with many bloggers writing in to their MPs to pressurize the police to take action against the culprits.

Had filming of ongoing security “operations” been disallowed on the grounds of “compromising” them, the truth about Ian Tomlinson’s death would never be revealed and he would have died in vain.

If the police had acted professionally at all times, then it should not be afraid of having its security “operations” recorded on film.

The new Public Order Act will make it easier for police to cover up for any abuse of power and there will be nothing the victims can do to seek redress.

Mr K Shan’s use of the Mumbai terrorist incident to justify the law is both inappropriate and misleading. In the Mumbai attack, the mainstream media was the one which filmed and leaked the positions of security forces to the terrorists.

It is improbable that films taken by third parties or passer-bys will be aired simultaneously by the state-controlled media to “jeopardize” ongoing security operations. The law should be tweaked to disallow journalists from the mainstream media to film the event instead of a blanket ban on all filming.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26984.1

Amazing speed at which Rojak seller is charged diverts attention away from role of authorities

Amazing speed at which Rojak seller is charged diverts attention away from role of authorities

I am truly astounded by the apparent breath-taking speed in which the owner of the Indian rojak seller is prosecuted by the authorities even though there is no definitive cause for the outbreak.

In a statement on Tuesday night, the Health Ministry and NEA said Mr Sheik Allaudin Mohideen’s licence will be suspended pending court action. (read article here)

The food poisoning outbreak that occured two weeks ago struck 154 people after they ate Indian rojak from his stall located at the Geylang Serai Temporary Market.

The cause: Vibrio parahaemolyticus bacteria, a common cause of food poisoning associated with the consumption of raw or partially cooked seafood which was traced to the rojak stall.

Or is it really the case?

The symptoms suffered by the victims of the outbreak do not quite match with those caused by the implicated bacteria.

According to an account given by the husband of a victim, his wife had bloody diarrhoea after consuming the food. Like all bacteria in the Vibrio family, parahaemolyticus causes an explosive form of watery diarrhoea which seldom leads to death.

The presence of blood in the stools suggest other causative agents such as Salmonella, Shigella and a subtype of E Coli which are more common that Vibrio parahaemolyticus.

While I support the move to suspend his licence, I am somewhat perturbed that action was taken against him before more concrete evidence surfaces.

The link between the Indian rojak stall and the food poisoning outbreak is tenuous at best. It has yet to be established beyond doubt that the owner’s negligence is the cause of the tragedy.

Nonetheless, it was reported that MOH and NEA investigators detected some lapses in food and environmental hygiene, but these are hardly sufficient grounds to prosecute the owner.

By their own admission, the exact steps leading to the contamination of the rojak food items or gravy are still unclear at this stage and they to draw some insights from a previous case on how this could have occurred which means the prima facie evidence they have against him are no more than mere conjectures.

To what extent is the owner culpable for the outbreak? Should he assume full or partial responsibility? Are there any other mitigating factors involved?

Till now, the authorities have yet to answer for possible lapses on their part in maintaining the hygiene of the market in particular the delay in spring-cleaning of the premises, the presence of rats and the delay in the dissemination of updated food hygiene labels to the hawkers.

There is no urgency to charge the Indian rojak owner so soon. In fact, it can be done at a later date after the market management committee and NEA have completed their own internal investigations.

The charge appeared to be timed perfectly to divert attention away from authorities which are facing intense public scrutiny and pressure for failing to prevent the outbreak.

If it is proven that the stallholder had been negligent in food hygiene, appropriate punishment should be meted out to send a strong message to others. However, this does not absolve the authorities from blame altogether.

The government needs to give an answer to the public on how such a preventable tragedy is allowed to happen in a small, developed and clean country like Singapore.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26983.1

Amazing speed at which Rojak seller is charged diverts attention away from role of authorities

Amazing speed at which Rojak seller is charged diverts attention away from role of authorities

I am truly astounded by the apparent breath-taking speed in which the owner of the Indian rojak seller is prosecuted by the authorities even though there is no definitive cause for the outbreak.

In a statement on Tuesday night, the Health Ministry and NEA said Mr Sheik Allaudin Mohideen’s licence will be suspended pending court action. (read article here)

The food poisoning outbreak that occured two weeks ago struck 154 people after they ate Indian rojak from his stall located at the Geylang Serai Temporary Market.

The cause: Vibrio parahaemolyticus bacteria, a common cause of food poisoning associated with the consumption of raw or partially cooked seafood which was traced to the rojak stall.

Or is it really the case?

The symptoms suffered by the victims of the outbreak do not quite match with those caused by the implicated bacteria.

According to an account given by the husband of a victim, his wife had bloody diarrhoea after consuming the food. Like all bacteria in the Vibrio family, parahaemolyticus causes an explosive form of watery diarrhoea which seldom leads to death.

The presence of blood in the stools suggest other causative agents such as Salmonella, Shigella and a subtype of E Coli which are more common that Vibrio parahaemolyticus.

While I support the move to suspend his licence, I am somewhat perturbed that action was taken against him before more concrete evidence surfaces.

The link between the Indian rojak stall and the food poisoning outbreak is tenuous at best. It has yet to be established beyond doubt that the owner’s negligence is the cause of the tragedy.

Nonetheless, it was reported that MOH and NEA investigators detected some lapses in food and environmental hygiene, but these are hardly sufficient grounds to prosecute the owner.

By their own admission, the exact steps leading to the contamination of the rojak food items or gravy are still unclear at this stage and they to draw some insights from a previous case on how this could have occurred which means the prima facie evidence they have against him are no more than mere conjectures.

To what extent is the owner culpable for the outbreak? Should he assume full or partial responsibility? Are there any other mitigating factors involved?

Till now, the authorities have yet to answer for possible lapses on their part in maintaining the hygiene of the market in particular the delay in spring-cleaning of the premises, the presence of rats and the delay in the dissemination of updated food hygiene labels to the hawkers.

There is no urgency to charge the Indian rojak owner so soon. In fact, it can be done at a later date after the market management committee and NEA have completed their own internal investigations.

The charge appeared to be timed perfectly to divert attention away from authorities which are facing intense public scrutiny and pressure for failing to prevent the outbreak.

If it is proven that the stallholder had been negligent in food hygiene, appropriate punishment should be meted out to send a strong message to others. However, this does not absolve the authorities from blame altogether.

The government needs to give an answer to the public on how such a preventable tragedy is allowed to happen in a small, developed and clean country like Singapore.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26983.1

Political space further limited with new Public Order Act

Political space further limited with new Public Order Act

Second Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam claimed that the space for political expression in Singapore has expanded substantially since 2000, and it is in this context that the new public order rules should be viewed. (read article here)

He said this when responding to Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong on the Public Order Bill which gives police more effective powers to maintain public order.

I beg to differ. Short of expanding the limited space for political expression faced by Singaporeans, the new law will further curb civil liberties and activism.

I am most perturbed by Mr K Shan’s warped logic that the new public order rules should be viewed in the context of recent moves by the government to “liberalize” the political landscape.

The setting up of Speakers’ Corner in 2000 and the recent move last year to allow ”rallies and protests to be conducted there without a police permit have often been used by the PAP to counter criticisms of its repressive laws.

Short of increasing the scope for political expression, these half-hearted measures represent a step backward as they allow the PAP to define and delineate the boundaries for political expression according to their own contorted world view.

Political expression can take place through the mainstream media, public speeches, internet or physical forms of activism such as silent vigils, rallies, marches and demonstrations.

With the mainstream media tightly controlled by the ruling party, political expression in public as exemplified by civil disobedience in its various forms remain the sole conduit through which political pressure can be exerted.

Restriction of political expression in public to Hong Lim Park alone will significantly lessen the impact of the intended message.

The new laws are passed just in time for the APEC summit in November this year to prevent possible small group protestors from certain quarters, in particular the Singapore Democratic Party, from disrupting the hustlings and embarrassing the government.

Though it will have minimal impact on ordinary Singaporeans who are too timid to express their dissatisfaction with the government in public anyway, it will nevertheless mark a regression in the country’s own political development.

The past 9 years have also seen the PAP tightening the screws on political dissent. To quote a few examples:

1. SDP duo Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin were sued by the Singapore government for libel over an article in the party’s newsletter which alleged that it is corrupted.

2. 18 peaceful “Tak Boleh Tahan” protestors were charged for participating in an illegal procession when they tried marching from Parliament House to the city.

3. Blogger Gopalan Nair was arrested and jailed for three months for allegedly insulting the judiciary.

4. 3 SDP members were jailed for wearing kangaroo T-shirts outside the court whcih was construed as casting aspersions on the integrity of the judiciary.

As usual, the PAP has defended its latest law on the grounds of concerns for public safety and order. The fear for social unrest tearing our vulnerable nation apart has been so tactfully instilled in every Singaporean over the years that most have accepted it as a trade-off for a stable government, peaceful environment and economic prosperity.

What Singaporeans are unaware of is that forfeiting of such basic human rights will only further entrench the PAP in power which put us forever at its mercy.

Under the PAP system of governance, Singaporeans have no say in the way the country is run and has to content themselves from being herded around by a small group of elites.

Singapore’s political system was deliberately planned and cleverly manipulated to perpetuate one-party rule and to prevent the emergence of an alternative center of power.

That’s why opposition leaders who are willing to play according to the rules set by the PAP are tolerated to a certain extent while those seeking to dismantle its system will soon find themselves bankrupted or exiled.

Without meaningful channels for political expression in public, it is an uphill task to raise the political awareness of Singaporeans and to educate them on their rights as citizens.

The present status quo, namely the “master-slave” relation between the government and the people can only be changed if there is sufficient political awakening in the populace leading to more Singaporeans stepping forward to offer themselves as alternatives to the PAP and to demand for reforms of the system.

Further restriction of political space with the Public Order Act will only breed more cynicism, frustration and disgruntlement especially the younger generation clamoring for a more inclusive and liberal government which truly understand their concerns and aspirations.

Though it may serve the partisan interests of the PAP temporarily, it will prove to be detrimental to both the party and the state in the long run as apathetic Singaporeans continue to shun from active citzenry and politics.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26982.1

Singapore economy in record fall

Singapore economy in record fall

The city state is working hard to curb the effects of the recession

Singapore's economy shrank by 19.7% in the first quarter of 2009 compared with the previous three months, its biggest quarterly contraction on record.

Official estimates also showed the economy had shrunk by 11.5% compared with the same period a year ago.

The government now expects the country's GDP to contract by between 6% and 9% this year, much more than the previous estimate of between 2% and 5%.

Singapore has been hit by a fall in exports during the economic downturn.

Sharp falls

The country's Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) said the economy's performance was much worse than expected.

"MTI's earlier forecast had factored in the likelihood of a weak first quarter, but the advance estimates indicate that actual GDP growth will undershoot earlier expectations by a significant margin," it said.

Manufacturing output fell by 29% in the first three months of the year, compared with the same period last year, pulled down by sharp falls in exports, which fell by an estimated 17% in March.

And the prospects for any quick recovery appear slim.

"With most of Singapore's key trading partners still in recession, the manufacturing sector will remain weak for the rest of the year," the ministry said.

Tai Hui at Standard Chartered said: "We still expect to see some signs of stabilisation at the end of 2009, although admittedly mild."

Earlier this year, Singapore announced a $13bn (£8.6bn) stimulus package to try to boost economic activity.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26981.1

New branches of nationalism in China

Apr 15, 2009

New branches of nationalism in China
By Stephanie Wang

CHANGSHA, China - A recent skirmish over Japanese cherry flowers and a newly published book have prompted a nationwide controversy over growing nationalistic sentiments in the country.

On the scenic campus of Wuhan University in central China, there are over 1,000 Japanese cherry trees. Each spring, the flowering trees become a tourist attraction, but this year the beautiful scene was overshadowed by an unpleasant episode.

On March 21, when two Chinese women, a mother and daughter, were wearing Japanese kimonos and having their pictures taken beside some blossoming trees, a young man shouted at them: "Don't wear a kimono and have pictures taken at Wuda [Wuhan University]! ... Get out, you Japanese in kimono!" As more onlookers joined him to condemn the mother and daughter, they had to flee.

After being reported in the media and on the Internet, the episode quickly escalated into a nationwide debate between journalists, renowned writers and scholars and bloggers. According to a survey carried out by sohu.com, a major Chinese portal website, 51% backed the verbal abuse, while about 47% advocated a more rational expression of nationalism or patriotism.

The Japanese cherry trees at Wuhan University could be called symbols of the tumultuous history between China and Japan.

Shortly before World War II, Japanese troops conquered Wuhan city in October 1938. The campus of Wuhan University was used as a convalescence center for wounded Japanese soldiers. To help ease the homesick - and to show Japan's determination to stay in China forever - the Japanese military authority brought 30 cherry trees from Japan and planted them on the campus.

In 1972, when China and Japan established formal diplomatic ties, then-Japanese prime minister Tanaka Kakuei offered Chinese premier Zhou Enlai 1,000 cherry trees as gifts to symbolize the "friendship of the two peoples, which will last generation after generation". Zhou allocated 50 trees to Wuhan University. On the 10th and 20th anniversaries of Sino-Japanese diplomatic ties, Japanese organizations granted Wuhan University 300 Japanese trees in total. Using seeds from these, more were planted by university gardeners.

So nowadays, the Japanese cherry trees at Wuhan University are either seen as symbols of "national shame" or of "Sino-Japanese friendship", depending on Chinese nationals' point of view.

The kimono episode was by no means an isolated case. It has reminded people of the 2007 debate over whether the dandinghe or red-crowned crane - known as the Japanese crane - should be chosen as the national bird of China. And the 2006 controversy as to whether the Japanese cherry is a symbol of national shame. Not to mention the nationwide anti-Japanese protests in 2005 marking the 60th anniversary of the nation's hard-won victory against the Japanese invasion.

Chinese people in general take pride in that fact that the country has been growing increasingly stronger. Nationalistic or patriotic sentiments grow with this pride, particularly among the young. Such nationalistic zeal could be easily start anti-Japanese sentiments, not only because of the historical feuds but also because Japanese leaders have not made a sincere apology for the war.

Former Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi paid tribute annually to the Yasukuni Shrine, which is dedicated to the kami (spirits) of soldiers and others who died fighting on behalf of the Emperor of Japan. Not to mention China's sovereignty dispute with Japan over the Diaoyu islands (called Senkaku in Japanese) and gas and oil resources in the East China Sea.

If anyone in China, especially celebrities, dares to test these nationalistic sentiments, they find themselves quickly and fiercely denounced. Tang Wei, an actress in the spy thriller Lust, Caution, was blacklisted by Chinese media shortly after its release because she played a college girl in love with a Chinese collaborator with the then Japanese occupiers.

Two internationally renowned movie stars, Zhang Ziyi and Gong Li, were once labeled as "national traitors", because they played geishas in Memoirs of a Geisha, a blockbuster movie with an international profile. Even worse, the then up-and-coming star Zhao Wei was condemned as "a national sinner not to be forgiven for thousands of years", because she donned a Japanese military flag for a fashion shoot. People even threw feces at the much-adored "Little Swallow" (a role she played in a popular TV drama series) during a performance.

Edward Friedman, an expert on Chinese nationalism at the University of Wisconsin, has said that when Deng Xiaoping came to power in 1977, "anti-Japan nationalism became a great legitimating glue to hold the society together". With an education system that highlights the era of foreign invasion as humiliating, patriotic sentiment flares up whenever Chinese citizens feel that their motherland's dignity has been violated.

And in this regard, Japan is not the only target of the growing nationalistic sentiments in China.

The United States has been seen as a long-standing culprit, as bilateral relations have never been short of drama. There have been incidents such as the US missile attack on the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999 and the air collision between a Chinese F-8 fighter and a US EP-3 spy plane in 2001. Last year, shortly before the Beijing Summer Olympic Games, when Free Tibet protests dogged the Olympic torch relay, many Chinese became very angry with what they said was bias in the Western media.

A group of Chinese overseas intellectuals set up the anti-cnn.com website, "to expose the lies and distortions in the Western media". Supported by volunteers, the website still thrives.

Coincidentally, the kimono incident happened about the same time as the launch of a best-selling book entitled China Is Unhappy (with Western influence). The book calls for a radical change in the country's current foreign and related domestic policy. This book is regarded as a follow-up to China Can Say No (to Western influence), which has sold more than 7 million copies since its publication in 1996.

Both discussions of the kimono incident and the book are parts of the current nationwide debate over nationalism. It is good to see that rational thinking against narrow-minded nationalism or xenophobia is not lacking in the debate.

Zhou Yunqing, a sociology professor with Wuhan University, said: "Beautiful Japanese cherry flowers are a common wealth of humankind. Plants are innocent ... Although there are some inharmonious notes in Sino-Japanese relations, we must have foresight."

Likewise, public responses to China Is Unhappy are also mixed. Radical supporters regard it as a perfect expression of nationalism. Other commentaries say the book gives full vent to Chinese nationalistic zeal and anger over Western bias in a superficial and arrogant way.

Liberals do not have much time for the book. Shen Dingli, deputy dean of the International Relations Department at Fudan University in Shanghai, has argued that the book is "too extremist and nationalistic". Shi Yinhong, professor of Renmin University in Beijing, thinks the book is full of criticism but lacks "constructive suggestions".

The Chinese government also has shown concern over the book, afraid it will give ammunition to the "China threat" theory. After all, China's aim is to rise peacefully. Nevertheless, Wang Xiaodong, a long-established nationalist and a co-author of the controversial book, has expressed contentment that a book with all this rage and criticism towards the government can be published.

Yet others see the publication not as a message of a freer press, but that the main argument of the book is more a defense of China's existing institutions than an attack on them.

Nationalism poses challenges not only for China but also for the West in coming to terms with a rising and less docile China. But unless Beijing subtly holds the force of nationalism in check, it may backfire some day.

Stephanie Wang is a freelance contributor based in Changsha, China.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27399.1

Public Order Act: Hail BB?

Public Order Act: Hail BB?

Parliament passed the Public Order Act on 13/04/09, which was 2 days ago. Out of 84 MPs and NMPs, 81 said ‘Aye’ and 3 said ‘Nay’. The 3 person, Mr. Siew Kum Hong, Mr. Low Thia Khiang and Ms. Sylvia Lim voted no. For that, I’m grateful that there are still independent souls in the parliament. I applaud them for standing for what they perceived as excessive power delegation. For the 81, I wish that you will be able to sleep well at night.
What is the big fuss about Public Order Act? Look at the Move-On Power and Order on Filming.

Purpose of the move-on power is to prevent certain undesirable individual from creating trouble during major event in Singapore. Which beg me to ask the question, are they targeting Dr. Chee and his so call undesirable associate? If the undesirable individual is a foreigner, shouldn’t he/she be barred from entering Singapore? UEFA and FIFA conduct selective barring for notorious English hooligan, why can’t it be done this way unless… the threat is from within? Are the government so afraid?

What about order on filming? The Law Minister is right! We shouldn’t be aiding potential terrorist like what happen in Mumbai! Well dear, that is because you have only been fed half the story by the 144th placed ST! What happen in Mumbai? The terrorist are able to see the movement of the police from the TV in the hold-up buildings. From the TV dear. It’s from the mainstream journalist. Obviously the government is barking up the wrong tree. How could the video from passer-bys be aired simultaneously by the mainstream media which is state-controlled by the way, meaning there is no rogue TV company out to ream the ass of the police. IF the government is sincere to prevent a Mumbai 2, it should be looking at the direction of mainstream journalist. Or are they afraid of having to explain this…


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECMVdl-9SQ


This was taken during the recently concluded G20 meeting in London. Had not a passer-by taken a video of this. No one will know how did Ian Tomlinson died. I did not buy Mr. Shanmugam’s explanation:

For example, on the issue of the police potentially abusing their powers in stopping a person from filming, he said: 'Mr Siew's perception is that all police officers will behave illegally. They'll be smart and they'll direct deletion because they don't want a record of what they have just done.

'I come from the opposite perspective. I think we come from the perspective that our officers are fundamentally honest...'

Link: Straits Time

Is this a joke? Fundamentally honest? Explain this to me.

Sir, the only way you can prove to the whole of Singapore that what you said above was true is to show us that every policemen in Singapore is God Almighty himself! The policemen in UK is not different than the policemen in Singapore. Human and prone to abuses. Prove it to me that every single policemen is God Almighty himself and I’ll rest my case and support you!

What surprise me is the blanket hush hush by MSM on another side of the POA. Now, one is enough to get you arrested. One I mean is one person demonstrating. Don’t believe me? See this:

The new laws apply even if it is a one-person demonstration. The previous Public Entertainments and Meetings Act had governed groups of four or less, and the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, groups of five or more.


Thus, the change would “move away from a proscription based on the number of participants”, to focus on the nature of the activity – that is, whether it is disruptive, Mr Shanmugam, who is also Law Minister, explained.


But several MPs took issue with the fact that the new laws would apply to even a single person, which Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim felt was tantamount to “giving the state complete control over an individual citizen’s freedoms”.

Link: Singapore Law Watch

I see now that one person demonstration is perceived as dangerous. I see. I didn’t know the government so ??? we all Singaporean who are famous for being such pussy whips that one person is enough to create havoc and chaos! Or are the government just afraid? Why are you afraid when you’ve done nothing wrong?

In his conclusion, Mr. Shanmugam argued that it boils down to how much Singaporean “trust” the government. I see, like…

Trust the government to blow away billions of dollars away?
Trust the government that organ trading is ok?
Trust the government to suggest dumping the elderly at JB?
Trust the government to let a terrorist escape(if he really did…)?
Trust the government to dish out obscene bonus?
Thanks but no thanks. The government can keep it’s trust to itself and I’ll keep mine to myself.

Oh, Mr. Shanmugam also raised that space for political expression has expanded substantially since 2000. Noted. True only if you’re either Ah Tiongs or Ang Mohs. But if you’re a Singaporean wearing a kangaroo shirt outside Supreme Court, you get this.

Being a vigilant citizen, I got to report that the US State Department have impugn on the reputation of our country judicial system! The incriminating evidence can be found here! How dare America insult my country esteemed judiciary! Singapore! What are you waiting for? Summon the whole of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor to Singapore to stand trial like the 3 idiots who wear the kangaroo shirt!

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27065.1

Singapore could get second stimulus: Financial Times

Singapore could get second stimulus: Financial Times

Singapore may get a boost following its worst ever economic performance – a staggering 19.7 percent slump in the first three months of this year compared with the last quarter, unprecedented since the government began compiling such data in 1976. The Financial Times says:

The poor economic data could set the stage for a much-discussed second stimulus package on top of a S$20.5bn (US$13.7bn) programme announced in January.

Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister, said: “The crisis will eventually pass, but we will not be back to the situation before 2007. This is therefore an opportune time for the government to review our policies and strategies.”

Currently Malaysia has a bigger stimulus package than Singapore, according to the Wall Street Journal. Malaysia is spending $18.5 billion or 9.3 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) while Singapore is spending $13.6 billion or 8 percent of its GDP. In GDP terms, Singapore has the third biggest stimulus package in the region, smaller only than China’s and Malaysia’s.

South Korea has the second biggest stimulus package in absolute terms, worth $53.1 billion, but in GDP terms it is the fourth biggest, at 6.8 percent.

China is spending $586 billion or 12 percent of its GDP.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27057.1

More Laws for Public Order....

More Laws for Public Order....

Singapore has passed a new set of laws for public order:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/422051/1/.html

Not that the old set wasn't working. It is just that we have to be more vigilant given the rising unemployment, bigger income gap and growing number of people disenfranchised so a new set of laws are required. Hungry people ought to be saving their energy by staying at home instead of protesting on the streets....and jobless people ought to be looking for jobs and people who disagree and want to change the system should just shut-up. What better way to achieve greater order.

Under the new Bill, three types of activities will require permits: Those that demonstrate support for or against views or actions of any person, group of persons or any government; those that publicises a cause or campaign; and those that mark or commemorate any event.

You will now need a permit to "commemorate any event". What has public order got to do with commemorating something?

The Act will also give police officers new powers to issue pre-emptive "move-on" orders, which will be in written form, ordering demonstrators not to congregate at the intended rally area, or give them a chance to leave without getting arrested.

The Act will also prohibit the film of law enforcement operations.

How was the abuse of power by police discovered and presecuted? 90% of the time by people who happened to have film the incident - be it the Rodney King case or the most recent use of violence against protestors during the G20 [Link]- these incidents were all caught on film. We have better policemen that the rest of the world? They use secret edge tactics that cannot be filmed?

The ultimate justification given by Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam:

"Have we gotten that balance right? Well, ask yourselves two questions. In our region, which country would you rather be in? And amongst the countries in the world which became independent in the 1950s and 60s, which country would you rather be in?"

The answer is simple. In this region I rather be in Singapore not because of its draconian public order laws but because it is my home and it is a modern city. Let me turn around to ask this question if Singaporeans want these draconian laws that repress the populace even more making it difficult for people to protest for worthy causes and injustice, why are so many Singaporeans lining up and waiting to emigrate to US, Australia, UK and New Zealand which do not have such draconian laws and allow protests. There are more people in Singapore whose security are adversely affected by loan sharks(10,000 counting just official reports last year) that terrorise the HDB dwellers than by peaceful protestors - you don't see the PAP govt proactively enacting laws to protect Singaporeans from loan sharks. These set of public order laws have little to do with the people's safety or security and every thing to do with preserving the system that allows the PAP thrive, hang on to power and repressing dissent and stopping much needed changes in our society....

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27052.1

Singapore is dropping quickly; dismal growth expected for the ASEAN countries

Singapore is dropping quickly; dismal growth expected for the ASEAN countries

Rebecca Wilder | Apr 14, 2009

Singapore's Ministry of Trade and Industry announced a downward revision to its 2009 annual growth forecast on worse-than-expected advanced estimate for Q1 2009 growth, -11.5% since Q1 2008. This is a shocking report, representing a precipitous decline in economic activity in Singapore, and likewise, for the regional ASEAN-5 (the original members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN).

Counter-attack at Aware

April 15, 2009

Counter-attack at Aware

160 veterans to table no-confidence vote at extraordinary meeting

By Wong Kim Hoh, Senior Writer
		Former Aware president and Nominated Member of Parliament Braema Mathi, who is in the group calling for an EOGM, said members need to know more from the new exco. -- ST PHOTO: DESMOND FOO

THE old guard at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) has launched a counter-attack after several unknowns seized the leadership at its recent elections.

A group of 160 veterans are calling for an extraordinary general meeting (EOGM) where they intend to table a vote of no confidence in the new executive council.

In a statement on Tuesday, they expressed concern over the unusual nature of the March 28 annual general meeting 'when a large number of new members turned up and appeared to vote for several office bearers, all of whom are also new members'.

Older members present were shocked when the newcomers contested and won almost all positions, beating more seasoned members by wide majorities.

Those calling for an EOGM also found it disturbing that Mrs Claire Nazar, who was elected president without a contest, resigned within days.

The new exco members have yet to make known publicly who they are, how they are connected, what prompted them to take over in the manner that they did, or their plans for Singapore's leading women's group.

Repeated attempts to reach exco members for comments have drawn a blank since last week.

Ms Corinna Lim, 44, a spokesman for the old guard group, told The Straits Times: 'It is necessary to have an EOGM because we need an open discussion of what their agenda is.

'We've had a lot of calls from concerned members but we have had no communication from the new exco.'

Ms Lim, a corporate counsel, said that under the Aware constitution, an EOGM must be called if 10 per cent of the membership ask for one in writing. Given the rules, it could be held within a month.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26953.1

Singapore's worst economy -11.5%

April 15, 2009

Singapore economy

Not as bad as it looks

Downward revision by Govt comes on the heels of a poor first quarter

By Alvin Foo
		Singapore also revised downward its outlook for 2009 and now expects GDP to contract by 6 to 9 per cent compared with the previous forecast for the economy to shrink by 2 - 5 per cent. -- ST PHOTO: CAROLINE CHIA

SINGAPORE on Tuesday released the worst set of economic data in the nation's history and slashed its growth projection for the year, after exports collapsed in the first quarter by more than expected.

But economists say these grim figures largely reflect past trauma and do not necessarily mean the current economic situation is worsening significantly.

Economy may shrink 6-9% SINGAPORE'S full-year economic growth forecast was revised dramatically downwards by the Government on Tuesday - the third such change in less than four months. The Government now expects Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP) to shrink between 6 and 9 per cent this year, instead of the 2 to 5 per cent contraction thought previously. ... more RELATED LINKS MTI REVISES FORECASTS

The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) yesterday said the economy shrank in the first quarter by a drastic 11.5 per cent over the previous year and 20 per cent over the previous quarter - both record declines.

On the back of these numbers, the Government also downgraded its growth forecasts as well as its trade projections for the full year.

However, the dismal first-quarter figures are advance estimates that were heavily weighted on numbers from January and February, which bore the brunt of the downturn, said economists.

They added that more recent data, including last month's export figures that were also released yesterday, actually show an encouraging trend of economic improvement.

Exports in March rose a better-than-expected 11 per cent over February, on top of a 1.6 per cent rise in February over January, according to International Enterprise (IE) Singapore.

Although exports last month were still some 17 per cent lower than a year ago, the month-on-month increase was 'staggeringly strong', said HSBC economist Robert Prior-Wandesforde.

'It is the first back-to-back monthly rise we've seen in exports since July-August 2007, and it's also the biggest two-month rise since December 2005.'

The rise in exports stemmed mainly from an increase in shipments to mainland China and Hong Kong, underpinning the 'nascent rebound' in the Chinese economy following Beijing's multibillion-dollar stimulus package, noted OCBC economist Selena Ling.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26952.1

Wong Kan Seng: The Evolving Face of Terrorism

15 April 2009
The ISD Intelligence Service Promotion Ceremony - Speech By Mr Wong Kan Seng, Deputy Prime Minister & Minister For Home Affairs, 15 April 2009

The Evolving Face of Terrorism

If there is one constant in security work, it is change. The security landscape is never static. New threats will arise, and old threats evolve and take new forms. Those responsible for the security of our country must always be ready to expect the unexpected. I had said two years ago that there are no boundaries to what the terrorists of today will not try, that they are limited only by their imagination and skills. We were reminded of this in November when they mounted a “swarm attack” by sea in Mumbai. Since then, we have witnessed similar fiyadeen-type attacks in Kabul and Lahore. It is clear from these incidents that terrorist modus operandi is not limited to suicide hijackers, vehicle bombs or improvised explosive devices. The range of targets has also expanded to include hospitals and sporting teams.

2 The terrorists’ aim is to impose their will by subjugating societies into submission, undermining existing political order and creating communal tensions. To achieve this, everything and everyone is fair game. They have no scruples killing women and children, the weak and the vulnerable. They will not stop at conventional explosives and small arms, but will try to procure chemical, biological and radiological weapons. Our water supplies, food supplies, info-communication systems, hotels and restaurants are all possible targets, not just government buildings and transport infrastructures.

3 If we allow ourselves to be lulled into complacency because there have been no major attacks in our region in the last few years, or dismiss lightly possible terrorist threats, we do so at our own peril. We have to sustain a high level of vigilance. For example, we have to work on the assumption that all the high profile events we are organising this year including sporting events such as the Asian Youth Games and Formula One race, are possible terrorist opportunities.

4 We know that the JI is still active in our region. There have been attempts by some members to regroup and rejuvenate their cause, including attempts to re-establish links with Al-Qaeda and militants in the Middle East. Other JI members are simply consolidating and biding their time because of the tough security actions by regional governments. We must be alert for signs that they and other radical groups are stepping up their recruitment efforts or militant activities. If they think that governments are preoccupied with elections and the global economic crisis, and would not pay attention to security issues, they may then try to capitalise on it to gain more ground.

2009: Other Security Challenges

5 In the year ahead, there are other security challenges we will face.

6 First, some local and foreign groups may use the APEC Summit in Singapore later this year to promote their agendas through unlawful means. They may try to instigate our citizens to break the law through acts of civil disobedience, like staging street protests and demonstrations. Some foreigners may themselves decide to come to Singapore to participate in such activities.

7 We have just seen the G20 protests in London. Thousands of protestors had taken to the streets, with the more violent among them damaging public property and business premises. In Thailand over the last one year, thousands of protestors have caused grave damage not just to physical property, but to livelihoods and the economy of the country as tourists are staying away. We have also seen on television street battles between protestors and authorities, causing injuries to many people and some have died as a result. I do not believe that Singaporeans would want such violence to happen here, and with what we have seen time and again in other countries, it would be naïve of us to believe that nothing untoward will happen during street demonstrations.

8 In Singapore, it is only a tiny group of irresponsible and selfish individuals who have been pushing this line of civil disobedience. They do not care for the interests and safety of other Singaporeans; they are only interested in themselves. There are avenues for them to express their views within the bounds of the law. Unlawful activities will not be tolerated. Parliament has just passed the Public Order Act to deal with those intent on disrupting public order. We will implement the law firmly. Similarly, while we welcome foreigners to Singapore, those who come here to subvert our laws will not be welcomed.

9 More critically, as many important heads of state and government will be here for the APEC Summit, we have to anticipate that it may attract terrorist interest. This is why we have to be very firm during that period with protestors and anarchists who may engage in acts of violence, or deliberately cause law and order problems. We cannot afford to be distracted from our graver mission of ensuring the security of the event, the delegates and Singaporeans against terrorists.

10 Secondly, during an economic downturn, it is natural for some people to turn to religion for comfort and support. The freedom of religion is guaranteed in our Constitution. Nevertheless, we must remember that Singapore is a secular, multi-ethnic, multi-religious society. It is only by keeping strictly to this most fundamental tenet that we will be able to hold together as a society, when each community is confident that they have an equal right to practise their faith, and that no one religion is above the others in the eyes of the state.

11 ISD has a critical responsibility in helping to ensure that individuals and incidents do not threaten our racial and religious harmony. ISD officers will have to continue to be on the alert for over-zealous elements or those who attempt to mix religion with politics. There is also a need to ensure that Singaporeans do not take actions or make irresponsible comments that could give rise to religious tensions. The media, on its part, must exercise responsibility and sensitivity when reporting on issues with racial and religious implications. Ethnic conflicts often start with small sparks.

12 The imperative to preserve social cohesion and communal harmony is non-negotiable in the best of times, but even greater in an economic downturn when the population is under stress.

Moving Ahead

13 I know that the past year has been a particularly difficult one for ISD. You had to face the reality that security lapses led to the escape of Mas Selamat Kastari. I know that ISD officers, more than any one else, were deeply pained over this. Years of hard, gruelling work that led to the successful disruption of terrorist plots and the capture of numerous terrorists were set back by that lapse. Years of quiet work in the background successfully dealing with potentially explosive race and religious incidents, espionage and other security threats, have been overshadowed.

14 It has been and continues to be a testing time for the Department. I understand that at one time or another, officers from all the various commands have been deployed to work on the case which for some, involved taking on an entirely new type of assignment for the first time in their career. I have been regularly updated on the Department’s efforts to track Mas Selamat Kastari down. I have no doubt of your determination. I have confidence that with patience – which has always been a virtue of the Department – we will recapture him. The keen sense of fellowship and camaraderie among ISD officers, of being one family through thick and thin, that I have seen particularly during this trying episode, will see you through this, and make all of you even stronger.

15 Most importantly, I am happy to see that ISD officers have not allowed the setback to dishearten or distract you from your mission of countering the multi-faceted security threats we face. Even as you continue to hunt for Mas Selamat Kastari, you have been equally unrelenting in monitoring and tackling other security threats, at times, I know, stretching yourselves beyond the limits.

16 These are challenging times as we navigate through uncharted economic storms. The security milieu is not spared. ISD officers must maintain a keen sense of the pulse of society, keep your eye on the ball, and meet the security challenges head on, staying resolute in your mission to maintain the internal security and stability of our country.

17 Let me end by congratulating the deserving officers who have been promoted. I would also like to commend all ISD officers for your contributions and sacrifices through a very challenging year. Thank you.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27013.1