We are Aware

Please have a look at http://www.we-are-aware.sg/. This is a website set up to clarify facts and stuff. Save Aware, they say.

On my part, I would like to repeat my message (and newer messages):
1) Do not be anti-Christian or anti-Christian fundamentalist, especially so in speech and writing. Let us not divide or polarise our Singapore further.
2) Let us continue to ask Aware to account for what they say or claim. Aware, whoever takes charge, needs to continually define and explain what the terms it uses, as well as the objectives it may develop. It is up to all of us to encourage Aware to be open and transparent, and continue to communicate clearly their goals and progress.
3) Apart from Christian-bashing, let us also not engage in women-bashing and Aware-bashing. It does not help anything at all.
4) This is not only an anti-gay thing, but it affects issues on pro-choice (abortion) and sex education, to name a couple of issues.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27539.1

The Hell of Tax Havens

The Hell of Tax Havens
Michel Morkos Al-Hayat - 21/04/09//

Are tax havens responsible for the world economic crisis and the proliferating high risk money instruments? Or are they just loopholes through which taxpayers keep their money instead of pumping them into state treasuries?

Early April, the G20 leaders agreed during the London summit on a series of stringent decisions to curb these tax havens. But their goal was not to lift and weaken banking secrecy as much as it was to seize financial resources that would give the needed leverage to high expenditure economic stimulus plans.

Every accused country was apparently complying with the lifting of bank secrecy, within specific conditions that require legally proving incidences of tax evasion. Anything other than that remains within the banking standards in anti laundering measures against the proceeds derived from crime and smuggling.

In the opinion of the American expert Raymond Baker, tax havens get 5% of their resources from crime proceeds, 30% from corruption, while the remaining percentage comes from embezzlement, fraud and tax evasion. Hence, tax havens are not only open to outlaws and mafia gangs, but also to the elite and highly educated customers. Among them are the multinational high-income people who refuse to pay their due taxes and prefer that senior wage earners in their companies do so instead. From this standpoint, tax havens have been considered as tools that helped globalization in the expansion of inequality.

These havens, as experts estimate, incur every year around a billion dollars in lost tax revenues in Europe, or up to ten percent of all tax revenues. This is while these countries need to redress their budget deficits with at least a 3 % margin.

As a matter of fact, the rich resort to tax havens as a means to mask their income, whether it comes from wages or investments. To this end, they either settle into such havens or establish fake companies, where they keep their surplus income and revenues. They can also use them to keep the gains from matches or avoid paying inheritance taxes and alimony in case of divorce.

According to some reports, major international banks are the most prominent customers of tax havens, driven by their own interests, for tax purposes, or to offer services to their wealthy clients and institutions. Multinational corporations have also used tax havens in order to establish overseas branches investing in various parts of the world, or to intensify the low-tax high-profit intellectual property protection instruments - while branches in the countries of destination countries pay higher taxes. Companies also use tax havens as a means to hide actual figures from investors and to manipulate their budgets and statements of accounts.

Meanwhile, the OECD estimates that the 116-square-kilometer Jersey island attracts 500 billion dollars in assets of approximately 32 thousand companies, whose accounts are mostly mail boxes. Switzerland attracts 1,500 billion dollars, compared with 1,300 billion dollars for Britain, 740 billion dollars for Luxemburg, 670 billion dollars for the Caribbean and Central America, 370 billion dollars for Singapore, 370 billion dollars for the United States and 150 billion dollars for Hong Kong.

These tax havens seemed to be easy targets to save money. The massive aids to troubled banks, and the plans to cushion the impact of the financial crisis on economy and employment, all blow the budget deficits. For these reasons, the idea of recovering lost taxes appealed to the summit leaders.

This rush to monitor off shore financial centres is justified by the argument that they allow key financial players the full liberty to develop high risk insane and diversified activities and speculations. These havens did not cause the subprime mortgage crisis in America, but played a role that until now remained widely underestimated. A report by the Government Accountability Office in the U.S shows that part of the virtual offshore banking system was established by American banks in the Cayman Islands, in order for these offshore banks to promote on the behalf of American banks complex money bonds, something that was the basis of the multidimensional crisis.

Whether it is about the failure of the British Northern Rock bank, the American Bear Stearns, the German Hypo Real Estate, the Icelandic banks, or the embezzlements by Bernard Madoff or Sir Allen Stanford, the main events of this crisis definitely pass through tax havens. For this reason, the decision to reorder these offshore centres came as a necessary condition to ensure effective reshuffling of the world monetary system.

However, the attack on safe havens does not put an end to the perversions of financial globalization, despite the stringent measures taken by central banks, which are now ready to monitor the mechanisms adopted when tackling risks, and to cater for the highly diversified money instruments.

The American Secretary of Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, said: "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society. Too many individuals, however, want the civilization at a discount."

Will the world's public finances regain what they lost to tax havens?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27727.1

For much is at stake

For much is at stake

The government’s feeble justifications for passing the Public Order Act (POA) have been roundly and rightly denounced by the Opposition parties and netizens, and it is important that you read their responses closely.

The Public Order Act (POA) is about preserving the dominance of the PAP. For this reason, the POA is about us, the citizens.

Take heed: the POA is not just about maintaining our racial and religious “harmony”. Harmony can be maintained, if it must, with the existing laws, as they always have been.

The POA is also not just about the impending APEC meetings or Youth Olympics and the protesters that accompany these events, for the POA is here to stay.

The POA is about preserving the dominance of the PAP. For this reason, the POA is about us, the citizens.

With the Internet, citizens have managed to reclaim some of their voices, and they are starting to speak and be heard. Nary a week now goes by without the government’s mis-steps being exposed and scrutinized by netizens, and the mainstream media’s chicanery continually unmasked.You would rather live in Singapore, wouldn’t you? Anyway, where else can you go?

Now, the PAP’s pedigree no longer appears so distinguished and its record no longer that sterling, and the mainstream media little more than a lackey of the government. That is, a government whose largely fabricated aura, abetted by the media propagandists’ daily worship, has been diminished exponentially.

And right that it has. Our government is just like any good government filled with fallible men, prone to err. And like any government, its natural impulses are to power and tyranny.

This is why democracy, and the structures that uphold it must be built, must prevail. Democracy is vital, it starts with having free and fair elections, that will give rise to a strong Opposition, and it ends with a freer people. Currently, all three elude us.

With the Internet, awakened and enlightened citizens who can now see the government for what it really is, might be galvanized to action, and threaten the PAP’s hold on power. This is why the POA is enacted, to contain dissent, to suppress action, to shackle the citizen.

But this absolute ease of tyranny did not emerge overnight. The government’s successive legislations and insidious tweakings over the last four decades on public order, on defamation rulings, on the GRCs, the plethora of licensing and restrictive laws governing the broadcast and print media, public entertainment and civil society, not to mention the enormous discretionary powers the government has behind those laws have gradually but surely strengthened the PAP’s grip on the country, entrenched its power in- and outside parliament, weakened the key institutions of the state, and silenced the citizen. In that sense, we have already been muzzled long ago. They create for better and worse, the Singapore that we live in today.

It is this absolute ease of tyranny that manifests itself in the stark but facile choice posed to us by the law minister: Well, ask yourself two questions: in our region, which country would you rather be in? And among the countries in the world which became independent in the 1950s and 1960s, which country would you rather be in?

In other words:

There are those who simply cannot leave, there are those who truly want to remain. But to remain is to perpetually duel, conscience against cowardice, conscience against contentment. To remain is to live in oppression. This is sad, and this is wrong.

From the law minister once more, as reported by TODAY:

it boils down to how much Singaporeans trust the Government Ð bearing in mind the limitations and geo-political challenge that a small country faces.

This is not pleading trust. This is delivering a thin-veiled threat, once more playing the vulnerability game, and inciting the siege mentality created by them

trust us, or else.

Trust them, or live in oppression. What a generous choice. What a mockery of trust it makes. And what does it make of us?

It is rather the government itself who does not trust its people. From our NRICs to our health records on public computers, from racial profiling to academic streaming, from NS disciplining to scholarship bondage, from HDB flat allocation and CPF lock-ups, to the neighbours’ constant gaze through grilled-windows from the opposite block, to how to love our lovers so as to propagate the state’s ideal family structure, to 24/7 surveillance online and offline, all with the threat of the ISA and the knocking in the night a recurring spectre in our minds. All culminating in this country’s pervasive, undignified, climate of fear, every step a landmine of a legislation, every step the high wall of state condescension, every step once more into the inescapable arms of the government.

This is not about trust. It is about the regime’s ability to exert and collect power. Power undergirded by a politics of deep mistrust, subjecting citizens to living in a prosperous state of constant intimidation and surveil. While they pry into all our personal affairs and indiscretions that everyone has, threatening to expose them, incarcerating you for them. Everyone a potential hostage, while their own infractions are placed above their panoptical power, beyond scrutiny. While they gently cajole:

Trust us, or else.

Or else, the government can trust us for once, no? The docile, disciplined, depoliticized Singaporean, produced, processed, labeled and sorted, all for the benefit of Singapore Inc. And to whom does Singapore Inc. benefit?

If we bemoan our current state, it is also because we have ourselves to blame.

I have written before, impassioned thought is in itself activism, that political activism is neutered at its heart when individuals forget that change comes not just from the arena of parliament and street protests, but also from the sitting and thinking individual, that the personal is the political, that action originates from oneÕs thought, conscience, and consciousness.

But now to bring our thoughts, conscience, and consciousness to bear, and in our different ways, to serve one cause: honouring freedom. The POA and those who support it, dishonour it.

Freedom is not, unless you have bought into the government’s rhetoric, a lofty word, it is a basic need, without which citizens are bereft of dignity. The so-called politics of bread and butter is at one with the right to liberty: together, they constitute a proper, fuller life. One less, and itÕs half a life. Why would dignity discriminate?

Albert Camus once observed: there are no two politics, there is only one, and it is the one that makes a commitment - the politics of honour. And indeed there can be no freedom without honour. Honour in words, honour in deed, honour in our hearts. No heart, no honour. Not unlike those moneyed men in white.

Honour freedom. Today the government goes for them whom you think isn’t about you. (Where were we when the Opposition members were intimidated and bankrupted?) As if it’s none of your business, as if oppression is just fine. Tomorow they’ll come for you and you alone. They will, simply because they can, and they will, because you had let them.

Remember the saying: a nation of sheep begets a government of wolves? See how quickly the laws are amended and passed. This is our parliament of men in white, representing not the people but themselves. See how swiftly your basic rights have disappeared. The POA is only one of many examples, and no doubt many more will come, cumulatively, oppressively.

And why? Because we blind ourselves to the fact that the numerous laws passed ostensibly to maintain peace and prosperity, also invariably constrain the Opposition, crush dissent, and ensure the continued dominance of the PAP. Because you have been trained to disdain freedom, and because you have been encouraged to love your own servitude and bondage. This is the most powerful form of control, indoctrination at its best.

The Opposition is weak because we kept silent, and so we kept them weak.

Serves them right, we chide. In the end, this has not served us well. And now when we speak, if at all, we speak the language of disappointment, of anger, of disillusionment, of despair. Forty years of independence, and we’re as dependent as ever if not more. Our nation-building efforts built a tyrannical regime instead. This is what happens when you remain silent. You will be silenced, and you will be defenceless.

The Opposition has spoken out against the POA; they always have. Go with the Opposition, that’s a start. Honour those who honour freedom, their strength lies in your hands.

Honour your own freedom too, for much is at stake. To be able to walk free and be heard, with fervour without fear. Because freedom is not a lofty word.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27525.1

Who are the real winners and losers of the AWARE fiasco?

Who are the real winners and losers of the AWARE fiasco?

When two groups of women slug it out with each other openly in public, who is the biggest winner?

Well, it appears that the SPH journalists and by extension the PAP government are the only real benefactors from the recent AWARE debacle.

Few Singaporeans were even aware of AWARE’s existence previously, but given the extensive coverage given by the media on the rampant mudslinging from both sides, AWARE has found itself in a limelight which it rather not be.

The fracas first broke out in the aftermath of AWARE’s tumultuous AGM a few weeks ago which saw a group of newcomers coming literally from nowhere to seize control of the organization.

The befuddled Old Guards who found themselves squeezed out of every position contested in the exco started questioning the motives of the new leaders who had remained tight-lipped over the agenda.

The ensuing confusion allowed the media to step in to take advantage and control of the situation to milk it for maximum publicity. The journalists had a field day depicting a “cat fight” involving various outstanding prominent women in the community.

Unfortunately, what should remain as a purely internal matter ended up with both sides hanging out their “dirty linen” in public to dry for all to see which the journalists gleefully obliged.

Not a single day passed without the AWARE fiasco being splashed on the headlines of most national papers be it some mumblings of discontent from a long-serving member or sensational revelation of the backgrounds of the new exco members.

More incredibly, DBS stoked the controversy further by issuing a rather curt public admonishment of its Vice-President Josie Lau through the media for “insubordination” in accepting the position of President at AWARE.

“AWARE” and “Josie Lau” collectively became one of the most searched words on Singapore’s search engines.

Even Singapore men who usually showed little interest in AWARE’s activities felt fit to jump into the fray with some writing to the ST Forum to express their support for the Old Guards.

Blogosphere wasted no time in hitching on the bandwagon with many blogs expressing their dismay and outrage at the “constitutional” coup launched by right-wing Christian conservatives to take over a supposedly secular, liberal and non-discriminatory NGO in order to further its own agenda.

Josie Lau thought she managed to secure a coup by clarifying the stance of her new exco on CNA “Talking Point”, but her non-committal responses to questions of sexuality left more doubts in the minds of viewers instead.

While supporters of both sides continue their shadow boxing over the internet, have anybody stopped and pondered over the real agenda of the media? Have we been unwittingly fooled and misled by the media again?

With due respect to AWARE, it has only 200 plus members and cannot claim to represent the interests of the majority of the female population in Singapore.

So why is the media kicking up a fuss about?

Is the media circus surrounding the AWARE saga another ploy to distract Singaporeans from more pressing issues at hand such as NEA’s role in the Geylang Serai food poisoning outbreak, GIC’s policy of giving out low-interest or interest free loans to its staff and the Public Order Act to further curtail our civil liberties?

Obviously the internal affairs of AWARE have been blown out of proportions by the media to lessen the heat on the PAP government whose various missteps were put under intense public scrutiny of late.

Regardless of the outcome of the AWARE’s EGM on 2 May, there will be no winners, only losers. The battle can be fought and won over the elections, but the war has long been lost.

The brand name of AWARE which was built up painstakingly over the years was tarnished the moment its leaders chose to speak to the media instead of one another.

In a moment of folly, they have allowed the media to hijack their cause and set the agenda for their own vested interests.

Who are the real winners then?

The mainstream media which has seen a leap in their readership to reverse a declining trend and ultimately their political masters who must be relieved that the attention of Singaporeans remained focused on AWARE instead of themselves.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27524.1

Possible Singapores, beyond Lee Kuan Yew

Possible Singapores, beyond Lee Kuan Yew
By Loh Chee Kong, TODAY | Posted: 21 April 2009 0632 hrs

	Photos 1 of 1 > " onclick="Next();" src="http://www.channelnewsasia.com/images/butt_next.gif" type="image" width="18" height="15"> Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew (centre) (file picture)

SINGAPORE: A People's Action Party (PAP) split by internal schisms. Future leaders bereft of the "huge political legitimacy" that could be gained from endorsement by the man with unmatched moral and historical authority. These are some of the leadership fates that could befall a post–Lee Kuan Yew Singapore, as hotelier Ho Kwon Ping sees it.

And such "imponderable" scenarios could help explain why a "system of elders" is now taking shape in the political landscape.

"Perhaps it is to restrain factionalism, arbitrate disagreements, groom and assess future leaders, that the positions of senior minister and minister mentor have been institutionalised," said Mr Ho, who feels the PAP's "extraordinary cohesion" over five decades has owed much to "the forceful personality of Lee Kuan Yew".

Mr Ho, who is also MediaCorp chairman, was speaking on Monday alongside Professor Kishore Mahbubani at a seminar organised by Nanyang Technological University's Asian Journalism Fellowship programme. The topic? "Singapore Beyond Lee Kuan Yew: Institutionalising the Singapore Way".

Of this future, Prof Mahbubani, who Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, would not rule out a "significant reversal" of Mr Lee's legacy, or the rise of a stronger Opposition usurping the one dominant party system – though he gave each scenario only a "one-sixth probability".

While a "smooth and seamless transition" was a two-thirds likelihood, Prof Mahbubani harked back to the words of former Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee, after the PAP's long monopoly of parliament was broken in 1981. "As (Dr Goh) has wisely told us, failure happens when we fail to consider the possibility of failure."

So, for instance in the unlikely event of a strong opposition arising, would Mr Lee's legacy be weakened? In fact, the "sharper political debates" arising could make Singaporeans more aware of the "precious political legacy they have enjoyed", said Prof Mahbabuni.

On the other hand, as has happened in South Korea and Taiwan, it could also lead to the old legacies being quickly lost and forgotten by the new generation. "I am frequently shocked when I meet younger Singaporeans who have never heard of Dr Goh," he said.

Both speakers were not alone in expressing uncertainty over how Singapore's future, sans Mr Lee, would play out. During the Q&A session, which was off-the-record, the audience raised concerns such as how the country would be deprived of its most astute and influential critic – and whether Mr Lee's legacy, or indeed Singapore, could unravel.

While Mr Lee's retirement would "create a huge political vacuum", Prof Mahbubani believes Singapore has "done a lot" to protect his legacy, such as instilling a deep culture of meritocracy and incorruptibility.

And Mr Ho had no doubts Singaporeans could "muddle their way through", even if the PAP's leadership renewal "fails to deliver what it has done for the past 50 years".

Mr Lee's greatest legacy, he said, "is that the Singapore which he so passionately shaped will outlive not only him, but even his own party, should that ever come to pass".

The reason: In his single most critical imperative – nation building – Mr Lee has largely succeeded, said Mr Ho, who has found young Singaporeans to own a strong sense of involvement and ownership in the country, contrary to stereotype.

"Equally contrary to some people's wishful thinking, there is not likely to be dramatic, broad-brush social or political liberalisation," said Mr Ho. "This is not a pent up society waiting for the demise of the strongman in order to overturn highly unpopular laws."

Rather, the government has the support of the politically-vital heartland in its pragmatic, incremental approach to change, even as it responds to tomorrow's generation, he said.


- TODAY/so

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27489.5

Conspiracy Theory Awareness

Conspiracy Theory Awareness

Over Erdingers over the weekend, my TVD mates and I had a quick debate over who engineered the AWARE Old Guards’ riposte after they were unceremoniously outplayed fairly by the alleged homophobes cabal. Alleged. See Guai Lan figured that it was Braema Mathi who was the mastermind. The former NMP and Straits Times journalist was the one who orchestrated the mainstream and online media blitzkreig??
Get ready for an ass-whooping!

Get ready for an ass-whooping!

The Straits Times was the one which broke the AWARE story and Braema probably was the one who persuaded ST to carry the angle about this hostile takeover of AWARE by noob nobodies. Braema is some power Level 62 social activist and besides AWARE, she also dabbles in Maruah. Respect. In that human rights outfit, she is comrade-in-arms with Dr Stuart Koe from Fridae, a major gay online portal. Fridae was among the first to fire the fusillade about the anti-gay agenda behind the Aware revolution. In fact, Fridae opened its gun ports on the very same day as the Straits Times’ scoop. Woah, a pincer movement Rommel would have been proud of! Give Braema an Iron Cross!

Nevertheless, the anti-gay angle as a big reason behind the AWARE capture was a tad sensational and simplistic, but its spell chanting raised an army of the undead undiscerning bloggers who bought that story. Some of the berzerkers are even spinning at as anti-Christian in a way. Tsk tsk, don’t got there! Hope they (don’t?) trip on their battleaxes. The fundy gays vs the fundy Christians! Ding ding game on!

However, even after our 3rd wundabar Erdinger each, all of us were at a loss on how DBS got into the picture, and made a mess out of it…. Geek +1! Like in Revolutions when The Hammer piloted by Niobe crashed into Zion and unleashed the EMP, taking out the sentinels for a while but actually making the city defenceless as its weapons could not be used in the next wave of Sentinels. OK I’ve been dying to use that over-extended example of self-pwnage.

Heh. The debate is now about how the civil society is developing. Somehow in the unfolding drama, AWARE unabashedly became representative of the spectrum of civil societies dnyamics in Singapore. My Spidey sense is telling me that in the storming of the Aware Dover office in the coming EGM, Braema Mathi is going to use her Transient Workers’ Count influence and lots of maids will be the new post-AGM AWARE members who are going to exorcise AWARE of Josie Lau and Coven. These are not the Exco members you are looking for. We can go about our business. Move along. The EGM shouldn’t be held on Saturday 2 May though, maids usually get off on Sundays. Until then, set phasers to kill!

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27701.1

SINGAPORE AFTER LEE KUAN YEW: 'Yes we can (survive)'

April 21, 2009

SINGAPORE AFTER LEE KUAN YEW

'Yes we can (survive)'

Leading figures list reasons: Values of founders institutionalised; citizens' sense of belonging strong

By Zakir Hussain
		Prof Mahbubani (left) and Mr Ho speaking on Singapore Beyond Lee Kuan Yew: Institutionalising The Singapore Way, which was chaired by Mr Cherian George (centre). -- ST PHOTO: ALBERT SIM

SINGAPORE will survive beyond Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, two establishment figures told a seminar yesterday.

Mr Ho Kwon Ping pins it down to citizens' sense of belonging to the Republic forged over the years, while Professor Kishore Mahbubani says the values of its founders are deeply institutionalised.

OPPOSITION AND POLITICAL LEGACY 'Debates on Singapore's governance may make the population more aware of the precious political legacy that they have enjoyed. Alternatively, a strong opposition could also lead to a diminution of MM's legacy. The recent examples of South Korea and Taiwan demonstrate that when politics enters a new era, the old legacies can quickly be lost and forgotten.' Prof Mahbubani, on the pros and cons of a strong opposition PAP NEEDS TO BE SUSTAINABLY COMPETENT ... more

'Lee Kuan Yew's greatest legacy, I believe, is that the Singapore which he so passionately shaped will outlive not only him, but even his own party should that ever come to pass,' said Mr Ho, executive chairman of resort operator Banyan Tree Holdings.

'No Singaporean nor foreigner questions today that we have a shared identity, common values and aspirations. This is no small achievement,' he added.

Mr Ho, who also chairs the Singapore Management University and MediaCorp, and Prof Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, were speaking to 200 academics, diplomats and journalists on Singapore Beyond Lee Kuan Yew: Institutionalising The Singapore Way.

The event at the National Museum was organised by Asia Journalism Fellowship, which gives journalists from Asia three-month stints here.

The fellowship, an initiative by Temasek Foundation and Nanyang Technological University, aims to give them insights into the challenges Singapore faces, among other things.

In his remarks, Prof Mahbubani noted that Mr Lee himself said in 1996 that Singapore would survive him, provided it had leaders of quality and a people aware of its vulnerabilities and who are willing to pull together to face challenges.

A lot had been done to ensure this legacy of good governance will be protected, said Prof Mahbubani.

These included developing an exceptional educational system, strong public institutions, an unusually strong record of ethnic harmony and a culture of meritocracy and honesty.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27506.1

Can Singapore fail?

“In 1981, Singapore’s long-ruling People’s Action Party was shocked when it suffered its first defeat at the polls in many years, even though the contest was in a single constituency. I asked Dr Goh Keng Swee, one of Singapore’s three great founding fathers and the architect of Singapore’s economic miracle, why the PAP lost. He replied, “Kishore, we failed because we did not even conceive of the possibility of failure”.”

That was one of the three possible scenarios Singapore will face after the retirement of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew (MM Lee). That anecdote was shared by Kishore Mahbubani, Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore in a seminar this afternoon.



In his opening address, he had acknowledged the sensitivity of the topic and that it was a politically charged topic.

The topic, Singapore Beyond Lee Kuan Yew: Institutionalising the Singapore Way, from Prof Mahbubani's viewpoint was answered using three questions. One of which was the possible scenarios Singapore will face after the retirement of MM Lee. The other two are whether it is legitimate to pose the question of Singapore’s prospects beyond MM Lee and what has Singapore done to ensure the protection of MM Lee's legacy.

I was quite encouraged that he did not side-step the question but dealt with it honestly. Prof Mahbubani also cited Samuel P. Huntington, who is well known for his works on democracy, which I had blogged about more than a year ago when I tried to analyse the prospects of democracy in Singapore.

To cut to the chase, I will summarise the answers that were provided. Firstly, Prof Mahbubani acknowledged that it is legitimate to discuss Singapore’s prospects beyond MM Lee. Citing MM Lee's achievements in nation-building, his wise advice as a statesman and his power to rally and persuasiveness. "His retirement will naturally create a huge political vacuum," he adds.

To answer the second question, seven important measures were stated. The development of an exceptional education system, national service which has been deeply ingrained into Singapore's DNA, strong public society and strong civil society, a politcal party that has managed to win elections over time while dealing with the successful transitions of two Prime Ministers, multi-racial harmony, meritocracy and a culture of honestly in the public, private and people sectors.

For the final, three scenarios were posed: Singapore will make a smooth transition, the legacy of MM Lee will be reversed, and a mixed third scenario where the PAP continues to rule Singapore successfully but it has to do so with a strong opposition movement. The latter two are quite unlikely and improbable.

These three scenarios resonate with the elements of transition to democracy - transformation, replacement and transplacement.

But the key point that I feel he was trying to make is that one needs to consider failure when attempting to succeed. What I took home is this: we should look at how we can fail, why others fail and what we can learn from those who have failed.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27501.1

Few straight answers in Aware interview

Few straight answers in Aware interview

By Hedy Khoo

April 21, 2009

IT WAS the first media interview given by the central figure of a controversial storm that has generated much public interest. IN CHARGE: Ms Josie Lau and Ms Maureen Ong (below) appeared last night in a televised interview. TNP FILE PICTURES Ms Josie Lau, 48, the newly-appointed president of Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) had agreed to a recorded interview with Channel NewsAsia which was shown last night. To both the media and the public, this was an opportunity to get answers to burning questions. Had there been a 'constitutional coup'? What was Ms Lau's agenda for Aware? Why the split between the old guard and the new executive council? But 10 precious minutes of air-time on national television did little to give any fresh insights into the rife speculation of the new Exco's motives for taking over Aware. Perhaps that much was to be expected. When tough issues were brought up, they either gave PR-type answers or evaded it by beating around the bush. Nobody got closer to a clearer picture beyond what has been reported thus far. It was an anti-climax following the dramatic dissension among the ranks of the society that has been played out in public for the last three weeks. If Ms Lau's answers weren't disappointing, they were sometimes ironic. Not quite what one would expect of a dynamic leader who took over the reins under such controversy. In the middle of the interview, Ms Lau herself asked a tough question: Has the organisation lost its focus? Her opinion? Aware has become too diversified. 'They are just moving into too many areas and not going into depth'. Her question and reply may well have applied to the way she and honorary treasurer Maureen Ong responded to the questions during the interview. Asked why she has agreed to talk now after refusing to be interviewed previously, Ms Lau said that under the Aware constitution, only the president could speak for Aware. So until she was appointed president, she could not say anything. As for not talking in the two days after being appointed president, she said she didn't want to engage in a tit-for-tat battle. 'The less said, the better sometimes,' she added. But the honorary secretary was more than happy to give her two cents' worth, blaming the press for adding to the pressure of selecting a new leader. As for the questions over the new guard's views towards issues like homosexuality, there was no straight answer. When asked what Aware would do if they find that a woman has been discriminated in a company because of her sexuality, Ms Lau skirted the issue by saying Aware is a secular organisation. She said: 'We are not there to push our personal beliefs or personal religious affiliations.' She added that sexual discrimination is a controversial topic which the Exco will have to discuss.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27420.4

Braema Mathi tries to sound conciliatory to salvage AWARE’s battered image

Braema Mathi tries to sound conciliatory to salvage AWARE’s battered image

AWARE Old Guard says debate is healthy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhto8Udaeeg

Following a series of damaging media reports which appear to pit the old guards of AWARE against its newly elected exco and less than flattering comments from some of the long-serving members, ex-AWARE President Braema Mathi sounded more conciliatory in her interview with CNA.

Despite the widespread public perception that the saga over AWARE’s leadership change is a fight and some would even call it a “cat-fight”, Braema Mathi was adamant that it was a “healthy debate”.

The old guard members also said they never wanted the matter to go to the media and they wanted to resolve it internally. But given the public interest in developments, coupled with the lack of communication from the newcomers, the old guards said they felt they had to respond.

Unfortunately, Braema Mathi had realized too late that the media has done nothing other than to add fuel to the raging fire so as to boost their dwindling readership.

Calling for an EGOM to cast a vote of no confidence against the new exco doesn’t strike many as being conciliatory or friendly.

Neither is it “healthy” for different blocs within AWARE to outdo each other by launching “constitutional coups” in a game of brinkmanship to seize control of the organization.

Perhaps the Old Guards really have little choice given the reticence and alleged high-handedness of the new exco. Both sides have made juvenile mistakes which allowed what should be an internal matter to snowball into one with intense public interest.

While it is heartening to hear both Braema Mathi and Josie Lau making calls for both sides to mend the rift between them, it may be inevitable that both sides are going in a head-on collision in the EGOM on 2 May to resolve the current impasse.

We expect more dirt to be dredged out then and the image of AWARE to be damaged further. In fact, AWARE will never be the same after going through this crisis.

In the interest of AWARE, we urge all parties concerned to stop their bickering and get back to the basics: communication.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27490.1

Should new laws criminalizing attempts at discrimination against sexual minorities be implemented?

Should new laws criminalizing attempts at discrimination against sexual minorities be implemented?

SINGAPORE - Much has been written about the anti-homosexuality history of the newcomers in AWARE’s executive committee together with their supporters, especially their links to the Church of Our Saviour, a charismatic anglican church. The concern with the Church of Our Saviour is that its history has been laden with the anti-homosexuality rhetoric, which explains the alarm of members within the gay community in the wake of the latest developments at AWARE.

When the Singapore government opened its doors of employment to homosexuals to positions within the civil service, the senior pastor of the Church of Our Saviour, Mr Derek Hong, was visibly opposed to such an action. Mr Hong made a passionate speech, vowing to mobilize churches in Singapore to stand up against the homosexual issue, and highlighted his goal of making Singapore a nation of righteous Christians without contamination of the homosexual lifestyle. Mr Hong felt that homosexuality should not be allowed to come out to the surface and made acceptable to the nation. Mr Derek Hong and the Church of Our Saviour aside, a group of 20 Christians from different denominations, voluntary organizations and professions met and agreed on a line of action to tackle the homosexual-friendly hiring policy. Mr Yang Tuck Yoong, a pastor of the Cornerstone Community Church encouraged Christians to express their concerns regarding the new hiring policy to their Member of Parliaments via letters or during meet-the-people sessions.

It can be argued that the actions of such religious figureheads are bordering on sedition, i.e. attempting to create ill-feelings and enmity against a certain group of Singaporeans, the sexual minorities. While the government deserves its fair share of plaudits for adopting a tolerant approach in hiring homosexuals, it should have considered implementing laws equivalent to the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) laws in the U.S.. LGBT laws in the U.S. include anti-discrimination laws to counter employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. President Bill Clinton’s Executive Order 13087 prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation within the U.S. civil service, and our government should consider having a similar bill.

And more can be done to protect sexual minorities against discrimination. For starters, a new Anti-discrimination against Sexual Minorities Act should be enacted, and this is applicable to everyone regardless of religious beliefs. Such an act criminalizes attempts aimed at provoking discrimination against sexual minorities. What is allowed and not allowed for this proposed Act?

Allowed
1) Expressing one’s personal opinion against the sexual practice/lifestyle of a sexual minority. For instance, a speech or writing expressing negative opinions of a homosexual/lesbian practice is permissible.
E.g. I find anal sex by homosexuals disgusting and extremely unhealthy.

Not allowed
1) Making an attempt either directly or indirectly to curtail the progress of a sexual minority, be it in education, career or in other areas, on the grounds of his/her sexual orientation.
E.g. An organized campaign by a religious figurehead to prevent the employment of homosexuals to the civil service. If the religious figurehead explicitly informs his followers to influence Members of the Parliament to discourage the employment of sexual minorities in the civil service, the figurehead will be violating the Act.

2) Partaking in speeches/campaigns/activities that stirs up ill will against sexual minorities.
E.g. Hate speeches and actions that directly lead to contempt against sexual minorities.

In every mature society, tolerance of differences should be practised. Bigotry still remains a serious scourge and poses a danger, especially to the vulnerable ones who are affected. As such, the latter should be protected by specially designed laws, which ensure that their interests are not curtailed by discrimination.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27589.1

Singapore beyond Lee Kuan Yew

Singapore beyond Lee Kuan Yew

Tuesday, 21 April 2009

Deborah Choo

“The price to Singapore of the PAP’s extraordinarily successful half-century of governance is that the system is now particularly vulnerable to the internal self-renewal of the PAP itself.” – Ho Kwon Ping.

International journalists, students, officials, bankers and representatives from established institutions gathered at the National Museum Gallery Theatre yesterday afternoon. They were there for the inaugural Asia Journalism Fellowship (AJF) seminar organized by the Temasek Foundation, Nanyang Technological University (NTU).

The session was chaired by Cherian George, a researcher at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information,NTU. The seminar was titled, “Singapore Beyond Lee Kuan Yew: Institutionalising The Singapore Way”.

The event brought together two distinguished guest speakers, namely Kishore Mahbubani, Dean and Professor of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, and Ho Kwon Ping, Executive Chairman, Banyan Tree Holdings; Chairman, Singapore Management University; Chairman, MediaCorp Pte Ltd.

Mr Mahbubani raised three pertinent issues. Firstly, whether it is legitimate to pose the question of Singapore’s prospects beyond Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. Mr Mahbubani acknowledged that many internationally had raised similar concerns, some expressing pessimism over Singapore’s future after MM Lee; one being Professor Samuel Huntington, who had said: “The honesty and efficiency that Senior Minister Lee has brought to Singapore are likely to follow him to his grave. “

Mr Mahbubani feels that the question boils down to MM Lee being an “extraordinary leader”, who is admired as a nation builder, an international statesman, and an effective and persuasive leader.

MM Lee’s legacy

Second, what has Singapore done to ensure that MM Lee’s legacy will be protected? Mr Mahbubani listed seven measures undertaken, namely an “exceptional” education system, national service, strong public institutions, a political party who had “learnt the art of winning elections”, ethnic harmony, meritocracy, and stamping out corruption.

However, when it came to the question of a Singapore after MM Lee, his take was that no one can be sure what this will be. He speculated three scenarios, one: a seamless transition, second: a significant reversal of the legacy left by MM Lee, and third: PAP continues to rule Singapore, but with a strong opposition force.

Mahbubani emphasized that Singapore must be able to conceive the notion of failure, so as to prevent the country degenerating. This was something which former Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee, had told him, after the PAP’s monopoly of Parliament was broken in 1981. “As (Dr Goh) has wisely told us, failure happens when we fail to consider the possibility of failure,” said Mr Mahbubani.

Mr Ho Kwon Ping felt that MM Lee had already passed the first test all great leaders faced, which is to personally engineer the transition to the next generation of leaders. However, whether MM Lee’s legacy would last beyond several generations, to become “enshrined in lasting, sustainable institutions”, is still unknown, Mr Ho said.

Singapore “stable, but static”

He is, however, confident that Singapore will see a new generation of leaders coming forth in the self-renewal process. But Mr Ho raised doubts over whether the PAP will continue to advance its current one-party dominance by producing its future leaders in which Singaporeans may or may not support in the future. His other concern is whether tomorrow’s generation can weather a change in the political climate which may see more opposition entering the scene.

He described Singapore’s political equilibrium as “stable, but static”, and feels that a multi-party political system would serve to benefit Singapore. He, however, maintained that “intentionally dividing the

PAP into two sister parties taking turns at the polls to lead the country, is an artificial, unworkable idea.”

Singapore vulnerable to PAP’s internal self-renewal

He cautioned that though Singapore has enjoyed good governance in the past 50 years, it has inevitably also made us particularly vulnerable to the “internal self-renewal of the PAP itself”. Citing China’s political system, he said, “We do not know the process by which Xi Jin Ping, a relatively unknown heir apparent to President Hu Jin Tao, was assessed, tested, and then given the mantle of succession. But a system of internal competition, evaluation, and selection clearly exists. And the system, however non-transparent, is sustainable and meritocratic – and it works.”

Echoing Mr Mahbubani’s stand on a Singapore beyond MM Lee, he concluded, “The only possible answer, since we have not yet crossed that bridge, is that we do not know. But future leaders will certainly not enjoy the huge political legitimacy arising from approval by Lee Kuan Yew.”

Mr Ho expressed uncertainty over the one-party dominance in the post Lee Kuan Yew era, but said that should it succeed, “they will have created a new model of political governance which will genuinely challenge the fundamental assumptions of Western liberal democracy with its requisite two-party model.” He remains confident that the future generation will “rise to the occasion” when the time calls as their “sense of belonging is strong”.

The younger generation

When TOC asked him on his views on the impact of the brain drain in Singapore, Mr Ho said he is not too worried about this, as all Singapore youths want to see the world, but they would return eventually.

Mr Ho disagreed that Singaporean youths are apathetic, as they “may be disinterested in electoral politics, but they are increasingly involved in civil society and community issues.”

The only difference is that the media medium used to air their views is different from that of the older generation. He said, “They seek expression not in Speakers Corner but in alternative digital media and social networking sites.”

The government realizes that it cannot control the new media, and it is good that the government is engaging in discussions at the grassroots level to find out more about it, he told TOC.

Addressing the government liberalizing its hold on the mainstream media, Mr Ho felt that the government has and is adopting a “pragmatic” approach to satisfy the younger generation’s thirst for democracy, but also being cautious not to upset the heartland, nor “endangering” social stability.

Citing the heated debates over gay rights and the Public Order Act, Mr Ho argues that “incremental change is happening.”

“The society Lee Kuan Yew has shaped will not, as Prof Samuel Huntington predicted, follow him to his grave,” he said. “It may not look like the Singapore of Lee’s time, nor may the PAP rule un-interrupted forever, but the people of Singapore, the nation they inhabit, and the society they continue to shape, will thrive so long as our children know that the future of Singapore belongs to them.”

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27489.1

Aware should not lose sight of its original role

Aware should not lose sight of its original role

I HAVE followed the news on the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) with great interest. To my surprise, questions have focused mainly on the new office-holders' stand on homosexuality.

I am puzzled as to the relevance of these questions. As far as I know, Aware was not set up to establish acceptance of homosexuality.

A check on Aware's website confirmed that its mission is to 'identify areas for improvement in gender equality, encourage positive change, and support women in realising their highest potential'.

In view of that, Aware should not lose sight of its original role and function, but should focus on advancing the cause of women as a whole. The agenda of homosexuality should remain separate.

With the current economic situation, I find it strange that reporters have not asked the new office-bearers what they plan to do to help women coping with job losses, especially single mothers struggling to provide for their families. The questions on homosexuality stand out glaringly at the top of the list, as if that was the main role of Aware. Surely women are now struggling with more urgent and pressing issues than society's acceptance of homosexuality.

I also find that the request from some members for an extraordinary general meeting, with the intent of replacing the committee, borders on the ludicrous.

Examining the write-up on these new office-bearers, I found my respect and confidence in them growing. These are women with stellar credentials, highly successful and respected in their fields. These are women who have broken through glass ceilings. Aware should count itself privileged to have such a diverse team of capable leaders. As a woman, I am happy to have them represent my cause.

I understand how the old guard members must feel. Losing is never easy. I hope they realise that their sacrifice of hard work and time has not gone unnoticed. Even so, a democratic process should be respected for what it stands for.

From the reports, it is clear that Mrs Claire Nazar was nominated by the outgoing president, and she in turn nominated about half of the office-bearers. After which everything was left up to the vote of the members. Frankly, I see nothing suspicious in that. Rather than let bruised egos dictate behaviour, I suggest that perhaps graciousness could be a more dignified way to end one's term in office.

Hannah Han (Ms)

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27477.1

Being pro-family does not mean one is anti-gay

Being pro-family does not mean one is anti-gay

I REFER to Sunday's article, 'Claire Nazar: Why I quit as Aware president'. In it, questions arose about whether she was anti-gay due to the fact that she was pro-life, pro-family and had written a letter on her concerns regarding same-sex marriages.

Anti-gay accusations, just because one is pro-life and pro-family, are unfair. If one can be easily identified as anti-gay just because of such beliefs, then it should be just as acceptable to come to the following conclusions: that all who believe in marriage are anti-single; that all those passionate about the use of Mandarin are against other languages; and that those who devoutly practise a certain religion are against other religions.

I believe Mrs Nazar's letter to The Straits Times in July 2007 on same-sex marriages was focused on the welfare of the child. The appropriate response for those who do not agree should be to point out the flaws in her concerns, instead of glibly labelling her as 'anti-gay'.

Cecilia Nathen (Ms)

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27477.1

Preventing takeovers: Learn from the PAP

Preventing takeovers: Learn from the PAP

I REFER to last Saturday's article, 'How other groups build in safeguards'. Civil society groups should take a leaf from the People's Action Party (PAP) on how it safeguards itself against takeovers.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, in his book The Singapore Story: Memoirs Of Lee Kuan Yew, wrote about how the PAP had to safeguard itself against any left-wing capture and modelled elections to the PAP central executive committee (CEC) on the system to elect the Pope.

He wrote: 'The amended Constitution established two classes of party membership: ordinary members, who could join either directly through PAP headquarters or through the branches, and cadre members, a select few hundred who would be approved by the central executive committee. Only cadres who had been chosen by the CEC could in turn vote for candidates to the CEC, just as candidates nominated by a Pope could elect another Pope.

'This closed the circuit, and since the CEC controlled the core of the party, the party could not now be captured.'

This is a foolproof way to ensure that an organisation that has been built up over time is not suddenly overwhelmed and taken over by newcomers, albeit democratically.

Peter Teo Boon Haw

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27467.1

Yuan trade move 'far reaching'

Apr 21, 2009

Yuan trade move 'far reaching'
By Olivia Chung

HONG KONG - The Chinese government's decision this month to let exporters in a small number of cities settle their overseas trade in yuan rather than in US dollars has far-reaching implications, according to economists, even though the immediate impact is minimal.

The trading hubs of Shanghai at the mouth of the Yangtze River and Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Zhuhai and Dongguan in the Pearl River Delta further south can use the yuan in overseas trade settlement, a State Council, or cabinet, meeting chaired by Premier Wen Jiabao said. The two deltas are the base for most of China's export-oriented industry.

The settlement scheme is voluntary and of benefit to relatively



small groups, said Pauline Loong, senior vice president in charge of China policy and risk research at CIMB-GK Securities (HK) Ltd, but "the implication is far-reaching. The scheme extends the use of the Chinese currency outside of the mainland. We see this as the first step on the road to full liberalization of China's capital account and full convertibility for the renminbi," one term for the Chinese currency, also known as the yuan.

Most international trade is carried out in US dollars. The Chinese scheme is aimed at reducing the risk from exchange-rate fluctuations and giving impetus to declining overseas trade, a statement posted on the Chinese government website said. Further details of related regulations will be released as early as possible, the statement said.

China's exports plunged 25.7% year-on-year in February as overseas consumer demand fell away amid the deepening global financial and economic crisis.

The move to allow international trade settlement in yuan in select cities is in line with the government's gradual approach to currency liberalization, said Jing Ulrich, China equities chairwoman at JP Morgan. Beijing earlier allowed companies in Hong Kong and Macau to use yuan to settle deals with partners in Guangdong and the Yangtze Delta.

A similar yuan settlement trial has been proposed for exporters in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region and Yunnan province in southwestern China, which would be allowed to use the Chinese currency to settle trade with their counterparts in the 10 countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Details of the programs haven't yet been disclosed.

Loong said the extension of yuan settlement to five mainland cities was voluntary and of benefit to relatively small groups, citing 1) foreign businesses with a need for Chinese currency, such as importers of Chinese goods who also export to China or who may have operations with yuan outgoings, such as a factory on the mainland; and 2) mainland businesses with enough commercial clout to push their partners to accept a yuan settlement or those with trade partners with a need for the Chinese currency.

Transaction volumes are likely to be modest at the outset, but "that should not worry Beijing too much", said Loong. "The scheme is to test-run convertibility on the capital account while giving a helping hand to importers and exporters. The volume will rise when the Chinese currency gains market acceptance."

China's move to extend use of the yuan comes as concern grows that increased US government spending to halt the financial crisis will reduce the value of the US dollar. That could reduce the amount of money earned by Chinese exporters if the yuan were to strengthen against the US currency. It could also reduce the value of US Treasuries held by the Chinese government.

It is estimated that of China's US$1.95 trillion in foreign exchange reserves at the end of last year, the largest in the world, 70% is invested in US dollar-denominated assets. Increased use of the yuan in international trade could help reduce countries' use of US dollars.

Ulrich said funding of the US government's stimulus plan may lead to a depreciation of the US dollar. "Encouraging China's trading partners to settle in renminbi could help reduce exchange-rate risk and save on transaction costs," she said.

China's central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan recently said that to reduce the risks associated with the current US dollar-denominated reserve currency system, it may be ideal in the long run to replace the dollar with a new international reserve currency under the mechanism of the International Monetary Fund.

Guangdong province governor Huang Huahua last month said 300 companies in Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Zhuhai and Dongguan will be allowed to use yuan for the yuan settlement program with enterprises in Hong Kong.

Among those looking forward to the scheme is Liang Yufeng, vice general manager of Guangxi Sanhuan Enterprise Group, a leading exporter of ceramic tableware.

Liang said fluctuation of the dollar was a serious problem for the company, which gets about 55% of its sales in Europe and the US. A profit decline of 110 million yuan (US$16 million) last year was largely attributable to exchange rate changes, he said.

The yuan strengthened about 6% against the US dollar last year and has appreciated about 21% since a fixed exchange rate was scrapped in July 2005.

Liang said his company was happy to use the yuan to do business with partners and the scheme could help Sanhuan Enterprise, with employs 6,700 workers, trade with partners in Southeast Asia, where it gets 15% of total sales.

"Since the beginning of last year, the company has tried to find ways to reduce the risk from exchange rate fluctuations," he said. "The most effective is to add clauses to contracts with the permission of trade partners about the trade settlement. For example: the value of a container of goods is 10,000 yuan. In disregarding the change in the exchange rate, the buyers have to pay the same value [10,000 yuan] for the merchandise in US dollars," he said.

He conceded that only larger and long-term clients were willing to accept such a condition. Liang also had doubts whether partners would be willing to pay in yuan once the trial gets underway.

"As the yuan is not freely convertible, our partners will be forced to exchange their own currency into US dollars first before paying yuan in overseas trade settlement, which might be a trouble for them."

Importers, including Simon Shi, former president of the Hong Kong Small and Medium Enterprises Association, also saw difficulties with yuan settlement if China does not relax its foreign-exchange controls.

"Even if I have a personal renminbi account, I cannot withdraw a million yuan and move it between the mainland and Hong Kong," Shi said. "This is because in Hong Kong, we cannot change more than 20,000 yuan in each transaction, and cannot remit more than 80,000 yuan a day."

Frank Song, head of the Center for China Financial Research at the University of Hong Kong, echoed this concern, saying China's foreign-exchange controls could hinder acceptance of the yuan. This meant, for example, that a country couldn't sell yuan to defend its own currency in a balance of payments crisis.

Song saw yuan trading settlement and clearing as a first step in the move towards making the yuan fully convertible into other currencies.

Expanding the use of the yuan globally would be beneficial to China, even if this takes time, Ulrich said.

"Besides, setting up of the basic framework of currency conversion and hedging, foreign companies will need to become confident in using the yuan for settlement," she said.

"Full convertibility is first required for China's currency to truly become international. While it may not replace the dollar in the near future, with continued liberalization, the renminbi may become a regional standard similar to the euro," she said.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27551.1

Supporters of AWARE old guards step up internet campaign against new exco

Supporters of AWARE old guards step up internet campaign against new exco

Supporters of AWARE old guards have stepped up their internet campaign to rally for support in a bid to oust the newly elected exco through the coming EGM on 2 May 2009 via a vote of non confidence.

Calling themselves “Save AWARE“, they mince no words in the introductory message on their website here:

“The foundation of AWARE as an inclusive and secular society has been challenged. At the AGM on 28th March 2009, a group of women who were mostly entirely new to AWARE (generally, 2 – 5 months experience) orchestrated a takeover of AWARE to further their own agenda.

We, concerned members of AWARE, are working with former AWARE Committee Members and Founder Members to petition for an EGM to consider a vote of no confidence in the New Exco.”

Considerable efforts and time have been spent in keeping the site as informative as possible with meticulous documentation of AWARE’s vision and mission, its achievements over the last 25 years and testimonies from women who were recipients of its assistance.

While the site is comprehensive in outlining their objectives and in giving a detailed account of what exactly happened, the tone of language used may sound emotional at times.

For example, under the section on “Myths debunked”, the new exco members were alluded to in a less than flattering manner:

“Do we want to be led by ruthless and shadowy persons who cannot speak for themselves, who dishonour and exclude other members, who are evasive and refuse to disclose their plans, aims and visions to the members they lead?”

The main point of contention lies not only in the continued reluctance of the new exco to communicate its plans and goals to its members, but in the disrespectful treatment which it has dished out to veteran members like ex-Presidents Braema Mathi and Constance Singam.

The site leaves no stones unturned in preparing a list of FAQs for visitors who have not been keeping themselves updated on the recent events.

Besides the website, the members have also set up two facegroups and make use of blogs to convey their message across.

The AWARE episode will be watched closely by political observers as it marked the first instance in which online civil activism is mobilized to fight for an offline cause.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27655.1