Saturday April 11, 2009

Mind wars: PAP blogs back

BY SEAH CHIANG NEE

THIS fast growing city is set to become an even more exciting place. The location to watch is the blogosphere, which will become a new political arena after the Government launches a web offensive within the next few weeks to retake lost ground.

Exactly what it will do is not clear, but it will probably centre on the use of various forums and chat-sites to put across its views in a place that has been dominated by critics. An existing popular website will be revamped to feature a “no-holds-barred” forum and articles written by activists.

The battle lines are being formed on both sides.

It will herald a new era of diversity – or even divisiveness – in Singapore, where already a third of its 4.68 million people are foreigners who arrived with their own array of languages and cultures.

I do not see an “anything goes” website for free political discussions – if it happens - not having a spreading impact on the mainstream media.

It could result eventually in a freer atmosphere for the pro-government newspapers, which are globally ranked very poorly for credibility.

“It will no longer make sense to ban the press from reporting on issues that are freely talked about even on government websites,” rationalised a retired journalist.

“If that happens, the double standard will for sure kill off the newspapers,” he added.

Coming this year, the new strategy is symbolic. In June, the People’s Action Party (PAP) will reach a historic landmark - governing Singapore for 50 years. It is a record that few ruling parties in the world, where elections are held, can claim.

Winning the Internet war is crucial for the PAP’s survival. So far it has been losing it by default.

During the past decade, many young Singaporeans who believed the newspapers were a government mouthpiece spinning out propaganda have been turning to the web for information.

This rising number of cynical youths has, in effect, created a sub-community in Singapore society which has turned off reading newspapers or listening to what the political leaders say.

They spend a great deal of time communicating with each other, relying on and reinforcing each other’s online views.

For the ruling party, these are the lost sheep. They include many of the better-educated, the successful and professionals. Some are studying in – or have studied from – top universities abroad and could become future leaders. They make up a big part of the intellectuals.

“The PAP has to win back this sub-community of young people or lose the future,” said a business consultant. This new online strategy is part of that answer.

As many as two-thirds of Singaporeans in their 20s either blog or participate in online forums; blogging is also common among the 30s and 40s set.

While the PAP Youth Wing is responsible for spearheading the web offensive, it is the Ministry of Information and the Arts (MICA), that is the focal point.

How far will it allow the websites to go before censoring things?

During the early years, a perception about the Information Ministry’s work was that of a group of bureaucrats sitting around a table measuring - with a ruler - the amount of opposition newspaper coverage. There was, of course, more important work, but censorship was never far from its duties when then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was ruling with a rigid force.

Whenever elections rolled around, word had it the bureaucrats were hard at work ensuring that opposition candidates did not get too much press coverage. If they did, the reporter or editor could get an earful of uncomplimentary remarks.

That was, of course, before Lee’s successors, including the present Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, began to soften the process – and, of course, before the Internet’s arrival.

Today the Ministry is still in the business of press censorship, but a schoolboy’s ruler is no longer needed. The new digital media can neither be measured nor controlled in the same manner.

On April 1, a 48-year-old former navy chief took over as Minister for Information and the Arts, a new job that could reshape how the post-Lee Kuan Yew government will bond with its citizens. For Mr Lui Tuck Yew, 48, the task is not an easy one. He could, for example, spoil the party by coming down hard whenever criticisms become too strong especially during campaigning.

The Net as a political tool is not only a problem for the ageing PAP leaders who know little about it, but also for those in the opposition as well. Apart from their own official websites, few of them – unlike the opposition in Malaysia – operate a site to talk with Singaporeans.

In fact, the Workers Party has even forbidden its executive committee members from using their party positions when posting messages for fear of being sued. So far the big bulk of the speaking out process has come mostly from bloggers and not the main opposition parties.

Will the PAP plan work? It depends on how free its own activists are allowed to talk about policies. The web is just another channel of communication.

“If it’s used to put out the same propaganda as in the controlled press, then it will fail,” said a critic. Others merely shrug it off. “Whatever politics is uttered on the Net, nothing will change in the real world.

“With all the uneven rules in place, only half the voters will have a chance to vote, the PAP will win another Parliament landslide – and people will go on condemning it,” the critic

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26565.1

Our bloated defence budget: What is the perceived threat?

Our bloated defence budget: What is the perceived threat?

While many prominent Singapore bloggers have written about the top civil servant who splurged on a cooking class in Paris and about the inadequacies of the 2009 budget in aiding the needy, none has complained about the 6% dollar increase in the 2009 defense budget to $11.447 billion, which is about 4.7% of 2007’s GDP of S$243.2 billion. The 2008 defence budget of S$10.8 billion is 4.4% of 2007 GDP, and with a nearly flat GDP growth for 2008, Singapore is actually committing more to defence.

	GDP Growth	Defence Budget (S$ BN)	Budget Growth	Remarks
FY 2000	10.06%	7.42	-%	Actual Expenses
FY 2001	-2.44%	7.82	5.35%	Actual Expenses
FY 2002	4.18%	8.2	4.91%	Actual Expenses
FY 2003	3.50%	8.24	0.39%	Actual Expenses
FY 2004	8.99%	8.62	4.66%	Actual Expenses
FY 2005	7.30%	9.25	7.31%	Actual Expenses
FY 2006	8.17%	9.63	4.11%	Actual Expenses
FY 2007	7.72%	10.01	3.95%	Actual Expenses
FY 2008	3.98%	10.8	7.89%	Approved Budget
FY 2009	-???%	11.45	6.02%	Approved Budget

Source: Ministry of Finance

Why the increase in the defence budget?

To put things in perspective, let’s take a look at how much others spend on defence relative to their GDP. The US spends 4.06% of her GDP on defence but does not include the current war expenses in Afghanistan or Iraq. France spends 2.6% and most other western nations spend 2% or less. Singapore is ranked 20th with 4.5% (2005). It is interesting to note that the top 19 countries are mostly developing nations in trouble spots such as the middle east and Africa. India is a distant #66 with 2.5%. This does not imply that Singapore should follow “western standards” in planning defence budgetary layouts. It only indicates that the government of Singapore must perceive a threat in order to commit such a large proportion to defence in the midst of her worst economic crisis.

Thus, what is the perceived threat? Terrorism is the first obvious answer that comes to mind. The last known “terrorist attack” in Singapore occurred in 1991 with the hijack of Singapore Flight 117 that ended abruptly and violently for the hijackers. A few years ago, Singapore was also threatened with 9/11 style aircraft attacks and embassy bombings. In contrast, some European nations have suffered actual attacks, which includes the 2004 Madrid train bombings and 2005 London bombings. The most recent attack of significance took place in Mumbai claiming the first Singaporean casualty to international terrorism. With the exception of India where the jury is still out, there has been no increase in the following year’s defense budgets of the scale that we now see in Singapore.

In the official publication “Fight Against Terror”, the government claims that while “terrorism does not threaten the existence of Singapore as an independent nation, it has the capacity to inflict serious shocks on our economy and society, causing not only material and human damage, but also psychological injury. It also has the potential to pit different communities against each other, weakening multi-racial, multi-religious character of Singapore that is vital to our success.” (Pg 59). While prevention is the best cure, it must be noted however that there has been no historical precedence showing that foreign investment will flee a country without considering the national capacity to handle the crisis that might ensue. Neither is the strain on the social fabric a uniquely Singaporean phenomenon. On the contrary, many societies, even divided ones have historically shown resilience and cohesion against a common external threat. The nationalistic American rally post 9/11 is an example. Nearer to Singapore, the peace accord between the Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Rebels after the 2004 Tsunami provides further cause for optimism.

Although the SAF is a key player in counter terrorism, she is not the only player. Her counter terrorist efforts can also be described as incidental. Today, conscripts guard key civilian installations such as Jurong Island without imposing on the budget. The security of air and maritime lanes of communications is a daily job that preoccupies most air and naval forces regardless of terrorism activities although the level of activities and vigilance is possibly higher. Yet, these activities should have been accounted for in the years following the 9/11 attacks. It is also widely recognized that while military forces are important, police forces, national intelligence and non security organizations play equally if not greater roles in attack prevention and post attack rehabilitation. Yet, no similar increase in budgets is noted in other Singaporean ministries in the 2009 budget.

Thus, we can safely conclude that the terrorism is not the dominant factor in augmenting the defense budget in the midst of an economic crisis. The perceived threat has to be external.

What is the perceived threat?

The stated mission of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is for deterrence. And if deterrence is to fail, its mission is to achieve a swift and decisive victory.

The question that one should ask is, deterrence against who and achieve a swift and decisive victory against who? This may be an open secret but let’s go back to basic geopolitics to see which state actor could pose a threat to the security of Singapore.

At the global level, there are currently few countries that have the capability to project their forces to threaten Singapore. In this aspect, the US military is unparalleled. If the US wanted to, the SAF would be of little consequence. The fact that Singapore has extremely close military ties with the US and that all her fighter aircraft are American practically rules out this possibility.

China, while a military giant in her own right, does not have power projection capabilities yet. While she is planning to build her own aircraft carrier(s), her strategy is clearly aimed at containing the US. Her main territorial interest is still Taiwan and keeping the country intact, and preventing the secessionist states of Xinjiang and Tibet from breaking away. Without air support and with long communications line, it is not inconceivable for her to be defeated at sea. Furthermore, any seaborne invading force that approaches narrow straits of Malacca or the narrow waters east of Singapore is exposed to air, sea and land attack. Another option is for China to approach via the land route. In all the described scenarios, an attack by China on Singapore is tantamount to starting World War III. This would not happen without intervention from at least the US. Finally, there is no motive for China to attack the tiny island state thousands of kilometres away.

Russia while trying to re-assert her influence on her borders, is but a pale shadow of her former self, the great Soviet Union. Even at the height of her power, she did not have the capability of projection like the US. Today, she has neither the will, the desire nor the capacity to threaten Singapore.

If you look into India’s strategic outlook, you will find that her priorities are firstly to keep the country together and secondly to contain Pakistan and China. Although she is nuclear and has a formidable conventional force and a somewhat “blue water navy”, she faces immense challenges on any military adventure in south east asia.

Today’s Japan is pacifist, and her forces are not configured for force projection nor for offensive operations. Merely supplying the US forces with a single supply ship had to be debated in Parliament, which eventually led to the cancellation of the said mission.

With regards to the other regional states, most can be ruled out for reasons of distance, lack of military capacity, natural obstacles, or internal problems.

With that, we have only Indonesia and Malaysia, the two closest neighbours to Singapore. Indonesia, the largest Muslim democracy in the world today, is extremely weak militarily relative to her size. Her equipment is old and obsolete with the exception of a few recently bought Sukhois. To highlight the state of derelict, the four Sukhois that were bought in 2003 are inactive, did not have compatible communication systems, and lacked weapons. Furthermore, the Indonesian military is still configured for counter-insurgency and non-conventional operations rather than conventional major combat operations and reforms continue to be extremely slow.

Finally, we come to Malaysia. Separated by a narrow strait, Malaysia is a hot destination for Singaporeans looking for cheap food, thrills and beaches. The Malaysian Armed Forces (MAF) has an impressive order of battle. These include Sukhoi-30MKMs, MiG-29s, F-18s, PT-91 main battle tanks from Poland, Astros MLRS, Scorpene submarines, Leiku class frigates and so on and so forth. Furthermore, relations has not always been good between the two countries. Disagreements between the leaders of both countries with regards to the “Bumiputra” policies led to the ejection of Singapore from the Federation of Malaya in 1965 and several disputes have soured relations in more recent years although relations are currently good. Nonetheless, of all the countries mentioned, Malaysia represents the most likely threat perceived by Singapore leaders.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26563.1

“Lapses” getting to be common with the PAP

“Lapses” getting to be common with the PAP

SINGAPORE: The National Environment Agency (NEA) will step up its enforcement regime at hawker centres to ensure there are no more lapses in hygiene standards — which the Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim says can never be compromised.

“Can never be compromised”, so says the Minister. But it has, and with serious consequences. Seems a very basic expectation, that consumers are safe from food contaminants. It is revolting to read how many rats were caught in the market, which seems to suggest that the market was in a condition of neglect for some time. Is this a result of the leadership of a mediocre minister?

Speaking at a lecture organised by Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs Diplomatic Academy, Minister Mentor said that “a mediocre PM and cabinet will decline our standing with other countries”. Perhaps the better ministers work on foreign policy matters. The mediocre ones work on domestic non-economic issues which consequently decline the government’s standing with the locals.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26613.1

Another case of food poisoning

12 suffer food poisoning after eating at same restaurant in Geylang
By Asha Popatlal, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 11 April 2009 2112 hrs

	Photos 1 of 1 > " onclick="Next();" src="http://www.channelnewsasia.com/images/butt_next.gif" type="image" width="18" height="15"> Hawker centre
	Video 12 suffer food poisoning after eating at same restaurant in Geylang

SINGAPORE: There has been another case of mass food poisoning, also in the Geylang area.

The Health Ministry said it was notified on Saturday of 12 cases - all of whom ate at a steamboat restaurant BaShu RenJia at 233 Lorong 9, Geylang Road on Friday evening.

All were treated as outpatients. One patient who was supposed to be hospitalised went home to recuperate.

The ministry and the National Environment Agency (NEA) are investigating the incident.

Meanwhile, for the Geylang Serai rojak case, three patients are still recovering in hospital.

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, speaking at a community event in Marine Parade, said three parties will have to play their part to prevent a recurrence of such a problem.

Welcoming new residents in his constituency, Mr Goh spoke about the need to build a more gracious society.

Using a slide show to explain inconsiderate behaviour, he pointed out how each person needs to play his part for more gracious living - even linking this to the recent outbreak of mass food poisoning in Geylang Serai.

"We all know that food establishments are very important for our own health. Most of us eat outside very regularly, so hygiene in public places like food stalls is very important," said Mr Goh.

The big question now, though, is how to prevent a recurrence of such an incident. For this, Mr Goh said three parties have to play their parts.

He said: "The government must have the responsibility of reinforcing measures to ensure that eating establishments outside are kept to a higher standard of cleanliness. We do this through measures, through regular inspections and enforce those measures on the people who sell us food."

The second group of people whom Mr Goh said have to play their part are hawkers and food handlers. They have to practise proper food hygiene.

One idea he suggested was the use of hand sanitisers used widely in hospitals.

Mr Goh suggested hawkers might want to use sanitisers regularly to keep their hands clean when handling food.

The third group of people whom Mr Goh said have a part to play in preventing food poisoning is the average Singaporean, who has to practise proper personal hygiene not just at home but also in public places.

- CNA/ir

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26611.1

Just admit you screwed up, Yaacob!

Just admit you screwed up, Yaacob!

One week after the mass food poisoning at Geylang Serai first broke out, Minister of Environment and Water Resources Dr Yaacob Ibrahim has finally spoken. (interestingly one day after I slammed him for “missing in action“)

‘What has happened is totally unacceptable. As far as I am concerned, it’s outrageous that this has happened, and we must make sure it doesn’t happen again” he thundered. (read article here)

Strong words indeed, Dr Yaacob, but where were you when the tragedy happened?

As the minister in charge of NEA, Dr Yaacob should be on the ground inspecting the premises and visiting the victims in the hospital on the very day itself if not the day after, but he was nowhere to be seen or heard.

Even if he is not available, the next highest official such as his Permanent Secretary Tan Yong Soon should have stepped forward to fill his shoes. Again, he wasn’t around. (or is he in Paris now for another cooking course?)

Such a delayed lacklustre response is completely unacceptable from the highest paid Environment Minister and Permanent Secretary in the world.

As expected, the state media moved in swiftly to do the damage control work for its political master by describing how on the ball the NEA is by beefing up cleanliness checks on all 109 hawker centres it manages and inspecting 3 other temporary markets.

Why put up a “wayang” now to exonerate itself from any responsibility when this preventable disaster would not have occurred if they had been more viligant on the ground? Has NEA been sleeping on its job?

What’s the point of inspecting the markets now only after two lives have been lost? It is obviously a publicity gimmick to restore public confidence in these eating outlets.

Dr Yaacob said the stepping up will ensure there are no hygiene lapses and that a ’sound regime’ was in place but it will continue to be reviewed.

The result of this “sound regime” is for all to see for themselves. Had it been adequate, how could it fail to detect the hygiene problem with the Indian rojak stall?

How can NEA continue to distance itself from the fiasco as if they are not at fault by shifting the blame to the temporary market’s management committee? How do they account the 61 rats which has been caught at the premises? Did they appear suddenly overnight from nowhere?

I concur with Mr Yaacob that what has happened is totally unacceptable and outrageous. It is unacceptable to have even one mortality from gastroenteritis in a developed country like Singapore and it will even be more outrageous if nobody is held responsible for it.

Sorry to be blunt here, but this is a big screw-up and there is no way Dr Yaacob can escape from it. Just admit it, Yaacob, you SCREWED UP! In other Asian democracies like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, the minister in charge will probably issue a public apology before tendering his resignation. (In Japan, he may even commit harakiri in shame)

Fortunately for Dr Yaacob, he is in Singapore where the threshold for accountability is very much lower. He can take consolation from the example of his fellow colleague Wong Kan Seng who screwed up big time too and is allowed to get away pretty much unscathed.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26535.1

Singapore's Independence: What Was the Point?

Singapore's Independence: What Was the Point?
Bryan Caplan

In his From Third World to First, Lee Kuan Yew admits that his original political motivation was simply nationalism:

The Japanese occupation... aroused my nationalism and self-respect, and my resentment at being lorded over. My four years as a student in Britain after the war strengthened my determination to get rid of British rule.

I returned to Singapore in 1950, confident of my cause, but ignorant of the pitfalls and dangers that lay ahead. An anticolonial wave swept me and many others of my generation.

Nationalists normally buttress their arguments for independence by insisting that their "mother country" is holding them back. But at least by the late 60s, Lee explicitly rejected this view:

The accepted wisdom of development economists at the time was that MNCs [multi-national corporations] were exploiters of cheap land, labor, and raw materials. This "dependency school" of economists argued that MNCs continued the colonial pattern of exploitation that left the developing countries selling raw materials... Keng Swee and I were not impressed... If MNCs could give our workers employment and teach them technical and engineering skills and management know-how, we should bring in the MNCs.

Now you could say that Singapore's results are proof of the wisdom of Lee's quest for independence. But not so fast. Lee not only envies the success of Hong Kong under continued British rule; he seems to attribute its success to the weakness of democratic and nationalist checks upon its policies. Furthermore, Lee admits that his strategy of cooperation with the communists to overthrow British rule could easily have ended in disaster:

In retrospect, it was our good luck that Singapore did not come to greater harm from some of the high-risk policies and actions that we embarked on. We worked with the communists in a united front; we could have been chewed up and swallowed as happened to social democrats in Poland and Czechoslovakia after World War II.

Lee may be the father of independent Singapore; but his own account of the facts suggests that Singapore's economic miracle would have begun 10-15 years earlier if the nationalist movement had never existed. I have to ask, then: What was the whole point of Singaporean independence?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26793.1

Aware takeover: great news!

The Straits Times’ rather convoluted account, by Wong Kim Hoh, of the rout of the Old Guard at Aware’s recent AGM published on Good Friday made me smile with evil glee.

Although one or two of my friends are card carrying members, including even working Aware’s hotline, I always thought it an organisation made up of the sort of Western educated Singaporean women of a certain social class whom I find particularly irksome.

U know, they bad mouth the Government at every turn, for sport or bravado and yet will smugly slip in somewhere how cosy they are with some of the powers that are. To me, this is the worst kind of showing off!

But back to Aware: if indeed there was a conspiracy to swoop on the dozing Old Guard and chuck them out of the ex-co, then I say good for the conspirators. And aw shucks to the Old Guard!

What made you think because you’ve been there X years gives you the right to be elected year in and out? And what sort of a commitment do the old members have that an ex-president could arrive so late that 100 others had signed in be4 her and she had the gall to be surprised!

The moral of the story is this: if those who founded Aware and those who have been nurturing the organisation for almost two decades really value their vehicle then they should treat it better.

Otherwise, it’s open season n country. Newcomers will snatch it from those caught napping in complacency. Whether for fun and games or with serious intent – the end result is that Aware will never be the same again.

Which may not be a minus in Aware’s case. Any change must be a change for the better, even if the conquerors turn out to be the mirror image of those they conquered.

At least they are fresh faces — not the same old-same old of those whom I shan’t name but anyone familiar with Aware would know whom I mean… and yes, I shall say it be4 anyone else does. I’m really mean when it comes to Aware.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.262