SingapuraKini

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

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

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?

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

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.

'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