Today in my mail was an air-mailed letter from the Elections Department, informing me that my application to be an overseas voter was approved. Why they had to send me a physical letter when they could've saved some money and use email instead is puzzling to me.
But anyway, this reminds me of a conversation I had yesterday with a couple of Singaporeans here in Canberra. Somehow, the elections came into the discussion, and we arrived at the issue of the secrecy of our votes.
I am fairly confident -- not that I give a damn -- that the individual vote is secret. But it is widely known that, because vote counting is done independently for each polling district, the election officials (and the witnesses from each party) know the distribution of the votes for that district.
Of course, this does not present too much of a problem in Singapore, since there are probably thousands of voters in each district. But as an overseas voter, my vote goes to the district I'm registered in (through my home address). And the counting of overseas votes is done separately when the votes are flown back to Singapore (assuming the procedure is the same as in 2006; see PDF link).
So unless there are a million overseas voter flooding down to Singapore High Commission in Canberra when the election comes, chances are that I am the only one -- or at most, one of the few -- from my district amongst all the overseas votes coming from Canberra. In fact, in the 2006 general elections, there were only 137 voters in Canberra (see PDF link). How secret is my vote then?
Even if overseas votes are counted on the constituency level and not separated down to districts, the size is still small enough to make some people worry.
On the other hand, the oveaseas votes will only matter if the vote difference between the contesting parties is less than the total number of registered overseas voters for that constituency. Since it is unlikely that the vote discrepency can get that small, chances are that the overseas vote makes no difference. I'm not sure if they'll still be counted nonetheless though, but I doubt so since I cannot find any information on the overseas votes results.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
30 March 2010
28 May 2009
More Opposition MPs: How Will This Change Voting Patterns?
In what is probably the biggest change in the political system in recent years, the government has announced that the lower limit for the number of opposition members of parliament will be raised from three to nine. This means that, in future elections, if the opposition parties capture less than nine seats, the rest will be filled up with NCMPs from the losing team with highest proportion of votes.
The first question that springs to my mind is, why does the government do this? I mean, are the PAP MPs looking for more targets to abuse in parliament? Well, there is the most straightforward possibility that the PAP really wants more checks and balances against themselves. Uh... okay, scrap that.
Obviously, this move will ultimately benefit them in some ways. But how? It seems to be a response against the rising voices of "checks and balances" and the employment of it as a rationale for supporting the opposition in elections. So PAP is trying to say, "Yo! You guys there who vote for the opposition because of the 'checks and balances' reason. There's no more need to do that with this new change!"
Now, does this hold water? It comes down to what it all means when people say they want "checks and balances". Basically, to me at least, it seems that this "checks and balances" imply that the PAP cannot pass bills in parliament at will. That is, the PAP controls less than two-thirds of the seats in parliament. In this case, the new measures cannot convince a rational individual to forgo "checks and balances" as a consideration when voting. Even with nine opposition MPs, they still cannot block any bill if the PAP MPs vote unanimously. What's more, NCMPs have limited voting powers.
However, is that all to "checks and balances"? Could someone want "checks and balances", and yet mean something less than a third of opposition MPs in parliament? It could very well be, if this person assumes "checks and balances" as more questions asked in parliament sessions. More specifically, they want bills to be scrutinised. They want "failures" like the recent losses in Temasek Holdings to be dissected. They want issues to be debated more thoroughly. And perhaps, they trust PAP MPs to vote on their individual capacities on non-partisan matters.
So how much votes will this new change bring for the PAP? Definitely, those hardcore fans of either camps are not going to budge. PAP is aiming at the middle of the spectrum, at people who may vote for the PAP, but at the same time lean towards the opposition for "checks and balances". For the person who takes that to mean "less than 66% of MPs belong to PAP", it's not gonna work. But how much does this group of people comprise in the electoral roll? How many people interpret "checks and balances" as the second meaning? How many people have no idea of what they want when they demand "checks and balances"?
On a side note, I welcome the new change to smaller GRCs, so long as it does not imply an increase in the number of ministers!
The first question that springs to my mind is, why does the government do this? I mean, are the PAP MPs looking for more targets to abuse in parliament? Well, there is the most straightforward possibility that the PAP really wants more checks and balances against themselves. Uh... okay, scrap that.
Obviously, this move will ultimately benefit them in some ways. But how? It seems to be a response against the rising voices of "checks and balances" and the employment of it as a rationale for supporting the opposition in elections. So PAP is trying to say, "Yo! You guys there who vote for the opposition because of the 'checks and balances' reason. There's no more need to do that with this new change!"
Now, does this hold water? It comes down to what it all means when people say they want "checks and balances". Basically, to me at least, it seems that this "checks and balances" imply that the PAP cannot pass bills in parliament at will. That is, the PAP controls less than two-thirds of the seats in parliament. In this case, the new measures cannot convince a rational individual to forgo "checks and balances" as a consideration when voting. Even with nine opposition MPs, they still cannot block any bill if the PAP MPs vote unanimously. What's more, NCMPs have limited voting powers.
However, is that all to "checks and balances"? Could someone want "checks and balances", and yet mean something less than a third of opposition MPs in parliament? It could very well be, if this person assumes "checks and balances" as more questions asked in parliament sessions. More specifically, they want bills to be scrutinised. They want "failures" like the recent losses in Temasek Holdings to be dissected. They want issues to be debated more thoroughly. And perhaps, they trust PAP MPs to vote on their individual capacities on non-partisan matters.
So how much votes will this new change bring for the PAP? Definitely, those hardcore fans of either camps are not going to budge. PAP is aiming at the middle of the spectrum, at people who may vote for the PAP, but at the same time lean towards the opposition for "checks and balances". For the person who takes that to mean "less than 66% of MPs belong to PAP", it's not gonna work. But how much does this group of people comprise in the electoral roll? How many people interpret "checks and balances" as the second meaning? How many people have no idea of what they want when they demand "checks and balances"?
On a side note, I welcome the new change to smaller GRCs, so long as it does not imply an increase in the number of ministers!
19 February 2009
Election in 2009? The Chances Involved
The recent updates to the electoral rolls and polling districts suggest the possibility of an election sometime in the near future, perhaps in this year. This will probably place it within the current financial cesspool.
So what chances are the PAP taking by having it at this moment? There are numerous incidents which reflects unfavourably to the governing authority. From Mas Selamat to GST increase to ministerial pay hike to the enormous losses of our sovereign wealth funds, there are plenty of issues that can invoke the ire of Singaporeans.
Indeed, these are rich fields for the opposition to harvest on. It wasn't too long ago that these happened, and if the opposition reminds the people properly, the voters will no doubt possess some dissatisfaction of the PAP when making their choices. However, the emphasis here is on "properly", because there is the danger of harping on it so much that it becomes another James Gomez incident.
Nonetheless, I think these factors pale in comparison with one single concern of the people: the economy. Like it or not, economy is always a chief factor in the voter's mind, and this is not restricted to Singapore. Even in the recent US election, the economy is the top priority in many people's mind. The polls showed both candidates close in the race until the economic diarrhea. The only exception I can think of in recent times is the 2007 Australian elections, where the excellent economy failed to secure Howard his re-election bid, but then again there were numerous other elements (some related to money) that overrode this factor.
This is the key strength of the PAP, and this economic crisis gives them a good chance. After all, with their financial security at stake, most people are less likely to take risks. Indeed, the PAP has a very legitimate claim that they have excellent track record in managing the economy, and this argument will sell rather well at this time. After all, I can easily imagine people saying, "Who cares about what our sovereign wealth funds have lost, so long as I can have my job secure and my investments recover?"
Furthermore, the PAP has a powerful argument that, in this crisis, there should be no dilly-dallying in parliament. Bills which will help the economy ought to pass in the greatest efficiency and the presence of opposition members in parliament will only serve to hinder the speed at which help reaches Singaporeans. Certainly, the opposition can counter by saying that any good policies will not face any delays and bad policies are better not passed. But this is a dangerous line to tread because all this while they have been telling the people to vote them into parliament so as to scrutinise such policies. I'm not arguing against the merits of having opposition in parliament; I'm merely highlighting the delicacy of the issue.
And needless to say, any special financial assistance by the government to the people will reflect well on the PAP during the election. In fact, it kills two birds with one stone: instead of a recession package and an election package later on, they can combine both into one.
I'm not sure what the opposition can do with regards to the economy. One possibility is to draft up a detailed and viable economic plan that will help Singaporeans in this current recession, and publicise it thoroughly and extensively. Even if it doesn't get passed in parliament - and it probably won't - it will show that the opposition is not there just to oppose. They can propose sound and viable ideas on their own, and therefore their presence in parliament won't jeopardise the country's route to recovery. The point is to let people know that they are well-equipped with economic knowledge, though usual problems (e.g. media bias) remain.
So what chances are the PAP taking by having it at this moment? There are numerous incidents which reflects unfavourably to the governing authority. From Mas Selamat to GST increase to ministerial pay hike to the enormous losses of our sovereign wealth funds, there are plenty of issues that can invoke the ire of Singaporeans.
Indeed, these are rich fields for the opposition to harvest on. It wasn't too long ago that these happened, and if the opposition reminds the people properly, the voters will no doubt possess some dissatisfaction of the PAP when making their choices. However, the emphasis here is on "properly", because there is the danger of harping on it so much that it becomes another James Gomez incident.
Nonetheless, I think these factors pale in comparison with one single concern of the people: the economy. Like it or not, economy is always a chief factor in the voter's mind, and this is not restricted to Singapore. Even in the recent US election, the economy is the top priority in many people's mind. The polls showed both candidates close in the race until the economic diarrhea. The only exception I can think of in recent times is the 2007 Australian elections, where the excellent economy failed to secure Howard his re-election bid, but then again there were numerous other elements (some related to money) that overrode this factor.
This is the key strength of the PAP, and this economic crisis gives them a good chance. After all, with their financial security at stake, most people are less likely to take risks. Indeed, the PAP has a very legitimate claim that they have excellent track record in managing the economy, and this argument will sell rather well at this time. After all, I can easily imagine people saying, "Who cares about what our sovereign wealth funds have lost, so long as I can have my job secure and my investments recover?"
Furthermore, the PAP has a powerful argument that, in this crisis, there should be no dilly-dallying in parliament. Bills which will help the economy ought to pass in the greatest efficiency and the presence of opposition members in parliament will only serve to hinder the speed at which help reaches Singaporeans. Certainly, the opposition can counter by saying that any good policies will not face any delays and bad policies are better not passed. But this is a dangerous line to tread because all this while they have been telling the people to vote them into parliament so as to scrutinise such policies. I'm not arguing against the merits of having opposition in parliament; I'm merely highlighting the delicacy of the issue.
And needless to say, any special financial assistance by the government to the people will reflect well on the PAP during the election. In fact, it kills two birds with one stone: instead of a recession package and an election package later on, they can combine both into one.
I'm not sure what the opposition can do with regards to the economy. One possibility is to draft up a detailed and viable economic plan that will help Singaporeans in this current recession, and publicise it thoroughly and extensively. Even if it doesn't get passed in parliament - and it probably won't - it will show that the opposition is not there just to oppose. They can propose sound and viable ideas on their own, and therefore their presence in parliament won't jeopardise the country's route to recovery. The point is to let people know that they are well-equipped with economic knowledge, though usual problems (e.g. media bias) remain.
30 September 2008
An Old Warrior Passes On
This morning, Singaporeans woke up to the news of the passing of J. B. Jeyaretnam, the veteran political warrior who experienced an entire spectrum of political ups and downs of Singaporean oppositional politics.
While I may not agree with some of his views and actions, there is no doubt that he has impacted Singapore politics more than most other politicians. In fact, his shattering of the PAP's complete hegemony of the parliament in 1981 was considered, in the analysis of Singapore's political history, a critical event, a spike on the political radar just like Singapore's independence.
Many people, I believe, are looking forward to his return to Singapore politics, and see this warrior fight once more three years later. Indeed, I wonder how things would've been like. I'm uneasy with his confrontational style, but, just like in science, until someone finds a way that works, all ways to change the Singapore political scene are equally valid.
May he rest in peace, and his legacy lives on.
While I may not agree with some of his views and actions, there is no doubt that he has impacted Singapore politics more than most other politicians. In fact, his shattering of the PAP's complete hegemony of the parliament in 1981 was considered, in the analysis of Singapore's political history, a critical event, a spike on the political radar just like Singapore's independence.
Many people, I believe, are looking forward to his return to Singapore politics, and see this warrior fight once more three years later. Indeed, I wonder how things would've been like. I'm uneasy with his confrontational style, but, just like in science, until someone finds a way that works, all ways to change the Singapore political scene are equally valid.
May he rest in peace, and his legacy lives on.
09 March 2008
Three Thoughts on the Mas Selamat Fiasco
With Mas Selamat, who probably has more posters of himself than the entire population of Singapore, still at large, many questions have been raised and pretty much none answered. Lots of accusations and demands of resignation has been thrown all over, but beyond these political mumbo jumbo, I observed a few aspects of this fiasco which interests me. First is the conspiracy theory that he was killed; second is the question as to whether he's still in Singapore; third being the holy grail of all questioners: how did it happen? Here are my takes:
In the lack of information, it seemed that some people has taken to speculate and believe the possibility that Mas Selamat was killed inside the detention centre and the authorities spun this story to cover it up, fearing the backlash of human rights activists and whatnots.
It hardly need to be said how absurd this is. Suppose this were true. Then a few weeks later the JI members, wondering why their ex-leader has yet to come back to them, will start making noise, and then the whole cover-up will be exposed. To avoid this, the authorities can "catch and kill Mas Selamat" some time later, but that would pose problems with regards to the autopsy and all. And of all that, wouldn't it be simpler to just announce that he has died by unnatural causes like heart attack? Or if that's medically dubious, then say that he choked on a chicken wing. Sure, there may be some questions raised, but as compared to this?
In any case, I truly believe that he has escaped. Now, is he still in Singapore? It all depends on whether it was a planned course or a spontaneous event. If it's the former, then he would be far away from Singapore by now. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that his best chance is to leave Singapore immediately before the authorities can raise the alarm, which is ASAP. If it was spontaneous, i.e. the chance just came and he fled, then he's probably still in Singapore (but of course with help) until the authorities cannot maintain the high level alert.
And the golden question of it all: how did he escape? I do not know for sure, though the supposed Independent Commission is to shed some light on this. But given official statements so far, I think one can do a Sherlock Holmes and pieces them together. We know that he escaped through a toilet. We also know that MM Lee mentioned something about complacency. We know that he's due for a family visit (i.e. the place is open to certain outside people). Now, if we assume, very reasonably, that there are two different kinds of toilet - one for outside people (and maybe the ISD people there) and one for inside people (like Mas Selamat) - and keeping in mind MM Lee's praise of winning the trust of the guards, I think the puzzle sort of comes together.
So that's my thoughts. And if anyone's wondering, I do not think that the four hours lapse is unreasonable. Oh, one more thing: I didn't receive the MMS of his face... how did the government know that I'm bad at recognising people?
In the lack of information, it seemed that some people has taken to speculate and believe the possibility that Mas Selamat was killed inside the detention centre and the authorities spun this story to cover it up, fearing the backlash of human rights activists and whatnots.
It hardly need to be said how absurd this is. Suppose this were true. Then a few weeks later the JI members, wondering why their ex-leader has yet to come back to them, will start making noise, and then the whole cover-up will be exposed. To avoid this, the authorities can "catch and kill Mas Selamat" some time later, but that would pose problems with regards to the autopsy and all. And of all that, wouldn't it be simpler to just announce that he has died by unnatural causes like heart attack? Or if that's medically dubious, then say that he choked on a chicken wing. Sure, there may be some questions raised, but as compared to this?
In any case, I truly believe that he has escaped. Now, is he still in Singapore? It all depends on whether it was a planned course or a spontaneous event. If it's the former, then he would be far away from Singapore by now. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that his best chance is to leave Singapore immediately before the authorities can raise the alarm, which is ASAP. If it was spontaneous, i.e. the chance just came and he fled, then he's probably still in Singapore (but of course with help) until the authorities cannot maintain the high level alert.
And the golden question of it all: how did he escape? I do not know for sure, though the supposed Independent Commission is to shed some light on this. But given official statements so far, I think one can do a Sherlock Holmes and pieces them together. We know that he escaped through a toilet. We also know that MM Lee mentioned something about complacency. We know that he's due for a family visit (i.e. the place is open to certain outside people). Now, if we assume, very reasonably, that there are two different kinds of toilet - one for outside people (and maybe the ISD people there) and one for inside people (like Mas Selamat) - and keeping in mind MM Lee's praise of winning the trust of the guards, I think the puzzle sort of comes together.
So that's my thoughts. And if anyone's wondering, I do not think that the four hours lapse is unreasonable. Oh, one more thing: I didn't receive the MMS of his face... how did the government know that I'm bad at recognising people?
25 November 2007
Thoughts on The Australian Federal Elections
After a lengthy campaigning that began long before I arrived in Australia, the federal elections here has finally concluded, with what the nationwide newspaper in Australia, The Australian, calls it a Ruddslide. Opposition leader Kevin Rudd, of the Australian Labor Party, swept off long time Prime Minister John Howard to ascend the throne.
Not that I have a particular interest in the elections, but being here you can't help not noticing the major headlines. And it is quite fascinating to observe several trends in Australia and see how they compare with Singapore's:
1) Everyone says it is a landslide victory for Labor and a devastating defeat for Howard's coalition. Base on projections, the seat count gives Labor 84 and the coalition (Liberal + National) 48. If I recall correctly, someone was not happy with a victory of 82 against 2.
2) Labor supporters appear to be everywhere, and support for Liberal is quite invisible. But that just means that Liberal supporters are more silent than the Labor opposition. Similarity in Singapore? Election rallies, remember?
3) Howard may even lose his own seat in Parliament, with the Labor candidate gaining a slim margin over him in his seat of Bennelong. Of course Lee Hsien Loong was nowhere clear in losing, but his 66% is... erm... not a very proud victory by Singapore standards.
4) The ballot here involves putting priority your preferences. That is to say, if there are three candidates, you rank them in order of your preference. I think what happens is that during the voting counting the one with the lowest vote will be eliminated, and the votes going to them in first priority will go to the voters' second choice. Needless to say, this kind of system is hardly necessary in Singapore. We're still looking at reducing the number of walkovers...
5) The voters have to vote for members of parliament and members of the Senate. With a 82-to-2, there's no absolute need for that in Singapore; it's all the same.
Ah well, that pretty much sums up my thoughts on this interesting event.
Not that I have a particular interest in the elections, but being here you can't help not noticing the major headlines. And it is quite fascinating to observe several trends in Australia and see how they compare with Singapore's:
1) Everyone says it is a landslide victory for Labor and a devastating defeat for Howard's coalition. Base on projections, the seat count gives Labor 84 and the coalition (Liberal + National) 48. If I recall correctly, someone was not happy with a victory of 82 against 2.
2) Labor supporters appear to be everywhere, and support for Liberal is quite invisible. But that just means that Liberal supporters are more silent than the Labor opposition. Similarity in Singapore? Election rallies, remember?
3) Howard may even lose his own seat in Parliament, with the Labor candidate gaining a slim margin over him in his seat of Bennelong. Of course Lee Hsien Loong was nowhere clear in losing, but his 66% is... erm... not a very proud victory by Singapore standards.
4) The ballot here involves putting priority your preferences. That is to say, if there are three candidates, you rank them in order of your preference. I think what happens is that during the voting counting the one with the lowest vote will be eliminated, and the votes going to them in first priority will go to the voters' second choice. Needless to say, this kind of system is hardly necessary in Singapore. We're still looking at reducing the number of walkovers...
5) The voters have to vote for members of parliament and members of the Senate. With a 82-to-2, there's no absolute need for that in Singapore; it's all the same.
Ah well, that pretty much sums up my thoughts on this interesting event.
26 September 2007
The Feeling of the Present and of History
A drama is unfolding in Burma as I write. Monks and nuns, the most respected class of people in the Burmese society, are in open defiance against the ruling junta. Could it be just like two decades ago, when similar incidents culmulated in Aung San Suu Kyi's electoral victory? Right now, as it unfolds before the world's eyes, no one can guess where it will lead.
There is something that appears fundamentally different between knowing an event in history and an event unravelling in the present. In 1988, students took to the streets. Military suppressed them. Thousands were killed. It triggered elections. Aung San Suu Kyi won. The military refused to recognise election results. Their rule continued. That is history. It is as I know it. I was too young then to know it as it unfolded. I read it later in my life. I read it, as a piece of history, compressed and summarised. Time flowed in different beats: unimportant days were swept away in words no longer than a few seconds, and moments of importance were granted paragraphs after paragraphs that took minutes to read. The scaling of time when cast into words is twisted out of linear proportion.
But with the present, time is time. It is not scaled. It is not contorted. It is not shortened to slim boring periods and lengthen to fit critical events. One day is one day. One week is one week. One month is one month. The present becomes alive. Yesterday nuns took to the streets. Last week monks did so. Suppose a revolution were to come in a month's time. This month will not be a day long. It will not be a week long. It will be a month long. A month is a month. It is not like pages of a history book. Even if nothing goes on during this one month, time plods on unrelentlessly, unceasingly, unhurriedly.
That is, perhaps, why events unfolding as I read in the newspapers feel more real than events of the past. When I read an article about John Lennon's death there is a detached feeling about the whole incident. It is not as if I have not felt the loss of a great singer, but this loss feels muted. It feels as if the concrete of history has solidified. But when Luciano Pavarotti died, the concrete of history may have been laid, but it is still wet. Maybe this is the reason why people often say that times are getting more and more difficult.
Where will the events in Burma head from here? Will it be like two decades ago, a repetition of history? Or will a fresh chapter of democracy enter Burma's life? There is no flipping of pages to the important future events this time.
Feels so real, doesn't it?
There is something that appears fundamentally different between knowing an event in history and an event unravelling in the present. In 1988, students took to the streets. Military suppressed them. Thousands were killed. It triggered elections. Aung San Suu Kyi won. The military refused to recognise election results. Their rule continued. That is history. It is as I know it. I was too young then to know it as it unfolded. I read it later in my life. I read it, as a piece of history, compressed and summarised. Time flowed in different beats: unimportant days were swept away in words no longer than a few seconds, and moments of importance were granted paragraphs after paragraphs that took minutes to read. The scaling of time when cast into words is twisted out of linear proportion.
But with the present, time is time. It is not scaled. It is not contorted. It is not shortened to slim boring periods and lengthen to fit critical events. One day is one day. One week is one week. One month is one month. The present becomes alive. Yesterday nuns took to the streets. Last week monks did so. Suppose a revolution were to come in a month's time. This month will not be a day long. It will not be a week long. It will be a month long. A month is a month. It is not like pages of a history book. Even if nothing goes on during this one month, time plods on unrelentlessly, unceasingly, unhurriedly.
That is, perhaps, why events unfolding as I read in the newspapers feel more real than events of the past. When I read an article about John Lennon's death there is a detached feeling about the whole incident. It is not as if I have not felt the loss of a great singer, but this loss feels muted. It feels as if the concrete of history has solidified. But when Luciano Pavarotti died, the concrete of history may have been laid, but it is still wet. Maybe this is the reason why people often say that times are getting more and more difficult.
Where will the events in Burma head from here? Will it be like two decades ago, a repetition of history? Or will a fresh chapter of democracy enter Burma's life? There is no flipping of pages to the important future events this time.
Feels so real, doesn't it?
14 July 2007
The Government's Forced Prostitute
(This post evolved out of my comments on a post entitled Silence is not always golden on theonlinecitizen. The post criticises the lack of scrutiny by Singapore's mainstream media on the government.)
In recent weeks, a chain of non-replies from the government concerning many issues, the termination of Alfian Saat as a relief teacher for example, has infruriated many bloggers. Even moderate bloggers like Bernard Leong advocated for more openness in the government's reply and letters to the media. And as inevitable as the Second Law, the mainstream media gets a beating for not scrutinising the government over these matters and not pursuing the non-replies.
With regards to the non-replies and silences of various government departments regarding numerous affairs, I believe it is something on which the government has to seriously change its attitude. Such attitudes, more than just make people lose faith in the government and the civil service, can propel others to believe in alternative (and not necessarily true) explanations. This may be dangerous as it propagates falsehoods on the government and undermine the trust between the civil service and the people. And with no official explanations, they can hardly be blamed.
However, I do not agree with criticising the media for not playing the role of the watchdog like in so many democratic countries. I do not deny - in fact, I strongly support - the concept of the media being the watchdog of the government. Being a proper, massive organisation with professional journalists to probe and analyse various aspects on and reports of the government and its actions, hardly any other is better at fulfilling this role. However, at this point I'd like to emphasize the need, if thus is the case, for more media organisations to emerge. Left to its own, a media organisation will inevitably adopt a particular stand or point of view, so a greater number means a greater variety, leading to a more balanced airing of different perspective on a single issue. It is as pointless as the current situation if the media turns from the government's lap dog to a mad dog which bites at everything the government has.
However, I can hardly fault the media for taking up the role it took. The rules and regulations governing the media - the Newspaper and Printing Act - effectively gives the government the control of information. The media, in my opinion, can only take a small portion of the blame, if at all. After all, which media would like to see its readership fall? Which journalist would like to work under a heavily scrutinised and censored environment? Blaming the media is like shooting the hapless messenger. Of course, there are always those who are truly sincere in their flattering of the government, but we must caution ourselves against a hasty generalisation just as much as believing everything the media prints.
Of course, one could argue that the journalists ought to sacrifice themselves for their journalistic pride and freedom of expression. Yet, if these employees of the media can be kicked aside and replaced so easily, can we blame them for being concerned with their jobs and income? After all, if they are unwilling to write favourable or refrain from criticising the government, someone else would be willing to do the job, and the situation on the whole remains the same. Or, can we blame them for bowing down now, so that they can stay longer to push the boundaries of these regulations as far as they could go? Let's not forget that, these people are in the public, their faces known, unlikes the criticising mass of the netizens who are largely anonymous, and whose job is not directly affected by what he or she writes.
Instead of shifting the blame onto the media, I would instead focus my criticisms on these regulations that bind the muzzle of the watchdog. The media is not, as David Marshall once famously said, "poor prostitutes" of the government. If anything, the media is a forced prostitute of the government.
In recent weeks, a chain of non-replies from the government concerning many issues, the termination of Alfian Saat as a relief teacher for example, has infruriated many bloggers. Even moderate bloggers like Bernard Leong advocated for more openness in the government's reply and letters to the media. And as inevitable as the Second Law, the mainstream media gets a beating for not scrutinising the government over these matters and not pursuing the non-replies.
With regards to the non-replies and silences of various government departments regarding numerous affairs, I believe it is something on which the government has to seriously change its attitude. Such attitudes, more than just make people lose faith in the government and the civil service, can propel others to believe in alternative (and not necessarily true) explanations. This may be dangerous as it propagates falsehoods on the government and undermine the trust between the civil service and the people. And with no official explanations, they can hardly be blamed.
However, I do not agree with criticising the media for not playing the role of the watchdog like in so many democratic countries. I do not deny - in fact, I strongly support - the concept of the media being the watchdog of the government. Being a proper, massive organisation with professional journalists to probe and analyse various aspects on and reports of the government and its actions, hardly any other is better at fulfilling this role. However, at this point I'd like to emphasize the need, if thus is the case, for more media organisations to emerge. Left to its own, a media organisation will inevitably adopt a particular stand or point of view, so a greater number means a greater variety, leading to a more balanced airing of different perspective on a single issue. It is as pointless as the current situation if the media turns from the government's lap dog to a mad dog which bites at everything the government has.
However, I can hardly fault the media for taking up the role it took. The rules and regulations governing the media - the Newspaper and Printing Act - effectively gives the government the control of information. The media, in my opinion, can only take a small portion of the blame, if at all. After all, which media would like to see its readership fall? Which journalist would like to work under a heavily scrutinised and censored environment? Blaming the media is like shooting the hapless messenger. Of course, there are always those who are truly sincere in their flattering of the government, but we must caution ourselves against a hasty generalisation just as much as believing everything the media prints.
Of course, one could argue that the journalists ought to sacrifice themselves for their journalistic pride and freedom of expression. Yet, if these employees of the media can be kicked aside and replaced so easily, can we blame them for being concerned with their jobs and income? After all, if they are unwilling to write favourable or refrain from criticising the government, someone else would be willing to do the job, and the situation on the whole remains the same. Or, can we blame them for bowing down now, so that they can stay longer to push the boundaries of these regulations as far as they could go? Let's not forget that, these people are in the public, their faces known, unlikes the criticising mass of the netizens who are largely anonymous, and whose job is not directly affected by what he or she writes.
Instead of shifting the blame onto the media, I would instead focus my criticisms on these regulations that bind the muzzle of the watchdog. The media is not, as David Marshall once famously said, "poor prostitutes" of the government. If anything, the media is a forced prostitute of the government.
16 April 2007
The People's OB Markers
Out of bounds marker, or commonly known as OB markers, is a term derived from golf, a game our ministers (in particular Lee Kuan Yew) are fond of, where it refers to markers that designate the limits of area in play. First employed by Goh Chok Tong, the term is used to demarcate the kinds of topics which should never be brought into critical discussion in the public domain due to its sensitive nature. Perhaps at the government's convenience, the exact boundaries of the OB markers are left blurred. Traditional OB markers include politics, race and religion, though these, being vicissitudes of our evolving society, may have already changed.
Two major cases of overstepping these OB markers are the Catherine Lim incident in 1994 and mrbrown's satirical article last year. There were no legal actions taken against them, but both were strongly reprimanded by the government. More serious cases are dealt with a heavy hand, such as the three seditious bloggers that stirred up racist remarks. Essentially, there is this invisible line that one will cross if the degree to which the issues were discussed were deemed too critical, to public.
All this while, OB markers have been used by the government to draw an imaginary line for the people, but this ministerial hike issue has shed some light onto another kind of OB markers, one that has existed since any people have assumed governing power in a democracy. They are the unspoken OB markers from the people, for the government. The people's OB markers.
There are some issues to which the government must avoid at all cost, such as corruption, to which a parallel can be drawn to the racist bloggers. And just like the government's OB markers, these people's OB markers are also blurred and shifting. Incidents like the NKF saga and the graduate mothers scheme hinted to the government at where these markers lay. Just as in the case of the government's OB markers, these episodes invited scorching criticisms or even worse, loss of votes.
In response to this ministerial hike, the blogosphere, in its instinctive anti-establishment eruption, has blasted the government in all directions. Even the pro-establishment, nation building press sees letters to the forums enunciating the writers' displeasure. Many politically-neutral bloggers like Kway Teow Man, NMP Siew Kum Hong and even mrbrown (who, by linking to insanepoly's colourful post, hints at his agreement with it) are in general not supportive of the hike.
This is another case of the OB markers being crossed. The limit has been overshot. The tolerance of the people broken. Sure, Singaporeans can take a lot of shit, as this TalkingCock article sadly but correctly comments, but I think this time they had enough. The people are saying, "this is too much." The OB markers have been breached.
When Catherine Lim went beyond the confines of acceptable discussion, Goh Chok Tong issued a powerful warning. When mrbrown exceeded the limit, K. Bhavani dished out heavy criticisms. Now, the government crossed the OB markers, and the people are raring to let them know. What the consequences will be, how far-reaching it will go, what repercussions there are, and how it will be played by the Opposition in the next general elections, remains very much to be seen.
Two major cases of overstepping these OB markers are the Catherine Lim incident in 1994 and mrbrown's satirical article last year. There were no legal actions taken against them, but both were strongly reprimanded by the government. More serious cases are dealt with a heavy hand, such as the three seditious bloggers that stirred up racist remarks. Essentially, there is this invisible line that one will cross if the degree to which the issues were discussed were deemed too critical, to public.
All this while, OB markers have been used by the government to draw an imaginary line for the people, but this ministerial hike issue has shed some light onto another kind of OB markers, one that has existed since any people have assumed governing power in a democracy. They are the unspoken OB markers from the people, for the government. The people's OB markers.
There are some issues to which the government must avoid at all cost, such as corruption, to which a parallel can be drawn to the racist bloggers. And just like the government's OB markers, these people's OB markers are also blurred and shifting. Incidents like the NKF saga and the graduate mothers scheme hinted to the government at where these markers lay. Just as in the case of the government's OB markers, these episodes invited scorching criticisms or even worse, loss of votes.
In response to this ministerial hike, the blogosphere, in its instinctive anti-establishment eruption, has blasted the government in all directions. Even the pro-establishment, nation building press sees letters to the forums enunciating the writers' displeasure. Many politically-neutral bloggers like Kway Teow Man, NMP Siew Kum Hong and even mrbrown (who, by linking to insanepoly's colourful post, hints at his agreement with it) are in general not supportive of the hike.
This is another case of the OB markers being crossed. The limit has been overshot. The tolerance of the people broken. Sure, Singaporeans can take a lot of shit, as this TalkingCock article sadly but correctly comments, but I think this time they had enough. The people are saying, "this is too much." The OB markers have been breached.
When Catherine Lim went beyond the confines of acceptable discussion, Goh Chok Tong issued a powerful warning. When mrbrown exceeded the limit, K. Bhavani dished out heavy criticisms. Now, the government crossed the OB markers, and the people are raring to let them know. What the consequences will be, how far-reaching it will go, what repercussions there are, and how it will be played by the Opposition in the next general elections, remains very much to be seen.
06 April 2007
Two Side Issues from the Minister Pay Hike
Sidestepping the debates on whether ministerial salaries are justified, I'd like to discuss two related issue instead. They are not so much as original ideas, but something that I had came across months back in some readings, and browsing through all the commentaries and opinions on the blogosphere reminds me them. They are the government's selection process for a minister and their strategy for unveiling unpopular policies.
How does Singapore select its ministers? This question is actually not as obscure as one might think. At this point, it is important to clarify, in case of confusion, that the selection of ministers is highly different from MPs. In [1], ministers are compared to as "generals", while MPs and party activists are "foot-soldiers".
Most bloggers are right to think that being academically talented scholars is a criterion, but it is not the sole yardstick for minister selection. Quoting from [2],
This is just the identification of a potential candidate. After this, the minister will be sent out to the grassroots for political work. He or she may be fielded in a constituency for elections a couple of years later. That's not all. From the same source [2],
Thus it can be seen that a minister is selected through a rigourous process. Whether this process works in the future, given the supposed problem of lack of political talents and shifts in the political landscape, remains much to be seen. In addition, this selection process is elitist and may risk creating a disconnect between the leaders and population, as some has claimed already happening [3].
However, I'd like to point out that in [2], I have no idea which articles was referenced with regards to this process because the bibliography was cut off (what I have is a photocopied compilations of the two chapters).
Also seen in this ministerial salary hike is Lee Hsien Loong's way of announcing policies that he knows will create a wave of dissatisfaction amongst the public. Taking from [1],
Following this, a few paragraphs down, the authors summarised their strategy well,
Eseentially, instead of dropping a huge and smelly fart at one go, they let the gas out slowly and as noiselessly as they can, so that the public anger can be spread out over time and thus thinned out. From past events like the quoted CPF cut to the recent GST increase, it can be seen that this strategy is widely employed and does work rather well.
Nonetheless, it will be rather interesting to observe how the Internet may affect this strategy. Previously, any grouse is spoken over the coffeshop table and diluted by the time of the next election, but with blogs increasingly pervasive in local politics (particularly the anti-establishment camp), these unhappiness are recorded in words (see [4]) and may resurface when the need arises.
[1] Diane K. Mauzy and R. S. Milne, Singapore Politics under the People's Action Party (London: Routledge, 2002), 'Chapter 9: The successors', pp. 123.
[2] Ibid, 'Chapter 4: The People's Action Party - the Structure and Operation of a Dominant Party', pp. 48 - 49.
[3] See, for example, Minsters salaries - lets have a re-focus by theonlinecitizen and Earth to YPAP: Is there life out there? by kitana
[4] See the comments of Beating the dead ministerial salary horse by Aaron Ng.
How does Singapore select its ministers? This question is actually not as obscure as one might think. At this point, it is important to clarify, in case of confusion, that the selection of ministers is highly different from MPs. In [1], ministers are compared to as "generals", while MPs and party activists are "foot-soldiers".
Most bloggers are right to think that being academically talented scholars is a criterion, but it is not the sole yardstick for minister selection. Quoting from [2],
On the recommendation of Ministers, MPs, senior civil servants, corporate leaders, and party activists, prospective candidates are invited to "tea parties" in groups of six to eight to chat informally with one of three Ministers, who take turns in meeting over 100 potential candidates a year. Some of these are invited to a second tea session, and those found suitable meet personally, first with [then] Deputy Prime Minster Lee Hsien Loong and then with the party whip. Those who clear the process to this point then appear before the selection committee of PAP Ministers, who probe extensively into a prospective candidate's character and motivation, and ability to be a "team player". After this, those still being considered are interviewed by Goh Chok Tong and Lee Kuan Yew. If they agree to the selection, the candidate is then given a final interview by the party's CEC to ratify the selection.
This is just the identification of a potential candidate. After this, the minister will be sent out to the grassroots for political work. He or she may be fielded in a constituency for elections a couple of years later. That's not all. From the same source [2],
Those among the selected candidates who are viewed as having minsterial potential go through an additional stage. They are given one-and-a-half days of psychological testing involving over one thousand questions. The PAP has adapted the system developed by Shell for its prospective new executive. The tests focus on three qualities - power of analysis, imagination, and sense of reality.
Thus it can be seen that a minister is selected through a rigourous process. Whether this process works in the future, given the supposed problem of lack of political talents and shifts in the political landscape, remains much to be seen. In addition, this selection process is elitist and may risk creating a disconnect between the leaders and population, as some has claimed already happening [3].
However, I'd like to point out that in [2], I have no idea which articles was referenced with regards to this process because the bibliography was cut off (what I have is a photocopied compilations of the two chapters).
Also seen in this ministerial salary hike is Lee Hsien Loong's way of announcing policies that he knows will create a wave of dissatisfaction amongst the public. Taking from [1],
... the government policies, largely crafted by Lee [Hsien Loong], were implemented with close attention to minimizing opposition, using an incremental approach. The emphasis lay in cooperation between the government and the public to solve a puzzle; the "solution" was to be arrived at gradually by the government, as it were, taking people along with it, step by step. For example, proposals to reduce the employers' contributions to the CPF were not produced with a flourish, out of a hat. They were gradually unveiled as a hypothetical last-resort policy, which became increasingly perceived as inevitable. The initial step was for Lim Boon Heng, Minister without Portfolio and secretary-general of the NTUC, to introduce the issues involved at a seminar in Pasir Ris. Although the presentation had been carefully prepared, the reception was quite chilly. However, the idea had really been just to broach the topic. The real presentation was done through a large number of discussions in the party, at the grassroots, and with trade unionists. The policy was formally announced in November 1998. By this time, many had been convinced that the government's proposals made sense.
Following this, a few paragraphs down, the authors summarised their strategy well,
The lesson was that, if you have to change your policy, prepare the people early and explain why the change is necessary.
Eseentially, instead of dropping a huge and smelly fart at one go, they let the gas out slowly and as noiselessly as they can, so that the public anger can be spread out over time and thus thinned out. From past events like the quoted CPF cut to the recent GST increase, it can be seen that this strategy is widely employed and does work rather well.
Nonetheless, it will be rather interesting to observe how the Internet may affect this strategy. Previously, any grouse is spoken over the coffeshop table and diluted by the time of the next election, but with blogs increasingly pervasive in local politics (particularly the anti-establishment camp), these unhappiness are recorded in words (see [4]) and may resurface when the need arises.
[1] Diane K. Mauzy and R. S. Milne, Singapore Politics under the People's Action Party (London: Routledge, 2002), 'Chapter 9: The successors', pp. 123.
[2] Ibid, 'Chapter 4: The People's Action Party - the Structure and Operation of a Dominant Party', pp. 48 - 49.
[3] See, for example, Minsters salaries - lets have a re-focus by theonlinecitizen and Earth to YPAP: Is there life out there? by kitana
[4] See the comments of Beating the dead ministerial salary horse by Aaron Ng.
31 March 2007
A Case for Ministerial Salary Increase
The blogosphere has been blaring their discontent and frustration at the recent ministerial pay hike. And of course, any attempts to support the government's action, like this one on the Young PAP Blog, is like an ant being flushed down a toilet bowl. But these anti-pay hike bloggers could just be flogging a dead horse, couldn't they?
But I have been asking myself, is this pay hike justified, if we assume the Singapore Inc. line of thinking? This thinking goes along the idea that Singapore is run like a company, where its citizens are economic units. They are valuable as long as they can provide economic benefit to the country. Of course, with this comes a lack of true loyalty and belonging to the country. Not many will hesitate given a chance to leave Singapore and never come back. Not many will serve NS because "I must" but because "I have no choice". Not many will think of sacrificing for their homeland. Not many will feel deep attachment to this nation.
Now, like some impending storm approaching me, I see this dire situation as more and more of a reality, and if I assume so, then I ask myself if the pay hike is justified. For if people are not willing to sacrifice to be ministers, it is imperative for the government to attract talent with whatever means possible. Yes, there may be people who are willing to do it for low pay, but being a minister requires so much more than talent. It requires the excellent people, and if the country cannot get them to sacrifice themselves for it, then it has to hire them. A "why do they need so much money" kind of argument simply doesn't hold because the money is simply to "buy" them from the private sector.
So to me, it is logical to increase ministerial salaries so as to close the gap between their pays and their equivalents in the private sector, if we operate under the assumption that Singapore is being run like a company. Of course, a country should not be run like a company in the first place, and because I take this stand, therefore I disagree with the increase. But still, my opinions should not disrupt the logic of Singapore Inc. -> ministerial pay hike.
But I have been asking myself, is this pay hike justified, if we assume the Singapore Inc. line of thinking? This thinking goes along the idea that Singapore is run like a company, where its citizens are economic units. They are valuable as long as they can provide economic benefit to the country. Of course, with this comes a lack of true loyalty and belonging to the country. Not many will hesitate given a chance to leave Singapore and never come back. Not many will serve NS because "I must" but because "I have no choice". Not many will think of sacrificing for their homeland. Not many will feel deep attachment to this nation.
Now, like some impending storm approaching me, I see this dire situation as more and more of a reality, and if I assume so, then I ask myself if the pay hike is justified. For if people are not willing to sacrifice to be ministers, it is imperative for the government to attract talent with whatever means possible. Yes, there may be people who are willing to do it for low pay, but being a minister requires so much more than talent. It requires the excellent people, and if the country cannot get them to sacrifice themselves for it, then it has to hire them. A "why do they need so much money" kind of argument simply doesn't hold because the money is simply to "buy" them from the private sector.
So to me, it is logical to increase ministerial salaries so as to close the gap between their pays and their equivalents in the private sector, if we operate under the assumption that Singapore is being run like a company. Of course, a country should not be run like a company in the first place, and because I take this stand, therefore I disagree with the increase. But still, my opinions should not disrupt the logic of Singapore Inc. -> ministerial pay hike.
03 February 2007
The Oily Business in Global Warming
Yesterday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has published their fourth assessment report, concluding that global warming is indeed occurring, and is likely to be the result of human activities. That's what environmentalists have been arguing for years, but now with some scientific heavyweight behind them.
But does that mean global warming will be the focus of governments around the world? It's not gonna be easy, judging by where the money lies...
From an academic viewpoint, this is blatantly wrong (though this is probably the norm in politics and business). It's not wrong because it opposes an academic body. It's not wrong because "global warming is a fact and their activities are harming the environment", which is what they are trying to dispute in the first place. It's not wrong because they only care about their profits.
What is wrong with it is the fact that they "select" the results. That's not how things should be done. Academic research is not carried out like that. Yes, one can start with the hypothesis or proposition that global warming is natural (i.e. not caused by human, or at least oil companies), but if it turns out to be otherwise, one has to just accept it. If one doesn't, it can be considered academic fraud. Imagine the pressure on the scientist to do so if he/she knew that $10000 is appended to the equation.
But then, what I've described above is the ideal scientific method, a code in which all scientist should adhere to. In real life, however...
That's the sad fact in life. And I believe it won't be long before we see some papers on what ExxonMobil wants. Well, at least Shell acknowledges global warming...
But does that mean global warming will be the focus of governments around the world? It's not gonna be easy, judging by where the money lies...
Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday February 2, 2007
The Guardian
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".
(Click here for the full article.)
From an academic viewpoint, this is blatantly wrong (though this is probably the norm in politics and business). It's not wrong because it opposes an academic body. It's not wrong because "global warming is a fact and their activities are harming the environment", which is what they are trying to dispute in the first place. It's not wrong because they only care about their profits.
What is wrong with it is the fact that they "select" the results. That's not how things should be done. Academic research is not carried out like that. Yes, one can start with the hypothesis or proposition that global warming is natural (i.e. not caused by human, or at least oil companies), but if it turns out to be otherwise, one has to just accept it. If one doesn't, it can be considered academic fraud. Imagine the pressure on the scientist to do so if he/she knew that $10000 is appended to the equation.
But then, what I've described above is the ideal scientific method, a code in which all scientist should adhere to. In real life, however...
That's the sad fact in life. And I believe it won't be long before we see some papers on what ExxonMobil wants. Well, at least Shell acknowledges global warming...
21 December 2006
Singapore's Stand on Antipersonnel Landmines
In the Nobel Exhibition, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), an organisation that won the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize, was featured extensively. Two sets of displays in the artefacts section as well as a short film in the Creative Milieus theatre are related to them, making them one of the most highlighted organisation in the entire exhibition.
Founded in 1992, their primary objective is to completely ban the use of antipersonnel mines in the world. Their success was phenomenal. From a coalition of a handful of NGOs, it has grown into a network of more than a thousand groups. One of the major successes was their win of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997, but the greatest achievement of their work was the Ottawa Treaty.
However, many of the powerful countries in the world refused to sign the treaty. They include the United States, China and Russia. Many have their own reasons for not doing so (such as the US, who needs landmines to protect South Korea from North Korea). That was what I found and prepared for my duty as an exhibition guide. However, curiosity nudged me to find out more, especially with regards to Singapore's status.
It turns out that, expectedly, Singapore has not signed the Ottawa Treaty. More than that, Singapore is a producer of landmines (see this ICBL newsletter, third paragraph). This is kept a low profile in Singapore, which is not surprising since this is something not to be proud of. Even Indonesia has recently signed and ratified the treaty. As a matter of fact, most guys who have been through the army would be able to attest that there is at least basic landmine deployment training.
This led me further to ponder on the question: would Singapore ever deploy landmines? My personal opinion is no. The Singapore Army's main purpose is to defend Singapore, and its greatest strength lies in deterrence. Even if we take into consideration the unlikely possibility of Singapore entering a conflict, it is unlikely that we are on the offensive. I doubt Singapore will start planting landmines along Woodlands. However, there is the possibility of pre-emptive strikes, which Singapore occupies a foreign land to act as a buffer against foreign attacks. Would landmines be a possibility then? Probably, but then the chances of this happening is very low.
In that case, why doesn't Singapore sign and ratify the treaty, since we're probably not going to use landmines anyway? My guess is that there are two reasons. First, remember that the army's strength lie in deterrence. And the knowledge that we possess and may deploy landmines contributes to this deterrence. For all we know, we may not even use landmines in times of conflict. The situation is similar to the serial numbers on polling cards.
My second guess is that, it does not benefit Singapore to sign the treaty. Let's face it: Singapore is a pragmatic country. Our government is pragmatic. A larger part of the population is pragmatic. What would signing the treaty give Singapore? Putting it another way, what harm will it cause Singapore if it doesn't sign the treaty? In addition, with countries like the US and China not signing it, Singapore is safe from international ridicule.
Personally, I support ICBL's goals and agrees with their principles. I would be most delighted if Singapore signs and ratifies the Ottawa Treaty. But frankly, I don't expect that to happen soon. That's life. Life sucks. Get used to it.
Founded in 1992, their primary objective is to completely ban the use of antipersonnel mines in the world. Their success was phenomenal. From a coalition of a handful of NGOs, it has grown into a network of more than a thousand groups. One of the major successes was their win of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997, but the greatest achievement of their work was the Ottawa Treaty.
However, many of the powerful countries in the world refused to sign the treaty. They include the United States, China and Russia. Many have their own reasons for not doing so (such as the US, who needs landmines to protect South Korea from North Korea). That was what I found and prepared for my duty as an exhibition guide. However, curiosity nudged me to find out more, especially with regards to Singapore's status.
It turns out that, expectedly, Singapore has not signed the Ottawa Treaty. More than that, Singapore is a producer of landmines (see this ICBL newsletter, third paragraph). This is kept a low profile in Singapore, which is not surprising since this is something not to be proud of. Even Indonesia has recently signed and ratified the treaty. As a matter of fact, most guys who have been through the army would be able to attest that there is at least basic landmine deployment training.
This led me further to ponder on the question: would Singapore ever deploy landmines? My personal opinion is no. The Singapore Army's main purpose is to defend Singapore, and its greatest strength lies in deterrence. Even if we take into consideration the unlikely possibility of Singapore entering a conflict, it is unlikely that we are on the offensive. I doubt Singapore will start planting landmines along Woodlands. However, there is the possibility of pre-emptive strikes, which Singapore occupies a foreign land to act as a buffer against foreign attacks. Would landmines be a possibility then? Probably, but then the chances of this happening is very low.
In that case, why doesn't Singapore sign and ratify the treaty, since we're probably not going to use landmines anyway? My guess is that there are two reasons. First, remember that the army's strength lie in deterrence. And the knowledge that we possess and may deploy landmines contributes to this deterrence. For all we know, we may not even use landmines in times of conflict. The situation is similar to the serial numbers on polling cards.
My second guess is that, it does not benefit Singapore to sign the treaty. Let's face it: Singapore is a pragmatic country. Our government is pragmatic. A larger part of the population is pragmatic. What would signing the treaty give Singapore? Putting it another way, what harm will it cause Singapore if it doesn't sign the treaty? In addition, with countries like the US and China not signing it, Singapore is safe from international ridicule.
Personally, I support ICBL's goals and agrees with their principles. I would be most delighted if Singapore signs and ratifies the Ottawa Treaty. But frankly, I don't expect that to happen soon. That's life. Life sucks. Get used to it.
24 November 2006
Wee Shu Min Wikipedia-ed
This morning in my dish of daily websites, I came across something familiar:
Her name is really becoming an icon... except in a bad way, that is. Poor thing...
Her name is really becoming an icon... except in a bad way, that is. Poor thing...
14 November 2006
GST: Reshuffling the Cards of Wealth?
Okay, the bomb is out, and the blogosphere is, expectedly, buzzing like a disturbed hive. The primary reason outlined for the hike is
That sounds great, huh? Why then is the blogosphere so angry? Is it an instinctive response to blast any penalising policies of the hegemonic government, or are they seeing something I cannot? Seriously, if we raise taxes to help the poor and bridge the rich-poor divide which is dangerously becoming a threatening social issue, what's wrong with that?
Unless you're in financial difficulties, the rise in GST won't pose much problems for you. Certainly with my stingy lifestyle, it will be the least of my worries. Of course, the poor still has to buy stuff and hence the increase will affect them, but as mentioned, there are social nets that'll help them overcome this barrier. Furthermore, it is usually the more affluent that makes more purchases, so they will be the one who pay more. And if this money they pay gets channeled back to the poor, then isn't that a good idea?
Of course, there are better ways to fund this purpose, specifically a rise in income tax instead of GST. However, income tax hikes will pinch the richer citizens much harder than a rise in GST, and since most (if not all) of the MPs and ministers earn five digit salaries every month, they naturally won't support such a motion. (This assumes that our MPs and ministers are selfish, which I see no reason why not to, given our fanatically meritocratic and elitist system. It's no use challenging this assumption; it is a fact of reality.) So that leaves GST as the second best option available (enlighten me, anyone, of better plans that I've missed).
That is not to say I support the hike, however, at least not yet. The principle of the hike is good, but I must wait for the details first before deciding if I really agree with the hike. It is no use if the "safety nets" mentioned is just an appeasing farce, an empty gesture. It is redundant if these nets have holes big enough for the likes of Tan Jee Suan to fall through. In another words, my official stand is: I'm neutral with the hike; I need to see the details before making my decision.
to finance the enhanced social safety nets, needed to help the lower income group
That sounds great, huh? Why then is the blogosphere so angry? Is it an instinctive response to blast any penalising policies of the hegemonic government, or are they seeing something I cannot? Seriously, if we raise taxes to help the poor and bridge the rich-poor divide which is dangerously becoming a threatening social issue, what's wrong with that?
Unless you're in financial difficulties, the rise in GST won't pose much problems for you. Certainly with my stingy lifestyle, it will be the least of my worries. Of course, the poor still has to buy stuff and hence the increase will affect them, but as mentioned, there are social nets that'll help them overcome this barrier. Furthermore, it is usually the more affluent that makes more purchases, so they will be the one who pay more. And if this money they pay gets channeled back to the poor, then isn't that a good idea?
Of course, there are better ways to fund this purpose, specifically a rise in income tax instead of GST. However, income tax hikes will pinch the richer citizens much harder than a rise in GST, and since most (if not all) of the MPs and ministers earn five digit salaries every month, they naturally won't support such a motion. (This assumes that our MPs and ministers are selfish, which I see no reason why not to, given our fanatically meritocratic and elitist system. It's no use challenging this assumption; it is a fact of reality.) So that leaves GST as the second best option available (enlighten me, anyone, of better plans that I've missed).
That is not to say I support the hike, however, at least not yet. The principle of the hike is good, but I must wait for the details first before deciding if I really agree with the hike. It is no use if the "safety nets" mentioned is just an appeasing farce, an empty gesture. It is redundant if these nets have holes big enough for the likes of Tan Jee Suan to fall through. In another words, my official stand is: I'm neutral with the hike; I need to see the details before making my decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
