Warning to Christian Fundamentalists: Sedition Act

Coming close at the heels of the Aware saga and the concern over Christian fundamentalism taking root in Singapore, the 8 weeks jail is a warning that the government will get tough and tougher.  Ong Kian Cheong and Dorothy Chan were just at the wrong place at the wrong time. If the Aware saga did not explode as it did, the couple would probably have gotten a lighter sentence and a slap on the wrist. But jail sentences won’t stop fundamentalists, it might be their badge of faith instead. Maybe they should be rehabilitated like the Jemaah Islamiyah terrorists held under the ISA.

Couple sentenced to 8 weeks jail for distributing seditious publications

SINGAPORE : A couple, found guilty last month of distributing seditious or objectionable publications, has been sentenced to 8 weeks jail each.

50-year-old SingTel technical officer Ong Kian Cheong and his 46-year-old wife, UBS associate director Dorothy Chan Hien Leng, had been found guilty on four charges each of sedition.

For two decades, the couple spread their faith by handing out religious pamphlets, and then by dropping tracts into random HDB letterboxes.

From around 1998, however, the couple, both Protestant Christians, mailed them to addresses picked out from the telephone directory – those of Muslims included.

They “clearly did so with the intent of convincing the Muslim reader to convert to Christianity”, a district court found.

For distributing and possessing seditious and objectionable publications, husband and wife were sentenced to eight weeks’ jail each on Wednesday.

Such “intolerance, insensitivity and ignorance of delicate issues concerning race and religion” in Singapore “clearly warranted” a custodial sentence, said District Judge Roy Neighbour.

In the first full trial heard under the Sedition Act, the married couple of 24 years was found guilty on May 28 of the charges.

In 2007, Mr Irwan Ariffin, 32, and Madam Farhati Ahmad, 36, received an evangelistic comic-style booklet titled The Little Bride through the mail while Mr Isa Raffee, 35, was sent Who Is Allah?.

After a complaint to the police, an ambush was laid and the pair was arrested on Jan 30 last year.

Found in their condominium in Bukit Timah were 439 copies of 11 seditious tracts.

During the 11-day trial, it emerged that the SingTel technical officer and his wife, sent out about 20,000 publications in seven years.

Produced by an American firm called Chick Publications, the fundamentalist Protestant materials were “not only offensive for religious content but also have a tendency to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between Muslims and Christians in Singapore”, said Judge Neighbour.

By distributing tracts with “callous, denigratory, offensive and insensitive statements on religion with aspersions on race”, the pair had committed “serious” offences that “have the capacity to undermine and erode the delicate fabric of racial and religious harmony in Singapore”.

Common sense, he said, dictated that religious fervor to spread the faith, “in our society, must be constrained by sensitivity, tolerance and mutual respect for another’s faith and religious beliefs”.

Ong and Chan were expressionless when sentenced.

Their lawyer Selva K Naidu told the court that they had filed a notice of appeal against the conviction last Friday. He was awaiting instructions to proceed.

The pair faced two charges of distributing seditious publications each, and one each of distributing an objectionable publication and possession of seditious tracts.

They got four weeks’ jail for each charge – two of them running consecutively and the remaining to run concurrently.

They could have been fined up to $5,000 and/or jailed for up to three years for each of the two charges.

The possession charge carries a maximum fine of $2,000 and/or jail for up to 18 months. Distributing objectionable publications is punishable with a fine not exceeding $5,000 and/or up to one year behind bars. – CNA /ls

The One about the Swedish Guy

When I read this, the cynic in me just had to ask. Johan carefully worded that his ties with NMP Siew Kum Hong were legitimate. That is I hope nothing new to readers. I am an avid supporter of the latter even more after the Aware saga and I wish that he can continue for another term. But who else did Johan meet and what kind of help was offered, if any, to these other people for the sake of assisting “democracy development”?  Unfortunately for us, Johan’s  don’t kiss and tell “politeness” stood in the way of transparency and the other parties who met Johan up to now choose to lurk in the shadows.  Looks like the matter is buried for good.  Besides the PAP, the activists are also using that “let’s move on” ploy on us.

Swedish International Liberal Centre says: We are not funding NMP
By Liew Hanqing
May 26, 2009

NETIZENS were abuzz over a meeting between him and Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Siew Kum Hong last month.

But Mr Johan Skarendal, 29, a member of the Swedish International Liberal Centre (SILC), has rubbished online allegations that Mr Siew had asked for and is receiving foreign funding from his organisation.

Mr Skarendal said SILC is a foundation which assists democracy development, by supporting organisations and individuals who promote democracy and human rights.

It is affiliated to the Liberal Party, one of the four political parties in the Swedish government since 2006.

In recent weeks, Mr Siew has been the target of what seems like an organised online campaign to oppose his re-nomination as a NMP.

Flamed online

He has been flamed extensively on several forums and blogs, and has even received nasty e-mails from his detractors.

Mr Skarendal told The New Paper that though he met Mr Siew during his visit to Singapore last month, the issue of funding was never broached.

He said: ‘I met him (Mr Siew) for one hour to discuss his work in parliament, and his views on current affairs and the civil society in Singapore.’

He added that SILC is one of several Swedish organisations carrying out government policy in the democracy assistance field.

‘All of our project proposals must pass through rigorous screening and evaluation before decisions are made to fund a project,’ he said.

He stressed that Mr Siew did not ask about the possibility of funding, and neither did he mention the possibility to Mr Siew.

‘The current allegations against him are clearly nothing but hot air with the intent to defame him, and as such are criminal in nature,’ Mr Skarendal said.

When contacted, Mr Siew declined comment as he has already made a police report.

In an 18 May entry on his blog (siewkumhong.blogspot.com), Mr Siew wrote: ‘I did not at any time ask for, and have not at any time been offered or accepted, any sort of funding from any local or foreign entity, including the Swedish politician named in the latest attack.

‘The only sources of income (or funding) that I have, are my employer and the Government of Singapore (in the form of my monthly NMP allowance).’

He quashed online allegations of links with the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP).

Mr Siew described the latest attacks as going ‘beyond anything that a reasonable person could possibly perceive as being a valid or legitimate exercise of the right to free speech.’

He added that he would not tolerate the latest wave of ‘character assassination’ from ‘cowards hiding behind the perceived anonymity of the Internet’.

Mr Skarendal said his latest visit to Singapore was with Mr Henrik Ehrenberg, head of the allied Christian Democratic International Center.

They met with several ‘human rights defenders and civil society members’, but Mr Skarendal declined to say who, because it would be ‘impolite’ to do so.

He confirmed that he had met with SDP secretary-general Chee Soon Juan during the recent visit. They first met in February 2003 when Dr Chee visited Sweden.

Mas Selamat’s Capture: Some Face Gained, Some Face Lost

The facts are slowing being leaked to tease all and everybody is joining the dance. The Malaysians since Friday are releasing bit by tantalising bit. At this point, we know that Mas Selamat was caught sleeping in Skudai (he is also complacent), and he swam over from Singapore using a still undisclosed flotation device (coast guard is going to face the music) and at least 2 people aided him (the JI bunch is still active). The Malaysians arrested him last month and both governments kept the matter under wraps so that they could observe and nab as many Jemaah Islamiah cadres as they could when the time came.

What was not said is what information was provided by Singapore that led to this manhunt closure. We can only guess that Mas Selamat must have finally somehow told his family members in Singapore that he is safe. And word got around eventually (remember there is a huge reward), leading to his recapture on 1 April. However, we will never know the truth.

Mohammad Hassan Saynudin, Mas Selamat’s comrade-in-arms who is jailed in Indonesia, verified Mas Selamat’s commitment and plan to attack Singapore, and when the Malaysians swooped in, the escapee was already plotting some lethal mischief. Singaporeans should be relieved that the joint operation between Malaysia and Singapore paid off. Although I might be mistaken, I don’t think it is a case of one government snatching credit from the other as some bloggers have accused. Provoking Malaysia now would not be in Singapore’s interest as the Malaysians can choose to reveal embarrassing information about the Singapore escape if they are backed into a corner. Hence, Gerald Giam was a bit unfair by speculating that Singapore forcefully took the credit for the capture. Unsurprisingly, it is common for bloggers to jump at any action the government did or did not do as against public interest anyway.

Nevertheless, the revelation of Mas Selamat’s swim across the straits show that PCG might have been sleeping on the job. This is one of the many humiliating questions that will come up as bits and pieces of how Mas Selamat escaped is released by Malaysia in the coming days. Wong Kan Seng should brace himself for impact.

Mother Goose Stories

Did you notice that the ST is trying to intervene in the AWARE saga? They are now centering their attention that DBS publicly disapproves of DBS Vice-President Josie Lau taking over the helms at AWARE. Today however, takes a more oblique inquisitive stance and questions the motivation of DBS’ double-standards distancing from the new AWARE president.

Factions are forming – the old AWARE exco, the gays, ST and DBS on one side, while the new AWARE exco seems stumped and swamped by the insidious rumour-mongering of its anti-gayness. Rumours are quickly becoming truth, encouraged by people who invested in the old AWARE and realised that they are now cut-off and cannot rely on AWARE support possibly because the new guard is in-charged now. Hell has no fury like a woman scorned. The new AWARE exco is getting a front row experience on that idiom.

What’s good for the goose …
Isn’t for the gander? DBS has other multi-taskers too, besides Aware’s president

Friday April 17, 2009
Conrad Raj
editor-at-large | conrad@mediacorp.com.sg

ONE might wonder if there is more than meets the eye, in DBS Bank’s disapproval of Ms Josie Lau Meng Lee’s appointment as president of Aware.

The bank said on Wednesday that although it supported her involvement in Aware as a council member in her own personal capacity, it was “not supportive” of her running for presidency of the women’s advocacy group.

“We believe that as a VP (vice-president) in DBS, she already has a challenging job with many responsibilities and the role of president would demand too much of her time and energy,” the bank said in a media statement.

If it is the case that Ms Lau’s new post at Aware would take up too much of her time, then what about the various external groups that the bank’s senior management are involved in?

Mr Koh Boon Hwee already has a full time job as executive director of MediaRing. Yet he chairs DBS Holdings, since the late chief executive Richard Stanley became ill with cancer, where he has been involved in the daily running of Singapore’s largest commercial bank.

Furthermore, Mr Koh is a director of Sunningdale Tech, chairman of the Board of Trustees at Nanyang Technological University, a director at Temasek Holdings, and on the boards of Agilent Technologies and the Hewlett Foundation. Is that not more onerous than being a VP of DBS’ credit card division and president of Aware?

Mr Koh is not the only one multi-tasking at the bank; most of its other directors sit on other boards besides having full-time jobs.

Take Dr Bart Broadman, 47, for example. He is not only managing director of Singapore-based Alphadyne Asset Management which he founded, but is also a board member of the Central Provident Fund Board, serving on its Investment Committee; as well as vice-chairman of the Board of Governors at the Singapore American School.

Board member Kwa Chong Seng, 62, is not only chairman and managing director of oil giant ExxonMobil Asia Pacific and the lead manager of the company’s subsidiaries in Singapore, but also deputy chairman of Temasek Holdings, a director of Sinopec SenMei (Fujian) Petroleum Company and a member of the Public Service and Legal Service commissions.

Mr Wong Ngit Liong, 67, is not only a member of DBS’ Board and its Audit committee, the Nominating and Compensation committee and the Management Development committee — but also runs one of the biggest contract manufacturing plants in Singapore, the Venture Group of companies. He is also chairman of the NUS Board of Trustees and a member of the Research Innovation and Enterprise Council.

All this aside, several of Singapore’s Ministers and top civil servants hold more than one portfolio. In fact, many permanent secretaries sit on various boards of statutory boards and private companies, besides running their respective ministries.

Yet, Ms Lau is considered not capable of handling the presidency of Aware and her job at DBS. Is the bank that demanding an employer? Also, she was given approval to be a council member but not take on the higher-profile appointment at Aware: One would have thought, it would be a feather in DBS’ cap to have a staff member gaining the presidency of a prominent organisation.

In any case, DBS should be judgingMs Lau on her performance at the bank. If she is not able to perform adequately as a VP, there are various measures the bank can take to improve her performance, including cutting her bonus or stagnating her pay.

Unless there are other factors at play here?

The Lying Foreign Media!

Well, all media anywhere in the world have an agenda and political compass eg. Fox (Neo-Con), Washington Post (Liberal), The Independent in the UK (Left) . Nonetheless, this report about the Burmese junta complaining about the plot of the Western media to criticise Burma sounds like what our own PAP leaders might say about FEER, AWSJ or The Economist at one point or another. I don’t doubt that the New Light of Myanmar has something to say in support of the junta on this. It is a given that local eg. Straits Times, and international media eg. AWSJ, try to advocate a certain cause or issue and pontificate it as objective journalism.  The challenge and fun for the audience is to see through and understand the rationale behind these biasness.

April 5, 2009
Foreign media spread lies

YANGON – A SENIOR figure in Myanmar’s military regime has accused foreign media of spreading lies to undermine national unity, a state-controlled newspaper said on Sunday.

Adjutant Gen. Thura Myint Aung said powerful countries use their media to ‘disseminate fabricated news reports,’ the Myanmar Ahlin Daily newspaper reported.

‘Some countries … are using the media as a weapon to weaken unity, to disrupt stability and to deceive the international community,’ it quoted Myint Aung as saying in a speech Saturday marking the 14th anniversary of state-run Myawaddy Television.

He stressed the need for state media to counter foreign reports and urged the staff of Myawaddy to be ‘loyal to the country.’ He did not single out any country or media outlet in his criticism.

Myanmar, also known as Burma, tolerates little dissent, and all major media are controlled by the state.

Some citizens therefore depend on radio broadcasts from abroad to get much of their news. Although listening to foreign stations is not illegal, it’s frowned upon by the regime as a defiant gesture.

Last year, the government accused foreign media of distortions in their coverage of Cyclone Nargis, which struck Myanmar on May 2-3 and left nearly 140,000 people dead or missing.

Myanmar has been under military rule since 1962. The current junta – formally known as the State Peace and Development Council – seized power in 1988. It called elections in 1990, but when opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy party won by a landslide, the military refused to hand over power.

Suu Kyi has spent 13 of the last 19 years under house arrest. — Ap

Mindef Speaks, All Listen

The late doctor’s bond must have been scary since he was supposed to be chained up for 15 years.  But I’m sure he signed up for the bond and job eyes open, just that how the job turned out did not meet his expectations. The troubling thought is that the job was supposedly so terrible that he decided to commit suicide in a foreign country.  A doctor, possibly with a bright post-SAF career after him, chose to end his life because he hated his work is a sign of an irrational decision if you ask anybody on the street. There is probably more to the tragedy. There is something not being said by both sides despite Mindef’s attempt to exonerate itself.

Mindef clarifies reports on Capt (Dr) Ooi

Mindef clarifies certain facts regarding media reports on Capt (Dr) Ooi’s service in the SAF and his scholarship bond.

Mon, Mar 23, 2009
Mindef

THE Ministry of Defence (Mindef) and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) extend our deepest condolences to the family of the late Captain (Dr) Allan Ooi Seng Teik.

Mindef wishes to clarify certain facts regarding media reports on Capt (Dr) Ooi’s service in the SAF and his scholarship bond.

Capt (Dr) Ooi joined the SAF in January 2000 and was sponsored under the Local Study Award (Medicine) for his medical studies at the National University of Singapore, and completed his housemanship in April 2006. Thereafter, he completed the SAF’s Medical Officer Cadet Course and was commissioned in August 2006. He then served for 11/2 years in the Air Force Medical Service. He was sponsored by the SAF for further specialist training in Aviation Medicine in Britain in January last year.

Upon completing this course in July last year, he was posted to the Aeromedical Centre to perform clinical and staff work. He was scheduled to go for his hospital posting at the end of this year.

While serving at the Aeromedical Centre, Capt (Dr) Ooi informed his superior that he was unhappy at work and was considering leaving the SAF. On Oct 3 last year, his superior offered him the option of posting to an appointment he would be interested in. He agreed to consider this option and get back to his superior in two weeks’ time. However, he did not do so. He also did not submit any application to leave the SAF. He went Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL) on Oct 15 last year.

Recipients of the Local Study Award (Medicine) are required to serve a 12-year bond after completing their housemanship. Of these 12 years, six years will be spent in hospitals to acquire clinical competency in fields needed by the SAF. The other six years will be spent in command and staff positions with the SAF Medical Corps, performing duties such as the clinical care of SAF servicemen and professional development of military medicine.

SAF officers who take up sponsorship have a responsibility to serve the full period of their bonds as substantial resources and time have been devoted to training them. Otherwise they will leave gaps in key positions in the SAF.

Nevertheless, if an officer wishes to leave the service early, he can submit an application through a proper process. Approval to leave the service will be granted only in strong and extenuating circumstances.

Colonel Darius Lim
Director, Public Affairs
Ministry of Defence

“Stupid” and Reading Between the Lines

With the rioting over the use of the Malay language in pedagogy in Malaysia, the insistence on English and Mandarin being the lingua franca for the Singapore Chinese is also an emotive topic on identity and language. The Principal Private Secretary to MM Lee’s comments on the exclusive dominance of Mandarin over Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese etc (also of Tamil over Malayalam, Hindi etc and Malay over Boyanese, Javanese etc) must not be seen in a vacuum. This month, the book on One People, One Language, Many Mother Tongues which is sanctioned by MM Lee himself, will be available. This timely controversy and unusually strong language by the MM Office is good publicity as the backdrop for a book launch. Any marketing guru can tell you that.

Foolish to advocate the learning of dialects

I REFER to yesterday’s article by Ms Jalelah Abu Baker (’One generation – that’s all it takes ‘for a language to die”). It mentioned a quote from Dr Ng Bee Chin, acting head of Nanyang Technological University’s (NTU) Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies: ‘Although Singaporeans are still multilingual, 40 years ago, we were even more multilingual. Young children are not speaking some of these languages at all any more.’

To keep a language alive, it has to be used regularly. Using one language more frequently means less time for other languages. Hence, the more languages a person learns, the greater the difficulties of retaining them at a high level of fluency.

There are linguistically gifted individuals who can handle multiple languages, but Singapore’s experience over 50 years of implementing the bilingual education policy has shown that most people find it extremely difficult to cope with two languages when they are as diverse as English and Mandarin.

This is why we have discouraged the use of dialects. It interferes with the learning of Mandarin and English. Singaporeans have to master English. It is our common working language and the language which connects us with the world.

We also emphasised the learning of Mandarin, to make it the mother tongue for all Chinese Singaporeans, regardless of their dialect groups. This is the common language of the 1.3 billion people in China. To engage China, overseas Chinese and foreigners are learning Mandarin and not the dialects of the different Chinese provinces.

We have achieved progress with our bilingual education in the past few decades. Many Singaporeans are now fluent in both English and Mandarin. It would be stupid for any Singapore agency or NTU to advocate the learning of dialects, which must be at the expense of English and Mandarin.

That was the reason the Government stopped all dialect programmes on radio and television after 1979. Not to give conflicting signals, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew also stopped making speeches in Hokkien, which he had become fluent in after frequent use since 1961.

Chee Hong Tat
Principal Private Secretary
to the Minister Mentor

The Culture of Fear Revisited

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan has effectively tried to bring back good old school Big Brother intimidation.

Dr Balakrishnan said: “Anonymity in cyberspace is an illusion. You will remember in 2007, we prosecuted three persons under the Sedition Act because of the blogs they put up which denigrated the religion of one of our communities in Singapore.

“The reason we did that was to send the message that your words have an impact; if need be, we can identify you, and if we have to, we will be prepared to prosecute you.”

I thought that the PAP was trying its hardest to put on a smile and cuddle up with netizens with talk of light touching since 2006. My instincts that the smile is just for show is right, especially recently when there are rumours of an election coming, the PAP is discarding its image of the understanding guy tolerant of the online rants.

Certainly the Minister was talking about online hate speech but are you positive that he was not referring to anti-PAP rhetoric as well? Only a few weeks ago MICA Senior Minister of State RADM Lui Tuck Yew lambasted netizens for their lack of moral compass when a PAP MP was burnt by a madman. I took his intentions at face value as some netizens were horrendously callous actually. However, with Dr Balakrhishnan’s obvious threat of legal fire and brimstone fresh in my mind, RADM Lui was probably referring to netizens’ lack of political compass, not moral compass.

The old vs new media battle is again raging and will get even more intense. The PAP after watching the Obama social media magic and Barisan Nasional’s painful loss of a handful of states to the opposition last year, is taking stock of how to manipulate the new media to its advantage.

Government building capabilities to tap on new media at next GE

SINGAPORE : The Singapore government is set to actively engage and leverage on the new media at the next General Election due in 2012.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the government is already building up some capabilities. But he added there is still a place for traditional media to be the trusted source of information.

He was speaking exclusively to Channel NewsAsia’s chief editor Debra Soon, on the evolving media landscape, ahead of the channel’s 10th anniversary in March.

Citing the US as an example, Mr Lee noted that US President Barrack Obama’s team not only put out messages on the Web during his campaign, but also operated on the Web as a means of working together, organising and raising money.

Noting that that is the way the new generation operates, Mr Lee said it is going to happen in politics too.

Already, the Singapore government has announced initiatives to relax rules governing new media.

For example, it is actively trying to engage citizens online through portals such as REACH, the government’s feedback arm, as well as new media outlets such as Facebook.

Moving forward, Mr Lee said what is needed are young MPs who are comfortable with the new media landscape.

He said: “We are still learning. It is not easy to make this transition. It is like going from sea to land or vice versa, you are changing your medium and you need to get comfortable with it. But we are working hard at it.”

However, Mr Lee noted there will always be a role for traditional media to present trusted, unbiased and informed opinions – even if some may feel that information generated by traditional media is rather tame compared to what is out there online.

He noted that the traditional media has seen an increase in viewership and readership, despite growth of the new media.

Mr Lee said: “Well, there is a place called the Wild West and there are other places which are not so wild. And the new media – some of it are Wild West and anything goes and people can say anything they want, and tomorrow take a completely contrary view. And well, that is just the way the medium is.

“But even in the Internet, there are places which are more considered, more moderated where people put their names down and identify themselves. And there is a debate which goes on and a give and take, which is not so rambunctious but perhaps more thoughtful. That is another range.”

On the role of a news broadcaster like Channel NewsAsia, which is marking its 10th year on-air, Mr Lee said there is a need for a channel which is not wearing what he termed “Western spectacles”.

He said: “We felt there was scope for perspective from Asian eyes. Not to put over an ideology or a doctrine, but just present the facts, less the Western spectacles. And I think that is what Channel NewsAsia has tried to do and with some reasonable success.”

The challenge, said Mr Lee, is to be able to boil down information and present news neutrally out of Singapore.

So Much for the Bloggers’ Association

I don’t think it is a united we stand divided we fall argument here. This group of bloggers with aspirations did not get it right from the start. The president, Jayne Goh, the blogger at East Coast Life, seemed like an angry insecure person with little grip on reality. The association started with much pomp but then it was hilariously downhill all the way from then on, and the association rapidly imploded. She tried to be exclusive about membership, charging membership fees and even claiming that the association can represent Singapore bloggers at one point. Other group blogs like The Online Citizen, New Sintercom, Singapore Angle, Singapore Enquirer, Tomorrow, etc have never made the suicidal leap of faith to say that they represent Singapore blogs. This incident puts into perspective anything she comments in her blog from the past and also in the future. Which criticism is fueled by petty personal complaints rather than facts?

8 drop out of Bloggers Association
Tuesday • February 3, 2009
Alicia Wong
alicia@mediacorp.com.sg

LESS than a month after the Bloggers Association (Singapore) was officially formed, eight founding members have stepped down, leaving president Jayne Goh and secretary Wilfrid Wong at the helm.

The sudden departures mostly stem from the negative response to the association and personal commitments, said Ms Goh, who admitted: “There are quite a lot of disagreements as well, on the way the association is run and on my conduct.”

After Today first broke the news about the association, netizens reacted with a flurry of criticism. Some questioned the $110 registration and membership fee, others felt it did not have the legitimacy to represent the blogosphere. Ms Goh, 42, responded with comments posted on blogs and other online mediums.

“(Some) felt it was a big PR disaster. (Members) felt I should not have burst out and scolded back.

“It looked ugly because that’s not what our association is trying to portray … the president should behave as a role model. But if my members are being attacked, I should be able to protect them,” she told Today.

While not regretting her actions, Ms Goh said she would “try to restrain myself next time”.

The eight who stepped down will still be considered as ordinary members, said Ms Goh. But one former member, who declined to be named, said those who dropped out were not consulted on this.

Referring to how Ms Goh had reacted to the criticism, the blogger said: “With any committee, the leadership, respect and direction is very important.”

Former vice -president for operations, who blogs as Mr Endoh, said on his site that his decision to drop out from the association had to do with “internal issues” and work commitments, rather than flak from the blogosphere.

Blogger Paddy Tan, who was the association’s marketing director, wrote: “I don’t see it going the way it ought to be, with the original vision and direction going differently.”

He alluded to “top-downdecisions made by a few”, saying that everyone ought to have been involved in the decision-making.

According to Ms Goh, the association has some 10 volunteer bloggers who have offered to help out, such as in designing the blog template. Even so, the departure of eight committee members has slowed down the association’s progress “by one or two months”, she said.

“Our top priority now is to re-group and build a strong team … Our objectives as written in the constitution remain unchanged. It is the execution that is going to be improved this time,” wroteMr Wong on the group blog.

One lesson the association has learnt, said Ms Goh, is that instead of trying to bring together the whole blogging community, it will concentrate on “our niche” of small, independent bloggers.

“We don’t see it as a doomed association just because we started off on a shaky foundation,” she added.

Democracy in Singapore

Wall Street Journal’s opinion piece on Lee vs Chee. “But at least, thanks to the Internet, they are able to read the exchange and make up their own minds.” The best statement made in that article as we wade through the arguments posited from all sides. By why is democracy in Singapore always about Dr Chee vs the PAP? That simplifies the whole debate too much and makes it seem that only Dr Chee is the champion of “democracy” in Singapore. That certainly cannot be the truth isn’t it as nobody should have the monopoly on what democracy is all about – not the PAP, not Dr Chee. What about the Workers’ Party, who seem to have been deliberately written off by the international media, although that party is in the best position in the past few years to dislodge the PAP from a GRC even.

Democracy in Singapore
26 June 08

Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore can rightly be proud of many achievements, but full democracy is not one of them. The city-state he founded in 1965 and led as Prime Minister until 1990 is economically prosperous and its citizens enjoy a range of freedoms. Political dissent is not among them.

Which makes a recent David vs. Goliath exchange between one of the country’s few opposition politicians and Mr. Lee worth noting. The dialogue took place in a courtroom and is therefore privileged – which means we can report on it without risking a lawsuit, which Mr. Lee often files against critics. Audio files are available on the Singapore Democratic Party’s Web site, and a partial transcript is available at Singapore Rebel, an independent blog.

The setting was a hearing to assess damages against Chee Soon Juan, head of the Singapore Democratic Party, and his sister and colleague, Chee Siok Chin. In 2006, the Chees lost a defamation suit brought by Mr. Lee and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, over an article they published in their party newsletter that was interpreted by the court to imply corruption on the part of the government. In last month’s hearing, the elder Mr. Lee, who holds the title of Minister Mentor, was cross-examined by Mr. Chee, who was representing himself.

Mr. Chee is no orator, and on one level the dissident was no match for the eloquent Mr. Lee. But when the subject turned to the moral underpinnings of democracy – freedoms of speech, assembly and association – the debate went game, set and match to Mr. Chee.

Mr. Chee set out his philosophy while questioning Mr. Lee: “What I’m interested in is justice, the rule of law, because ultimately it is not about you, Mr. Lee. It is not about me. It’s about the people of Singapore, it is about this country and everything we stand for. You and I will pass on, but I can tell you, the practice of the rule of law, the entire concept of justice, democracy – that is going to last for all eternity.”

Mr. Lee didn’t respond directly to those assertions, choosing instead to cite the International Bar Association’s decision to “honor” Singapore by holding its annual conference there last year and noted a letter from the association’s president saying “how impressed they were by the standards they found to obtain in the judiciary.”

Elsewhere in the hearing, Mr. Lee defended his string of defamation suits against opposition politicians and the press: “They know me by now,” Mr. Lee said, referring to the people of Singapore, “that if anybody impugns the integrity of the government, of which I was the prime minister, I must sue.”

He went on: “There are various parts of this government which do not comply with Western practices, including the law of libel. But it is a system that has worked.” Mr. Lee has never lost a libel suit. He and his son are currently suing the Far Eastern Economic Review, a sister publication of this newspaper, and its editor, Hugo Restall.

Our reading is that the Minister Mentor sounded more than a tad defensive – no less so than in his characterization of Mr. Chee, who has been bankrupted as a result of lawsuits by Mr. Lee and other politicians. He called Mr. Chee, a “liar, a cheat and altogether an unscrupulous man.” Not to mention “a near-psychopath.” Mr. Chee, for his part, referred to Mr. Lee as a “pitiable figure.”

It’s hard to know what Singaporeans make of all this. Mr. Lee is widely revered as the father of their country, and Mr. Chee is often scorned for his aggressive tactics. But at least, thanks to the Internet, they are able to read the exchange and make up their own minds.

So, too, in the case of Gopalan Nair, which is making its way through the courts now. Mr. Nair is a former Workers’ Party candidate. He is now a U.S. citizen and online advocate for media freedom in Singapore. He traveled to the city-state to attend Mr. Chee’s hearing last month and recorded his thoughts on his blog, where he expressed his contempt for the court proceedings and challenged Mr. Lee to sue him.

On May 31, he was arrested and interrogated. On June 2, he was charged with insulting Judge Belinda Ang, who presided over the Chee hearing, by email. He was released on June 5, six days after his initial arrest, and charged on June 12 with insulting another judge in a separate, 2006 email. Last week, the court changed the first charge and specified that the offending remarks about Judge Ang were made on a blog, not by email.

Mr. Nair’s case is scheduled to go to court in mid-July. Meanwhile, Mr. Chee was just released from jail, where he served 11 days for “scandalizing” the court during his questioning of Mr. Lee. His sister served 10 days. The court has yet to set the amount of monetary damages in the defamation case. When it does, we’ll know the price of political dissent these days in Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore.