NEWater and New Security
Singapore International Water Week came and went, and with it, the re-endorsement of Singapore’s potable recycled water. NEWater, the distasteful survivalist strategy of augmenting Singapore’s water supply, makes us significantly less vulnerable to Malaysia’s occasional threats and tantrums about cutting off water to Singapore if the little red dot turns out to be, in Malaysia’s view, “pesky” on Pedra Branca, the crooked bridge and whatever bilateral spat that ignites.
Singapore doesn’t need to put up with the Malaysians that much since we become less dependent on the 2011 and 2061 expiry of the water treaties. Pundits might ask whether being more self-sufficient on water resources might make Singapore more arrogant in bilateral relations, and whether drinking waste water, albeit safely recycled supposedly, is the worthwhile price to pay. Personally, the taste in my mouth is not that awful if Singapore can attain water security.
Singapore’s NEWater reused wastewater passes latest test
The reclaimed wastewater from Singapore’s NEWater plants passed its 12th bi-annual drinking-water test by an independent international audit panel with flying colours during the country’s Water Week.
The PUB utility reported on 2 July 2009 that the seven-member panel, which meets twice yearly, found NEWater to exceed Singapore national, US Environmental Protection Agency and World Health Organization standards for drinking water.
The comprehensive sampling and monitoring programme was established in 1999 as part of the research and development for NEWater and has been gradually expanded from 190 physical, chemical and microbiological parameters to more than 290 monitored today.
Chair of the panel is Professor Joan Rose, Homer Nowlin Chair in Water Research, Department of Fisheries & Wildlife, Michigan State University, USA,
Said Prof Rose, “We are very pleased to note that the high quality of NEWater has remained consistent all these years. In tandem with the rapidly evolving water R&D sector, the audit process has become more rigorous over the years. Even with additional parameters to be monitored and lower levels of detection through more sensitive instrumentation, NEWater still goes beyond the mark in all measures of quality. This demonstrates that the quality of NEWater surpasses international standards, and it also stands up well against the criteria established in Singapore.”
Introduced in 2003, NEWater is high-grade reclaimed water produced using advanced membrane technologies. Four NEWater plants currently meet more than 15% of Singapore’s total daily water needs.
The latest and largest facility to date, with a capacity of 50 MIGD (227,300 m³/d), is being built on top of the Changi Water Reclamation Plant. With the combined capacities of the five plants, NEWater can meet 30% of Singapore’s daily water needs by 2010.
NEWater is mixed with raw water in reservoirs before undergoing further treatment at the waterworks for supply as drinking water. The existing plan is to progressively increase the amount of NEWater in reservoirs beyond current limits.
Our First Malay BG – What was Said and Not Said
Well, the SAF is trying its best to be progressive and move Malays laterally and upwards in the SAF. The SAF since independence, for deep rooted geopolitical reasons, has been cautious about Malays in the military. They finally have a BG, the Malay community finally has a BG and Mindef can puff out its chest and say that they are opening up quite well in redefining the infamously frank machine-gun dilemma (partly borne out of worry that one day Malaysia might carry out its former PM Tunku Abdul Rahman’s threat to cut water supply and bring Singapore to its knees),
“If, for instance, you put in a Malay officer who’s very religious and who has family ties in Malaysia in charge of a machine gun unit, that’s a very tricky business. We’ve got to know his background.” Lee Kuan Yew
All good that the SAF has made a Malay and fellow Singaporean no less, a BG. But to be the Devils Advocate, besides looking at what was said, we also have to think about what was not said. What is this BG’s portfolio? Is the answer something that will perpetuate the impression that Malays are welcome and yet not welcomed in the SAF?
SAF’s first Malay general
TO HEAR Colonel Ishak Ismail, 46, tell it, his decision to become a regular officer in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) was greeted with some incredulity.
He recalled yesterday that someone asked him pointedly: ‘This is your name – you sure you want to sign on?’
He has replied in the affirmative many times in the last 28 years.
Yesterday, his time in the military was capped in historic fashion – he has become the first Malay general in the SAF.
His promotion marks a milestone in Malays’ efforts to be fully accepted in the military, a controversial issue ever since it was disclosed in 1987 that the SAF adopted a cautious approach in placing them in key positions.
Col Ishak was one of five who headed the SAF’s annual promotion list and attained the rank of Brigadier-General or Rear-Admiral (One Star).
The other four were: Colonel (Dr) Benjamin Seet and Colonel Lee Shiang Long from the Army; the Republic of Singapore Navy’s Colonel Tan Wee Beng; and Colonel Kwek Kok Kwong of the Republic of Singapore Air Force.
The five were among 464 from all three arms – both regulars and operationally-ready National Servicemen – presented with their certificates of promotion at a ceremony at Bukit Gombak Camp yesterday.
The promotions will take effect from July 1, which is SAF Day.
For Col Ishak, moving to the rank of Brigadier-General is reward for what he calls a consuming passion: Developing people to their potential.
Calling himself a ’servant leader’, he said: ‘What gets me up in the morning and gives me the passion every day is the same reason I became a regular officer: Being able to influence people to something that they may not see themselves accomplishing.’
Off with the Heads!
Heads rolling at the operations level? GIC’s loss of $50 billion has resulted in some face-saving staff shuffling, just like how Temasek’s Ho Ching was shown the door a few months ago.
When Citigroup was tottering at the start of this year and probably with the threat of nationalisation if GIC did not play ball with the US government, GIC was forced to convert its preferred shares (bought at $26.35) which pays out interest at 7% per annum, to common stock (priced at $3.25). From what I know, as Citigroup shares then were worth $1 plus but GIC was given a higher $3.25 for each share, this confusing conversion ended up in GIC owning 11% of Citigroup instead of 4%. With the nationalisation of Citigroup nowhere in sight now, GIC looks like it can slump down in relief temporarily. However, the past months since GIC bit into Citigroup and UBS have been risky ones with no real returns in sight. The GIC board has not forgotten and likely think that this is a good time as any to change those at GIC’s operations helm.
Singapore’s GIC names new president, mgt reshuffle
SINGAPORE, June 18 (Reuters) – The Government of Singapore Investment Corp (GIC), which manages an estimated $200 billion-plus in assets, on Thursday named Lim Siong Guan as its group president from July 1.
Lim, a former head of Singapore’s civil service, will also be chairman of GIC Asset Management, the largest of its three operating units and responsible for investments in equities, fixed income, foreign currencies and natural resources. The unit is also responsible for the fund’s absolute returns strategies.
Lim, 62, will take charge of organisational development at GIC Asset Management as well as sister units GIC Real Estate, which handles property, and GIC Special Investments, which takes care of private equity and infrastructure investments.
“The management changes will enable GIC to operate more effectively on an integrated basis,” GIC Deputy Chairman and Executive Director Tony Tan said in a statement.
GIC, which manages Singapore’s foreign currency reserves, has ploughed billions into Citigroup (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and UBS and has said it will stick with its investments despite smaller sovereign wealth fund Temasek’s recent move to offload shares in Bank of America and Barclays.
Singapore’s two funds have suffered from the global market turmoil, with GIC’s portfolio falling 25 percent from a peak estimated at $300 billion, while Temasek’s assets declined by 31 percent during March-November last year.
Lee Ek Tieng, 75, another former civil service head, will retire as chairman of GIC Asset Management, while former finance minister Richard Hu, 82, will step down as chairman of GIC Real Estate.
Tan will replace Hu as chairman of GIC Real Estate.
Reform not Repeal the ISA
Reform the Internal Security Act in The Online Citizen is a good read. The argument on the need to have exceptional laws in exceptional circumstances is a balanced one. Very often we come across very extreme views on the ISA where there is the rabid anti-ISA mob on one hand, and the deranged ISA apologists on the other, both citing boring shallow arguments.
Donaldson’s thesis that the ISA is good only when it is not abused brings activists, lawmakers and the state to the table. Post-911, while most people buy the idea of the ISA used on the Jemaah Islamiah militants, the ghost of the 1987 Marxist Conspiracy still haunts Singapore. From the comments in his article, most people are rightfully cynical and fearful of the powers of detention the Singapore government has and they are unconvinced that the ISA would not be abused.
ISA detainees already have legal representation e.g. prominent criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan defended one Jemaah Islamiah militant. Despite the freely used criticism of “detention without trial”, the ISA hearing is actually already a closed-door trial presided over by a Supreme Court judge. Hence, even though those detained under the ISA have rights and subject to due process, people choose to see it as a kangaroo court maybe because they want to see it as a kangaroo court. The relevance of the ISA as an exceptional law therefore hinges on whether people perceive the ISA to be justly used. Any law can be abused but yet we don’t call for the repeal of every law simply because they can be abused. Instead, the parts where the law can be abused should be reviewed and amended while the spirit of that law to protect people and property is intact.
The selling breakthrough idea brought up along the way in Donaldson’s article is that the ISA should be for an arbitrary maximum of 6 months for locals and 2 years for foreigners, and in that time, the government has to build up a case for a court trial. The different time frame is to deter foreigners from conducting activities threatening Singapore. Furthermore, if no evidence is gathered and witnesses still not persuaded to take the stand, then those detained under the ISA have to be released. This debate over detention and trial technicalities sounds like a good starting point for the pro and anti-ISA stakeholders to retain but reform the ISA.
Imitation is the Best Form of Flattery
Bloggers would have known by now that NMP Siew Kum Hong was under ferocious attack in the Internet because of his involvement in intra-Aware politics. His critics have continued the skirmishes even after the EGM early this month when the Aware Exco led by Josie Lau and masterminded by Thio Su Mien was shown the door. Lately, the NMP who was wrongly labelled as a gay issue-only MP, implied embarking on bringing his more ridiculously rambunctious critics to court for defaming him.
There is a need for slander and libel laws even in an utopia of freedom of speech. But when such legal batons are brandished in political and semi-political contexts, any local political watcher would immediately think of the PAP. A political figure is, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, expected to be a lightning rod for rumours, scandals and criticisms by both the public and competitor political personalities. Whether to ignore the attacks or dignify them with a response is a difficult tightrope to walk. Nevertheless, it is a shaky tightrope that politicians have to walk in the big top and all eyes are watching to see if he would fall. On using defamation laws rather than wit, rhetoric or ironically silence to silence critics, imitating the PAP is the best form of flattery.
NMP Siew Kum Hong makes police report against netizens
18 May 2009
SINGAPORE: Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong has made a police report against netizens posting defamatory comments about him. He revealed this in his blog. He has also requested forums which hosted such remarks to take them down.
When contacted, Mr Siew refused further comment, saying the matter is now with the police.
The latest attacks have alleged or insinuated that he had asked for and is receiving foreign funding from a Swedish politician who allegedly funds the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) as well.
They have also alleged that he is involved or associated with the SDP and may be their representative or “mole” in Parliament.
Mr Siew has issued a strong rebuttal to these allegations on his blog. He said both of these allegations are untrue and false.
He considered them extremely defamatory and criminal in nature and goes beyond anything that a reasonable person could possibly perceive as being a valid or legitimate exercise of the right to free speech.
Mr Siew stressed that he 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.
He said the only sources of income or funding that he has are from his employer and the government in the form of his monthly NMP allowance.
He also said he is not involved or affiliated or associated, whether directly, indirectly or in any other way, with the SDP, and certainly not their representative or “mole” in Parliament.
The attacks on Mr Siew first started in the aftermath of the extraordinary general meeting of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE). They have culminated in a campaign to sabotage his re-application for a second term of NMP.
A week ago, netizens flooded the REACH portal with comments about why he should not be given a second NMP term.
REACH chairman Amy Khor confirmed that the feedback unit has received Mr Siew’s request to take down defamatory comments about him.
As a general policy, while “always mindful that over-regulation could stifle participation and engagement of contributors”, Dr Khor said that like other online platforms, REACH would not hesitate to remove postings “deemed sensitive or offensive”.
As at 8pm on Monday, the discussion thread involving Mr Siew had almost 13,900 page views and more than 900 postings since it was initiated on May 1.
On one occasion last week, REACH administrators urged Netizens to refrain from personal attacks and offensive postings. After growing feedback from users and as the discussion “became heated”, said Dr Khor, REACH had removed some of these postings.
Meanwhile, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has referred to the Law Society the issue of Mr Siew’s role in the AWARE saga.
Earlier this month, corporate counsel Tongel Yeo had emailed the AGC and three other legal bodies, including the Law Society, to ask if Mr Siew had breached the Legal Profession Act by advising the AWARE “Old Guard”.
When contacted, a Law Society spokesperson said that under the Act, it “cannot comment on any complaint or disciplinary matter”.
Detention and Rehabilitation
Singapore’s rehabilitation programme for Jemaah Islamiah militants under scrutiny and favorably reported. Looking at prison systems ideally, the idea is to have a rehabilitative function, not a retributive one. In reality, the opposite is true in most criminal justice-imprisonment systems. Getting back to the main point, Saudi Arabia is one other state that has a comprehensive rehabilitation programme for Al Qaeda inspired militants. However, we can never tell if such people would re-offend with disastrous consequences.
The Best Guide for Gitmo? Look to Singapore.
By William J. Dobson
Sunday, May 17, 2009
What to do with the Guantanamo detainees? Uncertainty resurfaced last week, as the Obama administration backed away from earlier statements on U.S. anti-terrorism policies. The president reversed a decision to release photographs of alleged detainee abuse. Then he decided to keep the military commissions for trying terrorist suspects. The White House is now reportedly considering plans to detain some suspects on U.S. soil indefinitely, without trial.
As the administration struggles over the fate of the 241 remaining detainees in its charge, it may want to look to an old Asian ally for a hand.
Meet Ustaz Ibrahim Kassim, one of Singapore’s most respected Islamic scholars. His business card describes him as “Assistant Registrar of Muslim Marriages.” But Kassim is engaged in a more important enterprise. He is part of his country’s innovative program to fend off the threat of Islamic extremism. “We are not scared of [the terrorists],” says Kassim, an older gentleman with a face framed by a neatly trimmed white beard. “We know that history repeats itself, but these problems do not need to be passed on.”
Kassim, along with nearly 40 other Islamic scholars, is part of a select group of religious leaders called the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG), which is trying to rehabilitate — or, as its members say, “deprogram” — Singapore’s terrorist detainees. In 2001, Singapore’s authorities had no idea that they had a terrorist problem. But after the Sept. 11 attacks, the government was tipped off that a cell of Jemaah Islamiyah, the Southeast Asian militant group with links to al-Qaeda, was planning attacks across the city-state. In raids in late 2001 and 2002, more than 30 members of the terrorist outfit were arrested; more arrests followed. So, while the United States was filling its detention center at Guantanamo with foreign fighters, Singapore began to house its own population of Muslim extremists in its jails.
Singapore’s strict law-and-order government, which famously enforced a ban on chewing gum, may seem an unlikely candidate for believing terrorists could be reformed. But Singapore — often referred to as “the little red dot” in Southeast Asia’s Islamic sea — is in a precarious position, and its government felt compelled to take action that would not only disrupt the terrorist group’s operations, but also counter its ideological appeal. “We are what we are out of necessity,” says Singapore’s Foreign Minister George Yeo. “[Islamic extremism] is a long-term problem, and it’s not going to go away in our lifetime. The only way you can combat it is to have an immune system.”
Singaporean officials said they decided to use Islamic clerics because they were convinced that only religious leaders could “de-program” the detainees. “Once you have taken an oath of God, it will take another man of God to undo it,” a senior security official told me.
After meeting several detainees and studying Jemaah Islamiyah’s religious ideology, the Islamic scholars were disturbed to see how their faith had been distorted to recruit terrorist foot soldiers. During more than a thousand weekly hour-long sessions, the scholars worked to build personal relationships with the detainees. Some counselors said the process of de-radicalizing an extremist was similar to the one-on-one relationship that often exists between a terrorist recruiter and recruit.
The main battles were over the Koran. Islamic radicals, especially members of Jemaah Islamiyah, many of whom are born-again Muslims who adopted their extreme faith late in life, often quote from it to justify their actions. That was where a scholar’s grasp of Islam came in, and it wasn’t always a pleasant exchange. “They believe they have the right to kill. This is what they believe from years of indoctrination,” says Ustaz Feisal Hassan, one of the counselors.
As with the rehabilitation of any criminal, there’s always the possibility of backsliding. Two graduates of Saudi Arabia’s rehabilitation program have reportedly taken leadership positions within al-Qaeda in Yemen. For this reason, the RRG also counsels the detainee’s family to ensure that wrong lessons are not passed on to the next generation and to help wives, sons and daughters assimilate into the mainstream. Many families receive financial support from the government, and detainees have jobs waiting for them when they are released.
Sidney Jones, a longtime advocate for human rights in Southeast Asia now at the International Crisis Group, calls this aspect of the Singapore program a “stroke of genius.”
“In some places, like Poso [in Indonesia], I have heard it is the wives who urge their husbands not to work with the police and to keep their resolve,” says Jones. And unlike in many other countries with terrorist rehabilitation programs, such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen, the detainees in Singapore are required to continue their counseling after their release.
Today, 40 former terrorists, or roughly two-thirds of the detainees Singapore has arrested since 2001, have been rehabilitated and released. None appear to have returned to their violent past. For Singaporean authorities, the best dividend may be the trust they have gained from the city-state’s own Muslim citizens. “Singapore is the one place in the world I know where relations between the government and the Muslim community are better after 9/11,” says Alami Musa, the president of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore.
Of course, the biggest question is how we can ever know if a radical is truly rehabilitated. A detainee in Singapore is not released until his case officer, a psychologist and the religious counselor signs off. Even then the decision goes to the prime minister’s cabinet to give its approval. Political accountability rests at the top.
Members of the RRG have traveled to Iraq to brief U.S. military officers on their methods. At a meeting in Singapore earlier this year, Maj. Gen. Douglas Stone Jr., who used to run the U.S. military’s detention system in Iraq, said that 15 percent of Iraqi militants would typically return to the fight once released. Since the U.S. military introduced its own rehabilitation program, inspired in part by Singapore’s example, that figure has dropped to 1 to 2 percent.
As the Obama administration contemplates what to do with the detainees who remain in Guantanamo, perhaps they should consider talking with Ustaz Ibrahim Kassim. I have his business card.
wdobson@carnegieendowment.org
William J. Dobson is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
On the Way to Atonement
Mas Selamat, Singapore’s infamous fugitive, is in Malaysian hands since April 1st. The Malaysians will squeeze the terrorist for information on plots and cells for some time to come. Holding back criticisms for the time being and thinking of the big picture, I am glad and thankful that he is in custody.
A common initial myopic reaction was why the government made public the arrest only now. Some people didn’t guess that one main reason was probably that the arrest was hushed up as investigations and further arrests of his compatriots were ongoing. Publicising the arrest would jeopardise investigations as it would drive the terrorist cells underground.
There were also snide remarks about Singapore’s role in the capture of Mas Selamat. In the absence of details of what kind of information was shared with the Malaysians, the hasty cynicism was clearly without grounds. However, this public scorn was to be expected as the escape of Mas Selamat from ISD’s detention centre was an incredulous tale of complacency and there is no easy redemption for that agency regardless of how many terrorists it captures.
The annoucement of the arrest was made by Singapore, and not Malaysia, although Mas Selamat was arrested in Malaysia. The sentiment that Singapore was ungracious and could have let the Malaysians have that honour and credit is persuasive. Nevertheless, we would never know the context on whether there is any agreement between the two governments on who would break the news first. In the quid pro quo diplomatic world, Singapore must have indeed offered much to Malaysia for the privilege of making the announcement first. But then again inferring from the history of the cooperation between MSB and ISD since the communist days, tit for tat favours were probably routine. Singapore owes Malaysia big time.
But the road to atonement would not be so easily completed. Once Mas Selamat is backed in Singapore for questioning, more eyebrows would be raised on how exactly he escaped and the implications on whether more finger-pointing and culpability for the manhunt is necessary. Until more is made known, we just have to hold back our chagrin. The government won’t get off so easily, although it is on the road to atonement.
An Insidious Thiology
The dust is settling. As it turned out when the facts unfolded, my support swung. The old new AWARE exco was indeed mostly fixated about being anti-gay and the puppet master was Thio Su Mien, the mother of NMP Thio Li-Ann, a gay-basher at one point. The apple does not fall far from the tree.
Derek Hong pastor of Church of Our Savior already apologised for instigating his flock to support the April 2009 AWARE Exco. Putting rabid Christian-bashers to shame, Derek’s more sensible and sensitive brethren, to their credit, also chided his actions. He would probably be more careful and discreet the next time he fans anti-gay sentiment outside of the church. Thio Su Mien is fuming and silent, still smarting from the public scorn and anger at her unChristianly deceit. While AWARE, women, gays, and even discerning Christians and believers in other monotheistic faiths can be glad that secularism prevailed, this could only the end of the beginning.
The truth is rarely pure and never simple as gay Oscar Wilde would tease. There is a known hijack of a secular organisation in the AWARE saga. But there might also be the infiltration of religious and even political communities as well for all we know if we want to jump at shadows and see the Church of Our Saviour as a taste of things to come. At the way madam mentor of feminists went about seemingly mentoring and manipulating her acolytes, this is an open-ended question. She might be planning her next move already.
Changing Truth(s) in Batang Kali
Future generations rewrite history and facts, and as a result, truth changes, sometimes for the better. The Malayan Emergency version of the My Lai massacre is being re-evaluated on its facts that the counter-insurgency sweep of Batang Kali, Selangor, in 1948 was (not) a massacre of unarmed villagers. Whether the villagers were indeed Communist fighters by night was irrelevant as justice was about whether disproportionate and extreme force was unnecessarily used. At a less extreme level, the Guildford Four and Maguire Seven are infamous examples of governments overzealously locking up people and throwing away the key to show that justice is served. That is the thing with security action in times of supposed crisis when there are exceptions to the rule of law. Whether these exceptions are justified and can be rigorously substantiated still when placed under current and future public scrutiny is hard to say. Some might still and some might not. Looking back at Singapore’s history in fighting communism, what can we say?
Malaysia massacre fight goes on
Wednesday, 29 April 2009 17:31 UK
By Robin Brant
BBC Malaysia correspondent
The UK government is to review evidence about a massacre of unarmed Malaysian villagers by British troops in 1948.
At the time, Britain was war weary. But in thick, humid jungle at the end of a peninsula near the equator in South-East Asia, British soldiers still faced fierce fighting.
What was then called Malaya was a crucial source of tin and rubber for Britain’s crumbling empire.
It was on the rubber estates where an uprising was under way.
Some of the ethnic Chinese were angry at increasing unemployment.
They also resented the way they were being treated by the government of a country where they had led a resistance against the Japanese occupying forces.
An insurgency was born.
They were allied to communists in China who were on the brink of victory in a civil war.
They focused their attacks on tin mines and rubber plantations; the engine of the Malayan economy.
The Malaya Emergency lasted 12 years. Thousands died in a war which eventually ended when the Communist insurgency was quashed.
The conflict was not formally halted until a peace agreement in 1989.
The British strategy to win the conflict has gone down in the annals of military history. It was cited by advisors working with the US forces in Iraq as it tackled a growing insurgency after 2003.
But in the village of Batang Kali on 11 and 12 December, 1948, that sophisticated combination of military capability and diplomatic skill was nowhere to be seen.
A platoon of Scots Guards raided the village just outside of Kuala Lumpur.
There had been intelligence suggesting ‘bandit’ activity in the area. The British were reeling from an attack a few days earlier which left three soldiers dead.
The men of the village – unarmed – were separated from the women and children. All were questioned. It is not clear that they were ever identified as insurgents.
It ended with 24 of them being shot dead. Only one man escaped. The village was set on fire. It is claimed some of the victims were beheaded after they had been killed.
Official version
That the men were killed by the British soldiers is not disputed. Why and in exactly what circumstances they were killed is still not clear.
The official version of events claimed that the patrol of mostly newly-arrived British conscripts had no option but to shoot the men to prevent them fleeing when they tried to run into the jungle.
The unofficial version suggested that the soldiers were ordered to ‘wipe out’ the villagers. It is also claimed this may have been in retaliation for the murder of three British soldiers a few days earlier.
It was a brutal event which marked the beginning of a long campaign.
It was claimed that there was a military investigation in the immediate aftermath of the killings. All the soldiers were vindicated, but there was never a broader inquiry into any wrongdoing.
Little was known publicly about the events in that tiny village on the edge of a rubber estate until a British newspaper published in 1970 harrowing testimony of some of the soldiers who took part.
Four of the Scots Guards gave sworn testimony, confirming that the shootings took place, confirming that the victims were unarmed.
Britain’s defence secretary ordered a police investigation. That investigation was halted after a change of government in a general election later that year.
In 2008, a fresh campaign was launched for a public inquiry into what happened.
Tham Yong is at the forefront of that campaign, as she has been for previous efforts over five decades.
She was 17 when her brother-in-law was among those killed. She witnessed some of the shooting. Her husband was the only man to escape.
She wants an independent public inquiry to establish why it happened and to try to clear the names of the dead. Along with relatives of some of those who died, she also wants compensation and an apology from the British government.
Early this year, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office said there would be no inquiry.
They said there was no new evidence and no need for further investigation beyond what had been carried out both in the days after the attack in 1948/49 and in 1970.
Now Tham Yong and the relatives have turned to the English courts. They want a judicial review of that decision.
As they await the outcome of that process, the government has decided to review all the evidence relating to the shootings.
Mrs Tham is approaching 80 and dying of throat cancer. Her testimony is among those which will be reconsidered by the British government.
Her memory of the event is still vivid. Her resentment of the British soldiers is still strong.
‘Terrified’
Last year she told the AFP news agency: “The soldiers came in the evening as we were preparing our meal.
“They rounded us all up and we were terrified.
“Even though we said we were not communists and we had no weapons, they killed one of the young men in cold blood in front of my eyes because he had a permit to collect durians, written in Chinese.
“I think the British soldiers must have thought it was a communist document,” she said.
“The soldiers then told him to run away but he didn’t want to, but they pushed him and when he did run, they shot him from the back.”
Tham Yong said the soldiers then locked the men, women and children in a small room overnight.
The women and children were herded into a truck and driven away the next morning. They heard gunshots as they were driven away and knew the men had been killed, she claimed.
“We were kept away for a week and when we returned we found the bloated bodies, half eaten by animals with most of them looking as if they were running away when shot.
“Even today when I think of what happens, it hurts so much.”
The British government hopes to conclude its reconsideration of the decision to deny a public inquiry in a few months time.
In a letter sent to Tham Yong’s lawyers, it emphasised that the decision to reconsider should “not be taken as any indication, one way or another, whether an inquiry will be established”.
It is all about the Gays?
If what we read in the internet is true, the Christian Taliban have taken over AWARE and they are out to get the gays. This inference is made because some, but not all, of its prime members have openly voiced anti-gay sentiments. The inference is made also because it was assumed that AWARE would besides having an interest in women’s rights, would now also have the time to bash gay activism. The inference is made because gay kingpins like Alex Au voiced concerns and speculation of anti-gay activism became fact of anti-gay activism. The inference is made because the Straits Times planted seeds in the readers minds that AWARE was being hijacked. Suddenly the Straits Times was to be trusted categorically. But credit must be given to those in AWARE who are unseated. Over the weekend of the ST report, they managed to rally the gay community and bloggers to paint the new AWARE committee as devious and anti-gay. The new AWARE committee must have been alarmed at the just as sneaky counter-attack to their conniving attack.
President: Claire Nazar (has since quit the post)
Vice-president: Charlotte Wong Hock Soon
Honorary secretary: Jenica Chua Chor Ping
Assistant honorary secretary: Sally Ang Koon Hian
Honorary treasurer: Maureen Ong Lee Keang
Assistant honorary treasurer: Chew I-Jin
Committee member: Caris Lim Chai Leng
Committee member: Catherine Tan Ling Ghim
Committee member: Josie Lau Meng Lee
Committee member: Lois Ng
Committee member: Irene Yee Khor Quin
Committee member: Peggy Leong Pek Kay
I also think people are missing the big picture and should not focus on the anti-gay conspiracy shaped by the gay community. Furthermore, obviously people who never attended any AGMs at all would be shocked but this is what happens during AGMS from condos to country clubs whenever there is a power grab. It is legitimate and actually crafty politiking – if those in power can’t see it coming, they don’t deserve to be in power. The issue in this ousting is instead about how once the results of “democracy” don’t turn out in the way one expects, there would be cries of unfairness and distasteful underhand power games. This is to be expected of course as the losers always have an excuse, and a way to get back.
Unknowns knock out veterans at Aware polls
Caught off-guard by big turnout, longtime members lose to fresh faces
Wong Kim Hoh
April 10, 2009 Friday
SINGAPORE’S best-known women’s group, the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), has seen a dramatic changing of the guard – which some members are describing as nothing short of a leadership grab.
When Aware held its annual general meeting on March 28, everyone expected the usual: No more than 30 or 40 members would turn up at its Dover Crescent centre, and a prepared slate of candidates would be voted into office easily.
Instead, more than 100 people came, the majority of whom had joined Aware only in recent months.
And when the election of office bearers began, almost every position was challenged by new faces, who won by wide majorities.
In the end, nine out of 12 executive committee spots went to the newcomers.
One older member who won without a contest was Mrs Claire Nazar, a former corporate counsel nominated to be president by outgoing Aware chief Constance Singam.
But barely a week into her new term, and before making her first statement as president, Mrs Nazar quit suddenly this week.
She confirmed that she had resigned, but declined to say any more when reached by The Straits Times.
It is not known who will now become president.
Longtime members took two other positions: Chew I-Jin as assistant honorary treasurer and Caris Lim Chai Leng was elected a committee member.
The election results have left longtime Aware members in shock.
Former president Tan Joo Hymn, 38, told The Straits Times the big turnout at the AGM surprised her.
‘I arrived at the meeting late and found out that I was No. 100 on the attendance list. I’ve been a member for 10 years, and never before has there been such a turnout,’ said the former lawyer who is now a full-time mother.
Another former president, writer Dana Lam, 57, said: ‘There were many faces I had not seen before, and I found that very strange.
‘In previous years, even if there were new members, they would be known to one or more of the older members.’
The first indication that something was afoot came when Ms Chew, an Aware veteran, was challenged and defeated handsomely by new member Charlotte Wong Hock Soon for the post of vice-president.
Ms Chew was later elected unopposed as assistant honorary treasurer.
‘It was alarming,’ said Ms Lam. ‘How could a new member who had just joined for a couple of months, and whom we knew nothing about, be picked over someone who has been with Aware for more than 15 years?’
Some of the older members immediately began checking the attendance list.
Ms Tan said: ‘We found that about 80 of the 102 who turned up were new members who joined between January and March this year.’
Aware, a feminist group that has prided itself on being ‘all inclusive’, has never vetted the people who apply to be members.
Men can join too, as associate members.
As it dawned on them that a leadership grab was imminent, some older members at the AGM tried asking the newcomers who they were, what they stood for, and why they wanted to be in charge.
They got only the briefest answers, they said.
Ms Lam said she tried suggesting that new members serve a stint on Aware’s various sub-committees before standing for election to leadership positions.
But such suggestions went unheeded as the election proceeded, with more newcomers winning executive committee positions by landslide margins.
Ironically, the old guard at Aware had been working towards changing their Constitution to make it a rule that only those who have been members for at least a year would be eligible to join the ex-co.
There is currently no rule to bar a brand new member from seeking office, and that was what happened at the AGM.
Ms Tan said: ‘We were simply outnumbered. Technically, they got in legitimately.’
She added that the way the election proceeded was so unusual, it was hard to imagine that the takeover was not a planned effort.
‘It could not be pure coincidence,’ she said.
But little is known of Aware’s new leaders, aside from the fact that they include women from the corporate sector, lawyers, company directors and academics.
Older members said the newcomers spoke well but would not elaborate on their plans for Aware.
‘When asked if they believed in equality, they kept repeating they were there to support women and to make sure they got ahead and got all the opportunities given to them,’ Ms Lam said.
Older members were keen to know if the newcomers shared Aware’s vision and values, including equality for all regardless of race, religion or sexuality.
But one outspoken new member from the floor, who identified herself as Angela Thiang, said questions about the new office bearers’ religion and their stand on homosexuality were not relevant.
Former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Braema Mathi, a two-term president of Aware, told The Straits Times that she, like many other members, was concerned.
‘If you are keen to serve, you don’t challenge every position. We do not know who they are,’ said the former journalist who is now in Bangkok doing consultancy work for international women’s group Unifem.
‘It is very troubling, more so because I’ve heard the new president has resigned.’
Almost a fortnight into their new roles, the new leaders of Aware were not entertaining calls from the media this week.
New honorary secretary Jenica Chua Chor Ping told The Straits Times a press release would be issued ‘in a few days’ and added that until then, the committee would not answer any questions.
A check showed that some of those at the AGM and on the new committee have appeared in The Straits Times Forum Page.
Ms Chua, Ms Thiang and Dr Alan Chin, a male member of Aware who attended the AGM and supported the newcomers, all wrote letters to this newspaper between August and October 2007.
In a letter on Oct 17 that year, Ms Chua said NMP Siew Kum Hong had overstepped his non-partisan role and advanced the homosexual cause by tabling a petition in Parliament to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises homosexual sex between consenting men.
In another letter on Oct 25, she took issue with a Straits Times report which said NMP Thio Li-Ann had been ‘visibly distraught’ when she opposed Mr Siew’s petition vigorously.
Ms Chua said Ms Thio had dealt with several points succinctly, with humour and passion.
Dr Chin and Ms Thiang both wrote letters to caution against the risks of promoting the homosexual lifestyle.
Meanwhile, news of Aware’s AGM has spread among older members who did not attend the meeting, as well as civil society groups.
The most frequently-asked questions: Who are the new women in charge, why do they want the leadership, and what are their plans for Aware?
Ms Mathi said: ‘The building of an institution takes many years; building its value system is even harder.
‘Why can’t they come in and be part of the process, and build it together and in a more evolutionary manner? That way, the comfort level will be high for everyone.’
Former newspaper editor and media consultant Peter Lim, a longtime associate member of Aware, said he was very surprised to learn what had taken place.
Asked why he thought a group of newcomers would want to take control, he said he did not know if it was an orchestrated effort.
But he thought Aware would be attractive to those seeking to be in charge of an established institution. Setting up a new outfit would take too much time and trouble.
‘Aware has built up its credentials over the years and achieved more than a few things,’ he said.
Three former Aware presidents – Ms Claire Chiang, Dr Kanwaljit Soin and Ms Mathi – have served as NMPs.
‘Aware is a brand name and most people regard it as the leading voice of the feminists and modern women in Singapore,’ said Mr Lim.
