The Racist Hydra
“This person has a dangerous mind and needs to be traced. He must be stopped.”
Racists lurking again in the internet. Some will get caught, others will get away, but KKK wannabes will always be around, that is a fact. It is perhaps becoming some sort of game of cat and mouse. Racists will continue to snarl, but sometimes ignoring them is the best way, denying them of the attention they crave. Today’s recent report walks a tightrope balance of narrating about supposed racism in the internet but yet did not give details. I don’t see it as sloppy reporting. It is controversially responsible reporting instead. Why give the racist something he or she wants by putting his blog contents and URL in the limelight, even though Google has shut it down.
With the new laws in place like Penal Code section 298A, I wonder whether it would be a good deterrence. A few people were prosecuted before under the Sedition Act for racist postings but it is not going to stop racism online. Frankly, taking the extreme example, if death sentences cannot deter drug trafficking via/in Singapore, I doubt the new laws to deal with racists can be anything more than symbolic of the government’ further commitment to be firm about racism in multi-racial Singapore.
What can we bloggers do about racism in the internet instead of remaining silent and shrugging our shoulders? Speak up and criticise the blogger in his comment box, don’t mention its URL when we blog about it, or even flag in to Google.
Racist blogs taken offline
Tuesday • September 25, 2007
Nazry Bahrawi
nazry@mediacorp.com.sg
TWO blogs featuring racist comments have been blocked about a week after the authorities were alerted.
Peppered with vulgarities, the postings carried derogatory remarks about Muslims in Singapore. One blog was created in August and the other earlier this month. Both were apparently created by the same person — a Singapore-based male student, if the user profile on both blogs was to be believed.
Hosted on Google’s Blogger site, both blogs were taken offline last week for violating the host’s “terms of service”. Just before they were blocked, the sites registered more than 140 hits in total.
Trainee teacher Tanveer Khan stumbled across the blogs on Sept 9. The 32-year-old immediately emailed an alert to the Media Development Authority (MDA).
Three days later, he received a reply that the police were looking into the matter. The blogs were blocked on Sept 18 and 20, respectively.
When contacted, a Google spokesperson told Today: “When we are notified of the existence of content that violates our Terms of Service, we act quickly to review it and determine whether it violates these policies.
“If we determine that it does, we will remove it immediately.”
The spokesperson added: “Blogger prohibits certain kinds of content from being hosted on its servers.”
More details on specific content that violates the company’s policies are at www.blogger.com/content.g.
In response to queries, the Ministry of Home Affairs said: “The Government has always maintained a strong stance against activities that could disrupt our racial and religious harmony and will not hesitate to take action against those who attempt to do so.”
It added: “The Police does not patrol the Internet because it is not practicable to do so. However, when warranted, the Police will inquire and investigate conduct on the Net based on specific intelligence received or information from complaints.”
While such inflammatory sites should not be allowed to exist, Hong Kah GRC Member of Parliament Zaqy Mohamad agreed that it was impossible to monitor everything on the Web.
But Mr Tanveer told Today: “This person has a dangerous mind and needs to be traced. He must be stopped.”
With the proposed changes to the Penal Code tabled last week in Parliament, a person convicted of causing racial and religious disharmony can be jailed up to three years or fined, or both. The Bill is up for debate next month.
Said Mr Zaqy: “If the blogger is found guilty, then I will leave it to the court to decide the punishment. I don’t think there should be an exception in this case.“
More than Marketing is Needed
The simplest and obvious flaw in the annuity scheme, or Longevity Insurance Scheme as the MIW is trying to market it, is that when it is set at 85 as the entry age, only 24,600 people (from 2006 data) would benefit from the supposed $300 per month payout. If it is set at above 80, 56,700 would benefit. At above 70, 194,900 would benefit (about 5% of Singapore’s population). Granted that this Singapore’s demography is expected to be top-heavy by a generation’s time, fundamentally, what is the concern?
The MIW keeps emphasising that an aging population is a worrying development, which is hard to dispute. But if the annuity withdrawal age is set too high, won’t only a minority enjoy the scheme? The higher the age criterion, the fewer the number of people would benefit, making it an ineffective policy. Shouldn’t the scheme benefit as many people as it can without collapsing? Taking care of a retired population, not the smaller population that would live beyond their life expectancy, should be the main concern for the MIW. Hopefully the MIW’s new committee on the annuity, let’s continue to use this word and reject the MIW’s “Longevity Insurance Scheme”, would give concessions on this age criterion, as the first step towards encouraging us that the scheme is a good idea and in our interest. I’m not too optimistic though.
Better marketing of Longevity Insurance Scheme needed: Dr Lily Neo
Posted: 18 September 2007 2059 hrs
SINGAPORE : There is a need for better communication of the CPF changes coming up, and better marketing of the Longevity Insurance Scheme as well.
MP for Jalan Besar Dr Lily Neo made this point when she spoke in Parliament in support of the Ministerial Statement on CPF Reforms on Tuesday.
Dr Neo noted that those who live beyond 85 will benefit from the annuity.
They will also get more than what they initially paid for.
Citing the estimates of some actuaries, Dr Neo said a sum of S$4,300 deducted at the age of 55 from the CPF Minimum Sum, when compounded at 5 percent for 30 years, would yield a payout of S$300 from the age of 85 to 100.
This means that at age 87, one would already have received more than what he or she had paid for.
And at the age of 100, one would expect to get S$54,000 or about 13.5 times of the initial outlay.
Dr Neo added, “It is thus imperative that the Manpower Ministry spares no effort in marketing these proposals well to the general public, to allay general concerns and correct misconceptions. It is crucial to the successful implementation of the policy that we market our diamonds as diamonds and not as graphite.”
Foreign Interest and Foreign Interference in Singapore Politics
When does foreign interest in Singapore politics become foreign interference in Singapore politics?
I am not a big fan of the SDP under Chee Soon Juan’s leadership, ranging from his political style and to his handling of issues. The MIW always focus on SDP’s foreign backing and about foreign interference in Singapore politics because of SDP. I think as discerning citizens we have to critically take this argument apart.
There will always be foreign groups, individuals, governments, media etc which would have a political interest in Singapore. They would reach out and contact Singaporeans as part of their interest. But interest per se does not mean interference, and we shouldn’t be paranoid. Take the examples cited in the New Paper report.
Some rush thoughts. Timothy Cooper was probably here to document the SDP march on Sunday and use it for SDP, World Rights or other activist publicity purposes. I take it as foreign interest in Singapore politics, just like Reuters, The Economist etc follow Singapore politics occasionally, and there is nothing dodgy about this. The Bo Tedards example is slightly different and higher up on the dodgy scale, if New Paper reported it accurately. Bo appeared that he wanted to be discreet about his whole involvement with SDP and private discussions with them on political lobbying in Singapore. The infamous foreign interference argument applies here? Perhaps.
The Electric New Paper
SDP CHIEF RELEASED FROM JAIL
IF he had been hoping for a crowd outside Queenstown Remand Prison yesterday, Dr Chee Soon Juan would have been disappointed.
Apart from his wife, three children and his sister, Ms Chee Siok Chin, there were only four supporters waiting for the Singapore Democratic Party chief.
Dr Chee went to jail on 4 Sep after failing to pay a $4,000 fine for leaving the country last year without permission while a bankrupt.
He was sentenced to three weeks’ jail after an eight-day trial.
In the general elections last year, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) polled just 23.3 and 22.8 per cent in Sembawang GRC and single-member constituency Bukit Panjang respectively.
But Dr Chee, its secretary-general, appears to have a following with some foreigners.
Though the rules are clear on foreigners getting involved in local politics, this doesn’t seem to sit well with the SDP.
FOREIGN SPEAKERS
In the past, the party has tried to involve foreigners in its events here.
In mid-April, it invited foreign speakers to take part in a public forum on the ministerial pay hike, The Straits Times reported.
The police rejected SDP’s application to hold the forum while the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority denied professional visit passes to the foreign speakers.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said it did so on grounds of public interest.
It said in a statement: ‘Singapore’s politics are reserved for Singaporeans. As visitors to our country, foreigners should not abuse their privilege by interfering in our domestic politics.’
On Monday, The New Paper reported that an American – Mr Timothy Cooper of Worldrights, a non-profit human rights group – was seen filming an SDP gathering outside the Istana.
When approached, Mr Cooper told us he just happened to be there when the SDP group turned up.
Now, users on an online forum are talking about a Taiwan-based political commentator who has close links with Dr Chee.
This commentator, Mr Bo Tedards, has visited Singapore several times, the last time in May, when he was photographed at SDP’s May Day Walk on Labour Day.
An Internet search showed that he is the co-ordinator of the World Forum for Democratization in Asia (WFDA), which was co-founded by Dr Chee in2005.
The Alliance for Reform and Democracy in Asia (Arda), which has Dr Chee as chairman, is also a member of WFDA.
Mr Tedards, an American who has lived in Taiwan for more than 10 years, was photographed next to Dr Chee at an Arda forum in Kuala Lumpur in2005.
Mr Tedards is also the director for international cooperation in Taiwan Foundation forDemocracy.
COINCIDENCES?
When contacted, Mr Tedards said he was at the SDP walk in May, but didn’t take part in the event.
He claimed that he and his wife visited Dr Chee, his sister and two other ‘walkers’ only during a 10-minute restbreak.
Mr Tedards said over the phone from Taiwan: ‘I didn’t take part in the walk because the number of people taking part would have exceeded four if I did.’
It is illegal to organise an assembly of five or more people to support or protest something without a permit.
During his May visit, Mr Tedards said he also held a closed-door discussion with SDP members and supporters on human rights and democracy.
Does he know that organising an indoor public forum with foreign speakers requires a permit?
Mr Tedards, who is in his late 30s, said: ‘My understanding is that these are required only for public events.
‘For private events, you don’t need a permit. I didn’t have to apply for a permit for the closed-door event.’
He said he had visited Singapore several times before, but claimed the May visit was the first time he had gone to an SDP event.
Asked why he held a discussion with SDP members despite knowing the Singapore Government’s stand on foreigners getting involved in Singapore politics, Mr Tedards said: ‘I come here for the good of the people and people of the world.
‘All people deserve their universal human rights, such as the right to speak.’
Is he saying that Singaporeans are ignorant of their human rights that they need foreigners like him to teach them?
‘No, I don’t know if they’re ignorant,’ he said. ‘Maybe not, because the Singapore people are well-educated. But somehow, they find it difficult to realise it. I don’t know why.’
Some Thoughts about the Recent SDP Walk
I read this over at The Online Citizen. The moral behind this entertaining side-story from Monday’s New Paper about the “successful” protest march – one has to be discerning about what kind of supporters one should reach out to as some do more harm than good despite the best of intentions. The Timothy Cooper from World Rights was probably there with SDP’s knowledge and consultation even, looking at SDP’s history of foreign affiliations. But he clumsily attempted to deny it despite sticking out like a sore thumb filming the handover of the letter at the Istana in a reality-TV style, making the whole affair more dodgy than it should seem. But for beleaguered SDP, beggars can’t be choosers.
Another issue that will and should come up again I am certain in future. The peaceful, and by Western standards – boring, symbolic march on Sunday occurred without violence and mayhem. This tears big holes in the fabric of the MIW’s constant insistence that almost all opposition events outside of the Speakers’ Corner are prone to a Seattle 1999 riot and must be categorically denied in the interest of public safety. The MIW’s zero-tolerance anachronistic policy on not issuing permits for opposition events will be under siege. Good.
Our Neighbours’ Nationalism and Singapore
I think this would be typical. Every government wants a good deal and more significant, want to show to their domestic audience that they got a good deal, regardless if the deal is good or not.
For better or for worse, Singapore always seems to get the good deal in bilateral negotiations with our neighbours, if the critics of the governments in Indonesia etc are to be believed. From a Singaporean perspective, that sound encouraging. The flip side is that the populist political commentators in our neighbouring countries would use Singapore as an excuse to box in their own governments. Then these governments would get upset and defensive and be on the war path with Singapore regarding Singtel’s purchase of shares in their telcos.
On the other hand , are we also guilty of nationalistic pride too and depicting our neighbours as unreasonable bogeymen in bilateral disputes?
Government ‘fails to develop healthy communication’
The Jakarta Post, Jakarta 14 .9.07
Poor communication by the government with its people and its neighbors has seen the birth of an unfavorable national security agreement and massive protests against a fuel conversion program, a university-based communication expert said Wednesday.
Effendy Ghazali from the University of Indonesia said the government had to communication with and involve its people more before making crucial decisions involving social welfare or security.
Effendy said the conversion from kerosene to gas stoves was a perfect example of the government’s failure to understand its people’s needs.
And the government’s inability to stand tall against Singapore during the latest defense agreement talks has put the archipelago in danger, he said.
The kerosene conversion project should have seen the government offer gas stoves as an alternative to kerosene stoves, rather than ordering state-owned oil company Pertamina to pull kerosene from the market, Effendy said Wednesday.
“They should let the people themselves decide whether they want to use gas.
“The government also has to stimulate the growth of gas usage by giving incentives or discounts to the people when they purchase their second cylinder.
“The people would then automatically want to use the gas stoves … but don’t force them,” he said.
Two months ago, thousands of people from Jakarta, Bekasi, Tangerang and Depok, grouped under the Kerosene Users Forum, held a mass rally in front of a Pertamina depot in Plumpang, North Jakarta.
They demanded the government cancel the conversion program, saying it would only increase financial burdens on low-income families.
The State Ministry for Cooperatives and Small and Medium Enterprises launched the kerosene conversion program last year to reduce the government’s subsidy burden, which hit around Rp 40 trillion last year.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono responded to complaints by ordering the ministry and Pertamina to evaluate the program and to introduce kerosene back into the local market.
Permadi, a member of the House of Representatives Commission I overseeing national defense, said the government had also failed to establish communication with neighboring countries, particularly Singapore.
He said the government was under huge financial constraints, which saw the country disabled when debating international issues.
Permadi said the defense agreement between Indonesia and Singapore was an important example of how the neighboring country viewed Indonesia’s government.
Indonesia signed a Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA) with Singapore this year, in return for an agreement on corruption suspects.
The defense agreement has authorized Singapore to use specified Indonesian territory for its military training programs.
“Our government’s (lack of strength and dignity) has endangered the whole nation,” Permadi said.
But the Coordinating Minister on Politics, Law and Security Widodo AS said the government had successfully promoted the public’s right to communicate their wishes through the 2004 general election.
“We now have our freedom of expression guaranteed by the law,” Widodo said.
“We also have the press to criticize the government.
“This didn’t happen before,” he said.
Indonesia’s Freedom of Expression Law No.9/1998 guarantees every citizen the right to express their opinion in public, as long as they obey the law and adhere to regulations on public order.
Political Scandals
A surprise resignation given the timing. Scandals can bring down a government and pave the way for a new one. What sort of backroom LDP pressure made him resign now, rather than later? After all, he did not quit after the July Upper House election which bloodied LDP’s nose. If that could not oust him from being PM, what else could so suddenly? What lessons for Singapore? Looking back at the MIW’s version of Singapore history, the MIW was never rocked by a huge scandal before. Perhaps the closest thing to a full-blown scandal was the late Teh Cheang Wan’s case. He committed suicide before political damage or leverage, depending on where one is coming from, could take effect.
Japan’s PM quits after scandals and poll defeat
Justin McCurry in Tokyo
Thursday September 13, 2007
Guardian
Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, said yesterday that he would resign to take responsibility for his scandal-ridden party’s disastrous showing in recent national elections, sparking a new round of political turmoil.
Mr Abe said he hoped that his departure would also end the political deadlock over the future of Japan’s logistical support for US forces in Afghanistan.
“In the present situation, it is difficult to push ahead with effective policies that win the support of the public,” he said at a televised news conference. “We need a change in this situation. I decided a quick decision was necessary, and that a further delay would cause political confusion. I find myself unable to keep my [political] promises – I have become an obstacle to fulfilling those promises.”
Mr Abe, 52, who took office less than a year ago, said he was “tired” and was losing his appetite for political conflict.
The decision comes weeks after his Liberal Democratic party [LDP] suffered a devastating defeat in upper house elections, and amid doubts among party colleagues about Mr Abe’s ability to lead in the wake of financial scandals involving several cabinet appointees.
Possible successors in an LDP leadership election scheduled for next Wednesday are Taro Aso, the hawkish former foreign minister, and Sadakazu Tanigaki, who served as finance minister under Mr Abe’s predecessor, Junichiro Koizumi.
“After the upper house election, I’ve been saying a change of policy was needed, and we need to create an environment to do that,” Mr Tanigaki told reporters.
Kaoru Yosano, the chief cabinet secretary, hinted that health concerns may also have been a factor in Mr Abe’s decision. He is rumoured to be suffering from a chronic stomach ailment.
Speculation was mounting last night that Mr Abe’s decision may have been prompted by the prospect of damaging revelations about his private finances, with one newspaper reporting yesterday that a weekly magazine had uncovered evidence of tax evasion and was due to publish details this weekend.
Mr Abe had hinted last weekend that he was prepared to resign if he failed to push through an extension to Japan’s naval refuelling mission in the Indian Ocean in support of US-led forces in Afghanistan.The Democrats, the main opposition, have threatened to block the legislation in the upper house, where they hold a majority. Their leader, Ichiro Ozawa, is said to have refused an offer of talks with Mr Abe yesterday to try to break the deadlock.
Mr Abe’s decision to announce his resignation as parliament was preparing to debate the refuelling mission, which ends on November 1, took many by surprise. He said a new leader would stand a better chance of reaching a compromise with the opposition. “I have given a lot of thought as to how Japan should continue its fight against terrorism,” he said, at times appearing on the verge of tears. “Japan must continue its fight against terrorism under a new prime minister.”
Mr Abe, Japan’s youngest postwar prime minister, began his term of office well with fence-mending trips to China and South Korea, earning him approval ratings of more than 60%. But his authority was severely weakened by a series of gaffes and scandals that led to the resignations of four cabinet ministers and the suicide of another. His fate was effectively sealed at the end of July when the LDP was trounced in upper house elections, amid public anger at the government’s slow response to an administrative foul-up involving the loss of more than 50m pension premium records.
