“Patriots” in Court
Local news about their local boy, a US citizen but really a “Singapore patriot at heart”. So he is a Singapore patriot who decided to take up US citizenship. I am all for divided loyalties and love-hate relationships as that is a fact of life, but Gopalan’s insistence that he is a patriot just didn’t sound sincere.
He after all got a US citizenship and did not merely get an employment visa to work and stay in the US. A citizenship and all its traditional implications of oath of loyalty to the state. Gopalan’s “patriot” explanation was more like groveling in front of a judiciary which has an almost perfect track record of letting the PAP win in court cases involving critics of the government. Survival. Self-preservation. Anything to save his skin from a fine and jail sentence. But compare the “I am Patriot” rhetoric with a local US news version of Gopalan’s bravado and arrest as that of persecution of a US citizen (not a Singapore patriot).
Gopalan has bitten more than he can chew and the US Embassy has not swooped down to save him from certain incarceration (merely a matter of how long). His “I am Patriot” quote probably didn’t sit well with the Embassy. Why should they devote time to a citizen who says that he is a Singaporean patriot even if it is insincere? Gopalan’s lawyer Chia Ti Lik also cannot devote 100% to defending the former WP candidate as he has his own problems because the PAP is swarming down on its perceived adversaries.
What kind of sentence would the courts pass to show that US citizens, especially those who are former Singaporeans, are not immune from prosecution if they come all the way here to play chicken with the PAP? The PAP could have let him off and allowed him to rant in peace, a smarter political decision as they are now making a martyr out of Gopalan who is a nobody until this incident emerged. But the PAP could not curb their knee-jerk reaction to silence almost anybody and everybody and ironically making them somebodies and even charlatan “patriots” in the process.
Everyone is watching to see how the resolve of the PAP is tested. What would Gopalan’s sentence be?
Fremont blogger in legal limbo till case next month
FREMONT — A local TV news van pulled up this week outside the building where Gopalan Nair runs his immigration law firm, and a cameraman came out to videotape the entrance.
The static image of a sign out front listing business names might seem an oblique way to illustrate the story of a detained U.S. citizen. But it does underscore the absence of the man himself, stuck in legal limbo as a libel case looms against him next month in Singapore.
“No charge has been formally tendered in court, and to date no plea has been taken from me,” said Nair, whose passport was confiscated in the island nation after he criticized the government online. “The police are constantly requiring me to attend interrogation sessions.”
The Fremont lawyer traveled to his native Singapore last month to observe the defamation trial of some opposition political leaders. While there, he criticized the judge on his blog for “prostituting herself” for the government.
Nair was arrested and held in solitary confinement for days. His passport was confiscated, and he awaits a court appearance July 14. He also is accused of calling another judge “corrupt” two years ago in another e-mail.
He said the case against him could lead to fines of about $7,000 and up to two years in jail for his blog comments, which are garnering sympathy in the free-spirited blogosphere.
Margaret John, an Amnesty International coordinator who has monitored human rights in
Singapore, said the government has a history of going after dissidents by using defamation suits and driving opponents into bankruptcy for speaking out.
With print journalists wary of making waves in a nation that denies free speech, she said Nair’s arrest is the latest example of a government that has turned to targeting Web reporters.
“Dissidents are increasingly turning to Internet newsletters as an alternative to news they see in the government-controlled media,” John said. “So the Internet is now seen as a threat to the government.”
On his blog, Nair described the situation by comparing Zimbabwean strongman Robert Mugabe, who recently thwarted an election that favored an opponent, with Singapore’s ruling family patriarch, Lee Kuan Yew.
“Mugabe uses guns to stay in power,” Nair said. “Lee uses the courts.”
Although the U.S. Embassy has been supportive, Nair said representatives “naturally said that they cannot directly intervene in this matter since it is a matter of Singaporean laws and domestic affairs.”
When the charges do officially move forward, he said, “Of course I intend to plead not guilty.”
Hypocrisy Democracy
Thailand’s example just goes to show that democracy is nice as an ideal and actually so is communism as an ideal, but application is a whole different matter. Samak was elected into power. Nevertheless, the anti-Thaksin bunch still accuse Samak of being a Thaksin proxy, puppet or puppy, what have you as their own pacts could not gain dominance in parliament. Nevertheless, democracy does allow space for sore losers to gripe as they have the right to do so peacefully. Samak’s patience however seems to be stretched to the breaking point with the vindictive mob still camping on Bangkok streets.
The King and military are at the sidelines as they should be. They might have to do some calming if Samak’s government starts overturning the string of corruption court cases against Thaksin and his family. They also might have to do something if Samak is provoked to a violent crackdown by the anti-Thaksin league. Who moves next?
The hijacking of Thai democracy
THITINAN PONGSUDHIRAK
Bangkok Post
The anti-government People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) is going for the jugular. Now in its fourth week of street protests, PAD laid siege to Government House over the weekend, declaring victory but refusing to go home.
It now intends to prevent the People Power party-led government of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej from returning to its seat of power, as if such an act is sufficient for government resignation en masse.
Every step along the way since it retook the streets several weeks ago, PAD has provoked heavy-handed government responses in order to create the conditions for an extra-constitutional, extra-parliamentary intervention.
PAD has grossly distorted and manipulated news and events to its own ends, launching character assassinations and criticism of anyone who posits opposing and contrarian views, all in the name of ”rescuing the nation”.
In so doing, PAD has ironically morphed into the very object of condemnation on which it initially built its reputation. Prior to his ouster in a military coup in September 2006, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was roundly despised and rejected for his influence over and outright capture of political institutions and constitutional mechanisms. In other words, he monopolised Thai politics so completely that it engendered extra-parliamentary street demonstrations that paved the way for extra-constitutional change.
PAD is now hijacking Thai democracy in the same fashion that Mr Thaksin’s authoritarian tendencies and political party machine monopolised it. The extremist movement tolerates no dissent. It is either PAD’s way or the wrong way, which ranges from pro-Thaksin accusations and lack of loyalty to the throne to questions of patriotism.
To be sure, PAD is in a hurry to topple the Samak government because street demonstrations are expensive and at risk of exhaustion. If PAD cannot quickly force the issue and seal the game by pressuring Mr Samak to resign or by inviting outside intervention, it risks fizzling out.
For the government’s part, Mr Samak and his key lieutenants have been just as belligerent and defiant in return, fanning PAD’s flames. The brinkmanship game between PAD and the Samak government has now reached a crescendo. Something will soon have to give.
PAD would have to back off or Mr Samak would have to budge by resigning, alone or along with his ministers. Otherwise the escalating face-off between the two sides will increase pressure for outside intervention from the military.
As it now appears that PAD has political and financial backing from the highest corridors of power, the street demonstrations will continue far beyond PAD’s eventful but indecisive ”D-Day” on May 20.
And PAD’s street noises are having their intended impact on Mr Samak. His tenure appears increasingly untenable. Few doubt that he could withstand PAD’s maelstrom much longer without resorting to a hard-line response, which would spell his demise in any event. The endgame of his downfall is being played out against Mr Samak’s will.
Yet what really plagues the Samak government is less PAD than growing economic hardships and standard-of-living issues. Many of the street demonstrators, numbering in five digits in peak periods, are disaffected by rising energy and food prices, and the lack of effective policy responses.
As a result, PAD has gained some foot soldiers from the farm sector and state enterprise unions. Some of the non-PAD protesters have also staged their own shows separate from PAD. Several large mobs have occupied areas near Government House. The air of anarchy and inevitable confrontation is palpable.
The Samak government has failed to respond by sticking to policy issues. This is because the majority of the Samak cabinet lacks policy experience and expertise. In the face of adversity and rising expectations, Mr Samak and his lieutenants, such as Interior Minister Chalerm Yubamrung, are more attuned to throwing the rhetoric back at the protesters and issuing counter threats.
The only policy hands are Commerce Minister Mingkwan Sangsuwan and Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee, but their voices and roles have been drowned out by Mr Samak’s and Mr Chalerm’s fiery political machinations.
Granted, the government is fighting for political survival, and thus has less time and energy to devote to addressing public grievances through adequate policy responses.
This precarious environment has called the military’s role into question. Mr Samak is seen as close to Army chief Anupong Paochinda, who still insists on staying out of the fray. But his colleagues in the regional commands and elsewhere, especially the First Army Region with jurisdiction over Bangkok, are playing their cards closer to their chests.
In view of their lacklustre coup the last time, the army is unlikely to come out again unless there is unmanageable violence in the streets which the government and the police cannot handle.
Such a military intervention could come in two related ways. First, the army could simply impose limited martial law through the Samak cabinet’s emergency decree in the affected areas of Bangkok. The other would be another outright seizure of power, resetting the democratic game all over again.
This is what PAD apparently has been egging the army to do. But even if violence spirals out of control, it will be confined to a few areas of Bangkok. A coup would be unnecessary. Gen Anupong is not seen as pro-coup but his immediate subordinates in key commands may have other ideas. Accordingly, Gen Anupong’s role and the First Army Region commander’s movements should be watched if violence flares and degenerates.
Mr Samak has himself to blame for not being more competent on policy fronts and for exacerbating the tit-for-tat battle between his government and PAD. His position is now shaky, and PAD will keep gnawing at his personal credibility and his administration’s eroding legitimacy. His term will be shortened correspondingly. It will serve as a bad precedent and a blow to Thailand’s topsy-turvy democracy.
Mr Samak’s government deserves scrutiny in parliament and through constitutional channels and mechanisms, but not through PAD’s rabid and reckless, rights-over-responsibilities street campaign. Indeed, PAD’s success would be Thailand’s setback.
The writer is Associate Professor and Director of the Institute of Security and International Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
28 to 42, 315 to 306, Against the Whip
If you have been following the anti-terrorism detention debate in the UK and the domino effect implications it might have on other democracies, you would have guessed what these numbers represent. Just after the 2005 London bombings, Blair when he was PM wanted the detention to extend to 90 days but that idea was shot down. A compromise was reached and detention was extended to 28 days from 14 days. Now, depending on the House of Lords with their judicial function, the detention without charge period can be up to 42 days, for the purpose of giving time to the police for evidence collection ostensibly in preventive detention cases.
Once the bill becomes law, UK authorities can detain a suspect without charge for up to weeks or 42 days, from the current 4 weeks or 28 days. The Vote in the House of Commons was 315 to 306 and Brown won by a close margin of 9 votes from MPs from Northern Ireland, who probably had a historical and first hand baggage of the need for extended detention without charge. Despite the party whip, 36 Labour MPs voted against the 42-day detention bill.
MPs should have the backbone to vote against the whip. If a party can’t even convince its own members with groupthink that a policy is right, something must be wrong with the policy (or maybe the party). The UK has moved from detention without open trial to detention without charge for a number of days but with open trial. Is UK balancing shifting security and civil liberty needs better than Singapore? If Singapore’s Internal Security Act’s detention practices are put to vote in parliament on whether they should be reviewed, how would our parliament vote and how many would vote against the party whip?
Brown wins 42-day detention vote by a whisker
Wednesday, 11 June 2008
The Government narrowly won the key Commons vote tonight to extend pre-charge detention of terror suspects to 42 days… amid claims that nine Democratic Unionist MPs who saved Gordon Brown had been ‘bought’.
After weeks of arm twisting and a series of concessions, the power for ministers to exercise the controversial “reserve” power was backed by 315 to 306 – a majority of just nine.
A total of 36 Labour MPs defied the party whips to vote with the opposition against the measure (see list below).
The Prime Minister was effectively saved by the votes of the nine Democratic Unionist MPs who agreed at the last minute to march into the division lobbies with the Government. Tory opponents demanded to know if anything had been promised to the DUP.
“We won the argument. They bought the votes,” the Shadow Home Secretary David Davis told Sky News. “It wasn’t the argument that won the day, it was the whips’ operation. Gordon Brown can’t be proud.”
When the key result was announced Tory and Liberal Democrat backbenchers pointed angrily at the DUP benches in the chamber, with one Member shouting: “You were bought!” before Mr Martin intervened to restore order.
The Democratic Unionists rejected accusations from opponents of the anti-terror measure that they had been bribed by ministers.
Gregory Campbell, one of the DUP MPs, said: “It was a very close call because of the complicated nature of safeguarding the UK as a whole from the international terrorist threat and preserving the civil liberties of the accused. But we came down in favour of the 42 days on the merits of the case.”
He added: “The good thing for us is that it proves that now beyond doubt that the DUP MPs are crucial and we will be reminding them of that on each and every occasion that that comes into play, which will probably be more and more often now.”
The 36 Labour rebels were:
Diane Abbott (Hackney North & Stoke Newington), Richard Burden (Birmingham Northfield), Katy Clark (Ayrshire North & Arran), Harry Cohen (Leyton & Wanstead), Frank Cook (Stockton North), Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North), Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne Central), Andrew Dismore (Hendon), Frank Dobson (Holborn & St Pancras), David Drew (Stroud), Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme), Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent Central), Paul Flynn (Newport West), Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow), Dr Ian Gibson (Norwich North), Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Sparkbrook & Small Heath), John Grogan (Selby), Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney), Kate Hoey (Vauxhall), Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North), Glenda Jackson (Hampstead & Highgate), Dr Lynne Jones (Birmingham Selly Oak), Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool Walton), John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington), Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock), Bob Marshall-Andrews (Medway), Michael Meacher (Oldham West & Royton), Julie Morgan (Cardiff North), Chris Mullin (Sunderland South), Dr Doug Naysmith (Bristol North West), Gordon Prentice (Pendle), Linda Riordan (Halifax), Alan Simpson (Nottingham South), Emily Thornberry (Islington South & Finsbury), David Winnick (Walsall North), Mike Wood (Batley & Spen)
The Government won a second vote – by 315 votes to 294, majority 21 – to include all the new safeguards in the Bill but now faces an uphill struggle to get the measure through the Lords.
Downing Street had earlier forecast that the outcome of the vote was looking “very, very tight”.
Facing one of the biggest tests of his leadership, the Prime Minister had been calling Labour MPs personally to make the case for the extension.
In a sign of how tight the situation was, Foreign Secretary David Miliband had to cut short a visit to Israel to attend the crucial divisions in Westminster.
The row over detention dominated the day at Westminster.
At question time, Tory leader David Cameron accused the Prime Minister of “ineffective authoritarianism” by proposing to detain terror suspects for 42 days without charge.
Urging MPs to follow their consciences, Mr Cameron branded the Government’s plans “unworkable” and a “symbolic assault on liberty,” which would “trash” the nation’s hard-won civil liberties.
But Mr Brown insisted the change was needed to tackle increasingly sophisticated terrorism and accused the Tories of “opposition for opposition’s sake”.
He said he would rather act in “calmness” now than try to bring in “panic” measures at a time of emergency later.
Citing police backing, he insisted it was his duty to do not what was popular but what was right and necessary for the security of the UK.
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg accused the Prime Minister of “playing politics with our civil liberties”, and insisted the measures would be blocked by the Lords even if the Government wins backing from MPs.
When the key debate got under way in the crowded chamber, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith confirmed a fresh concession that suspects released without charge after being held under the scheme will be eligible for compensation.
Ms Smith said terrorist threat was “real and serious” and “more ruthless than any we have faced before” – raising the prospect of a radioactive ‘dirty’ bomb being used in a future plot.
“We are not proposing a permanent, automatic or immediate extension to pre-charge detention beyond 28 days,” she said.
“Instead the Bill contains a reserve power that can only be used in exceptional circumstances, only with the support of the Director of Public Prosecutions, only with the backing of Parliament in a vote in both Houses, only with strong judicial safeguards and only for a temporary period before automatically lapsing.”
Liberal Democrat spokesman Chris Huhne attacked the “feeble” safeguards in the Bill while Labour’s Andrew Dismore, chair of the joint committee on human rights, warned that far from being a “deterrent to terrorism”, the Bill could actually “make things worse”.
He said the Government had “not made the case” for change, adding: “This is not a deterrent to terrorism, it’s an investigation tool.
“It could make things worse if the consequences are alienation, less cooperation, less information, less intelligence.”
Escapes and Escapades
Jail breaks are getting common, common as Chee Soon Juan and his ilk getting jailed, fined and criticised, and common as SAF soldiers dying while on seemingly routine physical training. In the latest escapade by 2 accused at the subordinate courts, it was a mixture of brute force, guile and luck on the side of the accused, and zero vigilance by the guards at the Courts.
This time it is the Law Ministry bearing the brunt of the responsibility and not the Home Affairs Ministry, but who cares? As long as there is an escape attempt by prisoners because procedures were not followed, then the government as a whole should be blamed, especially as escape cases are fresh on people’s minds now. Mas Selamat is still on the run and it is unlikely that he would ever be captured, particularly if he has left Singapore already. That is the milestone example of incompetence at the ground level and how Murphy’s Law would take its course when the opportunity presents itself.
Human error was the cause of the recent failed escape. A guard opened the door without checking and the 2 accused made a vain attempt at freedom. SOPs are useless if the government does not have trained professionals who take pride in their jobs to make sure the systems work. From the Mas Selamat and other escapes, it goes to show that our government has unmotivated, untrained staff to do important jobs, however small these jobs seem.
While escape attempts are not unexpected as the desperate criminal has little to lose, this escape attempt because of “human error” is atrocius in the wake of the Mas Selamat fiasco. The government better train and motivate its civil servants more. We don’t want a massive jail break at Changi before real reform, not merely talk of reform, at detention facilities happen.
The only small consolation from this drama is that the 2 were caught within minutes. So at least there are a handful of motivated and trained civil servants still.
Law minister says attempted court escape result of human error
By Asha Popatlal, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 14 June 2008 1710 hrs
SINGAPORE: The recent attempted escape by two accused persons – Jamaluddin Salam and Salman Abu Samah – from the Subordinate Courts should not have happened, said Law Minister and Second Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam.
It was the result of human error and non-adherence to established procedures.
In February, security lapses at the Whitley Road Detention Centre allowed alleged terrorist Mas Selamat Kastari to escape. Since then, security systems at all lock-ups have been audited.
In March and April, the lock-up system and the security system at the Subordinate Courts underwent a thorough review and some changes were made.
“My personal view and the view of people who have looked at it is that it’s sound – the policies in place are sound and the system is sound,” Mr Shanmugam said.
But he also made it clear that if people do not follow procedures, lapses will occur.
“There are no ifs, there are no buts. It was an error, it was a mistake. I don’t think we can qualify that. There is no running away from that. It was wrong. It should not have happened. But having happened, you got to sit back and ask why,” Mr Shanmugam said.
The authorities are not the only ones asking ‘why’; Singaporeans also want to know why these lapses are occurring in the police force.
Recognising the legitimacy of such questions, Mr Shanmugam said two things will be done – first, re-look the current system to minimise the level of human errors, and second, have a strategic re-look at the flow of accused persons who are brought to court. As many as 50,000 of them pass through the Subordinate Courts system every year.
He said: “The Supreme Court has piloted a programme where many of the pre-trial conferences where the accused are involved with issues of bail… don’t even have to be brought into court.
“If the pilot programme is successful, it’s possible to look at that being extended and there are alternate methods which will focus on reducing the traffic of accused into the Subordinate Courts.”
Mr Shanmugam said his Ministry will work with the Subordinate Courts on this.
“At the same time, thousands of people use the Subordinate Courts every day. We have to strike a balance between security and making sure that the place doesn’t become so tight that civilians who are using it, can’t use it anymore.”
The minister added that other actions may also be taken when investigations into the attempted break-out are completed.
Malaysia’s Fuel Hikes Fuel Unrest
Malaysia’s fuel subsidy is now at 30 sens per litre, and overnight petrol rose by 41% from RM 1.92 a litre to RM 2.70 a litre. The Abdullah government, shaken by the unflattering results of the general election, is offering a RM 625 cash rebate for owners of cars smaller than 2000 cc. Is this olive branch offset enough to stave off public unrest? The Malaysian populace is not a docile lot and this could be the straw that finally breaks the BN government’s back. Fuel subsidy is a popular but fiscally questionable policy in these times. Abdullah’s critics are smart enough to opportunistically attack him and undermine his rule. Reducing fuel subsidy overnight such that petrol jumps up by almost RM 1 a litre is tough to accept. As the media had widely reported, an increase in fuel price would have a ripple effect on delivery costs and in turn almost all retail including food costs would go up. Separately, home electricity costs are already going up in tandem with the rising crude oil prices. Malaysia is a powder keg unless the government makes a u-turn, or a great propaganda spin.
And if BN doesn’t make a u-turn, inflation in Malaysia is only going to creep into Singapore e.g. food imports – 46% of our vegetables, 37% of our chicken is from Malaysia. This would add pressure upwards on the already rising food costs in Singapore. And if BN doesn’t make a u-turn, would there be riots and how would the unrest affect Singapore? July 12th, the massive demonstration planned in KL, would be a barometer of how bad things are.
No U-turn on Malaysia fuel hike
The Malaysian government will not back down on its decision to increase the price of fuel despite growing opposition and protests.
Domestic trade minister, Shahrir Samad, said the decision had been “wise” though he said the government was likely to absorb further increases.
A coalition of opposition parties has called for nationwide rallies to force a government U-turn.
The government recently decided to end decades of heavy fuel subsidies.
The pump price of gasoline rocketed 41% to 2.70 ringgit ($0.87; £0.44) a litre on Thursday. Diesel shot up 63% to 2.58 ringgit per litre.
Strain
The new measures are causing widespread unrest among Malaysians, who are used to the government heavily subsidising fuel and keeping fuel prices among the lowest in Southeast Asia.
Spiralling fuel prices mean the government would have had to shoulder a higher fuel subsidy bill of an estimated 56 billion ringgit.
Despite growing dissent, Mr Samad was adamant the decision was prudent.
“I don’t personally think it has been a mistake to raise fuel prices by a substantial amount,” he said.
“I think it’s wise. It is the first time ever we can come to grips with the subsidy system.”
But he conceded the government was unlikely to review fuel prices in the short term, saying domestic fuel prices would remain at 2.70 ringgit “for a while”.
Under the new system owners of cars with smaller engines will receive a rebate, while truck drivers will be given subsidised diesel to curb any inflationary consequences on the transport sector.
Protest
The fuel decision has caused protest and could prove damaging to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmed Badawi’s government, which is still reeling after shock election losses in March.
The opposition Democratic Action Party has already staged small-scale protests and PROTES, an anti-inflation coalition of opposition parties and non-governmental groups, has called for nationwide rallies to culminate in a mass demonstration in Kuala Lumpur on 12 July.
Mr Shahrir said the government was prepared to face any backlash.
“Situations like these are opportunities for political enemies. We are prepared to face the consequences” he said.
Analysts have warned that Prime Minister Badawi could face renewed calls to quit as the price hike will particularly affect the low-income groups which traditionally form his core support base.
Malaysians will also have to pay higher electricity tariffs – up to 26% more for some consumers – starting next month.
The energy prices are expected to slow Malaysia’s economic growth and consumer spending and push inflation to a 10-year high of about 5%, up from the current 3%.
Catherine Lim and The March of the Lilliputians
Catherine Lim is good at controversy. This time in her attack of the establishment published in the Straits Times Forum, her tongue in cheek reference to those punished for the escape of Mas Selamat as “little people” started a mini storm. Some people found her comment dismissive and patronising. Others saw that only the petty people read it out of context and that the writer-political commentator never intended to deride those punished, adding insult to their injury. Still, the anger at her choice of words was enough to make her come up with a clarification, but this was fuel to the fire as others screamed that only an apology sufficed. The Lilliputians were making a Gulliver out of her.
I doubt that she had malice in her heart when she chose the term “little people”. Nevertheless, she did choose it perhaps as a relatively bad taste literary flourish in retrospect. She probably regretted that term by now but because of pride and indifference, she did not bother to openly apologise for her sweeping comment. Why is it that the more self-conscious the public commentator, the harder he or she finds it especially hard to say “sorry” just for the sake of closure? This incident also goes to show that from Wee Shu Min to Catherine Lim, nobody gets a free pass and any commentator is fair game, without fear or favour, in the eyes of the Internet mob.
