Minority Report
Two apparently unrelated events happened these few days. Underneath the events, however, was the crucial issue of Malay representation and engagement by Singapore political parties.
Abdul Salim Harun, who contested in Ang Mo Kio GRC the last GE, resigned from the Workers’ Party. He was the most prominent Malay community representative in the WP in 2006, and that party’s attempt to challenge the PAP’s dominance in fielding Malay candidates. His resignation was “not unexpected” as he was supposedly open to a more aggressive advocacy, something contrary to WP’s centralist inclinations.
On the other side of the field, Fatimah Lateef from Marine Parade GRC was depicted as one who could not connect with the temple elders in her ward. SM GOh Chok Tong felt that the Straits Times’ report on the new MPs and their weaknesses tarnished Fatimah’s image as an effective MP and he “disliked the inaccuracy“.
With Abdul gone from WP, the WP has to find a new poster boy to give the party a multi-racial image. Getting someone from the minority group is vital in a contest for any GRC. Parties like the WP already have a hard time in recruiting people as compared to the PAP and a Malay criterion in a candidate makes the recruitment all the more harder. The impact of Abdul’s resignation is not slight at all. The PAP’s problem is at a higher level. They always managed to recruit Malay professionals to stand for elections but now their issue to impress is whether these Malay professionals can rally the ground regardless if the constituents are non-Malay. The allegation that Fatimah could not engage temple elders is a politically dangerous doublewhammy. Fatimah could not only interact with the Chinese, she also could not connect with people from the temple. Goh Chok Tong and the PAP could not accept this insinuation.
WP will now double efforts to find a Malay MP candidate. Similarly, PAP will now double efforts to make sure the new Malay and other minority MPs give the impression that they have good rapport with the constituents regardless of race, language religion.
Kirkpatrick Fined
Did we think that there would be any other conclusion? The surprising twist was that the AGC decided to drop charges on 2 other editors, Mr Daniel Hertzberg and Ms Christine Glancey. The government has some sense after all despite their decision to send a message to the repeat offender, Melanie Kirkpatrick. They already made their point by fining Dow Jones Publishing for contempt of court.
Philip Jeyaretnam was the lawyer for Melanie Kirkpatrick. Maybe one day Philip might go into politics after all.
WSJ deputy editor fined $10,000
Friday March 20, 2009
Leong Wee Keat
weekeat@mediacorp.com.sg
AS A features editor of The Asian Wall Street Journal, she was fined $4,000 for contempt of court in 1985.
Twenty-four years on, Ms Melanie Kirkpatrick — now a deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page — was fined $10,000 yesterday after she was found guilty of the same offence again.
Ms Kirkpatrick took editorial responsibility for three articles published in The Wall Street Journal Asia (WSJ Asia) between June 26and July 15 last year.
Last November, the Journal’s publisher, Dow Jones Publishing Company (Asia), was found to be guilty of contempt of court and was ordered to pay a $25,000 fine.
At yesterday’s hearing, Ms Kirkpatrick did not contest against the High Court’s application of the meanings accorded to the three articles. Principal Senior State Counsel David Chong, who represented the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), argued that Ms Kirkpatrick was a repeat offender who played “a significant part” in last year’s contempt case.
But Ms Kirkpatrick’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Philip Jeyaretnam, argued that his client “had no intention or desire to undermine any institution in Singapore, including the Singapore judiciary and its individual judges”.
Senior Counsel Chong countered that Ms Kirkpatrick “has not apologised nor stated explicitly that she accepts that the courts of Singapore apply the law of Singapore without fear or favour”. She should be fined $25,000, he argued.
While he noted that she did not offer an apology, Justice Tay Yong Kwang said there were two differences between Ms Kirkpatrick and Dow Jones Publishing Company cases: First, she was a second-time offender while the publisher was a third-time offender. Second, she did not contest the articles were in contempt of court, unlike the publisher.
Ms Kirkpatrick, who is now based at the Journal’s head office in New York, was also ordered to pay $10,000 for legal costs.
Mr Chong informed the Court that the AGC would discontinue contempt proceedings against two other WSJA’s Hong Kong-based editors, Mr Daniel Hertzberg and Ms Christine Glancey.
Another WSJ Opinion, Another Court Case, Another Farce
The government is taking WSJ to court again, rather than let their hollow victory rest and move on. Singapore’s court already fined WSJ $25,000 last November for contempt of court over its blatant pro-Chee Soon Juan articles. In the latest twist of the perennial FEER or WSJ vs PAP battle with Chee Soon Juan as the provocateur and pawn at the same time, the court is now zeroing on the editor of the WSJ, Melanie Kirkpatrick. If it is any comfort to Melanie, the politicised legal attacks are also being dropped on international editor Daniel Hertzberg and managing editor Christine Glancey.
Sure do whatever is Machievallian to “punish” the foreign media for their biased support of only Chee Soon Juan and not the other opposition giants in Singapore, however spiteful that so-called punishment is. Nevertheless, singling out individuals in WSJ for further raps on the hand is overkill, and therefore rather counter-productive in terms of Singapore’s political image. Another sign that the PAP is clueless about how to stay on in power.
March 14, 2009
WSJ editor to face contempt
A-G taking action for articles that ’scandalise the Singapore judiciary‘
By Zakir Hussain
THE Government is taking a senior editor of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) to court, accusing her of being in contempt of court in three articles published last year.
In the High Court yesterday, Justice Tay Yong Kwang granted an application by the Attorney-General to start proceedings against Ms Melanie Kirkpatrick, the deputy editor of the New York-based financial daily’s editorial page.
In court documents seen by The Straits Times, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) said it was initiating proceedings against her for ‘actions which resulted in the publication and distribution’ of articles that ‘contained passages that scandalise the Singapore judiciary’.
The articles were published in June and July last year in the editorials and opinion section of the WSJ Asia – which is the WSJ’s sister paper.
In the court documents, the AGC noted that the publisher informed it that Ms Kirkpatrick supervised and had oversight of that section. It understood this to mean she had ultimate editorial responsibility for the section.
The AGC’s move comes three months after Dow Jones Publishing (Asia), which publishes the WSJ Asia, was found in contempt of court for the same articles.
The first article was an editorial on Singapore’s democracy, arising out of a hearing in May last year to assess damages that Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan and others had to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew for libel.
The second was a letter from Dr Chee in reply to a rebuttal of that editorial by MM Lee’s press secretary.
The third article was another editorial, on the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute’s report on the Singapore judiciary.
Last November, Justice Tay found, among other things, that the articles alleged bias and lack of independence on the part of the judiciary.
The Death of Dialect
If you are Chinese, Mandarin is your alloted Mother Tongue, regardless if you speak Hokkien, Cantonese, Baba Malay, English, Teochew, Hakka, Hainanese etc at home. The draconian tabula rasa language policy was one driven by pragmatism and has not been challenged since the 60s perhaps. An old ST forum letter, nicely argued to show us that there is an undercurrent of the need to relook this Mandarin-only policy. Can the clans be an agent of change in reviving interest in dialect as an extra curriculum in schools?
STRAITS TIMES
March 17, 2007
Dialect has made Singapore Chinese culture rich and colourful, but it is at risk of dying out
I HAD the privilege of growing up speaking English, Mandarin and dialect. However, dialect (meaning spoken Chinese or fangyan) is at risk of dying out and little is done to conserve and promote this integral part of local Chinese ethnicity.
If conservation of historical sites is given immense support because they are important to local culture, more should be done for dialect. Dialect has profoundly influenced local Chinese culture in numerous ways. From our dialect-inspired dishes to native lingo, dialect has made Singapore Chinese culture so rich and colourful.
As a mother, I am concerned that the global blah of TV, fast food, Internet and so on is diluting the appreciation of our roots. The local situation is worsened with increasingly more children raised by foreign maids. Local children are sent to countless enrichment classes for advancement, but given little time to learn their cultural heritage. We cannot stop modernisation, yet it is eroding local Chinese ethnicity rapidly. Many minority dialects here have dwindled or are already completely lost.
Beyond teaching our children intellectual cultural knowledge, simple dialect-speaking helps identify one’s roots immediately. Dialect is fundamental to Chinese heritage. When I started speaking dialect to my daughter, she instinctively connected herself to our family roots. Previously, our cultural roots were just ‘head knowledge’ to her. Now, she is proud that her father is Hainanese and her mother is Cantonese. She appreciates how fascinating her family history is.
Dialect links us to our roots. Many young local Chinese do not know, or even care, which dialect group they belong to. We should still use English and Mandarin language, but dialect-speaking should not be forgotten in the process. Many Chinese do not communicate in dialect to their young anymore. If something is not done to promote dialect, local Chinese culture will have little profundity eventually.
Dialect is a beautiful aspect of Chinese culture. It is not a language for the ‘old’ or ‘uncouth’. The next generation needs to see the value of dialect – it delves into our roots and reveals a bigger picture of ourselves.
Can dialect survive by itself in Singapore? Like environmental conservation, more must be done before it is too late. Everyone has a part to play. Perhaps because we are a majority ethnic group, we think dialect will thrive naturally. Unfortunately, it will not. We do not want to wait till the last breathe of dialect is spoken to realise what is authentic to us is truly lost.
Joanna Chan Yea Ling (Mdm)
Our Architecture
Like all modern cities, Singapore’s architecture is a mix of cool and crass. Sentosa is an example of something that is turning crass to cool in my book when the casino and its entertainment centres open up. Whenever foreigners or even locals blurt that Singapore’s buildings and spaces have no character, I am amazed how myopic they are. Slums and ghettos in a city do not necessarily mean character. An overenthusiastic URA or HDB still contribute to the sense of identity and also culture-character with every glance we make around us everyday. Without a doubt what entails character in a place is subjective and contested but there is always character. A seeming lack of character by itself is character if one is objective about it. Anyway read on this enjoyable oped about shifts in Singapore’s use of space and place.
Singapore’s architecture development
Singapore architecture has grown to include buildings that inspire and are responsive to its environment and culture.
by Shang Zong Wei
Singapore’s architecture has grown from being purely pragmatic, industrial blocks, to buildings that inspire and are responsive to its environment and culture.
Historically, Singapore has been well regarded for its strategic geographical location, and a government that is determined against all odds to achieve success. Both aspects have worked in sync in securing a unique place on the world map for the island nation since its independence in 1965 – though not without a stroke of luck. In the traditional Asian manner of saying, the Heaven, Earth and Man aspects are symbiotically in tune. Singapore’s architecture was literally born out of such circumstances, and will continue to evolve through such driving forces.
In Singapore, the pressing concern at all time has been about survival – that of an island without natural resources in an ever competitive world. Hence, private patronage aside, political will is of paramount importance to creating the conditions that have shaped Singapore’s architecture. From the very pragmatic building solutions at the initial stages of nation building to the recent thematic development trends, the central consideration is to make Singapore an attractive place that will ensure the nation’s relevance in current as well as any foreseeable future contexts. Perhaps in layman’s terms, it is about how Singapore can be marketed to global investors, as if it is some sort of a product for sale; while at the same time, how it can still remain a comfortable home and retain local talent.
Because it has to stay relevant, there will be constant needs to reinvent and repackage it to suit. Hence, at some point in time, sensitivities with regards to cultural roots/identities versus modernisation needs/social ills will have to be addressed. And a comprehensive mechanism of public institutions is needed to facilitate the various processes. At broad macro-levels, such are the unique parameters that nurture Singapore’s architecture.
As with all things, the development of Singapore’s architecture is an ongoing process, with many aspects taking place concurrently, intermittently or continually. While the intricacies are best left to academics, for convenience sake, one may choose to view it in the following necdotal/chronological frames:
The pre/post-independence years from the 1960s to the 1970s were the formative periods in nation building, which witnessed the development of new towns, rapid construction of mass housing blocks, utilities improvement/sanitation works, extensive public infrastructure projects and the launch of the ‘Tree Planting’ campaign to create the image of a ‘Garden City’.
Like most parts of the world, Singapore’s architecture was subject to the omnipotent influence of the ‘International Style’, then thought to be a convenient, if not ideal, solution to the urgent building needs of that time. This was evident in many of the buildings completed then, particularly the slab blocks of HDB fl ats, where functionality prevailed in a bid to eradicate slumps. Some, however, managed to transcend the superfi ciality of stylistic borrowing, and thus remained as inspiring icons to this day (for example, Peoples Park Complex, Golden Mile Complex and Pearl Bank Apartments).
Despite the economic challenges, the 1980s and the 1990s were an exciting era dominated by the mushrooming of commercial complexes, some taking on the concept of a self-suffi cient city-withina-city providing one-stop experiences. This eventually went beyond its concentration at the Orchard/Marina shopping belt to developments insuburban areas. To enhance connectivity, construction of the Mass Rapid Transport (MRT) system was commenced to complement the consistently improving public transport systems. Changi Airport’s Terminal I and II enhanced the physical interface with the world at large. Effi ciency and productivity were the keywords.
Then, there were concerns about roots/identities and buildings of historical/cultural signifi cance were taken notice of. Guidelines were drafted to ensure conservation of worthy buildings. Rising skyscrapers at the fi nancial district began tracing the Singapore skyline along Marina Bay. To bridge the learning curve, local practices partnered with foreign companies in larger architectural commissions, resulting in what some labelled soul-less architecture that can be transplanted anywhere. Construction opportunities were plenty, as such architectural discourses became active.
At the core of these discourses, identity was a dominant issue. Many argued for a return to vernacular origins in search of a tropical architectural language, culminating in heated public discussions centred around the appropriateness of the winning design for The Esplanade. Voices proposing green architecture surfaced and ideas to craft Singapore into a hub for almost everything were mooted. Some of the signifi cant developments include Marina Square, Suntec City, Millenia Walk, Singapore Post Centre, Singapore Expo and so on. From there, the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) 1998 Master Plan came to fruition.
The 2000s present a very different set of conditions for Singapore’s architecture and the world at large, especially since the ominous September 11. For major developments as well as public institutional buildings, anti-terrorism measures become a necessary consideration. On the other hand, issues of global warming have garnered enough momentum to warrant government initiatives in promoting ‘Green Mark’ for buildings. Being environmentally friendly has caught on, aided with new technologies and innovative materials. URA’s introduction of the Parks And Waterbodies Plan, and Identity Plan, is a timely reinforcement of the green movement. Even visitors arriving at the new Changi Airport Terminal III will be welcomed with lush greeneries within the building.
Besides, developments take on unprecedented scales, in terms of programmatic typology, physical size, monetary investment as well as media exposure in an attempt to secure Singapore’s relevance in the globalised context. These include Biopolis, Marina Bay Sands, Resorts World at Sentosa, Singapore Sports Hub and the Formula 1 Night Race. Interestingly, some of these major developments uncover an often oblivious, though nonetheless integral, aspect of Singapore’s architecture – the incorporation of Feng Shui (a traditional Chinese strategy in architectural making, with emphasis on improving well-being rather than aesthetics). More local architectural talents gained international recognition, while they were being readily rewarded at home with larger commissions, thereby further sealing the Singapore brand. URA’s 2008 Master Plan was gazetted to guide Singapore into the future.
If the 1960s and 70s were to be regarded as allowing the skeleton of Singapore’s architecture to form, the 80s and 90s saw its body materialising. Now that Singapore has already taken shape, its course in history on track, building will be geared towards achieving quality rather than quantity. The 2000s and beyond will breathe soul into this being.
Shang Zong Wei runs his own professional practices, Shang Architects and Shang Astrology. He also conducts Feng Shui classes at the Institute Of Feng Shui Ba Zi . For more information, log on to www.i-fsbazi.com and www.shangarchitects.com or email: zw.shang@gmail.com.
