Regards to Mrs. Lee

Wishing the Prime Minister's mother a speedy recovery and good health.

Of Politics and Economics

As the Myanmar crisis mounts there is a lack of voices in ASEAN, perhaps particularly from Singapore when it comes to 'supporting' the military junta's style of governance in Myanmar.

Surprisingly there are no more calls of "let them handle it internally" in relation to the Safron Revolution some months ago. Back then, several countries in ASEAN repeatedly refrained from commitment to political change which would herald more democracy by proclaiming outright support for General Tan Shwe's (sp?) government.

In the current humanitarian crisis there suddenly seems a silence supplanted by words and deeds of NGOs of all hue, colour and ideological persuasion. Western nations are clamouring to get in to provide relief while ASEAN generally looks on and keeps mum. Ever wonder why?

Funny isn't it?

So the oligarchs rule a region together and openly support each other's style of governance and model of 'democracy' and even defend such 'styles' when the matter is that of political import. But come a natural disaster and the ASEAN governments who spoke up so eloquently and firmly suddenly become quietly reclusive - when human lives are at stake. So it must be true that money and power rules the world at the expense of general humanity.

All the more the Burmese should vote no to the national referendum which grants (if it is true) the military junta even more 'legalised' power (as if they did not already have enough but have to go through the motions of putting up this road show to 'appease' westerners). A vote for your stomach today leaves the future of your children in greater and perhaps triple jeopardy.

Jeopardy 1: military rule is continued and social progress is retarded since voters vote with their stomachs

Jeopardy 2: military rule is continued and international aid, if and when required, is hampered, economic growth is stunted as a result of embargoes and trade restrictions (though not with friendly countries like Singapore)

Jeopardy 3: military rule is continued and such 'threats' (natural or otherwise) to even life and limb will befall future generations going back to point 1 above

Roman strategy of bread and circuses. Except in Asia apparently we cannot even afford circuses so we just go with the bread part while wielding a huge stick. Is Singapore approaching this stage of political 'maturity?'

These three forms of jeopardy are a vicious cycle that military and other forms of oligarchs try to impress on their respective societies to different degrees. Some apparently more democratic and others less so.

In Singapore I expect that these three jeopardies will once again play out in GE 2010/11 since there appears to be no end in sight nor reprieve from internationally rising prices of staple commodties and derivative commodities. Which brings us to into the economic realm from the political.

The news today of a new 'market' being set up in Singapore today in an attempt to try to rein in prices of these commodities is a farce in my opinion. With a new 'market' comes regulation. With regulations come restrictions on entry - which usually result in the rich gaining access first, if not only. With a market mechanism also comes speculation (as a method of making money on the backs of others) which further drives 'inflation.' And the poor are left to fend for themselves literally.

Liberal economic theory is premised on inflation in a manner of speaking. In turn, the idea of a 'growing pie' is premised on infinite resources. And any sane person will tell you that there is no such thing as 'infinite resources' on planet Earth. Or is common sense not so common? Or is common sense prevalent but the will to change so dampened because of the culture and environment?

Singapore should work out a model system of redistributive justice based on the understanding of her entire population so as to meet the demands of 'sustainable development.' Not just some Ministerial hogwash on greener stuff and a literal drop out of our budgetary bucket to appease the 'greenies' in the international audience from whom Singapore craves such attention due to our inherent sense of insecurity.

Addressing the symptoms only alleviates the problem momentarily and is usually only great for fooling oneself and others in the short run until you run out of ideas. Yes, even the JV Tianjin eco-city project addresses only the symptoms! Addressing the root causes requires far more in-depth thinking, innovative thinking and a daring to challenge the status quo -- even if it means challenging international norms and assumptions! And challenging the PAP.

But this should never be the case for political participation because democracy is the only way to acheive a 100% buy-in, or as close to 100% as is possible, when it comes to changing the ways and habits of a country. And then serving as model for development for the rest of the world. The rules of system thinking (Peter Senge) apply only when democracy is allowed to work and the independence of each voter is neither compromised nor disallowed. In a 'soft-authoritarian' nation like Singapore, a systems thinking approach to long term policy design and implementation is likely to run into serious obstacles (as it relates to change management) requiring the interventions of a 'nanny state.' And thus the vicious cycle of 3 jeopardies repeats itself every 5 years or so in Singapore - as it will now do in Myanmar.

Majula Singapura!


Vote wisely.

Statement

The Workers' Party Youth Wing (WPYW) wishes to thank, once again, all participants who attended the inaugural YouthQuake forum on Vote @ 18 on Saturday, 3rd May 2008.

A full house with many new and youthful faces is testament to the timeliness and impact of this matter but more so an editorial by Andy Ho of the Straits Times (8 May 2008) perhaps alluding to the WPYW forum (as a public forum - which is factually accurate).

We agree with the arguments raised in Mr. Ho's editorial, since virtually all of these arguments were raised by the speakers at the above event and duly recorded by Mediacorp, and urge that this matter be debated in Parliament regardless of partisan standing.

We stand united for the betterment of the nation.

Watch this space for the next forum coming up on issues of national importance and their impact on Singaporean Youth!

May Day

Labour Day, May Day, ..... protests ..... rallies .... dinners .... gatherings ..... public holiday ... continual good news from our friendly local press ...

This holiday gave me a chance today to get together with a close friend's family today, May 1st, 2008 ...

Ever since I've known Uncle (my friend's dad) he has always having been an open and vocal PAP supporter. Nevertheless Uncle respects my choice to be in an alternative party and occassionally asks ... "so how's your political career coming along young man?"

The question is followed quickly by ".... you know, the PAP government is good, they know what they are doing, they have brought the country so far, you should respect them ..... and so on ..." This is a track record in the sense that ever since they knew of my participation via WP they have been 'advising' me thus.

Today was no different as we set out together in one car for lunch with the family. The kicker came really quick this time in the conversation though. No more accolades for the ruling regime.

After the regular question the shocker came in the form of " ... you know, the government is really too much. Things are so bad in the US and Europe and eventually it will hit Singapore but the government just continues to talk as if nothing is going on - a lot of hot air. They should not cause price rises so fast this year, by forcing GST increases over other increases, due to the overall bad situation internationally especially with food prices going through the roof."

"I think it is time to teach the PAP a lesson ... they are too far removed from their roots to know what is good governance anymore. I hope you guys get at least one or two GRCs the next round."

I've heard this during GE2006 on walkabouts in East Coast - then the 'landed' silver generation Singaporeans were saying somewhat the same (switching of political allegiances) though the heartlanders felt otherwise (perhaps due to the excellently timed Progress Package of May 1st 2006 which had an up to SGD $800 impact on some individual voters). The stunner this time around was that a known hard core over-my-dead-body-heartland-supporter is saying the same things. Along the same lines.

By the way, Uncle is a long time business man who is close to 70 and who has supported the PAP all his life. Uncle is a heartlander.

If GE2006 results are anything to go by WP might have walked into perhaps a few SMCs had they not been under the guise and protection of GRCs. And oddly enough, these 'could have been SMCs' were primarily landed. Ironically for WP we lost relatively 'heavily' in the heartlands. For whatever reasons those might be (you should have, by today, received a nicely printed 2 page flyer on how much Singapore bonus you and your family are going to receive this year - though if you are landed the amount is close to zero).

So you see Dear Mr. Goh Chok Tong, we have the numbers too though the local press has not been favourable of publishing how these numbers are gotten whether by PAP or otherwise. So let me give the press a hand here.

FYI to the public, these numbers are collatable at the voting precinct level of some 3,000 individuals per 'precinct' on the night of polling when votes are counted by civil servants. I was witness to such counting, confirmation and sealing of ballot boxes containing counted votes which were then delivered direct to the High Court vault. The voter register is also dumped into these boxes together with the voting slips. No individual information is available at any point in time during the entire process. And nobody has the time of day or night to go through >120k voting slips to pick out particular voters!

Shall we use the same tools to level the playing field in the future when the landscape looks a little different?

Are we crossing the social and societal 'divide' now where the social movement, usually starting with the 'landed gentry' and flowing down several years later into the bulk of society, is gaining momentum for political alternatives?

I predict the next GE (legally by 2011) will occur either in the month of May or October given that our money (CNA conveniently converted this phrase into "the Government's money" during GE 2006) is given back to us these two months as a matter of practice since GE2006.

Majulah Singapura!

Should Countries Trade with Abusive Regimes?

Should a First World country like Singapore continue supporting oppressive regimes like Myanmar? And where should we stand on China vis-a-vis Tibet? Do we export arms and ammunition to conflict regions?

Are we ready to stand by our beloved crescent moon and five stars on a background of red and white? Internally? Externally? Given our inextricable global position and interactions what do these 'oppressive' regimes bode for the sustainability of OUR pledge?


"We, the citizens of Singapore,pledge ourselves as one united people,regardless of race, language or religion,to build a democratic societybased on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness, prosperity andprogress for our nation."


Bad Business: Why Companies Shouldn't Trade with Abusive Regimes
Published: April 30, 2008 in Knowledge@Wharton

Is selling police equipment to a notoriously brutal government tantamount to assisting in torture?

William Schulz believes that it can be, and that these types of sales are one of the principal ways in which businesses can entangle themselves with torturers. Schulz, former executive director of Amnesty International, spoke during a presentation last week sponsored by Wharton's Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research.

Seldom are businesses in the developed world implicated directly in torture, but too often they avert their eyes as their products, purchases or independent contractors support abuses, according to Schultz, who is now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank based in Washington, D.C. He cited the case of Taser International, the Scottsdale, Ariz., manufacturer of "stun guns." Taser's devices, sold domestically to police departments and private citizens, shoot electrified barbs that cause a flash of intense pain and momentary muscle failure. Police use them in place of pistols and clubs to protect themselves and subdue unruly people.

The U.S. Commerce Department has documented the sale of Tasers to countries, including Saudi Arabia, that are known for using electro-shock devices as tools of torture, Schulz said. He debated Taser's chief executive, Rick Smith, three years ago at Claremont-McKenna College in California. At the time, he asked Smith to stop selling his company's wares to countries that the U.S. State Department had classified as torturers. Taser's president indicated that the company "would sell to any country it pleased," Schulz stated.

[In a response to Schulz's remarks last week, Taser spokesman Pete Holran noted that, "For anything that we sell abroad, we have to get a license from the U.S. Department of Commerce.... That licensing process has input from the State Department and many other federal agencies. They are supposed to inform us if there is a region or a regime that should not receive our devices." In addition, he said, "We don't know of any direct use of our devices for torture. Amnesty has never been able to bring that direct charge."

Electro-shock devices, including stun guns, stun belts and stun shields, are the most commonly used tools of torture after the human fist, Schulz said. As far back as 1994, Amnesty International documented their export to repressive foreign regimes. "Export license records revealed that [the U.S. Commerce Department] authorized the sale to Saudi Arabia of handcuffs and stun shields used for torture," Schulz noted. "In 1996, the department approved a shipment of thumb screws -- miniature cuffs that are attached to the thumbs and are useful for nothing except torture -- to Russia."

Selling tools isn't the only way in which firms find themselves linked to torturers, Schulz said. Sometimes, they hire guards who end up abusing people while protecting a company's property. Unocal, a California oil-and-gas company, for example, was accused in U.S. courts of employing soldiers in Myanmar (formerly Burma) who tortured, raped and killed villagers while guarding a pipeline. The villagers sued in the United States under the Alien Torts Claims Act, and Unocal settled in 2004.

As a result of disputes like this one, multinationals have become more assiduous in their monitoring of the conduct of security contractors abroad, Schulz said. British Petroleum, for example, has entered into an agreement with the governments of Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan to allow the oil company to provide human rights training to their security forces. A BP oil pipeline traverses the three countries.

The Cost of a Diamond

Firms sometimes do business directly with repressive regimes or rebel groups and, in effect, fund their practices, according to Schulz. This predicament arises most often in extractive industries, like mining and oil and gas, where the largest remaining reserves tend to be located in developing countries that either have autocratic governments or are embroiled in civil war, he noted.

Perhaps the most notorious example is the diamond industry. In Sierra Leone and Angola, diamond sales supported insurgencies to such an extent that the United Nations adopted a resolution condemning trade in what it called "conflict diamonds." Liberia's former president, Charles Taylor, has been accused of supporting the rebels in neighboring Sierra Leone in exchange for diamonds. The rebels committed a host of atrocities, including intimidating civilians by chopping off the hands and feet of noncombatants. Today, Taylor faces trial in The Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Bad publicity from products tainted by links to torture can rebound to retailers, Schulz pointed out. To underscore the connection between diamonds and brutality, for example, Amnesty International and other human rights groups launched an anti-conflict-diamond campaign in the United States. An online video produced as part of the effort showed a woman's hand stretched out to receive a diamond ring, but then showed her hand being chopped off before the ring could be slipped on her finger. "That influenced a bunch of college students to go into their local jewelers and ask how much blood each diamond cost," Schulz said. "That was all it took to get the industry to quickly institute new procedures for monitoring the sources of its diamonds."

A similar conflict rages today in the Sudan, one that has been fueled by oil revenues, Schulz added. There, crude sales sustain a government that has been accused by the United Nations of committing genocide in the country's Darfur region. More than 200,000 people have been killed in Darfur and about 2.5 million have been forced from their homes. Many Western oil companies now refuse to do business with the Sudanese government, but Chinese oil firms, backed by the Chinese government, have stepped into the void. According to The New York Times, "Chinese oil purchases have financed Sudan's pillage of Darfur, Chinese-made AK-47s have been the main weapons used to slaughter several hundred thousand people in Darfur so far, and China has protected Sudan in the U.N. Security Council." Grassroots activists from around the world are trying to use the approaching Beijing Olympic games as venue in which to pressure China to stop supporting the Sudanese regime through oil purchases.

Schulz stressed that situations like Taylor's diamond trade and Sudan's oil both demand action because the link between commerce and brutality is so stark. In each case, trade in a commodity directly supported, or continues to support, a group or government committing atrocities.
In contrast, Schulz said that he doesn't believe that businesses must refuse to operate in any nation with a poor human rights record. "If I could get every country that commits torture to change their stripes by threatening them with the withdrawal of investment, I would do it," he said. "But that's not a practical way to bring about change, and I don't believe that poverty is a friend of human rights. So we have to make judgments."

Consider the oil industry. The list of the world's top producers is crowded with countries that have been accused of torture. (Schulz would add the United States to that group in light of the revelations at the Abu Ghraib military prison in Iraq and the Bush administration's refusal to forswear waterboarding, a form of torture that simulates drowning.) Today's world depends too heavily on oil for companies to refuse to do business in any place where torture has occurred or been alleged, Schulz said. "We have to be selective. There are some cases in which the connection is very direct. If oil companies are directly responsible for human rights violations -- as it was alleged that Unocal was -- then they have to be held accountable."

Reebok's Lead

In making judgments about whether to refuse to operate or invest in a country, Schulz said that firms must consider a variety of factors. The most obvious, besides the directness of the link, is the severity of the abuses. Another is how dependent the country's government is on the sales of a given commodity. In Sudan, for example, oil is the country's lifeblood. "I don't pretend that the ethical questions are easy. You make judgments where you think you can have an impact and where the crime is serious enough."

In some cases, home governments may make decisions for companies by barring activity via sanctions, Schulz pointed out. Again, the utility of sanctions has to be evaluated case by case. Among the criteria to consider is whether the local activists have asked for sanctions as a way to pressure their government. Schulz also pointed out that sanctions and boycotts have a mixed record of effectiveness.

Declining to do business somewhere or acceding to sanctions isn't the only way that companies can forestall torture and other human rights abuses. They can also take active steps to publicize and prevent bad acts -- and many of them do. Paul Fireman, chief executive of Reebok, is a case in point. "He intervened actively on behalf of the leader of the labor organization in Indonesia that had given Reebok a load of grief about its factories," Schulz said. In 1999, Fireman wrote to Indonesia's president seeking the release from prison of human rights activist Dita Sari. Fireman has also refused to do business in Myanmar, as have many companies, and, in 2005, wrote an editorial in The Wall Street Journal calling on corporate colleagues to follow Reebok's lead.
"More and more corporations are recognizing that it's in their interest to be good global citizens" Schulz added. "One of the most promising developments in the field of human rights during my years at Amnesty was the growing sense that human rights were good business and that countries that don't respect the rule of law, don't educate their children and don't use the talents of half of their populations because of their gender are unlikely to be places where businesses will prosper in the long run."

So THIS Is Justice - Part II

So the judicial system is letting this go with a fine of $200 and 9 demerit points?

What is the message to Singaporeans from this? That it is perfectly alright to cause potential death and mayhem? That we tolerate this kind of behaviour which causes the massive jams which are partly in the first place responsible for all this ERP nonsense to begin with?

If Singaporeans are bound by rules of law then these rules should serve as a reflecting guide to a more gracious society. By incidentally condoning such behaviour, which breaks all senses of natural justice, we get onto PAP's favourite slippery slope argument and all end up worse for the wear.

Ciggarette smugglers are dealt with far more painfully and the only effect they have on the state is a loss of revenue. Overstayers are jailed, caned and deported. But intentionally causing possible death and mayhem is 'rewarded' with a $200 fine?

Do you get it?

What I get is that the protection of the state coffers is far more important, in orders of magnitude, then the safety and well-being of its citizens. Can this be right? But this is the loud and very clear message I am getting.

* * * * *

From The Electric New Paper

By Chong Shin Yen
April 29, 2008


HE stopped his car abruptly on the fast lane of a busy highway to insert his CashCard.

And it caused an accident that left a woman seriously injured.

But to Mr Lim Huang Khim, 45, it was the 'natural thing' to do. He does not think he did anything wrong.

This, despite being fined for his inconsiderate driving that caused a motorcyclist to slam into the car behind him - which had braked in time to avoid hitting Mr Lim's car.

This, despite a judge ruling in a civil suit that Mr Lim was 50 per cent liable for the accident.
The motorcyclist, Miss Tiong Zhen Cheng, 33, was flung more than 20m and landed beside Mr Lim's car.

The sales executive was warded in the intensive care unit and spent about a week in hospital. She still suffers pain and some memory loss.

Miss Tiong ended up being sued by the driver of the second car, Mr Lye Chiew Meng, for the damage to his Toyota.

His rear windscreen was shattered and the repair bill came to $7,000.

But her insurance company felt Mr Lim should also be liable and he was named as the third party in the civil suit.

SMILED MANY TIMES IN COURT

TNP Photo Illustration

Earlier this month, Mr Lim, who works as a driver, insisted he was not to blame and smiled several times as he recounted the accident on the stand.

He was chided by District Judge Lim Wee Meng for his cavalier attitude.
Judge Lim said: 'I don't think it's funny. Someone was seriously injured and I don't think it's funny at all.'

The accident happened around 7.50pm on 29 Nov 2006 on the Central Expressway, just before the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) gantry near the Braddell exit.

Mr Lim was driving a rented silver Mitsubishi car and was travelling on the extreme right lane on his way home with his wife and four children.

When he saw that the gantry was activated, he switched on the car's hazard lights and stopped to slot in his CashCard.

Mr Lye, a finance manager, who was behind him, managed to stop in time. But Miss Tiong's 400cc Honda motorbike crashed into Mr Lye's car.

When cross-examined by Miss Tiong's lawyer, Mr Lim maintained that he was not at fault.

Her lawyer, Mr William Chai, asked: 'A car was damaged, a person was severely and mentally injured, are you saying you are not responsible? Not even 1 per cent?'
Mr Lim replied: 'I'm saying that I'm totally not to be blamed.'

He told the court that he had not inserted his CashCard into the in-vehicle unit (IU) earlier because he did not know that the ERP gantry was activated at that time.

When asked if seeing the activated gantry was a big surprise, Mr Lim said he had seen it from afar and was trying to insert the CashCard in time.

He also told the court that he did not see Miss Tiong's bike behind Mr Lye's car.

He admitted that following the accident, he had purposely left out in his police report the reason for stopping his car as he knew that it was an offence.

Mr Lim, who has been driving for 24 years, was fined $200 by the Traffic Police for inconsiderate driving and given nine demerit points.

But in his affidavit tendered to the court, he said: 'I decided to pay the $200 out of convenience even though I do not believe that I should be responsible for the accident.
'I did not want the trouble to engage a lawyer to contest the claim because this would be time-consuming and the legal fees would definitely exceed $200.'

In contrast, Mr Lye was apologetic about what happened to Miss Tiong. His lawyer, Miss Bonnie Kwok, told the court: 'My client would like to extend his sympathies to Miss Tiong.'
She also said that while Mr Lye could clearly see the traffic conditions in front of him, Miss Tiong could not.

Said Miss Kwok: 'It's not a situation whereby the vehicles were approaching a traffic light junction, so there's no reason for Miss Tiong to anticipate a sudden stopping.
'Mr Lim had created a dangerous situation. I found it rather distasteful that Mr Lim's demeanour in court showed that he couldn't be bothered that Miss Tiong had suffered severe injuries and trauma.'

Before giving his verdict, the judge pointed out that Mr Lim could have gone through the ERP gantry and paid an administrative fee of $10 for not having a CashCard.

LIABLE FOR DAMAGE

He ruled that Mr Lim and Miss Tiong were each 50 per cent liable for the damage caused to Mr Lye's car.
When contacted by The New Paper, Mr Lim insisted that he was not in the wrong.
He said in Mandarin: 'Are you a driver? Have you driven a car before?
'If you have, you should know that it's a driver's natural reaction (when you see an activated gantry).
'You can't say it's right or wrong because there's no right or wrong in such situations. I did switch on the hazard lights to warn the vehicles behind me.'

Mr Lim said that he felt sorry for the injured Miss Tiong, though he did not speak to her in court.
'She might think that I have an ulterior motive if I went up to her and apologised,' he said.
Just two days before the accident involving Miss Tiong, Mr Lim said he was involved in a similar accident along the East Coast Parkway.

Mr Lim told The New Paper that the car in front of his had slowed down suddenly.
'So I also braked and stopped my car to take a closer look at what the driver was up to and to take down his licence plate number,' he said.

'But the car behind me couldn't stop in time and ended up crashing into the rear of my car.'
Mr Lim said the first car then drove off. His car, a Honda Stream, ended up at the workshop for five days.

That was why he was driving a rented car, which did not have a CashCard in the IU.
Mr Lim added: 'If I was driving my car, this wouldn't have happened because I always have the CashCard inside the IU.'

* * * *

Democracy: The UK example? Expedient standards?

or Freedom of Speech: The UK example?
or Freedom of Press: The UK example?
or Media Censorship: The UK example?
or Speaker's Corner: The UK example?

Political expediency and propaganda never cease to amaze!


FRIDAY MATTERS 25th April 2008 - The Straits Times

Ministerial responsibility: The UK example

By Chua Mui Hoong, Senior Writer

SINGAPOREANS this week are seized over the issue of ministerial responsibility when things go wrong on their watch.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Tuesday defended Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng from calls to resign, saying Mr Wong had done nothing wrong, and retained the full confidence of the PM.

The issue was the Feb 27 escape by terrorist cell leader Mas Selamat Kastari from the Whitley Road Detention Centre, which is under the Internal Security Department, which comes under the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Some Singaporeans, pointing to political examples in Japan and South Korea, wonder if it is a uniquely Singaporean thing that ministers do not resign over mishaps.

Is this a case of the minister not being held accountable?
In fact, the so-called 'doctrine of ministerial responsibility' is well-discussed in British and Canadian literature, among others.

Sometimes...the harder course is to face down the calls to resign, stay put - and win the war.
It's an established, but evolving and always disputed, convention.

The idea originated in the 19th century, when ministries were small and ministers had personal knowledge of most of the decisions. At that time, too, many politicians were landed gentry, men of independent means. Resignation was a form of accountability.

In 1954, British Minister for Agriculture Thomas Dugdale got into trouble over a dispute involving land acquisition at Crichel Down.

The minister himself did not make any mistakes, but took responsibility for the mistakes of his officials and tendered his resignation, saying: 'I, as Minister, must accept full responsibility to Parliament for any mistakes and inefficiency of officials in my department, just as, when my officials bring off any successeson my behalf, I take full credit for them.'

The names of Dugdale and Crichel Down have become synonymous with a particular interpretation of what ministerial responsibility in a Westminster parliamentary system entails.
But in the ensuing 50 years or so, the convention has evolved. Today, Dugdale's position is seen by some as exceptional.

In fact, cases of ministers resigning, over mistakes made by underlings, are very rare, at least in Britain.

Most ministers there resigned over personal wrongdoing, such as John Profumo in 1963 for lying to Parliament that there was 'no impropriety whatsoever' in his relationship with call girl Christine Keeler.

Others resigned over financial impropriety or to avoid a conflict of interest, such as Reginald Maudling in 1972 who quit as Home Secretary because a business associate, John Poulson, was being investigated for widespread corruption and Mr Maudling thought his position as head of the ministry would curtail the investigations.

Others quit or offered to quit over policy disagreements. In 1967, the British government, along with other governments, was forced to devalue its currency. Chancellor James Callaghan, who had repeatedly said the pound would not be devalued, offered to resign for having to go against his promises. The Prime Minister was reluctant to let him go, and made him Home Secretary, a change he accepted.

More recently, in 1983, a massive prison outbreak took place in Maze prison, a maximum-security jail in Northern Ireland that housed provisional Irish Republican Army insurgents convicted of armed militancy.
In all, 38 prisoners escaped from what at that time was touted to be among the most secure prisons in Europe.

There were calls for the ministers involved to resign, in particular the Northern Ireland Secretary James Prior and his deputy Nicholas Scott, who oversaw prisons in Northern Ireland. An inquiry was launched the next day into the causes of the escape, chaired by the Inspector of Prisons Sir James Hennessy.

When the report came out, lapses in security and procedures within the prison were identified.
The report recommended a change in governor of the prison, but specifically exonerated the undersecretary in charge (Scott) from blame.

Minister James Prior faced the House of Commons to say why he did not see the need for his deputy or himself to resign. 'It would be a matter for resignation if the report of the Hennessy inquiry showed that what happened was the result of some act of policy that was my responsibility, or that I failed to implement something that I had been asked to implement, or should have implemented.

'The report shows that no policy decisions contributed to the escape. For that reason, I believe that there are no grounds for ministerial resignation.'

To those still calling for heads to roll, he said: 'I do not accept and I do not think it right for the House to accept that there is any constitutional or other principle that requires ministerial resignations in the face of failure, either by others to carry out orders or procedures, or by their supervisors to ensure that staff carried out those orders.

'Let the House be clear: the Hennessy report finds that the escape would not have succeeded if orders and procedures had been properly carried out that Sunday afternoon.'

Despite intense pressure, the ministers did not resign.

As for the Crichel Down case cited by MPs, Mr Prior said: 'It is the only case of its sort in the past 50 years, and constitutional lawyers have concluded that the resignation was not required by convention and was exceptional.'

In the conventional literature, ministerial responsibility for mistakes within their purview has four components: the responsibility to account to Parliament for mistakes made; to apologise to Parliament; to take remedial action to rectify the mistake; and finally, to resign.
Mr Wong did the first three. Some think he should do the last as well.
In Britain, some ministers resign to mollify factions within the party or to appease the opposition or the public.

When should a minister bow to public pressure to resign?
In 1982, after the Argentinian attack on the Falkland Islands, Foreign Secretary Peter Carrington and his two deputies resigned.

Lord Carrington said he did not think the government or he himself had mishandled the situation, but the attack provoked such outrage in Britain that his presence would be a 'continual poison' that would divide the country at a time when unity was desirable for a war response.
In other words, he quit not because he thought his ministry had done wrong, but to remove a cancer from the body politic at a sensitive time.

Defence Secretary John Nott also offered his resignation at that time, but was told by PM Margaret Thatcher in no uncertain terms that he had 'a bounden duty' to stay to see Britain to victory.

I do not cite the above cases to argue that Singapore follow Britain in any way.
But familiarity with what other jurisdictions have done with the 'convention of ministerial responsibility' provides a useful perspective, especially for Singaporeans inclined to think that a minister must always resign for high-profile mistakes made on his watch.

Sometimes, as in the case of John Nott above, the harder course is to face down the calls to resign, stay put - and win the war.

muihoong@sph.com.sg

Cover Up? Cover Down?

In reference to blog published here on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 - 'Public Firing?'

Could the hoo-ha over the MHA / WKS / Mas Selamat case be an effort to blow over the multi-billion dollar loss of Singaporean capital in supposed investments made by Temasek?

In my earlier article citing the loss of our money, the source was foreign - The Financial Times. Why would the local press not pick up on this piece of news pertinent to Singaporeans at large who have in one form or another contributed to the formation of Singapore's SWF? Editorial license?

Which is more deadly or important?

1. escape of a known terrorist
2. loss of billions of dollars
3. some other even more important news which we do not know about due to our illustrious press?

The impact of 1 is being felt right now in the political sphere ... but the impact of 2 remains to be seen especially when we look up the list of who's who in governing money in Singapore. Who is a more 'affordable' scapegoat?

Your guess is as good as mine my friend.

Like previously and repeatedly mentioned. The more I question the more questions I end up with despite official claims to improved transparency and accountability.



Use your vote wisely!!

Should Singaporean Youth Be Allowed to Vote at 18

YouthQuake

The Battle Cry of Singaporean Youths
“Should Singaporean Youth Be allowed to vote at 18?”

The first YouthQuake forum will be touching on the vote@18 agenda and the details are as followed:

Date: 3rd May 2008 (Saturday)

Time: 1400 hrs to 1600 hrs.

Venue: 216G Syed Alwi Road, #02-03.

For more information please contact bernardchen@wp.sg .

In order to assist us in the organisation of this forum, kindly confirm your attendance with Bernard Chen @ 967-888-72 or email the Workers' Party Youth Wing @ youthwing@wp.sg by 1st May 2008 (Thursday)

We looked forward to seeing you create a stir at YouthQuake!

Note: This email / message is meant for circulation. Do circulate this email to your friends and/or post this notice on your blog and join us there!

Public Firing?

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore state investor Temasek, sitting on paper losses of $1.2 billion for its investments in Merrill Lynch and Barclays , is expected to shed more assets and conserve cash to offset its exposure to the ailing western financial sector.

Analysts said the sovereign fund, which recently unloaded an Indonesian bank and a Singapore power producer, may choose to consolidate its hefty holdings in Chinese banks. Temasek last year was among the early big investors to call the top of the market, selling down part of its stakes in two big China lenders.

"We expect that increasingly investments will be funded out of sale of current investments. So as they continue to rebalance their portfolio there could be temporary or medium-term requirement for more resources," said Anshukant Taneja, who covers Temasek as a credit analyst at Standard & Poor's.

Temasek's S$164 billion ($121 billion) portfolio is weighted towards the financial sector, with 38 percent of its holdings in either banks or financial services.
Taneja said that the large exposure could have a bearing on returns, but does not threaten its top credit ratings.

"There has been a higher volatility in the recent past and that could result in volatility in earnings with regard to Temasek's portfolio," he said. "This is a risk, but not as much to substantially affect their current ratings."

Temasek, headed by Ho Ching, the wife of Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, joined other state funds from the Middle East and Asia to provide lifelines to U.S. and European banks stung by the collapse of the U.S. subprime mortgage market.

But Merrill shares have fallen 11 percent since Temasek invested $4.4 billion in the firm and Barclays' stock price is down 38 percent since July when it raised 975 million pounds ($1.9 billion) from Temasek and 2.2 billion euro ($3.5 billion) from China Development Bank to fund a bid for ABN AMRO.

Temasek decided not to exercise its option to buy another $600 million worth of Merrill shares last month after the Wall Street bank's shares fell below the option price of $48.

CHINA RESHUFFLE

Temasek currently holds stakes in Bank of China <3988.HK><601988.HK>, China Construction Bank <0939.HK><601939.HK> and medium-sized Chinese lender Minsheng Banking Corp <600016.ss>.

Of the three, Minsheng is the likeliest target for sale given that it is more vulnerable than its bigger peers to monetary tightening and higher cost pressures, Temasek watchers said.
"I would stick with the big banks, but not Minsheng," said a fund manager in Singapore, who declined to be identified because he cannot publicly talk about individual stocks.
"We are seeing increasing pressure on the banking sector because of monetary tightening, raising the potential for non-performing loans as property markets cool."

Minsheng does not have as strong a deposit-taking franchise as other large banks to support a low deposit cost structure, Morgan Stanley said in a report last month. Temasek owns close to 4 percent of Minsheng, a stake now worth about $950 million.

Temasek declined to comment for this article.

Last month, Temasek raised over $3 billion by selling Singapore power firm Tuas Power to China's Huaneng and offloaded its 42 percent stake in Indonesia's sixth-biggest lender, Bank Internasional Indonesia , to Malaysia's top lender Malayan Banking Bhd for $1.1 billion.

The high-profile fund has not been exclusively on the sell-side in recent months.
Temasek has been building its stake in London-based bank Standard Chartered , in which it currently owns 19 percent. That has stoked talk it could seek a takeover or engineer a deal between emerging markets-focused Standard Chartered and another bank.
Temasek is not alone in taking an increasingly cautious stance.

The International Monetary Authority said early this month that credit market turmoil could spread, with losses possibly approaching $1 trillion.

Guy De Blonay, a London-based fund manager for the 303 million pounds New Star Global Financial Fund, said it was important for investors to understand the full extent of the problems afflicting the financial sector. "In these conditions, a cautious approach is sensible and the fund is likely to maintain high levels of cash or cash equivalents for some time to preserve capital and flexibility," Blonay said of his own fund. "If valuations have slipped further by the summer, this may be used as an opportunity to move back towards being fully invested."

SMRT appeals against $387k penalty

Let's see how this letter comes out of the 'chop & change department', if at all, in the press.

Dear ST Forum Editor,

In reference to this article:

http://www.straitstimes.com/Singapore/Story/STIStory_218958.html
March 21, 2008
SMRT appeals against $387k penalty

If it is true that the incident occurred “ … because SMRT workers failed to engage the parking brake of one portion of a maintenance train. This caused the train to roll back when its primary brakes failed.“ Then in light of the current national thrust on innovation and in a bid to keep transport cost from potentially escalating some more may I humbly suggest to SMRT to perform two operations please.

First is what is known as Failure Mode Effects Analysis, or FMEA in short, to address potential areas of concern within its operations. This exercise, coupled with an innovative and open mindset might enable SMRT to look forward in problem prevention as opposed to reacting. Especially when the cost of reaction is inevitably high combining both actual operating cost to recover from failure and mitigate the problem while potentially facing legal penalties.

Next is Poka-Yoka, a Japanese concept utilized in Design for Six Sigma methodology, and also used elsewhere, to devise a simple electro-mechanical system for failure prevention. In this case of operating procedural failure a one or two button system to ensure that an operator must be present to actively release the appropriate brakes instead of the traditional method where the brakes must be manually engaged by the operator. In this case, if the operator does not keep the brake depressed the train will automatically roll to a stop even if the power is turned up because the brakes will engage automatically. This will remove one potential element of breach of procedure. To achieve even higher safety levels and if the maintenance train is similar to regular trains in that it has cabs at both ends the system may be wired to ensure two operators must be present in order for the locomotive to move.

”Poka-yoking” and FMEA work together, along with other tools, at the front end of the process in most cases to prevent design faults be it mechanical, electrical or procedural in nature and can apply across even to the service industry.

Though not an electrical or mechanical engineer by training I do believe the cost of such recommendations and procedures far under-weigh the cost of “procedural failure” in any form of cost benefit analysis. With these recommendations I hope SMRT can continue to keep the cost of transport low for all in Singapore amid the relentless cost increases going on. In a similar bid I also appeal to LTA to review the penalty imposed on SMRT to help keep operating cost low so that the ‘savings’ may be passed on to the consumer.

Thank you.

Of Business & Politics in Asia

Straits Times (Singapore)

March 11, 2008

S'pore firms hope business climate remains stable
By Grace Ng & Chia Yan Min

SINGAPORE businessmen are holding their breath amid fears that Malaysia's business outlook could become rocky after the ruling coalition's worst election result in 50 years. Rule No.1 in SCUBA Diving ... never hold your breath ... you may suffer from lung over exapansion injuries in an emergency ... such as a political upset ... then you will suffer from mediastinal emphysema along with drowning in your own blood.

Some local manufacturing companies expressed concerns that the opposition's shock victories in five out of 13 states would cause business uncertainty and delays in investment projects. Why would this be so? Which government does not want more economic growth? Unless ....
But other small and medium-sized enterprises are optimistic that the opposition's greater role in government may place checks and balances on the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition.
This may, in turn, spur improvements in governance and lead to more balanced economic policies. Why is it some SMEs are optimistic but the manufacturers are jittery? More to lose so more afraid of uncertainty? Speaks volumes on failure tolerance levels in our soon to be creative society does it not?

Hmm ... 'spur improvements in governance and lead tom ore balanced economic policies.' Should not ALL businesses want that? And if not are business who do not support more balance policies complicit in the efforts of a political party to keep certain segments of the population from reaching their full potential through discriminatory practices? Is this the role of business anyway?

Doubts have been raised about Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi's spending programme under the Ninth Malaysia Plan and the future of infrastructural projects that some Singapore companies are involved in. Aha ... maybe we find the reason here .... there is or appears to be some relationship between an incumbent government and potential sources of revenue that 'some Singapore companies are involved in.' I wonder why the vagueness in reporting this point .... 'some Singapore companies are involved in.' Makes one wonder does it not? Editorial license?

Members of the Singapore Manufacturers Federation (SMF) have 'raised concerns over the weaker influence of the Barisan Nasional', said spokesman Chan Ai Mun. They are 'cautious and apprehensive over their present and future investments in Malaysia', fearing that business will be 'affected by the slowdown of foreign investors in Malaysia'. Should a single political party wield so much influence that it potentially scares investors away? What does this say of both the power generating mechanisms of an incumbent party AND the way businesses have built their operations and relationships around a political party? Is this the true meaning of cronyism? And what of Burma or Myanmar's ruling junta? No problems investing there eh? Wherein does the ethics of business lie? Oh! My sincerest apologies, we are in Asia where ethics is a dirty word it appears ... much like 'welfare' is since they are inextricably linked and stem from most people's sense of natural justice. But hey, I'm not a judge so there, we can now get on with plundering the rest of the world. As you were please. And please ... I am only in contempt of my own behind because it is soo fat from all this sitting down in my cushy chair.

With many key government officials losing their posts, Singapore investors are unsure about the status of economic corridors such as the Northern Corridor comprising Penang, Kedah and Perak. But the opposition coalition in Penang, one of Asia's largest manufacturing hubs, assured foreign investors yesterday that pro-business policies would remain intact. Hmm, so we find that it is not only an incumbent party which appears to hold the purse strings but actually INDIVIDUALS? Is this right in a democracy? Oh yeah ... Asians have a different brand of democracy .... I forget ... must be getting old ... or am I? When key individuals and parties fight so hard to retain their overwhelming dominance like in Malaysia ... does it point to a systemic fault?

Still, the short-term uncertainty is disruptive for business, said Mr Pang Kim Hin, chairman of the Mothercare franchise which has eight outlets in Malaysia. 'My gut feel tells me that most people will err on the side of caution...and leave the house only when necessary. This might lead to some business uncertainty,' he said. Still, it is 'business as usual' for corporations such as OCBC Bank, which has 29 branches in the country. So why do some businesses have fears and others do not? Different bosses with different outlooks? A more westermized boss realising that politics should not impact business so much vis-a-vis an Asian boss who is steeped in tradition and potentially questionable relationships that have helped revenue positions instead of true free open market competition like the rest of us in the world face?

Mr Phillip Overmyer, chief executive of the Singapore International Chamber of Commerce, said a major concern would be whether the ruling party and the opposition will find common ground on the BN's bumiputera policy - a legalised system of preferences for ethnic Malays.
In the longer term, companies are largely confident that the effects of this election will be positive. But others are more cautious. Mr Steven Tang, marketing and purchasing director for Nico Steel Solutions, foresees that 'it might become more difficult for any policies to be passed as the opposition is growing stronger'. Why more difficult for any policies to be passed due to the opposition? Have previous policies passed been so much in your favour, Mr. Tang, that now you are afraid that it is time to reel in the profit numbers which may have been obscenely obtained at the expense of the people in general?

Ahh ... it is so much easier to write on foreign politics rather then local politics ... there is lesser of an impending sense of doom that the PAP's gargantuan and well connected machinery will come down hard on me. And in commenting on Malaysian issues we do not suffer this sub-judice nonsense so prevalent in the South.

Of course now that some cases are post-judice everyone has forgotten about them .... NKF (and now Ren Ci?) ... SIA's Ms. Then vs uber rich socialite wife? Wherein lies the ethics and graciousness of our society when the high flyers demonstrate so clearly and irrevocably that the way to live life is to run everyone else down with either legal knowledge, power or money or a combination of all of the above? The SIA case would be a crime against human dignity if one were to apply United Nation standards and covenants ... I wonder what kind of punishment that begets?

Use your vote wisely. Every vote matters.

A Video Tribute to WP

All the trials and tribulations the public are unaware of.

One fine day it will all be exposed.

But will the people care?

To all WP supporters: THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING!! :D

The Talent Is Here [?]

Taken from the Bangkok Post, 9th September 2007. Sounds applicable in Singapore if not for propaganda and ostrich-like behaviour as well as a propensity for a single party state:

"Thai students are capable of much more; they are the victims of an educational system that seems designed to discourage excellence and inspiration, writes FLEMMING WINTHER NIELSEN

Realities are taken from general knowledge, from the streets, from a poor rural primary school in Ratchaburi, from a private university in Bangkok and, last but not least, from my two adopted sons, aged 15 and 18.

If a certain issue is close to your heart, the writing tends to be private and confused; there must be a piece of strong but transparent silk between you and the subject. To keep that distance in this article will not be easy, since I harbour sadness about certain conditions seen and a realisation that so much young talent is being wasted - without objective reasons.

It has frequently been argued that the intelligence, the so-called IQ, of Thai children is generally low. This opinion and a feeling of inferiority runs deep in society - even my English-speaking taxi driver believes in the myth. But it is a myth. I have found no research supporting this. IQ tests are not objective, as the questions are created around knowledge and norms of the middle/upper classes. Furthermore, there seems to be no proof that the standard curve (of normality) should deviate from elsewhere.

Myths come from somewhere, they can be traced. In old Europe the same myths were common among the ruling classes of noble land owners. In order to keep the majority in place myths were canvassed as the truth. Many hands were needed on the manors and farms. Hands, not heads. Therefore, education was regarded as unnecessary, if given at all, and limited to basic language, rote learning of hymns and history glorifying the ruling classes. To keep things that way is possible as long as the society is static.

As soon as industrialisation started and changes gained speed, the myths punctured. The working classes, migrating to the cities, soon displayed that they had lots of talent. They coped with constant educational challenges, creating their own unions and organisations. The educated Europeans of today are the descendants of those who were branded heavy-drinking, stupid, lazy and dirty farmhands, but in fact merely had untapped potential.

In Europe and elsewhere in the West the family has lost its position as the most important foundation. Societies have become orientated towards the individual. One consequence has been that all emphasis in primary, secondary and tertiary education is given to find, nurture and support the special talents of the individual - talents to be used individually, in groups and in the interactions within society as a whole.

As an educator I have spent 25 years being this kind of gardener and can spot talent. And bear in mind, we are talking about talent to be built on - not about rote-based knowledge.

Two examples: The thousands of young motorcyclists of Bangkok, being either messengers or taxi drivers, show a high degree of elegance and practical talent each day. Within split seconds they have to calculate four variables - distance, speed, manoeuvres and factor X, this being the abrupt behaviour of those on four wheels. They have a keen eye on elderly Toyota Solunas with nervous elderly drivers.

These youngsters are not only street artists. Three years ago, they revolted against the gangsters who controlled and exploited them. By using clever tactics and strategies they got support both from City Hall and from the government and set themselves free. Hopefully it has stayed that way.

I know two internet cafe's well. In the first one, games are not allowed. During the peaceful Hua Hin afternoons, squeezed in between all the foreigners, you will find many Thai children and teenagers doing their homework, searching Google and the Wikipedia and using advanced English spelling programmes. The cafe' charges 20 baht per hour. Sometimes they ask questions and I feel proud.

At the other end, in Lop Buri, they play interactive games to their hearts' content. These games acquire logical IT knowledge, tactical and strategic skills and talent. The youngsters learn through trial and error, with help from their friends. Children and youngsters have courage, and they are not afraid. They are far beyond the majority of teachers regarding IT capacities. They have got used to analytical thinking and are bored stiff in their traditional schools.

Albert Einstein was once asked a question about American history that he couldn't answer. Asked why, he replied: "Why should I fill my head with knowledge that I can look up in a book?" Modern education is not about rote learning, it is completely passe' because of IT. Next to delivering only the most basic knowledge, the teacher's role is to inspire, to instill academic curiosity and to come up with ways and methods of where and how to search - and for what purpose. But the teachers of today are educated in the traditions of yesteryear.
The enemy of children's curiosity and built-in desire to learn is boredom. Boredom shows its ugly face when children and youngsters cannot see any challenges, or see no relationship with what is being taught to their own lives.

REDESIGN SYSTEM NOW

So why is it that the school in Ratchaburi resembles the ones I saw in Zambia, Africa?
Why is it that the school in Bangkok, more like a factory with its 3,000 students, is chronically short of money? I'm told that this school doesn't differ much from other schools in the city.
If a school has more than 500 students, it cannot instill a productive relationship between the children and their school. They students will not regard the school as "a place to belong".
Furthermore, the school has to put 50 students in each class. It is a researched fact that if the classroom has more than 25 students it is not possible for the teacher to reach out to all and establish a two-way communication.

As a result of this overcrowding the majority of new students at the private university where I lecture cannot form a simple sentence in English.

Many well-to-do parents send their children to private schools, which are run like a business. Children become commodities. Not surprisingly, the young generation has become materialistic. One of the consequences of the mushrooming private schools and universities is that they create irrational divisions in society. They recruit according to the wallets of the parents, not the student's talents. The future leadership might as well be formed by people endowed only with a lesser intelligence.

A learned visiting professor tells us that the country needs innovation, that the EU gives much emphasis to this and that the Australians are good innovators. Various ministers also use the word "innovation" simply as a mantra. Nevertheless, they should know that the preconditions for innovative thinking are not here, as I have tried to illustrate. Create them, then. Immediately the words "financing" and "funding" come to mind. From my experience, a reasonable education is a matter of priorities.

Perhaps the priority is simply that the elite do not want to see an up-to-date, educated working class. Maybe the myths are still alive along with the creeping fear of the suppressed, well known to the feudal lords of the past.

Meanwhile, according to American sources quoted in this newspaper, the military leaders have allowed themselves a pay rise of $9 million and raised their budget by more than $1 billion, although no war is in sight. This also shows a society in which various groups are just fighting for their own narrow interests, proclaiming "love of country" and "unity."

In a parliament I know quite well, they often have lengthy and heated debates about education, for many good reasons. One of the most important is the demographics. The members know that the ratio between people of working age and retired people is becoming smaller and smaller. In other words, there are fewer and fewer working people to create the wealth needed to support more and more non-working groups. Therefore, a state-of-the-art education focusing on free minds capable of innovative thinking and doing is crucial.

Some years down the road the same situation will occur in Thailand [or Singapore?]. Maybe only then will the educational system change, but by then it may be too late.

Mr Flemming Winther Nielsen is a retired Danish lecturer now living in Bangkok. He taught at the National Danish School for Social and Development Studies, DK from 1980 to 2003. "

N Day 42

Great show man! Somehow there was some new fresh feeling about this NDP compared with previous years!

Great job to all the performers, organizers and cleaners who will have a hell of a time tonight!

Finishing off with 'dare to find, dare to find, dare to find ... new ways' is a great way to bring the country forward. Should be the mantra going forward. Wonder if it means 'dare to find new ways [as long as one does not oppose the PAP].'

Anyhow, Happy Birthday Singapore. You are more then just the PAP!

so ......... anybody found out about the 1.2 ton durian tender by SOCOM posted about 2 months back? was it 70% of each durian bitter and 30% sweet? or 70% of durians in each basket bitter and 30% sweet? or 70% bitter and 30% sweet for each seed? were there any successful bidders? :D was it bitter or sweet?

I LOST

International Tribunal on Law of the Seas - ITLOS.

Dear old Prof. Jayakumar is quite hilarious when he cites, among other things that states selectively choose to adhere to international law and this makes adjudication by ITLOS ineffective ......... well, roughly put anyway. That states should submit themselves to this tribunal is the underlying message.

Hearing this on TV last night then confirming it in the papers this morning ...... my tummy ached from laughter. If only it weren't not so obscene it would be satire in its highest form .... or not.

Singapore herself, under the aegis of the present government and its legislations have opted out of many international conventions and/or have made reservations on selected clauses of these international conventions but yet is now herself calling for other states not to do the same? Come on lah!

In NS speak: You do not do as I do but do as I say ..... then the officer goes on to do whatever it is one is not supposed to do.

International law also consists of customary law. This I am sure all the legal eaglets in Singapore are damned well aware of. Customary law, in friendly neighbourhood speak is: eh, everyone is doing it this way so it is an accepted practice and therefore after writing it down it becomes law. So .... if Singapore chooses NOT to accept all clauses and submissions that form the whole body of International Law as it stands today then she should not in the same breath shoot her own foot!

I will feel stupid as a Singaporean if asked to expound on this in a class on International Law. Cross my fingers that that will never ever happen. And I also do not wish it on any other lawyer but by golly some people deserve a cream pie in the face man - cherry included.

Let's look at one of the most common pieces of international legislation. In particular Articles 19 through 21 (Article 26 in relation to my last post). Wait a minute, what am I talking about? Singapore didn't even make it past the Preamble in terms of disseminating this information. No wonder the rest of the Articles are nothing but piss in the wind. So much for international law! Hey folks! Its the Wild Wild East all over again man. I would promote anarchy and chaos but apparently some stinker decided it was against the law!

* * * * * *

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages.

Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

* * * * * * *

Back to Basics for Education

Just under 100 (2/3 of 148) Singaporean students left out in the cold by UNSW's shock closure once again demonstrates how restricted Singapore's tertiary education system is. Restricted to Singaporeans who are trying so hard to make it in life but who may have had circumstances stacked against them in their adolescent years.

The old arguments can be dredged up again. Better genes, better environment, better address, better family, better tuition, .... better chances. These underlying factors are NOT obscure, despite the local media's inability to grasp these concepts, and do not contribute well to the idea of meritocracy so heavily harped on by this government.

I call on the government once again to open up tertiary education places to all Singaporeans, particularly returning matured students, minus all the sand traps and administrative red tape as well as policy bovine manure. These students might well prove to be the ones who can take life's experiences, since they've had a bit more then the average straight through student, and put them to really good use in our economy by becoming better managers and entrepreneurs. These are the people who are really trying for goodness sake!

Loose entry requirements, tight graduation requirements. That ought to solve issues of quality dilution. And do NOT give us citizens some more bovine manure about insufficient funds, the damned GST is going up shortly. Yes, other taxes are down - hey, that's your choice, not like us two bit citizens have a say in policy making in Singapore yeah?

Yes, an incumbent political party has no and should not have any desire to help displace itself but think of the country, think of the citizens, think of those outside your high flying circles upon whose backs this country was ALSO built.

Just let it go Mr. Government! Yes, that's you I'm talking to you big bully! Singapore's chances of survival from independence till today have been abysmal from the get go yet WE prospered. Do not visit those kinds of probabilities of success in life to your citizens. WE deserve better. And don't be too quick to point out your mega million dollar policy makers for guidance, I'd love to see you fight a war with only Majors, Colonels, and Generals.

I am proud to say I am a relic and a testament for and against all former Education Ministers in Singapore. "Once you drop out you never get back in" was the unspoken but heavily practiced motto of the Education Ministry during my days in school. I dropped out but I came back with something even better then what was offered locally then because the rules were such that I had no where else to go except down or OUT! Now its changed a little, that's good. But that's also not enough and not quick enough.

Have you policy wanking guys done enough to drive Singaporeans overseas already? If you feel you have not then please do not spend any more funds attempting to woo these Singaporeans back who failed under your perfectionist, meritocratic, mandarin system. I prefer my taxes be spent on our collective future instead of paying for your past mistakes. To be spent, for instance and precisely, on creating more University places for our local students to at least have a chance at trying for a better future.

And OI! There are people who still remember the real Nantah mind you!

A Subtle Shift in HR?

Recent job ads in the papers, particularly Saturday's recruit sections have been tweaked somewhat in my opinion.

Almost gone are the hair raisingly ridiculous requirements of a good and high level degree coupled with half a gajillion years of experience in 5 dozen industries over and above multi-job duties that require sudden travel.

Seems almost down to earth now with more realistic requirements. 3 to 5 years experience, degree OR experience though both preferable, some light travelling.

Wonder what is happening?

Are there shifts in the Singapore economy which are not being overtly reported?

Also see more jobs for overseas placements. i.e. hire Singaporeans to work overseas. Does this also count in the 'job creation' statistics posted by the government? So what do these growing number of Singaporeans who work overseas count as? Direct GDP contribution to Singapore?

I keep wondering how the numbers are compiled .....

So this is justice?

Today's Straits Times:

"Last October, laws were tightened against employers who put their maid's lives in danger. On conviction, an employer who knowingly allows a maid to endanger herself, or forces a maid into a dangerous situation, can be jailed up to three months and fined up to $250. The employer will also be permanently barred from hiring foreign maids."

So ..... forcing a person into a dangerous (life threathening situation) attracts up to three months jail and find of $250 but punching an MP attracts up to 20 years jail and an optional fine?

I think we have our priorities all mixed up here.

It is blatant that this government is promoting double standards with regard to the sanctity of human life / security.

Should the citizens then choose to behave any other way then what is reflected as governmental policy?

Are Singaporean employers really to blame for treating maids this way since the law reflects this inequality?

If the government and the law makers - certainly not the MPs in this case - have no regard for ordinary human life, and are apparently appointed into position by representatives chosen by a simple majority of Singaporeans through an election then ................

SAFE Scuba Diving?

Yes, it is possible.

Feel I have to add my share of spiel to the recent scuba diving related accident nonsense that's been raging in the press the previous week. Its not old and it'll happen again.

1. Scuba (Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus) contains inherent risks like most sports do. The risks levels are increased because of one's dependency on compressed air* in a virtually airless environment (underwater in other words). It is otherwise no more dangerous then roller blading or bicycling in my opinion.

* not oxygen as most people including our oh so credible press likes to believe and thus misleading everyone else into believing the same. btw, i have written in to ST before to correct this error but to no avail. If one breathes pure oxygen (100% O2) as implied by the term 'oxygen tank' then one would suffer from oxygen toxicity by suffering a central nervous system convulsion (your brain goes kaput) at a depth of around 5 to 6 metres depth .... and you die.

Basic scuba courses take you down to 18M, advance courses typically around 30M, specialty courses to 40M and technical courses down to 150M (but you look like a christmas tree going diving at this level).

2. It is ridiculously cheap to learn scuba diving in Singapore given the unethical levels of competition for the consumer dollar. Plain mathematics alone will tell anyone who investigates that intro scuba courses following PADI, NAUI or SSI guidelines are almost impossible to perform when including a weekend trip to nearby Malaysian islands. SGD $400 per student does not even really make break even for the week's operations not to mention the running costs of an actual dive shop in sky high priced Singapore. But this level of being 'unethical' is due in large part to consumer behaviour as we all well know. Besides having the two words 'business' and 'ethics' usually does not make sense in a sentence or a paragraph unless it is descriptive like this is.

3. Based on point 2 above one 'way out' is through economies of scale. Most scuba certifying bodies have an instructor student ratio of 1:8 in very controlled conditions (very shallow water with no current or in a pool). A smaller ratio of conditions are not so stable/suitable. Some 'scuba schools' in Singapore exceed this since there is no regulatory body nor can there be one everywhere where scuba diving is possible (basically anywhere where you can haul your gear & tank and where there's water).

Ratios exceeding 1:8 typically require a certified assistant. The former part of 'certified assistant' is usually questionable.

Cancelling dives due to perceived uncontrollable risks by the operator / instructors usually ends up pissing off the customers who are double quick to complain and run to CASE. The flip side is for an instructor to take someone down in the water when it is flowing at 3 knots. Not very fast in a boat but unstoppable when you're a human being underwater ... even with fins.

Yes yes, some induhviduals can swim in or against a 3 knot current with jet fins but those are rare and certainly not new divers. Or when a storm is about to break knowing that there will be swells of up to 6 feet causing the boat (and launching/recovery platform) to continuously be in an exaggerated up/down motion.

4. Still based on point 2 above the other way out is to cut corners. By sending down students into the water with 'certified' assistants first while the actual instructor supervises the 'dive' from above water.

5. Not all instructors are the same in terms of training, exposure, experience, communication, discipline etc. This is a human given. Some instructors are on their first few classes out in open water (the sea. confined water = pool or very shallow sea bay where there is no current), others have been there so long they believe they've seen all there is to see. Some instructors demonstrate skills well underwater but may not be so articulate in the classroom. Some vice versa. Sometimes it is a language issue - CL2 instructor, EL1 student or vice versa or any other possible combination you can think off including the Scandinavian and Baltic countries. And occasionally there are requirements for a HK3 instructor also (that's hokkien for you). Instructors are not perfect. But neither are their charges.

6. Not all students truly are there to learn scuba diving and not all students go to any kind of course with the right attitude. The third kind of student, other then those who really want to learn are those who are there for the sake of someone/thing they love/adore - i.e. doing it for wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend/dog/turtle/etc. Some students simply do not respond to instructions well both above and underwater period. The most difficult instruction for guys to follow is: hold onto your buddy's arm to stay close when you first descend and hit the bottom. It applies to some gals also when their buddies are guys they do not know. FYI, STDs are not transmitted by arm contact and neither is pregnancy caused.

7. New or trainee divers (consumers) typically go for the lowest price. Sometimes even haggling even more without realising the true cost of operations for a diving outfit. Some shops give in to the pricing requirements by customers. Some shops kick off with ultra low pricing but wind up after half or a year. I leave it to your imagination what can happen in this scenario when ultra low prices are de rigeur.

6. Combine the five points above and we have a recipe ripe for disaster.

* * *

To be fair here are the components of a proper introductory scuba diving course from PADI as is typically conducted in Singapore, you go figure the true costs:

Open Water Diver Course Components in terms of cost:

1. classroom for at least 6 to 10 hours (split over 2 evenings usually and depending on whether students have pre-read the required material or not though usually it is NOT). OK, this can be conducted in someone's home at a higher cost to the instructor to get there with a bootful of diving gear to show and tell but the other requirements below are typically non-negotiable.

2. 1 to 2 or more pool sessions with rental of scuba tanks and gear (depending on student and ratios and whether students breathe easy underwater or struggle - smokers' have an advantage here since they already regulate their airways typically very well but in the diving world non-smokers outnumber smokers, just like in real life)

3. course book (to be owned by student) copies are usually not allowed (i know this is about $60 a piece) - new PADI regulations attached your actual certification card (called PIC) with each new book. Therefore you have to buy a new book to get certified. No borrowing from your friend/cousin/cat etc.

4. course video / vcd / dvd purchased and owned by shop

5. necessary equipment for theory lessons (white board, video/vcd/dvd player, tv or PC/laptop)

6. instructor fee for 4 evenings (3 to 4 hours each evening for 2 theory lessons, 2 pool lessons - then we hope like hell that everyone passes at the first go because in the typical Singaporean schedule there is no time for RT or revision if you don't know what RT means)

7. transportation for diver(s) and instructor to Malaysia (tioman / dayang / redang / perhentian etc) - ConV or minivan typically takes 9 to 11, if group of 13 then the shop loses some money. include Singaporean and Malaysian toll fees here as well to get true cost.

8. rental of dive boat (share or wholely rent but some equivalent arrangement) for the whole weekend including for use as transportation to and from the dive islands (about 4 hours of diesel run one way on the fastest boat in good weather for the nearer islands) [cutting cost here is easy, just overload the boat beyond its official capacity] -- dive boat rental typically also includes scuba tanks, weights, petrol for running human use grade air compressors [cutting cost here is also easy, just don't change the air filters so often]

9. full board for saturday night and half day on sunday (that's usually an aircon bunk style room with meals)

10. instructor fees (may have to include certified assistant's fees also depending on group size / comfort levels) for the weekend; includes instructor's boarding

11. rental of diving equipment for the weekend (a typical full set of gear excluding tank ranges from about $800 to you name it - lesser then that and you're playing with your life)

12. diving insurance / trip insurance if the operator is a disciplined and caring one otherwise you're on your own here

13. certification card (actual certification card will be mailed to you about a month later); for PADI this alone costs AUD $45 methinks.

14. storage of records by the shop in case of future accident

15. operating cost for the shop (let's assume the dive shop is a welfare society and does not operate for profit here)

16. yes, some of us will argue that if it is indeed a ratio of 1:8 then most of the costs are defrayed into 8 parts therefore lowering the overall induhvidual cost. honestly, do you go for any course(s) with 7 other friends at any given point in your life that is of your own choosing? all at the same time if you're all holding onto normal jobs (working from 8.30am to about 10pm everyday)? I've found out a long time ago that waiting for anyone to join you to do something just basically procrastinates the whole affair which typically ends up being called off. If you're gonna do it then Nike!

17. some/most instructors will 'pass' a student because the student is a paying customer. not because the student is fit for certification. few instructors will dare to 'fail' or not certify open water (beginner) students because of this perceived and real 'monetary' relationship. FYI, most scuba instructors (not dive shops or operators) in Singapore are lucky if they make enough to cover their own equipment and pay the house bills every month, zero savings potential and certainly not a decent salary. Still very far even by GHSS survey standards of $2,750 average a month.

* * *


Diving is a very nice, relaxing and interesting sport or you may choose dives that are more adventurous. There are high risks associated with scuba diving if the student is not well taught or if a diver chooses to ignore the basic and advanced teachings. Or if a diver does not go for a refresher after a long period away from diving gear and rules.






An accident in Sipadan in 2006 springs to mind. The divemaster (below level of instructor) will turn on your air tank for you just prior to the dive. It is your duty to double check that your air tank is fully turned on and that you do indeed have enough air for the planned dive. This diver actually turned OFF the air while double checking and leaving enough airflow for breathing at a shallow depth (rule is turn on all the way and half turn back to prevent jamming, this diver turned off all the way and half turn back) went ahead with the dive. At 20+M this diver 'suffocated' due to the inability of the air cyclinder to deliver air at that operating pressure (we can go into Boyle's law and all that fancy stuff but I'll leave it for the actual lecture) and shot to the surface holding a lungful of air (from 20M, a lungful of air would depressurize and expand to 3 times its original volume). The diver was rushed to Tawau Hospital and warded for observation for near drowning and for lung over expansion injury. Fortunately that diver is alright except for the near drowning.


Lung over expansion injury: your lungs tear due to over expansion but you do not feel pain because there are no nerves in/around your lungs. blood enters your lungs through the tear and you drown in your own blood / any other gunk that happens to be around in your chest cavity. there is an intermediate stage called mediastinal emphysema where you literally cough blood like in kong fu movies.


The cardinal rule of always diving with and staying near your buddy was broken. The diver was unable to locate the buddy. Whose fault is it? I would say both divers.


On further questioning it was found out that the diver was actually only certified to dive to a depth of 18M as stipulated by training but most resorts let you do what you want anyways since you are a paying customer. Over and above that, this particular diver's last dive was actually the last of the basic training dives conducted some two years prior to this trip. Futhermore this diver's other friends knew very well that this diver's certification was only for a certain level yet the proceeded to allow dives that exceeded this diver's training.


And like just any old life, any activity is risky in and of itself, I do believe the stats will show that one stands a higher chance of being in a vehicle accident (or in Singapore's case being hit by killer litter) and leaving this world then by scuba diving.

Rule No.1 : Breathe Continuously.

Please be a SAFE Diver: Slowly Ascend From Every Dive


Just don't take the cheapest course there is. We get what we pay for at the end of the day.


For SCUBA the easy way out is also the quickest way out of this world.

Go enjoy the underwater world! It is truly amazing and peaceful!