Is Capital Punishment Relevant Today?

Singapore Politics

The Independent

-

September 2, 2013

0

By P. Francis

BARBARIC to some, has capital punishment gone past its use-by date? Is the march to the gallows obsolete? Does the electric chair or death by lethal injection strike fear in would-be criminals? These questions have sparked fiery debates for years between the righteous and the ‘bleeding hearts’.

Today, how many countries still have the death penalty? The USA – the world champion of human rights – is one of 58 countries continuing with it; 97 nations have abolished it and the rest have not used it for 10 years, according to wikipedia. However, Amnesty International has reported 140 nations have abolished the death penalty. Last year, only Latvia abolished it while 21 countries had executions and 63 passed the death sentence.

An eye for eye comes from the best-selling book of all time – the Bible. However, freedom fighter Mohandas Gandhi, who always advocated peaceful means of civil disobedience, has been attributed the quote: “an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind”. The great Mahatma (Sanskrit for ‘Great Soul’) seems to have had a valid point and huge support.

Meanwhile, over seven weeks this year, there has been a strong move to galvanise the world against the death penalty:

12-15 June: Madrid hosted the 5th World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Spain this year – attended by 90 countries. Anabel Sánchez Sierra wrote in Periodismo Ciudadano: “Key issues discussed included the abolition of the death penalty, along with the related issues of adherence to human rights treaties, the procurement of a moratorium on death penalty convictions, and the establishment of penal code reforms. The idea for this international event was generated at the previous convention, held in Geneva in 2010. At that time, Spain committed to creating the ‘Comisión Internacional Contra la Pena de Muerte’, or International Commission Against the Death Penalty (established that same year at the World Day Against the Death Penalty) for the purpose of achieving a universal moratorium on the death penalty within the next five years.”

The attendees at the congress heard messages from South Africa’s Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon, Pope Francis, and other influential leaders. Rachel Zeng of the Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC), who was there, confirmed: “Ms Ong Xiao Yun from Think Centre and myself from SADPC were in Madrid for the congress. I was there as part of Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN).”

So did Singapore send an official representative to the congress? Ms Zeng said: “Not that I know of.” However, Madasamy Ravi, a lawyer and member of ADPAN, Singapore was involved in the plenary session on Asia.

28 June: The UN News Centre said that Ban Ki-moon urged United Nations Member States to move towards the abolition of the death penalty, and called on countries where the procedure is still practised to increase transparency to allow a serious debate on capital punishment. “The taking of life is too absolute, too irreversible, for one human being to inflict on another, even when backed by legal process,” Mr Ban said opening the high-level event and panel discussion at UN Headquarters in New York, on ‘Moving away from the death penalty – Wrongful Convictions’. “We have a duty to prevent innocent people from paying the ultimate price for miscarriages of justice. The most sensible way is to end the death penalty.”

27 July: A report on news.com.au said that fewer executions of death penalties occurred last year according to the Italian NGO Hands off Cain. The report said the worldwide figures fell from 5,004 in 2011 to 3,967 in 2012. The total of nations without capital punishment rose from 155 to 158 for the same period. “The significant decrease in death penalties is to a great extent thanks to China, where they dropped from 4,000 to 3,000 in just a year,” Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino said at the presentation of the report. China saw a drop of 10% each year from 2007 because a new law required death sentences to be heard in the Supreme Court, the report added. However, China remains top of the Hands off Cain blacklist, ahead of Iran (580 in 2012) and Iraq (nearly doubled to 129 in 2012). The report added: “Although 33 of the 40 countries that still have the death penalty are ruled by despots, some ‘liberal democracies’ returned to capital punishment in 2012.”

Singapore still enforces death by hanging – the last Australian hanged in the republic was Van Tuong Nguyen on 2 Dec 2005 for drug trafficking about 396.2g of heroin – more than 26 times the amount for which the death penalty is mandatory in the Lion City. Despite pleas for clemency by the Australian Government, the Pope, Queen Elizabeth and Amnesty International and other groups, the Singapore Government stood firm, perhaps on principle – so much so that Australian PM John Howard could not sway his Singapore counterpart Lee Hsien Loong to help the accused, who was remorseful, co-operated with the police and had been baptised as Caleb while in Changi prison.

Australia’s Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) last month screened a two-part dramatised miniseries produced by Khoa Do – called Better Man – which relived the trauma and tragedy of the events and how it affected Van’s mother and twin brother. It was a powerful performance and sent an unmistakable message to those travelling overseas that there are severe penalties in some countries, especially Singapore, and to respect their laws.

However, a minute concession has been made to Singapore’s capital punishment law. On 9 July last year, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean told parliament that he was easing the death penalty for traffickers, but only if they had acted solely as a courier and did not supply or distribute the drug.

Meanwhile, there will be a stay of executions at Changi since the laws have now been amended to accommodate the tweaking on 14 Nov last year. The more than 30 prisoners on Death Row – mostly on drug offences – will be able to re-apply for sentencing. This could mean life imprisonment with the rotan (caning).

With regard to murder, Law Minister K. Shanmugam told the House – on the same day as the DPM – that the government wished to retain capital punishment only for murders with an intention to kill. If there was no outright motive to kill, the sentence could be either the death penalty or a life sentence.

This begs the rhetorical question: If Van Tuong Nguyen had been arrested in Singapore for drug trafficking this year instead of more than 10 years ago, would he have avoided the hangman? Perhaps not, because nothing may have changed until his case generated wide publicity to prompt the amendment.

Only this week, Gopinathan Nair Remadevi Bijukumar, 37, had his murder conviction reduced to life imprisonment and 18 strokes of the cane – the third re-sentencing since Singapore’s law on the death penalty was amended.

Indonesia, too, has a Death Row where two Australians await execution for drug offences committed in April 2005. Ringleaders of the group dubbed The Bali Nine by the media, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, were sentenced to death by firing squad. Appeals for clemency to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono have been in vain and their execution is imminent.

However, some Australians have said: “Do the crime, do the time!” They have argued that these drug mules cause widespread pain, suffering and sometimes death to youngsters and they deserve the maximum sentences.

But, in the Ten Commandments, made famous in the blockbuster movie of the same name by Cecil B DeMille – starring Charlton Heston as Moses and Yul Bryner as Pharaoh his half-brother – in 1956, the sixth commandment proclaimed Thou shall not kill.

In Australia, the death penalty was fully abolished in 1985. Last September, the horrific rape and murder of Irish woman Jillian Meagher made headlines around the world. She was attacked as she walked home on a busy street after Friday night drinks with colleagues in inner Melbourne. Subsequently, more than 30,000 people marched down Sydney Road in Brunswick – the scene of the crime – demanding safety for women in the streets. The killer, Adrian Ernest Bayley, had been on parole and sought yet another victim. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 35-year non-parole period. In this instance, some people asked if Australia should bring back the death penalty for repeated offenders or serial killers.

The other high-profile murder happened two months later and centred on Sarah Cafferkey, who was murdered by someone she knew – after a row over drugs in his house at Bacchus Marsh in outer Melbourne. The killer, Steven James Hird, who had killed before and served time in jail, had stabbed the victim 19 times before stuffing her in a dustbin and covering it with cement. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole. “Was that enough?” some concerned citizens have questioned again.

Looking back to 2011, the Herald Sun reported that Victorian Liberal MP Bernie Finn called for the return of the death penalty, especially for drug kingpins. He received a backlash. Opponents of the death penalty said the re-introduction of capital punishment would make Australia a pariah in the eyes of the world. However, Finn found support in Crime Victims Support Association president Noel McNamara, who said: “I think the death penalty should be brought back for anyone who takes a life or causes a (loss of) life like happens with drug traffickers. Of course, there’s nothing like permanent rehabilitation on the end of a rope.”

But Melburnian mother of two girls Ms M Go, who grew up in Indonesia, disagreed. She said: “I don’t believe in capital punishment. You cannot bring back the victims, who died. Instead of capital punishment, they should be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. They are the product of parents and society and were not corrected at home and in school. The Bible also said to offer the other cheek and not hit back.”

Ferntree Gully’s Debra Weston, a working mother of three girls, is not comfortable with the death penalty: “Basically, I would like to say ‘yes, bring it back’ – but mistakes can be made. People may be framed or wrongly convicted.”

On the other hand, Wellington Village newsagent Isaac Awat, a Catholic from Iraq, felt strongly about the weak sentencing of hardcore criminals. He said: “Australia should bring back the death penalty for the dangerous people, like those who killed Jillian Meagher and Sarah Cafferkey.”

Basically, there are two schools of thought for and against enforcing the death penalty. In between, there are some who believe that the death penalty still has a purpose as a strong deterrent to serious crime, such as repeat, multiple or serial killers. Under their plan, the condemned would be held on Death Row for a few years until all avenues of appeal are exhausted. This ‘middle’ group believes even a life sentence without parole would be a drain on taxpayers’ funds. More importantly, these high-risk killers have nothing to lose by attempting a jail break and even kill again if they escape.

For the moment, the jury is out on the relevance of the death penalty and in some countries the noose still dangles on the gallows – perhaps even gathering dust. Make no mistake about it, this problem will fester and not go away for a long time!

P. Francis is an English tutor in Melbourne, who has more than 20 years’ journalism experience with newspapers, books and magazines in Singapore and Australia.

Ballot boxes: Tan Jee Say wants thorough police probe

Singapore Politics

The Independent

-

August 31, 2013

0

Ballot boxes: Tan Jee Say wants thorough police probe

The empty ballot boxes deserve a thoroughgoing police probe, says Tan Jee Say. Mr Tan, who contested the 2011 presidential election, is surprised by the sudden discovery of two empty ballot boxes. This is irregular. The ballot boxes are supposed to be discarded after the elections, said the Elections Department.
The Elections Department filed a police report after it received an email from a member of the public on Tuesday about the empty ballot boxes found. The Elections Department did not say where the boxes were found or which elections they were used for. But they were purportedly found in a school room and based on pictures circulating online appear to be from two polling stations in the Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC and were used in the 2011 presidential election.
Mr Tan, who contested the election, said: “I am surprised this has happened. Looks like there is unfinished work by some people. Now that a police report has been lodged, I hope the police will thoroughly investigate into it.”
The Elections Department, which is under the Prime Minister’ Office, stressed the discovery of the empty, used ballot boxes had no implications on “the secrecy of the vote and the electoral process”.
“They (the boxes) are supposed to have been collected by the Elections Department’s contractor, along with other discarded items, from the counting centres for general disposal,” it said. The discovery of used empty ballot boxes would mean that “these were missed by the contractor at the point of collection for disposal”, the statement added.
Police said: “The persons interviewed by the Police have told the Police that the ballot boxes were empty when they found them, with no ballot papers inside. Preliminary investigations indicate that these were empty boxes left behind in the counting centre intended to be disposed of. ”
Investigations are continuing, police added.

Vincent Wijeysingha and gay activists barred from Russian embassy, cops show up

Featured News

The Independent

-

August 30, 2013

0

Vincent Wijeysingha and gay activists barred from Russian embassy, cops show up

jolovan vw yangfa — Yangfa, Vincent and Jolovan

SINGAPORE 30th August 2013: Russian diplomats did not respond with love when gay activist Vincent Wijeysingha and his friends went to present a petition, “To Russia with Love” on Friday. They were refused entry into the Russian embassy. Fourteen policemen in eight patrol cars showed up as they were leaving. The police filmed Wijeysingha, Jolovan Wham and Leow Yangfa. They were also asked to produce their NRICs.

The activists went to the embassy to present a petition protesting against laws which discriminate against the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) community. The petition was signed by 200 individuals at an event, “To Russia with Love”, held at Hong Lim Park last Saturday. It was part of a series of activities organized by Indignation, Singapore’s annual LGBT pride festival.

Vijeysingha resigned from the opposition Singapore Democratic Party earlier this week, saying he was leaving party politics to focus on civil society activities.

UPDATE on 31st August 2013 – Media statement from the activists

Officials of the Russian Embassy in Singapore have refused to accept a petition signed by 200 members of the LGBT community and their allies when four activists visited their premises on Friday morning, 11am Singapore time. Instead, the embassy called the police and the activists were interviewed for almost an hour before they left the scene.
The petition was signed at an event last Saturday (24 August), ‘To Russia with Love’, held at Hong Lim Park as one of a series of activities organised by Indignation, Singapore’s annual LGBT pride festival.
‘To Russia with Love’ was organised in response to the Russian parliament’s adoption of legislation banning the dissemination of information on “non-traditional” sexuality. The Russian government claims that the law will protect children and young people from information and propaganda that are harmful to their well-being and development. There has also been an increase in the number of violent incidents, assaults, harassment and bullying of Russian LGBT people and their allies since the passing of this law. At least two people were reported to have died as a result of homophobic attacks.
Vincent Wijeysingha, who was the first politician in Singapore to come out as gay said ‘This small act will not change the mind of the Russian government. But it should be left in no doubt that people the world over hold it in contempt.’
Russia will host the Winter Olympics next year and its government has banned demonstrations and rallies in the city of Sochi where the games will be held, in a move that was denounced by rights activists.
Last week, an email was sent to the Russian Ambassador requesting a meeting to deliver the petition. The Head of the Consular Section, Bulat Dondukov, replied with this message:

The Embassy has received and considered your request for a meeting with an Embassyofficial with the purpose of submitting a petition from Singapore’s LGBT community.
We believe that your protest is prompted by gross misconception and is ill-advised. You have misconstrued developments in Russia.
First of all, we want to remind that discrimination of any minority is legally prohibited inRussia by the Constitution. Unlike the former Soviet Union homosexual behaviour is not punishable by the Criminal Code. The recently adopted law has one well-defied purpose – to ban promotion of homosexuality among minors, but not “promotion of homosexuality”, as you claim. The law prohibits promotion in aggressive forms of non-traditional sexual practices among minors.
Law enforcement officers now have the right to detain persons who violate the law intentionally (for example, by conducting public actions near schools and other children institutions). And last, but not least: violation of this law is an administrative, not criminal, offence.
In a joint statement, the four activists said ‘We have been pressing the bell outside the embassy for the last thirty minutes and obviously nobody is coming out to receive us even though they have just let the newspaper man in. So clearly, they are ignoring us which is rather telling, because Putin appears to be a tough man in his own country but his representatives abroad don’t even have the courage to come out to accept nothing more dangerous than a letter. So, we will leave the letter here and go away, but we would like to tell our LGBT friends in Russia from here in Singapore that we support you, and this is done in friendship across the many miles.’

[fvplayer src=”http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sqo1sud3O8k”]

What is the real story?

Singapore News

The Independent

-

August 30, 2013

0

By PN Balji
Vincent Wijeysingha’s story just does not gel. He said he was leaving the Singapore Democratic Party — and politics — because if he continued with party politics “marginal concerns such as those faced by the gay community” would be sidelined.
One of the rising stars of the party also said the discussions that followed his disclosure last month that he was gay show there is a misunderstanding of these issues, primarily because of a “lack of mainstream access to appropriate information.”
That access will be even more difficult with him now out of the political stage. Over the years, the attitude towards gayhood has improved. Goh Chok Tong went public about the decision to have gays in the civil service.
And when Vivian Balakrishnan hinted about Wijeysingha’s sexuality in the run-up to the 2011 General Election, PM Lee Hsien Loong came out quite clearly against such tactics.
The mainstream access to issues relating to gayhood has only increased, not decreased.
Thus, Wijeysingha’s reason doesn’t fit the reality.
Then there is his stated interest in not just issues involving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LBGT) rights, but also those surrounding civill liberties. Civil liberties cover a wide spectrum which Wijeysingha will find difficult to spread if he is out of the political process.
The battle is not going to be easy, of course. The conservative ground is still not sweet for politicians like him.
But why give up at this stage with elections three years away and the national mood changing?
So, we cannot but ask: Is there something more than meets the eye?
SDP’s statement that it was “disappointed” with Wijeysingha’s decision says a lot.
Is there something that both the party and the man are not telling Singapore?

Are our children being tested too soon and their future decided too early?

Featured News

The Independent

-

August 30, 2013

0

Are our children being tested too soon and their future decided too early?

By S. Bala

The primary school education system formally ends with a high-stake national examination (Primary School Leaving Examination) which streams the pupils based on their ability in four core subjects. Those who do well in the examination can go to the better secondary schools. It is a major milestone, affecting a child’s future. The intensely competitive, highly stressful examination impacts on students and their parents alike.

Even Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was moved to complain against it. In his National Day Rally speech, he said:

“Parents think PSLE determines a student’s future; hence there is tremendous stress as the whole family takes the PSLE. Today, parents ask one another, ‘What is your child’s T-score?’ I don’t think this is healthy at age of 12.”

Unfortunately, this is reality. A rose by any other name is a rose. Whether we use T-scores or wider band grades, will the examination be any less grueling? Isn’t it time we realized that 12-year-olds should not be subjected to a national placement examination. The fault lies not in the way the assessment is made but in the assessment itself. The use of T-scores is just a statistical tool to standardize scores across subjects so that a student’s performance is weighed against his or her peers.

Mr Lee mentioned the use of a grade system to score PSLE, but how is this going to ease the tension of parents who perceive the PSLE as a crossroad to either a bright or a dim future? Do the ‘O’ levels or ‘A’ levels cause pupils any less stress? Whether we use T-scores or grades, the undue stress does not stem from the scoring system but from education policies shaped by global trends that have resulted in a competitive and stressful system.

If PSLE is not abolished, then the government should consider changing the mode of assessment for PSLE as the current mode is a mechanistic and technical process. Ironically, what influences the students is not the teaching but the assessment system. They concentrate on what they are likely to be assessed on rather than learning itself.

Assessment should complement learning and should be aligned with the learning activities.

The Ministry of Education’s vision of ‘Thinking Schools, Learning Nation’ was a move to meet the challenges of the future through creativity and innovation. It promoted a shift from “quantity teaching” to “quality teaching” which translates to less rote learning.

However, if learning is geared towards creativity and innovation, then why should assessments be made primarily through written tests? Not all students learn or understand the study materials the same way, yet a major examination such as PSLE uses this method to determine placement in a secondary school?

A new scoring system will not necessarily reduce stress as PSLE in itself is a national placement examination which is norm-referencing – fitting pupils to a rank list. Statistical moderation processes such as T-scores are used to standardize students’ scores to fit a normal distribution. The fault clearly does not lie in the scoring but in the assessment type. The best thing to do would be to abolish PSLE.

Photo courtesy of TNP

New tycoons in Singapore – what do they bring to the table?

Featured News

The Independent

-

August 29, 2013

0

New tycoons in Singapore – what do they bring to the table?

Poor Eduardo Saverin. The Facebook co-founder, Singapore’s eighth richest man in 2012, according to Forbes, was dissed by an Independent reader. The reader wrote: “PM Lee said, ‘Billionaires bring business, they will bring opportunities, they will open new doors, they will create new jobs’. PM Lee is right! Saverin, one of Facebook founders who renounced his US citizenship to become a Singaporean PR , invested in Miss Singapore Universe winner Rachel Kum’s cosmetics firm! So I guess Saverin is a jobs creator!”

The reader helpfully linked to a Daily Mail article, published just days before Facebook’s initial public offering (IPO) in May 2012, about Saverin’s “playboy lifestyle” in Singapore and his link with Rachel Kum. The article went on to quote from a Wall Street Journal report which said, “Eduardo doesn’t invest in much. He doesn’t invest in Singapore companies.”

That’s old news. We don’t begrudge the Brazilian his billions and what he chooses to do with them. His name wouldn’t have come up at all unless the Prime Minister had spoken about the benefits billionaires bring.

Speaking at the DBS Asian Insights Conference, PM Lee said: “In fact, if I can get another 10 billionaires to move to Singapore and set up their base here… I think Singapore will be better off because they will bring business, they will bring opportunities, they will open new doors, they will create new jobs…”

That may be so. But with unemployment hovering just around 2 per cent, does Singapore need more foreign billionaires or top-flight executives and managers?

Consider people like Nanyang Technological University president Prof Bertil Andersson, DBS CEO Piyush Gupta, Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore board member Bruno Lanvin, who is also executive director of Insead Lab and has been associated with the World Economic Forum (WEF). Their talents are manifest. NTU has shot up in the world university rankings under Prof Andersson, who was appointed president in July 2011. Lanvin was one of the three editors of the Global Information Technology Report 2013, which ranked Singapore second in the Networked Readiness Index, same as in 2012.

No country should have to choose between tycoons and talented managers. Both are necessary.

Still, it would be interesting to know how much foreign tycoons have contributed to Singapore. Jim Rogers, the American investor, moved to Singapore in 2007 and has been one of its ardent admirers. But he is not another Warren Buffet whose investments are widely reported in the press. Richard Chandler from New Zealand, Singapore’s fifth richest man in 2012, according to Forbes, heads Chandler Corporation. Based in Singapore, it invests mostly in emerging markets.

There is no reason why foreign tycoons moving to Singapore should be expected to make the bulk of their investments in the city-state. That’s not how business operates. Even GLCs like SingTel and DBS have substantial foreign stakes.

Tycoons, local or foreign. are free to live it up in Singapore and scout opportunities abroad.There’s money to be made as the playground of the rich, too.

The ghosts of past Singaporeans may shudder at the changes. But you can’t be the same-old, same-old forever. You have to go with the flow, bend with the winds of fortune. The old Singapore had to go and change into this glitzy fleshpot by the sea, where rich playboys go clubbing while the government collects GST and the tips go to foreign workers.

But is this the Singapore we want?

Asia focus for Aussie who wants to be PM

World

The Independent

-

August 29, 2013

0

Asia focus for Aussie who wants to be PM

By P. Francis
Melbourne

RHODES scholar, swimmer, runner, cyclist, ex-seminarian, journalist and politician are just some of the threads weaved into the many-coloured coat of Tony Abbott, leader of the quietly-confident Liberal opposition Down Under as D-Day 7 September approaches.

No, he is not exactly like Joseph – the favourite son of Jacob – who was given the unique coat by his father as a sign of future leadership over his brothers, as related in Genesis.

Abbott is married to Marg and has three lovely daughters. He had to work very hard in opposition against two different PMs and now, some critics claim, it is his election to lose as the weekly polls have swung Abbott’s way. (Some polls have even dared to say – and newspapers have published the prediction – that PM Kevin Rudd could lose his Brisbane seat of Griffith.)

This Rhodes scholar, who studied at The Queen’s College in 1981, is one of the high achievers in the Australian political arena. Other Australian products of the premier scholarship, which has strict criteria, sharing a special ‘thread’ are Labor PM Bob Hawke (1983-1991), Kim Beazley (deputy Labor PM) and former Liberal opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull.

Even Singapore has its share of Rhodes scholars. Former Singapore Sports Council chairman and senior minister Dr Tan Eng Liang won the scholarship through Malaysia in 1981. The rumour mill had it in the late 1970s that “this man was being groomed to be the next Singapore PM”. History shows his career went a different way. Today Singapore has two serving MPs of that calibre – Raymond Lim (PAP) and Chen Show-Mao (WP), while Malaysia has MP Sivarasa Rasiah of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (People’s Justice Party).

Among Abbott’s plans for the future is integrating further into Asia by building from the ground up.

The Australian newspaper reported on 25 Feb this year: “The business community has swung behind Tony Abbott’s pitch for a new Colombo Plan, which would see thousands of Australian undergraduates undertake a semester of university work in the Asia-Pacific. Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop has been the driving force behind the new policy for scholarships paying travel, tuition and living expenses for Australians to study in Asia.”

Ms Bishop, a former education minister in the Howard government, had said that the scholarships would require recipients to work one day a week as interns for Australian businesses and non-government organisations in Asia. She said it was crucial to link the scholarships to career prospects for the students selected. Business Council of Australia president Tony Shepherd gave a big tick to the opposition’s plan and called it “a great idea”. “The original Colombo Plan (which brought Asian students to Australia) was very beneficial to Australia,” he said. “It formed fantastic alumni links to Australia.”

Brighton Secondary Year 10 express student Evelyn Lieng, of Melbourne, gave the plan an emphatic nod and said: “It would be a good opportunity to work in Third World countries and developing nations in Asia because many of us take what we have here for granted.” Lieng, who has a grasp of conversational Japanese and French – learnt in Years 7 and 8 at school – also had the impression that “Locals think the immigrants work too hard at school and employment, but just can’t be bothered to match the pace.” Perhaps that is why Australia lags behind some Asian countries in the academic stakes.

Meanwhile, Isabelle Weston, a Year 10 Student at Fairhills High in Knox, has hosted three different Japanese students in her home and will go on a study trip to Japan in mid-September. She said: “Guess it is a good plan to experience the culture, lifestyle and learn new ways of working. The Federal Government should select suitable students and teach them to pay their way.”

A Malaysian teacher, enjoying his retirement in Melbourne but wanting to remain anonymous, commended the plan: “Good idea. What is needed now is to identify the Australian businesses and NGOs willing to host the interns and to participate in the programme. While the Aussies might be willing, I doubt if the Asian businesses or NGOs would give their full support. They might have reservations. Asian businesses, in particular, rely very strongly on personal commitment and loyalty, as you know. Their business culture especially, is very different from that of the West.”

Abbott has another plan – announced in a White Paper on 21 June this year: “With Asia’s real GDP expected to grow from US$27 trillion to US$67 trillion by 2030 and Northern Australia’s proximity to the tropical region, Northern Australia is well placed to capitalise on the significant economic, strategic and environmental macro-trends that will shape both the Asian and tropical regions. We are determined to break the ongoing development deadlock that has held Northern Australia back for so long. For too long, families have been reluctant to move to Northern Australia because of the absence of adequate infrastructure; and governments and the private sector have been reluctant to invest in major projects because of insufficient population.’’

Abbott’s vision is to use the north of the continent as a springboard for trade into Asia, where many countries are rapidly developing under the shadows of the economic giants, such as China, Japan and Korea. Highly-populated India could be called the sleeping giant, closest neighbor Indonesia has a huge market, Thailand is popular with Aussie tourists and Myanmar is slowly opening its doors.

In the past, Australian military forces have served in Singapore, Malaya, Borneo, Papua New Guinea, East Timor, Korea and Vietnam to help maintain peace and freedom. It is a well known fact that Asian countries, including Singapore, Indonesia and the US have ventured Down Under and used the vast and rugged terrain of Australia for military training exercises.

Today, many people accept Australia as part of Asia. Even in sport, the Socceroos, Australia’s national football team, has paved the way into Asia by playing in the Asian Group for the past two World Cup qualifying rounds. They have been great ambassadors for the country. Melbourne, regarded as the sports capital of the world, will be in the limelight once again when the Aussies host their inaugural Asian Cup tournament in 2015.

The links are already there laid in stone and Abbott’s plan to further strengthen the bonds with Asia is another step in the right direction. The changing face of Australia is mirrored in the number of MPs with Asian heritage, who are involved in government at federal and state level. It is only a matter of time, maybe decades, when – just like President Obama in the US – a Prime Minister with Asian heritage is sworn in by the Governor-General of the day!

P. Francis is an English tutor in Melbourne, who has more than 20 years’ journalism experience with newspapers, books and magazines in Singapore and Australia.

Vincent Wijeysingha resigns from SDP

Singapore Politics

Kumaran Pillai

-

August 28, 2013

0

By Kumaran Pillai

Outgoing Singapore Democratic Party treasurer Dr Vincent Wijeysingha gave this exclusive, no-holds-barred interview to The Independent Singapore before his resignation from the party. He spoke openly about his journey through the political landscape, the prejudices he faced and the need for greater gay awareness and advocacy.
He was a rising star, holding key appointments as party treasurer, head of communications, author of SDP’s shadow budget and prime contributor to SDP’s policy position papers.
His decision to quit electoral politics seems to follow the outing of his gay orientation on Facebook just before the Pinkdot event this year.
One party member said, “Vincent’s resignation is a loss to SDP.”
Dr Wijeysingha is the third to resign of the four-member SDP team that stood for election from the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC in the 2011 general election. Tan Jee Say and Michelle Lee have already left the SDP and Ang Yong Guan, the fourth member, is no longer seen at party events.
Here’s what Dr Wijeysingha had to say.
The interview
You’ve had an incredible journey in Singapore’s socio-political scene. First of all, how did you get involved in mainstream politics?
It’s an exciting journey, even if not entirely trouble-free!
Entering politics was fairly straightforward. During the first year after I came back to Singapore, I was looking at civil society initiatives. There was a lot of good work going on.
I sensed that, for me at least, a focus on wider politics would be worthwhile. It felt the right thing to do, engaging in the broader political spectrum.
What were some of the prejudices that you faced in your political life?
The most immediate prejudice I experienced was in the silence that surrounds homosexuality – it means that people like Vivian Balakrishnan can use it as a trump card during elections.
The existence of Section 377a implies that prejudice against the gay community is institutionalised in Singapore. And it permeates every aspect of our lives – through the school system, the army and the workplace. LGBT people end up hiding their true selves and living a life of silence in isolation. Dr Balakrishnan then uses it against us.
Tell me more about this video that was circulated. Was that taken at a private event?
It wasn’t a private event, it was a forum organised by M Ravi to discuss the Section 377a constitutional challenge that he was taking – the Ivan Tan case. I spoke at that event.
Was that before you decided to enter politics?
No, about the same time. Roy Tan, who has done a great job of chronicling the work of the gay community over several years, recorded the forum and uploaded it to YouTube. It was a useful contribution to the public debate.
It may have been a concerted plan on the part of some PAP supporters: the video was publicised about a fortnight before the general elections and then Dr Balakrishnan made a statement about it.
But my sense is that, in any case, the issue is complex: there are layers of prejudice and layers of commitment to democracy. There are those who are committed to democracy but struggle with the extension of rights to gay people.
What’s interesting was SDP’s response to Vivian’s statement about your “gay agenda.” SDP was quick to say that they do not have a gay agenda. But the larger question is, why not? If they are championing for full democracy, why leave the gays out?
This one is a semantic problem…
The term ‘gay agenda’ was coined by American evangelical churches to describe what they see as a nefarious plot by gay people to take over the world!
Dr Balakrishnan may have heard the term being used in similar fashion and then used it in the same way.
In fact, the term doesn’t have any substance to it – when you think about it – what is a gay agenda?
So when the SDP responded during the elections, we said that we don’t have a gay agenda – what we have is an agenda for the poor and an agenda for democracy.
Justice Quentin Loh said that in Singapore’s legal system, whether a social norm that has “yet to gain currency” should be discarded or retained is decided by Parliament. So shouldn’t you be championing the gay issues in Parliament instead?
As far as I perceive it, the Singapore courts don’t interpret the law. We don’t appear to have a natural justice approach to the law but follow what Parliament has prescribed. I call this the Yong Pung How Doctrine; he articulated it often during his tenure as Chief Justice.
In England, you will sometimes find judges saying emphatically that Parliament must look again at a particular issue. Our judges don’t do that.
But neither is Parliament the place where social change is initiated. It is the place where social change is ratified.
Social change occurs in the community. When a question arrives on the floor of Parliament, it has already been progressed outside.
A small number of non-government MPs does not change the legal framework but rather responds to public sentiment outside which, to be sure, is the task of politicians but, more importantly, of social activists, to shape.
What made you post about your sexual orientation just before the Pink Dot event this year?
As far as I am concerned, I was outed during the GE. It was already a known fact…
My post was rather tongue-in-cheek but it made an important point: that one should attend Pink Dot if one is, like me, committed to the equal rights of all people.
Speaking openly against a prejudice that has thrived in silence is part of the process that dispels the silence.
I understand that you are resigning from SDP…
Yes, after that post on Facebook, I received hundreds of ‘Likes’ and messages. Some wrote to congratulate me for coming out. And it really surprised me.
It struck me that LGBT people may have been lulled into a sense of security. The police do not raid our social spaces anymore; it does not use agent provocateurs. Several MPs including the two former Prime Ministers are on record as saying that no moral attitude should be assigned to homosexuality.
I was certainly lulled into a sense that all is well. That when Section 377a is removed from the statute book – and eventually it will – things in general will be okay.
But the sentiment is split: many of the comments in the social media were supportive but some were highly prejudiced.
The volume of misinformation and misunderstanding suggested to me that there is a major task ahead to address these negative views because they contribute to the very real discrimination in daily life. So that forced the question on me: how should I respond.
If I remained in party politics, I would focus on mainstream issues, ie. those at the political middle ground. This could result in the sidelining of marginal concerns such as those faced by the gay community – I faced a dilemma.
Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that I might be of better use if I engaged these marginal concerns, particularly since they impact on me and therefore have deep meaning for me as an individual.
Will you be joining any gay advocacy group or starting one on your own?
I haven’t thought that far. I do need to get involved, wherever it might be.
My values remain the same; they are the values the SDP inculcated. The SDP has provided a much-needed voice to place the issues of personal liberty firmly in the political arena.
I take those values with me; they form a key element of my values apparatus.
You see, in fact there is a “gay agenda”, but not in Dr Balakrishnan’s sense. It is an agenda for equal protection of the law, for respect and amity.
I’m sure that when people get over their initial prejudices through access to better information, the so-called gay agenda will be no more of a threat than the agendas for equal rights for women, for ethnic minorities, for disabled people that at one time were also viewed with suspicion and fear but which today are entirely mainstream.

Sports and politics: do they mix?

Uncategorized

The Independent

-

August 28, 2013

0

By Michael Y.P. Ang

It is fairly common for Singapore’s sports organisations to be run by politicians. So we have

Senior Minister of State for Trade & Industry and National Development Lee Yi Shyan serving as president of Singapore Badminton Association,

MP for Toa Payoh East (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) Zainudin Nordin as president of the Football Association of Singapore, and

MP for Nee Soon South (Nee Soon GRC) Lee Bee Wah as president of the Singapore Table Tennis Association.
A person should not be excluded from presiding over a national sports organisation simply because he is a politician. That would be discrimination.
However, if a person with no prior experience in sports administration or as a competitive athlete becomes the chief of a national sports organisation, primarily because he is a politician, it raises the question: is this in the best interest of the sport or that person’s political career? (Being prominently involved in national sport raises a person’s public profile.)

Politicians running sports bodies per se is not a bad thing. In fact, it can be a very good thing.

Politics and sport seem like a good mix in Japan

Japan, a global sports powerhouse with 139 Olympic gold medals (of which nine came from the Winter Olympics), also has politicians running some of its sports organisations. For instance, Seiko Hashimoto, a member of Japan’s House of Councillors (the Upper House), is president of the Japan Skating Federation (JSF).

However, unlike her Singaporean counterparts, Ms Hashimoto is a former Olympic speed skating bronze medallist. Clearly, she has first-hand knowledge of what her sport needs to flourish. This is perhaps why the JSF continues to produce Olympic medallists in both speed and figure skating.

The ideal sports administrator

China’s Olympic and world champion Lin Dan recently told the AFP news agency, “Many people, including those from the BWF (Badminton World Federation), don’t really understand what the main problems in badminton are, and what it most needs, because many officials are not competitors.”

Former national athletes with an aptitude for sports administration are the ideal people to manage the sport they had competed in.

A great example is Singapore’s two-time world silat champion Sheik Alau’ddin, who went on to become the national team head coach and, later, technical director. Armed with experience as an athlete and coach, Sheik became the chief executive officer of the Singapore Silat Federation (SLF) in 2005.

Under Sheik’s leadership, the SLF continued its proud tradition of producing world champions and South-east Asian Games winners. At the inaugural Asian championships two years ago, Singapore won four gold medals.

Is sport the best use of Singaporean politicians’ precious time?

Not every former athlete is suitable for or interested in sports administration. Nevertheless, it is counter-productive for national sports organisations to pick only politicians as their presidents, especially if they have more pressing national matters to focus on.

For instance, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean is also Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs. These portfolios are in addition to the six constituencies within the Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC he oversees. Given his full-time work commitments, is he really the most suitable person to be president of the Singapore National Olympic Council?

Unless a politician brings with him a wealth of sports experience, Singapore sport is better served by having qualified, passionate sports administrators who can commit full-time to running national sports organisations.

It’s Singapore, not Swingapore

Singapore Politics

The Independent

-

August 28, 2013

0

By Abhijit Nag

“What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty!” said Hamlet. He wouldn’t have been so sure about human rationality, though, had he gone around taking opinion polls.

Did you see the survey findings of Our Singapore Conversation? Forty-five per cent of the respondents agree, and another 33 per cent strongly agree, that the government is managing Singapore well. But only 42 per cent agree, and 22 per cent strongly agree, that the government is doing what’s right for Singaporeans. How can the number of people who think the government is doing a good job exceed those who think the government is doing what’s right for the people? Go figure.

That’s not the only puzzle posed by the report. It also makes you wonder how popular is the government’s new move for strengthening social safety nets. What’s crystal -clear is that Singaporeans want slower growth, fewer foreigners and tend to be conservative.

And you have to take your hat off to the old man for (a) knowing his people so well and (b) having such a big influence on them.

LKY values

Guess what matters most to Singaporeans. “Across age groups, filial piety and safety and security for their families were regarded the most important,” says the report.

LKY would approve. Filial piety, self-reliance, family ties, Mr Lee Kuan Yew never tired of upholding these while propagating what he called “Asian values”.

And they still resonate with young Singaporeans.

Tellingly, it’s people over 50 and those earning less than $1,000 a month that want the government to take more responsibility for providing for the people, says the report. The majority of teenagers, on the other hand, feel the people, not the government, should be more responsible for themselves. And that view is shared by a sizable section of under-50-year-olds.

The influence of LKY shows in other ways, too.

Most Singaporeans would like to keep taxes low even if it means limiting support to the needy. More affluent Singaporeans, earning over $7,000 a month or living in private property, “seemed more willing to pay higher taxes to support the needy”, says the report. But that may be because they are in a better position to pay. Flat-rate indirect taxes such as the GST impose a heavier burden on lower-income groups.

“Bleeding heart liberals” most Singaporeans are not. Gay lifestyles are acceptable to only 34 per cent of teenagers and 35 per cent of 20- to 34-year-olds – and even fewer older Singaporeans. Same-sex marriage is unacceptable to most.

It’s Singapore, not Swingapore.

Bright young things and the hip and the cool may lament, “Say it ain’t so, Singapore.”

People may wonder whether all the fuss over social welfare, gay rights, freedom of expression (apparently not a big deal, curbs acceptable to the majority) is much ado about nothing.

Here’s what we do know.

“Sing” or “Swing”, if the people have their wish, this will still be a Garden City with green, open spaces for years to come. And who wanted Singapore to be a Garden City? Mr Lee Kuan Yew, of course.

Is Capital Punishment Relevant Today?

Ballot boxes: Tan Jee Say wants thorough police probe

Vincent Wijeysingha and gay activists barred from Russian embassy, cops show up

What is the real story?

Are our children being tested too soon and their future decided too early?

New tycoons in Singapore – what do they bring to the table?

Asia focus for Aussie who wants to be PM

Vincent Wijeysingha resigns from SDP

Sports and politics: do they mix?

It’s Singapore, not Swingapore

Singapore News

Residents sceptical of hot tubs to be built at Nee Soon East Oasis Waterpark say it’s only a matter of time before they are...

Hash browns and green bean soup: Singaporeans share memories of growing up poor

Changi Beach reopens for water activities after Johor oil spill clean-up, says NEA

‘Cannot even shower in peace in the morning’: Girl says her 60 y/o father turns off the heater and lights while she showers because...

Business

‘Why Indonesia?’: Singaporean couple share 5 reasons why they moved after their HDB MOP

Pony.ai CEO eyes Singapore expansion for robotaxi service

Singaporeans cancel Netflix subscriptions after price hike of up to S$4 monthly

Singapore sees over 66% jump in flexible job postings compared to last year

Singapore Politics

‘Doesn’t mean we’re gone,’ Pritam Singh reassures Marine Parade residents

GE2025: ‘Rats, last-minute candidate switches, elderly concerns,’ Singaporeans weigh in on what they would ask candidates

‘Chio pro max,’ WP Punggol candidate Alexis Dang makes waves online

‘My dear brother has always wanted to stand in Tampines,’ says Pritam Singh of Faisal Manap