By Vignesh Louis Naidu
Should people be allowed to rent out their HDB flats? They were meant to be their homes, not units to let.
The Housing and Development Board (HDB) was established in 1960 to provide low-cost housing for the masses and solve Singapore’s housing shortage. In 1964 the home ownership scheme was launched to give Singaporeans the opportunity to own an asset in their country. Today the HDB has evolved. It does not simply provide low-cost housing but also aims to cater to the aspirational desires of a more affluent population. Along the way, however, people have put their flats to other uses.
A quick search of rental HDB properties in propertyguru.com yields over 20,000 results. These results would obviously include HDB shophouses and individual rooms available for rent. However, there is a very large number of complete HDB units available for rent.
Why are there so many privately-owned units available for rent?
Allowing owners to rent out complete units transforms these apartments from homes to investment vehicles. This would certainly have an effect on sale prices. Sellers would factor in the potential rental yield into their asking price.
Preventing HDB flats from being rented out is not feasible. There needs to exist a pool of HDB flats over and above the low-cost rental units offered directly from the HDB. Rental units are needed by foreigners coming here to work, families who are in between homes and those still saving up to purchase one.
If the rental market is driven by private investors and homeowners, what is the implication on sale prices? The prices of new flat prices are not only determined by the construction cost but also affected by the prices of resale flats within the estate. Resale prices have in recent years shot up, leading to discontent and unhappiness in certain segments of society. The government has implemented various cooling measures to lower the prices of resale flats while increasing the number of new launches to meet the high demand.
When we allow a person to turn a subsidized home into an investment vehicle, we may be losing sight of our founding leaders’ noble motivation, to ensure that all Singaporeans could afford their own home.
In my opinion, only the HDB, should be allowed to rent out HDB flats. A family which no longer wishes to live in its HDB flat could try to sell it on the open market. If the flat remains unsold after a certain time, the HDB would offer to buy it back at its valuation price. The HDB could then keep the flat within its existing pool and rent it out.
The HDB should also construct more rental flats. Instead of providing only low-cost and two-room flats, it should also offer three-, four- and five-room flats for rent.
My proposal does not take into account the subletting of rooms within a flat, which would require a more nuanced approach.
Singaporeans should be able to earn an income from property investments but these investments should not be subsidized HDB flats. The HDB was created to provide affordable quality housing and this aim should not be forgotten.
Vignesh Louis is a young and passionate Singaporean who recently completed the Master of Public Policy course at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.
One solution to HDB crunch
What was PM trying to get at?
By Abhijit Nag
The Prime Minister’s cautionary words at the official opening of UTown are worth debating. Singapore is committed to expanding the number of university places from 27 per cent of each cohort currently to 40 per cent by 2020. So far so good, but what next? As PM Lee said “Other countries have found that having large proportions of students going to university does not necessarily guarantee happy outcomes.”
He pointed out unemployment was higher among university graduates than among vocational high school graduates in South Korea, where more than 70 per cent of each cohort goes to university. Universities must impart skills that lead to good jobs, he said.
PM Lee could be echoing his father who spoke against “overcrowding” in universities. Accepting an honorary degree of Doctor of Laws at the University of Hong Kong in February 1970, Mr Lee Kuan Yew said: “Against the prevailing drift to gross overcrowding of universities in the new countries with ever lowering pass levels, I was cheered to find that the University of Hong Kong has under 3,000 students and the University of Singapore 4,500.”
Now one in four Singaporeans is going to university. What a change since then. The growing army of university graduates has not pushed up unemployment, which is still an enviably low 2.1 per cent, but will there come a time when there are more graduates than jobs? The possibility must have crossed the PM’s mind, or he would not have cautioned against that.
Singapore is better educated today but faces more problems as well. Support for the PAP plunged to a post-independence low in the May 2011 general election. That may be due to other reasons, but look at the coincidence.
Singaporeans have become more questioning, more critical of the authorities, it is said. Maybe that is because education is supposed to foster the spirit of inquiry, make you ask questions.
Knowledge is power, it is said, but it can also lead to trouble. Remember what the Bible says: God told Adam not to eat from “the tree of knowledge of good and evil”, but Eve was tempted to share the fruit with him, and they were banished from the Garden of Eden.
Not all knowledge is regarded as good. Thus we have the story of Dr Faustus, a scholar who makes a pact with the devil and learns black magic, and has to pay dearly for it when he is consigned to hell.
There are still restrictions on what we are allowed to read and learn. There are banned books, official secrets, classified information.
Not all the restrictions are misplaced. Iran and North Korea face sanctions for nuclear programmes because of the hazards they pose. WikiLeaks sparked a crisis by releasing secret US diplomatic cables after publicizing Afghan war documents that were said to endanger people’s lives.
Knowledge is not all sweetness and light. It can be both creative and destructive.
Marx may or may not have been right, but there can be no denying the upheavals he caused. Millions died under Stalin and Mao and then there were all those conflicts during the Cold War. Inspired by the Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman, Margaret Thatcher launched an economic revolution that socially devastated Britain, The Guardian commented when she died in April. The 2009 recession was blamed among other things on financial derivatives called credit default swaps (CDS), that built up the housing bubble.
Of course, there is no denying the miracles of science and technology. But isn’t it a shame that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer? Technology can turn the world into a global village, but cannot narrow the gap between the rich and the poor?
Impossible! What’s impossible today is just waiting to be done tomorrow. That’s the best thing about science, education and technology. You can always expect something new.
Winners and losers in Umno polls
By The Malaysian Insider
The Umno elections are over, and here are the winners and losers.
Winners
- Datuk Seri Najib Razak
He wanted the status quo and he got it. He may be the butt of jokes in urban Malaysia for staying silent on all important issues in the country and for believing that all problems can be solved by tossing money around but in Umno, the man is in a strong position.
All his men – Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal and Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein – were elected as vice-presidents yesterday. Also protecting his flank are Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin and Wanita Umno leader Datuk Seri Shahrizat Jalil.
Even if Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad goes on a rampage against Najib, it is going to be just noise because the former prime minister will not have a power broker in a senior position in Umno to shake Najib.
Najib is in a much stronger position in his party than he was just after the May 5 general election. But will he do anything with this mandate or will he remain Mr Anonymous?
- Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi
If as expected Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin does not contest the next general election, guess who is in running to become the deputy prime minister of Malaysia.
Not bad for someone who was detained under the Internal Security Act in 1998; who until a couple of years ago was staring at political oblivion, the price for being a close associate of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
Not bad for someone without the gravitas or the intellectual heft of some of Malaysia’s former DPMs, heavyweights such as Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman and Tun Musa Hitam.
But who are we to say anything? Umno absolutely loves his fighting talk and right-wing rhetoric.
- Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein
Remember that classmate of yours who did not do much throughout the year, crammed for the last month and somehow managed to pass the SPM? Remember him following the same path for STPM and scraping through?
Now think of Hishammuddin Hussein. He did not perform well as Education Minister and only snared a slot as the vice-president in the last party polls, thanks to the last-minute intervention of his cousin, Najib.
This time around, he needed the whole cavalry to take him over the finish line. Even Shahrizat mobilised Wanita Umno to help the man who put in a poor, poor shift as the home minister.
On his own, he would have been an also-ran.
- Khairy Jamaluddin
He retained his position as the Umno Youth chief so comfortably and has positioned himself as the reformer in the party (it is just branding because in Umno a reformer is someone who says he is a reformer. Walking the talk is optional).
With Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir out of the picture and Dr Mahathir’s ability to influence Umno on the wane, expect Khairy to take a higher profile in the party.
Also expect him to contest the vice-presidency at the next party polls. Not a bad few months for someone once best known as the son-in-law of Tun Abdullah Badawi.
Losers
- Malaysia
Is this the best the ruling party can offer Malaysians? Yes. This is the Umno dream team: Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, Shafie Apdal, Hishammuddin Hussein. One of these chaps could end up as the prime minister.
There is Zahid who till today has been unable to answer allegations of cronyism raised against him by Dr Mahathir in 1998 or still has that case of allegedly assaulting his daughter’s friend hanging over him.
And sandwiched in between is a litany of statements bordering on chauvinistic, seditious or just plain ridiculous.
Shafie is the colourless, under-performer from Sabah while Hishammuddin is best known for waving the keris during the Umno assembly in 2006 and watching crime become a serious problem on his tour of duty as the home minister.
But this is the best Umno can offer. A bit like the Malaysian football team: a pale shadow of the great teams of Arumugam, Soh Chin Aun and Mokhtar Dahari.
- Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad
The former prime minister still has some pull in Umno but is not nearly as influential as what his bloggers and supporters and family would like to believe. Without the Mahathir surname and intense campaigning by his father, Mukhriz would have been thrashed.
Still, few people remember losers, or the margin of defeat. In Umno, it is even more cruel. Few have time for losers. Party members only respect power and gravitate to those with the scent of power.
For Dr Mahathir, this is the second consecutive election that he has been unable to make his presence count for the candidate of his choice. In GE13, despite campaigning for Ibrahim Ali and Zulkifli Nordin both were defeated by candidates from PAS in Pasir Mas and Shah Alam respectively.
- Datuk Seri Mohd Ali Rustam
The man played the race card to the hilt and painted himself as a victim of the Chinese tsunami but he performed worse than expected. He was quietly confident of even snatching the third vice-president’s slot. So why did he perform so badly?
The electoral college may have been extended but the real power brokers are the 191 division chiefs. It is they who set the voting pattern for their delegates and, truth be told, the majority of them did not want to antagonise Najib who had already indicated that he wanted the status quo retained.
(From The Malaysian Insider)
Going cross court with a ‘spirited’ tennis guru
By P Francis
Born in Perak, Malaya, he was the son of an immigrant from Fujian Province, China, and his mother was a Peranakan from Malacca. Dr Desmond Oon has represented both Malaysia and Singapore – since he became a Singapore citizen – in tennis. He developed his game as a student in Australia. Now a permanent resident in the US, he is courting the tennis fraternity from Redondo Beach, California, with his ‘spiritual’ tennis. He has written four books on it – ‘Soft Tennis’; ‘Can Eastern Wisdom Improve Your Tennis? You Bet’; ‘Eastern Wisdom, Business Mind’; and his latest is ‘Conversation with a Zen Tennis Master’.
In 2002, Oon founded the Centre For Mind Body Tennis (CMBT) in Redondo Beach to help players reach their full potential. CMBT applies the wisdom of the East to tennis, especially zen and tao. This tennis guru is a Master Professional, tester and honorary life member of the United States Professional Tennis Association and was the first Asian tennis personality to have been given this rare honour to join the ranks of Billie Jean King, Rod Laver, Fred Perry, Stan Smith, Chuck Norris, Tony Trabert, Jack Kramer and Harry Hopman.
He become a professional in 1960 before going on to represent Malaysia and Singapore between 1963 and 1968. He was vice-president of The International Soft Tennis Federation – the controlling body of soft tennis worldwide, as well as a former Davis Cup coach, including for Singapore.
Armed with a sports science/physical education diploma from the University of Adelaide in Australia, a master’s degree from the University of Oregon in the US and a Ph.D. from the University of Queensland, also in Australia, Oon has been a motivational speaker for 20 years.
In Singapore, he held senior research, information and management positions in the National Sports Promotion Board and Singapore Sports Council (SSC) 1972-1997. Having worked with Oon at the SSC in the late 1970s (I met him again in Melbourne in 2010), I have personally seen him behind the scenes diligently working and writing speeches for politicians. Beneath his stern exterior is a man with a heart. He coached and worked for the Singapore Tennis Coaches Association (STECA) in a voluntary capacity after founding it in 1977 and serving as president for several years.
Q: When and where did you first hold a tennis racket and what were the circumstances that lead to it?
A: In 1950, several years after the end of WWII in a small town Telok Anson, in Perak. Malaya. Some British civil servants were playing on the only tennis court in town. I was one of the ball boys earning a pittance. But we were given opportunities to hit around with old rackets. That was a blessing.
Q: Who coached you and was there some sort of junior programme?
A: Coaching was non-existent. Nobody volunteered to help. There was no tennis association to get a junior programme going. I was self-taught. I had a Tony Mottram book published in the 1940s. I learnt everything from that instruction book. Mottram was British and a big name at that time. This book is still in my tennis library…believe it or not.
Q:. When did your tennis really kick off?
A: In 1959, I would say. That year I enrolled as an undergraduate at the University of Adelaide. During the summer months, I had lessons from prominent Adelaide coach, John Dicker. He was an insightful coach and I credit him for launching mytennis career. In 1962/63, I was good enough to represent North Adelaide in district competition at the Memorial Drive courts. I was the first Asian playing at that level…above A grade.
Q: What happened to your tennis after your graduation from the uni?
A: I returned to Malaysia and was good enough to be selected to represent that country in international tournaments.
Q: But you also represented Singapore in the SEAP Games and other international competitions in the 1960s. How come?
A: Politics changed all that. In 1965, Singapore became a Republic and I became a Singapore citizen, earning the right to represent my adopted country. I had to renounce my Malaysian citizenship. That was the price I had to pay.
Q: You played extensively in Australia and Asia throughout the 60s when Australia ruled the tennis world. Who were the top players you competed against?
A: Players like John Newcombe, Tony Roche, Alan Stone, Colin Stubs and Ray Ruffles. In Asia, I’d competed against the legendary Indian player Ramanathan Krishnan and most of the top Asian players. I also played against Bjorn Borg (Sweden) and Tom Okker (Holland) in exhibition matches.
Q: In the 70s and 80s, you were a prominent tennis official in Singapore, serving as vice-president, president, Davis Cup captain and national coach. What was your vision for Singapore tennis then?
A: I had wanted to achieve excellence for Singapore tennis. I launched the Excellence Initiative for developing top juniors, the Team Tennis competition, and the national tennis coaches certification programme. I founded the Singapore Tennis Coaches Association to further the cause of teachers and trainers…with the aim that all these grass-root programmes will dovetail and result in a strong tennis culture.
Q: What has happened to these programmes? Have any of them succeeded?
A: To be honest, I don’t know the state and status of Singapore tennis today, as I’ve been away from the country for close to 20 years now. I can only guess it is healthy and the on-going tennis development is in the hands of forward-looking leaders.
Q: So it seems you have no contact whatsoever with the present tennis leadership. If you get an invite to return to Singapore and help out with ideas for the further development of the game, would you accept?
A: Of course, I would be pleased to help out in any way I can. I’m foremost a loyal Singapore citizen. Working in the US has not eroded my loyalty one bit or my love for my country.
Q: Then why did you leave Singapore for California? You studied sport science in Australian universities and earned your doctorate at the University of Queensland. Why did you choose the US over Australia?
A: I would have loved to work in Australia but, 20 years ago, there were few opportunities for me to function as a performance psychologist. Opportunities abounded in the US…especially California – the hotbed of American tennis.
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.
Are native Singaporeans a dying breed?
A few of my friends started shaking their heads when they found out I had resumed a relationship with an old girlfriend. The reason? She is from Vietnam and her education is minimal. The most common reaction was – “Oh be careful, women from Vietnam just want your money.”
By comparison, everyone was very happy when I started the relationship before that – this girl was “acceptable” to Singapore society. She was from Raffles Girls’ School and had a degree in architecture. She played the piano and I remember my sister telling a family friend, “This one knows who Glenn Gould is.”
However, whenever I look at these two relationships, I tend to ask a different question – “Are native-born Singaporeans a dying breed?” My native -born ex-girlfriend has superb academic qualifications but lacks life skills. She can only mix with Caucasians or Singaporeans from a similar social background. Life seemed to fall apart the moment she quit her job. By contrast, the Vietnamese lady is confident with people from all social backgrounds and she’s full of ideas of how one can make a better living.
Unfortunately, the difference between these two ladies doesn’t seem to be limited to them. This personal comparison seems to be also true on the national scale.
Let’s start with surfing websites in Singapore — you’d get the impression that Singapore is a desperate backwater where subsistence farming is the economic activity of the chosen few. This is despite the fact that Singapore has consistently posted years of economic growth with low rates of unemployment. As far as many Singaporeans are concerned, the government has let in too many foreigners, thus making everything from housing to transport more expensive but increasing competition for jobs, thus lowering wages for Singaporeans, including professional, executive and middle class ones.
It’s a fact that housing in Singapore has become more expensive. In 2012, Singapore’s Business Times found that an HDB flat in Bedok cost more than a 12-acre pine island in Maine, USA. Other forms of infrastructure are also seeing similar strains.
The lost PMETs
The professional, managerial, executive and technical (PMET) group in particular seems lost. I’ve known enough retrenched professionals who seem unable to do things differently once they lose that job in either the civil service or a multi-national corporation.
While the influx of foreigners does have an impact on resources, these problems are not unique to Singapore. The global economy has been undergoing changes and given Singapore’s dependence on the rest of the world, it’s no surprise that Singapore’s economy has been affected.
What is interesting here is not the structural shifts but in the reactions to them. If you read the reactions in cyberspace, you’ll get the impression that Singaporeans are looking for a “government-led” solution.
One of the most prominent examples that comes to mind is a former Citibank sales manager whom I know. The man has a way of making people feel at ease and getting them to do things for him. When I first met him in 1999, he could pull $300,000 worth of unit trust sales in a single day. Unfortunately, he lost his job two-years later and he has remained unemployed since.
What’s striking is not the fact that he’s retrenched, but his reaction to it. His financial situation is such that not only does he need his friends to pick up the tab whenever he goes out, but he’ll need his bus card topped up. Despite this, he is unable to look for another source of income. He won’t take freelance work, including giving tuition. He won’t take a “humble job” like waiting tables, even if it would qualify him for workfare and other government assistance. He describes such activities as being “not worth it”.
Sadly, he isn’t the only one who thinks like this. Talk to enough Singaporeans about taking “low-paid” work and the common reaction is, “The pay is too low for us to survive and support our families. It’s OK for foreigners to take these jobs.” This sentiment is unfortunately illogical and worrying.
I see things differently because I’ve been a freelancer most of my professional life. However, it is worrying when you see people dependent on a single organisation for their economic and psychological well-being. It’s frightening when you see people react to a setback by doing nothing at all.
Back to my Vietnamese lady. Vietnam threw off French colonial rule and beat back both America and China after that. How did they do it? Much has been said of these wars but the point is, these people found a way of making their ‘home-ground’ advantage work for them, despite being physically pulverised by two of the biggest powers in the world. By comparison when you read the comments in cyberspace, Singaporeans have found reasons why they can’t win on their home ground.
Singaporeans do have advantages in terms of their education in English and they do have advantages when it comes to dealing with the international business community. However, the “other” Asians are catching up in this area and when all things become equal, our psychological inability to adapt to changing circumstances will ensure that we are a dying breed.
NGO-government relations: The art of the possible
By Zach Isaiah Chiah
Bukit Brown is the largest Chinese cemetery outside of China.
In 2012, the Land Transport Authority announced the decision to build a road across the cemetery, so as to ease congestion on Lornie Road. Heritage enthusiasts together with concerned Singaporeans petitioned against the decision. Groups such as All things Bukit Brown were set up to educate the public and petition the government not to destroy a national icon. In August 2013, the Land Transport Authority awarded a tender to build a road across Bukit Brown; part of the road was tendered as a bridge instead.
It was viewed in some quarters as a government concession to NGOs. SMU Law Professor and NMP Eugene Tan says, “They didn’t get their way 100% but I think there is reasonable success in attaining some outcomes.”
Terence Chong, vice president of the Singapore Heritage Society, disagrees.
“I think the bridge was less of a compromise in the face of heritage concerns than it was an engineering and financial decision. The number of graves exhumed [was] not significantly reduced by the decision to build the bridge.”
In October 2013, Bukit Brown was listed on the World Monument’s Watch 2014. That, says Chong, was “a real shot in the arm for those of us who have worked tirelessly in Bukit Brown and behind the scenes”.
Shift in public thinking
The SHS’ work has been helped by a recent shift in public thinking with locals becoming more concerned about the preservation of heritage in Singapore. “This groundswell is not surprising. We are becoming more educated, better travelled and more sensitive to any loss of heritage,” said Chong. “SHS wants to debunk the myth that we can either have development or heritage. This is a false dilemma.”
“If we as a people can overcome natural obstacles like water supply, why can’t we come up with innovative ways to accommodate both development and our heritage?”
Chong’s view is indicative of how NGOs view their role – supportive of Singapore’s overall development.
To do anything they believe to be beneficial to Singaporeans, though, NGOs need to work with the government.
How NGOs should work with the government
But how should an NGO work with the government?
“Be open, honest, and frank. It’s not about scoring points. Often, there is a common goal but the differences cohere in how to get there,” says Asst Prof Tan.
John Gee from Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) adds, “Positive outcomes are more likely if an NGO has proposals for change, backed by solid reasoning, rather than just a string of complaints against government policy or action that offer no indication off what might sensibly have been done instead.”
Constant dialogue even when there are no major issues is important, says Dr Geh Min. “If we only communicate when there is a pressing and potentially controversial issue at hand, there is less likelihood of a positive resolution.”
Two-way street
Engagement, however, is a two-way street. It requires dialogue and not monologue. The onus cannot be on the NGOs alone, says Damien Chng, founder of We Believe in Second Chances, a group working for the abolition of the death penalty in Singapore. The government has also to be willing to cooperate with the NGOs,
This then begs the question, how has the government fared in its engagement with NGOs?
The report card on this is mixed.
How the government is doing
The government is working in a new area and is feeling its way around the issue. Asst Prof Tan explains, “They are learning. They know there is a need to work with them rather than against them. It’s a steep learning curve but I see the government is trying to work with [NGOs].”
Dr Geh agrees government engagement is “much better than before” but adds: “NGOs have to be responsible [and] credible partners as well. It all goes back to both partners developing trust but maintaining independence.”
Asst Prof Tan cautions: “We should not measure success by outcomes alone but also (by) how the government is engaged and sensitised to the concerns of NGOs and interest groups.”
Other NGO representatives, however, worry about the possibility of not having anything substantial to show for such engagement.
“There is a concern amongst groups that their existence will become cosmetic, just as a show of engagement and diverse voices in Singapore without the substance.” says Kristen Han from Second Chances Singapore.
So how can the government allay those concerns and move on to a more cooperative model?
“We’d like to see a readier response to requests for meetings and to letters that raise questions about policy matters.” says John Gee. He adds that there is good contact over migrant worker cases. While the organisation is not totally happy with all the outcomes, they are pleased that the communication channels are open.
Focusing on the issue of the death penalty, Damien Chng says, “The government can do more to involve the NGO community in its decision-making process, and also in terms of providing the NGOs with information and statistics on the relevant issues.”
Throughout the world, NGOs and governments have rarely been considered friends; some have even said that such cooperation is impossible.
Better NGO-Government cooperation can only be good for Singaporean society by providing more rounded considerations to policy. “After all,” says Dr Geh, “we are working for the same goal which is the long-term good of Singapore.”
Would Singapore be able to accomplish the ‘impossible’ where others have failed?
Perhaps Terence Chong summed it up best: “The Singapore story is about accomplishing the impossible.”
See also NGOs: Why some succeed, some don’t
Time to protect victims of cyber-harassment in Singapore
By Choo Zheng Xi
A difference in two landmark cases on the tort of harassment in Singapore suggests that it’s time for the government to reform the law.
Recently, AXA Insurance went to the High Court to seek an injunction to prevent a disgruntled customer from harassing their staff. AXA claimed that the former customer was sending abusive correspondence to its staff.
In dismissing AXA’s claim, Justice Choo Han Teck declined to grant the injunction on the basis that the law as it stands does not provide for an award for a civil remedy in harassment. He took the view that Parliament is better placed to introduce such laws, and was hesitant to judicially introduce an amorphous tort of harassment.
Justice Choo’s approach is a departure from the last landmark case on harassment in Singapore.
At the turn of the century, in 2001, Justice Lee Seiu Kin decided the case of Malcomson v Mehta. The case granted injunctive relief to a Malcomson, an employer who was being stalked and harassed by an ex-employee, Mehta. Mehta used emails, SMSes and phone calls and trespassed on Malcomson’s property. Most alarmingly, Mehta sent a card with a picture of a baby rattle on the death anniversary of Mehta’s infant child.
Behind the differences
The differences in the approaches of Justice Choo and Justice Lee can be understood given the particular facts of the two cases.
Justice Choo was naturally hesitant to set a precedent of allowing better resourced institutional plaintiffs to prevent individual complainants who might be unreasonably persistent in fighting for their rights as a consumer.
On the case before him, Justice Lee understandably saw a need for the law to protect individuals from the sort of insidious, aggravated harrassment Malcomson experienced.
Still, two differing High Court cases in over a decade are a poor roadmap for the ordinary Singaporean who might be at the receiving end of harassing activity.
Criminal law
Unfortunately, criminal law does not provide much more consistency than the civil recourse.
Currently, law enforcement is constrained to rely on a mishmash of different legislation to prevent varying modes of harassment, particularly in the sphere of online harassment.
The Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act makes it an offence for a person to use “threatening, abusive or insulting” words and behaviour with the intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress. However, it is not clear that the statute would apply to harassment by phone and email.
The Computer Misuse Act has been used to prosecute cases where an individual gains access to the email of someone else to stalk and harass the person. In the case of Lim Siong Khee v Public Prosecutor, a disgruntled ex-boyfriend who had used his ex-girlfriend’s email account to send out lurid details of their relationship to her friends was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment.
However, neither of the two pieces of legislation above covers situations where an individual has his or her personal details exposed online, nor does it cover situations where an individual becomes the target of anonymous poison pen email campaigns.
The reality for the man in the street is that the cost and expense of the civil remedies that Malcomson and AXA tried to obtain in the High Court would be a deterrent to commencing a civil suit.
In some situations, the police have difficulty acting on complaints of harassment by email because of a lack of a framework in this area. This sends the incorrect impression that such crimes are relatively “low signature” offences.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment can be more traumatic than other kinds of harassment or stalking. The ease with which the internet allows perpetrators to stalk and harass their victims makes the crime easier to commit, and the ubiquity of the internet makes victims of such crimes all the more insecure.
The United Kingdom has a Malicious Communications Act which makes it an offence to send letters or electronic communications (whether oral or written) to another person which is false, contains a threat, or contains indecent or grossly offensive material. Federal law in the United States prohibits cyber-stalking, and several states have prohibitions against cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment.
Early last year, the government indicated it was reviewing cyber-crime laws. Justice Choo’s decision in AXA’s case is a timely reminder that we need to get such legislation off the runway.
The writer is a lawyer at Peter Low LLC specializing in civil and criminal litigation. He was the the founding editor-in-chief of The Online Citizen.
Five hundred petition Singapore government to reopen prison death inquest
Singapore – A petition signed by more than 500 people both here and abroad has called on the Singapore ministers for law and home affairs to reopen an inquest into a prison death here.
Last night, activists from the Justice for Dinesh Campaign released a video interview with Madam Selvi filmed in September. She said, “The other seven persons must come to the court. The judge must give good reasons; what type of punishment to give to the seven persons.”*
Madam Selvi, who is represented by human rights lawyer, Mr M Ravi, goes to the High Court here today to petition for the reopening of the inquest.
Dinesh Raman, who was due for release in December 2010, died of positional asphyxiation in September 2010, following what the Prison Service claimed was an unprovoked attack on a prison officer.
The slim, 51kg 20 year old was subdued with pepper spray and overpowered by eight officers. He was left unresponsive in a prone position in an isolation cell. The Prison Service admitted it did nothing beyond splash water in his face. Shortly before lunch on the same day, he was pronounced dead at a local hospital. Cause of death was recorded as “cardio pulmonary failure, pending investigation”.
Photographs of the deceased released with the family’s permission showed extensive bruising to the face and body.** Speaking of the photographs, mother, Madam Selvi Narayanasamy, said, “I can feel how my son suffered before he died.”*
Research funded by the US Department of Justice in 2004 have produced tentative findings that positional asphyxiation can be a contributor to death.*** Rachel Zeng, a spokesperson for the Justice For Dinesh Campaign, noted, “Given the lack of information available, contradictory media reports, and fresh data such as this, the circumstances leading up to the tragedy remain unclear.”
The Home Ministry conducted an internal Committee of Inquiry and disciplinary proceedings against the eight officers. Neither report was made public.
Subsequent government statements and media reports contained contradictory accounts of the death.
One prison officer was convicted of negligence and fined S$10,000. The Home Ministry claims the other seven have been redeployed to non-operational duties.
Following the criminal proceedings, the State Coroner decided to abandon his inquest.
Government officials met with the family on numerous occasions to attempt to convince them to give up their desire for an inquest. A government press release in August claims the mother sought “windfall damages”. Madam Selvi strongly denies this: “I want to know what happened to my son,” she said.
In June, Madam Selvi petitioned the Attorney General to reopen the inquest on the grounds that with a guilty plea entered in the criminal proceedings, the cause and circumstances of Dinesh’s death were never established. She was turned down.
* Video interview with mother available for viewing at: http://youtu.be/rlRExTSMnZs
** Detailed timeline dossier of the case (with photos) is available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/175887807/Dinesh-Raman-Timeline-With-Photos
*** Deaths in Police Confrontations When Oleoresin Capsicum is Used by Charles S. Petty M.D. Published by USA Department of Justice, February 2004. Available at http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/showdoc.html?id=4705
NGOs: Why some succeed, some don't
By Zach Isaiah Chiah
It was like Lazarus rising from the dead.
“We were stunned at the announcement from Minister Mah. So was everyone else in the room when he said that the Cabinet had decided to defer land reclamation…”
“It was one of the most moving and memorable moments because it was something we had all been working so hard for but never really expected could happen. Really like the miraculous recovery of a loved one whom you had given up for dead.”
That was the recollection of Dr Geh Min to the Chek Jawa reclamation decision in 2001.
In early 2000, the government announced plans to reclaim Check Jawa for development. It sparked a spontanoues outpouring of support and emotion in the normally passive Singapore population. A group of botanists had discovered the rich diversity of Chek Jawa (located near the tip of Pulau Ubin) in December 2000 and a documentary was made. A report was compiled and sent to the government. In December 2001, Singapore awoke to the stunning news that the government had accepted the proposal and had put aside reclaimation of Chek Jawa for 10 years.
To Dr Geh, “the episode signified that civil society was alive [and] well… [and] that the government recognised its role [and] potential contributions [and] was prepared to listen to [and] work with us.”
When people are moved about something, passion drives them to do something about it. For some this means setting up organisations to advocate for what they believe in.
These are called Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs).
What is an NGO?
An NGO is a legally-constituted organisation that is distinct and independent from the government of the country. NGOs are usually non-profit and pursue wider aims. In Singapore that can range from single issue groups such as All Things Bukit Brown (see Correction below) to groups with a wider focus such as the Singapore Heritage Society.
An NGO is not a lobby group. A lobby group attempts to influence lawmakers to support or oppose an issue or legislation. Advocacy, on the other hand, focuses on education and creating awareness among legislators and the general public about an issue.
Lobbies tend to be viewed negatively because of a perceived narrow focus on legislation to serve the groups’ interest. In Singapore, NGOs tend to mostly be advocates and not lobbies.
SMU Law Professor Asst Prof Eugene Tan says: The line can sometimes be very thin between advocacy and lobbying. But these NGOs are true to their raison d’etre and they are not lobbying because they are being “paid” to do so. They are very often cause-driven, and very much driven by volunteers.”
An NGO has two main partners that it works with, the public and the government.
All NGOs have a reason and a cause they believe to be just. But not every cause is viewed with equal friendliness by the authorities, or any political group for that matter.
John Gee, of Transient Worker’s Count Too (TWC2), elaborates, “Elected politicians are inevitably sensitive to public opinion. They tend to take a more positive interest in matters on which there is strong public feeling and very cautious about issues that raise controversy.”
“NGOs are political by nature – political in the sense that it seeks to influence policy-making decisions based on what we feel is right and good for society as opposed to what will win votes – so the strategies they adopt will inevitably be determined by political considerations; how best to make policymakers or the public see the merits of what they are arguing for.” says Damien Chng, Founder of Second Chances Singapore.
Dr Geh agrees that NGO’s are political, “in that the issues raise have socio-political implications. We aim for public awareness but we are certainly not trying to manipulate public response.”
What this means is that some groups end up being more successful than others. Asst Prof Tan lists Nature Society and Heritage Society as examples of more successful groups.
Why are they more successful?
Four reasons for success
Four reasons have been suggested: public support, alignment with the authorities, style of advocacy and personalities involved.
Public support is vital to the work of any NGO. “NGOs will try to show that there is public support for the cause or position they are advocating,” said SMU’s Asst Prof Tan.
Terence Chong, Vice-President of the Singapore Heritage Society, concurred, “Without public support, SHS can do little. As a civil society group we can offer intellectual arguments and research but if the public is not on board there will be no traction.” His view was supported by Kirsten Han of Second Chances Singapore. “If you can get more people participating then there is more pressure for change,” she said. This explain why many NGOs emphasise the need to reach out to the public.
Having said that, there is more to public support then merely policy change. “Change is not only about government policy and regulations; it is about public attitudes too,” said John Gee, “In any country, an enlightened government policy can be undermined if there is no public support for it and likewise, a negative government policy can be undermined by a public that favours a more compassionate and rights-respecting position.”
Gee points to the issue of migrant workers. “There are many issues involving migrants’ experiences that are largely invisible to the public. In addition, there are sectors that do not wish to understand, because it would inconvenience them… these people do not want to hear anything that contradicts their prejudices, we think that most of the public is more open-minded, but it is just very hard to put themselves in a migrant worker’s shoes.”
How the public views things sometimes also affects how the government reacts and responds.
Dr Geh elaborates: “The [government] has its own agenda [and] if there is synergy then of course they are happy to have you work with them or better still, take over from them.”
In the final analysis, a politician’s aims are focused on the vote bank. “Migrant worker issues [are seen as a vote loser], which is why not one single party in Singapore takes a robust stand in favour of migrant workers’ rights.” Says John Gee.
Gee should know.
TWC2 is at the forefront of one of the hot button issues in social advocacy – transient workers. In recent years, transient workers have conducted a number of large and small scale protests over perceived ill-treatment by their employers and it has affected how advocacy works. “The going has got harder on some issues, though on questions of extremely harmful behaviour towards migrant workers, public opinion and government action continue to move in a positive direction.”
Even if the broad aims are in line with the government, an NGO may not be well received because it is perceived as being obstructive.
A lot of this has to do with how ‘loud’ the voice is. “Megaphone engagement often gives rise to the government being concerned about an issue being politicised. Or that they are other ulterior motives. So there is a preference for the low profile approach that is more focused on positive outcomes”, explained Asst Prof Tan.
The NGOs, however, disagree with the softly, softly approach all the time.
When asked if quiet diplomacy worked better than loud advocacy, Han replied: “Different NGOs have different methods in advocating for their cause.
“Different causes require different methods; for example, when it comes to death penalty cases, where there is almost a countdown to an appeal or even an execution date, we are required to act in a way that takes into account this urgency. In such situations it wouldn’t be useful to want to take a “softly, softly” approach – there might not be time for it.”
Would the authorities view it kindly though?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no seems to be the answer, Dr Geh mentions that there are also elements of luck and personalities involved that matter as well as whether the policy is likely to be controversial at that time. “The important thing is to look for commonalities with the other party and try to develop a sense of trust.”
It should not be surprising that trust involves not just the logical argument but also the personalities involved.
These factors are important, but just as Lazarus rose from the dead and Chek Jawa was saved from the brink, sometimes there are other unseen factors involved. Tomorrow
Tomorrow: NGO-government relations — the art of the possible
Correction
All Things Bukit Brown is not an NGO. We are a loose group of volunteers, strangers who became virtual friends and eventually guides and helpers at Bukit Brown. We are dedicated to the cause of public awareness and education of the value of Bukit Brown as our national heritage, habitat and history. You can find out more at our blog site.<>Best regards,
Claire Leow
All Things Bukit Brown.
Heritage. Habitat. History.
Woes of the middle class
By Augustine Low
Not much has changed in the last ten years since this piece was first published. Some great points here to think and ponder about. What exactly are we fighting for?
Middle-class parents walk a constant tightrope. One the one hand, there is the need to cope with Singapore’s over competitive education system. On the other, there is the danger of our children taking extravagance and self-indulgence for granted.
I hear that kids as young as six or seven already engage in one-upmanship about family holiday destinations.
My son, who is 13, claims that many of his classmates change their smartphones every year. I use a six-year-old model, so it’s not that hard convincing him that his three-year-old one is more than adequate. But I don’t know how much longer I can delay getting him that $500 pair of Beats headphones which are apparently a must-have.
It can only get more trying for the middle class, with Singapore being modelled as a hotspot for the super rich. PM Lee Hsien Loong himself has said as much – he would find it hard to resist opening the door to the super rich who want to come here.
Already, we have Singaporeans who become an Internet sensation showing off Hermes home and designer bags that each cost a year’s income for many people. With more super rich in our shores, they could bring with them their extravagant lifestyle and excessive culture of consumption.
At best, this breeds envy. At worst, this weakens social fabric and breeds discontent.
Beyond ostentatious spending, what else do the super rich, especially the mega entrepreneurs, bring to Singapore? Conventional thinking is jobs creation. But it may not be so. In a provocative new book Who Owns The Future?, author Jaron Lanier says that the digital revolution has led to wealth concentration in fewer people, with fewer jobs than ever before.
Lanier cites the example of Instagram, the new face of digital photography, which was sold to Facebook for US$1billion last year. It employed a total of only 13 people! Not that the 13 were extraordinary employees, but the value of companies like Instagram come from the millions of users who contribute to the network without being paid for it.
So the super rich, especially those who make their bucks from the digital revolution, do not necessarily spur the economy.
In fact, Lanier argues that the concentration of wealth in fewer people has led to the collapse of middle-class financial security in the US and many parts of the world.
What about Singapore?
If you are rich (foreign passport accepted), the government will be happy to work with you and woo you to set up home and business. You are also welcome to enjoy the tax breaks.
If you are poor, the government will give you grants and put you on some form of welfare or credit scheme. But you will lead a life of hand-to-mouth and may have to clean public toilets or clear food court tables in your old age.
But, if you are in the middle? The term “middle-class squeeze” then applies to you.
You will be straddled with housing and car debt. You expect your two (or maybe just one) children to enter university from the time they were born. So you give them the best, you invest heavily in enrichment classes and tuition and try to get them into what you think is a good school – although MOE says every school is a good school.
You and your spouse work really hard, maybe on a salary of $5,000-$6,000 each a month.
Some of it probably goes to the maid every month. And if you live in a condominium, it’s your maid (and pet dog/children) who spend more time enjoying the facilities than you and your spouse because you are both too busy working.
Your hope is that you will save enough money for your retirement (by 60 or 65, because you do not wish to think about living till 90, or worse still, work till that age). And you worry if you are able to see your children through university, if they can’t make it to a local one.
Good old-fashioned financial security for the middle-class? It could just be a pipe dream now.
Augustine Low is a communications strategist.