Friendly Reminders From the Nation-Building Press About The Dangers of Hong Lim Park

ST Sep 2, 2008
First legal demo since rule change lasts just 10 minutes
Non-profit group stages protest against maid abuse, watched by curious onlookers and activists
By Li Xueying

SINGAPORE'S first legal demonstration in two decades was held yesterday at the Speakers' Corner - and lasted for all of 10 minutes.

At 7pm, five members of a non-profit group, Hearer of Cries (HOC), gathered metres from the Clarke Quay MRT station exit at Hong Lim Park to stage a protest against employers who abuse their maids.

Against the darkening sky, they erected banners and played music, as a female member - complete with a neck brace - posed as an abused maid.

HOC founder Mike Goh, 46, gave a short message against abuse as others distributed leaflets to an audience of some 20 curious retirees, political activists and office workers on their way home.

By 7.10pm, it was over. There was no procession, shouting or burning of effigies. 'Is that it?' asked a disappointed Mr Steven Lee, 34, an engineer.

LOL, poor Mr Steven Lee. All these years, the PAP government has been telling him that demonstrations are dangerous; they mustn't be allowed; there will be riots; people will be killed etc. I guess Steven must have actually believed the PAP, at least partially.

Personally, I don't think that any demonstration at Hong Lim Park will be more dangerous than, say, the crowds at the Great Robinsons Sale.

Meanwhile (and by pure coincidence no doubt, LOL), today just happens to be the very day that the Straits Times has an article about an event that happened two years ago. And what happened two years ago?

Well, back in September 2006, a lady named Harkirat Kaur distributed some flyers & advertisements at City Hall MRT. What's so unusual about that, I hear you ask. After all, every day, people stand at MRT entrances distributing flyers, advertisements and brochures.

Oooooh, but this is different. Harkirat's flyers were VERY dangerous. She was publicising a demonstration at Hong Lim Park. And you know what the PAP government has been saying about demonstrations all these years, right? Demonstrations are dangerous; they mustn't be allowed; there will be riots; people will be killed etc.

No wonder Harkirat must be punished.

ST Sep 2, 2008
Illegal assembly: Woman fined $650
By Elena Chong

A WOMAN who took part in an illegal assembly two years ago to publicise a political rally was fined $650 yesterday.

Harkirat Kaur, 29, admitted to passing out fliers during a September 2006 gathering along North Bridge Road which allegedly involved members of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP).

Party chief Chee Soon Juan, his sister Chee Siok Chin, assistant treasurer Jeffrey George and party chairman Gandhi Ambalam have also been charged in connection with the assembly.

They had earlier claimed trial and their next court date is tomorrow.

The court heard that Harkirat, who does freelance editorial work, took part in the assembly at the entrance of City Hall MRT around mid-day on Sept 10, 2006.

She distributed fliers promoting a rally at the Speakers' Corner in Hong Lim Park scheduled for six days later.

Me, I don't think distributing flyers is dangerous. Unless you're distributing them for opposition politicians to say that they will be speaking at Hong Lim Park. Maybe that's exactly what the Straits Times wants to remind you about, LOL.

On a related note, you might recall that last year, the Workers' Party had applied for a permit to hold a cycling event at East Coast Park. The police rejected the application. When Sylvia Lim went to Parliament to ask why, the Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs Prof Ho Peng Kee said that:

1. East Coast Park is a recreational park for Singaporeans and their families. It is not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause;

2. Apart from displacing the usual recreational users, East Coast Park is an open area where there is greater potential for breach of the peace, public disorder and unruly behaviour.

3. The police requires political events to be held indoors or in stadiums where problems could be contained, and this policy applies to all political parties.

However, guess where the PAP held its carnival, just last Sunday? At the West Coast Park. And guess who made his grand entrance on a bicycle? Yes, the Man himself, together with a troop of PAP ministers and MPs, all on bicycle.

"Ehhh, Mr Wang, don't say liddat lah,
West Coast Park not the same as East Coast Park, mah."
I must say - this country is as funny as it is sad.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

The State and the Media and Their Embarrassingly Passionate Embrace in Singapore

If the New York Times published an article criticising some aspect Singapore, the Singapore government might get upset - with the New York Times. But the Singapore government would not get upset with the US government.

And that's because we all understand that the NYT is the NYT, and the US government is the US government, and the opinions of the NYT are not the opinions of the US government.

Similarly if the BBC published a report criticising some aspect of Singapore, the Singapore government may get upset - with the BBC. But the Singapore government would not get upset with the UK government.

And that's because we all understand that the BBC is the BBC, and the UK government is the UK government, and the opinions of the BBC are not the opinions of the UK government.

However, in our own backyard, things seem to be somewhat different. Here's an example.

ST July 5, 2008
S'pore media should not take sides: PM Lee's press secretary

THE press secretary to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has written to the Today tabloid newspaper, taking issue with recent articles on the wife of Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak.

'Although developments in Malaysia affect Singapore, we must be disinterested external observers, not partisan participants in their domestic politics,' Mr Chen Hwai Liang said in a letter addressed to the paper's editorial director, Mr P.N. Balji.

He was referring to a report headlined 'Under fire - the 'First Lady-in-waiting'', which appeared in Today on June 27.

This quoted various Malaysians describing Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor as 'arrogant' and 'ambitious'.

Also criticised by Mr Chen was a subsequent note from Mr Balji, headlined 'Leave it to our readers to judge', which was published on July 3.

The latter was in reply to a letter from the Malaysian High Commissioner to Singapore, Datuk N. Parameswaran, taking issue with the June 27 report.

Both of Today's articles 'took a slant which cast doubt on your newspaper's objectivity', said Mr Chen.

'Singapore media reports on events and developments from around the world in order to keep Singaporeans well-informed and aware of what is happening around us. But it is important for the Singapore media's reporting of political developments in other countries to be objective and factual,' he said.

'In particular, it is unwise for Singapore media to take sides, especially when it involves our immediate neighbours,' he added.

Basically, TODAY published an article. The Malaysian government was unhappy with it. To appease the Malaysians, PM Lee Hsien Loong's office had to make it clear publicly that it didn't approve of TODAY's article.

As I had earlier said, if the New York Times publishes an article, we expect that it's really a New York Times article - not a US government press release. But in Singapore's case, such expectations shrink drastically.

Thus if a Singapore newspaper publishes an article which a foreign government finds somewhat "out of line", the Singapore government may well choose to intervene directly and publicly (as shown in this case). Otherwise the foreign government might assume that the newspaper had published the offending article with the Singapore government's implicit or explicit approval.

No one really believes that the Singapore press has its own independent opinions. Certainly not the Malaysian government.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

When The Media Starts To Smell Fishy

ST July 3, 2008
Vivian's visions from the Internet
Political messages in new media are susceptible to populist pitfalls, he says at RI dialogue
By Jeremy Au Yong

WHEN Dr Vivian Balakrishnan gazed into a crystal ball yesterday on how the Internet would change local politics, three visions popped up.

They were: more diverse views, louder political discourse and politicians delivering their messages in stylish, short multimedia packages, a phenomenon he labelled 'YouTube politics'.

But this future is fraught with pitfalls, the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports told students of Raffles Institution, which had invited him to give a talk on new media and its impact on politics.

As he spelt them out to the 2,000 students, he urged them to use their heads when reading online: 'In the midst of such an exponential growth in information, determining what is true or false is going to be extremely difficult... I have no easy answer except to ask you to be sceptical and to think and be careful.'

To illustrate one pitfall, he pointed to those who still believe that the sun revolves around the earth: 'Because you have an interconnected world, people with far-out ideas, or even wrong ideas, will be able to find someone who also believes the sun revolves around the earth and reinforces those beliefs.'

A diversity of views did not always end up in a 'fundamental truth'. New media allows wrong ideas to be reinforced, he said.

After all this time, our dear leaders are still tossing out all these same old boring red herrings.

"In the midst of such an exponential growth in information, determining what is true or false is going to be extremely difficult ..." Vivian says. But suppose you lived in a highly controlled society where information was very limited. Would it then become easier to determine what's true or false?

Heheh, go think about it. Also, go think about who would be in the position to selectively feed you the information that you do get. The controllers of your society, of course.

"New media allows wrong ideas to be reinforced," Vivian says. And what about old media - would it reinforce only the "right" ideas?

Well, perhaps you would say so. Especially if you belong to the ruling party and the state controls all the old media organisations. Including the ideas that the media organisations write about.

In another ST article today, Vivian offers the following remarks:

He also noted that if the traditional press loses credibility, people would go to the new media.

'There are very few national newspapers with as broad a coverage and obsessive attention to detail and accuracy as our mainstream media,' he said.

Oh certainly, Vivian. In fact, last year, I was even told that the overwhelming majority of readers consider the Straits Times "important" to their lives, and a definite "must-read".

Who told me this? The Straits Times itself.

And did the Straits Times have the statistics, the figures to prove it? Ah yes, certainly.

And how did the Straits Times come up with those statistics and figures? LOL, click here.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Online Election Campaigning Leads to Corruption. Huh?

Here's PM Lee spouting mysterious words again:

ST April 14, 2008
Laws must keep up with changing new media, says PM
But any loosening up will be handled cautiously, he adds

THE new media is changing rapidly and Singapore's laws must evolve to keep up, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said.

But any loosening up will be done carefully.

Otherwise, misinformation and extremist views could proliferate.

Politics might also become tainted by graft if parties have to spend large sums to campaign online, he warned.

I wonder what that is supposed to mean.

It is very difficult to see how one can spend large sums of money campaigning online. In Malaysia's recent elections, the Internet played a huge role in influencing voters. Yet practically all the Internet activity took place via Blogger, Wordpress, Youtube and other completely free Internet platforms.

Contrast this with campaigning offline. You would have to spend money printing and distributing posters; placing advertisements in traditional newspapers; hiring lorries and drivers to ferry candidates around the country to meet the electorate; and making large-scale logistics arrangements for election rallies. That won't be cheap.

Anyway, suppose we accept PM Lee's strange logic - that politics might become tainted by corruption if parties have to spend large sums to campaign online. It must then follow that since traditional, offline campaigning costs much more money, it is even more likely to lead to corruption.

Then we wonder - how come this seems to be an issue in Singapore only? After all, election campaigning occurs in every democratic nation on this planet. In fact, campaigning is a necessary part of the democratic process. Yet no one ever seems to says that democracy breeds corruption.

No one except PM Lee, that is.

Current laws disallow the making and distributing of party political films.

During campaign season, political parties are not allowed to put audio or video-casts on their websites.

Mr Lee warned that Singapore would suffer if elections came to be fought through expensive online films and advertisements.

'If a party needs money, many people are willing to donate, but these political contributions never come with no strings attached. After you win and come into power, the donors will turn up politely to 'collect their dues',' he said.

Oooh, I see. PM Lee is worried about expensive online films and advertisements.

So, hypothetically speaking, suppose an Opposition candidate merely uses his own cheap, lousy video camera at home to film his own speech, and then he posts the video on Youtube, where it is widely viewed by Singaporeans. PM Lee shouldn't be worried about that, should he?

Heheh. Well, think what you like. And draw your own conclusions. Mr Wang is only here to encourage you to think.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

A Tale of One Jack Chick and Two Religions

This is going to be quite an interesting case to watch. Since details are not yet available, I'm posting the article below mainly for future reference.

ST April 15, 2008
Couple charged under Sedition Act
By Elena Chong

A COUPLE were charged on Tuesday with distributing a seditious publication to two others.

Ong Kian Cheong, 49, and Dorothy Chan Hien Leng, 44, are alleged to have distributed The Little Bride, an evangelistic material, to Sembawang resident Irwan Ariffin last Oct 19.

They are also said to have distributed the same publication to one Madam Farharti Ahmad at her home in Woodlands on March 6 last year .

It is not clear why they face the Sedition Act and the Undesirable Publication Act when the publication is the same.

Ong, who works in a telecommunications company, and his wife, a bank employee, were represented by Mr Selva K. Naidu.

The police prosecutor sought an adjournment of the case pending a Health Sciences Authority on handwriting specimen.

The couple were freed on $10,000 bail each. Their passports were impounded.

The case will be mentioned on April 29.

Under the Sedition Act, the maximum penalty is a $5,000 fine and/or a jail term of up to three years.

The maximum penalty under the Undesirable Publication Act is a fine of up to $5,000 and/or up to 12 months.

I had not heard of "The Little Bride" before, so I got curious and decided to google to find out more. After a quick bit of Internet searching, I've found out that it is a evangelical cartoon/comic series produced by an American named Jack Chick, who has a reputation of being very controversial.

Direct access to Jack Chick's official website has been blocked by the Media Development Authority. However, if you google around, you can see some of Jack Chick's works on other websites / blogs. I'm not supplying the links.

I have to say that if I were a Muslim, I would probably be very, very offended by some of these works.

However, at the same time, I am wondering how the Christian community in Singapore would react to the prosecution of Ong Kian Cheong and Dorothy Chan. These two individuals probably saw themselves as faithfully and courageously seeking to spread the word of God (the Christian God, I mean).

This could be a very complex, challenging case for the prosecution, if the accused persons claim trial. Ahh, times like this, I almost wish I was still a Deputy Public Prosecutor.

P.S I am, by the way, neither Christian nor Muslim.

P.S.S Readers who wish to post any comments on this post, please avoid using inflammatory or religiously offensive language.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

The Silent Singaporean

Elia Diodati takes a look at the Malaysian political blogosphere and is impressed by its lively, vibrant nature. He wonders why Singaporeans, in comparison, don't seem to speak up very much on important national issues. There are, of course, various reasons and here's one which Elia offers:

"..... Singaporeans simply work insane hours. If we can’t even get Singaporeans to procreate, despite tax incentives and other carrots, what more to get them to clear out several hours at a time to sit down and write coherent, thoughtful blog posts? Think of the vocal blogs you know of that have suddenly veered into neglected quiescence. I’d bet you that many of them were written by students who have since graduated, gotten sucked into the work-marry-birth-nurture dogma and suddenly find that there is no time or place for that mouthpiece."

Well, I work. I'm married. I have two kids whom I nurture a lot (I plan to turn them into little geniuses). Apart from all that, I not only blog a lot, but still find time to pursue several other interests quite seriously.

My secret is really no secret. If you wander into the 'Self-Improvement' section of the bookstore and pick up a book on time management, you'll know the secret too. But since many of you wouldn't be caught dead in that part of the bookstore, that's pretty much all I'll say about it for now.

For Singaporeans who want to blog more about national issues but feel that they suffer from a lack of time, the alternative strategy would be selective about your topics. Focus on the themes and topics that you already know very well, so that you can complete your posts in minimal time.

"But I don't really know any topics that well." Actually, yes you do. You just don't know it, that's all. Once you start to see that the events and circumstances in your personal life are often just reflections of the broader society in which you live, you will rarely find yourself short of topics to write about.

Angry Doctor is a doctor - he blogs a lot about healthcare issues in Singapore. Stressed Teacher is a teacher - he blogs a lot about education issues in Singapore. Cherian George is an ex-journalist - he blogs a lot about the mass media in Singapore. Yawning Bread is a gay man - he blogs a lot about gay issues in Singapore.

These are examples of bloggers who have converted the very stuff of their daily life experiences into blogging material. Well, actually all bloggers do that - but to go beyond the mundane level of introspective navel-gazing, you'll just have to take one step further. And that is to explore the wider social, political or economic issues behind your daily life experiences.

Do you use public transport every day in Singapore? Are you an SAF NSman? Do you study in a local university or polytechnic? Are you a financial planner who helps clients to plan for their retirement? Do you keenly follow the local sports or arts scene? Are you a working mother busily juggling career and family? Do you regularly volunteer with a charitable organisation such as Mendaki or Action for AIDS? Does your job involve ensuring corporate governance? Do you set PSLE exams?

A positive answer to any of the above makes you potentially an expert blogger in at least one distinct area. If you take that extra step ....

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Race, Religion and Media

An article from AFP:

Lee Kuan Yew dismisses low press-freedom ranking for Singapore
SINGAPORE

(AFP) — Singaporeans are free to read whatever they want, the influential founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew said of his country, which ranks near the bottom on a watchdog's index of press freedom.

Lee was referring to the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders' (RSF) annual ranking for 2006, which placed the city-state at 146 out of 168 nations, and lower than Zimbabwe at 140.

RSF cited "new legal action by the government against foreign media" for Singapore's slipping six places in the rankings.

"There's nothing that you'd want to read which you cannot read in Singapore," said Lee, who holds the influential title of minister mentor in the cabinet of his son.

"You can buy our newspapers and see whether we read like Zimbabwe..." he said Sunday night in a keynote address to the International Bar Association annual conference, which has attracted thousands of lawyers and jurists from around the world.

Lee said Singaporeans have wide access to information.

"Everybody's on the Internet. Everybody's got broadband. They've got cable television, access to all the information. You can blog. You can do anything you like," he said in the speech which drew frequent applause.

"But we do not allow certain subjects to be made bones of contention."

Lee said issues of race, language and religion had to be handled sensitively. Singapore is majority ethnic Chinese but with significant Malay and Indian minorities.

"A multi-racial, multi-religious society is always prone to conflicts," Lee said.

The city-state has bitter memories of past racial incidents in its early years and clamps down hard on anyone inciting communal tensions.

Whenever you hear Lee Kuan Yew talk about race and religion, you may get the impression that the multi-religious, multi-racial society is a rather unusual, rare species in the world, and furthermore suffers from some wicked, magical curse that dooms it to endless riots, civil war or other conflicts.

Actually, Singapore’s multiracial, multi-religious nature is hardly unique among modern cities. Think, for example, of Kuala Lumpur … Bangkok …. Melbourne … Sydney …. New York … London …. San Francisco …. Vancouver …. among others.

Even China, which we often think of as relatively homogeneous, has as many as 20 million Muslims, and 40 to 100 million Christians (according to these estimates).

We have to lose our traditional Singaporean mentality that just because some of our HDB neighbours are of a different skin colour or pray to a different God, we are all on the perpetual verge of beating each other up and therefore Singapore is constantly in peril.

As for RSF's rankings, well, LKY can dismiss Singapore’s low ranking for press freedom, but others will not be so easily convinced. The link between state and press in Singapore is just simply much, much, muuuuch too strong, for most people to believe that our press is independent of the ruling party's influence.

"Hey, Tony. Is it true that before you became the
Chairman of the Singapore Press Holdings Board of Directors,
you were the Deputy Prime Minister; the Minister of Defence;
the Minister of Education; the Minister of Finance; the Minister of Health
AND the Minister of Trade and Industry of Singapore ...?"

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Canadian Legal Expert Banned in Singapore

Well, I can't honestly say that the news article below surprises me. If gay people can't even go jogging in Singapore without being harassed by the police, you really wouldn't expect the authorities to extend a warm welcome to Professor Douglas Sanders.

After all, Professor Sanders is a leading international expert on gay issues. He has even been invited to address the United Nations on such matters. If Sanders had been allowed to speak in Singapore, there would be a serious risk that he would actually contribute to public education about gay rights here.

ST Sep 19, 2007
Lecture permit revoked after cops get info on gay agenda
By Zakir Hussain

A PERMIT for a lecture by a Canadian law academic last month was cancelled after the police learnt it was part of gay activists' efforts to promote their political agenda, Parliament was told yesterday.

Senior Minister of State (Home Affairs and Law) Ho Peng Kee said police also discovered from information online that Professor Douglas Sanders was an advocate for decriminalising homosexual sex.

Explaining the backdrop to the cancellation, he said police found out only after granting the permit that his talk was part of a two-week series of events 'which promoted the gay cause'.

'It became subsequently clear to police that the event was part of the efforts of gay activists to promote their political agenda which involved a foreigner,' Associate Professor Ho said.

'Our laws are an expression and reflection of the values of our society and any public discourse
in Singapore on such matters should be reserved for Singaporeans.

'Foreigners will not be allowed to interfere in our domestic political scene, whether in support of the gay cause or against it.'

He was replying to questions from Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tanjong Pagar GRC) and Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong on why the permit had been cancelled.

In July, the authorities approved a public entertainment licence for an event in which Prof Sanders of the University of British Columbia was to speak on 'Sexual orientation in international law: the case of Asia'.

But the permit was cancelled four days before the Aug 7 talk because, based on additional
information received, police saw the event as 'contrary to the public interest'.

Police had learnt of Prof Sanders' background and that he was 'likely to talk about our Section 377A, which is the criminalising of homosexual sex'.

'He was an advocate for decriminalising of homosexual sex, having spoken, for example, at the United Nations,' Prof Ho said.

Interestingly, we can now observe our dear PAP man Ho Peng Kee attempting to characterize the public event as part of a "political agenda". As if, you know, Professor Sanders was coming to Singapore to talk about the General Elections; the redrawing of electoral boundaries; or defamation suits against opposition politicians.

Actually, Professor Sanders has no political affiliations whatsoever. He was here just to talk about Section 377A of the Penal Code. And probably Section 377. Basic stuff that every NUS law student will come across in 1st year, in Criminal Law 101.

"377. Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section"

"377A. Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years."

But of course it is convenient to characterize the above provisions as a "political agenda". Because once you claim that Section 377A is a political matter, then you can say, "Oh, foreigners should not be allowed to meddle in our politics! We must not allow our sovereignty as an independent nation to be raped!".

And stupid people would even believe you.

And now, we see once again why Warwick University, originally slated to open a campus in Singapore, was wise to suddenly change its mind and pull out. Remember? They pulled out suddenly because their academics and lecturers protested. They were concerned that in Singapore, they would be denied the freedom of expression required for them to pursue their academic interests.

But of course! If a foreign professor of law like Professor Sanders is not allowed to speak on Section 377A of the Penal Code, would a Warwick economics professor be allowed to express a critical view on, say, the widening income gap in Singapore? Would a Warwick professor of mass communications be allowed to speak about, say, press censorship in Singapore? Would a Warwick finance professor be allowed to talk about, say, whether Temasek Holdings or GIC should be more transparent about their investments? And so on.

None of the above, you see, can be taken for granted. Peng Kee's behaviour demonstrates that. These Warwick people - they're smart.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Consumers and the Law

I'm back because I just read something interesting on Tomorrow.sg. Apparently the Tomorrow editors have been threatened with legal action.

It's all because they had published, sometime in 2006, a link to someone's article. That person (Gecko) had blogged about his unhappiness about a certain time share company known as Grand Seasons International.

So now Grand Seasons International has sent a lawyer's letter to Tomorrow.sg.

Just to protect myself, I shall first say here that I do not know anything about Grand Seasons International (which is true). I do not know Gecko personally (which is true). I have not spoken to any Tomorrow editor about this matter (which is also true).

Thus I am unable to verify, and I do not know, and I do not assert, and I shall not be taken to have asserted, that GSI, or Gecko, or the Tomorrow editors, has said or has not said, or are saying or are not saying, anything that is true or false.

I shall only say that (1) if you run a retail business, and (2) members of the public have negative feedback about you (whether true or false or accurate or inaccurate), and (3) your response is to threaten them with legal action, then ....

.... well, well, maybe you should rethink your PR policies. Because this kind of behaviour is unlikely to endear you to your potential customers.

While we're on this topic, I wish to comment generally on the topic of consumer rights in Singapore. My further commentary is without reference to any specific companies or individuals. It is just a general explanation of the law in Singapore.

Under Singapore laws, there is a relatively new piece of legislation known as the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act.

If you, as a consumer, feel that you have been the victim of an "unfair practice", then you may have a right to take legal action under this Act. Naturally, if you can find other consumers who have been the victims of the same "unfair practice" by the same perpetrator, and you all go to court together, your case will be very strong.

Section 4 of the Act explains what an unfair practice is:

"It is an unfair practice for a supplier, in relation to a consumer transaction —

(a) to do or say anything, or omit to do or say anything, if as a result a consumer might reasonably be deceived or misled;

(b) to make a false claim;

(c) to take advantage of a consumer if the supplier knows or ought reasonably to know that the consumer —

(i) is not in a position to protect his own interests; or

(ii) is not reasonably able to understand the character, nature, language or effect of the transaction or any matter related to the transaction; or

(d) without limiting the generality of paragraphs (a) to (c), to do anything specified in the Second Schedule."

The Second Schedule goes on to spell out a long list of practices that could constitute an "unfair practice". Since this list is very long (a total of 20), for the sake of brevity, I'll just highlight a few:

SPECIFIC UNFAIR PRACTICES

7. Representing that a price benefit or advantage exists respecting goods or services where the price benefit or advantage does not exist.

9. Representing that a transaction involving goods or services involves or does not involve rights, remedies or obligations where that representation is deceptive or misleading.

11. Taking advantage of a consumer by including in an agreement terms or conditions that are harsh, oppressive or excessively one-sided so as to be unconscionable.

12. Taking advantage of a consumer by exerting undue pressure or undue influence on the consumer to enter into a transaction involving goods or services.

17. Offering gifts, prizes or other free items in connection with the supply of goods or services if the supplier knows or ought to know that the items will not be provided or provided as offered.

20. Using small print to conceal a material fact from the consumer or to mislead a consumer as to a material fact, in connection with the supply of goods or services.

To know more about the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, you can click here. The full text of the Act is downloadable from here.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Debating the Dinosaurs

I was watching TV last night. Well, no, I was actually playing dinosaurs with my kids (as usual, I get to be Tyrannosaurus Rex, heheh) but the TV was on. Suddenly I caught these words being spoken on TV, with great emphasis:

" There are SO many radical blogs out there, like Mr Brown and Mr Wang Says So."

Turns out that a debating competition was being televised. It was between Raffles Institution and Hwa Chong Junior College. The motion was "Are young Singaporeans politically apathetic?".

I think that the Hwa Chong guy was trying to argue that that since "there are SO many radical blogs out there, like Mr Brown and Mr Wang Says So", this proves the motion that young Singaporeans are not politically apathetic.

This is flattering - I'm still young. Not such a dinosaur, after all. Even more flatteringly, Mr Brown is also young. What really makes me laugh is that Mr Brown and I are being described on national television as "radical". Well, I suppose that Singaporeans with strong opinions are still quite rare. Maybe that makes us "radical". But if we do represent the cutting edge of free speech in Singapore, that's a rather sad reflection on our society, actually.

In the past few days, I've been reading a couple of draft essays, meant to be compiled and published as a book by the Institute of Policy Studies later this year. They are not my essays - I've just been invited to read them and give some comments. The book is about digital freedom of speech in Singapore (oh yes, various bloggers are mentioned, including Mr Brown and me). To give you a flavour, here's the opening paragraph of the essay by Tang Hang Wu, an associate professor at the Faculty of Law:

"In 2003, Gary Rodan argued that although there are social groups in Singapore attempting to negotiate `new political spaces for expression on the Internet', these efforts `have generally been modest in their scale and impact'. Randolph Kluver, writing in 2004, took a similar view. Kluver concluded that during the 2001 Singapore General Elections, in terms of a means of outreach, the Internet has not been deployed effectively by the [political] parties in Singapore. However, we know that two to three years are a long time in Internet terms; Rodan's and Kluver's analysis may no longer be accurate to describe the state of digital speech in Singapore. In this paper, I argue that the 2006 Singapore General Election ("2006 GE") demonstrated that the Internet, due to its evolving architecture, has an impact on the laws and norms governing free expression in Singapore."

Somewhere in this essay, I get mentioned for my "intelligent and incisive critique of government policies". Interestingly, I am mentioned right next to Sammyboy, Rockson and Talking Cock. Hey, didn't you know, radicals tend to come in motley crews.

Tell you more next time, about this book and its essays. Mr Wang the Radical Young Dinosaur needs to go brush his teeth, shave and go to work now.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

What Madonna Can Teach Singapore

When I first heard Madonna's songs, I was in primary school. Now I'm a father with two kids. And Madonna is still going strong. Looking at the picture on the left, it's hard to believe that she will soon be 50 years old.

Singaporeans are talking about Madonna again because she just got banned here. Ironically, Madonna probably does not care. She may not even know. She's the highest earning female singer of all time. Last year her concert tour sold out in Europe, Japan, the US and Canada and grossed US$260 million. Conquering a little red dot like Singapore can't be high on her list of commercial priorities.

Although Madonna does not need Singapore, I daresay that in some ways, Singapore needs Madonna. You may or may not like her music. But her life story holds, in many different ways, the lessons that Singapore, and Singaporeans, need to learn. I'll just highlight five:

Madonna as the Outstanding All-Round Student

Many young Singaporeans study too hard. They may have a passion for non-scholastic pursuits, but they don't know how to achieve the balance. Consequently, all-rounded Singaporeans are rare. Instead we often meet parents who have barred their children from taking part in sports or cultural activities, so that they can spend more time studying.

In her teenage years, Madonna spent a lot of time on ballet lessons. She even hung out at gay discotheques with her ballet teacher. But she was no dumb blonde. Despite all the time she spent on dance, she was a straight-A student in high school. In fact, she did so well that she won a scholarship to enter a top US university - the University of Michigan.

The University of Michigan counts 25 Rhodes scholars and seven Nobel Prize winners among its alumni. It's currently ranked the 11th best university in the world. That's 25 places above NUS, and 60 places above NTU.

Madonna and the Courage to Take Risks

In recent years, the Singapore government has been saying that Singaporeans are too risk-adverse. We stick too closely to the standard paths. We place too much faith in paper qualifications. We define success too narrowly. We need risk-takers, we need dreamers, we need people who dare to veer off the trodden paths.

Like Madonna. Having entered a top university on a scholarship, she proceeded to do the Bill Gates thing. She quit without graduating. Like Bill Gates, she had a dream and she was going to pursue it. She would go to New York City and become a top professional dancer. She describes the pursuit of her dream here:

"When I came to New York it was the first time I'd ever taken a plane, the first time I'd ever gotten a taxi-cab, the first time for everything. And I came here with 35 dollars in my pocket. It was the bravest thing I'd ever done."

35 dollars was all she had then. She took a risk. Today, her personal net worth is estimated at USD 325,000,000.

Madonna as Entrepreneur

Singapore wants entrepreneurs. Singapore needs entrepreneurs. Singapore has been desperately trying to breed entrepreneurs, but after all these years, Singapore is still down to the same few poster boys & girls of entrepreneurship - Ron Sim of OSIM, Olivia Lum of Hyflux, Sim Wong Hoo of Creative Technology.

Madonna is also an entrepreneur. Her product is herself. She is well-known to be a very serious businesswoman. In fact, the very staid, very serious financial magazine Forbes once suggested on its front cover that Madonna was "America's Smartest Business Woman".

And guess what? With a net worth of USD 325 million, Madonna is richer than Ron Sim. She is richer than Olivia Lum. She is richer than Sim Wong Hoo. The next time Singapore wants a new model example on how to get rich via entrepreneurship, we should study Madonna's business strategies. Singapore wants its companies to go global, but Madonna was already a global brand 20 years ago.

Madonna As The Almost-Senior Citizen

Approaching their 50s, most Singaporeans start dreaming about collecting their CPF money and enjoying their sedate retirement years. Many Singaporeans were aghast by the government's decision to raise the official retirement age to 62. This is despite the fact that many Singaporeans will probably not have enough money to support themselves comfortably in their old age.

Madonna obviously does not need more money. Furthermore she is almost 50. But she shows no sign of stopping. She doesn't even show any sign of slowing down. This year, she'll be making a new movie. Last year, she did her sell-out concert tour around the world. Reports say that she worked on her dance routines 13 hours a day. This is the same woman who sustained three cracked ribs, a broken collarbone, and a broken hand, in a horseback riding accident as recently as August 2005.

If Singapore's rapidly ageing population needs some inspiration on how to live life with more enthusiasm, Madonna could be their role model.

Madonna & Free Speech

Singapore has a poor reputation for free speech. Many Singaporeans are afraid to speak up. As recently as last Saturday, Dr Cherian George and I were at an NUS seminar trying to convince the audience that such fears are largely groundless, that Singaporeans can speak up openly. Alas, later that day, I learned that even members of the ruling political party have adopted a strategy of making anonymous postings on the Internet.

Madonna has much more testicular fortitude (to steal a phrase from Cherian). She's not afraid to push the borders in her music. Throughout her career, she has repeatedly used political, sexual and religious themes and imagery in her work. The only time she ever really backed down was in relation to her ninth album, American Life. The video for the single was filmed in the run up to the second Iraq War, and its content was deemed "unpatriotic" by early reports. She withdrew the video, saying:

"I have decided not to release my new video. It was filmed before the war started and I do not believe it is appropriate to air it at this time. Due to the volatile state of the world and out of sensitivity and respect to the armed forces, who I support and pray for, I do not want to risk offending anyone who might misinterpret the meaning of this video."

The album did badly in the US but according to Wikipedia, did better in countries which did not support the Iraq war. In France, the album reached No. 1 and sold more than 500,000 copies. One major reason for her great success in France was the large anti-war community and their pleasure at seeing an American artist that opposed the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.

Wikipedia tells us that Madonna does not support US President George Bush. She endorsed Wesley Clark's Democratic nomination for the 2004 United States presidential election, in an impassioned letter to her fans, saying that "the future I wish for my children is at risk." In the autumn of 2006, she expressed her support for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election. She also urged her fans to see Michael Moore's movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. She is a person who is unafraid to speak up for her political beliefs.

Today, Singapore has banned Madonna. The grounds are that her latest Confession performances contain scenes that are religiously impermissible in Singapore. The decision could be right. Madonna has a lot to teach Singapore - but perhaps we're just not ready.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Playing With Fire

To tell you the truth, I am deeply Singaporean. I can be very kiasu. I can even be very kiasi. Especially when there is a genuine risk of danger to life and limb. Then I would say, "Oh, we must definitely take all necessary action to prevent a disaster."

Race & religion have long been taboo subjects in Singapore. Why? You already know - it's in our history. Singapore places such a premium on public order and security that it will suppress free speech and other civil rights in order to ensure that we never ever have problems like racial riots again.

In principle, it's a justifiable trade-off. I would agree with it. It's just a matter of balance. In actual practice today (as opposed to, say, the 1960s or 70s), I think that the suppression of free speech is often carried out to an unnecessary degree.

In my opinion, Singaporeans today have become a highly docile, peaceful lot. We're like poodles or goldfish. Or chickens. Violence has already been removed from our genes. We're so apathetic that the only thing that could get us on a rampage is the Great Robinsons Sale .

What about inappropriate racial/religious remarks being posted online? Certainly such remarks will annoy, shock or strongly offend many Singaporeans. And from past experience, we know that the authorities will take a serious view. But I really doubt that nowadays those kinds of remarks would lead to any actual physical violence. The risk seems largely imaginary.

A likely profile of the perpetrator would be a pimply-faced, nerdy, techie-geek of a teenager. Yes, he may run loose for some time secretly posting racist remarks on the Internet. Don't worry too much. When exam time comes, his mama will take out her cane, turn off his computer and make him sit down to do his 10-year series.

This is not to say that Singaporeans will never be at risk of mass violence. It could still happen. In fact, the threat is very real. I am quite worried that it may happen tonight. I'm referring to the Thailand-Singapore soccer match in Bangkok. Reports like this disturb me:

ST Feb 3, 2007
Tight security for Asean football grudge match against S'pore

BANGKOK - Police will be on high alert on Sunday at Thailand's Asean football final with Singapore, fearing recently fanned sporting and political rivalries between the two countries could erupt into violence.

The possibility that tensions could boil over at the deciding Asean Football Championship final was underlined on Saturday when disgruntled Thai fans raucously protested a shortage of tickets after lining up for hours.

Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has advised fans attending the match to stick together in groups and to keep alert and calm at all times.

The Bangkok game turned into a grudge match after Singapore scored a 2-1 home victory against Thailand in the first leg of the final thanks to a disputed penalty.

In an unusual action, widely criticised outside Thailand as bad sportsmanship, the Thai team stormed off the pitch for 15 minutes to protest the referee's controversial decision to award the 83rd minute penalty to Singapore.

Underlying the tension is anti-Singapore sentiment fanned in recent weeks by the Thai media and military, which have accused the island-nation of seeking to spy on Thailand's military communications.

The accusations came soon after a strain in diplomatic relations caused when Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister received Mr Thaksin Shinawatra, who was deposed as Thailand's prime minister in a coup last September. The Thai government was offended that a figure they regard as in disgrace was accorded such an official audience. Singapore has maintained that the meeting was completely unofficial and between two 'old friends'.

My fear is that Singaporean supporters travelling to Bangkok for the match are going to get bashed by the Thai soccer fans. The Thai authorities have said that they will step up security. But I am not reassured. Recent events in Thailand like military coups and bomb blasts do not give me any confidence that this is a country that has public safety and security under control.

If I were the Singapore government, or the FAS President (ahhh, one and the same), I would have asked for this soccer match to be postponed. For a week or so. To give the Thais some time for simmering emotions to cool. That would greatly reduce the risks of soccer violence.

I hope things turn out okay tonight. It doesn't matter to me whether our national team wins or loses. In fact, if winning would endanger their safety, then I hope they lose. Perhaps I am too kiasi. But then I am Singaporean. And I think I see clear and imminent danger. I don't like violence.

And this time, I don't think the risk is imaginary.

Baca Selengkapnya »»