Singapore’s new licensing scheme for news websites announced by the Media Development Authority (MDA) was quickly denounced by many netizens as a censorship measure. A group of concerned netizens called the ‘Free My Internet’ movement has called on the public to join a rally this coming Saturday, June 8, 2013, to demand the withdrawal of the controversial regulation.

Under the new rule, news websites that report on Singapore and which have 50,000 unique IP views a month must secure a license. Further, they must put up a ‘performance bond’ of $50,000. It also has this provision which angered and worried many netizens:

The Licence also makes it clear that online news sites are expected to comply within 24 hours to MDA’s directions to remove content that is found to be in breach of content standards.

So far, the government has identified 10 websites, including Yahoo! Singapore, which are covered by the ruling.

The #freemyinternet movement thinks the license scheme will undermine internet freedom and free speech in Singapore:

We encourage all Singaporeans who are concerned about our future and our ability to participate in everyday online activities and discussions, and to seek out alternative news and analysis, to take a strong stand against the licensing regime which can impede on your independence.

A petition warned Singapore bloggers that they could still be affected by the ruling despite the assurance of the government that bloggers are exempted from the measure:

Even though MDA said that blogs do not fall under the licensing scheme, this is not reflected in the wording of the legislation. It leaves the door open for blogs or any other site to be forced to license in the future without any change in the law.

Socio political bloggers and commentators issued this joint statement:

As part of the community of websites in Singapore that provide sociopolitical news and analysis to Singaporeans, we are concerned about the impact of the newly-introduced requirement on fellow Singaporeans’ ability to receive diverse news information.

The new licensing regime has the very real potential to reduce the channels available to Singaporeans to receive news and analysis of the sociopolitical situation in Singapore and it is in the interest of all Singaporeans to guard against the erosion and availability of news channels that Singaporeans should rightfully have access to.

Responding to the barrage of criticism, the MDA insisted that the license scheme is fair:

An individual publishing views on current affairs and trends on his/her personal website or blog does not amount to news reporting.

…content guidelines are focused on core content concerns that would threaten the social fabric and national interests of our country. Examples include content that incites racial or religious hatred; misleads and causes mass panic; or advocates or promotes violence.

The framework is not an attempt to influence the editorial slant of news sites

visakan veerasamy notes that the MDA scheme has unified Singapore netizens:

Maybe a few years from now the MDA licensing thing will be remembered as the issue that got bloggers and alt-news agencies coming together against a common threat to have a national conversation of their own.

They propose a terrible idea, and then piss off the masses enough to inspire a co-ordinated response. Boom, active and engaged citizenry. This is great for Singapore.

It is a draconian measure, writes Jentrified Citizen:

The Government is well aware of the power of the Internet and how it is fast igniting the people’s conscience and socio-political consciousness. This is why they are trying to cut off our oxygen with more draconian measures. And they are in a position to do so as they have absolute power and control over almost everything in tiny Singapore.

Because of vague wording in the ruling, a popular news blog can still be ordered to apply for license. It all depends on the MDA. Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss is not happy with thisauthority given to MDA:

It is discomforting that the Minister has the discretion, the limits of which is still unclear, to decide whether and when a website should be licensed.

Z’ming Cik warns about the impact of the scheme on political blogging:

The new rules will serve to deter bloggers in Singapore from discussing social and political issues, and encourage people to blog about facial cream or their pet dogs instead.

This would presumably help create a ‘safe’ environment for the ruling party’s continual domination in Singapore, free from criticisms.

Publichouse.sg argues why Singaporeans should oppose the measure:

…because this new rule affects not only moderators and contributors of online news sites but also their readers, all Singaporeans should fight to protect their rights and voice their opposition of the rule. It is most certainly not in the interest of the people to have what they read censored or controlled, especially when the primary purpose of online news sites is to provide alternatives to the mainstream media.

Siew Kum Hong fears that the regulation would further hurt the image of Singapore in the world:

This new regulation is a mistake, and reinforces the perception that Singapore is a repressive place — which is precisely the wrong message to be sending to a globalised and networked world, when you are trying to build an innovative and creative economy where freedom of thought is so essential.

GlobalVoices

* The article first appeared in: http://globalvoicesonline.org/

Lawyer P. Uthayakumar was sentenced to two years six months prison for writing a seditious letter addressed to former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Sessions Court Judge Ahmad Zamzani Mohd Zain ruled that Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) founder Uthayakumar had failed to raise reasonable doubt.

He found Uthayakumar guilty of the charge, adding that his actions under the Seditious Act 1948 were a serious offense.

“Would you like to say anything in mitigation, though you have so far taken the stand not to submit, in protest,” the judge asked Uthayakumar before handing out the sentence.

Uthayakumar had earlier refused to submit his defence, claiming that it was in protest to how Indians in Malaysia were being treated.

“I am unable to proceed with my defence, re-examination, calling of furtherwitnesses, closing submission and mitigation,” Uthayakumar said.

Uthayakumar, 50, remained stoic when read his sentence and chose not to apply for a stay of execution. He was sent to Kajang Prison.

M. Manoharan who had represented Uthayakumar, earlier in the trial, said he had not received any instruction to apply for an appeal.

The former Internal Security Act detainee, was charged on Dec 11, 2007, with publishing a seditious letter on the Police Watch Malaysia' website, dated Nov 15, 2007, addressed to then-prime minister of Britain, Gordon Brown.

He made the declaratory application (to declare the Sedition Act unconstitutional), in a bid to have the charge against him under the Act tobe revoked and the prosecution in the proceedings in the Sessions Court be struck out.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Noorin Badaruddin urged the court to impose a jail sentence against Uthayakumar, saying that a fine was insufficient for the offence committed.

She said it was clear that Uthayakumar had made baseless allegations against the Government and this could affect country's peace and security.

“His statement has gone beyond legitimate criticism and into sedition. His actions could damage the unity of the country.

“The words used by Uthayakumar such as mini genocide' and ethnic cleansing' at an international level gives the impression that grave crimes and racial oppression were committed,” she added.

Three witnesses were called by the prosecution while the defence had only called one witness who was the accused in the trial which began in 2009.

*Article first appeared on http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2013%2F6%2F5%2Fnation%2F201...

Dear Fellow TRS Readers,

This coming 1st July 2013 is SAF Day.

I would like to invite all fellow Singaporeans to partake, on this day, in an online celebration for our NSF, NSmen and Regulars.

Want to know how to celebrate? 

For Male: Please upload a photo of yourself in No:4 with Beret Saluting as your profile picture on facebook, twitter, msn, or whatsapp.

For Female: Please change your profile picture to something with a green background on facebook, twitter, msn, or whatsapp.

People will defintely ask... WHY?

For me, this is because I am proud to be a Singaporean and NS is something that we have all been through together.

For Guys, remember the time we spent learning and growing up from a boy to man in NS. The days we "chiong suang", the friendship we found inside and the service that we stand ready to protect our Nation - Our Family.

For Ladies, show support to your friends/family members who have served NS and remember that they, the guys who serve NS, are the ones who will be the first to protect you when our country is in need.

I would also like to use this particular event to mark our respect to those servicemen of Singapore Armed Force who passed on during their call of Duty. You Guys and Ladies will remain in our memories.

I know there are Singaporeans who resent NS and think that it is a waste of time, but it is also something that can bring us together. On SAF Day, we should still celebrate and show everyone that has or is currently serving, that we as a community are proud of them and value their contributions.

Vanquisher

[This is a satire article from New Nation]

A bunch of local blogs decided to pull the plug for 24 hours throughout June 6 in a symbolic gesture to show what it is like to not have access to information.

And demonstrate the perils of censorship when the government goes on a rampage making up rules as they go along.

However, this protest gesture against the Media Development Authority’s new licensing rule that demands news sites to cough out a $50,000 ransom has led to unforeseen consequences.

Instead of keeling over and dying, Singaporeans who do not have access to information online are discovering benefits.

Many have reportedly turned off their computers and are spending more time getting physically fit and becoming more fulfilled.

One Singaporean man, Mei Yun Dong, said: “I’ve never exercised in the last 15 years. But today I ran 14 km, swam 9 km and did 1,500 crunches. I feel great.”

Other Singaporeans who went offline are reportedly spending more time with their loved ones.

One Singaporean father of three, Jin Kao Peh, said: “Every day I’d go to Temasek Review Emeritus to comment and suffer heart palpitations. Today, I spent my time playing with my children, cooking for the family, brought them to Sentosa, painted, danced, sang, laughed, hugged and pampered my kids and wife.”

“I feel like a father.”

Health benefits aside, some other Singaporeans claim that no Internet might probably be too much of a good thing.

One couple, who are too embarrassed to be named, said: “We made love so many times last night, our private parts develped second degree burns from the friction.”

*Article first appeared on http://newnation.sg/2013/06/blogs-black-out-for-24-hours-sporeans-become...

According to PAP–anointed "labour" MP Zainal Sapari, this was "not surprising because in the past our productivity was actually driven by manpower supply. As the Government has tightened the foreign labour supply, we do expect that firms in their transitional stage in adjusting to the reduced manpower will experience a decline in productivity." 

This is a strange argument. Even when there was a surfeit of manpower in the past five years, our productivity shrank 0.4% per annum.

Zainal Sapari should face up to the fact that the problem is in part directly related to the PAP's liberal foreign labour policy under which businesses became addicted to cheap labour and eschewed innovations or raising the pay of local Singaporeans which led to a demoralized workforce.

From a business standpoint, the analogy of cheap domestic help is helpful: if you have a cheap foreign domestic help at your beck and call at home, would you bother to spend money on sophisticated automatic vacuum cleaners or buy the best washing machines to save on time and labour? 

Of course not. 

Then again, since when have we heard PAP politicians sincerely admitting to being in the wrong?

The Alternative View

<Photos: Shin Min Daily News>

A tour bus driver was arrested yesterday (June 5) after knocking down and killing a man in a horrific 'double' accident, where he ran over the victim twice, pinning him underneath the rear wheels of the bus.

The incident took place at the intersection of Geylang Lorong 14 and Talma Road.

According to a Straits Times report, the victim, a man in his 40s, was pronounced dead at the scene by paramedics.

Cleaner Amirudin Salim, 29, said he heard a loud scream and saw a man pinned under the back wheel of the tour bus. 

Mr Amirudin screamed at the driver and waved at him to stop. Instead, the driver got upset with Mr Amirudin. He reversed the bus, turned to Mr Amirudin and showed him the hand sign for 'what'.

Mr Amirudin told the driver there was somebody under the bus. When the driver got off the bus and squatted down for a look, he was shocked to see what had happened.

The driver, who was visibly confused, was later arrested by police. Police said they received a call about the incident at 8.17am. 

Two women and a man, who were visibly distressed and believed to be the driver's relatives, were also at the scene, reports The New Paper. 

Lianhe Wanbao reported that one of the driver's female relatives said he had 10 years' experience driving a bus. 

Mr Alvin Tan, the operations manager of Sun-Gee Travel, which owns the bus, said the driver was a 52-year-old known as "Ah Koon" who had been going to pick up passengers from a nearby hotel for a city tour, reports The Straits Times. 

He said Ah Koon had over a decade of driving experience and had been with the company for more than a year.

How did the National Wage Council come up with such an amount of $60 for our low wage workers? Is $60 a magic amount? No! Let's see the reason why...

The National Wages Council (NWC) has proposed that employers give low-wage workers a built-in wage increase of at least S$60. This applies to workers earning up to S$1,000 a month.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/nwc-proposes-wage-increase-of-at-least-s/693816.html

The magic amount started when Minister of State for Community Development, Health and Sports legislated a weekly day off for domestic helpers. If not given a day off a week, maids are normally compensated either in cash or kind. Many employers prefer to compensate their helpers with the additional $60 a month or $15 per week off day, so as to keep "trouble" to the minimum. 

http://maid-employer.blogspot.sg/2013/04/domestic-maids-off-day.html

Borrowed from one of my favourite writers ... in his own Press release ...

“I will call a spade a spade. We are dealing with a police state. A leadership that has no compunction whatsoever in deploying FEAR in the form of psychological warfare against its own citizens and stakeholders is by every definition a police state – to me it is very simple. Whether that power is used or not is immaterial. The very fact that the right to freedom of speech can even be surreptitiously hijacked in such a brazen manner without any regard to constitutional convention suggest this is a morally and ethically bankrupt government – who is prepared to do anything including circumvent the law to serve it’s own nefarious interest at the expense of the citizenry.

As a consequence there is no basis for trust any longer. You pull this off and in my book, you have lost the plot. Completely and totally – it’s not negotiable. Not by the serious men at least – I can assure all of you, this variety of men will not just allow this to pass happily by – you have to be kidding me – it doesn’t matter that the Parliamentarians who are elected and who are supposed to defend our rights are all silent, or that not even a single academic, jurist or for that matter the good for nothing President has spoken up about this travesty of justice. It matters not Gentlemen as when you peruse through the annals of history – you will discover those who are not prepared to defend and fight for their rights, they never once owned. And that is really all that is needed to win! The hollow men, half and quart men, we can all do without.

That is reality.

To win. We must draw the enemy in. We must stretch his supply lines so thin that he is forced like the Chinese to keep pouring in materiale into this enterprise – we must make him pour men and material into this long and protracted campaign that I expect may last 10 to possibly 15 years. As I suspect this will likely be a long drawn out affair like a war of attrition.

We must make it so hard, difficult and costly that the enemy constantly wonders to himself, ‘I wish, I did not start this.’ 

We must run deep and silent. After the 1st of June nothing can be trusted any longer. My heart is so heavy as it should not have come to this at all. This is something I do not relish at all. I had always hoped that we could find common ground – but now, the only thing to do is to see this rotten good for nothing outfit out of the door

The Alternative View

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=531376276923709&id=358759327518739

Fare Review Mechanism Committee ("FRMC"), which was supposed to submit its report to the Government this month, will now need another few more months to complete its report.

What's happening?

Public Transport Council Annual Report 2010/11

In its annual report for FY ended 31 March 2011, Public Transport Council ("PTC") noted that its fare adjustment formula[1] applied to the period 2008-2012.

A new formula was needed for 2013, and it takes time for a new fare review mechanism to be formulated, approved and implemented.

4 June 2012

FRMC was appointed to carry out the review of the public transport fare review mechanism for implementation in 2013.  It was expected to complete its work and submit its recommendations in early 2013.

FRMC invited feedback from the public for the fare review mechanism, to be submitted by 12 August 2012.

2 July 2012

FRMC announced that it planned to conduct focus group discussions. 

FRMC clarified that its mission was to specifically review the effectiveness of, and recommend improvements to, the fare review mechanism and the fare adjustment formula.  Changes to concessionary travel schemes fell to PTC.

28 August 2012

FRMC reported on its discussions with public transport operators ("PTOs") and academics/experts.  These dealt with affordability, type of fare formula and service quality.

26 November 2012

FRMC reported on its discussions with the general public.  These dealt mainly with affordability.

FRMC held the view that the price-cap approach of the fare formula and the productivity component should be retained.  It would look at other refinements to the formula to better reflect the PTOs’ cost structures.

15 February 2013

Minister for Transport Lui Tuck Yew instructed FRMC to review the public transport concessions framework within the broader issue of affordability of fares, something that FRMC had considered not to have been explicitly set out in its original terms of reference.

4 March 2013 

With its terms of reference expanded to review the public transport concessions framework, FRMC said that it faced "quite a bit of [additional] work" and would be engaging more commuters in focus group discussions in the months ahead.

5 June 2013

FRMC explained that there were difficult trade-offs in working toward a framework that ensures affordability with a safety net for financially constrained commuters and that aligns PTOs’ incentives to provide the best service at the best price.

FRMC believed it would be helpful to gather quantitative feedback on issues such as prioritising the granting of concessions among competing interests of different commuter groups; sustainable funding of concessions; cost pressures facing PTOs etc.

The result: several more months before FRMC can finalise its report.

Comments

Although the existing fare adjustment formula could have been applied to the review of public transport fares in 2012, public transport fares were not reviewed and not adjusted (or were reviewed but not implemented) in 2012.  While that no doubt pleased commuters, it didn't seem fair to the PTOs.

Why did Mr Lui expand FRMC's terms of reference so late in the process?  It is very unusual, at least for this Government.  Was it an afterthought or was dealing with the fares concession framework too much of a hot potato for the Government?

It looks like there will be no fare review this year.  By the end of this year, PTOs will not have had any fare increase for more than two years.  Again, while that no doubt will please commuters, it doesn't seem fair to the PTOs.

Unlike wage reviews which can be applied retroactively, fare reviews cannot.  A upward fare review not undertaken or undertaken and implemented more than 12 months after the last review means revenue foregone for the PTOs and penalises them.

It may be very difficult for the PTOs if there is a recession next year.  In the last recession, the PTOs not only decided not to (or believed they could not or were persuaded not to) request a review of fares but also reduced fares in 2009.

In the meantime, PTOs have to meet their expenses in an environment where inflation is far from benign.

---------------
Notes

1. The fare adjustment formula for 2008-2012 was:

Maximum fare adjustment = 0.5ΔCPI + 0.5ΔWI - 1.5%

where:

ΔCPI is the change in Consumer Price Index over the preceding year

ΔWI is the change in Average Monthly Earnings (Annual National Average) over the preceding year, adjusted to account for any change in the employer's Central Provident Fund contribution rate

1.5% is productivity extraction based on half the average productivity gains achieved by public transport operators.

RainMaker

*Article first appeared on http://refocusing.blogspot.sg/2013/06/fare-review-mechanism-report-delayed.html

It used to be Khaw Boon Wan the devout Buddhist, the one that was full of compassion and very in touch with the ordinary people. Many could identify with him as a good minister. Boon Wan was THE man to front the party on any difficult issues. People used to listen to him in his cool, slow and measured demeanour. This is all history. 

PAP now needs another poster boy to carry the flag. Among the new ministers, Chan Chun Sing is obviously out. Then there are Lawrence Wong and Heng Swee Kiat left. Baey Yam Keng was noted to be the auntie killer, but could be too junior to front the party. Between Heng Swee Kiat and Lawrence Wong, the party must have found Chuan Jin has a better face. So Chuan Jin is to be, the new PAP poster boy to get the party out of difficult position.

Now this should solve the mystery of why an unpopular new media regulation needs to be explained not by anyone from MDA or the Minister of Infocomm but an acting Minister from the MOM. What relationship has the MOM got to do with this media regulation to have its minister trying to explain away the unhappiness of the netizens? Anyone got any clue? I don’t.

So it must be an issue of putting the best face forward, the best front man. If Chuan Jin can carry this through, his future is going to be bright. But with a very unforgiving and cynical internet community and a very unpopular regulation that is seen more as not only unnecessary but obstructive, a good looker is not going to look much good in such a situation. Hope Chuan Jin does not get a broken nose or jaw in the process, and keep his poster boy image clean. He could be considered as having done well if he got away with a few scratches.

After Chuan Jin, can’t see anyone else good or pretty enough, or likeable enough to be the party’s mascot, except Singa.

Chua Chin Leng AKA Red Bean

*The author blogs at mysingaporenews.blogspot.com

A few days ago, in the newspaper, it reported that the lowest ratio of Locals to Foreign Talent was in the banking sector with the 70% Locals. Citibank, Standard Chartered Bank, DBS etc. were the ones named. 

Look Again!!! 70% of the workers hired in the Banking Industry are "Local". What does this really tell you?

To me, they are hiding some of the details:

1) At what percentage of Singaporeans are there at the management level?

2) How much of this 70% is made up of Citizens and how much is PRs?

All along, the above statistics are not made known to us! We should demand the government to give us an answer.

I will deliberate more on point number 2 – How many Singaporeans are there compared to PRs in the Banking Industry.

Personally, and i think most will agree, I observed that the banking industries is full of Indians, Pinoys and other nationalities. We would hardly see any Singaporeans when we go into the banks.  (I say Singaporeans have becomes a minority in the industry).

They have categorised Singaporean and PR together to let us know they indeed employ locals. But Hey!!! We would like to see more data! What is the real ratio of True Blue Native Singaporean vs others. After all, PRs are foreigners too!

In my speech at the press conference for the May Day Protest in Hong Lim Park organised by Gilbert Goh, I had also talked about the issue:

Press conference after May Day Protest at Hong Lim Park

(If you are interested to hear it, jump to 25:00)

Workers on Employment Pass (EP) are not counted in the Foreign quota, and when foreigners become PR, the foreign quota for the company will increase. 

Thus, this will enable the company to bring in more foreigners to Singapore instead of looking locally for a suitable candidate. This is especially true if the company is headed or managed by a certain nationality.

Even Acting Minister for Manpower, Tan Chuan-Jin, had acknowledge that workplace discrimination against Singaporeans does occur. They are now focusing more on fair employment practices by TAFEP.

It is time that PRs should be separated from Singaporeans when counting 'locals' and increasing the foreign quota. Singaporeans  should be allocated at least 60% for companies instead of 70% inclusive of PRs. I hope that Acting Minister for Manpower Tan Chuan-Jin would seriously consider implementing the suggestion of separating PR from the local workforce. This will give Singaporeans a fair chance in the industry.

New Bird

*Article first appeared on http://mrnewbird.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/how-many-singaporean-in-the-banking-industry/

Former NUS law professor, Tey Tsun Hang, was sentenced to a 5 months’ jail term and ordered to pay a penalty of $514.80 by the court yesterday. He was convicted of corruptly obtaining gifts and sex from former student Darinne Ko.

Last week, the former chief of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), Peter Lim Sin Pang, was convicted by a District Court for corruption. He was on trial for abusing his position to obtain sexual favours from Ms Pang Chor Mui in return for favorable consideration of her company’s tender bid for business.

Also last week, the Ministry of Home Affairs said disciplinary proceedings against the former chief of the Central Narcotics Bureau Ng Boon Gay would remain suspended until a final outcome in the criminal proceedings. Mr Ng was acquitted of corruption charges in February. Mr Ng was accused of obtaining sexual favours from IT sales manager Ms Cecilia Sue in return for furthering the business interests of her two employers. The MHA spokesperson also said that the prosecution was studying  the written grounds of decision and assessing whether to file a Petition of Appeal.

Even though Gay was acquired, all three public servants paid a high price for being a bit (very cheap actually) cheap when it came to sex. In return for a few freebie trysts, they ended up spending very serious money on lawyers , and damaging their reputations and earning capabilities. I mean who will want to employ two soiled police scholars and an academic who proclaimed his academic integrity* when he was charged?

Then there was ex-Speaker of Parliament, “Mangoes for Laura” Palmer. True he wasn’t charged and never paid lawyers’ fees, but the guy was castrated in public: within a few hours he fell from “tua kee” to zero you-know-what.

Obviously, they didn’t do cost-benefit analysis. If they had been, they could have realised that the costs of being cheap on sex was higher than if they had paid for it. They would have realised that paying for sex was less risky for their careers and reputations. Based on legal fees of $500,000 a case (and I’m being conservative given the size of the legal teams), even if each man charged had sex 100 times (and the reports indicate that the frequency wasn’t that high), the cost would be $5,000 a session. And these were with aunties! Not slim, tall Vogue model-types.

If these senior public servants, didn’t use cost-benefit analysis on such an impt, personal matter, what are the chances that public servants use cost-benefit analysis when analysising or making decisions for us the masses? Yup, highly unlikely.

Anyway, these four cases illustrate the ancient Chinese saying of, “Kill a cock to frighten the monkeys”. Here four cocks were “killed’ to remind public servants that free sex is not a benefit of service. Never mind, public servants can afford to pay for sex, juz like they can afford to buy $5m to S10m apartments from a TLC, even when the TLC expresses concerns that it can sell some of these apartments. And if the MDA chairman and CEO may have problems with their personal cost-benefit analysis (what with QE possibly being reversed, with knock-on effects for S’pore property, and KepLand’s remarks on selling its apts), can ministers and the public trust that the MDA has done its cost-benefit analysis on its new media regulations? It could be telling that the Manpower minister replaced MDA’s CEO at a Talking Points programme on the issue of new media regulation? BTW, where was the water engineer**, Yaacob?

Note (Last three lines added two hrs after first publication, after reading FT etc)

——

*I tot he was going to deny that he ever had sex with his student. It has been part of Western academic tradition since the times of the Greeks that sex with students was taboo. There was a lewd Roman joke that Socrates never had sex with Plato despite both being gay because Plato was Socrates’ pupil. The Romans didn’t do gay sex.

**See the * at end in link on what I mean by “water engineer”.

Cynical Investor

[Source]: Thoughts of a Cynical Investor (http://atans1.wordpress.com/).

As the #FreeMyInternet movement continues to gain traction, with over a thousand people heading to Hong Lim Park tomorrow and the petition gaining about four thousand signatures, people have also rallied and protested against the “overreaction” and the “misunderstanding.” Some have also taken the opportunity to remind people that if they are displeased, they should just remember to vote for the opposition the next time. When we look at democracy in a spectrum from elite to participatory, Singapore is undoubtedly an elite democracy.  

“(In elite democracies), Democracy is defined not as a kind of society or as a set of moral ends or even as a principle of legitimacy but rather as a method for choosing political leaders and organizing governments. The elite model of democracy claims to be realistic, descriptive, empirically accurate, and the only model that is appropriate to modern social conditions.”[1]

The fear-mongering of shifting towards a more participatory form of government has been ingrained for many decades: a fear of “inefficiency”, the dangers of “mob rule”, that participation is “unpractical.” This is a dangerous perception, one which cedes command and control of the polity to the ones who are elected – where we can only protest every five years when elections roll by. Complaints are unnecessary; points are “misunderstood.” The processes might not be right, but by the virtue of the surrendering of decision-making to these leaders, they are made right.

I am tired of these commentators pretending to care about the “dêmos” (People), when they seem all too ready to call claim to the “kratos” (Power). That those that are on top stay on top, and deserve to be on top. Consultation is unnecessary, for these elites know best. However, we need to move past this paternalistic system of governance, because the right answers have not always come from the people we elect. These bourgeois and elitist representations of governance have not always been right.[2] When they make the wrong decisions, one that both in process and application has violated our democratic rights, we must speak out.

It is crucial to remember that active participation is something that is to be proud of, even if participation might not translate to actual results at the end. There is nothing wrong in trying. There is something wrong, however, when people actively demean the efforts of others, who are trying their best to secure and speak out against at best, a toothless and aimless piece of regulation, and at worst, a new choker placed upon our democratic voice.  

These dialogues (even those who protest against the event) are actual National Conversations. They are spontaneous, unplanned, and are undoubtedly authentic, rather than the PR sessions that the government masks as dialogues, but are in actual fact, soliloquies that threaten to drown out the voices of the people.

Regardless of the decisions of the MDA thereafter, we must remember that the diversity, solidarity and discourse that was discussed and debated is already a step towards the normalization of politics in Singapore. That we are learning, not just to talk to the State when we face a problem, but also to talk to one another, to make associations, to form a community.

For those who are going down to Hong Lim Park tomorrow, be proud of who you are, and what you represent. You are there as a citizen, before a netizen. You are there to display your displeasure at the even greater curtailment of your personal freedoms. You are there because you care about the little red dot and the people here. So I thank each and every one of you from the bottom of my heart. It is people like you, who constantly restore my faith, and my love for Singapore.

[1] Introduction in Cohen, Jean L. and Arato, Andrew (1992) Civil society and political theory, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

[2] For more details on cautionary tales of the perils that accompany authoritarian tendencies,Seeing like a State shows how autocratic ideals of improving life often turn out to be very bad decisions. Or well. Just look at all of the National Campaigns that have been part and parcel of Singaporean life.

Lim Jialiang

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/notes/lim-jialiang/be-proud/10151779057031844

Singapore has come some way since the days of near absolute information control and a pervasive climate of fear.  As a teenager in the 1980s, I remember clearly the oppressive political environment within which alternative voices and opposition politicians were operating.  Even when engaging in coffee shop conversation, there was a tendency amongst many of us to speak less audibly when it came to politics (or not at all) or to cast glances at possible undercover ISD officers.  This was especially so in the wake of the arrests and detention of alleged Marxist conspirators in 1987.  There were many that believed in the official version.  There were many that didn't.  But, one thing was for sure.  We knew that Big Brother was watching.  

From the time that JBJ broke through in the Anson by-election in 1981, there arose a certain excitement and expectation that more alternative voices would enter Parliament.  In the years that followed, there was a growing interest in opposition politics and alternative news.  Those days, with absolute control of the print media being exercised by the state, there was very little by way of alternative sources.  Many of us read in between the lines to make up our minds.  Newspapers that appeared to display an independent streak quickly disappeared.  I managed to get much of my independant information from foreign publications or books available across the causeway.  

Growing up in Singapore against the backdrop of constant propaganda and an undeniably constant climate of fear, the last ten years or so of online information availability has been a truly liberating experience.  For those of us that crave for different perspectives in a debate, the internet has provided us with not only access to information but also an avenue to express our opinion.  There was the often inevitable problem that letters to forum page of the main English daily that were too critical or against the national narrative would not see the light of day.  Those amongst us that had alternative views or perspectives were effectively shut out from the 'national conversion' (to borrow the current national cliche) of the past. 

Blogging has provided many articulate Singaporeans an avenue for free expression and other Singaporeans who crave for alternative news a source of information.  Online content providers such as The Online Citizen have emerged as political game changers in many ways.  I am sure that many Singaporeans were relying heavily on alternative online sources for information during the last General Elections in 2011.  My blogs traffic increased tremendously during the GE and also the Presidential Elections.  I can only imagine the kind of increase in traffic that sites like TOC would have experienced.  Singaporeans have been increasingly consuming news online and let's be honest about it, many Singaporeans could well be influenced by the opinion and commentary that they read online.  

When the MDA's new licensing regime was announced last week, I was a little hesitant to brand it immediately as a regressive step and to brand it as an attack on the larger blogging community.  I wanted to read the wording of the regulations to understand whether legally it was possible for MDA to clamp down on alternative news sites.  At first, based on the MDA press release I wrote speculatively about what the government might be trying to accomplish and how it might accomplish it from a legislative standpoint.  http://www.article14.blogspot.sg/2013/05/from-licensing-to-regulation-of-content.html

Subsequently, when the MDA issued the Broadcasting (Class Licence) (Amendment) Notification 2013, the framework of MDA's action became much clearer and I blogged on this here: http://www.article14.blogspot.sg/2013/05/making-sense-of-legislative-framework.html

The way that I see it the new licensing regime is sufficiently vague to allow for future licensing notices to be directed at sites such as TOC.  MDA has made assurances that the measure is not targetted at blogs.  The issue for me is not so much as to who is targetted now.  The question is whether alternative sites providing unfavourable content can be subject to licensing in the future.  During the Talking Point show that was aired on ChannelNewsAsia, Minister Tan Chuan Jin did allude to the fact that blogs reporting news could come within the ambit of the licensing requirement.  To be frank, TOC is a site that does not merely publish opinion and commentary on local events.  Some of their activities does involve news reporting.  During the last General Elections, we saw quite a fair bit of reporting from on the ground that was done by TOC.

Considering the fact that there are linguistic loopholes in the subsidiary legislation for the authorities to exploit, the blogging community has very little to go on except to hope that the PAP government will act in good faith.  The main reason for the online uproar is that the past political record of the PAP hasn't been positive from the standpoint of freedom of speech and expression.  Citizens are generally skeptical about the Ministerial assurances.  (Perhaps, as citizens we might have to wonder whether we are unfairly forcing the current generation of PAP leaders to bear the historical burden of their party.  I have reflected upon this often and tried my best to give the present PAP leaders a clean sheet to work from.  But, the historical baggage is difficult to erase from memory.)  

We don't know the real reason for the sudden announcement surrounding the introduction of the new licensing rules.  We suspect a hidden agenda.  We may or may not be right.  But, one thing is for sure.  If there had been a hidden agenda of gradually subjecting popular alternative sites to a regime of licensing (which involves financial constraints and take-down notices), then the uproar from the blogging community has certaintly acted as a persuasive force in preventing the MDA from taking such steps in the future.  If anything, a concession has been forced in the form of a public statement that the licensing regime is not targeted at bloggers.  It is a minor victory.  But, a victory nevertheless.  

If there was no hidden agenda, the bare mimimum that has been achieved this week is that the blogging community has sent a clear message that we value our limited space and are not willing to give it up easily.  Some of my friends asked me about the point of participating in a 'blackout' (on 6 June 2013) and whether it was a futile and self-defeating exercise.  My take on it is that if websites went on an indefinite blackout until the licensing regime is withdrawn, the blackout action would have been futile and stupid.  What was done yesterday was, in my view, symbolic.  It helped to demonstrate the broad cross-section of support that exists for the freedom of online space.  It was not merely the socio-political bloggers that participated in the blackout. 

Tomorrow, it is time to turn up at Hong Lim Park.  I am going down to show support.  I don't think that the task at hand is merely about reversing the licensing regime.  The current regulations as framed and as explained (defensively) appear unlikely to prevent online discourse and debate.  There are two broad tasks that we as a nation need to focus upon:

1.  Firstly, we have to recognise that the Broadcasting Act enacted by Parliament grants to the MDA too broad a power to institute a licensing regime with any restrictive conditions of licensing whatsoever and all of this can be done without any need for Parliamentary debate.  Just as MDA has introduced the current licensing regime, the MDA can replace it and introduce another licensing regime with entirely different conditions.  The Broadcasting Act has given too much discretionary power to the MDA and discretionary power with improper or no legal contraints is always a dangerous tool in the hands of those that might be bent on abusing that power.  To prevent such future abuse the Broadcasting Act must be amended to take away the general power of the MDA to set licensing conditions in a discretionary fashion.  

2.  Secondly, the traditional print media in Singapore has to be freed up.  The Newspapers and Printing Presses Act has to be either amended or repealed.  The key control mechanisms in this Act that prevent our mainstream media from acting in an independant fashion must be removed.  I have previously blogged about the legal structures that limit the press:  http://article14.blogspot.sg/2012/05/media-in-singapore-structural-problem.html 

Minister Yacoob Ibrahim spoke about creating a parity of mainstream media and the online media.  Rather than taking the regressive step of introducing controls upon the online media to bring it on par with our MSM, we should take the progressive step of removing the controls on our traditional media. 

Anyone interested in understanding the mechanics of legal control in relation to the press should read this book by Francis Seow entitled "Media Enthralled" 

In my reading of the current political situation I would not approach it with a sense of doom and gloom.  I believe that the political awakening of our citizens that has been going on over the last few years will be met and matched by a gradual political rehabilitation of our politicians.  As a country we have every reason to be optimistic since citizens are beginning to show a willingness to stand up for issues that affect the broader community instead of pursuing their own selfish goals.  The juggernaut of the popular desire for greater freedom has started moving.  Nothing can stop it now.  Singapore in 2013 is very different from the Singapore of the 1960s or the 1980s.

We take our pledge seriously and believe in it entirely.  We will strive towards a "democratic society based on justice and equality."

Subra

*Article first appeared on http://article14.blogspot.com/2013/06/it-is-not-about-internet-alone-we-need.html

Let's do some back-of-the-envelop calculations on the account of Arise and Build Fund.

Total Arise and Build Funds raised for the new building >$130,000,000.

Valuation of Suntec Convention Center after the latest renovation (Asset Enhancement Initiative - AEI) : $400,000,000

Asset:

CHC's 39.2% Stake in $400,000,000 Suntec Convention Center : $156,800,000.

Equipment (Announced during Special OM Meeting in 2011) : $13,000,000

Total asset of Arise & Build Account: $169,800,000

Liability of Arise and Build Account:

Liability assumed by CHC for the $180,000,000 renovation loan raised by Suntec REIT : $70,560,000

Liability assumed by CHC for the $50,000,000 private loan to acquire additional 19.2% in 2011 : $50,000,000

Provision by CHC for the non-performing investment with AMAC Capital since 2010 : $18,000,000

Total liability of Arise & Build Account: $138,560,000

Net Asset Value (NAV) of Arise and Build Fund : $169,800,000 - $138,560,000 = $31,240,000

Take into account the depreciation of equipment and the servicing interest cost (15% for the $50,000,000 private loan as announced, albeit briefly, during the last AGM), the Net Asset Value of the Arise and Build Fund is probably less than $10,000,000.

A NAV of less than $10,000,000, a mere 7.7% of an initial cash cahce of $130,000,000.

One may argue that the cash had been expended in rental and shifting of premises for the last few years.

But if $130,000,000 has been invested in DBS Perpetual Bond which has a BBB+ rating that yields 3.9%, it would have generated $5,070,000 income each year, more than enough to pay for the yearly rental and expenses of Hall 8 at Singapore Expo. Arise and Build Fund would still have a NAV of $130,000,000, instead of the pathetic $10,000,000.

Why did they do such a silly deal?

1) Transfer rental expense from operating budget to Arise & Build Account. This shifts rental and equipment expense from CHC Operating Budget ($40,000,000+/year) to A&B Account. This creates room for Mission Expense of $12,000,000 each year. Where did the bulk of the $12,000,000 end up? 

A case in point: $3,000,000 donation to City Harvest KL ended up with "Crossover" project. 

How much of it was actually spent on outreach program? Nobody knows.

2) Initial 20% stake in Suntec was $43,000,000. But it was bumped up to $310,000,000, additional $267,000,000 for using the 44% of Suntec facilities on 80+% of the weekends over next 10 years. 

Additional purchase of 19.2% Suntec at $54,000,000 in 2011. Miraculously, the 10 year budget is still $310,000,000.

3) The moving in and out of Suntec created opportunity to make extraordinary profit. Each move is $1,000,000 plus many miscellaneous charges.

4) These imprudent expenses, amounting to almost $30,000,000 during the first year of using Suntec location alone, make it necessary to conduct another 7 to 8 Arise & Build exercises. Opportunity to raise more money for unaccounted mission donations, more $1,000,000 moves and fees.

How come COC did not intervene earlier?

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/CHCConfessions/posts/614107505275297

TRS reader Ricky came across this dog abuse case on facebook where a Silky Terrier's snout was tied so tightly with something, its flesh was cut into and badly infected.

Ricky hopes the abuser can be caught and wrote;

Horrific dog abuse.

I came across this dog abuse case on SPCA's facebook page. 

The Silky Terrier which was abandoned had its snout tied with something so tight that it cut into the flesh leading to a bad infection.

Luckily, SPCA was informed and was about to treat the wound. 

I hope the authorities can do something about this and apprehend the dog abuser."

More on the Silky Terrier we found near the coffeeshop at Blk 603 Clementi West Street 1...

Below is the Status Update made by SPCA Singapore on the dog:

Our vet consultant had carefully removed the fur around her snout so she could better clean the area and reduce the chances of an infection. It was heartbreaking to see the extent of the injury inflicted on our little friend. We're treating her injuries the best we can, and she's recovering well despite everything she has gone through.

We had found a microchip in her and had checked with the relevant authorities. Unfortunately, the microchip is not registered. Our staff is now calling up as many vet clinics as possible to find out if any may have come across our little friend. The microchip number is 702 055 550 032 426. If you have any information that could help us find the person/s responsible for this, please contact us at 6287 5355 ext. 9.

Thank you for your generous outpouring of concern for our little friend. She is a warrior, and we're counting on her to get well soon.

Dear Mr Ngerng,

Thank you for your feedback.

We would like to reiterate and elaborate on our earlier point that the content standards for these news sites remains the same even under the new licensing framework. The existing Class Licence requires Internet Content Providers to ensure that content on their sites do not go against public interest, public order, national harmony, and/or offends against good taste or decency. These are broad terms that are open to interpretation in terms of the range of possible violations.  While they may be appropriate for the Class Licence because of the diverse range of content on the Internet, we feel that more clarity should be given where news sites are concerned because their content is used by others to make informed decisions, or to form judgements on matters of national interest.

For example, the licence provides more clarity on what it means for news sites to offer information in a way that threatens “public order” with specific examples:

• If the content undermines public confidence in the law and its enforcement in Singapore.
• If the sites present information, events or depictions in a manner likely to mislead and cause mass panic to the public.
• If the content contains extremist or anarchic messages, such as advocating or promoting the use of violence.

As for content that threatens “national harmony”, the guidelines are closely tied with race and religion, given the importance of racial and religious harmony in Singapore:

• Content that incites or is likely to incite intolerance or misunderstanding among the main racial and religious groups in Singapore.
• Content that denigrates or is likely to offend the sensitivities of any racial or religious group.
• Content that promotes or justifies hatred and enmity against other racial and religious groups.

Nowhere do the guidelines state that news sites cannot question or highlight the shortcomings of government policies, as long as the assessments are well-intentioned, and not based on factual inaccuracies with the intention to mislead the public.

We would like to stress therefore that there is no attempt to influence the editorial slant of these news sites, as the content on these news sites continue to be guided by the same content standards as when they were class-licensed.

Given that there is no change in the standards, our judicious record of issuing take-down notices continues to be relevant. Since the class license scheme came into effect in 1996, there has only been one take-down notice for religiously-offensive content (i.e. the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ video), and the other 23 instances were mainly for pornographic content and advertisements soliciting for sex or sex chats which arose from public complaints.

Bearing in mind the speed at which Internet content can be published and disseminated, we are of the opinion that online news sites with a significant reach (and hence impact on Singaporeans) do not carry prohibited content and if they do, to take down such content as soon as possible. In this regard, our assessment is that a site which has a reach of over 50,000 monthly unique IP addresses on average for two months is considered to have significant reach, and therefore should be individually licensed to place a stronger onus on the individual licensee operating that website to report responsibly. We would also like to add that we use a combination of traffic monitoring tools and perception-based surveys; nonetheless, in respect of the commercial sensitivity of websites which may not wish to reveal their statistics, we hope you will understand that we are unable to provide such info to the public.

We would like to share that the move to individually license news sites is not a fundamental shift in policy approach, but rather a refinement of the Class Licensing scheme which was also introduced via subsidiary legislation in 1996. Where there is a new policy direction, such as the upcoming amendment in the Broadcasting Act, the Government will consult the public for its views before formulating its proposals.

Should you require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us by replying to this email.

Kindly click here if you wish to participate in our customer service survey.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Media Development Authority

[Source]: http://thehearttruths.com/2013/06/08/letter-to-mda-feedback-on-new-licensing-framework-for-online-news-sites-part-3-mdas-response/

As a Singaporean who has been studying and living in the UK for the past 3 years and counting, and who has over the years spent here, taken more than a passing interest over the progression of British immigration and multiculturalism and the current backlash to them, I feel a need to reply to the Simple Singaporean’s response to the Brit in Singapore.

Simple Singaporean:
http://www.therealsingapore.com/content/my-response-brit-singapore-rude-french-kids-serangoon

Brit in Singapore:
http://therealsingapore.com/content/british-living-singapore-my-response-junjie-serangoon

Jun Jie (His post started it all.):
http://therealsingapore.com/content/lack-cultural-integration-french-students-serangoon-north

To begin, I wish to say that I am perfectly able to relate to being a foreigner residing in a foreign land, especially one filled with a heightened xenophobia.

In the UK, multiculturalism is increasingly viewed as a failed construct, and there have been greater calls for the migrant population in the UK to be curtailed. Notwithstanding this, there are also small pockets of the British public (Mostly white British.) who are unwilling to accept this irreversible change to their social landscape. This follows with isolated (I stress on the word Isolated.) acts of racism and bigotry perpetuated by those who are too narrow minded to embrace migrants who seek to contribute to British society. This is the social landscape that I am currently a part of, and I do hope that Singapore does not progress in that direction.

With this, I will like to come to the defence of Brit in Singapore, expatriates akin to him/her, and the French students.

Like the French students who came to Singapore to study, I too started a new phase of my life studying in a foreign land. Since the time I arrived in the UK, I have picked up an insatiable appetite for British culture and her way of life (I am a passionate anglophile.), and I am happy to say that I have integrated acceptably in the UK.

However, I did not get to where I am today immediately. Rather, it took me a while of mingling with the locals in my city, socialising with my British friends (Some of them graciously invited me to their homes to experience their way of life while others made the effort to address my lingering questions about the British way of life.), and closely following British media to get accustomed to this concept of ‘Britishness’.

Such assimilation could not have happened in isolation, and had it not been for my British peers who had guided me along the way, I would not have achieved such a satisfactory level of integration. It was definitely not a given that I could have integrated this quickly (At this point, I will like to point out that I still feel I am not fully integrated.). Neither then, should it be a given that the expatriates can adapt to our way of life effortlessly too.

Simple Singaporean, you claim to have ‘integrated’ in the UK during your 3 short months there (In, of all places, touristy London.). However, what you claim to have achieved is alas, only the tip of the iceberg.

Where your claimed ‘integration’ is concerned, I would firstly like to point out that the Brits do not always have English breakfast and orange juice every morning. That would certainly cause health complications. There is also more to British cuisine than a good old fry up.

Secondly, the meal times of which you described do not seem too different from the meal times we Singaporeans observe, and so, should not have been hard to follow.

Thirdly, there is more to British meal times then just Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner, with some Brits preferring to have meals like elevenses and afternoon tea in between.

Fourthly, only Brits in certain parts of the UK refer to dinner as tea.

Moving on, some of the habits you used to demonstrate integration are not proof of it at all.

Reading a road map/directory in a foreign land as a tourist is certainly not proof of it. You did it out of necessity, and not out of choice.

By saying that you took your turn to pay for your drink despite being female, you are implying that you do not have to do that in Singapore because of your gender. While I have been away from Singapore for a few years, I certainly do not recall queuing being exempt in our country.

Moreover, you were lucky to have had your British friend with the ‘exceedingly understanding heart and the exceedingly responsible heart’ to educate you on the finer points of UK life during your time in touristy London. The French students who came to Singapore to study however, are unlikely to have known any Singaporeans prior to their arrival here. Their studies take place in their French school in Serangoon, thus limiting their interactions with Singaporeans further. Furthermore, their parents might also be too busy working to sufficiently educate their children on Singapore’s social etiquette.

It is to the French students’ credit however, that they are willing to spend time in that coffee shop. The coffee shop is a Singaporean institution, but it is one that is mostly patronised by heartlanders, the everyday folk of Singapore. Singaporeans of a higher social class need not partake in this institution. They need not shop at the neighbourhood shopping malls we regularly frequent. They certainly need not mingle with the heartlanders of our country. The French students and Brit in Singapore, among other foreigners, however, are attempting to do those things. This is despite them being completely capable of mingling exclusively with their expatriate communities. I believe that these acts constitute some level of integration, and they warrant merit.

Simple Singaporean, you say that through the years of you growing up, you and your family have learnt to watch Indian and Malay dramas on TV channels, and that you have even worn their traditional attire to formal events. If it has taken that many years for you and your family to embrace what has always been present in Singapore society, how then, can you disregard Brit in Singapore’s efforts to embrace Singapore’s culture in what must have been an even shorter amount of time?

During your short but eventful stay in London, you must have travelled out of central London to parts of London with high percentages of non-whites (Ang Mohs, if you prefer that term.). East London is a prime example of such an area, and in those areas, the immigrants make far less of an attempt to integrate. Rather, many choose to mingle exclusively with their migrant communities, refusing to partake in the British way of life. With this as a comparison, I hope you will be inclined to agree that the expatriates seem to be doing far better.

You quote your British friend, saying that he ‘felt he was responsible to have kept you informed of his culture’. Truly, it takes two hands to clap, and we cannot expect these expatriates to feel their way in the dark till they eventually grasp what it means to be like a Singaporean. Like the example set by your British friend, we should extend a helping hand out to them and engage them in Singapore life. Besides, if we are capable of standing on the wrong side of tube escalators (Yes, I have made that mistake too.), I am sure we can forgive a few young French students for their misplaced behaviour.

Junjie rants, ‘If our gahment doesn't want them out, at least educate them to blend into part of our friendly culture’. The government can only do so much in terms of education. Ultimately, it is up to us Singaporeans to shed our inability to accept these expatriates and embrace them in our daily lives. I believe that we as Singaporeans need an education on tolerance too.

As mentioned by you, true integration in multicultural Singapore involves being tolerant about the idiosyncrasies of others. If that is the case, you should be advising Junjie not to ‘confront’ the French students with strong words such as ‘the French students are ignorant of our culture’ and ‘the invasion of these Caucasians’.

Such words take the expatriates efforts to integrate and Singaporeans attempts to embrace these people a step back.

Indeed, with the recent furore in Singapore over the increasing number of immigrants coming to our shores and the increasing rants about rude Caucasians in Singapore surfacing, Brit in Singapore should be commended for stepping up to highlight that not all Caucasians willfully disregard the social norms present in Singapore.

Personally, I find your claim of him/her being small minded baseless. In fact, by recounting his/her efforts to integrate, Brit in Singapore has demonstrated a level of openness that Junjie, who ‘feels so alien in the country he used to call Home’ lacks. By recounting his/her efforts, Brit in Singapore has also demonstrated his/her attempt to preserve social cohesion; something that was first tainted by the French Students’ actions, but was further undermined by Junjie’s inflammatory post.

Simple Singaporean, if being constructive is the aim, perhaps, rather than criticising the foreign presence, Singaporeans should instead work towards extending a level of graciousness to all ‘foreigners in this homeland’ and seek to involve them in our society.

To illustrate, my family was acquainted with a German expatriate couple working in Singapore several years ago. We befriended them and did our best in showing them the Singapore we were proud of. They have since left Singapore, but we remain in constant contact with each other till this day. They are now good friends with my parents, and my family has even visited them recently while on holiday in Germany. Our German friends have also returned to Singapore for visits on at least 2 occasions. There are no prizes for guessing who were present to show them around

Simple Singaporean, you say that foreigners do not know their place in our homeland. I do hope however, that the reply of Brit in Singapore and my response to your article serves to reassure you that not every foreigner is integration adverse. Many, like Brit in Singapore, do wish to get involved and contribute to our country. Also, since he/she is open to conversation, you may wish to meet him/her over kopi at a coffee shop one day. That will be a positive step in 'fostering social cohesion and harmony, and I am certain that you will find him/her a friendly and decent individual.

Cheers,

A Singaporean student in the UK.

Contributions

3 years ago, I was freshly graduated from my poly, happy and free.

At that time, my mum casually sat me down over a meal and told me that she had seen the uncle whom I disliked. He had asked about me, surprisingly.

That wasn’t the main point. The main point was, he said: “I wouldn’t be surprised if she cannot get into University to get a degree. She’s stupid.”

I turned red. Of course I did. Who else wouldn’t? Even my mum who is usually too busy to take care of herself, sat me down to tell me about the encounter herself and to assure me that a degree cert doesn’t really matter.

Fuming mad, I sworn to never speak to him again. Yes I did, for all the New Year gatherings I would pretend to be blind and walk past him like he was invisible. I’m sure he was wondering why the drastic treatment, or probably wondering if I knew what he had said to my mum.

That very sentence stayed with me throughout all these years to serve as a ultimatum for myself whenever I feel like giving up when the going gets tough.

After 3 years of working, I possess all the needs and wants in my life. I’m very happy right now, with a good-paying job with two nice bosses. Albeit the job is stressful, the tiny accomplishments compensates aftermath. The most important thing I’ve realized while I’m out working in the society is that my mum is right. A cert really doesn’t matter. 

If I may, can I ask: How many of your friends who have acquired a degree cert but is not holding a relevant job to that degree? 

Every one of us have friends like that.

When asked, they always told me a degree is just a piece of paper which does not indicate anything at all. It just means you have gone through Education. Period.

The first time I heard this, I was stumped. The second and the third, this answer became a norm.

Yes some jobs do require relevant knowledge prior to hiring (example: Human Resource). However, possessing these knowledge unfortunately does not necessarily guarantee that this person will excel in the job.

Like what someone always told me, knowledge is one thing. The ability to apply the knowledge and manipulate during the practicum is another.  Everyone and anyone who spends the effort to memorize texts off textbook will definitely score in theory exams but you cannot say the same for practical.

No matter how impressive a resume can be or how reputable the University which you have graduated from is, a cert does not and will never suffice enough to determine your worth, especially so for your job appraisal at the year end. If you have performed badly at work, do you think your impressive GPA and reputable cert can actually help to increase your bonus? Doubt so.

Looking back, I realized I was out of my mind to be fuming mad at such a sentence. I cannot stop wondering how someone can actually determine my worth through a piece of paper? That was actually kind of shallow and dense.

Young adults nowadays have this perception that possessing a degree is the highest form of honor they can ever achieve for their life and having that cert meant that they do not have to worry about finding a job.

Really?

I’d like to advise all to re-think about that statement and alter that warp point of view.

Ashley

Contributions 

The following is the full transcript of the speech that I had given at the #FreeMyInternet protest at the Hong Lim Park on 8 June 2013.

Singaporeans Need Step Up to Protect The Independence and Freedom of Our Internet

Hello everyone, I am Roy and I am the author of The Heart Truths.

I am honoured and humbled to be here today to be a voice among Singaporeans, to speak up on the MDA Licensing Rule. The MDA Licensing has to go!

For more than 40 years, Singaporeans couldn’t protest in Singapore. And in the past, if you speak up, what will happen to you? You will be arrested, you will be jailed. You will be thrown into prison. You will be sued and you will be made bankrupt.

This year is the first time in Singapore’s history since our independence that we are able to come here in the thousands to speak up and to voice out for what is right for us.

The Government Wants Us to Trust Them

Now, the government tells us that it’s ok. Trust them. Give them time. After a while, when the licence takes effect, we will know that we can trust them. So, this is what they say.

But Singaporeans, how many years have we given the government to makes our lives right? They want us to read the right thing? But are they doing the right thing?

Singaporeans’ Wages and Retirement Funds Are Very Low

Over the past more than one decade, Singaporeans’ median wages have remained stagnant. In fact, for the poorest in Singapore, since 2000, their real wages have actually dropped! Dropped!

The percentage of people who are able to meet their CPF Minimum Sum and Medisave Minimum Sum have also dropped. Yet, healthcare costs have climbed up but the percentage of the government’s spending on healthcare has dropped!

Is it any wonder why, that many people, especially the elderly, do not even dare to go and see the doctor?

So, the government wants us to read the right thing. But are they doing the right thing? If they are not doing the right thing, then what do they want us to read?

Today, our retirement funds, and that is our CPF, is the smallest among ALL the developed countries, and not only that, but our retirement funds are even lower than developing countries like Malaysia and Philippines!

Our CPF is invested in the GIC and Temasek Holdings. And do you know that GIC is ranked 8th largest and Temasek is ranked the 11th largest sovereign wealth funds in the world? But our CPF is the lowest is the developed countries!

Our Elderly Earn Low Wages and Are Forced to Work

Now, we must not sit down and we must not wait for the government to change, and to treat us better. We need to stand up and we need to ask the government to change, if not, we need to change who is in the government!

The government cannot, I repeat, the government, cannot, expect to tell the people to sit down and listen to the right thing when there is no right thing! When there is nothing right about how there are more and more elderly who have to work at our hawker centres to be cleaners. And be paid very low wages!

My question to you is this – are you willing to work long hours everyday and get paid only a few hundred dollars in Singapore? Are you willing? Of course, our government ministers won’t understand this. Because why? Because they are paid millions of dollars. Will they know how hard it is to be poor?

The government tells us that the elderly want to stay active. They want a hobby. And so the government say, we should encourage them to work.

But do you know that in 2005, when the government conducted a study, 62% of the elderly said they had to work because they needed the money. This is an increase of more than 20% from 1995! 62%!

What about now, after another 8 years? Will there be an increase of another 20%? Does it mean that today, 80% of the elderly have to work because they need the money?

Many of our elderly are working in “blue-collar” industries. Many of our elderly are very lowly-paid.

Now, the government wants us to read the right thing. Will you know all these if you had read the right thing? Will you know that there are Singaporeans who are suffering if we had the right thing?

If there was no speak up for them, who will speak up for them?

What Are These Online News Sites and What Are Their Unique Visitors?

In this new rule, the government wants to tell us to take down our articles within 24 hours. Think about it, if you are not happy with something someone had said, would you tell the person to shut up? Or would you want to talk to the person to find out why? So, why doesn’t the government want to talk to us? Why does the government want us to keep quiet?

The government says that “online news sites” need to be licensed. But which are these sites? Obviously, the government would already know which these sites are because the government is monitoring them. So, why not let everyone know which these sites are? Let us know which these sites are. Let us know what the unique visitors are. Let us see if we agree whether these should be called “online news sites”.

If the government had bothered to speak to anyone of us, we would have told them – who says we want articles to be taken down? If we don’t want to read something, we won’t read it. If there is something we don’t agree with, we will talk about it. We are not like them. Who says that we want articles to be taken down? The people don’t need the government to prevent us from reading. We have our minds to decide what we want to read. But, if that is the case, who does the government really want to protect?

Now, today, there are only 10 news websites that the government wants to license. Now, that’s today. But what will happen tomorrow? Or, what will happen in GE2015 or 2016? Will there suddenly be 100 sites? 200 sites? Who will know? Only the government will know. When there are too many sites which are licensed, will we still be able to read? Will we still be able to know what is going on in Singapore? Will we still have a stake in our own country?

Maybe the question that the government should ask is not – how do you censor the Internet so that more people will read the newspapers. Maybe the real question that the government should ask is this – why are people choosing to read the Internet instead of your newspapers? What is wrong with your newspapers?

Press Councils in The Nordic Countries

The MDA says – Singaporeans, let us decide what is good for you. We will make the decision for you, and we will decide what to remove, because it is for your own good.

Now, let me tell you how a truly democratic country works. In the Nordic countries, the newspapers have a “press council”. These press councils are independent of the government. All the newspapers sign on to this council because they want to show the public that they are responsible with what they publish.

So, if a member of the public believes that a newspaper has written something which is “not right”, the individual can write to the council. The council meets every month to discuss and if the newspaper has been found to have breached the code of conduct, they have to print a notice on their newspaper.

So, you see – in a country where everyone has their rights, and not just some people, as an individual, your voice gets heard. You get to speak up.

Now, many countries have adopted press councils. But in Singapore, why does the government want to censor instead of let the people consult with one another?

In Singapore, the MDA expects Singaporeans to listen to them. The MDA believes that they know everything. Should this be the way, Singaporeans? Should this be?

No! The MDA is not in a position to make such a decision. The people should have the right to do so!

If the government doesn’t trust the people, how can the government expect the people to trust the government?

Singaporeans Will Lose Our Independence

Singapore has been independent for almost 50 years. In 2015, we will celebrate the 50th Anniversary of our country’s independence. But what is there to celebrate? On 1st June 2013, the government imposed a licensing rule on “online news websites” What does this mean for us?

This means that we will not be able to read what they do not want us to read. We will not be able to know what they do not want us to know. We will not be able to think because – will you really know what is happening in Singapore? Will we know the truth about what is happening in Singapore?

Now, if the government doesn’t take this rule down, Singaporeans, WE WILL LOSE OUR INDEPENDENCE. We will lose our independence to read, to know, to think and to be who we are.

The People Need to Step Up to Govern the Country

But there are some people who say, but the opposition is not strong enough. I won’t talk about the opposition today. Mr Tan Jee Say had said in his speech at the Labour Day protest that there are many capable opposition politicians with sterling qualifications, and I agree with him.

But my question to you is this – many of us have a very good education. If we think that we cannot be responsible and also help to run this country, I think we are in a very dangerous position. There are 3.5 million Singaporeans in Singapore. Do you think that we can only rely on 90 people in the government to make all the decisions? Are we saying that among the 3.5 million people in Singapore, we are not good enough to think about how this country should be run?

Even if we don’t have a degree, I know there are some people with ITE certs or are from Normal Technical stream, who are equally very smart. Some of them have set up their own businesses. The Population White Paper had called our nurses “low-skilled workers”, but I have also seen smart thinkers among our nurses.

No one is not good enough to help run this country. Everyone is good enough. And we need to believe in ourselves. Whoever is in government, we make sure that the government will listen to us.

The government should be asking us – is this what you want?

The government should not be telling us – this is what we want you to want.

So, whoever is put into government, we make sure that we also help to provide solutions and help to run the country. We cannot just rely on the government.

We Need to Protect Our Freedom Of The Internet

But isn’t this already what we are doing online? Many of us are writing articles, and many of us are commenting on blogs, forums and Facebook, to provide solutions to run our country.

Which is why it is so important that we need to protect the freedom of the Internet. We need to protect our right to read, to find out more, to think and to help make all of our lives even better.

We need to FREE OUR INTERNET.

And this why it is so important that we have to speak up and stand up against the licensing rule. The licensing rule HAS TO GO. Our right to know and think have to be protected. If we can continue to play an important role in our country, we can make sure the country will continue to survive and succeed.

And in order to do so, we must protect the independence of the Internet, and we must protect our own independence!

Thank you!

Roy

*Article first appeared on http://thehearttruths.com/2013/06/08/speech-at-freemyinternet-protest-at-hong-lim-park-on-8-june-2013/