Repealing 377A a looming threat to the family unit

Posted on January 19, 2013 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Pastor’s plea to retain S377A sparks online furore’, 18 Jan 2013, article in Today online.

A plea by a church pastor — made during morning service last Sunday — to Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong against the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between men, has drawn strong reactions from the online community. Mr Goh happened to pass by the Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC) during his regular walkabout in his Marine Parade constituency and was invited by the church leaders to meet the congregation.

While Mr Goh was on the stage in the church’s auditorium, FCBC senior pastor Lawrence Khong read from a prepared statement. Among other things, he called the effort to repeal Section 377A “a looming threat” to the family unit, which he defined as “a man as father, a woman as mother, and children”.

“We see a looming threat to this basic building block by homosexual activists seeking to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code,” said Mr Khong, who also urged the Government to “provide moral leadership in preserving this basic building block and foundation of our society”. In response, Mr Goh made a general remark that people are free to stand by their beliefs: “You stand by your belief, and you’ll be fine.”

There are many other educated voices out there in a better position than myself to argue for the repeal of 377A, but what concerns me here is whether someone of Khong’s calibre should be endorsed by Goh Chok Tong to ‘stand by’ such divisive beliefs and if taking this moral high ground would be detrimental not just to the livelihood of gays of the faith, but gays of society in general. In his statement, Khong talks of the repeal ‘attacking religious freedom’ and changing the way sex is taught in schools. If a religious leader expresses an irrational fear of a certain group of individuals and crudely labels it a destructive force, is it all ‘fine’ and dandy? Two gays having consensual sex in private doesn’t hurt anyone. One influential man telling every Christian or Catholic that homosexuality is a form of spiritual defilement is not someone simply expressing a ‘belief’. In some civilised societies, such condemning of an alternative lifestyle choice is considered a hate crime. Here, the ex Prime Minister of Singapore gives you an encouraging pat on the shoulder for ranting about the impending ‘gaypocalypse’. If I ‘believe’ the PAP is running the nation to the ground, will I get the same assurance?

I’m not sure that we, for the benefit for fellow humans with feelings, should tolerate such attitudes disguised as old biblical axiom. What Khong is implying is that homosexuality needs to be ‘controlled’ before it becomes a ‘norm’ and wrecks everything we hold dear. If you replace ‘homosexual’ with groups like the elderly, the sick, the handicapped, the mentally impaired, atheists, rapists, liars, gamblers, cheaters etc you have someone essentially advocating mass sterilisation of ‘undesirables’ from the pulpit. On the other hand, if one speaks up against the Church while ‘standing firm’ to a belief that monotheistic faiths are the viral scourge of humanity, you’ll be FINED rather than ‘fine’, if not jailed for sedition and ‘disrupting religious harmony’. Meanwhile, men of the cloth spew discriminatory hokum and get away with it because they have scripture to back them up, the same scripture that justifies genocide of the ‘deviants’. If a pastor is allowed to take a sweeping crack at homosexuality, so should I be able to exercise my ‘right’ to critique his sermons as being arcane, merciless and downright nonsensical. Jesus, just look what one of your heterosexual clergy have done to a 15 year old follower this past month. And you want to talk about 377A when you can’t even control your guys from the ‘proper’ family units.

The argument for the preservation of the ‘family unit’ and its role in nation building is as stale as unwashed foreskin. In 2009, Senior Pastor Derek Hong from the Anglican Church of our Savior said:

Accepting homosexual practices and endorsing any education programme that teaches our children that such practices are neutral or normal would lead to the erosion of the sound family values on which Singapore society has been built.

The infamous Rony Tan from Lighthouse Evangelism compared homosexuality to a plague of barrenness, that if left alone, ‘half the world’ would become homosexual, like the spread of some zombie pandemic. John Chew, head of the Anglican Church, told the ST in 2006 that:

 …‘It may be a cultured way of depicting a certain lifestyle, but two generations later, it will be an accepted lifestyle…If Elton John can do it, imagine the impact on his fans…It is just too dangerous, we have no fallback…It’s not like in the West, where these things take time to trickle down.”

Yang Tuck Loong, pastor of Cornerstone Community Church and LoveSingapore member, had this to say in his ‘Firing the First Salvo’ statement (Church network to speak up for S377A, 22 Jan 2013, ST), a terrifying metaphor which is hard to differentiate from a call to arms by the Knights Templar.

We must not be oblivious to our responsibilities as an army to push back the powers of darkness

PM Lee seems to think we are still at heart a ‘conservative’ society, and are not ready for change. Look at the sex scandals in your own cabinet : A heterosexual Speaker of Parliament running wild. Right under your nose.

So from the right-wing religious point of view, homosexuality is ‘contagious’ and is ‘unacceptable’ based on what appears to be it breaching a sacred union, though any link between this perfect union of penis and vagina and the success and happiness of a kingdom or nation has yet to be reliably shown. It doesn’t say if a polygamous marriage has run afoul of the Bible’s teachings (in fact it was probably rampant at the time the Bible was written). It also says nothing about the millions of men and women who made a difference to society as orphans or products of single parents and broken families, nor does it acknowledge that perfect families are as likely to produce a saint or President as a Hitler or serial killer.

Lawrence Khong and like-minded leaders need to be put in their place before such remarks are taken as a war-cry against the ‘fallen’ and a stamp of government approval for something akin to militant eugenics. The Archbishop was once told to stay the hell out of politics for commenting on the ISA, so shouldn’t a pastor be censured for interfering in our legislation as well? Likewise, politicians should know better and stay clear of mixing policy with religious affairs. Did Khong pull a Houdini here as he does on a regular basis as a trained MAGICIAN? Maybe that explains the hocus-pocus reasoning coming out of his mouth.

He should make himself disappear

About these ads

Filed under: 2013, Gay stuff, Politicians, Religion | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

PAP taking their time to call for by-election

Posted on February 25, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘No automatic by-election in our model of parliamentary democracy’, 24 Feb 2012, Voices, Today

(Hri Kumar Nair, PAP MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh): Assistant Professor Eugene Tan’s commentary “The value of a by-election” (Feb 20) argued that the Prime Minister does not have an unfettered discretion in deciding when to call a by-election and that the “default” position should be that a by-election should be automatic.

Those two claims ignore the law and the reason behind the law. There is a reason the Singapore Constitution does not prescribe any time limit to call a by-election.

Our parliamentary democracy is based on the principle that elections are fundamentally about voters choosing between different political parties to lead the country, rather than between individual candidates standing in a constituency. In general elections, the issue is which party should form the government.

Hence, under our system, if any Member of Parliament (MP) resigns or is expelled from his party, he loses his seat because voters had elected him as a representative of his party. Therefore, when a seat falls vacant, there is no requirement to call an immediate by-election, unless the vacancy affects the Government’s mandate.

Nor should an MP’s resignation or expulsion force the Government to put aside more important national issues to focus on a by-election. This model enables the Government to focus on governing Singapore well and improving the lives of Singaporeans. It has resulted in stability and progress for Singapore for half a century.

Some things on the ‘national agenda’ obviously require more urgent tending to than the residents of Hougang, like issuing lawyer’s letters to clear your name after accusations of nepotism, for example. God knows how long the government will dawdle on the empty Hougang seat since WP’s Yaw Shin Leong got sacked for alleged affairs, whether it’s stalling for time to plan its conquest strategy or deliberately playing mind games before calling for Nomination Day and catching the Opposition when they’re least prepared. A ‘party-centred’ system doesn’t adequately explain why there’s no deadline to call for a by-election, since this constitutional dilly-dallying seems to work solely towards the ruling party’s advantage. It’s like a teacher waiting to spring a pop-quiz but not telling you when, only to do it on the eve of school holidays. It’s not clear what our government’s ‘mandate’ is that its importance overrides replacing an MP. We would expect a more satisfactory response than ‘there are many other issues on the national agenda right now’.

History may explain why the ruling party is taking its own sweet time when it comes to throwing dice in a by-election. In particular, a landmark Anson one in 1981 which was won by a certain JB Jeyaretnam (from WP), called rather unexpectedly when the seat was left vacant by Devan Nair ascending to presidency. The PAP’s reasoning for calling it was that ‘the people of Anson should not be without an MP, not when the impending elevation of Mr Nair to the presidency is an event that the party can, and indeed plan for – unlike say the sudden demise of an incumbent.’ i.e the PAP took responsibility for plucking an MP out of the ward and a by-election, though risky, appeared to be a fair course of action to take. The outcome of that decision (JBJ being the first Opposition MP) will go down the annals of history, wedge its way up the anus of PAP’s conscience till this day, but will never be documented in our social studies textbooks.

4 years later JBJ lost his seat after being imprisoned for allegedly falsifying WP accounts and was barred from standing for elections. Then DPM Goh Chok Tong declared that there was no need for an immediate by-election, citing his primary concern as ‘getting the economic recession out of the way’. In 1992, however, Goh Chok Tong, then PM, called for a by-election on his own accord, to ‘inject new blood into the PAP’s ranks’ for Marine Parade GRC. It was also a token gesture to allow JBJ to contest after his ban, but only after the Aug 31 1991 general elections were pushed forward to seemingly avoid having JBJ fight in it. 1992, the last time we had a by-election, was a window-dressing campaign that PAP won by a landslide margin, for rather obvious reasons since the PM had to RESIGN to contest in it.  It was also a vulnerable position for the PAP since announcing that both DPMs Ong Teng Cheong and Lee Hsien Loong were down with lympathic cancer (Both Deputy Prime Ministers have cancer, 17 Nov 1992), which suggested that if GCT were kicked out Singaporeans would have no one to lead them.  As PM, then, one has the liberty of calling for by-elections for the functional purpose of replacing an MP (which hasn’t been done since Anson), pulling in promising foot soldiers like Teo Chee Hean, or to prove your mettle to the Opposition like a seasoned boxer putting his championship title up for grabs by sparring with midgets.

In 1999, a call for a Jalan Besar GRC by-election was rejected again by PM Goh as it would distract the country from its ‘efforts to recover from the economic crisis’.  The reason for the vacant Jalan Besar seat was the shameful departure of a certain MP named Choo Wei Khiang, who was jailed for cheating. The GRC mechanism and ‘economic crises’ made sure that PAP continued to reign, despite the team at JB seemingly ‘letting down’ voters by harbouring a crook in their midst all this time, just like WP putting a serial philanderer on the pedestal.  It’s tempting to draw parallels between Choo and Yaw here; The former went on to become Table Tennis Chief despite his jail record. Nobody knows if we’ll ever hear of Yaw again, and all he presumably did was cheat on his wife, and not, you know, BREAK the law or something.

In 2008, the by-election issue was raised again by JBJ, who demanded that the constitution be more specific on when this could be held (within 3 months). This followed the sudden death of MP Ong Chit Chung of Jurong GRC. Sadly, JBJ himself died shortly after filing a request to the judiciary to explain why the constitution was so irritatingly silent on the timeline to call for by-election. The writer of the letter above Hri Kumar Nair was himself vocal in a parliamentary debate over the fate of Jurong GRC back then, saying that it was ‘sensible to keep things flexible’ and not ‘tie the PM’s hands’. That would mean, of course, that he could drag it all the way till the next GE if he wanted to if it was not in national interest to hold a by-election. An online poll, however, indicated that a slight majority of residents were in favour of a by-election then, but with the GRC’s back-up MP system and a dusty old book to justify the lack of urgency and allow buying time to stock up campaign inventory , what does it matter what the people think? What happened to ‘The people of so-and-so should not be without an MP?’ If the PM believes that 4 MPs can do the work of 5 following the death of Dr Balaji in 2010, why have 5 MPs in Cheng San-Seletar GRC at all? If an MP in a SINGLE ward mysteriously disappears or dies,  what happens then? If residents can do without a representative, as what this lack of urgency is telling us, why should we even bother voting one in the first place?

Filed under: 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2012, Campaigns/Elections, Justice system/Lawsuits, Politicians | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Singapore should scrap ISA like Malaysia

Posted on September 17, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Abolish ISA in S’pore’, 17 Sept 2011, ST Forum

(Tan Si An): IN 1991, then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said Singapore would consider abolishing the Internal Security Act if Malaysia were to do so (‘S’pore ‘will consider scrapping ISA if KL does so”; Feb 3, 1991).

…On Thursday, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak boldly announced he would repeal his country’s Internal Security Act, the Banishment Act and three emergency proclamations (‘Malaysian PM to scrap ISA’; yesterday). According to a Malaysian minister, the ISA was no longer needed as Malaysia is a developed nation and Malaysians are multiracially and multi-religiously mature now.

By the same analogy, Singapore should consider itself more developed than Malaysia.

…All these suggest that the application of the ISA against racial riots is now as irrelevant as the communist threats it was originally intended to counter. Subsequently, presidential candidate Tony Tan described the ISA as ‘a very blunt instrument’ (‘Heated words over ISA at presidential forum’; Aug 20). It would be in the interests of Singapore to possess several sharp instruments instead.

New anti-terror and anti-espionage legislation would be more adapted to deal with the varied security challenges of today and tomorrow. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was decisive enough to review ministerial salaries. A similar review of the ISA would place the onus on certain opposition parties to offer more constructive policy alternatives instead of recycling old rhetoric to score points.

It’ll be a field day for opportunistic human right activists and bloggers piggy-backing on Malaysian’s sudden ‘openness’ to coerce the government to do the same, but I’ve written enough about how the ISA may not be simply a ‘last resort’ blunt instrument to keep communists or riots at bay. It remains to be seen if Singapore would have collapsed into total chaos without the preemptive strikes by a Government claiming to be incorruptible and wise in its deliverance of brute, but necessary, force. The ISA terms have been buffered by so much legalese ordinary Singaporeans fail to realise that it’s essentially an long-drawn abduction first and foremost whether or not you’re granted legal rights or not, that you’re basically ‘Guilty until proven innocent’ and your life would be marred forever.

As for Najib’s ‘groundbreaking’ crowdpleaser, only time will tell if repealing the ISA in Malaysia is a case of, as Tan Cheng Bock puts it, ‘Wa Teng Boh Wah Liao’. But in the meantime, however much sceptism one would cast on such moves gearing towards a greater, liberated Malaysia, at least our neighbours have been spurred into giving an ISA review some serious thought, even if it’s for no other reason than remaining in power. This was in fact a scenario painted by  none other than former PM Goh Chok Tong himself in 1989, 2 years before Lee Hsien Loong’s statement on the possibility of change:

This was in response to the PAP granting themselves ‘absolute power’ by doing away with all the fundamental rights under the Constitution for detainees, along with abolishing appeals to the Privy Council, which somehow garnered a stunning 80 to 1 vote (Chiam See Tong) in Parliament. NCMP Dr Lee Siew Choh was against the idea as well but his  voice vote was deemed ‘inaudible’ according to the report. Choh, of course, a staunch opponent of the ISA, cited the above ISA Amendment bill as ‘one of the blackest days in Singapore’ equivalent to our surrender to the Japanese in 1942. Goh Chok Tong also mooted a ‘watchdog’ committee to prevent a future corrupt government from abusing its powers. Today that ‘watchdog’ happens to be President Tony Tan acting in accordance to the recommendations of the ISA Advisory Board (Chaired by a Supreme Court judge), which is as useful as an independent ‘third party’ body as a backseat passenger to an impulsive driver, or worse, a bus passenger on the upper deck of a bus. According to Law Minister K Shanmugam in 2009, one of the ‘checks and balances’ of the ISA is that the elected President has the FINAL SAY in the Board’s decision for release. This is also where an independent President is of paramount importance, and suffice to say that having an ex-PAP President making such vital judicial decisions doesn’t add much assurance at all.

This Advisory concept is nothing new, and its role was questioned by Queen’s counsel in 1988 as being more of an administrator of the Executive’s decision rather than an independent judicial body when it reviewed the cases of Marxist plotters in Operation Spectrum. Later in May 2002, the MFA reported that the Advisory team, consisting of  3 members including Chairman, a businessman and a medical practitioner, granted 13 JI detainees the right to legal representation, a process which took nearly 6 months of deliberation from detention till final negative recommendation. According to the report, there was indeed murderous intent among the captured jihadists, and henceforth this particular success of the ISA in ‘ferreting’ out would be terrorists and potentially saving hundreds of lives would be used constantly as a prime example of its relevance today, though the ghosts of ISA’s troubled past of stifling political adversaries still haunts humanists today.

Ultimately, the Advisory Body says nothing about what happens in wrongful detention, nor has any say on whether a detention should be carried out in the first place with or without the President’s concurrence, which casts doubt on its purported role as a ‘safeguard’ against any malicious abuse of power and rather more as an elaborate afterthought, a surface ‘softener’ of the iron-clench fist that is the ISA. An advisory board to the ISD is like putting glasses on Godzilla. It merely makes the monster LOOK like it’s thinking about its destructive actions.

Domestic and international pressure mounted subsequently, but Lee Hsien Loong wasn’t the first to hint at copycat abolishment in 1991. Even his father the pioneer proponent of ISA lockdown suggested reconsidering it in a 1989 interview (Abolish ISA? Maybe one day. Give foreign papers a free hand, never, 19 Nov 1989, ST)

Later in the month, S Jayakumar admitted that ‘The ISA could only be abolished when the security situation in Malaysia was such that the government there could abolish their ISA.’ (S’pore still needs ISA to fight various threats, 30 November 1989, ST). Well, that DAY has finally come, and true to form, despite all this hopeful talk in the past of following Malaysia’s footsteps, a statement has been issued just a day after Najib’s announcement to thwart any suggestions that Singapore should do likewise, providing the usual justifications of why ISA is still relevant in this climate of extremism and terror, with our Government probably praying secretly that Malaysia would turn out to be a terrorist hotbed so that they can go ‘Nyah nyah I told you so!’.

Filed under: 1980s, 2000s, 2011, Campaigns/Elections, Justice system/Lawsuits, Politicians | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Chan Chun Sing:Don’t plant stakes in the ground

Posted on September 4, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Divide between religious and non-religious a key challenge’, 4 Sept 2011, article by Joanne Chan, Today

Singapore is not “immune” to the growing rift between those who are becoming increasingly religious and those who are the opposite. And more will need to be done to “enlarge and defend the common space” for Singaporeans, said Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Chan Chun Sing.

Noting that the world is “seeing greater religiosity on one end of the spectrum and non-religiosity on the other end”, Major-General (NS) Chan said that such forces threaten to pull society in opposite directions.

“The fast pace of development will inevitably mean that many will seek to find their anchor in race or religion,” he said.

“However, we hope that as people become more conscious of one’s race and religion, they will not turn inward or become more exclusive towards others of different races or religions.”

And those who do not subscribe to any religion should continue to be open and receptive to those who do, he added.

“We must remember to not plant stakes on the ground to circumscribe other’s actions. But on the other hand, we must constantly work to enlarge and defend the common space that we all enjoy today,” he said.

The use of the word ‘religiosity’ in political rhetoric is relatively recent, and may be viewed by some as a euphemism for ‘fanaticism’, especially pertaining to the rise of Islamic zealotry in the 9/11 era. For the record, both ‘religiosity’ and ‘fanatic’ were used by LKY himself in the same article (Drift to terror, 1 June 2002, Today) in response to the threat of infiltration of the country by terrorist cells like Jemaah Islamiyah (JI)

(SM Lee): My original concern was over the growing separateness of our Muslim community, as Singaporean Muslims tended to centre their social and extra-mural activities in their mosques instead of in multi-racial community clubs.

What came as a shock was that this heightened religiosity facilitated Muslim terror groups linked to Al Qaeda to recruit Singaporean Muslims into their network.

…These (JI members) are religious fanatics.

A little more than a year later, it was up to his son, then DPM Lee Hsien Loong to piggyback on the same buzzword by calling on MUIS to keep an eye on the community (Muis must guide religiosity, says DPM, 25 Nov 2003, Today) in light of ‘increased religiosity’ among Muslims in Singapore and elsewhere, using the tudung saga as an example. Typical of our PM and unlike his paranoid father, Lee Hsien Loong was careful not to tread on F-words like ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘fanatic’, but it’s clear by now which ethnic group would be under the Government’s watchful eye, and ‘religiosity’ would be viewed as a precursor to radical Islam, and hence begins the use of fear-mongering rhetoric to keep one’s multiracial flock from straying off the path of our ‘common spaces’.

The escape of Mas Selamat in 2008 ignited another round of anti-religiosity talk from Lee Hsien Loong when he became PM, losing none of the nervous steam he inherited from the father. Speaking at the ‘closed-door’ ISD 60th Anniversary dinner (Old threats and new, 9 Sept 2008, Today):

(Lee Hsien Loong): The apparent effortlessness of our racial harmony is deceptive. It requires constant tending behind the scenes…especially so at a time when religiosity is growing.

…The most crucial and delicate relationship currently is that between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities.

One would expect a ISD Dinner and Dance to be as enchanting as a night at a funeral wake, but here is our PM giving his private army a pep-talk and a thumbs up for their nabbing of suspect terrorists, and again spreading the warning about rising religiosity like it was a viral plague. At this point, you can’t be any further convinced  that ‘religiosity’ in politico-speak has and always will be linked to Muslims. Not to feel left out, former PM Goh Chok Tong had to enter to fray (SM:Guard against religious enclaves, 3 Aug 2009), fresh from the wake of violent clashes between Uighur Muslims and Han Chinese in Xinjiang:

…Mr Goh pointed out that the Government sees religion as a positive force in society, giving ‘spiritual guidance to help us cope with a fast-changing world’.

However, rising religiosity may lead people, unwittingly, to form religious enclaves, unless a conscious effort is made to continue socialising with people of other faiths, he said.

If such religiosity ‘encroaches on our common secular space, or worse, the practice of other religions, (it) must result in a push-back by others’.

In the same year, DPM Wong Kan Seng also spoke on the above ethnic clashes (Be mindful of racial, religious fault-lines, 2 Aug 2009, ST), though he should have been more ‘mindful’ on domestic matters like keeping his detainees behind bars after Mas Selamat’s escape a year earlier.

We must not let increased religiosity or religious practices among our people create fault lines that will disrupt our social stability, especially when race and religion are closely intertwined in Singapore.

He added that the Government’s key approach towards managing race and religion matters is to build common spaces in schools, communities, workplaces and national service. These common spaces must remain secular, he said.

Why is Major Chan Chun Sing bringing this up all of a sudden? Has the ISD brought any ‘fanatics’ to justice recently? Has a bomb attempt at Yishun MRT been thwarted? Why rev up an old thorny nugget and make everyone fidget uncomfortably in their seats just when President Tony Tan has sworn to ‘unify’ all Singaporeans? What in heaven’s name is ‘non-religiosity’? Do you mean atheists, or people who are religious but don’t overdo it? This statement, a commendable cut-n-paste job from previous speeches (‘stakes’ instead of fault-lines/enclaves), is like announcing how chickens are slaughtered in the middle of a BBQ party. If religiosity has been ‘rising’ for the past 10 years, why haven’t we succumbed to civil war by now? Does the PAP have to drill into our heads about the threats to religious harmony every single time violence erupts in the Muslim World? Why the relative silence on right wing Christian fundamentalism (can I use the word ‘religiosity’?)  in the wake of the brutal Norway attacks then? DPM Teo Chee Hean referred to it as ‘extremism’, which is a far cry from religiosity though synonymous with JI’s activities, but tactfully avoiding any reference, or maybe even pooh-poohing the remote possibility of any zealot gun-totting Christians in our midst.

Maybe Major Chan has been hanging around the Lees a bit too much lately, and taking advantage of the upcoming 10th year anniversary of 9/11 to gently remind Singaporeans who the murderers were on that fateful day, at the same time hopeful that educating us on ‘religiosity’ would resonate happily with our PM, his father and the Emeritus so that they won’t have to unleash another  anti-terrorism package again this year.   With current and former DPMs and PMs speaking out on religious tensions to date, perhaps Chan, barely a year-old politician, is venturing into shoes too big for him to fill too soon. Thank you for your concern, Major, but tell us something we don’t already know.Time to Sing a different tune, dude.

Filed under: 2000s, 2011, Politicians, Religion, Violence | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Tan Cheng Bock:Wah Teng Boh Wah Liao

Posted on August 27, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Written Speech by Dr Tan Cheng Bock for Unifying Rally at Expo Hall 8′, 25 Aug 2011, TCB’s Facebook post.

…I would like to raise some question for you all here to consider.

Tony (Tan) is currently chairman of the National Research Foundation which is a department of Prime Minister’s Office. So he is still reporting to the PM.

Furthermore, he has just left GIC. Therefore, he is not in compliance with the MAS code of governance which says that he cannot be independent of GIC unless he has left for more than 3 years. He has only just left GIC for 3 months.

This is the practice for all public listed companies in Singapore, and there should be no double standard. In Hokkien there is a saying, wah teng boh wah liao.

In other words the soup is changed but the ingredients remain the same.

Wah Liao indeed.  This soup analogy is the Hokkien equivalent of the English trope ‘a leopard never changes its spots’, referring to Tony Tan’s inability to shake the ghost of his decades-long PAP affiliations. off his back. Despite our relentless Speak Mandarin campaigns, it’s not Confucian proverbs which capture the imagination of the electorate, but politicians’ Hokkien sayings which resonate among Singaporeans.  Though this should be deployed sparingly and with tasteful ingenuity lest ministers are accused of pandering to the older folk, or seen as being uncouth , highly paid Ah Bengs or Ah Huays, one does wonder if this double standard of our ministers speaking in a dialect which is otherwise discouraged from general usage has something to do with Jack Neo releasing the hugely popular  ‘I Not Stupid’ in 2002, the movie which somehow made Hokkien an unlikely political device to create an ‘everyman’ out of the PAP.

Goh Chok Tong started the ball rolling with the classic ‘pah see buay zao’ saying in a 2002 National Day Rally to describe Singaporeans who are ‘stayers’ as opposed to ‘quitters’ seeking greener pastures elsewhere.  In 2004, Rear Admiral Teo Chee Hean used ‘mai zo lau kui’ (Let’s not embarrass ourselves) to describe NS men in training exercises, an ironic phrase to say the least, in light of how NSmen deal with their backpacks outside the realm of mock warfare.  Lee Hsien Loong himself took a wild crack at Hokkien with  ‘Mee Siam Mai Hum’ (2006 National Day Rally), a viral gaffe which became one of the first internet satirical sensations in the country, and still summoned today whenever the Black Eyed Peas’ awful  ‘My Humps’ is being played.

Some Hokkien sayings make TCB’s ‘Wa Teng Boh Wah Liao’ sound like grand oratory in comparison. ‘Ai pang sai ka che jamban’ (looking for a toilet only when one needs to pass motion) was used by then MP Bee Wah to mock the opposition’s call to delay the GST hike, not at a rally in the heart of Geylang, but in PARLIAMENT (2008). ‘Pang sai’, of course, is a low-brow colloquialism for ‘taking a shit’, a phrase which should never be uttered before the Speaker and Prime Minister, though ‘pang sai’ pretty much describes what comes out the mouths of some MPs taking the stand anyway. Something which a certain foul-mouthed NTU valedictorian would surely emphatise with.

Last but not least, anyone who recalls MG Chan Chun Sing’s call to arms in the 2011 General Elections, please KEE CHIU!

Filed under: 2000s, 2011, Bloggers, Campaigns/Elections, Dialects, Foul language, Politicians | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Tony Tan: ISA is a very blunt instrument

Posted on August 20, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Candidates clash on role of ISA’, 20 Aug 2011, article by Teo Xuanwei, Today

When Operation Spectrum was launched in 1987, one was the Education Minister while the other was Principal Private Secretary to then-Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong.

At a forum on Thursday organised by The Online Citizen, the episode – which saw 22 alleged Marxist conspirators detained under the Internal Securty Act (ISA) – sparked a terse exchange between former Cabinet Minister Tony Tan and former senior civil servant Tan Jee Say, after the four presidential candidates were asked what each of them thought of the detention.

Dr Tony Tan said the case was “discussed very carefully” by the Cabinet but he could not disclose what was said as the discussions were covered under the Official Secrets Act. He added that the ISA was a “very blunt instrument” that should only be used in “the most extreme circumstances”, such as terror threats.

When it came to Mr Tan Jee Say’s turn to respond, he said the ISA had “outlived its usefulness”. He added: “I don’t even know whether (the ISA) was justified in the first place because the ISA has been used on political opponents.” Dr Tony Tan interjected: “To be fair … this is a very serious charge. You must be able to back it up.”

To which Mr Tan Jee Say responded: “Well, the people who have been detained had opposed the Government, that’s what I’m saying.” Referring to Dr Tony Tan, Mr Tan Jee Say added that he had been “attacked on (his) understanding of the English language”.

Mr Tan Kin Lian said that all he knew about the episode was what was covered in the media. Both he and Mr Tan Jee Say also proposed that a committee of inquiry be convened to review the detention. Dr Tan Cheng Bock, who was heading the Government’s Feedback Unit at that time, said that based on the information he had then, he agreed with the Government’s position. He added that he would only give his views if new evidence was available to him.

The ISA was borne out of the 1948 Emergency Regulations in June 1948 in response to the communist threat. It was later renamed the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance in 1955, before settling on its current incarnation since 1963, a vague euphemism of the true workings of this document. If our new President can’t do anything to amend the act, which is likely the case, at least he could offer a suggestion to change its title from the ‘Internal Security Act’ (Aren’t all our policemen performing ‘internal security’?) to something that better reflects its purpose so that citizens will appreciate it better, such as KENA (Known evidence none, Arrest!)

Here’s a sampling of people being detained by the ISD without evidence, based on little more than suspicion and fear, where the definition of a ‘political opponent’ becomes fuzzy, and it remains debatable if these detentions were made on the basis of ‘the most extreme circumstances’.

Feb 1963: 113 detained from Operation Cold Store. Even people from seemingly harmless associations like the Spinning Worker’s Union weren’t spared.

Oct 1966: Chia Thye Poh arrested on suspicion of being in cahoots with the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). Exiled to Sentosa, now a Las Vegas wannabe and rich tourist playground.

Jan 1982: 10 members of the Singapore People’s Liberation Organisation, a ‘Muslim extremist organisation’ with the intent of ‘overthrowing the government through communal arrest and sabotage’.

May 1987: 16 people charged in Operation Spectrum for being part of a  ‘clandestine Communist network’, including lawyer Teo Soh Lung.

Sept 2002: 18 JI members detained for terrorist-related activities.

In a 2000 response to the use of the term ‘political prisoner‘ on Chia Thye Poh, The Ministry of Home Affairs responded that ‘the ISA has been used SPARINGLY the years as a measure of LAST RESORT against persons who pose a threat to NATIONAL SECURITY, and has NEVER been used to detain a person engaging in ‘constitutional’ political activities, but those who engage in unlawful acts against public order and in SUBVERSIVE activities. Detaining people and subjecting them to psychological torture methods like dousing cold water amid freezing aircon temperatures, before you even verify if they are guilty or innocent doesn’t sound like a last resort to me, but rather an ancient  technique to manufacture a confession out of possibly innocent victims to justify the initial arrest, i.e witch-hunt protocol.

By the careful use of ambiguity in phrases like ‘national security’ and ‘subversion’, you can oppose the government provided you don’t step out of line, incite riots or ‘subvert’ your fellow Singaporeans. But once you start raising suspicions and get an unexpected invitation to have a chat with ISD officers, you are labelled a menace to national security, or worse, a terrorist, before even starting to paint your banners or light your protest march torches. Goh Chok Tong himself once revealed that the decision to scrape this draconian inquisition would depend on ‘voters’, which implies that Singaporeans have the power to decide on the relevance of the ISA. I have my doubts about this, but the spectre of voters acting on behalf of human rights activists, who have been fighting against this archaic law for the longest time, has been revived again this presidential election. This was what Goh said on the ISA issue being a hot election topic (ISA issue: Voters must decide, says Chok Tong, 30 April 1988, ST):

If we detained people without trial and locked them up for no reason for years and years and people disappear and are accounted for, the Government will fall very quickly in the general election.

The second part of his statement doesn’t make sense. A paranoid government would do away with elections altogether, if not ensure results are always in their favour by detaining people who may actually vote against them.

Tan Cheng Bock had little to contribute throughout the whole discussion, though he was more vocal in his support of the Marxist coup as a PAP backbencher and Feedback Unit head back in 1987 (Most think Govt acted rightly, says Cheng Bock, 30 July 1987, ST). But back to TT’s description of the ISA as a blunt instrument. It’s strange that the word  ‘blunt’ was used to describe a system run by a unit consisting of  professionals and President Scholars claiming to be able to arrest ‘genuine subversives’. Professionals! I always thought the ISD were a legion of death-eaters and Ring wraiths on black stallions.

Middle Earth ISD

Perhaps TT was thinking of a hammer in relation to the accusations of the ‘Marxists’ ‘infiltrating’ the Workers’ Party as a cover for their ‘clandestine activities’. Anyone familiar with the trauma of being hit by objects would agree that you may wield a blunt instrument, but if you apply it with sufficient force, it’ll destroy you as would the sharpest samurai sword, except that it’s just a more horrible way to die. Though it’s reasonable that some breach of human rights should be necessary to deter would-be murderous extremists from blowing up this country, applying broad strokes on ordinary , outspoken citizens who have never fired a weapon in their life,  instead of exercising restraint and thoughtful precision, is a case of setting fire to a house the moment the floor starts to creak.

Filed under: 1960s, 1980s, 2000s, 2011, Bureaucrats, Campaigns/Elections, Justice system/Lawsuits, Politicians, Violence | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Tan Cheng Bock running for President is awkward

Posted on May 28, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘PAP MPs surprised Dr Tan might run for President’, 28 May 2011, article by Teo Xuanwei, Today online, and ‘Cheng Bock confirms bid for presidency’, 28 May 2011, article by Andrea Ong, ST

News that his former comrade-in-arms Tan Cheng Bock, 71, has declared his intention to run for President caught veteran backbencher Inderjit Singh off guard.

The Ang Mo Kio Group Representation Constituency Member of Parliament (MP) told Today: “For Presidential Elections, there’s always been a candidate that the Government supports … it’s quite clear that we will be fully behind this person so it will be very awkward (to have Dr Tan in the contest).”

His fellow People’s Action Party MP, Mdm Halimah Yacob, was also surprised, although she felt that it was not something “completely unexpected”.

“I know that Cheng Bock is a very passionate person who holds very passionate views about things,” she said.

…(Tan Cheng Bock): Over 26 years, I have given a lot to the country. I’ve not let my country down…If you want to be like Malaysia, cook up some stories, no one can stop you..But that is gutter politics. In the presidential election, (if) you go down to gutter politics, I think it’s very sad because you’ve crossed the line.

As a long-time MP for Ayer Rajah, Tan Cheng Bock, like the late and very Chinese Ong Teng Cheong, would at first glance seem as the natural choice for a PAP-backed elected President. Ong, of course, got significant backing from the PAP and the people, with few questions about how ‘awkward’ it would be for an ex-politician fresh from PAP retirement to contest for Presidency. MP Inderjit’s ho-humming can only be an indication that Dr Tan wasn’t exactly Mr Popular in Parliament, and Halimah’s less than enthusiastic response, despite using the ambiguous ‘passionate’ twice in a single sentence, probably explains why this ‘passion’ has something to do with the sudden  ‘awkwardness’ of this whole situation, without committing to an opinion if this trait would be suitable for President, a position traditionally characterised by  stoic, quiet, understatement. Outspoken as he may be, I’m not sure if President hopefuls should mock a neighbouring country as a negative example of gutter politics though.

Parliament already has more Opposition MPs than it could ask for, and perhaps adding a President with ‘Opposition’ tendencies to the mix is the reason for such reservations. Tan Check Bock was a victim of a media hackjob in 1984 (No sparks, a few knocks, and one nay, 13 March 1984, ST) when he challenged then Education Minister Goh Keng Swee,  his combative style described as being ‘up like a jackrabbit’ and ‘carried away by his own vehemence’.  In 1989, he challenged the use of the term ‘little or no margin for error’ used by ministers, urging MPs to speak their mind  and not be intimidated by their Cabinet superiors (Cheng Bock urges ministers to stop saying ‘little or no margin for error’, 20 Jan 1989, ST) , only to be taken down by  Goh Chok Tong for ‘getting it all wrong’.  He also crossed swords with Lee Kuan Yew himself when the latter intervened in the SIA pilot’s union in 2004 (See below, MP questions SM’s intervention in SIA saga, 10 March 2004, Today). Looking briefly at his history of being the ‘backbencher of backbencher MPs’, standing up to heavyweights and fighting for younger MPs in full on ‘troublemaker’ mode, it appears that it’s not the people’s love for him, but the PAP backbenchers’ support for him that’s making his doubters nervous. With MPs like Dr Tan, who needs Opposition? Chances are if  Dr Tan held rallies in his Presidential bid, some Singaporeans attending them would be wondering why he’s  still running for Opposition when the GE is long over.

Incidentally, MP Inderjit’s sentiments on presidential candidacy are not something to be trifled with, looking at his past run-ins with Presidential hopeful Andrew Kuan in 2005 (See article below, 23 September 2005, Today). Kuan eventually made a public apology and withdrew his suit in 2006, but such dirt-digging is definitely something Dr Tan should keep his eye on during his campaign, though his pre-emptive use of the Malaysian ‘gutter politics’ analogy is probably an indication that he has come forth battle-ready if history were to repeat itself. One thing’s for certain if Dr Tan ever rises to becomes President; the management of Ng Teng Fong Hospital had better start sourcing for new names to replace it.

Filed under: 1980s, 2000s, 2011, Campaigns/Elections, Politicians | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

MP Vikram Nair drinking blood water

Posted on May 21, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Water tank could be closed down’, 21 May 2011, article by Kimberly Spykerman, ST and ‘Maid in water tank case:MP drinks tap water to prove safety’, 20 May 2011, article in asiaone.com

An Indonesian maid’s body had been found in one of the block’s rooftop water tanks on Monday. Since then, residents have been raising concerns on whether the water is drinkable.

…In a video uploaded on YouTube, Mr Vikram Nair filled a glass with tap water before consuming it in front of the household’s residents.

…(Yasmin Abdul, housewife): I think you need a few more days to get used to it. You’re afraid after the incident, and some of the more superstitious people will day that you are drinking ‘blood water’.

…(Madam May Lee, housewife): Yesterday I cooked using the tap water as I didn’t manage to collect water, and I started having diarrhoea last night. I’m not sure if there is really a correlation or it could  just be my own imagination, but you really start to become paranoid.

The possibility of deactivating the tank comes even as residents are circulating a petition for it to be completely replaced.

Good effort by Vikram, scoring points in the ministerial KPI of Self-sacrifice and being the first to harness the power of YouTube while our new Environment minister is still taking baby-steps reading Singapore-Malaysia Water Relations for Dummies.   But he fails to realise that it’s not really about how ‘drinkable’ the water is (even then, one can’t assume this immediately after he has drunk it. Someone check on him the next few days), but how much of the dead maid’s  haunted vengeful ‘spirit’ is dissolved in it. It’s a perfectly normal emotional response though, namely irrational fear and disgust, to be uncomfortable drinking something once contaminated with a corpse, no matter how much disinfectant you’ve used scrubbing the insides of the tank or purifying the water within. Some people would even discard an entire jug of water if it had so much as a single dead ant in it. Heck, they would balk at the thought even if the ant were sterilised, freeze-dried  and powdered to the point that its remains has a lower microbial count that the water itself .

Irrational psychological quirks aside,  is it really worth replacing an entirely new tank just to allay the fear of demonic maid possession in some residents who can’t get this ancient taboo out of their heads? Can’t we appreciate how fortunate we are  just to have drinking tap water today, not to mention running water at all? Do you people have any idea how many millions are drinking water, when it’s even accessible,  that others bathe, piss, shit and die in every single day? There’s a time and place for superstition and mumbo-jumbo, but to remove an otherwise perfectly functional water tank even after the formality of engaging priests to exorcise the spirits within is a sad, costly triumph of hysterical behaviour over scientific reason and our national efforts in water conservancy. I would suggest a psychological experiment here: Set up an identical but empty tank next to the possesed one. Convince the residents that the old one has been shut down, but continue to pump water from the old tank. Monitor the rates of people jumping off buildings, having  unexplicable diarrhoea, or speaking Indonesian for no reason, for the next few weeks using the period prior to the tank switch as a baseline. Of course, check if Vikram is still OK whilst at it.

Kudos to ministers leading by example, though, a scene we haven’t witnessed since Goh Chok Tong gamely devoured NewWater in the early 2000s, which followed on with a trend of politicians putting things in their mouth to assure their people that their fears of contamination are unjustified.  Most of us have duly gotten over the thought of drinking recycled water, but if the sales of bottled water is anything to go by, it suggests that a good proportion of purists still have an aversion towards the proverbial dead ant in a glass of water today.

Chok Tong Chugging

MMM..H5N1 virus

MMM.. Melamine

MMM..Radioactive Iodine 131

Filed under: 2000s, 2011, Environment, Foreign workers, HDB, Politicians, Public works, Superstitions | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

We have MM and SM to thank for Nasi Lemak

Posted on May 17, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Run for president’ and ‘Exits weaken team’, 17 May 2011, ST Forum

(MR HENG NGEE HAI): ‘The exits of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong have the hallmarks of purpose, graciousness and the makings of a lasting legacy. I salute them both. In fact, I wish either would run for president. With Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his new Cabinet leading us into a new era, we need a pair of experienced, steady hands on the presidential tiller.’

(Lim Chuan Hock): …I thank SM Goh and MM Lee for their unselfish leadership and commitment to Singapore. Without them, we will not be quibbling over the price of a plate of nasi lemak, but whether there would have been nasi lemak on our tables in the first place.

Without them, we will not be lamenting the long queue for HDB flats, but whether we would have had public housing at all. Without them, we will not be complaining about packed trains and buses, but whether we would have had an MRT to complain about.

Singaporeans owe them a debt of gratitude and the State should ensure the two former prime ministers are given due recognition.

There’s little room for sentimentality in politics, and the failure of some Singaporeans to unlatch themselves from the motherly bosom of our SM and MM is a worrying sign of an electorate shackled by inertia and unresponsive to change. Only in a monarchy would one encounter people treating this inconsequential reassignment of duties as if a glorious king were relinquishing his divine mandate and beseech the heavens to reserve a throne for their ascension so that they would continue to look over our shoulders for the rest of eternity.

A lack of understanding of what presidential duties involve would lead some to argue based on mere consolation and gratitude  that ‘retired’ politicians, whether they’re kicked out of a GRC or exiting Parliament voluntarily, should stand for elected presidency.The presidency is not a retirement plan, the equivalent of an Emeritus in academia,  nor is it a pedestal to honour and worship god-kings upon their demise. And besides, as LKY has mentioned in the past (see below ‘Me retire? Those who believe that should have their heads examined’ 15 Aug 1988, ST)  , he doesn’t need to be President in order to continue being useful to PAP v2. Other than the boring custodian duties that he would be subject to, imagine how sombre our Star Awards would become if we had this President as guest of honour instead. Designers of sexy clothing would lose their jobs for sure.

As for Lim Chuan Hock’s strange analogy on what we should be thankful for, I think we would be fine with or without  this ‘nasi lemak’; too much of it isn’t good for us anyway. The fact that we even have nasi lemak on our table is not due to good governance alone; We have to thank the farmers for producing the rice, our forefathers for creating the recipe, the shopkeepers for stocking it, the inventors of the technology to cook it, and ourselves for working our butts off to feed our families with it. It’s not the end of the world, folks, let’s thank both seniors for giving the next generation of leaders a headstart any other prime minister in the world could only dream of, and just move on already. Let us allow them to be complete persons and enjoy the remainder of their lives with loved ones and take a well deserved break from politics. One shouldn’t just respect a man’s persistence in a lifelong occupation, but also admire his willingness to let it go. Now excuse me while I go have my head examined.

Filed under: 1980s, 2011, Campaigns/Elections, Local food, Politicians | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Leekuanyew City

Posted on May 17, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘SPP, SDP criticise timing of announcement’, 16 May 2011, article by Tessa Wong, ST, and ‘SDP welcomes resignations, calls for further cuts in PMO‘, 15 May 2011, SDP website.

TWO opposition parties have criticised Singapore’s two former prime ministers for the timing of the announcement that they are leaving the Cabinet. Said Mr Chiam See Tong, secretary-general of the Singapore People’s Party (SPP): ‘The question is: Why now, and not five years later? I think MM and SM owe an explanation to the public on this point.’

It is the ‘fair’ thing to do, Mr Chiam added, arguing that the outcome of the polls would probably have been different if voters had known before the election that Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, 69, and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, 87, were planning to step down as ministers.

His party would probably have won in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, he said, and added: ‘In Marine Parade, they would not have gotten in if Goh Chok Tong was stepping down.’

(SDP website)The SDP has… called for the posts created in the Prime Minister’s Office to be abolished as they serve no useful purpose except to drain the national budget.

…If the motivation is for the younger generation to take over the leadership of politics in Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew should completely retire from the political scene.

I would think Marine Paraders and Tanjong Pagar residents were aware of the possibility that both SM and PM may not hang around for the next 5 years when they cast their vote, but they would expect them to at least ‘buddy’ their new GRC underlings before delivering their ‘swansongs’. And that’s what exactly happened, except not taken too kindly by the respectable Chiam See Tong seeing this as a letdown to PAP voters who would have voted otherwise, and a case of the Opposition being deviously out maneouvred. There’s really nothing much to explain for here, because it wouldn’t have made a difference in the end. Even if they had announced their intentions prior to the GE, it’s unlikely that their GRC residents would give up on the lingering ghost of their legacies and swing their vote towards Opposition all of a sudden. In fact, one may even see sympathy or gratitude votes cast in favour of the PAP, like how attendances would go up when football legends play their last ever game for the club. And in the unlikely circumstance that they do quit politics altogether and have a quiet bromance on a private yacht fishing and sipping Margaritas somewhere, the PAP would just reshuffle their troops and replenish the  broken teams with next-in-line PAP heavyweights from some other GRCs, even if their shoes are filled merely halfway.

Most Singaporeans would have celebrated prematurely without realising that ‘leaving Cabinet’  and ‘retirement’ were 2 different things altogether. You could almost hear the mass groan of ‘Cheyyy!’ island-wide upon people realizing what’s really happening here, like how football fans would react to a disallowed goal. Perhaps our eagerness to see the end of a lifelong reign clouded our sense of  what MM Lee stands for. The ‘R’ word is a concept utterly alien to him, made lucidly clear by his refusal to acknowledge even a ‘retirement’ age, and mocking Scrabble enthusiasts everywhere with his renown disdain for any form of  relaxation whatsoever. The media were careful not to publish a ‘through the years’ montage of LKY’s love story with his island creation, which would have been regarded as an obituary rather than a celebration of a legend. With such dogged persistence to serve Tanjong Pagar till he’s dead and maybe beyond, it looks like we needn’t hold our breath for that final, momentous tribute after all.

Perhaps it’s time to start thinking of ways to immortalise our founding father, whether it’s the name of a new hospital, a MRT station or renaming our airport in his honour, as long as it’s ANYTHING other than what’s suggested in the letter below(S’pore overdue for a capital, 18 Sep 2003, Today).

Filed under: 2000s, 2011, Campaigns/Elections, Names, Politicians | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Next Page »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 171 other followers