Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

It seems that Gopalan Nair is now being charged for sedition.

According to the Sedition Act (available here), it seems that Nair has only four possible defenses against the charge of sedition.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency —

(a) to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures;

(b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects;

(c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or

(d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

I think point C is quite interesting. Let’s have some hypothetical scenarios:

Person A thinks the government is corrupt. He then goes on to publish and distribute a publication to other people accusing the government of corruption. Does it mean Person A can get away with it by adding in a line somewhere that encourages people to vote the existing government that is corrupt in his eyes out of office? Afterall, voting out an existing government is a lawful way of resolving the matter.

Person B is a racist. He publishes all sorts of racist remarks and distributes them widely. In each of his racist publication, he encourages people of his race to lobby their representatives in the legislature to pass a law that marginalise other races. Can Person B get away with publishing the racist comments? After all, he is not asking people to riot and create unrest but rather, he is encouraging the use lawful procedures to enforce his racist beliefs.

I don’t have the answers. It’s just interesting to read that “any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious” if there is an “attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore”.

If anyone reading this entry thinks that this entry has a seditious tendency, please note I’m writing this in the spirit of point B.

Uncle Yap took two snapshots of two different versions of the Today newspaper on the arrest of Gopalan Nair. The story essentially remained unchanged but the headline changed.

Of course, Uncle Yap has his own theory about why the headline was changed but I don’t think his conspiracy theory analysis is correct. It seems more likely to me that the night editor was sleeping when he approved the headline for print. The problem with the first headline wasn’t exactly the issue of Gopalan Nair being an American citizen but rather, the problem was the original headline was factually wrong.

Gopalan Nair hasn’t been convicted and jailed. He is merely in police custody as the police conduct their investigations. It just seems to me that whoever wrote the story did not do a proper fact check or confused being in police custody with jailing. Maybe in Singapore, many lines are blurred and people both assume and conflate many things. I remember some time back, a police officer got confused between a political party and a government, saying that both are the same.

I don’t have the physical copy of the second version, though. I would like to see if the later edition had an erratum somewhere in the paper. I can accept honest mistakes but if Today sneakily changed the headline without an erratum, that’s highly unprofessional. The PDF version of the later version is available on the website of the Today newspaper but I did not see the erratum in that version and that is seriously disturbing.

Also, I think Gopalan Nair can sue Today for defamation. He has not been convicted and jailed but the headline stated that he has been jailed. I think the editors at Today should issue an erratum to mitigate the possibility of a defamation lawsuit.

This entry was first published in Singapore Angle Perspectives last week and I’m reproducing it on my own blog for future reference.

Barking up the wrong tree on FDW legislation?

The Ministry of Manpower has once again refused calls for a law making it mandatory for employers to give their foreign domestic workers (FDWs) a day off every month and the refusal has led to some fairly negative reports and commentaries (see here and here).

According to a Channel News Asia report, acting Minister of Manpower Gan Kim Yong said accredited employment agencies are required to use a standard contract and that the contract already stipulates the number of rest days the employer is obliged to give every month (note: the range is 1 to 4 days), and if the employer wishes to engage the service of the domestic worker on their rest days, the employer has to compensate the domestic worker.

Curious about the terms of contract between an employer and a foreign domestic worker, I went to Case Trust website and dug up the employment contract and the explanatory notes (all are in MS-Word format). After reading the contract, I must say Gan does have a good point.

The standard contract drafted up by CASE is actually pretty comprehensive and detailed. It even specifies the nature and scope of jobs that the domestic worker should perform. If the domestic worker is not agreeable to the scope and nature of the job required by a potential employer, she can refuse to sign the contract, assuming there is no undue pressure from the agency.

And the contract, when signed, makes it compulsory for the employer to provide for the upkeep of the domestic worker at all times. Even if the employer decides to terminate the contract prematurely, upkeep has to be maintained until the worker either goes home or finds another employer. And, in the agreement between employer and agency, the employer has to agree not to obstruct the re-employment of the domestic worker in the event of termination.

The only reason as far as I can see for support of legislation mandating a rest day for foreign domestic workers is that such a law, if passed, will apply across the board, whether it’s a Case Trust accredited or non-accredited employment agency. The only concern is that foreign domestic workers working under non-Case Trust accredited agencies might be shortchanged by both agency and employer.

If that is the case, then proponents of legislating mandatory rest day for foreign domestic workers are barking up the wrong tree. They should really be calling for legislation making accreditation compulsory, i.e. licensing. The problem would be solved if only licensed employment agencies that adhere to the kind of standards set by Case are allowed to operate. Accreditation in itself is voluntary and has little bite unless either majority of employment agencies are accredited or employers mostly shun non-accredited agencies.

However, one can still argue that even though there is a legal contract, the domestic worker can still receive the short end of the stick because some of them are not well-versed enough in the English language to understand their rights under the contract. A translated equivalent of the contract in the worker’s native language in the same signed contract will resolve this issue.

I think the Case Trust accreditation scheme for employment agencies is certainly the right way to go. The only chink in the armour is that accreditation is not compulsory. If there is a way to make accreditation compulsory, then it might be unnecessary for a legislation mandating compulsory rest days for FDWs.

Our top local English newspaper, the Straits Times, has sometimes been derisively called the States Times, and this observation is not for no good reason. Let’s compare some newspaper reports, two from the Straits Times (Story 1 and Story 2) and the other from International Herald Tribune, about the recent court hearing involving MM Lee and Chee Soon Juan.

The Straits Times stories were published on 27th May and when I read them that day, the first thing that struck my mind was both stories were all coming from the perspective of MM Lee. It was all about the case that MM Lee made against Chee Soon Juan and there was nothing about Chee’s case against MM Lee. I think any educated person will be able to see these two stories are not journalistic writing. These two stories could have well been published in the PAP’s website or newsletter and not look out of place.

Let’s look at the piece by IHT. To be honest, I do think the IHT piece is a wee bit biased against MM Lee but the journalist managed to contain the bias quite well and presented both sides of the story, unlike the two pieces from the Straits Times which were so obviously biased in favour of MM Lee. The IHT piece had quotes from both sides, although there were some unnecessary interpretations, such as the following paragraph:

Lee expressed what seemed an extraordinary sense of vulnerability, even to the words of a lone critic, while his antagonist described a compulsion - even a mission - to challenge power at any cost.

The journalist was very smart in making the negative observation, though. To deny MM Lee any possibility of a defamation lawsuit (IHT is most certainly most familiar with defamation threats from MM Lee), he deliberately added the word “seemed”. This one word might seem to be rather insignificant but those writing online can do well to learn from the IHT journalist and use words or phrases such as “seemed”, “appeared”, “I think that…”, “It is my opinion that…” etc.

When using such words and/or phrases, it is obvious to a reader that the sentence is a statement of opinion and not fact. I am no expert on defamation but my understanding is that opinions are accepted to be inherently flawed and one cannot be successfully sued for defamation if it is clear that one is expressing an opinion and not a statement of fact. Of course, there are many other intricacies involved in determining whether someone has indeed defamed another but if you know how to write cleverly, couching negative observations as an opinion does help reduce the chances of being sued for libel.

I must say I enjoyed the IHT piece a lot more than the two Straits Times pieces. I think it does more justice to Chee Soon Juan. You may say that I’m biased but I do think the IHT piece is real journalism. As for the two Straits Times pieces, you can decide for yourself what labels you want to place on them.

I just read Ephraim Loy’s comment on the PAP becoming the “opposition” in the online space, i.e. the PAP is in the minority when it comes to political discussions online. And Ephraim worries for the PAP in terms of elections performance during the next GE.

In all honesty, I don’t think that the PAP really bothers about political discussions in cyberspace. The reason is simple. The vast majority of netizens engage in anonymous postings. It’s actually not all that hard to make a list of people who blog with their real identities. Anonymous chatter on cyberspace isn’t much of an immediate threat at all.

Ephraim points to the recent Malaysian general elections to make the case that the online political space should be taken seriously. Well, the online political space will be taken seriously by the PAP if a Singaporean blogger actually contests a seat in the coming general elections. Unless the political cyberspace proves capable of causing the loss of real political power symbolised by the losing of parliamentary seats, why would the PAP care?

That being said, are there bloggers who are willing to stand up and contest in a general election? I don’t see any, at least not now. I personally have no interest now, and it will probably remain so over the next 5-6 years because I want to finish grad school. Even after that, I am not too sure if I will still be blogging, much less contest an election.

However, the fears voiced by Ephraim isn’t invalid. It’s just that he’s worrying about it too early. I doubt the local political cyberspace will have much of an effect on the overall voter pattern in the next 1-2 GEs. After that, I think there’s a chance that the PAP might suffer what Barisan Nasional suffered this year because the numbers of the “Youtube/Facebook/Blogger” generation would be a substantial proportion of the electorate. The problem for the PAP, if any, is not a short term one but a long term one.

Of course, there will only be a problem if there are enough good alternatives to choose from. Some of the alternative candidates in the last GE were seriously lacking and I have sympathies for Yaw Shin Leong who got needlessly flamed for choosing the better candidate. For now, the gahmen can afford to ignore cyberspace. Whether that is a wise decision for Lee Hsien Loong’s successor is open debate.

Finally, I have time to actually sit down and put my thoughts into writing again. The end of semester hell has passed, at least for now.

The twin stories of the World Bank managing director calling for loosening up of restrictions in Singapore and the seizure of a film during a private screening by the SDP caught my attention.

I’ve always favoured less restrictions, particularly with regards to speech. Sure, giving complete freedom of speech may result in lots of irresponsible talk but well, as the Chinese saying goes, genuine gold does not fear fire. The truth will eventually surface. Those who repeatedly spout nonsense and lies will eventually end up like the boy who cried wolf; people will not take them seriously.

This is why I don’t understand why the MDA has to step in to seize the film that was shown during SDP’s screening at Excelsior Hotel. Sure, the film is probably unkind to our founding prime minister but that’s life. There will be people who love you to bits and there will be people who hate you to the core.

By attempting to prevent people from saying unkind things about you, I think it sends off a signal of insecurity. Despite his flaws, I think Lee Kuan Yew has done alot for Singapore and no one can take that away from him. I really think he should let the nay-sayers do that they want and let people judge for themselves what is the truth. Sure, people might be dissatisfied with Lee Kuan Yew (or the PAP for that matter) in one way or another but that’s normal. You cannot please everyone.

I think Singapore should adopt a light touch approach not only to Internet regulation but to the entire media landscape. I think the PAP will gain alot more respect that way. Clamping down on words that are not music to the ear gives off a whole host of negative signals. I believe that young and educated Singaporeans are leaning towards the left and to court these young voters, there’s a need to loosen up.

I disagree with many of the methods employed the SDP but the acting of seizing a film screened for a small group of people isn’t going to make me like the PAP. The Worker’s Party suddenly seem like a nice in-between.

If Mas Selamat has been following the news (assuming that he is still in Singapore), he must be laughing to death at the level of embarassment and troubles he has caused to the government. I think the problem with the escape of Mas Selamat, at least for now, is not so much of a possible terrorist attack but rather, how far up the hierarchy should blame go?

There are two parallel lines of argument. The first one, favoured by many netizens, is that heads of officials connected to the escape of Mas Selamat should roll, whether they are directly involved or otherwise. Even if you are high up in the hierachy and not directly involved, you still have to go because like it or not, the escape happened under your watch and you are ultimately responsible.

The second argument, favoured by the government, is that only the heads of those who are directly involved should roll. The logic here is that it is unfair to punish someone for something that is not within his or her direct control. DPM Wong did not have direct control over the Gurkha guards. If he did, then of course he has to go. But since he didn’t, we should be fair to him and not blame him at all.

Each argument fundamentally works on a different set of assumptions, so it is difficult to argue one in favour of another. However, as Gerald rightly pointed out, most of the work done by a minister are actually that of the civil servants under him. Favouring the second argument means that any Singaporean minister will have an iron rice bowl (make that a diamond rice bowl: it’s the hardest substance around and it’s damn expensive) because he/she will never be directly responsible for most of the things happening under his watch. As long as a minister does not succumb to corruption or engage in behaviour defined as unacceptable by society or the ruling political party, the job is basically secured for life.

Either way, we have a problem. It’s either we create a culture of aversion to mistakes or we create a modern day nobility. We have to choose between a rock and a hard place. And, the choice has been made for all of us.

The release of results of the inquiry into the Mas Selamat fiasco has resulted in renewed calls for accountability (note: this generally reads as the sacking of DPM Wong Kan Seng) by Singaporean netizens. PM Lee Hsien Loong has come out to defend Wong Kan Seng, saying that Singaporeans should not slip into a “witch-hunting mode”.

I find it interesting that PM Lee chooses to use the term “witch-hunt”. Putting on my critical media scholar hat, I think PM Lee is trying to frame the discussion to his benefit. By choosing to use the term “witch-hunt”, PM Lee is essentially throwing in a smoke grenade to obscure the differences between accountability and witch-hunt, probably hoping to equate the two so that he can turn the spotlight away from the issue of accountability.

Having said that, I do think that PM Lee has a point too. I mean, how far up the chain of command should the blame be laid? Some time back, a soldier escaped from his army camp with a rifle. Should the chief of army, chief of defence force and the minister be sacked for that? Or should the transport minister be sacked for the Nicoll Highway incident? It’s a tough call for PM Lee on whether he should sack a minister who is not directly responsible.

Besides, it would be counter-productive to sack an obviously talented person over a mistake he/she is not directly responsible for. There is more value to the organization in keeping such people. Of course, whether DPM Wong is of such a pedigree is open to debate.

PM Lee also said that we have to be careful of breeding a culture where people are afraid to make mistakes. That point is well-taken. I think we need to leave some allowance for honest mistakes. However, then question would be why are the guards considered to be negligent instead of making an honest mistake? Why are mistakes for some people tolerated, but not others?

I guess there are no straightforward answers. I personally would like to see something more substantial than an apology, although resignation is not necessary. Maybe a big pay cut? Or maybe a demotion to Minister of State?

I just read the online media release of a proposal by a group of 15 bloggers recommending sweeping changes to the way the Internet is regulated. The media release can be found on The Online Citizen.

I’m not part of the group (I am going to dub them G15 from now), although I was aware of the initiative. I commend the G15 for investing their personal time and effort into putting together the document. It looks like it’s going to be a great piece of work, although I don’t think that the recommendations will offer anything groundbreaking but rather, the recommendations are likely to sum up all the key thoughts and arguments in the Singaporean socio-political blogosphere on Internet regulation.

The next step is, of course, so what? Can we truly expect the government to implement most of the proposals? Wearing my pragmatic hat, I would imagine that the government will, at most, acknowledge the paper but say that it is too early to implement these proposals. Of course, this is a vast improvement compared to the past. If this initiative happened 30-40 years ago, the G15 would have to do prison break, Mas Selamat style.

While I don’t think there’s much chance of a major shift in policy as a result of the document, I do think that it would help bolster the G15’s case if the proposal is endorsed by as many netizens as possible. As it stands now, if I were the government, I would contend that the G15 is hardly representative of the online population and then proceed to ignore it. It would be much harder to question the legitimacy of the proposal if there were some 50,000 to 100,000 Singaporean netizens endorsing it.

Of course, it is going to be difficult to even get 1,000 netizens to endorse the proposal, let alone 100,000. I think that majority of the blogs in Singapore fall into the personal journaling category and these folks, having little opportunities to run afoul of any regulations, are unlikely to lend their support to the proposal. However, I think every single endorsement counts. I will read the full proposal when it is released and it is very likely that I will endorse that proposal.

The heartening thing about this proposal is that it is a genuine grassroots initiative and not the result of some committee mandated by the government. Of course, there are going to be some people who are sore at not being “invited” to give their opinions and they will claim that the G15 is an elitist group. In fact, reading the comments thread on the media release on The Online Citizen, it looks like these folks are going to start questioning the legitimacy of the proposal.

To these folks, please, get out of my elite uncaring face. Stop being so damn full of yourselves.

The American and Israeli government are now upset that former US president Jimmy Carter has “embraced” Hamas.

A paragraph from the Associated Press’ report read:

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said Carter’s meeting with Hamas “dignified” a group committed to Israel’s destruction. “One cannot but wonder how this attitude is supposed to promote peace and understanding,” he said.

Well, I cannot help but wonder how the attitude of the Washington and Israeli hawks would fare any better. Will isolating a “terrorist” group solve the problem? I think that Jimmy Carter is right in reaching out to Hamas. If there is no talk, people will just construct their own ideas about the “other”, leading to misunderstandings and sustained conflict. It’s far better to get people to thrash things out by talking.

Of course, the issues surrounding Israel and Palestine are complex and I’m don’t have clear solutions to the problem. However, I do think that the Americans and Israelis should reconsider their policy of isolating Hamas. It is more prudent to talk to Hamas and understand them.

If the Americans and Israelis don’t even want to talk to Hamas, they won’t understand why Hamas behaves the way it is behaving now. It is perhaps much more convenient to label Hamas as a terrorist group because the military can then be sent in to “clean up” the problem. The Washington hawks seem to love the idea of a military solution to everything.

However, this will only make Hamas appear even more legitimate in the eyes of Palestinians because Hamas can easily employ the rhetoric of being the real defenders of the Palestinian leaders. By not talking to Hamas, the Americans and Israelis are just weakening the domestic support for the Fatah party, which is obviously not the desired outcome.

I’ve read reports that Hamas actually does alot of humanitarian work in Palestine and they are popular with ordinary Palestinian folks as compared to Fatah, which has been viewed as a corrupt organization. Of course, I am painfully aware of the violence that Hamas perpetuates and I most certainly do not condone that. However, I do think that people (especially the neocons) should try and understand why Hamas is resorting to violence. Are they resorting to violence because they like wanton destruction, or is it because they have no other recourse against groups that are much more powerful?

Seriously, the Americans and Israelis should stop vilifying Hamas. They are no saints themselves.