Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

Two Saturdays ago, the Straits Times ran a story on alumni donations back to local universities and I was quoted in two paragraphs of the story talking about NUS. Today, I was finally asked by a colleague who read that story whether I really disliked NUS that much.

While the story might have given that impression, the truth is, I gave a very long interview and said alot more things which, taken together with the parts attributed to me in the story, will give a very different impression. I do not blame the journalist because I believe she had her own considerations in crafting her story and besides, there’s still the editor on top of her who can change her story.

Anyway, just to put things in perspective, I did say I threw away donation appeals from NUS but I also said the reason is because the name NUS does not have much affinity with me. NUS is a big institution with many schools and departments. What I have an affinity for is not the institution NUS but the school and department I was with because I spent the bulk of my undergraduate days with them.

I noted that I would have given much more serious consideration if the letter came not from NUS but from my school (Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences) or my department (Communications and New Media). The reason is because NUS is so big and fragmented that students no longer identify themselves primarily as an NUS graduate but rather, they identify themselves as a graduate of their school or department. This might appear as weird but I do talk alot more fondly about my school and department than about the institution called NUS.

I was also quoted giving the example of a fee increase during my undergraduate days and how that episode made students feel NUS was out of touch with them. However, I also noted that NUS has markedly improved in the next following years and there have been many more consultations with students on impending decisions that could have a big impact on them. I also said this is a step in the right direction and will certainly help students feel that NUS cares for them and in turn, this might improve alumni donations in future. The later half of what I said wasn’t published.

Also, I gave my suggestions during the interview as to how alumni donations can be greatly increased. I noted that students have greater affinity for the schools or departments they were with and NUS should consider working with schools and/or departments to appeal to students to donate money. I think there is a greater chance of success if the school’s dean, the department head or perhaps even a very long-serving and popular professor makes an appeal for donations.

I would hesitate to donate to NUS because I don’t know whether my donation would go to my former school or department, or will the money be used for other purposes. However, if I am donating to my former school or department, I do know that my donation will probably go towards benefiting the entities I want my money to benefit. I think a big part of why alumni are not responding to calls for donation is because the university is not doing targeted soliciting. It is important to know what kinds of appeal works with which kinds of alumni. Sending generic donation appeals is akin to randomly shooting in the dark and hoping that something gets hit.

I told the reporter if my department head or a professor I know wrote me an appeal for donation, I would donate. Similarly, if my dean sent an appeal, I would give very serious consideration. I am not sure if I should be thankful to the reporter for not publishing the secret to me opening my wallet but I believe this is the secret to opening the wallets of many alumni.

The title of this entry is a the literal translation very famous Hokkien (a local dialect) saying, which goes something like this when romanised: gia lang eh kar chng di bin per. This saying is typically invoked to poke fun at people who have no shame and have no qualms about taking the glory of another and passing it off as their own.

This saying succinctly sums up the feeling of some Singaporeans about the Olympics silver medal effort by the Singaporean women table tennis team in the 2008 Beijing Olympics. All members of the team were born in China and grew up there before they were lured by Singapore into taking up a citizenship here. Even though they are Singaporean citizens now, I believe some of my fellow Singaporeans think that the victory says more about China’s ability to produce talent than our ability to win by our own efforts.

Does it really matter if the athletes who won the medals weren’t born and raised here? Actually, I don’t think it’s a problem. Singapore was, historically, an immigrant society and it is not uncommon to welcome people from other lands to start a family here and call this little island home. The only problem for me with regards to sports is that Singapore generally goes out and pick out those who have already shown potential to give them Singaporean citizenship.

This explains why I’m much more delighted with swimmer’s Tao Li’s performance than the table tennis team’s achievements. Tao Li came to Singapore to study English before she was discovered to be a talent in the pool. At the very least, she wasn’t deliberately imported to win medals. Of course, her temperament does need some moderation but that’s a story for another day.

I would liken Tao Li’s case to that of Anastasia Liukin, the American Olympic gold medalist gymnast born to Russian parents. The Americans didn’t pluck Liukin from the Russians only when she showed promise of being a world champion. Liukin moved to America when she was very young and started playing around in her parents’ gymnastics club while her parents, both world class gymnasts themselves, were coaching other kids. Her talent was recognised only after she got to America so I think the Americans can certainly bask in the glory of Liukin’s achievements.

While I’m happy for the women’s table tennis team, I’m hesitant to celebrate this ‘victory’. I’ll wait for Tao Li to bring home an Olympics medal before I start to celebrate. I don’t want to be gia lang eh kar chng di bin per.

MM Lee has now likened politics to sports in invoking the comparison of teams competing in sports divisions to political parties competing in general elections.

It is an interesting comparison, no doubt, and there is certainly some truth in what MM Lee was trying to point out. Indeed, a team that is in division one is usually of much higher calibre than that of a team in division three and if one has to bet on a winning team, it’s a safer bet with a division one team as compared to a divison three team.

However, when I think about his analogy, it doesn’t make sense to me. How do we know if a team is of division one calibre unless there are other teams around to compare with? Therefore, I disagree that it is wrong to vote for alternative political parties for the sake of it. Without a basis of comparison, how do we know whether a team is a division one team or a division three team? Being the only team in the only division of a competition says nothing about the calibre of the team.

If MM Lee is serious about wanting to lay claim to the PAP being a division one team, all the more he should encourage people to vote in alternative teams so that there is some basis for comparison. And, he should be also calling for lowering of barriers to entry to the competition. Otherwise, he does not have a reasonable basis of claiming the PAP being a division one team.

I hate to say this but the local blogosphere is in a sad state from the perspective of blogosphere as an avenue for serious discussion of socio-political issues.

There are many bloggers making use of blogs as a platform to discuss issues of importance to society. However, I think the readership of all these ’serious’ bloggers combined cannot even match that of Xiaxue. She claims to have 50,000 readers a day after having an online spat with another high profile blogger.

I have nothing against blogs that style themselves along the lines of tabloids. I just find it sad that people are actually more interested in gossip about celebrity bloggers than in serious issues. In the past, one could make the argument that Singaporeans do not engage in active socio-political discussions because of high barriers to entry to publishing. However, blogs changed that but still, celebrity gossip trumps socio-political discussions in terms of popularity.

If most people reading blogs are more interested in Xiaxue versus Dawn Yang, then the establishment isn’t going to take comments from socio-political bloggers too seriously since they aren’t really much of a threat. This just means that discussing socio-political issues online isn’t really worth doing because the impact isn’t there; the establishment doesn’t take the socio-political blogosphere seriously.

I guess perhaps the best thing that the PAP has done to make the average Singapore apathetic is to give a roof over the head and a full stomach. I think the average Singaporean will only become interested in socio-political issues if they are starving or they have to sleep on the streets. This is also the reason why I think Singapore will never experience the kind of political tsunami that Malaysia recently experienced.

Poverty and hunger drives people to desperation. And desperate people will have a greater propensity to do anything that appears remotely capable of making their situation better. As long as Singaporeans are kept generally well-fed and sheltered, Xiaxue versus Dawn Yang will always be more interesting than politics and social issues.

Reading the Singapore Statutes Online, I find that our Penal Code Cap 224, Article 298, is very interesting. It says that:

“Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, or causes any matter however represented to be seen or heard by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.”

I absolutely understand that lawmakers mean well when drafting and approving this particular law in the Penal Code. Unfortunately, it is my belief that things can get really messy should someone decide to challenge the law the meaning of “wounding religious or racial feelings” is highly ambiguous. There are probably many more scenarios other than the following ones that I can think of which illustrate the complexities of “wounding religious or racial feelings” but I think the following hypothetical scenarios will sufficiently illustrate the degree of complexity involved with this law.

Scenario 1

A person of Chinese race and Singaporean nationality hurls some verbal racial abuse at a person of Chinese race and China nationality. Under this particular article in the Penal Code, is the Singaporean guilty of wounding the racial feelings of the Chinese person from China? Similarly, if a Singaporean Malay hurls verbal racial abuse at a Malaysian Malay, is the Singaporean Malay considered to have wounded the racial feelings of the Malaysian Malay?

Scenario 2

If a Christian, in proselytizing his/her religion to a Taoist, deliberately says that the Taoist acts of idol worship is wrong and a major sin, and the Taoist is offended by the remark, is the Christian considered to have wounded the religious feelings of the Taoist?

In scenario 1, the big question is whether can people have their racial feelings wounded by someone of their own race. In scenario 2, the question is, how do we determine intention? To one party, there is no feeling of any intention to wound the religious feelings of the other person. However, the other person feels that there is an intention to wound his/her racial feelings.

Of course, as a lay person, I could be misinformed. Perhaps to the lawyers, the law is crystal clear. I don’t know. I just think that issues such as race and religion are hard to regulate and such a broad law has too many grey areas, even though the law is well-intentioned.

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.