"We accept the new media; that it's going to be a free-for-all. You can expect a more lively vibrant new media environment particularly during election period. Going forward, we will have to make efforts to engage these people, efforts to accomodate alternative platforms to air their views and we will look at how this can be catered to from now till next GE. It's too early now to say specifically what we will do. We need to study the plans, what's do-able in light of technological changes.

Some level of responsibility will enhance the quality of debate. At the end of the day, what do we want? We want informed debate, we want people to be more aware. That's very much part of a participatory democracy. If you're not informed, you can't take part, if misinformed or worse ill-informed, you are not making a valid contribution in the context of cyberspace and with the rapid development of the new media, having a sense of responsibility and interest to participate from a well informed, objective perspective is a good development."

-- Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lee Boon Yang: 31/05/06

It seems that MICA's evaluation of the impact on blogging on GE 2006 has led them to the right conclusions.  The sweeping developments which have revolutionized the balance of power in our political landscape cannot be stemmed.  Online discourse cannot be effectively clamped down upon due to technological avenues such as overseas and anonymous proxies.  To implement anything less than an absolute information blackout would be to incur the wrath of local Singaporeans, many of whom have gained political awareness through the Internet in GE 2006, as well as the disapproval of the international community which already views our ruling party as an anachronistic government in the arena of democracy.  More than anything, this shows that the PAP is finally coming to terms with the fact that Singaporeans cannot be bullied, browbeaten, bribed and threatened into voting with their feet and voting with their fear.  This is a victory that tips the scales of power a little more into the hands of us -- the citizens of Singapore.

I haven't openly agreed with the PAP in quite some time, but in this I must congratulate them on having taken the first steps in embracing the fact that our nation is changing and maturing.  Tactically, I'd say this is the right way to move in order to win back those they've alienated with their hardline tactics.  To continue to edge out opposition parties with their upper hand in a manner that's patently unfair and painfully obvious will only give opposition members the benefit of a martyr complex that will win sympathy to their camp. 

But time will tell if the PAP is only taking this step because it cannot effectively rule out the freedom of expression on the Internet without great social, economic and political cost, or if it genuinely recognizes the value in a maturing society that's starting to open its doors and step out onto the streets, to reach out to one another, and to congregate to discuss how to build their future instead of waiting for their country to be built for them.  One way of judging the genuine level of their commitment is to see if it takes other steps to allow for a more open society in other areas.  To stop threatening its own taxpaying citizens with the prospect of the elderly and the disabled having to overcome many flights of stairs to get to their own homes if they don't vote for the PAP would be an excellent start.  Another way to judge if they are truly becoming more open and inclusive would be to see how it treats those who dare to speak up in ways not confined to the computer screen - will amplification devices be allowed at Speaker's Corner? Will more permits be granted to those who wish to speak up and gather in protest? Will we stop 'embarrassing' the US ambassador by asking him if he wants to press charges when a straggling "crowd" of people gathered outside the US Embassy to demonstrate against the war on Iraq? Lastly, one must bear in mind that they have not reached a decisive conclusion on their treatment of the blogosphere and the online community.  There are still overtones in their words which potentially suggest that some measures will be taken to rein in bloggers if they go too far.  It is entirely possible that they will allow moderate posters to continue, figureheads for the "alternative voice", yet prosecute and punish those who are more extreme in their views and hence considered to be propagating "rumours and lies" in their books.  If censorship will occur at all, we will need a clearer stand from them on how it will be carried out before throwing any wild celebration parties.  After all, it is not the first time we have heard talk of a so-called open, consultative society while the signals tell us otherwise.

These are things the PAP must consider if it wants to prove itself genuine in its intention to entrust more responsibility to our citizens and hence invest more accompanying, underlying and implicit trust in Singaporeans.  But the men in white are not the only ones we should be watching.  We should also turn our eyes to Singaporeans themselves.  Will they take their cue, and capitalize on this opportunity which for the first time in a long while looks optimistic for the future of political participation? The media for instance -- will journalists start to be bolder in pressing for their alternative op-eds and news angles to be published, and will this also see an easing of censorship on the part of the news editors? A kind of tacit adventure of dialogue appears to be presently unfolding.  The PAP has made their overture, and it is time to determine our response.  I for one am keeping my eyes peeled, for just as MICA answers one question, it raises a host of others, and the answers are important in determining the impact of this latest announcement and what it really means for our country.

Addendum: Just as I finished writing the above post, which was based on this CNA article, I was alerted to a different report of the announcment published by the Straits Times and available here on Mr. Wang's blog.  This article focusses more on defending the restrictions which will continue to be in place, rather than the fact that Lee expressed that no action will be taken against those who have posted contents online, according to the CNA write-up.  It's these restrictions specifically which concern me.  It suggests that podcasting for the Opposition will likely continue to be banned, and access to certain materials will still be restricted, as I speculated about earlier on.  The ST article makes me temper my congratulations with an even greater measure of conservative suspicion.  What do you guys think this means? Is this a significant advancement, or just a smokescreen for the continued restriction of online avenues for alternative opinions?

Singapore News »
	Time is GMT + 8 hours Posted: 24 May 2006 0833 hrs SDP's Chee Siok Chin wants High Court to void GE results

Defeated Singapore Democratic Party candidate for Sembawang GRC, Ms Chee Siok Chin, has filed a summons in the High Court asking it to declare the results of the 2006 General Election null and void. In her affidavit, Ms Chee said the PAP government had used the HDB upgrading scheme and given out shares and cash to induce voters to vote for it and secure electoral victory. She also wants the High Court to declare the ban on podcasting during the general election as unconstitutional. Ms Chee's claims were filed by the SDP's lawyer, M Ravi, and addressed to the Attorney General of Singapore. When asked to comment on the summons filed by Ms Chee, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Chambers said the Department has not been served with any legal papers at this stage. - CNA/ir/ls Singapore Votes 2006: Channelnewsasia.com special coverage >>>

Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/210016/1/.html

My sympathies have often lain with the Chee siblings, but I've never quite agreed with their tactics.  I maintain that they have been unfairly portrayed in many ways; that Chee Soon Juan, at least, is an impressive writer and from what I have heard, speaker (his sister has always rather scared me) - and that the siblings have been tenacious in clinging onto their ideals in a way that quite humbles and confounds me.  But once in a while I simply must say they really put their foot in it.  It is as though they are offering themselves up to the slaughterhouse.  Their ceaselessly bullheaded confrontations with the government have proved, over and over again, to be counter-productive to their cause.

If one knows that Singapore is a pragmatic, legalistic society that values its stability and progress perhaps above all else, if one knows that they will never allow that to be threatened or taken away from them, if one knows that the media is all too able to cast a dissident in a harsh and unforgiving light, if one knows that it is impossible to survive unless one plays by the rules - then why do they refuse to play ball? Credibility has allowed Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong to survive for so long in Parliament.  Sylvia Lim will soon join them, and she too, seems a credible and honestly, just plain nice woman.  But I'm sorry, you'll never see Chee Soon Juan in Parliament with the ability to make a difference - not just because the PAP has gone to such lengths to keep him out, but because he seems prone to shoot himself in the foot quite often.  His 1993 hunger strike, his encouraging Australians to boycott Singaporean products and even impose trade sanctions against his own country - in two fell swoops he managed to alienate two of the largest groups of Singaporeans I've encountered so far; those who think with their stomachs, and those who think with their pocketbooks ;) that's excluding his antics with the loudhailer in 2001 and his unproved accusations against the PAP, most recently culminating in the SDP newsletter fiasco.

Now, while still bogged down by the lawsuit being launched against them, the siblings - or at least one of them, Chee Siok Chin - have decided to involve themselves in a second burden of court matters; overturning the results of GE 2006.  On the first level, those of you who have perused my archives will have found that I actually thought the results were quite heartening (opposition's mandate up in every single ward, even those contested by the SDP, especially notable in Ang Mo Kio where an astounding one in three Singaporeans voted for the newbie WP team, contrary to the PAP's earlier declaration of wanting to win at least 80% of the vote).  On the second level, Ms. Chee's chances of winning this one are zilch.  Even in the planet where the High Court gives this one to Chee, Singaporeans themselves likely - and in my opinion rightly - want to get on with their lives.  An opposition team which visibly pits itself against the 'mandate' of the people, as this has been lauded as, will only be presenting itself as an enemy of the stable status quo.

To survive in our political scene, one has to hang on by the skin of one's teeth, and make painfully sure that one (i) raises issues of import, (ii) substantiates one's views with credible sources and facts, and (iii) offer viable alternatives.  Else, your rallies will be swamped by people who may be eager to sample their taste of democracy, but at the end of the day will wander back to their old side of the fence - the one with the green pastures and cuddly woolly sheep for company.  Be a rebel, be a threat, be a wildcard, be a maverick, and you won't get too far along.  If the law and those behind it don't get you first, the people themselves will turn against you.  I admire the Chee siblings' tenacity, as well as the courage of the Singapore Democratic Party, but I would never choose the trail they've blazed.  It ends in the undergrowth.  That is one reason why I have been so careful, especially since this page saw so many more visitors, to double-check my sources, cross-refer them to one another, and make sure that I'm not making any allegations that can't be proven.  I am also willing to be corrected if someone can prove me wrong in any of my research.  But protecting myself (some would term it covering my rear end) is not, by any long shot, the only reason why I'm careful.  I'm careful because I genuinely believe that a Singaporean who loves her country has the duty to be honest about it and have integrity in how she deals with the issues confronting its progress.

Seeing the Chee siblings sink deeper into the mire that's partly of their own making is a saddening affair.  Time will tell how this affair will unfold, but personally I no longer largely care - to me it is a tale of sound and fury, which will come to no good end, and isn't even particularly enjoyable along the way.

The issue of Singaporean ministerial salaries has been a hotly-debated one, at least behind the scenes of mainstream journalism.  I did a quick search on Google to find out the exact figures, but couldn't find as wide a range of independent observations and chronicles as I normally like to, so as to lend the information credibility.  If anyone has differing figures they deem more accurate, do update me.  But the consensus I gather from the Internet is that our ministers are the highest paid in the world, and that the Prime Minister's basic salary is USD 1 239 240 per annum, or SGD 1 958 000 (I converted SGD to USD using the latest exchange rate of 1USD=1.58SGD; again, tell me if I'm wrong with the figures).  That is more than three times that of the US President's salary of USD 400 000 per annum*.

The defence the PAP has always launched against the accusation that their salaries are too high is to say: "We must do so in order to prevent corruption." I have always found that to be a thin excuse.  What, after all, is corruption? The use of one's position in order to profit illegally.  High ministerial salaries simply permit the PAP to use their position in order to profit legally.  A simple analogy: it is illegal for someone to shoplift a gold necklace from a jewelry store.  But this thievery would be perfectly legal if we had no laws against shoplifting in the first place.  One could profit in an arguably unethical manner without breaking any laws.  Similarly, it would be illegal for the Prime Minister to siphon away $2 million a year.  But as a politician in power, instead of siphoning it away, he simply ensures that he can receive $2 million a year in a perfectly transparent and above-board manner.  That's what they really mean by the concept of high ministerial salaries removing the need for corruption.  They don't need to be corrupt: we just hand over the money anyway.

Yes, there are benefits to the system.  It keeps corruption under control by removing the primary incentive for it - money.  And a corruption-free government undeniably attracts investors.  According to Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) we are ranked as the 5th least corrupt nation in the world as of 2005, after Iceland, New Zealand, Finland and Denmark.  But the investigation does not, and must not stop there.

There is a basic principle to keeping ministerial salaries from skyrocketing, and it is one that is often overlooked in Singapore.  Politicians in our government exist not to further their own interests, but to subordinate their personal advancement to the needs of the nation.  They serve the nation, and not the other way round.  As a child, I used to wonder why they were called civil servants - the word 'servant' always had insulting connotations of someone that's second-class, servile and unworthy of much note.  But as I grew, I came to realise that there is great dignity, perhaps even the greatest dignity, in being a servant of others; in placing their needs above your own, and in committing yourself to serve and protect them.  That is the sacred vow, the tacit contract that politicians undertake by entering this service.  Lower salaries make it clear that they are fundamentally different from those in the private sector who seek to profit from their positions, making the frequent comparison between public workers and private ones like corporation directors or media stars totally redundant.  The nature and purpose of their work are as different as night and day.  Managing ministerial salaries ensures, too, that people do not enter politics simply to gain from the high pay and benefits, but that they do so because they genuinely want to put their talents to the good use of representing the country.  Else, people would work towards entering the government simply because of the dangling carrot that is a fat pay cheque - which would clearly have disastrous consequences for us all.

That is why George Bush, who is the leader of the most powerful country in the world and has far more responsibilities than PM Lee will ever have, is paid three times less*.  That is why there was such a public outcry when TT Durai's salary was uncovered - it was legal and above board, but it was wrong in principle.  But here in Singapore, this important principle is over-ridden, once again, by the excuse that it keeps corruption under control.  Very well then, let us bring that reason under scrutiny.  According to the aforementioned CPI, there are four countries in the world which are even less corrupt than ours.  As Singaporean ministers are paid the highest in the world, it obviously goes to follow that all these countries' ministers are paid less than ours.  I did a bit of research and found out, via this article, that New Zealand PM Helen Clark's salary is NZD 305 000 per annum, or USD 189 440 - less than George Bush, and six and a half times less than PM Lee (I converted 305 000 NZD into 189 440 USD with the latest exchange rate of 1.61). New Zealand is ranked 3 places above Singapore in the CPI, as the 2nd least corrupt government in the world.  Why is it that New Zealand ministers can be even less corrupt than our ministers, and yet are paid so many times less?

If we allow ourselves to succumb to the mentality that we need to pay them extravagant amounts of money in order for them not to be corrupt, we are implying that they otherwise cannot be trusted; that unless they benefit so much from their positions, they cannot do a good job; that our ministers are six and a half times as inferior, six and a half times as selfish and six and a half times as prone to corruption than ministers from New Zealand (not to mention Iceland, Finland and Denmark).  I would like to be convinced otherwise, but the message being sent by our high ministerial salaries is proving it difficult.  Let me tell you what makes it even more difficult: that salaries are being paid to the members of our government, on top of the lucrative salaries they are enjoying in their professional lives.

This brings me to the next issue: politics in money.  Our MPs do not work full-time.  They hold very prominent positions in businesses all throughout Singapore, and little wonder, too; they are recruited from these positions with the natural assumption that their high-flying careers make them capable, and not forced to give up their jobs, which are extremely demanding and exacting.  Only Chiam See Tong, as of April 21 2006 (the release date of the CNA article I'm reading at the moment) is a full-time MP.  The PAP made it a point to tout their new recruits as being young professionals.  Does this truly work for them? Will such young professionals, dedicated to their burgeoning careers, be able to devote all their time to the needs of the community they serve? I quote Steve Chia: "You can see the long queues at the Meet-the-People sessions every week.  Residents are sometimes even turned away.  How can MPs serve their constituents fully if they don't have the time to do so?"

Let me get this straight.  The basic monthly allowance that MPs receive has more than doubled over the last decade from $4516 in 1995 (not inclusive of their legislative and secretarial allowances amounting to $825) to $11 917 presently, and only one MP has stepped down from his job in the private sector? Meeting the needs of their constituency is still a part time occupation? Talking to residents is still a part time occupation? Serving the nation is still a part time occupation? But let's not be overly excited.  After all, perhaps these jobs are not so demanding - perhaps they are easy shoes to fill, with time left over to look into other things.

Or are they?

I went to the complete list of MPs, last updated 11 May 2006, and did background checks on 3 randomly-selected MPs.  Ong Chit Chung, Jurong GRC: Independent Director of WesTech Electronics Limited, and the President of Davos Life Sciences Pte Ltd (sounds like three jobs to me).  Ong Kian Min, Tampines GRC: Lawyer/Consultant at prestigious law firm Drew & Napier.  Cedric Foo, West Coast GRC: Group Deputy President and President Asia/Middle East of Neptune Orient Lines.  Any one of these jobs on its own sounds like a time-consuming, extenuating and exhausting position to fill.  How much time left over do they have? How much time are they inclined to spend on leaky toilets, flickering lights, and a resident's license application or financial woes?

There is more to the discussion, of course - the possible clash of interests when an individual serves both in the public and the private sector, hence giving him the power to formulate policies favourable to their own business interests, or the other manifestation of 'politics in money' - relations of government leaders who have high-ranking positions in prominent companies, government-linked or otherwise.  But for now this should be sufficient for us to ponder over, and have a second look at this dirty but unavoidable word of money, and the role it plays in our politics.

* It was pointed out to me that the American President's salary is now USD 400 000 per annum.  Thanks to Andrew who e-mailed me to make corrections.