Father and son have filed a defamation suit against the Far Eastern Economic Review in a long-anticipated move after the magazine was warned to appoint a legal representative here in Singapore by a deadline of September 11 (let's just say a team always performs better on home ground, and Singaporean political libel suits are no exception).

This move is strongly ironic, given this excerpt from the FEER article available here:


Facing pressure from states is not a new experience for the magazine.  Under its late editor Derek Davies, it has tangled with governments such as Ferdinand Marcos's regime with its blistering articles.  Neither is it the magazine's first run-in with Singapore.  A libel suit was also launched against it in 1989 by - hmm, I wonder who - Lee Kuan Yew.  Lee was gruelled in the witness box for 5 days.  The magazine lost, and aggravated damages were awarded because the cross-examination "exacerbated the hurt to the plaintiff's feelings and the damage to his reputation." The magazine has been banned in Singapore before.

This might be the last nail in the coffin for the once-esteemed magazine, which has been struggling along for over a decade with a lacklustre performance.  Even the article itself, I feel, is mediocre.  The magazine has declined comment to date.

This is an interesting move to come on the heels of the summary judgment awarded to the Lees, against Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin, over the defamation suit launched against them after the events of the May elections.  Not only was it a summary judgment, i.e. they were given no trial, the Chees were also effectively bereft of legal representation as their lawyer M. Ravi was medically certified to be unwell.  I do suspect it might have indeed have been a strategic ploy to delay the judgment, but whether it was or not, the judge also allegedly denied the Chees the chance to look for another lawyer, given Ravi's absence.

Then again, what lawyer would have taken the case?

One expects the approaching demise of the FEER to add to the burial heap of foreign publications/writers which have had to pay damages and/or offer formal apologies to the Singaporean government for their articles.  This includes the Economist, Bloomberg News, Christopher Lingle and the International Herald Tribune.  To my knowledge, the IHT has had to pay the most notable damages, amounting to $675 000, which Lee said was donated to charities and educational organizations.  Clearly a noble enterprise.  If ever Lee does retire, perhaps he can look to launching libel suits against gutsy publications as a leisurely pursuit -- it's certainly much more meaningful than golf.

Think, after all, of the charities.

I returned from Bangkok yesterday afternoon to be greeted by striking banners that hailed the arrival of the IMF/WB delegates to Singapore.  A huge panel filled with smiling faces scratched annoyingly at my peripheral vision.  Tonight, returning home on the bus, I saw another double-decker bus decorated with nothing but smiles, smiles and smiles!

I'm sorry, but I'm quite disgusted. The whole affair is nothing but a cheap plastic, embarrassing multi-million-dollar scam.  We were told to behave ourselves like good children for our visitors.  Taxi drivers, don't talk politics! Waiters, waitresses, sales clerks, must smile and give them a good impression.  Brush up on your French or Spanish.  Poly students, make sure you speak proper English! Kids, behave. It seems, though, that our best behavior and efforts are not the most memorable characteristics of the occasion that delegates will walk away with.  Instead, it will be the sour taste of miscommunication and frustration.

No matter what happens these coming weeks, no matter if there are illegal marches on the streets or if everything is pulled off squeaky-clean, Singapore-style, I already consider the IMF/WB meetings a flop.  Singapore's gag on civic expression has been dragged into the international spotlight.  For goodness sakes, we can't even fill up the 11 000 hotel rooms set aside for the delegates.  More importantly though, any institution which wants to retain a reputation for consultative transparency and legitimacy will have to think twice -- or three or four or five times -- before it seriously considers Singapore as a destination for its conventions. 

Now, I don't believe the IMF and the World Bank could have chosen Singapore as a host destination without knowing that protesters would have a tough time.  They probably decided on Singapore because they wanted more security. 

What they seemed not to have bargained for, however, is the extent of Singapore's hardnosed and uncompromising refusal to accommodate, to negotiate, and to inform them ahead of time of their decisions (this is not the first time the World Bank has complained being told tardily of Singapore's decisions). 

I make that conclusion based on the simple calculation that despite the fact that we can only speculate as to the private discussion and correspondence between the parties involved, we may safely say that Singapore would not countenance undergoing so much public blame if such blame were unfairly placed.  In other words, the extent of the World Bank or the IMF's complicity in any 'conspiracy' to stifle the participation of activists in the meetings is limited, because of the negative publicity that seems to have spun out of the Singapore government's control; publicity that I doubt the government would allow to continue without clarification unless it were true: that the Singaporean authorities really have been uncommunicative, tardy in their releases of information, and just plain stubborn. 

And now that that no-nonsense adamancy has been revealed, there is little reason or excuse for any other similar convention/round to make its way to Singapore again.  Nope, we'll have to settle for the 2013 SEA Games, my friends.

But -- lo and behold! Defying all reason, intuition and instinct, the Straits Times's 6-page special report printed today (09/09/06) cheerfully reports World Bank Singapore Representative Mr. Stephens's assessment of the relationship between Singapore and his organization to be a "full, rich and very rewarding relationship", with no mention whatsoever of the disagreement which, going by the above report and by other international accounts, has become a full-blown public spat.  For instance:
Oh yes, let's remind ourselves one more time why they cannot corrobate it.  Because terrorist attacks to the best of my knowledge do not occur at maximum-security occasions.  They do not occur at WTO rounds, APEC summits, or ASEAN meetings.  They occur on buses in London.  They occur on an average workday, 9/11, in New York City.  They occur on trains in Madrid.  They occur when tourists least expect it in Bali.  Allow me to suggest that we should ban buses, trains, cancel work and close our country to tourists because of the threat of terrorist attack.  That would actually make more sense than banning public demonstrations under maximum security.  That is why the government's concern over terrorist attacks as a reason for banning protests is noble but uncorrobated.  Of course, though, the Straits Times would never question self-evidently good intentions.

And neither would Singaporeans.  I was at the Bangkok forum for Free Expression in Singapore, organized by the Southeast Asian Press Alliance earlier this week, and a reporter asked the panel whether or not a big part of the problem was simply that Singaporeans were unwilling to go out there and hold a demonstration even if it means getting arrested.  I essentially said yes; it's a huge part.  Why would any reasonable Singaporean jeopardize his security, his bankbook, his comfortable job, and everything he's worked so hard to build in his life, for the sake of something as abstract as a right? Why would the masses do something like that, especially since the connections are drawn so early for them by the textbooks and the media, connections between stability and prosperity, the Great Impeccable Clockwork and their precious livelihoods.  No one wants to mess with that.  Well, no one except Chee Soon Juan and his homies, reportedly.  And then I told her frankly: "If you're a Singaporean and you want to go to jail for your beliefs, please go right ahead.  But don't expect anyone to be holding your name up on placards.  They'll be reporting to work from 9 to 5." Alex Au, during his speech, also laid much of the responsibility on the shoulders of Singaporeans who have been conditioned to love their government in what he called an apparent manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome (the phenomenon whereby the captive comes to sympathize with or have affection for his/her kidnapper).

This is why I think maybe Singapore shouldn't have bothered to ban outdoor protests for foreign activists.  Go ahead and have double standards for foreigners and locals.  No Singaporeans will show up anyway, except Chee, who plans to be there, ban or no.  Even though this is a fantastic opportunity, with representatives from foreign media crowding the place, and activists milling about ready to support and encourage other like-minded English-educated radicals, Singaporeans just aren't ready or willing to harness it.  Well... maybe if they hadn't banned it though, the sight of long lines of people just walking down a road, just being there and expressing, through their presence, through their expressions, through the words on their signs or their calls and cheers, an opinion -- maybe that sight would have been a breath of democracy that would have stirred life in the Singaporean soul.  Maybe that's what they're afraid of after all, more than terrorist attacks or bomb plants.  Maybe they're afraid of us.

So if you'll be at home for the next weeks, kicking back and relaxing after a long hard day of work, watching TV and learning how the delegates were all thrilled by, ohmigawd, the efficiency of how things are run in Singapore, and the warm welcomes, and the lion dances, and the great service, then smile! Cos you're a trueblue Singaporean, one in a million or four.  Oh, they would be proud.

If the comments are disappearing, etc for you, sorry, I'm just as confused as you are.  The blogdrive server is messing with my head.  No, comment moderation has not been turned on.. I don't think I can even do that.  For me, comments are disappearing and appearing again so hang in there.  Blogdrive has always been unreliable.  Sorry for the shortage of articles as well.  I was in the midst of writing a long one the other day when Internet Explorer crashed, leaving me with nothing (long live Mozilla Firefox).  Then I started writing another one and when I tried to post that, Blogdrive crashed (sigh).  So I'm a little tired and irritated with technology right now.  These problems really need to be managed, sheesh.  Take care all :) and sorry again for any inconvenience.

Well, PM Lee is currently on the last point of his 5-point speech (Economy, Region, Population, Digital Age, Heartware) which focussed on Singapore having to adapt in a "rapidly-changing world".  The rally speech has been largely unsurprising, with most of my predictions in the previous entry making an appearance (I'll re-post them below, and put the predictions which appeared in emphases), but there are several things which caught my attention.

1) There was no mention of new policies, which is a change from last year's National Day Rally Speech where policies were announced to help those from lower income groups with issues like healthcare and housing.  PM Lee announced that there would be no "quick-fix" solutions.

2) There was indeed a mention of the IMF and World Bank meetings, but no mention was made over the controversy of whether or not protests would be allowed.  I had imagined, I confess, that he would talk a little bit of sovereignty and retaining independence/principles/traditions of stability even in the midst of this "rapidly-changing world".

3) PM Lee stated that the government would have to adapt to the Digital Age.  This segment of the speech naturally held the most interest for me.  He said: "PAP should be in MySpace" (I want to see that happen, I tell you).  He also mentioned that the ministries are considering new media like podcasts and vodcasts, and "will experiment".

This may mark an important milestone in the approach the PAP takes to new media.  It appears that they are going to take to the Internet and appropriate it as a useful tool.  Good! PAP podcasts and Workers' Party podcasts 'facing off' on the Internet is infinitely more constructive to a democratic environment than no podcasts from anyone. 

No doubt though, this will spawn some paranoia that the PAP is now starting to 'take over' the Internet and to control it (especially since PM Lee did say that the Digital Age will bring about new problems which need to be "managed" -- a word which has become particularly infamous since Denise Phua first used it in the context of the Internet).  I say: take a more open-minded approach and look at these developments as having been positive.  A 'light touch' remained a light touch after all, despite many suggestions to the contrary.

PM also mentioned that the government will "lose respect and moral authority" if they do not respond to criticism -- which I agree with.  He took the mr brown issue head on as well, which is better than having swept it under the carpet, one supposes.  His response came across as rather heavy-handed, in line with his stance that politics is about serious national issues, and that mr brown's "mocking and dismissive" tone was unacceptable in this light.

Even as I write this, the mainstream media is broadcasting its report on News 5 Tonight.  It doesn't look like they are interested, however, in the underlying implications of the "Digital Age" segment of his speech, i.e. the PAP's apparent move to harness new technology for its own part in engaging Singaporeans with new media, and to change/update certain laws* -- something I feel is rather significant, because the PAP now seems to be taking themselves to the digital battleground, rather than relying on old methods of issuing official statements and replies.

I made comprehensive notes on the speech, but as I have no doubt that it will be given extensive coverage in tomorrow's papers, I hardly see the need to post them here :)

---

* Got me all excited; I'd thought he was referring to updating laws.  Apparently he was referring to old changes, and with regards to the Political Films Act, obviously not enough has changed.

---

Off the top of my head, here are some predictions: overseas Singaporeans, foreign talent, oil prices affecting all of us and hence the need to accept rising costs of living, the realization that the need to stay competitive will affect people from the lower income groups more, but that opportunities will be given, re-training, maybe a welfare scheme or two, same goes for older workers who find that their CPF is not enough, or those who struggle with healthcare costs.  Also, the need to modernize our city to deal with global visitors e.g. the IMF and World Bank, or beyond that, tourists; the Integrated Resorts (which will provide much employment), perhaps something about speaking good English, the need to remain a stable society so as to attract investors, hence the need for law and order and a tight watch over racial sensibilities (esp. given the threat of terrorism and also the Israel-Lebanon crisis), however, the need to balance that with liberal and progressive thinking, people who know their minds and speak it, yet being mindful of their responsibilities (maybe blogs and journalists will get some sort of mention at this point).  Also perhaps to balance globalization with the recognition that we are still very much our own sovereign nation and should only absorb the good stuff, not the bad, and to guard ourselves well from the shocks of globalization, and furthermore, to always see Singapore as our home in this big wide world no matter how globalized it is, and hence stay together while we move ahead, etcetera, etcetera.

"I will stand again in Tanjong Pagar," said Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew at a National Day Dinner, as reported in the Straits Times yesterday (Sat, August 19/06).  If MM Lee runs in Tanjong Pagar, he will win.  And he will win more convincingly than his son did in Ang Mo Kio GRC.  I wonder if that will cast his shadow even longer over PM Lee's regime.

"The trouble now is that Singaporeans believe we'll always have a PAP government," MM Lee also said.  "One day they will wake up and they'll find the opposition is the government, a miscalculation." By then, it would be "too late to regret".  Sigh.  I was going to tackle this step by step, but I'll leave it till later.  One interesting thing I did note was that the justification for upgrading has changed a little bit from the original, trite, "a party has the right to favour its own supporters" (commented on here).  It is interesting to see how new arguments are woven everyday to justify old wrongs.  It is also interesting to read how MM Lee said that "I hope in a quiet way, this message will be understood".  Yes, residents of Hougang and Potong Pasir, make sure you suffer quietly.  Don't disturb the peace and stability of the rest of us obedient PAP-fearing citizens.

PM Lee to deliver National Rally Speech tonight.  I can't pay very close attention to it (more prelim papers tomorrow!) but one possible theme could be the consequences of globalization.  Off the top of my head, here are some predictions: overseas Singaporeans, foreign talent, oil prices affecting all of us and hence the need to accept rising costs of living, the realization that the need to stay competitive will affect people from the lower income groups more, but that opportunities will be given, re-training, maybe a welfare scheme or two, same goes for older workers who find that their CPF is not enough, or those who struggle with healthcare costs.  Also, the need to modernize our city to deal with global visitors e.g. the IMF and World Bank, or beyond that, tourists; the Integrated Resorts (which will provide much employment), perhaps something about speaking good English, the need to remain a stable society so as to attract investors, hence the need for law and order and a tight watch over racial sensibilities (esp. given the threat of terrorism and also the Israel-Lebanon crisis), however, the need to balance that with liberal and progressive thinking, people who know their minds and speak it, yet being mindful of their responsibilities (maybe blogs and journalists will get some sort of mention at this point).  Also perhaps to balance globalization with the recognition that we are still very much our own sovereign nation and should only absorb the good stuff, not the bad, and to guard ourselves well from the shocks of globalization, and furthermore, to always see Singapore as our home in this big wide world no matter how globalized it is, and hence stay together while we move ahead, etcetera, etcetera.

I have decided that if the PAP ever needs a strong argument as to why democracy is dangerous and important decisions should never be left to Singaporeans, their ultimate trump of a case would be this:

When I saw Mathilda D'Silva voted off Singapore Idol less than 3 hours ago, I felt the illusions of my youthful idealism fade away.  Singaporeans have dismissed the best female vocalist in the competition and the only individual to date that I have seen on this season's episodes to make any headway into giving his/her performance character, subtlety and narrative (admittedly I haven't had the time to watch many of the episodes, but I've seen and heard enough to be confident in my opinion).  Mathilda is far from perfect, but to think that she was voted out in favour of Paul Twohill (who obviously has charisma but zero chance of being taken seriously as a recording artist with his airy vocals that meander off-tune the moment he starts his intense posturing) or Joakim Gomez (energizer bunny that never says die -- even though you may sometimes guiltily want it to) is quite chilling.  Let alone the fact that Jonathan Leong and Hady Mirza, the only two remaining male vocalists who can hold a tune, were in the bottom 3.  No, I thought to myself, democracy schmemocracy.  People don't make good choices!

Of course, I calmed myself somewhat by thinking about all the various factors in consideration that made Singapore Idol non-analagous to a general election.  For one thing, the electorate is not restricted to one vote per person, allowing for bloc voting, whereby thousands of prepubescents pool their allowances together to vote for their sugars (one friend wryly pointed out that they vote with their uteruses, which I take to be the metaphorical equivalent of voting with one's feet).  This allows one zealous camp to vote again and again and again and again and again for one person, which may not be an indication of long-term marketability or stardom, much less vocal talent.  Secondly, there is the consideration of the fee one has to pay for calling in or SMS-ing, which means that somewhere out there exists a group of people who are sitting back, shaking their heads and saying they know better, but cannot afford to spam hotlines using their limited allowances; I include yours truly.  At the same time, this 'voting fee' could perhaps be likened to the poll tax previously implemented by the United States, which taxed those who wanted to vote, effectively disenfranchising poorer minorities, or more recently to a similar tax policy enacted by Margaret Thatcher, which contributed largely to her eventual resignation after rioting broke out in protest.  Thirdly, Singapore Idol is indeed an event meant for lighthearted entertainment and is likely not taken very seriously, never mind that it might certainly have generated more widespread interest, knowledge and dedication than any General Election has ever achieved.

Nevertheless, there are significant similarities between the Singapore Idol process and the democratic one to warrant some comment.  For instance, a close comparison could be a democracy with non-compulsory voting and poll tax; you can choose to vote or not to vote, and you also have to pay a fee to participate.  Either way, both processes are meant to boil the results of the election/competition to the basic essence of choice, and how it is representative of the people's wants and desires.  If Paul Twohill were to win Singapore Idol, it would be a triumph of choice -- the choice of those who were interested and dedicated enough to vote him as their representative, regardless of whether or not he can sing.  Twohill would be a legitimate winner in every right, assuming the voting infrastructure had been in order.  There would be nothing I could do about it except express my disgruntlement.

The question which begs to be asked therefore, is this: should Ken, Jacintha, Florence and Dick choose a Singapore Idol today? Or perhaps, in the interests of achieving the best results for Singapore, allow me to suggest certain adjustments to the competition process.

You see, there are so many things we could do to improve the Singapore Idol system.  We should all write letters to MediaCorp with our brilliant suggestions.  They have worked so far in Singapore -- shouldn't we take a leaf from the good book and use it here, as well?

Because then, you see, I would have made Olinda Cho Singapore Idol 2005 -- not Taufik Batisah.  I feel Olinda is a better candidate.  I would have made Hady and Mathilda joint winners by now.  I feel they deserve it more.  I would dispense with this whole farce of letting Singaporeans have what they want because I know best.

Then again, a niggling voice in the back of my head says: but Singaporeans wanted Taufik.  And come to think of it, that's not so bad.  Taufik can sing.  He's quite good looking.  He seems like a nice, down to earth young man.  He even won the popular vote despite being from a minority group -- now that's testimony to his talent, and no one can say he didn't earn it.  Actually...maybe Olinda is a better singer, but she's just not representative enough of who Singapore wants to be their Idol.  Sure, I might think she's better, but maybe it's all about greatest good for greatest number, not just my limited perspective and know-it-all attitude.  And at the end of the day, Singaporeans made their choice, right? And it is Singapore Idol.  Perhaps they will decide better which balance to strike between vocal talent and personality, smooth moves and charisma.  Maybe I should just...trust a little.

So that's what I'm going to do for this Singapore Idol season.  Trust Singaporeans.  And if Paul Twohill or Joakim Gomez win, then maybe I will consider renouncing democracy ;) but I'll hedge my bets that they won't.  And even if they do, hey -- I'll swallow my pride and say: you get the Idol you deserve.  More power to you.