TR EMERITUS

Singapore's business-friendly climate has seen the country grow by leaps and bounds -- literally. But it's all based on a murky, billion-dollar illegal trade in sand. The causeway linking Singapore to the southern tip of the Malaysian peninsula is normally clogged with cars and trucks making the short international journey, but things got particularly bad on Feb. 1, when traffic came to a grinding halt. Thirty-seven trucks were abandoned where they stood on the Malaysian side, just yards away from a customs checkpoint, their drivers having simply walked away. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that they were carrying an illegal substance -- but not drugs, illegal migrants, or precious jewels. They were carrying sand. Singapore's economy quite literally rests upon maintaining a huge and continuous supply of sand -- and smuggling has become a multibillion-dollar trade, driving a huge web of corruption and theft in a country renowned for honest business practices and corporal punishment. The tiny island nation, one of the 20 smallest states in the world, has enjoyed a phenomenal economic boom since the 1980s. In the space of only 30 years its population has doubled and its GDP has exploded by more than 1,000 percent (making it now the wealthiest country in Asia). Singapore's economic success is largely based upon the phenomenal growth in its services industry. The country has taken advantage of two factors: its ability to process silicon for use in microchips and electronics, and its positioning as a regional business hub within Asia, connecting industrial leaders and business executives from across the continent. But the boom times have come at a cost. The country has, quite literally, run out of space. Since Singapore's independence in the 1960s, its land area has grown from 581.5 to 710 square kilometers. By 2030, the country plans to expand by another 70 square kilometers. That would see Singapore's land area grow 30 percent from its original size, giving it the same area as New York City. This added girth requires dumping a mind-boggling quantity of sand into the ocean, in what is known as land reclamation projects. To reclaim 1 square kilometer of land from the sea, up to 37.5 million cubic meters of sand are needed -- the equivalent of filling three and a half Empire State Buildings. Singapore's main airport is built almost entirely on reclaimed land, and one of the largest recent projects is the aptly named Marina Bay Sands project, a five-star hotel and casino on Singapore's shoreline whose major investors include the owners of the Las Vegas Sands Corp. There are two types of sand generally used for land reclamation projects: sea sand, which is dumped into the ocean as filler, and river sand, which has a far finer granularity and is a central ingredient in concrete, which Singapore uses in vast quantities to fuel its monumental building program. Although Singapore is itself an island nation, it ran out of its own sand many decades ago. Today the entire island consists of urban areas or protected-environment sanctuaries. This shortage has fueled a massive industry, worth at least $1 billion between 1998 and 2008. And it's only growing: In 2008 alone, according to its own figures, Singapore imported more than $273 million worth of sand, more than any other country in the world. But these numbers -- which account for only the legal trade in sand -- are only the tip of the iceberg. This insatiable need for sand has created a slew of problems not often associated with this by-the-book country, which is rated by Transparency International as the third-least corrupt country in the world, behind only Denmark and New Zealand. In recent months, however, a number of illegal sand excavation activities have been traced back to Singaporean companies. Whether this smuggled sand entered Singapore through government collusion or willful ignorance is hard to ascertain, but questions are increasingly being asked about how much officials really know about the quantity and provenance of sand imports. Until recently, the vast majority of it has come from right next door: Malaysia, which lies less than half a mile away across the Singapore Strait. And that's odd, as Malaysia has had a blanket ban on the export of river and sea sand for more than 10 years, since it discovered that materials for its own land reclamation projects were being illegally diverted to Singapore. There are no hard figures regarding the extent of the illegal trade between Malaysia and Singapore. The best official figures available come from the United Nations' Comtrade database, which lists countries' declared trade figures for a variety of commodities. But even a cursory comparison of its data shows that something is drastically amiss. For example, in 2008, Singapore declared it had imported only 3 million tons of sand from Malaysia -- yet Malaysia's figures show that a staggering 133 million tons of sand were reportedly exported to Singapore despite the 10-year blanket ban. It's hard to say whether either figure is accurate, but it's clear that vast quantities of Malaysian sand are being smuggled into Singapore. A recent report by the Malaysian civil servants union estimates that 41 percent of Malaysia's officials are involved in some form of corruption. Mohamad Khir Toyo, the former governor of Malaysia's most prosperous state, Selangor, has even insinuated that his successor is allowing the illegal trade to continue unhindered. "Sand is being stolen every day, and not a single lorry has been seized and no one has been charged," he said in May. "I suspect certain leaders from a certain party … are protecting the culprits." In June, an investigation by the Malaysian newspaper the Star blew the lid off the sand smuggling trade. The paper's reporters followed a Malaysian dredging company working on the Johor River, about 50 miles inland from the Singapore Strait. The company had won a transport license by claiming it was shipping extracted sand internally, to the Malaysian ports of Tanjung Pelepas or Danga Bay. The shortest route to the destination, however, took ships through Singaporean waters. Once the sand was extracted, the barges sailed downriver to the Malaysia-Singapore border and passed through customs. The barges never made it to the claimed destination -- they simply stopped at the Singaporean jetty of Pulau Punggol Timur, presented freshly forged paperwork, and unloaded their cargo. The newspaper estimates that around 3 million cubic meters of river sand have followed this route since 2007, making smugglers a cool profit of $77.8 million. Understandably, the Malaysian government is not pleased, having been deprived of $11.5 million in tax revenues. But the million-dollar question is how such massive shipments are able to reach Singapore without anyone being the wiser. For its part, the Singaporean government flatly denies that it condones the import of illegal sand. "The documentation that sand suppliers are required to show include licenses to dredge or extract sand at specific sand locations in the source countries, draft survey reports, and bill of loadings," K. Senbagavalli, a spokeswoman at the Singaporean Ministry of National Development, said in an interview. "[We verify with] sand concession holders of source countries regularly that the documentation provided by the sand suppliers is authentic and accurate.... To date, the sand vendors have all been able to provide valid documented evidences of clearance from the source countries." But this oversight depends on reliable paperwork -- and reliable officials -- throughout the supply chain. If corruption is as rife as it appears to be within Malaysia, the documents are not worth the paper they're printed on. Although the black market Malaysian trade appears to be thriving, Singapore's addiction requires far more sand than one country can provide. And Indonesia, a vast and sprawling archipelago of more than 17,000 islands (the nearest of which to Singapore lies about six miles to the southeast), has jumped headlong into the breach. Many of Indonesia's islands that lie within easy reach of Singapore have few or no inhabitants -- and Singapore has taken advantage of this geography, going so far as to wipe some places entirely off the map. Rapacious exploitation, which saw up to 77 percent of the world's sand dredgers operating in seas between Indonesia and Singapore, soon took its toll. By 1999, some islands had been mined so extensively that plans were being drawn up for sea walls to protect inland citizens from rapid erosion and rising seas. In 2003, Nipah island, which lies on the Singapore-Indonesia border, disappeared completely under the waves, "with only 3 to 4 palms trees visible to mark the island's location," according to the local NGO Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia. Indonesia's export figures show that, in the five years before 2002, it shipped at least 150 million tons of sea sand to Singapore in total. But the black market probably accounts for at least double this figure: In 2003, smugglers excavated and shipped an estimated 300 million cubic meters of sand, worth $2.5 billion. In 2007, following Malaysia's lead, the Indonesian parliament issued a blanket ban on sea sand exports. It was completely ignored, even by the Indonesian government. Over the past five years, a further 24 islands are believed to have disappeared under the waves. Even if officials were serious about stamping out the trade, it's simply too easy to steal sand from Indonesia's thousands of miles of unguarded coastlines. All any would-be thief has to do is pick a remote spot where large and loud dredging equipment won't be easily spotted and work quickly under the cover of darkness. They can return to Singapore safely within a matter of hours and, using forged documents, unload the cargo. And yet Singaporean officials still profess ignorance. Beyond the enormous variance in official import-export figures, there's simply no getting around the fact that Singapore's land mass has grown by leaps and bounds -- so the landfill is certainly coming from somewhere. Thus far, they've managed to escape the repercussions for a willing complicity in this trade by feigning surprise at bogus paperwork. For the time being, the trade is making all players happy and rich. Singapore is poised for a bright future: It is booming economically and has positioned itself as a world leader in urban sustainability. But to fulfill that promise, however, it must first swallow an unpalatable truth -- that its prosperity has come at the cost of it neighbors' corruption and environmental destruction. Size isn't everything; the country's sterling reputation is now at stake.     By CHRIS MILTON, Foreign Policy  Read More →

"To stay or go" is part and parcel of an individuals freedom of choice in where and how one wishes to live his own life. To talk about it is also part of the freedom of expression. In this context many of you have very kindly advised me on if I should quit or stay on as a Singapore citizen and other associated issues. I would like to thank you all for your responses. Having thought over various comments, together with other issues, I am going to tell you what my choice is and why. However, before that I must clarify some of the responses made so far in my first open letter in point form as follows. 1. Racism In xxirs response he wrote: (xxris: June 6, 2010 at 2:16 pm ) "according to sources Ho Juan Thai, you’re a racist and a Chinese supremist. I would think you deserve to stay lost." My simple reply to Xxris is : Could Xxirs please let everyone know what I have said or done which can be remotely make me considered a racist and a Chinese supremist? Xxirs, I do not know what your motive is in making such a serious baseless accusation. As a fellow Singapore citizen may I remind you to be careful about the propaganda. 2. Killing I must first of all thank Mr. James Ong (James Ong: June 7, 2010 at 11:26 am ) in his response he dug up the relevant "gut issue" speeches I made that were reported in the Straits Times. I should say, other than the word kill, those were the speeches I did make during the 1976 general election hustings. What was reported in the Straits Times probably was based on the ISD translated text that I made in Mandarin. Kill is an emotive word that can be used to justify their equally drastic action. What I did say in Mandarin was that the government language policy should not be done with the consequence that could lead to the obliteration or elimination of the Chinese Language in a proper translation. ie "while we are upgrading the standard of English to satisfy our need in building a commercialised and industrialised society we should not do it in a way that could lead to the obliteration or elimination of the Chinese Language ( and other vernacular educations ) " I have nothing to apologise for what I said. My statements told no one to hate any race nor any language. It has never been against the law of the land nor insulting to any religious or social value. What I said was a fair reflection of a fact linked to a traumatic event that I was victim to. The event was just 3 weeks before our Nanyang University year end examination in June 1976, the then Minister for Science and Technology, who was also our Vice Chancellor, Dr. Lee Chiaw Meng, dropped a bomb shell in our university. He announced that the exam papers must be answered in English regardless of whether a student was capable of doing so. Most of the students studied in Chinese since they started school and now they were told to switch to English overnight to answer their exam papers. The exams became one of testing one's language ability rather than academic achievement. What would happen if the chancellor of the University of Singapore were to tell all the students tomorrow to answer their exams papers in German just 3 weeks before their year end exams? How would you take it and react? Together with our student union secretary we called for an emergency student union council meeting the next day. Instantly we knew that something even more serious could happen to us if we were not careful. If we tried something that was directly confrontational we would simply fall into their trap. They were out to get anyone who stood in their way for their callous policy. During the student union council meeting we tried to show restraint but we could not go without any form of response. What we did was we unanimously passed a resolution calling for the University to allow students to be allowed to use either English or Chinese to answer for their exam papers. It was a very good compromise and that was the limit of what we could do. We never opposed the English language at all but just asked for a choice under the extreme circumstances. As I was the president of the student union, as well as the chairman to the students union council meeting, I duly signed the resolution. Accordingly one copy of the resolution was handed over to the Vice- Chancellors office and the other was put up on the student union official notice board telling the students what the union had done. The moment the resolution was placed on the student union notice board I was served with a notice that I would be expelled from the university. I was summoned to attend the board of disciplinary committee meeting to defend my expulsion. The only charge against me was that "as the student union president you placed a student union notice (the resolution) on the student union noticeboard without the Students Affairs Department prior permission." The student affairs department was headed by the then PAP MP Mr. Yeo Choo Kok. He initiated the charge against me and at the same time acted as one of the judges on the board of disciplinary committee.. During the disciplinary hearing I was offered the chance to disclose the identity of the student who placed the resolution on the student union notice board and so be exempted from punishment or face the consequences. I refused to discuss who placed the student union resolution but focused on reminding the committee that there was a precedent that students union notices were placed on the union noticeboard without prior approval with no reprimand from the Students Affairs Department. The well known one was that we held a forum inviting all the political parties to talk about the topic "The political future of Singapore = ?" To be transparent we took a chance to place all the correspondence we had had with all the political parties on the notice board without the Student Affairs Department approval. All the major Political Parties turned up except PAP to the packed meeting hall. The atmosphere and emotion at the forum was far far more tense than the election husting I witnessed. I was the chairman of the forum and the event passed without any punishment from the students Affairs Department as originally feared. I also protested that my expulsion was completely out of proportion to what we had done. In the end the Committee of the Board of Discipline decided to strip me of my student union presidency which I had been elected to by the majority of students in an university wide contest. Immediately after my final exam was over I called Mr. J B Jeyaretnam (JBJ) to see if any legal action could be taken to challenge the Committee of Nanyang University Board of Discipline decision. During our meeting Mr. JBJ told me that I would not get very far with the court. He further explained to me that the Singapore general election would be coming in a few months time and there would be more I could do if I joined the Workers' Party and stood for election. I agreed as it made sense to me especially where I could exercise my democratic right during the husting to speak out on all the nonsenses I encountered in Nanyang University and other social issues in various mass rallies. I did just that. During the December 1976 General Election the Chinese version of the PAP organ also challenged the oppositions to speak out on gut issues. ie the sensitive Chinese language and other vernaculars education policies etc. Before I made those speeches which James Ong helped to report, I did consult with Mr. JBJ and the then Workers' Party Chairman, Mr. Wong Hong Toy. Speaking as an opposition we had to speak with certain style. The speeches I made never talked down on any language except to defend the Chinese one which was very much related to my traumatic experience. It was important for me to sieze such an opportunity to tell our fellow Singaporeans on the hustings what had happened in our University as well as the impact of the new education policy in our country since the MSM blacked out all the news. There was no conspiracy and no strings behind me telling me what to do. It was purely my personal conscious decision to stand for election as a Workers' Party candidate after I voluntarily went to see Mr. JBJ who I happened to meet in the Singapore Political Future forum that our unions had organised a few months earlier. I needed Mr. JBJ's legal assistance when challenging Nanyang university Board of Disciplinary Committee decision legally but I ended up joining Mr. JBJ and and others to stand for the general election. I am pleased I did that as it was a much better way to address the problems in our university and other social issues. The ISD police and their spies kept pretending that they did not know about these facts and pretended that there was a conspiracy and someone was pulling the strings behind me. They kept saying that they wanted to "question" me to see if I acted alone or if I was acting for someone behind me. I wanted to tell them this Singaporean in general is not as gullible as they thought. We do know what our national interest is. The word "Questioning" used by the Singapore ISD police has a totally different meaning to countries in the west. It is a coded word meaning something totally different. If they truly wished to just question me they should have accepted my offers on many occasions to question me in London or send me the questionnaires. If their questions were related to serious matters and I failed to come to heel to their request for questioning they should have applied to the court for a Warrant of Arrest. So far there was no Warrant of Arrest except they kept saying that they just wished to "question " me. The "questioning" has been conveniently used as an excuse to denying me my Singapore Passport and others things. Singapore has a Sedition Act. Mr. JBJ had in various occasions challenged the government to charge me and put me on trial for those "wrong doings" I have allegedly committed under that Act, especially those allegations that I was inciting racial violence. I have also personally repeated on many occasions that I will return to Singapore to face trial if the government were to serve me with a subpoena on these charges. Let me repeat here and now that I am prepared to return to Singapore tomorrow to face trial if the government were to charge me in court The questions here are : - Why the Singapore government has never charged someone who they had alleged to have committed a crime of "inciting racial violence "? - Why did they never quote the exact phrases or actions that I said or did which could be construed as inciting racial violence whenever their statements said I was inciting racial violence? The answer is simple. I have never said or done anything that can be construed as a Chinese chauvinist incitement of racial violence. The whole phrases and notions were specifically invented to destroy me politically in this multi-racial society. This was just a routine they had used to destroy other Singapore politicians and social activists in the past. It is not difficult for those who know Singapore politics to appreciate how such dirty politics are being played. Traditionally to get rid of the trade unionists and anti-colonialists, the government simply branded them as a threat to national security and stability and then took them in under ISA without trial for an indefinite period. To get rid of the Chinese stream educated anti-government social activists and the members of the Barisan Sosialis they simply put a "red hat " on them, accusing them of involvement in underground movements that linked to the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). Many of them were also made to "confess" on the telly. Come to English educated progressive artists, priests, socialists, lawyers and various activists etc they branded them as Marxist conspirators and then destroyed them mentally and physically in the "questioning " rooms and in the MSM. To debase the dare to sacrifice open political oppositions, such as Mr. JBJ and others, they tried to project them as making the most heinous scurrilous libelous statements that deserved them to be made bankrupt for. Now the colonialist have left, the trade unions are being conquered, the Communist Party of Malaya has been dissolved, Marxism is out of fashion among the activists, Mr. JBJ had left us and other oppositions are under reasonable control, but there is still no peace and comfort among them. They are confronted with an even more difficult dilemma - how to deal with the conscientious netizens? It is very hard for them to put the netizens in as they used to do nor can they undo the power of the Internet. To negate the impact created by netizens the notion that " DOGS are to be ignored" has been expressed (unintentionally?). I just hope that those who are paid the top dollars are not going to adopt this notion and begin to brand our conscientious netizen expressing their genuine disappointments on legitimate issues as well as making their alternative views heard as just a bunch of " dogs " and to be treated in that way. They must respect and take our conscientious netizens expressing their alternative views seriously. Branding a social dissident with a bad name and then destroying them or ignoring them accordingly has been their modus operandis. I hope you can by now see where and how this so called Chinese chauvinist inciting of violence came about. I hope my explanation is clear. Would those government officials and others who still have doubts about my assertions regarding this matter now come out to tell everyone exactly what I have said or done to deserve such a derrogative term? Before I turn to the next topic I would like to ask: Who is the real chauvinist? Are we really heading in the right direction in the way we are going in our eduction and language policy? The economic powers are changing fast between the east and the west and us depending on our neighbours and the region we are in has been on the increase. We need to review what we have done in our language and education policy which many Singaporeans had seen coming many decades ago. What have I decided and why I will return to Singapore as soon as I can do it in the same way as any other ordinary citizen has the right to do so. I have done nothing wrong under the law despite the propaganda trying to project me otherwise. I do not see why I should not be treated equally just as any other ordinary Singaporean and have the right to a Singapore Passport to travel in and out of the country freely. To accept the Document of Identify as a means for me to return to Singapore in one way implies that I condone the discriminatory treatment which I am very much against. No Singapore citizen, or anyone else, should be discriminated against. So it is said in the first line of the first Article of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights " All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." I hold precious equal rights, freedom and individual dignity and I believe you do too. My decision to return to Singapore is simple. Singapore belongs to you, Singapore belongs to me and Singapore belongs to any other Singapore citizens. Singapore does not belong to any individual nor any particular group of people. Singapore belongs to all of us. We all have the right to decide what our fate is. These are not empty slogans. The Internet has changed everything. The power has shifted and more change is to come under the Internet and digital revolution. The sooner the self proclaimed elites and the MSM recognise these facts the better if they are to stay relevant. Whether you are being looked down on as a " third class citizen " or simply have no class in your English grammar it all becomes irrelevant. What is relevant is over the Internet no one can out cast or out class anyone. You will have the same media power as they do, if not now it will be pretty soon in the near future. No one can stop it happening. Many of our brothers and sisters have acted positively over the Internet and other activities positively. The most vigorous of these wanting to see things done better and fairly are just as dynamic as those active political and social activists campaigning for social justice and a better society in the past. Perhaps you do it in a different form with different technologies and in a different historical context. This inspires me to think that there is hope for our future. I am optimistic and look forward to what the new dawn may bring. It is important to tell the world what has happened and clarify what has happened but not to get stuck on what has happened. I prefer to let bygones be bygones and look forward to see what we could do together to achieve something better for tomorrow. I want to move on in order to move forward from where it was. Over my 33 years living in the UK under political asylum I have had the opportunities to travel to almost each and every other western European country, as well as some other countries in the world, either for my little tiny I T business or leisure. Talking to businessmen and back packers on my tours I have never come across any single country whose youth are content with what they have. They all are looking for changes, it is just a matter of degree. Even the most mature democratic countries such as the UK and others are currently planning for a major political restructuring. Power to the people is no more a left-wing slogan of the past but is at the centre of the UK right-wing Conservative Party led coalition government and other countries current political reforms. Trusting the people to have more says and control is the way forward. Many governments have seen the value of this and boldly moved forward with it and I hope our politicians are not a laggard for too long. No one owes any country a better society neither does anyone owe us one. If we want to have one it is up us to achieve it together. In celebrating our national day I would like to say this: I am proud of being a Singapore citizen and I love my country and our people just as much as any one in the world loves theirs. To never say sorry to love and love shall never die is not something just limited to between lovers. I want to return to our much beloved country to work with ANY Singaporean for a better society that we all dream of. It is ALL OF US and no one else who can help us to achieve what we want. I do believe in the phrase 'together we can'.   Ho Juan Thai [email protected] 19 Claremont Road London NW2 1BP United Kingdom Editor’s Note: Mr. Ho Juan Thai was a Worker’s Party candidate contesting Bukit Panjang in the 1976 GE. He subsequently lost and was accused of making seditious remarks during his election speeches. He is now in England and wanted by the SAF for AWOL and ISD for sedition. This article is his response to our readers who commented on his initial article posted at https://www.tremeritus.net/2010/06/06/an-open-appeal-from-a-singaporean-refugee/  Read More →

With public anger and disgruntlement against the increasingly unpopular PAP regime at all-time high, PAP Minister Goh Chok Tong has stepped forward again to "manage" public expectations. A former Prime Minister of Singapore, SM Goh once promised Singaporeans that they will attain the "Swiss" standard of living in 2000. Ten years later, only the PAP ministers and their cronies have "moved ahead" and attained the "Swiss" standard of living with the rest of Singaporeans left behind together. Though Singapore's economy has experienced phenomenal growth over the last decade, the lives of ordinary Singaporeans have become tougher. While the median salary of the average Singapore worker remains stagnant at $2,400 monthly, the cost of living has escalated, especially that of public housing which has risen more than 50 percent. The Singapore Dream is fast fading away from Singaporeans to be replaced by a Singapore "Nightmare" - low domestic wages and purchasing power coupled with increased competition and high cost of living thanks to the PAP pro-foreigner and ultra-liberal immigration policies. Still unwilling to face the truth, SM Goh "called on Singaporeans to spin their own Singapore Dream and live it, rather than focus on what he termed the Singapore Gripe." "While it was understandable that some Singaporeans griped about current concerns like floods, high home prices, crowded trains and distance-based bus fares, he said people 'should not lose sight of the many more things which are going well for Singapore," he was quoted as saying in Channel News Asia. According to a Wall Street Journal report earlier this year, the relentless influx of foreigners into Singapore has depressed the wages of ordinary Singaporeans, increased the cost of living, and led to an overall decline in the standard of living. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has promised to "calibrate" the inflow of foreigners by accepting 100,000 foreigners next year to prevent the economy from "overheating". Knowing full well that the PAP regime can longer provide the good life Singaporeans used to dream of, SM Goh now ask Singaporeans to look at the "bright" side of things instead. "Look at the bright side of things and live your dreams. This is far healthier than to live the Singapore Gripe and drone on like vuvuzelas," he said. Only SM Goh and his fellow PAP ministers can expect brighter things ahead. They will be getting a hefty pay rise at the end of the year due to the improving economy.     Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →