TR EMERITUS

By Eugene Yeo I read with amusement this letter written by Mr Peter Ho, Head of the Civil Service purportedly to Singaporeans which was published in the Straits Times Forum today. Mr Ho wrote: " Mr Tan has apologised to me, acknowledging that his article was ill-judged and insensitive to the feelings of Singaporeans." May I ask Mr Ho his purpose of writing the letter ? Is he apologizing to Singaporeans on behalf of Mr Tan or is he simply conveying the message to Singaporeans that Mr Tan is remorseful for his ill-timed article ? Since Mr Tan has realized his mistake, why wasn't the letter written by him instead ? Is Mr Ho trying to tell us indirectly that Mr Tan lack the language ability to draft a simple letter of apology ? Is this just another ruse to defray rising disgruntlement and anger on the ground towards bloated salaries received by the upper echelons of the civil service ? I seriously do not see any sincerity in Mr Ho's letter. When I was young, I was often taught by my parents that a man should be brave enough to own up and apologize for one's own mistakes. Once, I got into a fight with my neighbor's son and punched two front tooths off his mouth. My mother dragged me to my neighbor's house to apologize to his parents in person. She did not tell them: "Eugene has apologized to me, acknowledging that he was wrong to punch your son." During the 2006 general election, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made an unreserved apology to Singaporeans a day after making his now infamous "fix the opposition" gaffe. He did not ask his father, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew to write a letter to the Straits Times Forum saying: "Hsien Loong has apologized to me, acknowledging that his choice of words - 'fix the opposition' was ill-judged and insensitive to the feelings of Singaporeans." If even the Prime Minister can be humble and gracious enough to apologize for his mistake, why can't Mr Tan Yong Soon, who is after all, a "servant" of the people do so ? Is he too proud to apologize to us ? Or he feels that we are merely "lesser mortals" who do not deserve a personal apology from him ? I don't see any sense or meaning in him APOLOGIZING to Mr Peter Ho. It is utterly ridiculous ! It is unlikely that Mr Peter Ho will take offence to Mr Tan's article since both of them belong to the same elite "supergrade" civil servant clique. Is Mr Tan apologizing to Mr Peter Ho for causing him embarrassment and inconvenience for his ill-timed article with the end result that his superior has to clear up the mess he has left behind ? A man should be responsible for his own words and actions. I will be flabbergasted if our civil servants go running to hide behind the skirt of their boss each time they commit a mistake. Are we paying the top salaries to the right people ? Mr Tan Yong Soon has apologized to the wrong person and Mr Peter Ho has apologized for the wrong reason. Mr Tan Yong Soon should apologize to Singaporeans and NOT Mr Peter Ho. And Mr Peter Ho should apologize for failing to inculcate the right values and attitude in his senior civil servants as their immediate superior in charge of them. This letter is NOT ENOUGH to assauge the feelings of hurt and aggrieved Singaporeans. You guys are paid by taxpayers' monies to serve the people and you should have a modicum of honesty, sincerity and respect in your liaisons with us instead of treating us like idiots ! What do you take us for ? As masak-masak for you to toy around ? As a save-facing gesture for Mr Tan Yong Soon, we will not call for him to issue a public apology. A letter to the Straits Times expressing his regret over his ill-timed article in person should suffice to bring the matter to a proper closure.  Read More →

By Fang Zhi Yuan, Senior writer In an extensive interview given to The Straits Times last Saturday, Home Affairs Minister Mr Wong Kan Seng revealed that his ministry is currently reviewing public order laws to give the police greater powers to enforce them. (read the full article here). According to Mr Wong, Singapore's security forces need the powers to deal with such potential security situations pre-emptively on the ground and not let them occur and then deal with the consequences and perpetrators later. Though he did not explicitly outline the possible changes to the existing laws, my hunch is that a new law will be legislated to deal specifically with 'civil disobedience'. Under the present circumstance, processions and assemblies are regulated under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (MOA) in which the police is unable to prevent the assembly from taking place and can only follow up with investigation after the show is over. Activists from the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) had made used of this loophole in the law to stage protests against the government notably at the IMF-WB meeting in 2007 and the Tak Boleh Tahan protest outside Parliament House in 2008. The events were filmed, including the sight of police manhandling and arresting the protestors at the scene. The recorded clips were subsequently uploaded to Youtube where it was viewed by thousands of Singaporeans who were both stunned and disgusted by the excessive use of force by the police against unarmed, peaceful fellow Singaporeans thereby exerting the maximum possible impact and blow to the government's image. In fact, this has been a recurring theme in the SDP's standard modus operandi to generate awareness about their cause and to shame the Singapore government via the sympathatic international press covering their activities who seldom writes in favor of the government. The government is acutely aware of the damage these fiascos have done to Singapore's reputation as a modern democracy in the eyes of the world and hence the urgent need to revamp the current legislation to prevent history from repeating itself in this year's APEC summit. Under the proposed public order laws, the police now has the power to remove anybody they suspect to be holding an illegal rally or demonstration immediately from the scene before they are allowed to stage their show. Civil activists will not even have the time to reveal their placards, let alone film the non-event before they find themselves being handcuffed and whiskered away in police vans with the end result that their intended message never quite get across to the outside world. In Singapore's conservative political climate where protests and rallies are frowned upon by many, civil activists are walking a lonely road fraught with unseen dangers and pitfalls. Ironically, the greatest threat to their existence and effectiveness does not lie in the impending law to pre-empt them from striking, but with a range of "liberalizing" measures the government introduced last year including allowing outdoor protests at Hong Lim Park which has since proved to be a red herring. In the past, the government is often rapped for draconian laws curtailing the civil rights of citizens by outlawing outdoor assemblies and protests. Civil activists no longer have any grounds now to cry foul against unfair laws to draw public attention to the repression they have suffered at the hands of the government. Rather than keeping the momentum going, they would have to be on the defensive now, being stuck in a quagmire between making use of the little space granted to them or to continue to defy the existing laws. Public protests draw the most attention when they are held at appropriate venues. Restricting them to an unimportant corner of the island will reduce their significance and impact. On the other hand, certain groups have shown that in spite of the limitations and disadvantages put in place, clever and skillful use of Hong Lim Park can achieve a desirable outcome as illustrated by Mr Tan Kin Lian's minibond rallies at Hong Lim Park which drew record crowds of over 1,000 and exerted indirect pressure on MAS and the financial institutions to offer more investors compensation. With the economy being the most pertinent issue on the minds of most Singaporeans and an administration bent on stifling dissent, is there still a place for 'civil disobedience' in Singapore ? Or has its death knell been sounded ? Should SDP continue to adopt a hardline stance against the government by openly flouting its laws in public or is it more practical for it to accept its erstwhile adversary's offer of a token 'olive branch' by limiting its political activities at Hong Lim Park from now onwards ? Unless SDP is able to attract a crowd of at least the size of Mr Tan Kin Lian's rallies, its political forays, however heroic and meaningful, are unlikely to effect a significant change in the political status quo in the near future.  Read More →

Today I wrote my Opinion about a article Unionists, economists hope Budget will do more for sandwiched class in my own post @ Good Times maybe a Bad Time for Some. And I realise that maybe it's time to move on. I do not mean that I should quit blogging or give up trying to effect a change. What I mean is that I think I should start to do more. And the thing I'm thinking about is to start writing Proper Letters to explain about Alternative Views on the Same Article. For Articles that has a Singular Angle, I'm going to start trying to write properly about the Alternative View on the matter and send it to the proper channels. So this article, Unionists, economists hope Budget will do more for sandwiched class will be my first Attempt. Read rest of article here  Read More →