Singabloodypore

Justice must be done and be seen to be done. This is a farce that belongs in a kangaroo court.

SINGAPORE: Feer's defence frivolous, say lawyers for Prime Minister and Minister Mentor

Ministers' lawyers could seek summary judgement in defamation case if Far Eastern Economic Review's defense is proven baseless

The Straits Times
Thursday, Aug 29, 2007

By Zakir Hussain

The lawyers for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew have filed a reply to the arguments made by the Far Eastern Economic Review (Feer) in their defamation suit against the magazine.

They said they reserved the right to seek a summary judgment and strike out Feer's defence, which they described as "frivolous, vexatious, scandalous and an abuse of the process of the court."

A summary judgment, if granted, means the court will give its ruling on a case without it going to trial, because the court is satisfied the defence is baseless.

Feer's lawyers filed their defence earlier this month and, on Monday, the Lees' lawyers, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, and Mr Hri Kumar and Mr Jaikanth Shankar of Drew & Napier, filed the reply in the High Court.

Review Publishing and Feer editor Hugo Restall are being sued for defamation for an article published last July.

In the piece, Mr Restall questioned, among other things, Singapore's reputation for "squeaky-clean government" and suggested libel suits are used against critics to cover up "real misdeeds."

The Lees' lawyers said the article was calculated to disparage both leaders by suggesting they are corrupt and unfit for office and would sue and suppress those who question them as the questions would expose their corruption.

In its defence, Feer argued, among other things, that the article did not defame PM Lee and MM Lee because it was based on facts and fair comment, concerned matters of public interest and was a neutral report.

The Lees' lawyers response, among other things, argued that Feer "did not genuinely and honestly believe" the alleged comments it made in the defence.

Also, it failed to verify the facts before publishing the article and was motivated by malice against the leaders, the lawyers said.

Date Posted: 8/29/2007

By Tan Hui Leng, TODAY | Posted: 30 August 2007 0854 hrs

SINGAPORE: Four years after former National Neuroscience Institute director Professor Simon Shorvon was dismissed for ethical violations, the ripples from that scandal have yet to subside.

And this time, the matter involves a wrangle between the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) and renowned medical journal The Lancet.

The SMC's beef is that the journal has refused to publish its response to what it describes as "highly defamatory" claims made by Prof Shorvon, in a commentary published on June 2.

In "The prosecution of research — experience from Singapore", the British neurologist had sounded what he called a "health warning" to doctors working in foreign jurisdictions, criticising the Republic's regulatory framework.

Prof Shorvon, now based at University College, London, was dismissed in 2003 for serious ethical violations, such as carrying out tests on patients with Parkinson's disease without making clear the risks or telling their doctors. He was also fined S$10,000.

The SMC then pursued the case before the General Medical Council in the United Kingdom — but the UK council later cancelled plans to hold a public inquiry, declaring that the neurologist "did not fall short of any expected standards".

In response to the Lancet article, the SMC submitted a letter on June 21, refuting Prof Shorvon's "baseless allegations" which impugned on "the integrity and independence" of its disciplinary proceedings.

An excerpt from Singapore Democrats, Special Feature
Chee Soon Juan
28 Aug 07

Pushing back


Singaporeans know this. This is why through the years, despite the near total clampdown on the expression of dissent, people of this nation have not relented.

In 2002, a handful of individuals attempted to gather outside the American embassy to protest against the war in Iraq. The police had to move quickly to ensure that the puny gathering of six didn't take place.

Falungong practitioners have repeatedly challenged repressive laws by defying orders not to gather in public and say anything to offend the Chinese communist government.

Then there was the white-elephant cardboard protest against the Government's refusal to open the Buangkok MRT station even though construction was completed and the facility was ready for use.

On the eve of the executions of Nguyen Van Tuong and Amara Tochi, anti-death penalty activists assembled at Changi to oppose the mandatory death sentence for drug peddlers.

Thirty participants donned brown tees and congregated at an MRT station to express their opposition to the removal of Government-jibing satirist Mr Lee Kin Mun's, aka Mr Brown, column in the Today newspaper.

And despite police threats and harassment nearly 20 people filed down Orchard Road in conspicuous yellow last December, distributing copies of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The gay and lesbian community also did their part. They organised two public events, one a picnic and the other a jog, to vent their grievances against the criminalisation of homosexuals. Despite the authorities banning both activities, the picnic went ahead (with an even greater number of picnickers turning up in defiance) and the joggers proceeded with their run albeit singly rather than as a group.

And in the last week or so, the local Internet scene has been abuzz with talk about a black-shirt protest at 4 pm on 8 Sept 2007 at the Centrepoint Shopping Centre. The protest is in response to the Government's plan to force Singaporeans to purchase annuity for their retirement. The speed and determination with which the protest was planned (on an online forum called the Sammyboy's Coffee Shop) clearly rattled the authorities so much so that they have resorted to sowing confusion, discrediting protest planners, and intimidating potential participants in an attempt to thwart the initiative.

Even lone individuals have taken the initiative to defy laws designed to silence dissenting voices. Martyn See's production of political films has brought to light the perversity of the Films Act which forbids the production of such videos. The police investigated him for 15 months and ultimately issued him a warning.

We are not alone

Wittingly or otherwise, these citizens were engaging the state using Nonviolent Action. Some of the activities were acts of civil disobedience where activists defied the authorities in attempts to challenge repressive laws. (I have discussed the concept and practice of civil disobedience in The Power of Courage as well as here and here on this website, and will not elaborate them in this essay.)

But not only have activists pushed the boundaries of political dissent in the local context, they have also reached out to the international community for support.

The Falungong human rights activists have taken their case all the way to the UN, forcing the Singapore Government to come out of its comfort zone to defend its actions. The anti-death penalty campaign, largely through the efforts of M Ravi, has attracted the attention of the UN. The recent visit of British actor Ian McKellan and his comments on the discrimination against homosexuals as well as the ban of Professor Douglas Sanders' speech has kept the issue of the criminalisation of gays alive among interested foreign onlookers. Martyn See's films have received international attention and screenings because of the police investigation.

More recently, a group of local civil society actors met with their regional counterparts to discuss how the Singaporean public can be consulted and involved over the crafting of the ASEAN Charter, which promises to include the respect of human rights. And, of course, the Singapore Democrats continue to widen and strengthen our international network to ensure that news of repression here is carried well beyond our shores.

Are things a-changing?



But has all this huffing and puffing gotten human rights anywhere in Singapore?

The honest answer is not very far. The PAP doesn't seem to have budged very much on the issue. However, to see the fight in such parochial terms is to miss the point completely.

A singular act of dissent never yields immediate results. Every action leaves behind a residue that the next one builds upon. The experience gained and the courage that radiates from that action elevates the general struggle another notch. Even for actions that fail to achieve their stated objectives, there is gain. Every time we initiate an action and fail, we don't return to ground zero.

It is the accumulation of each protest and each act of resistance that will ultimately take us above the threshold and allow us the success that we seek. In the meantime, every action, big or small, successful or not, is like a training session where citizen-activists hone their skills and build up towards the stage when our objectives are definitively achieved.

Overcoming fear

For this to take place, however, we need to recognise the obstacles before us. One big one sits like a boulder in the middle of the road. Its called fear Fear immobilizes. It preys on the weak-minded. It is what the PAP relies on to achieve its ends.

But if this is the PAP's tactic of choice, it is also the people's greatest hope. For fear is the currency of repression and repression itself is the language of the weak. Time and again, it has been shown that confronted by peoples who have liberated themselves from the clutches of fear, despotic powers have cracked and given way to popular will.

Powers-that-be generate fear by hoarding information and spreading misinformation. In another words, they need to keep those that they rule in a state of relative ignorance. Governments also generate fear by ensuring the atomization of society where each individual is corralled to become an island unto himself. When citizens are prevented from coming together, they are unable to disseminate information, exchange views and organise themselves.

This is why the PAP squats on the media and bans every application for public political activity. In the age of the Internet, however, curtailing the flow of information and keeping minds apart is like trying to breath in all the air so that no one else can have it. To paraphrase Ol' Abe: You can co-opt some of the people all of the time, and you can intimidate all of the people some of the time, but you cannot silence all the people all of the time.

But as much as the Internet affords us the opportunity to receive and share information speedily, it does not facilitate the physical congregation of citizens. For this, we need to look into ourselves.

We must recognise that fear will not disappear, it is here to stay. (But do we really want it to go away? Think about it: Without fear, can there be courage?) The truth is that whatever we do we must act despite our fears. Nelson Mandela taught: Courage is not the absence of fear but the triumph over it. This is where our spirit as human beings must shine through. Courage is about personal integrity as much as it is about civic responsibility.

To read the entire article

Harriet Alexander
August 29, 2007

THE University of NSW has used the secrecy laws of an authoritarian foreign regime to justify its decision not to release documents under freedom-of-information laws.

The university quoted the Official Secrets Act of Singapore in its refusal to release information about its failed UNSW Asia campus, which collapsed in June, stranding nearly 150 students and costing the university millions in compensation and lost revenue.

The university's freedom-of-information officer refused to release correspondence between the vice-chancellor, Fred Hilmer, and Singapore's Economic Development Board partly because it "may fall within the scope of the Official Secrets Act", a draconian piece of legislation that has been used to prosecute journalists, government officials and economists.

"Section 5 of the OSA makes it clear that disclosure of communications entrusted by a person holding office under the government to any person other than the person that is entrusted in confidence or authorised by the person holding office under the government will be guilty of an offence," the university's letter to the Herald said.

"In effect, the Singapore [Official Secrets Act] reinforces that the communications between UNSW and the Singapore EDB are confidential material and release of that material would result in disclosure of confidential communications made between UNSW and the Singapore EDB."

By Jackson Sawatan

SINGAPORE, Aug 27 (Bernama) -- Plans by Singapore's main opposition party, the Workers' Party, to hold a cycling event in conjunction with its 50th anniversary, hit a dead end after its application for a police permit was rejected.


The mass cycling event was to be held on Sept 9 at the East Coast Park, a popular beachside park located along the east coast highway here.

Party chairman Sylvia Lim raised a question over the issue in Parliament today and was told that such activities "have the potential for public disorder and mischief, and may disrupt community life."


"Police requirement is that such party activities be held indoors or within stadiums, so that any law and order problems will be contained. This policy applies to all political parties," Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee said in reply to Lim's question.


Ho said the East Coast Park was a recreational park for Singaporeans and their families and not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause.

The Workers' Party was set up in 1957 by David Marshall, the first chief minister of Singapore.


It has two representatives in the Singapore parliament, namely its secretary-general, Low Thia Khiang who is MP for Hougang and Lim as the non-constituency member of parliament (NCMP).

NCMPs are appointed from among the best performing opposition losers in a general election.


-- BERNAMA

From Singapore Democrats, Vantage
Gandhi Ambalam
22 Aug 07

==

I was in a bus the other day heading towards the HDB Hub in Toa Payoh when the scrolling headlines on its mobile TV caught my eye: "Manpower Minister to head a tripartite delegation to ILO conference."

But what puzzled me was the term "tripartite delegation" which referred to the team of representatives of the government, employers, and workers. It's easy to speak, in Singapore's context, of representatives from employers and the government. We all know who they are. But what about the workers?

In Singapore such representation comes in the form of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), the country's flagship trade union. But what exactly is the NTUC and who does it really represent?

The NTUC rose from the ashes of genuine, independent trade unions that were ruthlessly suppressed by the PAP soon after the party came to power. Ironically, Mr Lee Kuan Yew became prime minister on the backs of our workers and their unions in 1959.

Since its founding in 1961, the NTUC has been elevated to the position of an umbrella body for trade unions. PAP MPs are then appointed to head it, unabashedly calling themselves labour chiefs and union leaders. It has been the tradition for the NTUC secretary general to be a cabinet minister, drawing more than $2 million salary while our workers are denied even minimum wage.

In reality, however, the NTUC only maintains less than 20 per cent of our workers as members, leaving the majority unprotected. Its principal role is not to increase its membership base but to regulate the aspirations and expectations of our workers. In other words, keep the workers under constant subjugation to ensure that they don't become an organized group.

For workers to form their own independent trade unions is an impossibility given the all-controlling PAP. As with many organizations in Singapore, the NTUC is put in place to represent the Government.

After Singapore became independent, PAP leaders, on the advice of a visiting Dutch economist, the late Dr Albert Winsemius, decided to open the country to foreign capital and turn the island republic into a base for export oriented industries with cheap labour, generous tax holidays and other incentives.

In order to attract these multinational corporations from the US, Europe and Japan, the Government embarked on a concerted effort to further stifle labour, bulldozing through legislation such as the Employment Act, the Industrial Relations Act and the Trade Unions Act in the 1960s.

These laws collectively became the employers' charter, leaving the hiring and firing of workers entirely in the hands of employers with unions having no say. Strikes were outlawed. Numerous trade unionists were arrested under the Internal Security Act. One such leader was the late Ho Piao who recently passed away in London. Before he died Ho had recounted his ordeal under the hands of his PAP captors. He was savagely beaten by ISD officers and forced to submit to the PAP authority.

That's amazing is that the PAP, despite the changing economic landscape, still insists on maintaining these archaic and draconian laws that provide blank cheques for the flagrant exploitation of our workers.

The increasing number of suicides, divorces, and homeless people is the result of decades of exploitation of our workers – voiceless workers. This is coupled with the record number of millionaires in Singapore, many of whom are not Singaporeans.

Employers have numerous organizations and business houses to put forward their interests to the Government. Expatriates recently complained about the sudden surge in rental prices. Within days, the Government took measures to cool the property sector.

But what about workers? How do they fight for their interests? After years for servitude, the Government announced that their employers' CPF contributions would be cut. Recently Mr Lim Boon Heng, former NTUC chief, visited Japan and returned to tell workers that he found out that the Japanese were only allowed to withdraw their pension savings at 65. The implication? Singaporeans should do the same.

Like clockwork, the Government now wants the retirement age to be raised to 65. Then it raises the GST. And for good measure, it tells workers that they don't have enough CPF for retirement and wants to make it compulsory for them to buy annuity to tide them threw their remaining years on this island.

So what can workers' do? A big fat nothing. The "symbiotic" relationship that the NTUC has with the PAP Government makes sure of that.

As the bus came to a halt at the Toa Payoh Interchange my trip ended too. But my thoughts wandered back to our workers: When will the journey of their subjugation come to a close?

==

Mr Ambalam is Chairman of the Singapore Democrats. He is a former journalist.

From ThinkCentre

25 August 2007 - The Singapore Working Group for ASEAN's Forum was an initiative to promote interest on the ASEAN Charter process. More then 50 concern individuals and members of civil society groups participated in the forum.

The draft ASEAN Charter contains 12 chapters and has provisions for a human rights body, the 40th ASEAN Ministers Meeting (AMM) in Manila formally announced on July 30. The final draft of the ASEAN Charter is likely to be submitted in the first week of September and a special ASEAN foreign ministers' meeting is scheduled in Singapore.

ASEAN member countries will become more responsive, rules-based, and people-centered organization that will ensure honoring of obligations and be held responsible.

The top priority for the 10 ASEAN countries until 2015 will be building the ASEAN community, reduction of the economic and poverty development gap among member countries. Half of ASEAN lives in Poverty about 250 million people make less than US$2 a day.

This civil society consultation provides the space for direct people-to-people exchanges and participation in the process of understanding and contributing towards a people-centred ASEAN Charter. There is a need to challenge the "ASEAN Way" through greater civil society involvement, emphasizing the need to publish the draft ASEAN Charter and encourage governments to consultant the people.

Read More...

Taken from the 377A website

s377A of Singapore's Penal Code legislate solely against men. Under this section, a man can be jailed for having sex with another man even if it is within the privacy of his own home.

This website has been established to help Singaporeans who are for the repeal of this law to gather information on the issue.

TO GET STARTED...


It's important for law-makers to hear your voice. Those who oppose a repeal of this legislation are highly organised and work hard to make their views heard. It's time you do the same.

Send a letter to your local Member of Parliament explaining your concerns and request they fulfil their duty of office by presenting your views in Parliament. You can download a template for your letter here. Print it out and drop it in the post.

Letters carry more weight than emails or petitions, and every letter arriving at an MP's mailbox increases the likelihood of your views being raised for debate.

If you don't know who your MP is or where to send your letter you can find details at the Parliament of Singapore website.

Read More...

Reporters Without Borders / Reporters sans frontières
Press Release
23.08.07

CHINA

GOVERNMENT GETS BLOG SERVICE PROVIDERS TO SIGN "SELF-DISCIPLINE" PACT TO END ANONYMOUS BLOGGING

Reporters Without Borders condemns the "self-discipline pact" signed by at least 20 leading blog service providers in China including Yahoo.cn! and MSN.cn. Unveiled yesterday by the Internet Society of China (ISC), an offshoot of the information industry ministry, the pact stops short the previous project of making it obligatory for bloggers to register, but it can be used to force service providers to censor content and identify bloggers.

"The Chinese government has yet again forced Internet sector companies to cooperate on sensitive issues - in this case, blogger registration and blog content," the press freedom organisation said. "As they already did with website hosting services, the authorities have given themselves the means to identify those posting 'subversive' content by imposing a self-discipline pact."

Reporters Without Borders added: "This decision will have grave consequences for the Chinese blogosphere and marks the end of anonymous blogging. A new wave of censorship and repression seems imminent, above all in the run-up to the Communist Party of China's next congress."

Under the new pact, blog service providers are "encouraged" to register users under their real names and contact information before letting them post blogs. More seriously, they will be required to keep this information, which will allow the authorities to identify them. These companies have already in the past provided the police with information about their clients, resulting in arrests.

The pact says "blog providers should monitor and manage comments ... and delete illegal and bad information in a timely manner." Articles 11 and 12 urge them to equip themselves with a secure management system that allows them to keep bloggers' details, including their real name, address, contact number and email address.

ISC secretary-general Huang Chengqing was clear yesterday when he said: "Blog service providers who allow the use of pseudonyms may be more attractive to bloggers, but they will be punished by the government if they fail to screen illegal information."

The companies are also urged to adopt "sincere self-discipline and, of their own initiative, to protect the interests of the State and Party."

These are some of the blog service providers who have agreed to sign the pact - Msn.cn, Renmin Wang, Xinlang, Sohu, Wangyi, Tom, Qianlong Wang, Hexun Wang, Boke Tianxia, Tianji Wang, Yahoo.cn, Huasheng Zaixian, Bolianshe and Tengxun.

Link

Planned protest in Singapore against compulsory annuity...

Date and Time: 8th September Saturday, 4pm

Dress in Black

Center point

(SMS all friends, and have a day out)

And sign the petition