Statements on the Mandatory Death Penalty

The serious opposition parties have both released pretty good statements on the mandatory death penalty:

• SDP repeats call to abolish mandatory death penalty


• The Reform Party Calls For Abolition of Death Penalty for Drug Trafficking

If you haven't been following the Yong Vui Kong case, read about it here.

Scholar Bias in Public Service

PSC Chairman Eddie Teo said [PDF]:

They will get a good university education in NUS, NTU and SMU and their degrees will not hold them back if they perform well in their career, in or outside the Public Service. In all my years in Public Service, I have never witnessed anyone being promoted or not promoted on account of his university background.

Strictly speaking, this might be true: which university you went to does not have a direct impact on your career advancement in the civil service. But the concern that many people have is that it has an indirect impact: if you went to NUS, NTU or SMU, this means you weren't an overseas PSC scholar, and your career advancement will automatically be slower than the scholars' career advancement.

When I was interning at the AG's Chambers in 2008, I made it a point to ask the people there if this policy indeed existed. I didn't get any straight answers at all. Everyone I asked either gave ambiguous replies or just dodged the question entirely.

People say things are changing, etc. But nobody seems to know for sure. For many of the top minds at local universities, this uncertainty is great enough to make joining public service an unwise option, at least in the early stages of their careers.

Bridging the Gaps: Approaches to Hate Speech in the US, Canada and Singapore

Abstract: When it comes to hate speech prohibitions, the US and Canada are often seen as being on opposite sides of a great divide. This paper attempts to cast that dichotomy as a blurred one, by showing that the discourse on hate speech regulation in both jurisdictions is guided by the same two principles of human dignity: (1) all lives have equal inherent value, and (2) each individual must be allowed to pursue his own conception of a successful life. This paper also blurs the US-Canada dichotomy by showing that while both jurisdictions have seemingly different legal rules, their actual operation is likely to yield similar results in similar cases. Lastly, the paper turns to Singapore. It argues that the discourse on hate speech prohibition in Singapore is driven primarily by public order considerations that are overblown, and that this has negative effects. An attempt is made to locate the two principles of human dignity in Singapore’s constitutional documents, and it is argued that these principles should form the basis of a new approach to hate speech prohibition in Singapore.

Click to read paper [PDF].

Killing the dream alive

The controversy surrounding Ris Low, which has culminated in her resignation from the Miss World pageant, centers around two issues: her prior criminal conviction and her poor English. I am not so sure that these two grounds provide sufficient reason for arguing that she should not be allowed to represent Singapore.

Why is her prior criminal conviction even an issue? Is an ex-criminal who has realised the error of her ways always necessarily a bad role model? If her conduct has already been condemned by the courts and she has already been meted out punishment, do we really need to condemn and punish her for the very same act, all over again, outside the courtroom?

Why do we also object to her poor English? It cannot be that we think her standard of English is unrepresentative of Singaporeans: I find instead that the median standard of English in Singapore is roughly that of Ms Low's. If all we want to do is fool the international community that Singaporean English standards are higher than that, then we are just being hypocrites.

Are our criticisms based on nothing rational? Are they driven purely by our feeling that she embarrasses us? That is nothing short of animus.

Ris Low had a dream: a dream for herself, and a dream for Singapore. Have we mercilessly killed that dream with our unadulterated animus?

New Anti-Gay News Portal

A group of Christians is spearheading a new online news portal whose agenda is avowedly anti-gay: it is to be guided by "mainstream family values", which means "a man, his wife, with a view to procreation". They already have S$90,000 in funding, the source of which remains secret.

Read all about it here.

Spin when you're losing

Now that Thio is no longer going to NYU, the spinners get to work.

According to The Christian Post, Thio cancelled her visit "due to intolerance", and conveniently leaves out the fact that her classes had super-low enrolment, and that this was one of the reasons for her cancellation.

But according to Thio, the low enrolment is connected to the intolerance. She wrote in her resignation email: "As you know, the ireful campaign against me has negatively affected class enrolment". An entirely untested proposition that betrays the quality of her scholarship, which might have been the cause of her low enrolment figures.

And then William Donahue (conservative who is on the faculty at NYU) writes that he was disturbed to read that Thio was "intimidated into withdrawing".

Hello? What intimidation? If intimidation simply means not agreeing with your views and countering them with superior logic, then yeah she was intimidated. But I really don't think that's how people generally define intimidation. What 'debate' and 'diversity of views' did you want to have if you can't deal with opposing views at all? Were you expecting to just sail in and have everyone worship every word that comes out of your mouth?

Donahue also writes that part of his concern over this matter is driven by his interest in "securing a campus environment in which Catholics, and other people of faith, can thrive without animus".

As far as I'm concerned, there has been no animus towards Thio, unless mere disagreement counts as animus. In 2007, Thio declared in Parliament that "Diversity is not license for perversity," calling all gay people perverts. That's animus.

Also, there having been no intimidation, and Thio having withdrawn of her own accord, there has been no loss of academic freedom (unless you buy her 'horizontal chilling' nonsense). So quit whining about it, people.

And then, there is the classic anti-gay lobby tactic: when you're losing, whip out a death-threat: "Friends and colleagues have also expressed serious concerns about my safety and well-being." Oh, come on.

Time to think about anti-discrimination law?

This is the second letter I've ever written to the ST forum, and the second to get rejected also. haha. So my rejection rate is still 100%. Unlike my first letter, I didn't spend much time on this one. I typed most of it, except the citation, on my phone while waiting for a friend who was 20 minutes late. That also makes this my tech-iest post ever. haha. Anyway, posting this here so I don't lose it in the labyrinthine depths of my computer.

Time to think about anti-discrimination law?

9 July 2009

Recent comments by Mr K Shanmugam have initiated an important debate about affirmative action for Malays in Singapore.

I would like to add to this debate by pointing out a possible alternative solution for Singaporeans to consider: anti-discrimination law.

Essentially, anti-discrimination law makes discrimination by private parties illegal in certain situations. In the US, for example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for employers to refuse to hire applicants simply because of their race, religion or other irrelevant classification. An aggrieved applicant can therefore sue the errant employer for compensation.

Most developed countries, including Australia, Canada and the UK, have laws of this type. Singapore, however, does not. We do have some guidelines, such as the Tripartite Guidelines on Non-Discriminatory Job Advertisements, but these do not carry any legal sanction and are therefore often disregarded by employers.

How is anti-discrimination law different from affirmative action? While anti-discrimination law ensures that the process of competing for jobs remains on a level playing field, affirmative action is more suited to achieving particular results that are unlikely to be achieved even if the playing field is level. In this way, anti-discrimination law seeks to solve a more basic problem.

And an acute problem it is, too. In a 2006 survey of 1,500 local job applicants, 19% reported having experienced discrimination on the basis of their race (see "When black and white doesn't help", TODAY, 29 December 2006). Given that minorities make up about 25% of our population, and that race discrimination is likely to target them more than majorities, the figure is a significant one.

Aside from solving these problems, another significant advantage of anti-discrimination law is that it is less of a political hot potato than affirmative action. While affirmative action may be necessary in the long run, it is probably better to exhaust our less controversial options first.

Also, anti-discrimination law could potentially be a broad-based solution to problems other than the Malay dilemma. It could, for example, deal with the myriad other types of discrimination that job applicants complain about, such as discrimination on the basis of age, nationality or even national service status.

All in, the introduction of anti-discrimination law will, I think, push us closer to an ideal Singapore in which everyone is treated as an equal.

Mohan Gopalan

Is there a right to privacy after death?

I am quite irked that the contents of David Widjaja's computer are being spilled out in the press. How many of you would approve of your computer files being made public after your death? Should people be allowed to know who you sent emails to, what you googled, what you said to who on MSN, whom you stalked on Facebook, what kind of porn you surfed? And how many of you would want to have your suicide note, meant for a handful of loved ones, read by half the nation?

I don't know.

Racial and Religious Hate Speech in Singapore: Reclaiming the Victim's Perspective

(With great pleasure, I announce:) New on SSRN: Racial and Religious Hate Speech in Singapore: Reclaiming the Victim's Perspective, by Zhong Zewei.

Abstract:

In this essay, I argue that the rationales offered by the Singapore Government for restricting racial and religious hate speech are not only constitutionally unsound, but also not without serious moral and social costs. I start off identifying two main rationales offered for the existing restrictions, namely (1) the maintenance of public order, and (2) the promotion of an ethic of intercultural tolerance. These twin rationales are buttressed by a literalist (and flawed) judicial interpretation of the right of free speech under Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution. Drawing on hate speech decisions from the U.S., Canada and Europe, I advance a more faithful reading of Article 14 which affords greater constitutional protection for hate speech as 'political speech'. I next trace how the Singapore Government's regulation of hate speech is rooted in its avowedly Asian-style 'communitarianism'. The 'public order' and 'tolerance' rationales, however, fail to recognize that race and religion are constitutive aspects of our individual flourishing and self-respect, which hate speech attacks. The present legislative regime is therefore guilty of self-contradiction. Lastly, I sketch a different, victim-centred justification for Singapore's hate speech laws which is responsive to the profound injury inflicted upon individuals targeted by racial and religious vilification. This victim-centred perspective, it is suggested, finds a comfortable textual home in Article 152(1) of the Singapore Constitution, which requires the Government to care for the interests of racial and religious minorities in Singapore.

More OMG again

Neither could I.

Jenica Chua, quoted in Today:

“The person who sent the threat said he has joined a jihadist group and ... will find ways to harm my loved ones,” said a visibly upset Ms Chua. “And all I did was join a women’s association. I couldn’t sleep for many nights.”

When you wrote all the crap you did two years ago, arguing for the law to continue perpetuating its violence against my loved ones, I couldn't sleep either.

Josie asks the question she dodges.

From CNA:

The new president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), Josie Lau, has questioned the intentions of veteran members who are unhappy that newcomers have swept most of the executive committee seats in the organisation's recent annual election. 

In a statement to the media, she challenged these members to disclose their motives and objectives fully and honestly. 

Their motive, Josie, is to make YOU disclose, FULLY AND HONESTLY, what YOUR MOTIVES AND OBJECTIVES ARE.

Josie and DBS's HR Policy

I may not agree with Josie Lau's politics, but I think there is something not very right about what DBS is doing either.

Campaigning for justice on behalf of fellow citizens is, to me, one of the fundamental obligations of being a citizen (it doesn't matter that her conception of justice may be different from mine). If she can handle Aware and her DBS job well, at the same time, who is DBS to say that she needs approval to do this? DBS might fire her if she doesn't perform well; that might be justifiable. But to require prior approval? I'm not sure that's right. In any case, I hope she doesn't get fired just for breaching the "code of conduct".

Some comments on the Aware thing.

I see a number of comments in the blogosphere to the effect that Aware's 'old guard' did not achieve anything and were "just sitting there, getting fat". I think this is a very misinformed opinion. 

Aware has done a lot over the years, from campaigning against the Graduate Mother Scheme and quotas for female students in medical school; they've even gone so far as to table legislation in Parliament. I can't remember their other achievements off the top of my head, but see Diane K. Mauzy & R.S. Milne, Singapore Politics Under the People’s Action Party (London: Routledge, 2002) at 60, 159; Lenore Lyons, A State of Ambivalence [:] The Feminist Movement in Singapore (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004); and Lenore Lyons, “Internalised Boundaries: AWARE’s Place in Singapore’s Emerging Civil Society” in Michael D. Barr & Carl A. Trocki, eds., Paths Not Taken: Political Pluralism in Post-War Singapore (Singapore: NUS Press, 2008) 248.

If you're wondering why Aware has done so much but you haven't heard of it, the answer has to do with the way civil society groups work in Singapore. You campaign for what you want, but only until the Government starts listening to you and realising that you're right. Then you back off and let the Government implement your proposals in the way they see fit. Then you let the Government take all the credit. The moment you start getting all media-whore-y and high-profile, your relationship with the Government is screwed. And you might even begin worrying about worse things (think 1987). Keep your head down, and you might just get more of what you want. These are the unwritten rules of engagement.

This is the reason why you don't hear about the successes of many other civil society groups either: The Nature Society, for example - see Cherian George, “The Nature of Politics and the Politics of Nature” in Singapore: The Air‐Conditioned Nation at 139‐143; and Suzaina Kadir, “Singapore: Engagement and Autonomy Within the Political Status Quo” in Muthiah Alagappa ed., Civil Society and Political Change in Asia (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2004) 324 at 337‐341.

Lots of people are also asking about what GLBTQ politics has to do with Aware. The answer: although sex between consenting women is not illegal in Singapore, the retention of 377A is a barrier to many other rights that lesbian women need to have - to marry, have kids, access social benefits, etc. It is also untrue that Aware has never taken a position on issues of homosexuality: Aware advocated repealing 377A in 2006, in a position paper on the proposed Penal Code amendments (which I can no longer find on Aware's website).

Lastly, people are saying that GLBTQ people are just being "sour grapes" and that the takeover was done legally etc etc. I don't think anyone is really being "sour grapes". People are just anxious, and feel that they might potentially be disappointed, because so many GLBTQ people have contributed to Aware in the past, and to see that it might all go to waste...well.

But the fight goes on. It always does.

Anti-gay lobby hijacks AWARE

This is going to be rather interesting. For some time now I've been thinking that civil society groups in Singapore tend to leverage on their links with other civil society groups. Or at least that their members, or the people who volunteer with them, are a rather fluid lot who move from one group to another on a very ad-hoc kind of basis. That, at least, has been my (very limited) experience with civil society groups here. I started out doing some work for Aware (coincidence), and from there various people pulled me into doing work for various other groups. It seemed that there were familiar faces in every new group I moved to. It has also been my experience that civil society people generally tend to be liberal. It will be interesting to see, therefore, whether Aware will continue to be able to leverage on its networks, or whether it will continue to succeed without being able to do so.

The takeover is also interesting because civil society groups, some argue, are meant to act as a bulwark against the power of the state. Do the anti-gay lobbyists see themselves as being in opposition to the state? If so, then one can maybe draw some conclusions about where the anti-gay lobbyists think the government stands on this issue. And one can also think about whether these lobbyists see themselves as being in the majority or the minority among Singaporeans. The answer to that question, of course, will determine whether the arguments they usually put forward can be defeated on their own terms.

For more on this, see this blog post by Sam Ho, which has links at the end.

Straits Times, April 10, 2009

Unknowns knock out veterans at Aware polls

Caught off-guard by big turnout, longtime members lose to fresh faces

By Wong Kim Hoh

SINGAPORE'S best-known women's group, the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), has seen a dramatic changing of the guard - which some members are describing as nothing short of a leadership grab.

When Aware held its annual general meeting on March 28, everyone expected the usual: No more than 30 or 40 members would turn up at its Dover Crescent centre, and a prepared slate of candidates would be voted into office easily.

Instead, more than 100 people came, the majority of whom had joined Aware only in recent months.

And when the election of office bearers began, almost every position was challenged by new faces, who won by wide majorities.

In the end, nine out of 12 executive committee spots went to the newcomers.

One older member who won without a contest was Mrs Claire Nazar, a former corporate counsel nominated to be president by outgoing Aware chief Constance Singam.

But barely a week into her new term, and before making her first statement as president, Mrs Nazar quit suddenly this week.

She confirmed that she had resigned, but declined to say any more when reached by The Straits Times.

It is not known who will now become president.

Longtime members took two other positions: Chew I-Jin as assistant honorary treasurer and Caris Lim Chai Leng was elected a committee member.

The election results have left longtime Aware members in shock.

Former president Tan Joo Hymn, 38, told The Straits Times the big turnout at the AGM surprised her.

'I arrived at the meeting late and found out that I was No. 100 on the attendance list. I've been a member for 10 years, and never before has there been such a turnout,' said the former lawyer who is now a full-time mother.

Another former president, writer Dana Lam, 57, said: 'There were many faces I had not seen before, and I found that very strange.

'In previous years, even if there were new members, they would be known to one or more of the older members.'

The first indication that something was afoot came when Ms Chew, an Aware veteran, was challenged and defeated handsomely by new member Charlotte Wong Hock Soon for the post of vice-president.

Ms Chew was later elected unopposed as assistant honorary treasurer.

'It was alarming,' said Ms Lam. 'How could a new member who had just joined for a couple of months, and whom we knew nothing about, be picked over someone who has been with Aware for more than 15 years?'

Some of the older members immediately began checking the attendance list.

Ms Tan said: 'We found that about 80 of the 102 who turned up were new members who joined between January and March this year.'

Aware, a feminist group that has prided itself on being 'all inclusive', has never vetted the people who apply to be members.

Men can join too, as associate members.

As it dawned on them that a leadership grab was imminent, some older members at the AGM tried asking the newcomers who they were, what they stood for, and why they wanted to be in charge.

They got only the briefest answers, they said.

Ms Lam said she tried suggesting that new members serve a stint on Aware's various sub-committees before standing for election to leadership positions.

But such suggestions went unheeded as the election proceeded, with more newcomers winning executive committee positions by landslide margins.

Ironically, the old guard at Aware had been working towards changing their Constitution to make it a rule that only those who have been members for at least a year would be eligible to join the ex-co.

There is currently no rule to bar a brand new member from seeking office, and that was what happened at the AGM.

Ms Tan said: 'We were simply outnumbered. Technically, they got in legitimately.'

She added that the way the election proceeded was so unusual, it was hard to imagine that the takeover was not a planned effort.

'It could not be pure coincidence,' she said.

But little is known of Aware's new leaders, aside from the fact that they include women from the corporate sector, lawyers, company directors and academics.

Older members said the newcomers spoke well but would not elaborate on their plans for Aware.

'When asked if they believed in equality, they kept repeating they were there to support women and to make sure they got ahead and got all the opportunities given to them,' Ms Lam said.

Older members were keen to know if the newcomers shared Aware's vision and values, including equality for all regardless of race, religion or sexuality.

But one outspoken new member from the floor, who identified herself as Angela Thiang, said questions about the new office bearers' religion and their stand on homosexuality were not relevant.

Former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Braema Mathi, a two-term president of Aware, told The Straits Times that she, like many other members, was concerned.

'If you are keen to serve, you don't challenge every position. We do not know who they are,' said the former journalist who is now in Bangkok doing consultancy work for international women's group Unifem.

'It is very troubling, more so because I've heard the new president has resigned.'

Almost a fortnight into their new roles, the new leaders of Aware were not entertaining calls from the media this week.

New honorary secretary Jenica Chua Chor Ping told The Straits Times a press release would be issued 'in a few days' and added that until then, the committee would not answer any questions.

A check showed that some of those at the AGM and on the new committee have appeared in The Straits Times Forum Page.

Ms Chua, Ms Thiang and Dr Alan Chin, a male member of Aware who attended the AGM and supported the newcomers, all wrote letters to this newspaper between August and October 2007.

In a letter on Oct 17 that year, Ms Chua said NMP Siew Kum Hong had overstepped his non-partisan role and advanced the homosexual cause by tabling a petition in Parliament to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises homosexual sex between consenting men.

In another letter on Oct 25, she took issue with a Straits Times report which said NMP Thio Li-Ann had been 'visibly distraught' when she opposed Mr Siew's petition vigorously.

Ms Chua said Ms Thio had dealt with several points succinctly, with humour and passion.

Dr Chin and Ms Thiang both wrote letters to caution against the risks of promoting the homosexual lifestyle.

Meanwhile, news of Aware's AGM has spread among older members who did not attend the meeting, as well as civil society groups.

The most frequently-asked questions: Who are the new women in charge, why do they want the leadership, and what are their plans for Aware?

Ms Mathi said: 'The building of an institution takes many years; building its value system is even harder.

'Why can't they come in and be part of the process, and build it together and in a more evolutionary manner? That way, the comfort level will be high for everyone.'

Former newspaper editor and media consultant Peter Lim, a longtime associate member of Aware, said he was very surprised to learn what had taken place.

Asked why he thought a group of newcomers would want to take control, he said he did not know if it was an orchestrated effort.

But he thought Aware would be attractive to those seeking to be in charge of an established institution. Setting up a new outfit would take too much time and trouble.

'Aware has built up its credentials over the years and achieved more than a few things,' he said.

Three former Aware presidents - Ms Claire Chiang, Dr Kanwaljit Soin and Ms Mathi - have served as NMPs.

'Aware is a brand name and most people regard it as the leading voice of the feminists and modern women in Singapore,' said Mr Lim.