Make Parliament More Accessible

NOTE SENT TO SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT ON 25 OCTOBER 2011

Parliament sat to debate the President's Address from 17 October 2011 to 21 October 2011. It has been [about] five days since the debates ended. It is clear that the mainstream media has failed to provide comprehensive coverage of the debates.

For example, Parliament provides a link on its website to a special page for Parliament on Channel NewsAsia. Yet, when one accesses that link, one finds many speeches or exchanges involving Members of Parliament over the week are not even there.

From alternative sources like the Facebook pages of relevant Members of Parliament, it is clear that a good number of Members of Parliament received almost little or no coverage.

Either the editors of these mainstream media outlets felt that such speeches were not newsworthy or it was just impractical to do so (more likely the latter).

As an aged lawyer and Saint, you must appreciate the value of providing Singaporeans unfettered access to developments in the highest law-making organ of this country.

Without meaning to disrespect your wisdom on this front, I only wish to add that the benefits of such access far outweigh the costs associated with it.

In this regard, while I note and appreciate that members of the public already have hassle-free access to the public galleries of Parliament, I have a number of suggestions that I hope you will consider:

a. Set up a channel on Starhub, Mio TV or the Internet to provide live streaming or coverage, when Parliament sits;

b. Make available uncensored recordings (preferably with subtitles) of Parliamentary proceedings on parliamentary website within a day of any Parliamentary sitting; and/or

c. Publish parliamentary reports on the Singapore Law Watch website as soon as these become available.

I hope your team and you can look into these possibilities, among others, of making parliamentary proceedings more accessible or connected to lay persons like me.

Notwithstanding that you were the current Prime Minister's second choice as Speaker of Parliament, I am hopeful that your legacy as Speaker will be a Parliament of many firsts.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this? Feel free to react below or leave a comment.

REACH needs new chief

ARTICLE FIRST PUBLISHED BY PUBLICHOUSE.SG ON 24 OCTOBER 2011

A few years ago, there was a rebranding of the government’s Feedback Unit. Led by a new chief then, the Honourable Member of Parliament Amy Khor, it became Reach.

Reach plays an important role as an arm of the Executive. In its own words, its role is “to feel the pulse of the ground and keep the government apprised of key issues of concern amongst Singaporeans”.

This year, through its different leaders, the government conceded that it had failed to comprehend the concerns of the people, and it had misread the pulse of the ground on key policies.

If nothing else, this showed that Reach had failed miserably in that mandate. The only reach that Reach achieved in its restructuring was its sheer lack of reach.

Reading the speech of its chief to support a motion to thank the President for opening Parliament, one can perhaps understand why.

Khor remarked, “Online engagement will increasingly become more important with the growing number of digital citizens. It is simply impossible to engage on all sites. The government could engage on sites which allow for reasoned and constructive debate and gain traction. Netizens themselves who desire rational discourse should support such sites or else start them. They should not be afraid of being labelled 'pro government.'"

In essence, Khor seems stuck in a time-warp. She is merely reiterating a past strategy of government that has failed: we deal with online media, on our own terms, with persons who will bravely wear the badge “pro government”.

In doing so, Khor has only shown why she is a better politician reaching out to her exclusive die-hard white-wearing fans rather than a feedback chief desiring to be inclusive, regardless of how critical the views may be of government. She seems to have no misgivings polarising the digital citizenry by labelling them as irrational and destructive. Her sentiments perhaps reflect that Khor may have passed her ‘use by’ date, and why one would be hard-pressed to justify her relevance as the face of Reach.

Contrast Khor’s remarks with the more enlightened and practical approach highlighted by her colleague, the Honourable Member of Parliament Baey Yam Keng.

Baey shared, “All communication media are neutral and social media is no exception. It is just another milestone in the evolution of media landscape. It is up to us to adapt and leverage on them.”

He then suggested, “The government does not have to rebut every single rumour or set the record straight for every misrepresentation made, even on the platforms it chooses to engage. Sometimes, it is better to leave the discussion open and not jump into defence too quickly or even at all. Firstly, it is not possible. Secondly, the time, money and effort expended would not be justified. Thirdly, the government should also trust in the public’s ability to make logical assessment of the information they encounter online. The government has to accept that it cannot and should not try to have the last word on every debate. Whether we like it or not, civic engagement in cyberspace has to be treated with the same level of respect and care, planned and delivered with the same competence we wish to achieve in our physical domain. Netizens expect their government to engage with finesse, diplomacy and sincerity.”

Baey speaks from the heart. He is a media veteran, in light of his track record as an artiste and communication professional. It is no surprise therefore that his views resonate with many in online media circles, including veteran journalists like Cherian George.

Being the natural charmer that he is, he has the potential to reflect the face of a government capable of engaging its citizens ‘with finesse, diplomacy and sincerity’. It is time for Baey to replace Khor as chief of Reach.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this? Feel free to react below or leave a comment.

Empower Law Society if Government open

According to one news media, the Honourable Minister for Law Kasiviswanathan Shanmugam has recently remarked, "We don't, as the government, have a monopoly on ideas - nor expertise, nor resources in every field. And there's a clear recognition that to achieve the best possible policies for Singapore, we have to tap on the private sector and volunteers. This ensures a range of perspectives and diverse, and often better ideas."

While I accept the Minister means well, I approach his views with some measure of caution. If this is something the Minister is really serious about, he can do two things immediately in an area that comes under his direct purview.

First, section 48 (1) (c) of the Legal Profession Act (LPA) allows the minister to appoint 3 advocates and solicitors to sit on the Council of the Law Society of Singapore. A former President of the Law Society has expressed concern about this power. The minister can return or delegate this power to the general membership of the Law Society or the Council.

Second, section 38(1)(c) of the LPA restricts the Law Society from "commenting on matters affecting legislation not submitted to it". The Law Society has sought an amendment of this provision in the past but it fell on deaf ears. The Minister can repeal this provision in order to better reach out to the private sector and to ensure diversity in perspective and ideas.

If the government has no monopoly on ideas, the minister can start by loosening his somewhat monolithic control of the legal profession.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this? Feel free to react below or leave a comment.

Maybe, PAP Ministers not so talented - Part 2

Dennis, a reader of this blog, shared these thoughts below in response to an earlier post. I thought it deserves a space of its own.

****

There is a lack of talent of the preferred mound that the PAP traditionally prefers, trained from a certain predictable pool, ex-scholars, first class honours perhaps, subscribed to the same right wing political philosophy, favours the rule of the elite, etc.

It has now reached a time in our country's history when many well-educated Singaporeans do not feel sorry for lack of such talent any more. People coming from this traditional pool have largely run out of passion and ideas.

Obsession with GDP, the yawning gap between the rich elite and the ordinary Singaporeans, consistent failure to do more for our poor and disadvantaged policies, elitist education policies, government making money out of the people at any opportunity, opening of IRs, strange liberal foreigner employment policies, the list goes on and on. We debated over these in the last two elections this year.

Running out of passion

Why passion? Because the ethos of promotion and high pay have become a given in civil service such that many are driven by pay. Ministers do not realise but their frequent admissions of so called talent not joining political service if pay is reduced, is a de facto admission that the people they thought fitted the bill are driven by money, not passion.

Singaporeans should be relieved that these people do not join in the first place as their heart is not with the government and the people. I shudder to think how many 'wrong' people have joined political and administrative service because of the motivation of money and promotion. Maybe that explains the kind of policies we have had over the last 20 years.

"Singapore Inc" is nothing to be proud of. It is an ironic tag symbolising how the PAP government has gone off tangent over the past 20 years because of the love of money. The love of money is the root of all evil. Without the right passion, our people will perish.

Running out of ideas

The PAP government subscribes to a set of right wing politico-economic theories. We cannot assume that the government or the civil service will always be right in their policies. The last 5 years have convinced many people that they are making mistakes in their policies which have serious repercussions for the country be they economic, social, political and even moral.

In the past few months, I met so many educated, well qualified and well placed Singaporeans who have become very concerned with these erroneous policies. Yet post election, basic policy making has remained the same.

PAP is clearly not able to think of their little custom-made box anymore. Clear examples are transport and housing: essentially the government has shirked from taking the hard decisions.

I, like many Singaporeans, are rightly concerned about this business as usual attitude of the PAP government. If the PAP government does not indeed change from within, this serious lack of ideas and the continuance down the same path from last 5 years are quite a worry for our country. Perhaps many other Singaporeans not used to doing their own critical assessment of government policies do not share this view.

However, I take heart that in the past few months, I have met many many Singaporeans who share the same concerns I have (they are well educated and successful in their own careers, well travelled and well versed in world economics and politics).

We are united by one thing: our love for our country and our wish that our country can do better in many areas than under the present regime. There are many Singaporeans whom I am confident will step up to serve because they will not see their country fail or go down a certain undesirable path to which increasingly Singaporeans do not subscribe any more.

There are many Singaporeans who have passion and also, better ideas. We do not need to rely on the current elite in government and administrative service. Many Singaporeans are willing to think out of the box. The challenge for any political party now is how they can harness the passion of us Singaporeans to make a difference, to make Singapore an even better country and nation.

****

Finally, it leaves me to thank my friend and fellow corporate counsel, Chia Lyn Lynn, for permission to use the image that appears in this post.

Perhaps, the committee reviewing ministerial salaries will take a page from Lynn and Dennis.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this? Feel free to react below or leave a comment.

Maybe, PAP ministers not so talented

My friend, Siva, who used to work at the political desk of The Straits Times, penned the thoughts below.

*****

Lee Kuan Yew says there isn't enough talent for an alternative Cabinet.

Our new President (a former Deputy Prime Minister and LKY's first choice for Prime Minister) ran Government Investment Corporation of Singapore when it racked up huge losses.

The ex-Foreign Minister, whose new supporters mourned his electoral defeat, curtailed the arts and helped a regime that killed its citizens and imprisoned Aung San Suu Kyi.

Where was a serving minister when tenders for the SportsHub and MotorHub were screwed up?

Maybe, it is the PAP ministers who aren't that talented after all.

Siva Govindasamy

*****

The case that there has not been enough talent to go around may have been true in a Singapore of past. However, there are signs of increasing lethargy in the prevailing political leadership in Singapore.

More people, who used to support the ruling party, are crossing over to support the work of other political parties. The ruling party has also been hard-pressed to attracts strong talents within Singapore.

More former Malaysians occupy positions within the political leadership in Singapore, that has led some to speculate the ruling party may well be preparing Singapore for reunification with Malaysia.

Many ministers were retired earlier this year. No one is reported to have secured any key positions beyond those created for them in academia and government-linked bodies.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this? Feel free to react below or leave a comment.

Are lawyers excluded from Yellow Ribbon Project?

The Yellow Ribbon Project was started in 2004 to help ex-offenders re-integrate into society.

Its annual flagship event, the Yellow Ribbon Prison Run, around the populated Changi Prison complex will begin in a few hours.

I participated in the run some years back. I also tried to volunteer for the initiative some years ago. I was very excited that such an initiative existed. My enthusiasm has, however, been short-lived.

For various reasons, over the years, I have come away with the impression that there is a conscious attempt to exclude lawyers from this wonderful initiative.

I would certainly like to hope my impression is inaccurate but the information publicly available presently indicates otherwise.

No law association – whether the Law Society of Singapore, Association of Criminal Lawyers or Singapore Academy of Law – is publicly involved in the organising of the event, or even in partnering it.

No legal professional sits on the various committees administering the Yellow Ribbon Fund.

The featured employers and volunteers of the Yellow Ribbon Project do not include any person from the legal sector.

I found all these circumstances rather odd since lawyers play an integral role in our criminal justice system. This responsibility certainly extends to the rehabilitation of such offenders and giving them second innings.

It has been over 5 years since this initiative started. It is time the Yellow Ribbon Project involves lawyers, especially those from the criminal bar, more prominently.

I still support the Yellow Ribbon Project.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this? Feel free to react below or leave a comment.