ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN WEEKEND TODAY ON 19 JULY 2008
The Law Society has long desired to see a change to a 22-year-old amendment that ended its powers to propose legislative reforms. Last week, it tried again when it responded to the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute’s report on Singapore.
The institute had said that the Law Society’s ability to comment on law reform was restricted by law and that the Society “is currently not fulfilling its mandate to speak out on law reform issues in Singapore”.
The Society emphasised that it “only has the powers conferred upon it by the Legal Profession Act” and that “it will welcome a change that allows it to initiate proposals for legal reforms”.
The Government stuck to its gun, arguing that the rationale for the current situation remains valid, which is essentially to prevent the Law Society from interfering in political matters.
But the issue does not have to be seen in such black-or-white terms. The Society can concentrate on matters affecting its members. Then, there are the goals of getting the public to understand legal issues better and maintaining the standards of the legal profession. One can argue that encouraging reflection on law reform issues falls within these other aims.
It is on this basis that Senior Counsel K S Rajah was able to argue that judges should be given some discretion when considering an offence that attracts the mandatory death penalty.
In 2003, he wrote that such a penalty could be unconstitutional because the Privy Council had found in another case that it infringed the protection against inhumane punishment. Although later, Singapore judicial decisions held otherwise, he further wrote in 2005 that “Singapore judges are made of sterner stuff and can be depended upon to pronounce the death sentence in a proper case”.
These articles, in turn, generated awareness and publicity about the issue in the media.
One can also argue that the Society is still free to comment on matters put up by the Government for public consultation since “the public” includes the Society.
Also, the limitation put on the Law Society has not prevented many legal practitioners from expressing their views on a range of issues. For example, lawyers Thomas Koshy and Mr Siew Kum Hong have from time to time raised law reform issues in this newspaper.
Lawyer N Sreenivasan was recently highly critical of the prosecution’s attempts to water down a court’s finding of acquittal. His view drew support from Judge of Appeal V K Rajah.
Lawyers have also been able to express their views through other groups that represent them.
For example, the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association, on its own initiative, presented its views to the Government on workplace safety and health legislation.
The Insurance Law Association (Singapore) had raised in its publication some concerns about difficulties faced by insurers in making payments to beneficiaries of insurance policies.
In 2005, the Monetary Authority of Singapore began to consider incorporating provisions in the Insurance Act to govern the nomination of beneficiaries. Draft legislation was eventually put up for public consultation last year.
Another important group is the Singapore Academy of Law, where Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong sits as senate president.
Here, there is a dedicated independent law reform agency: The Law Reform Committee (LRC) headed by Justice Judith Prakash.
The LRC has produced some papers that have led to changes in existing laws or the enactment of new legislation. For example, the LRC’s work in 2000 led to the introduction of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act in 2005, which has changed how some professional services firms operate in Singapore.
Early this year, members of the legal profession were invited to propose reforms for the LRC to look at. This is a powerful avenue for lawyers who wish to pursue a reform agenda.
The Ministry of Law has never declined “to receive comments and suggestions from the Law Society on specific legislation where it concerns the legal profession”.
The Society has stated that its “current relations” with the Government are “excellent”. Thus, it may wish to persuade the Government to direct other ministries to follow the example of the MinLaw by being as open to receiving the views of the society.
The Law Society can be pro-active in pursuing dialogues with ministries or key statutory bodies. Such regular meetings will encourage the relevant agencies to be more confident about seeking input from the Society.
In any case, the legal profession also enjoys a special position in Parliament. Several lawyers from both the ruling and opposition parties sit in the Legislature.
There is nothing to stop the Law Society from inviting these “lawyer-legislators” to meet lawyers on a regular basis for an exchange of views.
And there’s nothing to stop a lawyer who feels strongly about an important law reform issue from speaking up about it. It will not be unprecedented.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Judge As Good Cop, Bad Cop
ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN WEEKEND TODAY ON 12 JULY 2008
The stiff punishment that the Supreme Court Judge gave to a National Servicemen who fled his camp with a rifle and five bullets and the exceptional empathy he showed the youth have put the focus on a rarity in Singapore’s justice system: A judge who plays good cop, bad cop.
Playing good cop, Justice Tay Yong Kwang told Dave Teo Ming: “Dave, you have had a very hard life. I hope this unfortunate and traumatic wrong turn in your life will make you more mature and a whole lot wiser and that you will spend the next few years reconstructing your life.”
Teo’s youthful life was one sad twist after another.
His mother was abusive and temperamental. He was looked after by his grandmother, who died recently, after his parents divorced. His lost his brother after the sibling was run over by a lorry.
He turned to his girlfriend for love and emotional strength. Alas, even that did not last — she split with him after four years.
In a moving judgement, Justice Tay said: “My heart hurts for you ...”
But then how do you deal with a “reclusive and self-destructive’’ 20-year-old who had created a scare by escaping from an army camp with a rifle and bullets and then holing up in a Cathay Orchard Cineleisure toilet?
Justice Tay had to play bad cop too and give Teo a deterrent sentence: Nine years and two months’ jail, 18 strokes of the cane. After all, deterrent sentences are seen as playing a key role in keeping crime under check in Singapore.
As Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong noted in 1996 when he was Attorney-General: “If anything has been made clear in Singapore, crime control has always been and is a high priority on the Government’s action agenda.
“The efficient and effective maintenance of law and order in Singapore is considered absolutely essential to its social, economic and political well-being.”
It was thus no surprise that Justice Tay ruled: “I trust that you understand a deterrent sentence is unavoidable in the circumstances.”
Also, Teo will be able to take advantage of the opportunities available in prison to rebuild his life.
Justice Tay said: “I hope that you will pursue your studies, listen to good advice from counsellors and learn many skills while in prison.”
Furthermore, his accomplice in the offence, Ong Boon Jun, who did no more than be in Teo’s company, was sentenced to six and a half years in prison .
Another factor that the Court took into account in sentencing Teo was how his actions had affected the good reputation of the Singapore Armed Forces.
Since not all has been heard about Teo’s escape, I would reserve judgment on this issue.
The bigger issue here is the well-being of similarly-troubled youths who are floating around in our society. Unchecked, even unnoticed.
They do show signs of depressive behaviour before they do something irrational.
In their edgy and emotional state, all it takes is an innocent and innocuous incident for them to explode. It happened to Dave Teo at the Mandai Hill Camp on Sept 2 last year.
Justice Tay did his best with the good-cop-bad-cop approach by sending a moving signal to the National Serviceman.
We need more than signals. We need to identify these youth early and get them the help they need so that they will not have to face the courts.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
The stiff punishment that the Supreme Court Judge gave to a National Servicemen who fled his camp with a rifle and five bullets and the exceptional empathy he showed the youth have put the focus on a rarity in Singapore’s justice system: A judge who plays good cop, bad cop.
Playing good cop, Justice Tay Yong Kwang told Dave Teo Ming: “Dave, you have had a very hard life. I hope this unfortunate and traumatic wrong turn in your life will make you more mature and a whole lot wiser and that you will spend the next few years reconstructing your life.”
Teo’s youthful life was one sad twist after another.
His mother was abusive and temperamental. He was looked after by his grandmother, who died recently, after his parents divorced. His lost his brother after the sibling was run over by a lorry.
He turned to his girlfriend for love and emotional strength. Alas, even that did not last — she split with him after four years.
In a moving judgement, Justice Tay said: “My heart hurts for you ...”
But then how do you deal with a “reclusive and self-destructive’’ 20-year-old who had created a scare by escaping from an army camp with a rifle and bullets and then holing up in a Cathay Orchard Cineleisure toilet?
Justice Tay had to play bad cop too and give Teo a deterrent sentence: Nine years and two months’ jail, 18 strokes of the cane. After all, deterrent sentences are seen as playing a key role in keeping crime under check in Singapore.
As Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong noted in 1996 when he was Attorney-General: “If anything has been made clear in Singapore, crime control has always been and is a high priority on the Government’s action agenda.
“The efficient and effective maintenance of law and order in Singapore is considered absolutely essential to its social, economic and political well-being.”
It was thus no surprise that Justice Tay ruled: “I trust that you understand a deterrent sentence is unavoidable in the circumstances.”
Also, Teo will be able to take advantage of the opportunities available in prison to rebuild his life.
Justice Tay said: “I hope that you will pursue your studies, listen to good advice from counsellors and learn many skills while in prison.”
Furthermore, his accomplice in the offence, Ong Boon Jun, who did no more than be in Teo’s company, was sentenced to six and a half years in prison .
Another factor that the Court took into account in sentencing Teo was how his actions had affected the good reputation of the Singapore Armed Forces.
Since not all has been heard about Teo’s escape, I would reserve judgment on this issue.
The bigger issue here is the well-being of similarly-troubled youths who are floating around in our society. Unchecked, even unnoticed.
They do show signs of depressive behaviour before they do something irrational.
In their edgy and emotional state, all it takes is an innocent and innocuous incident for them to explode. It happened to Dave Teo at the Mandai Hill Camp on Sept 2 last year.
Justice Tay did his best with the good-cop-bad-cop approach by sending a moving signal to the National Serviceman.
We need more than signals. We need to identify these youth early and get them the help they need so that they will not have to face the courts.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Friday, May 30, 2008
NTUC Income AGM: Let All Members Attend - Part 2
See Part 1 here.
REPLY RECEIVED FROM BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NTUC INCOME INSURANCE COOPERATIVE LIMITED ON 28 MAY 2008
Thank you for your e-mail dated 27 May 2008 addressed to our Chairman. Your feedback has been noted.
We appreciate the interest shown by our members to attend our 38th Annual General Meeting (AGM) on 30 May 2008. Bearing this in mind, we have in fact changed the AGM venue from the Auditorium at NTUC Income Centre to the Auditorium at Level 7, NTUC Centre, One Marina Boulevard, Singapore 018989. The new venue has a capacity of 550 which is more than twice that of the Auditorium at NTUC Income Centre. The venue was changed to accommodate the increased attendance this year.
NTUC Income has more than 500,000 ordinary members. You have suggested that Income should enable all its members to attend the AGM. Looking at the numbers, you must agree that it would be quite impossible to accommodate everyone at any one location. By changing the venue to a larger auditorium we have accommodated the interest shown by our members to attend this year's AGM up to reasonable limits.
As we have reached the capacity of the new venue, we are unable to accommodate more attendees. We have explained this to members who have contacted us and most have accepted our explanation.
We wish to thank you once again for your feedback. Please be assured that NTUC Income is mindful of the rights of its members and will ensure that members' interests are respected and accommodated up to reasonable limits.
We note that you have registered to attend the AGM and look forward to your presence at the meeting.
Jeffrey Lee
Chief Financial Officer
NTUC Income
RESPONSE TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NTUC INCOME INSURANCE COOPERATIVE LIMITED ON 30 MAY 2008
Thank you for assuring "that NTUC Income is mindful of the rights of its members and will ensure that members' interests are respected and accommodated up to reasonable limits".
Unfortunately, I cannot agree with your position. With all due respect to your good office, it appears driven more by pragmatic ideals rather than the position reflected in the Cooperative Societies Act.
Section 50 of the Cooperative Societies Act provides that "the supreme authority of a society shall be vested in the general meeting of its members, at which every member has a right to attend and to vote" (emphasis added).
Lack of capacity or "reasonable limits" does not seem to be a strong enough reason to limit this supreme authority and a member's right to attend.
There are many societies and companies in the world over which have as many members as NTUC Income, if not more.
One good example in Singapore is Singtel, which has over 300,000 shareholders and whose Corporate Governance Committee is headed by a top legal thinker, the Honourable Professor Tommy Koh. Despite its large shareholder base, Singtel, to the best of my knowledge, does not have a similar practice of turning away its ordinary shareholders from its AGM.
It is not unheard of organisations with membership numbers as large as NTUC Income to hold such events in even venues like stadiums. This is because a member's right to attend the AGM is sacrosanct. Such members cannot be turned away from attending the meeting simply due to lack of capacity.
Clearly, those members, who have expressed an interest to attend your AGM, should not have been turned away in the first place. I note, however, that most of have accepted your explanation and may have, unfortunately, waived their right to attend the AGM.
My concern is for those who continue not to accept your explanation. Surely, they continue to hold the right to attend the AGM and cannot be turned away.
However, if you can assure me that your position is based on the advice of your General Counsel to the Board of Directors and that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies is in agreement with the advice of your General Counsel, I am happy to defer to the view of your General Counsel.
Wishing you a fruitful AGM.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
REPLY RECEIVED FROM BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NTUC INCOME INSURANCE COOPERATIVE LIMITED ON 28 MAY 2008
Thank you for your e-mail dated 27 May 2008 addressed to our Chairman. Your feedback has been noted.
We appreciate the interest shown by our members to attend our 38th Annual General Meeting (AGM) on 30 May 2008. Bearing this in mind, we have in fact changed the AGM venue from the Auditorium at NTUC Income Centre to the Auditorium at Level 7, NTUC Centre, One Marina Boulevard, Singapore 018989. The new venue has a capacity of 550 which is more than twice that of the Auditorium at NTUC Income Centre. The venue was changed to accommodate the increased attendance this year.
NTUC Income has more than 500,000 ordinary members. You have suggested that Income should enable all its members to attend the AGM. Looking at the numbers, you must agree that it would be quite impossible to accommodate everyone at any one location. By changing the venue to a larger auditorium we have accommodated the interest shown by our members to attend this year's AGM up to reasonable limits.
As we have reached the capacity of the new venue, we are unable to accommodate more attendees. We have explained this to members who have contacted us and most have accepted our explanation.
We wish to thank you once again for your feedback. Please be assured that NTUC Income is mindful of the rights of its members and will ensure that members' interests are respected and accommodated up to reasonable limits.
We note that you have registered to attend the AGM and look forward to your presence at the meeting.
Jeffrey Lee
Chief Financial Officer
NTUC Income
RESPONSE TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NTUC INCOME INSURANCE COOPERATIVE LIMITED ON 30 MAY 2008
Thank you for assuring "that NTUC Income is mindful of the rights of its members and will ensure that members' interests are respected and accommodated up to reasonable limits".
Unfortunately, I cannot agree with your position. With all due respect to your good office, it appears driven more by pragmatic ideals rather than the position reflected in the Cooperative Societies Act.
Section 50 of the Cooperative Societies Act provides that "the supreme authority of a society shall be vested in the general meeting of its members, at which every member has a right to attend and to vote" (emphasis added).
Lack of capacity or "reasonable limits" does not seem to be a strong enough reason to limit this supreme authority and a member's right to attend.
There are many societies and companies in the world over which have as many members as NTUC Income, if not more.
One good example in Singapore is Singtel, which has over 300,000 shareholders and whose Corporate Governance Committee is headed by a top legal thinker, the Honourable Professor Tommy Koh. Despite its large shareholder base, Singtel, to the best of my knowledge, does not have a similar practice of turning away its ordinary shareholders from its AGM.
It is not unheard of organisations with membership numbers as large as NTUC Income to hold such events in even venues like stadiums. This is because a member's right to attend the AGM is sacrosanct. Such members cannot be turned away from attending the meeting simply due to lack of capacity.
Clearly, those members, who have expressed an interest to attend your AGM, should not have been turned away in the first place. I note, however, that most of have accepted your explanation and may have, unfortunately, waived their right to attend the AGM.
My concern is for those who continue not to accept your explanation. Surely, they continue to hold the right to attend the AGM and cannot be turned away.
However, if you can assure me that your position is based on the advice of your General Counsel to the Board of Directors and that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies is in agreement with the advice of your General Counsel, I am happy to defer to the view of your General Counsel.
Wishing you a fruitful AGM.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
NTUC Income AGM: Let All Members Attend
LETTER SENT TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NTUC INCOME INSURANCE COOPERATIVE LIMITED ON 27 MAY 2008
A number of your members have expressed a desire to attend NTUC Income's Annual General Meeting on 30 May 2008 at 6pm at the Auditorium, 7th Floor, NTUC Income Centre, 75 Bras Basah Road, Singapore 189557. I understand from them that they are being turned away due to lack of capacity.
Such a development is unfortunate for several reasons.
Members are the cornerstone of any successful cooperative society. NTUC Income is a key cooperative of not just the National Trades Union Congress but also of Singapore.
Indeed, it plays an influential role in the Singapore landscape. For example, NTUC Income has a decisive stake in the management shares of the national press.
Under your leadership and that of your predecessor, NTUC Income has been a leading light in championing transparency and accountability in the financial sector and the insurance industry.
I am sure you will appreciate that such meetings are an important opportunity for your members, especially your members in the minority, to hold the cooperative society and its management accountable.
Members also get to exercise their rights, as provided in the By-Laws of NTUC Income, at such meetings.
The gravity of this is only enhanced in light of recent decisions by your team, which have received much publicity in the media and will affect a majority of your ordinary members.
I am sending this feedback, as the members, who have been declined the opportunity to attend your AGM, would prefer to remain anonymous. I hope it can be looked into.
NTUC Income has crucially represented in its latest annual report that "it is committed to maintaining the highest standards of corporate governance".
As such, please enable all your members to attend NTUC Income's Annual General Meeting, in particular those who have expressed a desire to do so. Let your members exercise their rights.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
A number of your members have expressed a desire to attend NTUC Income's Annual General Meeting on 30 May 2008 at 6pm at the Auditorium, 7th Floor, NTUC Income Centre, 75 Bras Basah Road, Singapore 189557. I understand from them that they are being turned away due to lack of capacity.
Such a development is unfortunate for several reasons.
Members are the cornerstone of any successful cooperative society. NTUC Income is a key cooperative of not just the National Trades Union Congress but also of Singapore.
Indeed, it plays an influential role in the Singapore landscape. For example, NTUC Income has a decisive stake in the management shares of the national press.
Under your leadership and that of your predecessor, NTUC Income has been a leading light in championing transparency and accountability in the financial sector and the insurance industry.
I am sure you will appreciate that such meetings are an important opportunity for your members, especially your members in the minority, to hold the cooperative society and its management accountable.
Members also get to exercise their rights, as provided in the By-Laws of NTUC Income, at such meetings.
The gravity of this is only enhanced in light of recent decisions by your team, which have received much publicity in the media and will affect a majority of your ordinary members.
I am sending this feedback, as the members, who have been declined the opportunity to attend your AGM, would prefer to remain anonymous. I hope it can be looked into.
NTUC Income has crucially represented in its latest annual report that "it is committed to maintaining the highest standards of corporate governance".
As such, please enable all your members to attend NTUC Income's Annual General Meeting, in particular those who have expressed a desire to do so. Let your members exercise their rights.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Saturday, April 26, 2008
The Silence of Low Thia Khiang
ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN TODAY (SINGAPORE) ON 26 APRIL 2008
Those who have been following the media coverage of the Prime Minister's statement and his subsequent responses to MPs over the Mas Selamat affair would have come away with the impression that the two representatives of the Workers' Party were doing what Opposition politicians should be doing in Parliament.
To borrow a phrase from Nominated Member of Parliament Gautam Banerjee, the two — Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim — were "stress-testing". In doing so, they did not hold back. They asked difficult questions. They raised sensitive concerns.
Mr Low, in particular, found it hard to reconcile the view that ministers should be paid high salaries pegged to the best of the private sector with the one that, when an honest mistake is made, ministers, unlike the best of the private sector, should not be held as accountable.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong sought to defend the position by saying that the practice was no different than that in the private sector. He then pointedly asked Mr Low: "Let me ask the member whether he thinks (Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng) ought to resign because of this."
Remarkably, Mr Low chose to respond but with pin-drop silence — leading the Prime Minister to remark: "No answer. So I think that settles the point."
In the constituency of public opinion, that silence of Mr Low has now been replaced by a complaining chorus: "Why, Mr Low? Why?"
After all, there was no parliamentary procedure that stopped Mr Low from answering Mr Lee in a similar point-blank manner.
Mr Low has attempted to position the Workers' Party as a serious and responsible party that provides solutions. Yet, when the crucial time came to provide an alternative solution by putting himself in the shoes of the Prime Minister, Mr Low elected to remain silent.
Would a serious and responsible Opposition have shied away from such a moment, when the perfect opportunity arose to seize the bull by the horns?
Of course, one is also reminded of recent observations made by Mr Lee in an interview with Lianhe Zaobao. Among other things, he said: "Although Low Thia Khiang is very smart, he seldom debates on the core substance of policies. He seems more keen on catching the Government on its shortcomings, so as to embarrass the Government … His attitude is that his responsibility is just to criticise Government policies and not to propose alternatives."
Is this incident representative of what Mr Lee had in mind?
Then again, did Mr Low stay silent because he did not wish to embarrass the Government?
Indeed, various justifications have been forwarded by Mr Low's supporters.
Maybe Mr Low did not want to incur the Government's wrath and end up having to face a defamation suit. This holds no water since Mr Low would be protected by the defence of parliamentary privilege.
Perhaps Mr Low did not understand that Mr Lee was asking him a question, since he does not have as good a grasp of English as the Prime Minister. But how could this be the case when Mr Low had, in English, quite candidly put forward his question to Mr Lee?
A more credible justification appears to be that Mr Low might have thought that Mr Lee was asking a rhetorical question — and thus merited no reply.
Nevertheless, one can argue that Mr Low could have taken the cue from Mr Lee's pregnant pause.
This then begs the question: Assuming Mr Low elected to answer the question, what could he have said?
He could have answered in the affirmative and said: "Yes, as Minister Wong had direct oversight of the Internal Security Department, he should lead by example and he ought to resign."
On the other hand, Mr Low could have opted to reply in the negative: "No, out of respect for the Prime Minister, I am willing to give Minister Wong a chance and trust the Prime Minister's call. Nevertheless, Minister Wong has categorically given his word to Parliament that his team will eventually track Mas Selamat down and arrest him. I am willing to give Minister Wong time. If he fails to deliver, he ought to resign."
If Mr Low could not make up his mind between the affirmative and negative, he could have responded: "Maybe. But I am not the Prime Minister. And, unlike the Prime Minister, I have not read the detailed reports. If the Prime Minister discloses that information fully to me, I will be happy to provide a more definitive answer ."
Alas, when putting oneself in Mr Low's shoes, one is only speculating.
The unfortunate irony of this whole event is that a matter of Executive Accountability has now become an issue of Opposition Accountability.
As an Opposition MP, Mr Low owes Singaporeans an explanation as to why he chose to remain silent in the face of an opportunity to be decisive and to show what a leader can and should do.
Why, Mr Low? Why?
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Those who have been following the media coverage of the Prime Minister's statement and his subsequent responses to MPs over the Mas Selamat affair would have come away with the impression that the two representatives of the Workers' Party were doing what Opposition politicians should be doing in Parliament.
To borrow a phrase from Nominated Member of Parliament Gautam Banerjee, the two — Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim — were "stress-testing". In doing so, they did not hold back. They asked difficult questions. They raised sensitive concerns.
Mr Low, in particular, found it hard to reconcile the view that ministers should be paid high salaries pegged to the best of the private sector with the one that, when an honest mistake is made, ministers, unlike the best of the private sector, should not be held as accountable.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong sought to defend the position by saying that the practice was no different than that in the private sector. He then pointedly asked Mr Low: "Let me ask the member whether he thinks (Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng) ought to resign because of this."
Remarkably, Mr Low chose to respond but with pin-drop silence — leading the Prime Minister to remark: "No answer. So I think that settles the point."
In the constituency of public opinion, that silence of Mr Low has now been replaced by a complaining chorus: "Why, Mr Low? Why?"
After all, there was no parliamentary procedure that stopped Mr Low from answering Mr Lee in a similar point-blank manner.
Mr Low has attempted to position the Workers' Party as a serious and responsible party that provides solutions. Yet, when the crucial time came to provide an alternative solution by putting himself in the shoes of the Prime Minister, Mr Low elected to remain silent.
Would a serious and responsible Opposition have shied away from such a moment, when the perfect opportunity arose to seize the bull by the horns?
Of course, one is also reminded of recent observations made by Mr Lee in an interview with Lianhe Zaobao. Among other things, he said: "Although Low Thia Khiang is very smart, he seldom debates on the core substance of policies. He seems more keen on catching the Government on its shortcomings, so as to embarrass the Government … His attitude is that his responsibility is just to criticise Government policies and not to propose alternatives."
Is this incident representative of what Mr Lee had in mind?
Then again, did Mr Low stay silent because he did not wish to embarrass the Government?
Indeed, various justifications have been forwarded by Mr Low's supporters.
Maybe Mr Low did not want to incur the Government's wrath and end up having to face a defamation suit. This holds no water since Mr Low would be protected by the defence of parliamentary privilege.
Perhaps Mr Low did not understand that Mr Lee was asking him a question, since he does not have as good a grasp of English as the Prime Minister. But how could this be the case when Mr Low had, in English, quite candidly put forward his question to Mr Lee?
A more credible justification appears to be that Mr Low might have thought that Mr Lee was asking a rhetorical question — and thus merited no reply.
Nevertheless, one can argue that Mr Low could have taken the cue from Mr Lee's pregnant pause.
This then begs the question: Assuming Mr Low elected to answer the question, what could he have said?
He could have answered in the affirmative and said: "Yes, as Minister Wong had direct oversight of the Internal Security Department, he should lead by example and he ought to resign."
On the other hand, Mr Low could have opted to reply in the negative: "No, out of respect for the Prime Minister, I am willing to give Minister Wong a chance and trust the Prime Minister's call. Nevertheless, Minister Wong has categorically given his word to Parliament that his team will eventually track Mas Selamat down and arrest him. I am willing to give Minister Wong time. If he fails to deliver, he ought to resign."
If Mr Low could not make up his mind between the affirmative and negative, he could have responded: "Maybe. But I am not the Prime Minister. And, unlike the Prime Minister, I have not read the detailed reports. If the Prime Minister discloses that information fully to me, I will be happy to provide a more definitive answer ."
Alas, when putting oneself in Mr Low's shoes, one is only speculating.
The unfortunate irony of this whole event is that a matter of Executive Accountability has now become an issue of Opposition Accountability.
As an Opposition MP, Mr Low owes Singaporeans an explanation as to why he chose to remain silent in the face of an opportunity to be decisive and to show what a leader can and should do.
Why, Mr Low? Why?
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Interview: Tourism in Singapore
INTERVIEW WITH DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY, FACULTY OF ARTS & SOCIAL SCIENCES, NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE ON 3 APRIL 2008
Why do you think the state has tried to promote Singapore as a tourist hub?
I think the reasons are pragmatic and economic. Tourists are an important source of income for Singapore. As a result of our geographic location at the centre of Southeast Asia and along major sea lanes, we become a natural stop-over point for tourists to come, spend some time here and then explore the region. Of course, with better aviation technology and flight connections, we appear to be losing that edge.
What do the aims of promoting Singapore as a tourist hub make you feel?
It’s exciting, if you enjoy meeting new people. Many years ago, academic Cherian George referred to Singapore as an ‘air-conditioned nation’. I think an argument can be made in light of our endeavours to attract more tourists and immigrants that we are more an ‘air-conditioned hotel’.
If you were to use one word to describe Singapore with regard to tourism, what would it be?
It’s buzzing. Change is a constant in Singapore, and I noticed that especially when I lived away for 5 years in England. I only returned once or twice a year and it’d amaze how there was something new to see and do. Singapore has become rather adept at reinventing itself.
When you see tourists on their tour bus taking photos of everything they see on the street, what kind of feelings and emotions do you experienced?
I try to put myself in their shoes and figure out what exactly they are trying to capture. I am not a big fan of taking photographs of what I see on streets when on holiday. I take the view the moment is to be captured and savoured in the mind, as it happens. But I guess most photographers would disagree with me on this point.
Why do you think places such as Taman Jurong and Circuit Eoad are not advertised for tourists to visit? What do you feel about the lack of advertising for these areas?
I am not sure what the question is implying. But if the question is about why neighbourhoods are not advertised for tourists to visit, I think such a mindset is changing.
There is a recognition that such neighbourhoods make the Singaporean experience a unique one and more service providers are offering tourist trips to the hinterlands or, as the then PM Goh coined it, Singapore’s heartlands.
Since Taman Jurong was raised in the question and I do live in the area, I can shed some light. Taman Jurong use to have a lot of buzz many years ago but that died with the collapse of the industrial economy in Jurong. It is no surprise that the Tang Dynasty village, which went bust, is now an eyesore in Taman Jurong.
Nonetheless, Taman Jurong is still advertised for tourists to visit since there is the Chinese Garden, Japanese Garden and Jurong Bird Park.
National development planners have also set their sights on the lake, which is found in Taman Jurong. There are major plans afoot to bring Taman Jurong back to its former glory.
Do you feel that tourists visiting Singapore will find their experience real? Real i.e. whether it really depicts what Singapore really is? Why?
There must be some element of reality which keeps drawing tourists to Singapore. But the realities we seek can be quite subjective. Some tourists like beaches. Others like massive shopping centres. A number like nature. What matters is that Singapore has tried in various ways to capture the mind-share of such tourists with varying interests and I think one can conclude that Singapore has been sustainably successful in doing so.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Why do you think the state has tried to promote Singapore as a tourist hub?
I think the reasons are pragmatic and economic. Tourists are an important source of income for Singapore. As a result of our geographic location at the centre of Southeast Asia and along major sea lanes, we become a natural stop-over point for tourists to come, spend some time here and then explore the region. Of course, with better aviation technology and flight connections, we appear to be losing that edge.
What do the aims of promoting Singapore as a tourist hub make you feel?
It’s exciting, if you enjoy meeting new people. Many years ago, academic Cherian George referred to Singapore as an ‘air-conditioned nation’. I think an argument can be made in light of our endeavours to attract more tourists and immigrants that we are more an ‘air-conditioned hotel’.
If you were to use one word to describe Singapore with regard to tourism, what would it be?
It’s buzzing. Change is a constant in Singapore, and I noticed that especially when I lived away for 5 years in England. I only returned once or twice a year and it’d amaze how there was something new to see and do. Singapore has become rather adept at reinventing itself.
When you see tourists on their tour bus taking photos of everything they see on the street, what kind of feelings and emotions do you experienced?
I try to put myself in their shoes and figure out what exactly they are trying to capture. I am not a big fan of taking photographs of what I see on streets when on holiday. I take the view the moment is to be captured and savoured in the mind, as it happens. But I guess most photographers would disagree with me on this point.
Why do you think places such as Taman Jurong and Circuit Eoad are not advertised for tourists to visit? What do you feel about the lack of advertising for these areas?
I am not sure what the question is implying. But if the question is about why neighbourhoods are not advertised for tourists to visit, I think such a mindset is changing.
There is a recognition that such neighbourhoods make the Singaporean experience a unique one and more service providers are offering tourist trips to the hinterlands or, as the then PM Goh coined it, Singapore’s heartlands.
Since Taman Jurong was raised in the question and I do live in the area, I can shed some light. Taman Jurong use to have a lot of buzz many years ago but that died with the collapse of the industrial economy in Jurong. It is no surprise that the Tang Dynasty village, which went bust, is now an eyesore in Taman Jurong.
Nonetheless, Taman Jurong is still advertised for tourists to visit since there is the Chinese Garden, Japanese Garden and Jurong Bird Park.
National development planners have also set their sights on the lake, which is found in Taman Jurong. There are major plans afoot to bring Taman Jurong back to its former glory.
Do you feel that tourists visiting Singapore will find their experience real? Real i.e. whether it really depicts what Singapore really is? Why?
There must be some element of reality which keeps drawing tourists to Singapore. But the realities we seek can be quite subjective. Some tourists like beaches. Others like massive shopping centres. A number like nature. What matters is that Singapore has tried in various ways to capture the mind-share of such tourists with varying interests and I think one can conclude that Singapore has been sustainably successful in doing so.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)