Showing posts with label Civil Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Society. Show all posts

Saturday, October 28, 2023

Edmund Wee of Epigram Books (chance upon this article)

Picture by 

zakariazainal

 

I found this article in one of my bookmarks. Sudhir did a feature on Edmund Wee. Click on the link to read the full article.

Edmund was on the board of the Substation and Independent Art Archive. Not mentioned in this article, but Edmund supported the arts. Like some of Lee Wen's friends, he supported Lee Wen's archival fever (Lee Wen founded and depended on his supporters to fund the Independent Art Archive). I always felt that Edmund took risks both in his publishing business and in supporting artistic endeavours. This is the attitude that I admired about Edmund. 

I have 'highlighted' some info from the article which I found relevant, interesting and informative for my research.

"Epigram Books owes its existence partly to Lee Kuan Yew’s secret police."
As a young journalist, Edmund covered 1981 by-election.

[...] plain-clothes officers from the Internal Security Department watched in horror as a young reporter from the Straits Times jumped up and down at the counting centre.

[...] career suicide for journalists from the government-controlled media outfits to show appreciation for the opposition.
Wee journalism career was affected as he would not be promoted over the years.

[...] Wee used the time to learn about graphic design and marketing. In 1991 he left the paper to start up a design agency.

Epigram was founded because a friend (who climed Everest) couldn't find a publisher. Wee saw an opportunity to shake up the publishing industry (one which faced bad design and over saturation of poetry anthologies). [...] ‘You have [Singaporeans] who have gone to study how to write, they want to write, and they’re not being served by publishers.’

[...] Epigram Books was launched in 2011 and quickly became known for its edgy marketing and arresting sleeve design.

[...] The NAC withdrew its funding of the book and drastically cut its annual grants to Epigram Books. (A separate satire of the Lee family may also have irritated the NAC’s career-minded bureaucrats).

[...] Huggs-Epigram Coffee Bookshop [...] is Singapore’s only bookshop dedicated to local works.

In 1822, three years after Stamford Raffles ushered in British colonialism, Singapore’s first printing press arrived from Malacca with Claudius Henry Thomsen of the London Missionary Society (LMS). Thomsen and two workmen did type cutting, bookbinding and other publishing work in English and Malay. Capabilities for Arabic, Chinese and Siamese soon followed.

[...] In 1823 LMS missionaries established Singapore’s first ever publisher, the Mission Press, which over the next two decades served God, the government and the people, publishing among other things the Singapore Chronicle, the island’s first newspaper, and more than 2 million pages of tracts and scriptures in Chinese, Malay and Buginese.

The 1830s-1870s were arguably the golden era of Malay publishing, thanks partly to two men: Munshi Abdullah, a Melaka-born scribe, teacher and translator of mixed Tamil-Yemeni descent, who is best known as Raffles’s muse and author of Hikayat Abdullah (Abdullah’s Story); and Benjamin Keasberry, an India-born British missionary who made it his life’s work to teach—not just proselytise—the Malays, partly by publishing numerous academic and popular books in Malay. (‘Missionary to the Malays’ says his epitaph.)

[...] Following independence in 1965, Lee Kuan Yew accelerated Singapore along the global-city trajectory the British had put it on. [...]

‘Poetry is a luxury we cannot afford,’ Lee famously quipped, confirming that in his Singapore, language is primarily a market tool. In the 1990s Lee’s successor dissuaded the use of Singlish, our delightful Creole, petrified that it might displace the Queen’s English and turn off the globe-trotting elite. [...]

[...] One could easily get lost in the children’s section, where the eight-part Diary of Amos Lee, one of Epigram Books’s crown jewels with more than 200,000 copies sold, resides. ‘If I wanted to be very, very profitable, I would just close everything else and publish “middle-grade”,’ Wee says. [...]

[...] “Nathan saw the Harry series [about Lee]. Then he called me up and asked if his life story could also be written for kids.” [...]

Wee has been on a crusade to get Singaporeans to read local stories about local people. “Why aren’t schoolchildren reading ‘Sugarbread’ instead of ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’?” he says, referencing the first book by Balli Kaur Jaswal, one of Singapore’s best-known novelists. “It’s a wonderful story about racism in Singapore.”

[...] “I decided forget about the bloody old boys club in London. Why should I have the Booker? Why can’t I sell books in ASEAN countries? ASEAN is six hundred and fifty million people, you know?”

[...] Like other discontents who dance on the edges of mainstream society, Wee trades in the vocabulary of the oppressed. He is a self-professed “outsider” and “maverick”, somebody who finds affinity with “people on the fringes”.

[...] These include the drug addicts and Hell’s Angels he hung out with in the 1970s at a commune in Hamilton, New Zealand, while completing a bachelor’s and master’s in psychology at the University of Waikato; as well as the Singaporean delinquents he wrote about in the 1980s for the Straits Times: the “McDonald’s kids” and “Far East [shopping centre] kids”, seemingly aimless uniformed teenagers spending their afternoons not rote learning but—horrors!—conversing with others.

[...] Almost three decades after his shenanigans at the Workers’ Party victory in 1981, Wee’s editor at the paper questioned him about it in preparation for his own memoirs. It turned out that 163 cm tall Wee was jumping, not in celebration, but because he wanted to see over the head of the 183 cm correspondent from Monitor, a competing paper. The ISD’s officers had misinterpreted the jump.

Monday, November 23, 2020

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗻𝘀 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗝𝗼𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗻 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝗺

Monday, 23 November, 2020 Will mark another dark day for the respect of human rights in Singapore. Jolovan Wham will be charged in court under the Public Order Act for holding a placard depicting a smiley face in a public place. This charge exposes, once again, the authoritarian face of the Singapore system. It confirms that Singapore instead of "building back better", is determined to silence voices that are different from the establishment. The Prime Minister had famously boasted in interviews before that there are no problems in Singapore because no one is protesting outside the Parliament. But his audience was not informed that no persons had succeeded ever in applying for a permit, even for a one person "assembly" under the Public Order Act. Currently, there is no space for anyone in Singapore to express freely. The Speakers Corner remains unavailable for use since the Circuit Breaker, while POFMA is used liberally against online postings since its enactment. Singapore deserves its bad reputation for suppression of expression but Singaporeans do not deserve to be deprived of their political rights. Think Centre hopes the day will come soon when more Singaporeans learn the truth of the system and demand to be treated better.

Tuesday, September 01, 2020

A kind Rethinking

Early days of Parliamentary hearing. True that the people are asking for change. 

People have been asking for a change - guess when that change has some affect on the ballot box.  


Saturday, May 04, 2019

Work in Progress, Part 1: A reading of Education Minister on Fake News Bill, Part 1.



This blog post begins with a reading of the ST article "You ask, and we will answer: Ong Ye Kung on fake news Bill" by Cara Wong

Firstly, I am not good at reading bills but decided to give it a read since so many people are really 'freaking out' at this Bill.

I am sharing and learning and probably reading this out loudly so please pardon my ignorant attempt. Trust that my legal friends can shed some light on this Bill if I am reading it wrongly.  

Why am I in a hurry?

Because there is no time, the next reading of this Bill will be on the 6th of May (MONDAY) - I think we should all read up on this and query our Ministers and MPs before the reading. Hopefully, they can clarify these concerns and doubts we have on the Bill.

Firstly, the title of the article.

"You ask, and we will answer: Ong Ye Kung on fake news Bill"

Why is Cara Wong using the term 'fake news Bill' in the title of the article?

I don't think it is a 'fake news Bill'. It is called Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Bill.

That would be factually more accurate since it is what is called. Yes, this is a very ugly cumbersome name...  really even the acronym also sounds so 'uncool' like a boring art festival.

By calling it, a 'fake news Bill' gives us an impression that the Bill is limited to news in the traditional sense of journalism - much like Fake News debate that is going on in the world where the focus surrounds Media and Extremist Propaganda.

However, the POFMA Bill doesn't specify 'news' in this traditional way.
Instead, POFMA Bill targets all electronic communications (See Page 5 of Bill).

According to the Bill, any post on SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, Facebook updates, even Instagram Stories is a statement. Then that is a lot of statements out there! Also when you reply to my FB post - it could be seen as a statement.

POFMA Bill should concern everyone not just 'newsmakers or journalists' - because by the Bill's definition, we are making electronic statements all the time and any Ministers can judge if in the public interest if any of these statements are 'false'.

That is extremely worrying.

The first sentence of the article:

"The proposed fake news laws are targeted at the creators of falsehoods and not at those who disseminate them, and the authorities will explain these laws in detail to assuage the public's concerns, Education Minister Ong Ye Kung said on Sunday (April 28)."

'Fake news laws' is used in here. This Bill will affect all electronic communications - using Fake news laws is misleading us.

The sentence also states that the bill 'targets creators of falsehoods and not at those who disseminate them' seems to suggests that most of us should not worry.

In the traditional definition of Media, we can understand this as a news agency as the 'creator of falsehoods' and people who 'share' them are just disseminating and will not be targeted. This would be easy to differentiate.

However, the bill's definition of 'Statements' refers to all electronic communications. That would include chit chat and banters. You don't just share 'statements', you add your comments, reflection, jokes and thoughts - like how you have conversations. So the line between 'creators' and 'disseminator' is blurred in the context of electronic communications. 

2nd sentence:

"He (Ong) added that "everyone need not be overly worried", as the proposed Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act does not target opinions, criticisms, satire or parody."


Given the recent incidents where some netizens got into trouble with the authorities over their 'statements'.

Edmund Zhong and another man faced Police investigation for his joke on the comment section of CNA's Facebook about throwing an egg at the Minister. John Tan's comment on Facebook got him charged under the contempt of court law for scandalising the judiciary. Leong Sze Hian is being sued for libel by the Prime Minister for sharing a link (without comments) on his own Facebook profile.

These incidents do not give me the confidence that the authority can understand what is going on with the internet.

On the contrary of what Ong is suggesting, I think we should be overly worried! I am worried that the authorities in judging truth and lies cannot differentiate a joke, satire or criticism.

Third Sentence:

"Speaking at the Singapore Buddhist Federation's Vesak Day celebration event at Ngee Ann City Civic Plaza, Mr Ong said it is important to have strict laws to prohibit speech and actions that try to divide people of different religions and races."

A little strange why a religious event is becoming a platform for the Minister to discuss the POFMA bill (later part of the article, Ong does cite the terror attacks in Christchurch and Sri Lanka as threats that Singapore faces). Mr Ong does seem to contextualise by saying "speech and action that try to divide people of different religions and races". Although 'of different religions and races' is a 'catch-all' which covers everyone.

The main point here is the danger of "speech and actions that try to divide people" that needs strict laws to prohibit them.

The bill does not do that. I searched the document for the words 'divide people', and I found none which states that. The closest interpretation is Part 1, 4(e), page 11, under the definition of public interest. To "prevent incitement of feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups of persons".

I do think Ong is referring to this one but this is a stark reminder that Bills are steeped in a different kind of language from our everyday language.

So the Bill covers what Ong says but not everything. Ong's statement can be interpreted as 'half-truth' or 'false' whichever way you wish to see it.

The Bill is a lot more extensive than what he is saying in this article. 

The Bill gives the ministers the power "to decide whether a statement is false or misleading and against the public interest". 

The definition of Public Interest is a lot broader than 'divide people'. It would include security of Singapore, public finances (no more talking about CPF?), public tranquility (what is that?), Presidential Elections (Um, discussion on Halimah's Malayness can also be considered!), General Election (it is coming?), diminution of public confidence in the performance of Organ of State (cannot complain about MRT hire of Generals because Ministry of Transport)... (read pg 11 to get a fuller picture).  

I think everyone can agrees that something needs to be done about the Fake news problem. However, the POFMA Bill does not address the issues of 'fake news' or 'online falsehoods' at all.

POFMA Bill proposes that ministers should administer judgement over 'truths' is ringing all our alarm bells.

Three Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) – namely Ms Anthea Ong, Ms Irene Quay, and Associate Professor Walter Theseira – have issued a Notice of Amendment to the Bill. I think their suggestion of an Independent Council is much better than having ministers do it.  I think the track record is that ministers get good marks for their studies but not very good at jokes, parodies and very bad at criticism.

The POFMA Bill is getting so many public concerns and queries, and I think it is time to take this Bill back to the drafting table. The POFMA Bill is an important bill - it is going to define and frame our freedoms.

My suggestion to the government and the ministers is to 'relax, don't do it'. They need to dialogue with the people - work with the people to find the best way to address the problems of 'online falsehoods'.

If the current form of the Bill is passed, it will be a "diminution of public confidence" in the performance of the Organ of the State.  

Tuesday, April 04, 2017

About 200 signed petition to retain Sungei Road flea market

by Melody Zaccheus

PUBLISHEDFEB 23, 2017, 8:36 PM SGTUPDATEDMAR 12, 2017, 6:39 AM

SINGAPORE - The Sungei Road flea market's last day of operation is on July 10 but the hawkers are hoping to be given an alternative or temporary site that will allow them to continue their business.

On Thursday (Feb 23), Mr Koh Ah Koon, 76, the president of the Association for the Recycling of Second Hand Goods, unfurled a banner at Sungei Road calling for the site to be conserved.

Speaking to The Straits Times later, Mr Koh said he was saddened but hopes an alternative site can be allocated for the hawkers.

We hope the government can give us a temporary site so that our lifestyle and this aspect of local heritage can be retained."

He said he has printed 10 banners and plans to collect signatures till July to support calls for the site to be "conserved" or retained. By 7pm on Feb 23, he had collected about 200 signatures.

The Government said the free hawking zone has to make way for future residential developments in a multi-agency statement last Tuesday.

Mr Koh's association, which represents about 70 of 200 vendors at the flea market, had previously proposed four alternative sites - next to Rochor River, at Kampong Bugis along Kallang River, behind Sim Lim Tower and a roadside near Jalan Kubor Malay cemetery.

But the authorities said the four sites had been zoned for parks and residential use under Master Plan 2014.

After the Government announcement, the association submitted a fresh appeal to extend the deadline until the end of the year. If that fails, it hopes to secure a temporary site in Jalan Besar behind a hawker centre.

The Association for the Recycling of Second Hand Goods was established in 2012 after the Sungei Road Free Hawking Zone was reduced in size the previous year to make way for the construction of Sungei Road MRT station.

Mr Kalay V., 45, a businessman who signed the petition said: "This provides the elderly hawkers a legitimate source of income and can be seen as an engagement programme for seniors - not that different from those run by community centres."

Parliament: Five Sungei Road rag-and-bone men likely to move to hawker centres in city area


How is this article even illuminating what is going to happen to the original permit-holders?

Doesn't this give you more questions than answers? Perhaps, that is how media makes us critical animals.

You can refer to the article and study it. It will be helpful to comment with more mysteries uncovered. haha.

Do that on the Save Sungei Road Market page. http://www.facebook.com/savesungeiroadmarket/

Thank you!


Parliament: Five Sungei Road rag-and-bone men likely to move to hawker centres in city area

by Melody Zaccheus.



SINGAPORE - Five of the 11 original permit-holders at the Sungei Road flea market have indicated interest in operating stalls at Golden Mile Food Centre and Chinatown Market.

All 11 vendors were given the option of renting stalls at selected hawker centres in the city area at subsidised rates after the market’s last day of operations on July 10, said Environment and Water Resources Minister Masagos Zulkifli.

He told Parliament on Monday (April 3) that, as a show of goodwill, vendors will have their rents waived for the first year and receive a 50 per cent rebate off their subsidised rent for the second year.

Nominated MP Kok Heng Leun asked how Sungei Road vendors have been helped, with the hawking zone due to be closed “to facilitate future residential development use”.

Mr Masagos said at least one of the original vendors has been granted financial aid. Other vendors who are not original permit holders will be given information on financial and employment aid, as well as ways for them to continue their trade, he said.

The 11 vendors are from a pool of 31 rag-and-bone men who, “because of their chosen trade”, were excluded from a government programme to resettle street hawkers in purpose-built markets and hawker centres in the 1970s and 1980s.

Mr Masagos said the authorities have accommodated hawking at Sungei Road until the area was required for redevelopment, despite it causing inconveniences like obstructing public roads.

Mr Kok also asked if the authorities would engage the Association for the Recycling of Second Hand Goods, which represents about 70 vendors, on possible alternative outdoor sites. He noted that, as the last free hawking zone in Singapore, the market is integral to the country’s cultural landscape.

In response, Mr Masagos said the country’s needs must be taken into account. The authorities also have “to be fair to the many, many other hawkers who have moved on” to hawker centres and markets.

He added: “The time has come and we have engaged enough. To meet them again is to almost promise that we will change our stance and that redevelopment will not start... There are alternatives. But should we put up another site like this which is deemed to be like Sungei Road but not at Sungei Road? I don’t think this is something we want to dwell (on) further.”

The association’s president Koh Ah Koon, 76, has been rallying the public to sign a petition to conserve the market, or for an alternative site. He told The Straits Times he has collected 4,000 signatures so far, and  will continue to canvas support for it.

Friday, July 08, 2016

Said Zahari's 17 Years (banned in Singapore)


Said Zahari passed away at 12.30pm on 12th April 2016. Here is the film by Martyn See. (his blog here).

An interview with Said Zahari, a staunch anti-colonial newspaper editor who was accused by the Singapore government of alleged involvement in pro-communist activities and subsequently detained without trial from 1963 to 1979. This film is banned by the Singapore government for "undermining public confidence in the Government."


Sunday, March 06, 2016

Cross Island Line travel time will take 6 minutes more with skirting route: Khaw



This is just a stupid analogy and warped logic all together. I really wonder if anyone out there is actually convinved by his and the ministry's stupid logic.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/cross-island-line-travel-time-will-take-6-minutes-073258290.html?linkId=21739747

Cross Island Line travel time will take 6 minutes more with skirting route: Khaw

Choosing the skirting alignment for the construction of the Cross Island Line (CRL) tunnel at the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR) will cost commuters six minutes of additional travel time, said transport minister Khaw Boon Wan in Parliament on Monday (29 Feb).
Khaw was responding to questions posed by Nee Soon GRC MP and wildlife activist Louis Ng on the environmental impact for the construction of the 50-km CRL, and whether the transport ministry would opt for the skirting alignment at the CCNR to cater to more residents.
“I’m not sure if we can brush aside extra six minutes just like that because for the MRT commuters, extra half a minute is terrible,” Khaw said.
“Because when the train has a disruption and there’s an extra one minute of delay, within that one minute (commuters) send out maybe 100 tweets to flame LTA or SMRT,” he added.
“In the rail industry, they define disruption as anything that causes delay of more than five minutes, and six is more than five.”
The government has yet to decide whether to choose the 4km direct alignment or the 9km skirting alignment. In the first option, the route cuts through the CCNR by way of an underground tunnel, while in the second option, the line would be constructed underground along the perimeter of the reserve. The CRL is expected to be operational by 2030.
Khaw also said that the CRL, which will connect commuters from Changi to the Jurong Industrial Estate, will have more than 30 new stations with 600,000 daily trips made.
At almost every other station, commuters can switch to another line, which will “significantly enhance” the resilience of the network, Khaw said.
He reminded the House that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) focuses on just a section of the CRL, while the ministry has a duty to study the total impact of the line. This includes a study on the environmental impact, effect on taxpayers and potential home acquisitions.
The government has no estimation on the total cost of the project currently as more studies have to be made, Khaw said. Such studies usually take four to five years to be completed, he added.
On whether Singapore should opt for the skirting alignment to serve the residents living in the vicinity, Khaw said that the existing Circle Line and the upcoming Thomson Line will be available to serve them.
Changes to ground investigation methods to reduce environmental impact
Desmond Lee, senior minister of state for the ministry of national development, told Parliament that drilling machines used to create boreholes to collect rock and soil samples have been modified to reduce noise levels.
Ground investigators will be required to conduct checks only during the day so as to avoid disturbing the nocturnal animals in the reserve. These investigators will also be required to use handheld equipment to manually collect data in the forests to make up for the planned reduction in the number of boreholes from 72 to 16.
The geophysical survey has been limited to a 100-meter wide corridor, and will not be carried out at streams, swamps and dense vegetation, said Lee.
Investigators will be supervised by the National Park Board to make sure they adhere to the measures, he added.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Updates on Central Catchment Nature Reserve~ an d what you can do!




The Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR) is home to 400 species of trees, 200 species of birds, 400 species of insects and 150 species of mammals and amphibians. If you’d like to learn more about the biodiversity found in the CCNR, please do sign up for our walks!

Find out more: https://lovemacritchie.wordpress.com/why/

https://besdrongos.wordpress.com/2016/02/07/eia-phase-1-of-crl-announced-where-do-we-go-from-here/

The EIA (Environmental Impact Analysis) was released by the LTA on the 5th Feb.

It is some form of success. Although LTA will want to drill holes in the reserve but they will now consider the concerns of nature groups.

So this is the update from LTA:
  • Reduce the number of boreholes from 72 to 16;
  • Confine drilling to public trails and non-vegetative areas; and
  • Employ more non-intrusive (no physical alteration) methods in soil investigation.
All is not lost - you can still do something - collectively we can still do something to help the cause according to BES Drongo website. 

"

  1. The EIA will be open for public viewing for the next 4 weeks;book an appointment to go down and view it. 
  2. Help spread the news and raise awareness! Tell your friends, your family or anyone who you know cares about this. If lots of people go down to view the EIA, it will show LTA how much the public cares.
  3. Voice your support for the alternative route. The alternative route is now our best (and last) bet to reduce significant impacts on the forest.
You can contact LTA [Ms Michelle Chan (email LTA_CRL_CCNR_EIA@lta.gov.sg or call 6295 7437)] to view the EIA and give your feedback. Please note that you can view it by appointment ONLY, at Land Transport Authority, 1 Hampshire Road (Blk 11 Level 4, Room 2), Singapore 219428

In addition, to show your support for the alternative route, you can sign the petition here: http://www.tinyurl.com/lta-crl

"

Tuesday, February 09, 2016

Student activist group member arrested at airport

I archive the following.



Some news on:

https://www.hongkongfp.com/2016/02/10/student-activist-group-member-arrested-at-airport-over-alleged-involvement-in-mong-kok-unrest/

Student activist group member arrested at airport over alleged involvement in Mong Kok unrest


A member of the student group Scholarism was arrested at the airport on Wednesday morning for alleged involvement in the unrest which rocked Mong Kok this week.
Violent clashes between police and protesters angered over the government’s clearing of street hawkers broke out on Monday night.

Friday, February 05, 2016

Video Evidence Links Thailand’s Tiger Temple To Wildlife Trafficking

Seriously, WTF. This is just bad and sad news. I remember watching a documentary about this Tiger Temple. So this new investigative video came out quite recently (Jan 2016). I document the aricle here. 











http://www.natgeotraveller.in/web-exclusive/web-exclusive-month/video-evidence-links-thailands-tiger-temple-to-wildlife-trafficking/

Video Evidence Links Thailand’s Tiger Temple To Wildlife Trafficking

Nat Geo and Cee4Life release proof that the commercial trade has been active for over a decade.
    • TEXT: 
    • NGT STAFF
POSTED  ON: JANUARY 22, 2016 12:00 AM

Wildlife activists have long accused Thailand’s Tiger Temple (2 hours from Bangkok) of exploiting its captive big cats, a claim that has been vehemently denied by the monks, and ignored by its steady inflow of visitors. New evidence reveals that the Wat Pa Luangta Bua Yannasampanno Temple has been engaging in illegal cross-border tiger trafficking, as reported in aNational Geographic exclusive by photographer Steve Winter and writer Sharon Guynup, both conservation journalists. Their special investigation video has footage and interviews that implicate the controversial temple in the illegal trade. As Guynup puts it, what this means, is that “the tiger that you took a selfie with one day could end up dead and smuggled across the border the next.”

The National Geographic investigators found that the Buddhist monastery and popular tourist draw has been smuggling tigers to farms in neighbouring Laos at least since 2004, under the guidance of its founder and leader, Abbot Phra Acham Phoosit (Chan) Kanthitharo. In a recent internal letter to National Geographic Traveller India, Guynup revealed that Thai authorities will begin relocating the temple’s tigers to its own wildlife facilities, with the Royal Thai Police taking over the investigation in the next few weeks.
The Tiger Temple draws in an estimated three million dollars a year and currently houses 147 tigers, a big draw for visitors who feed, walk and take selfies with the captive animals for a hefty fee. Last December, Steve Winter and Sharon Guynup were tipped off by documents, audio and video released by Australian nonprofit Cee4Life, the culmination of a nine-year investigation that was made public on 22 Jan 2016.
“The impact of illegal trading from a captive facility like the Tiger Temple extends far beyond the lives and welfare of these 147 tigers,” Guynup wrote in her letter. “Captive tigers leaked into the illegal trade from any source feed a growing demand for luxury tiger products, including tiger skins and tiger bone wine. That demand places the lives of every one of the world’s last 3,200 wild tigers in danger. As tiger expert Judy Mills notes at the end of our video, ‘This is not just about a single Buddhist temple in Thailand. This is about the fate of wild tigers.’”

Monday, January 18, 2016

MARUAH’s Statement on Defamation Law and the Case Against Mr Roy Ngerng

https://zhunbosingapore.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/roy.jpg


MARUAH’s Statement on Defamation Law and the Case Against Mr Roy Ngerng


MARUAH, a Human Rights Non-Governmental Organisation, objects to government leaders using the Defamation Law to institute defamation lawsuits against its critics, regardless of whether the offending statement is defamatory or not.

We make these remarks as the court assesses the damages that Mr Roy Ngerng has to pay for the remarks made against Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. In May 2014 Mr Ngerng, a blogger, was sued by Mr Lee Hsien Loong, whom we assume is acting in his private capacity and not as the Prime Minister. Mr Lee’s lawyers demanded that Mr Ngerng remove the article in question, issue an apology on his blog, and offer compensation to Mr Lee. Mr Ngerng acceded to all the demands, including removing four other articles, and made an offer of S$5,000 as compensation to Mr Lee. Mr Lee’s lawyers, however, dismissed the amount as ‘derisory’, and commenced legal action on 30 May 2014. In January 2015, Mr Ngerng was ordered by the court to pay $29,000 to Mr Lee. Today (1 July 2015) the courts will decide on the damages that Mr Ngerng has to pay to Mr Lee Hsien Loong.

This was one of the few cases in Singapore where a defendant was found liable for defamation over an online article. Given the proliferation of the use of the Internet as an open platform to discuss and debate various issues, the use of defamation lawsuits against members of the public is likely to have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression. While freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and has to be exercised responsibly, in our view, there are more constructive ways of responding to online dissent (both valid and invalid) than resorting to a defamation lawsuit.

Defamation proceedings are costly, often resulting in hefty damages awarded to the plaintiff, and the threat of financial ruin is likely to deter the average person from criticising the government. While it can be argued, to some extent, that such deterrence would foster responsible criticism as the speaker would take care not to make careless or baseless allegations, we believe that there are more constructive ways to foster responsibility in exercising freedom of speech. For instance, instead of taking an offending critic to court, the public official could publish a statement in the press or on the relevant website, refuting the critic.

Thus MARUAH calls for a review of the Defamation Law to ensure that allegations of defamation and defamation lawsuits do not suppress the provision of constructive and debatable opinions. As public officials (including government officials) owe a duty of accountability to the public, defamation lawsuits brought by public officials should be subjected to a higher standard of review than those brought by purely private parties. Namely, in addition to proving the test for defamation under Singapore law, the public official plaintiff should bear the burden of proving that the alleged defamatory statement is false.

This would ensure that public officials bring only the most serious cases to court, and by proving his critic wrong, it would also boost public confidence in the public official’s conduct. This would simultaneously minimise the impression that the defamation lawsuit is a tool used by the government to silence (justly or unjustly) its critics. If the evidence to be proffered by the public official plaintiff is of a sensitive nature, in camera court proceedings should be allowed, but only if it is absolutely necessary.

This is a statement that MARUAH has also issued under a A Collective of Singapore NGOs (COSINGO) to the UN Human Rights Council as part of the Universal Periodic Review system. We ask that our Defamation Law be reviewed, the actions of public officials initiating defamation suits become a last resort after other ways of resolving the matter have been pursued and that we need to realise that different approaches are needed when social media is becoming a public communication tool.

Sunday, December 27, 2015

Cold War Era research

Posted this article on my facebook in October this year.

Amongst friends in this region, we don't talk much about the Suharto era. Maybe it just seems so distant in most of those occasions. With so many 'accused communists' killed during this period, does make me think about the Cold War era in Singapore and Malaysia where many 'communists' were detained under the Internal Security Act.

Also, not much talk about the cold war era in our region (Southeast Asia). Suppose it could be just me and my world. Although, we did discussed the cold war in Taiwan while we were doing the MELTING project. Thought I should archive this article below and start a tag to research Cold War Era in the region.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/09/its-been-50-years-biggest-us-backed-genocide-youve-never-heard


It's Been 50 Years Since the Biggest US-Backed Genocide You've Never Heard Of

As many as 1 million people were killed by Indonesia's Cold War regime—and we still don't know the full story of our government's involvement.

—By Samantha Michaels | Thu Oct. 1, 2015 5:10 AM EDT

Former Indonesian dictator Suharto, second from left in sunglasses, on October 6, 1965. 
Fifty years ago today, one of the biggest mass murders of the 20th century began in Indonesia. On the heels of a Cold War-era military takeover, between 500,000 and 1 million people were slaughtered by the army and civilian death squads—with support from the US government. Starting in October 1965 and continuing through much of the next year, these Indonesian victims were accused of being communists, whether or not they supported the country's communist party: Many were targeted simply because they were seen as opponents of the new US-supported, military-backed Indonesian regime.
In Germany, Rwanda, and Cambodia, mass killings have been followed by truth-and-reconciliation commissions or trials. In Indonesia, despite a transition from military rule toward democracy that began in 1998, there haven't even been memorials for the victims. The killers were never brought to justice, and many of them remain in power today. Meanwhile, the US government's own role in the bloodshed remains unclear, as key documents related to the atrocity are classified. Even so, researchers and journalists have dug up some damning evidence of American involvement. Here's a rundown of what happened and what we do know.
President John Kennedy and Sukarno share a car at Andrews Air Force Base near Washington in 1961. AP
During the the Cold War, why was the United States concerned about Indonesia? After Indonesia won its war of independence against the Netherlands in 1949, a hero of the struggle named Sukarno became president. The United States was not a fan of his politics: Though he was not a communist himself, he was an anti-West populist-socialist who took steps after the war to nationalize plantations and other lucrative assets. He also protected the rapidly growing communist party, known as the PKI, which by 1965 was the biggest such organization outside of a communist country. The United States conducted covert operations during the late 1950s intended to weaken Sukarno's government and strengthen the staunchly anti-communist Indonesian military. "They considered the army to have the muscle to balance Sukarno," says Indonesian journalist Andreas Harsono, a researcher for Human Rights Watch.
What sparked the mass murders? In the early hours of October 1, 1965, a group of army conspirators killed six generals in Jakarta, the country's capital. Maj. Gen. Suharto, who would soon become Indonesia's dictator for more than three decades, took control of the armed forces, claiming that the killings were part of an attempted communist coup. Then he and the military launched a campaign to purge Indonesians believed to be connected with the communist party or left-leaning organizations. They also targeted hundreds of thousands of Indonesians unconnected to the party who they saw as potential opponents of their new regime, including union members, small farmers, intellectuals, activists, and ethnic Chinese. The carnage was so intense that people stopped eating fish—fearing that the fish were consuming the human corpses flooding the rivers.
Members of the youth wing of Indonesia's communist party are taken to a Jakarta prison on October 30, 1965. AP
So, how was the United States involved?Speculation abounds over the US role in the 1965 military takeover, though there's no concrete proof in the public record that America had a direct hand in it. However, investigations by journalists, as well as government documents, have made it clear that the United States provided money, weapons, and equipment to the Indonesian military while it was undertaking the killings. What's more, according to excerpts of contemporary cables released by the US State Department, officials at the US embassy created lists of thousands of names of communists and provided them to the military. It has been reported that the CIA worked on the lists, too, but the agency has denied involvement, Harsono says.
How was the genocide covered by the US press? "It was presented in the American media as good news," says Joshua Oppenheimer, a filmmaker who has spent the past 12 years investigating the mass murders and producing two award-winning documentaries about them. He cites a 1966 story in Time magazine that said the killings were the "best news for years in Asia." In a report at the time for NBC News, a correspondent spoke with an Indonesian man in Bali who claimed that the island, famous for its tourism, had "become more beautiful without communists," and that "some of them wanted to be killed." The correspondent noted that Indonesia boasted "fabulous potential wealth in natural resources" before showing footage of so-called communist prisoners at a labor camp on the island of Sumatra, some of whom, he said, would be starved to death or released from the camp to be killed by local citizens.
What's the situation in Indonesia today? Military rule ended in 1998 when Suharto was forced out, but even today many of the perpetrators of the killings remain in power, immune from prosecution. (Under Indonesian law, soldiers cannot be taken to trial in civilian courts.) Schools continue to teach that it was necessary and good to wipe out "the communists," and the government has yet to issue a national apology or establish a truth-and-reconciliation commission. "It was the darkness period," says Harsono. "I have hope that sooner or later the Indonesian government will apologize and overcome the handicap to learn the truth of that darkness." Over the last 50 years, the nation has remained a key US ally in the region. Home to some 250 million people, Indonesia is the world's most populous Muslim country and an important backer of the United States in the so-called war on terror. Oppenheimer believes a US acknowledgment of its role in the killings might embolden Indonesia's current president, Joko "Jokowi" Widodo, to address what happened.
Is anyone pushing for more accountability? Human Rights Watch and other activists have for years called on the US government to declassify all relevant documents, and today Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) reintroduced a resolution in Congress calling for their release. Oppenheimer's documentaries have brought new public attention in both countries to the period. In his first film, The Act of Killing(2012), which was nominated for an Academy Award, he identified several of the killers and convinced them to reenact the murders they committed. "They offered boastful accounts of the killings, often with smiles on their faces and in front of their grandchildren," Oppenheimer explained in a recent New York Times op-ed. "I felt I had wandered into Germany 40 years after the Holocaust, only to find the Nazis still in power." In his second documentary, The Look of Silence (2014), a death squad leader looks straight into the camera and says, "We should be rewarded with a trip to America—if not by airplane, a cruise will do. We deserve it! We did this because America taught us to hate communists."
This article has been updated.

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Teo Ser Luck, Minister of State and Singapore Ministry of Manpower

A response from the Ministry of Manpower over Minister of State, Teo Ser Luck's photo caption.

The photo showed Mr Teo, on a bed with no mattress in a dormitory, with the caption: "I learnt that some workers prefer to sleep without a mattress as they are used to it back in their home country." 

"We understand that many of you have expressed concerns over a Facebook photo featuring MOS Teo Ser Luck visiting a dormitory.

The Facebook post, including the captions, were put up by our MOM Facebook Administrator. MOS Teo did not make those comments. We regret the unintended implications, and any misunderstanding that the post has caused. To avoid further misrepresentation, we have removed all the captions from the Facebook post.
Foreign workers have contributed much to the development of Singapore. The visit to the dormitory is to show our appreciation, and our care and concern for their wellbeing from housing to food, and exercise to entertainment in their dormitories. It is unfortunate it was over shadowed by this turn of events.
As we celebrate International Migrants Day today, and over the weekend, we would like to appeal to the public to refocus our attention on showing appreciation to our foreign workers. Our work to improve the experiences of foreign workers in Singapore will continue through the joint efforts of the tripartite partners, NGOs and the general public.
Thank you." 
- https://www.facebook.com/sgministryofmanpower/posts/934994316549836 Singapore Ministry of Manpower18 December at 19:45 · 


No lah. What kind of excuse is this? How honest is this mistake? 

This comment is just insensitive and this administrator or minister can say that? 
Just baffling. 

If there is no controversy, the ghost writer / administrator will not surface. 

Hence, it is possible that all the public figures engage 'ghost writers' and the blame could be on the ghost writers for the mistakes every time he makes it. 

People may be angry at the comments initially but to find out that the 'Teo Ser Luck' is really somebody else 'writing/posing' for him so that he has an online presence. That is worst and makes him appear more dishonest. Although ghost writers are common, most people who use them do not publicly announce that because it goes against the objective of having an online personality. 

However, Teo doesn't seem to vett the posts and by letting the ghost writer out of the bag so soon may actually make the public think about ghost writers for his comardes. Let's say they all have ghost writers, who has a better one? Too bad Teo just happens to have a bad one. 

FB comments: 
Q - "SIR LUCKY"
M - "Also, were the comments really made by an administrator? Really..."
 -- Reply - Me -: "Mystery...."
Reply W - "If people liked the comments, they were made by him. If not, admin sure tio tua." 


Other related links: 
http://www.tnp.sg/news/singapore-news/mattress-comment-was-mom-facebook-administrator
 

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

More seniors in Singapore taking own lives

Saw this article the other day on more seniors taking their own lives. 60 percent increase since 2000. It is sad to hear this news. There is an increasingly aging population in Singapore and there should be more to be done to address the lives of seniors as it is not about the seniors who kill themselves but about how to improve their quality of life.

A few of my projects bring me in contact with some seniors. Besides issues with money, there is also an issue with mobility and loneliness.





Listed Helplines from the article.

•Samaritans of Singapore (SOS): 1800- 221-4444 (24-hour)

•Singapore Association for Mental Health: 1800-283-7019

•IMH Mobile Crisis Service: 6389-2222 (24-hour)

•Care Corner Counselling Centre (Mandarin): 1800-353-5800

•Seniors Helpline: 1800-555-5555

•Touchline (Touch Youth Service): 1800-377-2252

•Tinkle Friend: Children can call 1800- 274-4788 on weekdays

•Aware: 1800-774-5935

•Family Service Centre: 1800-838-0100


http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/more-seniors-in-spore-taking-own-lives

More seniors in Singapore taking own lives

PUBLISHED DEC 17, 2015, 5:00 AM SGT

SINGAPORE - The golden years are losing their lustre for a rising number of the elderly here, with more taking their lives in the later phase of life.

Last year (2014), 126 seniors aged 60 and above killed themselves. This is a jump of nearly 60 percent from the 79 seniors who committed suicide in 2000. There were 95 of them in 2010.

While the suicide rate in Singapore has remained at between eight and 10 suicides per 100,000 residents over the past decade, the proportion of the elderly among those who take their lives each year has risen.

In 2000, 23 percent of suicides here were from among the elderly. By 2010, the group made up 27 percent, and the number grew to 30 percent last year.

"It worries us that more of the elderly are turning to suicide as the only choice to end their pain and struggles," said Ms Chan Wai Ping, counsellor at Tsao Foundation's Hua Mei Centre for Successful Ageing.

Ms Christine Wong, executive director of suicide prevention agency Samaritans of Singapore, said suicides among the elderly are "a disturbing indicator of the level of distress they were experiencing in what should be the golden years of their lives". "The majority of the elderly clients who called our 24-hour hotline expressed concerns such as physical and mental ill health, financial and relationship issues, and loneliness," said Ms Wong.

Ms Chan added: "They lose a sense of purpose, lack confidence in coping with further deterioration and don't want to be a burden as their care needs get more demanding."

About a third of the elderly that the centre counselled over the past three years experienced social isolation, a major issue for older adults here. About 32 per cent of older Singaporeans aged 60 and older report being sometimes lonely, and 19 per cent report being mostly lonely, said a study led by Associate Professor Angelique Chan of the Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School.

The study, released last year, found that feeling lonely raised one's risk of dying by 34 per cent over a four-year period, compared with those who were not lonely.

The number of people aged 65 and above who live by themselves has nearly tripled from 14,500 in 2000 to 42,100 last year. The elderly make up about a third of all one- person households here.

While some of these seniors are single from the start, counsellors say many others struggle with adjusting to life after the death of their spouses.

But loneliness is a state of mind and can affect even those who live with family. Prof Chan's study showed that individuals who live alone or live with children are most likely to be lonely, but living with a spouse helps to stave off loneliness.

It is not known if the depression rate among the elderly has risen, but the Institute of Mental Health is working on a $4.4 million study on the well-being of the elderly here to examine this aspect, among others.

Prof Chan said: "As loneliness is a more powerful predictor of mortality compared with living arrangements, programmes that focus solely on older adults living alone may miss a large group of lonely older adults living with children."

Busy schedules and caring for their own children could make adult children less available to their parents, she added.

Experts say people should be trained in mental "CPR".

"It would be helpful for staff and volunteers in welfare organisations to be trained in identifying symptoms of depression, and family members to be able to spot signs of cognitive decline," said Mr Edmund Song, executive director of RSVP Singapore, a non-profit organisation of senior volunteers .

Ms Chan said: "Even when providing services, we need to actively involve and empower the elderly in their own health management rather than have them as passive recipients."

Sometimes, what old people need is simply friendship, as in the case of a man befriended by Mr Tan Chor Koon, 57, who has been making home visits to the elderly with Lions Befrienders since 2009.

The assistant property manager recalled an old man who expressed a wish to visit a friend in Thailand after finding out he had late-stage liver cancer. Dr Chey Chor Khoon, executive director of Lions Befrienders, said: "Mr Tan's friendship has brought meaning, assurance and comfort to his befriendee. He even helped his befriendee to fulfil that extraordinary last wish."