May 30, 2009
China plans for the next big disaster
By Peter J Brown
On the day before the first anniversary of the May 2008 Sichuan earthquake, China's Information Office of the State Council released a white paper entitled, "China's Actions for Disaster Prevention and Reduction". According to the white paper, frequent natural disasters in China and around the world have caused enormous losses of life and property.
"China is one of the countries in the world that suffers the most natural disasters," said the white paper. "Always placing people first, the Chinese government has all along put the security of people's lives and property on the top of its work, and has listed the disaster prevention and reduction in its economic and social development plan as an important guarantee of sustainable development."
In Section II of the white paper - "Strategic Goals and Tasks for Disaster Reduction" - the government clearly stated that one main objective is, "to strengthen the state capacity for emergency rescue and relief work. A coordinated and efficient disaster emergency management system will be built, characterized by unified command, sound coordination, clear division of work and level-by-level control with local authorities playing the main role. This will form, by and large, an emergency relief system covering all aspects."
A formal assessment of China's emergency response and recovery efforts following last year's earthquake was issued in December under the auspices of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) with assistance from the Bangkok-based Asian Disaster Preparedness Center. The ADB report, "People's Republic of China: Providing Emergency Response to Sichuan Earthquake" is much longer - almost 200 pages - and, in many respects, more comprehensive and candid than the Chinese government's official white paper.
To get a complete picture, one must read both the white paper and the ADB report. When it comes to describing the current state of disaster response, mitigation and preparedness in China, the ADB report addresses real world concerns and looming gaps in China's approach to disaster response and emergency management from the national to the provincial, and on down to the grassroots level. Prepared for China's Ministry of Civil Affairs (MCA), it documents numerous deficiencies and organizational problems at all levels.
"There are few established comprehensive training strategies and programs, and coordinated multi-sectoral needs analyses, essential for the development of appropriate curricula and associated training materials, have not been undertaken. There is a lack of standards for disaster risk management training, and there is also no independent monitoring structure for the evaluation of disaster risk management training materials and activities," said the ADB report.
Contrast these observations with the following comments in the government's white paper.
"Classes on disaster emergency management for leading officials at the provincial level and classes on unexpected incidents emergency management for officials at the provincial and ministerial level have been held," said the white paper. "Since 2005, special training in disaster emergency management for civil servants has been actively carried out, which has effectively helped to improve the overall quality and ability of disaster emergency management personnel at various levels in preventing and dealing with natural disasters and other unexpected incidents."
One immediately detects a different tone in the ADB report, and a more direct message that cannot be ignored. The white paper paints a more optimistic picture, while the ADB report simply tries to be more realistic.
"It is vital that the plans are regularly improved and updated, and that drills are carried out to practice and test the plans. Moreover, a number of contingency plans are not practical enough, and there are too many conflicts between them, both vertically and horizontally," the ADB report stated.
According to the ADB report, the official death toll as a result of the Sichuan earthquake - the strongest earthquake in China in nearly 60 years - was 69,227 with 17,923 people missing, and 374,643 people injured. More than 46 million people were affected.
Sadly, lessons learned after the huge Tangshan earthquake of 1976 were never heeded, according to the ADB report.
"Most of the people did not know that an earthquake on this scale could occur in the area; and they did not have knowledge and measures which could be adopted to protect themselves and their families before and during the earthquake," stated the ADB report.
Besides the need for appropriate house and building design and construction practices - the terrible tragedy which cost thousands of young lives resulting from collapsed school buildings last year is a very sad and heated subject unto itself will not be discussed here - some of the other forgotten lessons from the 1976 earthquake which claimed approximately 240,000 lives included the fact that no suitably empowered disaster management agency was established in China, and there were so few properly trained and equipped rescue personnel despite "more than 100,000 troops [who] participated in rescue activities during the disaster".
China has changed a lot since then, however. Whereas China's borders were sealed before and after the Tangshan earthquake struck, in 2008 China was thankful for all the relief supplies that poured in from other countries along with trained rescue personnel and relief workers. China continues to express its gratitude for this aid.
Earth observation satellites operated by European, North American and other space agencies immediately started to gather and share satellite imagery of the impacted zone as part of a broad multinational space mobilization under the International Charter "Space and Major Disasters" which was activated by the National Disaster Reduction Center of China.
China has requested satellite flyovers on various occasions under the Charter since 2005, following massive floods in particular. A request for foreign satellites to survey Chinese territory under any circumstance would have been completely out of the question 32 years ago.
As part of a so-called system for Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW), the Military Training and Arms Department of the General Staff Headquarters of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) also announced in May the formation of five specialized PLA units which will be ready to respond to floods, earthquakes, chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents, transportation sector-related disasters, and, international peacekeeping and disaster relief activities.
"In general, all of the Chinese armed forces, the PLA active and reserve forces, People's Armed Police Force, and militia, routinely take part in disaster relief operations in China. Disaster relief training has been incorporated in the PLAs official training program since 2002," said Dennis Blasko, author of The Chinese Army Today (Routledge, 2006), and a former US army attache in Beijing and Hong Kong during the 1990s. "The PLA's MOOTW system looks to me like the PLA is trying to codify lessons learned from all their recent experience and organize and train forces to be able to respond more rapidly and effectively in the future."
A total of 19 PLA engineering units have been assigned to flood response duties along all of China's major rivers since 1998, according to Blasko. During last year's relief efforts in Sichuan, active duty PLA forces from all services - army, navy, air force, and second artillery - and from all seven military regions were deployed in Sichuan and surrounding areas with many forces staying several months.
"This massive deployment revealed many shortcomings in the force which China has readily admitted to in the media even as the troops provided important support to the local government," said Blasko. "However, you would be wrong to assume that the PLA somehow dominates China's large-scale emergency management system. The PLA and other elements of the armed forces provide manpower and specialized assistance when requested. At all levels of government, military officials take part in the meetings on local and national security, but they are part of a large group of government and [Communist] Party officials that make these decisions."
China recognized that things had to be improved years ago. An article in the China Daily in January 2007, for example, described the forthcoming National Programs of Comprehensive Disaster Reduction, under the 11th Five-Year Plan (2006-10).
"Unlike the National Disaster Reduction Program of China (1998-2010), which emphasized principles, the new programs focus on information-sharing, coordinating ministry-level disaster prevention efforts, and increasing public awareness of how to respond to disasters." [1]
Still, at a meeting last September attended by the team preparing the ADB report and several representatives from various government agencies and others in Gansu province, local and provincial authorities along with ordinary citizens where everyone was encouraged to share their opinions, one sees that very little progress had been made.
Some attendees, "provided different opinions on the existing [governmental response], and recognized that [it] was not effective enough, particularly in the initial phase after the earthquake occurred. The group recognized that united leadership under the government was crucial, however, the Provincial Committee for Disaster Reduction was not able to fully exercise its important and key roles before, during and after the disaster, as its role is restricted to coordination and it does not have the power that it needs to undertake the broader role," the ADB report stated.
The attendees in Gansu then went on to describe "a series of problems on command, coordination and information dissemination during the disaster response and relief [efforts] ... There was no advanced equipment for disaster emergency response, such as satellite mobile phones, movable command vehicles and rescue tools. This affected relief activities significantly in the critical early stages of the disaster," the ADB report stated.
Another problem is that the individual offices responsible for disaster relief do not in and of themselves have the clout they need, nor are they set up to have it, according to Drew Thompson, director of China Studies at The Nixon Center in Washington, DC. Those offices play a coordinating function and are embedded within the MCA, which is supposed to provide the political clout.
"When a crisis occurs, there is a classification system that designates what level of political leader is in charge in the event of a disaster. That leader brings the clout and is expected to mobilize the different branches of the bureaucracy, which in normal times would exercise a certain degree of independence," said Thompson. "The relationship between the central government and the provinces is very different than the federal government and states [in the US]. In particular, Chinese provinces are, in financial terms, relatively less dependent on the central government compared to the US system. Certainly, central government funds flow to provinces and disaster areas in the event of a crisis, but those are ad hoc arrangements, rather than systematic, long-term budgetary relationships."
Here are just a few of the many recommendations (edited and abridged) that appear in the ADB report:
1. A National Disaster Management Authorized Agency (NDMAA) needs to be established with sufficient power at the national level, and similar emergency management agencies should be established at provincial and local levels. The NDMAA should adopt what is known as an "all hazards" approach under a steering committee composed of relevant ministers chaired by a top leader of the country.
2. Besides a National Disaster Management Operations Center under the NDMAA, a disaster management operations center should be established in each of six regions, along with a sophisticated and reliable network for activating and sustaining effective inter-provincial and intra-provincial command, control and coordination.
3. A comprehensive national law on disaster risk management must emerge which will also provide a legal basis for the establishment of the NDMAA, related committees and regional operation centers. Disaster risk management must rise to a higher level of priority, and, ongoing governmental and fiscal support for this and other related activities must be maintained in a stable, responsible and predictable manner over time.
4. An action plan for implementing the “National Plan for Comprehensive Disaster Reduction during the ‘Eleventh Five-Year Plan’ period of the People’s Republic of China" needs to be urgently developed, and disaster risk reduction needs to be mainstreamed into the development cycle at all levels.
5. A public-private partnership must emerge to collectively address the process of spreading disaster risk, and a flexible and responsive insurance compensation system should be established with the support and approval of the government, and the insurance sector.
"The Chinese government has made great efforts to reduce the risks and consequences of natural disasters. And yet, it is clearly aware that inadequacies exist that need to be addressed immediately," the white paper said.
Besides coordination and integration of relief efforts, laws and regulations concerning disaster reduction as well as related policies need to be improved. An effective disaster monitoring system is evolving, but it is not in place and operating in 2009. Support for the construction of disaster-resistant or reinforced infrastructure is lacking, and finally, public awareness needs to be enhanced, according to the white paper.
"As natural disasters pose a common challenge to mankind, disaster reduction is a global effort. China will continue to work unremittingly to reduce the risks and damage posed by natural disasters together with the rest of the world for the development and progress of human society," the white paper said.
Andrew Maskrey, the lead author of the new United Nations report -"Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction" - which was released in mid-May told the New York Times that China has not adequately addressed the surge in population in its coastal zone, and that China "has not yet developed the institutional mechanisms to reduce the risk that entails." [2]
China seems to take Maskrey's comments in stride and, for example, had already proceeded to highlight the uncertainty surrounding the seemingly unavoidable impact of climate change in its white paper.
"Now and for a fairly long time to come, the risks of extreme weather phenomena are increasing along with global climate changes. The probability of strong and extra-strong typhoons, tempests and other disasters is quite high," said the white paper.
Many of the goals and objectives that are spelled out in the white paper and ADB report will take at least two to three years to achieve, if not longer. Allocating sufficient funds, applying talented and well-managed human resources, and, maintaining a suitable momentum across multiple organizations, associations and communities will remain a huge challenge for China. Accomplishing this vital undertaking cannot be done simply by governmental decree alone.
Notes
1. 'Coordinate disaster response' China Daily.
2. Studies Tie Disaster Risk to Urban Growth The New York Times. May 16, 2009.
Peter J Brown is a freelance writer from Maine USA. His related commentaries primarily on emergency communications have appeared in the Washington Times, Journal of Emergency Management and Disaster Medicine & Public Health Preparedness, a journal of the American Medical Association. He is a contributor to Asia Times Online.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29994.1
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Johan Skarendal: I'm here to observe, not intervene
Internet forums abuzz with Swedish activist's meeting with local human rights group. He says:
I'm here to observe, not intervene
WHY was he in Singapore?
By Liew Hanqing
30 May 2009
WHY was he in Singapore?
What was the rationale for his meeting with a local human rights organisation here? Is his organisation funding this, or any other, group here?
These questions are just some that have been bandied about since Mr Johan Skarendal, 29, visited Singapore last month.
Mr Skarendal is a member of the Swedish International Liberal Centre (SILC), a foundation which claims to assist democracy development.
Some Singaporeans he met with during his recent visit are members of a local human rights organisation called Maruah (Malay for dignity).
Maruah's members include former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Braema Mathi, NMP Siew Kum Hong, lawyer Peter Low, academic Cherian George, Dr Stuart Koe, founder of gay media company Fridae, and Mr Leong Sze Hian, president of the Society of Financial Service Professionals.
Online speculation on the meeting's agenda has been rife, with netizens questioning whether the foundation has been funding Maruah's activities.
Mr Skarendal did not answer The New Paper's questions on whether SILC is currently funding the work of any Singaporean individuals or organisations, but stressed that the topic of funding was not broached during the recent meeting.
Ms Mathi, Maruah's chairman, added that it is common for human rights advocates to meet with 'like-minded' people from other countries, whether in Singapore or overseas.
She clarified that Maruah does not currently receive any external funding.
'We are paying for everything out of our own pockets,' she said.
Mr Skarendal described his latest visit as a 'fact-finding' visit.
'I was mostly interested in the work and backgrounds of the people involved - I wanted to learn about how prominent Singaporeans involved in civil society viewed the human rights issues in Singapore,' he said.
'Funding not discussed'
None of the Maruah members present at the meeting raised the subject of funding, Mr Skarendal said.
He said: 'I went to Singapore on behalf of SILC to learn from and observe Singaporean civil society, not to intervene.'
Confirming he met with Mr Skarendal last month, Mr Leong Sze Hian, who attended as a representative of Maruah, said Mr Skarendal asked questions pertaining to Maruah's work here.
Said Mr Leong: 'He asked about the work that Maruah does - what activities are being planned, and so on.'
One of the upcoming events Maruah has planned is a peace vigil for the freedom of Aung San Suu Kyi on 31 May at Hong Lim Park.
Ms Mathi said such events are completely paid for by Maruah members.
The group does not incur any day-to-day operating costs.
She said: 'When we started Maruah, we set ourselves some ground rules - to be as transparent as possible, to post our accounts - if any - online, not to break any Singapore law, and not to have any members with political party affiliations.'
The group is currently funded solely by its members.
Ms Mathi said, however, that the group would eventually have to seek funding from external sources as it grows, and that Maruah would likely first seek local sources of funding.
She added that she is disappointed with the recent spate of online allegations against the group's members.
She said: 'The allegations are misleading and mischief-laden, and belittle the hard work of civil society.'
The recent visit was not Mr Skarendal's first time to Singapore.
In 2003, Swedish foundations, comprising SILC, the Olof Palme Centre, and the Jarl Hjarlmarson Foundation co-sponsored an international youth conference in Singapore where young Swedish parliamentarians and youth leaders met with young Singaporeans to discuss democracy.
The same year, Mr Skarendal met with Singapore Democratic Party secretary-general Chee Soon Juan for the first time when DrChee visited Sweden.
Said Mr Skarendal: 'We have become good friends ever since. In fact, he had written my testimonial when I had applied to do my Masters degree at the Taiwanese National Chengchi University in 2006.'
What's Maruah
MARUAH, the Singapore Working Committee for an Asean Human Rights Mechanism, was formed in September 2007.
The group, which aims to raise awareness of human rights, was formed after Asean leaders decided in July 2007 to include a provision for a human rights body in the Asean Charter.
Maruah's members include students, academics, activists, lawyers, doctors and writers.
The group has organised various events for several causes, including a gathering appealing for fair working conditions for workers, a public lecture on human rights in Asean, and an upcoming peace vigil for Aung San Suu Kyi's freedom.
The group's immediate task is to transition from being an interim committee to a full-fledged national working group, and to eventually establish a Singapore presence at regional discussions.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28866.79
I'm here to observe, not intervene
WHY was he in Singapore?
By Liew Hanqing
30 May 2009
WHY was he in Singapore?
What was the rationale for his meeting with a local human rights organisation here? Is his organisation funding this, or any other, group here?
These questions are just some that have been bandied about since Mr Johan Skarendal, 29, visited Singapore last month.
Mr Skarendal is a member of the Swedish International Liberal Centre (SILC), a foundation which claims to assist democracy development.
Some Singaporeans he met with during his recent visit are members of a local human rights organisation called Maruah (Malay for dignity).
Maruah's members include former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Braema Mathi, NMP Siew Kum Hong, lawyer Peter Low, academic Cherian George, Dr Stuart Koe, founder of gay media company Fridae, and Mr Leong Sze Hian, president of the Society of Financial Service Professionals.
Online speculation on the meeting's agenda has been rife, with netizens questioning whether the foundation has been funding Maruah's activities.
Mr Skarendal did not answer The New Paper's questions on whether SILC is currently funding the work of any Singaporean individuals or organisations, but stressed that the topic of funding was not broached during the recent meeting.
Ms Mathi, Maruah's chairman, added that it is common for human rights advocates to meet with 'like-minded' people from other countries, whether in Singapore or overseas.
She clarified that Maruah does not currently receive any external funding.
'We are paying for everything out of our own pockets,' she said.
Mr Skarendal described his latest visit as a 'fact-finding' visit.
'I was mostly interested in the work and backgrounds of the people involved - I wanted to learn about how prominent Singaporeans involved in civil society viewed the human rights issues in Singapore,' he said.
'Funding not discussed'
None of the Maruah members present at the meeting raised the subject of funding, Mr Skarendal said.
He said: 'I went to Singapore on behalf of SILC to learn from and observe Singaporean civil society, not to intervene.'
Confirming he met with Mr Skarendal last month, Mr Leong Sze Hian, who attended as a representative of Maruah, said Mr Skarendal asked questions pertaining to Maruah's work here.
Said Mr Leong: 'He asked about the work that Maruah does - what activities are being planned, and so on.'
One of the upcoming events Maruah has planned is a peace vigil for the freedom of Aung San Suu Kyi on 31 May at Hong Lim Park.
Ms Mathi said such events are completely paid for by Maruah members.
The group does not incur any day-to-day operating costs.
She said: 'When we started Maruah, we set ourselves some ground rules - to be as transparent as possible, to post our accounts - if any - online, not to break any Singapore law, and not to have any members with political party affiliations.'
The group is currently funded solely by its members.
Ms Mathi said, however, that the group would eventually have to seek funding from external sources as it grows, and that Maruah would likely first seek local sources of funding.
She added that she is disappointed with the recent spate of online allegations against the group's members.
She said: 'The allegations are misleading and mischief-laden, and belittle the hard work of civil society.'
The recent visit was not Mr Skarendal's first time to Singapore.
In 2003, Swedish foundations, comprising SILC, the Olof Palme Centre, and the Jarl Hjarlmarson Foundation co-sponsored an international youth conference in Singapore where young Swedish parliamentarians and youth leaders met with young Singaporeans to discuss democracy.
The same year, Mr Skarendal met with Singapore Democratic Party secretary-general Chee Soon Juan for the first time when DrChee visited Sweden.
Said Mr Skarendal: 'We have become good friends ever since. In fact, he had written my testimonial when I had applied to do my Masters degree at the Taiwanese National Chengchi University in 2006.'
What's Maruah
MARUAH, the Singapore Working Committee for an Asean Human Rights Mechanism, was formed in September 2007.
The group, which aims to raise awareness of human rights, was formed after Asean leaders decided in July 2007 to include a provision for a human rights body in the Asean Charter.
Maruah's members include students, academics, activists, lawyers, doctors and writers.
The group has organised various events for several causes, including a gathering appealing for fair working conditions for workers, a public lecture on human rights in Asean, and an upcoming peace vigil for Aung San Suu Kyi's freedom.
The group's immediate task is to transition from being an interim committee to a full-fledged national working group, and to eventually establish a Singapore presence at regional discussions.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28866.79
WORKERS' PARTY'S SYLVIA LIM SAYS: Is this a sign of future rivalry?
| Parliament WORKERS' PARTY'S SYLVIA LIM SAYS: | |||||
| Is this a sign of future rivalry? | |||||
| | |||||
| |||||
| |||||
COULD a new battle line have opened up in Parliament, fuelled in part by a snub from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong?
Speaking in Parliament yesterday about the changes to Singapore's political system announced the day before, the Workers' Party's Sylvia Lim was largely amicable, if cautious. Increase the number of Single Member Constituencies? It's 'a step in the right direction', she said. Increase the minimum number of opposition members of Parliament from three to nine? 'Supportable', she said. Reduce the size of GRCs? It's an 'overdue' move. But on one point, she refused to budge. That was the move to make the Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) scheme permanent. 'The Workers' Party (WP) continues to be against the NMP scheme as we believe that MPs must contest the election as an essential precondition, to obtain some sort of mandate from the people,' she said. Key phrase, of course, was 'some sort'. Why was Ms Lim, who, as a Non-Constituency MP, is in Parliament only as the best loser in the general elections 2006, unwilling to cut the NMPs some slack? NMPs have been around for 19 years. They have helped the opposition's cause. They have presented more viewpoints in Parliamentary discussions. Is it a matter of principle? But the other changes she agreed to dealt with matters of principle, too. The changes were concessions; the principles behind them - for example, the need for GRCs - haven't changed much. Still, for these, Ms Lim was willing to compromise, play nice. Not so the NMP scheme. Why? To be fair, the WP isn't the only one to have long opposed the NMP scheme. Since it was first mooted in 1981, the NMP scheme has faced strong opposition from many quarters, including PAP MPs like Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Mr Leong Horn Kee. It was precisely to gain their support that the scheme was not made compulsory, so that each new Parliament could decide for itself whether or not to have NMPs.' Not backing down But now, the scheme is permanent. Ms Lim, however, refuses to back down. Why no compromise? Could it be due to what PM Lee said on Wednesday when, with a hearty laugh, he praised NMPs, pointing out that they have sometimes 'outshone' the opposition MPs in Parliament? For opposition MPs who fought tooth and nail to get into Parliament, it must have hurt. How could they be outgunned by NMPs who walked through the doors with nary a battle scar from the campaign trail, who don't spend their nights at Meet-the-People Sessions, and who don't ever have to worry about political survival? Could Ms Lim's snub be a first salvo, a sign of a rivalry to come? At the same time, it will also be interesting to see how the dynamics among opposition parties, some publicly divided by in-fighting, will evolve from here. The changes announced by PM Lee will see a guaranteed nine opposition MPs, probably from different political affiliations, fly the opposition's flag in Parliament. Stronger rivalry? Will the rivalries intensify, now that the stakes are upped? Or will it help the opposition grow and mature, sharpen them, and mould them into future elected MPs? Said Dr Gillian Koh, senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies: 'Whether competition among opposition politicians, and between them and NMPs, is healthy or destructive depends on how they manage themselves according to due processes, the tone of their debates, and how they wish to mobilise or alienate citizens that they say they represent.' What Singaporeans will ultimately see, she said, is opposition politicians taking on each other as much as they might take on the PAP MPs. So new battle lines, new tensions, old rivalries revived and new rivalries born - they're all par for the (democratic) course. 'That is what pluralism is about,' said Dr Koh. |
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29915.1
Temasek, GIC be more open
May 30, 2009
Temasek, GIC be more open
 |  | Mr Palmer (right) said Mr Tharman's statement was more open than Temasek's letter to the media. |
Mr Michael Palmer (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC) urged this yesterday in a speech summing up the debate in the House over the past five days on the President's Address.
He said the statement made by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam to Parliament on Thursday was more open than Temasek's letter to the media a week earlier on May 22, even though both dealt with the same issue - the divestment of Temasek's stake in Bank of America (BoA).
Temasek's own statement did not put in perspective the overall gain in its portfolio over the years, while the minister's statement did.
Temasek's sale of its BoA stake in March was reported in the press earlier this month.
The estimated losses of between US$2.3 billion (S$3.3 billion) and US$4.6 billion led to a public furore and several MPs called on the Government to review the original charters given to Temasek and the other Singapore investment body, GIC.
Mr Palmer said he was reassured by Mr Tharman's response to MPs' questions on Temasek and GIC.
However, he felt more could have been done by Temasek and GIC to 'explain these issues of public interest clearly so that Singaporeans are made aware of the facts and have their questions answered'.
Mr Tharman had assured the House on Thursday that both Temasek and GIC monitor their investments very closely, but that they were ultimately long-term investors.
As a result, their performance could not be judged based on any one investment such as the 2007 purchase of Merrill Lynch shares, that were subsequently converted to BoA shares when BoA took over Merrill.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29908.1
NHG's employee of wayangparty defames Shin Min Daily
CONFIRMED: Shin Min Daily is now the “Jamban” Times
Even when other SPH papers are distancing themselves from Lee Bee Wah, Shin Min Daily has chosen to stick by the woman who had incurred the wrath of the entire nation to the extent of distorting facts and spinning tales to save her skin.
Shin Min is the only paper which published and gave prominent coverage to Lee Bee Wah’s speech in Parliament. It even devoted a space for her on the front page (29 May 2009:
The article which took up almost half of page 6, tried to protray Lee Bee Wah as a kind, compassionate and understanding MP fighting for the rights of elderly workers:
Save your efforts, Shin Min. It is too late for Lee to redeem herself. Had she been gracious enough to meet Liu Guodong and retract her statements made about him, Singaporeans may still consider giving her another chance.
Now that she had retreated behind STTA to continue her slugfest against Liu, she has lost the respect of Singaporeans!
Obviously either the top editors of Shin Min or its journalists have connections with Lee Bee Wah and STTA.
Are they grassroots volunteers in Lee Bee Wah’s Nee Soon South constituency too?
Why are they going out of the way to defend Lee Bee Wah while the other papers seem unwilling to give her any more coverage?
If there is anybody who knows where the missing link is, please email us at wayangparty@hotmail.com
Sign on the two online petitions if you haven’t done so:
1. Petition to DPM Teo Chee Hean to give special award to Liu Guodong
2. Petition to remove Lee Bee Wah as STTA President
Turn up at Hong Lim Park on 6 June 2009 between 5pm to 6.30pm to sign the petition calling for her removal as STTA President.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28839.67
NHG's employee of wayangparty lost the plot of petition to oust Lee Bee Wah
Irresponsible for Dr Vivian Balakrishnan to distance himself from the STTA saga
Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said the controversy between the Singapore Table Tennis Association (STTA) and its former head coach is “unfortunate” and he hopes the issue will be resolved amicably.
Amid calls for the government to step in, the Sports Minister said neither his ministry nor the Singapore Sports Council will get involved in the “micro-managing” of awards. This, he said, was best left to the sporting fraternity.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan has missed the point altogether. The crux of the entire issue does not lie with STTA not nominating Liu Guodong for the “Coach of the year” award, but in Lee Bee Wah’s blunt remarks insinuating that Liu lacked “professionalism and integrity” which sparked off the controversy in the first place.
Singaporeans are calling Dr Vivian to step in not to “micromanage the awards”, but to resolve the matter by asking Lee Bee Wah to either substantiate her allegations about Liu Guodong or retract her statements and apologize without any reservation.
As he has demonstrated last year by making Lee Bee Wah apologized publicly for her unwarranted outburst in Beijing, Dr Vivian has the power to intervene to put a stop to the protracted tussle which is dragging the entire sporting fraternity into disrepute.
Dr Vivian added that the SNOC and NSAs are governed by their respective constitutions, and the ministry and SSC are not involved in their routine operations or programmes.
If this is indeed so, who appointed Lee Bee Wah to take over from Choo Wei Kiang as STTA President 3 weeks before the team’s departure to Beijing just in time for her to bask in the limelight of the Beijing Olympics?
Was Lee Bee Wah ever voted into her position as STTA President? Since she clearly has no “mandate” to lead the organization, why can’t she be removed from her position and allow a more suitable candidate to take over?
Dr Vivian and his ministry oversees the development of sports in Singapore. STTA is not a private table tennis association. It is funded entirely by taxpayers’ monies. Surely Singaporeans should have a say in how the association is being run?
Of course we do not expect to meddle in the daily modus operandi of STTA, but in this instance, it is pretty clear that STTA has gone completely off tangent under the leadership (if it’s the correct word to use) of Lee Bee Wah.
Is this the proper behavior of a President to cast aspersions on the character of an ex-employer without substantiating her claims and then vanished into thin air when the accused came to seek her for clarifications in person?
Shouldn’t a leader take responsibility for her own words and defend herself instead of using STTA as a shield to protect herself from the legal liabilities?
Lee Bee Wah has betrayed the trust of Singaporeans and hurt our feelings again and again.
During the first ping pong controversy last year, there were already calls for her to step down as STTA President.
In less than a year’s time, she repeated the same mistake again. Her callousness, arrogance and ineptitude are simply too much for us to bear.
Being a national association funded by the public, STTA has to be accountable to the people of Singapore.
Unless STTA is owned by Lee Bee Wah, she has no right to continue clinging onto her position in the face of widespread anger and opposition to her leadership.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, please take note of the sentiments on the ground and take appropriate actions to reverse the damage already done to our image at home and abroad before it is too late. The ball is in your court right now.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28839.66
End coach spat amicably
May 30, 2009
End coach spat amicably
Minister suggests a role for mediation centre; he rules out intervention by the Government | By Jeremy Au Yong | ||
 | | Mr Liu headed to China earlier this month after five days of fruitless talks. -- ST PHOTO: WANG HUI FEN |
The Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister indicated that the Singapore Mediation Centre could play a role if need be, and reiterated his hope for a mediated outcome rather than a 'slug fest where only one person walks out of the ring'.
He was responding in Parliament to Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade GRC) who asked for his comments on the table tennis spat.
The dispute started three weeks ago when the STTA refused to nominate former national head coach Liu Guodong for the Singapore Sports Awards - an award many believed Mr Liu was a shoo-in to win. But the STTA said he was not worthy of the accolade.
Angered by what he saw as a slight on his character and integrity, Mr Liu demanded an explanation and flew here from his base in China to discuss the matter. But the matter remains unresolved and Mr Liu has not ruled out legal action.
Dr Balakrishnan ruled out intervention by his ministry: 'Whilst we provide funding to the national sports associations, I think we have, as a matter of discipline, learnt not to micro-manage and not to get involved with the details of operations and in fact even with the details of selection...
'These are decisions best made on the ground by officials, coaches and players and by the people who constitute the sports fraternity for each relevant sport. So I'm very hesitant to say we should go in and second-guess or countermand decisions.'
The primary concern of the ministry and the Singapore Sports Council was in ensuring good governance in the associations.
Dr Balakrishnan, who likened the spat to a disputed line-call in tennis, said it was important not to become 'so distracted or so upset by (it) that you end up losing the match'.
But he told Mr Seah there was a silver lining: 'The fact that people can be bothered, that people are worked up, shows that people are paying interest and care. That reflects the fact that the profile of sport has been raised...It would be much worse if nobody even cared about this award and it didn't even become an issue.'
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28839.65
AWARE SAGA: How ST covered the story
May 30, 2009
AWARE SAGA
How ST covered the story
ST's editor answers critics of this newspaper's reporting of events | By Han Fook Kwang, Editor | ||
 | | The recent leadership tussle at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) sparked a divisive debate on issues such as religion and homosexuality. Above, Aware members at the group's extraordinary general meeting in Suntec City on May 2. -- ST FILE PHOTO |
On Tuesday, Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann said that reporting on the saga had been biased and lacked a diversity of views. She did not name The Straits Times but everyone listening to her would have concluded that she was referring to this newspaper.
Were we biased and one-sided in our coverage? This is best answered by detailing how we covered the story.
Many have forgotten how this story began. Aware held its annual general meeting (AGM) on March28, and for almost three weeks few knew that the group's leadership had changed in a dramatic fashion that day. The old guard team who were tossed out did not announce it. The new president, Mrs Claire Nazar, and her team were silent. It was only on April6 that The Straits Times was tipped off that something unusual had happened at Aware and we began work on the story. Our first report did not appear until April10, because for most of that week we had tried hard to confirm with both sides - the old guard and the new - what had happened.
Founder members and old guard leaders of Aware spoke to us. They confirmed that the election had taken place legitimately and according to Aware rules, which allowed brand new members to seek leadership positions right away. They were distraught, not at seeing their preferred list of candidates lose the election, but at the manner in which the new team moved in. Their account was that the majority of the 102 people who attended the AGM comprised new members who had joined in recent months. Most were unknown, and most stayed silent during the AGM. When it was clear that the new members were contesting executive council positions with the intention of taking over the organisation, older members tried to ask them who they were but received few clear answers.
We were faced with a curious situation. Here was a new team of women who had contested and taken over Aware. Yet, three weeks after they had taken charge of this well-known group, they remained unwilling to explain who they were, why they had acted and what they intended to do with Aware. These are basic questions that any group which takes over a society, grassroots organisation, union, clan or country club should expect to be asked if it pulls off as successful a leadership grab as this appeared to be.
In the days before our first report appeared, our reporters tried hard to reach members of the new leadership. We were willing to report whatever they had to say, but our reporters were stonewalled by everyone they reached. Ms Jenica Chua confirmed she was in the committee but refused to speak. Repeated calls to Ms Josie Lau and Ms Lois Ng were not successful. Ms Lau's husband, Dr Alan Chin, had joined Aware as an affiliate member and had been present at the AGM, but he too would not speak to our reporter. Even the new president, Mrs Nazar, refused to say anything until the day she confirmed that she had resigned after just 11 days at the helm.
More than once, those approached in the new team asked for a set of questions to be sent to them in writing by e-mail. Our reporters obliged, only to receive no answers by e-mail and no face-to-face interview either.
After Ms Lau was appointed president, The Straits Times continued to hope that Aware's new leadership would see fit to open up about themselves and their plans. Attempts to reach individual exco members failed as everyone insisted that only the president was authorised to speak to the media. Yet Ms Lau did not make herself available either, despite numerous attempts to reach her by telephone, e-mail and text message. Instead, she chose to make her first public statements on a television current affairs programme. The Straits Times reported what she said there.
Those who accuse us of being one-sided in our reporting in the first two weeks after the story broke are right in a way. But it was not because we deliberately sought to shut out the views of the new group while providing the old guard space in this newspaper. The new leadership was often absent in our pages because they chose to remain silent, for reasons best known to themselves.
It was not until April23 - almost a month after the Aware AGM - that Ms Lau and some members of her team finally decided to open up at a press conference. The Straits Times sent a team of reporters and covered it comprehensively with reports on Page1 as well as in the inside pages.
Some have criticised our extensive coverage of this story and wondered why our reporting was so 'breathless'. There are many reasons. As this story played out, we witnessed some highly unusual twists. Aside from the leadership change, Aware's new president resigned within a fortnight. Her replacement, Ms Lau, was criticised publicly by her employer, DBS Bank, for taking office. The Straits Times was prepared to give the new team as much space as we had given the old group, and more if necessary, to answer all those questions which had been on everyone's mind: Who were they, why did they take over Aware in the manner they did, and what did they hope to achieve?
It was only at that April23 press conference that senior lawyer Thio Su Mien revealed herself as the mentor of the women who had taken over Aware, and made several comments explaining why she felt Aware needed fixing. We reported that press conference extensively, and followed up by running extracts of what Dr Thio and others said, as well as their answers to additional questions our journalists put to them. We had maintained throughout that The Straits Times was prepared to run what the new leadership said, and we did so, in the interests of providing balance in our coverage so readers could better judge the merits of the arguments.
Our readers are not always aware of the work journalists do behind the scenes to try to present reports that are factual and objective, or the lengths to which we go to persuade those who are unwilling to speak to engage with the media and open up. It was certainly not for lack of trying on our part that the views of the new team led by Ms Lau and her supporters did not appear more often in our pages, especially in the early stages.
Mr Sin Boon Ann, in his speech in Parliament on Wednesday, accused the press of 'framing this episode as one that carries a religious undertone' and, in the process, polarising Singapore society. We should again let the facts speak for themselves. From the outset, we wanted to find out more about the new group, but because they were not willing to speak, we had to do our own research. Our checks showed one common link initially: several members of the new group had written letters to the press expressing concern about the perils of promoting a homosexual lifestyle in Singapore. We subsequently also found out that several of them belonged to the same Anglican Church of Our Saviour. We reported these factually.
Were we wrong to have highlighted those links? The April23 press conference confirmed what The Straits Times had reported. Dr Thio, who also attends the same church, revealed that she began monitoring Aware's affairs about a year ago because she was disturbed by what she saw as signs that it was promoting lesbianism and homosexuality. She then began urging women she knew - including many in her church circle - to challenge what she perceived to be Aware's attempts to redefine marriage and families.
What of the 'religious undertones' which Mr Sin accused the press of promoting in its coverage? This is totally mistaken, and akin to shooting the messenger. In fact, the strongest expressions of concern over this were not made by the press, but by various other parties.
As Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng observed in an interview with this paper: 'The Government was worried about the disquieting public perception that a group of conservative Christians, all attending the same church, which held strong views on homosexuality had moved in and taken over Aware because they disapproved of what Aware had been doing. This caused many qualms among non-Christians, and also among Christians who believed that this was an unwise move in a multiracial, multi-religious society. It was much more dangerous because now, religion was also getting involved, and it was no longer just the issue of homosexuality.'
No higher authority in the Christian community than Anglican Archbishop John Chew of the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) issued a clear statement that the NCCS did not condone any church getting involved in the Aware dispute. Leaders of other religious faiths also put out statements to reinforce NCCS' message.
Why did so many feel it necessary to speak out on the danger of mixing religion with politics in the Aware saga? It wasn't the press which gave them the idea.
Was it because of what Senior Pastor Derek Hong of the Church of Our Saviour was reported to have said from the pulpit, urging his flock to support the then new exco in Aware? He had said:
'It's not a crusade against the people but there's a line that God has drawn for us, and we don't want our nation crossing that line.' We leave it to readers to decide.
Far from The Straits Times raking the ground with an anti-religious agenda, we provided the available facts surrounding the makeup of the new group for readers to draw their own conclusions. Subsequent events showed that we were not barking up the wrong tree.
Mr Sin wondered if 'the press would have been so quick on the take if it were women from another faith who took up the cause instead'.
He ought to know better than to use the religion card in this fashion. If Mr Sin is accusing The Straits Times of being in favour of some religions against others - a very serious accusation against a newspaper with 1.4million readers of every religious shade - he should substantiate his complaint.
I hope the facts I have set out above will help readers understand better our coverage of the Aware saga. Were we right in every aspect of our coverage? Of course not. Journalists are human, we make mistakes and we have our blind spots. Our record is that we are upfront about our errors and apologise for them promptly. Our internal processes, which involve several layers of editing and gate-keeping, ensure that individual reporters do not push their own agendas. We have also carried out our own internal review of our coverage and have found that we could have done better in several respects. For example, we should have pressed the old guard more on Aware's school sexuality programme and the appropriateness of some of its content.
But I stand by the professionalism of our reporters. The personal attacks against the integrity of our journalists sadden me because they show the vindictiveness of our critics and the length to which they are prepared to go to attack our professionalism. In fact, there appears to be an organised campaign to discredit the media, with mass e-mail being sent, including to Reach, the government feedback portal.
The Straits Times has no hidden agenda to push this line or that, or to favour one group against another. On this story, as with others, we were driven by our desire to provide as much information to our readers as possible, in as timely a manner. That remains our primary objective.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.520
Religion has legitimate place in influencing opinions
Religion has legitimate place in influencing opinions
I AGREE with Professor Thio Li-ann's analysis that secularism, as currently practised in Singapore, does not exclude religion ('Secularism practised in Singapore 'does not exclude religion'', Wednesday).
Nowhere do I find the statement or opinion in the report of Prof Thio's parliamentary speech, that 'religion is appropriate in the public sphere', as asserted by Ms Felicia Tan ('Facts outshine faith', Thursday).
'Pure' secularism, as espoused by Ms Tan, is possible only in a utopian world, simply because in the real world, one's opinion cannot help but be moulded by one's belief, whether religious or non-religious.
The example given by Prof Thio to illustrate her point, of MPs' admission of their particular faiths during a parliamentary debate over casinos in Singapore, is evidence enough of government recognition that religion influences opinion.
One should certainly not argue for or against public policies using points quoted from religious authorities or sources, but this is not the current practice here. Contrary to Ms Tan's views, the fact that Singapore is a multiracial, multireligious society is precisely why we, the public, should appreciate and ensure that we have a representative mix of organisational leaders from the various races and beliefs, both religious and non-religious.
Ms Tan's equating 'pure' secularism with arguing for or against a policy by appealing to 'scientific, sociological or economic facts of the issue' ignores the impact of one's beliefs on the interpretation of the so-called scientific facts, and on sociological matters.
One example is embryonic stem cell research using fertilised human eggs. One can argue for or against it, depending on whether one views the embryo as a mass of cells or the beginnings of human life. So on what 'scientific, sociological or economic' fact should a purely secular argument for public policy on this be based?
Another example is the Ministry of Education's policy regarding sexuality education in schools. That the ministry has reversed its initial policy because of a public outcry, much of it from parents with religion-related (described euphemistically as 'conservative') family views, is proof that their influence is being taken into consideration.
And what about legalising euthanasia? What secular facts should this policy be based on?
In the final analysis, the challenge in multiracial, multireligious Singapore is not to find purely secular resolutions, but ones which are acceptable to all as being for the common good.
Loh Chee Seen (Ms)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.519
I AGREE with Professor Thio Li-ann's analysis that secularism, as currently practised in Singapore, does not exclude religion ('Secularism practised in Singapore 'does not exclude religion'', Wednesday).
Nowhere do I find the statement or opinion in the report of Prof Thio's parliamentary speech, that 'religion is appropriate in the public sphere', as asserted by Ms Felicia Tan ('Facts outshine faith', Thursday).
'Pure' secularism, as espoused by Ms Tan, is possible only in a utopian world, simply because in the real world, one's opinion cannot help but be moulded by one's belief, whether religious or non-religious.
The example given by Prof Thio to illustrate her point, of MPs' admission of their particular faiths during a parliamentary debate over casinos in Singapore, is evidence enough of government recognition that religion influences opinion.
One should certainly not argue for or against public policies using points quoted from religious authorities or sources, but this is not the current practice here. Contrary to Ms Tan's views, the fact that Singapore is a multiracial, multireligious society is precisely why we, the public, should appreciate and ensure that we have a representative mix of organisational leaders from the various races and beliefs, both religious and non-religious.
Ms Tan's equating 'pure' secularism with arguing for or against a policy by appealing to 'scientific, sociological or economic facts of the issue' ignores the impact of one's beliefs on the interpretation of the so-called scientific facts, and on sociological matters.
One example is embryonic stem cell research using fertilised human eggs. One can argue for or against it, depending on whether one views the embryo as a mass of cells or the beginnings of human life. So on what 'scientific, sociological or economic' fact should a purely secular argument for public policy on this be based?
Another example is the Ministry of Education's policy regarding sexuality education in schools. That the ministry has reversed its initial policy because of a public outcry, much of it from parents with religion-related (described euphemistically as 'conservative') family views, is proof that their influence is being taken into consideration.
And what about legalising euthanasia? What secular facts should this policy be based on?
In the final analysis, the challenge in multiracial, multireligious Singapore is not to find purely secular resolutions, but ones which are acceptable to all as being for the common good.
Loh Chee Seen (Ms)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.519
Public policy debates should include reference points like moral principles
Public policy debates should include reference points like moral principles
I AM sure many would agree with Ms Felicia Tan's statement on Thursday: 'An argument about a policy or social issue should be based on its own merits.' I would modify her statement '...should be first based on its own merits' and these same merits should, in turn, be based on some reference points such as basic moral principles. Other merits to be subsequently taken into consideration for the argument in question may refer to social, health, security, economic or political stability issues.
Regarding the assertion by Nominated MP Thio Li-ann that religion is appropriate in the public sphere, German philosopher Jurgen Habermas affirmed it in his lecture, Religion In The Public Sphere, at the University of Lodz in Poland in April 2004. A notion Professor Habermas advocates in his lecture is, as he calls it, 'discourse ethics', which highlights the importance of the learning process as prompted by people of different religions engaging in public dialogue.
Singapore is proactive in this area, as seen by the recent Global Interfaith Seminar at the National University of Singapore, and other dialogues such as the Building Bridges Seminar.
In 2007, I attended Dr Rowan Williams' lecture, Religious Diversity And Social Unity, in which he maintained that 'the presence of diverse religious groups in a society, allowed to have a voice in the decision-making processes of society without embarrassment, is potentially an immense contribution to a genuinely active and interactive social harmony and a sense of moral accountability within the social order'.
Michael Yap
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.518
I AM sure many would agree with Ms Felicia Tan's statement on Thursday: 'An argument about a policy or social issue should be based on its own merits.' I would modify her statement '...should be first based on its own merits' and these same merits should, in turn, be based on some reference points such as basic moral principles. Other merits to be subsequently taken into consideration for the argument in question may refer to social, health, security, economic or political stability issues.
Regarding the assertion by Nominated MP Thio Li-ann that religion is appropriate in the public sphere, German philosopher Jurgen Habermas affirmed it in his lecture, Religion In The Public Sphere, at the University of Lodz in Poland in April 2004. A notion Professor Habermas advocates in his lecture is, as he calls it, 'discourse ethics', which highlights the importance of the learning process as prompted by people of different religions engaging in public dialogue.
Singapore is proactive in this area, as seen by the recent Global Interfaith Seminar at the National University of Singapore, and other dialogues such as the Building Bridges Seminar.
In 2007, I attended Dr Rowan Williams' lecture, Religious Diversity And Social Unity, in which he maintained that 'the presence of diverse religious groups in a society, allowed to have a voice in the decision-making processes of society without embarrassment, is potentially an immense contribution to a genuinely active and interactive social harmony and a sense of moral accountability within the social order'.
Michael Yap
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.518
Militant religionism the real threat to social harmony
Militant religionism the real threat to social harmony
I REFER to Nominated MP Thio Li-ann's recent speech in Parliament, in particular this part:
'Militant secularism is an illiberal and undemocratic vice in seeking to gag religious views in the public square and so to privilege its atheistic values, as in communist states. Secular fundamentalists are oppressive where they seek to mute religiously informed convictions in public debate, by demonising a view as religious. Militant exclusionist secularism is thus a recipe for social disharmony.'
Professor Thio's statements are correct academically but they do not reflect the real threat in Singapore. An empirical examination shows that religious people enjoy freedom to speak out on their religious values in the public space (for example, against euthanasia or homosexuality). In general, we do not see any militant secularists threatening the freedom of religious people in living out their religious moral values in the public space.
What we do see, however, are various instances of 'militant Christians', a minority group among the broader Christian community, encroaching on the space of others who do not share their Christian moral values.
The recent attempt by Dr Thio Su Mien to persuade Christians to join Aware to push forward Christian moral values is one example. It shows a lack of respect for others' differing moral values and space to live out their different moral convictions.
Such 'militant exclusionist religionism' has already generated disharmony, judging by debates in mainstream and online media.
The real threat to social harmony therefore comes not from militant secularism but from militant religionism.
John Hui
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.517
I REFER to Nominated MP Thio Li-ann's recent speech in Parliament, in particular this part:
'Militant secularism is an illiberal and undemocratic vice in seeking to gag religious views in the public square and so to privilege its atheistic values, as in communist states. Secular fundamentalists are oppressive where they seek to mute religiously informed convictions in public debate, by demonising a view as religious. Militant exclusionist secularism is thus a recipe for social disharmony.'
Professor Thio's statements are correct academically but they do not reflect the real threat in Singapore. An empirical examination shows that religious people enjoy freedom to speak out on their religious values in the public space (for example, against euthanasia or homosexuality). In general, we do not see any militant secularists threatening the freedom of religious people in living out their religious moral values in the public space.
What we do see, however, are various instances of 'militant Christians', a minority group among the broader Christian community, encroaching on the space of others who do not share their Christian moral values.
The recent attempt by Dr Thio Su Mien to persuade Christians to join Aware to push forward Christian moral values is one example. It shows a lack of respect for others' differing moral values and space to live out their different moral convictions.
Such 'militant exclusionist religionism' has already generated disharmony, judging by debates in mainstream and online media.
The real threat to social harmony therefore comes not from militant secularism but from militant religionism.
John Hui
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.517
Public policy shouldn't be dominated by a religious viewpoint, but should be informed by it
Public policy shouldn't be dominated by a religious viewpoint, but should be informed by it
I REFER to Thursday's letter by Ms Felicia Tan, 'Facts outshine faith'. First, I agree that in a multireligious, multiracial yet secular society in Singapore, we must strive to be inclusive where every voice is given an opportunity to be heard; no one group, religious or otherwise, should dominate or exclude another; and all should work together for the common good of Singapore and not for self-interest.
However, I find Ms Tan's argument incongruent in that, while she argued for inclusiveness, her conclusion is rather exclusive. It is true that no religion should dominate society in terms of imposing its beliefs on others and there should be no 'form of favouritism', but Ms Tan has just shown favouritism to 'logic and reason', whatever that means. An atheistic world view is as religious as a theistic one and worse, when it is bigoted. The key is how does one not become bigoted and dominating, but works for the common good in the midst of diversity.
I also find Ms Tan too quick in concluding that offering one's religious view would 'essentially alienate the views of other Singaporeans who are of other religions or are non-believers'. This need not be so. Yes, that will happen when one chooses to be bigoted, dominating or imposing, but to say that the religious point of view is to be excluded, society would be poorer for that. Religions have provided the moral fibre of society, given resilience in time of crisis and often motivated good works, as evident in the many humanitarian thrusts provided by various religious groups in Singapore and abroad.
While public policy should not and must not be dominated by religious points of view, it should be informed by it. Finally, public policy, as Ms Tan said, 'should be made on its own merit'.
David Ho
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.516
I REFER to Thursday's letter by Ms Felicia Tan, 'Facts outshine faith'. First, I agree that in a multireligious, multiracial yet secular society in Singapore, we must strive to be inclusive where every voice is given an opportunity to be heard; no one group, religious or otherwise, should dominate or exclude another; and all should work together for the common good of Singapore and not for self-interest.
However, I find Ms Tan's argument incongruent in that, while she argued for inclusiveness, her conclusion is rather exclusive. It is true that no religion should dominate society in terms of imposing its beliefs on others and there should be no 'form of favouritism', but Ms Tan has just shown favouritism to 'logic and reason', whatever that means. An atheistic world view is as religious as a theistic one and worse, when it is bigoted. The key is how does one not become bigoted and dominating, but works for the common good in the midst of diversity.
I also find Ms Tan too quick in concluding that offering one's religious view would 'essentially alienate the views of other Singaporeans who are of other religions or are non-believers'. This need not be so. Yes, that will happen when one chooses to be bigoted, dominating or imposing, but to say that the religious point of view is to be excluded, society would be poorer for that. Religions have provided the moral fibre of society, given resilience in time of crisis and often motivated good works, as evident in the many humanitarian thrusts provided by various religious groups in Singapore and abroad.
While public policy should not and must not be dominated by religious points of view, it should be informed by it. Finally, public policy, as Ms Tan said, 'should be made on its own merit'.
David Ho
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.516
Clear grasp of all issues necessary in religion-politics debate
Clear grasp of all issues necessary in religion-politics debate
I WAS happy to see on Wednesday an excerpt from the speech of Nominated MP Thio Li-ann on the issue of religion and politics ('No 'bright line' between religion and politics'), with some clarifications. Ms Felicia Tan's letter on Thursday ('Facts outshine faith') was helpful too, where it underlines that 'religion-based arguments have no place in public debate about policies'. I must confess I did not find the article by Professor Kishore Mahbubani, 'The virtues of secularism' (May 20), particularly clarifying or helpful, despite its claim to logic.
What we need in any constructive discussion are two things: first, a clear grasp of all issues involved, and second, a balanced presentation of the proposed solution, one that minimises tension by giving due weight to all elements, not eliminating one via dogmatic statements or cheap slogans.
In this sense, I am at a loss, to put it mildly, by the editorial liberty taken when a big and bold headline was added to Ms Tan's letter, or when Prof Thio's position was summarised as 'Agnostic secularism...is a virtue', while leaving out the most important qualification that was an essential part of her statement.
Positively, I propose my own understanding in these summary statements:
- The separation between church and state, religion and politics, religious affiliation and political parties, is a great good of our secular society.
- Deciding public policy is not simply a matter of expediency. The 'common good' necessarily implies considerations of an ethical nature, of respecting or degrading human dignity. In other words, there is something like political ethics, as we also have business ethics. This is not always accepted by all.
- Considerations that are based on religious conviction have no place in deciding policies in our secular society. This does not mean that, when a relevant (secular or humanist) argument happens to be shared by one or other religion, it would thereby lose its validity or become suspicious. People with religious convictions have the same rights as others when they advance secular, humanist arguments.
Paul Staes
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.515
I WAS happy to see on Wednesday an excerpt from the speech of Nominated MP Thio Li-ann on the issue of religion and politics ('No 'bright line' between religion and politics'), with some clarifications. Ms Felicia Tan's letter on Thursday ('Facts outshine faith') was helpful too, where it underlines that 'religion-based arguments have no place in public debate about policies'. I must confess I did not find the article by Professor Kishore Mahbubani, 'The virtues of secularism' (May 20), particularly clarifying or helpful, despite its claim to logic.
What we need in any constructive discussion are two things: first, a clear grasp of all issues involved, and second, a balanced presentation of the proposed solution, one that minimises tension by giving due weight to all elements, not eliminating one via dogmatic statements or cheap slogans.
In this sense, I am at a loss, to put it mildly, by the editorial liberty taken when a big and bold headline was added to Ms Tan's letter, or when Prof Thio's position was summarised as 'Agnostic secularism...is a virtue', while leaving out the most important qualification that was an essential part of her statement.
Positively, I propose my own understanding in these summary statements:
- The separation between church and state, religion and politics, religious affiliation and political parties, is a great good of our secular society.
- Deciding public policy is not simply a matter of expediency. The 'common good' necessarily implies considerations of an ethical nature, of respecting or degrading human dignity. In other words, there is something like political ethics, as we also have business ethics. This is not always accepted by all.
- Considerations that are based on religious conviction have no place in deciding policies in our secular society. This does not mean that, when a relevant (secular or humanist) argument happens to be shared by one or other religion, it would thereby lose its validity or become suspicious. People with religious convictions have the same rights as others when they advance secular, humanist arguments.
Paul Staes
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.515
Any intrusion by religion into secular space is alarming
Any intrusion by religion into secular space is alarming
I REFER to Wednesday's report, 'No 'bright line' between religion and politics'. I disagree that religion and politics are not clearly separated in Singapore.
The Singapore brand of secularism is not anti-religious. There is, however, a great difference between allowing, supporting and ensuring a fair representation of religion in social contexts and allowing religious participation in Parliament. Therein lies the separation between religion and politics in Singapore. It is in this context that policy decisions on topics such as abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, homosexuality and sex education are decided by a non-partisan government, to ensure a pluralistic and tolerant society where individual rights and diverse views are respected.
Religiously motivated individuals are welcome to contribute to secular society. But the actions of individuals motivated by religious beliefs should not impose on the private and public space of others who do not share those beliefs.
For example, it is not wrong for women from the same religious institution to be motivated by their religious beliefs to take action in society. I believe they would meet no opposition from civil society, religious bodies or government authorities if they started their own organisation to run programmes according to their beliefs. A healthier solution would be to work together with people who are different and engage in dialogue. A takeover, however, highlights the difference. Religious expression is allowed, but not religious imposition. That is the essence of secularism.
In a young multireligious society like Singapore, any intrusion by religion into secular space is alarming. Notably, in a recent occurrence, the local press took a responsible stand to ensure that civil society remains secular.
The most significant forces of religious fundamentalism in the world today are fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam. Some Christian fundamentalists in the United States oppose secularism, claiming that there is a 'radical or militant secularism' ideology being adopted and secularism is a threat to Christian rights and morality.
Thankfully here in Singapore, many Christians and Muslims support a secular state. Unlike in the US, our political leaders do not publicly declare or support any religious beliefs in particular, even if they are adherents. The heads of the religious bodies in Singapore do not agitate for a voice in Parliament. Nor do they enter civil space in non-religious guise. The secularism practised by our political and religious leaders shows us clearly the separation between religion and politics.
Alicia Wong (Ms)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.514
I REFER to Wednesday's report, 'No 'bright line' between religion and politics'. I disagree that religion and politics are not clearly separated in Singapore.
The Singapore brand of secularism is not anti-religious. There is, however, a great difference between allowing, supporting and ensuring a fair representation of religion in social contexts and allowing religious participation in Parliament. Therein lies the separation between religion and politics in Singapore. It is in this context that policy decisions on topics such as abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, homosexuality and sex education are decided by a non-partisan government, to ensure a pluralistic and tolerant society where individual rights and diverse views are respected.
Religiously motivated individuals are welcome to contribute to secular society. But the actions of individuals motivated by religious beliefs should not impose on the private and public space of others who do not share those beliefs.
For example, it is not wrong for women from the same religious institution to be motivated by their religious beliefs to take action in society. I believe they would meet no opposition from civil society, religious bodies or government authorities if they started their own organisation to run programmes according to their beliefs. A healthier solution would be to work together with people who are different and engage in dialogue. A takeover, however, highlights the difference. Religious expression is allowed, but not religious imposition. That is the essence of secularism.
In a young multireligious society like Singapore, any intrusion by religion into secular space is alarming. Notably, in a recent occurrence, the local press took a responsible stand to ensure that civil society remains secular.
The most significant forces of religious fundamentalism in the world today are fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam. Some Christian fundamentalists in the United States oppose secularism, claiming that there is a 'radical or militant secularism' ideology being adopted and secularism is a threat to Christian rights and morality.
Thankfully here in Singapore, many Christians and Muslims support a secular state. Unlike in the US, our political leaders do not publicly declare or support any religious beliefs in particular, even if they are adherents. The heads of the religious bodies in Singapore do not agitate for a voice in Parliament. Nor do they enter civil space in non-religious guise. The secularism practised by our political and religious leaders shows us clearly the separation between religion and politics.
Alicia Wong (Ms)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.514
Don't exclude issues just because they have roots in
Don't exclude issues just because they have roots in
I REFER to Ms Felicia Tan's letter on Thursday, 'Facts outshine faith'.
I cannot disagree more with her views that 'by basing an argument on one's religious views, one would essentially be alienating the views of other Singaporeans who are of other religions or are non-believers'.
The very nature of a harmonious multiracial and multireligious society is the ability to hear one another's views and discuss them before reaching a consensus on the values of society as a whole.
There is nothing wrong with religion in one's views because most Singaporeans have a religion. As long as these do not contradict or go against good sense and common values, people should be free to take their stand. The national pledge states 'regardless of race, language or religion', not 'with no regard to race, language or religion'.
It is not possible to argue a societal issue without alluding to one's personal beliefs, whether based on religion, cultural practice�or simply�familial upbringing.
That is the underlying basis of any democratic society, the freedom to debate one's cause. The point about 'militant secularism' is that it prevents people from raising an issue�just because it has�its roots in religion. But why should that be so?
Many�values that are important to us as an Asian people�have common threads in all major orthodox religions - for example, do not�kill, do not steal, respect one another. They are not strictly secular and they have their own merits. In many issues that have arisen from the 'politics and religion' debate, the line is blurred�because of the speaker, not because the argument was without merit. People with a faith are made to look like the voice of that religion by the press, even when�the issues they raise�can be said to be�cultural, not religious.�
To exclude�these discussions is precisely the evil Ms Tan argues against - to exclude issues simply because they are�not free of religious implications. We will have very little to discuss, and end up a more divided people, if we do not respect religion in the views of our neighbours enough to hear them out.
Monica Wong (Ms)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.513
I REFER to Ms Felicia Tan's letter on Thursday, 'Facts outshine faith'.
I cannot disagree more with her views that 'by basing an argument on one's religious views, one would essentially be alienating the views of other Singaporeans who are of other religions or are non-believers'.
The very nature of a harmonious multiracial and multireligious society is the ability to hear one another's views and discuss them before reaching a consensus on the values of society as a whole.
There is nothing wrong with religion in one's views because most Singaporeans have a religion. As long as these do not contradict or go against good sense and common values, people should be free to take their stand. The national pledge states 'regardless of race, language or religion', not 'with no regard to race, language or religion'.
It is not possible to argue a societal issue without alluding to one's personal beliefs, whether based on religion, cultural practice�or simply�familial upbringing.
That is the underlying basis of any democratic society, the freedom to debate one's cause. The point about 'militant secularism' is that it prevents people from raising an issue�just because it has�its roots in religion. But why should that be so?
Many�values that are important to us as an Asian people�have common threads in all major orthodox religions - for example, do not�kill, do not steal, respect one another. They are not strictly secular and they have their own merits. In many issues that have arisen from the 'politics and religion' debate, the line is blurred�because of the speaker, not because the argument was without merit. People with a faith are made to look like the voice of that religion by the press, even when�the issues they raise�can be said to be�cultural, not religious.�
To exclude�these discussions is precisely the evil Ms Tan argues against - to exclude issues simply because they are�not free of religious implications. We will have very little to discuss, and end up a more divided people, if we do not respect religion in the views of our neighbours enough to hear them out.
Monica Wong (Ms)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.513
NMP THIO'S SPEECH ON RELIGION & SECULARISM: Two contrasting reactions
May 30, 2009
NMP THIO'S SPEECH ON RELIGION & SECULARISM
Two contrasting reactions
There's no uniform religious view in a multi-religious society
I REFER to Wednesday's report, 'No 'bright line' between religion and politics'.
I found it most unfortunate that Nominated MP Thio Li-ann is attacking secularism, and painting it as a gag on religious views in public square.
What Professor Thio fails to appreciate is that the issue is not about secularism (or atheism) versus religion. In a multiracial and multi-religious Singapore, there are no uniform or generic 'religious views'. When a particular religion participates in public space, it does not do so under a generic label ('religious') but under the label of a particular religion (for example, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism). Unless there is active participation and discussion by the many religious denominations, and a consensus reached by the collective group, no one particular group can claim to represent a 'religious view' of Singapore in general.
Thus, when Prof Thio pushes her religious view (for example, her objections to homosexuality which are shaped by her religious background), the public perception is not that she represents the religious view, but rather that she is imposing her Christian sensibilities on others.
With that context in mind, the reference to the Aware controversy was not, as Prof Thio put it, a view that 'religious groups should not get involved in secular organisations'. Rather, what was disconcerting about the incident was that it was a case of one particular organisation from one particular religion pushing for one particular agenda, and subverting a publicly secular organisation on the quiet. In a plural society, such an act is dangerous, divisive and destabilising.
Any religious group which wishes to further its views based on its religious conviction must do so publicly, paying special attention to the sensitivities of other races and religions, and must invite other groups to participate in reaching a collective common ground. Failure to do so will surely invite censure and strong reaction from other quarters, religious or otherwise.
The Government is right to urge restraint and keep the political arena secular. This is not a gag on religious views, but rather an appreciation that in a multi-religious society like Singapore, there is no representative and uniform religious view and that any one religion wishing for greater participation in the public and political arena must do so responsibly and with great sensitivity to other religions, as well as the non-religious.
Lai Nam Khim
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.512
NMP THIO'S SPEECH ON RELIGION & SECULARISM
Two contrasting reactions
There's no uniform religious view in a multi-religious society
I REFER to Wednesday's report, 'No 'bright line' between religion and politics'.
I found it most unfortunate that Nominated MP Thio Li-ann is attacking secularism, and painting it as a gag on religious views in public square.
What Professor Thio fails to appreciate is that the issue is not about secularism (or atheism) versus religion. In a multiracial and multi-religious Singapore, there are no uniform or generic 'religious views'. When a particular religion participates in public space, it does not do so under a generic label ('religious') but under the label of a particular religion (for example, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism). Unless there is active participation and discussion by the many religious denominations, and a consensus reached by the collective group, no one particular group can claim to represent a 'religious view' of Singapore in general.
Thus, when Prof Thio pushes her religious view (for example, her objections to homosexuality which are shaped by her religious background), the public perception is not that she represents the religious view, but rather that she is imposing her Christian sensibilities on others.
With that context in mind, the reference to the Aware controversy was not, as Prof Thio put it, a view that 'religious groups should not get involved in secular organisations'. Rather, what was disconcerting about the incident was that it was a case of one particular organisation from one particular religion pushing for one particular agenda, and subverting a publicly secular organisation on the quiet. In a plural society, such an act is dangerous, divisive and destabilising.
Any religious group which wishes to further its views based on its religious conviction must do so publicly, paying special attention to the sensitivities of other races and religions, and must invite other groups to participate in reaching a collective common ground. Failure to do so will surely invite censure and strong reaction from other quarters, religious or otherwise.
The Government is right to urge restraint and keep the political arena secular. This is not a gag on religious views, but rather an appreciation that in a multi-religious society like Singapore, there is no representative and uniform religious view and that any one religion wishing for greater participation in the public and political arena must do so responsibly and with great sensitivity to other religions, as well as the non-religious.
Lai Nam Khim
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.512
Values have religious roots - and they anchor Singapore rationally
Values have religious roots - and they anchor Singapore rationally
I REFER to Ms Felicia Tan's letter on Thursday, 'Facts outshine faith'. Ms Tan may have been concerned that Nominated MP Thio Li-ann's speech in Parliament was a call to allow religious values to determine laws for society. This was certainly not her appeal. Professor Thio had made it clear that 'the Singapore model of secularism is anti-theocratic in that religious tenets and secular law are separated, not conflated'.
Rather, her concern was the growing influence of 'militant secularism' which she understands to seek to gag religious worldviews in the public square. Ironically, this sentiment was espoused in Ms Tan's letter.
I wish to clarify that:
# Religious views being aired in the public square allows for diversity. By claiming that religious worldviews are 'non-inclusive' and 'narrow', Ms Tan has automatically alienated the views of religiously informed Singaporeans by her brand of secularism, thereby perpetrating what she fears most. The reason why we have a Parliament in the first place is to hear alternative viewpoints and arguments, and that freedom must be protected. Religion influencing policy is different from it determining policy.
# Scientific, sociological and economic principles certainly lend fuel to an argument, but to give it hegemony over a religiously framed argument is an indirect way of saying that the atheistic worldview is dominant. If religion is taken to be synonymous with morals, then morality should also be allowed to guide an argument. The crux of the debate should however be: Whose morals?
# Positing an argument which may have roots in a religious worldview certainly does not make it less logical or rational, and one must try to look past that intrinsic bias. For example, some religions in Singapore are opposed to gambling and its related vices, because religions teach that material wealth is not everything. Legalisation of gambling through casinos may make a positive economic impact, but will also have profound sociological consequences, some of which are undesirable. It is not surprising to find many religious values making sociological or scientific sense.
Laws ultimately concern themselves with values,�values which might have religious roots. While most secular democracies practise progressive ethics in today's world, let us not sever ties with these roots too hastily because they anchor Singapore morally, and I daresay, rationally.
Derek Choong
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.511
I REFER to Ms Felicia Tan's letter on Thursday, 'Facts outshine faith'. Ms Tan may have been concerned that Nominated MP Thio Li-ann's speech in Parliament was a call to allow religious values to determine laws for society. This was certainly not her appeal. Professor Thio had made it clear that 'the Singapore model of secularism is anti-theocratic in that religious tenets and secular law are separated, not conflated'.
Rather, her concern was the growing influence of 'militant secularism' which she understands to seek to gag religious worldviews in the public square. Ironically, this sentiment was espoused in Ms Tan's letter.
I wish to clarify that:
# Religious views being aired in the public square allows for diversity. By claiming that religious worldviews are 'non-inclusive' and 'narrow', Ms Tan has automatically alienated the views of religiously informed Singaporeans by her brand of secularism, thereby perpetrating what she fears most. The reason why we have a Parliament in the first place is to hear alternative viewpoints and arguments, and that freedom must be protected. Religion influencing policy is different from it determining policy.
# Scientific, sociological and economic principles certainly lend fuel to an argument, but to give it hegemony over a religiously framed argument is an indirect way of saying that the atheistic worldview is dominant. If religion is taken to be synonymous with morals, then morality should also be allowed to guide an argument. The crux of the debate should however be: Whose morals?
# Positing an argument which may have roots in a religious worldview certainly does not make it less logical or rational, and one must try to look past that intrinsic bias. For example, some religions in Singapore are opposed to gambling and its related vices, because religions teach that material wealth is not everything. Legalisation of gambling through casinos may make a positive economic impact, but will also have profound sociological consequences, some of which are undesirable. It is not surprising to find many religious values making sociological or scientific sense.
Laws ultimately concern themselves with values,�values which might have religious roots. While most secular democracies practise progressive ethics in today's world, let us not sever ties with these roots too hastily because they anchor Singapore morally, and I daresay, rationally.
Derek Choong
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.511
ST should be lauded and MPs should aim at impartiality
ST should be lauded and MPs should aim at impartiality
I AM writing in response to Tampines GRC MP Sin Boon Ann's speech in Parliament on the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) and The Straits Times (''Intolerance' can bring a nation down', Thursday).
In his speech, Mr Sin took as facts certain allegations from an e-mail message and questioned the integrity of The Straits Times. Mr Sin has since apologised. But his comments bear reflection as they reinforce the need for constant reminders in our secular, multi-religious society that there must be tolerence and restraint, supported by rationality and level-headedness.
Mr Sin accused The Straits Times of being biased. While the paper may have displayed enthusiasm in its reporting, as a newspaper with commercial interests, what it reported was a reflection of its readers' interest. To date, there is no concrete proof of any distortion of facts by The Straits Times.
Mr Sin's view was that the Aware issue was not about religion but about conservatives versus liberals.
As a moderate Singaporean, I do not share his view. Whether religion was involved in this instance is apparent to any reasonable person.
In fact, The Straits Times should be lauded for not fudging the issue as Mr Sin suggested.
I applaud The Straits Times for the courage to uncover an incident of 'steeplejacking' which has a hidden agenda of pushing a single issue that is not necessarily aligned with Singapore's secular political position, nor necessarily shared by Singapore's moderate majority.
We tread on dangerous ground when any one interest group in Singapore professes to represent and speak on behalf of the 'majority' when in fact it does not. And we should be vigilant against such astroturfing (creating a fake grassroots movement in online jargon) behaviour.
It is alarming that, as an MP, Mr Sin calls for objectivity in the press when it seems that he himself is unable to objectively differentiate fact from fiction, examine the matter rationally and instead chooses to defend the actions of one particular group.
Our representatives in Parliament should aim to remain impartial, lead by example and practise what they preach.
In the secular sphere, where there are conflicting views, it is critical that reason must prevail over faith or passion.
Chew Sung Yeow
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.510
I AM writing in response to Tampines GRC MP Sin Boon Ann's speech in Parliament on the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) and The Straits Times (''Intolerance' can bring a nation down', Thursday).
In his speech, Mr Sin took as facts certain allegations from an e-mail message and questioned the integrity of The Straits Times. Mr Sin has since apologised. But his comments bear reflection as they reinforce the need for constant reminders in our secular, multi-religious society that there must be tolerence and restraint, supported by rationality and level-headedness.
Mr Sin accused The Straits Times of being biased. While the paper may have displayed enthusiasm in its reporting, as a newspaper with commercial interests, what it reported was a reflection of its readers' interest. To date, there is no concrete proof of any distortion of facts by The Straits Times.
Mr Sin's view was that the Aware issue was not about religion but about conservatives versus liberals.
As a moderate Singaporean, I do not share his view. Whether religion was involved in this instance is apparent to any reasonable person.
In fact, The Straits Times should be lauded for not fudging the issue as Mr Sin suggested.
I applaud The Straits Times for the courage to uncover an incident of 'steeplejacking' which has a hidden agenda of pushing a single issue that is not necessarily aligned with Singapore's secular political position, nor necessarily shared by Singapore's moderate majority.
We tread on dangerous ground when any one interest group in Singapore professes to represent and speak on behalf of the 'majority' when in fact it does not. And we should be vigilant against such astroturfing (creating a fake grassroots movement in online jargon) behaviour.
It is alarming that, as an MP, Mr Sin calls for objectivity in the press when it seems that he himself is unable to objectively differentiate fact from fiction, examine the matter rationally and instead chooses to defend the actions of one particular group.
Our representatives in Parliament should aim to remain impartial, lead by example and practise what they preach.
In the secular sphere, where there are conflicting views, it is critical that reason must prevail over faith or passion.
Chew Sung Yeow
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.510
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)