NTU STUDENT'S DEATH FALL: Blood mostly Widjaja's

May 27, 2009

NTU STUDENT'S DEATH FALL

Blood mostly Widjaja's

By Sujin Thomas
		Ms Lim based her findings on photos, two visits to the NTU campus, and information from police. -- ST FILE PHOTO

PHOTOGRAPHS - 120 in all - were used to paint a likely scenario of events that transpired between Nanyang Technological University (NTU) student David Hartanto Widjaja and Associate Professor Chan Kap Luk on March 2.

On that day, Mr Widjaja was found dead after falling four storeys from a link bridge on campus. Minutes before, he was seen running from the office of Prof Chan, his final-year project supervisor, after allegedly being in a knife struggle with him.

On the fifth day of the coroner's inquiry into Mr Widjaja's death, forensic scientist Lim Chin Chin told the court that her findings were based on the photographs, two visits to the campus in April, and information given by the police.

Ms Lim, from the Forensic Chemistry and Physics Laboratory of the Health Sciences Authority, took the witness stand yesterday, along with Dr Christopher Syn, a senior forensic scientist who conducted a DNA examination of blood taken at the scene.

She said almost all the bloodstains left behind in Prof Chan's office - including some found on the wall above a computer monitor - belonged to Mr Widjaja. Prof Chan had been seated near the computer when the alleged attack began.

These stains indicate the swing of an arm downwards from somewhere above the monitor where blood was either cast off from a wound or from a bloodstained object, she said.

Dr Syn told the court on Monday that only Mr Widjaja's blood was found on the knife handle. He added that the blade, which broke off during the struggle, had a mixture of Mr Widjaja and Prof Chan's blood.

Ms Lim said Prof Chan's blood was detected only on the floor near a computer table. Blood from a partial palm print on some documents near the office door was also found to be Mr Widjaja's.

Outside the room, blood trailed in two different directions. One was caused by Prof Chan while the other, more severe, was from Mr Widjaja. The soles of Mr Widjaja's feet were soaked in blood although he did not leave any footprints along the trail.

Ms Lim said he was likely to have 'inked his feet in blood' that dripped from a deep cut on his right wrist, before sitting on the ledge of the glass roof. The hearing continues on June 17.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29737.2

Religion still has its place

Religion still has its place

By Jeremy Au Yong, Political Correspondent
		Nominated MP Thio Li-ann. -- ST FILE PHOTO

RELIGION and politics should not mix, but that does not mean religion has no place in public life.

Nominated MP Thio Li-ann argued at length in Parliament on Tuesday that secularism, as practised in Singapore, did not exclude religion.

THIS is an edited excerpt from a speech by NMP Thio Li-ann in Parliament on Tuesday during the debate on the President's Address IN A recent interview, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng reiterated that religion and politics must not be mixed. This is sound, though there are difficulties of definition as no bright line demarcates 'religion' from 'politics'. We need to understand what 'secularism' entails in Singapore for more specific guidance. ... more

Referring to Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng's recent reiteration that religion and politics must not be mixed, she said that while this was sound, 'there are difficulties of definition as no bright line demarcates 'religion' from 'politics'.

She added: ' 'Secularism' is a protean, chameleon-like term. What it means depends on the context and who is using it; it can be a virtue or a vice. It is timely to eschew glibness and examine the Singapore model of secularism with precision.'

By way of elaboration, she pointed out that during the parliamentary debate a few years ago on whether or not to have casinos in Singapore, many MPs prefaced their speeches by stating their faiths.

'Everyone has values, whether shaped by religious or secular ideologies; all may participate in public discourse to forge an ethical social consensus. This is democratic and cherishes viewpoint diversity,' she said. 'While religion is personal, it is not exclusively private and has a social dimension which is not to be trivialised.'

A debate on the role of religion in the public sphere erupted recently after a group of women seized power at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware).

Some saw the coup as religiously motivated as several members of the new executive committee attended the same church. This new guard said their motive was to return Aware to its 'original' purpose, as they saw it as having veered towards promoting a gay and lesbian agenda.

On May 2, the 'new' executive committee was ousted in a rowdy extraordinary general meeting attended by thousands.

The Government subsequently issued a statement responding to questions from The Straits Times, urging restraint from all sides and stressing that religion and politics must be separate in political engagement.

Professor Thio's mother, lawyer Thio Su Mien, mentored the group of women who took over Aware. Calling herself the 'feminist mentor', she said that she had been concerned about what she saw as Aware's pro-gay stance and had urged women she knew to challenge its attempts to redefine family and marriage.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.472

MPs rebut Low's claim

May 27, 2009

MPs rebut Low's claim

By Zakir Hussain
		On Monday, Mr Low (Hougang) had noted that the ruling party controls the House and key levers of power, and that with a weak opposition presence, Singapore's democracy resembled a 'one-legged duck'. -- ST FILE PHOTO

View more photos

WORKERS' Party chief Low Thia Khiang's claim that only an elected opposition can provide effective checks and balances and ensure a clean government was rebutted by two People's Action Party (PAP) MPs on Tuesday.

Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar GRC) said this assumption was not only simplistic, but also plain incorrect.

For if this were true, why is it that many other countries with multi-party systems still see deep-seated and endemic corruption, she asked.

More often than not, an opposition wins against a corrupt incumbent, and then itself becomes corrupt when in government, said Mrs Josephine Teo (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC).

On Monday, Mr Low (Hougang) had noted that the ruling party controls the House and key levers of power, and that with a weak opposition presence, Singapore's democracy resembled a 'one-legged duck'.

Commenting on remarks by President SR Nathan on how Singapore politics had to evolve over time, Mr Low said more opposition MPs would help ensure a non-corrupt government.

Ms Rajah's counter: Going by this argument, the logical outcome is that 'every other country with an opposition should be squeaky clean and Singapore should be the most corrupt country in the world'.

This is not the case, she pointed out. In fact, Singapore today is widely regarded as having one of the least corrupt systems in the world.

This, she said, is because MPs hold their positions in trust for the people, PAP leaders expect the highest standards of integrity, and there are inherent checks and balances in the system.

She noted that after the last general election in 2006, the Prime Minister wrote to all PAP MPs to remind them of their responsibility and accountability to the people, and the need to maintain honesty and integrity. 'These are the things that keep us on the straight and narrow, not the fact that there is an opposition,' she stressed.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29740.1

'Nominated' ministers idea

May 27, 2009

CHANGING POLITICAL SYSTEM

'Nominated' ministers idea

Other suggestions: scale down GRCs and make NMP scheme permanent

By Clarissa Oon, Senior Political Correspondent

APPOINTING unelected 'nominated ministers', entrenching the Nominated MP scheme and scaling down group representation constituencies (GRCs) were among the suggestions made in Parliament on Tuesday on how the political system should evolve.

Members of the House were responding to President S R Nathan's Address at the opening of Parliament last Monday.

In his speech, the President had said that Singapore's political system 'is not set in stone' and must respond to the demands of a younger electorate while continuing to deliver good government.

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) floated a radical suggestion aimed at getting the best talent into the Cabinet - allow the Prime Minister to appoint outstanding individuals from outside the ranks of elected MPs.

The suggestion has been made several times over the last 20 years by MPs and political observers, but has never been accepted by the Government on the grounds that unelected ministers would not be accountable to the electorate.

Revisiting the issue, Mr Nair argued that 'it may sound sacrilegious in a democracy to say so, but a person who is popular on the ground may not necessarily be the best person to run a ministry, or vice versa'.

He felt the concept of a 'nominated minister' did not offend the principles of democracy, as some democracies in the West already have such a system of appointing unelected ministers.

For example the British parliamentary system - from which Singapore's was derived - has a House of Lords composed mainly of unelected members who may be appointed to the Cabinet. As for the United States, the entire Cabinet is appointed by the President and they cannot be elected members of Congress.

What Singapore has by way of appointed parliamentarians is the Nominated MP (NMP) scheme, started in 1990 to introduce more diverse and independent views into Parliament. Each new Parliament has to decide if it wishes to have NMPs.

Arguing that now is the right time to make the NMP scheme permanent, NMP Loo Choon Yong said the scheme has been fine-tuned over 19 years and contributed greatly to policymaking and the quality of debate in the House.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29744.1

Thio Li-Ann uses Parliament speech to criticise Straits Times' AWARE coverage

Thio Li-Ann uses Parliament speech to criticise Straits Times' AWARE coverage

Nominated MP Thio Li-Ann devoted a portion (about 15%) of her speech in Parliament to criticising The Straits Times – without naming the paper – for its coverage of the recent AWARE controversy. Ms Thio's mother, Thio Su-Mien, played a leading role in the unsuccessful takeover of AWARE.*

When it comes to moral disagreements and public policy, the press is powerfully positioned to promote informed debate. However the press may, by biased and selective reporting, misrepresent, distort or obscure an issue. We need to broaden our understanding of responsible journalism in Singapore, which, to borrow a canine metaphor, rejects the extremes of an adversarial American watchdog and a Pravda-like lapdog, or running-dog. The Singapore press is expected to promote nation-building, help forge consensus and facilitate consultative democracy.

Journalists are entitled, like all citizens, to have their own opinions; however, they do a disservice if they report contentious issues in a one-sided fashion. This misinforms rather than informs. The principle must always be to hear both sides, canvass all perspectives.

The feedback I received from friends and strangers on the reporting of the AWARE controversy, which was disquieting enough for the President to reference, was that much of the reporting, particularly in one paper, was biased; it largely lacked a diversity of views in singing the same chorus that religious groups should not get involved in secular organizations. Emails I received described how many perceived some reporting as being “slanted”, “personal and spiteful”, “too smug”, “self-righteous” and “irresponsible.” Some spoke of their new lists of “fair” and “unfair” journalists.

The proper limits of religious activism is certainly a valid issue that arose, but there were other issues, such as whether a religious group was involved, as opposed to individuals with a religious faith. Another interesting enquiry would be whether it was really a debate about values rather than religious overstepping. Any attention given to this issue was strangely subdued.

It was hard to shake the impression that certain journalists were playing the ‘I don’t like your views so I will play the religionists are imposing their values card.’ This was very disappointing. When is a reporter reporting, and when playing an advocate? We do not want to arrive at the place where, as Mark Twain put it: If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.

Today published an insightful online letter on May 5 which fairly commented that the biased reporting not only distorted the issue but may have lent fuel to fire in inciting hatred and ill-will against a religious minority. The author wondered whether the “highly inappropriate” linking of personalities to their “personal religious beliefs” exacerbated “the tension that led to death threats and call for boycott.” He called for the censure of “such lines of reporting that incite religious intolerance, by speculating one’s motive based on personal faith” Irresponsible reporting can threaten social harmony and undermine social cohesion. How is journalistic autonomy, integrity and accountability to be secured?

Responsible journalism should extend to covering a diversity of views, not a journalist’s preferred view. It should include the accurate and most effective representation of differing viewpoints, and not paint the fringe as mainstream or the pathological as normal. Readers may then see all sides of an issue and decide what is true, accurate and sound, in the spirit of participatory democracy.

This is important given the near monopolistic position of Singapore broadsheets. A lawyer recently returned from London wrote to me expressing horror in finding local papers apparently had nothing better to report than the AWARE saga, as opposed to the more interesting British papers which offered a lot more variety.

This made me somewhat nostalgic for my student days in Cambridge, where I could, with chocolate croissant and Nescafe coffee in hand, survey a range of perspectives from the Times, Guardian, Independent or Telegraph.

* In the prepared text of her speech, the NMP did not declare her interest. It is not known yet if she did so verbally in Parliament.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.508

NHG employee's wayangparty caught with pants down

Letter to Shin Min Daily demanding a public apology for defamatory article maligning wayangparty.com

[EDITORS' NOTE: We have already consulted a lawyer on this matter and has emailed Shin Min Daily the letter below demanding an open apology for the error in their report on 26 May 2009.]

To the Editors of Shin Min Daily:

On 26 May 2009, Shin Min Daily published an article in page 6 alleging that a local blog had made use of the Liu Guodong fiasco to boost its readership:

Though no name was mentioned explicitly, it is obvious that the article is referring to our blog ”Wayang Party” because:

1. We are the only blog which claimed that it is keeping in touch with Liu Guodong and had published a teleconversation with him on 23 May 2009. (http://wayangparty.com/?p=9702)

2. We have received extensive publicity from the mainstream media on our coverage of the Liu Guodong saga. The Straits Times, Channel News Asia and Lianhe Wanbao have quoted our blog in their reports.

3. Given the size of our readership, our readers reading the article will recognize the identity of the blog immediately.

The article suggested that we did not contact Liu Guodong at all by quoting from Liu who said he did not receive any phone call from us.

We did not receive any emails from your journalists enquiring us on the discrepancy between our article and Liu Guodong’s answer which we will be more than happy to provide a detailed explanation.

Our reporter did not tell Liu Guodong that he is from “Wayang Party”. He introduced himself as a freelance reporter from an online daily. Therefore, Liu Guodong is not aware of the fact that we have been defending him on our site. Neither does he know that we have started a petition drive at Hong Lim Park next Saturday in support of him.

Your irresponsible, unethical and unprofessional reporting contain unsubstantiated allegations maligning us with the insinuation that we have been manufacturing lies to mislead and deceive our readers in order to gain cheap publicity.

An unsuspecting reader reading your article would be led to believe that we are dishonest, untrustworthy, , unprincipled, corrupt and unethical bloggers.

We have five documentary evidence to prove that we have contacted Liu Guodong and the conversation we had with him is real which we are more than happy to reveal in court to clear our name:

1. A photograph of Liu and our reporter taken at the lobby of Meritus Mandarin Hotel on the night of 22 May 2009 before his departure from Singapore.

2. Two photographs of the draft document which STTA asked him to sign.

3. Liu Guodong’s handphone number in Singapore.

4. Liu Guodong’s handphone number in China.

5. The 15 minute conversation our reporter had with Liu Guodong on 23 May 2009 which can be easily retrieved from the telco records.

6. If need be, we will call upon Liu Guodong as a witness to testify in court that he has met our reporter on 22 May 2009 and spoken to him over the phone on 23 May 2009.

Wayang Party is one of the top two socio-political blogs in Singapore with a daily readership of more than 10,000.

Your article has has seriously impugned on our honesty, credibility and integrity by suggesting that we have been manufacturing lies and concocting non-existent tales to deceive, mislead and hoodwink our readers.

As such, we are writing to you to demand that you rectify and apologize for the error in your report immediately without further delay.

You are also required to furnish us with the following information:

1. The name(s) of the journalist(s) who wrote the article. (there were three names on the article)

2. The particulars, contact number and address of the journalist(s) for us to serve legal notice on them.

We will give you a grace period of two weeks beginning from 28 May 2009 to publish a public apology in Shin Min Daily acknowledging the factual inaccuracy in the report, publishing the facts as stated and accepting responsibility for your negligience failing which we will seriously consider commencing legal proceedings against your journalists and paper.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28839.59

China Must Change Its Economic Model

China Must Change Its Economic Model
by Colum Murphy

Posted May 13, 2009

Charlene Barshefsky, the former United States trade representative (served 1997 - 2001) says China's economic model must change to retain stability in the current recession. She talked to REVIEW deputy editor Colum Murphy about Asia's role in the world economy and attitudes that will benefit China as it moves forward in international trade.

Basically the belief of our contributors was that this global economic crisis was going to have an impact on Asia on several different levels. What do you think will be the impact of this economic crisis on Asia?

I think the effects of this crisis will be many and varied with respect to Asia's fundamental economic model, which is highly export dependent, relying on wealthier countries to spend more and Asia relying on its own population to spend less. This model is no longer viable.

As a global aggregate of savings you have a very few number of countries that spend spend spend and an enormous number of countries that save save save. Those that save and have large surpluses essentially are depending upon a relatively few nations to spend their way into bankruptcy. It's been said for some time that model is inherently unstable and we see today, of course, it is. There is no balance on the spending countries; there is no balance on the savings countries.

Fundamentally, the economic model of both the savers and the spenders must change.

In what way do you see that change manifesting itself?

That model will have to change from export dependency and suppressed domestic consumption to heightened domestic consumption with less reliance on exports for growth. That doesn't mean Asia is going to stop exporting. It does mean that the balance of growth within Asia must and will change and that balance will be effectuated by a diminution in savings and increase in domestic consumption and a corresponding decrease in exports as the sole basis of growth.

Do you think that the government in China is consciously taking steps to move toward more domestic consumption?

Certainly every nation is looking for growth. So what are the sources of growth? For China, it had been (outside) purchases. Those purchases have stopped, so China must look internally for growth. But this is a high savings country in uncertain economic times and a drastic slowdown in China's own economy. So the source of growth is now the government, as it is worldwide; it's stimulus.

You have now trillions and trillions of dollars pumped in globally by governments to stimulate growth, to re-create growth. That growth will largely be retained internally. For China, you will see this increase in domestic growth within China. That alone is unsustainable. There are a variety of ways in which to increase growth generally; that needs to then be translated into the allocation of that stimulus in a manner best directed to promote domestic demand-led growth.

We've already seen greater demands in terms of "buy American" or "buy domestically" so do you see this type of government-led spending could actually lead to an increase in trade protectionism?

I certainly hope not because there is no surer way to reignite global crisis than to see a rapid downturn in trade. We see some protectionist action now by most major countries. The aggregate effect of which, as an economic matter, has been tiny. The larger concern is one does not want to see a mentality develop among governments that it's the foreigners' fault. Number two, one doesn't want to see governments believe that the solution to their problems is to shut trade down or out because this is the way one actually accelerates recessionary conditions. And certainly, one wants to ensure that the WTO remains strong as the organization that can settle trade disputes in a way acceptable both politically and with respect to security.

How would you evaluate the Obama administration in terms of its trade policies toward Asia and its growing calls for protectionism amongst certain sections in Congress, for example?

I worry less about that because I don't see either for the U.S. or globally any fundamental rollback in relatively open trade. Globalization is deeply embedded for every country for the major businesses of every country as an economic matter. Globalization has added extraordinary sums-trillions of dollars-to global wealth on an aggregate basis.

Second of all, many trade agreements around the world-and I daresay most of the free trade agreements around the world-are less economic agreements than they are agreements designed to build and cement alliances. Trade and economics are critical tools for that and I don't see global leadership turning away from that critical tool especially in times of crisis.

What does this crisis mean for Asia and for China?

Certainly China as a country with a large current account surplus and extraordinary foreign exchange reserves has demonstrated already that it is in a more influential position. Do I think that suggests that China is a superpower? No. Do I think China wants to be a superpower at this juncture? No. I think that China is quite focused internally and externally insofar as it helps secure China's internal strength and internal stability. But I do think certainly China, as a re-emerging economy, is doing so at a very impressive rate and I think that is a welcome development for the global economy; not a development, certainly at this juncture, to be feared.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29944.1