<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"></TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>Fkapore <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>12:49 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>23622.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Singapore government getting cold feet over its worsening international image
November 1, 2009 by admin01
Filed under Opinion
Leave a comment Temasek Review
OPINION
It was supposed to be a meeting among lawyers from the New York State Bar Association International Section which was held in Singapore from 26 to 29 October 2009, but it turned out more to be a “lecture” session for them from their Singapore hosts.
For four continuous days, top Singapore leaders and lawyers took turns and turned on the charm offensive to convince the sceptical audience that Singapore laws are such that they place more emphasis on society as a whole than individual rights.
Mr Shanmugam had, on Monday, addressed perceptions that Singapore’s defamation laws unfairly targeted the press and critics of the Government.
A day later, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong spoke about the supremacy of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, and underlined that Singapore’s laws reflect the political, social and cultural values of its people.
Mr Shanmugam spent the most number of hours so far on a wide range of issues from the Singapore media’s pathetic international press rankings, its harsh laws to stifle political dissent and the use of ISA.
One by one, he tried painstakingly to explain the rationale behind Singapore laws to foreigners, some of whom may be stepping foot for the first time on the tropical island.
The Singapore government has always dismissed criticisms of its dismal human rights records from the West.
In 2005, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said that Singapore should not be embarrassed by its lowly ranking on the international press freedom index because it has achieved top ratings for economic freedom and prosperity. (Source: Reuters)
Defending the city-state’s model of press control, former prime minister Goh Chok Tong said the country should not subscribe to the Western model of a free press that favors criticism and opposition.
Singapore’s response this year was in stark contrast to Mr Goh’s earlier combative stance. Mr Shanmugam ridiculed the ranking as “absurd and disconnected from reality” and almost pleaded with the audience not to be taken in by the “misleading” figures.
Following the damning indictment on Singapore’s judiciary and human rights records by the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute in 2008, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew accused them and other human rights organizations of “trying to do us in.”
In a robust rebuttal of these groups’ assertions that Singapore is not a liberal democracy, he said that they had never run a country and did not know what was needed to make Singapore tick.
‘There is a conspiracy to do us in. Why?….They see us as a threat,’ said Mr Lee at an hour-long dialogue during the Economic Society of Singapore’s annual dinner. (Straits Times, 12 July 2008)
Mr Shanmugan sounded much more congenial this time. Instead of lambasting the West as Singapore’s senior leaders are wont to do, he tried to appeal to the reasoning of the delegates by painstakingly explaining to them the “exceptionalism” of Singapore laws.
He was very defensive most of the time, repeating often repeated, stale and vague arguments that Singapore’s harsh laws are necessary to enforce public order which accounts for its spectacular GDP growth.
It is strange that the Singapore speakers found fit to explain our laws in such a clear and concise manner to the Americans which is akin to Malaysian politicians explaining to us why they need NEP in Malaysia.
If Singapore laws are meant only for Singaporeans and they are fair, just and necessary, why then should we need to explain to others? We are not a American colony or dependency!
Obviously the regime is becoming worried and paranoid over the deluge of negative publicity that Singapore has been getting in the last two years from the international press and NGOs which is largely their own doing.
From defamation lawsuits, jailing of blogger and implementation of absurd laws to curtail political liberties, these news will make find their way to the global community which will send chills down the spines of freedom-loving citizens everywhere.
Mr Shanmugam expressed his concern that some may get a “wrong perception” of Singapore from “unfair” reports carried by the western media and respected NGOs like Freedom House and Reporters without Borders.
Unfortunately, there is very little he can do about it unless he goes about suing every single one of them for defamation. Mr Shanmugam doesn’t seem to understand that while the Singapore government is able to muzzle and control its own media, the world is a different place altogether.
Despite its dominance in Singapore, SPH, the propagandist mouthpiece of the regime, has no influence in the rest of the world where CNN, Reuters, AFP, WSJ and Fox news call the shots.
The Straits Times has a readership of only 1.5 million compared to more than 100 million for Wall Street Journal, the number one newspaper in the United States. Far more Americans read the Wall Street Journal than the Straits Times. SPH can spin fairy tales to hoodwink the Singapore public, but they have absolutely no influence over the Americans.
The recent defamation lawsuit against FEER which was won by MM Lee was widely publicized worldwide. Though MM Lee was judged to be the victim in the court of law, the perception around the world, especially in the west, is different and no amount of persuasion can reverse the damage done to Singapore’s image.
Every time the regime uses brute force to quash political dissent, its reputation will suffer a knock. It is a classic case of winning the battle, but losing the war – the police may prevent Dr Chee from speaking to the public, but it cannot prevent news of its repression, intolerance and pettiness for being heard around the world.
The regime can continue to arrest peaceful protesters walking in the streets, jail citizens for wearing kangaroo T-shirts or sue the foreign press for defamation and justify every single action of theirs in a Singapore court. However, it must not forget that Singapore is only a tiny red dot of 5 million people (one third of which are foreigners) whereas the world is a much bigger place altogether.
Unfortunately, the “values” so treasured by Singapore are not shared by other countries in the free world. To them, such putative actions to punish and criminalize legitimate political activity are oppressive measures which deny the basic civil rights of the people.
Mr Shanmugam can continue to argue till the cows come home, but few in his audience will buy the story he is trying to sell judging from their responses in the Q&A session that Singapore has to adopt such harsh laws because of its
“unique” social and political circumstances.
No matter how much he rant at the western media and NGOs for their perceived prejudice, he can’t change the fact that they have much more leverage and influence over democratic nations in the world than puny Singapore.
When one delegate asked Mr Shanmugam whether the laws can be relaxed after the demise of MM Lee, Mr Shanmugam appeared to be momentarily stunned and was unable to give a coherent reply.
As hard as he tried to convince his American audience that Singapore is not a “repressive” state, the facts are laid bare for all to see. Which country in the developed world will send two squadrons of riot police to arrest 4 unarmed protesters holding placards in front of the CPF building?
When asked by the state media about his thoughts on Mr Shanmugam’s speech, steering committee member James P. Duffy III said:
“While not everything we learnt would fit comfortably with some important Western values, we are at the beginning of what we expect will be a long and fruitful dialogue with people whom we respect and want to know and understand better.”
The key word is “comfortably”. Obviously Mr James Duffy III did not feel very comfortable from what he heard from Mr Shanmugam about the Singapore legal system.
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgVFM colSpan=2 align=middle>View Full Message</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
November 1, 2009 by admin01
Filed under Opinion
Leave a comment Temasek Review
OPINION
It was supposed to be a meeting among lawyers from the New York State Bar Association International Section which was held in Singapore from 26 to 29 October 2009, but it turned out more to be a “lecture” session for them from their Singapore hosts.
For four continuous days, top Singapore leaders and lawyers took turns and turned on the charm offensive to convince the sceptical audience that Singapore laws are such that they place more emphasis on society as a whole than individual rights.
Mr Shanmugam had, on Monday, addressed perceptions that Singapore’s defamation laws unfairly targeted the press and critics of the Government.
A day later, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong spoke about the supremacy of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, and underlined that Singapore’s laws reflect the political, social and cultural values of its people.
Mr Shanmugam spent the most number of hours so far on a wide range of issues from the Singapore media’s pathetic international press rankings, its harsh laws to stifle political dissent and the use of ISA.
One by one, he tried painstakingly to explain the rationale behind Singapore laws to foreigners, some of whom may be stepping foot for the first time on the tropical island.
The Singapore government has always dismissed criticisms of its dismal human rights records from the West.
In 2005, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said that Singapore should not be embarrassed by its lowly ranking on the international press freedom index because it has achieved top ratings for economic freedom and prosperity. (Source: Reuters)
Defending the city-state’s model of press control, former prime minister Goh Chok Tong said the country should not subscribe to the Western model of a free press that favors criticism and opposition.
Singapore’s response this year was in stark contrast to Mr Goh’s earlier combative stance. Mr Shanmugam ridiculed the ranking as “absurd and disconnected from reality” and almost pleaded with the audience not to be taken in by the “misleading” figures.
Following the damning indictment on Singapore’s judiciary and human rights records by the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute in 2008, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew accused them and other human rights organizations of “trying to do us in.”
In a robust rebuttal of these groups’ assertions that Singapore is not a liberal democracy, he said that they had never run a country and did not know what was needed to make Singapore tick.
‘There is a conspiracy to do us in. Why?….They see us as a threat,’ said Mr Lee at an hour-long dialogue during the Economic Society of Singapore’s annual dinner. (Straits Times, 12 July 2008)
Mr Shanmugan sounded much more congenial this time. Instead of lambasting the West as Singapore’s senior leaders are wont to do, he tried to appeal to the reasoning of the delegates by painstakingly explaining to them the “exceptionalism” of Singapore laws.
He was very defensive most of the time, repeating often repeated, stale and vague arguments that Singapore’s harsh laws are necessary to enforce public order which accounts for its spectacular GDP growth.
It is strange that the Singapore speakers found fit to explain our laws in such a clear and concise manner to the Americans which is akin to Malaysian politicians explaining to us why they need NEP in Malaysia.
If Singapore laws are meant only for Singaporeans and they are fair, just and necessary, why then should we need to explain to others? We are not a American colony or dependency!
Obviously the regime is becoming worried and paranoid over the deluge of negative publicity that Singapore has been getting in the last two years from the international press and NGOs which is largely their own doing.
From defamation lawsuits, jailing of blogger and implementation of absurd laws to curtail political liberties, these news will make find their way to the global community which will send chills down the spines of freedom-loving citizens everywhere.
Mr Shanmugam expressed his concern that some may get a “wrong perception” of Singapore from “unfair” reports carried by the western media and respected NGOs like Freedom House and Reporters without Borders.
Unfortunately, there is very little he can do about it unless he goes about suing every single one of them for defamation. Mr Shanmugam doesn’t seem to understand that while the Singapore government is able to muzzle and control its own media, the world is a different place altogether.
Despite its dominance in Singapore, SPH, the propagandist mouthpiece of the regime, has no influence in the rest of the world where CNN, Reuters, AFP, WSJ and Fox news call the shots.
The Straits Times has a readership of only 1.5 million compared to more than 100 million for Wall Street Journal, the number one newspaper in the United States. Far more Americans read the Wall Street Journal than the Straits Times. SPH can spin fairy tales to hoodwink the Singapore public, but they have absolutely no influence over the Americans.
The recent defamation lawsuit against FEER which was won by MM Lee was widely publicized worldwide. Though MM Lee was judged to be the victim in the court of law, the perception around the world, especially in the west, is different and no amount of persuasion can reverse the damage done to Singapore’s image.
Every time the regime uses brute force to quash political dissent, its reputation will suffer a knock. It is a classic case of winning the battle, but losing the war – the police may prevent Dr Chee from speaking to the public, but it cannot prevent news of its repression, intolerance and pettiness for being heard around the world.
The regime can continue to arrest peaceful protesters walking in the streets, jail citizens for wearing kangaroo T-shirts or sue the foreign press for defamation and justify every single action of theirs in a Singapore court. However, it must not forget that Singapore is only a tiny red dot of 5 million people (one third of which are foreigners) whereas the world is a much bigger place altogether.
Unfortunately, the “values” so treasured by Singapore are not shared by other countries in the free world. To them, such putative actions to punish and criminalize legitimate political activity are oppressive measures which deny the basic civil rights of the people.
Mr Shanmugam can continue to argue till the cows come home, but few in his audience will buy the story he is trying to sell judging from their responses in the Q&A session that Singapore has to adopt such harsh laws because of its
“unique” social and political circumstances.
No matter how much he rant at the western media and NGOs for their perceived prejudice, he can’t change the fact that they have much more leverage and influence over democratic nations in the world than puny Singapore.
When one delegate asked Mr Shanmugam whether the laws can be relaxed after the demise of MM Lee, Mr Shanmugam appeared to be momentarily stunned and was unable to give a coherent reply.
As hard as he tried to convince his American audience that Singapore is not a “repressive” state, the facts are laid bare for all to see. Which country in the developed world will send two squadrons of riot police to arrest 4 unarmed protesters holding placards in front of the CPF building?
When asked by the state media about his thoughts on Mr Shanmugam’s speech, steering committee member James P. Duffy III said:
“While not everything we learnt would fit comfortably with some important Western values, we are at the beginning of what we expect will be a long and fruitful dialogue with people whom we respect and want to know and understand better.”
The key word is “comfortably”. Obviously Mr James Duffy III did not feel very comfortable from what he heard from Mr Shanmugam about the Singapore legal system.
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgVFM colSpan=2 align=middle>View Full Message</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
