Visit Five Years of Firefox.
Read the 2005 article from Wired News, The Firefox Explosion and the latest from Web Monkey, After 5 years on web, Firefox preps for next round.
{Video} 5 years of Firefox
November 9, 2009Amsterdam and Peroff White Paper on Repression of Political Freedoms in Singapore: The Case of Dr. Chee Soon Juan
November 5, 2009LONDON, November 4 /PRNewswire/ — Ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit that will take place in Singapore on 12-14th November, Amsterdam & Peroff today issued a White Paper condemning the erosion of political freedoms in Singapore.
The White Paper documents the repression of political freedoms in Singapore and outlines how the Government of Singapore, under the leadership of the People’s Action Party (PAP), has monopolized the state’s apparatus to its own benefit. The result has been the denial of basic democratic rights and freedoms.
Amsterdam & Peroff are an international law firm representing pro bono Dr. Chee Soon Juan, the leader of one of Singapore’s most important opposition parties – the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). The case of Dr Chee Soon Juan is examined in detail. As leader of the Singapore Democratic Party, Dr Chee has been repeatedly sued, charged, and sentenced ever since his first political act of opposition. He is recognized internationally as a defender of political freedoms and has received the Defender of Democracy Award from the Parliamentarians for Global Action (http://www.pgaction.org/).
The White Paper notes that ever since Singapore gained internal self-government in 1959, it has been ruled by the PAP which has won control of Parliament in every election. The government has solidified its near monopoly on the political machinery of the state by undermining the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Singapore through the passage of unconstitutional domestic laws. The combination of a compliant judiciary, a media silenced through state ownership and the ever-present threat of defamation and libel suits have created a climate for the suppression of political freedoms. Recent legislative developments with the enactment in April 2009 of the Public Order Act have consolidated further the authority of the ruling PAP over the political opposition.
The White Paper calls upon foreign governments, NGOs, and the media to put pressure on the Government of Singapore to act on the demands of the political opposition as well as for:
- APEC leaders attending the November 12-14 Summit in Singapore to meet
with representatives of civil society in Singapore, including Dr. Chee,
leader of the SDP;
- ASEAN to establish a viable Human Rights Commission;
- The charges against Dr Chee and other members of the political
opposition to be dropped;
- A campaign for an independent and impartial judiciary in Singapore;
The White Paper is available at: http://www.robertamsterdam.com
For press inquiries please contact:
Katy Epstein
Amsterdam & Peroff
E-mail: katy.epstein@amperlaw.com
From Robert Amsterdam’s blog,
The Repression of Political Freedoms in Singapore: The Case of Opposition Leader Dr. Chee Soon Juan
Amsterdam and Peroff have a new white paper discussing the case of opposition leader Dr. Chee Soon Juan in Singapore. The introduction of the executive summary of the report is below, followed by a link for downloading the full paper.
Introduction
This White Paper documents the repression of political freedoms in Singapore. It reviews how the Government of Singapore, under the leadership of the People’s Action Party (PAP), has monopolized the state’s apparatus to its own benefit. The result has been the denial of democratic rights and freedoms and the muzzling of domestic and international media.
The case of Dr Chee Soon Juan is examined in detail. Being the leader of one of Singapore’s most important opposition parties – the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) – Dr Chee has been sued, charged, and sentenced ever since his first political act of opposition. He is recognized internationally and by human rights NGOs as a defender of political freedoms and has received the Defender of Democracy Award by the Parliamentarians for Global Action.
Read the rest of the report here[PDF].
Jacob 69er: You can also read the white paper over at my scribd here. Read also White Paper on repression in Singapore circulated worldwide.
{Video} SDP’s Let’s Talk with Constance Singam
November 5, 2009
Following the 1st episode with Alex Au, we feature Constance Singapore, writer and social activist. Singam has been a longtime advocate for women’s rights and she shares with us in this interview her views on the political situation in Singapore – yourSDP.org
Singapore has health-care hurdles too
November 4, 2009Letters, Wall Street Journal
Nov 3, 2009
William McGurn’s column “What Singapore Can Teach the White House” (op-ed, Oct. 21) paints an inaccurate picture of Singapore’s health-care system and the costs it incurs.
Singapore does not have “universal coverage,” as Mr. McGurn asserts. Even the government has admitted that in a country of about three million citizens, tens if not hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans do not have any basic medical insurance coverage, which is provided through government agencies. Many of the uninsured are women and children.
In Singapore, as in the United States, there are people who are uninsured and uninsurable. Even the government’s basic health-insurance program, Medishield, refuses to provide cover for those with pre-existing and congenital medical conditions. Parents of a child with a congenital condition have to carry the entire medical cost burden themselves.
It is true that medical costs in Singapore are generally lower than the U.S., but the average Singaporean does not enjoy the same per capita income or standard of living as the average American. Medical costs are significantly higher than in neighboring countries. The minister of health recently admitted in Parliament that many Singaporeans regularly cross the causeway into Malaysia to buy prescription drugs because they are much cheaper there.
The quality of Singapore’s medical care is high, but as in the U.S., cost is a pressing issue. To some extent, the situation has been cushioned by the collective responsibility of Asian families, where the larger family chips in to pick up the medical cost of a parent or sibling. Yet these social structures are slowly breaking down. Singapore has an aging population and the baby boomers are the most exposed. Having paid for their parents’ medical costs, they have no one to pick up to the tab for them. To avoid picking up the cost for those who cannot pay, the government includes siblings and children—including those living overseas—in their means-testing assessment. Employers provide some level of health-care insurance but these programs are often not portable.
Singapore spends roughly 4% of its annual GDP on health care—one of the lowest outlays in the developed world. The average Singaporean cannot afford to use the upscale Raffles Hospital to which Mr. McGurn refers in his article. They have to wait in line at government-managed hospitals. The 2009 budget allocated 3.7 billion Singapore dollars ($2.6 billion) to health care; by contrast, S$11.5 billion was allocated to defense.
Singapore’s medical-savings accounts, known as “Medisave,” are not fully controlled by their owners. Withdrawals are subject to a complex set of rules which the Ministry of Health changes from time to time—a process that often baffles the average Singaporean.
In many ways, Singapore is heading in the same direction as the U.S. when it comes to health care. While a high quality of care is available, it is not always accessible or affordable. People unfortunate enough to be born with or develop significant medical conditions can find the cost financially crippling to themselves and to their families.
Stanley Jeremiah
Singapore
SDP does not exist
November 4, 2009The Singapore Democratic Party is not mentioned in a report in today’s edition of Today. According to an article by the SDP, the reporter had contacted the Party with questions regarding the next General Election.
For a minute or two, I allowed myself to wonder maybe it could be for another Today report somewhere down the road. Or maybe SDP’s reply came too late to be included in the report.
Like I said, it was only for a minute or two.
The real reason is more likely due to the local news media blackout against the SDP and what the Party has to say. And even if there are reports about SDP and its activities, one will be left with the impression that the Party is equivalent to violent anarchists, paedophiles, terrorists and other unsavoury and criminal types.
During my time with the Think Centre and after, I often heard this – or variations of it but with similar message – from local reporters: we write the reports but what eventually is published is up to the editors. And i kept saying to myself whenever somebody said that to me, but it’s your byline (writer’s name) that is published along with the report and you got the cheek to give such a cop-out reason!
The local news media in Singapore is something like Fox News in America which calls itself fair and balanced but Fox isn’t News but a 24/7 political operation. The only difference is the availabilty of other sources of news in both mainstream media and online. In Singapore, everything is pro-govt: Straits Times, Channel News Asia, local radio stations, etc. Is it any wonder that even a journalism professor in Singapore was quoted as saying If you want to do journalism, don’t do it in Singapore.
Of course, the other political oppositions parties do suffer this sort of “news coverage” in varying degrees from the local news media. But its obvious the SDP is singled out for “special treatment”.
Here’s the Today report followed by the SDP article.
Preparing for next GE
Zul Othman, Today, Posted at 0555hrs, 4 Nov 2009
SINGAPORE – He had previously declared that the Singapore People’s Party (SPP) has a team in place to contest a Group Representation Constituency in the next General Election, due by Feb 2012.
Now, MediaCorp has learnt that the grand old man of Opposition politics, Mr Chiam See Tong will, indeed, lead the GRC team himself – giving up what is currently a 25-year unbroken hold in Potong Pasir.
SPP chairman Sin Kek Tong told this reporter yesterday about the party’s decision, but gave precious little information on which GRC Mr Chiam, 73, will contest – or if his successor for the single-member constituency has been chosen.
For his part, Mr Sin, 63, has set his sight on the single-seat ward of Choa Chu Kang, currently held by Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong.
“The National Solidarity Party, Workers’ Party (WP) and Reform Party have had casual talks about the coming elections, and there’s an understanding that I should be at Choa Chu Kang,” said Mr Sin.
“I’ve been there for the last few years, in fact, working to see how I can best serve the people there.”
Even as the Opposition’s plans for the next elections begin to take shape, Mr Sin is concerned that it is getting harder to find potential candidates.
While the ruling People’s Action Party announced on Sunday that it has identified some candidates, Mr Sin said opposition parties have it tougher “because people don’t want to be part of the underdog”.
“Unlike the PAP, we don’t have a big pool to choose from … so the procedure for us is to find candidates who want to fight for a cause,” he said.
That said, the SPP has zeroed in on several hopefuls, whom Mr Sin described as “young professionals with good qualifications”.
Over at the Workers’ Party, chairman Sylvia Lim said they have been recruiting new members since the last election in 2006.
While some may be “potential candidates”, Ms Lim added that “we want to work with our new members more, and will decide when the election is upon us”.
The promise of more single member constituencies and smaller GRCs will lower the entry barriers for the Opposition, but Ms Lim said it would be “simplistic” to say there will be more Opposition candidates just because of these changes.
“For the WP, we would still want to do our selection and not just field people because we can,” she added.
When contacted, Reform Party secretary-general Kenneth Jeyaretnam said it was “not fair” for the media to make comparisons between the Opposition and the ruling party.
The 18-month-old party formed by his father, the late J B Jeyaretnam, nonetheless, has “high quality candidates” in its fold, he said.
He added: “I’ll be standing in the elections, but we rather not talk about the GRCs and single constituencies now because constituencies might disappear after the electoral boundaries are re-drawn.”
Still, he fancies the Reform Party’s chances.
“In the last six months since I took over the party, I’ve been meeting people at the walkabouts and I’m pleased with the responses so far,” he said.
As the opposition parties prepare for the GE, the news that Mr Chiam will not make another bid for Potong Pasir has stirred mixed emotions among residents.
“He’s an icon in Singapore politics and with him gone, I’m sure the ruling party will do all they can to win back Potong Pasir again,” said Mr Aidil, who has lived in the estate for 18 years.
“I’m sure he’s moving because he wants to use his clout to help the Opposition win other areas,” said another resident, who wanted to be known only as Mr Tan.
“Whatever the case, it will sure make the next election an interesting race to watch.”
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, the PAP adviser to the Potong Pasir grassroots organisations, could not be reached for a comment at press time.
SDP’s response to queries from Today
Singapore Democrats, 3 Nov 2009
Mr Zul Othman of the Today newspaper has emailed the Singapore Democrats to do a follow-up story to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s annnouncement that PAP has identified potential candidates for the next GE. Below is the SDP’s response. Mr Zul’s questions follow.
Government should release new boundaries first
The Singapore Democrats will be fielding a team of candidates of both new and familiar faces in the next general elections. The names and gender of the candidates will be announced at the appropriate juncture on this website.
The number of candidates available to the opposition has always been a casualty of the climate of fear in Singapore. Given the autocratic nature of the political system Singaporeans have been fearful of joining the opposition.
So the question of the increased number of NCMP seats or single-seats is not as relevant as the fear factor inasfar as the ability of the opposition to attract candidates is concerned.
As to where and how many seats the SDP will be fielding, and whether in GRCs and/or SMCs, these questions will depend on the re-drawn boundaries and the number of GRCs and SMCs available in the next GE.
As such the SDP calls on the Government to release the electoral map without further delay. In the past the PAP has done this at the last minute. In one of the recent elections, the new boundaries were made known the day before elections was called.
This is a shameful practice which no confident ruling party would do and which no democratic system would accept. The PAP needs to stop all these shenanigans and reveal the boundaries immediately.
Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party
Questions from Mr Zul Othman:
1) PAP has identified potential candidates – what about the SDP?
2) Do you have fresh faces? How many?
3) Will they be contesting more seats than in the last GE, as PM said?
4) And if so, is it because of more potential candidates or, as PM suggested, the lure of more NCMP seats, single member wards and smaller GRCs?
5) Will the SDP be targeting more single member wards or the GRCs?
6) Any potential candidates you’d care to name? Would it be alright for us to contact them?
7) Will the SDP be fielding more women this time around?
8 ) How far down the recruitment chain are you?Zul Othman
Senior Reporter
Today
Jacob 69er: See SDP censored again and again and again…. and Today: No censorship, SDP: Really?
Reform Party press release on Balldev Naidu
November 3, 2009The Reform Party and Kenneth Jeyaretnam issues the following press release following today’s extradition hearing for Balldev Naidu:
The Reform Party takes terrorism and terrorism-related offences very seriously which is why we have called for the repeal of the outdated ISA and its replacement by an Act specifically designed to deal with and combat terrorism in its current form. We also completely understand why the U.S. needs to take a firm stance on terrorism. Having said that however, the Balldev I have come to know, since taking over leadership of The Reform Party, is a gentle family man and someone who would never intentionally become involved with terrorists or arms dealers. Even though these alleged incidents pre-date the formation of The Reform Party by several years, Balldev was a loyal supporter of my father, JB Jeyaretnam and I will continue to support him in my personal capacity.
In a way, it is for the best that he should be extradited speedily to the US so that this matter can be resolved as soon as possible. I have confidence in the US judicial system which, unlike Singapore, provides for court-appointed legal representation and trial by jury. Balldev has maintained his innocence throughout and I am hopeful that when this goes to trial he will be fully exonerated.
At the request of Balldev’s wife I have contacted several international human rights organisations such as Amnesty International in the US and UK, the Centre for Constitutional Rights in Washington, and Tamils Against Genocide in Maryland, USA who have taken a great interest in this case and provided help and legal advice. Tamils Against Genocide will work with Balldev’s court-appointed lawyer to see that he receives the best possible legal defence and have set up a support network in Maryland should his family be able to visit. My only hope is that there is a speedy trial so that Balldev can return to his family as soon as possible.
To a family who were, like so many families in Singapore already struggling to make ends meet, the financial effects have been devastating and the emotional impact, particularly upon his children, has been at least as great. I find it deplorable that there is no legal aid available in Singapore for defendants in serious criminal cases unless it is a capital offence. I will continue to do what I can to help Balldev and his family through this incredibly difficult time.
Balldev’s case has had little impact on the activities and popularity of The Reform Party. We continue to receive enormous public support for our meet the people sessions both at our headquarters and on our walkabouts and membership is growing steadily on a weekly basis. As soon as the MDA have satisfied themselves that our designated printer’s Fire Certificate is in order we hope they will finally approve our application for a newsletter named the “New Dawn” so that we can communicate our policies to a wider audience.
Online Opposition in Singapore: Communications outreach without electoral gain
November 2, 2009This article by James Gomez was published in the Nov 2008 issue of the Journal of Contemporary Asia,
Abstract
The internet’s public availability in Singapore has fostered a belief among opposition parties in the city-state that the internet will provide them with a new tool of external outreach to overcome local media bias and make electoral gains against the ruling People’s Action Party. Ten years after the first opposition party went online, Singapore’s opposition parties’ online presence is small, its online external outreach weak and their electoral fortunes remain unchanged. Why is this so? This article argues that a do-it-yourself approach, technical challenges, a culture of caution and the parties’ control over its members’ online communications are the chief reasons why their use of the internet for external outreach has been less than optimal. The article concludes that the internet provides opposition parties an additional external outreach medium. However, that outreach has not helped improve their electoral success. This shows that relying on the internet does not yield electoral advantage.
Read the full article here
Freedom for Sale
October 30, 2009
I’m reading a new book by John Kampfner titled Freedom for Sale: How we made money and lost our liberty. Its available in libraries and bookstores.
John Kampfner’s study of the Singapore style of government – now spreading across the world – chillingly shows how much is lost under this brand of democracy, says Peter Preston…continue reading
Freedom’s Loss
John Kampfner
Time, 5 Oct 2009
I’ve come to think of it as the pact, the willingness of intelligent, well-to-do people to trade certain liberties in return for the promise of either prosperity or security. The model is Singapore, the city-state where I was born and a place that never ceases to fascinate me. But the pact’s appeal is now far more widespread and takes in not just the countries you might expect — China, Russia — but plenty you might not. Perhaps even the country you live in.
I’m not talking about totalitarian regimes, where fear is the predominant mechanism for ensuring state control, but countries where citizens enjoy extensive private freedoms — to travel, to own property, to conduct their personal lives as they wish and, of course, to make and spend money. As part of their tacit deal with their government, people consciously agree not to cause trouble, nor to engage in excessive criticism of it.
Singapore is in most respects a roaring success story, an economic powerhouse built in just 50 years on what was once a swamp. It is also a shining example of a country that successfully melds disparate population groups — Chinese, Malays, Indians and Europeans — in a region where ethnic and political strife are commonplace. But as the tiny number who seek to form or join opposition groups know, speaking out in Singapore can invite a lawsuit, bankruptcy or even prison. From time to time the government tentatively tries to open up. “Speakers’ Corner” was one such attempt. Modeled on its London namesake, it was established in 2000 in a park in downtown Singapore. When I visited last year, the instructions on a bulletin board listed the following rules: You must register at the police station around the corner; you must fill in forms and wait for permission; if it is granted, your speech will be recorded and can be held against you in any defamation or other trials. You are not allowed to raise any issues of religion or race — and you must not insult anyone in authority. I asked a police officer at the station when the next speaker was likely to appear. Not for some time, he told me. Nor could he remember the last person to apply.
In Russia, Vladimir Putin knows the pact well. Putin has long argued that economic success and social order must come before openness and plurality. Many Russians I know — friends from the early 1990s when we all watched, spellbound, the brief flowering of democracy — have come to agree with him. When I quit as editor of a British political magazine, one Russian friend phoned to declare how happy she was that I would now start doing something worthwhile with my life, like making money. Russians, Chinese and others utter a single word when such a viewpoint is challenged: Gorbachev. Remember, they ask, how the last Soviet leader tried to open up political life before sorting out the economy? The argument is about sequencing: What should come first.
And yet. One of the most convincing writers on this subject was the American political scientist Barrington Moore. In his work on the social origins of dictatorships, Moore coined the phrase “No bourgeois, no democracy.” It may be true that a middle class is necessary for the establishment of basic democratic rights, such as the vote. But the events of the past two decades have laid to rest any notion that the enrichment of a country provides an automatic impulse toward greater liberty. Remember the talk, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, about democracy arriving hand in hand with free markets? As people became economically secure, they would demand better governance, greater freedoms. But that hasn’t been the case in Russia, China or Central Asia. People in those places have found a way to disengage from politics while growing (mostly) more comfortable. Consumerism has provided the ultimate anesthetic. Perhaps there is no next stage.
This phenomenon relates not just to authoritarian countries or so-called managed democracies, but also to Western nations that proselytize about democratic values. Why else have Italians voted three times for a man who has sought to dismantle an independent judiciary and control the media? Why have Britons acquiesced in illiberalism to such an extent that local councils eavesdrop on the telephone calls and e mails of people they suspect of disposing of their garbage in the wrong place? Why do so many middle-class Indians either insulate themselves from the corruption of public and political life or, worse, participate in it?
In the era of globalized glut that presaged the crash, we allowed freedom to be recast as a vehicle to deliver consumption. But it is much more than that, and if we forget it we will all be the losers.
{Videos} Do not kill in my name!
October 26, 2009{Video} Inaugural episode of SDP’s Let’s Talk
October 23, 2009
The Singapore Democrats are proud to present Let’s Talk, a groundbreaking video series where we interview personalities and political figures in and around Singapore. This is another historical first by the SDP. In this inaugural episode we feature Mr Alex Au, a prominent blogger and gay rights activist. We hope you enjoy it. – yourSDP.org
RSS - Posts