An Act of Self-righteousness

In her letter to the Straits Times Forum, Ms. Deeksha Vasundra of the AWARE CSE Development Team (2006-07), has clearly contradicted herself when she said, "Other studies have shown a higher rate of depression and suicide among young people who are homosexual, especially those unsure about their sexuality." How can a person who is unsure about their sexuality be deemed or labelled a homosexual?

But having said that, it is still not right for those that subscribe to one belief system to impose their views on others who subscribe to another. Christianity and secularism are diametrically opposed belief systems.

If one that subscribe to one set of system, feels offended by the other's intrusion, be it in their children's school, or work place, or in their personal space, or wherever else, then the one who is aggrieved, can always set in motion another movement to counter the other's message.

Or better still they can and should exercise their right as a parent and voice out their objection to the school about their child being subjected to another belief system; and if necessary, even withdraw the child from the school.

But to infiltrate an organisation that has a totally different world-view and to try and align it with your belief system, no matter how 'well-meaning' their intentions were, is still WRONG!

The 'new' guards at AWARE would have won the admiration of many if they had chosen to work with organisations that are aligned with their own world-view like Focus on the Family, to lobby their value system to the community. Instead of doing this, the 'new' team of AWARE has chosen to impose their brand of righteousness on the others.

A prophet named Isaiah once said, "All our righteousness is like filthy rags". The takeover by the 'new guards' in AWARE certainly looks like an exercise of self-righteousness!

I will choose to become a 'Criminal'

“Yes, I have borrowed from Ah Long”, admits Rezal (not his real name). “But I had no other choice! My wife lost her job in the factory and now earns about $400 as a part-time dish-washer; and we cannot survive just on my pay of $800.” Rezal who has three school-going children and works as a Lashing Specialist says, “There are really no containers coming in for me to have work everyday”.

Rezal who lives in a three room HDB flat with his family says that they managed to get by when he had a full days work; and the “$400 plus” his wife brought home every fortnightly working as a factory worker, made sure that they had money for marketing, transportation, pocket-money for the children and themselves, etc. But now, he has to choose between paying his bills and putting food on the table for his children.

“My relatives helped out in the beginning, but they also have their own families. Finally last month I have to go to the Ah Long to borrow $200 to pay the bills”, says Rezal. “I have to pay the Ah Long $280 at the end of this month, but I think I can manage because I have started washing cars part-time now”, Rezal adds.

Should people like Rezal who are victims of circumstances and are already victims of sharks, loan-sharks that is, be further victimised by a new law that is under study for implementation to criminalise those that borrow from loan-sharks? Mr. Wong Kan Seng who is the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs says that this new law being studied by the police is to “hold borrowers accountable” for “their reckless borrowing”. He says these “reckless borrowing” endanger the safety and security of the community; and justifies it further by saying that many borrowers end up working as syndicate runners to pay off their debts, extending the circle of crime even further.

What other recourse do people like Rezal have? There is no unemployment insurance to tide the retrenched over till they find another job in Singapore. If you suddenly fall on trying times, you cannot draw a “hardship loan” from your own Central Provident Fund (CPF). If you earn less than $20,000 annually, you cannot borrow from the banks. Information on loans provided by credit co-operatives is not easily available. Since life is not a constant, what other solutions do people like Rezal have, when they are suddenly faced with the trying reality of daily life?

When reminded that under the law that is currently being studied, he may be criminalised if he borrows from the loan-shark, Rezal replies, “If I have to choose between putting food on the table for my children and committing an offence by borrowing from the Ah Long, I will choose to become a criminal”.

Lawyers like Luke Lee disagree with the intention of the possible law. He says, "They are already down and out, no further action should be taken against them. Even if these victims sue the borrowers and win the case, the borrowers may not have the money to pay, and the victims would still have pay for the law suit.”

And what is the real intention for the Ministry of Home Affairs to be studying the implementation of this law now? Has the current economic crisis caused more people to turn to the loan sharks? Have the incidences of the loan-sharks pressing for payments increased dramatically that police are struggling to cope? A Straits Times Forum writer seems to suggest as much, when the writer said that the police did not seem to take any action against the harassers, despite numerous complaints being lodged.

Such a law if implemented will surely make the job easier for the police as well as for the loan-sharks, for those that borrow from the loan-sharks, will now not come forward to say that they are being harassed, for fear of being criminalised themselves. This in turn will create a thriving black market for personal loans.
Some debtors do indeed assist the unlicensed moneylenders by becoming their runners and by aiding them in their harassment activities. But what is the actual statistics for this? There are of course “reckless borrowers” who borrow to fuel their addiction to gambling. But again what are the numbers for these? Without providing the appropriate numbers and statistics, what Mr. Wong Kan Seng has done is to paint those that borrow from loan-sharks as the bogeyman who borrows recklessly and endangers the safety and security of his neighbours and community.

Of course the police should not hesitate to take action against debtors who are found to be assisting unlicensed moneylenders in their illegal activities. But not all debtors must be considered as a criminal element. There are sufficient safeguards in the current law to deter those that assist illegal money-lending activities; for the current law specifies that those who harass or intimidate anyone in connection with loans by an unlicensed moneylender face a maximum fine of $40,000 or up to three years in jail, or both.

Enacting a law to criminalise without having effective safeguards against the hurdles that life throws at those that earn lower income is to say the least, not thoughtful. The government should kick-start an initiative like “Match-Saving Scheme” to assist those that are least able to save before even considering a law which would criminalise those that borrow from the illegal money-lenders. The “Match-Saving Scheme” could be made available to those who earn less than $20,000 per annum and match 50 cents for every dollar saved. The “Match-Saving Scheme”, should also specify conditions as to when such savings could be drawn. Such a scheme will kick-start a saving habit among those who are often least likely and least able to save.

“Of course if given a choice, I don’t want to pay so much interest”, says Rezal. “But what choice do I have?” he asks.

The Myth of the Violent Singaporean Protestor

In the ISD Intelligence Service Promotion Ceremony on 15 April 2009, Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, Mr. Wong Kan Seng said that they would implement the recently passed Public Order Act "firmly" to deal with those "intent on disrupting public order".

But what does he mean by disruption of "public order"? Prior to asserting that they will deal firmly, Mr. Wong paints a picture of public disruption when he said, "We have just seen the G20 protests in London. Thousands of protestors had taken to the streets, with the more violent among them damaging public property and business premises. In Thailand over the last one year, thousands of protestors have caused grave damage not just to physical property, but to livelihoods and the economy of the country as tourists are staying away. We have also seen on television street battles between protestors and authorities, causing injuries to many people and some have died as a result. I do not believe that Singaporeans would want such violence to happen here, and with what we have seen time and again in other countries, it would be naive of us to believe that nothing untoward will happen during street demonstrations".

There has been no such incidences of violence in the acts of civil disobedience in Singapore. In fact, it is the authorities who had upped their notch of violence in countering the these acts of civil disobedience in recent days.

When the Minister said, "In Singapore, it is only a tiny group of irresponsible and selfish individuals who have been pushing this line of civil disobedience. They do not care for the interests and safety of other Singaporeans; they are only interested in themselves", he tried to draw a parallel between the violent protestors of the United Kingdom and Thailand, to the peaceful protestors in Singapore like Seelan Palay, Shafiie Syahmi and the likes. This is highly misleading and regrettable.

Would the Singapore Police Force now acquire (or have they already acquired) 'non-lethal' devices like the stun shield to counter such protestors of civil disobedience? At the Trussco's exhibition of 'restraining devices' held on the same day as the ISD Intelligence Service Promotion Ceremony, Trussco's CEO, Mrs. Tina Wong said that the Singapore Police Force were "a major end user" of the Taser technology.

Amnesty International in providing a sample of manufacturers of exporters of 'non-lethal' devices, which could be used for torture as well, notes that Defenders Network a company based in Alabama, USA, had sold restraining devices such as Electrified High-Voltage Anti-Riot Shields which could emit up to up to 150,000 volts, to Singapore (among other coutries), because as Defenders Network claims, it can "maintain peace and order without drawing blood or endangering lives".

But are such devices really 'non-lethal' and do they not 'endanger lives'? The use of stun shield has resulted in at least one "unnecessary use of force" death in the USA prison systems. And also, there is the tragedy of Harry Landis, the Texas Corrections Officer. On December 1 1995, as part of the training to use such an electric shield, Landis was required to endure two 45,000-volt shocks. Shortly after the second shock, Landis collapsed and died. An inquiry later revealed that "the electric shock threw his heart into a different rhythmic beat, causing him to pass away".

The ability to burst the trigger and send at least 50,000 volts of electricity, which stuns or causes the death of a protestor, even in the pretext of maintaining "public order", is too much of a responsibility to be given to the police; especially based on a mere hypothesis, when there is no recent history of violent protestors in Singapore.

Men in Financial Crisis Find New Hope

Consistently Persistent

A young man was sitting opposite me today in the MRT. The young man had placed his bag on the seat next to his; and it was alright in the beginning as there were hardly anyone in the train. But the train started filling up soon enough and before time, people were starting to stand in the train. But still, this young man had not removed his bag from the other seat. I was of course very irritated by this. I wanted to ask this young man to remove his bag from the empty seat so that other passengers could sit; but I thought, “let's observe if anyone would exercise his or her right as a passenger in the train”. More and more people started boarding the train, but no one was bold enough to ask this guy to remove his bag. They would stand at a distance and give him a stare; a stare that did not seem to bother the chap.

As my station began approaching, I decided that I had seen enough and that I would say my piece to the young man to be more considerate. But as I was just about to get up, I noticed a young lady, who had just boarded the train at the station before, going next to the young man and standing dangerously close to the seat with the bag; indicating through her body language that she wanted to sit. The young man tried ignoring her for a while; but after a while he had to give in to her persistence and give up the seat he was hogging with his bag.

Of course, I was highly impressed with this young lady. Her act also got me thinking. Perhaps, people need not even speak to exert their right. They say, “action speaks louder than words”. No amount of staring from afar is going to change anything; but maybe, we could also exert our right by being consistently persistent.

The Panda that trampled on the True Orchids

“Earth Hour Singapore is taking place this Saturday March 28 at 8.30 pm...(and) official celebrations will be taking place at the Botanic Gardens...” announced World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Singapore recently.

The Online Citizen was invited to the press conference which was to be held at the Botany Centre in the Singapore Botanic Gardens (SBG). But the press conference was not to be. If there was a proper media conference as announced, a question was begging to be asked, “why was Singapore Botanical Gardens chosen as the venue for the press conference and the multimedia presentation for the Earth Hour?”

This question begs the asking because SBG recently hosted an orchid naming ceremony for Thein Sein the Prime Minister and the fourth-highest ranking general of the junta which rules Myanmar. The junta is well known for its atrocities against its own people and for the curbing of social and political rights.

In 2005, former Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel and South Africa's retired Bishop Desmond M. Tutu, wrote a report on Myanmar for the United Nations Security Council. The 2005 Havel/Tutu report was a complete indictment of the most brutal military dictatorship in the world today. The report indicated that the military kidnaps male children at an early age and trains them in the use of weapons by age eleven. It is estimated that nearly 70,000 children have been forced to join the military in this manner. The country is also the world's leading producer of heroin and is heavily involved in drug trafficking.

In addition to the drugs and rampant child abuse, thousands of Myanmar villages have been systematically destroyed by the military Junta. Over 200,000 refugees have fled the country to escape the brutality of the regime. In Myanmar, there are no basic human rights, healthcare, education, political rights, or free speech. Atrocities like murder, rape, and forced labor are quite common.

In addition, HIV and AIDS are a major problem in the country as well. In effect, the military's corrupt ruling Junta has succeeded in making Myanmar one of the poorest countries in the world.

More recently, Amnesty International reported on the Rohingyas, a Muslim ethnic minority in Myanmar who are subjected to multiple restrictions and human rights violations by the ruling junta - among them, restriction of movement, forced labour, forced eviction and land confiscation and various forms of extortion and arbitrary taxation.

SBG has tarnished and dishonored the true VIPs after whom orchid hybrids have been named in the VIP Orchid Garden of SBG. The orchid hybrids of bona-fide world leaders like Dendrobium Margaret Thatcher and Renantanda Akihito must have bowed their heads in shame to be placed alongside Dendrobium Thein Sein. Dendrobium Memoria Princess Diana and Vandaenopsis Nelson Mandela, the orchid hybrids of real social and human-rights activists, must have surely felt that Dendrobium Thein Sein was actually a virus among them.

Even if WWF does not concern itself primarily with issues of human rights abuses of any regime, should not have WWF reconsidered using SBG as one of its main venue for its Earth Hour activities in Singapore to show its displeasure for Botanical Gardens hosting the orchid naming ceremony for Thein Sein; considering the fact of wildlife and natural resources abuse by the ruling junta of Myanmar?
WWF itself has named Myanmar as a hot-spot for ivory and elephant trading and it had also cited that tiger and wild cats parts are often sold openly in Myanmar. London-based environmental group Global Witness estimates that 1.5 million tonnes of illegally logged timber; worth at least $350 million was shipped illegally into China in 2005.

The Online Citizen queried WWF International with this very same question and they replied, “Thanks for your email and interest in WWF's Earth Hour. Unfortunately, due to the huge number of events happening around the world covering Earth Hour, we are not in a position to know the specific details of the event you mention. This would have been organized by the WWF-Singapore office...” after which they indicated the contact details for WWF Singapore.

Upon querying WWF Singapore, they replied, “I understand that you had some concerns regarding the use of the Botanical Gardens? I was interested to hear about your concerns from my colleagues but unfortunately on this occasion the issue you raise re: Myanmar is not really something the WWF has a response on.”

How could WWF Singapore not have a response to such a pertinent query? By refusing to answer a question that has a logical precise relevance to the matter at hand, has WWF Singapore reneged on being the well-renowned environmental activist organisation that it is reputed to be? Did Weber Shandwick the public relations firm which touts itself as “one of the world's leading public relations firms with an unprecedented and award-winning network across Asia Pacific, reaching from China to Australia and India to Japan”, and hired by WWF Singapore to help organise the Earth Hour events, fail to advise the latter properly due to improper homework on the use and implications of SBG by WWF Singapore for its events?

For over four decades the Panda logo has been a recognizable symbol of WWF and its efforts in wildlife and habitat conservation. But the Earth Hour celebration by the Panda in SBG is indeed a sad day; for it was a day when the Panda trampled on the true Orchids.

Organisations like WWF Singapore are in best position to exercise their corporate citizenry, to pressure SBG over the orchid naming issue. Having said that should every organisation which professes to support human rights and green issues, now avoid using SBG since Dendrobium Thein Sein in all probability may not be removed from the SBG’s VIP Orchid Gardens? It is a decision best left to the organisations themselves. But such decisions should be done only after careful consideration of all options. And when queried on their right in exercising these options, such organisations should not reply "we have no response", which actually means that they have not thought through the implications.

This year SBG celebrates its 150th anniversary. In conjunction with the celebrations SBG has organised a month long exhibition titled, “The seed that changed the world”. Should concerned Singaporeans boycott this exhibition because of the “Orchid that tainted the Gardens?”

How will they respond?

Although there was mounting concern that banking secrecy in tax havens has helped to worsen the economic crisis by disguising the true value of some global assets, plans to name and shame international tax havens ended in a diplomatic fudge. Group of 20 countries leaders agreed to publish a blacklist of countries refusing to sign up to financial anti-secrecy rules but after frantic negotiations only four were included – none of them regarded as major tax shelters. The rest of the 'tax havens' came under another list - The Grey List.

Singapore is included in this 'grey list' countries which includes traditional tax havens – such as Monaco and Gibraltar – which have signed up to, but not implemented, key standards of tax and banking openness. World Leaders agreed that even those on the 'grey list' would face ‘sanctions’ if they refused to comply with regulations being drawn up. The punishments would include cutting aid and increasing costs for those who bank in them.

The international standard for information exchange and reflected in the UN Model Tax Convention was endorsed by the Group of 20 countries in 2004. But some countries fearing a crackdown on tax evaders stashing their money abroad, only committed to the internationally agreed tax standards weeks before the Group of 20 summit. Matti Kohonen of the London-based Tax Justice Network, which campaigns against tax loopholes for rich individuals and corporations, noted that in the two weeks leading up to the G-20 meeting in London a number of tax havens signed up to new banking agreements in hopes of avoiding being listed as uncooperative.

Singapore only committed to the internationally agreed tax standard in 2009, probably just weeks before the Group of 20 summit; and unlike countries like Brunei which also committed to the internationally agreed tax standard in 2009 but has since than have made 5 agreements towards implementing the internationally agreed tax standards, Singapore has not made any such agreements.

What would be even more interesting to note would be how the government of Singapore responds to being placed in the 'grey list'? Is it going to criticise the way the lists were drawn up, sulking perhaps that several US states with tax-friendly laws, like Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming, were not put on either list while Singapore was. Or is it going to respond like Monaco, whose Minister of State (equivalent of Prime Minister of the principality) Jean-Paul Proust said, "We are on the right track. We hope to be able to definitively leave the grey list towards the end of the year"?