The Value of Citizenship over Race

Efforts at racial integration has been impeded by the government’s own CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others) policy that typecasts a racial profile for every citizen. The policy presupposes that every Chinese is a Confucianist, that every Indian is a cultural traditionalist, and that every Malay is a strict Islamic practitioner who prioritizes adherence to faith over country.

With a single stroke of an alphabet, every Singaporean is automatically embedded with a culture at birth; a child inherits the father’s ‘race’ – with all its associated trappings – while all possible ambiguities of racial identities are dismissed. Other than failing to identify with the dilemma of ‘mixed’ parentage, the government’s predilection with hyphenated-citizens undermines national identity for a more parochial racial one.

Not only does this policy results in the partition self-help groups along ethnic lines which can conceivably encumber social work efforts, it is also partly responsible for perpetuating the impression of the enigmatic Malay Singaporean whose loyalty is always mired in doubt. In the words of then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, “It would be a very tricky business for the SAF to put a Malay officer who was very religious and who had family ties in Malaysia, in charge of a machine-gun unit.”

As long as the government holds onto this perspective, the promise of Minister for Environment and Water Resources Yaacob Ibrahim as mentioned in TODAY that “hard work and playing by the rules would bring its rewards in a meritocratic society” remains a distant dream.

Read the rest of the article here: Singapore’s first Malay general – a star of things to come?

Let the games continue!

WITH ONE Filipino footballer and four members of the Hong Kong side having been infected with the Influenza A virus, and another twenty members from Philippines’ football contingent having been quarantined at the Aloha Loyang Resort since Sunday, calls have come from certain quarters to postpone the inaugural Asian Youth Games (AYG).

Is H1N1 so highly contagious that such calls are justified, or is H1N1 a low severity virus which has made some people to go into ‘panic-mode’ and overreact?

Although Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan recently announced that the coming months will be challenging for Singapore and that we need to gear up for “the community spread phase of the outbreak”, the H1N1 virus itself has so far proven to be a wimpy virus.

“What the epidemiologists are seeing now with this particular strain…is that the severity of the disease, the severity of the flu — how sick you get — is not stronger than regular seasonal flu”, said US Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano at a recent press briefing at the headquarters of the Federal Emergency Management Administration.

She added that officials are now “cautiously optimistic that this particular strain will not be more severe than a normal seasonal flu outbreak”.

The virulence of this strain of H1N1, so far seems to be well below that of routine seasonal flu. In fact, Mexican data shows that the so-called RO (or reproductive number) for H1N1 is about 1.4, which means that each person who acquires the virus infects about 1.4 other people.

When compared to the dreaded 1918 influenza pandemic which had an RO of around 3, the current ‘pandemic’ is certainly not a terrifying contagion at all.

Even the World Health Organisation (WHO) which officially declared the outbreak to be a pandemic on June 11 stressed that the new designation was a result of the global spread of the virus and not indicative its severity.

The case fatality rate (CFR) of this ‘pandemic’ strain is estimated at 0.4%, whereas the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) had a CFR estimate of between 14 and 15 percent.

Dr Anne Schuchat, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s interim deputy director for science and public health program, said that even the best estimates suggest “that the fatality [rate] is likely a little bit higher than seasonal influenza, but not necessarily substantially higher”.

While very little is known about the medical conditions of those that died in Mexico after contracting H1N1, evidence from those hospitalised in the US after being infected with H1N1 suggests that almost all of those cases had complications from other chronic illness or conditions.

The Ministry of Health in this instance seems to have done more than is sufficiently necessary to counter the “threat” of this low-severity virus. Such a low-risk infection surely only demands common sense precautions of hygiene, like washing the hands thoroughly and regularly with soap and water and turning away from a person and covering your nose and mouth with tissue paper when you have to cough or sneeze, and so on.

Drastic measures such as those implemented during the SARS crisis and calls to call off or even postpone the AYG are absolutely “knee-jerk” reactions will be totally unjustified.

The AYG will allow our youth players to use this chance to benchmark their performances against other youth teams from Asian nations. The Games will also provide Singapore with an opportunity to test organisational and logistical capabilities in advance of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics, which Singapore will be hosting.

The uninterrupted hosting of such an event means more than bringing in much needed tourism dollars in this economic downturn; it also means giving our youngsportsmen and sportswomen in Singapore a much needed opportunity to gauge themselves against the best in Asia, and in so doing prepare themselves to do us all proud in the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics.

The words of Datuk Dr. Jegathesan, chairman of the Olympic Council of Asia’s medical committee ring true. He said: “the precautionary measures taken by the organisers [of the Asian Youth Games] are quite convincing”, as there are certainly no serious indications that there is a need to cancel or postpone the games.

The H1N1 or some other ‘flu’ will always continue to shadow a global and cosmopolitan city like Singapore. While it is always good to have an excellent business continuity plan, we cannot be held hostage by such “crisis”. While targeted control measures are taken to contain such crisises, life must continue as normally as possible.

Sins of the past

The current population problems we are facing can be traced back to the disastrous “Stop at Two” policy that was introduced in the early 1970s. At that time, even some liberal NGOs like the Singapore Planned Parenthood Association (SPPA) were used by the Government to spread their “Two is Enough” propaganda, which unfortunately was bought wholesale by Singaporeans. When they tried to reverse the trend upon realising that it had been a mistake, the damage had already been done.

In order for a society to maintain itself socially and economically over the long haul, the required fertility rate is 2.11 children per family. A society will decline if its fertility rate is less than that.

Historically however, no society has reversed a fertility rate below 1.9. In Singapore’s case, where our fertility rate is a mere 1.3, the situation is practically intractible. That is why the Government is trying to welcome foreigners into Singapore, to artificially boost the falling birth rate. But the consequences for the social fabric of our nation can be deep and longlasting.

Read the entire article here: The Online Citizen

Kang Nam headed to Singapore

The USS John McCain, a Navy destroyer, is positioning itself in case it gets orders to intercept the ship Kang Nam as soon as it leaves the vicinity off the coast of China. Military sources told FOX News that, ""This is a very delicate situation and no one is interested in precipitating a confrontation."

The ship which is suspected of carrying weaponry, missile parts or nuclear material, appears headed towards Singapore and from Singapore to Myanmar.

Without referring directly to the movement of Kang Nam or its suspected cargo, a spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said,"Singapore takes seriously the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and related materials."

According to the military sources that spoke with FOX News, Kang Nam is "a repeat offender", which has been involved in proliferation activities in the past. Apparently the ship has been detained in Hong Kong before, in 2006.

With the present government of Singapore being a strong ally of the ruling junta of Myanmar. was the North Korean ship trying to evade suspicion, by trying to transition through the ports of Singapore?

Since this is not the first time Kang Nam has been involved in activities of proliferation, the government of Singapore should come clean as to how many times before has the same ship passed through its ports en route to Myanmar. As Singapore is a participant in the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a multilateral coalition for suitable interceptions and inspections of ships suspected of carrying any type of cargo related to nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles; and because of the known fact that North Korea does not export anything other than weapons, this voluntary revealing of the records by the Port of Singapore Authorities, will be especially important.

North Korea has said that any attempt to board its ships would be viewed as an act of war and promised "100- or 1,000-fold" retaliation if provoked. It would indeed be sad if Singapore has unwittingly played itself into the hands of rogue states like North Korea and Myanmar.

Mooting a social assistance scheme search engine

Excerpts from The Online Citizen Report, "Mooting a social assistance scheme search engine".

Mr Ravi Philemon, also commented that the database (of various help schemes) would not be feasible as the needs of an individual should not be determined by a computer program. He reiterated that the complexities with the various schemes lay in their overlapping criteria’s and its administration by different parties...Mr Ravi gave a personal example to the participants of his mother holding down three jobs to keep the family going while their relatives took care of him and his siblings. This scenario which was prevalent thirty to forty years ago is hardly observed in Singapore today as the family unit became more nuclear centered.

Read the Entire Article here: Mooting a social assistance scheme search engine

20 Children Missing Since 2007

The Singapore Police Force's (SPF) Missing Persons' website, provides a very dark reality. At least 20 children under the age of 16, have been missing in Singapore since 2007.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reports that the primary motive for non-family abductions is sexual. Statistics also show that children taken by non-family members are either murdered, held for ransom, or taken with the intent to keep.

20 children missing in a toutedly 'safe and secure' city-state like Singapore is 20 children too much. Take the case of Nurul Aisyah Binte Mohammad Taufik for instance, I could not google any information or notices about her missing, besides the one in the SPF website. It is the same for Giesen Alexia S, who is a foreign citizen but a permanent resident of Singapore.

Why is the main stream media silent on the issue of missing children? Having the most muscle in reaching the public, should not they be partnering the SPF to highlight the plight of the most vulnerable in our society? 25 May is remembered in the USA as the Missing Children's Day. Perhaps, we should have such a campaign in Singapore to keep the spotlight on the missing children in Singapore.

As a parent I fiercely want to keep my children safe but don’t want to sacrifice my children’s independence to fear. However, with statistics showing that most of the missing children go missing from the heartlands of Singapore and even from the public schools where they are supposed to be safe, I am highly tempted to err towards the side of caution.

More families seeking shelter

In her article "More families seeking temporary shelter", Theresa Tan says, "Mr. Ravi Philemon says something else caught his attention of late: A handful of those seeking help are white-collared workers who used to live in bigger HDB flats and even condos before they lost their jobs as a result of the recession. He gave the example of a couple - one a graduate who used to earn more than $3,000 a month - with two pre-school children. Both husband and wife were retrenched earlier this year and have been out of job since. When they could not keep up their loan payments, their bank repossessed their executive flat."

A rather weighty issue

Chua Mui Hoong weighs in on readers' responses to her recent columns and says:

One reader blogged about that article of mine. In his Singapore Social Activist blog, Ravi Philemon took issue with a sentence in my commentary that 1959 was important because "it was in that year that Singapore became a state of its own, with the right to confer citizenship".

He thought I needed to get my facts right, and went on to point out that a citizenship ordinance was passed in 1957. This gave Singapore citizenship to residents born here, but they were still British subjects.

In my article published on June 12, Friday, I mentioned both significant dates: "In 1957, citizenship rules were changed to give citizenship to local residents."

I then went on to say that 1959 was important because Singapore became a state in its own right in that year, with the right to confer citizenship of its own accord.

I wish readers like him would read ST articles more carefully before accusing us of getting things wrong. And I wish Ravi had used some other photo that didn’t make my face look so fat. It’s a weighty issue with me, okay?

---My Response---


Hi Mui Hoong,

Sorry about the dated photo. I do understand the issues of 'weightiness'. I have changed the photo on my post. Hope you are happy now.

I took issue with how you crafted your opinion piece; starting with perceived ambiguity of 1959 but ending with a resounding unambiguiness.

In my blog, I tried to point out that if any year besides 1965 is to be remembered, it should be "the year 1955...as it was on this day that the British government allowed Singapore to hold its first general election which was won by a David Marshall, the pro-independence candidate".

My argument was what significance does 1959 have when the citiizenship conferred then, was revoked on 16 September 1963 when Singapore became a part of Malaysia' and upon Singapore's secession from the Federation of Malaysia on 9 August 1965, a new Constitution came into effect, which repealed the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance of 1957 and granted proper Singaporean citizenship to all persons who were citizens as of 16 September 1963 by virtue of the secessation from being a British colony.

I appreciate feedback like yours for my blog; but would appreciate more if you would read "carefully before accusing (me) of getting things wrong".

Rewriting the Unwritten Social Contract

“It is meant to make residents aware of what is going on in their town and do something about it,” said Mr. Mah Bow Tan the Minister for National Development when reiterating a point that not just the town councils but the Housing & Development Board (HDB) residents themselves will come under the spotlight when the government launches its assessment of town councils later this year.

Although the Minister claims that this is “not a ranking exercise in the absolute sense of the word”, he admits that it is “quite understandable”, if residents make use of the report to raise asking prices for their flat. He further adds, “I don’t think there is anything wrong with that”.

But what begs the asking is, “what is the impending need for this assessment of the 16 town councils, which manages the Housing Board estates in Singapore?”

Besides assessing cleanliness and facilities management, the report, would also assess financial management. The Coordinating Chairman of the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) Town Councils which manage 14 town councils comprising of about 900,000 HDB flats, had a huge fallout last year when he said that the residents “should thank the Town Council for working hard to come up with a diversified portfolio”, when the diversified portfolio potentially lost $16 million. Is the current assessment of the 16 town councils, an exercise in public relations and damage control?

Comparing the town councils managed by the opposition to those managed by the ruling party, is like comparing apples with oranges. There are no single member town councils among those managed by the ruling party. The Single Member Constituent (SMC) town councils like Bukit Panjang, are all linked with bigger GRC town councils. With that, you have a larger pool of residents and the economies-of-scale in terms of funding for the town council’s essential spending and upgrading.

Further to this, the town councils managed by the opposition, are reportedly not given access to the Community Projects Improvement Committee (CIPC) funds, to spruce up the estates they manage.

For comparisons to be proper SMC town councils should not be allowed to be linked to GRC town councils; then one can truly determine who has performed better, the opposition candidate(s) or the candidate(s) of the ruling party.

And such a report should also include the number and percentage of residents in arrears on their Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC), the number and percentage of residents charged in court for not paying their S&CC, the number and percentage of residents who are jailed because they were unable to pay the court fines for S&CC arrears, and also the mechanisms for S&CC increases determined in regards to the quantum and timing.

For the report to be truly comparative, the report, which is to be submitted next year should include actuarial projections and studies of whether town council sinking funds are adequate or over-funded; as well as the number of investments in “capital guaranteed products” and the estimated annualised rate of return on funds for various time periods.

If the Minister for National Development’s call for transparency by the town councils is truly sincere, it should include quantum of fees and the expense ratio of TC investments, breakdown of its investments, investment management decision-making processes, the basis of awarding contracts, as well as the proper breakdown of salaries, bonuses, benefits, of town council staff, including details of expenses incurred by town council boards and committees. Is the report prepared to be extensive in its quest for transparency or is it merely going to gloss over these important aspects of transparency?

The recent changes announced with regards to the electoral boundaries, the NMP and NCMP schemes, and now the town council report which is to be submitted next year, all seemingly point to one possibility – General Elections 2010.

In 1997, the ruling party offered tempting incentives like upgrading to the residents of Potong Pasir but the residents in Potong Pasir tenaciously stuck on to the opposition side and refused to give the majority vote to the PAP candidate. The town council report certainly seems to be another exercise by the ruling party to remind Singaporeans of the unwritten social contract it has with them - “I give you prosperity (in this case spruced up estates which will command better resale value for your HDB house) while you give me your votes”.

One but can only wonder if this ‘social contract’ will be re-written.

---
With contributions by: Leong Sze Hian

'Legacy of 1959' - Case of the Noisy Gong

In her article, Ambiguous Legacy of 1959, Ms. Chua Mui Hoong tries to argue that 1959 is indeed an unambiguous year as it was the year where Singapore emerged from being a poor self-governing state, to the prosperous, confident metropolis of today; because "it was in that year that Singapore became a state of its own, with the right to confer citizenship". Ms. Chua needs to get her facts right.

Singaporean citizenship was first granted in 1957 when Singapore was a self-governing colony of the United Kingdom. A Citizenship Ordinance provided Singaporean citizenship to all residents who were born in Singapore but Singaporeans were still considered British subjects.

The 'Singapore citizen', who was still a British subject, ceased to exist on 16 September 1963 because on that day he became Malaysian citizen; upon Singapore's merger with the Federation of Malaysia. Malaysian citizenship was of course governed by Malaysian nationality law.

Upon Singapore's secession from the Federation of Malaysia on 9 August 1965, a new Constitution came into effect, which repealed the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance of 1957 and granted proper Singaporean citizenship to all persons who were citizens as of 16 September 1963 by virtue of the Ordinance.

If any year besides 1965, were to be remembered, the year 1955 should be the most apt as it was on this day that the British government allowed Singapore to hold its first general election which was won by a David Marshall, the pro-independence candidate.

Chief Minister David Marshall demanded complete self-rule and led a delegation to London. He promised that he would resign if he could not convince the British to grant complete self-rule to Singapore; and when the British refused this, David Marshall kept his promise upon return to Singapore. He was replaced by Lim Yew Hock.

Lim Yew Hock suppressed the communist movements including the pro-communist union leaders in the People's Action Party. Lim Yew Hock also led an all-party delegation to negiotate with the British in a series of Merdeka talks from 1956 to 1958 and it was his policies that convinced the British that Singapore was ready for self-rule and she was granted full internal self-government with its own prime minister and Cabinet overseeing all matters of government except defence and foreign affairs.

Lim's tough measures which managed to convince the British though alienated a large portion of the Chinese-speaking electorate and the transfer of Christmas Island to Australia in 1957, also made him hugely unpopular. These factors enabled the PAP to win the 1959 general election and form the new government of Singapore.

Whatever twists or turns Ms. Chua makes, 1959 is not the year "first Singaporean citizen" was born. The constant trumpeting of '1959' is sounding more like a case of noisy gong, then a case for bringing out the cymbals. Ever heard the saying, "empty vessels makes the most noise"?

Multi-Party Political Systems and Stress of Modernisation

The Economist Intelligence Unit's Political Instability Index shows that the threat posed to the Singapore government by social protest has increased. The index scores were derived by combining measures of economic distress and underlying vulnerability to unrest. The index covers the period 2009/10, and scores are compared with results for 2007.



Singapore's risk has increased from 'low' to 'moderate' and Asian coutries like India, Vietnam, Taiwan and Hong Kong and Japan are deemed to be of lower risk of social unrest than Singapore.

With the exception of Vietnam, the other Asian countries which are deemed to be at lower risk of social unrest when compared to Singapore, all employ the multi-party political system.

Samuel Huntington the American political scientist and the author of the book, "Clash of Civilizations", argues that as societies modernize, they become more complex and disordered. If the process of social modernization that produces this disorder is not matched by a process of political and institutional modernization; a process which produces political institutions capable of managing the stress of modernisation, the result may be violence.

Alexis-Charles-Henri Clerel de Tocqueville a 19th century French political thinker and historian observed that "steadily increasing prosperity" does not tranquilize citizens; on the contrary, it promotes "a spirit of unrest".

Is the development of a multi-party political system, the answer that Singapore needs in managing the stress of modernisation and in lowering the risk of social unrest?

Straight People Are Good People?

I was browsing through the Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry@Home(REACH)webpage and was surprised when I came to the "Your Discussion Corner" page. The topic being discussed was, "HOW TO CHANGE HOMO PEOPLE INTO STRAIGHT GOOD PEOPLE?" The person who started the discussion and those that have contributed to the discussion so far, seem to imply that only straight people are good people. How misleading is this? Why is the government feedback portal, not doing anything to moderate such discussions?

Vocalness – An effective tool in the battle of belief systems

Many Singaporeans have voiced their opposition to the Integrated Resorts when the idea was first mooted by the government.

CHRISTIANS have been in the most vocal in Singapore in various issues; from the issue of casinos in the two integrated resorts to the recent controversy regarding the contents of the Comprehensive Sexuality Education.

But by being so vocal, are these Christians trying to impose their own value systems on the rest of Singaporeans? Perhaps not.

Christians generally share the same values as the majority in a multiracial, multi-religious society. But in most instances, Christians are perceived to be the most vocal group is because of their mastery of the English language as a tool to make their views known and heard.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in speaking on the opposition to the Integrated Resorts (IR) in 2004 said, “Many Singaporeans, though not all, who oppose the (integrated resorts), do so on religious grounds. The main religious groups have all made their views known. The churches, the Buddhist and Hindu groups, as well as MUIS and Muslim groups have all stated their stands. I have also received letters from many Singaporeans, especially Christians, expressing their objections on religious grounds.”

The expression used by PM Lee seems to imply that although many Singaporeans of all religious groups oppose the IR, Christians tend to voice their opposition individually in addition to doing so through their churches. Other religions, on the other hand, do so mostly through their religious institutions.

A question that begs to be answered would be: do these vocal Christians speak only for themselves or did they echo the sentiments of the majority in Singapore?

A multi-religious chorus against homosexuality

In July 2003 during an interview with Time Magazine, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong surprised Singapore by announcing that the government is now openly employing gays, even in sensitive jobs, despite homosexual acts remaining illegal under the Singaporean Penal Code of 377A, which drew a strong backlash from the Singaporean conservative majority.

In response to Mr Goh’s announcement, Venerable Shi Ming Yi, the then secretary-general of the Singapore Buddhist Federation was quoted as saying: “People have different likes and dislikes. Of course, as a religion, we do not think that homosexuality is right”. Venerable Shi perhaps spoke for the majority of Singaporean Buddhist when he said that.

Mr Alami Musa, president of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore, also spoke out against homosexuality. In a recent statement on the comments by Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng on the role of religious groups in the public sphere, he said: “I am appreciative of the fact that he has re-stated the government’s unchanged position on homosexuality. That reflects the conservative nature of our society.”

His views sum up the sentiments of the Muslims in Singapore.

Hinduism has taken various positions on the issue of homosexuality, ranging from positive, to neutral, to even antagonistic. For example, the Hindu law code Manu Smriti refers to both female and male homosexuality as a punishable crime, where punishment may vary from having a ritual bath, to public humiliation, to even having the fingers of the offender’s hands cut off.

In a 2004 survey titled ‘Discussions on Dharma’ facilitated by Rajiv Malik of Hindustan Times, most swamis said they opposed the concept of a Hindu sanctified gay marriage.

The fact is, sexuality is rarely discussed openly amongst Singaporean Hindus today, and homosexuality is largely a taboo subject - especially among the strongly religious Hindus.

In fact, a 2007 ‘nationally representative’ study by Nanyang Technological University found that seven in ten Singaporeans frown on homosexuality.

And so, if Christians hold similar views as the practitioners of other religions when they speak up for certain values, it makes more sense to assume that they are speaking up not only for themselves, but also for the majority.

Vocalness a good thing

As a challenge to the Christians who are not shy about vocalizing for the majority, another group counter-proposes the majority view, vocalising and lobbying just as loudly for the . They are the LGBT community, as well as their proponents and sympathisers. The recently held pink-dot event is a testament to that fact.

This tussle between different values has a drawn-out history. On 3 October 2007, an online campaign was launched to repeal Section 377A, the “anti-gay” law. But on 18 October the same year, Mr Martin Tan, an entrepreneur set up Keep 377A, a counter campaign, to give citizens a channel to voice support for the Government’s retention of the law.

In just two days of its launch, the Keep 377A campaign had gained more signatures than the other website. But the fact that the LGBT even has such a loud voice can be considered a form of victory for them.

The tabling of the petition to the Parliament in support of the repeal of section 377A was an unprecedented occurrence in Singapore. Although Section 377A was not repealed then because it was deemed that Singapore was a “conservative society uncomfortable with the notion of homosexuality”, Members of Parliament like Ms. Indranee Rajah expressed hope that “Singaporean society could evolve to accept homosexuality in the future”.

The “vocalness” of this tussle between differing belief systems can only be good for Singapore; for as ideas and ideals are tossed back and forth by the opposing camps, very often, a more informed, less ignorant, stereotype-free middle ground could be forged.

Nevertheless, while suspicions, highly-charged debates and emotional confrontations are part-and-parcel of such debates, we should not allow public discourse to denigrate into name-calling or labeling.

We should avoid terms like ‘fundamentalist’, ‘militants’, ‘agenda’ when advocating for the majority or the minority. Those that engage the public or even each other for their cause should be reminded to do so in a passionate yet civil manner.

When engagement is civil, the end result will be a better Singapore.

In Unity for her Liberty

Around 400 people gathered at Hong Lim Park on Sunday for a vigil in support of Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyu. Ms Suu Kyi is currently undergoing a trial, behind closed doors, in Burma for breaching the rules of her house arrest by allowing an American, John Yettaw, to stay at her residence.





Mr Ravi Philemon, a social activist, urged ASEAN to do more than simply releasing statements condemning the re-arrest of Ms Suu Kyi. Calling the charges ridiculous, he made the analogy of a prison guard seeing a stranger in a prisoner’s cell and then blaming the prisoner for it when in fact, it is the guard who should be held responsible. He found it strange that no charges have been filed against the policemen guarding Ms Suu Kyi for the obvious security lapse.

Links: The Online Citizen & MARUAH