Singabloodypore

As is Mr Wang I see. The Singapore blogosphere seems to have burst into flames of rumour and fear. As far as I am aware the IPS is a partially business funded and partially government funded think tank. Now by Singabloodypore being researched what I mean is that I have been invited to attend an interview on the topic of the blogging commmunity and possible effects it may have had on the recent elections.

The interview will be conducted face-to-face which as all you smart readers out there know, means in the same geographic location.

So when the request arrived in my inbox a few weeks ahead of when I had planned to spend a few days in Singapore I thought why not, what harm could it do?

“The questions we are interested in include the kinds of space that the Internet helps create as an alternative to the mainstream media, and whether and how the Internet contributes to democratic processes. We have been archiving several dozen blogs during the election period, including yours, with a view to analyzing their content and features. But we would also like to have a quantitative sense of how big the impact of blogs like yours is – and would be grateful if you could grant us an interview either face to face or by email …

Singapore

First spotted on Mr Wang.

A related “news” article – Government to review media policies for next GE By Farah Abdul Rahim, Channel NewsAsia

THE Government will review the way it manages new media such as the Internet and podcasts and work towards a ‘lighter touch’ in the next election, said Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, Dr Lee Boon Yang.

Speaking at the 5th Annual PR Academy Conference on new media, Dr Lee said the Government accepts that Internet and new media are evolving and even more people will be net-savvy in five years’ time.

‘So our policies must also evolve. We will review our policies on the Internet and new media during the election period bearing in mind the changes taking place,’ he said.

Call me paranoid…. but is that a promise or a threat?

‘Moving forward, we will consider how to better embrace these changes so that by the next GE, we may be able to adopt a lighter touch approach during the election period.’

1. Why should there be a “touch” in the first place?
2. The “touch” that they had this elections obviously didn’t affect many bloggers. So I’m a little confused here.

Dr Lee defended the Government’s ‘cautious’ approach during the recent May 6 General Election, saying that certain restrictions must remain to keep the electoral process on an even keel.

Even? Even? Since when have the opposition parties even approached the equality mark by five miles?

Election advertising, for example, was restricted to political parties and candidates.

Which of course, wasn’t carried by our reliable media.

‘Were we wrong to have adopted a cautious approach? Here, I do not expect a consensus. But my assessment is that we were not wrong to have taken a more cautious approach,’ he said.

‘While podcasts and videocasts for political advertisements were disallowed during the election period, political parties were able to make their presence felt in cyberspace making good use of their websites to publicise their programmes. This was on top of the ample coverage given by the mainstream media.’

*proceeds to choke on her biscuit*

Dr Lee said interest was also high in other areas such as in individual blogs, podcasts and videocasts. Many blogs ran commentaries, satires, polls, and photos of election rallies.

‘The emergence of new media platforms and the fact that many of our young people are tech-savvy supported such intense interest. Many also see the new media as increasing the political space to speak up on the issues brought up during the election campaign,’ he said.

‘I accept that some will argue that we should let the people be the judge and form their own opinion by accessing all sorts of information and arguments. I agree that this is not without merit. But it is only valid when information available on the Internet is equally reliable and accurate.

Equally reliable and accurate as WHAT? The local media? Now that would be REALLY unbiased.

‘Hence we have adopted a cautious approach in engaging the new media during the election period.’

Dr Lee said said the Government adopted a ‘light touch approach’ in dealing with the everyday use of the internet and will continue to do so and accept that the Internet and new media will remain largely a ‘free-for-all’.

‘However during the election period when such free-for-all may result in undesirable situations, we cannot take a completely hands-off approach,’ he said.

And we come to the conclusion, the warning hidden within the sugary-sweet message. Next elections, we bloggers better watch out.

Singapore

The text and video are from Lee Cane You. A new blog by someone who appears to be immune from the self-censorship virus.

I added the music and the titles. The moving footage was cut from Martyn See’s great, but disturbing documentary Singapore Rebel which is BANNED in Singapore. It was supposed to be screened at a Singapore film festival, but the festival director was threatened by Thugs Of The State. In my view, there is no loss of honour if one capitulates to absolute power who cannot, or will not differentiate between bullying and justice. Producing political films is BANNED in Singapore. Yessir folks, another violation of individual and property rights by the good-old-state and its tin-pot despots. I urge you to help Martyn See by signing the petition. To visit Martyn See’s blog click here.

Frankly, I’m EMBARRASSED that Singaporeans have resorted to “begging” their government for liberty. In any “civilised” country, the government terrorcrats who bully peaceful citizens would be arrested, charged in court and thrown into jail—where they so rightfully belong.

Update May 25, 2006: Audio mp3 of the music in podcast format here. [mp3]

Singapore

Not that we have a chance in hell of winning in a section which has us competing with opendemocracy. And before anyone asks who nominated the site – it was I, hopelessly self-promoting. The main criteria for entry was that one of those involved on the project has to be resident in the UK and I am aware that there are at least two of us living in Britain.

When digital technologies intersect with civic life, they can impact a small community or an entire nation. The New Media Awards celebrate those UK new media projects that benefit society, government or democracy.

The theme of this year’s awards is The Power of Ideas – with a special emphasis on innovation, usability and efficiency. New media can have a positive effect by pushing boundaries and making information widely accessible.

Nominations

We are seeking nominations for any UK digital, web or mobile technology project that is creating positive change. It’s free to nominate and you can nominate as many projects as you like! Simply fill out our short, online nomination form.

Closing date: 31 May 2006

Singapore

From Sg Review.

date: 05/26/06

from: Yap Keng Ho ,

to: Soh Kee Hean -director Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau
subject: Request for Investigation Corrupted Practice concerning General Election 2006

I took part in GE2006 as Election Agent for candidate Chee Siok Chin of Sembawang GRC wef 10.May.2006, I am also a voter of Tampines GRC, but I am requesting CPIB for an investigation as a member of public. I was prepared to stand for the same election myself but I lack some assenter for the nomination. I am sure you are already aware that miss Chee Siok Chin had already filed complain to Election Judge under parliamentary election act asking for the election to be declared as invalid.

May I bring to your attention that there is possible corrupted practice in GE2006, in that Lee Hsien Loong both as Rep of Singapore PM cum Finance Minister & GE2006 candidate have committed himself in VOTE BUYING during GE2006.

This is in particular through the Progress Package by which voters of entire Singapore had been arranged to receive money payable on 1.May.2006 just few days before the polling. Over a million voters and or their family members had received money ranged from hundreds to thousands of dollars, just days before they had to cast their votes.

This inevitably have the strongest effect of VOTE BUYING, in favor to the ruling party which Lee Hsien Loong and his father Lee Kuan Yew are both belong to, and both stood as candidates for GE2006.

Lee Hsien Loong being the finance minister & Rep of Singapore PM proposed and implemented the Progress Package, through which voters are given S$2.6 billion in total sum, and he is the PM who is almost the only person who can initiate the dissolve of parliament and call for election. And that the dates of withdrawing the Progress Package and the polling day are only apart by less than a week, so the arrangement that voters are given the handout of S$2.6 billion just before casting their vote have to be the intention of Lee Hsien Loong.

The criminal intention of vote buying is further affirmed by Lee Hsien Loong himself in his public statement during the election period as reported by the media that he talked about “fixing the oppositions” and “buying the votes”. Please refer to affidavit filed by Chee Siok Chin.

I plea your firm and thorough investigation regarding possible vote buying crime committed by Lee Hsien Loong, and any possible involvement by his father Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in this General Election. Please assure me that your investigation will be fair and of integrity despite the fact that Lees are your direct superiors. CPIB is law enforcement bureau and no one should be above the law. I plea with you to act accordingly to uphold justice and equality.

I request you also to publicly announce your findings after investigation.

As I understand as long as there is any criminal intent an action committed especially involving huge sum of money paid to voters when candidates including Lee Hsien Loong himself stand to be voted and return to power, it is to be regarded strictly as a crime. I believe that many individuals had been charged in Singapore based on their criminal intents, and in Singapore’s court it is the accused person’s burden to prove that he / she is innocent while being presumed as guilty.

The fact that the S$2.6 billion is not private fund, but entrusted in the care of Lee Hsien Loong under his capacity as PM cum Finance Minister, show that he is in position with the most ability to abuse this fund for the electoral gain of his ruling party PAP as well as his father and himself. This is the fact that had disturbed me the most.

Acting for myself according to my conscience for fairness; justice & equality, I made this request to you as director of Corrupted Practices Investigation Bureau to perform your official duty according to law and constitution of our republic.

Thank You,

k.h.yap

Singapore

From SBS Radio – World View
30.5.2006 17:45:44

Singapore’s government keeps a tight grip on many things.

Multiculturalism and religious tolerance is one of them.

The city-state is so tiny that harmony between the three main ethnic groups is essential to maintaining the economy.

After race riots in 1969, the ruling party put in place firm multicultural policies.

As Rebecca Henschke reports, the government controls where people live, the make-up of political parties, and what languages young people learn at school.

Singapore

Veteran politician says current WP should confront more

His fiercest opponent — Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew — has labelled his style as anything from “gutter politics” to “street fighter” tactics. Opposition veteran J B Jeyaretnam prefers to describe his methods as “confrontational” instead.
But there is one observation about his approach that Mr Jeyaretnam shares with MM Lee: That it is no longer a feature of the Workers’ Party.

And, looking at the recent General Election (GE), Mr Jeya-retnam doubts it will make a comeback within the party he used to lead. He said: “I can’t see it happening under (secretary-general) Low Thia Khiang. (He) hasn’t shown himself … willing or ready to take on the PAP on the most crucial issue of the system of government in this country.”

Mr Lee had said last month at the 50th anniversary dinner of the Foreign Correspondents Association that Mr Low is moving in the right direction after having “got rid” of Mr Jeyaretnam and his “Third World” politics. The latter, though, is not making any concessions about his approach.

“I don’t believe confrontational politics is wrong, which is what the PAP would seem to imply. They talk about constructive criticism. Of course, to them, constructive criticism is criticism within the parameters they’ve laid down,” he said.

Which is why, he added, Mr Lee was pleased to see the back of someone like him who would challenge the system. But is the veteran Opposition politician calling time on politics now?

“I haven’t quite decided. A lot will, of course, depend on my health and if my strength will permit me to continue,” said the 80-year-old, who had “great hopes” of getting discharged from his bankruptcy to contest the GE. He admitted that, with the polls over, the urgency to pay his debts from the lawsuits against him had passed. “Yes, I’d like to be discharged, but it’s no longer a pressing matter,” said Mr Jeyaretnam, who was speaking about the GE at an FCA luncheon last week.

These elections, with more media publicity of the Opposition in the lead-up to the polls than in previous elections, raised expectations that “some real issues would be debated”, he said, citing issues about the widening wage gap, unemployment, workers’ rights, healthcare, education and the cost of living. But he did not see this happen. If it had and the WP had a real go at the issues, “they might have captured Aljunied”.

And Mr Jeyaretnam is not very optimistic about the Opposition’s chances in a Group Representation Constituency at the next GE. “The flagship constituency didn’t do as well as the flagship constituencies in the previous elections under the WP,” he said, referring to the 1988, 1991 and 1997 polls.

In those elections, the WP got 49.11 per cent of the Eunos vote, 47.62 per cent in Eunos again and 45.18 per cent in Cheng San, respectively. In this GE, the WP won 43.91 per cent in Aljunied. Nonetheless, he does think that democratic ideals are on the rise among young Singaporeans.

“Going around, selling my book in Singapore, I’ve had hundreds of students buying the book,” he related. “But, I’ve also noticed this: Once they leave the universities … either their energies or their enthusiasm are sapped as a result, I suppose, of the seen and unseen pressures of society.

He cited family pressure and the climate of fear as the main counterbalances to the desire for change and greater freedoms. Although more young Singaporeans are joining the Opposition, it is not enough to convince him that the fear factor is ebbing. He has a sterner litmus test — one that is true to his style of politics.

“It’s when you have people who are prepared to stand up, march through the streets of Singapore, hold a public rally. Then they can say ‘we are no longer afraid’,” he told Today.

By his own admission, it is a style that seems very much out of fashion. – /sh

From New America Media

SAMAR, News Feature, Rupali Ghosh, May 26, 2006

SINGAPORE – After a late dinner, sometime close to midnight, a small group of us make our way through the grid of narrow lanes that is at the heart of Singapore’s Little India district. The street side restaurants that do brisk business during the lunch and dinner rush are winding down and there are few people on the streets at this hour.

The waiters, nearly all Sri Lankan Tamils at a Chettinad dhaba we walk past, are wiping down the plastic tables with wet cloths, piling chairs on top of tables in that classic end-of-day small eatery gesture and dealing with the last dinner guests and their endless demands: “Filter coffee irruka?” asks one Tamilian diner (“Do you have filter coffee?”) “Roti—two more,” says another though he has been told that the kitchen is closed for the night. Behind the old-fashioned cash register of the dhaba, the night manager pauses picking his teeth with a wooden toothpick as he instructs a young man cleaning out the sweet counter to pack all the remaining mysore pak sweets into three cardboard boxes. More work for the young man who has been on his feet since five that morning.

Little India is one of Singapore’s must-see tourist attractions. Anchored by the Sri Veeramakaliamman temple, Tekka Market and Mustafa’s famous 24-hour mall, this maze of streets is crowded with small eateries, shop houses, sweet shops and ethnic grocery stores specializing in produce from the Indian subcontinent. The name Little India is an inaccurate guidebook generalization as the area correctly represents the food and culture (to an extent) of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and India. The area is also the nerve center of Singapore’s subcontinental migrant labor force and Little India descriptions frequently appearing in tourist guides carry a light warning about Sunday evenings “when the migrant labor force comes out on the streets of Little India.”

Warnings also abound from chatty taxi drivers—usually Chinese or Malaysian—one who helpfully alerted us to the big crowd on Desker Road (the red light quarter of Little India bordered by specialty Indian restaurants and frequented by migrant workers on weekend nights): “Don’t go to Desker Road side, very crowded with black Indians on Saturday night.”

In Singaporean society, where racism runs just below the surface of everyday life, there is a tendency to look down upon “black Indians” a derogatory term used by the majority Straits Chinese population that refers to Sri Lankan Tamils—one of Singapore’s three primary ethnic groups (the other two groups being the Chinese and Malays).

Naskar came to Singapore from Bangladesh one year ago. He works in the kitchen of a small eatery in Little India. His workday usually starts at 5am, when he accompanies another worker to the wet produce markets. Not a professional cook yet, Naskar does all the routine backbreaking kitchen jobs like peeling and dicing vegetables, cleaning and cutting fish, kneading and rolling luchi and chapati dough in the hot, noisy endlessly active restaurant kitchen. Probably the busiest times of the day are after the lunch and dinner rush when he is on utensil wash-up duty with another worker.

Naskar looks forward to Sunday nights when he goes down to Mustafa’s with other restaurant workers after work. He does not get a day-off, which is the usual practice among the unskilled labor workforce throughout most of Singapore. Naskar’s family lives in Mymensingh, Bangladesh and he sent money back home twice in the last year.

He doesn’t disclose his wages but hopes his work contract will be renewed soon for another two years. According to Singapore labor laws, a migrant worker must leave the country as soon as his work permit is cancelled or expires. Though Singapore has historically been heavily dependent on migrant labor, or foreign workers as they are called here, for its economic progress, there is little open dialogue about the living conditions and rights of these workers both in the government-controlled media under the umbrella of the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and in the general public space.

Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower (MoM) oversees all aspects of issuing work permits for foreign workers. According to government guidelines, unskilled and semi-skilled foreign workers are issued the R Pass (R1 and R2). The R1 pass is issued to semi-skilled foreign workers who possess some degree of practical training. The R2 pass is issued to unskilled foreign workers. R pass holders are not allowed to bring their immediate family members into the country. They are also subject to a security bond and medical examination requirements. If an employer fails to pay the required security bond, work permits are cancelled and the worker must leave Singapore within a week. In addition, the employer must post a S$5000 security bond with the government to guarantee the “good behavior and eventual repatriation” of the foreign manual worker.

The insecurity of life as an R Pass holder in Singapore is pretty much how life is on the other side of any guest worker program. For the host country, a guest worker program is a good deal: a wealthy country gets sufficient supplies of cheap labor to do all the jobs no one else wants to do, without having to invest anything in the welfare of that labor force. For the worker, it is a period of hard (oftentimes demeaning or dangerous) labor with the ability to occasionally remit money back home, a constant sense of alienation and isolation heightened by an enforced separation from home and family and no legal rights to speak of. Interestingly, this is exactly the kind of life the United States senate foresees for its 12 million undocumented workers sometime in the very near future.

In Singapore, where most of the migrant labor falls under the category of manual worker—either domestic or construction worker—the insecurity of the R Pass is heightened by the S$ 5000 security bond, that often becomes the proverbial sword of Damocles over the head of the migrant laborer, especially in the case of domestic foreign workers.

Domestic Foreign Workers (DFWs) is a face-saving euphemism for household servants that in Singapore refers to maids who are generally treated more like slaves than free human beings. Domestic worker abuse in countries like Singapore and Hong Kong has been widely documented by international NGOs like Human Rights Watch in the past. Abuse which is so rampant that it is now considered normal includes keeping domestic workers housebound so that outside human contact cannot “spoil them”; making them work long hours; and not giving workers a single day off. Actually, a monthly day-off is offered to maids in many homes, but if they work on that day-off they are given an extra S$20, so they usually end up working through the day-off for the extra cash. In Singapore, an Indonesian maid earns around S$200 a month—though ex-pat employers pay quite a bit more, as well as usually offer better working conditions. Filipino maids earn higher salaries, ranging between S$300–400. Sri Lankan and Nepali maids earn around the same, or less than Indonesian maids. [US$ 1 = S$ 1.60]

Off and on half-hearted debates on the need for a weekly day-off are published in the comment pages of the Straits Times newspaper (the largest selling English daily in Singapore published by the Singapore Press Holdings), but the general consensus is with the Ministry of Manpower—domestic workers shouldn’t get a single day off as this is cruel and unfair to elderly people and children dependent on these workers; also the absence of domestic help will disrupt the schedule of working mothers and impact productivity in their white-collar jobs.

Srimala, 37, works with an Indian family living in an HDB housing estate (government housing) on Farrer Road. She came from Sri Lanka and says she was fortunate to be chosen by the Indian family from the maid agency with which she was registered.

Srimala has been living with the Indian family for three years now. They have been the longest three years of her life. Dressed in a navy blue ankle length shapeless sarong like skirt and grey shirt, her lined and weathered face looks closer to fifty than forty. She talks in short furtive sentences about her life and will not disclose any details she thinks may reveal the identity of her employers. Her employers live in a five-bedroom apartment on the twelfth floor of the housing estate. She works for a family of six people: two elderly parents, their son and his wife, one 10-year-old son and a little baby. She usually works from 5 am to after midnight.

Her early morning chores include cleaning the apartment, making the beds, washing the windows (of the twelfth floor apartment) before preparing a traditional breakfast for the family.

Srimala accompanies the elderly grandmother to the supermarket everyday to shop for fresh vegetables; she cooks the meals; sorts out the washing (done in a washing machine but manually dried out in the sun on two long poles attached to the windows as is the custom in most HDB apartments); bathes the baby; makes numerous cups of coffee and tea for the grandfather and finally washes the dishes. She sleeps between three and four hours a night, does not get a single day off and yet says she is fortunate to be chosen by an Indian family. The reason being that local Chinese families are known to be even stricter employers going to almost insanely inhuman lengths to keep their maids virtual house prisoners. Srimala is allowed out on her own (whenever she has the time, which is usually never). She is also allowed to call her family back in Sri Lanka from a public pay phone, as she is not allowed to own a cell phone, and send them letters. She has been given an old blanket on which she can sleep in the kitchen and has never been beaten or abused verbally by her employers.

Srimala knows fellow-Sri Lankan women who are not so fortunate. A younger woman from her own village employed by a Chinese family in another HDB block not too far from where Srimala is, can never go outdoors without her Chinese mistress with her. So the only places she goes to are the local wet market and shopping center where she carries her mistress’s shopping bags. She does similar work to Srimala without a single day off, except that she also has to wash the windows from the outside (of a sixth floor apartment), clean her employer’s car and iron a hamper of clothes everyday. She has to sleep in the room of one of the teenage daughters of the house, which means she needs to sleep when the girl is ready to sleep (usually after 1 am) and cannot even sleep in privacy. She is also regularly verbally abused by her employer and is threatened that she will be “kicked out of the country” as the employers will withdraw the security bond they have posted.

The woman is not allowed any contact with her family and is never left by herself as her employers are convinced she will use the opportunity to mix with “bad men and get pregnant.” Also, her hair is regularly cut by the employer as she feels the woman’s “long hair is dirty and falls all over the apartment.”

The saddest thing is that for a domestic worker like this unfortunate woman and Srimala there is no recourse or even a place where they can go and lodge a complaint against inhuman employers. These women are too scared to take any official action with the Ministry of Manpower (which does operate a kind of help-line service). In the almost total absence of any non-governmental agency to help them, they usually just suffer in silence.

Filipino domestic workers are more organized in Singapore these days, especially after the 1995 Flor Contemplacion case. Flor was a Filipino domestic worker who was arrested for the murder of another domestic worker, Delia Maga and Maga’s employer’s child Nicolas in 1991. At the time, according to media reports, the Singapore police claimed that Flor had committed the numbers after “snapping” from the strain of her dawn to midnight routine for three years with her Singaporean employers. Flor was executed in 1995 resulting in an angry and loud protest from the Philippines—spearheaded by Filipino NGOs in the Philippines and around the world that believed Flor had not been given a fair trial. The Singapore government was accused of acting insensitively and the entire Philippine embassy staff in Singapore was sacked for reacting too slowly to Flor’s case. This incident considerably damaged Singaporean diplomatic relations with the Philippines and also led to more stringent regulations by the Ministry of Manpower regarding FDWs in Singapore. Currently the MoM runs orientation programs for Singaporeans who want to employ FDWs. The programs are supposed to educate and sensitize prospective employers about domestic workers and how they should be treated.

The Filipina women meet regularly at the Lucky Plaza center in Orchard, Singapore’s central shopping district, where there is some amount of counseling available. However, Sri Lankan, Nepalese and Burmese maids (in much smaller numbers than Filipinos and Indonesians) lack any sort of cohesive organization and are usually exploited both by their employers and the agencies that recruit them.

Construction workers are probably the most organized of unskilled foreign labor in Singapore—and also the best treated with regulated work hours, periodic health screening and some protection against exploitation. Workers in the cleaning industry (garbage disposal workers and sweepers who clean the streets and buildings) could do with some of that organization.

Yunis Mohammad is a contracted cleaner at a Holland Village HDB housing complex. All Singapore apartments are fitted with a garbage disposal chute. The idea is that regular household waste is required to be bagged securely and dropped down the chute. Big items like packing materials, newspapers, old books, etc. are supposed to be collected and disposed off at the “big garbage collection bins” placed somewhere within the complex conveniently accessible to all residents. Glass and other dangerous waste should also be placed in these bins. In practice, Yunis says, residents “throw everything down the chute, including glass bottles, big books, newspapers everything.” The glass bottles naturally shatter meaning that the chute cleaners regularly get their hands cut and slashed with pieces of glass.

Yunis who usually a works a 6am-6pm shift with a short afternoon break, is from Bangladesh and lives in one of the dormitory-style buildings rented out to workers in Little India.

He has had his hands cut countless times on shards of glass and broken bottlenecks. The stink of decomposing garbage in the chute is nauseating and stays with Yunis long after his 12-hour shift is done. He describes cleaning the chute as a hellish job as most often tenants have barely secured their trash in the garbage bags and everything from soiled sanitary napkins to leftover meals and half-eaten rotting fruit needs to be manually cleaned out of the chute bins.

Yunis chose to become a contract cleaner as that was the only job available to him, and given that sending him from Bangladesh to Singapore cost his family more than they could afford in agent fees and other charges, he needed to begin repaying the debt as soon as he could. Also, Yunis knows the reality of his life and says he “would never make this much money in Dhaka.” When he returns home on visits he takes back things that will be useful—electric fans, wristwatches, clothes, kitchen utensils and gold jewelry. He says he can buy all of these things at the best prices from Mustafa’s.

In the absence of any grassroots movement in Singapore that can provide a support structure to migrant labor in terms of counseling, legal and medical advice and other assistance, places like Mustafa’s in Little India have become surrogate social clubs for these workers. Mustafa’s is a sprawling, four-story mall that is a combination of hyper-mart, foreign exchange center and social space with coffee stalls and eating places on its premises. Being open 24/7 makes it convenient for workers to meet here even at the end of a long workday.

In Singapore, NGO activity and advocacy for migrant labor has a brief, rather unproductive history. The little activism that existed in the late Eighties was effectively stubbed out with the so-called “Marxist Conspiracy Case” in 1987, and in the years that followed even socially aware Singaporeans have been reluctant to involve themselves in migrant labor issues because of its “socialist overtones.” In May, 1987, 22 people were arrested under the Internal Security Act for allegedly threatening state and national interests. The arrested included Catholic social workers and lay workers at the Geylang Catholic Center for Foreign Workers. The Center used to lobby for better wages and more humane employment conditions for foreign workers of all faiths. However, the Church was seen as a “cover for political agitation” and the Geylang Center was shut down. As a result of this incident, religious organizations and other civil society groups have steered clear of migrant labor issues.

With the Flor Contemplacion case of 1995, international attention was once again focused on migrant labor conditions in Singapore and the backlash from the case resulted in a gradual increase—to an extent—in networking and some advocacy for migrant, especially domestic workers here. Though, as said earlier, a lot of this organization really focuses on Filipino domestic workers and groups assisting them. It remains to be seen if other civic societies can take their cue from these organizations and work towards empowering people like Srimala and Yunis Mohammed.

After stints in Tokyo and Taipei Rupali Ghosh is currently based in Singapore. When not moving house, she works as a freelance journalist and editorial consultant for the Pacific Asia Resource Center.

Singapore

Overseas voting – Version PAP
Damaso G Magbual
May 25, 06 2:23pm
Malaysiakini

Overseas voting was introduced in April 2001 ‘to provide Singaporeans with strong links to Singapore to have their say through their votes’.

However, a cursory reading of the provision of the law on overseas voting will tell us that it does not enfranchise overseas Singaporean citizens as a whole but only those who have direct (government employees) or indirect (employees of international organisations of which Singapore is a member) affiliation with the government.

There definitely is merit in the observation of a student in Canada when he said that there is “…unequal rights to vote for all Singaporeans … who are not associated with any government or public agency” referring to himself and all Singaporeans who are similarly situated.

Voting is a basic human right and not a privilege, which the state grants to its citizens. When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights speaks of suffrage as universal, it means all citizens of a given state, who are not reasonably restricted by law, have the right to vote. A primary concern of the right of suffrage is participation and international norms favour expanding rather than restricting this right.

Principle of non-discrimination

Hence, Singaporeans who have no direct or indirect affiliation with the government staying overseas and are not allowed to vote are arbitrarily denied a basic human right. This violates the principle of non-discrimination in the treatment of voters’ eligibility, which is an essential characteristic of a free and fair election.

Some jurisdictions/democracies (India, Taiwan, Chile) do not grant their citizens residing outside the country voting rights. There are two basic reasons for this.

First, the setting up of systems and procedures on how the overseas citizens can vote on election day is in itself an administrative nightmare to the electoral body. Then there is the difficulty of designating the electoral district/constituency to which the votes will be assigned. Both reasons may not apply to Singapore. It is a known fact that the technological advance of Singapore is the envy of its Asian neighbours. Hence, setting up systems for overseas voting that will cover all Singaporeans should not pose any problem.

Secondly, the city/state has a limited number of districts/constituencies (23 SMCs and GRCs), unlike India, which is the biggest democracy in the world. Again, designating the district of an overseas voter should not present any problem given Singapore’s level of technological sophistication.

Some countries have certain restrictions on overseas voting but these restrictions are not on the right of citizens to vote. The restrictions are on their participation in a given election. France and the Philippines for instance, allow their overseas citizens to vote in some elections (national elections as against local elections) or for some positions (national versus local constituency). This avoids the difficulty of designating specific constituencies for the overseas votes.

Singapore restricts the rights of certain voters; the two examples cited restrict the type of election and the position to be voted upon. The former violates the basic principle of equality before the law and therefore discriminatory. The other two do not.

Discouraging support

The provisions of the Parliamentary Election Act that defines overseas voting is not only discriminatory to the overseas citizens but denies the political contestants who do not belong to the People’s Action Party a level playing field. Voting rights to overseas Singaporeans are limited to those with ties or affiliations with the government.

The PAP has been the dominant party – a virtual hegemony – since Singapore became independent. Those allowed to vote, since they are overseas by reason of their ties to the government are presumed if not expected to vote for the PAP. This certainly places the other parties at a distinct disadvantage.

The restriction on overseas voting to Singaporeans with ties to the government tends to confirm the perception that the PAP as the ruling party, has thrown at the opposition every possible obstacle to grow and develop as viable parties.

Too often changes in policies have almost always made it more difficult for opponents of the PAP to compete. The provision of block voting for the Group Representation Constituencies, the redrawing of political districts, and now the discriminatory provision of the overseas voting, all tend to confirm the impression that indeed the PAP has done everything to discourage support for the opposition.

The graduate student in Vancouver, Canada has a legitimate grievance in that the law is discriminatory. Hence, either the law allows all overseas citizens the right to vote or confine the right of suffrage only to citizens residing in the country. This is equality before the law!

DAMASAO G MAGBUAL is attached to the Bangkok-based Asian Network for Free Elections (Anfrel).

No wonder Singapore is the 83rd most democratic country in the world!

Singapore

From the BBC

Internet users are being urged to stand up for online freedoms by backing a new campaign launched by human rights group Amnesty International.

Amnesty is celebrating 45 years of activism by highlighting governments using the net to suppress dissent.

The campaign will highlight abuses of rights the net is used for, and push for the release of those jailed for speaking out online.

It will also name hi-tech firms aiding governments that limit online protests.

Pledge bank

Called Irrepressible.info, the campaign will revolve around a website with the same name. While the human rights group has run separate campaigns about web repression and the jailing of net dissidents before now, Irrepressible.info will bring them all together.

It aims to throw light on the many different ways that the freedom to use the net is limited by governments.

For instance, said a spokesman for Amnesty, around the globe net cafes are being closed down, home PCs are being confiscated, chat in discussion forums is being watched and blogs are being censored or removed.

AMNESTY INTERNET PLEDGE
I believe the internet should be a force for political freedom, not repression. People have the right to seek and receive information and to express their peaceful beliefs online without fear or interference. I call on governments to stop the unwarranted restriction of freedom of expression on the internet and on companies to stop helping them do it
“The internet has become a new frontier in the struggle for human rights,” said Kate Allen, UK director of Amnesty International.

“Its potential to empower and educate, to allow people to share and mobilise opinion has led to government crackdowns.”

Ms Allen added that there were growing numbers of cases in which those who have turned to the net to discuss change or protest about government policies have been jailed for what they said.

For instance, she said, Chinese journalist Shi Tao is serving a 10-year jail sentence for sending an e-mail overseas which detailed the restrictions the Chinese government wanted to impose on papers writing about the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Hi-tech firm Yahoo helped identify the journalist via his e-mail account. Amnesty is calling for the jailed journalist to be released immediately.

Profit and principles

The campaign will seek to get net users to sign a pledge that opposes repressive use of the net. The pledges will be collated and presented to a meeting of the UN’s Internet Governance Forum that is due to meet in Athens in November 2006.

Amnesty wants to get people using an icon in e-mail signatures or on websites that contains text from censored sites.

The group also wants to run an e-mail campaign to target companies to stop putting “profit before principles” and respect human rights everywhere they operate.

Reports will be prepared on those countries that place restrictions on what can be said online or use it to keep an eye on those expressing discontent.

“Irrepressible.info will harness the power of the internet and of individuals to oppose repression and stand up for free speech,” said Ms Allen.

Singapore