The Burmese government has released 651 prisoners, amongst whom are political prisoners detained since 1988.
Although this release is to be welcomed, it has to be remembered that there are probably many more political prisoners that continue to languish in jail. Estimates based on disappearances of activists and official reports of past detentions place the number of possible detainees at between 1000 to 1500. The Association of Political Prisoners in Burma has estimated that more than 1500 prisoners have been detained for political reasons.
This release of prisoners is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, the Burmese government will continue down the road to democracy by releasing all of its political prisoners.
Meanwhile, I read something that was said by the US President that I couldn't help but be amused about. He was referring to a telephone conversation that he had with Aung San Suu Kyi when he was in Indonesia 2 months ago:
"In Indonesia, I spoke about the flickers of progress that were emerging in Burma. Today, that light burns a bit brighter, as prisoners are reunited with their families and people can see a democratic path forward,"
I couldn't help but think to myself... and one day that light will burn even brighter and reach America's backyard and set the men at Guantanamo free (or at least let them have their day in a court of law). The hypocrisy of Obama is mind-boggling and downright ugly. What am I talking about? This is, after all, the Nobel Peace Prize winner that bombs babies and buries them under the banner of collateral damage.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Death by prosecutorial discretion
The rather uncomfortable fact surrounding the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking in Singapore is the fact that the presumption of trafficking operates on the basis of the possession of a specified quantity of a prohibited drug. Prosecution does not prove that you are a trafficker. Prosecution proves that you are in possession of a specified quantity of drugs. The law artificially designates you are a trafficker and you stand to be convicted if you cannot prove otherwise.
Firstly, the reversal of the burden of proof (i.e. making the Defendant prove certain facts instead of the Prosecution) on its own raises questions of the right of a private citizen to a fair trial. There may be justifiable reasons for such reversals in limited situations. I am not opposed to reversals of the burden of proof on all occasions. But, the use of this evidential technique in drug trafficking cases, where the failure of the defendant to discharge his burden places him on death row, cannot be described as anything other than a form of injustice. That injustice is, of course, firmly a part of our Misuse of Drugs Act.
Complicating this injustice enshrined in our statute books is the application of prosecutorial discretion. Let me make this clear. I am not opposed to the exercise of discretion by the prosecution. It is a necessary feature of every mature legal system that discretion be given to prosecuting bodies to decide on whether to prosecute at all or to prosecute for any number of given offences. It is also not uncommon that if a person had stolen a mobile phone and a wallet, he is then charged only for the theft of the mobile phone. Such exercise of prosecutorial discretion is not considered as odd, exceptional or an abuse of process. In fact, it is a necessary feature of the proper administration of justice that a prosecutor should be able to exercise discretion.
But, the difference between charging a person for the theft of a mobile phone and a wallet as opposed to charging him for the theft of a mobile phone alone is not substantial. On the other hand, the difference of 0.01g of cocaine in a charge sheet for a drug trafficking offence is as dramatic as either having a noose around your neck or being granted what is effectively a 'prosecutorial pardon'.
This stark difference was played out in the case of Ramalingam Ravinthran. This was a case where his co-accused was charged with trafficking in 499.99g of cannabis and 999.99g of cannabis mixture conveniently shy of the mandatory death penalty by 0.01g. That is just decimal points away from death. Ramalingam himself was charged for the trafficking of quantities that triggered the death penalty. In the end, the facts were such that the charges arose from a single bag containing 5,560.1g of cannabis and 2,078.3g of cannabis mixture. Not only did the prosecution artificially slice the contents of the bag by charging the defendants in the way it did, it also placed one man on death row whilst granting the other his life.
The Court of Appeal has delivered its verdict in the Ramalingam case. Based on the Straits Times report it is not entirely clear as to what was the precise ambit of the decision. It is reported: "IT IS not unlawful for the Attorney-General to artificially reduce the amount of drugs specified in a trafficker's charges, to differentiate from those of his accomplice. Nor is it unconstitutional."
On the other hand, it also reported: "Still, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion is subject to legal limits - the A-G cannot act arbitrarily. This means the A-G must ensure like cases are treated alike. And in cases where several offenders are involved, the A-G must not unlawfully discriminate against an offender."
It is difficult to surmise from the news report itself as to the precise position of the Court. I would have to read the 48 page judgment itself to ascertain the legal position.
I gather roughly from the report that the court has gone for the position that the power of the prosecution to exercise discretion is lawful and constitutional. However, the manner in which such discretion is exercised may be called into question. If that is indeed the position, the decision should be welcomed. (I say this fully aware of the fact that it provides no comfort to either Ramalingam or his family.) It prevents arbitrary decision making on the part of the prosecution and forces prosecuting bodies to consider carefully their reasons before differentiating between two defendants in the same case or for that matter (arguably) two defendants in entirely separate cases where the circumstances might be similar.
I shall read the judgment first before commenting further on this case.
Firstly, the reversal of the burden of proof (i.e. making the Defendant prove certain facts instead of the Prosecution) on its own raises questions of the right of a private citizen to a fair trial. There may be justifiable reasons for such reversals in limited situations. I am not opposed to reversals of the burden of proof on all occasions. But, the use of this evidential technique in drug trafficking cases, where the failure of the defendant to discharge his burden places him on death row, cannot be described as anything other than a form of injustice. That injustice is, of course, firmly a part of our Misuse of Drugs Act.
Complicating this injustice enshrined in our statute books is the application of prosecutorial discretion. Let me make this clear. I am not opposed to the exercise of discretion by the prosecution. It is a necessary feature of every mature legal system that discretion be given to prosecuting bodies to decide on whether to prosecute at all or to prosecute for any number of given offences. It is also not uncommon that if a person had stolen a mobile phone and a wallet, he is then charged only for the theft of the mobile phone. Such exercise of prosecutorial discretion is not considered as odd, exceptional or an abuse of process. In fact, it is a necessary feature of the proper administration of justice that a prosecutor should be able to exercise discretion.
But, the difference between charging a person for the theft of a mobile phone and a wallet as opposed to charging him for the theft of a mobile phone alone is not substantial. On the other hand, the difference of 0.01g of cocaine in a charge sheet for a drug trafficking offence is as dramatic as either having a noose around your neck or being granted what is effectively a 'prosecutorial pardon'.
This stark difference was played out in the case of Ramalingam Ravinthran. This was a case where his co-accused was charged with trafficking in 499.99g of cannabis and 999.99g of cannabis mixture conveniently shy of the mandatory death penalty by 0.01g. That is just decimal points away from death. Ramalingam himself was charged for the trafficking of quantities that triggered the death penalty. In the end, the facts were such that the charges arose from a single bag containing 5,560.1g of cannabis and 2,078.3g of cannabis mixture. Not only did the prosecution artificially slice the contents of the bag by charging the defendants in the way it did, it also placed one man on death row whilst granting the other his life.
The Court of Appeal has delivered its verdict in the Ramalingam case. Based on the Straits Times report it is not entirely clear as to what was the precise ambit of the decision. It is reported: "IT IS not unlawful for the Attorney-General to artificially reduce the amount of drugs specified in a trafficker's charges, to differentiate from those of his accomplice. Nor is it unconstitutional."
On the other hand, it also reported: "Still, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion is subject to legal limits - the A-G cannot act arbitrarily. This means the A-G must ensure like cases are treated alike. And in cases where several offenders are involved, the A-G must not unlawfully discriminate against an offender."
It is difficult to surmise from the news report itself as to the precise position of the Court. I would have to read the 48 page judgment itself to ascertain the legal position.
I gather roughly from the report that the court has gone for the position that the power of the prosecution to exercise discretion is lawful and constitutional. However, the manner in which such discretion is exercised may be called into question. If that is indeed the position, the decision should be welcomed. (I say this fully aware of the fact that it provides no comfort to either Ramalingam or his family.) It prevents arbitrary decision making on the part of the prosecution and forces prosecuting bodies to consider carefully their reasons before differentiating between two defendants in the same case or for that matter (arguably) two defendants in entirely separate cases where the circumstances might be similar.
I shall read the judgment first before commenting further on this case.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Who should I vote for?
For an election that is not going to make a great deal of difference in our political power structure, the Presidential Election has surprisingly placed me in a fix. Who should I vote for?
I had decided from Day 1 that I am not going to vote for the PAP endorsed candidate. When Tony Tan announced publicly that he was contesting, I had no illusions that he is the PAP endorsed candidate. Sure enough, the endorsements came regularly from different quarters. I am definitely not voting for Tony Tan.
That leaves me with three candidates, all of whom are to varying degrees capable of acting independently when elected.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock on a personal level gives me the vibes of a moderate person who would neither be a 'yes' man nor an unnecessarily confrontational individual. Tan Jee Say and Tan Kin Lian appear to be equally minded to address policy issues with the Cabinet and possibly through that reshape the Presidency.
I have narrowed myself down to Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Tan Jee Say. It is now between the Palm Tree and the Heart. I just went through the New Asia Republic's tabulation of the candidates' position on various issues: http://newasiarepublic.com/?p=32344
Still undecided.
I had decided from Day 1 that I am not going to vote for the PAP endorsed candidate. When Tony Tan announced publicly that he was contesting, I had no illusions that he is the PAP endorsed candidate. Sure enough, the endorsements came regularly from different quarters. I am definitely not voting for Tony Tan.
That leaves me with three candidates, all of whom are to varying degrees capable of acting independently when elected.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock on a personal level gives me the vibes of a moderate person who would neither be a 'yes' man nor an unnecessarily confrontational individual. Tan Jee Say and Tan Kin Lian appear to be equally minded to address policy issues with the Cabinet and possibly through that reshape the Presidency.
I have narrowed myself down to Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Tan Jee Say. It is now between the Palm Tree and the Heart. I just went through the New Asia Republic's tabulation of the candidates' position on various issues: http://newasiarepublic.com/?p=32344
Still undecided.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
PA or PAP?
You can accuse us of political apathy. But, you can never accuse Singaporeans of stupidity.
I am amazed at the Peoples' Association's response to the Workers' Party assertions about WP MPs being deprived of an opportunity to be invited guests at the 7 month festivites. It has turned out that Chen Show Mao had been invited as a guest at a couple of 'Hungry Ghost' festival dinners. But, the organisers had to withdraw the invitation because the Peoples' Association informed that they would not grant future permission if the WP MP was invited.
This first surfaced via a facebook update by Mr Chen Show Mao and subsequently a press release by Ms Sylvia Lim indicating that HDB had granted leases at several places in the Alunied GRC to the Peoples' Association and taken away management of those parts of the estate from the Town Council. This had been done after the General Elections this year. This is in iself shocking as it suggests partisan politics at play in our public institutions. There is an important value that any self-respecting democracy must uphold: the independance and neutrality of the civil service.
But, I am totally stunned at the audacity of the PA's response.
"The PA and its GROs are non-partisan and do not allow any political party or MP to hold activities on PA premises or other facilities managed by the PA."
"This applies to all political parties and MPs, including the PAP"
There are so many things I can quibble about:
1. The Workers Party did not attempt to hold any activities on PA premises
2. The WP MPs did not attempt to hold any activities on the PA premises
3. Mr Chen was invited by civilian, non-partisan organisers to attend the function
4. Community Clubs are PA premises and PAP MPs have been invited as guests at functions held at CCs.
A simple google search reveals a wealth of information on PAP MPs attending activities or officiating as guests at events taking place on PA premises or facilities managed by the PA.
A sampling:
Eunos Heights Residents’ Committee organised a Chinese New Year Dinner on 20 February 2011 at Eunos Community Club Multipurpose Hall. MP for Aljunied GRC Mr Zainul Abidin was the guest of honour. http://eunoszone3.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/celebrating-the-year-of-the-rabbit/
Passion Nite: on 31st December 2009 at Cheng San CC
Guest of Honour: Dr Balaji Sadasivan, MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC http://www.pa.gov.sg/events/details/passion-nite-159.html
There are too many examples and they are easily available. When the PA decided to assert that they 'do not allow any political party or MP to hold activities on PA premises or other facilities managed by the PA', did they honestly believe that they can get away with that assertion?
I can imagine their response. Those events at PA premises where MPs were present involved MPs that were invited to attend and they were not activities organised by the PAP or the PAP MPs. Well, by the same token the hungry ghost event was not organised by the WP or its MPs. Mr Chen was invited to attend.
Please don't insult our intelligence.
And, by the way who is on the Board of Management in the Peoples' Association?
Lee Hsien Loong, Lim Swee Say, MG Chan Chun Sin, Grace Fu, Masagos Zulkifli, Janil Puthucheary, amongst others. (Interestingly, Mr Yam Ah Mee of GE2011 fame is also there)
Non-Partisan? My ***.
I am amazed at the Peoples' Association's response to the Workers' Party assertions about WP MPs being deprived of an opportunity to be invited guests at the 7 month festivites. It has turned out that Chen Show Mao had been invited as a guest at a couple of 'Hungry Ghost' festival dinners. But, the organisers had to withdraw the invitation because the Peoples' Association informed that they would not grant future permission if the WP MP was invited.
This first surfaced via a facebook update by Mr Chen Show Mao and subsequently a press release by Ms Sylvia Lim indicating that HDB had granted leases at several places in the Alunied GRC to the Peoples' Association and taken away management of those parts of the estate from the Town Council. This had been done after the General Elections this year. This is in iself shocking as it suggests partisan politics at play in our public institutions. There is an important value that any self-respecting democracy must uphold: the independance and neutrality of the civil service.
But, I am totally stunned at the audacity of the PA's response.
"The PA and its GROs are non-partisan and do not allow any political party or MP to hold activities on PA premises or other facilities managed by the PA."
"This applies to all political parties and MPs, including the PAP"
There are so many things I can quibble about:
1. The Workers Party did not attempt to hold any activities on PA premises
2. The WP MPs did not attempt to hold any activities on the PA premises
3. Mr Chen was invited by civilian, non-partisan organisers to attend the function
4. Community Clubs are PA premises and PAP MPs have been invited as guests at functions held at CCs.
A simple google search reveals a wealth of information on PAP MPs attending activities or officiating as guests at events taking place on PA premises or facilities managed by the PA.
A sampling:
Eunos Heights Residents’ Committee organised a Chinese New Year Dinner on 20 February 2011 at Eunos Community Club Multipurpose Hall. MP for Aljunied GRC Mr Zainul Abidin was the guest of honour. http://eunoszone3.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/celebrating-the-year-of-the-rabbit/
Passion Nite: on 31st December 2009 at Cheng San CC
Guest of Honour: Dr Balaji Sadasivan, MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC http://www.pa.gov.sg/events/details/passion-nite-159.html
There are too many examples and they are easily available. When the PA decided to assert that they 'do not allow any political party or MP to hold activities on PA premises or other facilities managed by the PA', did they honestly believe that they can get away with that assertion?
I can imagine their response. Those events at PA premises where MPs were present involved MPs that were invited to attend and they were not activities organised by the PAP or the PAP MPs. Well, by the same token the hungry ghost event was not organised by the WP or its MPs. Mr Chen was invited to attend.
Please don't insult our intelligence.
And, by the way who is on the Board of Management in the Peoples' Association?
Lee Hsien Loong, Lim Swee Say, MG Chan Chun Sin, Grace Fu, Masagos Zulkifli, Janil Puthucheary, amongst others. (Interestingly, Mr Yam Ah Mee of GE2011 fame is also there)
Non-Partisan? My ***.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Three Tans and The TAN
Whatever I am going to say here is purely unscientific and is based on a gut feeling resulting from observing current debates about the Presidential elections.
From conversations with my friends and observing online chatter it is clear that all the usual anti-PAP crowd is anti-Tony Tan. I believe that there is no doubt that based on the GE 2011, the same 40% that voted for the opposition would not be voting for Tony Tan. But, the big question is whether they would all instinctively gravitate towards a single candidate. Tan Cheng Bock, Tan Jee Say and Tan Kin Lian all have their merits and attractions for the anti-PAP voter.
What I find pretty clear as well is that a sizeable part of the 60% of PAP voters would not be voting for Tony Tan who is popularly perceived to be the PAP endorsed candidate. I know of friends and relatives that voted for the PAP in the GE for several reasons that would play no part in the presidential elections:
a) constituency level issues
b) fear of losing a PAP government
c) fear of losing credible Cabinet ministers
d) fear that they would lose out perks or promotions because they are in the civil service
e) fear that they will be 'marked' because they voted against PAP
I am sure that about 30% of voters would have been hardcore PAP supporters. These individuals would vote for the PAP endorsed candidate.
(I have always believed that the PAP has about 30% of hardcore supporters and there are about 25% to 30% hardcore opposition supporters. The remaining 40% to 45% of voters could be persuaded).
Nearly half of the voters that voted for PAP are likely to vote for someone other than Tony Tan. It is easy to assume that the person who benefits from this would be Dr Tan Cheng Bock given that he was a PAP MP and the PAP voter that decides not to vote for Tony Tan may not be inclined to vote for either Tan Jee Say or Tan Kin Lian.
The pro-opposition camp appears to me to be leaning towards Tan Jee Say. But, the 40% of opposition voters are not going to naturally veer towards Tan Jee Say and Tan Kin Lian. Some of my friends have expressed their preference for Dr Tan Cheng Bock. Though he was a PAP MP in the past, he has enough of a track record in opposing the official policy position of his Party. If elected, we can expect him to be a President like Mr Ong Teng Chiong. Given this dynamics, I wouldn't be surprised if the 40% contribute a little to Dr Tan Cheng Bock's votes.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock might turn out to be the biggest beneficiary of a 4-cornered fight picking up votes from both the opposition as well as PAP voters. He also has the requisite personality to endear himself with the people.
Putting aside 30% of the votes for Tony Tan, the remaining 70% would probably be split amongst the Three Tans. There is a good chance that TCB can garner 35% of the votes with TJS and TKL picking up the balance 35% between the two of them.
If on nomination day all 4 Tans contest, Dr TCB stands the best chance of winning.
My own hope is that the Three Tans come to a consensus and two of them give way so that it would be a straight contest between TT and another Tan. The result would be clear. The next President would not be TT. But, with the three Tans going against TT, the split in the votes could be such that TT might get in by the narrowest margin by getting as little as 30% because the other three could get 25%, 25% and 20% That would be a result that most of us would not want. I hope it doesn't come to pass that way.
From conversations with my friends and observing online chatter it is clear that all the usual anti-PAP crowd is anti-Tony Tan. I believe that there is no doubt that based on the GE 2011, the same 40% that voted for the opposition would not be voting for Tony Tan. But, the big question is whether they would all instinctively gravitate towards a single candidate. Tan Cheng Bock, Tan Jee Say and Tan Kin Lian all have their merits and attractions for the anti-PAP voter.
What I find pretty clear as well is that a sizeable part of the 60% of PAP voters would not be voting for Tony Tan who is popularly perceived to be the PAP endorsed candidate. I know of friends and relatives that voted for the PAP in the GE for several reasons that would play no part in the presidential elections:
a) constituency level issues
b) fear of losing a PAP government
c) fear of losing credible Cabinet ministers
d) fear that they would lose out perks or promotions because they are in the civil service
e) fear that they will be 'marked' because they voted against PAP
I am sure that about 30% of voters would have been hardcore PAP supporters. These individuals would vote for the PAP endorsed candidate.
(I have always believed that the PAP has about 30% of hardcore supporters and there are about 25% to 30% hardcore opposition supporters. The remaining 40% to 45% of voters could be persuaded).
Nearly half of the voters that voted for PAP are likely to vote for someone other than Tony Tan. It is easy to assume that the person who benefits from this would be Dr Tan Cheng Bock given that he was a PAP MP and the PAP voter that decides not to vote for Tony Tan may not be inclined to vote for either Tan Jee Say or Tan Kin Lian.
The pro-opposition camp appears to me to be leaning towards Tan Jee Say. But, the 40% of opposition voters are not going to naturally veer towards Tan Jee Say and Tan Kin Lian. Some of my friends have expressed their preference for Dr Tan Cheng Bock. Though he was a PAP MP in the past, he has enough of a track record in opposing the official policy position of his Party. If elected, we can expect him to be a President like Mr Ong Teng Chiong. Given this dynamics, I wouldn't be surprised if the 40% contribute a little to Dr Tan Cheng Bock's votes.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock might turn out to be the biggest beneficiary of a 4-cornered fight picking up votes from both the opposition as well as PAP voters. He also has the requisite personality to endear himself with the people.
Putting aside 30% of the votes for Tony Tan, the remaining 70% would probably be split amongst the Three Tans. There is a good chance that TCB can garner 35% of the votes with TJS and TKL picking up the balance 35% between the two of them.
If on nomination day all 4 Tans contest, Dr TCB stands the best chance of winning.
My own hope is that the Three Tans come to a consensus and two of them give way so that it would be a straight contest between TT and another Tan. The result would be clear. The next President would not be TT. But, with the three Tans going against TT, the split in the votes could be such that TT might get in by the narrowest margin by getting as little as 30% because the other three could get 25%, 25% and 20% That would be a result that most of us would not want. I hope it doesn't come to pass that way.
Friday, July 01, 2011
BLACK SUNDAY MOVEMENT – Take 2
I posted previously on the Black Sunday thingy and painted a positive picture of the direction we could be heading. It would be good if the non-prosecution of the black-shirted patrons at Starbucks leads to the opening up of the space permitted for free expression of ideas and opinions. However, I would like to throw in a note of caution. Hence, this 'Take 2”.
Arguably, the Black Sunday concept is a form of civil disobedience. If we take civil disobedience to be the refusal to comply with a law on account of deeply held views about the injustice of those laws, then the gathering of black-shirted persons (on the assumption that it infringes the Public Order Act) would be a form of civil disobedience.
Whilst I support the amendment of some of our laws to create greater space for free expression, I certainly would caution against disobeying current laws simply to make a point about the need for free expression. The Pink Dot event that took place at Hong Lim Park demonstrates how we can use the existing avenues for expression in an effective manner without breaching any law.
Given the light-touch approach adopted by the authorities in relation to online criticism, citizens should use the internet in a free and responsible manner to address current issues. The Speaker's Corner is something that I was cynical about when it was first created. But, I think now it has morphed into a tremendously useful venue for interest groups and NGOs to make their views known. We should use the space available to raise the issues of concern that we have.
The problem with attempting a 'protest', 'march', 'gathering', etc in contravention of the law is that it does not serve any political purpose. Civil disobedience (seen in its historical context) is not merely about point scoring or seeking attention through gimmicks. Civil disobedience has been effective only because of an effective marshalling of popular public opinion. Civil disobedience also represents a powerful statement of non-compliance with a law that may legitimately be judged to be unjust. Racial segregation in the American South led to civil rights activists engaging in defiant acts such as 'sit-ins' at segregated places such as restaurants and bars. During the Indian independence movement, Gandhi and fellow Congress leaders marshalled the power of peaceful non-cooperation as a means of drawing attention to specific unjust laws. For instance the 'salt march' was an attack on the revenue and also one that was capable of resonating with a majority of the people as salt itself was a commodity in common use in India. It involved attacking the British monopoly of the salt trade and a clear infringement of the Salt Act. Defiance of the law in that context where a nation was struggling under the yoke of colonialism, is arguably more acceptable and tactically wise.
Let's face it. We lack freedoms in Singapore. But, we do not suffer under the yoke of tyranny in the same way that some have suffered in other places and at other times. We have had our share of unjust imprisonments. But, these are issues about which we should voice our concerns and opinions through the media that is opening up to us these days. The net is available. Online petitions can be used. Write letters to relevant officials. Use the space at Hong Lim Park. Use the existing freedoms and build upon them.
I do not support civil disobedience for its own sake. There must be an overriding moral case against a law for civil disobedience in relation to that law. I do not believe that there is an overriding moral case against our existing laws on Public Assembly. I do not agree with those laws. I think we can do better. But, that is not a reason for me to disobey those laws. Non-compliance with law by citizens undermines the rule of law as much as non-compliance with law by the state.
Are you organising an event? Apply for a permit. You can't get a permit? Go to Hong Lim Park.
In the meantime, speak up for change in the laws.
I do not agree with the approach of the Black Sunday movement. But, I hope that the authorities continue to give these chaps the breathing space they desire.
Arguably, the Black Sunday concept is a form of civil disobedience. If we take civil disobedience to be the refusal to comply with a law on account of deeply held views about the injustice of those laws, then the gathering of black-shirted persons (on the assumption that it infringes the Public Order Act) would be a form of civil disobedience.
Whilst I support the amendment of some of our laws to create greater space for free expression, I certainly would caution against disobeying current laws simply to make a point about the need for free expression. The Pink Dot event that took place at Hong Lim Park demonstrates how we can use the existing avenues for expression in an effective manner without breaching any law.
Given the light-touch approach adopted by the authorities in relation to online criticism, citizens should use the internet in a free and responsible manner to address current issues. The Speaker's Corner is something that I was cynical about when it was first created. But, I think now it has morphed into a tremendously useful venue for interest groups and NGOs to make their views known. We should use the space available to raise the issues of concern that we have.
The problem with attempting a 'protest', 'march', 'gathering', etc in contravention of the law is that it does not serve any political purpose. Civil disobedience (seen in its historical context) is not merely about point scoring or seeking attention through gimmicks. Civil disobedience has been effective only because of an effective marshalling of popular public opinion. Civil disobedience also represents a powerful statement of non-compliance with a law that may legitimately be judged to be unjust. Racial segregation in the American South led to civil rights activists engaging in defiant acts such as 'sit-ins' at segregated places such as restaurants and bars. During the Indian independence movement, Gandhi and fellow Congress leaders marshalled the power of peaceful non-cooperation as a means of drawing attention to specific unjust laws. For instance the 'salt march' was an attack on the revenue and also one that was capable of resonating with a majority of the people as salt itself was a commodity in common use in India. It involved attacking the British monopoly of the salt trade and a clear infringement of the Salt Act. Defiance of the law in that context where a nation was struggling under the yoke of colonialism, is arguably more acceptable and tactically wise.
Let's face it. We lack freedoms in Singapore. But, we do not suffer under the yoke of tyranny in the same way that some have suffered in other places and at other times. We have had our share of unjust imprisonments. But, these are issues about which we should voice our concerns and opinions through the media that is opening up to us these days. The net is available. Online petitions can be used. Write letters to relevant officials. Use the space at Hong Lim Park. Use the existing freedoms and build upon them.
I do not support civil disobedience for its own sake. There must be an overriding moral case against a law for civil disobedience in relation to that law. I do not believe that there is an overriding moral case against our existing laws on Public Assembly. I do not agree with those laws. I think we can do better. But, that is not a reason for me to disobey those laws. Non-compliance with law by citizens undermines the rule of law as much as non-compliance with law by the state.
Are you organising an event? Apply for a permit. You can't get a permit? Go to Hong Lim Park.
In the meantime, speak up for change in the laws.
I do not agree with the approach of the Black Sunday movement. But, I hope that the authorities continue to give these chaps the breathing space they desire.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
COE FOR THE PRESIDENT
The Presidential Election Committee must grant a Certificate of Eligibility to a candidate before he would be able to contest the Presidential Election.
So far we know that there are 3 serious contenders. Don't forget that there's a fourth chap who has collected the papers for submission, Mr Ooi Boon Ewe. He is likely to be rejected by the Committee (as he was when he applied to contest for the 2005 Presidential Election).
I wonder if the PEC will grant the COE to all the 3 Tans. I believe that there is little doubt that the hardcore PAP supporters will go for Dr Tony Tan. I suspect that the hardcore anti-PAP voter would go for Tan Kin Lian. Dr Tan Cheng Bock is inevitably the one that could be the vote splitter. Would he split the PAP supporters or the opposition supporters? It would be interesting to see.
Given the current political climate, I believe that if it was a straight fight between Dr Tony Tan and Tan Kin Lian or Dr Tony Tan and Dr Tan Cheng Bock, Dr Tony Tan would lose. If we take the general election result as a starting point, 60% voted for the PAP and 40% against. Whilst the 40% can be trusted to cast a vote against the PAP 'approved' candidate in the Presidential election, the same cannot be said about the 60% who voted for the PAP. Many amongst the 60% already showed unhappiness but were either unconvinced by the opposition, inspired by local constituency level issues, cowed by fear or swayed by last minute apologies. I believe that, in a Presidential Election, these voters would not hesitate to vote for the candidate that presents himself as 'non-white'. This would work to the advantage of the candidate racing against Dr Tony Tan.
If the COE is granted only to Dr Tony Tan and one other candidate, I strongly believe that the other candidate would win. If the 3 Tans get the COE, Dr Tan Cheng Bock would either split the pro-PAP or the pro-opposition voters.
Would the 3 Tans qualify for the COE?
Under the constitution the following criteria needs to be met (in addition to others that I feel is not really an issue for the 3 gentlemen):
The candidate must satisfy the Presidential Elections Committee that he is a person of integrity, good character and reputation.
For not less than 3 years, he must have been either a Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker of Parliament, Attorney-General, Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Auditor-General, Accountant-General or a Permanent Secretary;
or
Chairman or CEO of CPF Board, HDB, JTC or MAS;
or
Board Chairman or CEO of a company with paid-up capital of at least $100 million
If the candidate does not meet the requirement of 3 years' experience in those positions, he can still qualify if he occupied a similar position (based on seniority & experience) in any other organisation of equivalent size/complexity in the public or private sector. The criteria here is that the PEC must form the view that the candidate's position has given him experience in adminstering and managing financial affairs so as to enable him to discharge the President's functions effectively.
Given the background of the 3 gentlemen, I believe that the PEC ought to grant the COE to all three men unless the Committee for some reason decides to question or doubt one of them on the ground of integrity, good character or reputation. This, I believe is unlikely.
In all probability we are looking at a 3 horse race.
So far we know that there are 3 serious contenders. Don't forget that there's a fourth chap who has collected the papers for submission, Mr Ooi Boon Ewe. He is likely to be rejected by the Committee (as he was when he applied to contest for the 2005 Presidential Election).
I wonder if the PEC will grant the COE to all the 3 Tans. I believe that there is little doubt that the hardcore PAP supporters will go for Dr Tony Tan. I suspect that the hardcore anti-PAP voter would go for Tan Kin Lian. Dr Tan Cheng Bock is inevitably the one that could be the vote splitter. Would he split the PAP supporters or the opposition supporters? It would be interesting to see.
Given the current political climate, I believe that if it was a straight fight between Dr Tony Tan and Tan Kin Lian or Dr Tony Tan and Dr Tan Cheng Bock, Dr Tony Tan would lose. If we take the general election result as a starting point, 60% voted for the PAP and 40% against. Whilst the 40% can be trusted to cast a vote against the PAP 'approved' candidate in the Presidential election, the same cannot be said about the 60% who voted for the PAP. Many amongst the 60% already showed unhappiness but were either unconvinced by the opposition, inspired by local constituency level issues, cowed by fear or swayed by last minute apologies. I believe that, in a Presidential Election, these voters would not hesitate to vote for the candidate that presents himself as 'non-white'. This would work to the advantage of the candidate racing against Dr Tony Tan.
If the COE is granted only to Dr Tony Tan and one other candidate, I strongly believe that the other candidate would win. If the 3 Tans get the COE, Dr Tan Cheng Bock would either split the pro-PAP or the pro-opposition voters.
Would the 3 Tans qualify for the COE?
Under the constitution the following criteria needs to be met (in addition to others that I feel is not really an issue for the 3 gentlemen):
The candidate must satisfy the Presidential Elections Committee that he is a person of integrity, good character and reputation.
For not less than 3 years, he must have been either a Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker of Parliament, Attorney-General, Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Auditor-General, Accountant-General or a Permanent Secretary;
or
Chairman or CEO of CPF Board, HDB, JTC or MAS;
or
Board Chairman or CEO of a company with paid-up capital of at least $100 million
If the candidate does not meet the requirement of 3 years' experience in those positions, he can still qualify if he occupied a similar position (based on seniority & experience) in any other organisation of equivalent size/complexity in the public or private sector. The criteria here is that the PEC must form the view that the candidate's position has given him experience in adminstering and managing financial affairs so as to enable him to discharge the President's functions effectively.
Given the background of the 3 gentlemen, I believe that the PEC ought to grant the COE to all three men unless the Committee for some reason decides to question or doubt one of them on the ground of integrity, good character or reputation. This, I believe is unlikely.
In all probability we are looking at a 3 horse race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)