Public Interest - Not a sufficient reason to disclose information

Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam: “People do want to know, there is curiosity, it is a matter of public interest. That is not sufficient reason to disclose information. It is not sufficient that there be curiosity and interest that you want to disclose information.”

One of the functions of Parliament is to call Ministers to account. With regard to individual Ministers the expectation is that PArliament is able to get information from them on matters that affect the public. As a representation of Ministerial accountability, Parliament is empowered under Standing Order No.19 to put questions to Ministers pertaining to 'affairs within their official functions'.

Any question about Temasek put to Mr Tharman would be within the ambit of his official functions as a Finance Minister. By Convention he is obliged to answer those questions unless the question is itself within the ambit of excluded matters listed out at Standing ORder No.21. (The Parliamentary Standing Orders are available at this link: http://www.parliament.gov.sg/Publications/SO-merge%20with%20SO%20notes.pdf )

The possible legitimate reasons that he might state for refusing to answer question could be that disclosure might harm national security or that official secrets might be compromised. But, judging from the report in the Straits Times, the Finance Minister appears to offer no justification for refusing to answer the questions. He appears to state that public interest is not a sufficient reason for disclosure. Based on the concept of Ministerial REsponsibility and based on Parliament's crucial role in ensuring that accountability, I would have thought that public interest is the most potent reason for disclosing information that is otherwise not protected as a state secret or information that is capable of compromising national security.

If Public Interest is not a sufficient reason for answering a question in Parliament, then Parliament can be disbanded. Parliament's scrutiny function would be redundant. Ministers can answer every question by saying: "There is a public interest in this issue. But, that is not a good reason for providing you with an answer." MPs don't have to provide a good reason for asking a question apart from the fact that it is a matter of interest to their constituents. It is a mockery of the PArliamentary system to say otherwise. To the Finance Minister, I would like to ask this: What does it mean sir when we say in our pledge: 'to build a democratic society'? Doesn't a democratic society involve the people having a right to know how governance is carried out? In a representative form of government such as ours, do PArliamentarians not have a right to ask a Minister to answer questions of public interest? Doesn't the failure to answer a question without providing any specific exceptional grounds (such as national security) undermine the workings of Parliamentary democracy? Where does that place our pledge so soon after that artificially concocted universal pledge moment?

Sample Q & A in Parliament:
MP: How much was collected from ERP gantries in 2008?
Minister: This is a public interest issue. But, that is not a sufficient reason for answering your question.

MP: What is the current birthrate in Singapore?
Minister: This is a public interest issue. But, that is not a sufficient reason for answering your question.

MP: What is the government doing to assist the elderly living on their own without the support of their children?
Minister: This is a public interest issue. But, that is not a sufficient reason for answering your question.

It can go on and on and on.

8:22 - The Hypocritical Oath

8.22pm, 9th August 2009 – A moment of no real significance for our nation. But, as trumpeted by the mainstream media, it was ‘the universal pledge moment’. A moment of ‘significance’ manufactured out of thin air. An insignificant point in time artificially grafted onto the nation’s collective consciousness.

10am – That would have been my preferred time. 10am – The moment that the independence of Singapore was proclaimed on the steps of the City Hall.

Wouldn’t that be more significant? Wouldn’t we at least have a greater historical sense of what we were doing when we took the pledge? Wouldn’t it be emotionally significant to those old enough to recall where they were and how they felt at the precise moment of independence?

As with the general plasticity of many things in Singapore, the 8.22pm moment was just another plastic moment. Well, it doesn’t really matter in the end what time the pledge was taken. The larger question that we should ask is how many of those that took the pledge at that appointed time meant what they said?

If you watched the parade on tv, you would have seen a short ‘preamble’ appear on the screen……. ‘say what you mean. Mean what you say.’ I really hope that the citizens of Singapore taking the pledge on that day said what they meant and meant what they said.

My challenge to the pledge takers is this. Ponder very carefully on what you pledged. You pledged…(amongst other things)....

…. to build a democratic society based on justice and equality….

How have you helped to build such a society? Do we have such a society? What can we do to live up to our pledge?

What does it mean to say that a society is democratic? Is democracy defined by the conduct of elections? If the electoral process does not involve a level playing field, does it warrant being termed as being reflective of democracy? If the ballot is cast without an informed choice, is that democratic? Is it democratic to group constituencies together thereby shielding potentially weak candidates from electoral fire? Or even to use such a system to allow candidates that may have otherwise lost their seats to nevertheless become representatives of constituencies where they do not enjoy majority support? Is that democratic?

What is the meaning of justice? What do we mean by equality? Do we have due process in all instances? Or can we be arbitrarily classified as a security threat and incarcerated indefinitely? Do we enjoy equal treatment or does political persuasion play a part in decision making by the authorities?

These are questions that we have to ask ourselves.
If you believe that we do have a democratic society based on justice and equality, good for you. Blessed are the ignorant.
If you do not believe that we have a democratic society based on justice and equality, then you have to consider what is the peaceful and constructive way to accomplish such a society. You have to do this in order to live up to the pledge.
However, if you do not believe that we have a democratic society based on justice and equality and do not think that you need to even ponder about how such a society can be accomplished, but nevertheless gleefully took the pledge, you are a hypocrite!

TAMIFLU, Pharmaceutical companies and their profits

Big Pharma is at it again. I have long been conerned by their attempts at restricting access to cheaper alternative drugs. Originally, the Trade Related Intellectual Property Agreement provided the pharmaceutical companies with a great deal of bite in the global market through enhanced patent protection. However, thanks to a third world led fight for an exception in the TRIPS Agreement, patented drugs need not be shoved down the throats of needy patients in countries where they can't afford the drugs. They can obtain cheaper alternatives. This exception applies when there is a public health emergency.

Therefore, given H1N1's status as a pandemic, the public health emergency exception should now apply to TAMIFLU. But, would patients be able to get their hands on cheaper alternatives? Seems like the World Health Organisation is serving Big Pharma's interest right now.

The following article from The Independent is instructive:



http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-hidden-truth-behind-drug-company-profits-1767257.html

Celebrating National Day

He peered into the bin exploring the day’s possibilities.

At 71, Mr Lim is active enough to support himself. After all, life is a constant barter trade of drink cans for his daily bread. Like all good businessmen, he has learned the art of cost-cutting: home is now a choice of 4 void decks and the wet market thankfully offers a 20cents per entry toilet.

Staring at him from the bin was a kickapoo can; not as common as Coke or Pepsi these days. He used to enjoy it almost every day at the shipyard.

Those days are still fresh in his eyes. He watched the port speed its way to become the busiest of them all. His best friend Ramu used to joke, “we carry the whole of Singapore on our shoulders”. Ramu was a proud man. Diabetes took away one of his legs and he used to sell lottery tickets at waterloo street until two years ago. Lim heard that nobody claimed Ramu’s body. ‘What happens to unclaimed corpses at the mortuary’, he wondered.

His prolonged gaze at the kickapoo can was broken by an agitated female voice: “Seow ah!’
‘Yes, mad!’ he thought to himself.

Goodyear leaves: A bad year for PAP to call for elections?

Now that Chip Goodyear's tenure as CEO of Temasek is a non-starter, a great many questions would be flooding Singaporean minds about the non-answers provided in the official statements of Temasek.

Strategic differences? What were they? Why did they not surface earlier during the courting process? Why were they not noticed by the astute custodians of Temasek? Perhaps, the differences involved some corporate governance issues? Perhaps they involved issues of transparency? We will never know.

But, in politics, speculations are just as bad as damaging revelations. How would the average Singaporean voter react to Goodyear's departure and the return of Ho Ching? Given the losses churned out by Temasek and the complete silence on the accountability front, it is tempting to assume that the latest news of Goodyear's departure would broaden discontent amongst the electorate. I am not so sure.

One type of Singaporean is a hardcore oppositionist. Everything negative involving the powers that be is reflective of PAP's failure. Temasek, headed by the PM's wife, having its portfolio decimated by the meltdown in the financial system is just another ammunition to hurl at the PAP; just another issue to hate the PAP for.

Then there is the hardcore PAP supporter. This this type of voter the PAP can do no wrong. Official explanations are the gospel. There is nothing fishy about even the fishiest explanation provided by any person or body remotely associated with the state. The person inhabiting this fairy tale la la land is not going to be moved by the Temasek saga at all. To this person Temasek did not lose $58 billion but made a gain of $56 billion from 2003.

There are voters who would normally vote for the PAP who either don't like the PAP's style of government (but don't hate them) or are not too interested one way or another about politics. The question is whether this grouo of voters would be swayed by the Temasek winds. My guess is that they would not.

Temasek is investing peoples' money. The $58 billion can be seen as gambling away the electorate's fund. But, the hard fact is that the retrenched Singaporean worker or the recession hit small business ownwer or any other Singaporean making ends meet or failing to do so does not see the relationship between Temasek and the food at his own dinner table. If that link is not drawn, Temasek would not be an emotional spark. Temasek to many a voter would be a side show. A useful distraction. A piece of entertainment for us to mock the powers that be. Beyond that, Temasek's debacle would be of no significance.

There are some narratives firmly engraved onto the consciousness of the average Singaporean that it would take more than a shaky Temasek to cause the electoral winds to change course. As office talk and coffee shop talk would have it, Temasek is a joke. It is not yet a source of anger.

Is it a bad year for PAP to call for elections? No.

Pork Barrel Politics: Good or Bad?

In the run up to the 1996 General Elections, the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong warned voters:

"Your estate, through your own choice, will be left behind. They'll become slums. That's my message."

The PAP then issued an open letter stating: "Please remember that the PAP government cannot upgrade all estates at the same time..... Our resources are limited. Which ones to upgrade first will depend on you. If you give strong support, you will be first in line."

The US State Department had some unkind words for the PAP with regard to the latter's 'threat' to the voters.

BG George Yeo retorted by stating that pork barrel politics had a long tradition in the USA.

so, I take it that pork barrel politics is good.

In 2005, at a luncheon organised by the Foreign Correspondants' Association, PM Lee Hsien Loong said the following with reference to Japan:

“...they landed into problems because of corruption, money politics, pork barreling, and then necessary changes were not made and the country, instead of making adjustments and prospering like America, just flew straight on and went into a storm. So how do we maintain our system and not end up like that?”

so, I take it that pork barrel politics is bad.

Good or bad, pork barrel politics continues. Whereas upgrading was delayed/withheld in the past, now upgrading has been promised for Hougang and Potong Pasir residents. A little sweetener before the elections. If the stick didn't work, perhaps the carrot would?

Human Rights for Some Humans

I am mulling over this issue: Is it possible to advocate for human rights and yet qualify it by asserting that not all humans are entitled to rights?

The easiest answer to give to that is to say that if you do not advocate rights for all humans, then you do not in fact stand for human rights. What you stand for is rights for a group of humans or a majority of humans. So, how could you be classified as a human rights advocate.

This issue has now been articulated through NYU’s invitation extended to Pro Thio Li-Ann.

Let us consider the following hypothetical situations:

a) Can I be considered an advocate for human rights if, despite other strong views supportive of human rights, I believe that the worship of idols either in public or private should be criminalised?

b) Can I be considered an advocate for human rights if, despite other strong views supportive of human rights, I believe that the law should state that women must be homemakers so long as there is a child in the family that is below 10 years of age (failing which a criminal penalty ought to be imposed)?

Many of us would instinctively jump at the 1st example as a case of religious intolerance and an infringement of the freedom of each individual to continue as a practitioner of a particular faith. Similarly, many would jump at the 2nd example as a case of gender discrimination if the law mandates that a woman should stay at home.

We have, in our minds, classified gender, race, religion, nationality and language (amongst others) as distinguishing characteristics within the human race and that any discriminatory application of the law in relation to persons on account of those differences as an infringement of their human rights.

So, the next question is: Can a person advocate equal rights for persons regardless of gender, race, religion, nationality, language, etc., but believe in the criminalisation of homosexual conduct and still be considered a human rights advocate?

Some of us would readily assert that discrimination against a person on account of their sexual orientation is an unacceptable form of discrimination. There are others that may construct an argument that a provision like s.377A is not discriminatory towards homosexuals and that it only criminalises the ‘act’. The opponent of homosexuality does not discriminate against the individual but only the act that the individual engages in.

I came across some interesting comments at the following site:
http://nyuoutlaw.blogspot.com/2009/07/nyu-outlaw-boards-official-statement.html

There is an individual posting the following comment anonymously:

“jailing someone for a particular act is different from jailing someone for who he is.
an example of jailing someone for who he is would be, say, putting a jew in jail simply because he was born to a jewish parent (and not because he engaged in any particular practice).
another would be putting japanese-americans in concentration camps simply because they were born to japanese parents - not because of any particular acts they committed.
the professor's argument, as i understand it, is that certain homosexual ACTS should be made criminal - NOT that homosexuals should simply be jailed regardless whether they commit any acts.”

In response to that comment another anonymous commentator posted the following:

“Targeting a behavior that only one group; a) engages in, and b) is defined by, is fairly clearly also targeting that group.
If you make "cheering for the Yankees" illegal, even if you allow people to "be Yankee fans," then you're seeking to jail Yankee fans. It's the same reason a Florida judge found Miami's Anti-Baggy-Pants law to be unconstitutional last year, because it unfairly targeted minorities.”

The 1st commentator then posted a response, part of which is as follows:

“don't many (most?) laws target particular groups? Laws against yelling drunkenly at 2 a.m. target people who like to yell drunkenly at 2 a.m. (an activity which is not without its merits). Laws against exposing yourself in public target nudists (among others).”

In relation to homosexuals the problem that is highlighted here is that the sexual act is targeted and not the group. The 2nd commentator is of the view that where an act is done by a group and that group is defined by the commission of the act, criminalising the act is equivalent to discriminating against that group. Homosexuals fall into such a category. But, what are we to make of the rejoinder about the people who yell drunkenly at 2 a.m.

If every human activity that can be identified as being performed by a group is to be protected on account of it being discriminatory if one were to criminalise the conduct, wouldn’t all criminal activity have to be de-criminalised? To criminalise murder is to discriminate against murderers. To criminalise theft is to discriminate against claptomaniacs… etc.

But, I believe that this conduct-group association misses the point. Criminalisation of a particular conduct by the state should be undertaken on the basis of the harm that the conduct causes to others. Murder, theft, assault, etc, are examples of harmful activities that the state proscribes. Where no harm is done to another, the state ought to refrain from proscribing that activity. It is for this reason that I believe that consensual sexual activity between two adults should not be criminalised.

Let me come back to this point about discrimination against homosexuals. A law such as s.377A criminalises the conduct engaged in by homosexuals and it is a conduct by which that group is defined/classified. The conduct itself causes no harm to others. Therefore, it is not conduct that can be classified alongside theft, assault, murder, etc. Prima facie, it is not conduct that the state has an interest in criminalising.

Next: Criminalisation of a conduct by which a group is defined where such conduct does not cause harm to others would amount to discrimination against the group.
Consider the idol worship example. A law criminalising idol worship would discriminate against Hindus, Buddhists and Taoists primarily and possibly Catholics and certain denominations of Christians.
Similarly, criminalising conduct by which a homosexual is defined where this conduct does not harm anyone is discriminatory.

This then gives rise to the next question. We readily accept that discrimination on account of race, religion, language and nationality is impermissible and we see it as a human rights issue. However, there appears to be a debate over whether discrimination on account of sexual orientation raises a human rights issue. I do believe that depravation of any individual’s ability to peacefully carry out activities that cause no harm to others is an infringement of a human right. So, how does one get to be called a human rights advocate whilst not advocating for the rights of some.

I am quite curious as to how an argument might be advanced to suggest that s.377A does not raise a human rights issue. Anyone willing to venture an argument along those lines?

ON ANOTHER NOTE, Prof Thio has struck a rather conciliatory tone after the furor over her invitation by NYU. There was a law student from NYU, Jim McCurly, who posted an open letter to Prof Thio and she responded to it. The following is a small part of her response:

I was sorry to read that you were beaten up - that is never justified; and being called "faggot" is as ugly as being called "homophobe" so perhaps we will leave the name-callers to their own devices and treat each other first and foremost as human beings with intrinsic dignity. (Is that a howl of protests I hear across the cyber-waves by the usual band of demonisers? C'est la vie.)

Let me get this straight. In ‘Thiology’, it is wrong for a person to be beaten up because he is gay; it is wrong for a person to be called a ‘faggot’. However, it is perfectly right, moral and justifiable that the state criminalise consensual adult male sexual conduct carried out in private. Apparantly 2 years behind bars is far more justifiable than being called a ‘faggot’.