I have moved

This blog has now been moved to wordpress.

You can access all the posts here: http://article14blog.wordpress.com/

A Right Roy-al Mess (Vandalism, Defamation, CPF and the demise of the PAP)

It’s been a while since I last blogged.  But, quite a few things have been going on in our little red dot and some of them have been pretty red hot. 

Two things seem to have converged together to give the impression that there is a state of rage right now in this country and that the PAP needs to take heed of this.  Quite literally, the writing is on the wall. 

Vandalism

We have seen the issue of vandalism hitting the media spotlight with the Sticker Lady (Samantha Lo) a couple of years ago.  What she did had mild political overtones.  But, otherwise it was the case of an individual pushing the boundaries of acceptable social behaviour (whilst at the same time crossing the legal  boundaries).  https://sg.news.yahoo.com/%E2%80%98sticker-lady%E2%80%99-samantha-lo-sentenced-to-240-hours-of-community-service-104618997.html

The other famous instances of vandalism were the Michael Fay incident in 1993/1994 and Oliver Fricker’s train vandalism in 2010.  These had nothing to do with politics.  http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1554_2009-08-06.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-18/swiss-man-s-vandalism-jail-sentence-in-singapore-extended-by-two-months.html

When the Vandalism Act was passed in the 1960s, it included caning as a punishment.  The reason was political.  Even if we were to put aside the question of whether caning should be a form of punishment at all, it is plainly obvious that caning for a property offence is extremely disproportionate.  It appears that in the 1960s slogan-writing by political opponents was a phenomenon the PAP government had to contend with.  LKY and his fellow Parliamentarians seem to be aware that they were not dealing with mere juvenile delinquents.  These were persons driven by ideological passion.  In his cruel, brutish fashion, the old man seems to have felt that a few strokes of the cane would set right whatever political thinking there was in the minds of the slogan writers. 

I have blogged about this issue of the politics behind the Vandalism Act before… http://article14.blogspot.sg/2012/06/politics-of-caning.html

I feel it is appropriate to quote from the man himself on the reason for corporal punishment:

“a fine will not deter the type of criminal we are facing here.  He is quite prepared to go to gaol, having defaced public buildings with red paint.  Flaunting the values of his ideology, he is quite prepared to make a martyr of himself and go to gaol.  He will not pay the fine and make a demonstration of his martyrdom.  But if he knows he is going to get three of the best, I think he will lose a great deal of enthusiasm, because there is little glory attached to the rather humiliating experience of having to be caned.”  -  Lee Kuan Yew, 1966

So we have now come full cycle. 

“Fuck the PAP”.  

That is not the first time that I have seen that phrase.  There must be numerous public toilets in Singapore serving the function of being the canvas for the citizenry’s frustrations.  But, the display of that undercurrent of frustration on a wall on top of a HDB block is dramatic and audacious.  Before the authorities could whitewash those words away (and they were swift in doing so), pictures of the graffiti got posted, re-posted and shared on numerous Facebook walls.  To be honest, many of us cheered the figurative punch in the PAP face even if we may not condone vandalism.  The local media (dutifully attempting to protect the image of their masters) carried a photograph with the words “fuck” and “PAP” blurred which prompted many mocking statements online about how the Straits Times seems to think that the latter is a vulgar word that deserves to be censored. 

The authorities moved in swiftly.  The crime scene was whitewashed swiftly after police had inspected it.  5 kids were duly rounded up and have been charged and are out on bail.  Guilty or not guilty?  That is now for the court to determine.  But, it is undeniable that the anti-PAP sentiment seems to be boiling over. 

We don’t usually expect elderly persons to scribble graffiti.  This seems to be an activity reserved for teens and young adults.  So, when a 71 year old man was arrested for writing graffiti on bus stops, his age was itself a statement that spoke louder than the words that he scribbled:  “We support CPF blogger. Return our CPF money…”   In all, 11 bus stops were identified by the police to have been vandalized by the same individual.

What would drive a 71 year old man to take the rather risky step of defacing public property when the state’s intolerance of this kind of crime is well known?  Obviously, a deep-seated hatred for the government’s policies relating to CPF is sweeping the land.  The older generation (including my parents) has been pretty loyal in its electoral support of the PAP.  But, as many of them are struggling to make ends meet and as medical bills rise and as their children struggle to support them in their old age, they can’t help but notice the woeful inadequacy of CPF as a retirement fund. 

The frustrations are real.  I see many former PAP loyalists of that generation becoming openly critical of the PAP.  Persons that I have known to be lifelong PAP supporters have been lamenting that the current leaders have become completely out of touch.  The lack of transparency surrounding the GIC, Temasek and CPF has led many citizens to speculate about investment losses and even potential cronyism.  Just as there is no evidence to suggest that there is no wrongdoing, the non-transparent approach adopted by the state results in a lack of evidence as to whether all is well in relation to the CPF monies of the people.

On and off, there have been articles online speculating about Temasek Holdings and its financial health.  None of them managed to fire the popular imagination.  The usual opposition supporters would have been the likely readers of many of these articles. 

Roy and the Emperor’s Opaque clothes

Frustrations are such that very few people have the ability to intellectually dissect and try to understand and come to terms with the exact source.  If I have been feeling frustrated about one issue, it can very easily be morphed over into being a frustration about another issue.  For some time now, Singaporeans have been troubled by transportation woes, rising property prices, rising cost of living, depression of wages, overcrowding and of course many of these frustrations have been channeled into being a general resentment of the government’s population policy. 

But there is a more fundamental sore point that haunts many Singaporeans.  We don’t often articulate it as the single biggest issue.  When you come to think of it, the issue surrounding CPF savings and the ability of Singaporeans to retire has been something that has troubled us long before immigration and overcrowding became issues. 

Many Singaporeans have a legitimate concern about the viability of the CPF system as a retirement plan.  Personally, I don’t think I can retire comfortably with my CPF savings.  I have to make other financial plans for retirement.  If you are still in your 20s or 30s, you would be well advised to start early in saving and investing for your retirement.  Don’t put it off till you are in your 40s or 50s.  I believe that for the average Singaporean, the CPF savings and the amounts in Medisave will be insufficient for their retirement and medical needs. 

For the elderly today it is already too late to do anything.  My parents’ retirement investment was their kids.  That’s the same with my wife’s parents.  I believe that for many Singaporeans in their 70s and 80s the common problem is that they have become entirely dependant on their children for medical as well as daily living expenses.  Medical expenses can be a real killer.  From my own experience, my wife’s Medisave has been completely depleted after using substantial sums for her parents’ medical expenses.  My parents are presently dependant on me and my sisters for daily expenses as well medical expenses.  My mother’s medisave is depleted and my father’s would be easily depleted if either one of them has a major hospitalization expense.  It was not common during my parents’ generation for them to have medical insurance. 

I am aware that many other elderly Singaporeans don’t even have the luxury of depending on their kids.  These are the Singaporeans that must be feeling that there is a certain breach of faith in the social contract.  We have a generation of elderly Singaporeans that are not able to support themselves financially:  A generation of Singaporeans that toiled really hard; a generation that did not have much by way of education but one that compensated for it through sheer hard work; a generation that was literally being abandoned by the government and the general society until the recently announced Pioneer package (which the cynical amongst us can’t help but feel is nothing more than a desperate attempt to prevent further erosion of votes). 

We then have Singaporeans in their 50s and 60s that are experiencing immediate issues with the postponement of the retirement age and the increase of the minimum sum for the CPF.  This, I believe, is a very angry group.  If you were to speak to individuals from low income background (or even middle income) that are part of this age-group, you’d find that there is a general resentment at the CPF policies.  The fact is that many people do not have any idea as to how the CPF rules work and there is of course the general dissatisfaction over the low interest payment of 2.5% that is paid into the CPF. 

Against the backdrop of this general dissatisfaction, we have Roy Ngerng blogging about the CPF issue.  I have read Roy’s blog on and off and he has done some good work on many socio political issues relevant to Singapore.  Recently, when I came across the offending article that is the subject matter of the dispute between the PM and Roy, I was somewhat disappointed at the rather sensationalistic headline and layout of the article.  When I saw the analogy drawn between City Harvest Church and the movement of CPF monies through Temasek and GIC, I couldn’t help but feel that Roy was acting recklessly.  When the PM’s letter of demand was eventually made public, I wasn’t surprised. 

There have been other instances in other local defamation cases when the words were on the borderline of being defamatory.  But, in the case of Roy’s article, I have to say that the legal requirements for defamation can be easily made out. 

I feel that the PM’s decision to send a letter of demand with not just a request for apology but also for damages was a mistake.  By doing so, he gave Roy no alternative.  Apologise and pay damages?  Fight, lose the case and pay damages?  That’s not much of a choice.  When Roy did offer an apology and the sum of $5000, it was turned down. 

I expect that from a PR perspective this case is going to be pretty much a downhill affair for the PM.  Already, the general public perception has been that this is a case of the big guy bullying the little guy.  The swift online fund-raising campaign on behalf of Roy demonstrates that there are a significant number of people that are willing to put their money where their mouth is.  Hitting $70,000 in collections in 4 days is undeniably a record.  The contributing public is clearly not homogenous.  Some see this as a battle to find out the truth about the CPF.  There are others who hate the PAP and just want to help out Roy in his fight.  There are contributors adopting a nuanced position on this whole saga: ‘I don’t agree with Roy’s assertions but I defend his right to speak up fearlessly’.   (I personally feel that way as well.  It is for precisely this reason that I did not support the petition to close down STOMP.)

What the PM needs to recognize is that this is not just another one of those old defamation cases pitting PAP Ministers against opposition politicians.  For one, Roy is just an average citizen earning a meager income as a social worker.  And secondly, the issue raised up by him is closely tied up with that very issue that is most Singaporeans’ biggest sore point.  Forget about immigration, the population white paper and the infrastructural squeeze.  CPF strikes a raw nerve. 

It is quite likely that as the case against Roy proceeds, the issue of retirement funds will be kept high up in the priority list as far as voters are concerned.  I am sure that the PM’s lawyers will try their level best to ensure that they get a summary judgment in the case so that the matter will not go for trial.  Once it doesn’t go through the trial process, then there will be no embarrassing questions that can be asked about the CPF or Temasek or GIC. 

In all likelihood, they will succeed in obtaining a summary judgment and the matter will be concluded through a chamber hearing and members of the public will miss out on any juicy cross-examination in open court.  Roy’s rather public display of his admission means that he doesn’t have any defence when the matter proceeds to court.  His letter of apology states the following:

“2.   I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

3.   I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation.”

One of the defences to defamation is ‘justification’.  This is an assertion by the defendant that he is stating the truth.  Some netizens that have expressed support for Roy seem to think that Roy should ‘expose the truth’ in court and prove that what he said is true.  That statement in paragraph 3 of Roy’s apology letter renders any such attempt an impossibility.  If he tries to run the justification defence, the PM’s lawyers will rely on Roy’s admission that what he wrote was false and without foundation.

If Roy had privately communicated through his lawyer and attempted to settle the matter through ‘without prejudice’ letters, the communication would have been ‘privileged’ and would not be referred to in Court.  But, by making a public show of the apology letter, Roy has effectively waived the privilege.  PM’s lawyers will apply for summary judgment and there’s a high probability that they will get it. 

The most likely consequence of this is that the matter will eventually be fixed for assessment of damages and it is at that hearing that M. Ravi (Roy’s lawyer) will get to cross-examine the PM.  However, any questions asked about the subject matter of the defamation will most likely be overruled by the judge as being irrelevant.  The judge would only entertain questions pertaining to the issue of the damage to reputation.  This may not go down very well with the general public.

The irony of all this is that even through the law taking its ordinary course and the judiciary acting impartially and fairly in accordance with the law, the public is going to end up getting the impression that the proceedings are biased and unfair.  Perception, not truth, is everything in politics.  PAP politicians, more than any others should be aware of this. 

Pursuing this case all the way is going to be a serious PR disaster for the PM. 

Thanks to the increased publicity generated by Roy Ngerng’s case, I have noticed that social media is abuzz with plenty of articles focusing on CPF, Temasek, GIC and transparency. (SG Daily carries links to most of these articles http://singaporedaily.net/2014/06/05/daily-sg-5-jun-2014/).  If these issues are kept on the agenda consistently, it will turn more and more voters away from the PAP.  I am not sure if the PM’s PR people realize that they have stirred the hornet’s nest.

Saturday, 7^th June 2014, Hong Lim Park will witness another protest.  Turnout is likely to be strong.  Many friends and acquaintances have expressed a desire to go for this protest.  It would be interesting to see how many people feel concerned enough about the CPF issue to turn up for the protest.  The protest is not about Roy Ngerng.  But, the defamation suit has definitely coloured the event. 

There are some serious issues that need to be addressed in Singapore about what should be the ideal retirement plan that is feasible not only for the rich but also for the weakest amongst us.  The “Return Our CPF” protest would hopefully help to get the ball rolling in terms of greater transparency in the system and in ensuring that we as a nation can work out a more viable retirement plan for our citizens.  But of course, one can’t help but feel cynical. 

Whatever your position might be on the Roy Ngerng saga, I feel that it is important to have a good showing on Saturday to send a clear message to the government that we are not happy with the way that the CPF system is being administered. 

https://www.facebook.com/events/540971529345418/

THE PARABLE OF THE FISH TANK

I had a fish tank with not much fish inside.  My father gave it to me. The fish had a lot of room to swim around and the tank was clean and beautiful. I didn't need to spend a great deal of time, effort or money to clean the tank.

Over time, I decided to keep the tank dynamic and I introduced more fish into the tank. It became more colourful and more interesting and most of my friends that visited my place did not get bored as there was always something new in the fish tank for them to see.

Three years ago, one of my friends pointed out that the fish were not happy. I thought it was absurd. How could he know how the fish felt? In any event, they were well fed. Why should they be unhappy? Do they have feelings in the first place?

And then in May that year, some of the fish started jumping out of the water and some of them started crowding in one corner as if they were attempting to push the tank. (Silly fish!  Structural things like that are too mighty for mere fish to deconstruct or destroy.  Anyway, no tank = no fish.)

I realised from their behaviour that something was wrong. I didn't know how to communicate with them nor did I understand what they were up to and so I got my friend who speaks to fish to converse with them. I know that whatever problems one perceives can easily be solved by persuading that person to see the wisdom of my point of view. Getting the fish to see my point of view shouldn’t be too difficult as they are not too smart.

The conversation was going well, I think. My friend told me that the fishes understand my position and they were just upset that foreign fish were allowed into the tank. I can't believe how narrow minded fish can be. I guess they don't have the intelligence of us humans. I explained to them, through my friend, that they too were foreign at one point in time when the tank was empty. They have to be grateful. Who put the water in? Who put the filters in? Who cleans the tank regularly? Who is feeding them?

I need a whole variety of fish to keep the tank interesting. Those visiting my house have come to see the fish tank as the main attraction. If this variety of fish didn't exist, my visitors will go away.  This is how I have been generating revenue.  I charge the visitors a fee and through this revenue, I am able to feed my fish.  I think some of what I was saying was beginning to filter into their pea-sized brains.  

And then it happened. My filter wasn't working properly and the pump broke down. Over the years I have outsourced all maintenance of the tank to a few different companies. It's an efficient way of maintaining the fish tank, you know. Besides, I wasn't too worried because all these companies were ultimately overseen by my wife. She's a very capable woman. She doesn’t make mistakes. Even when she does, if you view it in the long run, they would not really be mistakes. But you need human brains to understand this. Fish brain is somewhat limited. As I now realize through my fish language interpreter that fish have feelings, I cannot tell the them that they are daft. They are daft as my papa has often pointed out. But I can't tell them that.

Anyway, I digress. So, with the filters malfunctioning and the pumps not working, the fish started getting worked up. These days they have found a way of communicating with each other that is fast and effective.  There is a wire mesh netting on the top of the fish tank that I installed.  The fish have found a way to tap on the net to send messages to all parts of the tank.  Their noise making can be incessant at times and the fish interpreter tells me that the dissident fish frequently pick up any mistake by the maintenance companies and DRUM out messages using the net.  Over the last two years, the maintenance failures have increased and the noise from the tank has been increasing. 

Last year, I decided give the fish a reality check.  I took a piece of white paper and I wrote the following on it:  “You no make babies.  Not enough fish.  No visitors come.  No money for me to buy food.  You become hungry.  You die.  I bring new fish.  Make tank colourful.  More people come to visit.  More revenue come in.  You get more food.”  I am told that some of the fish have become clever and they can understand what I am saying.

I put the white paper inside the tank.  The fish went wild.  They didn’t like the fact that I was going to introduce more fish.  Imbeciles! They don’t understand that the tank will become unsustainable without the new fish.  I don’t know how to keep them happy.  Over the last year, the filter and the pump have been having frequent problems and the tank has been getting dirty and…   well….  crowded.  

The other day one reporter found out about the complaints of my fish and asked me about it and this is what I told him:  “I succeeded more than I expected in building up a vibrant fish tank and so in terms of the infrastructure, I was not able to catch up – my pump, my filter.  And I have paid a price.  I have spent the last few years working hard to come back up to speed.  I wish I had been able to foresee this outcome and I could have acted sooner.  But, that is 20-20 hindsight.”

The stupid fish are making fun of me.  They think that I should have foreseen that if I introduced more fish, the tank will get crowded and there will not be enough space and that the tank’s infrastructure cannot cope.  I am fed up. 

 

offshore companies, business interests and the need for transparency

In April this year the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) announced that they have in their possession a database of offshore firms.  I had blogged about this back then.  http://article14.blogspot.sg/2013/04/icijs-offshore-files-singapore-link.html?showComment=1365318770280 A Singapore entity (Portcullis Trustnet) setting up trust companies was thrown up as a link by the ICIJ.  Portcullis has officially taken the position that its operations are perfectly legitimate and that no laws have been infringed. 

To be fair there are legitimate usages for offshore companies and one has to proceed carefully to avoid jumping to conclusions.  In June this year, ICIJ released their database and made it available in a searchable format online.  http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/06/14/12833/icij-releases-offshore-leaks-database-revealing-names-behind-secret-companies

The link for the database is here:
http://offshoreleaks.icij.org/

Before I proceed further, here is a disclaimer by ICIJ:
"There are legitimate uses for offshore companies and trusts.  We do not intend to suggest or imply that any persons, companies or other entities included in the ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database have broken the law or otherwise acted improperly."

There will be a tendency by many to assume that offshore firms are used for the purpose of money laundering and tax evasion.  Whilst there is a possibility of such abuse, the truth is that the bulk of the companies are legitimate businesses using offshore firms for perfectly legitimate purposes. 

For the fun of it I decided to run a few local personalities' names through the database.  A random selection of our politicians (PAP and opposition) didn't throw up any information.  I tried some local law firms' names and a number of firms cropped up in the database.  It is likely that some of these lawyers were acting as nominees for their clients or that they were assisting in the setting up of offshore firms for these clients.  Whilst I was searching law firms' names, I decided to start keying in individual lawyers' names.  That was when I decided to try Mr K. Shanmugam's name. 

This is what I got:

He had been a shareholder and director of Ever Fortune Management Limited from 10 October 2005 and the company became dormant in Nov 2008.  The search reveals that there was another shareholder, Yao Mina, (not Yao Ming...  although that is what I thought I saw  :-)  )  who was the sole shareholder and director from 24 Jan 2005.  This person's directorship ended on 10 October 2005 although he continued as a shareholder.  It is entirely possible that Mr Shanmugam's position is no more than just as a nominee director. 

Before any wild speculation starts parading around the internet, let me be clear on this.  The fact that he had shares in or directorship in an offshore entity does not in any way lead to the conclusion of any wrongdoing.  Firstly, he could have occupied the role of a nominee.  Secondly, he could have been running a legitimate business and using a BVI company could have just been a case of tax structuring (which is perfectly legal). 

The point that I wish to raise is entirely different.  We have a situation of our politicians having business interests.  This, in itself, is not wrong and we do not expect our politicians to drop all business activities simply because they are now political office holders.  But, it would certainly be good if there is some regular and transparant reporting of commercial interests by all Parliamentarians.

In the UK, Parliamentarians are required to report their financial interests in the Register of Members' Interests.  This is now uploaded on the Parliament website and any person can freely browse through to see the kind of financial interests that politicians have.  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem.htm

Back in Singapore, every now and then we get surprising revelations about business interests.  In December 2012, the discovery of the existence of a "PAP owned" company was shocking to many.  (In reality, the ownership of AIM was by an ex-PAP MP and not the PAP itself.)  More recently, in the height of the furore over the haze, there was an unfounded allegation of financial interests on the part of a Minister in a company that may have been involved in the slash-and-burn farming in Indonesia.  http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/shanmugam-clears-air-over/727594.html

I believe that it is about time that all elected representatives are made to commit themselves to making full and frank disclosure about all their financial interests so that citizens will have a clearer picture.  Secrecy & opacity, unfortunately, fuels speculation.  The following is from the introduction to the UK Register of Members interest and it sets out the purpose behind such disclosure:

"The purpose of the Register is to encourage transparency, and through transparency, accountability. It is "to provide information of any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in the capacity of a Member of Parliament"."

I hope to see the development of such a disclosure mechanism in Singapore. Our Parliamentary disclosure requirement is found in S.32 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities & Powers) Act (Cap 217).

“32. A Member shall not in or before Parliament or any committee take part in the discussion of any matter in which he has a direct personal pecuniary interest without disclosing the extent of that interest and shall not in any circumstances vote upon any such matter.”

In the Standing Orders of Parliament, there is a provision for the procedure when there is an issue of financial interests:

"65. – (1) Apart from the provisions of law requiring a Member to disclose the extent of any direct pecuniary interest, a Member shall not vote on any subject in which he has a direct personal pecuniary interest.
(2) A motion to disallow a Member’s vote on this ground shall be made only as soon as the numbers of the Members voting on the question shall have been declared."
http://www.parliament.gov.sg/sites/default/files/Standing%20Orders%20%282010%29.pdf

It is clear that MPs cannot vote and cannot engage in discussion on an issue where they have some financial interest.  But, how do we as citizens ascertain for ourselves what those financial interests are?
I have been searching the Parliament website to see if there is any publicly available information on the financial interests of MPs.  I can't find anything.   The Register of Members' Interests in UK is a publicly available document and anyone with internet access can easily view it at the Parliament website.  I hope that we could have something similar.

In the immediate aftermath of the 2011 general elections, the Prime Minister issued an advisory to his fellow PAP MPs entitled "Rules of Prudence". http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/pap-mps-told-rules-prudence-014542117.html

There is a direction in there to the PAP MPs to disclose Directorships to the Party Whip:

"Please inform the Whip of all the Directorships that you hold, and of the director's fees or benefits in kind e.g. stock options, which you receive.  Include the name of the company, the position(s) held, the date of first appointment and the current Chairman of the Board.......  by the end of January for the preceding calendar year..."

Can we now have public disclosure of all MPs' financial interests and make it easily and freely accessible online?

The Broadcasting Act is fundamentally flawed

We've had our blackout online protest.  We have done our offline protest at Hong Lim Park.  The blogging community has made a loud enough statement to be heard.  But, as with many things in Singapore, though we might shout out loud, we may still not be heard. 

I was at Speakers' Corner on Saturday, 8 June 2013.  It was a remarkable job by the #FreeMyInternet chaps.  They managed to get themselves organized within a short time frame and got the message out to enough people to gather a decent crowd on Saturday. 

I know that the #FreeMyInternet movement made it very clear that their primary goal for the time being is the revocation of the MDA's latest licensing rules.  But, I am sure their ultimate desire is also to see greater freedom in terms of the traditional media as well. 

There is one thing that we need to be very clear about.  The current licensing rules are set out in the Broadcasting (Class Licence) (Amendment) Notification 2013.  By virtue of this notification, MDA can, at its discretion, remove any website from the Class Licence and require it to obtain a specific licence.  The problem is not really a result of this subsidiary legislation.  The problem is in the parent Act of Parliament itself.  Parliament has drawn up a provision that is so broad that it has authorised lawlessness. 

Under Section 8(2) of the Broadcasting Act,
"Every broadcasting licence, other than a class licence, granted by the Authority shall be in such form and for such period and may contain such terms and conditions as the Authority may determine"

This is equivalent to saying that the licence will be in 'x' form, for 'y' period and contain 'w' terms, where x, y and w will be determined by MDA. 

As for Class licenses, section 9 deals states the following:

9(1) The Authority may, by notification published in the Gazette, determine a class licence, being a broadcasting licence, for the provision of such subscription broadcasting services and other licensable broadcasting services as the Authority may specify.

(2) The Authority may include in a class licence such conditions as it thinks fit.

 

 

MDA may issue any form of class licence and impose any conditions. 

 

Sometimes when a legislative provision is vague and open to interpretation and there exists a danger that it could be interpreted too broadly, we might caricature that legislation by stating that Parliament could have simply given unfettered discretion to a public body to do as it pleases.  The Broadcasting Act has been drafted in such a manner that it literally gives that unfettered power to the MDA. 

 

In Chng Suan Tze v Minister of Home Affairs (1988), Wee CJ stated:

 

"All power has legal limits and the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power. If therefore the executive in exercising its discretion under an Act of Parliament has exceeded the four corners within which Parliament has decided it can exercise its discretion, such an exercise of discretion would be ultra vires the Act and a court of law must be able to hold it to be so."

 

 

 

Ordinarily, the kind of case that the Courts would face involves a government body that exceeds the discretionary power that has been given to it by an Act of Parliament.  Clearly, the Courts would restrain any government body that attempts to do so.  But, the relationship between the Broadcasting Act and the MDA is such that the "four corners" that the Chief Justice referred to in the quotation above is missing from the legislation.  The legislation literally states that the MDA can do whatever it wants.  How did Parliament enact such a law in the first place? 

For Parliament to make a law stating that the Executive arm of government may do as it pleases is as good as signing off on a blank cheque.  The Broadcasting Act is MDA's blank cheque.  It is the hallmark of the rule of law that a government must be subject to and act in accordance with the law.  But, the Broadcasting Act makes a mockery of this principle.  MDA can easily impose any kind of licensing conditions and still claim that it is acting in accordance with the law.  A law that facilitates absolute discretion is only a law in form.  It fails to fulfill its true role in restraining the arbitrary exercise of power. 

In a kingdom, when a king wields absolute power and is not restrained in any way by the law we say that the king is the law, meaning that there is no rule of law in such a state.  What if the king decides to subject himself to the law and he forms a Parliament that would make the law and that Parliament makes a law stating that the King may do as he pleases?  Would we say that there is the rule of law in such a state?  We wouldn't. 

The Broadcasting Act must not facilitate discretion and the arbitrary exercise of power.  It must restrict the MDA's power. 

It is not about the Internet alone. We need to free the media as a whole.

Singapore has come some way since the days of near absolute information control and a pervasive climate of fear.  As a teenager in the 1980s, I remember clearly the oppressive political environment within which alternative voices and opposition politicians were operating.  Even when engaging in coffee shop conversation, there was a tendency amongst many of us to speak less audibly when it came to politics (or not at all) or to cast glances at possible undercover ISD officers.  This was especially so in the wake of the arrests and detention of alleged Marxist conspirators in 1987.  There were many that believed in the official version.  There were many that didn't.  But, one thing was for sure.  We knew that Big Brother was watching. 

From the time that JBJ broke through in the Anson by-election in 1981, there arose a certain excitement and expectation that more alternative voices would enter Parliament.  In the years that followed, there was a growing interest in opposition politics and alternative news.  Those days, with absolute control of the print media being exercised by the state, there was very little by way of alternative sources.  Many of us read in between the lines to make up our minds.  Newspapers that appeared to display an independent streak quickly disappeared.  I managed to get much of my independant information from foreign publications or books available across the causeway. 

Growing up in Singapore against the backdrop of constant propaganda and an undeniably constant climate of fear, the last ten years or so of online information availability has been a truly liberating experience.  For those of us that crave for different perspectives in a debate, the internet has provided us with not only access to information but also an avenue to express our opinion.  There was the often inevitable problem that letters to forum page of the main English daily that were too critical or against the national narrative would not see the light of day.  Those amongst us that had alternative views or perspectives were effectively shut out from the 'national conversion' (to borrow the current national cliche) of the past.

Blogging has provided many articulate Singaporeans an avenue for free expression and other Singaporeans who crave for alternative news a source of information.  Online content providers such as The Online Citizen have emerged as political game changers in many ways.  I am sure that many Singaporeans were relying heavily on alternative online sources for information during the last General Elections in 2011.  My blogs traffic increased tremendously during the GE and also the Presidential Elections.  I can only imagine the kind of increase in traffic that sites like TOC would have experienced.  Singaporeans have been increasingly consuming news online and let's be honest about it, many Singaporeans could well be influenced by the opinion and commentary that they read online. 

When the MDA's new licensing regime was announced last week, I was a little hesitant to brand it immediately as a regressive step and to brand it as an attack on the larger blogging community.  I wanted to read the wording of the regulations to understand whether legally it was possible for MDA to clamp down on alternative news sites.  At first, based on the MDA press release I wrote speculatively about what the government might be trying to accomplish and how it might accomplish it from a legislative standpoint.  http://www.article14.blogspot.sg/2013/05/from-licensing-to-regulation-of-content.html
Subsequently, when the MDA issued the Broadcasting (Class Licence) (Amendment) Notification 2013, the framework of MDA's action became much clearer and I blogged on this here: http://www.article14.blogspot.sg/2013/05/making-sense-of-legislative-framework.html

The way that I see it the new licensing regime is sufficiently vague to allow for future licensing notices to be directed at sites such as TOC.  MDA has made assurances that the measure is not targetted at blogs.  The issue for me is not so much as to who is targetted now.  The question is whether alternative sites providing unfavourable content can be subject to licensing in the future.  During the Talking Point show that was aired on ChannelNewsAsia, Minister Tan Chuan Jin did allude to the fact that blogs reporting news could come within the ambit of the licensing requirement.  To be frank, TOC is a site that does not merely publish opinion and commentary on local events.  Some of their activities does involve news reporting.  During the last General Elections, we saw quite a fair bit of reporting from on the ground that was done by TOC.

Considering the fact that there are linguistic loopholes in the subsidiary legislation for the authorities to exploit, the blogging community has very little to go on except to hope that the PAP government will act in good faith.  The main reason for the online uproar is that the past political record of the PAP hasn't been positive from the standpoint of freedom of speech and expression.  Citizens are generally skeptical about the Ministerial assurances.  (Perhaps, as citizens we might have to wonder whether we are unfairly forcing the current generation of PAP leaders to bear the historical burden of their party.  I have reflected upon this often and tried my best to give the present PAP leaders a clean sheet to work from.  But, the historical baggage is difficult to erase from memory.) 

We don't know the real reason for the sudden announcement surrounding the introduction of the new licensing rules.  We suspect a hidden agenda.  We may or may not be right.  But, one thing is for sure.  If there had been a hidden agenda of gradually subjecting popular alternative sites to a regime of licensing (which involves financial constraints and take-down notices), then the uproar from the blogging community has certaintly acted as a persuasive force in preventing the MDA from taking such steps in the future.  If anything, a concession has been forced in the form of a public statement that the licensing regime is not targeted at bloggers.  It is a minor victory.  But, a victory nevertheless. 

If there was no hidden agenda, the bare mimimum that has been achieved this week is that the blogging community has sent a clear message that we value our limited space and are not willing to give it up easily.  Some of my friends asked me about the point of participating in a 'blackout' (on 6 June 2013) and whether it was a futile and self-defeating exercise.  My take on it is that if websites went on an indefinite blackout until the licensing regime is withdrawn, the blackout action would have been futile and stupid.  What was done yesterday was, in my view, symbolic.  It helped to demonstrate the broad cross-section of support that exists for the freedom of online space.  It was not merely the socio-political bloggers that participated in the blackout. 

Tomorrow, it is time to turn up at Hong Lim Park.  I am going down to show support.  I don't think that the task at hand is merely about reversing the licensing regime.  The current regulations as framed and as explained (defensively) appear unlikely to prevent online discourse and debate.  There are two broad tasks that we as a nation need to focus upon:

1.  Firstly, we have to recognise that the Broadcasting Act enacted by Parliament grants to the MDA too broad a power to institute a licensing regime with any restrictive conditions of licensing whatsoever and all of this can be done without any need for Parliamentary debate.  Just as MDA has introduced the current licensing regime, the MDA can replace it and introduce another licensing regime with entirely different conditions.  The Broadcasting Act has given too much discretionary power to the MDA and discretionary power with improper or no legal contraints is always a dangerous tool in the hands of those that might be bent on abusing that power.  To prevent such future abuse the Broadcasting Act must be amended to take away the general power of the MDA to set licensing conditions in a discretionary fashion. 

2.  Secondly, the traditional print media in Singapore has to be freed up.  The Newspapers and Printing Presses Act has to be either amended or repealed.  The key control mechanisms in this Act that prevent our mainstream media from acting in an independant fashion must be removed.  I have previously blogged about the legal structures that limit the press:  http://article14.blogspot.sg/2012/05/media-in-singapore-structural-problem.html
Minister Yacoob Ibrahim spoke about creating a parity of mainstream media and the online media.  Rather than taking the regressive step of introducing controls upon the online media to bring it on par with our MSM, we should take the progressive step of removing the controls on our traditional media.

Anyone interested in understanding the mechanics of legal control in relation to the press should read this book by Francis Seow entitled "Media Enthralled" 

In my reading of the current political situation I would not approach it with a sense of doom and gloom.  I believe that the political awakening of our citizens that has been going on over the last few years will be met and matched by a gradual political rehabilitation of our politicians.  As a country we have every reason to be optimistic since citizens are beginning to show a willingness to stand up for issues that affect the broader community instead of pursuing their own selfish goals.  The juggernaut of the popular desire for greater freedom has started moving.  Nothing can stop it now.  Singapore in 2013 is very different from the Singapore of the 1960s or the 1980s.

We take our pledge seriously and believe in it entirely.  We will strive towards a "democratic society based on justice and equality."

Making sense of the legislative framework underlying MDA's move

When I blogged on Tuesday about MDA's decision to bring ten news sites under licensing conditions, there was no subsidiary legislation yet on the matter.  http://article14.blogspot.sg/2013/05/from-licensing-to-regulation-of-content.html

On 29 May 2013, the MDA has gone ahead to issue a subsidiary legislation:  The Broadcasting (Class Licence) (Amendment) Notification 2013.  This Notification amends the earlier Broadcasting (Class Licence) Notification.  The amendment that has been made will cause Paragraph 3 to appear as follows:

"3. The provision of the following licensable broadcasting services are subject to a class licence except a computer on-line service provided on or after such date as the Authority specifies in a notice given to the provider of the service under paragraph 3A:

(a) audiotext services;

(b) videotext services;

(c) teletext services;

(d) broadcast data services;

(e) VAN computer on-line services; and

(f) computer on-line services that are provided by Internet Content Providers and Internet Service Providers."

 

The words in 'bold' represent the amendment. 

 

What has happened is that whereas in the past all sites were automatically licenced, the new legal position is that MDA can exclude a web site from the class licence.  The precondition for excluding a website from class licence is stipulated in a new paragraph 3A.  It is in this paragraph 3A that the now notorious stipulation of a reach of 50,000 unique IP addresses and at least 1 article per week is set out.  So, news sites excluded under the class licence would have to be registered under s.8 of the Broadcasting Act. 

 

Interestingly, even before the current development, websites and content providers that came within the class license were required to abide by the Class License Conditions and the Internet Code of Practice.  The change is that MDA will now designate certain sites as requiring licences.  These will be removed from the automatic licensing.  As a condition of specific licensing MDA can then require that a bond is furnished.  Using Yahoo News as an example.  YahooNews was already subject to the Class Licence.  Now it is going to be required to obtain a licence specically.  The news, if deemed to be objectionable, can be objected to and pulled out by MDA. 

 

So, the real issue is not about whether a site such as YahooNews should be subject to liecensing.  The issue is whether stipulating the requirement of a $50,000 performance bond will operate as a bar to many independant and alternative news sites in the future if these sites were forced to get themselves licensed.  Given the fact that moving a site from class licensing to specific licensing facilitates the State's ability muzzle articles, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this exercise is targetted at unfavourable alternative news sites. 

 

If the concern was about racist statements or such other offensive words, other laws already adequately address them.  There is no need to fool around with the automatic licensing regime.  The irresistable conclusion that one has to reach is that MDA wants to be able to force the removal of content through the threat of forfeiture of the performance bond. 

 

 

 

From licensing to regulation of content

It has started.  After much discussion about a Code of Conduct for online content providers, bloggers, news sites, etc. (and after much resistance to that idea from the online community), the government has decided to institute a modest measure in controlling/regulating/muzzling the online community. 

The salvo has come from the Media Development Authority.  The MDA has, today, made the following announcement:

"From 1 June 2013, online news sites that report regularly on issues relating to Singapore and have significant reach among readers here will require an individual licence from the Media Development Authority (MDA). This will place them on a more consistent regulatory framework with traditional news platforms which are already individually licensed."

I did a quick check on the Government Gazette.  There is no Gazette notification as yet on this.  Under S.8 of the Broadcasting Act (cap 28), the MDA has the Authority to grant licences for broadcasting. Chances are, MDA will be invoking this statutory provision in regulating the first ten internet sites that they have identified.  I don't see any subsidiary legislation yet.   The targetted sites are:
http://www.mda.gov.sg/NewsAndEvents/PressRelease/2013/Documents/Annex.pdf

 

1. asiaone.com
2. businesstimes.com.sg
3. channelnewsasia.com
4. omy.sg
5. sg.news.yahoo.com
6. stomp.com.sg
7. straitstimes.com
8. tnp.sg
9. todayonline.com
10. zaobao.com

From the list, it is quite clear that the only site that can be deemed to be independant of the government is YahooNews.  The initial reaction on social network sites has been to conclude that the target of this initial licensing exercise is YahooNews.  Of course, many of us are aware of the often critical views expressed on Yahoo.  (In particular, posts by Andrew Loh on YahooNews could be quite irksome to the powers that be.)  The other nine sites are unlikely to be bothered or significantly affected by the licensing requirement.  It is obvious that YahooNews may have to start being mindful of that non-legal OB marker nonsense. 

What is MDA's criteria for licensing?  The only source right now for this is MDA's press statement:

"online news sites will be individually licensed if they (i) report an average of at least one article per week on Singapore’s news and current affairs over a period of two months, and (ii) are visited by at least 50,000 unique IP addresses from Singapore each month over a period of two months."

"A “Singapore news programme” is any programme (whether or not the programme is presenter-based and whether or not the programme is provided by a third party) containing any news, intelligence, report of occurrence, or any matter of public interest, about any social, economic, political, cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific or any other aspect of Singapore in any language (whether paid or free and whether at regular interval or otherwise) but does not include any programme produced by or on behalf of the Government."

What is the implication for the online news site if it is to be licensed?

1.   The news site must not put out 'prohibited content' as defined under the Internet Code of Practice

2.   Within 24 hours of being notified, the news site must take down an article found to be in breach of content standards.

3.   The news site must put up a $50,000 performance bond that can be forfeited in the event of breach. 

To be fair, at this stage, there is unlikely to be any adverse effect on YahooNews in terms of its reporting.  The 'prohibited content' in the Internet Code of Practice is "material that is objectionable on the grounds of public interest, public morality, public order, public security, national harmony, or is otherwise prohibited by applicable Singapore laws."   This is, arguably, broad enough to include news that is unflattering to the PAP government.  In considering what is prohibited material, the MDA will be taking into account 7 factors.  Five of the factors deal with content of a sexual nature.  One deals with extreme violence or cruelty.  The last factor is stated as follows:

"the material glorifies, incites or endorses ethnic, racial or religious hatred, strife or intolerance"

Thus far, I have not seen anything on YahooNews that is capable of crossing the red line in this regard.  The only matter of concern is the fact that comments posted by readers could give rise to adverse action from MDA against the licensed site. 

The one area that we should all be uncomfortable about is that the broad statutory mandate of the MDA under s.8 of the Broadcasting Act, raises the possibility of further tweaking and tightening of content restrictions.  Moving forward, there is nothing to prevent MDA from prohibiting content that is deemed to be politically undesirable.  There remains the possibility that other news sites might be on MDA's radar.  The Online Citizen and Temasek Review Emeritus come to mind. 

If either TOC or TRE has a reach of 50,000 (unique visitors) every month (over a 2 month period), they are likely to be subject to the licensing regime.  Both sites churn out more than 1 article per week.  So, it is really about their reach.  It is not unlikely that the two sites have such a reach.  Of course, bloggers like myself are nowhere near that figure.  So, we can safely blog on.

If the tracks are laid carefully now, the state will have enough time to lay the groundwork for managing the content within these sites by the time the next General Elections come by.  Prohibited content could be extended  to include 'party political news', 'partisan reporting', 'opinion on election campaigning', etc.  TOC or TRE could be licensed sites that could face financial penalties.

But, the internet is a monster that even our highly efficient surveillance state can't manage.  Content could be provided from out of our jurisdiction.  New sites can be started.  Bloggers and online news sites can engage in assymetrical warfare and there is little that the state can do except for an outright clampdown.  I don't think the present leadership of the PAP has any intention to go down the route of a total clampdown on alternative views.  They seem to be going for more subtle techniques of content management.  

Phase 1 of content management has started.  But, it is unlikely to have a muzzling effect on alternative news sites and bloggers in general.




 

Much ado about Nordin

I've been awfully busy and have taken some time off blogging.  But, some pretty interesting things have been going on that warrant some commentary:  the questioning of a local cartoonist by the police, the judgment in one of the two s.377A cases and the General Elections in Malaysia, just to name a few. 

But, I figured that I'd get back to blogging by dealing with the 'gang-rape' analogy in relation to democracy that has raisede quite a storm.  PAP MP Nordin posted on his Facebook page a quotation from Terry Goodkind that kind of riled up the online community.  This kind of took me by surprise.  The more I read the quote, the more puzzled I became.  Why such an adverse reaction?

I first came across this issue when I saw a Facebook posting by "Rice Bowl" (Kenneth Jeyaretnam's alter ego):

"PAP Member of Parliament for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC Zainudin Nordin appears to be using his Facebook page to promote the view that democracy is akin to gang rape. Quote:

“People use democracy as a free-floating abstraction disconnected from reality. Democracy in and of itself is not necessarily good. Gang rape, after all, is democracy in action."

When questioned to rebut the opinion - which is ...presented as a quote by author Terry Goodkind - the MP clearly declined and deleted the relevant comment.

The Rice Bowl believes strongly in democracy and the rule of law. As such we reject the opinion published in the strongest terms possible. Primarily since rape is obviously illegal in all democratic countries, the stated opinion cannot possibly stand. Furthermore, by the rule of law, a supposedly "democratic" move to violate fundamental personal and human rights could never succeed as a free and independent judiciary would inevitably strike out such an effort. In fact the constitution of Singapore itself states that Singapore is a democracy - in light of this one wonders how the MP reconciles such a negative view of democracy with his own standing as an elected member of parliament.

Finally, the intent of democracy is such that the result of a free vote in a secret ballot will tend to reflect the opinion of a majority of participants. To us it seems obvious that citizens are wise and compassionate enough to ensure that a free vote to inflict suffering and harm on a minority would be rejected in a landslide. One wonders if Mr Zainudin agrees."

Even without reading the context of the quotation from Terry Goodkind, I didn't think that there was anything radical that was being stated in that quotation.  Democracy, if it is understood to be majority rule and majority based decision making, does involve at its base level the rule by a lynch mob.  Much would depend on how we seek to define democracy.  I decided to look at MP Nordin's Facebook page.  This is the context of the quotation: 

 

 

“People use democracy as a free-floating abstraction disconnected from reality. Democracy in and of itself is not necessarily good. Gang rape, after all, is democracy in action.

All men have the right to live their own life. Democracy must be rooted in a rational philosophy that first and foremost recognizes the right of an individual. A few million Imperial Order men screaming for the lives of a... much smaller number of people in the New World may win a democratic vote, but it does not give them the right to those lives, or make their calls for such killing right.

Democracy is not a synonym for justice or for freedom. Democracy is not a sacred right sanctifying mob rule. Democracy is a principle that is subordinate to the inalienable rights of the individual.”
― Terry Goodkind

Meanwhile, the "gang-rape" part of the quote was going viral and Nordin had to face the online lynch mob. 
 

Rather comically SPP's Lina Chiam put up a statement on the Facebook:

 

"In Singapore, we aspire to be a nation that is free to consider and tolerate different opinions in business, academic, political and to some extent religious spheres. However we clearly need to avoid outrageously chauvinistic statements tha...t condone rape culture. This is not a tall order, and our leaders should observe this.

I therefore regret that the MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh Mr Zainudin Nordin has reproduced on his Facebook page an abhorent quotation which characterises gang rape as 'democracy in action'. As a woman and an advocate of democracy, I urge Mr Zainudin to retract his statement and apologise to women in Singapore."


I guess that we have come to expect that a PAP MP is bound to speak disparagingly or in a less than flattering manner about democracy.  There has been a consistent pattern of PAP leaders speaking in favour of a model of government based on some degree of control and speaking against the wholesale import of Western-style democracy.  The messiness, the inefficiency and the chaotic tendencies of so-called liberal democracies is usually cited as a reason why Singapore's 'nannycracy' is a better model. 

I do, therefore, understand the reason why there was a knee-jerk reaction amongst many in assuming that Nordin had made an anti-democratic statement.  By posting a quote that referred to democracy as 'gang-rape in action', the MP appeared to many to be presenting democracy in a bad light. 

But, what does the quotation actually say.  What did Terry Goodkind intend to convey?  Making the right sense out of the quote would involve us understanding that the crudest form of a democracy is based on majority rule.  If one were to accept such a model of democracy, the will of the majority can be imposed on the minority.  If a majority of citizens in a country favour genocide, then genocide can be justified in such a version of democracy.  The Holocaust in Germany was, after all, carried out by a democratically elected government.  It is in this context that Goodkind referred to democracy as "gang-rape in action"

It is pretty obvious that the author intended to convey the view that rights of individuals must be allowed to trump the collective communal goals of society.  Majority rule must always be subject to the enlightened protection of the rights of the minority.  An individual is a minority of one.

The Terry Goodkind quotation presents Nordin as a liberal.  It presents him as someone that would advocate that whilst the majority of the country may demand a particular course of action, he would seek to ensure that the rights of individuals are not trampled upon.  I guess, that is the part that doesn't gell. 

I suspect that Nordin was going for another effect.  He probably found the quotation appealing for a different reason.  The PAP has been insisting for some time now that good leaders must resist adopting a populist approach to leadership.  The government should not pander to the demands of the crowd and it must be willing to take bold and unpopular decisions.  PAP's insistence on not going down the populist road is not based on a desire to uphold the rights of individual citizens.  In fact, often the PAP government's justification for compromising on individual rights is based on the importance of the community's collective goals.  The gang-rape version of democracy is what we get when majority moral sentiment is used as a basis for the rentention of laws that infringe upon the rights of individuals.  Communitarian goals trump rights in the gang-rape version of democracy. 

Nordin probably threw that quotation in because it appeared to justify the need to avoid populism.  But, Goodkind was in fact championing the rights of the individual.  That (championing individual rights), based on historical record, has not been the operating philosophy of Nordin's party. 

In the end, was there a need for Nordin to apologise for the quotation?  This is one incident that, I would unequivocally state, did not warrant an apology.  The quotation is against a majoritarian approach and is in favour of protecting individual rights.  I don't mind, and I approve of, this kind of infiltration into the mind of a PAP MP. 

(As for those that seek to read mysogyny into the 'gang rape' reference, please get a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word 'analogy')

 

ICIJ's Offshore Files: The Singapore Link?

In 2010, the US Diplomatic Cable leaks caught the public's attention in a big way with the global media going on a frenzy of reporting about all the 'juicy' information emerging from leaked US Embassy cables. 

I just glanced through the website of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and it didn't take me long to realise that the information released by them on 3rd April 2013 about the network of global offshore money is potentially far more explosive that the Diplomatic Cable leaks.  ICIJ claims that its director Gerard Ryle managed to obtain a hard drive containing 2.5 million files of corporate data that points to a web of hidden financial interests alluding to a possibility of tax evasion and money laundering.  Packed with information about 120,000 offshore companies and 130,000 individuals worldwide, this hard drive and the investigative story emerging out of it is going to adversely affect many reputations (at the very least).  The story is slowly emerging as ICIJ releases information gradually.  It has been the result of a 15 month research project representing a global collaboration of 86 journalists from 46 countries.

What got me interested in the story was an email from the Center for Public Integrity (whose newsletters I subscribe to).  I clicked through to the website of the ICIJ and found this story: http://www.icij.org/offshore/how-icijs-project-team-analyzed-offshore-files
This line caught my attention:  "Analysis by ICIJ’s data experts showed that the data originated in 10 offshore jurisdictions, including the British Virgin Islands, the Cook Islands and Singapore."

I looked through the site for information involving Singapore and found these two stories:
"Deutsche Bank Helped Customers maintain hundreds of offshore entities"
http://www.icij.org/offshore/deutsche-bank-helped-customers-maintain-hundreds-offshore-entities
and
"Ferdinand Marcos' daughter tied to Offshore Trust in the Caribbean"
http://www.icij.org/offshore/ferdinand-marcos-daughter-tied-offshore-trust-caribbean

The story on Deutsche Bank alleges that more than 100 customer consultants at Deutsche Bank Singapore helped to create or manage 309 offshore entities for its clients.  Germans attempting to move their funds in Swiss Bank accounts to Singapore or to other tax havens through Singapore is not entirely news.  In October 2012, the German and Singapore governments agreed on a deal to tackle this problem.  The Singapore government agreed to designate tax crimes as "predicate offences" for money laundering.  As reported by the Financial Times:  "Under the deal between Singapore and Germany, the two counties could exchange information for the enforcement of domestic tax laws “of the requesting country”, expanding this to all types of tax, not only taxes on income and on capital. Nor will the exchange depend on the taxpayer being resident in either country."

Interestingly enough, the Monetary Authority of Singapore has just published on 28 March 2013 a Response to the Feedback Received on the Consultation Paper to designate Tax Crimes as Money Laundering Predicate Offences.  The target date for implementation is 1 July 2013.  The ICIJ report on offshore money implicating Singapore as one of the destinations has come at just about the right time.  It will be interesting to see how banks and financial institutions are taken to task by our authorities. 

Apart from the German story, the story about Ferdinand Marcos' daughter throws up a Singapore link.  Imee Marcos is allegedly one of the beneficiaries of Sintra Trust, formed in the British Virgin Islands in 2002.  She is also allegedly a financial adviser to Sintra Trust.  One document found apparantly shows a United Overseas Bank account.  The regulatory authorities in Philippines have indicated interest in the revelations and there could be explosive consequences for Imee Marcos' political career. (As a lawmaker, she is duty bound to disclose her financial interests.  As the daughter of the former dictator, there will be much speculation as to whether the funds are part of her father's corrupt gains.)

Singapore readers will find the following extract from the ICIJ article to be of particular interest:

The Sintra Trust was created in June 2002 with the help of a Singapore-based offshore services firm called Portcullis TrustNet.


The documents indicate that in her role of financial advisor, Imee Marcos had powers to direct the investment of trust assets held by banks and other financial institutions.

The so-called “settlor,” “trust protector,” and “master client” listed in the documents is Mark Chua, a Singapore-based businessman said to be Imee’s new boyfriend. The settlor refers to the person who creates the trust by transferring a certain asset that he or she owns to the trustee, who then assumes legal ownership of the assets on behalf of the beneficiaries.

Chua has not replied to PCIJ’s questions on his role in Sintra Trust.

In June 2005, Imee was named investment adviser of the Sintra Trust, according to a document uncovered by ICIJ. As investment adviser, she can direct any financial institution in the purchase, sale, liquidation and investment of the trust assets. Chua also became an investment advisor for the trust in 2006.

Although the Sintra Trust is located in the British Virgin Islands, another PCGG official – the commission tasked with recovering the Marcoses’ assets – said he does not find it surprising that its servicing company, Portcullis TrustNet, is based in Singapore, which has one of the toughest financial secrecy regulations in the world. It ranked No. 6 in the 2011 Financial Secrecy Index of the Tax Justice Network, a London-based group that campaigns against tax havens.

“We’ve had a hard time getting cooperation from Singapore in our requests for international mutual assistance on criminal matters,” said the PCGG official, who asked not to be identified because of the confidential nature of his work for the agency.

http://www.icij.org/offshore/ferdinand-marcos-daughter-tied-offshore-trust-caribbean(PCGG stands for the 'Presidential Commission on Good Government' and PCIJ stands for the 'Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism')

The following update is posted on the website of Portcullis TrustNet:

"Portcullis TrustNet Group is aware of media reports with information on our Group. We take a serious view of unauthorised disclosure of any confidential information. We are looking into the matter. Meanwhile, controls and safeguards are in place to protect client confidentiality. We are confident that our business activities and client services are legitimate and conducted in compliance with laws and regulations in the jurisdictions in which we operate."

  The Philippine government has, in the meantime, commenced a probe into the Sintra Trust.  http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/04/06/927491/pcgg-forms-probe-team-offshore-trust-funds   As ICIJ releases more details over the next few days and weeks, thinks could get pretty nasty for some big names in the world.  In the meantime, it would be interesting to see how much of these funds have moved through Singapore without our detection.  I am sure that MAS will now turn on the heat.  A statement from our authorities on this developing story would be useful. 
UPDATE: 
As I search around further within the ICIJ website, the Singapore Link is beginning to throw up many other individuals.  The common feature is the involvement of Portcullis Trustnet.  ICIJ has done a piece on Trustnet:
http://www.icij.org/offshore/trusted-service-provider-blends-invisible-offshore-world

Why Pay in the first place?

In this post, I have decided to address something personal instead of the usual socio-political and legal stuff.  But, I guess in a way the personal is political.

Levy
Amongst the sugary stuff that is being thrown at us peasants (so that the real details of government expenditure can continue to enjoy opacity) is a reduction in the levy payable for the employment of Foreign Domestic Workers in households that have young children or elderly dependants.  I have a young child and an elderly dependant.  I am currently paying $170 for the levy.  From 1st March 2013, this amount will be reduced to $120.  The Straits Times dutifully reports that this represents savings of $600 a year. 

Let's see... The street bully has been extorting $100 a month and now he has decided to take $50 a month.  I am supposed to be happy that I am enjoying a saving of $600 a year.  What I want to know is why has the street bully been extorting all along?

Why do we have a maid levy?  Originally, it was seen as a measure to discourage families from hiring domestic workers.  The levy system has not reduced the demand for nor the actual employment of foreign domestic workers.  It is a practical reality that many Singaporean families face.  Recognising that where both the husband and wife are working, hiring a caregiver is inevitable in situations where there are young children or elderly dependants, the government has had a system of lower levy payments of $170.  This $170 is being reduced to $120. 

But, why should an employer be made to pay a levy to the state under circumstances where the employer is trying to raise children?  Shouldn't we be incentivised?  By imposing a levy, the state is adding to the financial burdens that a couple faces when raising children.  Similarly, where we seek to look after our elderly in our own homes and employ a domestic worker for this purpose, we are being penalised by the state.  Under the new system, the levy payable in a year is $1440.  The net effect of this system is that we are being (and we have been) taxed for providing for the care of our children and the elderly. 

Quite apart from the fact that the state is generating revenue out of concerned families that seek to cater for elderly parents and young children, the payment of a levy for all domestic workers is itself questionable.  If the idea is to make it costly for employers to employ a domestic worker and thereby to discourage such employment, then instead of the state turning this into a revenue generating exercise, a minimum wage for domestic workers could be implemented.  I'd rather pay the amount represented by the levy to my helper instead of to the state.  So, instead of paying for example $450 to the domestic worker and $265 (or $170)for the levy, I'd prefer to pay $715 directly to her. 

With minimum salary requirements already in place for domestic workers, there is no harm in absorbing the levy payment as part of the minimum wage.  I believe that, moving forward, we should scrap the levy system and institute a minimum wage for domestic workers. 

GST
My mother-in-law had a fall last year and the resulting fracture saw her being hospitalised for about a month and being moved to a nursing home for step down care.  She has been at the nursing home for about 3 1/2 months and we just brought her back home.  The total nursing home charges have come up to $13,510.  This is inclusive of the GST charged.  The GST works out to be slightly more than $880.  Why am I paying this tax to the state?

One problem with the GST system is that the imposition of this tax is universal without regard to the nature of the goods and services being rendered.  Why do we need to pay a tax in relation the receiving medical services?  So that the state can continually generate revenue at the expense of citizens' misfortune?

I guess, in the end this is not exactly a personal rant.  The personal is political.