Random attacks not gang-style

Nov 11, 2010

Gang attacks are usually pre-planned, say puzzled experts

By Jeremy Au Yong & Ang Yiying


GANG attacks take planning.

Leaders pick the target, perhaps someone from a rival gang or someone who had insulted them, and then call in gang members who they think should be in the mission.

If two gangs are headed for a face-off, a venue away from the public eye is set.

This, at least, is how youth counsellors and those familiar with gangs understand how such groups work.

Mr Yusof Ismail, chief executive of Ain Society, a group that helps troubled youth, said: 'When it comes to gangs, there's no such thing as 'random'. Going out carrying weapons is risky for them. Everything is premeditated.'

This is why people like him are puzzled by the seemingly random nature of Monday's attacks in Bukit Panjang, in which seven youths were set upon and slashed by parang-wielding men in two separate incidents.

The first victim was a 20-year-old walking on a dimly lit jogging track. A group of teenagers, resting in a basketball court after a game of football, became the other victims. They said it was only the second time they had played there.

The counsellors threw up theories about what might have happened.

Mr Yusof's hunch for the Bukit Panjang attack on the youths in the basketball court: a case of mistaken identity.

'It could be that a different group of boys who normally play football there had insulted the gang,' he suggested.

[Like he said, a real gang identifies the target. Mistaken identity is less likely with a real gang, and they don't operate that way.]

A second theory offered for the attacks is that the perpetrators are not part of an actual gang and so do not follow gang 'etiquette'; unlike typical gangs, these groups may be prepared to launch unprovoked attacks.

Mr Mani Joseph, assistant director of AWWA Family Service Centre, said some groups arise from youths who begin hanging out together, bound by a common interest.

[Or a common lack of direction.]

They adopt a gang name only later. Taking the name of a notorious gang has the effect of evoking 'power and fear', said Mr Joseph, who has worked with young people for more than 20 years.

'They may not be affiliated directly to these gangs, and they create their own code of ethics,' he added. Making brazen attacks was a way of asserting their power.

Ms Muzaiyanah Hamzah, president of Clubilya, a group that works with troubled youth, told The Straits Times that she started noticing such faux gangs cropping up two to three years ago.

These groups are structured loosely, without the rigid hierarchy of the gangs whose names they borrow.

They share neither a gang ideology nor loyalty to one another. Members switch groups at will.

Without a specific 'turf', they are known to roam, flitting from basketball court to void deck to cyber cafe.

Ms Muzaiyanah said: 'I don't know what to call them. They aren't really gangs. They are loose groupings. They may have one or two former members of a gang, but that's it.'

This very lack of structure could be at the bottom of random, senseless attacks, she said. 'They'll go out and if they find a rival gang, good. If not, they may bash anybody.'

[Call them hooligans. And when they go "wilding" it really doesn't matter who they meet.]

Some Bukit Panjang residents felt that the attacks might not be that random after all. By attacking innocent people, gang members might be trying to catch the attention of real rival gang targets and force them to come out and fight.

[Stupid theory. How would it force rival gangs to come out? What affinity do the gangs have with innocent victims? "Wah you very good at beating up innocent people ah? I'll beat up more innocent people than you to prove that I am more Pai Kia than you!" Then residents should be really afraid. The retaliatory attacks could be on more random passer-bys.]

Ms Joyce Chan, executive director of Teen Challenge, another group that works with youth at risk of being led astray, offered another possibility: 'For all we know, these kids could be under the influence of alcohol or drugs if incidents like this happen.'

[Another stupid speculation.]

The counsellors urged young people to protect themselves from random attacks by avoiding confrontation at all costs.

[Really? Great advice. Tell that to the technician who was just trying to go home.]

Spend time in safe spaces like youth centres, suggested Ms Muzaiyanah. 'Youth centres aren't what they used to be. They are cooler now. Youths should give them a chance.'

jeremyau@sph.com.sg

ayiying@sph.com.sg


Nov 11, 2010
Bukit Panjang attacks: 6 held

SIX youths were arrested yesterday over two cases of armed rioting in Bukit Panjang on Monday.

Aged between 15 and 23, they were rounded up in a 24-hour swoop by officers from the Secret Societies Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and Jurong Police Division.

The six are believed to be behind the attacks which left seven youths injured.

At about 10pm on Monday, a group armed with parangs and choppers first attacked a 20-year-old man at Block 418, Fajar Road.

The group is believed to have then attacked six teenage boys at Block 505, Jelapang Road.

The 20-year-old is in hospital with injuries to his legs and back, while the others needed treatment.

The Straits Times learnt yesterday that there was a third, earlier incident on Monday evening, in which a group of youths attacked a teenager near the spot where the slashings later took place.

It is believed that all the attacks could be linked.

So far, police have not found any evidence connecting the Bukit Panjang attacks to the Oct 30 Downtown East murder of student Darren Ng, 19.

CID director Ng Boon Gay said yesterday that all gang behaviour would be dealt with firmly and decisively.

'Youth offenders involved in violent crimes must be warned that they will not be treated lightly simply because of their age,' he said in a statement.

'There is no excuse for violence and no leniency for those who disregard the law.'

Nov 11, 2010

Fifth youth charged with gang murder

Drama outside court as 19 supporters end up arrested too

By Khushwant Singh

A FIFTH person was yesterday charged with causing the Oct 30 death of polytechnic student Darren Ng in Downtown East - but there was drama outside the courtroom too.

Nineteen youths who turned up to support Louis Tong Qing Yao when he appeared before a district court also ended up being arrested.

[Applause! Bravo!]

The 19 males aged between 17 and 22 are believed to be gang members.

For the first time yesterday, the police indicated that the dead youth might have been involved in gang activity himself.

[Confirming rumours that have been circulating.]

He was chased by a group of youths with choppers and hacked to death in the main foyer of the Downtown East entertainment hub between 5.30pm and 5.37pm on Oct 30.

In a statement, the police said that investigations into the incident have shown that the murder was connected to 'gang-related disputes involving the deceased, victims and assailants'.

Initial media reports that the murder arose from a 'staring incident' were unfounded, the police added.

[Good to know. Now I can stare at people again.]

The police warned that gang behaviour would be dealt with firmly and decisively, and that included acting against those who turn up in force at the courts as a show of support for fellow gangsters.

Criminal Investigation Department director and Senior Assistant Commissioner of police Ng Boon Gay said young offenders involved in violent crimes would not be treated lightly simply because of their age.

They can expect to face the full brunt of the law, including the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, which allows for detention without trial.

Yesterday, Tong, 16, became the latest and youngest so far to be charged with Mr Ng's murder while being part of an unlawful assembly.

Tong, who looked expressionless in the dock, also faces three loan-shark harassment charges. He allegedly scribbled graffiti and splashed paint after midnight on Nov 2.

He is said to have scrawled 'O$P$' - which means 'owe money, pay money' - with an indelible marker at Bishan, Serangoon North and Hougang.

At the flat in Hougang, he also splashed black paint on its door and windows.

He joins four others who were charged last week with Mr Ng's murder: Chen Wei Zhen, 19, Tang Jia Min, 21, Ho Wui Ming, 20, and Edward Tay Wei Loong, 18.

Tay, who is in hospital with injuries from a fall while trying to escape arrest, was yesterday ordered remanded for two weeks. The others will be produced in court again on Tuesday.

When Tong was brought into the dock, at least five people who appeared to be his friends were in court, seated in a row.

They were spotted trying to make eye contact with Tong but he did not seem to see them. Another group remained outside.

The smaller group inside the courtroom left after Tong was led away for further investigations.

Passer-by Steven Chow, 62, told The Straits Times that he saw more than a dozen young men gathered at the side of the Subordinate Courts building at about 10am.

'They were all young and appeared to be taking instructions from a tall guy,' said Mr Chow, who lives near the courts.

He heard from friends that they were later arrested.

khush@sph.com.sg

An opposition that does itself no favours

Nov 10, 2010

By Liang Tung-ping

EVEN though the Republic of Singapore was founded only 45 years ago, it stands proud in the region and even in the world at large, due to its political stability and economic prosperity.

Strange as it may seem, such a nation, once described by the late Harvard University political scientist Samuel Huntington as a 'near-perfect society', is also often the target of criticism of some political commentators. Their criticisms usually centre around the issues of authoritarian rule and suppression of the opposition parties, and so on.

The truth is that most of these criticisms are superficial, blind, self-opinionated and come with ulterior motives.

The fact remains that in the foreseeable future, there is hardly any opportunity for the opposition parties in Singapore to grow in strength - due to the great work the ruling People's Action Party has done in governing the country, plus the fact that most opposition politicians in Singapore lack the necessary qualities and are often fighting among themselves.

In Singapore, there is a Speakers' Corner within Hong Lim Park, modelled after the Speakers' Corner in Britain's Hyde Park, which the Government established in 2000 in response to criticism that Singapore lacks free speech. This park is a real-life example of what politics is like in Singapore.

When it was first launched, it managed to attract crowds for quite a while, but enthusiasm for it soon died down. The main reason for this is because most of the speakers just could not manage to piece together any serious or meaningful criticism of the Singapore Government. Eventually, most of the issues raised tended to be trivial, and this turned off many in the audience.

All that remains of the Speakers' Corner today is a signboard indicating its location.

In September 2008, Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced a ground-breaking measure allowing individuals and organisations to gather at Speakers' Corner to stage demonstrations and protests, by simply registering online. For a few days after the measure was announced, the Chinese-language Lianhe Zaobao did a series of stories, hoping to report large-scale public gatherings and demonstrations at the park, events that were previously unheard of in the island state.

In the end, the reporters saw only 'a few tiny birds flying around the park'. It seemed that nobody had bothered to register with the authorities to protest.

The Singapore Parliament comprises 84 elected Members of Parliament (MPs), one Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) and nine Nominated MPs.

Among the elected MPs, there are two opposition members: one of them, the 75-year-old Mr Chiam See Tong, is a six-term MP from the Singapore People's Party who has served for 26 years; the other is Mr Low Thia Khiang from the Workers' Party (WP), who has also been around for quite a few terms. The NCMP is the WP's Ms Sylvia Lim.

The NCMP seats are automatically given to the 'best losers' among the opposition candidates. Indeed, to make the number of opposition MPs in Parliament look better, the Singapore Government has also amended the law to allow more opposition NCMPs in Parliament in the next elections.

Why is this so? Precisely because the opposition has hardly any chance of winning.

A small nation such as Singapore, with all its worthy talents roped in by the ruling party, leaving the opposition with the likes of politicians such as Dr Chee Soon Juan - how can the opposition ever grow in strength and earn the people's trust?

Dr Chee of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) is actually the worst example that one can cite among the island's opposition camp. Introduced into politics by Mr Chiam when the latter was the party's secretary-general, he got Mr Chiam kicked out of the SDP and took control of the party. In the end, not only did the SDP fail to grow stronger, but it also went into decline. Dr Chee's capabilities are evident for all to see.

The biggest problem with him is that he likes to resort to rumour-mongering in order to achieve his political agenda. Abandoned by his own comrades and the people of Singapore, Dr Chee is now politically bankrupt.

What is funny is that some Western media and ignorant political commentators still like to treat Dr Chee as some kind of a model figure for the opposition in Singapore.

This commentary appeared in Taiwan's Chinese-language China Times on Nov 6. Translated by Terence Tan.

The weary titan

Nov 9, 2010

By Pierre Buhler

THE unfolding 'currency war', which is likely to dominate discussions at the Group of 20 (G-20) summit in Seoul this week, must be assessed against the backdrop of the new landscape of power - a landscape transformed in just two years by the first crisis of the globalised economy.

The crisis has left a number of developed countries in a severe slump and scrambling to bring about a healthy recovery. By contrast, emerging-market countries, after a short slide, have managed to reignite their growth engines and are racking up impressive growth rates.

There have been financial and monetary consequences as well. Although no currency is as yet qualified to replace the US dollar as the world's reserve currency, this 'exorbitant privilege' that the Americans have enjoyed, to use Charles de Gaulle's phrase, has come under stealthy attack.

In March, the Asean Plus Three grouping, which includes the 10 member-states of Asean as well as China, Japan and South Korea, established a reserve fund of US$120 billion (S$154 billion), under the so-called Chiang Mai Initiative. Unlike in 1997, this time the United States did not even attempt to torpedo this embryonic 'Asian Monetary Fund'.

After coping well initially, Europe entered choppy waters when confronted with the prospect of Greece defaulting on its public debt. The 'crisis within the crisis' exposed the euro zone's weak governance and revived doubts about the viability of a monetary union with large competitiveness gaps between its member-states.

The crisis has also intensified political problems. Japan, arguably the hardest hit, faces an increasingly severe demographic and governance crisis, highlighted by the recent loss to China of its status as the world's second largest economy.

Finally, the crisis has shattered the ideological dominance of the West. In previous decades, financial crises often originated in emerging economies, sanctimoniously patronised by the 'virtuous' West and its institutions. This time, powered by the dogma of self-correcting markets, the storm formed at the heart of the world economy, the US.

The natural instinct of many is still to look at the American economy, towering over the rest of the world with its US$14 trillion gross domestic product (GDP), as the engine of global recovery. Indeed, the US retains an edge, owing to its capacity for innovation, its technological advances, its entrepreneurial spirit and its indefatigable optimism.

But doubts are growing. The economic powerhouse that for decades provided hegemonic stability to the global economy seems to be having difficulty continuing to do so. An increasingly uncompetitive civilian industry, the burden of military commitments overseas, wage stagnation - all signal that the American titan may be wearying.

The most worrisome sign, though, is America's rising public debt - now at 95 per cent of its GDP and set to soar to US$18.4 trillion by 2018. When the implied liabilities of the Social Security and Medicare systems are added, an unprecedented level of peacetime debt confronts the US.
The paradox here is that, as its hegemonic power fades, America must rely increasingly on foreign creditors, above all China, to stay afloat. Unfortunately, the proverbial Washington political gridlock leaves little hope for fixing America's fundamental problems, adding to the impression of a giant with clay feet.

In place of a world in which America guarantees global prosperity and stability within a liberal order, there is the risk of a world replete with conflict, mercantilism, protectionism and currency wars. Only a multilateral settlement among all major actors can ensure a smoothly working global order - a cause advanced in late 2008 when the technical G-20 forum was quickly upgraded to a full summit in charge of global governance. Encompassing all big emerging economies, this appeared to be the most effective way to muster the legitimacy denied to the Group of Seven.

But can the G-20 deliver on its promise? The differences between the G-20 states - even within the group of emerging countries - do not bode well for the future. The present currency war is but another sign of that disorder.

Of course, due to its sheer military might and numerous alliances, the US will remain on top for the foreseeable future. Indeed, while hubris and the crisis have seriously undermined the world's 'hyperpower', no multi-polar order has emerged to follow America's 'unipolar moment'. America has become the 'default power' because China, the most likely challenger, is, by its own admission, a long way from economic or military parity with the US.

Military dominance alone will be unable to confer authority, as the Afghan quagmire reminds us every day. Having succeeded in integrating the West through prosperity and security following World War II, America must begin to craft a new global leadership structure.

The task is even more daunting now than it was in 1945, for today a number of fiercely independent-minded, aspiring world powers must be herded into the global order. As the main architect of globalisation, the US must, even in its weariness, summon its creative resources.

The writer, a former French ambassador to Singapore, was an associate professor at Sciences Po, Paris.

PROJECT SYNDICATE

No respite from the Global City

Nov 6, 2010

For those who do not aspire to a fast-paced life, there is no escape
By Rachel Chang

MUCH ink has been spilt over the youthful angst expressed by Nanyang Technological University undergraduates at a forum with Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong last week.

In particular, 23-year-old Lim Zi Rui raised eyebrows for declaring that after the last five years or so of quick policy changes and rapid influx of foreigners: 'We don't really feel comfortable in our country any more.'

He did not claim to speak for every member of his oft-maligned Generation Y. But the bewilderment in his plaintive petitioning of the Senior Minister was echoed by other undergraduates. Mr Goh's address had dwelled on building Singapore into a 'city of buzz' - prompting one student to ask how exactly a Global City can be built by an ageing population.

The picture that emerged was this: The Government has forged ahead with its plans to grow Singapore into a Global City. But some young Singaporeans seem hesitant to seize that vision as their own.

Why? Other Singaporeans are puzzled, saying surely the fearless young should be the ones most seized by the vision of a vibrant global city.

But to assume so would be to take a simplistic view of what being a Global City entails, and to underestimate the uncertainty some - like Mr Lim - feel about their place in it.

The hard truth is that there is no way to opt out of the Global City, if one lives in Singapore. Unlike cities like New York and London, Singapore is a country in a city, with no buffering hinterland.

This is why that 'ageing population' question is significant. Unlike these other cities, there is nowhere else for older Singaporeans, or those who just want a slower and gentler pace of life, to go.

To illustrate: From 1960 until now, the age profile of New Yorkers has remained remarkably stable. In 1960, 47 per cent of residents were between 15 and 44 years old. In 2000, the proportion was exactly the same.

This is despite a falling birth rate and a population that has risen by about only 500,000 people in 40 years - from 7.8 million in 1960 to 8.3 million now.

If New Yorkers remained in one place for their whole lives, the babyboomer generation should be causing the population to age - just as it is in Singapore. Instead, the median age of NYC denizens has hardly budged: from 33.7 years old in 1990 to 34.2 in 2000. In the same period, Singapore's median age rose from 30 to 34, and is now 37.4.

What this means is that NYC is constantly being renewed by an influx of young people. Unlike in Singapore, these newcomers are not augmenting the overall population; they are replacing those who leave - people who prefer a house with a garden, a lower crime rate, or simply a city that, thankfully, does sleep.

Moving to second-tier cities within the country is not an option for Singaporeans, young or old. Far-flung estates like Yishun or Jurong West may have cheaper flats, but they have the same overall cost of living and the same space limitations as the rest of Singapore.

This is an important qualification amid the talk of buzz: not everyone is a 'Global City person' or aspires to be.

By that label, I mean people who delight in living the fast way that global cities demand. They accept crowded trains and high taxes as part and parcel of life in some of the most exciting locales in the world. They walk fast, revel in constant change and are happy to earn - and spend - high incomes.

Populations self-select to be part of such cities. Global City folk seek out such lifestyles by moving to where they can live them. Those who prefer not to, don't.

The important difference is that they have a choice. Living in a global city comes with costs, big and small. Property prices tend to be high, income inequality noticeable and the traffic congested. And yes, foreigners are everywhere - but chances are, you're not from around those parts either. (Forty per cent of New York's population is foreign-born; and of its native-born Americans, half are born in other parts of the country).

Some of these same concerns beset some Singaporeans today. One who feels, like Mr Lim does, that he 'has to stay here', perhaps really means to say he did not sign on to live in a Global City, but now does.

Then there is the fact of Singapore's minuscule size, its most frustrating limitation and the lens through which the stress felt by Singaporeans intensifies to a laser focus.

It is well-established that people care less about how much they earn than how much more than their peers they earn. This is the 'Keeping Up with the Joneses' phenomenon: A man will not be happy with having a Toyota if he can see a Ferrari in his neighbour's driveway.

Such comparisons are compacted in tiny Singapore, a place in which philosopher Immanuel Kant's diagnosis of the human condition strikes home with force: 'We are all unavoidably side-by-side.'

So where does this leave the Global City agenda?

To be sure, Singapore's policymakers are committed to maintaining a strong citizen core. Efforts to renew and improve living and recreational spaces for Singaporeans abound - to create, as Foreign Minister George Yeo put it, a 'sense of the village in the city'.

But the real heavy lifting is in policies that crimp the edges of the Global City agenda, like intervening to cool the property market, tightening the tap on immigration and increasing social transfers to bridge the income gap.

The Government has moved on all these fronts in the past year, in a welcome recognition that the pace at which Singapore becomes a Global City must be fast enough to keep up with the Joneses of the world, but slow enough that its first priority is not lost.

That first priority, in a country in a city with no hinterland, is to be a home and shelter for those who are born here, live here and who will die here.

Singapore's policymakers have always walked the tightrope between the country's God-given constraints and its larger-than-life ambitions well. As the new generation emerges to survey the uncertain terrain before them, the assurance they want is that the balance will not now be tilted too far towards Global City, and too far away from Home.

rchang@sph.com.sg

Can’t Keep a Bad Idea Down

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

I confess, I find it dispiriting to read the polls and see candidates, mostly Republicans, leading in various midterm races while promoting many of the very same ideas that got us into this mess. Am I hearing right?

Let’s have more tax cuts, unlinked to any specific spending cuts and while we’re still fighting two wars — because that worked so well during the Bush years to make our economy strong and our deficit small. Let’s immediately cut government spending, instead of phasing cuts in gradually, while we’re still mired in a recession — because that worked so well in the Great Depression. Let’s roll back financial regulation — because we’ve learned from experience that Wall Street can police itself and average Americans will never have to bail it out.

Let’s have no limits on corporate campaign spending so oil and coal companies can more easily and anonymously strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its powers to limit pollution in the air our kids breathe. Let’s discriminate against gays and lesbians who want to join the military and fight for their country. Let’s restrict immigration, because, after all, we don’t live in a world where America’s most important competitive advantage is its ability to attract the world’s best brains. Let’s repeal our limited health care reform rather than see what works and then fix it. Let’s oppose the free-trade system that made us rich.

Let’s kowtow even more to public service unions so they’ll make even more money than private sector workers, so they’ll give even more money to Democrats who will give them even more generous pensions, so not only California and New York will go bankrupt but every other state too. Let’s pay for more tax cuts by uncovering waste I can’t identify, fraud I haven’t found and abuse that I’ll get back to you on later.

All that’s missing is any realistic diagnosis of where we are as a country and what we need to get back to sustainable growth. Actually, such a diagnosis has been done. A nonpartisan group of America’s most distinguished engineers, scientists, educators and industrialists unveiled just such a study in the midst of this campaign.

Here is the story: In 2005 our National Academies responded to a call from a bipartisan group of senators to recommend 10 actions the federal government could take to enhance science and technology so America could successfully compete in the 21st century. Their response was published in a study, spearheaded by the industrialist Norman Augustine, titled “Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.”

Charles M. Vest, the former M.I.T. president, worked on the study and noted in a speech recently that “Gathering Storm,” together with work by the Council on Competitiveness, led to the America Competes Act of 2007, which increased funding for the basic science research that underlies our industrial economy. Other recommendations, like improving K-12 science education, were not substantively addressed.

So, on Sept. 23, the same group released a follow-up report: “Rising Above the Gathering Storm Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5.” “The subtitle, ‘Rapidly Approaching Category 5,’ says it all,” noted Vest. “The committee’s conclusion is that ‘in spite of the efforts of both those in government and the private sector, the outlook for America to compete for quality jobs has further deteriorated over the past five years.’ ”

But I thought: “We’re number 1!”

“Here is a little dose of reality about where we actually rank today,” says Vest: sixth in global innovation-based competitiveness, but 40th in rate of change over the last decade; 11th among industrialized nations in the fraction of 25- to 34-year-olds who have graduated from high school; 16th in college completion rate; 22nd in broadband Internet access; 24th in life expectancy at birth; 27th among developed nations in the proportion of college students receiving degrees in science or engineering; 48th in quality of K-12 math and science education; and 29th in the number of mobile phones per 100 people.

“This is not a pretty picture, and it cannot be wished away,” said Vest. The study recommended a series of steps — some that President Obama has already initiated, some that still need Congress’s support — designed to increase America’s talent pool by vastly improving K-12 science and mathematics education, to reinforce long-term basic research, and to create the right tax and policy incentives so we can develop, recruit and retain the best and brightest students, scientists and engineers in the world. The goal is to make America the premier place to innovate and invest in innovation to create high-paying jobs.

You’ll have to Google it, though. The report hasn’t received 1/100th of the attention given to Juan Williams’s remarks on Muslims.

A dysfunctional political system is one that knows the right answers but can’t even discuss them rationally, let alone act on them, and one that devotes vastly more attention to cable TV preachers than to recommendations by its best scientists and engineers.

Role of media: No one size fits all

Nov 6, 2010

Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam spoke on 'The Role of the Media: Singapore's Perspective' at a forum in Columbia University on Thursday. This is an edited excerpt from his speech.

TRADITIONAL liberal theory of media is that it should represent different points of view. That will encourage open discussion and, as a result, there will be better outcomes for society. The media should in effect play the role of the Fourth Estate, checking the government.

That is the theory. The reality is a little different. Let me set out some of the differences as we see them:

# Journalists, like the rest of us, are human, and subject to influences and vices. They can be biased, unfair and prejudiced.

# Media companies are often profit-driven, like other commercial entities. It is not uncommon for journalistic values to be sacrificed in the pursuit of profit.

# Media companies and journalists, like other entities, can be bought, suborned and corrupted - particularly in developing countries.

# Competition and the need for the advertising dollar can compromise ethics.

The media can have tremendous influence in the political process. It can set the agenda for discussion, it can shape public opinion about the government, and it can make or break politicians. As the Fourth Estate, it is an active player in the political process. Yet, it is the only institution in the political process that is often not subject to any checks and balances. The answer that the public provides the check and balance is a non-answer.

The media in America has a wider and freer role than in almost any other country in the world. That this approach can cause some harm to American society has long been recognised. The view, however, is that the risk is nevertheless a price worth paying.

There is a fundamental assumption underlying this reasoning - that American society is strong enough to withstand the possible harmful consequences arising from such an approach. If, however, that fundamental assumption changes, then there has to be a different calculation. That, precisely, is Singapore's position.

Our view is that our small society, with a short common shared history, enclosed within a small island, cannot withstand the harm that can be caused by giving our media the role that the United States media has. By the time we have some light, after all the heat, irreparable harm may have been caused - or at least a level of harm that we as a society are not prepared to accept.

To use an analogy, the US is an aircraft carrier. We are a little skiff. A lot of things that can take place on an aircraft carrier would not be possible in a skiff.

Our view on the role of the media is as follows:

# It should be a neutral medium for conveying news, with commentary clearly separate from news;

# It should report fully and fairly what goes on. It can probe, ask the inconvenient questions and expose wrongdoing;

# But it should not join the political fray and become a political actor. It should not campaign for or against a policy position.

The media can and should convey the views of opposing political actors - and people can judge for themselves. But if a journalist or a newspaper owner wants to take part in the political process, then he or she should join a political party, and not use the privileged access to the media to push a political perspective.

Obviously, our views are not very popular. And unsurprisingly, Singapore gets some negative attention from the international media. But when I look at some of the criticism, I wonder at the objectivity. Let me give an example:

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) comes out with an annual ranking of countries on press freedom. This year, they ranked Singapore 136th, below Iraq (130th), Zimbabwe (123rd) and Guinea (113th).

Last year, the International Herald Tribune ran a story headlined, 'Ousting Guinea's brutal junta'. The first paragraph read: 'Over 150 people were gunned down by soldiers in the West Africa country of Guinea. Women were raped on the streets and opposition leaders were locked up. This was the response of a brutal military junta to a group of brave citizens who dared to hold a peaceful pro-democracy rally.'

Singapore is apparently below Guinea in press freedom, and has been since 2003.

What is RSF's methodology? As I understand it, they go to each country and choose some people to ask what they think about press freedom in that country. The scores thus seem to depend entirely on who is chosen to be questioned, and how subjective that person is. It is not the same group of people who assess each country by a defined set of criteria.

Contrast all of this with a Gallup poll. In 2005 and 2006, Gallup asked residents in 128 countries whether they had confidence in the quality and integrity of their media. Sixty-nine per cent of Singaporeans polled answered in the affirmative. The figure for the US in the Gallup poll was 32 per cent.

Could Singapore have done as well if our media played the role that the American media plays? Alternatively, given our current level of development, should we change? I will give a couple of reasons why I believe that we should stick to what has worked for us.

First, we can look at developing countries that adopted the US model. By comparison to them, we perform better in terms of the human development index and stability. And the media in these countries is not a model we want for Singapore.

Second, we can look at the US itself. For an outsider like me - and I am an admirer of many aspects of the US system - it is not so clear any more that every aspect of the US system will work well, particularly for us. The questions that arise for an observer include:

# Does the media in the US always pursue the truth and seek to enlighten the readers?

# Do parts of the US media act as campaign arms of politicians, peddle half-truths and present biased perspectives?

# Do viewers get to the truth or do they rely on their preferred media, seeking to confirm their own prejudices?

# Is it financially more lucrative for the media to serve up red meat to a secure base of viewers, rather than seek the middle ground?

# To what extent does money affect the traditional theory of a marketplace of ideas? If a particular group can buy more campaign advertisements, will that group not have an advantage?

# How does it help democracy if pursuant to the principles of free speech, large groups can play a big financial role in elections?

# Can people make informed choices when campaign ads have little relation to the facts or the serious issues? Would not truth be swift boated, as it were, and distinguished records tarnished through unfair means?

Tom Friedman of The New York Times had a commentary on US politics a few days ago, which ended thus: 'A dysfunctional political system is one that knows the right answers but can't even discuss them rationally, let alone act on them, and one that devotes far more attention to cable TV preachers than to recommendations by its best scientists and engineers.'

If the marketplace of ideas is working well, then why this lament? Other commentators have made similar points: I refer to them not so much to say they are right. The only point I make is that serious people say this, they are knowledgeable, and these do not appear to be extreme or fringe views - and we outside America must consider them when considering if the US system will work for us. I don't seek to prescribe for the US.

Even from a larger perspective, moving beyond the media, there can be serious questions as to whether American-style democracy can work for everyone.

I refer to the legislative process, with its earmarks and gridlock; the role of lobbies and vested interests; the amount of money needed for elections; the time congressmen spend networking and raising money; the deep political divides; and the general aversion of candidates to deal with serious issues in their campaigns.

The system works for America. This is a great country and will remain so. But can the rest of us adopt this system? My own view is that the US system will impose costs that a large, rich country like the US can afford - but the cost will be too high for some of us.

We believe that our system works for us, and we don't shut out the world. We have more than 5,500 foreign newspapers and publications in circulation in Singapore. Close to 100 TV channels are carried on our cable networks. Nearly 200 correspondents from 72 foreign media organisations are based in Singapore.

Also, household broadband penetration is more than 100 per cent; and our population is English-educated and Internet savvy. Singaporeans rank among the world's most-travelled populations. In 2008, 6.8 million passenger trips were made, more than the number of Singapore residents.

Let me now address the issue of our libel laws - which often excite much interest, internationally.

Our libel laws are based on English common law.If you make a personal attack of fact against a person's reputation - for example, by alleging that he is corrupt or that he embezzled state funds - then you should be prepared to prove it in court. We do not believe that public discourse should degenerate to a base level, by allowing untrue personal attacks.

We would like to keep political debate focused on issues. You can attack government policies fiercely. That will not be defamatory. And let the people choose the candidates based on alternative policies.

America takes a different view. We respect that, but we disagree that that approach leads to a better debate - and in saying this, I am aware of the 'chilling effect' argument.

It is also sometimes suggested that our libel laws are used to perpetuate a one-party system in Singapore. As proof, commentators will refer to the fact that the governing party has been in power since independence in 1965.

There are several responses to this. I will give just one. Remember that Singapore is a city state. There are no great geographical variations, no serious economic differences between regions, no great demographic variations. It is one relatively small city; the comparison should be with city politics in the US.

If you consider cities in the US - for example, San Francisco - you also see uninterrupted hold on power by one party for decades. So in city politics, it is possible for a party to retain power for a long time.

My basic point is that each of us has to choose what works for us. Over time, it is possible that a set of core values can evolve across countries - but this has to be agreed rather than imposed.

------
MR K. SHANMUGAM spoke more on Singapore in a short question-and-answer session following his speech:

Why Singapore has tough libel laws

'The reasons that are pushed usually for the press having greater privilege is that it helps in the democratic debate, but I ask you, how does it help?

The chilling effect as a result of having these defamation laws is that people may be tempted not to enter into the debate. But what about the opposite effect? First, you dumb down the debate, then it descends into a series of personal attacks, and third, serious people may well ask themselves, do I really want to get involved in the political process?

There is no reason why a personal reputation should not be protected any less than private property, which you protect very rigorously.'

Why Singapore will not move to an American-style media

'We are paranoid about whether we will continue to survive... you just look at the map and you look at history, how many city states have survived for any length of time?

We never take our survival for granted. We know that when we do take it for granted, we gamble with the lives of our people and no responsible government will do that.

Are we prepared in Singapore to have that kind of media exchange? Does the fact that we have developed mean that our society is mature enough to accept some of the risks that will come?'

-----
Not surprisingly, Mr Shanmugam's 45-minute speech drew its share of opposition.

Mr Joel Simon, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told The Straits Times that the minister had presented a robust defence of Singapore's press policies.

But he said he strongly disagreed with Mr Shanmugam's suggestions that Singapore's unique history gave the country standing to flout what he said were international standards.

He said: 'Singapore is proud of its role in the world economy and has become a global centre for business and trade. The country should also embrace international standards for freedom of expression and the press and reform its punitive libel laws.'

[Comment: Does freedom come with responsibility? Does power come with responsibility? It is tempting to look at Singapore's press and say, they are not free, they are not neutral, they are not impartial. Maybe. But the US definition of press freedom includes a role for the press as the Fourth Estate. But if this role were ever sacrosanct, the fact that it is a powerful force has attracted the corruptible, the corrupted, and the corrupting. Big money has been attracted to it. Why buy advertising, when you can buy the media, dictate the agenda, and pick your mouthpieces? The media like the financial institutions are powerful forces. But they are also commercial entities, driven by commercial bottom lines, and the commercial-political agenda of their owners. If financial institutions should be regulated, then equally, the press should also adhere to standards, and to understand that there are boundaries. Does this make them less free? Only if one believes the press should pursue political agendas without political responsibility.]

Keep policy debates open and open-minded

Nov 2, 2010

Nimbleness paramount in social policy, which must evolve with society

By Chua Mui Hoong

WHEN I interviewed Mr Ravi Menon two years ago for a book on the history of the civil service, I asked him about the future of the service. One issue he spoke about then was the legacy of success and the risk of civil servants becoming afraid or hesitant to challenge the status quo.

He added: 'It will be a pity if our younger officers feel that all the big challenges, the big questions, were settled during Goh Keng Swee's time and that we're now dealing with the nitty-gritties and incremental improvements.'

Mr Menon, now the permanent secretary at the Trade and Industry Ministry, reprised this issue at an economic policy conference recently. In a brilliant tour de force, he described Singapore's approach to public policy as one that was pragmatic and eclectic, not wedded to any single ideology. It was governance that got its market principles right, based on rigorous attempts to suss out what worked.

He went on to add this caveat: 'This is not to suggest that Singapore has got the balance right. Far from it. Singapore is still an experiment, a work-in-progress.

'If anything, the key takeaway from the Singapore story is to keep an open mind, measure outcomes, continually review policies and learn from mistakes.'

In a speech to Nanyang Technological University students on Friday, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong made a similar point when he supported a call by academic Koh Tai Ann for a more 'thinking' society. He went on to express his hope that young Singaporeans will 'continue to be engaged, to pursue your passion and your dreams, to challenge conventional wisdom, to do things and make Singapore better.' (emphasis mine)

SM Goh's words are timely.

There is a tendency to assume that Singapore has got its Big Policies right. Indeed, it may be true that the key principles, decided on decades ago, remain sound, especially regarding defence, national security, industrial relations and macroeconomic management.

Whether it is national service, the need for Singapore to 'punch above its weight' in international relations, tripartism, or the iron curtain between the Ministry of Finance which spends the Government's money and the central bank that manages it, these keystone policies remain relevant to Singapore today - although even in these sacrosanct areas the need for constant review persists.

When it comes to social policy, however, the need to be nimble and open-minded is paramount, since social policy must evolve with social circumstances.

Increasingly, the policy choices Singapore will have to grapple with are those of a social nature, which tend to be more tenuous and less clear-cut than defence or macro-economic policies. Social policy options will be more open to debate, requiring the state to work harder to build consensus and get buy-in from citizens.

Among the list of key issues preoccupying today's leaders and which will continue to befuddle future generations, most are social or environmental in nature. SM Goh's own list for young Singaporeans to ponder include: 'How do we support an ageing population? Can we increase our fertility rate? Have we reached the limits to our growth? How do we overcome our land constraints? Can we find new growth engines which are environmentally sustainable? How do we continue to provide... affordable housing and health care? How do we meet Singaporeans' higher expectations? How do we compete against other emerging economies?'

These issues have no clear right and wrong answers. They are qualitative issues, to do with managing expectations as much as managing resources.

Unlike defence policy, say, where hardware is paramount and national conscription can be decided upon by fiat, social problems cannot be solved by state spending on hardware and legislation to compel behavioural changes alone.

Social change requires the people to be engaged and mobilised. Without buy-in, there can be no shift from a disposable consumer society to environmental sustainability, for example. And certainly no amount of government spending or laws can persuade citizens to marry and have more children, a pressing demographic issue in a country with a rapidly ageing population and declining fertility rate.

This means the Government has to engage citizens more. When policy options are open to debate, the Government and citizens also have to learn how to engage each other respectfully in the cut and thrust of debate, even on sensitive issues like the income gap.

A good start has been made on issues to do with the income gap. This has been openly discussed for the last 10 years or so, with the aid of government data that showed clearly the trend of stagnating incomes at the bottom.

The result was one of the most important social policy innovations in recent years - Workfare. The Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) began as a pilot programme in 2006, and was institutionalised after much public debate in 2007. It is given to workers 35 and above, who earn $1,700 or less a month. A 65-year- old earning $1,000 a month will get the maximum payout of $2,800 a year, of which $800 is in cash and $2,000 goes into his Central Provident Fund account.

Workfare is a good programme, as MPs, academics and its beneficiaries attest. But in the nature of social policy, getting the Big Picture right alone is not enough. Policy details must also cohere.

The next phase of public discourse on the income gap would be to look at policy effectiveness and study outcomes. For example, on Workfare: how much does it contribute to the disposable income of families? Are the quantums enough? What is its effect on the employment rate? On the job decisions of workers, of employers? On productivity? What is its deadweight loss - that is, the impact on social welfare?

A related issue is to consider if Singapore can learn from other approaches to raising low wages of less skilled workers, besides supplementing incomes and upgrading skills. As can be seen in the debate on a minimum wage, not all academics are convinced that Singapore has exhausted the range of policy options.

With social issues likely to feature more prominently, policy debate must become more sophisticated than a reiteration that the status quo works best. There has to be an openness to test outcomes and a willingness to challenge conventional wisdom.

muihoong@sph.com.sg