Full Disclosure

Freedom House ranks each country with a scoring system based on a scale of 0 to 100, a combined score of 0-30=Free, 31-60=Partly Free, 61-100=Not Free. Their studies are premised on Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.

According to the findings of "Freedom of the Press 2012: A Global Survey of Media Independence", the latest edition of an annual index published by Freedom House since 1980, Singapore is ranked 150. Of the 197 countries and territories assessed during 2011, including the new country of South Sudan, a total of 66 (33.5 percent) were rated Free, 72 (36.5 percent) were rated Partly Free, and 59 (30 percent) were rated Not Free.

Singapore is grouped in the last category. Our neighbours fared better: Malaysia /Cambodia (144), Thailand (132), Indonesia (97), and Hongkong (70). Countries with "Free" rating include United Kingdom/ Australia (31), USA (22), and Germany (16).

It is reported that press freedom continued to face obstacles and reversals in many parts of the world. China, reputedly the country with the world’s most sophisticated system of media repression, stepped up its drive to control both old and new sources of news and information through arrests and censorship. Other authoritarian powers—such as Russia, Iran, and Venezuela—resorted to a variety of techniques to maintain a tight grip on the media, detaining some press critics, closing down media outlets and blogs, and bringing libel or defamation suits against journalists. Been there, done that. The brass knuckles tactics used in our own country are well documented in Francis Seow's book, "The Media Enthralled: Singapore Revisited". For a recent reminder of the bad old days, author James Minchin was turned away at the Changi Airport on arrival. It is no coincidence that China is sending a team to study our methods of governance. Speaking at the Communist Party’s Central Party School in September, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the two governments had “shared experiences on managing the social media.”

Straits Times (ST)'s surprise disclosure about Alvin Tan being stripped of his scholarship - he did not have to pay a single cent, and he wasn't expelled - went against the flow of Education Minister Heng Swee Keat's stubborn support of the university management's "need to respect its policy of confidentiality." Quoting an anonymous source, the gutsy ST revelation must have been a desperate attempt to improve its World Press Freedom Index rating, which used to be 141 before dropping to 144 in 2008.

Trouble With Foreigners

James Minchin on "Let's Talk" video in 2012 series

Not all foreigners are treated equal. You can cuss like a Frenchman ("Chinese f**cking animals" - Olivier Desbarres), bite the hand that feeds you ("I will NOT pay a SINGLE CENT to NUS if I am expelled and what can they do to me?" - Alvin Tan), but never, never, critique the judiciary.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has barred Australian clergyman James Blundell Minchin from entering Singapore as he allegedly "abused the social visit pass privileges previously extended to him while he was in Singapore by interfering in our domestic politics and mixing religion with politics". His cardinal sin, we are told, was commenting at a Function 8 forum in August 2011, where he supposedly "alleged that the rule of law was bypassed and corrupted in Singapore, and questioned the independence and integrity of the judiciary". For his troubles Minchin was locked up for 24 hours at a Changi Airport holding room.

Dr. Christopher Lingle was less fortunate. After he wrote a response to a previously published editorial comment that appeared in the International Herald Tribune, where he was alleged to infer that some regimes in East Asia are able to thwart criticism by relying on a compliant judiciary, he was sentenced him to jail in absentia and his property in Singapore was seized. High Court Judge Goh Joon Seng said in his ruling that the October 7, 1994 opinion article's reference to "intolerant regimes" and a "compliant judiciary" could only refer to Singapore, and therefore "scandalized the Singapore judiciary."

In March 1996, Lee Kuan Yew's lawyer urged the High Court of Singapore to order Lingle to pay substantially more than $300,000 in damages for libelling the Senior Minister. Dr. Lingle comments: "I am not surprised by the Singapore judge's ruling. I guess the courts didn't see the irony in the judgment against me. As far as I can see it, the judgement vindicates me and supports the criticism that Singapore's rulers use a compliant judiciary to bankrupt their critics .. whether they are the political opposition or news media or foreign nationals."

Minchin wrote in the introduction of his book, "No Man Is An Island: A study of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew":

In a mid-1984 issue of Singapore's Sunday's Times, Dr Yeo Ning Hong recalled his first meeting with the Prime Minister and senior Cabinet ministers: it filled him with an "immense sense of awe".
Even a foreigner like myself can testify that Lee Kuan Yew, whom I interviewed briefly in 1976, comes across as no ordinary human being. To be on the receiving end of his anger must be quite terrifying. Even when he is talking calmly, there are hints that the volcano remains active underground.

Aliens 1 Dogs 0

Barely a month ago, an ex-DJ had a row with his new neighbour because the latter's reconstructed house was taking too long and too disruptive to complete. Why the Ministry of Environment would permit noisy demolition work over an extensive period to be carried out within meters of occupied residences is a separate issue best addressed by the Minister in charge. The Indian house owner was not amused by the play on his name and the missive circulated by the ex-DJ and filed a police report.  Fortunately, the poorly phrased humour, as was claimed, did not cross the threshhold of racist slur.

Formerly of Credit Suisse, Olivier Desbarres was the head of Barclays FX strategy in Asia before he was sacked for trespassing into the Wimborne Road construction site on 20 October and hurling racist laden taunts at labourers for starting work 15 minutes earlier than the 9 a.m. timing he had demanded. For good measure he also hurled a zinc sheet at at the hapless Unison Construction staff.

The non-destructive tirade as transcribed by The Times:

“I’m gonna go after you. I’m gonna burn your f**cking house down,” he shouts in the video. “You have no respect. You know what? You’re f**cking animals. Chinese f**cking animals... I have a life. I have a family. You break that, I will find your f**cking family. I can find it very easily — I’m a man with resources.”

The encore from the French frog after sighting the video recording equipment:

“You’re filming me? You think that’s good? Put your phone down so I can f**cking wait for you to come out of it take that phone and f**cking shove it up your  ass..”

Since construction site hires are dominated by Indian nationals, mostly from Bangladeshi labour pool and the like, it was curious that "Chinese f**cking animals" were targeted in the verbal volley.  The Straits Times (ST) report provided some clues.  The Incredible Hulk wannabe had been rattling the iron gate of a 60 year old neighbour because his dog barked. Another neighbor actually made two police reports against the foreign talent for threatening her family over, again, barking dogs. The Paris I visited was very nice to dogs, they even had "poo patrols" to clean up after the four legged animals. ST didn't enlighten on the anti-canine behavior, neither did they make mention of the rabid racism. Maybe they have to have a police report filed before calling in the race card. Viewed in the context of the special kid gloves treatment meted out to the perverse Asean scholar, one can only conclude that the pro-alien policies are still very much alive.

Action speaks louder than f**cking words!

The Vagueness Of Law

The Confidential Information clause commonly found in a template contractual agreement defines what the parties deem to be proprietary and protected by the terms of the agreement. The clause usually defines what is, and what is not, confidential.

While the definition of the excluded items may be fairly consistent, the definition of the scope of information covered by the provisions tends to be highly variable. For instance the Microsoft non-disclosure agreement (NDA) defines Confidential Information as any non-public information that Microsoft designates as being confidential or which, under the circumstances surrounding disclosure ought to be treated as confidential by Recipient (italics mine). The clause may even attempt to cover anything the discloser wants to be treated as confidential, such as “ information that any Party desires to maintain as confidential or secret, which is supplied or provided to any other Party.” Whether this is too vague to be enforceable, it's for the lawyers to have their day in court. Of course, if a Minister deems it confidential - such as the terms for the Formula One Night Race extension - the conversation ends right there.

The National University of Singapore (NUS) decision to stonewall public demands for the details of the punishment meted out to Asean scholar and sex fiend Alvin Tan of Malaysia, we are given to understand, is protected by a confidential undertaking. For all we know, the contracting parties could be construed as the NUS, the dean of law, the sex blogger or even members of the public, if the latter's interest in the matter is even considered material at all.

What is not vague is that a precedent was set when provost Tan Eng Chye did detail the fine ($3,000) and community service obligation imposed on another scholarship holder without actually disclosing the name of the offender (spoiler alert: Sun Xu), thus maintaining the "confidentiality" agreement with that scallywag. He was simply referred to in the internal circular distributed to students as "an undergraduate at the Faculty of Engineering" who "posted offensive remarks about Singaporeans online".

The bar, for reasons best known to the faculty training the new batch of lawyers, has been raised (lowered?) for this rogue who NUS has admitted to be detrimental to its international reputation and dignity. By pushing the envelope of the vagueness of law, the confidence in NUS can only be shaken, if not (already) stirred.

Facts Of Law

The antepenultimate sentence in the last paragraph of Glenn Knight's autobiography ("The Prosecutor") is a curious statement: "Nowadays, the law has become more important that the facts." It makes one wonder how the rule of law in Singapore has changed since the first director of the Commercial Affairs Department started practice at the Singapore Legal Service in 1970.

Knight writes that the catalyst for the abolishment of jury trials was the case of the "Body in the Box" in which the accused was meted out a lower sentence because of "one obnoxious member who was pushing for the death penalty". The recording of Justice Choor Singh (presiding judge) in the Oral History Centre has it that the father of the victim complained to the newly minted Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who then told Justice Choor Singh steps would be taken to change the law (page 54).

In another instance of the determination of law by one man, Chief Justice Yong Pung How in 1996 concluded that Tan Koon Swan was wrongly convicted in the Pan-El insider debacle, over-riding the legal opinions of Justice Lai Kew Chai, Justice Frederick Arthur Chua, and Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin (page 163). Yong is remembered for the speed in which trials are conducted, leading some critics to accuse him of convicting indiscriminately, leaving the burden of proof to the accused. In the hour long defence of his appointment as Chief Justice in parliament, Lee disclosed that the loan of Yong's lecture notes enabled him to catch up with his studies at Cambridge. ("The Politics of Judicial Institutions in Singapore", Francis Seow)

When the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) came calling at his La Salle Street house, he had just been awarded the Public Administration Medal (Gold) in 1990. Knight says a deputy in charge of the department admitted that they had nothing against him, but were investigating him for "misconduct". There were rumours though, unsubstantiated, that he was "investigating" Lee Kuan Yew's brother, Lee Kim Yew.

As in the recent revelation of the backroom deal offered by Deputy Director Teng Khee Fatt to ex-CNB chief Ng Boon Gay, the CPIB had asked Knight if he would "like to surrender and admit to any wrongdoings" (sic). At the end of day, Knight was never charged with corruption (page 188). But the system demanded satisfaction, as in the Shakespearean contract that Shylock may take a pound of Antonio's flesh from any part of his body Shylock chooses. Some things just never seem to change with the passage of time.