Amnesty International campaigning manual - Amnesty International
cool stuff, a handbook for activists
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Friday, July 15, 2005
Don't just stop at NKF
it seems that our govt is very keen to keep the discussion restricted to NKF only. but this is only the tip of the iceberg. it is quite possible that the press will be prevented from telling that story. this is not the 1st time that something similar has happened. the SARS fund, the tsunami fund. the people must not stop just a NKF. what about the rest? how much are the heads of other non-profit organisations earning? what about the MPs that hold directorships in various companies? what about the ministers that earn millions?
Monday, July 11, 2005
The NKF: Controversially ahead of its time?
the article that landed susan long in the NKF vs SPH lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Straits Times
APRIL 19, 2004
The NKF: Controversially ahead of its time?
Controversy stalks the National Kidney Foundation, with critics lambasting its fund-raising methods, brazen self-promotion and work practices. Is the NKF just a cutting-edge charity ahead of its time, or is there more to those rumblings?
By Susan Long
A RETIRED contractor who wants to be known only as Mr Tan used to be a National Kidney Foundation (NKF) donor until he was hired to install some bathroom fittings for its new headquarters at Kim Keat Road in 1995.
Inside chief executive T.T. Durai's office suite on the 12th floor of the $21 million building, he says he 'lost it' when he had to install, among other things, a glass-panelled shower, a pricey German toilet bowl and a gold-plated tap.
'I started screaming my head off. The gold-plated tap alone cost at least $1,000. It was crazy. If you're Bill Gates and own your own multinational, whatever you want, fine. But you're a charity, using donors' money,' he huffs.
After his outburst, he was told to 'just do' his job. The shower stall remained, but the taps he eventually installed were 'scaled down' to an upmarket chrome-plated model.
To this day, the 54-year-old belongs to NKF's die-hard detractor camp, unmoved by its shining success in social entrepreneurship and its track record in saving lives. As he puts it: 'After that day, not a cent from me. I'm not going to pay for gold-plated taps.'
Asked for its response to the contractor's story, the NKF's public relations arm sidestepped the details and said yesterday: 'Since you can't give us details of the contractor... it is difficult for us to give an answer to enlighten your readers.'
In the past fortnight, the NKF has hogged the headlines. Propitiously, the news of its amazing $189 million in reserves broke the very day it celebrated its 35th anniversary on April 7. Since then, a stream of more than 130 people - former employees, former donors and disgruntled members of the public - have e-mailed or called this newspaper to let off steam about its hard-sell tactics, thick carpets and controversial chieftain.
At the same time, about 30 others, individuals and organisations, have sent in letters of support for the organisation, praising its dialysis programmes and pledging continued donations.
So far, the NKF kitty appears none the worse for wear despite all the caterwauling. On April 11, its 11th NKF Charity show raised $6.7 million, just a fraction short of last year's $6.8 million. Last night, it netted another $6.4 million.
These serious sums of money - how the NKF gets it, spends it and accounts for it - have been a well-gnawed bone of contention among its naysayers. Way before details of its $5 million tie-up with insurance giant Aviva unleashed a ferocious debate on donor privacy issues, charges of 'invasive' fund-raising have dogged the outfit.
But the NKF has made no bones about gunning for the charity dollar - the more the merrier, just like any other profit-and-loss business. Relentless innovation over the years has brought new ways of fund-raising: greeting cards, live charity shows, donations via SMS, consultancy services, even selling its spare telemarketing capacity to private companies. In the social service sector, the NKF is the unparalleled paragon of the art of 'heartsell'.
Most impressive of all, notes Mrs Tan Chee Koon, executive director of the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre, is its ability to tap on the health screening it conducts for heartlanders to ensure a 'sustained pool of regular givers'.
Unlike many charities which rely on large, one-off infusions from wealthy foundations, NKF's bread and butter is the $3 to $5 monthly Giro donations from about one million ordinary Singaporeans. With such a big base of small heartland givers - its website says nearly two out of every three Singaporeans are donors - the pennies add up.
Every day, seven days a week, some 100 'prevention evangelists' and nurses fan out to companies, army camps, condominiums and churches islandwide to test the blood, body fat and urine of at least 1,600 people daily.
Since 1997, more than one million Singaporeans have undergone these free health screenings, which are followed typically by an impassioned pitch: 'This is something we're doing for you; is there something you'd like to do for us?'
A voluntary sector consultant notes: 'Even old grannies are not spared the spiel. Most are pressured to do a Giro contribution for a minimum of six months. Nothing they do is illegal, but it's all very aggressive. Nothing wrong with that, but when they push the fund-raising envelope, they tend to be insensitive to the larger consequences for the charity sector.'
But the NKF's head of what it calls 'prevention marketing', Ms Shirley Tan, makes no apologies for the 'heartfelt pleas' it delivers along with its basic health checks, which she notes would cost at least $60 in private clinics. She says these are 'free-will offerings' and the 'evangelists' have no financial targets to meet at each venue.
PAINFUL LESSONS
NKF chairman Richard Yong, 63, a former private banker who has been on the NKF board for 18 years, makes clear that lucre is the necessary lifeblood of the organisation.
Every cent literally buys time for each patient. And the NKF's mission to save the lives of those with kidney failure is undeniably daunting, which explains why there are no other self-funded, non-profit dialysis providers in the world.
Each patient is admitted for life - or until they are lucky enough to get a kidney transplant. The average life expectancy of those on dialysis is 10 to 15 years, at a cost of $150,000 upwards a head to the foundation.
Mr Yong says patients themselves pay from nothing to $800 each month for three-times-a-week dialysis which would cost at least $3,000 each month outside.
The incidence of kidney failure here - increasingly a lifestyle disease closely associated with diabetes and hypertension - is now the third highest in the world, trailing only affluent countries like the United States and Japan. This, coupled with a fast growing grey-haired population, means that the NKF has plenty of costly work cut out for it.
Its money-minting machinery, however, was not always so hard-nosed or well-oiled. Starting out in an unprepossessing Singapore General Hospital attic with just two beds and one metal tray in 1969, Mr Yong says, it battled the same growing pains that less publicised, cash-strapped charities face today.
When it set up its first dialysis programme in 1982 in Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital, it dispensed free treatment with little regard for outcomes and costs.
In 1986, it ran out of money, so he and other board members had to make the heart-wrenching decision of who among their 32 patients should continue with dialysis, and who would have to be sent home with morphine to die.
'I couldn't sleep; I couldn't eat. Who were we to play God?' he recalls. It hit home then: It was important to have 'healthy reserves that can withstand even the most dire economic times', and self-generated income 'so that we can be independent, instead of on our knees, poor and begging for life'.
So the irony is that, despite being one of the oldest, the NKF is yet one of the most progressive charities here. As a mature 35-year-old, it is looking at sustainability and continuity issues for the next 100 years, even as most other voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) grapple with day-to-day survival issues.
In the international arena, it is such a trail-blazing model of social entrepreneurship that American universities like Harvard, Johns Hopkins and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have done case studies on it.
Locally, however, it is so far ahead of its time that society has yet to keep pace. Unlike in the West - where charities aggressively campaign for the charity dollar, professional fund-raising is a bona fide industry and tie-ups with commercial entities are old news - the social sector here unfortunately is still in its infancy.
According to Mr Terry Farris, head of charity management for Asia at European private bank MeesPierson, the fact that it costs money to raise money - the accepted norm, he says, is now 15 to 20 cents out of every dollar - may not have sunk in here yet.
Many VWO chiefs note there still exists an arcane expectation that non-profits should survive on the 'goodwill and sacrifice' of volunteers, even though it is recognised worldwide that the public good is much better served by hiring professional managers at market rates.
TOUGH LOVE
THE NKF has tried to break away from the 'third-tier' image charities suffer from, by sourcing for talent worldwide and paying them fair market value. According to NKF's honorary treasurer Loo Say San: 'Many Singaporeans prefer not to work for charitable organisations, so we go overseas to hire.'
It does its recruitment drives at top institutions like the Indian Institutes of Management and Beijing University, competing with the likes of General Electric and Morgan Stanley for the best brains money can buy. Since 2001, it has also tapped the skills of a steady stream of MBA interns from top business schools like Harvard and Stanford.
It staff strength is 947, a figure that NKF defends as necessary to man the three shifts of dialysis sessions, each lasting four hours, which its 22 centres around the island run daily.
Pressed for details on staff composition, Mr Yong said 'more than half are medical personnel'. The rest are spread among the administrative, marketing, fund-raising and communications departments.
The taboo it seeks to break is that charity is synonymous with poor quality. As Dr Gerard Chuah, an eye surgeon and chairman of the NKF Children's Medical Fund, says: 'What bothers me is when people say, why can't you continue to function out of containers? Hello, just because we're a charity doesn't mean we have to operate in a hovel out in the rain.
'Would you ask a family member of yours who has an honours degree to work in a container? We want to get the best people we can find who will run good programmes to save more lives.'
Even when administering its dialysis and patient rehabilitation programmes, the NKF approach is controversial. You might call it 'tough love'. According to Mr Job Loei, a dialysis patient who also helps counsel new admissions at NKF, those wallowing in self-pity are set straight.
NKF demands that patients co-pay for dialysis, hold down jobs and stick to their diet - or pay more. Patients' fees, for example, are reduced by $50 to $100 as an incentive, if they find a job, get promoted, tie the knot, give birth, or even when their school-going children score As.
It helps patients find jobs, provides courses to upgrade their qualifications and holds personal grooming classes to help them remain attractive to their spouses. If their children's grades slide, it even helps engage, and provides subsidies of up to 80 per cent for, tuition teachers to coach them.
As Mr Yong says: 'We don't dialyse them to go home and sleep. We want them to have jobs, bring home the bacon, contribute to the economy, have normal relations with their spouses and their children to do well in school. We say openly to them: 'If you want to die, go and die by yourself; don't come to us'.'
As a result, 93 per cent of NKF dialysis patients work, support their families and lead productive lives, compared to less than 60 per cent worldwide. The general philosophy is: No free rides.
OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY
LIKEWISE for employees, adds Mr Loo. They are constantly reminded that their wages come from donor dollars. To prevent wastage, there is an extensive list of fines, from $5 for getting to work five minutes late, to $30 for forgetting to switch off the lights. All staff functions are held in the in-house auditorium 'for fear of being labelled spend-thrift' if they venture outside.
For the record, Mr Yong says, there is no such thing as 'first-class travel'. Senior executives, from directors up, including CEO Mr Durai, fly business class. The rest fly economy.
Little is known of Mr Durai, 56, apart from the fact that his name T.T. (Thambirajah Tharmadurai) means a charitable man in Tamil. A former president of the then University of Singapore Students' Union, he graduated with a law degree and worked in the government legal service for six years until 1977.
The elegant and eloquent man eschews publicity and, despite 3 1/2 hours spent with top officials at the NKF last week, this reporter received only a handshake from him. No quotes.
His staff know him as a 'visionary' who cares deeply for NKF patients and knows each one by name. He is also a 'tough taskmaster' who works from 6am to 10pm, and eats and showers in his office.
He is said to run a tight, results-oriented ship, with a labyrinth of departments within departments and units within units.
But even the most embittered acknowledge it is a 'dynamic' workplace and training ground. Its staff turnover is high; employees are so often poached that managers now have to sign three-year contracts.
One downside cited by former employees is a corporate culture described as 'cagey', in which staff are discouraged from discussing finances.
Despite much public prodding and the Finance Ministry's encouragement to charities to reveal the salaries and benefits of their top employees, NKF top guns are sticking to their guns not to allow more public disclosure.
What they keep reiterating is: 'Although the NKF is a non-profit organisation, the people who have chosen to work in the NKF are private individuals, who are entitled to their privacy.'
But therein lies the chink in an otherwise spiffy armour: NKF's forward-looking business model lacks the financial transparency that would enable it to stand tall and get out of its controversy-laden shell.
After all, if it is governed by the creed of the marketplace, it should also appply rigorous standards of disclosure and accountability.
As a VWO analyst notes: 'You can find out how much any CEO of a public company makes, so why not them? How can it be that when they feel like it, they can be 'private', but when raising funds, they are 'non-profit' and 'public'? If any member of the public asks, why shouldn't the information be made available to them?'
As society matures, says Mr Farris, people will have higher expectations of non-profit governance.
'Like it or not, if you turn over as much as $67.5 million a year, you're a business, though it be the business of doing good,' he says. 'As a charity, you have to always remember: You are spending other people's money.'
On the NKF's part, so often has it been bad-mouthed - which it attributes to 'professional jealousy' - that it seems to have developed a persecution complex of sorts. 'Why is it us, always us?' is a plaintive cry its board members often utter.
It has also gone beyond plaintive cries, to being the plaintiff in defamation suits - at least three times. In 1999, for instance, it sued Madam Tan Kiat Noi for sending out an e-mail message accusing it of paying ridiculously high bonuses to its staff. An estimated 100,000 people received it. The case was settled after she apologised publicly, and paid $50,000 in damages, as well as NKF's legal costs.
Whither the NKF from here? Although it continues to bid the public judge it by its works and its effectiveness, detractors will continue to be fixated by the shroud over its numbers. Like it or not, rumblings are likely to persist until there is more publicly-transparent accounting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Straits Times
APRIL 19, 2004
The NKF: Controversially ahead of its time?
Controversy stalks the National Kidney Foundation, with critics lambasting its fund-raising methods, brazen self-promotion and work practices. Is the NKF just a cutting-edge charity ahead of its time, or is there more to those rumblings?
By Susan Long
A RETIRED contractor who wants to be known only as Mr Tan used to be a National Kidney Foundation (NKF) donor until he was hired to install some bathroom fittings for its new headquarters at Kim Keat Road in 1995.
Inside chief executive T.T. Durai's office suite on the 12th floor of the $21 million building, he says he 'lost it' when he had to install, among other things, a glass-panelled shower, a pricey German toilet bowl and a gold-plated tap.
'I started screaming my head off. The gold-plated tap alone cost at least $1,000. It was crazy. If you're Bill Gates and own your own multinational, whatever you want, fine. But you're a charity, using donors' money,' he huffs.
After his outburst, he was told to 'just do' his job. The shower stall remained, but the taps he eventually installed were 'scaled down' to an upmarket chrome-plated model.
To this day, the 54-year-old belongs to NKF's die-hard detractor camp, unmoved by its shining success in social entrepreneurship and its track record in saving lives. As he puts it: 'After that day, not a cent from me. I'm not going to pay for gold-plated taps.'
Asked for its response to the contractor's story, the NKF's public relations arm sidestepped the details and said yesterday: 'Since you can't give us details of the contractor... it is difficult for us to give an answer to enlighten your readers.'
In the past fortnight, the NKF has hogged the headlines. Propitiously, the news of its amazing $189 million in reserves broke the very day it celebrated its 35th anniversary on April 7. Since then, a stream of more than 130 people - former employees, former donors and disgruntled members of the public - have e-mailed or called this newspaper to let off steam about its hard-sell tactics, thick carpets and controversial chieftain.
At the same time, about 30 others, individuals and organisations, have sent in letters of support for the organisation, praising its dialysis programmes and pledging continued donations.
So far, the NKF kitty appears none the worse for wear despite all the caterwauling. On April 11, its 11th NKF Charity show raised $6.7 million, just a fraction short of last year's $6.8 million. Last night, it netted another $6.4 million.
These serious sums of money - how the NKF gets it, spends it and accounts for it - have been a well-gnawed bone of contention among its naysayers. Way before details of its $5 million tie-up with insurance giant Aviva unleashed a ferocious debate on donor privacy issues, charges of 'invasive' fund-raising have dogged the outfit.
But the NKF has made no bones about gunning for the charity dollar - the more the merrier, just like any other profit-and-loss business. Relentless innovation over the years has brought new ways of fund-raising: greeting cards, live charity shows, donations via SMS, consultancy services, even selling its spare telemarketing capacity to private companies. In the social service sector, the NKF is the unparalleled paragon of the art of 'heartsell'.
Most impressive of all, notes Mrs Tan Chee Koon, executive director of the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre, is its ability to tap on the health screening it conducts for heartlanders to ensure a 'sustained pool of regular givers'.
Unlike many charities which rely on large, one-off infusions from wealthy foundations, NKF's bread and butter is the $3 to $5 monthly Giro donations from about one million ordinary Singaporeans. With such a big base of small heartland givers - its website says nearly two out of every three Singaporeans are donors - the pennies add up.
Every day, seven days a week, some 100 'prevention evangelists' and nurses fan out to companies, army camps, condominiums and churches islandwide to test the blood, body fat and urine of at least 1,600 people daily.
Since 1997, more than one million Singaporeans have undergone these free health screenings, which are followed typically by an impassioned pitch: 'This is something we're doing for you; is there something you'd like to do for us?'
A voluntary sector consultant notes: 'Even old grannies are not spared the spiel. Most are pressured to do a Giro contribution for a minimum of six months. Nothing they do is illegal, but it's all very aggressive. Nothing wrong with that, but when they push the fund-raising envelope, they tend to be insensitive to the larger consequences for the charity sector.'
But the NKF's head of what it calls 'prevention marketing', Ms Shirley Tan, makes no apologies for the 'heartfelt pleas' it delivers along with its basic health checks, which she notes would cost at least $60 in private clinics. She says these are 'free-will offerings' and the 'evangelists' have no financial targets to meet at each venue.
PAINFUL LESSONS
NKF chairman Richard Yong, 63, a former private banker who has been on the NKF board for 18 years, makes clear that lucre is the necessary lifeblood of the organisation.
Every cent literally buys time for each patient. And the NKF's mission to save the lives of those with kidney failure is undeniably daunting, which explains why there are no other self-funded, non-profit dialysis providers in the world.
Each patient is admitted for life - or until they are lucky enough to get a kidney transplant. The average life expectancy of those on dialysis is 10 to 15 years, at a cost of $150,000 upwards a head to the foundation.
Mr Yong says patients themselves pay from nothing to $800 each month for three-times-a-week dialysis which would cost at least $3,000 each month outside.
The incidence of kidney failure here - increasingly a lifestyle disease closely associated with diabetes and hypertension - is now the third highest in the world, trailing only affluent countries like the United States and Japan. This, coupled with a fast growing grey-haired population, means that the NKF has plenty of costly work cut out for it.
Its money-minting machinery, however, was not always so hard-nosed or well-oiled. Starting out in an unprepossessing Singapore General Hospital attic with just two beds and one metal tray in 1969, Mr Yong says, it battled the same growing pains that less publicised, cash-strapped charities face today.
When it set up its first dialysis programme in 1982 in Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital, it dispensed free treatment with little regard for outcomes and costs.
In 1986, it ran out of money, so he and other board members had to make the heart-wrenching decision of who among their 32 patients should continue with dialysis, and who would have to be sent home with morphine to die.
'I couldn't sleep; I couldn't eat. Who were we to play God?' he recalls. It hit home then: It was important to have 'healthy reserves that can withstand even the most dire economic times', and self-generated income 'so that we can be independent, instead of on our knees, poor and begging for life'.
So the irony is that, despite being one of the oldest, the NKF is yet one of the most progressive charities here. As a mature 35-year-old, it is looking at sustainability and continuity issues for the next 100 years, even as most other voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) grapple with day-to-day survival issues.
In the international arena, it is such a trail-blazing model of social entrepreneurship that American universities like Harvard, Johns Hopkins and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have done case studies on it.
Locally, however, it is so far ahead of its time that society has yet to keep pace. Unlike in the West - where charities aggressively campaign for the charity dollar, professional fund-raising is a bona fide industry and tie-ups with commercial entities are old news - the social sector here unfortunately is still in its infancy.
According to Mr Terry Farris, head of charity management for Asia at European private bank MeesPierson, the fact that it costs money to raise money - the accepted norm, he says, is now 15 to 20 cents out of every dollar - may not have sunk in here yet.
Many VWO chiefs note there still exists an arcane expectation that non-profits should survive on the 'goodwill and sacrifice' of volunteers, even though it is recognised worldwide that the public good is much better served by hiring professional managers at market rates.
TOUGH LOVE
THE NKF has tried to break away from the 'third-tier' image charities suffer from, by sourcing for talent worldwide and paying them fair market value. According to NKF's honorary treasurer Loo Say San: 'Many Singaporeans prefer not to work for charitable organisations, so we go overseas to hire.'
It does its recruitment drives at top institutions like the Indian Institutes of Management and Beijing University, competing with the likes of General Electric and Morgan Stanley for the best brains money can buy. Since 2001, it has also tapped the skills of a steady stream of MBA interns from top business schools like Harvard and Stanford.
It staff strength is 947, a figure that NKF defends as necessary to man the three shifts of dialysis sessions, each lasting four hours, which its 22 centres around the island run daily.
Pressed for details on staff composition, Mr Yong said 'more than half are medical personnel'. The rest are spread among the administrative, marketing, fund-raising and communications departments.
The taboo it seeks to break is that charity is synonymous with poor quality. As Dr Gerard Chuah, an eye surgeon and chairman of the NKF Children's Medical Fund, says: 'What bothers me is when people say, why can't you continue to function out of containers? Hello, just because we're a charity doesn't mean we have to operate in a hovel out in the rain.
'Would you ask a family member of yours who has an honours degree to work in a container? We want to get the best people we can find who will run good programmes to save more lives.'
Even when administering its dialysis and patient rehabilitation programmes, the NKF approach is controversial. You might call it 'tough love'. According to Mr Job Loei, a dialysis patient who also helps counsel new admissions at NKF, those wallowing in self-pity are set straight.
NKF demands that patients co-pay for dialysis, hold down jobs and stick to their diet - or pay more. Patients' fees, for example, are reduced by $50 to $100 as an incentive, if they find a job, get promoted, tie the knot, give birth, or even when their school-going children score As.
It helps patients find jobs, provides courses to upgrade their qualifications and holds personal grooming classes to help them remain attractive to their spouses. If their children's grades slide, it even helps engage, and provides subsidies of up to 80 per cent for, tuition teachers to coach them.
As Mr Yong says: 'We don't dialyse them to go home and sleep. We want them to have jobs, bring home the bacon, contribute to the economy, have normal relations with their spouses and their children to do well in school. We say openly to them: 'If you want to die, go and die by yourself; don't come to us'.'
As a result, 93 per cent of NKF dialysis patients work, support their families and lead productive lives, compared to less than 60 per cent worldwide. The general philosophy is: No free rides.
OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY
LIKEWISE for employees, adds Mr Loo. They are constantly reminded that their wages come from donor dollars. To prevent wastage, there is an extensive list of fines, from $5 for getting to work five minutes late, to $30 for forgetting to switch off the lights. All staff functions are held in the in-house auditorium 'for fear of being labelled spend-thrift' if they venture outside.
For the record, Mr Yong says, there is no such thing as 'first-class travel'. Senior executives, from directors up, including CEO Mr Durai, fly business class. The rest fly economy.
Little is known of Mr Durai, 56, apart from the fact that his name T.T. (Thambirajah Tharmadurai) means a charitable man in Tamil. A former president of the then University of Singapore Students' Union, he graduated with a law degree and worked in the government legal service for six years until 1977.
The elegant and eloquent man eschews publicity and, despite 3 1/2 hours spent with top officials at the NKF last week, this reporter received only a handshake from him. No quotes.
His staff know him as a 'visionary' who cares deeply for NKF patients and knows each one by name. He is also a 'tough taskmaster' who works from 6am to 10pm, and eats and showers in his office.
He is said to run a tight, results-oriented ship, with a labyrinth of departments within departments and units within units.
But even the most embittered acknowledge it is a 'dynamic' workplace and training ground. Its staff turnover is high; employees are so often poached that managers now have to sign three-year contracts.
One downside cited by former employees is a corporate culture described as 'cagey', in which staff are discouraged from discussing finances.
Despite much public prodding and the Finance Ministry's encouragement to charities to reveal the salaries and benefits of their top employees, NKF top guns are sticking to their guns not to allow more public disclosure.
What they keep reiterating is: 'Although the NKF is a non-profit organisation, the people who have chosen to work in the NKF are private individuals, who are entitled to their privacy.'
But therein lies the chink in an otherwise spiffy armour: NKF's forward-looking business model lacks the financial transparency that would enable it to stand tall and get out of its controversy-laden shell.
After all, if it is governed by the creed of the marketplace, it should also appply rigorous standards of disclosure and accountability.
As a VWO analyst notes: 'You can find out how much any CEO of a public company makes, so why not them? How can it be that when they feel like it, they can be 'private', but when raising funds, they are 'non-profit' and 'public'? If any member of the public asks, why shouldn't the information be made available to them?'
As society matures, says Mr Farris, people will have higher expectations of non-profit governance.
'Like it or not, if you turn over as much as $67.5 million a year, you're a business, though it be the business of doing good,' he says. 'As a charity, you have to always remember: You are spending other people's money.'
On the NKF's part, so often has it been bad-mouthed - which it attributes to 'professional jealousy' - that it seems to have developed a persecution complex of sorts. 'Why is it us, always us?' is a plaintive cry its board members often utter.
It has also gone beyond plaintive cries, to being the plaintiff in defamation suits - at least three times. In 1999, for instance, it sued Madam Tan Kiat Noi for sending out an e-mail message accusing it of paying ridiculously high bonuses to its staff. An estimated 100,000 people received it. The case was settled after she apologised publicly, and paid $50,000 in damages, as well as NKF's legal costs.
Whither the NKF from here? Although it continues to bid the public judge it by its works and its effectiveness, detractors will continue to be fixated by the shroud over its numbers. Like it or not, rumblings are likely to persist until there is more publicly-transparent accounting.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
why can't chinese songs have such lyrics?
Paradise comes at a price, that I am not prepared to pay...
-Megalomania by Muse
-Megalomania by Muse
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
the digital divide
it suddenly hit me that there are lots of people who are stranded on the digital highway. they do not know how to use the computer, and that sets them back in many ways. most problematic is the reduced level of information received. a lot of information, at times important information, are now solely accessible digitally. they also face having reduced options due to their lack of computer skills.
as an aside, the new google toolbar 3 beta, which comes with instant translation [translation appears as one hovers the mouse pointer over a word on a webpage], is a step in the right direction. if we can't have as many webpages in the various different languages, the next best thing is for a software to be able to quickly translate english into the native language of users.
just to make a point, i'm going to repeat this posting [at least a scribble that's similar] in my good ol' conventional diary.
as an aside, the new google toolbar 3 beta, which comes with instant translation [translation appears as one hovers the mouse pointer over a word on a webpage], is a step in the right direction. if we can't have as many webpages in the various different languages, the next best thing is for a software to be able to quickly translate english into the native language of users.
just to make a point, i'm going to repeat this posting [at least a scribble that's similar] in my good ol' conventional diary.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
a NGO network?
wouldn't it be great if all the NGOs in singapore could get together, say, every 3 months, to let each other know what the other is doing currently, and to explore opportunities for cooperation? groups like AFA, AWARE, DPA, Thinkcentre, could potentially leverage on each other's strengths to move civil society forward. these groups are already talking to each other, but, i suppose, on an ad-hoc basis now.
Visit to SUARAM
as part of the project HEART mentioned earlier, a group of us went to visit SUARAM's JB branch, to find out how about their work. it was an enlightening experience as we found out more about the human rights situation in malaysia, their current projects, the difficulties they face.
Monday, March 21, 2005
when hr doesn't mean human resources
just attended a human rights education and awareness course on 12-13 march 2005. was quite an experience, more fruitful as compared to the usual seminars/talks that are held here.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
aging, foreign domestic workers, and having children
2 scenes [actually the latter is not a scene, more a visualisation] that ring in my proverbial head for the week that passed by.
1. an old lady being rushed into a LRT train with its doors closing, by 2 foreign domestic workers
2. a colleague who is seemingly quitting, after giving birth, so as to take care of her newborn child.
All this happening, with the backdrop of the 2005 Budget being presented in Parliament.
1. an old lady being rushed into a LRT train with its doors closing, by 2 foreign domestic workers
2. a colleague who is seemingly quitting, after giving birth, so as to take care of her newborn child.
All this happening, with the backdrop of the 2005 Budget being presented in Parliament.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Terror detainees win Lords appeal
BBC NEWS | UK | Terror detainees win Lords appeal
Looks like the UK justice system is still pretty independent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Detaining foreign terrorist suspects without trial breaks human rights laws, the UK's highest court has ruled.
In a blow to the government's anti-terror measures, the House of Lords ruled by an eight to one majority in favour of appeals by nine detainees.
The Law Lords said the measures were incompatible with European human rights laws, but Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the men would remain in prison.
He said the measures would "remain in force" until the law was reviewed.
Most of the men are being held indefinitely in Belmarsh prison, south London.
The ruling creates a major problem for Mr Clarke on his first day as home secretary following David Blunkett's resignation.
In a statement to MPs, Mr Clarke said: "I will be asking Parliament to renew this legislation in the New Year.
"In the meantime, we will be studying the judgment carefully to see whether it is possible to modify our legislation to address the concerns raised by the House of Lords."
"Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law" -Lord Nicholls
Solicitor Gareth Peirce, who represents eight of the detainees, said: "The government has to take steps to withdraw the legislation and release the detainees."
If there was no swift government action, the detainees could ask the European Court of Human Rights to get involved, she added.
The Liberal Democrats say Mr Clarke should use the fact he is new to the job to take issue with a law established by his predecessor, David Blunkett.
The detainees took their case to the House of Lords after the Court of Appeal backed the Home Office's powers to hold them without limit or charge.
The government opted out of part of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a fair trial in order to bring in anti-terrorism legislation in response to the 11 September attacks in the US.
Any foreign national suspected of links with terrorism can be detained or can opt to be deported.
But those detained cannot be deported if this would mean persecution in their homeland.
On Thursday, Lord Bingham - a senior law lord - said the rules were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights as they allowed detentions "in a way that discriminates on the ground of nationality or immigration status" by justifying detention without trial for foreign suspects, but not Britons.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law.
"It deprives the detained person of the protection a criminal trial is intended to afford."
But Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, the one law lord to oppose the appeal, said the anti-terror laws contained important safeguards against oppression.
In a statement, detainee 'A' in Woodhill Prison said: "I hope now that the government will act upon this decision, scrap this illegal 'law' and release me and the other internees to return to our families and loved ones."
The case was heard by a panel of nine law lords rather than the usual five because of the constitutional importance of the case.
Ms Peirce claimed the detention had driven four of the detainees to "madness", saying two were being held in Broadmoor hospital.
When the men were first held, they took their cases to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).
The commission ruled on 30 July, 2002 that the anti-terror act unjustifiably discriminated against foreign nationals as British people could not be held in the same way.
But that ruling was later overturned by the Court of Appeal who said there was a state of emergency threatening the life of the nation.
Looks like the UK justice system is still pretty independent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Detaining foreign terrorist suspects without trial breaks human rights laws, the UK's highest court has ruled.
In a blow to the government's anti-terror measures, the House of Lords ruled by an eight to one majority in favour of appeals by nine detainees.
The Law Lords said the measures were incompatible with European human rights laws, but Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the men would remain in prison.
He said the measures would "remain in force" until the law was reviewed.
Most of the men are being held indefinitely in Belmarsh prison, south London.
The ruling creates a major problem for Mr Clarke on his first day as home secretary following David Blunkett's resignation.
In a statement to MPs, Mr Clarke said: "I will be asking Parliament to renew this legislation in the New Year.
"In the meantime, we will be studying the judgment carefully to see whether it is possible to modify our legislation to address the concerns raised by the House of Lords."
"Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law" -Lord Nicholls
Solicitor Gareth Peirce, who represents eight of the detainees, said: "The government has to take steps to withdraw the legislation and release the detainees."
If there was no swift government action, the detainees could ask the European Court of Human Rights to get involved, she added.
The Liberal Democrats say Mr Clarke should use the fact he is new to the job to take issue with a law established by his predecessor, David Blunkett.
The detainees took their case to the House of Lords after the Court of Appeal backed the Home Office's powers to hold them without limit or charge.
The government opted out of part of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a fair trial in order to bring in anti-terrorism legislation in response to the 11 September attacks in the US.
Any foreign national suspected of links with terrorism can be detained or can opt to be deported.
But those detained cannot be deported if this would mean persecution in their homeland.
On Thursday, Lord Bingham - a senior law lord - said the rules were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights as they allowed detentions "in a way that discriminates on the ground of nationality or immigration status" by justifying detention without trial for foreign suspects, but not Britons.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law.
"It deprives the detained person of the protection a criminal trial is intended to afford."
But Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, the one law lord to oppose the appeal, said the anti-terror laws contained important safeguards against oppression.
In a statement, detainee 'A' in Woodhill Prison said: "I hope now that the government will act upon this decision, scrap this illegal 'law' and release me and the other internees to return to our families and loved ones."
The case was heard by a panel of nine law lords rather than the usual five because of the constitutional importance of the case.
Ms Peirce claimed the detention had driven four of the detainees to "madness", saying two were being held in Broadmoor hospital.
When the men were first held, they took their cases to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).
The commission ruled on 30 July, 2002 that the anti-terror act unjustifiably discriminated against foreign nationals as British people could not be held in the same way.
But that ruling was later overturned by the Court of Appeal who said there was a state of emergency threatening the life of the nation.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2004
report: The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2004
http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/007/y5650e/y5650e00.htm
its quite sad, when i find myself writing my blog in the comfort of an air-conditioned room called a "business centre" in a reservist training centre, that there are still so many people in the world that are suffering from hunger. no obvious link, i suppose, but it's just plain frustrating that not enough aid from developed countries are getting into the hands of the people who are suffering.
http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/007/y5650e/y5650e00.htm
its quite sad, when i find myself writing my blog in the comfort of an air-conditioned room called a "business centre" in a reservist training centre, that there are still so many people in the world that are suffering from hunger. no obvious link, i suppose, but it's just plain frustrating that not enough aid from developed countries are getting into the hands of the people who are suffering.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Public Consultation on Integrated Resort
Public Consultation on Integrated Resort
Call me a cynic, but i think the "integrated resort", a.k.a. casino will be eventually axed by the government as a example of "openness and debate". The government will then earn political capital for "listening to the people".
Call me a cynic, but i think the "integrated resort", a.k.a. casino will be eventually axed by the government as a example of "openness and debate". The government will then earn political capital for "listening to the people".
Sunday, January 16, 2005
BBC NEWS | Americas | Iraq prison abuse 'leader' jailed
BBC NEWS Americas Iraq prison abuse 'leader' jailed
The sentence was 10 years in jail. In contrast, the defendents in the Singapore case of the dunking incident, which caused 1 death of a trainee, were sentenced to 9 months jail. The maximum sentence was 4 years.
The sentence was 10 years in jail. In contrast, the defendents in the Singapore case of the dunking incident, which caused 1 death of a trainee, were sentenced to 9 months jail. The maximum sentence was 4 years.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Amendments to the Employment Act: exemption, from the statutory provisions on overtime, rest day and public holiday work
MOM Press Releases : Detail
Singaporeans are already working too much. This will make it even worse. This needs to be looked at in detail. Will report back with findings.
Singaporeans are already working too much. This will make it even worse. This needs to be looked at in detail. Will report back with findings.
Monday, December 13, 2004
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | How to reduce future climate risk
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | How to reduce future climate risk
More ammunition for green parties to ask their governments what they are doing to stop the rot.
---------------------------------------------
How to reduce future climate risk
Viewpoint
By Daniel P Schrag
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University
Human society is performing a remarkable and uncontrolled experiment on the Earth.
Because of the combustion of coal, oil and gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are already higher than they have been for at least 430,000 years.
If such activities continue, CO2 will rise to levels not seen on the Earth for 30 million years or more.
CO2 is not the only cause of global climate change, but it is the primary cause. Reducing CO2 emissions is a necessary step to avert a potentially catastrophic future.
Many countries have adopted a global target of 550 parts per million (ppm), roughly a doubling of the pre-industrial value, as a safe and reasonable level that can be achieved over the next century.
It seems unlikely that substantial and effective actions will be sustained if the US is not engaged in the process
The truth is that no scientist really knows what CO2 level is safe. What we do know is that even if CO2 levels stabilised today, the Earth would continue to warm as oceans and ice sheets gradually adjust over decades and centuries to their new atmospheric boundary conditions.
Because the response times of the oceans and glaciers are so long, by the time we see a catastrophe on the horizon, such as the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet (equivalent to six metres of sea level rise), it will likely be impossible to stop it.
The coal issue
Even a stabilisation level of 550 ppm may be very difficult to achieve. Once released from a smokestack or tailpipe, CO2 remains in the atmosphere and surface ocean for centuries.
Moreover, the lifetime of a coal-burning power plant can be 50 years or more, so energy choices we make today will determine our path for the next many decades.
With the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by Russia, the world sits at a crossroads.
Many developed countries are taking bold actions to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions. However, it seems unlikely that substantial and effective actions will be sustained if the US is not engaged in the process.
Certainly it will be difficult to persuade developing countries to participate without US involvement.
Do the political and economic incentives or the relatively minor emissions reductions introduced by the Kyoto Protocol lead to the long-term investments in infrastructure that are required to stabilise carbon dioxide below 550 ppm? I suspect not.
Although it is good for countries to agree to work on the problem together, I fear that the Kyoto Protocol does little to face our major challenge: how to get energy from coal without releasing CO2 to the atmosphere.
Coal has the highest CO2 emissions per unit of energy, and coal will remain inexpensive long after the supplies of cheap oil and gas diminish over the next few decades.
Even with more widespread use of renewable energy technology and nuclear power, coal will remain a major source of energy, particularly in those countries with the highest energy demands.
Thus, it is not a question of whether China, India, and the US will use their vast coal reserves but rather how they will use them.
In the rapidly growing economies of China and India, new pulverised coal plants are being built at an alarming rate.
US opportunity
There are some alternatives on the horizon, including coal gasification technology that produces a concentrated effluent of CO2 that is easier to capture and store underground.
But whatever technology is used, the developed world must work with the developing world to prevent the release of CO2 from coal combustion into the atmosphere if the goal of CO2 stabilisation is to be achieved.
This analysis identifies a new opportunity for the US to play a leadership role in reducing our exposure to future climate change.
One could envision bilateral agreements between the US and China, for example, in which the US provides financial assistance to US companies who produce energy in China without emitting CO2, while China provides access to its rapidly growing energy market.
Whatever the specific strategies may be, the time to act is now. There is a window of opportunity for the US to work on this problem, but it will not last long.
After the next several decades, so much investment will have been made in traditional energy generation technology in the rapidly developing world that reducing global emissions will be much more difficult.
The author is Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. He is director of the institution's Laboratory for Geochemical Oceanography. He uses geochemistry techniques to work out what the Earth's climate was like thousands, or even millions, of years ago.
More ammunition for green parties to ask their governments what they are doing to stop the rot.
---------------------------------------------
How to reduce future climate risk
Viewpoint
By Daniel P Schrag
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University
Human society is performing a remarkable and uncontrolled experiment on the Earth.
Because of the combustion of coal, oil and gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are already higher than they have been for at least 430,000 years.
If such activities continue, CO2 will rise to levels not seen on the Earth for 30 million years or more.
CO2 is not the only cause of global climate change, but it is the primary cause. Reducing CO2 emissions is a necessary step to avert a potentially catastrophic future.
Many countries have adopted a global target of 550 parts per million (ppm), roughly a doubling of the pre-industrial value, as a safe and reasonable level that can be achieved over the next century.
It seems unlikely that substantial and effective actions will be sustained if the US is not engaged in the process
The truth is that no scientist really knows what CO2 level is safe. What we do know is that even if CO2 levels stabilised today, the Earth would continue to warm as oceans and ice sheets gradually adjust over decades and centuries to their new atmospheric boundary conditions.
Because the response times of the oceans and glaciers are so long, by the time we see a catastrophe on the horizon, such as the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet (equivalent to six metres of sea level rise), it will likely be impossible to stop it.
The coal issue
Even a stabilisation level of 550 ppm may be very difficult to achieve. Once released from a smokestack or tailpipe, CO2 remains in the atmosphere and surface ocean for centuries.
Moreover, the lifetime of a coal-burning power plant can be 50 years or more, so energy choices we make today will determine our path for the next many decades.
With the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by Russia, the world sits at a crossroads.
Many developed countries are taking bold actions to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions. However, it seems unlikely that substantial and effective actions will be sustained if the US is not engaged in the process.
Certainly it will be difficult to persuade developing countries to participate without US involvement.
Do the political and economic incentives or the relatively minor emissions reductions introduced by the Kyoto Protocol lead to the long-term investments in infrastructure that are required to stabilise carbon dioxide below 550 ppm? I suspect not.
Although it is good for countries to agree to work on the problem together, I fear that the Kyoto Protocol does little to face our major challenge: how to get energy from coal without releasing CO2 to the atmosphere.
Coal has the highest CO2 emissions per unit of energy, and coal will remain inexpensive long after the supplies of cheap oil and gas diminish over the next few decades.
Even with more widespread use of renewable energy technology and nuclear power, coal will remain a major source of energy, particularly in those countries with the highest energy demands.
Thus, it is not a question of whether China, India, and the US will use their vast coal reserves but rather how they will use them.
In the rapidly growing economies of China and India, new pulverised coal plants are being built at an alarming rate.
US opportunity
There are some alternatives on the horizon, including coal gasification technology that produces a concentrated effluent of CO2 that is easier to capture and store underground.
But whatever technology is used, the developed world must work with the developing world to prevent the release of CO2 from coal combustion into the atmosphere if the goal of CO2 stabilisation is to be achieved.
This analysis identifies a new opportunity for the US to play a leadership role in reducing our exposure to future climate change.
One could envision bilateral agreements between the US and China, for example, in which the US provides financial assistance to US companies who produce energy in China without emitting CO2, while China provides access to its rapidly growing energy market.
Whatever the specific strategies may be, the time to act is now. There is a window of opportunity for the US to work on this problem, but it will not last long.
After the next several decades, so much investment will have been made in traditional energy generation technology in the rapidly developing world that reducing global emissions will be much more difficult.
The author is Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. He is director of the institution's Laboratory for Geochemical Oceanography. He uses geochemistry techniques to work out what the Earth's climate was like thousands, or even millions, of years ago.
Monday, December 06, 2004
TODAYonline - NO-NONSENSE MAN
TODAYonline
A rare interview of an opposition MP in the press.
----------------------------
NO-NONSENSE MAN
Low Thia Khiang
Weekend • December 4, 2004
Teo Hwee Nak, Deputy News Editor
hweenak@newstoday.com.sg
THE first thing that greets you when you enter his air-conditioned office is the lingering whiff of smoke from the freshly-stubbed cigarette.
And you can't help but notice that the warm water the amiable auntie puts down before you is served in a Tsing Tao Beer glass. Then, Mr Low Thia Khiang, the Workers' Party chief and opposition MP — who replies to emails in crisp and formal English, polite but sometimes bordering on aloofness — takes you by surprise when he leans forward and asks: "That round thing, is it stone or what?"
I was wearing a necklace made of two round pieces of shell in pink and red, and told him so.
"Very attractive," the Hougang MP said, nodding his approval.
With that, the 48-year-old, who runs a signage business, leans back in his chair, his body language signalling that he is ready for the interview.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He's the kind of politician most Singaporeans have come to expect. Not always politically correct; doesn't care if he isn't. No attempt to hide that stubbed out cigarette in the ashtray, no apologies for serving water in whatever glass is available in his pantry.
With Mr Low Thia Khiang, what you see is what you get.
He tackles questions in much the same way: straight talking, no-nonsense, but always considered, his replies punctuated by long, thoughtful pauses.
This is the man, who, a few months ago, launched a stinging criticism of SingPower for the way it distributed its $30 utility vouchers aimed at helping needy families.
SingPower gave the vouchers to grassroots organisations listed under the People's Association, and incurred the ire of Mr Low and Mr Chiam See Tong, the other opposition MP, when the media reported that only 30 per cent of the vouchers were used.
Grassroots organisations in opposition wards are run by advisers appointed by the People's Action Party (PAP), not by the elected MP as in other wards.
In a press statement, Mr Low asked if the move was "a new strategy to help the PAP MPs and grassroots advisers in opposition wards win votes for future elections".
While the coffee shop speculation is that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will call an election soon, Mr Low does not think so. But his party is nonetheless prepared, with its officials and volunteers already actively working the ground in various wards. He says he aims to get more WP members into Parliament, but he is tight-lipped on the details.
What he does speak readily about is the increasingly challenging climate for the opposition.
The biggest challenge, says Mr Low, is in reaching out to an apolitical younger generation that has grown up equating PAP with Government – "even the kindergarten they go through is PCF" (PAP Community Foundation).
"A political set-up, the soul of any political party, is the people. The state of opposition today in Singapore reflects the state of Singapore as it is," he says.
"In the past, though Singaporeans may not be as highly educated as Singaporeans today, they went through the political process of independence and the political vibrancy of that era. They understand the importance of political competition, of having their say through their votes. The younger generation hasn't gone through that era. And because the level of participation in elections has gone down, people don't care."
In the last GE in 2001, only 33 per cent of eligible voters actually voted, with just 29 of 84 seats contested – the lowest number ever.
When asked if he thought the new Prime Minister would call an early election in order to get the people's mandate, he retorted: "Mandate? I think the PAP has got a walkover mandate. And when you go for elections, you elect the party, you don't elect the Prime Minister. So logically speaking, it's not so much a mandate for the Prime Minister, but of the PAP as a ruling party. And if you're talking about individual mandate, what mandate are you talking about when you hold elections and you walk over in Ang Mo Kio?"
Describing being an opposition politician as being "like a sampan in a treacherous sea", Mr Low points - as opposition politicians around the world tend to do - to the electoral rules as a factor that serves to "deplete slowly the strength of the opposition".
He has done a study of the redrawing of the electoral boundaries over the years, and he says this has ensured that opposition supporters are always the minority in elections.
"In many other countries, you have election commission. Here, the party, being the government, decides. And this is fair? No."
The PAP has always maintained that the Elections Department, as part of the civil service, is free from party political interference, and that the electoral map is redrawn based on changes in population distributions.
While he cannot change electoral rules, Mr Low believes that as long as elections are held, Singaporeans will understand the practical use of the vote – even if they have no idea what democracy is about.
"Singaporeans may not understand the role of opposition, but they do understand that when elections come, there will be a lot of goodies, that when you vote for the PAP, there'll be upgrading. They understand that when elections come, then the government will become gentler, and their complaints get attended to very efficiently.
"These make up a practical education process that helps them understand the reality of politics, the usefulness and function of opposition, and how they can bargain with the government through the opposition with their vote. But the next question is, how do they vote? They want opposition, but they also want the goodies. They know when to use you, they also know when to discard you."
He paused, then said with a resigned laugh: "We're suckers, aren't we?"
So why serve a bunch of suckers, Mr Low?
"That's the challenge, my friend. That's the challenge. To do something different, but worthwhile. And the experience of involvement and participation in the election process as an opposition member is a tremendous life experience."
But getting enough people ready to take the road he has taken for the last 20 years is a challenge.
Time is just one factor.
"The other factor is, people do not see opposition as being able to further their personal development, their career. They see it as a losing cause. These are people who have high calibre and are ambitious in life, and there's nothing wrong with that.
"Joining opposition, there's no reward. Joining PAP, there are some rewards, I suppose. But joining opposition, you lose your time, your money. You contribute, but I can't see any rewards."
Which is why the opposition calls for "a different breed of people".
"People who are prepared to say, okay, I'm prepared to take a challenge in life, I think that this is a cause for me, and democracy is important. People who have the guts to say, OK, let's do it. And what's most important: We're prepared to lose."
But most Singaporeans aren't. They go for the tried-and-tested and established, whether it is choosing the university (Mr Low cited a recent survey that showed students prefer the near century-old NUS to the two younger universities), or a career path – or joining a political party.
"There's a false sense of security that if the PAP is around, we'll be alright. It may be so now, but are we sure 50 years down the road? Because of the management and style of government in the past –top-down, and directing people as to what they should do rather than allow genuine response from the ground whether in terms of civic organisation, civil society development - our society has lost the initiative by itself," said Mr Low.
Years of reliance on guidance from the government have created a breed of Singaporeans that is always looking for help, he said. Hence, the resilience and vibrancy, which is necessary for the long-term survival of Singapore in the face of globalisation, is not there.
Singaporeans, however, don't understand this.
"All people are concerned is whether they're going against the law…(Rules) have to be something explicit, then people know what to do. When it's not, people say, I'd better not do. It becomes a culture."
The response to the rule that old windows be retrofitted shows Singaporeans' immaturity, he said, referring to reports that many homeowners were misled by contractors into making unnecessary changes.
"All you have to do is say, I'm from HDB, then gao dim (Cantonese for "settled") already lor. Why? Why are people so afraid of the government? People forget that what is important is to make sure your windows are safe.
"They think: OK, since you say I have to rivet, I rivet already ah, so window fall, fall lah. I've already done what you told me to do. I rivet, I've done my part. But they miss the point, that it's their responsibility to make sure that the window doesn't fall and hit somebody.
"We may be a first world economy, but in terms of society and how we behave, we have not reached first world."
A rare interview of an opposition MP in the press.
----------------------------
NO-NONSENSE MAN
Low Thia Khiang
Weekend • December 4, 2004
Teo Hwee Nak, Deputy News Editor
hweenak@newstoday.com.sg
THE first thing that greets you when you enter his air-conditioned office is the lingering whiff of smoke from the freshly-stubbed cigarette.
And you can't help but notice that the warm water the amiable auntie puts down before you is served in a Tsing Tao Beer glass. Then, Mr Low Thia Khiang, the Workers' Party chief and opposition MP — who replies to emails in crisp and formal English, polite but sometimes bordering on aloofness — takes you by surprise when he leans forward and asks: "That round thing, is it stone or what?"
I was wearing a necklace made of two round pieces of shell in pink and red, and told him so.
"Very attractive," the Hougang MP said, nodding his approval.
With that, the 48-year-old, who runs a signage business, leans back in his chair, his body language signalling that he is ready for the interview.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He's the kind of politician most Singaporeans have come to expect. Not always politically correct; doesn't care if he isn't. No attempt to hide that stubbed out cigarette in the ashtray, no apologies for serving water in whatever glass is available in his pantry.
With Mr Low Thia Khiang, what you see is what you get.
He tackles questions in much the same way: straight talking, no-nonsense, but always considered, his replies punctuated by long, thoughtful pauses.
This is the man, who, a few months ago, launched a stinging criticism of SingPower for the way it distributed its $30 utility vouchers aimed at helping needy families.
SingPower gave the vouchers to grassroots organisations listed under the People's Association, and incurred the ire of Mr Low and Mr Chiam See Tong, the other opposition MP, when the media reported that only 30 per cent of the vouchers were used.
Grassroots organisations in opposition wards are run by advisers appointed by the People's Action Party (PAP), not by the elected MP as in other wards.
In a press statement, Mr Low asked if the move was "a new strategy to help the PAP MPs and grassroots advisers in opposition wards win votes for future elections".
While the coffee shop speculation is that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will call an election soon, Mr Low does not think so. But his party is nonetheless prepared, with its officials and volunteers already actively working the ground in various wards. He says he aims to get more WP members into Parliament, but he is tight-lipped on the details.
What he does speak readily about is the increasingly challenging climate for the opposition.
The biggest challenge, says Mr Low, is in reaching out to an apolitical younger generation that has grown up equating PAP with Government – "even the kindergarten they go through is PCF" (PAP Community Foundation).
"A political set-up, the soul of any political party, is the people. The state of opposition today in Singapore reflects the state of Singapore as it is," he says.
"In the past, though Singaporeans may not be as highly educated as Singaporeans today, they went through the political process of independence and the political vibrancy of that era. They understand the importance of political competition, of having their say through their votes. The younger generation hasn't gone through that era. And because the level of participation in elections has gone down, people don't care."
In the last GE in 2001, only 33 per cent of eligible voters actually voted, with just 29 of 84 seats contested – the lowest number ever.
When asked if he thought the new Prime Minister would call an early election in order to get the people's mandate, he retorted: "Mandate? I think the PAP has got a walkover mandate. And when you go for elections, you elect the party, you don't elect the Prime Minister. So logically speaking, it's not so much a mandate for the Prime Minister, but of the PAP as a ruling party. And if you're talking about individual mandate, what mandate are you talking about when you hold elections and you walk over in Ang Mo Kio?"
Describing being an opposition politician as being "like a sampan in a treacherous sea", Mr Low points - as opposition politicians around the world tend to do - to the electoral rules as a factor that serves to "deplete slowly the strength of the opposition".
He has done a study of the redrawing of the electoral boundaries over the years, and he says this has ensured that opposition supporters are always the minority in elections.
"In many other countries, you have election commission. Here, the party, being the government, decides. And this is fair? No."
The PAP has always maintained that the Elections Department, as part of the civil service, is free from party political interference, and that the electoral map is redrawn based on changes in population distributions.
While he cannot change electoral rules, Mr Low believes that as long as elections are held, Singaporeans will understand the practical use of the vote – even if they have no idea what democracy is about.
"Singaporeans may not understand the role of opposition, but they do understand that when elections come, there will be a lot of goodies, that when you vote for the PAP, there'll be upgrading. They understand that when elections come, then the government will become gentler, and their complaints get attended to very efficiently.
"These make up a practical education process that helps them understand the reality of politics, the usefulness and function of opposition, and how they can bargain with the government through the opposition with their vote. But the next question is, how do they vote? They want opposition, but they also want the goodies. They know when to use you, they also know when to discard you."
He paused, then said with a resigned laugh: "We're suckers, aren't we?"
So why serve a bunch of suckers, Mr Low?
"That's the challenge, my friend. That's the challenge. To do something different, but worthwhile. And the experience of involvement and participation in the election process as an opposition member is a tremendous life experience."
But getting enough people ready to take the road he has taken for the last 20 years is a challenge.
Time is just one factor.
"The other factor is, people do not see opposition as being able to further their personal development, their career. They see it as a losing cause. These are people who have high calibre and are ambitious in life, and there's nothing wrong with that.
"Joining opposition, there's no reward. Joining PAP, there are some rewards, I suppose. But joining opposition, you lose your time, your money. You contribute, but I can't see any rewards."
Which is why the opposition calls for "a different breed of people".
"People who are prepared to say, okay, I'm prepared to take a challenge in life, I think that this is a cause for me, and democracy is important. People who have the guts to say, OK, let's do it. And what's most important: We're prepared to lose."
But most Singaporeans aren't. They go for the tried-and-tested and established, whether it is choosing the university (Mr Low cited a recent survey that showed students prefer the near century-old NUS to the two younger universities), or a career path – or joining a political party.
"There's a false sense of security that if the PAP is around, we'll be alright. It may be so now, but are we sure 50 years down the road? Because of the management and style of government in the past –top-down, and directing people as to what they should do rather than allow genuine response from the ground whether in terms of civic organisation, civil society development - our society has lost the initiative by itself," said Mr Low.
Years of reliance on guidance from the government have created a breed of Singaporeans that is always looking for help, he said. Hence, the resilience and vibrancy, which is necessary for the long-term survival of Singapore in the face of globalisation, is not there.
Singaporeans, however, don't understand this.
"All people are concerned is whether they're going against the law…(Rules) have to be something explicit, then people know what to do. When it's not, people say, I'd better not do. It becomes a culture."
The response to the rule that old windows be retrofitted shows Singaporeans' immaturity, he said, referring to reports that many homeowners were misled by contractors into making unnecessary changes.
"All you have to do is say, I'm from HDB, then gao dim (Cantonese for "settled") already lor. Why? Why are people so afraid of the government? People forget that what is important is to make sure your windows are safe.
"They think: OK, since you say I have to rivet, I rivet already ah, so window fall, fall lah. I've already done what you told me to do. I rivet, I've done my part. But they miss the point, that it's their responsibility to make sure that the window doesn't fall and hit somebody.
"We may be a first world economy, but in terms of society and how we behave, we have not reached first world."
Selection - From Opposition to Power: Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party
Selection - From Opposition to Power: Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party
Should be an interesting read; NLB has it listed, but not ready for loan yet. Below is a selection from the book.
----------------------------------------------
In Taiwan, the ruling party is called the governing party (zhizheng dang), but the opposition is called the party in the wildness (zaiye dang). The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has thus come out of the wildness in the general elections in March 2000 to become the governing party, an unprecedented upset in Taiwan's democratic system that saw the overthrown of the Kuomintang's (KMT) more than 50-year-rule over the nation island. After winning the presidency on March 18, 2000, DPP membership enrollment shot up to more than 400,000 by the end of the year, a feat that worries the party more than it has brought celebrations. How the DPP achieved the ultimate pursuit of the presidency, how the party is organized and how politics work in Taiwan is explained in a scholarly fashion by Shelley Rigger, an associate professor of East Asian Politics at Davidson College, who has lived in Taiwan for long periods.
The book's 10 chapters deal nearly on all aspects of Taiwanese politics, focusing on the DPP from its history, its path to power and the decision-making machinery to its role in the 21st century. Readers will learn that the development of political parties in Taiwan is not based on socio-economic classes, which is the case in some Western countries like Britain's Labor and Conservative parties which are vying for the interests of their own classes. The absence of class-based politics has been a problem for DPP, and to a certain extent to other political parties as well. Taiwanese join the DPP and Dangwai Movement with the aim of toppling the KMT, its autocratic and martial law rules and for a host of other reasons. Some are pushed by personal animosity or by ideological conviction. Some want independence for Taiwan, which is a main platform for the DPP. Some resent the KMT's policy of favoring supporters by granting them business contracts. Thus the KMT is regarded as pro-business and pro heavy industry, and the DPP anti-business. The perception of an anti-business DPP continues until the present time. Take the example of Bayer's decision to cancel project to build a pharmaceutical company in Taiwan. The DPP has to rely on non-economic issues in its campaign, but it has also won the support for its defense of the environment.
Readers will learn that Taiwan's political parties are strongly influenced by mainland China's ties with the Soviet Union decades ago when the KMT was beginning to take form. Both the KMT and DPP are organized under a Leninist model, both are headed by strong chairmen, who hold the decision-making authority.
Corruption in Taiwanese politics is another topic fully analyzed by the author and efforts made to abolish the National Assembly. The DPP in power now is facing the 21st century. But the most immediate challenge to its authority as it holds the rein of government is the December legislative elections.
It has survived an ideological fight by shifting away from its platform that called for a strong independence stance. The upcoming election is a crucial test for "its popularity, unity and competence," says the author. "Without the cooperation of the legislature and the professional bureaucracy, Chen Shui-bian will be hard-pressed to carry out the campaign promises on which he was elected," she says. Other challenge Chen is facing is explained by Rigger, including cross-strait relations under a DPP administration and issues of governance.
If the DPP succeeds in maintaining power, will Taiwan become a principally two-party political system? she asks. "Despite its imperfections, the Republic of China on Taiwan has made enormous progress over the past 20 years," Rigger says.
Should be an interesting read; NLB has it listed, but not ready for loan yet. Below is a selection from the book.
----------------------------------------------
In Taiwan, the ruling party is called the governing party (zhizheng dang), but the opposition is called the party in the wildness (zaiye dang). The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has thus come out of the wildness in the general elections in March 2000 to become the governing party, an unprecedented upset in Taiwan's democratic system that saw the overthrown of the Kuomintang's (KMT) more than 50-year-rule over the nation island. After winning the presidency on March 18, 2000, DPP membership enrollment shot up to more than 400,000 by the end of the year, a feat that worries the party more than it has brought celebrations. How the DPP achieved the ultimate pursuit of the presidency, how the party is organized and how politics work in Taiwan is explained in a scholarly fashion by Shelley Rigger, an associate professor of East Asian Politics at Davidson College, who has lived in Taiwan for long periods.
The book's 10 chapters deal nearly on all aspects of Taiwanese politics, focusing on the DPP from its history, its path to power and the decision-making machinery to its role in the 21st century. Readers will learn that the development of political parties in Taiwan is not based on socio-economic classes, which is the case in some Western countries like Britain's Labor and Conservative parties which are vying for the interests of their own classes. The absence of class-based politics has been a problem for DPP, and to a certain extent to other political parties as well. Taiwanese join the DPP and Dangwai Movement with the aim of toppling the KMT, its autocratic and martial law rules and for a host of other reasons. Some are pushed by personal animosity or by ideological conviction. Some want independence for Taiwan, which is a main platform for the DPP. Some resent the KMT's policy of favoring supporters by granting them business contracts. Thus the KMT is regarded as pro-business and pro heavy industry, and the DPP anti-business. The perception of an anti-business DPP continues until the present time. Take the example of Bayer's decision to cancel project to build a pharmaceutical company in Taiwan. The DPP has to rely on non-economic issues in its campaign, but it has also won the support for its defense of the environment.
Readers will learn that Taiwan's political parties are strongly influenced by mainland China's ties with the Soviet Union decades ago when the KMT was beginning to take form. Both the KMT and DPP are organized under a Leninist model, both are headed by strong chairmen, who hold the decision-making authority.
Corruption in Taiwanese politics is another topic fully analyzed by the author and efforts made to abolish the National Assembly. The DPP in power now is facing the 21st century. But the most immediate challenge to its authority as it holds the rein of government is the December legislative elections.
It has survived an ideological fight by shifting away from its platform that called for a strong independence stance. The upcoming election is a crucial test for "its popularity, unity and competence," says the author. "Without the cooperation of the legislature and the professional bureaucracy, Chen Shui-bian will be hard-pressed to carry out the campaign promises on which he was elected," she says. Other challenge Chen is facing is explained by Rigger, including cross-strait relations under a DPP administration and issues of governance.
If the DPP succeeds in maintaining power, will Taiwan become a principally two-party political system? she asks. "Despite its imperfections, the Republic of China on Taiwan has made enormous progress over the past 20 years," Rigger says.
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
NDM Article - U.S. Central Command Naval Chief Foresees More Volatility in the Region
NDM Article - U.S. Central Command Naval Chief Foresees More Volatility in the Region
Seems like Iran may be the next Iraq, i.e. Gulf War III. Bush has 4 years to decide.
Seems like Iran may be the next Iraq, i.e. Gulf War III. Bush has 4 years to decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)