From a Singapore Angle

- Some words about Singapore from Frank Lavin, outgoing United States Ambassador (via Wayne Soon). As to Wayne's comment--I think Mr. Lavin was being more polite (i.e., diplomatic) than genuinely surprised. update: the full text of Mr. Lavin's speech is available here; more analysis from ringisei. Incidentally, all this talk about "slapping" (Financial Times) and "slamming"; (Reuters) seems rather excessive, considering what Mr. Lavin actually said:

As part of Singapore’s success is its strong international links, it is surprising to find constraints on discussions here. In my view, governments will pay an increasing price for not allowing full participation of their citizens.

which is immediately followed by

I know Singapore will sort through these challenges, for Singaporeans are not known for resting on their laurels.

And this is set in the much larger context of a very warm appraisal of US-Singapore relations. No one need be offended by the frankness of a friend--the man ended his speech with "Majulah Singapura"! Rather, it should be an occasion for reflection and improvement. more: reflections from Singapore Classics (who claims that he doesn't see the connection) and lzydata at Singapore Ink (who agrees with Mr. Lavin about the "clash of civilisation"--or lack thereof).

- Chris Choo is pleasantly surprised about ST offering more free content. I'm definitely in the "knowing smile" group, though I paid for my STI subscription.

- Agagooga wonders if the 369 gang might have an interest in the "offence principle", and my (partial) response: there are difference senses to "offence" and not all of them are relevant to a sane formulation of the "offence principle".

- The Void Deck and Singapore Watch talk about the CPF. Elsewhere, Singapore Classics considers the arguments for and against Age Discrimination Legislation.

- Wows of Singapore Ink meditates on gullibility, critical compassion and the role that blogs can play in all that. But of course, he can't be right--after all, blogs still "a medium in search of a role" (Mr. Wang).

- Discussions of the exchange between Dr. Cherian George and the PMO; with some musings on the mandate of Heaven thrown in. (Sigh: haven't really had the chance to get into this one...) update: Dr. George has a response in today's ST (Oct 13), "Govt shouldn't equate analysis with advocacy". Highlight:

However, I am saddened that the Government has chosen to cast my article in partisan terms. Worse, it claims that I 'commended' the strategy of civil disobedience. This is not just a misrepresentation of my views. It is also a serious accusation, as it suggests that I was inciting readers to break the law.

I did not. I tried to explain Dr Chee Soon Juan's strategy, not champion it. Unfortunately, Mr Chen has chosen to equate analysis with advocacy. By this token, a historian who studies the rise of communism must be a communist himself. The terrorism expert who explains the motivations of Al-Qaeda operatives must be siding with terrorists. And a sociologist analysing Stefanie Sun's international appeal must be a groupie. Such labelling would make much academic research untenable.

Indeed. By the way, you do know that he blogs, right? And he has started another one: New Media, Politics and the Law. update: the PM's press sec has replied to Dr. George's reply in today's (Oct 14) forum page entitled, "Don wasn't non-partisan in his analysis".

- And in the broader region, Taiwanese democracy at work, complete with MPs in Taekwando gear on one side, and others in rented military garb in other, and the mandatory bleeding assembly man carried out by paramedics. ESWN has the lowdown and many photos.

- A blogging professor's own words came back to haunt him (thanks Tym for pointing this one to me). Earlier related post.

- Fascinating: An intercepted letter from al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri, to Iraqi insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi, dated July 9, 2005. Analysis from the Timesonline. update: looks like al Qaeda has denied the authenticity of the letter (Reuters). Here's the problem: Do we know if the rejection is authentic? How did Reuters know that this is really from "al Qaeda's wing in Iraq"? Assuming that the rejection is authentic--it is nevertheless consistent both with the authenticity and the inauthenticity of the original letter--in the former case, as damage control, in the latter case, as damage control.