On a confusion about "imposing one's belief on others"

Just read Lincoln Gu Yuanhao's letter to ST Forum (Feb 28), "Don't let people impose their beliefs", which is in reference to Jamie Lee's letter "Why are we so afraid of the 'R' words?" (ST, Feb 17).

Now I don't really have a considered view about whether or not the 'R' word (whether "religion" or "race") should be part of our public discourse. I emphasise public because unless I am completely mistaken about Singapore Law, the sanctions are not against religious discourse per se. The point, as I understand Singapore's religious harmony policies, is to keep religion out of politics, rather than to put a complete lid on religious speech per se. In other words, while peaceful preaching and proselytizing are not forbidden, inciting people to violence is. So in a way, Gu's letter is pretty much off base:

I am a Chinese free thinker. Therefore, I am always irritated when people try to convert me to their religion and impose their beliefs on me. It is all well and good that they can find something to believe in, but it does not mean they need to impose their beliefs on others.

I am sorry that he is irritated, but that's not something the law can and should do something about--unless we are willing to go the whole hog and curtail the freedom of religious people in preaching and proselytizing even when they do so in an entirely peaceful manner!

That, by the way, was and still pretty much is the position of Communist China. And of course, it remains a punishable offense for Christians to evangelise in many Muslim countries. But any country that claims to practice religious freedom must allow people of different faiths to preach, to proselytize--if such is called for by their religions--and likewise, it would have to allow individuals the freedom to join, or leave, or remain in some religion as they so choose, or for that matter, to not have a religion at all.

But there is a deeper confusion that is worth pointing out, as it is not an uncommon one--again,

It is all well and good that they can find something to believe in, but it does not mean they need to impose their beliefs on others.

I am interested in this phrase "impose...beliefs on...". What does the following sentence mean? Take two agents, A and B, and proposition P

(1) A imposes his belief that P on B

Let's assume that this is always a bad thing, that (1) describes something reprehensible. But now we need to see what would count as an instance of (1). [I've edited this paragraph so as to make the overall argument flow better.]

Presumably, (1) is a specific instance of a more general set of phenomena:

(2) A believes that P, B does not believe that P, A wants B to believe that P, A does X where X is some action undertaken with the aim of getting B to believe that P

Once we've broken it down this way, it should be obvious that, so described, (2) can be innocuous, in fact, entirely commonplace. I'll state just one example: two friends A and B are taking the same course in NUS. They believed that that final exam is on Wednesday. One of them came to the belief that it is in fact on Tuesday (he rechecked the schedule, say). Being a friend of B, he is concerned to make sure that B gets news of this. He calls B on the phone and tells him, viz., he undertakes an action with the aim of getting B to believe that the exam is on Tuesday instead of Wednesday. Completely innocuous and utterly commonplace.

Let's say that B is stubborn; he insists that the exam is on Wednesday. He might even exclaim to A: just because you believe that the exam is on Tuesday doesn't mean that you have a right to impose your belief on me. It's not hard to see that he's being hyperbolic. A wasn't imposing his belief on him. He called on the phone, spoke in his normal voice, etc. Now if A had came to B's place with an electric baton and threaten to hurt B unless the latter believes as he does, we would have a case for saying that A had been attempting to impose his belief on B.

The lesson: the construction (2) describes a case of imposing one's belief on others only given the relevant X--e.g., the threat or use of force, or some other sort of coercion. Given some other stuff in X--the entirely peaceable actions of talking, say, it would be entirely unjust to talk about imposing.

The funny thing is that Gu's own formulations is as ambiguous as (2):

No belief is offensive in itself, but it becomes so when one tries to override the original belief of another individual. By bringing this discussion into the open, we allow such 'offensive' action to take place.

So A believed that the exam is on Tuesday and "tried to override" the "original belief" of B, i.e., that the exam is on Wednesday, and this is offensive? Surely he can't mean that. The mere attempt to change a person's beliefs is not by itself offensive. It's all going to depend on how this "overriding" is done, what sorts of actions that A undertake. Otherwise, Gu must be incredibly easy to offend. ("I'm sorry sir, but you gave me $5 short for the taxi fare"..."stop trying to impose your beliefs on me!" "Huh?!")

The above is terribly simplified because normally, part of the usual and peaceable action we often undertake to get someone to believe in something is to show the person a reason--of the relevant kind--that he should do so. For example, the taxi driver points to his fare-meter and shows the passenger the money given to show that he's still $5 short, or in or earlier example, A directs B to the relevant website showing the (updated) exam schedule, etc. And often times, the reason or evidence is of such nature that the other person need not be irrational even if he rejects it. ("Guess what I heard from Jane about Peter and his new girlfriend...etc"..."Yes, but I don't trust Jane.") And the sorts of reasons and evidences that might be appealed to in getting another person believe in the truth of some religious doctrine are often of this nature--they are seldom knockdown reasons (otherwise, we won't be talking about "faith"). I'll have more on this later.

So much for that. This other bit caught my eye:

I was shocked to realise certain religions capitalised on the tsunami disaster to gather more converts. About a week after the disaster, en route from Yio Chu Kang MRT station to Nanyang Polytechnic, no fewer than three people were distributing a booklet detailing the association between God and the tsunami.

After I scanned it, I threw it away as I found it offensive to my own beliefs. They were also distributing to people who were obviously of other religious beliefs.

It used to be that it's the people with strong religious beliefs who are offended when their god is blasphemed against. But now I'm trying to understand what exactly is it that offended Mr. Gu, the self avowed free thinker.

First, a short detour. Some things in life are such that given the evidence, reasonable (or properly trained) people will tend to draw the same conclusions. But other things are not so. In those cases, entirely reasonable people acting in good faith (humanly speaking, that is) even when faced with the exact same set of evidence, might draw very different conclusions. Sometimes, these conclusions are not only different, they are contrary and opposed to each other. Religious and philosophical doctrines are often of this nature. Even without the complications of ignorance, perversity, rivalries for power, status or economic gain, people often come to fundamentally different conceptions of life, of value, of answers to "ultimate questions". The philosopher John Rawls calls this the "burdens of judgment" (see his Political Liberalism, p. 55). Incidentally, religion (and philosophy) is hardly the only area of life that is of this nature.

Given any two positions on the "ultimate questions", it is not difficult for one to be in some sense "offensive" from the perspective of the other. From the point of view of the pro-choice people, any ban on abortion (no matter how qualified), tramples on the rights of women to determine how and what they will to their own bodies. From the point of view of the pro-life people, abortion on demand is an affront to the sanctity of life. The issue for society is not: how would any one set of these views affect the subjective feelings of someone who does not hold to them? Offense is inevitable--unless the society is willing to simply ignore the burdens of judgment and impose by coercive means one uniform set of beliefs on all issues pertaining to "ultimate questions" (i.e., end of religious freedom). The issue is: what are the peaceable and legitimate means by which these views may be expressed, and by which adherents of these views may seek to have others come to share their views?

No one can determine for Mr. Gu what he would feel upon encountering the views about the "association between God and the tsunami" or any other set of views that are contrary to the ones he hold. But why should such feelings be the basis for condemning the entirely peaceable actions of religious people (of whatever faith) to persuade others of the truth of their views?

More to come...

...Continued (Feb 28): Let me be absolutely clear about one thing. My intention is not to pick on Mr. Gu. It's just that his letter as published by ST (I don't even know if ST published his letter in full) furnished a useful launch pad for discussing certain (in my opinion) commonly encountered confusions. As I said, I don't really have a considered opinion on Jamie Han's proposal in his letter of Feb 17. On the one hand, I sympathetize with the sentiment that ideally, there is no in principle reason why religion or race cannot be part of our public discourse. The best way to keep crazy and irresponsible ideas of religious or racial extremists from doing damage is not to put a lid on them, but to expose them to the light of day and allow them to be contested, refuted, argued over, etc., by the public at large. But that said, it is possible that the specific condition in Singapore (and the region) poses special difficulties that call for a more prudent approach. I am thus undecided.

Operation Flying Eagle (Part 3)

The third and final part to ST's "Operation Flying Eagle: The inside story of the SAF's tsunami relief deployment" is out, entitled, "Mission accomplished...and what the operation really accomplished" (Feb 27), by Felix Soh. (My posts on Parts 1 and 2 previously). Once again, skipping most of the previously known stuff, there remains some points worth highlighting.

The first part of the article brings us up to speed: the return to relative normalcy in Meulaboh--one sign being the coming of increased traffic, and even traffic jams. Three weeks after Operation Flying Eagle began, the SAF began its phasing out, handing over the reconstruction work to the NGOs. Next come some assessments.

First, the article points out though the SAF's contributions are easily dwarved by what the US military brought to the relief effort (but by no means completely puny, I would add), "the early timing of the Singapore assistance made a big difference"--

The timely arrival of SAF relief assistance was critical as the people in Meulaboh were running low on water, food and medicine. The SAF contingent was the first to reach the town.

But there's more:

It was not just a 'numbers and size' game. It was having the right calibre of men and employing the right kind of equipment, for example, the much-in-demand heavy-lift Chinooks, to deliver relief where the help was most critically needed, which made Singapore's effort effective and impactful.

This point was acknowledged by the Americans themselves. As the New York Times magazine said: 'Consider the example of Singapore, a tiny country with a small but professional military.

'While the little (American) Seahawks flying off the deck of the Abraham Lincoln carried modest loads, six giant Chinooks, provided by the Singapore Armed Forces with little fanfare, did a good deal of the heavy lifting.'

In a way it's slighly unfair to the Americans--obviously they deployed as quickly as they could with what they've got--and it's not their fault that they did not have many Chinooks in this part of the world. But they did have many other helicopters flying from the Carriers and other Navy vessels. Still, it is fortunate that Singapore does have the right equipment, and in a place where they could be of maximum effectiveness. But to continue, the article goes on to ask the important question. No, no, not exactly this one:

So, what were the ingredients that made Operation Flying Eagle a success?

But this one:

What was the SAF's 'takeaway' from the operation? What was the learning it acquired from the mission?

It's not that the first question is not worth asking, or the Operation Flying was not a success--it surely was. The answers to that question has always been clear. I am a little disappointed, however, with the article; because I think while it answered the first question amply, I see less by way of an answer to the second set of questions. But perhaps I should not be--the really interesting stuff will predictably also be the classified stuff. In general, it will be the happy stuff that makes the press...

In any case, the article identifies three broad points in explaining Op. Flying Eagle's success: First, the close institutional and personal relationship between the SAF and TNI. Second, the cultural sensitivity of the SAF personnel to the Indonesians and their way of life. Third, the quality of SAF's men, doctrines and equipment. (All have appear in one form or other on this blog before.) For the first--the close ties between the SAF and TNI, the following example tells whole volumes:

IN THE possession of the Republic of Singapore Navy is a special sea chart of the Meulaboh area in western Sumatra. It is special because it is hand-traced. The manually drawn chart, which was critical for navigation in the unfamiliar waters of Meulaboh, is a reflection of the close relationship developed over the years between the SAF and the Tentera Nasional Indonesia (TNI).

RSS Endurance commanding officer Lt-Col Li said: 'We had no suitable chart of the correct scale. Through our relationship with the TNI-AL (navy), we managed to obtain a chart of Meulaboh waters and this greatly helped in keeping the ship safe.'

When the second LST, RSS Persistence, arrived, he asked the Indonesian navy whether they had another chart to spare. There was none. 'Instead, the admiral's staff manually traced a copy of the chart for us,' he said.

Apart from the hard work that someone in the TNI-AL had to go through to get the chart hand traced, what is much more telling is the Indonesian's willingness to trust the SAF with a chart of this nature. This willingness--in my opinion--cannot be simply attributed to the fact that,

from their frequent interaction in bilateral meetings and visits. SAF commanders were familiar with the key Indonesian military personnel running the emergency relief work in Aceh.

I'm sure that paved the way somewhat; but at the end of the day, Indonesia does not fear Singapore. They do not feel threatened by the SAF, even though they probably recognize the SAF's technological superiority and so on, and even though as neighboring countries, we may irritate them at times. This underlying factor cannot be overlooked. It also suggests that the same level of trust may not be forthcoming if it had been another neighbor we were dealing with (I'll leave it at that). Needless to say, the sensitivity and sincerity displayed by the SAF helped

...the TNI officers were comfortable with the presence of the SAF officers. They were also impressed with the SAF's low profile and the sincerity of its assistance. An Indonesian intelligence source said: 'When SAF soldiers stepped on Indonesian soil, we never had a doubt that they were genuine and sincere in wanting to help.'

The Singaporeans never took the Indonesians for granted. Meulaboh task force commander Colonel Tan Chuan Jin commented: 'Every day, we re-calibrated our interaction with the Indonesian authorities and people. We were mindful of treating people with respect and dignity.'

For instance, it would make a dramatic media photo opportunity to have survivors running after food and bottled water thrown from a helicopter. But the SAF did not do this as it could be dangerous for people on the ground.

But my point is that all this cannot be detached from the fundamental reality. It is not that the SAF personnel are not sincere or genuinely considerate about Indonesian sensitivities; but that the perceptions have been helped along by ever present reality of the sheer unbalance between Singapore and Indonesia. The best intentions and sensitivity that a US marine, say, can have and display, however, would not have counted as much.

In any case, let's hope that the goodwill generated by the SAF personnel did not die with the end of Op. Flying Eagle:

The Indonesians are appreciative of Singapore's contributions and intentions. Political observer Muchyar Yara told The Sunday Times: 'It was not just the machinery and technology that the SAF brought with them to Aceh. It was their men in the frontline. 'They had cultural acumen. They spoke the language and knew how to relate to the Acehnese, which some of the other foreign troops found a lot harder.' He added: 'There is a perception in some pockets in Indonesia that Singapore is a rich state that looks after only its own interests. But the crisis in Aceh showed that it was no fair-weather friend of Indonesia's.'

On the third point--the quaility of the SAF, men, machine, doctrine, it's almost as if ST has gotten wind of Singapore Ink's charge at the "lack of jointness", as the article went out of its way to paint up jointness between the services:

Teamwork was certainly a key factor. It was a joint operation involving all the services - land, sea and air. While some foreign armed forces are riven with unproductive rivalry and petty jealousies among their services, the SAF is a paragon of so-called 'jointness'.

Mr Teo said: 'Regulars, NSmen, operationally ready NSmen and volunteers were all involved and were able to work as a team. This shows the close integration between army, navy and air force. The relief efforts required combined capabilities.'

Well, let's be honest here. Inter-service rivalry is not as big a deal in the SAF mostly because--everything else aside--it is a very young military we are talking about here. The services never had the long traditions and histories that tend to generate special loyalties within each service, and therewith, inter-service rivalry. Furthermore, the SAF had the advantage of being started from scratch with the help of the very best--the Israelis; as opposed having evolved over decades and centuries from pre-modern precusors complete with stashes of captured colors from some bygone age. In fact, the Israelis themselves said that they managed to with the SAF even things they had wanted to, but somehow failed to do back home:

In discussions conducted by the chief of staff, Yitzhak Rabin, with the participation of the deputy chief of staff and head of the Operations Branch, Ezer Weizmann, it was decided to make Major General Rehavam Ze'evi, who was then deputy head of the Operations Branch, responsible for building the Singaporean army. Ze'evi (nicknamed "Gandhi" ) paid a secret visit to Singapore and the preparatory work began on his return. "Gandhi said he wanted to create an ideal army for Singapore, something we hadn't built here," Carmel says. "Instead of setting up a Defense Ministry and a General Staff, Gandhi suggested an integrated organization, a more economical structure. So there wouldn't be too many generals and too few soldiers." (from here)

Incidentally, the youth of the SAF is a big reason why it can undertake such rapid transformations to becoming a "3G" armed forces--there just isn't as much hidebound tradition to overcome. But back to jointness--while I think the baseline conditions advantage the SAF as far as the integration of the services is concerned, how that intergration actually translates into an effectively joint armed forces in operations is another matter altogether. All indications are that the SAF aquitted itself favorably in Op Flying Eagle, but I'm sure there's lots more that can be done.

I've already touched on SAF personnel "thinking out of the box" in my posts on the first two installments, but Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean mentioned it this time as well:

"We do have a versatile set of capabilities and were able to assemble them together for the mission. Our people are professional and are trained in a flexible way when faced with circumstances never experienced before. They found the best way, for example, to get ashore, to bring equipment in, to fly helicopters to places unknown, to locate places to land. The field engineers had to find sea landing sites as well as clear and create new landing sites for heavy helicopters. These required a lot of flexibility and sound initiative."

He will go on to say that Op Flying Eagle showed the operational readiness of the SAF, and vindicated its arduous, intensive training tempo and regime. Many units had experience in deploying overseas for exercises, which helped. And the commanders exhibited good leadership and initiative:

[Said BG Goh Kee Nguan, contingent HQ commander] "In an operation that's so spread out and the situation on the ground so dynamic, we must have commanders who can work on their own."

And there's even a PR pay off as well:

The success of Singapore's biggest-ever tsunami deployment has boosted the public's confidence in the SAF more than any of its testosterone-packed advertisements in the media...

[CDF LTG Ng Yat Chung said:] "The operation has improved the confidence of Singaporeans in the SAF and their pride in the SAF. It is an eye-opener for Singaporeans of what the SAF could do after years of training and systematic development of our capability."...

In turn, the mission has boosted the confidence of the SAF's rank-and-file in their organisation. For them, the success of the mission is a ringing endorsement of the SAF's direction, policies and equipment. In other words, the 'system' works.

Hopefully; and again, no reason to rest on one's laurels here. The transformation of the SAF into a 3G force is still ongoing. In mounting Operation Flying Eagle, the SAF not only helped a friend in need, it seized a golden opportuntiy to put its men, machines, doctrine, and much else to the test. Let's hope that the lessons learned--the real lessons, the ones that are classified--will go a long way in making SAF better and more effective in defending Singapore in the years to come.

UPDATE: Singapore Ink's comments on the article are out (Lzydata beat me to it again). As expected, the jointness thing came up:

Heh, it's funny that two weeks ago it was this very "jointness" in the SAF I questioned...While there may not be much “unproductive rivalry and petty jealousies" among our services, if one simply remembers the first part of this series of reports, it’s clear that SAF is not yet a "paragon of… 'jointness'."

He also takes issue with the article's citation of Eliot Cohen (which I didn't bother with, since I've not read that book before), but you can read the Singapore Ink post for yourself.

Koei to develop massive multiplayer game in Singapore

Reading the below article brought back a whole flood of childhood memories--playing Koei's Romance of the Three Kingdoms versions 1, 2, 3, 4...I lost count after that. When in Berkeley, I once heard a story about how an instructor of early Chinese history had to face down ROTK fanatics in class who disputed the professor on some obscure point about late Han history. Apocryphal, I'm sure, but suggestive. From the Electric New Paper (Feb 27):, "Game giant looks to Singapore", by Oo Gin Lee:

JAPAN'S computer game giant wants Singaporeans to be part of its online experience. Koei Entertainment is moving big into massively multiplayer online games (MMOG), and Singapore is going to be an important part of it.

Koei, one of the world's leading computer games creators, is developing its most ambitious product yet - a massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) based on the Romance Of The Three Kingdoms saga which it aims to take the world by storm. And the entire game will be developed right out of Koei's local games studio at China Square.

For Singapore, developing a major computer game of this scale is a historic first...

(Read the rest). Wait, this other bit caught my eye:

The game will also be linked to handphones, allowing players to continue their adventures at home or while on the move.

This is not good...maybe, just maybe, it's time for NUS to invest in some wi-fi jamming for the lecture halls.

Pirates!

Not this though.

I blogged very recently on Austin Bay comment about terrorism in Southeast Asia (see also the extensive discussions on Belmontclub on which I found the Bay article). He mentioned that attacks in the sea lanes is a real possibility to be guarded against--which brings to mind the issue of piracy in the region. Serendipitously, Eaglespeak just posted an excellent extended analysis of the piracy situation.

I shan't summarize Eaglespeak's post here, but he provided a number of useful links: there is a three parter by one Eric Khoo last year in Asia Times (Part 1, "Southeast Asia's modern-day pirates" (Oct 19, 2004); Part 2, "Tides of terror lap Southeast Asia" (Oct 20, 2004); Part 3, "Strategies for maritime security" (Oct 21, 2004), all of which makes for an interesting read. Just two highlights. First, from Part 2, the potential link between terrorism and piracy:

Preliminary investigations by US intelligence agencies have yielded no direct evidence linking piracy to terrorism. Yet the possibility of an alliance between piracy and terrorism cannot be ruled out. Piracy provides lucrative means of raising funds with which to purchase weapons for terrorists. In turn, terrorist groups can provide the expertise with which pirates may better avoid capture or arrest by lawful authorities. Such a possible collaborative relationship brings vital benefits to either party. If circumstances allow, terrorist bases and safe havens may even provide the necessary protection for pirates to hide their operations and activities.

With the intense crackdown on terrorist cells on land, terrorist groups are likely to shift their operations to sea out of necessity and to avoid attention. Recent discoveries show that sophisticated groups such as al-Qaeda already have placed their sights on attacking maritime targets: terrorist suspect Babar Ahmad, apprehended on August 4 in London, had plans detailing vulnerabilities in US naval fleets. State governments in Southeast Asia have long recognized this fact and have set up cooperative efforts in coordinating maritime patrols, in particular along the Malacca Strait.

The tsunami of Dec 26, in all likelihood, put a damper on the piracy, and by implication, any tie up with terrorist organisation. But presumably, it wasn't as if the problem was solved in some definitive sense.

Second, from the conclusion to the series:

It is not enough to limit maritime security to only brown-water security patrols. The guarding of sea straits by maritime security forces is merely the first step in the war against piracy and maritime terrorism. The recent alliance in maritime cooperation among Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia may cause pirates to lie low for the moment, but vigilance must be maintained over long periods of inactivity. Maritime security matters have a more international hue when compared with land-based security affairs. As such, the impact and application of naval activity even outside Southeast Asia are of interest. For a start, the possibility of extending the range of patrol area covered by Singapore could be seriously considered.

Lots of politics to over come there, for that last point.

UPDATE: Eaglespeak has another post on the topic area up--I missed it earlier. ADDITIONAL THOUGHT: Eaglespeak is right that given the importance of the Malacca Straits, even if terrorists/pirates managed to highjack a tanker and cause a collision, say, the resulting closure would be relatively short liven.

But from the Singapore point of view, any such disruption to trade can be--while not deadly--a significant blow to the general climate of confidence if it happens in our vicinity. As Austin Bay's article points out (posted earlier here), terrorists target Singapore for the "demonstrative effect"--"if al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah could get it done here, a terror strike, they can get it done anywhere in the region. That is the message." So even if the closure is limited or quickly overcome, I worry about the psychological impact--considering our status as an open ally in the GWOT. It will likely rally people to the cause of Al-Qaeda's surrogates in the region. That said, he's right that if they can hit a US warship, that would be major jackpot.

UPDATE: From ST (Feb 28), "Armed Navy escorts for suspect ships--Uniformed security teams to escort vessels entering, leaving port within S'pore waters", by Goh Chin Lian:

SINGAPORE'S anti-terrorist battle will take to the seas next month with the deployment of armed security teams by the Republic of Singapore Navy on board some merchant ships.

The uniformed security teams will escort vessels entering or leaving the port, but only within Singapore waters.

Selected merchant ships, including cruise liners, would be identified for escort. The ship's previous ports of call, the cargo on board and other shipping data, would be looked at for hints of possible threats.

Up to eight Navy personnel could board ships each time, among them a seaman, an engineering specialist and a radio operator, who would know how to take control of the ship in an emergency.

They will don bullet-proof vests and carry weapons such as carbines and pistols, but they will not have powers of arrest, which will rest with the Police Coast Guard officers accompanying them.

Firefox update out, but there is a bug

From Ars Technica, version 1.0.1 of Firefox is out, fixing a curious previously known bug:

That particular bug results from Firefox's implement of the IDN specification which allows the use of non-English characters in URL names. So substituting the "a" in amazon.com with а will result in Firefox displaying "аmazon.com" in the address bar, while directing users to an entirely different site. The IDN issue is not unique to Firefox, as it also affects Opera, Safari, and OmniWeb — but not Internet Explorer.

Unfortunately 1.0.1 comes with a bug of its own:

Based on the reactions of some early adopters, 1.0.1 could have used a little more quality assurance testing before its release. The primary problem that is affecting multiple users is Firefox 1.0.1 crashing when a user types a query into a search bar, a rather irritating bug that should have been caught. It seems to affect most those people who installed 1.0.1 on top of 1.0. One solution is uninstalling 1.0 and then installing 1.0.1...

Now the brief review did go on to note that "according to Bugzilla, that bug has since been fixed"; but I couldn't quite get a fix on the last part. I'm holding off until the situation becomes clearer.

Straits Times and the Blogs

As only to be expected, Straits Times' announcement about paid access to ST Interactive sparked a reaction from Singapore's Blogosphere (or that corner of the Blogosphere in Singapore, depending on how you see it). I've already cited the responses from Singapore Ink and IZ Reloaded in the previous post. In fact, a technorati search for "Straits Times subscription" turned up some 116 posts as of 4 pm Feb 25 EST).

Mr Brown, apart from being the first to put the news out online (by posting ST's email to the registered users) also has a column in TODAY (Feb 25) in which he details the many things that can be read online for free. He also left an interesting comment on Singapore Ink's second post the long and short of which is nicely summed up in his parting rhetorical question:

...who says blogs cannot potentially cover Singapore news as well as the Straits Times?

There's a lot to be said for this sentiment. The fact is, there is a lot of stuff out there in the public domain that is not often reported in ST. Secondly, individual blogs are doing a great job covering various aspects of life in Singapore, stuff that hardly ever makes the press. Thirdly, let's not "forget alternative sources of Singapore news" (mainstream), such as "Channelnewsasia, Yahoo, and TODAY". So all in all, there's something very right about the claim that ST is not completely indispensable.

But let's be realistic here. ST obviously has no monopoly over what counts as a newsworthy item of Singapore life, and there is a lot of space that can be fruitfully covered by blogs. But I wouldn’t for a moment imagine that there aren’t large and significant areas of life in Singapore and the region that blogs will be able to do much (at this stage) without something like a ST--with all its reporters, financial resources, etc.

I mentioned earlier the example of SAF's relief effort in Meulaboh--but even that is only the tip of the iceberg as far as Singapore’s relief efforts are concerned. I don’t think the picture in Meulaboh, Banda Aceh, Medan, Phuket–not to mention the Maldives, etc., would be as clear if we only had MINDEF/MFA press releases and the blogs. In fact, not even CNA and TODAY, which run similar stories, provided as much details-–details that are not all that easy to come by if you are not there yourself as a SAF, SCDF or NGO personnel. And the international news agencies and wire services are not really helpful here--we are too small for them to care. And all the above stands even though we now have excellent blogs such as Terse and at Large giving us such exquisite and up close reportage of the situation in Meulaboh. But we did not have a blogger on the RSS Endurance, or with the Guardsmen manning the logistics HQ in Medan, or the field hospitals, or with the Chinook crew plying the route to and from Banda Aceh, or what about the folks with the SCDF in Thailand, or the various medical teams in Sri Lanka. (If you are involved in these or other related operations, here's a challenge: start your own blog; or if you know of people blogging first hand about these items, please, please drop me a line.)

As I see it, the blogs can do a good job--potentially a much much better job than ST--in three regards. (1) Very specialized and up close reportage (e.g., Terse and at Large). But at the end of the day, the blogs are not quite at the level of ST’s overall news collecting ability for certain kinds of events, and I doubt that we ever will completely replace something like a ST in this regard. More importantly, (2) punditry, commentary, pointing out the biases, etc. (e.g., funding for Biomed startups, anyone? Or how about this?) In this regard, I think the blogs collectively bury the ST editorials and reviews (or relegate it to be at best one voice among many). A crowd is never wise, but there are inevitably many individuals who knows some few things very well in a crowd--and who knows those few things to a much higher degree than a ST editor can ever hope to be. That's why I say that collectively, the blogs will bury ST. And related but distinct from the previous, (3) functioning as a channel for lively critical discussions on the issues of the day (think "Jamie Han", and multiply that by many times). In this regard, the blogs will potentially render ST Forum Page redundant. My own prediction is that, barring any drastic curb of internet freedom, (2) and (3) will form important aspects of a wider civic discourse in Singapore for years to come, if such is not already happening.

The relationship between ST (and the other press houses) and the blogs is thus, at it's very best, complementary. They are not exactly substitutes for each other. It is in light of these considerations that ST's decision to go for paid subscription is, in a sense, bad (but not fatal) news for bloggers.

UPDATE: AcidFlask of Caustic Soda agrees and has this to add:

...the loosely-connected diversity of opinion available on blogs are the biggest advantage of blog media, and also its biggest disadvantage. the paradox of quality analysis and opinions without publicity. blogrolls help to some extent, but really aid those who are in the loop already, with the possible exceptions of blogrolls by celebrated bloggers.

The one thing, I gather, that really gets him (understatement), would be the ST editors:

one thing in particular that i now feel strongly about are the morons who work the op/eds desk in the straits times. many of the columnists are tepid at best, if not downright wrong. (take shianux's case study of one of andy ho's pieces, for example.) and the high noise-to-signal ratio of so many of the published submissions to the forum is just ridiculous. one may bitch about how the standard is already way higher than the fora in most other newspapers (which are mostly inane responses to provocative articles), but given the st forum's unique role as a formal hitching post for singaporean society, such aggressive editorial policy in trimming most of the signal is really reprehensible. what, do we need to bitch to lky about not being able to publish in the forum in order for our submissions to show up?

Well, as Wannabe Lawyer puts it, sometimes complaining actually works.

UPDATE 2: I think I'm being browned...(where are my manners) Welcome, dear reader, if you've just wandered here from Mr Brown's post about Blogs vs. Journalism (and if you did not, he has a link to a very funny segment of the Daily Show about the role of blogs). But if you are looking for a more analytical discussion on the potential power of blogs, one that makes use of such imposing ("cheem") technical terms as "the long tail" and "high trust environment", you'd have to see this instead.

UPDATE 3: A reader reminded me in the comments about The Singapore Commentator's take on the issue--he links to an interesting write-up on the Wall Street Journal, which has been charging its online subscribers for some time now. While the readership continues to be high (2.1 million for the dead tree version, 684,000 for the online version), the WSJ is risking a slide into irrelevance:

Since most people refuse to pay for WSJ stories, most bloggers are reluctant to link to them. It also has an impact on anyone who uses the web for research -- and there are a lot of us. As importantly, the next generation of readers is growing up by accessing news over the internet, and one place they are not surfing to is WSJ.com. With their habits being formed now, there is little chance the Journal will become part of their lives, either now or in the future.

The question is whether ST will end up this way (i.e., irrelevant). Here, I'm not so sure, at least for the short to medium run. For good or for evil, ST is the premier English paper in Singapore. If you are American and can't/don't get WSJ.com, there's still a host of other decent presses available online. But until TODAY becomes as extensive in its coverage (and I am talking about local and regional stuff here), ST will continue to exert influence in Singapore by its near monopolistic status.

UPDATE 4: This is not going to die fast--more comments from Singapore Ink. I'm beginning to wonder if there are readers of ST who will (like myself) eventually switch to a online-only subscription, especially if ST is willing to put everything (or just about) on the print edition online as well?

UPDATE 5: Next post on this matter is here.

Straits Times Interactive to begin charging for access

The last straw? From ST (Feb 24):

SINGAPORE'S most-read English language news website, The Straits Times Interactive (STI), will no longer be afree-access one. ST website to charge for access from Mar 15

Come March 15, access to the 10-year-old online version of The Straits Times will be by subscription only. It will be only the second internet news site in Singapore to do this after The Business Times.

Three subscription plans will be available: Readers can choose to pay $15 a month, $72 for six months or $120 for a year.

On hindsight, it's only a matter of time. Look at what the Old Grey Lady is facing:

The New York Times, like all print publications, faces a quandary. A majority of the paper's readership now views the paper online, but the company still derives 90% of its revenues from newspapering. "The business model that seems to justify the expense of producing quality journalism is the one that isn't growing, and the one that is growing -- the Internet -- isn't producing enough revenue to produce journalism of the same quality," says John Battelle, a co-founder of Wired and other magazines and Web sites.

From Businessweekonline (Jan 17).

UPDATE: Singapore Ink spells out some potentially serious implications for bloggers:

Blogging on articles in the ST would be much less convenient when I have to type out extracts from the print edition & point readers to the day & page the article is on so that if they have print editions they can look at it. We will all also have to be careful about succumbing to the temptation of extracting too much for archival purposes, which could invite a letter from the ST’s lawyers...What to do? Maybe we should blog on Today articles more, even though they have much less content than the ST on any given day. For world news articles I could point to the wire agencies’ copy, even though those would be slightly different from the ST’s version. As enthusiastic as we are about the issues we blog on, as bloggers, we don’t have the time nor the financial backing to go chase down stories by ourselves. (Except for occasions like the Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum. I’m also thinking political rallies for the next general election.)

On the whole, our access to international news should not be affected. In fact, I seldom bother with ST since I can get the same (and better too) from NYT, IHT, WaPo, BBC, the wires, etc. But it's local and to some extent, regional news that will most likely be affected. (Think of the international (non)coverage of Singapore's tsunami relief operations in Meulaboh.) As for fears of copyright infringement, bloggers should be safe as long as we stay within the bounds of "fair use". One thing that is definitely true for me, however, is this:

I think folks now overseas, without ready access to the ST print edition, would not think $10 a month (the one-year subscription) too steep.

Actually, I think I'll continue with the subscription even after returning. I just don't want to deal with dead tree newsprint again, if I have a choice.

UPDATE 2: IZ Reloaded has 6 excellent pieces of free advice for ST, which will actually make it much more blog friendly...and even, shall we say, blog like. Just look at the following:

4) Maybe you do not know this, but bloggers can be quite handy friends to have. We bloggers quote news everywhere. We link to your news on our blogs. By restricting your online news to only those who pay, you lose something much more- online exposure. And you should know by now that news spread in blogosphere faster and wider than anything that has ever existed so far.

5) Include trackbacks in your online news. Yes, trackbacks are standard in blogs where we list down other blogs that are referencing our stories. You can use trackbacks for your online edition too. It would be a good way to check on who is using your news for their blogs and also a good way to judge which news are hot and which aren't.

6) Or you can include a Technorati search like they used in BoingBoing (look for the 'blog comments link' under each story). The Technorati Cosmos search works by listing all the blogs or websites that are using your link.

Not sure if ST will take this advice though, even if SPH reads it. But we can hope.

UPDATE 3 (By Olorin, originally in the comments)

Just thought you guys might want to take note of the local statutes. The following is taken from Copyright Act, Chapter 63, Sections 110 and 111. (I usually deal with Chapter 295, heh; but have been looking more at Chapter 63 since the US-Singapore FT Agreement was signed). From http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/:

Fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review

110. A fair dealing with an audio-visual item shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the item or in any work or other audio-visual item included in the item if it is for the purpose of criticism or review, whether of the first-mentioned audio-visual item, another audio-visual item or a work, and a sufficient acknowledgment of the first-mentioned audio-visual item is made.

Fair dealing for purpose of reporting news

111. A fair dealing with an audio-visual item shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the item or in any work or other audio-visual item included in the item if —

(a) it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical and a sufficient acknowledgment of the first-mentioned audio- visual item is made; or

(b) it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news by means of broadcasting or a cable programme service, by any other means of communication to the public, or in a cinematograph film.

Technically, if we are blogging, and use pictures or text related to the reporting of news, this would be use "associated with the reporting of news in a newspaper... similar periodical" (which I would think reasonably includes the internet edition of the Straits Times or any other news publication); and any comments we subsequently made will be covered by Section 110. [Of course, just because your comments qualify for exemption under copyright, doesn't mean you are exempt from libel suits! ] The quoting of news has long been considered fair use, and I do not think the US-Sing FTA has changed that.

Of course, if we start archiving ST material, then started charging people for access to these materials, then, Fair Use does not cover this.

Basically, scanning through some of the other articles where the word news pops up more or less confirms the view that news material is not considered copyrighted. [I don't mean things published in newspapers, I means news material]

I'd be interested to hear from any lawyers who would like to clarify or confirm the above though.

UPDATE: the next post on this matter is here.

Austin Bay on Terrorism in Southeast Asia

One of my favorite military writers Austin Bay--"author and syndicated columnist. Soldier, developmental aid advocate, war game designer, lecturer, and radio commentator" (in fact, you can link to his blog from my blogroll, under "Blogosphere") once wrote a piece for the Weekly Standard in 2003, "Dire Straits--The war on terror's Singapore front" that was recently discussed on Belmont Club. Some highlights and comments.

On the possibility of a "super Cole" attack on a super carrier transiting in Singapore:

AN AMERICAN OFFICER familiar with U.S. Navy security concerns in southeast Asia first tipped me to the aircraft carrier scenario. "Singapore's a logical choice for a 'super Cole' operation, or something similar," he said. That was October 2001. We sat in a CENTCOM office, a world map tacked to the wall (U.S. Central Command is responsible for our security interests from the Horn of Africa into Central Asia). "The Straits of Malacca are a chokepoint. The U.S. has log[istics] support on Singapore, to an extent replacing what we lost when we moved out of Subic [Bay, Philippines]. It's a nice place, First World in the Third World. Even if it wasn't a U.S. ally, Islamists don't like the island. It's Chinese--that's what the radicals say. They don't like it. Not because it isn't Muslim, but because it's a wealthy Chinese island dumped between two predominantly Muslim nations, Malaysia and Indonesia." [HC: now that, is a succinct summary of our geo-strategic situation in the 21st century.]

The officer and I explored several "ship assault" scenarios, including a tanker scuttled in the straits (this was a year before al Qaeda attacked a French tanker off Yemen). Our Malacca incident had the plot of a novel, with Indonesian or Malaysian pirates assisting al Qaeda operatives. The broken tanker spills a million barrels of crude, creating an eco-disaster, Exxon goo lapping pristine south sea beaches. The attack has iconic qualities, underlining Western and Japanese reliance on Mideast oil, producing the sort of propaganda bonanza a terrorist zealot literally dies for.

Then I said, "Sink a super carrier? The armor? U.S. Navy damage control? And we're watching for these guys." "Yeah," he replied. "But after September 11, the far out's too real..."

According to this next informant, the war is not new in this corner of the world, not by a long shot.

A new kind of war? Maybe, but for Mr. Chang it's not so new. His real name isn't Chang--not even close. Getting cops and counterterror intelligence officers to talk exacts a price, and that price is strict anonymity. I can say Chang has worked with a sophisticated group of intelligence officers and cops, drawing on assets from Malaysia, the United States, and Singapore's Internal Security Department (ISD). Their common foe is Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), al Qaeda's branch operation in Southeast Asia, headed by radical Indonesian cleric Abu Bakar Bashir.

Chang taps the map I've drawn, a black wriggle indicating strait and channel. "JI members discussed this attack, but they discuss much. They talk. But planned it to the point of carrying it out?" He shrugs.

I mention having heard that JI has reconned the approaches to Changi. That would suggest JI's naval operation has moved from talk to active consideration.

"Then you go find open sources who can confirm chatter," Chang says. "What I am trying to say to you, from my experience, is that American vessels and foreign embassies are not necessarily their only targets, Colonel."

Colonel. A careful investigator, he'd been to my website and elsewhere. I tell him I'm just a reservist.

"Yes," Chang smiles. "Yes, Mr. Bay." He amuses himself.

"But you agree a U.S. Navy ship is a prime target. Big headlines?"

"There are other attractive targets," he says, "from their [JI's] perspective. Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia--this region's been with this longer than you. We've been targets longer than you. I don't say this to insult. . . . America has joined our war."

JI's game plan:

[E]vidence gathered by Singapore's ISD over the past five years also makes Chang's point: Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia lie first and foremost in JI's geo-strategic kill zone. JI has large plans for the whole of Southeast Asia, plans dating from well before 9/11. Drawing on cadres schooled in past radical political movements that used Islam as both a wedge issue and a rallying cause, JI seeks to establish a grand "Islamic state" stretching from southern Thailand through Malaysia, the Philippine and Indonesian archipelagoes, and Australia. Indeed, JI produced a "green map" where the reach of sharia, as interpreted by JI leadership, extends into the Australian continent and New Guinea. Fanciful? Megalomaniacal? After 9/11 only the willfully blind can dismiss the motivating power of such an imperial eschatology.

Chang shows me a copy of JI's dreamland, pulling the map from his brown notebook and placing it on the counter. It's our second meeting. Chang orders a latte as I study the map. Borneo, Java, Thailand's Krak peninsula, the whole of the Philippines, western and northern Australia shaded in this photocopy. "They believe it," he says.

On why Singapore is such a favored target:

"JI chooses [terror operations] in Singapore for the demonstrative effect," says K. Kesavapany, director of Singapore's Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. We are in his chauffeured car, driving down Napier Road, a toney, tree-shaded boulevard where the U.S., British, and Australian embassies line up like well-fenced bunkers. All three, as well as the Israeli embassy, had made JI's target list. "We in Singapore have our guard up, so if al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah could get it done here, a terror strike, they can get it done anywhere in the region. That is the message." We pass a bus stop across from the U.S. embassy, the spot where a JI recon team videotaped the approaches to the American compound.

"We're an island World Trade Center," Kesavapany adds, as his driver turns the corner to drop me off at my hotel.

On Indonesia's lukewarmness (Singapore Government: we can neither confirm nor deny any such thing) to the terror threat before the Bali bombing:

The Bali bombing killed almost 200 people and injured another 300. It also demonstrated that al Qaeda was still probing Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia.

"What kind of counterterror cooperation exists with Indonesia since Bali?" I ask Chang, when I see him again.

"Since Bali the Indonesian police have been able to act more readily. Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore--the police cooperate closely."

"But until the Bali mess, the Indonesian government was publicly denying the threat of radical Islamists in Indonesia?" I prod.

Chang doesn't reply.

On the incident at Yishun MRT, and the US taking credit for what Singapore did:

Subways are another choice target. Singapore beefed up its counterterror unit after the 1995 Aum Shin Rikyo sarin nerve gas attack in Tokyo. A December 2000 terror attack on the Manila metro sent shock waves through the region. Indonesian Islamic militants were implicated in that attack. Filipino and other intelligence services had already developed dossiers linking JI to the Philippines' Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). Jihadis trained with the MILF in the southern Philippines until the Philippine military began overrunning the camps in 2000 and 2001.

But for the clinching evidence putting JI in al Qaeda's bosom, check out the reconnaissance video of Singapore's Yishun metro station, which can be downloaded from the Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs website. Yishun is a subway stop near Sembawang, where U.S. naval facilities are located. The narrator of the video analyzes the arrival of the connecting bus outside the station and discusses the comings and goings of U.S. military personnel. One sequence focuses on a street drain as the voice, in cold sing-song, muses that it could be "useful."

The tape sounds like a bad outtake from "Mission Impossible." But it isn't. The Yishun tape was acquired by "American assets" in Afghanistan.

"Singapore's ISD was already onto the JI cell when U.S. forces picked up the video in an Afghan location," Colter tells me.

"But someone in D.C. took credit for the tape as leading to December 2001's mass round-up of jihadis?" I ask.

"ISD has a legitimate gripe," Colter replies.

And, the last highlight, Bay's encounter with a Gurkha Guard:

As I leave the embassy, a guard with a smile to put a cheshire cat to shame watches, his submachine gun professionally slung.

"What unit are you in?" I ask.

"Gurkha Contingent." Translation: He's a mercenary working special security duties for Singapore.

"The bus stop across the street. I saw a video shot by terrorists from that spot."

"Not now," he replies. No cockiness, lots of confidence.

"That's an MP-5," I say, pointing to his weapon.

"Yes . . . do you know it?"

"When I was in the American Army I had an M-3 .45 caliber sub in my tank. Not as fancy as that MP-5."

"When were you in the Army?"

"Well, I'm still in the reserves."

"Really?" With a quick click he pops me a salute.

I start to tell him I'm here as a writer. But I don't. I salute him, then head down the sidewalk to the street, a stretch of concrete that's as much a front line in this strange world war as Wall Street, or the Pentagon, or a minefield in southern Iraq.

Two years since publication, it still makes for some chilling reading.

Further reading:

- Congressional Research Service Report for the US Congress, "Terrorism in Southeast Asia" (Updated August 13, 2004) (.pdf file)

- Ministry of Home Affairs, Singapore, White Paper: "The Jemaah Islamiyah Arrests and The Threat of Terrorism" (Jan 9, 2003) (here)

- Ministry of Defense, Singapore, "The Fight Against Terror: Singapore's National Security Strategy" (2004) (.pdf file)

UPDATE 2: From Jakarta Post (Feb 24):

MANILA (DPA): Two Indonesians and a Malaysian suspected to be members of the regional Jamaah Islamiyah (JI) group have been arrested in the Philippines, officials said on Thursday.

Police chief Director General Edgar Aglipay said the suspects were arrested in the southern port city of Zamboanga along with a member of the Abu Sayyaf rebel group.

Bomb components, some US$7,000 and assorted firearms were seized from the JI militants, who were allegedly plotting bomb attacks in key cities in the Philippines.

Possible military procurement scandal in Singapore

From ST (Feb 23), "Consultant accused of offering $500,000 bribe", by Selina Lum, with additional reporting by Natalie Soh:

A BUSINESS consultant was charged yesterday with offering $500,000 to a senior executive at the Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA) in exchange for information on a major defence deal...

The DSTA, as the procurement agency for this defence contract, would have been responsible for calling the tender for the Defence Ministry (Mindef) project. EADS is the parent of Eurocopter, one of three companies in the running for the naval helicopter project. When contacted yesterday, a spokesman for Eurocopter said it had no comment.

Until a court verdict is out, let's not be too quick to assume that the plantiff is guilty. In any case, EADS did not win the helicopter contract--Sikorsky did. But making a mental note to track this story.

While we are on the issue of military procurement scandals, the above incident, even if true, is no where near the level of the big boys, e.g., the scandals over Taiwan's purchase of her Kang-Ding frigates from DCN, France (the very same people that built the Formidable Frigates for Singapore), involving possibly some 0.8 billion euros worth of bribes, and commissions and "at least eight people who knew about the affair have died in suspicious circumstances" (BBC, Dec 3, 2003)--now that's scandal.

UPDATE: There is a longer news article from AFP (Feb 24; via HK Standard). The disappointing thing is that whether EADS is really guilty, it will be hard for their reputation not to take a beating from the affair. This may mean that their offer of the Eurofighter Typhoon for Singapore's ongoing New Generation Fighter selection may be compromised (the other two contenders are Dassault's Rafale and Boeing's F-15). That's sad because I actually like the Typhoon a lot, though I have to admit that the Rafale looks better.

Do we all need university degrees?

There is an excellent piece on Singapore Ink right now about this issue which is worth a read. Apart from the issues raised there, I think there is another problem that is not mentioned.

Too often, a college/university degree engenders a sense of entitlement (and worse still, the airs that go with that), that somehow, society (or even the world) owes it to me, who now has a B.A. behind my name, to give me a decent non-manual job. This has can have serious social and economic implications.

In a developing country with less supply of jobs requiring such degree holders than there is demand for the jobs, the outcome can be very undesirable. Young people with fancy degrees in the arts and humanities, etc., taking up manual jobs--sometimes ending up in foreign countries--and many of them becoming disaffected, thinking that the world has been unfair to them; or worse still, that they are have the jobs they have only because the richer host countries have prospered at their own countries’ expense. Actually, it’s ofen their own governments that had been myopic in failing to encouraging more of them to be engineers in the first place.

An unpopular opinion, no doubt.

Water in Singapore

Since we are on the subject of water...from CNA (Feb 21):

SINGAPORE - One part of Singapore's Deep Tunnel Sewerage System will be operational by the end of the year. The $7 billion project will be completed by 2015. With that, the 48-kilometre sewer running from Kranji to Changi is finally seeing the light. The North Tunnel will be able to channel more than half of Singapore's used water in 2008.

Waste is now being handled by an extensive network of sewers and over 200 kilometres of pumping mains, stations and treatment plants across the island. At 50 metres underground and 6 metres wide, the new sewerage system will be an expressway carrying used water to Changi Water Reclamation Plant for treatment and conversion into NEWater - in three years. Hence its importance.

From ST (Feb 22), "Have fun with water: It's official--PUB wants the public to enjoy water resources and will open reservoirs to water sports", by Radha Basu (complete article):

AFTER years of being told to conserve and value the country's water resources, Singaporeans are now being urged to enjoy them as well. To help them do so, the Public Utilities Board (PUB), the main custodian of Singapore's water resources, is opening up the reservoirs, traditionally regarded as out-of-bound areas, and encouraging water sports there such as canoeing and sailing. However, not all reservoirs will be open to all types of recreational activities. Details will be announced later.

The authorities' more relaxed attitude comes now Singapore has ensured a diversified and sustainable supply of water. It has four national 'taps' - the local catchment area, imported water from Malaysia, Newater and desalinated water.

* * * * *

A very science inclined friend once told me that much more water than we use fall on Singapore as rainfall every year. After reading the news articles above, I made some calculations. Our land area is about 692 sq km, and our average annual rainfall is about 2360mm. That's something in the region of 1,633,120,000 cubic meters of water per year. The daily comsumption is about 1.2 million cubic metres daily (in 2002), which is about 438,000,000 cubic meters annually. In other words, on average, almost 4 times as much water fall on Singapore as we consume. Now if only we can tap more of this water rather than let them run off. Obviously, this is not an easily thing to do. (UPDATE: wifey just told me that she read something similar before when compiling some readings for GP teaching...so this is not new.)
* * * * *

All this reminds me of something I read in a 2002 IDSS (Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies) Perspectives paper, "On the Singapore-Malaysia Water Issue", by Joey Long Shi Ruey. Some highlights:

Over the years...[PUB] has pursued three broad and rather successful strategies to augment and protect the country's water stocks.

First, the PUB has been involved in the construction of a wide array of reservoirs and stormwater collection depots across Singapore, enabling it to presently collect about 680,000 cubic metres of rainwater daily. This means that with current daily water consumption at some 1.2 million cubic metres, Singapore's catchment capabilities can furnish some 57 percent of its own water needs...

Second, to protect and stretch the use of Singapore's domestic water stocks, the PUB has also pursued a comprehensive water conservation programme. The recipe for conservation comprises four fundamental ingredients: public education to cultivate frugality in water use; incentive-based and pricing mechanisms to encourage water conservation; regulation as well as legislative measures to check growing demand; and consistent improvements in the infrastructure of the water distribution network to minimise wastage through leaks and faulty meters. Such initiatives help to cut down on inefficient water use, check growing water demands and stretch the use of domestic water resources.

Finally, new and improved water purification and filtration technologies have opened up new avenues for the PUB to augment Singapore's domestic water reserves. A prototype recycling plant, capable of producing 10,000 cubic metres of recycled water daily, has been built in 2000, with more on the way. By 2010, such plants would eventually meet 15 to 20 percent of Singapore's water needs.

Desalinated water will also be available. By 2005, some 136,000 cubic metres of desalinated water will be produced daily, with options to construct more desalination plants. Once considered prohibitive, the cost of desalinating seawater has become more affordable. While purifying seawater cost about US$1.80 per cubic metre in 1997/1998, this had fallen to about US$0.70 by 2001. As desalination technology advances, the cost may fall further. This may eventually make desalination as attractive an alternative water source as recycling, which is currently 50 to 60 percent cheaper than purifying seawater.

As might be imagined, such developments poses implications for Singapore's bilateral relationship with Malaysia:

The cumulative effects of Singapore's reservoir construction efforts, the continued enhancement of its water catchment capabilities, the implementation of effective conservation policies and its decision to embark on the building of desalination and recycling plants indicate that Singapore's water vulnerability has been markedly diminished. With the water consumption rate reaching a steady state as a result of a slowdown in population growth, the impact of the PUB's conservation measures and the increasing use of industrial and recycled rather than potable water by its industries, Singapore may be able yet to adequately meet its own water needs.

As Singapore continues to add new sources of water to its already formidable inventory of domestic reserves, there is little reason to perpetuate the securitisation of the water issue in terms of threats and conflict. On the contrary, with greater understanding that Singapore stands on the brink of achieving a measure of self sufficiency and can remain impervious to any Malaysian attempt to use the Johor water supply as leverage and that an objective foreign threat to Singapore's water supply no longer exists, it is time to regard the water issue in Singapore-Malaysia relations as desecuritised.

Indeed, the desecuritisation of the water issue widens policy options, facilitates negotiation, contributes to the reduction in the perception of threat and may better bring about a diplomatic resolution of difficulties involving the water issue between Singapore and Malaysia.

Singapore's move toward greater self-reliance can shift future debates of the water issue in Singapore-Malaysia relations from security to pecuniary considerations. For reasons of availability, cost and the promotion of interdependence, Singapore has signalled that it will like to continue to purchase water from Johor, but in smaller volumes than previously and at a price both sides will find reasonable and fair. Singapore has also coupled its price offer with a "package" of deals that includes, inter alia, the offer of alternative plots of real estate to Malaysia in exchange for a strip of Malaysian railway land in Tanjong Pagar, Singapore, all reportedly amounting to some 1.5 billion ringgit.

Malaysia, on the other hand, has reiterated publicly its intention to continue to sell water to Singapore. It also stands to profit from continuing the sale of water to Singapore at a higher negotiated fee.

UPDATE: From ST (Feb 28), "S'pore has enough water to cope with hot spell", by Peh Shing Huei:

SINGAPORE has enough water to ride out the recent dry spell, Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim said yesterday.

He added that the Government was monitoring the heatwave closely, had contingency plans in place, and was ready to 'face any circumstances'.

But he declined to provide details of the contingency plans when asked by reporters, lest this spark needless alarm.

He made his remarks during a three-hour walkabout in Queenstown constituency. Speaking during an hour-long dialogue with residents and community leaders, Dr Yaacob said, in response to a question, that Singapore's water stock level remained 'quite high - way above 90 per cent'.

This was why he was 'very confident' that Singapore's water needs could be met during the hot spell, when daytime temperatures have reached as high as 34 deg C.

In fact, Dr Yaacob said, to laughter from the 250-strong audience, Singaporeans should make sure they drink enough water so as to avoid dehydration.

And, given the national water strategy, which involves drawing from different 'taps' - local catchment areas, imported water from Malaysia, Newater and desalinated water - he is sure Singaporeans will continue to have water in the future.

That is also why Singapore has decided not to renew the water agreement with Malaysia which expires in 2011. A second agreement runs through to 2061.

'I am confident we have enough water to meet the demands of Singaporeans,' he said.

As far as consumption is concerned, he said industries and homes would still have to play their part and not waste water.

Singapore to send desalination plant to the Maldives, also to build school and clinic (UPDATED)

From CNA (Feb 21), "Environment and Water Resources Minister leads delegation to Maldives":

SINGAPORE - Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, will lead a delegation to the Maldives from Tuesday till Thursday. A government statement says the trip is a follow up to Singapore's relief aid to the country in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami and earthquake disaster on December 26 last year.

From ST (Feb 22), "S'pore gives Maldives desalination plant":

IN A move to strengthen ties and bolster reconstruction efforts, Singapore has donated a $600,000 desalination plant to the tsunami-devastated Maldives that will provide clean drinking water to more than 5,000 people. The plant, which the Public Utilities Board (PUB) has been testing in Singapore since April last year, will be placed on the southern Maldivian island of Gan. It will churn out enough water to provide more than 5,000 of Gan's inhabitants with about 50 litres each per day...

The plant can generate close to one million glasses of drinking water a day, using microfiltration and reverse osmosis to remove suspended solids and salt from brackish water and sea water...

Singapore is one of the Maldives' top trading partners, with bilateral trade last year amounting to $315 million.

UPDATE: Almost forgot this earlier story.

UPDATE 2: From ST (Feb 25), "S'pore expands aid offer to the Maldives", by Alexis Hooi:

MALE (MALDIVES) - SINGAPORE is building a second desalination plant, a school and a clinic for the Maldives, in the latest gesture of commitment to tsunami reconstruction efforts for the Indian Ocean republic...

The contributions are part of a $10-million pledge for worldwide tsunami reconstruction efforts that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced recently.

[Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim] told [Maldivian President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom] that he was keen to bring in volunteers from Singapore - teachers, doctors - who can stay for three to six months and help with the rebuilding. Said the minister: 'We could even get the school to be adopted by a school in Singapore, so there are closer links at the people-to-people level.'

Maldives Acting Foreign Minister Ahmed Abdulla, said: 'We're very appreciative... and we look forward to working closely with the Singaporean Government.'

Clinics and schools in 50 of the 1,192 Maldivian islands have been destroyed by the Dec 26 killer waves. More than 15,000 Maldivians, or about 5 per cent of the population, lost their homes to the tsunami. Damage is estimated at US$400 million (S$648 million), or 62 per cent of the country's gross domestic product...

'One of the things we can do to... help our Maldivian colleagues is obviously to tell the larger community it's very safe to come to the Maldives, that the tourism industry is alive and developing very well,' Dr Yaacob said.

Final thoughs on the exchange with Redrown

[Navigating this series: 1-3|4|5a|5b|Ref|Final]

Note: This will probably be my final post on this issue (Part 1-3, 4, 5a, 5b, R) for a while, though I may continue to post to the comments. Perhaps Olorin may have other things to add as well.

Redrown has a "Final Summarised Response to Critique" (here) which sheds much light on the context of his posts. The exchange has been illuminating and civil--or should I say, illuminating because civil (contrary to Rushdie's counsel). And above all, I salute his sense of duty: at one point, he reveals that he is PES A and has no intention of downgrading just for the sake of it. I'll salute that any day.

I suspect that at the end of the day, there is a fundamental difference of temperament between us that underlies our differences in opinion. On my remarks about his tripartite account of the types of personalities in NS, he says:

I still maintain that such 'internal questioning' is still considered Type 2, unless one explicitly questioning the reasons during that time, which is tantamount to questioning a superior's command, which is not prudent as it may end one up in serious trouble (which I learnt).

There's something to be said for this. In a way, Redrown was much more "idealistic" while I guess I am much more "conservative" (prudent from one point of view, kia see from another)--I have much less faith in bold attempts to make a difference and would rather go for long, slow incremental changes.

On a different note, I think the discussion can be furthered at a more refined level if we are able to make the analytical distinction between these:

1. The geo-strategic environment of Singapore
2. The military defense requirements of Singapore
3. The role/value/costs of the NS system to Singapore
4. The costs of the NS to an individual Singaporean

They are related, but they are not the same thing. As I see it, we can only begin to have a proper appreciation of 2. if we have some grasp of 1. and 3 only if 2. Note that like Redrown, I do not think that 2. exhausts the field--there are also non military requirements for dealing with the geo-strategic enviroment (diplomacy, etc.). But I believe that at the end of the day, even taking into account all the non-military avenues, there will continue to be a military requirement as well. Once that is settled, we can begin to evaluate the NS system. But what is the metric for assessing the cost/benefit of the NS system? It can't be simply the personal costs to individual Singaporeans, or the social-economic costs in the abstract. Ideally, we should be taking about comparative costs vis-a-vis other alternatives that can fulfill our military defense requirements. Secondly, the comparison is not really that between conscription vs. some other system, but continuing with conscription vs. changing course. Once a policy is in place (for 30+ years too), it imposes additional costs on change that did not exist before. That said, the personal costs are not to be minimised (they add up to significant social cost). In fact, there is surely a lot of scope for making NS leaner and better, less friction, wastage, more bang for the time that individuals have to sacrifice from their life. But addressing those issues is not the same as weighing the cost/benefits of the NS system in toto.

I doubt that the present NS system will see its demise in any forseeable future, mostly because I do not forsee that our geo-strategic situation will allow us to get by with less military capabilities for some time to come. And I do not think that mercenaries are any solution at all, though a larger professional corp would probably be good. That said, a lot can be done and has been done in the area of substituting technology for brute manpower. In fact, I'll venture to say that if anything, this is one of the key strengths of the SAF. The reduction of NSF duty from 2 and a half to 2 years is a good step in that direction. And a lot definitely can be done to make the NSF experience a lot less unpleasant for so many Singaporeans--Redrown highlighted the use of NSF personnel as free labor for NDP, for example, and there's probably also more need for the officers and NCOs to do explain the rationale behind some of the things the SAF does during training, and more Auftragstaktik (see also this) in general (in this regard, the reports from Operation Flying Eagle are promising, and hopefully, they are indications of greater things to come).

Not that I am under any dellusions that the powers that be are monitoring our blogs.

UPDATE: Delighted to see that our exchange with Redrown has made Simon World's Feb 22 edition of "Asia by Blog".

UPDATE 2: ST (Feb 23) published an article, "Total defence lies in public participation", by Dr Azmi Hassan. The writer is associate professor with the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. The original Malay version of the piece appeared in Berita Harian Malaysia (Feb 19). Coming from a cool-headed Malaysian perspective, it makes for an interesting read.

UPDATE 3 (28 Feb): Acid Flask of Caustic Soda has extended comments on the exchange, which are too long to summarize here.

[Navigating this series: 1-3|4|5a|5b|Ref|Final]

The dangers of exaggerated science

Who would have thought that in a fight between scientists and evil-corporations, the scientists would...win. By Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr in Das Spiegel online, translated from the German by Christopher Sultan. Highlight:

This self-censorship in the minds of scientists ultimately leads to a sort of deafness toward new, surprising insights that compete with or even contradict the conventional explanatory models. Science is deteriorating into a repair shop for conventional, politically opportune scientific claims. Not only does science become impotent; it also loses its ability to objectively inform the public.

An example of this phenomenon is the discussion surrounding the so-called hockey stick, a temperature curve that supposedly portrays developments of the last 1,000 years. The curve derives its name from its hockey stick-like shape. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a panel of climate researchers established by the United Nations, rashly institutionalized the hockey stick curve as an iconic symbol of human-induced climate change. In the curve, the upward-tilting blade of the hockey stick that follows decades of stable temperatures represents human influence.

In an article we published in the professional journal "Science" in October 2004, we were able to demonstrate that the underlying methodology that led to this hockey stick curve is flawed. Our intention was to turn back the spiral of exaggerations somewhat, but without calling the core statement into question, which is that human-induced climate change does exist. Prominent members of the climate research community did not respond to the article by engaging us in a dispute over the facts. Instead, they were concerned that the worthy cause of climate protection had been harmed.

Other scientists are succumbing to a form of fanaticism almost reminiscent of the McCarthy era. In their minds, criticism of methodology is nothing but the monstrous product of "conservative think-tanks and misinformation campaigns by the oil and coal lobby," which they believe is their duty to expose. In contrast, dramatization of climate shift is defended as being useful from the standpoint of educating the public.

The principle that drives other branches of science should be equally applicable to climate research: dissent drives continued development, and differences of opinion are not unfortunate matters to be kept within the community. Silencing dissent and uncertainty for the benefit of a politically worthy cause reduces credibility, because the public is more well-informed than generally assumed. In the long term, the supposedly useful dramatizations achieve exactly the opposite of what they are intended to achieve. If this happens, both science and society will have missed an opportunity.

(via Arts and Letters Daily)

Introducing "terse & at large"

Discovered this blog via Mr. Brown--"terse & at large" authored by a "former ad executive, teacher, now photographer" by the name of Terz.

Terz was in Meulaboh (by RSS Endeavour) as part of a Mercy Relief team (of twelve) and the photos can be viewed on his blog (viewer discretion is strongly advised, as some of the photos may be disturbing): His reporting is fascinating and heartbreaking--a rare up-close view into life post-tsunami in Meulaboh. Just one excerpt:

Day 2 Charlie...Somehow, I'm feeling more helpless now than I did while back in Singapore and wondering if there was something more I could do to help. I've documented, I've done carpentry, I've moved mud and dirt, I've made some sort of contact with the people in the neighbourhood. I've tried my best to be an ambassador. Yet, somehow, it feels that I've not done enough.

I was talking to Eddie earlier. He's right: words just aren't enough. There's nothing we can say to let people at home know what we've seen and experienced. At that moment, I remember wanting to go home as quickly as I can and holding my wife for as long as I can and just spending time with my family, friends and loved ones.

Operation Flying Eagle (Part 2)

"Operation Flying Eagle: The inside story of the SAF's tsunami relief deployment, Part 2: Setting up a lifeline to Aceh" (ST, Feb 20) is out, covering operations in Meulaboh (from the arrival of the RSS Endurance), and secondarily, in Banda Aceh and Medan. I blogged on the first part a week ago. Once again, the bulk of the big-picture details have already been covered on this blog at some point or other (like Singapore Ink, I didn't find as much of special interest--of the more controversial sort). But there are some points worth highlighting.

Let's begin with an example of "thinking out of the box":

The priority was to find and prepare a landing point from where the Endurance's fast landing craft could safely unload men and equipment. This was no easy task, especially in an environment that was totally new and alien.

Debris and underwater obstacles were a big headache. Said Naval diver 2WO (Warrant Officer) Wee Kheng Par, a graduate of one of the toughest training in the world, the US Navy Seal course: 'There was a huge amount of debris, such as sunken vessels, which could puncture our landing craft. Together with other divers, I secured the obstacles with heavy chain and rope.'

Obstacles like damaged vehicles and broken concrete pillars were pulled ashore by the Combat Engineers' tractor.

'There was no quick answer that could be found in a manual and many decisions had to be made on the fly,' commented 2WO Wee. 'We had to rely on our experience gained from training and brainstorming on the ground.'

No matter how thorough training may be, the world will continue to be full of surprises. Training is thus effective if it makes possible on the spot improvision. This is an example of military preparation of the sort that is hard to come by in contrived exercises.

If you have been following SAF's tsunami relief operations, you would have known by now just how crucial the RSAF's Chinook helicopters proved. These are the CH-47SD ("Super D") models (in fact, Singapore was the very first customer for these models). The only other countries in the broader region with such helicophers are Thailand, Australia and Taiwan. It is thus not completely surprising to read the following:

The Chinooks of the Republic of Singapore Air Force were the only medium and heavy lift helicopters in Aceh until Jan 15, when the US Marines started flying their CH-46s.

And for Meulaboh specifically,

Said Defence Minister Teo: 'The Chinooks made a difference to the people of Meulaboh as they were able to establish the initial supply lines.'...It was the only heavy-lift helicopter operating in the disaster areas until the arrival of Japanese Chinooks much later. It has a crew of two pilots, two flight engineers and one aircrew specialist.

For something like two weeks, our 6 Chinooks in Indonesia were the only medium lift helicopters operating in the area--no wonder the SAF was able to make an impact to the relief operations disproportionate to its size. This specific incident (I mentioned it here previously) now also makes more sense: the SAF were the only ones with the capabilities to respond to it speedily at that stage:

AT THE SAF relief mission in Banda Aceh, which was the worst hit with over 100,000 killed, things were also hotting up. On Jan 4, a chartered Boeing 737 cargo aircraft reportedly hit a buffalo, which damaged its wheel and left it stranded on the sole runway of Banda Aceh airport. This brought all relief flights into the airport to a halt. This was the official version given by a US navy liaison officer although many didn't believe him, especially when he said that the buffalo had walked away unhurt.

The SAF came to the rescue by dispatching a heavy-lift Chinook helicopter to Medan to carry heavy salvage equipment to haul the 737 off the runway. If not for this equipment, weighing 3.5 tonnes, the airport would have been closed for a couple of days. This would have seriously disrupted the overall relief work. It was unfortunate that news organisations like CNN gave wide publicity to the incident but failed to mention Singapore's role. Not that this bothered the Singaporeans, who preferred to maintain a low profile.

I noticed the lack of coverage as well, but there generally wasn't that much by way of international coverage of the SAF's relief efforts in those early days. And even today, I'll wager that the international public at large does not really know much about the SAF's operations in Aceh (outside of the militarily circles). As the Command Post blog nicely puts it--in a paranthesis too--"Singapore (whose efforts are unsung and amazingly valuable)."

Another bit of SAF contribution that passed under the radar was not mentioned in the news story itself, but in the attached .pdf files (this and this; persumably, the attached charts in the printed edition): the deployment of a MATC (Mobile Air Traffic Control tower) to Banda Aceh. I remember reading an Australian news article going on about how bad the air traffic situation was in Banda Aceh airport (which was not made to handle the large volume of flights). But there was nary a follow up on the SAF's MATC beyond aviation publications.

Not that any of this mattered to the locals:

The local people were so excited when the helicopters came in to land that they would swarm around it. The children loved to play in the helicopters' downwash as it could make them actually float in the air. The Singapore pilots had to take extra care during their landings...

The Chinooks were also assigned to evacuate medical cases. These mercy missions brought much satisfaction to the pilots, who flew three-fold more than their average flying hours over a short span of time. This was indeed intensive flying. Said one of them: 'The casualties we ferried from Meulaboh to Medan could not speak English. But a simple wave from them as they were stretchered out from the Chinook spoke volumes about how grateful they were. This was very heartwarming.'

Another factor which I have highlighted often and early--the close relationship between the SAF and TNI:

Commented Lt-Col Yap: 'The TNI officers were comfortable with our cooperation. Our language capability and our understanding of local culture and the Indonesian system made us quite useful to TNI officers, such as helping them to interact with the foreign forces that were arriving in Banda Aceh.' His connections with the TNI officers helped immensely in understanding each other. Lt-Col Yap, who speaks fluent Bahasa Indonesia, is a graduate of the Indonesian Army Command and College in Bandung.

Some of the senior TNI officers assigned to the area, like the area military commander Lt-Col Djoko, were his and other SAF officers' course mates. 'This is why, shortly after we arrived in Banda Aceh, we were able to work closely with the TNI,' he said. 'They were comfortable with our presence, especially with our low profile and sincere assistance.'

But it wasn't just the ability to speak Bahasa, or the personal ties with TNI officers. More importantly, the SAF was able to play the role of a true friend in a time of need (see also this):

The SAF were effective in their contributions because they knew where the needs were. Some foreign medical teams deployed to places where there were no people to treat, although they brought along the full complement of medical equipment. They set up big field hospitals when the need was for primary health care.

As the above pointed out, the same cannot be said of many aid agencies (see e.g., this), though there are outstanding exceptions, most of which pass beneath the radar. But, the way I saw it (and continue to see it): the SAF was able to do all that not because Singaporeans are especially smart; rather, a keen consciousness of the limitations of our resources acts as that great necessity that compels inventiveness. Where it matters, we are quite good at getting the best bang for the buck. It is disappointing (though not surprising), therefore, that in more peaceful conditions, we tend to throw money at problems. Or at least, there is a perception that this is what we often do. (from this earlier post).

And finally, what would we Singaporeans be without some concern for good food?

Although the food served by the 10 chefs of Endurance was palatable, albeit unexceptional, it became a game for the men to spread wild rumours about food. These rumours were invariably sparked off by the steady stream of VIP visitors. The men would strain to see if these visitors brought along any goodies with them. There were rumours of refrigerated containers of mandarin oranges arriving. Another rumour, even more fanciful, was the arrival of a shipment of bak kwa. As it turned out, the rumours were not totally unfounded. The Chief of Engineers did bring with him goodies like canned food and Chinese New Year snacks when he visited his men.

Singapore managers found wanting in recent study

From Financial Times (Feb 18; via Littlespeck), "Singapore managers need to think outside the box", by Sumathi Bala:

A recent poll found Singapore chief executives, especially those from the private sector, to be uninspiring in general, and poor at developing talent and grooming successors.

Extensive research of leaders in Singapore over three years revealed their performance compared unfavourably with their peers from the US, Europe, and Australia/New Zealand on all key measures that drive workforce innovation, engagement and performance.

Notably, they were considered less visionary, less optimistic, less willing to challenge old ways of doing things, less likely to sacrifice their self-interest, and less likely to pay attention to the moral and ethical consequences of their decisions.

The study, conducted by the Singapore Institute of Management, the Gallup Organisation and the Gallup Leadership Institute, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, involved a poll of 1,010 Singaporean workers and surveys of 32 small and large enterprises across several industries. It also involved in-depth interviews with 24 leaders in the public and private sectors.

The poll findings certainly make for grim reading.

I'm no expect on these things, but this doesn't sound good.

Some references used in my critique of Redrown

[Navigating this series: 1-3|4|5a|5b|Ref|Final]

As a coda to my comments and critique of Redrown's posts about conscription in Singapore (Parts 1-3, Part 4, Part 5a, Part5b), I'm compiling a list of references mentioned, cited or used in the background. A sort of "read list" for the layman newbie wanting to get into discussing the topic of the military in Singapore.

More scholarly studies

- The most important book of all: Tim Huxley, Defending the Lion City: The Armed Forces of Singapore (Allen & Unwin, 2000) (Amazon); Review by Eliot A. Cohen in Foreign Affairs (Sep/Oct 2001).

- Another must read, for the background in Singapore's geo-strategic situation: Michael Leifer, Singapore's Foreign Policy: Coping with Vulnerability (Routledge, 2000) (Amazon; digital version); Review by Tim Huxley (of all people) in RUSI Journal (Oct 2000). (RUSI = Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies); Another review by See Eng Kiat for the CSC Bookclub (.pdf file), Inspitute of Policy Development, Singapore.

- On more recent developments--Tim Huxley, "Singapore and the Revolution in Military Affairs" (Oct 2002) (.pdf file); part of The Information Revolution in Military Affairs: Prospects for Asia, sponsored by the (US) Office of the Secretary of Defense (webpage).

- Andrew Tan, "Force Modernisation Trends in Southeast Asia", Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies (IDSS) Working Paper (Jan 2004) (.pdf file).

News/Magazine articles:

- Amnon Barzilai, "Israel set up Singapore's army, former officers reveal", Haaretzdaily.com (July 15, 2004) (archived).

- Anthony Paul, "You'd be mad to test the Singapore fortress", ST (Apr 16, 2004) (archived).

- Trish Saywell, "'Places not bases' puts Singapore on the line", Far Eastern Economic Review (May 17, 2001) (archived); Globalsecurity.org writeup on Changi Naval Base.

- George Kaplan, "The Republic of Singapore Navy", The Navy: Magazine of the Navy League of Australia (ca. 2001?).

[Navigating this series: 1-3|4|5a|5b|Ref|Final]

Christian Science Monitor: Ethnic Chinese key to Aceh fix-up

From CSM (Feb 18):

Ethnic Chinese are the heart of Aceh's trading community. How fast they return and set up shop will help determine the speed of recovery in the province hardest-hit by the tsunami...

Aceh's economy will benefit from an aid effort expected to cost $4.5 billion over the next five years, some of that distributed by Western nongovernmental organizations and companies. And the biggest industrial enterprise in Aceh, the PT Arun natural gas facility, is operated by a US company, ExxonMobil Corp., along with a Japanese partner and the Indonesian government.

But the small ethnic Chinese businesses such as Joy Optikal have formed a vital trading network linking economic sectors in Aceh, and indeed much of Southeast Asia. Business conglomerates founded by ethnic Chinese tycoons dominate Indonesia's stock exchanges and much of the economy. In Banda Aceh, ethnic Chinese own an estimated 60 percent of the shops and distribute everything from spare parts to business loans.

"If they [the ethnic Chinese] don't come back, the economy here will die," said Udin, a Muslim construction worker taking refuge in a Buddhist temple.

Clinton, Bush Close to Tears in Tsunami Aid Tour

Reuters (Feb 19):

Once fierce political rivals, 80-year-old Republican Bush and Democrat Clinton said tsunami relief was above politics.

"You are almost in tears when you see this little girl here. It gets way beyond politics," Bush said at Ban Namkhem.

The pair, who fly Sunday to Indonesia's Aceh province, the worst-hit area, are striving to keep attention on the disaster and encourage Americans and U.S. firms to keep giving.

Private donors worldwide are estimated to have given over $2 billion so far in relief aid. Total private and government aid commitments total $7 billion, Clinton said, still short of total tsunami losses estimated at $11-12 billion.

He estimated that about half of private U.S. donations for tsunami relief had been channeled via the Internet, which emerged during the crisis as a prodigious source of funds. Clinton and Bush plan to keep the computer mice clicking.

Clinton, who is making his most grueling journey since undergoing quadruple-bypass heart surgery recently, said donor fatigue had yet to set in but the danger was there, explaining it could take two years before devastated areas returned to normal.

Singapore's Tsunami aid close to $150 million; Red Cross Team to go to Meulaboh

Continuing Singapore tsunami relief effort coverage--from ST (Feb 19), "S'pore's tsunami aid close to $150m--Govt and NGOs split bill evenly for nation's biggest relief exercise", by Peh Shing Huei:

The Government's share includes an initial pledge of $5 million for immediate relief; $16.5 million for reconstruction; and $44 million to deploy assets and personnel in affected countries.

The response from the non-government sector was also overwhelming: Donations to The Singapore Red Cross Society (SRCS) hit $75 million as of last Friday.

The 'final' tally for the SRC Tidal Waves Asia fund was supposed to be S$65 million, but looks like there had been other contributions that pushed it to the S$75 million (approx. US$45.7 million) mark. Another report say S$77 (see below). The other figure that caught my eye is the S$44 million for--presumably--the SAF and SCDF's deployment. This is more than more than twice the size of a much earlier estimate. What is exciting is that Singaporeans are contributing more than money:

He [Minister of State (Foreign Affairs) Zainul Abidin Rasheed] said private companies and associations, such as Hyflux and Network Indonesia, donated equipment including water generator sets, power generators and mobile phones for volunteers.

Religious and private sector groups raised funds and Singaporeans with specialised skills like doctors, nurses and pharmacists volunteered their services.

'Singaporeans have shown they have a big heart when it comes to helping neighbours in distress. But the task is far from over as we move from emergency relief to rehabilitation and reconstruction,' he told the House.

The road ahead:

Mr Zainul said Singapore would continue to help badly-hit countries such as Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Maldives.

For example, the Singapore Armed Forces maintains liaison offices in Banda Aceh and Meulaboh, and the Government will work closely in projects such as building a barge pier, polyclinics, hospital and schools.

Administrators and health- care workers will also be trained to run these facilities.

'Recovery and reconstruction will take several years. Many countries are helping and we will do whatever we can within our limits,' he told Madam Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC).

The S$150 million figure, however, is pure guess work at this stage:

...if you look at the total approach taken by Singapore, it is beyond the $5 million, beyond the US$10 million, in fact this may even reach something like $150 million altogether put in by Singapore.'

There are also reports about the NGOs' use of the funds collected by the SRC:

MORE than $9 million raised through The Singapore Red Cross Society has been allocated to reconstruction efforts that non-governmental organisations (NGOs) will undertake in tsunami-hit countries...

The four projects which have received in-principle approval are: Low-cost housing projects in Meulaboh, Aceh, by Habitat for Humanity Singapore, and in Sri Lanka by the Buddhist Research Society. Singapore International Foundation's proposed projects in Sri Lanka to build fishing boats, construct communal facilities and provide nutritional programmes. A 'Play Pack' project by Mercy Relief for children in Meulaboh, which will now berefined and expanded into Sri Lanka and other parts of Aceh.

I've earlier posted on these projects here and here.

* * * * *

CNA (Feb 18):

A 9-man Singapore Red Cross medical relief team will be in Meulaboh from 19 February to provide medical aid to residents. They will be in Meulaboh for 2 weeks and will work closely with the Indonesian Red Cross. Another group will continue the medical relief work there after the team returns on 4 March.

To date, about S$77 million has been raised through the Singapore Red Cross. Of these, $5 million had been committed to support the initial rescue and relief operations. Another $9 million will be used to fund projects initiated by various voluntary groups and NGOs in Singapore.

Redrown's critique of conscription in Singapore (Part 5): long version

[Navigating this series: 1-3|4|5a|5b|Ref|Final]

Continuing from the previous post, this might be considered the "longer version" of my comments on the fifth and final part of Redrown's critique of Singapore's National Service system (see also this and this). As usual, quotes from his post are in italics. Almost all of his post is quoted here.

- Conscription Part 5/5: Is Attack the best form of Defense:

Even with the number of conscripts in our army, the size of our army is paltry compared to neighbouring countries in the south. Should any nation south of us choose to wage warfare, it will only be a matter of time before the siege succeeds in breaking us down.

The strength and effectiveness of a nation's military is not merely a function of the size of the respective armed forces. Suppose country A has many times less men under arms than country B; nevertheless, country A may be at a decisive advantage in a confrontation between the two. For example, this may be because country B, being many times larger in size, also need many more times the manpower to secure its far flung possessions--it can't just, on a whim, gather a significant portion of its stength together against A without compromising its other security commitments. Or it may be because it has much weaker transportational and logistical capabilities--all the soldiers in the world would be useless unless they can be moved to where they are useful. And even if country B did managed to get pit a significantly larger number of troops against country A, it may yet be disadvantaged, even decisively so, if A's troops enjoy a significant firepower, intelligence, technology, command and control (so many factors to consider) edge over those of country B. Since country A happens to be an island, we can replace "soldiers", "troops", etc. above with "naval and air assets" and the same conclusion follows.

But so much for generalities, just how would a comparison between the militaries of the real life A, B and C work out. For that, let's turn to the following chart in Tim Huxley's Defending the Lion City, p. 64 (Thanks to Olorin for scaning the page). In fact, the same data can be easily reconstructed from various separate sources if one is willing to surf the web; (see e.g., this) and more updated information is available from the latest issues of The Military Balance if you have access to a good library.

What the chart says can be put quite simply: Singapore enjoys a significant military advantage over Malaysia and Indonesia. But the chart is only indicative, not everything relevant is in it. For example, it does not mention SAF's overwhelming technological superiority over the MAF and TNI (for the case of the navy, see this), not merely in terms of weapons, but especially in the areas of C4, ISR (Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance). For example, Singapore's SIGINT (signal intelligence) capabilities are among the most advanced in the world (see this). These intangibles function as powerful as "force multipliers".

Even the listed figures tell only a partial story. Look at the the figures for combat aircraft for instance: Singapore has just about as many combat aircraft as Malaysia and Indonesia combined. Astounding as that may already be, if only advanced jet fighters are counted (e.g., F-16s, Mig-29s and Su-27s), the picture is even more lopsided in Singapore's favor (source here):

Singapore
7 F-16A/B
42 F-16C/D
[Another 20 more F-16 C/Ds were recently delivered]

Malaysia
17 Mig-29
8 F-18D

Indonesia
2 Su-27
10 F-16A/B

In other words, not counting the more recently delivered F-16s, the ratio is roughly 4:2:1 (Singapore : Malaysia : Indonesia), instead of the 1.8:1:1 counting all types of aircraft indiscriminately.

There's more--look at the defense spendings. The following additional data is culled from the CIA World Fact Book to provide a context for the spending figures (figures in US$):

Singapore
GDP: $109.4 billion (2003 est.)
GDP per capita: $23,700 (2003 est.)
Population: 4,353,893 (July 2004 est.)

Malaysia
GDP: $207.8 billion (2003 est.)
GDP per capita: $9,000 (2003 est.)
Population: 23,522,482 (July 2004 est.)

Indonesia
GDP: $758.8 billion (2003 est.)
GDP per capita: $3,200 (2003 est.)
Population: 238,452,952 (July 2004 est.)

In other words, the respective ratios (Singapore : Malaysia : Indonesia) are [UPDATE: made some corrections in the following--I flipped the Indonesia and Malaysia numbers]

By population-- 1:6:60
By GDP (2003)-- 1:2:8
By GDP per capita (2003)-- 8:3:1
By military expenditure (2000)-- 4:2:1

There is a good reason why Singapore is quite possibly the most heavily defended piece of real estate anywhere in the world--the fact is that we have poured much more money into it than our neighbors ever did--for at least the past 20 years. And we actually have the money to spend (look at the GDP per capita comparison). Furthermore, so much of it is in the hardware and research, rather than NS pay--which everyone would agree is a pittance.

But to come back to Redrown's claim that we will not be able to withstand an attack from, say, Indonesia, because of the relative size of the armed forces. The actual facts tell a very different story. Once we realize this, we can also see Redrown's next claim for the non-sequitur it is:

Of course, the plan is to 'hold the fort' till our 'dearest allies' aid us. Mobilisation of a distant army takes time, and much damage will have been done, including probable near-total decimation of our army and much of our populace, before it can be righted by our 'dearest allies'.

First, there will be no "holding the fort". Even if there was no pre-emptive strike by Singapore, if we were to be attacked or threatened, there will be no holding back the SAF from striking far from our shores, for example, at the adversary's capital itself. Second, this notion of "holding the fort" is completely outdated. That might have been the strategy in the 60s and 70s when a defense guarantee from Britain still meant something (now that was a long time ago), but no longer. The SAF fully expects to defend Singapore from regional adversaries should one arise. In any case, the allies are already in our midst--that's the whole point about building Changi Naval Base so that it can accomodate aircraft carriers.

In a funny sort of way, Redrown is not completely unaware of some of the above facts. This is what he says:

Our army is actually assembled for a primary singular purpose which involves a country north of Singapore which rhymes with 'Truly Asia' (hereby TA), whom which Singapore shares a relationship that can be best described as 'decidedly frosty'. This is due to another anomaly in the developed nation that is Singapore. Unlike most other advanced nations, Singapore ultimately lacks a basic essential resource required for self sustenance. Whatever the historical basis for the anomaly, it is an issue which is still unresolved today. In a completely non foolproof way, a treaty which is by all accounts an exploitative one lying much in favour of Singapore is adhered to by TA, not because they feel that it is ethical to 'honour the contract', nor is it because they are a benevolent nation extending the hand of goodwill, but because of the fear of a reprisal from a military primarily poised to defend(attack) should TA attempt anything funny, such as turning off their taps.

I'll come back to the water issue shortly, but notice that Redrown actually admits in a backhanded sort of way, that the SAF has an edge over the MAF. At the very least, the argument in the last line quote above presupposes that Malaysia must think that the SAF is not to be fool around with. In other words, the argument now becomes: the SAF sucks, but the other militaries suck even more, as opposed to "the SAF sucks" that one is lead to expect from earlier posts. But no, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the SAF is effective at what it does, or it is not--that's the only relevant measure worth considering. Effectiveness must be measured against actual goals and purposes, rather than completely abstract standards that have no bearing on real world considerations. (Otherwise, we could just as well say that Einstein is the dumbest physicist ever, except for all the rest.)

Since this is supposed to be about the SAF and the NS system in particular, I don't want to say too much about the water issue. Redrown appears to have bought the Malaysian line ("a treaty which is by all accounts an exploitative one"), which is, to say the least, controversial. Well, the issues are complex (but not intractable) and I'll leave it to another day, another post, though I will say just a bit more further down. But let's continue:

So what is the best standard of defence? Instead of thinking on military terms, why not think in terms of social, economic and political policy? Instead of depending on TA for a vital resource, why not be self sustaining? Self sustenance is vital for every nation, and despite our advanced society we are ultimately not self sustaining. Perhaps some of the funds which has made Singapore to an advanced society could be funded for alternative sources of this scarce resource? The stigma attached to NEWATER is perhaps unfounded but certainly one which is largely unacceptable by the masses, so why not turn to desalination? The argument against it is that it is costly, but so is building the Esplanade, the NEL lines, the Circle Lines, etc. We are an island surrounded by water. Perhaps there is more to meets the eye in the reluctance of turning to desalination.

First, what on earth is the connection between the first and the second line, and the first plus second lines, with the third? Is Redrown suggesting that we have any military defense only because of...water? Now our military strength is presumably vital in ensuring that, should some rogue government come into power in Malaysia, either they will think twice about turning off the tap, or even if they did, we will secure the pipes and make them pay (look for the term "Mersing Line" in Huxley's book). The Malaysians understand this quite well actually. But even if water is not an issue, even if somehow, we have all the drinkable water in the world, does it meant that we have no security concerns that require a strong military? Or that somehow, if water is no longer an issue, conscription need no longer be an intergal part of our defenses? Secondly, Singapore is building desalination plants (see this and this), on top of NEWATER and investing in new technology (see this). With these and other developments, present indications are that the water issue is becoming "desecuritised". Ah, the wonders of google.

Redrown continues:

And instead of insensitively making jibes about our neighbouring countries, could our leaders perhaps be more tactful when it comes to sensitive issues? Pride brings downfall and it is undoubted that our neighbours are catching up with us economically. Our leaders should take steps to improve diplomatic relations, decreasing the need for military presence. Where there is a lesser threat, one may take lesser steps to counter a threat. In many amicable neighbouring countries (such as US / Canada), there is virtually no military presence. The size of Brunei's military is less than 100k, and they are in the same region as us. Admittedly our demography is considerably different from theirs, but ultimately the point is that it is possible that national security can be achieved in other ways than conscription. In fact, given the state of our conscripts, not to mention the social benefits should conscription be discontinued, perhaps pursuing such methods would better ensure the national security we so desire.

I only know of one cabinet minister who might plausibly be counted as "insensitively making jibes about our neighbouring countries" (though in his mind, he's merely telling the truth). But seriously, if only the world is as simple as Redrown portrays, if only our strategic vulnerability is merely due to our having been insensitive to our neighbors, unless, of course, one is willing to pour any meaning one desires into "being insensitive". If our security situation were no more demanding that that of Canada vis-a-vis the US (or Luxemborg, to cite another example of Redrown's) then it would have been very different. But, unfortunately, that is not so. As for Brunei, let's turn to the most useful CIA World Fact Book again and note the following figures:

Brunei
Population 365,251 (July 2004 est.)
GDP: $6.5 billion (2002 est.)
GDP per capita: $18,600 (2002 est.)
Military expenditure: $339.5 million (2003)

I'll venture that Brunei's military is way, way, smaller than the "less than 100K" figure Redrown mentioned, but I also say that it is surely not because Brunei's demographics is different from ours (though it is) or that it is enjoys such a cozy relationship with it's one neighbor Malaysia (see this). There are excellent reasons why Singapore and Brunei enjoys very close military ties--one small country helping another even smaller one (by population) with its defense in exchange for good jungle warfare training grounds.

Such collateral issues may not be instantly recognisable as safeguarding our national security since they are by and large indirect means rather than direct means. But as I have said if we are being conscripted, we must know why we are being conscripted. 'For National Security' would be the popular response, but if one opens his eyes wider he will perhaps realise that there is probably more to it than meets the eye. There are alternate/better means to achieve this aim, but it would take a toll on other resources such as government finance and even government pride.

Short answer: nothing I've read in the 5 posts come even close to convincing me that there are viable alternatives to universal conscription for the purpose of dealing with our security situation. Please note that the costs of alternatives are never simply a matter of "government finance" (what on earth is that except my tax-dollars?). And what has "government pride" to do with all this continues to mystify me. To even to begin putting forward a viable alternative, one would presumably have to come up with a detailed analysis of Singapore security situation, and consequently, the military components for meeting the security requirements. How many tanks, How many combat aircraft? How many ships, of what types? In particular, how many battalions of infantry and other personnel to man all the equipment and do everything else that sustains a modern military system. Then ask: can something else but universal conscription meet the personnel requirements? Can some sort of selective conscription work? (What about other side effects--e.g., the rich being more able to dodge a selective draft, etc.?) Can we afford to go all-volunteer and maintain the sufficient levels of personnel? How many personnel can be replaced by investment in technology?

(Some of these are just the kinds of questions that MINDEF worked through on a regular basis. And having worked through the questions, they make the appropriate changes to the force structure. The infantry section has been decreasing in size over the years as more advanced weapons and technology in general meant that what used to take 9 men now only require 7. And just last year, the length of full-time national service has been cut to two years (from two and a half) because of demographic and technological changes.)

Redrown's critique of conscription in Singapore would have been a lot more cogent if he at least make some effort in those directions, or at least begin to do so by doing some basic research. Everything begins with an appreciation our strategic situation. And yes, that's a tall order, but surely one can begin by showing a firmer grasp of the official assessment of this issue. No, it's not just a matter of some elder statesman's pride or water--the world is infinitely more complicated than that. And thanks to the work of Michael Leifer, you don't even need to read the government reports to get at such an assessment. One can now read an independent scholar's expert take (he's been at it for decades) on the issue in his Singapore's Foreign Policy: Coping with Vulnerability (Routledge, 2000) (amazon). In fact, one doesn't even have to wait for it to arrive from Amazon--a digital version is offered as well. (By the way, the author Michael Leifer is not completely uncritical of the PAP, but he cannot be faulted for not doing his homework.)

Sadly, I think that cool-headed analysis is not what this is all about, but something else. This is confirmed by the next bit:

I reiterate that it is very possible that we are truly being exploited as a source of labour, by playing to our nationalistic pride and our the fears for the security of our families and ourselves. The government reaps the benefits of our manpower, for the supposedly 'incidental' purposes of National Day Parade, SAF Day Parade, and various marathons etc. Again, they benefit from these Parades as these parades instills a sense of patriotism (or cynics may say, nationalism) in the average citizen. The presence of the conscripts are the source of manpower required to carry out such a scaled event on a regular basis. So that also answers your question about whether NS instils patriotism in Singaporeans. Yes it does, in a most indirect way. [For those who are unconvinced by the power of such parades, attend one such parade rather than catching it on TV]

(Side note, read about how the Israelis were the ones who gave us our first national day parades here.) Perhaps Redrown felt exploited in his NS days, having to help with NDP and all that. Perhaps he had some really nasty NCOs lording over him. I can't tell. But he has not made his case for his conclusions. He asks:

While they advantageously reap the toil of our labours, it can be seen that on their part they have hardly lifted a finger. They are indisposed to invest more resources on overcoming the self-sustenance issue. While the Gov has taken some steps towards resolving this issue, you would be inclined to think that as the very issue of 'self sustenance' is one of first-rate importance and given the efficient standards of the gov, something foolproof would have been done by now. Why then is there still so much uncertainty?

Why indeed? Perhaps because some things are not within any Singaporean's control--the national interests of Malaysia, for example. We can surely 'solve' the water issue in a year, but at what price? Or perhaps because Redrown has not done his homework about what exactly is being done about the water issue.

He concludes thus:

It should also be fairly obvious to most who have gone thru or are going thru NS that it is a total load of BS, not quite what most of us expected when we were enlisted. The gov should stop treating its citizens as if they are naive kids to be exploited and manipulated at their will. The least they could do is paint the real picture of the situation and stop the pretentious 'wayang', the single thing that the SAF excels in.

It was not obvious to me, nor was it to Olorin, I'll venture to add. But why wait for big brother to tell us the real picture? There's so much information out there, on the net (I've linked to a few sources just in this post alone), in books published by independent expert observers (Huxley being the most readily available, but there are others). The least that one could do is one's own homework.

* * * * *

Coda: Singapore Commentator has taken noticed. His own thoughts so far:

As for me, I think that conscription does add value to Singapore’s defence capability. The question is whether it is worth the social and economic costs. Unfortunately, I have not seen anything that answers this question to my satisfaction, either in blogs or anywhere else — not even in the aforementioned posts. And realistically, I probably never will.

He's right: weighing the costs and benefits of the NS system would not be an easy task, least of all for mere bloggers. This blog cannot pretend to have done the issue complete justice. The issue is not just about the social and economic costs of the NS, but the relative costs vis-a-vis relevant alternatives. To add to the complexity, any relevant analysis cannot be just about costs and benefits in the abstract--as if we are founding Singapore from scratch--but predicated on the fact that the present system has been running for 30+ years. We can compare the costs and benefits of doing A or B before actually doing either; but having begun doing A, the comparison becomes that between continuing with A and switching mid-stream to B, a different kettle of fish altogether. My intention, however, is merely to present the issues from hopefully a more informed point of view; and my plea is that critics of the present system do so likewise. We could surely do no worse than that.

* * * * *

UPDATE: Found a 2004 news article by former war correspondent (Indochina, the Soviet-Afghan war) Anthony Paul (published in ST Apr 16, 2004), available here. His words:

SAF reserve units are more tightly bonded than any I have seen. I know of one Beach Road IT company whose ethnically mixed staff were in the same university sports team and are today the core of their reserve unit.

On the Malaysian reception of Tim Huxley's book in the (tabloid) Malay Mail (Jan 14, 2003), with a sensational rendition of Huxley's dicussion of what a Singapore-Malaysia confrontation might look like (I did say that it's a tabloid...), with some quotations from Huxley's book. The Malaysian forumers were predictably not very happy about the whole thing.

* * * * *

NOTE: Corrected for grammar/spelling at various times

[Navigating this series: 1-3|4|5a|5b|Ref|Final]

Redrown's critique of conscription in Singapore (Part 5): short version

[Navigating this series: 1-3|4|5a|5b|Ref|Final]

The fifth and final part to Redrown's critique of Singapore's National Service system--Conscription Part 5/5: Is Attack the best form of Defense--is out. I have already posted my comments on Parts 1-3, and more critically, on Part 4.

The short version of my response to Part 5 is: please, please read the following book before making any further moves:

- Tim Huxley, Defending the Lion City: The Armed Forces of Singapore (Allen & Unwin, 2000) (Amazon)

(The medium-sized version begins here) As Eliot A. Cohen's review of the book in Foreign Affairs (2001 Sep/Oct) puts it, the book is

One of the very best in the excellent series The Armed Forces of Asia, this book offers a fascinating look at a little-known but effective military organization. Singaporeans, who usually maintain considerable discretion on security matters, have already snapped up this book. Written by a British scholar, it brings up issues that are almost never discussed--including sensitive questions of war plans with Singapore's neighbors. Drawing on Israeli and other foreign experts and using only their country's limited resources, the Singaporeans have molded a technologically sophisticated and large military that is capable of striking far from the island state. Given the country's absence of natural resources and lack of strategic depth, it is a remarkable achievement. The military has not yet been tested in real combat, but few observers doubt its professional ability. A fascinating study of what an intelligent, determined people can do to forge an effective military in unfavorable circumstances.

A reader commented on Singapore Ink's post concerning Jamie Han's most recent ST Forum letter):

We must be responsible in what we say. That is not to say we write with fear but that we write in an informed manner.

This is important precisely give the aim of Redrown's posts, which is

[T]o make people think about why they are serving 2 years of their lives, rather than just taking it as something that is in the natural sequence of life, and going through the motions...I would think that one is entitled to know WHY and WHAT FOR he has devoted 2 prime years of his life and that one SHOULD be interested in knowing.

Absolutely.

Coda: Hopefully, I'll get round to write a longer version soon. (UPDATE: done)

UPDATE: I was too optimistic. Redrown needs to read the following as well:

On Singapore's foreign policy:

- Michael Leifer, Singapore's Foreign Policy: Coping with Vulnerability (Routledge, 2000) (Amazon)

On desalination in Singapore:

- AFP (Nov 30, 2001), "Singapore presses ahead with desalination program"

- AFP (Jan 19, 2003), "S'pore awards contract to build water desalination plant"

[Navigating this series: 1-3|4|5a|5b|Ref|Final]

Hainanese Chicken Rice

Some friends visited us today--an American missionary family (Baptists) who served in Singapore, now in India, back in the States for a daughter's wedding, in the Toronto area to visit family and at our place for lunch. (What a mouthful.) Like me, he loves Hainanese Chicken Rice, setting the stage for a storm in the kitchen. The dessert, though, is hardly Asian.

Once more... (UPDATED)

Jamie Han makes ST Forum page, and Singapore Ink has comments.

UPDATE (Feb 19): Various have responded to Jamie Han on ST Forum, and Singapore Ink has the low down, or at least the first part of it. There's a Salmon Rushdie connection as well.

Aceh Highlights (Feb 17)

Let's hope these guys are serious:

ST (Feb 17), "'Maximum peace' needed to rebuild Aceh", by Shefali Rekhi:

PRESIDENT Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono called on separatist rebels to opt for peace in tsunami-ravaged Aceh and set the stage for speedier recovery. 'Aceh's rehabilitation and reconstruction will need to be carried out under a condition of maximum peace,' he said in remarks at the 25th Singapore Lecture yesterday. The Acehnese are not interested in conflict after being battered by the Dec 26 tsunamis and their real need is 'survival, reconstruction and healing', he said.

AFP (Feb 16), "Rebel commander urges ceasefire in Aceh to allow tsunami reconstruction", by Victor Tjahjadi:

A rebel commander in the tsunami-battered Indonesian province of Aceh said Wednesday the priority in upcoming peace talks with the government was to secure a ceasefire and allow reconstruction of the region...

"What is needed in the field is to stop the fighting, the war, because if not it will hinder the distribution of aid to Acehnese people. The ceasefire can hopefully be in place as long as foreign humanitarian workers are here and while the reconstruction of Aceh is being carried out," he added.

The sticking point continues to be the issue of independence, or to be more precise, on the issue of exactly what is up for negotiation.

(from the ST article)

Dr Yudhoyono urged the rebels of the Free Aceh movement, better known by their Indonesian acronym GAM, to work together with the government under the framework of special autonomy.

'This is what the Acehnese want, this is what the Indonesian government is offering and this is what the international community supports unreservedly,' he said.

(from the AFP article)

[The rebel leader] also dismissed Yudhoyono's insistence that the talks in the Finnish capital should refer only to "special autonomy" for the region and not full independence.

"At the moment, we do not want to talk about special autonomy or independence but what's important is a ceasefire and afterwards, we can sit down and discuss what options can be negotiated in the future," he said.

Have you ever wondered how cricket is played?

Somewhat in response to this on Eaglespeak.

"Cricket, as explained to a foreign visitor". I found it on Penang, in a little restaurant frequented by ex-British military types:

Click on the picture to enlarge.

Navy ship names

Ever wondered how the ships in the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) are named? The short answer is: "in the British tradition" (roughly). From Wizbang:

In the old days, the U.S. Navy had a fairly simple system for naming its ships. Battleships were states, cruisers cities, destroyers people, submarines fish, and carriers battles or famous ships from U.S. naval history.

After World War II, though, we stopped building battleships. Since states have Senators and Representatives that vote on navy budgets, cruisers briefly took on that role, then ballistic missile submarines. Now it's carriers for presidents and other notable leaders, cruisers for battles, destroyers for people (still), and submarines for cities and states. (The latter came about when, as Admiral Hyman Rickover, the father of the nuclear navy, pointed out, "fish don't vote.")

Now, the British, THEY know how to name warships. I have reprints of Jane's Fighting Ships of World War I and World War II, and just perusing the Royal Navy's listings makes the heart swell.

Resolution. Revenge. Warspite. Valiant. Audacious. Thunderer. Conqueror. Colossus. Superb. Repulse. Renown. Tiger. Lion. Indefatigable. Invincible. Inflexible. Indomitable. Triumph. Formidable. Irresistible. Implacable. Glory. Vengeance. Magnificent. Majestic. Victorious. Illustrious. Furious. Courageous. Glorious. Vindictive. Terrible.

Even the nicknames the British gave their ships were clever. The Courageous, Glorious, and Furious were absurdly-designed battlecruisers, and earned the name Outrageous, Uproarious, and Curious. Likewise, the Repulse and Renown spent so much time in docks that they were known as Repair and Refit. And the battleships Nelson and Rodney... nah, that one's too damned obscure to properly appreciate. Trust me, it's very funny, and very biting.

The ships in the RSN are as follows:

- Formidable class multi-role frigates--(launched) Formidable, Intrepid, Steadfast, (under construction) Tenacious, Stalwart, Supreme

- Victory class corvettes--Victory, Valour, Vigilance, Valiant, Vigour and Vengeance

- Fearless class patrol vessels--Fearless, Brave, Courageous, Gallant, Daring, Dauntless, Resilience, Unity, Sovereignty, Justice, Freedom and Independence

- Sea Wolf class missile gun boats--Sea Wolf, Sea Lion, Sea Dragon, Sea Tiger, Sea Hawk, Sea Scorpion

- Endurance class landing ship, tanks--Endurance, Resolution, Persistence, Endeavour

- Challenger class submarines--Challenger, Conqueror, Centurion, Cavalier

And then we have the Landsort class minehunters, whose names are...much more homely--Bedok, Kallang, Katong, Punggol

UPDATE Feb 17: I stand corrected--these are no mere "mindhunters", but "mine counter-measure vessels", as the Kockums website points out.

Redrown's critique of conscription in Singapore (Part 4)

[Navigating this series: 1-3|4|5a|5b|Ref|Final]

As indicated previously, my deepest disagreements with Redrown focus on Part 4 of his 5-part critique of the NS system. As far as I can tell, the problems raised in Parts 1-3--even if they were cogent--are comparatively peripheral and solvable with some imagination. The issues raised in Part 4, however, touches on deeper misunderstandings. And since these misunderstandings appear to be more widespread than they really should be, there is value in looking through them in detail beyond the immediate concern with Redrown's post. (It's my pedagogical instincts again, my apologies.)

Credit is due to my good friend Olorin, who helped greatly with this one. Apart from his day job in the education business, Olorin is a real life NS officer as well, so his input (all non-classified, of course) is invaluable. Once again, quotations from Redrown are italicized.

Part 4/5: False Security:

We are always told that Singapore is a small defenceless nation (but see Liechenstein's counteraction to the issue of size), and that we are the 'Israel' of Asia. As such, it is crucial that we have the means to defend our nation. In other words, it is drilled into us the vulnerability of our situation. We are manipulated into feeling fear, fear for our livelihoods, our families. We are brainwashed into thinking that conscription is the solution to allay such fears. Fear is a highly motivating factor, the fuel that drives us into accepting conscription for what it is.

Forget about conscription for the moment--is the vulnerability of our geo-strategic situation a mere figment of imagination? We are not a Liechenstein (a bank pretending to be a country) located smack in the heart of the European Community, where the French and the Dutch are not about to go to war over...cheese? We really are located in a region that is at times only barely stable. In fact, we became an independent nation mostly because of these intrinsic instabilities when we were booted from Malaysia. So even if conscription is not the best solution, I would need a lot more convincing before I would be persuaded that this sense of vulnerability is merely fear mongering on the part of our government. But fortunately, Redrown's point in this post is not that we are not vulnerable, that our security situation is no more demanding than that of Liechenstein. He merely wants to suggest

that it is possible that not only is conscription not providing the National Security we so desire, but that to ensure the safety of national security of Singapore, conscription of our population may not be the appropriate or exclusive way.

Which is fair enough. So, on to his arguments:

Firstly, the conscripts (usually 18-20 year old boys fresh out of college or polytechnic) are hardly army material. A true soldier is one who is born a soldier, not one who has spent his lifetime indulging in the excesses of civil society. Granted, the 2 years spent 'militarising' these conscripts do make them tougher as persons, but to expect these people to go to war against professionally trained soldiers who spent their entire lives in the military...well, to be very optimistic, underdogs do sometimes win, especially in Hollywood movies.

Secondly, the reservists (usually 30+ year old potbellied men), who will be even more unlikely to be in the shape which is required in the army if we are to win wars and defend our country.

Actually, the traditional age of the soldier is not too far from the 18-20 yr range. In the Royal Navy of the Napoleonic Era, "probably 80 percent of the crews of navy ships were no older than 25, and the average ship always included a large number of so-called ship's boys, some as young as eight (see this) while the average age of the US Infantryman in the two world wars was around 19--and they fought superbly, as good as any professional army did. Secondly, what happened to the ages between ORD and the 30+? The NS cycle is 13 years, which means that in the event of a war, SAF is counting on a soldier in the 20 to 30 age range, insofar as it is counting on our NSmen. But I'll let someone who knows more continue for me--

[Email from Olorin:] It IS understood in the SAF that the bulk of the frontline troops are people who have gone through a few years of the NS cycle. It is widely acknowledged that when we go to war, the active [i.e., NSF] battalions constitute a very small percentage of the soldiers in the front. It is also widely recognised that NS battalions who have completed ATEC (previously sometime between 5th and 7th year... now fixed at 7th year) are more confident of their operational capabilities than the new birds in their first few cycles. [end quote from Olorin]

To be charitable, I guess the point that Redrown is trying to make is not about age per se, but about the relative (military) competence of conscripts vs. professionals ("A true soldier is one who is born a soldier, not one who has spent his lifetime indulging in the excesses of civil society.") But before we can really assess this claim, we need to realise that things are a bit more complicated.

There's the distinction between conscript vs. non-conscript (volunteer); and then there's the distinction between professional vs. non-professional (amateur). I suppose by definition, all conscripts would be amateurs; but not all non-conscripts are professionals; they could be amateur-volunteers (e.g., LTC Joshua Chamberlain, 20th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment, of Little Round Top, Gettyburg fame; to be contrasted with the life-long professional soldier Gen. Robert E. Lee, Army of Virginia). And there's also a distinction between selective conscription (the system practiced by the US for WWII; and universal conscription, the system practiced by, e.g., Singapore and Israel). And among the professionals, a distinction can also be made between volunteers--people who sign up to do soldiering for pay, and those who really are born into soldiering, e.g., Mamaluks, Rajputs, Spartans). Let's call this last group soldier caste. [On the last group--my wife and I actually met a really sweet old gentleman in Penang who belonged to a gipsy tribe that has traditionally provided soldiers for the Maharaja of India (and after that, the British Raj). He is ex-RAF, used to be stationed in Penang, and now holidays there for months every year. A living specimen of a (now defunct) warrior caste, Mr. Harold Baker is now affectionately known as Abu-Bakar ("Grandpa Baker") to the locals.]

Ok, enough history lesson/digression. Fact is, there is no hard and fast correlation between military competence and whether the soldier is a conscript, volunteer, professional, or even soldier caste. History is repete with examples of good soldiers from all four categories beating soldiers from another category. As Olorin nicely puts it:

[Olorin:] The line, "a true soldier is one who is born a soldier..." is hogwash. Gentlemen academic who spend their lives in books, and attending concerts, etc., can make extremely good citizen soldiers. Who was that commander of the Maine Regiment who fought at the battle of little round top? [i.e., LTC Joshua Chamberlain] Sergeant York, Col. Winters of Easy Company (and yours truly) make excellent alternative examples to the idea that you don't have to be born into soldiering to be a good soldier. [end quote from Olorin]

But since we are talking about conscripts, let's not forget the excellent soldiers of the IAF (Israeli Armed Forces) [Correction added Feb 17: careless slip here--it should be IDF (Israel Defense Forces)] and the US Army of WWII, just to name two war winning examples. So even on the face of it, Redrown's point is simply wrong. There is this one thought that might be salvaged though: there may be something to the thought that an all-volunteer military may be better in some way or other than the present NS system--and I'll have to come back to that later. But the worst part is yet to come:

When you have such a unfortunate mish-mash (rojak) of personnel who are clearly not of military mould, the army is nothing more than a facade of numbers, which is actually the case-plan for the army. The numbers are merely used as a deterrent rather than any cause of action. This discomfiting thought sits uneasily with the whole concept of security because this means we are basically employing a false sense of security as national security.

Here, I think Redrown is just wrong, period. On multiple counts too.

He thinks that many Singaporean has a false sense of security because of our large conscript army. But my impression is that many Singaporean has no such sense of security at all--they do not think that the SAF is able to defend us in a real pinch. (The only reason why they do not panic is because they also do not think that we live in a dangerous world.) In fact, those who think otherwise do so not primarily because of the size of the conscript army, but because of a host of other factors (above cited) as well. In fact, they often argue in the following vein: "even though ours is a conscript army..." I think he makes these mistakes because he is himself mistaken about the real strength of the SAF--in fact, Singapore's defenses as a whole.

If the SAF is any good, it is not primarily because of the number of conscripts. Tim Huxley (Defending the Lion City), for example, gave us low points precisely because we field a conscript army. He nevertheless thought that the SAF is a superior force in the South East Asian context. This is how he puts it in a recent article (here):

For less than US$5bn annually, MINDEF and the SAF provide Singapore with a remarkable range of military capabilities. In Singapore's immediate regional context, these capabilities presently far outclass those of any potential opponent in conventional military terms. Singapore possesses highly educated and IT-literate military, research and industrial personnel, and its defence-industrial and R&D establishment has set up an extensive network of international links. For these reasons, it can almost certainly sustain its conventional military advantage for at least the next decade. Indeed, if Singapore develops military doctrine and organisation which allow the SAF to exploit its C4, ISR and firepower to the full, it may be able to assure continued military superiority in Southeast Asia even if potential regional adversaries (notably Malaysia) are eventually able to catch up in technological terms.

Let me be clear about this: no one is saying that the SAF is some invincible force. I'm sure there are many places it can continue to improve. But its strengths (vis-a-vis potential adversaries) are real. This seems to be the assessment of many external observers, Huxley being but one prime example because he spent decades studing the SAF and has published about it (and Redrown would do well to begin by reading his book).

At the end of the day, Redrown's own somewhat defeatist attitude clouded his analysis:

We have already seen how futile our attempts would be to defend our nation with such a system. [We have seen no such thing -HC] Now, would there actually be a nation that would attempt an invasion of Singapore? Our paltry defence is just a minute factor to be considered by a would-be invader. More important considerations a would be invader would take into consideration is the possibility of military, economic, social and political repercussions of their own. Only in the unlikely event of a nation amassing enough economic and military power to launch a World-war degree of war would they attempt an invasion, in which case, our defense would hardly be viable against such a force.

The logic of the above is amazing: the SAF is only successful at deterring those whom it can deter, but will fail to deter those it cannot deter--if there should be an enemy strong enough to overwhelm us, our defenses would be useless against it. This is all true but tautologous. And from this, no practical implications can be drawn. For example, it does not follow that therefore, conscription is useless or that the SAF is not a genuinely effective fighting force or does not present a genuine deference to would be aggressors. If tomorrow, the only hyperpower left in the world, the US, should turn into a genuine evil empire and desires to wipe us off the face of the earth, there's not much we can do to protect ourselves. But that's hardly relevant to real world strategic planning, is it? We can only plan for things we can do something about (which is why no one plan for 2+2 to be 4). We can do something to make sure that some non-superpower (in our neighborhood) doesn't get any ideas about our size and go on military adventures at our expense. And all indications is that our neighbors do not consider us a walkover, whatever the rhetoric they may spout from time to time. It is no laughing matter to watch a tiny country field a Landing Ship Tank from cold start in 72 hours, and have it begin operating off Meulaboh in another 96 (see e.g., this) when neither Malaysia nor Indonesia can do anything comparable. (If the Malaysian responses on certain defense forums are any indication, many of them feel slightly envious of our capabilities.) In fact--I will venture to add--that it is an "unlikely event" that any one would want to invade us is in part due to the perceived capabilities of the SAF.

So much for that, what about the thought an all-volunteer military may be better in some way or other than the present NS system. In the comments, Redrown actually went further, suggesting that perhaps a mercenary army (though officered by locals) may be another solution. Here, I'll let Olorin take over again:

[Olorin:] First, on the suggestion to employ mercenaries. Now while there was a choice (in the 60s) between whether to go with conscript or full time army, a mercenary army was never seriously considered. If I as a citizen don't want to stand here and fight, why would a foreign mercenary be more prepared to die here in my place when he is not going to be able to spend the money I pay him? Which armed forces in the world uses mercenaries as the main bulk of their forces? The gurkhas brought into Singapore are deployed under the Ministry of Home Affairs, not MINDEF. They are for internal security, not national defence, and Redrown should think through why this is so.

Second, as to why conscription was chosen in the 60s (as opposed to a full time army), that was because Singapore did not have the resources to afford a full-time professional army. To have an armed forces to be able to do its given job requires it to be of a sufficient size; but a large enough regular army of local people means 1. we won't be able to afford them without eating into resources that could be used elsewhere; 2. in particular, manpower--who is going to work in the factories? What is going to drive our economy? Any decent RTS player worth his salt knows that the best players have a carefully thought-out plan on what to do with the peasants, on top of all the fancy nifty tricks you can do with the powerful combat units.

But let's go back to the job the armed forces is required to do. In fact, the Army Mission today still basically says (paraphrased) it has first of all to be an effective deterrent against a potential aggressor, failing which it has to win a swift and decisive victory. Let's think about that: the first business of the SAF is to not fight, though of course, we have to be pretty good at it. To be an effective deterrent, 2000 local men and 5000 mercenaries is just so going to be laughed off by potential aggressors. [end quote from Olorin]

At the end of the day, Redrown's knowledge of general military matters/history does not inspire confidence. But more specifically, his critique fails because, first, he does not appreciate Singapore's threat environment. Second, he fails to appreciate the strength of the SAF, a strength that is no mere propoganda--in fact, the Singapore government has always been reticent about the SAF's capabilities. For that, he really could start by just picking up a copy of Tim Huxley's Defending the Lion City before proceeding further. Third, he fails to appreciate the role of the NS system in all of this, the rationale underlying the choice of universal conscription at the founding of the nation, and the true cost of alternatives that would give us the same capabilities. As I said, it's time to hit the books again.

* * * * *

While we are at it, here's an article about how the IDF helped set up the SAF in the 60s, conscription and all: Amnon Barzilai, "Israel set up Singapore's army, former officers reveal", Haaretzdaily.com (July 15, 2004); a copy available here. It's been offline for a while and I owe "Pirate" of the Military Nuts forum a big "Thank You" for making a copy available.

[Navigating this series: 1-3|4|5a|5b|Ref|Final]

On a testimony from Meulaboh

You might have come across this story, or something like it:

But there is a fantastic testimony from Meulaboh. In that town are about 400 Christians. They wanted to celebrate Christmas on December 25th but were not allowed to do so by the Muslims of Meulaboh. They were told if they wanted to celebrate Christmas they needed to go outside the city of Meulaboh on a high hill and they can celebrate Christmas there. Because the Christians desired to celebrate Christmas the 400 believers left the city on December 25th and after they celebrated Christmas they stayed overnight on the hill. ...The 400 believers were on the mountain and were all saved from destruction.

There are two distinct issues: one, is the account true; two, if it is true, what exactly is the significance? Does it, for instance, demonstrate the existence or providence of (the Christian) God? Well, things are much more complicated precisely if one's perspective is informed by the Bible, rather than, say, Chicken Soup of the Soul. After some discussions between the two of us, my wife wrote an extended post on this topic on our other blog: ripostes, which you might turn to if you are interested.

Redrown's critique of conscription in Singapore (Parts 1-3)

[Navigating this series: 1-3|4|5a|5b|Ref|Final]

Originally, I wanted to wait until all five parts of Redrown's analysis and critique of Singapore's NS system are out before posting the links and my comments. There is much that I do not agree with, though I'll be the first to say that they are definitely worth a careful read. But since the drafts are already getting long and I have more substantial disagreements with part 4 than with 1-3, I’ve decided to publish my comments in more than one post.

In this post, I’ll look at parts 1-3 of Redrown’s critique of NS.

UPDATE: To prevent confusion, I've italicized quotations from Redrown.

Part 1/5: The 3 Mentalities:

There are generally three attitudes which enlisted boys take when going through their army days, using colloquialisms, (1)'siao on' (taking a gung-ho and positive attitude towards excelling in army (2)'lan lan' (taking an attitude that it is something that has to be done and got over with), (3)'chao keng' (taking an attitude that this is something that is horrible and should be avoided at all costs, resorting to malingering)...

My own interest is in the second type, since they are supposed to make up the majority and I neither fall into (1) nor (3). Here, I am a little disappointed at the analysis:

The second type are those who serve army, do things for the sake of doing although realising the futility of doing such tasks. Basically, just grinning and bearing through the times. Most do things blindly without giving much thought to why they are doing it. They do not question why they are doing the things they do. Such mindlessness dulls even the sharpest of brains and since the large proportion of conscripts fall within this category, this may cause an irreversible damage to a conscript's ability to think and adapt for himself once he is out in the civil world again. Just ask the countless undergraduates who have just passed out of army to return to university.

But surely this is not exhaustive of what someone who is neither "gung ho" nor "chao keng". There is questioning...and then there is questioning. One could question (internally) all the time while recognizing there are inherent limits to what can and cannot be done or be changed in the short run. Someone in this mindset would follow orders, perhaps not even giving it a second thought--because he sees that this is part and parcel of what an army is all about, or at least some aspect of it. In the meantime, he observes, takes notes, learns what skills he can, and voices his questions and objections at the suitable occasions in the suitable channels. And even if those occasions do not come in that 2 and a half years, he does not lose heart. If you ask me, the army is excellent training in discipline for any would be social activist--if he is willing to learn. He learns the limits of rapid and immediate change, and the need to persuade and enlist the agreement and help of others in effecting change, and above all, of the need for patience in face of things that one cannot change quickly. My own impression has always been that the broad majority of 'dissenting' Singaporeans are divided among those who think that nothing can be done and are resigned to that, and those who are impatient for change. I think that both draw the wrong lessons. That said, I would agree that many type (2) NSF do end up in the rut as described, but I am less certain that this is something inherent in the conscription system itself. The kind of soldier I always admire--he can gripe and gripe about everything and anything, but when the orders are out or something needs to be done, he rolls up his sleeves and gets down to it without complaint. That's the one that earned his right to gripe.

As for the part about "irreversible damage to a conscript's ability to think and adapt for himself"--I am not really convinced. Fact is, I have often found our NUS guys to be psychologically and intellectually more mature than many students of comparable age I encountered in the US. This is a generalization, no doubt, but there is some truth to it that I can testify to. Secondly, so much depends on how the NSF keeps himself busy. For example: does he continue to read? (That's a thing that MINDEF could do something about--encourage more reading among our soldiers.)

Part 2/5: Social Anomaly:

A military world is very different from a civilian world. As such, a civilian (girl) will never be fully able to empathise with the rigours of military life that a guy goes through. A guy attuned to a military lifestyle similarly finds it difficult to appreciate a viewpoint which in its entirety is restricted to the civilian world. Clashes occur. Of course, this is the time whereby many pre-army relationships are strained. Sadly, many do not withstand the strains of army life and breakup occurs.

Recently, I was asked about our NS system, and how that affects the dating patterns of our youth (here in Canada). I told the person that, yes, many JC/Poly students date. But comes that inevitable day when the boy is called up; most relationships do not survive NS. The girl goes to NUS (say) and meets all the fabulous boys two years older than her; she breaks the boy's heart. But two years later, it's the boy's turn to go to NUS, and he meets all these impressionable girls two years younger than him... I concluded: it's all wonderfully planned by the SDU. Ok, but I'll let Redrown continue:

[I]t is a fact that the 2 years served in army is a 2 years break in progress, whether in education or in employment. Many claim that the 2 years are 'not wasted', rather, they 'teach important lessons in life'. That is a statement more of 'self-comfort' than of reason. Military skill and knowledge has no place in the civil world. Simple as that. As for other 'life lessons', such as learning about bureaucracy, hierarchy and civil skills, the experience could as easily be gleaned if the 2 years were spent anywhere else besides a hermit's hut. Furthermore, in a society such as Singapore, paper qualifications trumps anything else. Experiences which cannot be transcribed into qualifications are as good as thrown into a wastebasket. Thus the only way the 2 years are 'not wasted' is if the 2 years were NOT spent in conscription or a hermit's hut.

Surely Redrown cannot mean what he says in the last two lines. Most of the experiences I treasure are not translatable into paper qualifications at all; nor, I'll hazard a guess, are the most treasured experiences of most people. But that aside, I think the argument is perfectly valid and sound, but not really to the point. I would never justify the existence of an NS system upon the basis of saying that it "teaches important lessons in life" or that it makes our men more employable (even though it would be a bonus if it does so). Presumably, the point of NS from the national point of view has something to do with defense and nation building. (These would be addressed by Redrown in later posts; see below.) That said, I do think that the NS experience can potentially teach important life lessons--but a lot will depend on the mindset of the soldiers themselves (as pointed out above in my comments to part 1/5).

Redrown's observation about the gulf between the civilian and military world is an interesting one. I would add, however, the point that conscription systems often have a tendency to civilianize the military (rather than militarize) the society. But that aside, I'm not sure this is a bad thing. If there is a need for a military, there will always be some civilian-military divide. But rather than sharpen that divide by having a highly militarized professional soldiering group, on the one hand, and a civilian population that knows next to nothing about the military, our model actually diffuses the divide by having all (or most) males go through some military experience, possibly even at the expense of the sort of efficiency that an all volunteer military might enjoy. But there's a trade off for every real world solution. In any case, there will always be a divide between the boys and the girls, and it is much preferable to a divide between a military and a civilian segment of society (both having boys and girls in their fold). I’ll have more to say about this below.

Concluding this post, Redrown asks:

So how can this social anomaly be addressed? Now, if both Guys and girls were conscripted, could this solve the problem? Or are there better solutions?

I hope I've gone some way in making a case that there is no social anomaly that we need write home about in the NS system, at least, not one that can be easily change without some other social anomaly taking its place. Having said that, there is some scope for having the girls do some form of NS (even if not of the military sort). But that's another, much longer discussion.

Part 3/5: Pointing Fingers:

The opinions toward conscription to a certain extent can be divided down to sex. Many girls are of the opinion that guys owe a duty to protect Singapore and should quit 'whining' about it, but that they themselves should not be conscripted alongside them because 'they are not suited for army'. This is ultimately double double standards. The first double standard is that of self-stereotyping themselves into the role of the fairer sex, at the same time demanding equal treatment, unfortunately quite a common practice in our contemporary society. The second double standard is that of volunteering others but not willing to do something themselves, again another typicality.

Guys (those that are against conscription), in the meantime, get all defensive and start to point these points out and state that girls should join them and serve in the army so as to achieve 'fairness' and 'equality'. Guys and girls, side by side, fighting the enemy. They reason, given the modern day technological era of the military, there is certainly no reason why girls cannot serve in posts more suited for 'their feminine traits'.

Only too true, though, really, guys who think that the girls should be fighting side by side them have no idea what they are talking about. Second, the canard about equality is exactly that, a canard--political equality is not predicated upon equal contribution or equal ability. If that were so, some would have fewer votes than others (the very idea that MM Lee once notoriously advocated). But, as I said above, there is some scope for discussing whether girls should be drafted for some form of national service or other, though probably not of the military type. Not so much for the sake of some fetish about equality though, but simply to diffuse that bit of awareness about national defense wider into society, making it even more an aspect of our social consciousness.

[Navigating this series: 1-3|4|5a|5b|Ref|Final]

The "what would the janitor do" approach to art

From Techcentralstation.com (Feb 15), "The Art of the Hustle", by Sidney Goldberg:

- Last month, In Frankfurt, Germany, sanitation workers mistook for trash a yellow sculpture lying in the street outside a museum and so they tossed it into the garbage truck. It turned out that the "trash" was the creation of Michael Beutler, who replaced it with another assortment of garbage.

- In August of last year, in London's Tate gallery, a janitor finds a bag of paper and cardboard which he thinks is rubbish and so he tosses it into the trash, but it turns out that the "rubbish" is the work of Gustav Metzger, who replaced it with more rubbish.

- Also in January, The New York Times described (favorably) "Wish Well," in a Chelsea gallery, as a "notable contribution to the department of extreme trash accumulation, kinetic division. Stacked tiers of paper, cardboard, bottles and other sorts of refuse sandwiched between sheets of plywood rise 10 feet in the air in the middle of the tower of garbage..."

- In 2001, a janitor at the Eyestorm gallery in London tossed out a collection of coffee cups, ashtrays, and beer bottles, which turned out to be the work of Damien Hirst. Hirst, incidentally, last November, sold his "Uncaring Lovers" -- described by The New York Times as "a cabinet containing glass jars of bovine internal organs" -- for $ 321,000.

There was this story about the emperor and his new clothes that I vaguely recall...

DEBKAfile on the Iraq elections results

Continuing from this post, ST (Feb 15) seems to present a more pessimistic picture:

THE cleavage in Iraq's multi-ethnicity and religiosity has been reaffirmed in the results just announced of the general election held on Jan 30. It is eminently safe for observers to dissemble, saying this split factor can be the balm that will heal the world's oldest known civilisation...Or alternatively, that it would bring more grief, seeing that the first election permitted in half a century has brought the divisions out into the open.

But as I suggested in the previous post, sometimes, a clear eyed view of divisions is actually good--especially if it also shows the various parties that they do not have enough preponderance to just walk over the rest. Needless to say, some good statesmanship will be essential.

Talking about that, DEBKAfile has an interesting analysis about who the next Iraqi president might be:

The Iraq Voter Has Opted for a Shiite-Kurdish Coalition in Baghdad
DEBKAfile Special Analysis
February 13, 2005, 5:53 PM (GMT+02:00)

Jalal Talabani: Next Iraqi president?

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani’s United Iraqi (Shiite) Alliance of 16 parties pulled ahead of the pack in Iraq’s first democratic election, earning 48% and a block of 132 seats in the new national assembly – but not an absolute majority. In an earlier report published on February 4, DEBKAfile predicted that the UIA would not win a majority of the new house despite its claim of 60 of the electorate. Iraq’s 8.55 million voters (58% turnout) awarded 25.4% to the United Kurdish List, placing it in second place, followed by interim PM Allawi’s list with a disappointing 14%.

Despite the Sunni boycott, there was a 29% turnout in the Sunni Salah-eddin province.

The message the Iraqi voter broadcast loud and clear, therefore, was that any future regime in Baghdad must be based on a Shiite-Kurdish coalition. No single faction can rule alone.

US analysts pretty well predicted the results. What did surprise them, according to DEBKAfile’s Iraqi sources, was the rapid breakup of Sistani’s alliance days before the results were published under the pressure of intense jockeying for the premiership by heads of four of the UIA component lists: the al Daawa chairman Ibrahim al-Jaafar, the interim finance minister Adel Mehdi of SCIRI (Supreme Council of the Iraqi Revolutionary Council), Dr. Mufak al Rubai, interim prime minister Iyad Allawi’s former national security adviser, and Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress.

US troops broke into Chalabi’s home nine months ago. In Washington, he was accused of spying for Tehran. So far have his fortunes changed since then that last week, Number Two at the US embassy in Baghdad, Robert Ford, paid him a visit to discuss a political deal.

According to DEBKAfile’s Baghdad sources, the United States government does not favor any of the four candidates for prime minister. Ambassador John Negroponte and Ford are making every effort to keep Iyad Allawi in the job. Intense wheeling and dealing has been afoot in recent days to enhance his chances. The visit to Chalabi was intended to persuade him to join a coalition led by Allawi (the two are kinsmen and long-standing rivals) and supported by the Kurds. Allawi is offering his fellow Shiite high government office with guarantees that he will be treated as a senior partner in state decision-making. Chalabi, basking in his new popularity, sees no reason to be satisfied with less than the premiership for himself.

The plum Washington is offering the Kurds for their support is the largely ceremonial post of president for the PUK leader Jalal Talabani.

This coalition would place at least four stabilizing blocks in place in Baghdad.

One, the president would be a Kurd - but also a Sunni rather than a Shiite, and therefore a counterweight to Shiite domination of the assembly and government. This appointment might also partly melt Sunni Arab hostility to the new regime. Their hostility may not be as uniform as feared. The Sunni election boycott declared at the cost of their parliamentary representation was not watertight, as evidenced by the 29% voter turnout in the Sunni Salah Eddin province. The hope is that Sunni leaders will be persuaded to take part in the drafting of Iraq’s new constitution, a key to Iraq’s future destiny no less than the general election itself.

Two, Kurdish support for Allawi would guarantee a pro-American prime minister at the helm of the new government. A two-thirds majority of the national assembly is required to choose a president and his two deputies, who will then choose the prime minister. This places the Kurds in the position of tie-breaker.

Three, Command of the national presidency may temper Kurdish separatist predilections and slow their pell-mell rush towards an independent Kurdistan.

Four, The incumbent president, the Sunni Muslim Ghazi Yawar, or a member of his clan, would be freed for the post of national assembly speaker, reserving this important post for a Sunni.

Two Sunnis – one of whom is also a Kurd – and one secular Shiite would thus hold Iraq’s top positions of power. This powerful troika should be able to counterbalance the Sistani’s bloc’s command of almost half the national assembly.

Saturday, February 12, the day before the election results were released, Allawi went to Kurdistan and met Talabani. DEBKAfile’s Middle East experts have noted the strange irony of the Bush administration being close to the goal of a regime in Baghdad formed on lines very similar to the Lebanese government. In Beirut too, Sunnis, Christians and Shiites co-exist. This model may suit Iraq. On the other hand, Lebanon underwent decades of civil war until it acquired political equilibrium.

For the moment, Washington’s immediate concerns are:

A. Steady progress in shaping an effective Iraqi army and security force, in which the Americans have sunk vast amounts and huge efforts, to turn the tide of insurgency and terror and provide a solid prop for stable government. The failure of the UIA to attain an absolute majority in the national assembly is therefore good news. Absolute Shiite control of government and legislature might have tempted them to go all the way and pack the high Iraqi command with Shiite officers loyal to Ayatollah Sistani and the prime minister, thereby undoing long months of US endeavor.

B. A similar consideration applies to Iraqi intelligence which is controlled today by the American CIA. Scrapping the top level of Iraqi intelligence in favor of Shiite officers picked for their political allegiances would have dealt a major setback to the painstaking US offensive against terrorism.

C. As the last DEBKA-Net-Weekly 193 reported Friday, February 11:

A public debate is bedeviling the Bush administration over whether the current occupant of the White House helped establish another fundamentalist Shiite regime in the Middle East, this time by fostering Iraq’s first free elections.

The United States is still haunted by the memory of how the newly-established Islamic Republic of Iran under its revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini interfered in the 1980 US presidential election - and effectively cost Jimmy Carter a second term - by delaying the release of US hostages seized in the American embassy in Tehran until Ronald Reagan’s inauguration.

America has stumbled before in rushing to promote regime change in a troubled region. The Taliban was fostered to boot the Red Army out of Afghanistan. Later, these fundamentalists became a key factor in al Qaeda’s September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington and were subsequently booted out themselves in a second regime change in Kabul.

Washington will find reassurance in the election results released Sunday. The vote reduced the prospects of Iraq becoming an Iran-style theocracy, for the time being. Sistani will certainly fight for a constitution that places the Sharia above secular legislation – or at the very least one that confirms Iraq’s Islamic identity - but he is not as fanatical as his peers in Tehran about the creation of an Islamic republic.

Mercy Relief Project Playback

Mercy Relief's Project Playback received some coverage in ST today. From their website:

PROJECT PLAYPACK

THE RATIONALE.
The terrible tsunami that killed thousands of victims in late-Dec 2004 has also adversely affected the lives of many others in the affected countries. Children of course, have not been spared.

Project Playpack aims to restore normalcy to the children’s lives, and this includes upholding a child’s "right to play" – a right recognised by Article 31 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Contents of the Playpack
Each Play Pack comprises a reusable back-pack with school essentials such as stationery, and recreational items such as art materials, and simple toys and games. Thus, the Play Packs will not only help children go back to school, but also cater to their need to play.

The back-packs will be topped off with a personal touch – gift tags hand-made by children in Singapore.

Playpack Timetable
Mercy Relief launched the pilot phase of Project Play Pack in early-Feb 2005 with 1,000 bags destined for Northern Sumatera. In the main phase, as many as 100,000 Play Packs may be delivered to the region, depending on support for the project.

How Can I Contribute?

1. Pledge a Playback, bring a smile to these less fortunate children. The cost of each Playpack is S$10.

By Cheque:
Please make the cheque payable to:

MERCY RELIEF
with "Project Playpack" written on the reverse.
Please include name, address & contact number for the issuance of receipt and mail it to:

Mercy Relief
36, Purvis Street, #02-03, Singapore 188613

By Cash:
Simply walk-in to our Mercy Relief office to make a cash contribution.

2. Create A Gift Tag for the Playpacks.
Click here to download the instructions for the gift tags. After your tags are laminated, please send your completed tags to:

Mercy Relief
36, Purvis Street, #02-03, Singapore 188613

For further queries, please contact us at: playpack@mercyrelief.org

Salman Rushdie on the right to be offended

From Opendemocracy.net, by Salman Rushdie (Hat tip: Singaporebloodypore):

The idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted is absurd. So too is the notion that people should have the right to call on the law to defend them against being offended or insulted. A fundamental decision needs to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not? Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other’s positions. (But they don’t shoot.)

At Cambridge University I was taught a laudable method of argument: you never personalise, but you have absolutely no respect for people’s opinions. You are never rude to the person, but you can be savagely rude about what the person thinks. That seems to me a crucial distinction: people must be protected from discrimination by virtue of their race, but you cannot ring-fence their ideas. The moment you say that any idea system is sacred, whether it’s a religious belief system or a secular ideology, the moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.

Insightful.

UPDATE: Singapore Commentator has some excellent caveats:

That seems fair enough. But I would add that getting offended should be incidental to the ultimate aim of free speech, which is to generate ideas and have them contested so that the best ideas prevail. Unfortunately, creating offense can be counterproductive to that goal.

True enough. The speaker has to have a clear understanding of his own aims. If the point is to persuade others to one's point of view, then taking Rushdie literally is not going to be helpful. As the Comentator pointed out,

Rushdie’s method may work for an academic sitting in an ivory tower mulling over an idea in his own mind or with other academics in a private setting, but it can be inflammatory and counterproductive in a public discourse, as Rushdie should well know. However, Salman Rushdie is not a leader of men, and probably just as well. A leader would keep the end in mind and not be fixated on the means. But perhaps that’s beside the point; to Rushdie, free speech is apparently an end in itself.

What Rushdie got right, I think, is that in any pluralistic society containing genuine religious divisions, it is impossible not to hold to some opinion that would offend at least some people--and we should not take that to be a bad thing necessarily. Put another way, just because Christians and Muslims hold to doctrines that are genuinely offensive to each other does not mean that they cannot live peacefully together in one society.

But if one is trying to gather both Christians and Muslims together for the sake of some social action that is not obviously incompatible with either faith (e.g., to oppose the Casino, or alternatively, to support the building of one), then obviously, one could do better than offend people. If one is really serious about the social action, then it makes sense to be respectful to one's opponent views--even as one disagrees with them and goes on to present arguments against them. In other words, while there is something right about Rushdie's remarks, if not suitably qualified, they make an unnecessary fetish of freedom of expression that is in fact contrary to the point of public speaking in the first place. In the extreme, it leads to people disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, and offending for the sake of offending (see e.g., this).

Iraq elections results

Sometimes, democracy and freedom is built upon plain simple stalemate: when the factions in a society are unable to simply overwhelm each other, but are also tired of fighting, they sometimes come to the comclusion that cooperation and compromise are the ways to go. With this in mind, the final election results from Iraq bodes well (SFGate, Feb 14):

Baghdad -- The razor-thin margin apparently captured by the Shiite alliance here in election results announced Sunday seems almost certain to enshrine a weak government that would be unable to push through sweeping changes, such as measures granting Islam a central role in the new Iraqi state.

The verdict handed down by Iraqi voters in the Jan. 30 election appeared to be a divided one, with the Shiite alliance, backed by the clerical leadership in Najaf, opposed in nearly equal measure by an array of mostly secular minority parties.

According to Iraqi leaders here, the fractured mandate almost certainly means that a long round of negotiating is about to begin, in which the Shiite alliance will have to strike deals with parties run by the Kurds and others, most of which are secular and broadly opposed to an enhanced role for Islam or an overbearing Shiite government.

The results summarised (AP, Feb 14):

- Turnout: 60%

- United Iraqi Alliance (Shiite alliance backed by Shiite Muslim clergy): 4,075,295 about 48 percent for 140 seats.

- Kurdistan Alliance (coalition of two main Kurdish factions): 2,175,551 about 26 percent for 75 seats.

- Iraqi List (headed by U.S.-backed interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi): 1,168,943 about 14 percent for 40 seats.

- Nine other groups with 12 seats.

For the latest roundup of underreported "Good News from Iraq", see Chrenkoff.

Tracking the NGOs (Feb 13)

Continuing from here, more updates about our NGOs involved in post-tsunami reconstruction, from CNA (Feb 13). Some highlights:

- Mercy Relief has signed a memorandum of understanding with the local hospital to have a new fully-equipped intensive care unit built over the next six months. At present, the intensive care unit can only care for two patients at any one time now. It also indicates that Singapore can play a role in the transfer of technology and medical software.

- There is only one general hospital in Meulaboh right now, but there are plans by Team Singapore to build a second one to meet the needs of the general population.

- The Indonesians are not idle either. One of their largest ship-builders, PAL, has come forward with plans to build bigger fishing vessels armed with the latest technology, and also train the fishermen.

- Rizal Nurdin, Governor, North Sumatra, said, "The NGOs are playing a big role in the long-term rehabilitation and reconstruction. Singapore NGOs are also doing their part, and I'm glad we are working together for the same goals." He added this will strengthen the close ties between Singapore and Indonesia.

Tsunami relief special supplement on Armynews

Here. Pictures, short comments from various personnel, volunteers, etc. But my favorite part is this (earlier blogged here):

Operation Flying Eagle (Part 1)

Today, the Straits Times put out the first of a three part series: "Operation Flying Eagle--The inside story of the SAF's tsunami relief deployment" (ST, Feb 13). Most of the big-picture details have already appeared in one form or other on this blog (see this, scroll down to "SAF General" and "Indonesia"). Some highlights of details not previously known (or not well known until now).

On the non-too-well-publicized efforts of the Indonesians themselves--

'Often, it was the tendency of the foreign media to focus on what the foreign forces and agencies did, but the Indonesians themselves played a great role,' said Mr Teo [Chee Hean]. 'They did a lot on the ground themselves with whatever they had to rescue the injured. The administration in the affected areas was completely devastated. Many officials and TNI personnel were killed or lost their homes. The infrastructure from which they operated was also destroyed.'

He pointed out that the Indonesians did ad hoc relief work even before the foreign agencies arrived. The Singaporeans observed that, although exhausted, grief-stricken and working under appalling conditions, Indonesian soldiers and civilian volunteers continued to work tirelessly to clear debris and remove bodies...

Noted Mr Teo: 'There is a strong spirit amongst the Indonesian people, a good number of them leaders and commanders. It was during times like these that leadership on the ground made a difference.'

I've posted on the sheer speed of the deployment earlier (e.g., here)--the LST set off within 72 hours from "cold start"--an amazing feat by any standard. More details are available now. It should be kept in mind that of the 470 on board the RSN Endurance, the overwhemling majority are professionals (63 NSF and 2 NSmen; see here)--

Late on Tuesday, Dec 28, a planning team was tasked with getting the Endurance ready with a complement of medical people, field engineers, divers, helicopter detachment and support personnel. The humanitarian assistance support group estimated that it needed 48 hours to deploy with 470 people from many different units in the SAF, including the ship's crew of 70. This was the first time that the Endurance would carry so many people on board.

The SAF planning teams were working flat out, 24 hours a day. They realised the urgency of the situation as they started activating personnel to assemble the task force. One soldier was mobilised with only two hours' notice. Some pilots had 45 minutes' notice. The better cases had 72 hours while the average recall time was 24 hours. The SAF did a good job bringing together disparate units at such short notice.

Said Colonel Tan Chuan Jin, the Sandhurst-trained brigade commander of HQ 7th Singapore Infantry Brigade who was the commander for the Meulaboh mission: 'We began pulling in forces that have never trained together before. Many have never even been on board a ship.'

Unlike Singapore Ink, I'm not all that surprise at the supposed "lack of jointness" exhibited (people not having trained together). Training for rapid deployment on LSTs overseas is still comparatively new to us, and besides, what kind of message would our neighbors be getting if we are always practicing for that.

In any case, this is hardly the usual combat deployment. But that said, there is certainly much that the SAF could work on, and I'm sure Operation Flying Eagle gave it the golden opportunity to evaluate existing equipment, methods, prodecures, etc, in ways that more set piece exercises would not be able to. All in all, the men and women of the SAF are to be commended for pulling it off:

THERE was no manual, no text book, no standard operating procedures and no precedent to fall back on. It was a 'live' mission, yet there was no rehearsal, which was de rigueur even for SAF exercises. The reality hit home for many of the men: They were going in cold.

Ironically, this may be the best kind of preparation for combat deployment. The Israelis, I was once told, plan to the utmost detail before any military exercise. But once the exercise starts, all the plans are destroyed and every one has to improvise on short notice. Some of that spirit may have rubbed off:

The Ministry of Defence came out with broad directions and the planning team brainstormed on first principles to develop a plan in which the situation was ever evolving...It was a feat that a blueprint was firmed up within 72 hours for a task force that was pulled in at short notice from various parts of the SAF. 'We were confident of the SAF training system but to see the men adapting existing systems to realise what we were not familiar with was remarkable,' commented Col Tan. This, in fact, is the SAF style...Commented CDF Lt-Gen Ng: 'The principle of concurrent activity is part and parcel of the SAF's way of doing things. We can give units 24 to 48 hours' notice and they would be ready to go.'

Here's a bit that may be a little shocking to any one seeing it for the first time:

One challenge was the lack of information on the area they would be operating in. Personnel were sent out to buy tourist maps. Others trawled the Internet for information.

Actually, it's even more complicated than that. First, the sea charts were not completely useful as the earthquake changed the shorelines significantly (see e.g., this). Secondly, what is the SAF doing with detailed maps of this piece of Indonesian real estate? If it has those maps, I'm sure it would not be publicizing that fact or passing them around the men indiscriminately.

One thing that really struck me about the (professional) SAF personnel--they embodied the very "initiative" and "thinking out of the box" that our education system tries so hard to cultivate (with debatable success).

The section entitled "Sense of purpose" contains many human interest bits, which I will not attempt to summarize or quote here except for this bit:

The food for the first week was good. It included fresh, leafy vegetables like kai lan, fresh meat and fruit such as bananas. After supplies of these ran out, processed meat became the order of the day. The soldiers commented they hadn't eaten so many fish fingers in their life.

When the fresh food ran out, the menu was rice, baked beans, chicken platter and fish fingers. For breakfast, there was bread with kaya or peanut butter. Once every three days, the men had combat rations, supplemented with a hot meal.

Later, when a second LST arrived off Meulaboh, there were non-leafy veggies with lots and lots of broccoli, carrots, radishes and potatoes. They were cooked in all imaginable permutations - stir-fried, boiled, as soup, etc. Due to the broccoli 'overdose', some of those on board swore off the green after the mission.

This is funny to me because for about 2 years in the States, I survived mostly on carrots, broccoli and potatoes for the fresh vegetable part of my diet, because they last the longest without spoiling--a real consideration when you are staying alone and cooking for yourself. Fortunately, after my wife joined me, thing change. But the chefs on the Endurance deserves a round of applause for their work:

The Endurance chefs became among the most overworked people on board. There were only 10 of them working in two shifts, cooking for 470 people, using a galley designed to fit in only 200. Simple food like fried rice had to be cooked in batches and took 10 times the amount of time needed to prepare such meals.

Needless to say, you should read the whole thing for yourself.

One more thing: the very notion of the SAF as an expeditionary force is still very new. While I'll hazard a guess that there are contingency plans for action deep into a certain neighboring country to the north--in a doomsday scenario (e.g., see Tim Huxley's Defending The Lion City), it is much less clear that the SAF has detailed plans for large scale operations far away from Penisular South East Asia. Recall that the first LSTs became fully operational only in 1999. And until our Formidable class frigates go on line, we don't even have a green to blue water navy worth writing home about. In this context, the lack of integration between Army and Navy units is not surprising. In fact, with the arrival of the S70B helicopters--operated by the Air Force, but operated from the frigates, one expects kinks to be encountered for years to come. The relief operation is thus a genuine god-sent of an opportunity to put what integration the SAF has managed to achieve to the test.

UPDATE: Singapore Ink has a nice rejoinder to the above here. The key point:

Something like massive rapid deployment overseas on LSTs or aircraft is I believe something our SAF could find itself doing in the future, & while we try to accommodate other countries, I think we should prepare for this contingency.

Singapore Commentator also looked at both our positions here. His verdict:

I agree with Lzydata that there is much that the SAF must learn to build up a credible expeditionary capability. In fact, in view of its general lack of combat experience, that is true of many other operational aspects as well.

But as Huichieh points out, that is where experiences like Operation Flying Eagle can help. And his comment on initiative and thinking out of the box is also worth highlighting; in real operations, things seldom go according to plan, so such abilities are often critical.

Fair enough. Now that I think about it, there are not that many armed forces in the world that are able to mount expeditions far away from home shores. In fact, most of our neighbors in South East Asia have little if any such capability.

Home recipes

My wife and I just started a blog--Home Recipes--about some of the dishes we successfully made in our sojourn in the US and Canada over the past couple of years. Some are home (Singaporean) dishes--though made with 'locally available' (i.e., US/Canadian) ingredients; others are international. The blog functions mostly as our online database for the reciples; but you are more than welcome to drop by if you are into this sort of thing.

Art auction to raise funds for tsunami survivors

From the Arts House website:

The Tsunami Disaster that struck South Asia on the 26th of December 2004 claimed over 160,000 lives, and destroyed the homes and livelihoods of millions of people. Finding Sunshine is a project that aims to restore some semblance of hope for a brighter future for one of the most affected and vulnerable groups of victims of this disaster - the children.

With essential infrastructure wiped out, and a lack of basic necessities such as food, clean water, shelter and schools, the long-term welfare of orphaned children requires financial aid not readily available in their home countries. Can art be used as a tool to make sense of this disaster? Can art unite us as fellow human beings in our efforts to provide practical help?

Helmed by media personality Nadya Hutagalung, and in conjunction with charity organisation MILK (Mainly I love Kids), Finding Sunshine will showcase interpretations of this crisis by various artists and photographers.

Nadya will contribute her paintings alongside artists Ann Healey, Paul Tan, Ketna Patel and Henne Mercer, and photographic works by Geoff Ang, Cher Him, Tan Kheng Ju and Wee Khim. Audiences and patrons will have the opportunity to bid generously for the artworks on display as well as give open donations.

Show time: 17 - 24 February, 10am to 8 pm at the Arts House Gallery. See their website for ticketing information.

There is also a CNA (Feb 12) story:

A group of artists in Singapore have come together to help children affected by the Boxing Day tsunami "find sunshine". Artists and photographers have contributed some 30 art pieces that would be auctioned off next Thursday.

The Indian Ocean tsunami left some one million children homeless, orphaned and traumatised. To help restore some hope for them, TV personality Nadya Hutagalung decided to spearhead a project called "Finding Sunshine". Rounding up some 12 artist and photographer friends, Nadya got them to paint and take pictures. These works of art will be auctioned off to raise funds.

Nadya herself, who is currently away in Indonesia for the Lunar New Year, painted two art pieces for the auction. Commercial photographer Geoff Ang and British artist Ann Healey were most happy to contribute to the charitable cause.

Ann said: "It's very diffificult thing to do because you want to do something that's really good, you want a piece that would really sell. The pressure is a lot greater when you want to do something for someone else especially when it's for children.

"The main idea of the painting is the delicacy of life, and that we should cherish that. And these tiny flowers, they are not to be seen as that, but as some kind of growth, of the human spirit. I guess the lightness coming out, of finding sunshine."

And the theme of hope is central to most of the artworks. Geoff said: "When I was flying up to Bangkok for a commercial shoot, I saw something out of the window that inspired me and I thought 'hey, this would be a nice one', whipped out my camera and shot - it's this mass of white fluffy clouds, with the horizon at the edge, drifting off almost to infinity.

"I entitled my piece silver lining. Hope, I guess, the sun always shines, it always comes up every day."

'Finding Sunshine' will hand the money raised to YMCA, which is carrying out emergency relief and long-term restoration work in tsunami-hit areas. The 29 art works will go under the hammer at the Arts House on February 17. The project hopes to raise $50,000 to provide education and art therapy for children affected by the tsunami.

The public can view the art pieces at the Arts House between February 17 and 24.

Hate-based communities on Orkut.com

The internet has amazing powers to bring people from around the world with the same interests together--we all know that. Some of these interests are less than savory. From the Wilmington Star, "Hate Messages on Google Site Draw Concern" (Feb 7):

Over the last year, millions of Internet users have gravitated to Orkut, a Web site created and run by Google that permits people, by invitation only, to join any of a long list of online communities.

Communities have been created around a shared interest in photography, Miles Davis's music and travel to offbeat places. A small minority, however, advance a hatred for Jews, blacks or gays, including a "Death to the Jews" site and a site called "Death to Blacks."

Not good, not good. (Hat tip: slashdot.org)

Chinese identity in Singapore

It's all over the ST (Feb 12)--the topic, "so what does it mean to be a Chinese in Singapore? When are we Chinese and when are we Singaporean?" (from here) with no less than four articles on the issue.

Whenever the question of race comes up in the US or Canada, my answer is always to say that I am a Singaporean--even though technically, that's not a "race"--and perhaps "Chinese" after that. And if that question comes from a mainlander or Taiwanese (there are more than a few to meet in the places i study), I will doubly emphasise "Singapore"--in mandarin if necessary. I suppose I am subconsciously (or not so subconsciously) affirming that just because I happen to have the same skin color as you, I may not share your politics or view on the world.

It is rather ironic because I grew up speaking mandarin at home, reading Chinese books from young, now do research on ancient Chinese philosophical texts, would count myself as knowledgable as any in my generation on the general culture, etc.

But anyway, some highlights from the four articles:

- "Less rigid, not less Chinese", by Peh Shing Huei:

...I no longer uphold traditional Chinese values as rigidly and religiously. I would like to think that rather than having lost these, I've moderated the values and made them more in sync with the lifestyle of the modern Singapore society in which I live.

- "No getting away from my roots", by Sue-Ann Chia:

Ask me what it means to be Chinese, and I am blank. And I'm not alone. Some of my Chinese friends also struggle for an answer...We are more likely to identify ourselves with Singaporean traits of kiasuism, reserving seats with tissue packets and even speaking Singlish, rather than with eating mooncakes during the Mid-Autumn Festival.

- "What it means to be hua ren, a Chinese", by Li Xueying:

I do not believe that by looking upon China fondly, I am betraying my home, Singapore. So when Chinese Singaporeans are in China, Malay Singaporeans visit Malaysia or Indonesia, and Indian Singaporeans travel to India, are we there as just visitors or is there a deeper connection? I'd like to think, the latter. Will they, however, see us as anything more than just visitors? Well, that's a different story.

- "I won't toss out my salad bowl heritage", by Lynn Lee:

In university in the United States a few years ago, as I carved a life out for myself among youngsters from all over the world, I was gripped by the need to show that I was proud of who I was and where I came from. So I jumped at every opportunity to identify myself as a Chinese...But back in Singapore, there is no longer an urgency for me to wear my heritage so obviously because I'm happy in this melting pot and salad bowl I call my home. Here, being Chinese is very closely tied to being Singaporean.

* * * * *

Just a thought: It is hardly clear that, until the humiliating events of the 19th and 20th century, the best and brightest among the Chinese see themselves as living according to "Chinese culture" understood as one culture among many, even if a superior one.

Question: did a Confucius, or Mencius, or Zhuangzi think of himself as "Chinese", that is, as belonging to one race among many? Or did they think of themselves as civilised people, period. And even in the later times when "Chineseness" in the more modern sense becomes part of the common stock of ideas (mostly because of all the self-consciously 'barbarian' dynasties), was the fundamental concern (of the aspiring young intellectual, the only people who would think consciously about such things) to be Chinese, to maintain 'Chinese culture', etc., or was it, once again, virtue, order, civilisation? The question can still be asked even if "civilisation" is seen through the prism of their own prejudices--the question is whether they thought of their concern as being with "our way of life/our identity" or "the way of life most in accordance with truth"?

There was a scene in the CCTV series "Emperor Yongzheng" when Emperor Kangxi (Yongzheng's father) asked the (future Emperor) Qianlong (Yongzheng's son) why, being Manchus, they should study the Chinese Classics. Qianlong gave two answers. First, he said that because it is instrumental in ruling the Han-Chinese subjects. But, he add, also because it is truth (lit. "Heaven's principle"; tianli 天理). The story is probably apocryphal but it nicely illustrates what I am trying to get at.

Give Iraq's Voters the Nobel Prize For Peace

From WSJ Opinion Journal (Feb 11):

The Nobel Peace Prize Committee will announce its 2005 winner in October. I think that this year the voters of Iraq should receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

They have already won the world's peace prize by demonstrating in a single day a commitment not seen in our lifetime to peace, self-determination and human rights--the goals for which the Nobel Peace Prize began in 1901. Formal recognition by the Nobel Committee of what the Iraqi people did on Jan. 30 would do more to ensure the furtherance of these goals, in concrete ways, than any other imaginable recipient this year. Who did more?

What can I say but Amen! (read on)

ACS students learn more about tsunami

From CNA (Feb 11):

It has been over a month since the tsunami ravaged Asia, leaving a trail of death and destruction. But schools in Singapore are still lining up programmes to help students understand the disaster.

One of them is the Anglo-Chinese School. It is working with partners to screen videos and provide educational materials for its geography students in class. These will cover the science relating to natural disasters and raise public awareness in these topics.

But it is not all cold, hard facts. John Chao, Head of Humanities Department at ACS, said: "We also want them to look at the humanistic aspect of the tsunami. How we can help the countries affected by the tsunami?

"In fact, on 12th March, the school will be having a funfair and out of the total amount we raise, $100,000 will be given to the rebuilding programme in areas affected by the tsunami."

RSAF personnel in Medan celebrate CNY

From CNA (Feb 11):

It was a Lunar New Year celebration of a different kind for about 50 Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) personnel based in Medan, Indonesia. They are continuing their relief operations some six weeks after tsunami devastated the area on December 26.

It is all in a day's work for 26-year-old flight engineer Anthony Geow and his team-mates from 127 squadron, as they ferried a sick patient from Nias Island back to Medan for urgent medical treatment.

But it wasn't just all work and no play as they welcomed the new Year of the Rooster.

Anthony said: "Of course, we miss our homes but I think there's a greater calling for us to be here.....celebrating Chinese New Year here in Medan especially when undergoing operations.

"It's of course different as we are not spending it with our families, but we still get into the festivities and the squadron is like one big happy family and we are in the mood."

Staff Sergeant Shaymentyran Shaem, Aircrew Specialist at RSAF, said: "We all got dinner on the eve, our commanding officers gave us oranges and ang-pows to get us in the mood. Yes, it is not the same as at home, but we try to make it as festive and try not to think too much about home."

To add to the cheer, the walls at the base are adorned with specially penned messages and greetings from Singapore students.

RSAF chief Major-General Lim Kim Choon and Speaker of Parliament Abdullah Tarmugi also dropped by with Mandarin oranges.

Singapore Mathematics in the US (UPDATED)

This may not be news to many of you, but Singapore's mathematics syllabus is enjoying some success in the US. (UPDATE: Singapore Ink has an earlier post that slipped my mind when I blogged this)

Perhaps more interestingly, a study recently released by the American Institute for Research comparing the teaching of elementary school mathematics in the United States and Singapore found that "Singapore’s textbooks and assessment examinations are more demanding and their teachers more skilled mathematically but that U.S. approaches often put more emphasis on certain important 21st century math skills." The report (.pdf file) predictably identifies a host of strengths for Singapore's mathematics: superior framework, textbook, teaching and assessment; but also concludes that the US method has the following strengths:

Although the U.S. mathematics program is weaker than Singapore’s in most respects, the U.S. system is stronger than Singapore’s in some areas. The U.S. frameworks give greater emphasis than Singapore’s to developing important 21st century mathematical skills such as representation, reasoning, making connections, and communication. The frameworks and textbooks also place greater emphasis on applied mathematics, including statistics and probability.

UPDATE: I'm still unsure exactly what to think...mostly because I'm not a math teacher. Singapore Ink rightly concludes from the above (in a new new post) that "we shouldn’t celebrate too early just because our textbooks are being used in some schools in the US." Agreed--though I would have thought the same without the AIR report. First, I doubt that elementary mathematics teaching is the place in our education system most urgently needing improvement. But more to the point, it's hardly all that great beating the US elementary school math teaching: as the AIR news release points out (.doc file),

Singapore is a recognized leader in mathematics achievement. Singaporean students ranked first in the world on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study-2003, while U.S. students ranked 16th out of the 46 participating nations. Scores for U.S. students were among the lowest of all industrialized countries.

The question for us is: to what extent does the AIR study point to a genuine shortcoming in our own math teaching. To do that, I went to the part of the study entitled, "Areas of Strengths in the U.S. Mathematics Sysytem compared with Singapore's System":

The U.S. places a greater emphasis on applied mathematics, including statistics, probability, and real-world problem analysis. The U.S. mathematics frameworks stress data analysis and probability, whereas the Singapore framework treats statistics in a strictly theoretical way. Everyday Mathematics, the nontraditional textbook we examined, uses a problem-based learning approach, which presents multistep real-world mathematics problems. Such applications give students practice in understanding how to apply mathematics in practical ways. However, the Everyday Mathematics lessons use real-world applications without providing the foundation of the strong conceptual topic development found in Singapore’s textbooks. Even though Singapore’s textbooks would benefit from more real-world applications, their emphasis on conceptual development of mathematics and problem-based learning make them superior to U.S. textbooks overall.

Now I'll be quite interested to know what our math educators think about all this.

Cash, Corruption, Clergy

From Littlespeck.com (Feb 8, 2005), Why "Singapore shuns giving it", by Seah Chiang Nee:

To help tsunami victims, Singaporeans poured out more than S$65m from their pockets rto the Singapore Red Cross and the government chipped in S$25m that will also go into Aceh's rebuilding. The help is a continuing process, not a small amount from tiny Singapore. Quite a bit has already been spent, but not much--if at all--was given over as cash to the Indonesian government or its relief operators.

Singapore's organisers had, of course, appealed for cash instead of supplies so that it could be used in the most practical way. The money is used mostly in supplies, equipment, medical treatment, reconstruction and feeding the survivors, mostly done under supervision.

The reason the government doesn't hand out cash is, of course, to prevent corruption, or having aid going to private bank accounts rather than helping the needy. Tsunami aid is no exception.

The UN archives are full of reports of aid funds disappearing into the hellhole of unscrupulous or incapable governments. It is almost always the poorer countries that need help and these are often led by corrupt leaders or crooked subordinates.

Read the whole thing. Serendipitously, from the Jakarta Post (Feb 11), "Religion 'won't win corruption fight'", by Hera Diani:

Religious leaders have confessed that strict law enforcement and harsh punishments are more effective than religious teachings in combating corruption.

Addressing a seminar on corruption eradication on Monday, Muslim cleric Solahuddin Wahid said that although the country sees its people as religious, and the state's ideology is based on divinity, Indonesia is ranked among the world's most corrupt nations.

"Places of worship are abundant and filled to capacity, some 200,000 people also perform the haj pilgrimage every year. But corruption is still rampant," said Solahuddin, also deputy chairman of the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM).

Last year, Indonesia was ranked as fifth most corrupt nation, climbing one place from sixth in the previous year, based on a report from the Berlin-based Transparency International (TI).

Some prominent corruption cases have even occurred within the Ministry of Religious Affairs. The guilty parties, Solahuddin said, were not deterred by the knowledge that religion prohibits corruption and that God will surely punish them.

"Thus, 'worldly' punishments would be more effective than a religious approach in battling corruption," said the brother of former president and Muslim cleric Abdurrahman Wahid.

That reminds me of a passage from James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785), paragraph #7:

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

That's the reason why my sympathies have always been with the Anabaptists, those stepchildren of the reformers.

Virginia outlaws low-riding pants

From Techcentralstation (Feb 10),"The Coming Boxer Rebellion" by Max Borders:

The acerbic media, who quickly dubbed the rule the "droopy drawers" law, has managed to catch the state of Virginia with its pants down. Despite international mockery, violators will nevertheless be fined $50 if they're caught exposing their underwear in a fashion considered lewd by police. The law is destined to become another in a long list of "crazy laws still on the books" that fill pages of toilet-reading glossies everywhere. You know: it's still a crime to sing out of key in North Carolina. Or, in Montana: it's illegal to have a sheep in the cab of your truck without a chaperone.

This reminds me of all the "Fine $300 for littering signs" I encountered on some of the freeways in California (yes, they exist)--one really wonders how effectively they are enforced.Anyway, the writer voices his objection:

The droopy drawers law smacks of the same sort of paternalism that has backfired on the French in their efforts to stop Muslims from wearing Islamic headdress in school, or the nanny-state policies of the Brits who tried to ban "repetitive" music in order to stop raves. More importantly, such laws provide further, highly dubious forms of justification for what constitutes legitimate action by the state.

I can already hear the lamentations of certain conservatives: "All we're asking people to do is pull up their pants. What's the big deal?" The big deal is that catching a glimpse of someone's skivvies doesn't hurt you, but fining a kid in the 'hood $50 sure as hell hurts him and his family. Besides, as a tax-paying resident of the state of Virginia myself, I ask respectfully: what gives you the right to tell me how I can wear my britches?

Readers of this publication will not likely disagree about the aesthetic underpinnings of the underpants law. But we should all be very suspicious of the social, political and "moral" motivations for the law, as well as its consequences if it is enforced. Despite how ennobling wearing one's pants around one's waste can be, the government should not be in the business of providing statutory belts. Efforts to enforce cultural norms and to socially engineer matters of taste have a long, long history of failure. And places where such polices have succeeded are marked by legacies of abuse, subjection and tyranny.

With regards to the last bit, perhaps Max Borders might take a look at Singapore...wait, do we confirm his observations?

More environmental impact of the tsunami

First, it was a 9.3, not a 9.0. From Live Science (Feb 8):

A new analysis of the December earthquake that caused disastrous tsunami waves to strike Asia and Africa finds it was three times more powerful than earlier measurements suggested. This would make it the second largest earthquake ever instrumentally recorded.

Ok, on to the environmental impact (see also this earlier post). From Reuters (Feb 10; via Yahoo news), "Asia Quake, Tsunami Moved Islands, Shortened Days" by Jim Loney (highlights):

Six weeks after the tsunami that may have killed 300,000 people on the shores of the Indian Ocean, scientists are discovering more about the changes wrought by the magnitude 9 quake, the fourth-largest in the last century.

It caused upheaval on the sea floor near its epicenter off the northwest coast of Indonesia's Sumatra island and moved several other islands, but scientists say any movement of land mass can be measured in inches rather than tens of yards.

On the other hand...

Scientists at NASA, the U.S. space agency, said the Dec. 26 quake -- the largest to rattle Earth since 1964 in Alaska -- disrupted the planet's rotation and shaved 2.68 microseconds, or millionths of a second, from the length of a day.

NASA scientists B. F. Chao and Richard Gross calculated it shifted Earth's mean north pole about 1 inch and made the planet slightly less oblate, or flattened at the poles.

"Physically, this is analogous to a spinning skater drawing arms closer to the body, resulting in a faster spin," they wrote in an article in Eos, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

But they said these changes are based on calculations rather than measurements. The changes are so small they are either difficult to measure or too small to detect.

Many earthquakes shake the planet's axis and affect its rotation, scientists added, but their impact is too small to measure.

Other sorts of impact to reefs, mangroves, and coastal land:

Some coral reefs--undersea gardens that act as shelter and nursery to a wide range of marine species--were crushed by the waves. Corals grow slowly, some only an inch or two a year, so their recovery could take decades.

John Pernetta, a UNEP official in Bangkok, said the extent of damage to some of the coral reefs around Thailand was very high -- up to 80 percent in some places. Their recovery was uncertain.

Mangroves torn out by the waves will fare better, he said, as they leave behind roots and seeds that will help them regenerate.

"Long-term damage to mangroves by hurricanes or tsunamis doesn't really happen," Pernetta said. "After five to 10 years you don't even know anything has happened."

Vast stretches of Sumatra's west coast were turned brown by the tsunami as rice paddies and other vegetation were swamped by salt water. It could take two or three rainy seasons to wash the salt from the saturated land, experts say.

The tsunami waves ate away beaches and coastal areas in Thailand, Indonesia and Sri Lanka, radically changing maps.

The waves also carried sediment ashore, said Phil Liu, a Cornell University wave researcher who led a scientific team to Sri Lanka in mid-January.

"There is evidence that a lot of sediment was being brought onshore," he said. "A post office on the east coast was found with sediment deposits on the roof."

But it remains to be seen whether such sediment is good for the land or a bane because of its high salt content.

US ups aid to 950 million; Indonesia fears corruption in its own bureaucracy

From AFP (via CNA, Feb 10):

WASHINGTON : US President George W. Bush announced plans to nearly triple US aid to nations devastated by the December 26 Indian Ocean tsunami, bringing total US assistance to 950 million dollars.

That will top the previous record of 500 million by Japan. The breakdown:

According to the White House, the US$950 million in total aid will include:

- 346 million dollars to defray costs incurred by USAID and the US military for immediate relief;

- 339 million dollars to rebuild infrastructure, such as roads, schools, and water distribution systems;

- 168 million dollars to help survivors return home, including food aid, shelter, housing reconstruction, education, and other programs;

- 62 million dollars for technical assistance for reconstruction activities, as well as costs of US government operations in the region;

- 35 million dollars for early warning and disaster mitigation efforts, including 23 million to improve US and international early warning systems against tidal waves, and 12 million for those efforts in affected countries.

Note the first item: the immediate response already cost some 346 million.

From AFP (via CNA, Feb 10):

BANDA ACEH, Indonesia : Indonesia has urged the global community to heighten vigilance to ensure rampant corruption does not swallow billions of dollars of tsunami aid as it promises a March deadline to begin large-scale reconstruction in ravaged Aceh province.

Senior Welfare Minister Alwi Shihab, who leads the government's disaster response team, said his country was gambling its reputation on the reconstruction of Aceh, which will put a pledged war on graft to the test...

He said it was vital that donor cash be channelled directly to rebuilding projects to avoid the country's notoriously suspect bureaucracy but where that was unavoidable, heavy scrutiny was needed.

.That's brutally honest of Alwi Shihab to speak so of his own country's bureaucracy. Maybe there's hope yet for Indonesia's endemic problem of corruption:

Indonesia has been named by watchdog Transparency International as one of the world's most corrupt countries. Its renown has led to a fall off in foreign investment, hampering recovery from last decade's regional financial crisis.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono rode into office last October on pledges to root out the culture of kickbacks, bribery and collusion at the heart of the problem, but his administration has yet to deliver solid results.

Happy CNY!

Here's wishing everyone a Happy Chinese New Year! As you might know, the other name for CNY is chunjie (春节)--"spring festival"--which, here in Toronto, actually means something. The weather station reports a fair 5°C with overcast today...I'm been told that's very mild for this time of the year. In fact, except for that minus 20+°C spell through most of Jan, it's been milder than usual. So, I guess there's lots to be thankful for.

UPDATE: Wifey just baked some pineapple tarts for CNY.

Fallujah has one of the best voter turnouts in the Sunni Triangle

From the Christian Science Monitor (hat tip: WSJ Opinion Journal), "Fallujans welcome security, await electricity" (Feb 8) by Scott Peterson. The tag line: "The former insurgent stronghold had one of the best voter turnouts in the Sunni triangle."

FALLUJAH, IRAQ – Amid the ruins of Fallujah, white flags are emerging - alerting US and Iraqi forces to the presence of Iraqi families moving back home, clearing the rubble, and trying to renew hope.

Residents say that the insurgents who made the city a virtual no-go zone are gone. They were violently cut out of this former stronghold by US forces during a monthlong battle in November - the toughest urban combat for US forces since Vietnam - that pulverized this city of some 300,000.

But now, the US Marines and the Iraqi government face a new challenge: convincing Fallujans that the insurgency here is overand that their ravaged homes can and will be rebuilt.

"This is probably the safest city in the country," says US Marine Lt. Col. Keil Gentry, executive officer of Regiment Combat Team 1 (RCT1), that controls Fallujah. "Is it blooming everywhere? No. But it's like the beginning of spring, with signs of green emerging here and there."

An unexpected measure of success came on election day last week. Nearly 8,000 people here defied insurgent threats and voted, according to US military officials. That figure accounts for 44 percent of all votes cast in Anbar Province, which includes the Sunni triangle, where antielection feeling was so strong that less than 7 percent voted at all.

New sense of security

Iraqis say the result shows how secure Fallujahns are beginning to feel, and note with added surprise that more than a few said their ballot was for Iyad Allawi, the US-backed interim prime minister who ordered the Fallujah invasion.

"It's better that the Americans are here," says Abdulrahab Abdulrahman, a teacher who carries a folder containing a compensation claim for the damage to his house. "I have the freedom to be a student, or whatever I want to be."

The mujahideen "are gone," he says, clearly pleased, standing on a street strewn with rubble. "They are finished."

Children wave at the marines, and accept candy that the men keep in cargo pockets, alongside stun grenades and extra rifle magazines. Many adults wave, too, though some look sullenly past.

But even as many Fallujans shift from anger to accommodation, there are complaints. There is little electricity and less running water. When Mr. Abdulrahman sees a marine pointing his rifle at pedestrians far down the street to get a better look through his rifle scope, the Iraqi scolds: "Don't do that. You could shoot a child."

Among the sullen is Abdulwahid, a teacher who acknowledges that Fallujah is safer - perhaps even one of the safest places in Iraq - though he detests the US presence. "We don't fear anything now, but I'll feel safer when the Americans end their occupation," he says in English. He returned three weeks ago to a house with little damage, but won't bring eight remaining family members until it is easier to enter, and the curfews ease.

Was the invasion the right choice? "I ask you the opposite question," says Abdulwahid, who would not give his last name. "If you are in America, and some foreign army comes in your country, are you happy? Can any citizen in the world support an attack on their city?"

Inside the sealed city

The city remains sealed to all but residents. Draconian rules that include biometric identity cards for some, a curfew, no weapons, and a zero-tolerance policy for anyone who incites violence are paying off, say US officers, and reassures those who have decided to return.

Marines are receiving more local tips about suspects and ordnance; one led to the discovery last Friday of a hidden cache of mortar rounds, rockets, and 2,000 blasting caps - essential to making roadside bombs.

US military officials are quick to acknowledge that not everyone welcomes their presence. "There is a lot of stoicism - I've had some hard stares," says Colonel Gentry, from Carlsbad, Calif. But the Marines are trying to soften the blow by creating jobs, and stepping in when local officials are overwhelmed.

In one example, bureaucratic hurdles stymied Iraqi officials from immediately fulfilling a promise to pay every household $200 to tide them over until actual compensation packages - up to $10,000 to rebuild a house - could be worked out.

Recognizing the need to infuse cash into an economy, the Marines took over in mid-January, handing out $6.4 million to 32,219 heads of households over six days. In north of the city, the Marines also employ up to 120 people, who work for $6 per day, to sweep streets and clear rubble.

Iraqi ministries are slowly working to reconnect electricity lines and water. Iraqi officials hand out staple foods - though US forces still control distribution of water from 21 large tanks - because of the importance of a steady supply.

"We thought when people came in, they would be [ready to] riot, because of the destruction," says Capt. Paul Batty, of the 3rd Battalion 5th Marines. "This whole evolution [from invasion to rebuilding] has gone better than we ever imagined." One reason, he says, is since civilians were first allowed to return on Dec. 23, marines have shown their only military target to be insurgents trying to get back into the city.

Marines estimate that they have found 98 percent of the weapons caches in Fallujah. After the invasion, insurgents created new ratlines; radio traffic showed attempts to get people in, and weapons caches began to appear in places marines had already cleared.

"Insurgents were sending the message: 'You haven't taken Fallujah; we can still get in,' " says Captain Batty, from Park City, Utah. "But the cost for them to do it was too high. We would identify the ratlines, put out snipers, and we would hunt them."

Lessons learned

Officers acknowledge that the learning curve for bringing a wrecked city empty of both civilians and insurgents to any kind of normalcy has been steep. Election day turnout was a first step. "We were shocked," says Batty. "We nearly ran out of ballot papers. We were not prepared for that many people."

"My children can sleep easier," says Malik Abbas Ali, a father of eight, whose wife stands half hidden at the metal door of their house, a section of white sheet hanging as a flag. "But there is no danger anymore. It is all finished. I am concerned that we still have soldiers around."

Seeing a marine interpreter, another Iraqi comes into the conversation. "Americans are sleeping [in a base] near our house - it's a problem," he says. "When will they leave?"

"You've just elected a new government," replies Capt. Tom Noel, commander of the 3/5 Weapons Company from Lenexa, Kan. "When they ask for US troops to leave, we will leave."

"We're keeping the insurgents out," Captain Noel says later. "[Residents] don't have to worry that someone will break into the house in the middle of the night and shoot them in the back of the head, or drag them off to one of their [insurgent] murder houses."

For some in Fallujah, the rigor of the new security measures, and even the destruction of much of the city, are more bearable than the suffocation they felt when insurgents controlled the city. "My water, OK. No electricity. Sleep is good, American army is good," explains Ali Kadhem, whose three children step out of the front gate behind him, to wave to passing marines. He speaks with a smile, then holds up his hands. "Money for building? No."

Tracking the NGOs (Feb 8)

I never found to time to do that collation of the NGOs tsunami reconstruction activities over the weekend (see this and this), but turns out that ST (Feb 9) has a story today that does just that:

- BUDDHIST charity organisation Tzu Chi Foundation has set a $15 million fundraising target to provide new housing for some 1,000 Sri Lankan families made homeless by the tsunami in a town called Kajuwatta in Hambantota district, one of 15 new settlements to be built in Sri Lanka's tsunami-hit southern and eastern areas. These will be permanent housing, estimated to cost about $10,000 each, inclusive of labour and materials. To raise the money, Tzu Chi, which has 5,000 members in Singapore, will hold a month-long street collection drive here, starting on Feb 18. Funds will also be raised by its Malaysian branch. In addition, the group also plans to tap funds collected by the Singapore Red Cross Society.

Tzu Chi is relying on its Singapore and Malaysia teams to spearhead the Sri Lankan drive because of their members' closer proximity to the island nation and their ease of communication in English. Local and overseas architects and engineers will be deployed to oversee the construction efforts. The group aims to involve locals--especially tsunami survivors--whenever possible in the rebuilding work, so as to give them jobs.

- Students from Singapore Management University (SMU) are also pitching in by reviving a low-cost and simple method of building houses. The method--developed by the Thailand Institute of Science & Technology Research--uses a portable press to quickly and cheaply produce bricks made of locally available soil and cement. The bricks, produced on site, are then fixed together, Lego-fashion, to build a house. SMU hopes to improve and adapt the method, first used in 2003 to build low-cost housing in villages in Ayutthaya, Thailand. Said director of student life at SMU, Mr Stanley Lee: 'It's simple technology that can be used by anyone, on site.'

A 60-member team from SMU will leave for Krabi, Thailand in April, set up a prototype in about 14 to 18 days, and then move on to other tsunami-stricken areas in Sri Lanka and Indonesia. 'We'll impart the know-how and leave the equipment, so they can continue building after we leave,' said Mr Lee.

- The non-governmental organisation Youth Challenge will build a US$200,000 (S$320,000) orphanage in Aceh, and provide medical, counselling and educational services over a five-year period. To offset costs, Youth Challenge will approach Singapore Red Cross Society, whose chairman, Lt-Gen (Ret) Winston Choo, heads the committee overseeing the $65-million Tsunami Reconstruction Fund. The committee has received eight applications so far for funding.

- Another group seeking funding is Buddhist Fellowship Singapore, which estimates it needs $3.5 million to build 500 prefabricated houses in Sri Lanka.

- Mercy Relief Has started to design and plan a relocation centre, which will be ready mid-year, in Desa Empaewe town in Aceh Besar to accommodate about 800 people. In Meulaboh, it will rebuild two orphanages, one school, one polyclinic and an intensive care unit for the Meulaboh General Hospital. Will take between three to six months to complete.

- Singapore International Foundation's Youth Expedition Project (YEP) is helping to build shelters that last two to three years for some 1,500 people in Banda Aceh, until the government can provide permanent housing. Its Singapore Volunteers Overseas programme will launch a two-year Social and Community Health Care Training Project, to train Indonesians to provide basic health care and social services, such as trauma care, psychological support and counselling, especially for women and children affected. The foundation has also set up the SIF Tsunami-Affected Communities (TAC) Fund, to get the estimated $3 million needed for the projects.

- Singapore Telemedia Group, with subsidiaries Indosat and StarHub will rebuild schools in Banda Aceh. Indosat will support these schools in their long-term educational needs. The group has pledged: $1.3 million for this purpose.

- Buddhist Fellowship Singapore aims oo build 500 homes in Sri Lanka. It will hire locals in reconstruction work, to enable them to learn construction skills, such as plastering, plumbing and painting, and rebuild their self-esteem. It will also seek to equip local volunteers with trauma and family counselling skills, and to sponsor a group of students, by giving them school packs, containing school uniforms, school bags, stationery, shoes and socks. Amount needed: About $4 million.

- From next month to June, some 70 teams of volunteers from Habitat for Humanity Singapore will build new houses and repair damaged homes in India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Thailand. Each team will spend about one week, clearing debris, reworking foundations and building or repairing homes.

- Renci Hospital and Medicare Centre have plans to help construct 'Villages of Compassion' in Hambantota Town in Sri Lanka, each consisting of 1,000 units of low-cost housing, schools, clinics and community halls.

From other sources:

- Touch Community Services International's Tsunami Relief Fund has collected S$403,026.63 as of end Jan. Its medical teams have returned from Ampara, Sri Lanka and Meulaboh, Indonesia. (From their website)

- Progress reports and know needs of YMCA's ongoing efforts in Sri Lanka can be found here on their website.

- News updates of the (massive) efforts of World Vision can also be found on their website (there's a lot there, I'll see if I can do a collation soon).

Aceh Highlights (Feb 8)

From AFP (via CNA Feb 8):

BANDA ACEH, Indonesia: Thousands of Indonesians left homeless by the tsunami will be able to move into newly-finished barracks next week, but despite the promise of shelter, food and water, many instead want to return to the windswept piles of rubble they once called home...

But it's not all about the love of the land:

Like many of those who lived through the disaster, Basyah and his villagers fear that authorities will use the barrack relocation centres as a means of controlling people and dispossessing them of their ancestral land.

The New York-based Human Rights Watch group has warned that the government, which has a history of abuses committed during conflict to crush separatists in Aceh, could misuse the camps, particularly if the military becomes embroiled. It said people may be railroaded into the barracks from their current shelter in tented refugee camps without being given a chance to explore other alternatives.

Read the whole thing.

Continuing on a theme I touched on earlier, the influx of foreign aid workers predictably brings prosperity to those who are able to capitalise on it. But some are beginning to worry about the day it's all going to end. From AP (Feb 8):

While much of the provincial capital [Banda Aceh] lies in ruins, the influx of newcomers has created a mini-boom for parts of Banda Aceh's local economy. Shiny new SUVs clog the streets, the few remaining shops and restaurants do a steady business, and hotels and car rental agencies are fully booked. Salaries for drivers, interpreters and others have shot up to many times their previous levels, while rents for homes and offices have skyrocketed.

Yet many already worry that the boom will turn to bust. Local businessmen see Indonesia's March 26 target date for taking over relief operations from foreign groups as a commercial doomsday.

"There is good business now, but we're dependent on foreign customers and when they go back, things will likely return to how they were before," [Faisal Amir, who runs a P&P grocery store] said, taking a break from loading boxes of bottled water onto a gleaming SUV.

But the optimistic spirit of the Indonesians cannot be dampened:

But while the boom may be fleeting, [Souvenir dealer Mohammad Noor] sees other prospects beckoning: An American he met here after the tsunami is now talking about exporting Acehnese handicrafts in bulk.

Tocquevillean thoughts

Do you know that there are NGOs in Singapore dedicated to keeping our waterways clean and pollution free? The activities of one such group: the Waterways Watch Society (WWS), has just been reported on CNA (Feb 6). Having visited their website, it's not difficult to tell that the WWS may be a modest outfit, but it is definitely made up of people--ordinary Singaporeans--who are passionate about what they do.

But they are hardly the only Singaporeans who are passionate about something, want to make a difference, and did something about it, as anyone who has been following my coverage of Singapore's tsunami relief efforts--especially the contributions of the NGOs and other groups--will testify.

Ria Tan, who runs http://www.wildsingapore.com, and who should be classified among the passionate, once told me about a NDP blog she did:

The only time I ever did a blog was for the National Day blog. And that was upon invitation. They wanted to showcase people who are passionate about something in Singapore (apparently it was hard to find such folks...) (email)

In fact, she found and blogged about some "50 volunteers, professionals and "ordinary" people" who are passionated about nature conservation in Singapore (see the blog and read about the people here).

Why should the above be of any significance? The mere existence of such people and groups in Singapore testifies to an important fact. Civil society is not dead (or if you will, not completely dead) in Singapore. In fact, from the perspective of the half-full glass of water, it is alive and well. What's important is that these people did not merely complain to ST Forum or Government Feedback (though I'm sure some of them did that as well), expecting big brother to come to the rescue of the poor polluted waterways. Rather ordinary Singaporeans, when faced with some aspect of our country that they thought bad, wrong, worth changing, rolled up their sleeves, form voluntary associations and went about doing something about it. In the process, some of them actually made an incremental impact on policy: the Nature Society of Singapore (NSS) being one prime example.

A reason why these groups tend to pass under the radar of many is that they do not appear very political, or possess political ambitions. But in fact, in a very real way, these groups are political in the broader sense of the world. Nevertheless, their goals are limited, and usually do not conflict with deepest convictions of the PAP-led government even where some of their practical proposals may be contrary to particular policies.

One might wonder: shouldn't the sorts of things done by the WWS be done by the government? They could. And likewise, we could imagine the same enthusiasts exerting their energies to convincing the relevant government departments to do what they think should be done instead. But what is encouraging is that they did not.

* * * * *

But before anyone (myself included) gets all excited, these passages from Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Bk. II, Ch. 7: "Relation of Civil to Political Associations" are especially sobering:

When some kinds of associations are prohibited and others allowed, it is difficult to distinguish the former from the latter beforehand. In this state of doubt men abstain from them altogether, and a sort of public opinion passes current which tends to cause any association whatsoever to be regarded as a bold and almost an illicit enterprise.(footnote below)

When the members of a community are allowed and accustomed to combine for all purposes, they will combine as readily for the lesser as for the more important ones; but if they are allowed to combine only for small affairs, they will be neither inclined nor able to effect it. It is in vain that you will leave them entirely free to prosecute their business on joint-stock account: they will hardly care to avail themselves of the rights you have granted to them; and after having exhausted your strength in vain efforts to put down prohibited associations, you will be surprised that you cannot persuade men to form the associations you encourage.

I do not say that there can be no civil associations in a country where political association is prohibited, for men can never live in society without embarking in some common undertakings; but I maintain that in such a country civil associations will always be few in number, feebly planned, unskillfully managed, that they will never form any vast designs, or that they will fail in the execution of them.

* * * * *

Footnote: This is more especially true when the executive government has a discretionary power of allowing or prohibiting associations. When certain associations are simply prohibited by law, and the courts of justice have to punish infringements of that law, the evil is far less considerable. Then every citizen knows beforehand pretty nearly what he has to expect. He judges himself before he is judged by the law, and, abstaining from prohibited associations, he embarks on those which are legally sanctioned. It is by these restrictions that all free nations have always admitted that the right of association might be limited. But if the legislature should invest a man with a power of ascertaining beforehand which associations are dangerous and which are useful and should authorize him to destroy all associations in the bud or to allow them to be formed, as nobody would be able to foresee in what cases associations might be established and in what cases they would be put down, the spirit of association would be entirely paralyzed. The former of these laws would assail only certain associations; the latter would apply to society itself, and inflict an injury upon it. I can conceive that a government which respects the rule of law may have recourse to the former, but I do not concede that any government has the right of enacting the latter.

By the way, there's supposed to be a connection between this and the "despot exchange", but I'll come back to that in a later post.

Singapore Tsunami Relief Effort Index (Jan 8-Feb 5)

As a grand overview to Singapore's tsunami relief effort--especially the official effort on the part of the SAF and SCDF--I've constructed the following index. It supercedes an earlier version that only covers my postings from Jan 8 to Jan 15.

The items are sorted in order of appearance within each category and covers events from the earthquake and tsunami (Dec 26), to the ending of the bulk of SAF and SCDF's deployment in Thailand and Indonesia and the handing over of responsibilities to the NGOs. It is current as of Feb 5. I did not include every posting in the time frame, only articles that have some relevance to Singapore's relief efforts.

I believe that this blog has the most complete set of information on Singapore's tsunami relief effort anywhere online, and this is the index to it.

ST = Straits Times; CNA = Channel News Asia; AWSJ = Asia Wall Street Journal; UPI = United Press International; AP = Associated Press; AFP = Agence France-Presse

Singapore tsunami relief overviews and general regional
- Summary Map of Singapore Forces Deployment (current as of Jan 4)
- Water, Water everywhere... (Singapore helps with water treatment in disaster areas, from ST 11)
- Tsunami and Terror (from The Sun Jan 6 and ST Jan 13)
- Singapore to help with Tsunami warning system (ST Jan 14)
- Summary Map of Singapore Forces Deployment II (current as of Jan 11)
- Singapore civil engineers to help in rebuilding (from CNA Jan 17)
- Swords or plowshares* in Sir Lanka and Indonesia (various news articles)
- The sound of wind, rain...and reading* (on the schools reopening in Sir Lanka and Indonesia; various news articles)
- For want of a safer lamp (various)

Earliest Responses from the Public in Singapore
- The Ill-fated Land Rover Relief Mission (rescued from ST archives)
- The Response of the Public Dec 27-31, 2004 (rescued from ST archives by Moxie)
- Moxie's help; and online archives (more on the response of the public in the early days; rescued from TODAY archives by Moxie)

The Activities of the NGOs and Individual Volunteers (See also under Indonesia and Sri Lanka)
- Sacrifice (on a young volunteer, ST Jan 9)
- The Extra Mile (another young volunteer, ST Jan 10)
- Eva Mazrieva carries her head high (on the MediaCorp Radio Singapore International reporter from Aceh who lost 42 family members in the disaster, CNA Jan 11)
- The Singapore Red Cross Society (UPDATED) (overview of the SRC's efforts Dec 27 to Jan 8, collated from their website)
- Singapore Red Cross collected S$31 Million so far! (SRC website)
- Singapore Red Cross: Tidal Wave Fund (Jan 14) (SRC website)
- SIF: Tsunami-Affected Communities Fund (SIF website)
- SRC, Mercy Relief, Local Artistes (SRC website, CNA Jan 15 articles)
- An Open Letter to Singapore from Chairman, Singapore Red Cross (SRC press release)
- Togopart online bike auction to help tsunami victims (reader request)
- World Vision to set up regional coordination centre in Singapore for tsunami relief efforts (BT Jan 14, Zaobao Jan 18)
- Touch Community Services Update (from their website)
- Singapore Muslims helping out (ST Jan 22)
- Red Cross Update (Jan 22) (CNA Jan 22)
- Final Red Cross Tally: US$40 million (CNA Jan 24)
- SRC guidelines for using the funds collected (SRC website)
- Singapore relief efforts highlights (Jan 26-27) UPDATED (various news articles)
- Singpore's NGOs stepping up to the plate (various news articles)
- Mercy Relief Photo Exhibition (from their website)
- Tracking the NGOs (call for help)
- Music for good (from their website)

SAF General
- Big Cat, Indian Tribe, and other Flying Contraptions (on the various RSAF aircraft and helicopters involved in the relief effort; overview of their activity collated from MINDEF press releases)
- The Machines that Make it Possible (on the various RSN naval vessals, SAF land vehicles and other heavy equipment involved in the relief effort; collated from MINDEF sources)
- Update on Singapore Relief Deployment (incl. CNA Jan 11)
- SAF relief deployment to Indonesia and Thailand (from MINDEF sources)
- The kind of stuff that melts the soldier's heart (MINDEF website)
- Summation (Teo Chee Hean's speech in Parliament, Jan 19)
- USN sailors helped repair RSN landing craft (US Navy Newsstand Jan 20)

Indonesia
- Meulaboh, Indonesia (overview of the SAF's efforts Jan 2 to Jan 9; collated from MINDEF press releases)
- Meulaboh now accessible (ST Jan 9)
- Ties that bind (on the ties between SAF and TNI and its impact in Meulaboh, incl. ST Jan 8)
- The Importance of Local Knowledge (AWSJ Jan 8; comprehensive review of Singapore's efforts in Meulaboh)
- The Marines have Arrived (on the USMC's arrival at Meulaboh, CNA Jan 10)
- The Washington Times Reports on Meulaboh (UPI Jan 10, another comprehensive review of the SAF in Meulaboh)
- The 195 Sqn vs. Bad Weather (on the RSN outfit that runs all the fast crafts at Meulaboh; CNA Jan 10)
- Land access from Medan to Meulaboh now open (UPDATED) (MINDEF press release Jan 11)
- SAF Field Hospital in Meulaboh (from CyberPioneer Jan 12)
- Mom, I'm calling from Meubolah (ST Jan 13, incl. list of needs still current)
- The SAF Medical Team in Banda Aceh (ST Jan 13, incl. overview Dec 29 to Jan 10 collated from MINDEF press releases)
- The politics of disaster relief: Indonesia (collated from CNA and ST articles Jan 11-12, and other web sources)
- Photos from Meulaboh (from MINDEF website and CNA Jan 13)
- The SAF to to begin phasing out activities in Aceh soon; rebuilding next (ST Jan 14)
- Interesting (non)development on the foreign troops in Aceh thing (Malaysian troops cleared to remain in Aceh, CNA Jan 14)
- Singapore Red Cross, and the RSS Endeavor (SRC press release)
- Jemaah Islamiah fears losing hearts and minds of Aceh's tsunami survivors (www.news.com.au Jan 12)
- Meulaboh Update Jan 14 (from CNA Jan 14 articles)
- Remaing SAF projects in Meulaboh (from MINDEF sources)
- Indonesian general responds to criticism (ST Jan 15)
- Of Buffalos and Landing Ship Tanks (ST Jan 16)
- Sounds a little like backtracking to me... (NYT Jan 14; ST Jan 17)
- Indonesia will let Asean forces 'remain indefinitely' (ST Jan 17)
- More photos from Meulaboh (MINDEF website)
- The importance of being earnest (thoughts on the cooperation between SAF and TNI)
- AFP on Singapore in Meulaboh (AFP Jan 16)
- Singapore Mends ties with aid in Indonesia (NYT/IHT Jan 14)
- The Colonel's advice: "Manage expectations" (ST Jan 18)
- The rebuilding of Aceh, and my modest proposal (CNA Jan 18, ST Jan 19)
- Wi-fi internet cafe in Meulaboh... (AFP Jan 19)
- The law of unintended consequences (Christian Science Monitor Jan 19)
- The SAF hands over in Meulaboh (Updated) (MINDEF press release)
- Rebuilding Meulaboh (MINDEF website)
- Hostilities in Aceh (news article Jan 21)
- The SAF hands over in Meulaboh (con't) (MINDEF press release)
- Meulaboh, a milestone (CNA Jan 19; with my thoughts)
- Highlights from ST Meulaboh (Jan 22) (ST Jan 22)
- Foreign troops in Indonesia (various news articles)
- Indonesian cleric holds forth on Muslim perception of the US (ST Jan 24)
- Earthquake struck Sulawesi, Indonesia (news articles)
- The aid situation in Aceh; with a side glance at pirates (various news articles)
- Indonesian responses to foreign assistance (various articles)
- Aceh Highlights (Jan 26, 27) (various news articles)
- Possible Singapore hospital in Aceh (CNA Jan 30)
- Singapore infrastructure projects in Aceh (CNA articles)
- The Aceh Stalemate (Laksasama.net Jan 31)

Thailand
- Operation Lionheart (overview of the SCSF's efforts Dec 29 to Jan 8; collated from the SCDF website)
- The SCDF in Thailand (Photos) (ST photos Jan 7)
- SCDF wraps up operations in Thailand and Aceh (from ST, CNA and the SCDF website Jan 12)
- Last SCDF personnel return from Thailand (CNA Jan 14)
- Singaporean dentists returns from Thailand (CNA Jan 22)

Sri Lanka
- Singaporean Doctor in Sri Lanka (UPDATED) (incl. ST Jan 10)
- Sri Lanka Update (from ST articles Jan 12)
- Singapore Volunteer Groups in Sri Lanka (Touch Community and YMCA in Sri Lanka, from web sources)
- Long term need for Sri Lanka = jobs (ST Jan 13)
- SRC Medical Camp in Nilaveli Mosque. Trincomalee, Sri Lanka (from TamilNet Jan 12)
- 2nd SRC Medical Team Left for Trincomalee, Sri Lanka (SRC press release)

Environmental Impact
- Tsunami and the environment (link page covering the tsunami from the environmental and ecological angle)
- Though the earth should change, and though the mountains slip into the heart of the sea (AP Jan 19)
- US Navy does navigation surveys post-tsunami (US Navy Nesstand Jan 21)

They are not Singaporeans; they just happened to be there
- They are not Singaporeans; they just happened to be there (on two American tourists helping out at the YMCA, ST Jan 9)
- Renegadedeutschhilfsmittel (i.e., renegade German aid; originally ST Jan 7, via Expatica.com Jan 13)
- The US Navy's Logistics Command in Singapore (US Navy Nessstand Jan 17)
- USN Hospital ship USNS Mercy (US Navy Newsstand Jan 31)
- The US Navy is still committed (US Navy Newsstand Feb 3)
- Baby boy from Meulaboh had first skin grafting operation (CNA Feb 3)
- USS Abraham Lincoln, taking a break (UPDATE) (ST Feb 6, 7)

Thoughts and Commentaries
- In memory, In Tribute on the memorial service in Singapore (collated from ST articles Jan 9)
- A view on Singapore's efforts by littlespeck.com's Seah Chiang Nee (social commentary by Seah Chiang Nee, Sunday Sun Jan 9)
- Singapore between realism and idealism (Op-ed by Simon Tay, ST Jan 13)
- Three ST op-eds (ST Jan 15 articles)
- Random thoughts on Singapore and tsunami relief (on Minister Tharman's speech, CNA Jan 15)
- Implications for the teaching of NE, from a friend in the teaching profession (email from a friend)
- Opportunity for improving ties with Indonesia and Malaysia (ST Jan 20)
- Singapore in the Region (interview with ASEAN sec-gen, ST Jan 21)
- Memo to the prince: make sure you are seen to be good -N.M. (NYT Jan 23)
- Sensible words about tsunami relief (from ENN.com)
- Economic impact of external aid, incompetent aid agencies (various)
- Mixing aid with preaching...and problems thereof (link to another blog)

On the press and blogosphere coverage of Singapore’s tsunami relief effort
- News Sources (Singapore sources of news)
- Non-local press coverage (UPDATED) of Singapore's efforts (incl. photos from AP)
- Singapore's efforts, in the mainstream blogosphere (UPDATED) (comments on a post on the Diplomad)

Concerning this blog and its author
- Introduction to this blog
- Call for help with this blog
- Because there is no reason that I alone should be idle when so many are toiling (explains my motivation for starting this blog)
- Topics yet to be covered (Updated Jan 13)
- What's in a name? (explaining the name change to "From a Singapore Angle")

Mr Miyagi goes to Hainan Island

Well, the author of "My Very Own Glob" has a couple of write ups about his 2002 trip to Hainan island (Part 1 and Part 2), from which my own ancestors came. (Now that I think about it, Olorin's Hainanese too.)

Too bad I couldn't go along when my parents and a whole group of cousins went back to the ancestral village (amazing, a whole village of 'Loy's) a few years ago. Apparently, the villages put out the red carpet, and firecrackers too, to welcome their relatives from the South Seas.

No you cannot find Hainanese Chicken Rice--the way you know it in Singapore--on Hainan Island.

UPDATE Feb 9: The third part is out.

Missed deadline

Looks like I won't be able to put out a collation on the NGO's progress this week after all--I never found the time to do it over the weekend and it's already Sunday 9:15pm... Hopefully, no one was counting on me to do it (but who am I kidding...?).

The 'despot' exchange (Part 3) Redux

Continuing from here and here, there has been a CNA telecast of 30min of the forum, and there's an extended piece on Singapore Ink. My main (and only) disagreement is with this point:

I do find it contradictory when the MM said that Jamie could easily get his views aired and that he should “stake his life” if he felt passionate about something. First of all, if I had to stake my life for every thing I feel strongly about I would really need a few more back-up lives (Is that even available at NTUC?). More importantly, why do you have to risk everything when the government is open to views and that Jamie’s views can be easily be aired (which is the assertion in the first place).

I'm leaving aside the thorny issue of exactly just how easy (i.e., how difficult) it is to get one's views aired, if they are unorthodox views (see e.g., sintercom's earlier piece here). I think MM's comments should be taken in the context of Jamie Han's questioning the need for the Internal Security Act and his request that the newspaper laws to be reviewed. Since the continued operations of these laws is the firm position of the PAP, MM's point can be taken as: if you have a policy opinion that disagrees with us (the PAP), by all means push it. But you had better be prepared to "stake your life" on it and do something about it:

The comment led Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew to throw this gauntlet down to the young: If they believe they have a better point of view to 'stake' their lives, organise, form a political party and win people over.

'There is nothing to prevent you from pushing your propaganda, to push your programme out either to the students or with the public at large... and if you can carry the ground, if you are right, you win. That's democracy. We're not preventing anybody,' he said. (ST, Feb 1)

I actually think that this is a very important point. If we feel passionately about something--and it is contrary to the way things are--we have two choices. We can always complain; but if that's all we are going to do, we cannot expect that things will change in a way we desire. If we really want things to change--and remember, our view on the matter is contrary to the view of the party in power--then we'd better be ready and willing to do something about it, the way MM Lee, Goh K. S., et al did. Otherwise, it's just talk. We can at least do more than simply keep pressing our arguments with the PAP (on this, see also my earlier post "the prince and the people").

UPDATE: There's been a new bunch of posts on Sintercom on this matter as well: here, here, here and here. Hopefully, I'll have time to review them later.

UPDATE 2: The redux--caustic.soda has the mother of all collations of Singapore blogosphere reactions. Strictly for the insomniac.

For want of a safer lamp

1. Remember this earlier story about the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) packing and shipping tens of thousands of 18kg-kits for the tsunami survivors in Aceh? One of the items in the kit is a kerosene lamp.

2. Now recall the incident of Heru, who just recently had his skin grafting operation after suffering burns in a refugee camp (here and here). Anyway, the earlier CNA (Jan 27) article reports that Heru suffered the burns when one of his siblings "kicked the kerosene lamp, spilling the kerosene on the cot and on the baby..." It wasn't reported if the offending lamp was supplied by the ICRC, but the time frame doesn't rule it out.

3. Anyway good news. From ST (Feb 6), "This 65-cent kerosene lamp can help save lives":

Picture taken from the Rolex Award writeup (.pdf file)

HAVING survived the tsunami, eight-month-old Heru now struggles to overcome severe burns on his body. The tragedy is that a 65-cent kerosene lamp could have spared him the pain.

Made in Sri Lanka, the lamp is a safer alternative to the one that toppled into Heru's crib, causing him to suffer 35 per cent burns.

But few seem aware of it. Now, its quiet existence is set to change.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which has been sending family kits that include China-made kerosene lamps, to Lhokseumawe and Banda Aceh in Indonesia, has expressed interest in the lamps.

Called a safe bottle lamp, it was invented by Sri Lankan surgeon Wijaya Godakumbura. It is short and heavy, with two flat sides and a screw-on metal lid. The lamp does not topple easily and, even if it does, will not roll, and will not spill the kerosene inside.

ICRC logistics coordinator Maik Schmidt, who is based here for a month to facilitate relief supplies to Aceh, told The Sunday Times that he sent information about the lamps to the Geneva office, which will determine their viability.

He came to know of it from the Singapore Red Cross Society, which had been informed by Professor Tommy Koh, Singapore's Ambassador-at-large.

Dr Godakumbura had won a Rolex Award for Enterprise in 1998, which recognises innovative projects. Prof Koh, who was a judge in the 1996 awards, had read of it in the Rolex Awards journal.

Heru had been flown here from Meulaboh for treatment last month after an Australian aid worker found him in a hospital ward. He is now in stable condition at the KK Women's and Children's Hospital intensive care unit.

The youngest of six children, he was burnt when a sibling knocked over a kerosene lamp that set his cot on fire.

With Dr Godakumbura's lamp, the kerosene would not have spilled as its screw-on metal lid would have prevented it.

The retired general surgeon, who is 64, was prompted to start the Safe Bottle Lamp project in 1992 by the appalling number of burn victims he treated.

He said in a phone interview: 'I was working at a hospital 100km away from Colombo, seeing a lot of burn injuries and wondering why we weren't doing anything about it.'

He recalled a pregnant woman, about 20 years old, who died of severe burns from a kerosene lamp.

In Sri Lanka, homemade kerosene lamps, usually made from discarded vitamin bottles, are common as about 30 per cent of homes are without electricity.

Dr Godakumbura said about 40 per cent of accidental burn injuries there are caused by unsafe lamps.

Today, about 530,000 of his lamps, which sell for about US$0.38 (65 Singapore cents) each, have been distributed in Sri Lanka. But three million unsafe lamps are still being used.

He said: 'I expected a lot of support after winning the award, but there has been little. I'm disappointed that I can't be of more use to the poor people, but we're doing good work and people are benefiting.'

Prof Koh agrees. He told The Sunday Times in an e-mail interview: 'Most people, including those procuring supplies for the tsunami victims, are not aware that the conventional kerosene lamp is dangerous and that there is a better alternative.'

An earlier Asiaweek article about Dr Godakumbura's lamp can be found here; for the Rolex Award, see here.

Portrait of Dr Wijaya Godakumbura, a surgeon from Sri Lanka, whose simple but effective invention, the Safe Bottle Lamp, helps combat one of his country's most serious health problems - the severe burns and disfigurements caused by dangerous, home-made, kerosene lamps that are unstable and highly inflammable. Photographer: Tomas Bertelsen (from the Rolex Award website)

USS Abraham Lincoln, taking a break (UPDATE)

As previously noted, the US military is still commited to the tsnuami relief effort, though there has been some redeployment. The following photo is from ST (Feb 6):

A WELL DESERVED BREAK: Soldiers from the USS Abraham Lincoln waited at Changi Naval Base on Saturday for coaches to take them into town after a month-long mission in Aceh. The aircraft carrier will stop in Singapore for a few days en route to its home base in Everett, Washington. -- ALBERT SIM

UPDATE: ST (Feb 7, 2005), "US carrier here after aid mission" by Chua Kong Ho:

TWO years ago, fighter jets roared off the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln for air strikes against Baghdad. They were part of the 'shock and awe' air campaign to soften Iraqi resistance ahead of the United States-led land war to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Last month, the Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier was involved in a very different sort of mission. The carrier's two squadrons of SH-60 Seahawk helicopters delivered aid to the badly-hit coastal villages of Aceh and airlifted the badly injured to medical help.

The choppers flew nearly 2,000 missions in the 35 days the carrier was in Aceh, lifting off at the crack of dawn and ferrying volunteers and supplies to wherever they were needed. Pilots had to squint for patches of unbroken road to land on, so complete was the devastation wrought on the province by the Dec 26 tsunami.

The USS Abraham Lincoln arrived in Aceh on New Year's Day. It will sail for Hawaii after stopping for a few days in Singapore. It is expected back at its home base of Everett, Washington in the first week of March.

At Changi Naval Base at 11am yesterday, rows of the sleek F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets sat on the flight deck of the carrier, their wing tips folded to save space.

The 5,700 ship and air crew were ready for some shore leave after four weeks in the waters off Aceh. Hundreds of American soldiers in their civvies waited in line at the base's south-west pier for the coaches that would take them into town.

'I'm looking forward to sleeping in a real bed and relaxing with a beer,' said Petty Officer Michael Cook, 24, the ship's videographer, who was on the first chopper out to the devastated coast. 'The first day we were there, there were no people, just bodies. It was a very humbling experience.'

Said Rear-Admiral William Douglas Crowder, 52, commander of the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, when he met with reporters on a tour of the carrier: 'We are the lucky ones. We knew what to do and were fortunate we could roll up our sleeves and help the people.'

Students: NUS and UC Berkeley

I followed with some amusement the ongoing discussions about critical thinking, or the lack thereof, among Singapore's students (see e.g., here, here and here). All I can say is, like Steven Mc Dermott (first link), I taught in NUS before (as a tutor though), but I must have been very lucky because I have always found my students to be a real joy to teach. There are the occasional blacksheep, but these are in the minority. (Maybe it's because I am not critical enough myself?)

* * * * *

But since it all started with an anecdote from Mr. Mc Dermott (first link), I'll share some personal observations of my own. Being observations from personal experience, they are of necessity, purely subjective.

Background: I taught as a tutor for 5 semesters in NUS, philosophy (logic) and 4 as a Graduate Student Instructor in the University of California at Berkeley, philosophy (Chinese philo., 'baby' ethics, freedom and responsibility, early modern). This series of stints brought me into contact with over 500 students (conservative estimate) both Singaporean and American across 5 years. It's limited, but it's a start.

Friends are always asking me: so are the students in the US smarter, more responsive, more diligent, etc., than the homegrown variety? Frankly, I do not discern a difference on that score worth writing home about. Let me clarify.

The students in Berkeley did not disappoint me--they are intelligent, engaged, responsive in class and hardworking, a real joy to teach. But so are the ones I taught in NUS. And blacksheeps can be found the world over.

The response of the students depends so much upon the specific material, maturity of the individual students (big difference between first year greenhorns and more senior students), and a host of other factors--such as the purely intangible consideration of whether I managed to achieve a vital connection with them in class, and how soon into the semester. But subjectively at least, I could not in good conscience say that our NUS students are somehow, say, less critical. (Caveat: but these are all philosophy students, major or minor, which tend to be self-selected anyway; so my observations may not be applicable across the board without qualification.)

One discernable difference would be the level of spoken and written English--our students are often not as articulate; but there are also many new immigrants among the Berkeley students I taught still struggling with language. The American students can also be more assertive and confident of voicing their opinions. But not always so--you cannot expect beginning students to have opinions (or opinions worth class time) that they would voice the first time they read Hume's argument about induction. But if the tutor narrows it down--this inference, this premise--and prod them a bit, they often have good critical comments.

The students in NUS are a little more deferential toward their instuctors--but again, a lot depends on how the instructor-student relationship is set up and maintained. (Aside: One professor in Berkeley once commented to me that, after being called by his first name by the graduate students for the longest time, he found my tendency to address him as "Professor..." refreshing. We both had a good laugh. Other professors insisted on the first names. From what I gather, the practice is not universal--there are places in the US/Canada/Europe where it is de rigueur to address your professor as "Professor...")

The NUS students can be a little more exam conscious--but I have ecountered hyper exam (or grade) conscious Berkeley students as well (rare, but they do exist...and I'll never forget them...). A lot of it is perfectly understandable given that so much used to hang upon the final exam when I was teaching in NUS. I heard that things have change. In Berkeley, the courses I taught mostly have more continual assessments, and that tends take more of the stress out on the one big final. (I remember once in Berkeley, the final was worth 40% of the grade and the students are all moaning and groaning over that fact. I silenced them all with a little "in my days, they were 80%..." speech...") For our students, coming out as they do from the A levels, exams tends to loom big on their consciousness. But as I say, this seems to be changing.

The one lesson I learned is that: it's not all about me. Yes, I've really enjoyed my teaching stint in both places--I've learned as much from them as from formal courses. But at the end of the day, it's about the students--about facilitating their intellect and moral growth. Like the proverbial farmer, my job is to lay out the optimal conditions under which the seeds will germinate and grow into adult plants--and seeds have their own nature, a given that I cannot change but must respect. Getting all upset because a particular kind of seed do not grow as one expect them to doesn't seem all that to the point--after all, it could have been because one has failed to understand that this sort requires a different kind of soil, or a different amount of water and sunshine. If it's about the seed (and not the farmer, per se), then the appropriate reaction is to figure out how those optimal conditions could be reached rather than to blame the seeds for refusing to behave as one wishes they would, or "the system" for supplying the seeds in the packaging they come in.

But, as I said, maybe I'm just lucky--or not critical enough.

The Diplomad says goodbye

This is so sad: "Well, friends and foes of The Diplomad, the time has come; it's time to say thanks and good-bye..." But not before recommending The Daily Demarche and New Sisyphus.

This is so refreshing!

From the New York Times (Feb 5):

MOSUL, Iraq, Feb. 4 - In one scene, the videotape shows three kidnappers with guns and a knife, preparing to behead a helpless man who is gagged and kneeling at their feet.

In the next, it is one of the kidnappers who is in detention, his eyes wide with fear, his lips trembling, as he speaks to his interrogators.

"How do I say this?" says the kidnapper, identified as an Egyptian named Abdel-Qadir Mahmoud, holding back tears. "I am sorry for everything I have done."

In the first week after the elections, the Iraqi Interior Ministry and the Mosul police chief are turning the tables on the insurgency here in the north by using a tactic - videotaped messages - that the insurgents have used time and again as they have terrorized the region with kidnappings and executions.

But this time the videos, which are being broadcast on a local station, carry an altogether different message, juxtaposing images of the masked killers with the cowed men they become once captured.

(Hat tip: Rantingprofs via Eaglespeak) The New York Times, predictably, whines about possible violation of "legal or treaty obligations about the way opposing fighters are interrogated"--without citing any relevant treaty, of course.

It must be more exciting to watch this than crimewatch.

Random thoughts on "critical thinking"

Found this on littlespeck: "Our smart students not willing to think critically"--none other than Jamie Han's one and only ST letter that was published (good for him: I've never had any of mine published before).

* * * * *

The letter reminds me of something that is indirectly related to its contents. We are always so focused on "critical thinking". But there are two distinct shades of senses to the "critical" part of the phrase. On the one hand, there is the sense of (1) "finding fault" or "criticizing"; on the other hand, there is the notion of (roughly) (2) "careful, exact evaluation and judgment".

The two senses are often confused--with one distinct aspect taken for an indication of the other. But they are not mutually entailing. A person could be critical in the second sense concerning, for instance, some widely held opinion--he subjects that opinion to careful and evaluation and judgment. But he may not come to the conclusion that there's anything wrong with that opinion. He may even come to the conclusion that it is a good and acceptable opinion. On the other hand, it is entirely possible for one to find fault or criticize something without care and exact evaluation.

Further thought: one of the standard (and common) confusions is for someone who is critical (sense 1) of something, i.e., he finds fault with that thing, to think that those who do not do so are not critical (sense 2), i.e., that they fail to think carefully. Another one is the assumption that anyone who thinks hard and carefully about something (critical in sense 2)--say, some widely held opinion--will necessarily be critical (sense 1) of it. Neither connections hold.

UPDATE: See this excellent piece on freedom of expression by Wannabe Lawyer.

Universities going autonomous

At some level, this has got to be good news: "Putting universities on road to autonomy" (ST, Feb 5):

THE revolution in education continues. Following changes last year which affected streaming, school rankings and reforms in Chinese language learning, the focus this time is on giving more autonomy to universities.

The most significant change will be in the corporatisation of the two public universities, the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU).

They will no longer be statutory bodies but will operate as a not-for-profit company, just like Singapore Management University. The aim is to give them more autonomy and boost their ability to compete for talent globally and respond faster to market needs.

Cost of living in Singapore

The Singapore Commentator has an excellent piece: "High expectations and cost of living" on the topic here. He comments on a number of recent ST and Zaobao articles. Since he's obviously the better economist here, I'll let him speak for himself.

Why I am cynical about Singapore's critics...

There is a list I see now and then on the internet "Why I am cynical about Singapore's political process" (originally from sintercom, now via thinkcenter.org). All I can say is: how exactly does something like this help us ordinary Joe Singaporeans? How does it make this country better, improve our lot, alleviate our fears and help us fulfill our dreams? Or perhaps it has never been about one's fellow Singaporeans, but about the critic himself?

Thinking about evil

Just read this by Mr. Wee Liang Tong ("Tsunami and the 'problem of evil'"; ST, Feb 4), which is a response to an earlier ST Forum letter by Mr Edmond Eh ("Why God 'allowed' deadly tsunami to strike"; ST, Jan 29). Funny: both authors are friends of mine--so: Liang Tong and Edmund, if you are reading this, you know what to expect...

Background: the traditional "problem of evil" (or "theodicy") is a set piece in philosophical theology. The question is: is the existence of great pain and suffering, and evil logically compatible with the existence of an all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing God? Obviously, it is a problem only if one actually believes that an all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing God exists, and is also not about to bite the bullet and deny that much pain, suffering, and evil exists in the world. For someone who does not actually believe that God (so described) exists, or that evil exists--this is a relative non issue--at best an exercise in mental gymnastics.

In his earlier letter, Edmund lays out some of the traditional philosophical-theological attempts to resolve the problem. And--if memory serves--the motivation for his writing that letter was presented by an earlier ST article in which the author gestured toward the position that the fact of the disaster of Dec 2004 suggests, indicates, shows, that there is no God (or something like that). And it is in response to Edmund's letter that Liang Tong wrote. He begins:

THE 'problem of evil' in relation to the tsunami disaster is a complex matter and, in my opinion, a false problem.

I take issue with the claim by Mr Edmond Eh ('Why God 'allowed' deadly tsunami to strike'; ST, Jan 29) that, 'actually, the simple reason why God allows evil is that if He did not, then a lot of good would be lost'.

This is a platitude which obeys its own internal logic, but does nothing to explain the presence of suffering, and certainly does not help those who are suffering feel comforted. Imagine telling a tsunami survivor that he lost his entire family just so that relief workers can come and help him, to do some 'good'.

Let me say up front: if that is all that Edmund wrote, then Liang Tong has to be right. But I doubt that Edmund's point was about what relief workers should be telling the survivors--that is a whole different matter altogether. In fact, I'm sure he'll agree with me that what the survivors urgently need (especially earlier on) is food, water, shelter, and such like; not philosophy. There may be a time for that, but deep intellectual discussions are obviously not what was urgently needed. But moving on:

Also, it might have been better for Mr Eh's argument if he had cited a more updated and precise analogy than the one from Boethius. The fact that an ass is killed by the lion, because the latter wants to preserve its own life, does not answer the question about evil - Boethius had merely shown that the laws of nature can sometimes seem cruel. We cannot therefore say that the lion was truly evil.

The context of the original analogy escapes me, so I shall not comment on this. Now comes the really interesting parts (from this point, I'll refer to "the author" of the letter, rather than by name):

Suffering and pain should not be equated with evil. If 'evil' is to retain any useful meaning, it should include the concept of intent - an act is evil if it was intended to bring about pain and suffering. Can we then say that the tsunami was intended? By whom, or what?

That sounds reasonable enough. There's suffering and pain, and there's evil--which necessarily involves intention and malice, shall we say. Now with this distinction in mind, let's see how we might categorise the tsunami disaster of Dec 2004. It is all going to depend on whether you think intention is involved.

1. If, say, you believe that there's a great evil power at work in the world and the disaster was due to his action, then it should be classified as evil (evil of commission).

2. Relatedly, if, say, you believe that there's a great and good power at work in the world who could have prevented the disaster and was remiss in not doing so, then it should probably be classified as evil as well (evil of omission).

3. Alternatively, if you believe that the disaster--or at least the scale of the subsequent loss of human life and property--is due at least in part to the actions or omissions of human actors (as some environmentalist seem to believe), then there is some case for classifying at least part of the tragedy as evil.

4. But if you believe in none of the above; instead, say, you believe that the laws of nature operate with iron necessity without regard to human intentions, that there is a chain of sufficient causes for the events of Dec 26, a chain in regards to which intention of any kind is irrelevant, then what we have is great suffering and pain, but no evil per se.

So far so good. Now the next (and last paragraph):

The crux of the debate is the attempt of the mind to comprehend the scale and magnitude of such immense suffering and pain. It is legitimate--indeed, human--to ask: 'Why must so many people die?'. I do not know if there is a satisfactory answer. But the least we can do is not to rationalise away the presence of pain and suffering under the guise of the 'problem of evil'.

One question that comes up is: what does the author believe--in regard to the choices listed above. 1, 2, 3, or 4, or something else?

Let's begin with 4 as a possibility. I will show that it cannot be what the author has in mind; but nevertheless, its consideration is extremely illuminating.

Now if option 4 is what the author believes, there is a sense in which his question has already been answered. So many people died because some of the places hit are heavily populated, the earthquake was of a very great magnitude, the tsunami came without much warning to the victims, etc., etc. In other words, we might imagine a series of background conditions (laws of nature, historical facts, etc) the conjunction of which entails exactly the result of Dec 26--scale and magnitude and all. We may not know all of these conditions--scientific research on many of the relevant factors (say, in the study of earthquakes) still leaves many questions unanswered. But if we believe in option 4--that there is no intention to attribute anywhere--then we already have the outline of an explanation even if not all the details.

But the sense of the letter suggests otherwise, it suggests that the author does not think that what I've said--even if all the details are filled in--will satisfy him as an answer. He thinks that "it is legitimate--indeed, human--to ask: 'Why must so many people die?'"

Now by suggesting that it is "human" to ask such a question, the author may be saying that it is only natural--we humans are such that we can never be fully committed to the plain truth of option 4. Despite knowing that there is no further answer to the question: why so many people die apart from the conjunction of causes that led up to that catastrophy, we want something more. We want to know the meaning of it all. We think that it's meaningless that so many people should have their lives snuffed out just like that. But really, we should know better--it's only human to think this way, but it's a falsehood to believe that the question of meaning can even arise--given that we have already believed that intention has no part in the causation of the event.

But I do not think that this is what the author is getting at. Specifically, there is supposed to be a further, legitimate question: "Why must so many people die?"--a question that has force only if the author has expectations of the universe, that somehow, it shouldn't have happened, that the universe has disappointed him in some way or other. It's not a question that, while we are by nature conditioned to ask, it is in fact either already answered or is unwarranted. It is meant to be a perfectly meaningful question that demands an answer. This suggests to me that--whether he knows it or not, he cannot possibly subscribe to option 4. In fact, he's sentiments presuppose the truth of options 1-3--more specifically, option 2 or something akin to it.

In other words--whether he sees it or not--he perceives the disaster of Dec 2004 through the prism of something like the "problem of evil".

* * * * *

For the record, I am a Bible believing Christian (a baptist, to be precise). Strictly speaking, I do not find the traditional philosophical-theological 'solutions' to the problem of evil particularly illuminating. They are interesting, and even impressive philosophically; but they do not really answer to all of the concerns that drive people who are gripped by the problem of evil (and suffering, pain, and I might add, meaning). To these people, it's not merely an intellectual issue. Furthermore, these solutions are also not always very Biblical--let's just say that the God of the philosophers is not always the same as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob--and of the Lord Jesus Christ. But I'll leave that for another time, another place. (PS: the closest I got to a philosophical discussion of the issues that really got me is Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief.)

Baby boy from Meulaboh had first skin grafting operation

Some good news regarding the baby boy who was burnt in a refugee camp in Meulaboh (earlier blogged here), from CNA (Feb 3):

8-month old Meulaboh baby, Heru Efendi, who was accidentally burnt at a refugee camp and is now seeking treatment in Singapore, has finally undergone his first skin grafting operation on Tuesday. Doctors had delayed operations on him because he was down with fever.

Another highlight:

Doctors say Heru, who was admitted to hospital a week ago, is recovering faster than expected. "Previously, when I called out to Heru, he smiled but could not open his eyes because of the bandage. Now, he can do so. When we call him, his eyes open and he can hear us." said Heru's father Efendi.

The US Navy is still committed

Continuing from here, good to hear that the US military is still fully committed to tsunami relief...



From the USN Newsstand (Feb. 3):

The Military Sealift Command (MSC) hospital ship USNS Mercy (T-AH 19) navigates alongside USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) after arriving on station near Banda Aceh, Sumamtra, Indonesia. Mercy has been forward deployed to assist in humanitarian aid efforts currently in progress. Mercy will serve as an enabling platform to assist humanitarian operations ashore in ways that host nations and international relief organization find useful. The Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group has been operating in the Indian Ocean off the waters of Indonesia in support of Operation Unified Assistance the humanitarian relief effort to aid the victims of the tsunami that struck Southeast Asia. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 3rd Class Gabriel R. Piper (RELEASED)

(Hat tip: Eaglespeak)

Remember the really cool looking High Speed Vessel 2 from here?



Found a DefenseLink article (Jan 28) on it. Highlights:

Owned by an Australian ship company, leased by the Navy and assigned to the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force based in Okinawa, the vessel's normal duty is moving Marines and their gear for training exercises. Its maneuverability, cargo capacity, speed and easy loading and unloading make it a valuable asset to the Navy.

Most recently, those capabilities were used to transport communications gear from Okinawa to Thailand to support tsunami disaster relief efforts in the Southeast Asian region. The 2,300-mile trip began on Jan. 4 in Okinawa and ended when the WestPac arrived in Chuksamet, Thailand, on Jan. 9.

Another bit:

Originally designed as a passenger ferry, the twin-hulled, aluminum catamaran gets 40,000 horsepower out of its four Caterpillar engines, which operate four water jets. Because of its lightweight construction material and the power available, the WestPac is built for speed.

"We operate on water jets instead of propellers," Kujala said. "So, it's a giant water ski."

Water ski or not, the WestPac, home ported in Naha, Okinawa, is technically a commercial ship and so must juggle commercial rules and regulations with those of the military. And sometimes it's the little things that no one would think of that cause the problems.

Because it was designed as a passenger ferry, there was no reason to accommodate a permanent crew. Therefore, there was no berthing...

There are, however, all the comforts one would expect on a passenger ferry. The plush seats and snack bar make for an enjoyable trip. Add the video system and the vessel's ability to make its own fresh water and you've got a regular floating barracks.

Unlike regular barracks, however, the HSV must constantly be aware of the weather. The WestPac must stay within four hours of a safe harbor in case a storm crops up. Kujala said that 10-12 foot seas slow these vessels down and are cause to look for a hiding place. "Considering typhoon season," he said, "we go hide a lot."