Singapore-US defense arrangement

According to ST (Mar 31), "New S'pore-US defence agreement on track--It will boost cooperation in areas such as fighting terror", by Roger Mitton (subscription required), talks on the "US-Singapore Framework Agreement For The Promotion Of A Strategic Cooperation Partnership In Defence And Security" are still on, said a US State Deparment spokesman. Furthermore, "It is widely believed here that negotiations are nearly complete, with a signing ceremony expected in the next few months." The idea was first discussed when President G. W. Bush visited Singapore two years ago.

At that time, Mr Bush and then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong reviewed the situation regarding the region's efforts to combat terrorism. They reaffirmed that a strong US security presence in Asia was vital to maintain peace and stability.

And in a joint statement, the two leaders said they 'recognised that much headway had been made in disrupting terrorist networks, but agreed that more needed to be done and that the campaign against terrorism required a sustained long-term effort'.

As part of that beefed-up effort to combat regional terrorist threats, Mr Bush and Mr Goh agreed that even greater cooperation was required. To that end, they initiated top-level negotiations to draw up an agreement to upgrade defensive ties between the two nations...

The new pact will boost bilateral defence cooperation, particularly in such areas as fighting terrorism and curbing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Marcus Corbin, a senior analyst at Washington's Centre for Defence Information, said such military partnerships are good because 'with groups like Al-Qaeda, you never know where they are going to be coming from next'.

Though the multifarious defense connections between the US and Singapore go back as afar back as the Vietnam war era, Singapore was never officially an ally of the US (the way Australia is, for example); nor would I expect the new agreement to amount to a military alliance. Nevertheless, perceptions and reality are two different things:

Such new enhanced defence arrangements may cause unease among neighbours, but given this agreement's anti-terrorism focus, that is regarded as unlikely as all nations in the region are committed to fighting terrorism.

Said Mr Corbin: 'Other nations may pay close attention, but it should not be something they would not welcome.'

Because of the sensitivity associated with military-to-military arrangements, it has taken nearly 18 months to get to the point where the new US-Singapore partnership agreement is almost ready for signing.

Still, a lot will depend on how things are painted up. A few years ago, Strategic Forecasting Inc (STRATFOR) published a report entitled "U.S. Builds an Asian Tiger Cub in Singapore" (July 18, 2001) portrayed Singapore's military transformations of the 90s as somehow a part of "Washington's efforts to contain China through new military allies" and that the US was helping Singapore "transition from a small, inert power to one of the principal military players in the Asia Pacific" for that end. I think that's rather too simplistic as far as the Singapore-US-China triangle of relations are concerned, and the analysis is rather US-centric. Why can't we have our own reasons for seeking to transform our military? In any case, the report is an example of how other people might come to perceive any explicit and open cooperation between Singapore and the US in military matters.

[Technorati: Singapore]

Conscription vs. Professional Army for Singapore

A long time ago (about a month+ ago), I had a long exchange with Redrown over conscription in Singapore. There's been a discussion concerning the pros and cons of a professional army vs. a conscripted one for Singapore over at the Military Nuts Forum on the topic, sparked by an AFP report about the conscription system in Singapore. For those who are interested.

"Elite"...what's in a word?

Let me begin by distinguishing three (sets of) questions:

(Q1) Can a society do without an elite of some sort--roughly, "a group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status", whatever the name we might choose to give to such a group.

(Q2) How distinct should this group be from the rest of the population--e.g., are they to have a lot more wealth than the rest, enjoy a lot more power, etc., or there is a much smaller distance between them and the rest.

(Q3) Who belongs in this group? Who gets to decide? What qualities determined membership? Is membership open?

Note that these are analytically distinct questions, even though (Q2) and (Q3) will only arise if we answer "no" to (Q1)--that is, if we think that a society will have an elite, whether or not the term "elite" is used. But even if we think that a society cannot do without an elite, there will be a variety of answers to (Q2) and (Q3).

* * * * *

Once we are clear about the distinction between the three questions, we should likewise be clear about what is it that we are agreeing or disagreeing with in PM's speech--whether it is over (Q1), (Q2) or (Q3). With the above in mind, let me turn to an issue that came up.

First, Ivan Chew left this comment on a previous post:

I'll always have a problem with the word "elite" when used to describe a social class. The word elite is defined as "A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status" (www.dictionary.com)

Based on my understanding, what PM Lee is trying to do is to reframe the definition, or reinvent if you will. That itself is not the problem.

The problem is how the people (and the world at large) understand the term. Imagine, 5 years from now, a kid would will hear the term "Singaporean Elite" and look up the dictionary. They wouldn't look up the ST article or govt archives to look for PM Lee's definition.

(For those interested, he also pointed to the "lively discussion at the Govt Consultation Portal)

In response, PM Lee does not seem to be attempting to redefine the word "elite" at all. (How does one do such a thing in the first place?) Furthermore, the criterion of membership of the elite--the real issue--is never settled by the definition of the word "elite" in any particular society.

So what is PM doing? He is working on an assumption that the answer to my question (Q1) is "no"--every society will have an elite of sorts, Singapore included. On (Q2), he would prefer that the distance between the elite and the rest be, as far as possible, minimised. The elite should not flaunt their superior position, but there is still an elite. But much of his speech is in the ball park of proposing answers to (Q3); presumably new answers--in calling for a more inclusive membership to Singapore's elite. But once again, this is an elite, and therefore, by definition, not everyone will be included.

One might also add that every historical society that has an elite (whether Aristocratic France, or Imperial China, or modern America) has an elite in roughly the sense as provided by the dictionary definition cited, roughly. But presumably they have different criteria of membership (noble birth vs. imperial examination, etc.)

In short, I think Ivan's fears are unfounded--provided that he agrees (as he does seem to) with PM that Singapore will continue to have an elite, even if the criterion of membership is made more inclusive.

* * * * *

The next one is more confusing; from ST Forum (Mar 30), "Singapore should get rid of the word 'elite'", by Dudley Au (subscription required) [UPDATE: Now available on ST News@AsiaOne]. The long and short of it: we should get rid of the word "elite":

WHEN Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke recently of an 'elite' group he tried to make clear that it was not to be based on pedigree or class but on merit. I believe the term 'elite' is not compatible with the society PM Lee envisages for Singapore. Why must there be an elite class to lead the non-elite?

Again, I'm find it intriguing that so much is being invested in a word. But I'll let him continue first:

The question that needs to be answered is not who leads, as we know that the most capable have to lead, but can the leader survive without the critical mass of those he leads?

It must be remembered that however brilliant a general, there must be the private willing to go out to fight and die for the plan to succeed. Is the private then not also elite?

I would prefer we based leadership on symbiosis or synergy, relative to the human body. Why must the leader be elite if leadership cannot be accomplished without the synergy of society in unison?

Every cog has to do its part if success is to be achieved. This is essential in the human organism if health is to prevail. Why not see society's health in the same way?

There's more of the same, but I'll quote the final punchline:

The moral is that one can become chief in more ways than one. One does not need the word elite to do a good job; one can be a gatekeeper.

Get rid of the word elite.

Question: what exactly is the disagreement between Dudley and PM? Is it really just about the word, or something more substantive?

Think of it this way: suppose we all now agree to refer to those in Singapore "enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status" as doulos (plural douloi), would Dudley be happy? Or even better, suppose we have no name for such people at all, just we there is no dedicated term in English for "left handed male eye-doctor", would Dudley's complaint be answered? I suspect not.

Most of what he says about the symbiotic relationship between leaders and followers makes good commonsense--in the sense that the mere existence of a leader or an elite by definition implies that there would be non-leaders or followers, and non-elite. Furthermore and more importantly, modern societies are far too complex for us to easily pin point any one group as being absolutely paramount in its value to the whole. (Alexis de Tocqueville once made a comment about this with reference to the practices of historians his Democracy in America, Vol. 2, Sect. 1, Chap. 20.)

But having said all that, is Dudley proposing that Singapore can do without an elite, whatever we might choose to call it? The least that can be said is that his arguments hardly support such a conclusion. It is at best a call--just as PM Lee's speech is--for a more inclusive and open criterion of membership in the elite. With this difference: unlike Dudley, PM Lee was not shy of calling a spade a spade.

* * * * *

Let me say a bit more about (Q1): let's call the two opposing answer "egalitarianism" and "elitism", with the proviso that the latter should not be taken to be perjorative without further arguments.

I'll wager that historically, there has never been a complex large scale society that managed to be completely egalitarian, i.e., do without an elite of any sort. Even Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence in which is found the words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" also spoke of a "natural aristocracy" of virtue and talent rather than birth in a positive light (letter to John Adams 1813).

On the other hand, in most modern societies, even the elite tends to see themselves in egalitarian lights--i.e., by pointing out that membership is open, that the function of the elite is to serve the common good.

* * * * *

Let me end this post with one of my favorite sections of the Zhuangzi:

The fish trap exists because of the fish; once you've gotten the fish, you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit; once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning; once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can have a word with him? (Zhuangzi, ch. 26)

Enuf'said.

* * * * *

UPDATE: The Singapore Commentator takes notice. He basically agrees but also made this observation:

...the fact remains that the word "elite" is too closely associated with the exclusivity and privileges of elitism and just doesn't go down well with many people.

Yes; the fact also testifies to the egalitarian tendencies of our times.

UPDATE 2: Acid Flask of Caustin Soda has extended thoughts.

[Technorati: Singapore]

TV-B-Gone Universal TV Power Remote Control Keychain

Since we are on the subject of high-tech gadgets...available from Amazon.com, the TV-B-Gone Universal TV Power Remote Control Keychain:

The Amazon.com product description says:

You're sitting in a restaurant with your friends. The TV in the corner is blaring. You realize that none of you are actually talking to each other. Instead, you're all staring at a piece of furniture!

Now there's a solution, the TV-B-Gone! This small, keychain wonder is designed to turn off virtually any television. Invented by Mitch Altman, a former Silicon Valley entrepreneur, the TV-B-Gone is a simple remote control device with a single button. When activated, the unit emits 209 different turn-off codes for nearly every TV. The unit takes a little more than a minute to cycle through all of the turn-off codes, but fortunately, codes for the most common TVs are emitted first. And because it's small, unassuming and attaches to your key-ring, you can always be discreet about offing that off-putting talking head.

Just think, more authentic and meaningful social interactions can be yours in seconds! Be prepared when the TV goes off, though; you may have to talk to those friends of yours at the table. Of course, if it's just simple silence you're after, the TV-G-Gone delivers that, too. Pick up that book and enjoy!

One of the reviewers on Amazon.com has a naughty idea:

Going into stores that have large displays of television sets, it is fun to hit the button and watch the sets go off.

(Hat tip: Instapundit)

Sumatra earthquake relief has started

As posted earlier, a magnitude-8.7 earthquake struck at 11.09 pm Indonesian time (12.09 am Singapore time) on Monday (Mar 28) near Nias island off the coast of Sumatra.

(Image from MINDEF website)

Though the quake would be less powerful than the Dec 26, 2004 one, it still measures as one of the eight biggest in the world since 1900! And though no tsunami is reported (but see this and this), the damage is considerable. Already, Reuters is reporting that the deathtoll could be as high as 1,000, while Indonesia's vice president said the toll could reach 2,000. Relief operations have started.

Once again, the SAF extends humanitarian assistance. From MINDEF Press Release (Mar 29):

In response to the Sumatra earthquake on 28 March, Singapore will be sending a humanitarian assistance team to Nias island comprising 3 Chinook helicopters, an SAF medical team and a SCDF Disaster, Assistance and Rescue Team (DART). Singapore’s Ambassador to Indonesia, Mr Edward Lee has been in touch with President Yudhoyono’s office, and the SAF has also contacted the TNI. The Indonesian authorities have accepted Singapore’s offer of assistance for relief efforts on Nias island. The 3 Chinook helicopters will support Indonesia’s transportation needs and carry out medical evacuation in the disaster area. The SAF medical team and the SCDF DART team will work together with Indonesian agencies on the ground. They will be joined by representatives from the Singapore Red Cross and Mercy Relief.A landrover being loaded onto the Chinook helicopter.

Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee and Minister of State for Defence and National Development Mr Cedric Foo were present to send off the Singapore team at Sembawang Air Base this afternoon.

The SAF will also deploy a C-130 transport plane to ferry additional personnel and relief supplies to Indonesia tomorrow morning.

If the experience of Operation Flying Eagle taught anyting, the Chinooks are going to come in very handy.

From CNA (Mar 29), " Singapore extends humanitarian assistance to Indonesian island of Nias", by Dominique Loh:

The advance party to Nias consists of some 48 personnel - from the Air Force, SAF medical team and the Singapore Civil Defence Force Disaster Assistance Rescue Team.

In the Chinooks' cargo hold are also two SCDF off-road vehicles.

Another C-130 transport plane is also expected to leave for Medan sometime Wednesday morning carrying about 80 additional personnel.

Apart from the SAF, other Singaporeans are also in the action (see CNA (Mar 29), "Singapore relief workers helping quake victims in Nias", by Pearl Forss). And from the latest Singapore Red Cross press release (Mar 29):

Singapore Red Cross (SRC) is mobilising a 3-member medical emergency team to Nias on 30 March 2005, to provide immediate emergency medical relief to the victims. Joining them on 31 March, a second team of 7 members comprising a staff of SRC, volunteer doctors, nurses and logisticians, will bring medical supplies to aid in the medical relief operation.

The SRC will continue to monitor the situation and work very closely with Palang Merah Indonesia and their local partners to provide the necessary emergency relief assistance in the island of Nias.

For the time being, SRC requests for no monetary donations or donations-in-kind as the medical relief missions will be funded through the Tsunami fund.

A 4-member nursing team which left for Meulaboh on 20 March to provide basic medical healthcare, has reported that they are safe. They were resting in a tent in the International Federation Red Cross Red Crescent field operation camp when they experienced tremors at approximately 11.00pm (Indonesian time). The team is disaster preparedness trained and is on high alert for possible aftershock.

The SRC continues to correspond with the team regularly to monitor the situation. The team will continue to provide medical assistance until their return on 1 April 2005.

Channel News Asia has also set up their "Sumatra Earthquake Special" site for those who wish to track the events.

Homeland security gadgets made in Singapore

CNA (Mar 28), "Leading homeland security experts in Singapore for conference", by Dominique Loh:

SINGAPORE : The world's leading homeland security experts have converged in Singapore for the first ever Global Security Asia conference, which begins on Tuesday. Its focus is on using technology against terrorism.

The event is big:

The inaugural Global Security Asia conference brings together the 'who's who' in the world of counter-terrorism. About 60 experts will speak on topics that cover nearly every aspect of the trends in terrorism - from land, sea, air security to Internet and computer attacks to intelligence gathering and training. More than 4,000 trade visitors will pass through the show held at the Singapore Expo.

The three day conference and trade exhibition is very much technology driven. It brings together nearly 140 exhibitors from 18 countries, each bringing with them the latest hardware and know how in counter terrorism.

Some of the highlights:

Exhibitors are putting the final touches to their booths and products - from emergency response vehicles like a SMART truck to biometric equipment to Remotely Operated Vehicles.

An exhibitor from the Netherlands even brought along a special golf ball - contained within is a unique automated sensor that detects, among other things, motion and sound. Its makers say a network of these sensors is very well suited for surveillance work.

There is even construction technology like a wall coating which can give added safety for important installations. Dr Bryan Lim, Homeland Security Engineer, ST Engineering, said, "When a wall is hit by a blast, it breaks into many pieces, but with a coating, it holds the wall together, and this level of protection is higher than a normal wall."

Cool...But the question immediately arises: "is showcasing the latest gadgetry revealing too much information to potential terror groups?" Well, "the experts and organisers disagree":

They say it is only by sharing information and working together that countries can learn from each other's capabilities and get ahead of the terrorists.

They'd better be right.

More about the same event from ST (Mar 29), "Made-in-S'pore devices unveiled to fight terror--15 new gadgets from local defence giant showcased at security event here", by David Boey (subscription required):

SINGAPORE companies are turning out several new products to help in the fight against terrorism.

Apparently, Singapore Technologies Engineering showcased some 15 new products, 6 of which were specially mentioned by ST, the "security show-stoppers":

Here are six show-stoppers ST Engineering will showcase for the first time today:

- Mobile crash barrier: Developed in less than three months, this anti-intrusion device looks like an advertising billboard on wheels when in transport mode. One of the few portable vehicle barriers in the world, it gets round the hassle of ripping up driveways to install permanent barriers. Deployed in less than 10 minutes, the device can be placed across entrances to stop unauthorised vehicles entering sensitive facilities. The 'teeth' pop up within a second and can stop a five-tonne truck moving at 50kmh.

- Balloon camera: Police or civil defence rescuers can get a bird's-eye view using a remote-controlled video camera attached to a tethered helium balloon. This mobile surveillance system, called SKeYe, is towed behind a truck in a trailer which holds the balloon and its helium tanks. SKeYe's camera gives an all-around view and can be hoisted up to 100m in the air. A night vision camera allows the user to see in the dark.

- Protected vehicles: Armour plates and blast-proof glass protect vehicles from blasts and small arms fire. The modified vehicles look just like any others, as the armour is concealed. The target market is government officials, businessmen or diplomats requiring discreet protection. Making its debut outside the US is SmarTruck III, equipped with armour, tear-gas launchers and remote-controlled guns and sensors. It was developed to demonstrate the kind of technology and firepower an 'intelligent' vehicle can have.

- Swimmer detection sonar: Sensors shaped like frying pans protect harbours and naval bases from hostile divers and 'other submerged threats' like midget submarines. It is ready for sale after two years of trials by ST Electronics and a United States-based partner. The sonar is smart enough to distinguish divers from shoals of fish, and is said to be ideal 'to counter threats of sabotage and terrorism to enhance harbour and coastal defence'.

- Mini satellite phone: About the size of a laptop, this phone boasts global coverage, with calls costing about a tenth of those made with other satellite phones. Even before its official launch today, the phone was used by Singapore aid workers during tsunami relief efforts in Aceh. The phone is meant not just for the police or military, but people like land surveyors or journalists who may need to communicate from remote places.

- Less-than-lethal munitions: ST Kinetics will unveil new types of ammunition that can be fired from the 40mm grenade launchers commonly found in military and police arsenals. One type of grenade bursts in the air to release electrically charged pellets which hit attackers with a jolt of electricity. Another is filled with dye to stain trouble-makers during a riot, allowing law-enforcement officers to identify them among the crowd.

UPDATE: There are more details on the products on Singapore Technologies's website (see here and here) The factsheet for the 40mm "Less than lethal ammo" that has attracted some comments is also available (.pdf file). According to it:

The 40mm Stinger Round is... a less than lethal air bursting ammunition that is able to disperse multiple electrically-charged pellets against would-be aggressors. This special ammunition is designed such that the dispersing pellets generate sufficient voltage to temporarily incapacitate with minimal injury on offenders...The Stinger Round has a deployment range of approximately 50m to 100m...

The specs of its lethal cousins--STK's 40mm Air Bursting Munition System--are also available, but it's hard to extrapolate given that we don't know the size of the pellets or how the stinger actually works.

[Technorati: Singapore]

PM Lee to visit Myanmar/Burma

For background, see this. From Reuters (via Daily Telegraph, Mar 28), "Singapore's PM to visit Burma":

SINGAPORE Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is to hold talks with Burma's leaders in Rangoon on Wednesday as frustration grows in Southeast Asia over the pace of democratic reform in the military-ruled country.

The visit comes a week after Malaysian government lawmakers said Burma should forfeit its turn to lead Southeast Asia's top political grouping next year unless it allows democratic change.

Some regional governments fear that Burma's failure to reform could jeopardise relations with Europe and the United States just as Southeast Asia is struggling to staunch a loss of foreign direct investment to China.

Rangoon is due to assume the rotating annual presidency of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in mid-2006, but Malaysia and Singapore appear worried about being represented by a government despised by the world's two main trading blocs...

Earthquake struck off Sumatra

From Bloomberg.com (Mar 29), "Quake Hits Off Sumatra, Prompts Concern About Tsunami":

March 29 (Bloomberg) -- A magnitude-8.7 earthquake struck off the northwestern coast of Indonesia, raising initial concerns that a tsunami might hit the area where waves from a Dec. 26 temblor caused widespread death and destruction.

"There has been no major tsunami observed near the epicenter," the U.S. government's Pacific Tsunami Warning Center said in a bulletin on its Web site issued almost three hours after the quake, the period the agency said was the most dangerous. The U.S. Geological Survey initially measured the quake's strength as magnitude 8.2.

The quake was predicted. From tvnz.co.nz (Mar 29):

With eerie precision, seismologists warned less than two weeks ago that Sumatra was at imminent risk of being hit by a quake of roughly the same magnitude that struck the Indonesian island on Tuesday.

In a study published on March 17, a British team said there was "potential" for a massive temblor in the ocean floor west of Sumatra as a result of tensions stoked up there by the December 26 quake.

They said the quake could be as powerful as 8.5, and possibly generate a tsunami.

More details from the Bloomberg report:

Ten Most Powerful

The U.S. Geological Survey said the March 28 temblor hit at 11:09 p.m. Sumatra time and was among the 10 most powerful quakes recorded since 1900. The epicenter was about 50 miles offshore. The quake was strong enough to cause a tsunami, Jill McCarthy, chief scientist on the geological hazards team, said in a telephone interview.

Sri Lanka posted a tsunami warning, Agence France-Presse cited government authorities as saying. Thailand issued a warning for provinces in the southern part of the country, Kraisorn Pornsuthee, permanent secretary of the Information and Communication Technology Ministry, told ITV television network.

Smith Thammasaroj, vice minister of the Office of the Prime Minister in Thailand, where he heads the country's recently established tsunami warning system, told Channel 7 there are no signs of a tsunami. He advised people to "stay in a safe place just to be sure" until 2:30 a.m. local time.

Sumatra Coast

Damage from the quake in Medan, one of the largest cities in Sumatra, was limited, the U.S. consul general told the State Department, agency spokesman Adam Ereli said in Washington. Medan is closer to the east coast of Sumatra, near the Strait of Malacca, than to the Indian Ocean.

The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, based in Hawaii, urged "immediate action" to evacuate Indian Ocean coasts up to 1,000 kilometers from the epicenter after the quake. There is not yet an Indian Ocean tsunami warning network similar to the one operating in the Pacific.

Government authorities "can assume the danger has passed" if no tsunami waves are seen within three hours of the quake, the center said.

The quake lasted as long as three minutes, AFP cited Indonesia's Meteorological and Geophysics Office as saying. The temblor caused power blackouts on Sumatra, AFP said.

Residents in Banda Aceh, the provincial capital of Aceh, fled by the thousands, Indonesia's MetroTV news station reported, citing its reporter on the ground.

Mona Laczo, an Oxfam aid coordinator, said in a telephone interview she felt the quake from the 23rd floor of her Bangkok hotel, saying the building swayed "for a good minute."

Tremors were felt in Singapore as well (CNA, Mar 9)

Good and bad emperors on CCTV

Interesting article from Asia Times (Mar 26), "TV soaps feature good 'emperor' Hu Jintao", by Yan Hua:

HONG KONG - It has been a tradition in China, both under the communists and long before, to criticize Chinese leaders indirectly but deftly by comparing them to misguided, wicked or weak emperors, ignoring the welfare of the people, or by comparing them to the wise and benevolent rulers of the past. Chinese readers - and today's television viewers - are savvy enough to read between the propagandists' lines and understand 2,000-year-old contrived allusions to current politics. President Hu Jintao thus is a good emperor - it's clear from prime-time TV - though his model was a Han Dynasty emperor, Han Wu, who lived more than 2,000 years ago.

The circumstances under which the Emperor Han Wu (156-87 BC) ascended the throne are quite similar to those of state President Hu Jintao, who had to contend with "shadow regent" Jiang Zemin and his Shanghai clique who opposed some of his reforms because they would undermine their power and economic interests grounded in building more, bigger and faster.

Since early January, Chinese Central Television (CCTV), the Communist Party's broadcast mouthpiece, has been featuring a 58-part series - a docu-drama or soap opera - during the "golden hours", prime time between 8pm and 9pm weekly. It's a drama about a Han Dynasty emperor of noble intentions and determination, beleaguered by self-serving critics and scoundrels. Yet another TV series is about Emperor Yongzheng of the Qing Dynasty (AD 1644-1911).

I would certainly like to watch the Han Wu Di soap--it's bound to entertaining, though full of historical inaccurancies and badly veiled propoganda. Though I must say that at least the propoganda is done in excellent literary fashion, and at times, quite tasteful. Sort of like amore popular, TV version of what Virgil did for the Emperor Augustus.

I remember watching the Yongzheng series just before leaving for the US, and the Kangxi series on VCDs borrowed from a friend in Berkeley. At the time of Yongzheng's first screening, Zhu Rongji was the rising superstar and a supposed fan:

Qing dynasty emperor Yongzheng was probably not the kind of person you would like in your house. He executed family members, foes and subordinates alike. But for TV viewers in corruption-ridden China, that's a large part of the attraction about the man - Yongzheng was a graft-buster. Since it was first screened in January, the 44-part series Yongzheng Dynasty has dominated primetime rankings on Chinese TV. Apart from the chord it strikes with the current political mood, the series also has the draw of popular 46-year-old Tang Guoqiang as the king (who lived from 1678 to 1735). The actor (Romance of Three Kingdoms) is associated with nice-guy roles. The program is proving such a hit that the network has had to begin airing the drama from the start on another of its stations. Of its millions of fans, one has a particular interest in beating corruption. Premier Zhu Rongji is said to be an ardent follower.

The main attraction was the complicated palace intrigues among the various sons of Emperor Kangxi. There were two cliques, one around fourth prince (future Yongzheng), the other around Eighth prince.

Emperor Kangxi was a separate series, and despite being based on novels by the same person who also wrote the novels behind the Yongzheng series, nevertheless contradict the other series! One highlight was the capture of Taiwan by the Manchu (Qing Dynasty) forces from the last Ming Dynasty holdouts on the island. It was so...utterly contemporary. I mean, when Qing officials start talking about the "return" (hui gui) of Taiwan to the motherland (zhu guo), you know that...someone from the late 20th century wrote the script. (My memories of the exact phrases used are hazy, but it was definitely not period.)

But, to come back to the Asia Times piece--the critics are not happy:

Distinguished film critics and other intellectuals boo, calling this tedious, boring and insulting to the intelligence of Chinese television viewers. Furthermore, they argue, extolling the virtues of monarchy and a single all-powerful ruler is not what China needs at this time in its modernization. And many dynasties, they point out, were riddled with corruption - a problem that Hu is trying to tackle.

The point is not that none of the emperors were concerned about corruption--the good ones were brutally concerned about it--but something more fundamental:

Recently Wang Meng, a heavyweight in China's cultural elite, lambasted one of the prime-time historical-soap-opera episodes produced by CCTV for its "poor quality". His remarks were construed as an attempt to curb a nationwide campaign to glorify Hu Jintao by likening him - indirectly but unmistakably - to a benevolent but beleaguered emperor. Chinese viewers know all about indirectness, allusion and nuance, how to infer the real message and how to cut through the clutter and jump to the end of a People's Daily article to get the real message.

At the plenary session of Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) in Beijing on March 13, Standing Committee member Wang Meng called for the teleplay series in the "golden hours" to be further polished and improved in content and quality. Wang, minister of culture in the late 1980s, was seconded by renowned screenwriter Wei Minglun, also aboard the CPPCC Standing Committee.

Wei also articulated his concern to the Beijing Evening News about TV series in praise of historical monarchs permeating the prime viewing hours. "Narrating the legend of historical monarchs does not mean to glorify the monarchy," he said. "However, many emperors represented in historical series today are all people-loving rulers of great sagacity and tactics. This is, in short, a cult of imperial personality. What's worse, most historical [soap] operas are set in dynasties when official corruption prevailed and national strength waned," he said

He continues:

"It is a benighted feudal mindset to expect a good emperor to change the world. Democracy and justice are what we need," Wei was quoted as saying, "but the TV operas rife with the imperial personality cult turn out to be misleading the public and hampering the progress of democracy and justice."

On the other hand, such plays do have a large following, as screenwriter Wei Minglun conceded earlier. "The Chinese people have a traditional mentality of being subjects rather than citizens, so they have little sense of democracy and the rule of law ... Such a deeply rooted mentality is somewhat mirrored in the teleplays that sing paeans for monarchy while we are trying to build a democratic society ruled by law," he said. These plays "can be very influential, because they often take the form of an epic documentary and go to air during the golden hours in CCTV channels".

Over the past few years, imperial legends have become a popular theme for both teleplays and movies. But some critics lash out against these "emperor" plays for actually catering to the contemporary elite, while cloaking their flattery of current leaders in historical trappings. Wei said, "The art sometimes can be satire about social problems. But obsequious plays are dubious and questionable." The development of democracy and the rule of law will be threatened by extolling the virtues of a single, enlightened monarch, critics say.

Astute criticisms! Though I must say Mr. Wei is fabulously playing the very traditional role of the upright and moral official remonstrating with the emperor to do right by his people. There were quite a few of these in the Kangxi and Yongzheng series too, and some even managed to escape a premature death.

Thinking about open source software

Han of Wannabe Lawyer (also on Singapore Ink) links to an interesting article (registration required) in which an Australian Mr Robertson of De Bortoli (based in based in Griffith, NSW) says that he "doesn’t understand why his peers elsewhere choose to be locked in to Microsoft's strategy."

"I'm staggered and close to offended that some businesses choose the risk of vendor lock-in, and I'm staggered by the timidity of some IT managers," he says.

Thanks to Mr. Robertson, De Bortoli uses the free software productivity suite OpenOffice "for tasks such as word processing after reading open standards studies from around the world." The advantage of using open source software is not just about cost. Rather, software such as Firefox, OpenOffice have shown much more commitment to standards (rather than to products), which in turn "reduces the leverage that vendors have over customers."

Microsoft, on the other hand, "has shown an antipathy to web standards, because in the view of many they provide an alternative to the Windows desktop - Microsoft’s core business." All this is quite true, well, at least he's preaching to the choir as far as this reader is concern (For more about Wine Maker De Bortoli's switch to open source, see this; for an extensive comparison of the pros and cons of using OpenOffice as opposed to Microsoft Office suite, see this; and Linux vs. Windows, see this.)

The punchline for Wannabe Lawyer, however, is not about the business world. He says:

The really strange thing about our Gahmen is, for a bunch of people so paranoid of losing control, they’re willing to subject their technological infrastructure to the dominion of M$. Sometimes they’re just so unfathomable.

I'll let the relevant authorities do the justifying of the government's decisions, so what follows is purely a layman's external point of view observation.

First, the Singapore government does not use Microsoft Office exclusively. Just this past October, MINDEF has installed OpenOffice on some 5,000 of the 20,000 PCs it operates. There's also talk about switching to Linux for the operating system, though the last I heard about it, it's still at the talk stage (see this and this). A couple of months before that, National Library Board (NLB) made the switch from Microsoft to Linux (see this). So, in a nutshell, it's not really true that the Singapore government is somehow "willing to subject [its] technological infrastructure to the dominion of M[icrosoft]." If there is a complaint, perhaps it's that its not moving fast enough. (Aside, see this site for news items related to moves to open source by governments and major organisations.)

Second, But that is hardly unique to Singapore. No government bureaucracy can ever move as quickly as some small private startup, no matter how liberal the country, or how decentralised the decision making. This is so especially if the existing solutions are not exactly totally bad. Existing licencing arrangements have to run out, the cost of upgrading to some new iteration of Windows Server or whatever weighted against migration to a new system, complete with new maintanence arrangement, retraining of personnel, etc., etc. There's all sorts of reasons to expect the various government agencies to come to appreciate the advantage that open source offers, but there's also all sorts of reasons not to expect them to be able to make full measure of those advantages suddently or quickly. Even the MINDEF move followed a pilot project in which OpenOffice we installed on 200 PCs earlier last year.

Third--and this refers more to the comments left in Wannabe Lawyer's post rather than the post itself--it's premature to draw conclusions about 'culture' of organisations that use Linux or stuck to Microsoft. One reader left this comment:

...the gahmen is comfortable with Microsoft’s way of doing things precisely because they are both hierarchical institutions used to having its way in their respective ball games.

Linux, on the other hand, displaying more egalitarian tendencies (with its thousands of distros, and all that), does seem to have more political identification with anarchist or even socialist organizations. It was borne not as a corporate product, but Torvald’s hobby - and shared worldwide with other enthusiasts. Surely the gahmen can’t afford to spread the idea that anybody but the elite is fit to lead, right?

Han responded with a more nuanced view:

I would in fact argue that FOSS is not socialist, but libertarian. Even in FOSS projects, there IS an elite. Surely you would say Linus himself, and Alan Cox, and the various code gurus are elites.

The real question is how did they become elites. I would argue that the meritocracy that our Government promotes is a false one. The truest meritocracy I have ever seen is the Linux project. The best coders come out tops...

Now Han's observations about the meritocratic nature of open source is quite persuasive. The question is whether larger conclusions about the culture of the users can be inferred. This is where I would be much more hesitant. Let me be clear--it's the connection that I'm more suspicious of, not the claim that the PAP-led government is often (comparatively) paternalistic and had been even authoritarian at times (though even that is slowly but surely changing). But what what has this got to do with the software they use? At the end of the day, most users in big organisations are exactly that--users. They are not expected to (nor should they be allowed to) fiddle with the codes. That's the job of the people who maintain the servers.

Any tyrant of despot could well purchase the latest Red Hat or some other iteration of Linux, pay a few geeks generously (or have their families held hostage) to have it installed for their Ministry of Public Behavior, and run a tight shop on that basis. On the other hand, the most meritocratic, creative, anarchistic, whatever PC gaming software start-up may stick with Windows and churn out dazzling games--because that's where the money is.

On a related note: the mainland Chinese government made a big deal about using Linux, but so far, it had not really created a Linux boom; at least, not of the right kind. The reason: lack of respect across the board for copyright laws anyway. The outcome is ironic, to say the least:

With price a non-issue, businesses and consumers want an operating system that will run the software they need for work or play. For that reason, the OS of choice in China is Windows. Pirated copies of simplified Chinese XP are cheap and generally reliable (as reliable as Windows can be), as are Office, Age of Empires, and a host of other applications. Played any good Linux games lately? Of course not. Found an open-source word processing software that works well with Word? Didn't think so.

When China announced that it would migrate government departments to Linux, many expected a Linux boom. But the country still lacks a sufficient number of technicians who can work on open-source systems. The money is in maintaining Windows-based systems, and in China, you go where the money is. (From here)

This is not to say that Linux has less of a future in China. In fact, the PRC government is still very much committed to encouraging the development of Linux based systems for China--but I'll wager that it's not because they like the anarchistic or meritocratic nature of open source, but at least partly because they desire not to be at the mercy of the international (or American) intellectual property-rights regime.

News link dump

Just got home from the cantata...can't resist posting this link dump. Otherwise, I'm still on a break.

Singapore
- ST (Mar 26), "THINKING ALOUD: Ensuring an elite without elitism", by Zuraidah Ibrahim (subscription required)
- ST (Mar 26), "8 types of Singaporeans: Which one are you?" (subscription required)

Tsunami Relief
- CNA (Mar 23), "Authorities in Aceh struggle to relocate and house tsunami survivors", by Sujadi Siswo
- CNA (Mar 24), "United Nations Development Programme breathes life into Banda Aceh", by Sujadi Siswo
- CNN (Mar 24), "U.N. agency pulling out of Aceh"
- CNA (Mar 25), "Finding homes for Aceh's tsunami orphans remains priority", by Sujadi Siswo
- ST (Mar 26), "Pre-tsunami Aceh to be restored", by Devi Asmarani (subscription required)

Myanmar/Burma:
- Asia Times (Mar 24), "The bells to toll on Myanmar", by Verghese Mathews
- Asia Times (Mar 25), "Karenni rebels dig in for last stand", by Lucy Murray, with additional reporting by Beh Reh Byardu
- ST@Asia One (Mar 26), "Closing in on Myanmar"

UPDATE: (Tsunami Relief) ST (Mar 27), "Donations for charities dry up in wake of tsunami aid--With people channelling donations to victims of the Dec 26 tragedy, welfare groups find it harder to raise funds", by Sarah Ng (subscription required)
- AP (via ABC, Mar 26), "Tsunami Survivors Leave Emergency Camp", by Mike Cooper
- AP (via CNN, Mar 26), "Report: Tsunami hit women hardest"

Casino referendum: for and against; Easter blogging break

The original posts from Singapore Ink (1, 2), in which it was argued that a referendum to decide whether we should have a casino would not be good idea. The retort from Ivan's Chimera. And finally, the reply from Singapore Ink. The arguments are involved but worth a good read.

Anyway, I'm taking a break from blogging over Easter weekend--apart from the near certainty that the choral Cantata (that's about one and a half hours of singing for this amateur tenor) should finish off what's left of my voice, I could do with a breather to catch up on dissertation work.

UPDATE: Ivan now has a reply to the reply. Quick comment: I wonder if we could split the difference and call for more accurate polls (independent, publicized, but non-binding on policy) as indications of public opinion, but without going all the way to an official referendum. With the results of such polls publicized, people would at least know when the government is doing something that is really widely popular or not. The government can't hide behind it's own claim that it is doing something that a mere minority opposes, and would also feel more oblidged to really argue its case if it feels that an unpopular course is nevertheless necessary (which is possible). Would that help?

Tsunami baby ready to leave KK

(See this for background) From ST@AsiaOne (Mar 24):

YOUNG Heru, the badly burnt Indonesian baby who was brought to Singapore for treatment two months ago, is returning home.

The 10-month-old tsunami victim from Meulaboh is due to be discharged from KK Women's and Children's Hospital on Monday.

Yesterday, his parents took him to Ba'alwi Mosque to give thanks for his recovery and the religious support from the imam.

Heru's father, bicycle-taxi rider Esenbi, 40, was elated with his son's condition, saying: 'I'm happy with the treatment, accommodation, food and hospitality that Heru has been receiving in Singapore.'

His son was severely burnt when a kerosene lamp fell into his cot and set it afire while the boy was in a relief camp.

He was brought here in critical condition in January with the help of the Singapore Red Cross Society, which is paying for his treatment.

The little boy, the youngest of seven children, has received four skin grafts.

Looking red faced, he left hospital for the first time yesterday.

He was cranky while at the mosque, at which his dad has been praying almost every Friday. The family was received by the imam, Habib Hassan, who had visited the boy in hospital.

A Red Cross official will accompany the family back to Meulaboh on Monday to make sure that Heru's medical needs are met and to monitor his condition.

Said Habib Hassan: 'One thing about the Red Cross is that when they start something, they always finish it well.'

Jemaah Islamiah to be banned in Indonesia

From AP via IHT (Mar 22), "Indonesia will outlaw group linked to Al Qaeda":

Indonesia plans to outlaw the Al Qaeda-linked terror group, Jemaah Islamiyah, in a move that will make it easier for the authorities to arrest and prosecute militants in the world's most populous Muslim nation, a top security official said Monday.

The move to ban the organization - which is listed as a terrorist group by the United Nations - might meet opposition from domestic Muslim groups, which fear a broader crackdown on Islamic activists.

Read the whole thing.

Vivian Balakrishnan in NTU

From ST (Mar 23), "Nothing is stopping youths from speaking up: Vivian--Minister says this in response to undergrads asking for more freedom" (subscription required):

POLITICAL space, more leeway, openness.

These perennial issues were very much on the minds of students who were at a dialogue last night with Acting Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan.

And they wasted no time, firing off about 20 questions during a 90-minute session with him at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) after his opening remarks about challenges their generation faced in a changing world.

Unfortunately, the report only reproduces one (and a half) question and response. But it was an interesting one--referring to the no-go for a speakers' corner at the youth park (proposed by opposition MP Low Thia Khiang), a student asked: "Does this mean that the Government is taking a more conservative stance towards youth in politics?" For context, see this, which includes the first mention of "Blogs" in parliament:

Dr Balakrishnan's response was that there already are various avenues for youths to speak out, such as The Straits Times' YouthInk pages, a section with stories written by youths; the national youth forum; and the Feedback Unit's Internet portal.

Reiterating the point he made two weeks ago, he said there was no need for another speakers' corner especially since the existing one in Hong Lim Park is not successful.

Noticed the conspicious absence of "blogs"? I'm not sure what that means...and really, there's no point being oversensitive. Dr. Balakrishnan goes on to give his take on why speaker's corner failed:

Because Singaporeans are sensible people and have decided that there's not much point going up there standing on a soapbox, yelling at the mosquitoes and the flies.

'And most sensible NTU students didn't bother going all the way to Hong Lim to listen to someone ranting at the top of his voice.'

(My own take is here.) Some questions about "why Singapore did not adopt liberal democracy" [HC: meaning...?], "calls from others in the audience for greater freedom of the press and media independence", and the opinion voiced that "given the abundance and free flow of information in this age of globalisation and the Internet...how the Singapore media could be credible if government controls were not relaxed."

Dr Balakrishnan said that even as a young man, he never felt 'inhibited' to speak up and his views were never censored. In fact, he challenged the students to tell him if there was one thing they wanted to do, but which they were being prevented from doing. No one among the 900 students present took up the challenge.

As for the local newspapers and news programmes, he said they could more than hold their own against the international media. Far from wanting the media to be pro-People's Action Party, the Government's main concern is that the media be honest, accurate, and pro-Singapore, he said.

Well, I'm not really sure what to make of the challenge. On the one hand, I'm inclined to agree with Dr Balakrishnan; but then again, that may only indicate that, for the most part, I happened to have opinions and tastes that do not run afoul of the constraints, in other words, I may just be very fortunate. Furthermore, it's pretty much a safe bet that a student who really has something in response to the challenge, might find it intimating to say so in the setting. I'm sure there will be some response from the blogosphere...

As for the second part...I commend Dr Balakrishnan's desire that the media be "honest, accurate, and pro-Singapore" rather than pro-PAP or pro-government. Whether the media lives up to that high calling, however, is another matter altogether.

Asking the government to do everything...

A letter to today's ST (Mar 23) basically said what I posted earlier concerning the question put to PM Lee at the NUSS: Why not have a two-party system? To put it simply: it's not the ruling party's job to nurture an opposition party. Anyway, this is what Peter Teo Boon Haw said in his letter (subscription required):

I am amused that a member of the educated elite would find it appropriate to ask the Government to set up a two-party system, a system which may effectively put the ruling party which forms the Government out of power if it succeeds.

One would have thought that it is up to the people to set up a viable opposition party that may offer alternative leadership to the present Government.

It is people like the NUS alumnus, if he feels strongly that there should be alternative leadership, who should go and 'rope in ex-ministers and MPs' and other like- minded people to form a political party.

And this final bit basically takes the words right out of my mouth:

He is just like the typical Singaporean who depends on the Government to do everything, even to the extent of asking it to put itself out of power.

Amen! The irony, of course, is that MM Lee said essentially the same thing when he answered a certain Mr. Han a long time ago...

UPDATE: Wows of Singapore Ink has a similar thought:

I meant to wonder, why in the world did the NUS guy even ask such a question without thinking about the long-term impact this would have on politics in Singapore? Maybe some people are getting so fixated on a two-party system that they forget the fundamental reasons why it is a signifier of a desirable state of affairs for governance.

Personally, I'm not crazy about a two-party system. A more liberal political climate--which, believe it or not, is something that has been slowly emerging for the past decade--yes, a society with a stronger culture of civic association, a more mature and self-reliant democratic citizenry that doesn't cry "mommy" everytime something needs to be done, yes. A more Tocquevillean state of affairs. But it may or may not involve a strong opposition party at all.

Taiwan ministry of national defense denies story about Singapore-Taiwan joint exercises

Continuing from here, Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense has also denied the claim that Singapore and Taiwan are holding joint exercises to be monitored by US and Japanese instructors. From Taipei Times (Mar 22). It's beginning to look like an over-enthusiastic journalist's attempt to sell a story...but, who knows...

UPDATE: ST catches up with (Mar 23), "S'pore denies joint war games with Taiwan", by David Boey (Subscription required):

SINGAPORE and Taiwan have separately denied Taiwanese media reports that their armed forces will soon conduct joint war games in Taiwan...

Keeping fingers crossed that there won't be a diplomatic storm.

Singapore could be self-sufficient in water by 2061

From CNA (Mar 22):

(Picture from CNA)

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said with Singapore's diversified water strategy, there would be sustainable supply of water by 2061 when its water agreements with Malaysia ends. Singapore could be self-sufficient in water, he added.

He was speaking on Tuesday at the ground breaking ceremony to dam the Marina Channel, making it the country's 15th reservoir.

When completed in 2007, this new reservoir in the city will store one-tenth of Singapore's current water demand, and enlarge the country's water catchment from half to two-thirds of the island.

MM Lee said: "With the PUB's diversified water of the four National Taps, there will be sustainable supply of water for all uses by 2061 when our Water Agreements with Malaysia ends. Singapore can be self-sufficient in water. The government will provide the infrastructure. It is up to Singaporeans to maintain the clean and green environment we live in."

Another step in the "de-securitization" of the water issue. With additional bonuses too...

Mr Lee noted that the marina lake can allow canoeing, skiing, and water taxis. But before that, navigational safety procedures and pollution control measures will be needed...

...The $226 million barrage will also control floods. Low-lying areas in the city, Chinatown, Boat Quay, Jalan Besar and Geylang, will not have flooding unless there's exceptional rain coinciding with very high tides. The flood-prone areas in Singapore will be cut from more than 3,000 hectares in the 1970s to just 100 hectares by the end of 2007...

But as with most things in life, there is a 'cost', but this is something we should be doing already:

MM Lee said: "Any litter thrown carelessly into the canals in areas even as far as Ang Mo Kio and Alexandra will finally end up in the Marina. That very thought should make us want to protect its cleanliness and to prevent all drains, canals and rivers that flow into it from being polluted."

Other possible developments ahead:

Mr Lee also issued another challenge for PUB. He suggested that it should think of extracting water from Jurong West although PUB had told him years ago that it was not possible because of industrial pollution in the water there.

Mr Lee believes it will be possible one day with new membrane technology as extracting water from the Jurong West sector will help increase Singapore's water supply. And he hopes this can be achieved in the next 20 years.

Finally, this bit about Singapore River brings back some childhood memories:

Mr Lee said that from the 1930s till the 1980s, the Singapore River was an open sewer that smelt worse year by year. So in 1977 he challenged the Environment Ministry to make fishing possible in the rivers in ten years.

He said: "The stench in the City was dreadful at low tide. In 1977, a blind clerk in Lee and Lee told my wife that he knew when his bus was approaching the Singapore River on his way to work."

Yep, and it looked like milo too. I remember passing it every weekday on the way to (primary) school. The solution:

"HDB helped more than 26,000 families resettled from squalid squatter huts into flats. Every remaining brick or concrete building left in the catchment of these rivers was connected to sewers. People stopped throwing rubbish into the rivers. 5,000 street hawkers were relocated into purpose-built food centres. 2,800 riverine industries were moved into industrial estates. A multitude of pig farmers, vegetable wholesale and lighter operators were relocated, the most pollutive industries closed down."

At the same time, anti-pollution measures were strictly enforced and soon marine life revived in the rivers and the marina.

MM Lee said: "We now have an effective system of refuse collection and disposal. People must help to keep our drains and canals clean so that we can collect clean rainwater. Sullage water is connected separately by sewers on to reclamation plants. We are building a Deep Tunnel Sewerage System to free up land and make the treatment of waste water more effective lowering the cost of recycling."

Malaysia wants Myanmar to pass on ASEAN chairmanship next year

Continuing on ASEAN's predicament over Myanmar, CNA (Mar 4) reported on some tough questions from MPs:

...Singapore's Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo gave Parliament an update on Singapore's ties with its neighbours, and developments in ASEAN.

He said ASEAN would try to resolve the problem of Myanmar assuming the Chair of ASEAN next year - which could jeopardise talks with dialogue partners...

Is ASEAN more than a talkshop? Singapore MPs were hard-hitting.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon, MP for East Coast GRC, said: "Even with the continual arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi by the military regime, ASEAN continues to pretend that all is well and praise the efforts of the regime to bring about a transition to democracy."

In reply, Mr Yeo acknowledged ASEAN's shortcomings but said ASEAN has helped to keep the peace.

On Myanmar, he said ASEAN ministers are clearly unhappy that the 'Roadmap to Democracy' has not made much progress.

Mr Yeo said: "Last year ASEAN countries took a firm position with the EU that Myanmar could not be excluded from the ASEAN-Europe Meeting in Hanoi. We stood our ground and succeeded, but subsequent developments in Yangon undermined our position. Our hope is that the ASEAN spirit of consultation and consensus will enable us to find a solution for next year."

Myanmar is due to assume the chairmanship of ASEAN in 2006 and dialogue partners have already threatened to boycott meetings if the situation in Myanmar does not improve.

ASEAN ministers will meet behind closed-doors and discuss the issue next month.

Still, ASEAN is important and at the core of Singapore's foreign policy.

Malaysia, on the other hand, is talking tough already; from CNA (Mar 22):

KUALA LUMPUR : Malaysia will press for Myanmar to be refused the chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) next year unless it carries out democratic reforms, local media said on Tuesday.

The government will table a motion in parliament calling on Myanmar's military rulers to release opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and speed up reforms, Minister in the Prime Minister's office, Nazri Abdul Aziz, told the New Straits Times.

If the ruling military fails to make progress, "we will ask for Myanmar's turn to be the chairman of ASEAN to be suspended and given to other countries until democratic reforms are carried out," Nazri was quoted as saying.

The chair is rotated alphabetically each year among members Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

Alphabetically...who would have thought of that.

Singapore-Taiwan military exercises under US-Japan instructors II: MINDEF denies the truth of the reports

Continuing from here, one more Taiwan news agency picks it up. From Taiwan News Online (Mar 21), "Singapore, Taiwan drill while U.S., Japan watch", by Taijing Wu:

...A high-ranked military official who spoke under the condition of anonymity said that the 'Star Light Drills' of the Singaporean 'Star Light Forces' stationed in Taiwan will be changed to 'Mid-Day Drills' because the content of the previous exercises has been altered; not only will Singaporean troops take part in Taiwanese troops' drills, they will also be monitored by U.S. and Japanese military consultants.

Local media reports have revealed that several U.S. military specialists and consultants have already arrived in Taiwan in order to provide suggestions in the computer war game simulation, which will reportedly be linked in the future with U.S. and Japanese computer simulated war games...

So far, there's not much of a hoohah in the English language Press, but a search for 正午演習 or 正午演习 turned up at least two dozen hits from various mainland and Taiwanese news sites. Something interesting might turn up when I go through some of them.

Developing...

UPDATE: Most of the reports reproduce the one that has already been posted by Wows. But this report from Takungpao.com (Mar 22) has more. First, the exercise is for combined arms operations (infantry, artillery, armor, helicopters), with the Taiwanese contributing Cobra attack helicopters and Singapore Super Puma helicopters. Second, the report claims that PRC has already expressed it's (predicted) "strong opposition" (my translation):

北京已要求新加坡對此次聯合演訓作出解釋。中國外交部在一項聲明中說：「中方強烈反對與中國有外交關係的國家與台灣建立任何形式的官方或軍事的聯繫。」Beijing has demanded an explanation for the joint exercises from Singapore. The Chinese ministry of foreign affairs statement says: we strongly opposes any country that has diplomatic relations with China engaging in any form of official or military relation with Taiwan.

UPDATE 2: And the latest, a MINDEF press release (Mar 22), in it's characteristic laconic voice:

There is no truth to the Taiwanese media reports that the SAF is participating in a Taiwanese joint military exercise involving foreign military consultants.

Yes, that was the whole press release.

UPDATE 3: Looks like the Takungpao report is really based upon one from AFP (Mar 21; via DefenseNews). On the other hand, CNA (Mar 22) picks up MINDEF's denial of the reports, and so did Xinhua (Mar 22). On a different but not unrelated note, AP (Mar 22; via The China Post), "Taiwan claims China pressure Singapore to block visit by Taiwanese navy", reports on another upset in Taiwan-Singapore relations:

Taiwan on Tuesday blamed rival China for an aborted port call by its navy to Singapore, saying the communist giant pressured the city-state to scrap the visit.

Two Taiwanese frigates had sailed to Singapore earlier this month as part of a world tour, but Singaporean authorities did not allow the crew to go onshore as previously planned, Premier Frank Hsieh and Defense Minister Lee Jye told lawmakers.

Lee claimed that rival China had pressured Singapore into canceling the visit.

Taiwan and China split at the end of a civil war in 1949, but Beijing still claims the island as its territory. China regularly protests against foreign trips by Taiwanese leaders and the island's military, saying only sovereign nations deserve diplomatic ties.

Singapore has formal ties with China, not Taiwan. The city-state, however, does maintain close economic and military links with Taiwan, forcing it to engage in a delicate balancing act.

But China in recent years has increasingly pressured Singapore over its ties with Taiwan. Last year, Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made a rare visit to Taiwan shortly before he was sworn in as premier, provoking China's fury.

Since then, the city-state has been repairing its relations with China and has played down its relations with Taiwan. On Tuesday, Singapore's defense ministry denied Taiwanese media reports that its air force would participate in a joint military exercise with Taiwan.

Meanwhile, Premier Frank Hsieh said his Cabinet would discuss how to respond to Singapore's snubbing of the Taiwanese navy.

"We will evaluate how this case will influence (relations with Singapore) in the future, we will react, but it's not suitable for me to comment on this publicly," Hsieh said.

Hsieh added that in the future, Taiwan might ask for written guarantees before sending military units overseas.

Should have thought of that before hand...

Asia Times: Myanmar at the tipping point

Continuing from here, from Asia Times (Mar 22), "Taking Myanmar's generals to the tipping point", by Roland Watson of Dictator Watch:

The military junta in Myanmar is under great stress. Political dictatorship is untenable and ultimately unsustainable in the modern world. For the ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), as the junta is known, the strains are beginning to show.

Among them are serious internal divisions, beginning with and deriving from the purge of military intelligence; a flawed National Convention, unacceptable to the international community and which has given the ethnic ceasefire groups in attendance a forum to express demands; ill-considered treatment of the International Labor Organization, which has the power to call for strong sanctions; failure to fulfill promises and obligations to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the United Nations, and other state and multi-state parties; and a failed economy, which is placing great stress on the people of Myanmar, and which is attractive to only the most ruthless and profiteering of international businessmen.

In other words, there has been a major series of disturbances to the equilibrium of the SPDC, its power structure and its ability to maintain absolute control. The junta is close to the tipping point, at which the generals could be pushed over the brink, causing them to lose control and the phase transition to democracy to be initiated.

Never has it been clearer that talk is not enough. We must have action, to tip the balance. Otherwise, the SPDC likely will adapt, reassert its control, and regain its equilibrium...

The writer identifies the relevant actors that could do something about it--with ASEAN, and China, conspiciously absent:

The key to democracy in Myanmar, to reaching the tipping point, lies with one of the following five groups: the SPDC, the people of Myanmar, the United Nations, the European Union, or the United States.

I'll just say that he settles on the US after crossing out each of the first four. The reasoning is evocative but the proposal wanting in details (compared to the writer's website). But I won't spoil the suspense any further for the reader.

On liberal arts education

Jeremy Chen of Convex Set has a long post, which you can read on your own. What follows are merely some thoughts that struck me when reading a part of his post. His definition of a liberal arts education:

I would myself define it as acquaintance with the major ideas from the history of thought: the Platonic forms, innatism, behaviourism, the scientific method, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, existentialism, utilitarianism, deontological ethics, etc. These help one form conceptions of the world and decide what one is to believe and how one is to choose to live one’s life...My opinion is that a liberal arts education helps one to make better choices in life.

Well, the definition sounds like a list of philosophical and political theories...

Historically, the artes liberales (seven in number, I'll explain below) are contrasted with the artes illiberales. The former are the branches of knowledge taught in the Medieval schools that are meant to prepare the student for the life of a "free man"--i.e., the life of a man in pursuit of the highest knowledge (philosophy and theology). The "illiberal arts" are the ones pursued for the sake of a livelihood. The liberal arts includes the Trivium ("the three roads") and the Quadrivium ("the four roads"). The Trivium consisted of Grammar, Rhetoric and Logic, while the Quadrivium consisted of Arithmetic, Geometry, Music and Astronomy. The point to remember is that these are preprations for the real deal--philosophy and theology--as typified by the following diagram in which the seven feed into philosophy:

Obviously, the list has changed considerably. I'll highlight three changes:

(1) Colleges find an increasing need to sell the liberal arts education as, e.g., preparation "for today's evolving world of work" and liberal arts graduates as being "attractive to employers because they have developed the skills necessary to adapt in an ever-changing workforce" (here). This very thought would have been contrary to the entire point of the Medieval liberal arts education, ideally conceived anyway (all bets are off as to what the actual practices were).

But more importantly, (2) there is now very very rarely such a master science as philosophy (and beyond that, theology) into which the various liberal arts feed, and which unifies them all under one meta-scheme. In fact, philosophy itself ends up as one subject among many in the typical modern liberal arts education offering.

(3) Correspondingly, the modern tendency is to stress "breadth", or "broad exposure" and such like, knowing something about a whole bunch of things, that is meant to counteract increasing specialization. As a quid goes, "a specialist is someone who learns more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing." The converse is, of course, knowing less and less about more and more, until one knows nothing about everything. In contrast, the older conception of a liberal arts education is not about breadth at all, but about a well-defined core set of intellectual skills. Today's typical liberal arts education seems more and more like taking intro-level courses in a variety of special subjects.

Two caveats: the above, of course, concentrates on the European conception. There is an analogous but distinct conception of an education for the gentleman in Imperial China which I won't go into here.

Second, there is something dissatisfying about the present fragmentation of knowledge. There is something to be said for the unifying role of having every pursuant of a special academic disipline undergo training in the same core set of intellectual skills--not some cursory general course that every student just wants to be done with so as to get to the really interesting stuff, but something intensive and challenging in its own right. That will go a long way in facilitating inter-discipline interaction later on. The problem is strictly institutional: who gets to decide what goes into such a core set and who gets to teach it?

Togoparts auction raised $5000 for tsunami relief

Some time ago, I helped advertised for an online auction organised by www.togoparts.com to raise funds for tsunami relief. The latest news about their efforts (by email from one of the togoparts team, reformatted):

Togoparts Tsunami Relief Fundraising Auction

The Togoparts Team is please to announce that it has raised a total of SGD4895.50 in its Tsunami Fundraising Auction, plus an anonymous donation of 104.50 to make a final total of SGD5000! 100% of the proceeds will be donated to the Mercy Relief aid organization. The money will be channelled to fund recovery and rebuilding efforts in the tsunami-devastated areas of Indonesia’s Aceh province, where Mercy Relief is currently engaged. Our heartfelt thanks to all donors and bidders!

Please visit the discussion thread for the latest on how our auctions have fared. Also, do visit the Mercy Relief website to find out more about their recovery and rebuilding efforts for tsunami survivors

Receipt from Mercy Relief:



Thank you once again for your assistance in getting the word out.

Best regards,
Ivan Lian
www.togoparts.com

You are most welcome!

Anti-missile defense system for commercial airliners

Last year, there was a report about the government saying that "it plans to install anti-missile defenses on passenger jets flown by national carrier Singapore Airlines and a subsidiary" and they are "developing a defensive device that they hope to have ready for use by Singapore Airlines and SilkAir planes in two years" (see e.g., this). I wasn't able to track down how such a defense measure would work, but it will probably be along the lines of the Britening system developed by Israel's Rafael (hat tip: Eaglespeak):

Rafael Britening: (1) Wide-angle ultraviolet sensors detect a missile launch, causing the Britening turret to lock onto the approaching missile. (2) The turret fires an infrared beam at the missile, blinding its heat-seeking sensor. (3) Unable to track the plane, the rocket is diverted away from its target. (Picture and caption from Popular Science)

More details about the system can be found here. Considering the long standing relationship between the Singapore military-industrial complex and Rafael (see e.g., here), I wouldn't be surprised if this is the system to be installed on SIA and Silkair plans.

PM Lee on an "inclusive elite" in Singapore II

Continuing from here, there is now another CNA (Mar 20) story that covers the Q/A session as well, "Singapore must reinvent itself to stay attractive and competitive: PM Lee", by Ken Teh. This bit is interesting:

Many supported the Prime Minister's commitment to create a meritocratic society - one that also includes in its elite those in non-academic fields as well as foreigners, but some said more can still be done.

Braema Mathi, Former Nominated MP, said: "I'm a little bit perturbed by why we need to use the word elite here. One concern I do have is where is our disabled community, and in the disabled community is also our less abled elderly population. So we need to know how to keep them within the inner circles also."

Tin Pei Ling, Undergraduate, NUS, said: "We should really consider elites based on multi-dimensions and place less emphasis on educational achievements. Attitude, the other soft skills, achievements in the community, something more valuable should be more emphasised on."

I've never heard of a complex modern society that managed to do without some form of elite, whatever name they go by. A true egalitarian utopia would require massive restraints on the free actions of many.

The real issue is: what are the desired characteristics that define the elite, how differentiated should they allowed to be from the non-elite (especially in wealth and honor), and who gets to decide on the answers to the previous two questions?

The full text of PM Lee's speech is available from ST (Mar 21) (subscription required). I'll see if I have time to comment on it.

International Baccalaureate Organisation helping to match schools from region to those in tsunami stricken areas

From CNA (Mar 20), "NGO seeks help of educators in developed countries to help tsunami-hit schools", by Pearl Forss:

The International Baccalaureate Organisation, or IBO, whose Asia Pacific headquarters is in Singapore, is now working on long-term assistance, matching schools from the region to those in tsunami stricken areas.

Despite the flood of donations, many schools in tsunami-stricken areas still lack basic amenities: no desks, few textbooks, not enough teachers and a severe overcrowding of students.

To tackle these problems, IBO hopes to enlist the help of educators from developed countries.

Peter Kenny, Head of Projects, IBO, said: "An example may be a small primary school in Singapore of about 500 children, so I try to match a similar school in Aceh. We facilitate the meeting and they work out a plan of how they can help within their limitations. So it could be donating materials such as textbooks, desks, chairs, rebuilding a playground area for the early childhood sector of the school, to hopefully more interactive parts where student exchanges will take place, students from Aceh will come to spend a month or two in Singapore and this really has an enormous impact on that child."

IBO also hopes to see scholarships set up for the students, and exchanges organised for the teachers.

So far IBO has matched 200 schools from all over Asia Pacific to 200 schools in the tsunami stricken areas. Each project requires a minimum engagement time of 3 to 5 years and also long term expenditure of thousands of dollars. But this has not deterred most schools from pledging their commitment.

Peter Bond, Principal, Australian International School Singapore, said: "More than just raising money and donating it to a charity, to have hands on experience where we build a relationship with the school, we develop some links via email, school visits, and in other ways, to get a close relationship with the community that is struggling to rebuild their lives. I think that gives our students a stronger sense of purpose about why they do community service."

IBO says Singapore's Education Ministry has contacted them to look at how Singapore schools can help.

The organisation aims to match 1,000 schools in tsunami stricken areas by the end of this year.

On a related note, from CNA (Mar 20), "RGS students to help tsunami victims with T-issue fundraising project", by Yvonne Ang:

Secondary Four students from Raffles Girls' School are making waves with T-issue, a fundraising project in aid of Sri Lankan Tsunami victims.

These enterprising girls hope to meet their target of raising S$100,000 through island-wide sales of specially designed packets of tissue.

Lin Wanjie, Designer, said: "Essentially, we feel that the tsunami issue is a really big disaster which requires our continuing effort. However, people's attention spans are short, so by making these tissue packets and giving it to them, we may remind them that they need to continually support the tsunami."

While lending a helping hand to the tsunami victims, the students have been exposed to many new learning experiences.

Amanda Chong Wei-Zhen, Head of Publicity Committee, said: "It really taught us to be resourceful in the business world, and we had to go out canvassing so we learnt that we had to be very persistent. We were really motivated by the fact that this was for the tsunami victims, so we managed to do everything, despite having schoolwork to do at the same time."

Teachers and parents have also been supportive of their effort by actively buying up the packets of tissue.

The money raised will be channelled to relief efforts in the disaster hit areas.

In addition, plans for school expeditions to these areas are already in the pipeline.

Singapore-Taiwan military exercises under US-Japan instructors

From Singapore Ink, translating a Taiwanese news article:

The Taiwanese army has gained a major breakthrough in its inter-military cooperation level. In order to familiarise themselves and Singapore’s Starlight forces with alliance-like joint operational co-ordination mechanisms, the military is currently breaking from its previous restrictions to conduct joint military operational exercises with the Starlight forces under the joint instruction of American and Japanese military advisers...

It's quite intriguing...and tantalizing, considering that the source is explicitly said to be a "leak":

Senior sources reveal that the recent press reports on “Operation High Noon” have come about primarily because the army has changed the previous format of “Exercise United Courage”, and for the first time engaged in joint training and exercises with foreign military forces. This resulted in the prolonged station of the 200th Motorised Infantry Brigade at a base in Tainan. Coincidentally, the lack of response from administrators to a shortage of hot water at a base in Tainan triggered a reaction from military personnel, who then leaked information about this joint exercise. The Ministry of Defence and Army Headquarters had even established a task force to investigate the source of the leak.

Unfortunately, this sort of news is hard to verify. SAF is not in the habit of being open about our Taiwan connections (the very opposite is true), while the Taiwanese tend to be fairly footloose at times about supposed information. But it is certainly within the realm of possibility. This bit, however, is rather strange:

Sources point out that China has no reason to publicly oppose the presence of retired American and Japanese officers on Taiwan, and hence there is little anxiety that the invitations will backfire.

Retired or not, I'm really not sure if China would be pleased with Singapore to hear about this.

UPDATE: I should be clearer on what I meant by the last sentence. The SAF's training arrangements with Taiwan is pretty much an open secret by now. Deng Xiaoping once offered us the use of Hainan island in replacement, and he wouldn't have done that if the PRC didn't know about "Starlight" and so on. The worry now is not that the Chinese would get all upset, but that they would be oblidged to 'get all upset' at the latest revelations. A lot will depend on whether the Taiwanese press plays up the issue, the worst case scenario being a replay of the backlash from China over Lee's visit to Taiwan last year (though I doubt it will come to that).

PM Lee on an "inclusive elite" in Singapore

From CNA (Mar 19), "Singapore's elite needs to remain inclusive and committed to nation: PM Lee". PM was speaking to the NUSS and you can read the CNA report for yourself; nothing very shocking there. I do want to highlight a couple of points from one of the two corresponding ST reports, which has details from the Q/A session ("There was no lack of questions during the hour-long session, with hands shooting up everywhere, though there was time for only 13."). So, from "If casino gets nod, 'social costs will be managed'--A centre could be built to treat gambling problems, says PM Lee", by Laurel Teo (subscription required). [Update, one of the two ST reports--not the one I am going to quote, is available free on Asiaone.com here.]

First, the casino debate--various questions were raised from the anti-casino position. One not only advised against having one, but asked "why the whip could not be lifted in Parliament for MPs to vote according to their conscience."

Responding, Mr Lee said gambling had always been going on in Singapore...And it does not mean that anyone who gambles has a problem. 'Many families, responsible families, will go and buy a few 4-D numbers every weekend. In fact, if I mention a number today, tomorrow it will be a sell-out!' he said, drawing uproarious laughter from the 1,500-strong crowd.

On a more serious note, he conceded that more social support and services would be in order should the Government decide to go for a casino. For instance, it could build a centre 'where we can deal with these gambling cases, counsel them, treat them, research it, and find ways to keep it to the minimum'...

On whether MPs should be allowed to vote freely on the matter, he said the Government should not make decisions based on pressure from groups which feel very strongly one way or another, but based on what is best for Singapore. Having said that, he acknowledged that views such as those of the young officer cadet are 'deeply-held', though they are probably 'not a majority'. Reminding the audience that the Government had yet to decide on the matter, he asked them to wait till April 18, when a statement is to be made.

And so on...

One question apparently drew "some of the loudest applause" which speaks more about the sentiments of the audience than the cogency of the question itself--someone "asked for Singapore to have alternative leadership given that the Government is now opening up for more debate:

Why not have a two-party system, and perhaps rope in ex-ministers and MPs who would be well-qualified to give the present team a run for its money, he asked.

PM's response is so, so:

Mr Lee's response: 'I think that countries which have Team A, Team B, find it's very complicated. For Singapore, our solution is to keep Team A strong, change the players if you need to, even change the coach if you need to. But keep the team, so that you can preserve the strength for many elections.'

But really, he should have told the person the hard truth: this is not the PAP's problem. If the PAP should one day wake up and decide to implement a two-party system, I think it would be as if nothing changed. There will be a viable two-party system in Singapore only if there is a sufficient group of people with a political vision that is distinct enough from that of the PAP, yet moderate enough to capture middle-Singapore, and willing to stake their time and money--their lives--to convince the voters that they present a real alternative. In other words, we need real opposition parties. Now I'll grant that the PAP is in a position to ensure that any such party would have a very hard time; but the PAP is in no position to ensure that such parties should arise and thrive. That is a different matter altogether.