Who are the Taliban?
The Taliban are now active in both Afghanistan and Pakistan
Recent years have seen the re-emergence of the hardline Islamic Taliban movement as a fighting force in Afghanistan and a major threat to its government.
They are also threatening to destabilise Pakistan, where they control areas in the north-west and are blamed for a wave of suicide bombings and other attacks.
The Taliban emerged in the early 1990s in northern Pakistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.
A predominantly Pashtun movement, the Taliban came to prominence in Afghanistan in the autumn of 1994.
It is commonly believed that they first appeared in religious seminaries - mostly paid for by money from Saudi Arabia - which preached a hard line form of Sunni Islam.
The Taliban's promise - in Pashtun areas straddling Pakistan and Afghanistan - was to restore peace and security and enforce their own austere version of Sharia, or Islamic law, once in power.
In both countries they introduced or supported Islamic punishments - such as public executions of convicted murderers and adulterers and amputations of those found guilty of theft.
Men were required to grow beards and women had to wear the all-covering burka.
Madrassas
The Taliban showed a similar disdain for television, music and cinema and disapproved of girls aged 10 and over from going to school.
The Taliban first came to prominence in Afghanistan in 1994
Pakistan has repeatedly denied that it is the architect of the Taliban enterprise.
But there is little doubt that many Afghans who initially joined the movement were educated in madrassas (religious schools) in Pakistan.
Pakistan was also one of only three countries, along with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which recognised the Taliban when they were in power in Afghanistan from the mid-1990s until 2001.
It was also the last country to break diplomatic ties with the Taliban.
The attention of the world was drawn to the Taliban in Afghanistan following the attacks on the World Trade Centre in September 2001.
Mullah Omar's precise whereabouts are still unknown
The Taliban in Afghanistan was accused of providing a sanctuary to Osama Bin Laden and the al-Qaeda movement who were blamed for the attacks.
Soon after 9/11 the Taliban were driven from power in Afghanistan by a US-led coalition, although their leader Mullah Mohammad Omar was not captured - and neither was Osama Bin Laden.
In recent years the Taliban have re-emerged in Afghanistan and grown far stronger in Pakistan, where observers say there is loose co-ordination between different Taliban factions and militant groups.
The main Pakistani faction is led by Baitullah Mehsud, whose Tehrik Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is blamed for dozens of suicide bombings and other attacks.
Observers warn against over-stating the existence of one unified insurgency against the Pakistani state, however.
The Taliban in Afghanistan are still believed to be led by Mullah Omar, a village clergyman who lost his right eye fighting the occupying forces of the Soviet Union in the 1980s.
Afghans, weary of the mujahideen's excesses and infighting after the Soviets were driven out, generally welcomed the Taliban when they first appeared on the scene.
THE TALIBAN
Emerged in Afghanistan in 1994
Mainly supported by ethnic Pashtuns
Toppled after US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001
Fugitive leader Mullah Omar wanted, whereabouts unknown
Their early popularity was largely due to their success in stamping out corruption, curbing lawlessness and making the roads and the areas under their control safe for commerce to flourish.
From south-western Afghanistan, the Taliban quickly extended their influence.
They captured the province of Herat, bordering Iran, in September 1995.
Exactly one year later, they captured the Afghan capital, Kabul, after overthrowing the regime of President Burhanuddin Rabbani and his defence minister, Ahmed Shah Masood.
By 1998, they were in control of almost 90% of Afghanistan.
They were accused of various human rights and cultural abuses. One example was in 2001, when the Taliban went ahead with the destruction of the famous Bamiyan Buddha statues in central Afghanistan, despite international outrage.
US onslaught
On October 7, 2001, a US-led military coalition invaded Afghanistan and by the first week of December the Taliban regime had collapsed.
Mullah Omar and his comrades have evaded capture despite one of the largest manhunts in the world
Mullah Omar and most of the other senior Taliban leaders, along with Bin Laden and some of his senior al-Qaeda associates, survived the American onslaught.
Mullah Omar and most of his comrades have evaded capture despite one of the largest manhunts in the world and are believed to be guiding the resurgent Taliban.
Since then they have re-grouped in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, but are now under pressure in both countries, from the Pakistani army and Nato respectively.
Despite ever higher numbers of foreign troops, the Taliban have steadily extended their influence, rendering vast tracts of Afghanistan insecure, and violence in the country has returned to levels not seen since 2001.
Their retreat earlier this decade enabled them to limit their human and material losses and return with a vengeance.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
5 Day Detention - NS Rascism
Channel NewsAsia - Sunday, July 26SINGAPORE: A full—time National Serviceman was summarily tried on Friday under the Singapore Armed Forces Act for conduct prejudicial to good discipline. He was sentenced to five days’ detention at the SAF Detention Barracks.
ADVERTISEMENT
Private Madana Mohan Das, a trainee driver, was charged with misconduct because he did not comply "with his superior’s lawful orders to cut his hair in conformance to SAF’s requirements and for refusal to consume food provided by the SAF", said Colonel Darius Lim, director of public affairs at the Ministry of Defence.
The sentence was backdated to Monday, when Pte Madana was put under close arrest. He has since complied with the requirements and was released from detention on Friday afternoon and returned to his unit.
Before being charged, he was given "ample opportunities" to cut his hair and to eat the food provided by the SAF, and his "repeated acts of misconduct" were "undermining discipline in the SAF", said Col Lim in reply to media queries.
"All SAF servicemen are to abide by SAF rules and regulations on military turnout and bearing, military discipline and lawfully given orders. Pte Madana was treated in the same way as any other SAF serviceman," he said.
"The SAF cannot allow deviations from its rules and regulations for any serviceman as this will weaken military discipline, which could compromise the SAF’s operational effectiveness and the safety of SAF servicemen. Disciplinary action will be taken against any serviceman who refuses to comply with the SAF’s rules and regulations."
TODAY has learnt, though, that during his Basic Military Training in December, Pte Madana’s unit accommodated his requests to keep his tuft of long hair, which he wanted to maintain because he was a Brahmin priest at a temple here. The unit also allowed his request to have home—cooked food to be delivered to him daily.
But these "accommodations were a mistake due to a lapse of judgment by his previous unit", Col Lim told TODAY, and when Pte Madana was posted to the SAF Transport Hub in March, this was explained to him.
His and his father’s appeals were rejected and the NSF was ordered to conform to SAF regulations, which he did not, added Col Lim.
TODAY understands he brought in food from the temple when he booked out on Tuesday and Thursday evenings and on weekends, since he did not consume SAF food.
Singapore Brahmin Association president G Srinivasan told TODAY that Brahmin priests ordinarily eat only food cooked from their temple, "prepared according to tradition and with prayers".
But while he was "a bit" concerned to hear about Pte Madana’s case, he said that if this food is not available, "then food from outside is permissible as long as it is vegetarian from an acceptable source, like a vegetarian restaurant, house or temple".
He also said that while it would have been good if Pte Madana could have kept his hair, known as a sikha, the NSF would have to "follow the rule of the land" if there are no provisions for this.
Asked why exceptions are made for Sikhs serving NS, Col Lim said: "Sikhs serving in the SAF are allowed to wear turbans only because this is a carry—over from the past.
"This is a long—established practice going back decades to colonial times. We cannot allow further exceptions to be made today for other servicemen. Allowing further exceptions would undermine what we have achieved so far to make sure that our rules, regulations and standards are fair to all.
"This will be detrimental to not only the security needs of the nation, but will also weaken the strong national identity that NS forges amongst its servicemen." — TODAY
ADVERTISEMENT
Private Madana Mohan Das, a trainee driver, was charged with misconduct because he did not comply "with his superior’s lawful orders to cut his hair in conformance to SAF’s requirements and for refusal to consume food provided by the SAF", said Colonel Darius Lim, director of public affairs at the Ministry of Defence.
The sentence was backdated to Monday, when Pte Madana was put under close arrest. He has since complied with the requirements and was released from detention on Friday afternoon and returned to his unit.
Before being charged, he was given "ample opportunities" to cut his hair and to eat the food provided by the SAF, and his "repeated acts of misconduct" were "undermining discipline in the SAF", said Col Lim in reply to media queries.
"All SAF servicemen are to abide by SAF rules and regulations on military turnout and bearing, military discipline and lawfully given orders. Pte Madana was treated in the same way as any other SAF serviceman," he said.
"The SAF cannot allow deviations from its rules and regulations for any serviceman as this will weaken military discipline, which could compromise the SAF’s operational effectiveness and the safety of SAF servicemen. Disciplinary action will be taken against any serviceman who refuses to comply with the SAF’s rules and regulations."
TODAY has learnt, though, that during his Basic Military Training in December, Pte Madana’s unit accommodated his requests to keep his tuft of long hair, which he wanted to maintain because he was a Brahmin priest at a temple here. The unit also allowed his request to have home—cooked food to be delivered to him daily.
But these "accommodations were a mistake due to a lapse of judgment by his previous unit", Col Lim told TODAY, and when Pte Madana was posted to the SAF Transport Hub in March, this was explained to him.
His and his father’s appeals were rejected and the NSF was ordered to conform to SAF regulations, which he did not, added Col Lim.
TODAY understands he brought in food from the temple when he booked out on Tuesday and Thursday evenings and on weekends, since he did not consume SAF food.
Singapore Brahmin Association president G Srinivasan told TODAY that Brahmin priests ordinarily eat only food cooked from their temple, "prepared according to tradition and with prayers".
But while he was "a bit" concerned to hear about Pte Madana’s case, he said that if this food is not available, "then food from outside is permissible as long as it is vegetarian from an acceptable source, like a vegetarian restaurant, house or temple".
He also said that while it would have been good if Pte Madana could have kept his hair, known as a sikha, the NSF would have to "follow the rule of the land" if there are no provisions for this.
Asked why exceptions are made for Sikhs serving NS, Col Lim said: "Sikhs serving in the SAF are allowed to wear turbans only because this is a carry—over from the past.
"This is a long—established practice going back decades to colonial times. We cannot allow further exceptions to be made today for other servicemen. Allowing further exceptions would undermine what we have achieved so far to make sure that our rules, regulations and standards are fair to all.
"This will be detrimental to not only the security needs of the nation, but will also weaken the strong national identity that NS forges amongst its servicemen." — TODAY
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Pushy French are world's worst tourists: study
PARIS (AFP) - - Penny-pinching, rude and terrible at foreign languages: French people are the world's worst tourists according to a study of the global hotel industry.
Carried out last month by TNS Infratest, the study asked 40,000 hotels worldwide to rank tourists from 27 countries based on nine criteria, from their politeness to their willingness to tip.
Clean and tidy, polite, quiet and uncomplaining, Japanese tourists came top of the crop for the third year running.
At the other end of the spectrum, French holidaymakers and business travellers were the least generous or ready to tip, and ranked next-to-last for their overall behaviour and politeness.
Pushy French travellers made amends on elegance -- classed third -- as well as for their discretion and cleanliness.
But the French were the least ready to try a new language, unlike US tourists who were most likely to swallow their pride and order a pizza, baguette or a paella in the local lingo.
US tourists also got top marks for generosity -- as the biggest spenders and tippers -- but fell short on other counts as the least tidy, the loudest, the worst complainers, and the most badly dressed.
Despite cliches about beer-guzzling hordes descending on Mediterranean resorts each summer, Britons came a surprise second for their overall behaviour, politeness, quietness and even elegance -- second for dress sense only to the Italians.
But the model Japanese were followed by Canadians as the least likely to whinge when a trip goes wrong.
France's rivals for the "worst tourist" tag, Spaniards and Greeks came near the bottom of the pack in almost every category.
AFP - Friday, July 10
Carried out last month by TNS Infratest, the study asked 40,000 hotels worldwide to rank tourists from 27 countries based on nine criteria, from their politeness to their willingness to tip.
Clean and tidy, polite, quiet and uncomplaining, Japanese tourists came top of the crop for the third year running.
At the other end of the spectrum, French holidaymakers and business travellers were the least generous or ready to tip, and ranked next-to-last for their overall behaviour and politeness.
Pushy French travellers made amends on elegance -- classed third -- as well as for their discretion and cleanliness.
But the French were the least ready to try a new language, unlike US tourists who were most likely to swallow their pride and order a pizza, baguette or a paella in the local lingo.
US tourists also got top marks for generosity -- as the biggest spenders and tippers -- but fell short on other counts as the least tidy, the loudest, the worst complainers, and the most badly dressed.
Despite cliches about beer-guzzling hordes descending on Mediterranean resorts each summer, Britons came a surprise second for their overall behaviour, politeness, quietness and even elegance -- second for dress sense only to the Italians.
But the model Japanese were followed by Canadians as the least likely to whinge when a trip goes wrong.
France's rivals for the "worst tourist" tag, Spaniards and Greeks came near the bottom of the pack in almost every category.
AFP - Friday, July 10
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
RELIGION & COHESION
June 9, 2009
Respecting faith's different faces
By Tony Blair, For The Straits Times
FAITH matters. Even if you are not of religious faith yourself. Over four billion people worldwide recognise themselves as religious. They may not attend an organised place of worship. But faith plays a part in their lives.
A recent poll found that religion is important for about 30 per cent to 35per cent of people in Europe, 65 per cent of Americans and for about 90 per cent of people in most Muslim-majority countries.
started the Tony Blair Faith Foundation because I believe the modern world cannot work unless people from different faiths and cultures learn to live in peaceful co-existence with each other. Understanding increases the possibility of peace. Ignorance increases the potential for division.
The reason this is so important today is that globalisation is shrinking the space we live in, pushing people together in a way that is unique in human history. Some dislike this process. Some, like me, are content and even welcome it.
If religious faith becomes a counter-force to this process, one which pulls people apart, then it becomes reactionary and divisive. If I defined myself as a Christian in opposition to you as a Muslim, then just as we are forced to live together by globalisation, so we will be forced apart by a view of religious faith that is exclusionary and hostile to those of a different faith to our own.
The Faith Foundation works in a number of ways to prevent this happening. One way is an inter-faith encounter through action, which is why we are supporting the United Nations' anti-malaria campaign, to mobilise faith communities to become centres of distribution for bed nets and medicines in Africa. We work also for reconciliation where religion is a dimension in political conflict, as in the Middle East.
A key part of our work is education. In partnership with Yale University, we now have a 'Faith and Globalisation' course. This is now being extended to four other universities worldwide, including the National University of Singapore which I visited earlier this year.
Now we are adding a new dimension: an education programme linking up schools across the globe and across faiths. To be launched officially today, Face To Faith is designed to encourage young people of different faiths to learn directly with, from and about each other. Through structured video- conferencing, an online community and course syllabus, it gets secondary school students from across the world to work together, investigating big global issues. In this way, Face To Faith will encourage young people not only to recognise the similarities between faiths but also, importantly, to respect and deal with the differences.
Young people involved in the pilot are already reporting how their understanding of the role of faith in today's world has increased by learning from those of differing social, cultural and religious perspectives. A student from Indian Heights School in New Delhi commented: 'It's so much more interesting and real to learn directly from people of a different religion rather than simply reading about them in a book.'
I am particularly impressed by the way our lead school in Singapore, National Junior College, has taken up the challenge. NJC principal Virginia Cheng was an early pioneer of the programme, and her pupils have responded superbly. The school's engagement in Face To Faith is a testament to the way in which Singapore has embraced the concepts of a globalised world and the way in which people of different faiths must live within it. They have been a valuable leader in the development of this programme.
Already schools in Pakistan, India, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, Indonesia, Thailand, Britain, the United States and Canada have taken up the Face To Faith programme and some interesting offshoots are emerging. Two schools in Canada and Palestine are extending the programme, originally designed for 11- to 16-year-olds, by arranging video conference discussions between groups of parents and grandparents interested in improving their understanding of different faiths.
And these adults are not the only ones. One of the Lebanese teachers involved in the programme commented: 'One of the highlights of Face To Faith is the regular exchange with the other teachers of different faiths who have already taught me so much about different practices and perspectives.'
The Faith Foundation is dedicated to achieving understanding, action and reconciliation between the different faiths for the common good. It is not about the faith that looks inward; but the faith that resolutely turns us towards each other.
The writer, the former prime minister of Britain, is founder of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation.
Respecting faith's different faces
By Tony Blair, For The Straits Times
FAITH matters. Even if you are not of religious faith yourself. Over four billion people worldwide recognise themselves as religious. They may not attend an organised place of worship. But faith plays a part in their lives.
A recent poll found that religion is important for about 30 per cent to 35per cent of people in Europe, 65 per cent of Americans and for about 90 per cent of people in most Muslim-majority countries.
started the Tony Blair Faith Foundation because I believe the modern world cannot work unless people from different faiths and cultures learn to live in peaceful co-existence with each other. Understanding increases the possibility of peace. Ignorance increases the potential for division.
The reason this is so important today is that globalisation is shrinking the space we live in, pushing people together in a way that is unique in human history. Some dislike this process. Some, like me, are content and even welcome it.
If religious faith becomes a counter-force to this process, one which pulls people apart, then it becomes reactionary and divisive. If I defined myself as a Christian in opposition to you as a Muslim, then just as we are forced to live together by globalisation, so we will be forced apart by a view of religious faith that is exclusionary and hostile to those of a different faith to our own.
The Faith Foundation works in a number of ways to prevent this happening. One way is an inter-faith encounter through action, which is why we are supporting the United Nations' anti-malaria campaign, to mobilise faith communities to become centres of distribution for bed nets and medicines in Africa. We work also for reconciliation where religion is a dimension in political conflict, as in the Middle East.
A key part of our work is education. In partnership with Yale University, we now have a 'Faith and Globalisation' course. This is now being extended to four other universities worldwide, including the National University of Singapore which I visited earlier this year.
Now we are adding a new dimension: an education programme linking up schools across the globe and across faiths. To be launched officially today, Face To Faith is designed to encourage young people of different faiths to learn directly with, from and about each other. Through structured video- conferencing, an online community and course syllabus, it gets secondary school students from across the world to work together, investigating big global issues. In this way, Face To Faith will encourage young people not only to recognise the similarities between faiths but also, importantly, to respect and deal with the differences.
Young people involved in the pilot are already reporting how their understanding of the role of faith in today's world has increased by learning from those of differing social, cultural and religious perspectives. A student from Indian Heights School in New Delhi commented: 'It's so much more interesting and real to learn directly from people of a different religion rather than simply reading about them in a book.'
I am particularly impressed by the way our lead school in Singapore, National Junior College, has taken up the challenge. NJC principal Virginia Cheng was an early pioneer of the programme, and her pupils have responded superbly. The school's engagement in Face To Faith is a testament to the way in which Singapore has embraced the concepts of a globalised world and the way in which people of different faiths must live within it. They have been a valuable leader in the development of this programme.
Already schools in Pakistan, India, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, Indonesia, Thailand, Britain, the United States and Canada have taken up the Face To Faith programme and some interesting offshoots are emerging. Two schools in Canada and Palestine are extending the programme, originally designed for 11- to 16-year-olds, by arranging video conference discussions between groups of parents and grandparents interested in improving their understanding of different faiths.
And these adults are not the only ones. One of the Lebanese teachers involved in the programme commented: 'One of the highlights of Face To Faith is the regular exchange with the other teachers of different faiths who have already taught me so much about different practices and perspectives.'
The Faith Foundation is dedicated to achieving understanding, action and reconciliation between the different faiths for the common good. It is not about the faith that looks inward; but the faith that resolutely turns us towards each other.
The writer, the former prime minister of Britain, is founder of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation.
Simmering anger in the troubled south (Thailand) ST Jun 10 2009
Simmering anger in the troubled south
IN 1786, the kingdom of Siam invaded and destroyed the southern kingdom of Pattani. Through the 1900s, separatist groups waged a low level but occasionally fierce resistance to Bangkok's rule.
Siam - later becoming Thailand - sought to assimilate the region's Malay Muslims but its efforts spawned deep resentment.
However, the insurgent groups failed to gain traction and sputtered on fitfully until Thaksin Shinawatra came to power in Bangkok in 2001.
As prime minister, he made several changes in the way the southern provinces were administered which alienated the people there. Those changes, and deaths in the south at the hands of the police, spawned a backlash.
Simmering anger finally boiled over on Jan4, 2004, when militants raided a military weapons depot in Narathiwat province, killing soldiers and making off with a cache of weapons.
The raid marked the start of the current phase of the insurgency, which has claimed the lives of nearly 3,500 Muslims and Buddhists since.
Thailand's 'deep south' has suffered almost daily bombings, arson attacks and drive-by shootings. There have also been grisly beheadings.
In one of the bloodiest incidents, over 30 militants were killed by security forces in a three-hour gun battle at Pattani's historic Krue Se mosque in April 2004.
Successive Thai governments have tried to end the unrest, alternating between tougher security measures and offers of economic development.
But nothing has worked. Excesses by Thai armed forces - and a lack of accountability - have only served to create a new generation of militants.
IN 1786, the kingdom of Siam invaded and destroyed the southern kingdom of Pattani. Through the 1900s, separatist groups waged a low level but occasionally fierce resistance to Bangkok's rule.
Siam - later becoming Thailand - sought to assimilate the region's Malay Muslims but its efforts spawned deep resentment.
However, the insurgent groups failed to gain traction and sputtered on fitfully until Thaksin Shinawatra came to power in Bangkok in 2001.
As prime minister, he made several changes in the way the southern provinces were administered which alienated the people there. Those changes, and deaths in the south at the hands of the police, spawned a backlash.
Simmering anger finally boiled over on Jan4, 2004, when militants raided a military weapons depot in Narathiwat province, killing soldiers and making off with a cache of weapons.
The raid marked the start of the current phase of the insurgency, which has claimed the lives of nearly 3,500 Muslims and Buddhists since.
Thailand's 'deep south' has suffered almost daily bombings, arson attacks and drive-by shootings. There have also been grisly beheadings.
In one of the bloodiest incidents, over 30 militants were killed by security forces in a three-hour gun battle at Pattani's historic Krue Se mosque in April 2004.
Successive Thai governments have tried to end the unrest, alternating between tougher security measures and offers of economic development.
But nothing has worked. Excesses by Thai armed forces - and a lack of accountability - have only served to create a new generation of militants.
Why such high standards for MPs' conduct? ST 6 Jun 2009
FOUR-LETTER words, unsubstantiated allegations, sexist remarks and even racist slurs - some might find it hard to imagine but the august halls of Singapore's Parliament have heard it all.
At different times throughout the country's history, parliamentarians have been known to indulge in some downright unparliamentary language and behaviour.
MPs in hot water
SEVERAL MPs have been taken to task by Parliament for their conduct in the House, either for what they did or said. Insight looks at four notable cases of MPs behaving badly and one of a minister's hair-raising faux pas.
The first MP to be censured
... more
But few, if any, have got away with it.
Some have been censured, some have apologised, while others have been suspended or fined, all in the name of maintaining a high standard of decorum in the House.
Last week, this strict code of conduct was demonstrated once again after MP Sin Boon Ann (Tampines GRC) read out an e-mail that criticised The Straits Times' coverage of the Aware saga, a criticism that he said he agreed with.
However, he also said the e-mail was from someone he did not know and he had not verified its contents either.
His lack of due diligence prompted the Leader of the House, Mr Mah Bow Tan, to issue a stern reminder to MPs that the privilege of parliamentary immunity - they cannot be sued for what they say in Parliament - must be balanced by high standards of accuracy.
Mr Sin himself was also made to apologise to the House.
Last week's incident was the first time in four years that an MP has been taken to task for his conduct in the House. (See story: MPs in hot water)
It comes at a time when the British Parliament - which Singapore's was modelled after - is embroiled in a scandal over MPs' perks.
The two combined mean a glaring spotlight is now trained on the behaviour of parliamentarians.
To be sure, conduct in Singapore's Parliament is more civil than in many other parliaments. Discourse is typically polite, heckling is mild on the rare occasions when it occurs, and there has never been shouting matches, fist-fights or furniture-tossing.
This emphasis on orderly conduct has led some to question if Singapore's House has become too bland.
How did we arrive at this parliamentary culture? Has it always been like this? And is it really necessary to impose such high standards on MPs?
The dos and don'ts
AT THE most basic level, Parliament derives some of its standards from the law.
The Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act spells out a list of 17 different offences MPs can be taken to task for. These include assaulting or insulting the Speaker or another MP, presenting any false, fabricated or falsified document with intent to deceive, and refusing to answer a relevant question.
The penalties for these include imprisonment, suspension or a fine of up to $50,000.
There is also the option for Parliament to temporarily suspend the MP's immunity from civil and criminal suits.
But rules only go so far.
Singapore's legislation is no more severe than in most other Commonwealth countries, points out constitutional law expert Kevin Tan.
'The rules themselves do not set the standard of behaviour or decorum,' he says. 'By and large, Parliament is a master of its own rules and can suspend a member's privileges.'
So far, however, it has never come to that. Singapore MPs have, on the whole, stayed within the limits.
In fact, only one person - the late opposition member J.B. Jeyaretnam - has ever been fined for his conduct in Parliament.
In the 1980s, he was referred to the House's Privileges Committee four times - once in 1982 and thrice in 1986.
The 1986 cases involved alleging executive interference in the judiciary and abuse of police powers, and failing to declare a pecuniary interest in a question he raised.
The committee fined him $1,000 on each count.
The trio of offences proved to have deeper repercussions for Parliament. In August that year, Parliament moved to introduce harsher penalties on errant MPs. It was also in the wake of this case that the possibility of suspending immunity was introduced.
To this day, the 1986 examples stand as the most serious transgressions in the House.
Most other cases were resolved with the MP involved apologising.
The cases though run the gamut from crude to amusing.
One case that many MPs interviewed recall happened just four years ago, when an expletive was uttered in Parliament.
'Shit', as an exclamation in the English language, made its way into the House, thanks to then Nominated MP Ong Soh Khim. She said the word during the 2005 Budget debate when she ran out of time. She apologised.
The same earthy entity, but this time enunciated in Hokkien, returned to Parliament two years later when MP Lee Bee Wah (Ang Mo Kio GRC) referred to it to make a point in her speech. Though some outside the House criticised her choice of vocabulary, she was not censured by Parliament.
These two bouts of verbal excess were preceded by, among others, a racist remark from former MP Choo Wee Khiang, a comment about women's hairdos from then Health Minister Lim Hng Kiang, and the ABCs of expletives from MP Ling How Doong in 1997.
Recalled former MP Wang Kai Yuen: 'He used ABC. A for asshole, B for bastard and C for talk cock.'
But clear transgressions aside, former MPs recall there generally being more banter in the House.
Heckling, though milder than in other countries, was once commonplace.
One of those who took part was former MP Chandra Das. His target was often opposition MP Chiam See Tong.
'It was harmless, we were just trying to disrupt each other's train of thought,' he tells Insight.
Mr Chiam often gave as good as he got. Mr Ling's ABCs, for instance, came in retaliation to Mr Chiam's heckling.
The practice is now rarely seen. MPs wait their turn patiently.
To voice approval, they no longer shout 'Hear hear' but thump on the chairs.
Dr Wang thinks the disappearance of heckling is simply a generational matter: 'I presume in the 1980s, more of the MPs were exposed to the British tradition. Over time, maybe we have evolved our own tradition so much so that we don't even do this anymore.'
Although he laments: 'If so, the proceedings in Parliament will be rather boring.'
Mr Das puts it down to the stricter time limits imposed on MPs' speeches these days. During Budget debates, for instance, an MP has 18 minutes to make his points - no matter how many ministries he wants to comment on. Those who head a government parliamentary committee get two minutes more.
There used to be a time when there was no limit to how long an MP could talk. This leeway ended, thanks to former Barisan Sosialis MP Lee Siew Choh.
In 1961, he delivered a speech that broke all records - and some backsides - when he argued against the proposed merger with Malaysia. He spoke for nearly 71/2 hours, starting at 11.20pm and finishing the next morning.
A time limit was introduced shortly after.
Too strict?
BUT though some former MPs reminisce fondly of the time when heckling was more commonplace and debates were livelier, all agree that the orderly Parliament in place now is a system that works for Singapore.
'You can focus on what is said rather than how it is said. It is now based more on the substance than on oratory skills,' says Wan Hussin Zoohri, a PAP MP from 1980 to 1991.
Mr Das shares the sentiment, saying one key feature of the local Parliament is that it is a 'working Parliament'.
'They don't have time to waste,' he says.
He stresses that it must always strive to maintain the high standards it has already set.
'When you set standards, there is bound to be abuse. When lapses occur, you correct them. If you set your standards low, you will get a bazaar.'
As for former MP Chew Heng Ching, he boils the matter down to MPs needing to set a good example: 'MPs are role models for many in society. Unlike in other countries, the standards expected of MPs here are very high.'
Says Mr Charles Chong (Pasir Ris- Punggol GRC): 'The fact that we do have immunity actually means that we have a higher responsibility that we do not abuse that privilege.'
On the matter of Mr Sin's transgression, he feels that where Mr Sin erred was in where he got his information from. If he had simply stated his own opinion, that would have been well within his right - even if the opinion was the same as that in the e-mail. However, because he cited an unverified source, he opened himself to criticism.
The last word on the matter of parliamentary privilege comes from Mr Mah, who is also the National Development Minister.
He is responsible for arranging government business in Parliament, and will advise the House on the action to take if a difficulty arises.
In an e-mail response to Insight, he lays out the rationale behind Singapore's strict system and explains why he made his statement in Parliament.
'Members must maintain such high standards of accountability to safeguard the dignity and decorum of the House, and to maintain the public's trust in our Parliament,' he says.
'If these standards are not maintained, we will be unfair to those who have been criticised by MPs under privilege and who are unable to clear their names. We will end up lowering the standing and authority that Parliament enjoys.'
Mr Mah also points out that the way Singapore remunerates its MPs helps ensure this high standard.
A scandal like the one in Britain will not occur here as MPs cannot ask to be reimbursed for their expenses.
'We have instead provided our MPs with a clean allowance of an appropriate amount, with no additional perks attached. This has enabled our MPs to serve their residents well, in their constituencies and in the House, and be properly compensated for such service,' he says.
jeremyau@sph.com.sg
At different times throughout the country's history, parliamentarians have been known to indulge in some downright unparliamentary language and behaviour.
MPs in hot water
SEVERAL MPs have been taken to task by Parliament for their conduct in the House, either for what they did or said. Insight looks at four notable cases of MPs behaving badly and one of a minister's hair-raising faux pas.
The first MP to be censured
... more
But few, if any, have got away with it.
Some have been censured, some have apologised, while others have been suspended or fined, all in the name of maintaining a high standard of decorum in the House.
Last week, this strict code of conduct was demonstrated once again after MP Sin Boon Ann (Tampines GRC) read out an e-mail that criticised The Straits Times' coverage of the Aware saga, a criticism that he said he agreed with.
However, he also said the e-mail was from someone he did not know and he had not verified its contents either.
His lack of due diligence prompted the Leader of the House, Mr Mah Bow Tan, to issue a stern reminder to MPs that the privilege of parliamentary immunity - they cannot be sued for what they say in Parliament - must be balanced by high standards of accuracy.
Mr Sin himself was also made to apologise to the House.
Last week's incident was the first time in four years that an MP has been taken to task for his conduct in the House. (See story: MPs in hot water)
It comes at a time when the British Parliament - which Singapore's was modelled after - is embroiled in a scandal over MPs' perks.
The two combined mean a glaring spotlight is now trained on the behaviour of parliamentarians.
To be sure, conduct in Singapore's Parliament is more civil than in many other parliaments. Discourse is typically polite, heckling is mild on the rare occasions when it occurs, and there has never been shouting matches, fist-fights or furniture-tossing.
This emphasis on orderly conduct has led some to question if Singapore's House has become too bland.
How did we arrive at this parliamentary culture? Has it always been like this? And is it really necessary to impose such high standards on MPs?
The dos and don'ts
AT THE most basic level, Parliament derives some of its standards from the law.
The Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act spells out a list of 17 different offences MPs can be taken to task for. These include assaulting or insulting the Speaker or another MP, presenting any false, fabricated or falsified document with intent to deceive, and refusing to answer a relevant question.
The penalties for these include imprisonment, suspension or a fine of up to $50,000.
There is also the option for Parliament to temporarily suspend the MP's immunity from civil and criminal suits.
But rules only go so far.
Singapore's legislation is no more severe than in most other Commonwealth countries, points out constitutional law expert Kevin Tan.
'The rules themselves do not set the standard of behaviour or decorum,' he says. 'By and large, Parliament is a master of its own rules and can suspend a member's privileges.'
So far, however, it has never come to that. Singapore MPs have, on the whole, stayed within the limits.
In fact, only one person - the late opposition member J.B. Jeyaretnam - has ever been fined for his conduct in Parliament.
In the 1980s, he was referred to the House's Privileges Committee four times - once in 1982 and thrice in 1986.
The 1986 cases involved alleging executive interference in the judiciary and abuse of police powers, and failing to declare a pecuniary interest in a question he raised.
The committee fined him $1,000 on each count.
The trio of offences proved to have deeper repercussions for Parliament. In August that year, Parliament moved to introduce harsher penalties on errant MPs. It was also in the wake of this case that the possibility of suspending immunity was introduced.
To this day, the 1986 examples stand as the most serious transgressions in the House.
Most other cases were resolved with the MP involved apologising.
The cases though run the gamut from crude to amusing.
One case that many MPs interviewed recall happened just four years ago, when an expletive was uttered in Parliament.
'Shit', as an exclamation in the English language, made its way into the House, thanks to then Nominated MP Ong Soh Khim. She said the word during the 2005 Budget debate when she ran out of time. She apologised.
The same earthy entity, but this time enunciated in Hokkien, returned to Parliament two years later when MP Lee Bee Wah (Ang Mo Kio GRC) referred to it to make a point in her speech. Though some outside the House criticised her choice of vocabulary, she was not censured by Parliament.
These two bouts of verbal excess were preceded by, among others, a racist remark from former MP Choo Wee Khiang, a comment about women's hairdos from then Health Minister Lim Hng Kiang, and the ABCs of expletives from MP Ling How Doong in 1997.
Recalled former MP Wang Kai Yuen: 'He used ABC. A for asshole, B for bastard and C for talk cock.'
But clear transgressions aside, former MPs recall there generally being more banter in the House.
Heckling, though milder than in other countries, was once commonplace.
One of those who took part was former MP Chandra Das. His target was often opposition MP Chiam See Tong.
'It was harmless, we were just trying to disrupt each other's train of thought,' he tells Insight.
Mr Chiam often gave as good as he got. Mr Ling's ABCs, for instance, came in retaliation to Mr Chiam's heckling.
The practice is now rarely seen. MPs wait their turn patiently.
To voice approval, they no longer shout 'Hear hear' but thump on the chairs.
Dr Wang thinks the disappearance of heckling is simply a generational matter: 'I presume in the 1980s, more of the MPs were exposed to the British tradition. Over time, maybe we have evolved our own tradition so much so that we don't even do this anymore.'
Although he laments: 'If so, the proceedings in Parliament will be rather boring.'
Mr Das puts it down to the stricter time limits imposed on MPs' speeches these days. During Budget debates, for instance, an MP has 18 minutes to make his points - no matter how many ministries he wants to comment on. Those who head a government parliamentary committee get two minutes more.
There used to be a time when there was no limit to how long an MP could talk. This leeway ended, thanks to former Barisan Sosialis MP Lee Siew Choh.
In 1961, he delivered a speech that broke all records - and some backsides - when he argued against the proposed merger with Malaysia. He spoke for nearly 71/2 hours, starting at 11.20pm and finishing the next morning.
A time limit was introduced shortly after.
Too strict?
BUT though some former MPs reminisce fondly of the time when heckling was more commonplace and debates were livelier, all agree that the orderly Parliament in place now is a system that works for Singapore.
'You can focus on what is said rather than how it is said. It is now based more on the substance than on oratory skills,' says Wan Hussin Zoohri, a PAP MP from 1980 to 1991.
Mr Das shares the sentiment, saying one key feature of the local Parliament is that it is a 'working Parliament'.
'They don't have time to waste,' he says.
He stresses that it must always strive to maintain the high standards it has already set.
'When you set standards, there is bound to be abuse. When lapses occur, you correct them. If you set your standards low, you will get a bazaar.'
As for former MP Chew Heng Ching, he boils the matter down to MPs needing to set a good example: 'MPs are role models for many in society. Unlike in other countries, the standards expected of MPs here are very high.'
Says Mr Charles Chong (Pasir Ris- Punggol GRC): 'The fact that we do have immunity actually means that we have a higher responsibility that we do not abuse that privilege.'
On the matter of Mr Sin's transgression, he feels that where Mr Sin erred was in where he got his information from. If he had simply stated his own opinion, that would have been well within his right - even if the opinion was the same as that in the e-mail. However, because he cited an unverified source, he opened himself to criticism.
The last word on the matter of parliamentary privilege comes from Mr Mah, who is also the National Development Minister.
He is responsible for arranging government business in Parliament, and will advise the House on the action to take if a difficulty arises.
In an e-mail response to Insight, he lays out the rationale behind Singapore's strict system and explains why he made his statement in Parliament.
'Members must maintain such high standards of accountability to safeguard the dignity and decorum of the House, and to maintain the public's trust in our Parliament,' he says.
'If these standards are not maintained, we will be unfair to those who have been criticised by MPs under privilege and who are unable to clear their names. We will end up lowering the standing and authority that Parliament enjoys.'
Mr Mah also points out that the way Singapore remunerates its MPs helps ensure this high standard.
A scandal like the one in Britain will not occur here as MPs cannot ask to be reimbursed for their expenses.
'We have instead provided our MPs with a clean allowance of an appropriate amount, with no additional perks attached. This has enabled our MPs to serve their residents well, in their constituencies and in the House, and be properly compensated for such service,' he says.
jeremyau@sph.com.sg
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Perception gap in views on elderly
Survey finds seniors don't see themselves the way others do
By Melissa Sim
A GAP between the way Singaporeans view the elderly and the way senior citizens see themselves has shown up in a new survey.
It shows that while nearly 90 per cent of the general population feel seniors are well-integrated and can contribute to society, less than 70 per cent of those aged 65 and above actually feel this way.
Healthy signs
ALTHOUGH some findings in the Council for Third Age (C3A) survey raised concern, it also showed encouraging trends.
For instance, about half of those aged 50 and below have started planning financially for their later years. And half of those aged 50 and above regularly participate in physical activity with a group of friends at least three times a week.
... more
RELATED LINKS
Attitudes towards the elderly
Another key finding: While 93 per cent of Singaporeans feel intergenerational relationships are important, less than 30 per cent actually spend time with extended members of their families.
The survey of 2,000 people by the Council for Third Age (C3A) was aimed at examining attitudes towards ageing. It provided insights into how a senior's relationship with his friends and family contributes to his overall well-being.
C3A is a group which promotes active ageing in Singapore.
Explaining the difference between what Singaporeans say and what they do, C3A chairman Gerard Ee said one reason younger people spend less time with older family members is that they are 'too busy'.
Other seniors may not have good relationships with their families, and this accounts for their lack of self-esteem, he added.
In some instances, he said, seniors did not prepare enough for their golden years and now find that they either lack money or have few friends to interact with on a daily basis, and this could lead to feelings of loneliness and a lack of self-worth.
Mr Ee said that because families are smaller these days, it is more important than ever for older folk to have 'networks of people to grow old with'.
The disconnect has to be addressed, he said, because another survey finding showed the benefits of making sure seniors are well-integrated: Respondents with supportive families and friends around them were more likely to be satisfied with life.
Take housewife Peggy Cheng, 60, for instance. The mother of three, one of the respondents in the survey, said she was healthy and life was very enjoyable.
She goes to the movies with her grown children, and sometimes even goes to a pub or club with her daughter. 'She can dance, I can have a drink,' she said.
'There are always ways to meet them halfway.'
To encourage more such intergenerational bonding, C3A has lined up several initiatives.
Among them is a conference co-organised with the National University of Singapore.
To be held in April next year, the 4th International Consortium for Intergenerational Programmes will bring together 300 international and local experts and delegates to discuss such issues and how to better integrate seniors into society.
The council will also launch an Intergenerational Bonding Award this month to encourage people to develop programmes which promote such activities.
C3A will also set up the Knowledge Networking on Ageing Programme (Knap), a platform for organisations and individuals to share experiences and information on ageing issues.
The council's chief executive, Mr Henry Quake, said Knap will allow research data to be translated into meaningful programmes.
Another programme on the cards is the annual Active Ageing Festival, which encourages seniors to try new things in a safe and fun environment.
The council will also continue to support the development of interest groups, and promote understanding of seniors and ageing issues among youth.
simlinoi@sph.com.sg
Survey finds seniors don't see themselves the way others do
By Melissa Sim
A GAP between the way Singaporeans view the elderly and the way senior citizens see themselves has shown up in a new survey.
It shows that while nearly 90 per cent of the general population feel seniors are well-integrated and can contribute to society, less than 70 per cent of those aged 65 and above actually feel this way.
Healthy signs
ALTHOUGH some findings in the Council for Third Age (C3A) survey raised concern, it also showed encouraging trends.
For instance, about half of those aged 50 and below have started planning financially for their later years. And half of those aged 50 and above regularly participate in physical activity with a group of friends at least three times a week.
... more
RELATED LINKS
Attitudes towards the elderly
Another key finding: While 93 per cent of Singaporeans feel intergenerational relationships are important, less than 30 per cent actually spend time with extended members of their families.
The survey of 2,000 people by the Council for Third Age (C3A) was aimed at examining attitudes towards ageing. It provided insights into how a senior's relationship with his friends and family contributes to his overall well-being.
C3A is a group which promotes active ageing in Singapore.
Explaining the difference between what Singaporeans say and what they do, C3A chairman Gerard Ee said one reason younger people spend less time with older family members is that they are 'too busy'.
Other seniors may not have good relationships with their families, and this accounts for their lack of self-esteem, he added.
In some instances, he said, seniors did not prepare enough for their golden years and now find that they either lack money or have few friends to interact with on a daily basis, and this could lead to feelings of loneliness and a lack of self-worth.
Mr Ee said that because families are smaller these days, it is more important than ever for older folk to have 'networks of people to grow old with'.
The disconnect has to be addressed, he said, because another survey finding showed the benefits of making sure seniors are well-integrated: Respondents with supportive families and friends around them were more likely to be satisfied with life.
Take housewife Peggy Cheng, 60, for instance. The mother of three, one of the respondents in the survey, said she was healthy and life was very enjoyable.
She goes to the movies with her grown children, and sometimes even goes to a pub or club with her daughter. 'She can dance, I can have a drink,' she said.
'There are always ways to meet them halfway.'
To encourage more such intergenerational bonding, C3A has lined up several initiatives.
Among them is a conference co-organised with the National University of Singapore.
To be held in April next year, the 4th International Consortium for Intergenerational Programmes will bring together 300 international and local experts and delegates to discuss such issues and how to better integrate seniors into society.
The council will also launch an Intergenerational Bonding Award this month to encourage people to develop programmes which promote such activities.
C3A will also set up the Knowledge Networking on Ageing Programme (Knap), a platform for organisations and individuals to share experiences and information on ageing issues.
The council's chief executive, Mr Henry Quake, said Knap will allow research data to be translated into meaningful programmes.
Another programme on the cards is the annual Active Ageing Festival, which encourages seniors to try new things in a safe and fun environment.
The council will also continue to support the development of interest groups, and promote understanding of seniors and ageing issues among youth.
simlinoi@sph.com.sg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)