Almost a year has passed since her four-year-old son’s death but time has done little to ease her pain.
Madam Rosnani Ismail, 35, still has his clothes, despite being advised by friends to give them away, because they are all that she has to remind her of him.
Muhammad Irfan Salam, who had epilepsy, died while under his father’s care in his rented flat at Toa Payoh on April 7 last year.
A Coroner’s Inquiry into his death returned an open verdict on Friday because it could not be determined how Nitrazepam, a drug used to relieve severe anxiety and insomnia, had got into Irfan’s system when it had not been prescribed to him.
Madam Rosnani said that when she saw her son’s body, she shouted at her husband: “You did this to him!”
She added: “I will never forgive him for what he has done.”
To start, we should also note that PAP activists Victor Lye, who made a Facebook post thanking his team for distributing the fliers, and Muralidharan Pillai, who confirmed to media that the flyers were from PAP, have both clearly indicated the origins of the flyers. In spite of that, the documents in question do not carry any PAP logo. The flyers were also distributed past midnight, as if done to avoid direct contact with residents.
Notwithstanding the highly mysterious and secretive air surrounding the distribution, Muralidharan had insisted to media that they had nothing to hide and that “there was no difficulty in understanding that (the flyer) was from the PAP”.
Precedence set by the SDP
Ms Chee Siok Chin was jailed for a week for distributing flyers which were critical of the Government.
You are charged that you, on the 10th day of September 2006 at about 12:15 pm, in the vicinity of Raffles City Shopping Centre, North Bridge Road, Singapore, which is a public place, together with 5 persons did participate in an assembly intended to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government, which assembly you ought reasonably to have known was held without a permit under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) (Assemblies & Processions) Rules, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Rule 5 of the said Rules.
Mark Chua
Senior Investigation Officer
Central Police Division
29 December 2008
The SDP members were charged under Rule 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) (Assemblies & Processions) Rules which states: Any person who participates in any assembly or processions in any public road, public place or place of public resort shall, if he knows or ought reasonably to have known that the assembly or processions is held without a permit, or in contravention of any term or condition of a permit, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000.
It is difficult to imagine that the legislative intent of this law was to curb the handing out of flyers, or similar communicative-type activity. I daresay the law was meant to prohibit gatherings that pose a threat to public peace, e.g. gangs out to intimidate or fight, or sit-ins that block traffic. The name of the law, after all, is Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.
Moreover, in actual practice, no action is taken against the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who stand at metro stations handing out flyers, or even those who interfere with traffic in some way, e.g. stopping people to sell them insurance
The point made by Mr Au definitely makes sense – the execution of laws should target the intended consequence, rather than the offending act itself. Unfortunately, the way the law was applied in the case must be taken into account in evaluating the present facts.
In the judgement passed by District Judge Chng Lye Beng, it is understood that, if a group of five or more persons distribute flyers of a political nature in a public place without a permit, they may likely be in breach of the law. Let us now compare the first three elements of the offence with the facts of the case at hand.
Five or more persons?
After the distribution of the flyers, Mr Lye posted this image on his Facebook page. According to his post, the people featured in this picture are the “(PAP) activists who worked through the night… to distribute flyers.” From this picture, one can easily make out seven people, which suggests that there were more than five people who helped to distribute the flyers. There might also have been more who helped out in the distribution but were not featured in this photo.
Post on Mr Lye’s Facebook page after the flyer distribution
Public places?
The flyers in question were placed at the doors of HDB flats, as seen in the picture above. This means that Mr Lye and his team were operating at the common corridors of HDB flats. It is also clear from the photographs taken from Mr Lye’s Facebook page that the flyers were left outside the flats – which suggests that they in no way entered into the home, or what might be considered private property.
Flyers of political nature?
To give the reader a better understanding of what would constitute ‘political nature’, it would be good to look at the contents of the flyers that the SDP members distributed. The flyers contained the following words:
Tired of being a voiceless, 2nd class citizen in your own country without any rights? Sick of the Ministers paying themselves millions of dollars while they tell you to keep making sacrifices for Singapore? Then join us for the
EMPOWER SINGAPOREANS
RALLY & MARCH
Saturday, 16 Sept 2006, 11 am
Speakers’ Corner, Hong Lim Park
FOR MORE INFORMATION, GO TO
www.singaporedemocrat.org
In comparison. here are the contents of the flyers that the PAP activists distributed:
Comparing the contents of the two flyers, I opine that if the former can be constituted to be of a political nature, the latter undoubtedly is of a political nature too. The later also makes explicit references to the Workers’ Party and its Town Councils which should dissipate any doubts one may have about the political nature of the flyers.
Without a permit?
Prima Facie, it seems as though the actions of the PAP Aljunied team on Friday evening have satisfied the first three elements of the offence. In other words, Mr Lye and his team of five or more persons did distribute flyers which were of a political nature in a public place.
The question now would really be whether they had a permit for the distribution of the flyers. Both Mr Lye and Mr Muralidharan had not any any point in time produced any evidence to show that a permit has been obtained. If they do not have such a permit, they would technically be in breach of the law.
Alternative charge of Sedition
However, the SDP is not the only precedence we have of people distributing flyers without a permit and getting into trouble for doing so.
In what was popularly referred to as the “poison letters“, a flyer that was critical of the PAP was distributed to residents in the heartlands via letter boxes. The Strait Times described the flyer as “an A4-sized sheet with the criticisms in English and Chinese, made allegations about corruption and exploitation and complained about cost of living issues, among other things.”
It was reported that Police investigations were ongoing although we didn’t get to hear the end of the matter. TODAY reported that the flier was in breach of the Sedition Act which states, among other things, that a seditious tendency is one which seek:
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;
(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore
The “poison letter” incident raises another bag of issues for the PAP flyer distribution in Aljunied GRC. While the target of the flyers – the Workers Party – do not form the government, its members are rightfully elected Members of Parliament, who are part legislative arm of the government. The contents of the flyers might possibly be also be construed instigate dissatisfaction among the residents of Aljunied against WP. Might it have the consequence of causing political unrest? The potential is unthinkable. However, to a certain extent, it may be possible to interpret the contents of the flyers to amount to a “seditious tendency” under subsections (b) and (d).
Conclusion
Ultimately, if this case ever goes before the courts, the issue of the legality of the flyer distribution lies with the Judiciary. Personally, I do hope that it never will, just as I wished the case of SDP and the “poison letter” never did. Even though I believe the actions of Mr Lye and team are akin to a political lowblow, I am of the firm opinion that, as far as the law is concerned, they should be free to do what they do – just like how all political parties distribute flyers during their house visits. I an no fan of laws that can be interpreted and applied in a manner that is over-reaching and discretionary.
However, should a police report be made by a recipient of the flyers against the PAP activists, might it be an uphill task for PAP activists to justify the legality of this flyer distribution?
The future of Singapore national coach Bernd Stange has been the subject of much speculation after Singapore’s unsuccessful defence of their ASEAN Football Federation (AFF) Suzuki Cup title on home soil last November.
But in the biggest indication yet that the German will be offered a new contract, Football Association of Singapore (FAS) President Zainudin Nordin said Stange’s work has been positive for the local game since he was recruited in May 2013. More specifically, he has injected new life into the Lions with younger players, upping their technical skills and guided younger coaches.
Zainudin was speaking to TODAY after the launch of PlayPal yesterday, a local app that helps football enthusiasts search for players and locate places they can get together for kickabouts.
After Singapore failed to reach their semi-final target in the AFF Suzuki Cup, the FAS announced on Dec 29 that Stange’s two-year contract, which was to have originally expired in May, had been extended until after the SEA Games.
This is to allow the 67-year-old to guide national under-23 coach Aide Iskandar at the biennial event, which Singapore will host from Jun 5 to 16. TODAY understands the FAS is likely to enter talks with him on a two-year extension to his existing deal.
Pointing to the target the FAS gave Stange when hiring him in 2013, Zainudin said: “The KPI (key performance indicators) we set for Bernd is very simple: Focus on revitalising the team, which he has done and a lot of players have been brought into the team, improving technical expertise and guiding young coaches such as Fandi, Aide and Richard Bok.
“If you ask me, I am very clear that the objectives and the work he has done have been very positive for Singapore football and we need to look at this from a more holistic perspective in moving on subsequently.”
NO “KNEE-JERK” REACTION FOR “RESPONSIBLE” FAS
Last year’s AFF Suzuki Cup was the first major senior international tournament for Stange as Singapore coach, but the Lions did not get past the group stage after losses to Thailand and Malaysia. There were calls for Stange to step down, while the FAS also came under fire in the aftermath of the exit.
But Zainudin stressed that as a “responsible organisation”, the FAS could not resort to a “knee-jerk” reaction.
“People were also asking for Raddy’s (former national coach Radojko Avramovic) head in 2010, after Singapore also failed to get past the AFF group stage,” he said. “This is not our style; we don’t hire and fire people for one tournament because we have a role for Bernd to play and there are KPIs for him to meet and I think this is how we should handle human resource.”
Since the tournament, Stange has kept a low profile, but even if the FAS is extending its hand for a new deal, it needs his nod to continue their partnership.
“That is his choice, but we believe we need to sit down subsequently to see what more can be done,” said Zainudin.
“Now, he has a duty to carry on until after the SEA Games is over and we have to make sure we respect this. Bernd is still with us and it is important to give him the stability and ensure he is able to do his job well.”
Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Masagos Zulkifli said that Singapore is prepared to share its development experiences with Egypt as it works towards revitalising its economy.
Speaking at the Egypt Economic Development Conference on Friday (Mar 13), Mr Masagos said Egyptian officials can tap Singapore’s enhanced Technical Assistance Package which covers training in eight different areas, including customised in-country training courses on technical and vocational education.
Mr Masagos, who is also Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs, was at a two-day conference in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt which ended on Sunday.
In his statement, he also touched on potential areas of bilateral cooperation including port development. Mr Masagos said that Singapore welcomes greater collaboration with the Suez Canal Authority (SCA) and other government agencies on the Suez Canal Regional Development Project.
During his visit, Mr Masagos also called on Egypt’s Prime Minister Ibrahim Mahlab, during which they reaffirmed the warm and longstanding relations between both countries and discussed ways to further strengthen ties.
He also met Minister of Foreign Affairs Sameh Shoukry who briefied him on the latest developments in the region, including the threat posed by terrorism.
Let me suggest three concrete ways in which Singapore can increase its chances of survival.
First, Singapore can take the “Big Tent” approach that its founding fathers adopted. Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Dr Goh Keng Swee and Mr S. Rajaratnam were the pioneers of this approach. As Singapore is small, its pool of top talent is naturally also small. Hence, our founding fathers knew that they must be prepared to work with all Singaporeans, even those who had been critical of the PAP and its leaders.
As an undergraduate at the National University of Singapore, I myself had written several articles criticising the Government and its leaders. These included a very strongly worded piece which warned that Mr Lee could be on a “slippery slide to dictatorship”. (Those who are interested in witnessing this youthful indiscretion can read this article in Can Singapore Survive?) Even so, Dr Goh offered me a place in the Defence Ministry (which I turned down in another act of folly).
Professor Tommy Koh, my predecessor as Singapore’s ambassador to the United Nations, and Professor Chan Heng Chee, my successor, also wrote articles criticising the Government in their youth. Prof Koh challenged the PAP’s claim that a political union with Malaysia was necessary for Singapore’s survival. He also advocated that an ombudsman be set up in Singapore “because in Singapore, the exercise of discretionary power by the Government is not subject to judicial review”, and spoke out in defence of The Necessary Stage in the wake of Josef Ng’s arrest. Meanwhile, Prof Chan’s first book was seen as an attempt to discredit Mr Lee. Her second book criticised the PAP for weakening democracy in Singapore in order to consolidate its own power.
Many other critics of the PAP and its policies have been invited to join the “Big Tent” over the years. These include Mr David Marshall, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and Mr Raymond Lim. I firmly believe that we must continue with this “Big Tent” approach to politics. If not, Singapore society is likely to become more politically fractious and divided in the coming decades.
Second, the survivability of Singapore can be enhanced if we become the biggest cheerleader of Asean. It is truly sad that so few Singaporeans are aware that one reason Singapore remains so peaceful and safe today is because a giant political umbrella called Asean has been erected over South-east Asia, including Singapore. South-east Asia is incredibly diverse. In a relatively small geographical space, we can find Muslims, Christians, Hinayana Buddhists, Mahayana Buddhists and Hindus. This range of religious diversity is remarkable.
Given this diversity, wars of separation should have emerged as a natural consequence in South-east Asia. As the Balkans of Asia, it should have been the natural epicentre of separatism and conflict. Instead, over the past five decades, it has emerged as one of the global epicentres of peaceful resolution of conflicts. Any objective audit of Asean and its contribution to South-east Asia would show that Singapore is probably the biggest beneficiary from Asean’s success.
As a small state, Singapore has benefited the most from the culture of peace Asean has introduced into the region.
On the economic front, Singapore may have also benefited the most from the gradual opening up and liberalisation of the Asean economies. Singapore’s trade with the nine other Asean member states is larger than that of any other Asean country. Therefore, given the huge political and economic benefits that Singapore gets from Asean, Singapore should become the chief cheerleader and champion of Asean.
The third thing that Singapore can do to enhance its long-term survival is to go back to its roots, follow the examples of its founding fathers and go for bold, even risky, public policies. Our founding fathers were prepared to take big risks because they knew Singapore had no choice. Instead of being paralysed with fear, they displayed extraordinary courage. As a result of their courage, we have succeeded. Success, in turn, has led to a natural result of success: a culture of risk aversion. Indeed, this culture of risk aversion is one of Singapore’s biggest challenges in the coming years.
The best way to change this culture of risk aversion is to launch bold, iconic and heterodox policies that will catch the attention of our entire planet.
This is one reason I have advocated in my Big Ideas series that Singapore should strive to be the first city in the world to move towards a zero-car ownership city. This world of zero-car ownership is already on the way.
Well-known futurist Paul Saffo said in the National Geographic that within just five to 10 years, “Driverless cars will share roadways with conventional cars. This will happen in urban areas first and will take a decade to fully diffuse. In the long run, people will not own cars at all. When you need to go somewhere, you will have a subscription to an auto service, and it will show up at your door”.
By displaying extraordinary courage in going for such a bold new policy, Singapore will also help to ensure its long-term survivability because it would demonstrate that the culture of risk-taking was not confined just to the generation of the founding fathers of Singapore. Instead, it would demonstrate that the culture of risk-taking has been hardwired into the DNA of Singapore.
This culture of risk-taking may well be the best way to ensure Singapore’s long-term survivability as many new challenges will come our way. We must develop the culture of courage to respond boldly to each new wave of challenges. If we do so, the final answer to the question “Can Singapore survive?” may well be “Yes, we can”.
*This essay is adapted from the introduction to the latest book by Kishore Mahbubani, Can Singapore Survive? Published by Straits Times Press, Singapore Press Holdings, it retails for $25 before GST and is available at leading bookstores or from the website www.stpressbooks.com.sg. The writer is dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore
