Singapore ranked 133 in World Press Freedom Index. Poor findings or disastrous Singapore?

http://www.temasekreview.com/2009/10/28/letter-to-reporters-without-borders-on-singapore-law-minister-k-shanmugans-criticism-of-its-rankings/

But you don't have to click the link, just read here:

We understand that RSF has recently ranked the Singapore media 133th on the world press freedom index, up 11 places from its 144th position in 2008.

However, the Singapore Law Minister K Shanmugam described your ranking as “absurd and quite divorced for reality” at the opening address of the New York State Bar Association meeting held in Singapore from 26 to 29 October 2009.

This is what he said as reported by the Straits Times:

“Singapore Law Minister Shanmugan questioned Singapore’s low rating by Reporters Without Borders, a French-based group which puts out an annual press freedom ranking.

Singapore ranked 144 out of 173 countries last year – below Ethiopia, Sudan, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Guinea and Haiti, among others – but moved up in this year’s list, released last week.

Citing a press report on Guinea which said soldiers gunned gunned down over 150 pro-democracy protesters last month, and that opposition leaders were locked up, and women were raped on the streets, he said: ‘We are apparently below Guinea on press freedom.

‘This year, we have behaved better – so we moved up to rank 133, below Kenya, which saw riots following a disputed election, Congo, which continues to struggle with the aftermath of an armed conflict that has claimed more than five million lives, Venezuela, and so on.

‘But we are ranked above North Korea and Eritrea.’

The Singapore media is trying its best to portray your ranking as one-sided, biased and unfair.

I feel an official response from RSF is needed to protect its international reputation.

Why is Singapore ranked below Guinea, Kenya and Congo? We could not find any explanation on the RSF’s site.

Will you be keen to provide us with more details on how you arrive at the ranking?

How about this : http://aussgworldpolitics.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/comments-on-singapores-press-rankings/

Please read this.

In an address to members of the New York Bar Association, (reported by TODAY online) the law minister of Singapore, Shanmugam, has claimed that the global rankings of press freedom in Singapore by organisations such as Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House rankings does not reflect the actual reality.

According to him, the denunciation of press freedom in Singapore ’sometimes reached levels “quite absurd and divorced from reality” ‘. He states that this does not gel with Singapore’s ranking which is often associated with military or failed states such as Guinea and Kenya (in RSF’s report) and Iraq (in Freedom House). This is further contrasted with Singapore’s global interconnectedness (such as the internet), economic achievements and ‘rule of law’.

While Shanmugam was right to argue that Singapore is not suffering from internal instability, he has mistakenly conflated press freedom with the political climate. Even if both are often intimately related, it would be a mistake to claim that Singapore does not deserve the press rankings based on its political stability. Moreover, it is also necessary to study the methodology of the rankings. With RSF, the list is based on surveys handed out to human rights activists and reporters. This means that rankings are dependent on observers’ perception of press freedom in the country. Given Singapore’s history of defamation suits and jailing of dissident journalists, repressive media laws such as the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act and the mass media duopoly of the Singapore Press Holdings and Medicorp, it is not difficult to fathom the position it was being awarded.

In the news report, Shanmugam also claims that governmental policies have often been criticised though it reserves the right to respond with libel suits if it is accused of allegations (such as corruption). His argument however misses the point since defamation suits are a threat to the freedom of the press and expression. Moreover, these laws and actions also threaten whistleblowing behaviour which is important in any democratic states to ensure government accountability. While members of the government or any politician has the right to sue for defamation, it does not necessarily follow that these actions be used at the whims or fancy of anyone or organisation since they have the effect of silencing public dissent and debates. Therefore, it can be argued that an open and democratic government should not use defamation suits nor repressive media laws even when dissenters accuse it of corruption. This is because these accusations are more likely to expose any shortcomings in the system. Moreover, whether the accusations turn out to be true or false (or otherwise), a public debate would generate greater civi participation, resolve the issue publicly and even grant more legitimacy to the government.

In Singapore, we have Medishield. In the US....

The US is the only highly developed country on earth that does not provide universal health care to all its citizens. Instead, it has an incomplete patchwork of coverage that leaves an estimated 45.7 million Americans uninsured.

Many doctors in the US pull in large salaries in comparison with their counterparts in Germany or Britain.

The US spends twice as much per capita, on healthcare than the next most expensive country Switzerland.

The highly respected Institute of Medicine of the Academies of Science estimates that, every year, 18,000 people in the US die unnecessarily for lack of medical treatment.

Disappointed

It's not even about a commitment. It's just basic responsibility. Where was it?
Don't just pay lipservice.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPod Touch

Influential but don't throw weight around

I think that influential people are very impressive.

I think that passive people help these people stand out.

Nothing wrong with being either of the parties.

As long as the passive person knows what's good for him/herself.

It's nice being the influential person. But all the attention is on you.

You're being watched. Carefully. Be a good kid

No surprise

It's not surprise that i won't be here tomorrow.
I can't believe that i stayed till today.

Facebook Personality Quiz

And your result is ...

INTJ - The Scientist

You are brilliant when it comes to quickly understanding complex theories and applying them to problems. You are most happy and effective in careers which allow you to continue this type of thinking and are allowed the freedom to do so. You should avoid overly structured environments and do best in fields that promote continual research and development.

Some of your personality traits include:

* Able to absorb extremely complex theoretical and complex material
* Driven to create order and structure from theoretical abstractions
* Supreme strategists
* Future-oriented
* See the global, "big picture"
* Strong insights and intuitions, which you trust implicitly
* Value your own opinions over others
* Love difficult theoretical challenges
* Bored when dealing with mundane routine
* Value knowledge and efficiency
* Have no patience with inefficiency and confusion
* Have very high standards for performance, which you apply to yourself most strongly
* Reserved and detached from others
* Calm, collected and analytical
* Extremely logical and rational
* Original and independent
* Natural leaders, but will follow those you can fully support
* Creative, ingenious, innovative, and resourceful
* Work best alone, and prefer to work alone

Some of your suggested careers are:

* Scientist
* Engineer
* Professor and Teacher
* Medical Doctor / Dentist
* Corporate Strategist and Organization Builder
* Business Administrator / Manager
* Military Leader
* Lawyers / Attorney
* Judge
* Computer Programmer, Systems Analyst and Computer Specialist

How to be an unpopular conversationalist.

"The real art of conversation is not only to say the right thing at the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment." - Dorothy Nevill

"Don't go on endlessly about your operation, and describe every twinge you had from the time you entered the hospital until you went back to work. Telling about how much you suffered won't make you a hero. It will only make you a bore." Lee Giblin

"Belaboring a favoured topic does not constitute conversation. You are merely talking at someone, not with him." -Bernardo J. Carducci

Inspired?

"Isn't it boring...how people always want to tell you their own stories instead of listening to yours? I suppose that's why psychiatrists are better friends; the paid listener doesn't interrupt with his own experiences." -Hellen Van Slyke

"If you can't add to the discussion, don't subtract by talking" -Lois Wyse

"Be yourself" is a good advice, unless you notice that people are always excusing themselves and moving away from you. In that case, try being someone else! -Susan RoAne

Well, if you didn't quite understand the quote by Susan RoAne, let me highlight it to you.

"Be yourself" is a good advice, unless you notice that PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS EXCUSING THEMSELVES AND MOVING AWAY FROM YOU. In that case, TRY BEING SOMEONE ELSE! -Susan RoAne

Personally, I believe that sincere self evaluation always works. Of course, it must be done with the rightest attitude.

Oh, i happened to pick up a book from the library about "Conversations" and thought it'd be interesting to share.
Anyway, if u notice people avoiding you somehow, maybe it's time to rethink the way you speak. You have so much more potential

What exactly is being smart?

Forget the definitions of "Smart"

I've always wondered time and time again, what it means to be smart.
Us following conventions?
Us being able to follow the paths laid by our ancestors?

Has it ever crossed your mind, that some people may be better at some things, and some better at others?
If somebody from RJC is smarter than someone from a lower JC, does it genuinely show that the RJC student is "smarter" than a student from a weaker college?
Doesn't it just mean that he is able to follow conventions better?
Doesn't it just show that he is able to follow the creator of our surroundings?

Since the start of mankind, nobody knew what knowledge was.
Nobody even knew how to define one.
So let's put it this way.
Mankind somehow, through evolution and whatever change, created a medium of communication called language.
Language creation then saw the rise of english, and whatever languages that came out.

So, if you say that someone is very good in english, does it just mean that he is better at following our forefathers? Or does it show that he is truly intelligent?

If you can solve a mathematics equation and someone else can't, does it mean that you're smarter than him?
Or does it merely show that society has changed in such a way that it only accommodates "luckier" people. People who can solve maths are better off in this society.

Of course, by maths, i mean academia.

Why hasn't society changed in such a way that it embraces other qualities like, say, physical strength, or beauty.

Don't even get me started on beauty; i don't know how men came to a consensus that bigger eyes are more attractive and not smaller ones, why fair skin is better than tanned skin, why smooth skin is better than rough skin, why skinny legs are more attractive than fat ones, why "uglier" men are less "desired"(in the modern day) as a male model.

Isn't it a little unfair that society has changed to embrace exclusive traits.

Some people are more gifted in academic subjects. Then again, how do you define gifted.
If i am "given" the tendency to be more playful, why can't i consider myself to be gifted?
If i am more hyperactive than most people, why am i not considered the "cream of the crop"

Modern day development has favoured some at the expense of others.
Competition has worsen it.

I may be less endowed in certain ways. I am lucky not to have been given worse.
I really can't explain myself properly but, if the definition of beauty was something like - flat nose small eyes big mouth crooked teeth scratched face etc, wouldn't it make another group of people the lucky ones now? Why is this group of people given lesser chance to shine?

Why is the world so unfair?

Hi

Hi. I saw Xabi Alonso today.

Even though i'm not a liverpool supporter but i was still quite excited.

Not bad la. Next time i'm gonna see Ronaldo. Lol.

Anyway, i think china's currency should revaluate. And if WTO can somehowwhatever force china's undervalued currency to go up, ta da, china bubble burst. gg.

Eating on trains?

Just food for thought.

Since Singapore relies totally on Manpower, wouldn't Singaporeans have a tendency to overwork? Other countries rich in oil and other natural resource and their govts could rely on commodities as an extra source of revenue, wouldn't it mean that their governments, assuming they have the same expenditure per capita, would need to tax less on the people to fund their projects(ie infrastructure etc).

So is working in Singapore advantageous or not? I couldn't find the welfare state ranking by countries but i'm quite sure Singapore is far from being one?

Anyway, i read an interesting newspaper report.

Recently, SMRT have imposed stricter rules and regulations with regards to eating/drinking on trains. They have even fined a lady for taking a sip of water.

Wow... they even promised to raise the "inspection frequency", meaning more train conductors will be making their rounds, trying to catch hungry ghosts. A hefty fine could be imposed.

HAH! I bet this is a total deterrent measure. Trying to get the attention of the public through the use of mass media? I suppose it's a campaign to stop irresponsible commuters who eat/drink and end up dirtying the place. That's right, something must be done to the irresponsible commuters.

I fully appreciate the efforts of SMRT, because this would keep the trains cleaner and thus a better travelling experience for other commuters. LOL

How about this: I think that minors should not be fined. They should be sent for CWO(duty in train), which will in turn keep the trains EVEN CLEANER. I think that adults should be fined, because they are role models and kids often look up to them.

I think that this authoritarian system set up is very unfair to certain groups of people.

They are precisely the ones who occupy our "PRIORITY SEATS"

Yes, the handicapped, the pregnant ladies, the oldies, and whatever. They have special needs and we have made concession for them, running this whole Phua Chua Kang Campaign on how we should give up our seats BLAHBLAH.

So, shouldn't people with special needs be excused too? Like the aged who need to drink water to swallow his medicine? Or someone who has gastritis and needs to consume something immediately?

This is fully debatable, because if it is explicitly said that "Oh, but we do allow people with special needs to eat or drink", it would then lead to another set of problems. People who do not have a handicap act like they have one and start abusing this privillege.

I am very sure, that all the criticism that SMRT have received did the train operators unjust.

The conductors who make their rounds would surely know how to practise his discretion as to who should be spared and who should not be.

Even though the newspaper reports may have portrayed SMRT's stance to be very strict, i strongly believe that the rules can still be bent and the conductors would then use his own judgement to tell whether or not a commuter is lying(about having special needs) or not.

Did u know, Japan's railway allows eating and drinking?

Did u know, that food stands are set up INSIDE THE PLATFORM or even inside the train?

I'm really not sure about the cleaniness of the trains but i suppose the long journey wastes a lot of time and hence japanese, being super kiasu people, merge their travelling and breakfast to save time.

Time is money.

I don't know how Singapore can do such a thing and neither am i using japan's subway system to critisise Singapore's but i just added it to wow people who didn't know.

Conclusion - conductors will still be lenient in some GENUINE cases but will come down harshly on idiots who persistently eat on trains.

DUH, Singaporeans are so afraid of being fined.

This is definitely a deterrent tool

Women, man, wooooooman

I refer to the following article:

http://todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC090704-0000084/More-women-to-be-in-politics

More women to be in politics

Lim Hwee Hua hopes for 30% of MPs to be women, one day

Oh...So, Lim Hwee Hwa wants more women in politics!

If i didn't hear it wrongly, i also heard PM lee hsien loong backing MP Lim, also hoping for more women in politics.

When i first heard it, i was like this

WTF?

Be patient, i'm gonna explain why.

The first thought that came to my mind was that women in politics...hmm. What's the opportunity cost? Them pursing a highly demanding career that has often been seen as men's job? What does it mean? Does it mean giving up your 'family career'??

Let's start with Mrs Lim Hwee Hua herself. I think she's an excellent example. She is an outstanding minster herself; she's a minister in Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and Second Minister for Transport. Most importantly, what impressed me most was that she has a son and two daughters. Totally a role model. Totally the kinds of women Singapore are looking for.

I was quick to mutter to myself...WTF, doesn't women in politics mean more career minded women? Singapore is already facing a damn low fertility rate and by the year 2065, 1 in 2 Singaporeans will not have a descendant. So what's happening? If they want women to take part in an active role in politics, or to hold major leadership positions, wouldn't that mean that there'll be lesser mothers out there, or that women choose to give birth only to ONE CHILD because of the heavy career commitment out there? Wouldn't it affect our workforce in the long run? Or does it mean we need more migrants + women in politics? I know we chinese are migrants ourselves and that the malays must hate us decades ago. But look at us, aren't we living harmoniously now? I totally have nothing against women leaders you know, but it just made me think more. How is Singapore going to manage its limited manpower in the next decade or so. What is the emphasis for us now? I don't think the baby bonus helps a lot. What is a $3000 cash bonus when a woman can earn $10000 a month. Getting laid off(of course the govt tells companies to take a proper stance against pregnant mothers) is priceless compared with the $3000 bonus. And the dollar for dollar thing.

So what's the main point. More babies, yet working mothers. High flying mothers.

HEY, NOW WE MEN MUST TAKE CARE OF THE BABIES!

I'm not complaining. But since there's a shift in the expectations of women, wouldn't that mean today's dad would play a different role too? Women are now equally capable of being the breadwinner. Women of today will demand that the father breastfeed pay more attention to roles women used to play! Hey that's me! The babies can't be neglected. They are our future leaders.

So why didn't Lee Hsien Loong say something like... WE WANT TO SEE MORE DADS SPENDING TIME AT HOME TAKING CARE OF THE BABIES. OR IN SOME CASES THE DAD BEING THE NEW MUM, THE MUM BEING THE NEW DAD. In a traditional and conservative society, where norms are more accepted than otherwise, i feel that I will be totally weirded out and feel "ashamed" if Harng-Yi, the author here, becomes the new mum. I am still the traditional old ah pek who believes that i should work. Of course, i don't mind taking up 50% of the baby chore duties. 51% of me would be too much. I have this inner male ego in me i think. I just don't wanna feel useless you see. If i don't bring the bread home, i will feel like i've let my family down.

The inspiration of this post came as i was sitting on the bus. A young man sitting beside me offered his seat to his female friend. Then i thought...women....seat...

PARLIAMENT!

Neh not really, but i'm gonna start on another story.

Why should males give up seats to the female. Are the females any much weaker in carrying their own weight? Or is it just a tactic to win the pretty girl over? I would understand if it's the latter but the former!

Wth!

If women keep insisting that they want their rights, then do something about it!

For instance, when i'm standing, offer your seats to me! Am i any much weaker in carrying my own weight? Or is it a tactic to win me over? I would understand if it's the latter HAHA!

03July2009

2100 SQ 227 Melbourne.

That's just what it's about.

Joanna will then take the domestic flight to Canberra, where she will pursue her 4 or 5 years Business course at ANU(Australian National University).

Today marks the goodbye that separates us. At least it does so physically!

Who says it's difficult.

It's not.

Let's do it!

MRT seats

Sleeping? Don't pretend! Give up your seats to the needy!

Sounds familiar? Yes... it's Phua Chu Kang talking to you on SBS buses! (and MRTs)

So....when we occupy our seats, we should constantly keep our needy radar activated. If not, your face will appear on stomp.

So, we must give up our seats to the Pregnant ladies, Old People, the handicapped, and people with babies.

Hey, do you realise that those 4 categories of people merely belong to the bigger definition of NEEDY!?

It has ever occurred to me that a really shagged person who had a super bad day at work is equally capable and eligible for the NEEDY seat.

Or a sick young man who doesn't look quite sick but is quite sick deep down inside.

Or an emo young girl who got scolded by her teachers at school and somehow needed to sit down?

Or a sportsman who just played the game of his life and is now super shagged?

I honestly believe that people who NEED the seat should deserve it, and those stupid pregnant ladies and old folks and whoever should give up their seats to these young man!

Looks are just soo deceiving..

NOW TELL ME, if you're super super shagged and you just simply needed a seat, DONTCHA THINK THAT THE OLD PEOPLE SHOULD GIVE THEIR SEATS TO YOU? Of course not....the whole bus load of people will stare at you. It's so awkward. This whole campaign about giving up your seats to the 4 groups of people.... i feel that more attention should be given to the OTHER GROUPS of people.

I really hope there's a NEEDY-METER and can detect people who sincerely NEED IT!

Come on, give the seat to deserving asses

11am

I let it all out but i achieved nothing.

Maybe i won some sympathy and support.

Yes, the trip to the room was all worthwhile.

Got what i wanted.

“Compelling reason will never convince blinding emotion.”

Ethos failed = Use Pathos

Hexic

So this is what i've been doing these few days