I was really glad to hear Minister Mentor Lee Kaun Yew mention how the late Mr S. Rajaratnam, as associate editor of the Singapore Standard, “forced the pace on the Straits Times,” particularly over the postman’s strike of the early fifties. In this day of “Limited” media competition, it was heartening to hear one of our “founding fathers,” talk about the value of media competition and as someone who has written for TODAY, I was suddenly made aware of the social significance of a newspaper like TODAY.
Singaporeans have been told that the Singapore market is “Too Small,” for competition and this was indeed true from a certain financial perspective. During Singapore’s most recent bout with media competition, both SPH and MediaCorp bleed red ink as they engaged in a vicious spat of cutting advertising rates. The flow of red ink only stopped with the end of “destructive competition,” in 2004.
So, what could media competition possibly be responsible for? How can anything that was the cause of the loss of so much money and jobs be good for society?
The most important answer lies in the simple business rule that competition creates better products by forcing the market to stay relevant. Having a monopoly may benefit the monopoly holder but in the end harms the consumer.
Monopoly holders ignore their customers and lose sight of the value of product improvement and innovation. This is particularly important in the newspaper business as the product often takes the shape of news events and the monopoly player has powers to set the news agenda of the day.
Thanks to Mr Rajaratnam and the Singapore Standard, the postman’s strike was covered thus taking away the ability of the pro-British Straits Times to set the news agenda. This was undoubtedly a milestone in the formation of the independence movement in Singapore and Malaysia.
While we may lack the contentious political issues of the 1950s and 60s, the importance of ensuring no single player owns the news agenda is equally important. TODAY has helped raise social issues such as that of the “Abused Husband,” which might otherwise have been ignored by the other newspapers.
Media competition has also provided a voice for alternative ideas. Could the “Anti-colonial,” Rajaratnam have got the PAP’s message across if he could only express himself in the pro British Straits Times? It’s unlikely.
While political issues of the day may not capture the imagination the way it once did, the global economy is dominated by the importance of ideas. Singapore needs forums where ideas can be expressed and developed. TODAY has been innovative in its pursuit of free-lance commentary writers and the public, thus demonstrating a civic responsibility by encouraging people to offer their ideas to make Singapore a better society. Nobody can tell how many of the ideas suggested in the paper are taken up but at least they are expressed and are available to those who wish to use them.
Perhaps the best thing about media competition is the fact that in the long run, it benefits everyone. Did TODAY’s profitability hurt the Straits Times? It has not. Both newspapers compete and force each other to come up with innovate advertising solutions for their clients as well as news stories for their readers. But more importantly, readers have a choice and a chance to form their own opinions about the issues of the day.
Senior Minister, Goh Chok Tong says, “An unthinking press would be bad for Singapore.” Mr Rajaratnam showed that media competition stops that from happening and that can only be good for Singaporeans and Singapore.
Copyright: (C) Tang Li
Still can learn a thing or two from the West
I SYMPATHISE with Tim Mou Hui's letter, 'Myopic outlook behind West's dealings with Asia' (ST, Feb 27).
Although I spent my formative years in the West, I've lived in Singapore for the past five years. Having lived in both the East and West, I've seen more than enough examples of how 'myopic' Westerners can be when it comes to the way they perceive Asia.
I've encountered personal examples of Western myopia. The most personal example was the way I had to invert my name from Tang Li to Li Tang to satisfy the Western mind. A school teacher once told me that while it may have been an Asian custom to have one's surname first, I would have to put my name on a test paper as Li Tang because the test was set by an American college.
When I told my mother about this, she told me that I had to be flexible and I have been ever since.
But when I look back on it, I should have defied mother and teacher. Why should I change something as personal as my name to suit someone else when I have yet to meet a Kevin Adams who changed his name to Adams Kevin when he moved to Asia?
Having said all that, I don't believe that the West is going to be overshadowed by Asia any time in the near future. Western societies are resilient and Asia should continue to learn from the West instead of allowing myopia to affect its dealings with the West.
One thing which I believe Asia, and in particular Singapore, can learn from the West is social graces.
One of the things that used to amaze me about the London Tube was its efficiency inspite of its decrepit infrastructure.
I put it down to social graces. People let passengers get off the train before they board and move to the centre of the carriage, thus ensuring the trains are used by as many people as possible.
Now compare that with our MRT system, which has first-rate physical infrastructure, but is often unable to carry as many people as it should because people crowd around the doors.
Another area that the West excels in is in accepting immigrants. Leaving aside last year's riots in Paris and Sydney, Western cities like London and New York have managed to assimilate many cultures successfully without imposing racial curfews or anti-sedition laws.
This has helped the cities to develop vibrancy and a rich cultural heritage. The various ethnicities and cultures that American society is comprised has allowed the country to develop a world-class film industry.
But cultural integration alone would not be enough to create a resilient society without the universal values that all cultures can share. In the case of the West, I believe the most important one is the culture that rewards excellence and forgives failure.
Just look at America. The income gap in the US is huge, yet it has had relatively few instances of social unrest. America produces more entrepreneurs as well as more scientific and artistic innovators than any country. They are well rewarded when they succeed, and when they fail, they are allowed to come back.
Think of Michael Milken, the former jailed junk bond dealer, who now contributes his financial skills to raising money for good causes.
It would be hard to think of former National Kidney Foundation CEO T.T. Durai ever achieving a similar comeback and contributing his talents to Singapore's business circles. Tang Li
Published in Straits Times On-line forum - March 4, 2006
Copyright: (C) Singapore Press Holdings Ltd 2006
Although I spent my formative years in the West, I've lived in Singapore for the past five years. Having lived in both the East and West, I've seen more than enough examples of how 'myopic' Westerners can be when it comes to the way they perceive Asia.
I've encountered personal examples of Western myopia. The most personal example was the way I had to invert my name from Tang Li to Li Tang to satisfy the Western mind. A school teacher once told me that while it may have been an Asian custom to have one's surname first, I would have to put my name on a test paper as Li Tang because the test was set by an American college.
When I told my mother about this, she told me that I had to be flexible and I have been ever since.
But when I look back on it, I should have defied mother and teacher. Why should I change something as personal as my name to suit someone else when I have yet to meet a Kevin Adams who changed his name to Adams Kevin when he moved to Asia?
Having said all that, I don't believe that the West is going to be overshadowed by Asia any time in the near future. Western societies are resilient and Asia should continue to learn from the West instead of allowing myopia to affect its dealings with the West.
One thing which I believe Asia, and in particular Singapore, can learn from the West is social graces.
One of the things that used to amaze me about the London Tube was its efficiency inspite of its decrepit infrastructure.
I put it down to social graces. People let passengers get off the train before they board and move to the centre of the carriage, thus ensuring the trains are used by as many people as possible.
Now compare that with our MRT system, which has first-rate physical infrastructure, but is often unable to carry as many people as it should because people crowd around the doors.
Another area that the West excels in is in accepting immigrants. Leaving aside last year's riots in Paris and Sydney, Western cities like London and New York have managed to assimilate many cultures successfully without imposing racial curfews or anti-sedition laws.
This has helped the cities to develop vibrancy and a rich cultural heritage. The various ethnicities and cultures that American society is comprised has allowed the country to develop a world-class film industry.
But cultural integration alone would not be enough to create a resilient society without the universal values that all cultures can share. In the case of the West, I believe the most important one is the culture that rewards excellence and forgives failure.
Just look at America. The income gap in the US is huge, yet it has had relatively few instances of social unrest. America produces more entrepreneurs as well as more scientific and artistic innovators than any country. They are well rewarded when they succeed, and when they fail, they are allowed to come back.
Think of Michael Milken, the former jailed junk bond dealer, who now contributes his financial skills to raising money for good causes.
It would be hard to think of former National Kidney Foundation CEO T.T. Durai ever achieving a similar comeback and contributing his talents to Singapore's business circles. Tang Li
Published in Straits Times On-line forum - March 4, 2006
Copyright: (C) Singapore Press Holdings Ltd 2006
woensdag, februari 22, 2006
PR may have averted the “Cartoon Crisis”
The events surrounding the controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that were published in Danish Newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, reminded of a conversation I had at an event that was hosted by Saudi Aramco. I was told that, “Islam is like the Apple Computer, a wonderful product with terrible marketing.”
Since then, things have changed. Apple is a niche brand thanks to effective marketing. Islam has admittedly been damaged by the violence from the protest but at least Islamic leaders are making an effort to improve their marketing communications. What is surprising is the fact that we now have a new party that this saying should be applied to. The West has been particularly bad at selling its point of view in the Islamic world and the Danish government’s initial handling of the incident was a clear sign of bad public relations.
How is it possible that Denmark, a country that has been sympathetic to Islamic causes in the Middle East become such an intense object of hatred overnight? I believe that, had public relations been applied earlier, none of this would have happened.
Let’s look at the facts:
• 30 September 2005: The cartoons were published
• 14 October 2005: First demonstrations in Copenhagen
• 19 October 2005: 11 Ambassadors from Muslim countries request a meeting with Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen to discuss action against the Jyllands-Posten
• November – December 2005: Delegation of Danish Muslims travel to the Middle East to conduct meetings with religious leaders.
• 29 December 2005: Foreign Ministers from the League of Arab States criticise the Danish Prime Minister’s handling of the situation
• 1 January 2006: Danish Prime Minister emphasise the importance of freedom of expression, religious freedom and mutual respect in his New Year address to the nation.
Why did it take four months for the Danish government to react from the moment the 11 ambassadors requested a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the issue?
Many have argued that this was simply an issue of freedom of the press, a sacred right in Western societies. The Danish government had no legal right to do anything about the cartoons and one could argue that it would have been political suicide for the Danish Prime Minister to be seen to be trampling of the freedom of the press.
While this argument may be legally sound, it’s come at a cost. Danish businesses are losing an estimated US $ 1.5 billion a day thanks to a boycott of Danish products in the Islamic world and Danish citizens are in danger in countries that Denmark has traditionally been friendly too.
I believe the Danish government could have used effective Public Relations to defuse tensions with the Islamic Community without sacrificing or infringing on freedom of the press. Clearly someone should have realised that when 11 ambassadors request to see a Prime Minister over a single issue that the issue has gone beyond the realms of domestic politics.
What could the Danish government have done in the four months? They could have:
• Distanced the Danish state and people from the cartoons in the Jyllands-Posten. – A statement by the Prime Minister describing the cartoons as offensive and tasteless, early into the incident would have placated the Islamic community without infringing of press freedom.
• Engaged the media in the Islamic World to sell Denmark’s commitment to the well being of the Islamic World. – The Islamic world would be friendlier towards Denmark if it saw Denmark as being benevolent. Instead, Denmark’s generosity in the Middle East, in particular towards the Palestinian community was ignored.
• Distance the Muslim Community from its more radical elements. – The Danish government could have waged a media campaign to discredit extremist Islamicist and the Far Right political parties in Denmark. Instead, it did nothing and we have violence against Danish citizens in the Islamic World as well as Far Right violence against Muslims in Denmark.
• Engage Denmark’s Muslim community by setting up “Dialogue Sessions” between the government and community leaders. – This would remove the argument that Western states are insensitive to the needs of the Islamic Community.
So while the more radical Islamic leaders from Denmark were gathering support for their cause, the Danish government did nothing and the initial public relations victory went to the protestors.
Undoubtedly, hindsight is luxury that the Danish government did not have. But what can governments and companies do when faced with a potentially difficult situation? They should:
• Be aware of the publics involved in the dispute and the way in which they need to be communicated to - Surely, the involvement of 11 ambassadors and the League of Arab States should have been signs that was a larger public at stake? Communications efforts were based to domestic audience rather than an international one.
• Be aware of the issues that need to be addressed and address them – Was this merely a freedom of the press issue or did European-Middle East relations and feelings of marginalisation amongst Denmark’s Muslims come into play? How did protestors start linking George Bush and Israel to Denmark when Denmark’s approach to the Palestinian issue has differed from the US and Israel?
• Be seen to communicate clearly and quickly – There was no effort to communicate with the publics involved and early attempts by the government and newspaper descended into gibberish about the semantics of the word apology. The communications appeared as arrogant to the Muslim community and feeble to those defending freedom of the press.
Copyright Tang Li (c)
Since then, things have changed. Apple is a niche brand thanks to effective marketing. Islam has admittedly been damaged by the violence from the protest but at least Islamic leaders are making an effort to improve their marketing communications. What is surprising is the fact that we now have a new party that this saying should be applied to. The West has been particularly bad at selling its point of view in the Islamic world and the Danish government’s initial handling of the incident was a clear sign of bad public relations.
How is it possible that Denmark, a country that has been sympathetic to Islamic causes in the Middle East become such an intense object of hatred overnight? I believe that, had public relations been applied earlier, none of this would have happened.
Let’s look at the facts:
• 30 September 2005: The cartoons were published
• 14 October 2005: First demonstrations in Copenhagen
• 19 October 2005: 11 Ambassadors from Muslim countries request a meeting with Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen to discuss action against the Jyllands-Posten
• November – December 2005: Delegation of Danish Muslims travel to the Middle East to conduct meetings with religious leaders.
• 29 December 2005: Foreign Ministers from the League of Arab States criticise the Danish Prime Minister’s handling of the situation
• 1 January 2006: Danish Prime Minister emphasise the importance of freedom of expression, religious freedom and mutual respect in his New Year address to the nation.
Why did it take four months for the Danish government to react from the moment the 11 ambassadors requested a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the issue?
Many have argued that this was simply an issue of freedom of the press, a sacred right in Western societies. The Danish government had no legal right to do anything about the cartoons and one could argue that it would have been political suicide for the Danish Prime Minister to be seen to be trampling of the freedom of the press.
While this argument may be legally sound, it’s come at a cost. Danish businesses are losing an estimated US $ 1.5 billion a day thanks to a boycott of Danish products in the Islamic world and Danish citizens are in danger in countries that Denmark has traditionally been friendly too.
I believe the Danish government could have used effective Public Relations to defuse tensions with the Islamic Community without sacrificing or infringing on freedom of the press. Clearly someone should have realised that when 11 ambassadors request to see a Prime Minister over a single issue that the issue has gone beyond the realms of domestic politics.
What could the Danish government have done in the four months? They could have:
• Distanced the Danish state and people from the cartoons in the Jyllands-Posten. – A statement by the Prime Minister describing the cartoons as offensive and tasteless, early into the incident would have placated the Islamic community without infringing of press freedom.
• Engaged the media in the Islamic World to sell Denmark’s commitment to the well being of the Islamic World. – The Islamic world would be friendlier towards Denmark if it saw Denmark as being benevolent. Instead, Denmark’s generosity in the Middle East, in particular towards the Palestinian community was ignored.
• Distance the Muslim Community from its more radical elements. – The Danish government could have waged a media campaign to discredit extremist Islamicist and the Far Right political parties in Denmark. Instead, it did nothing and we have violence against Danish citizens in the Islamic World as well as Far Right violence against Muslims in Denmark.
• Engage Denmark’s Muslim community by setting up “Dialogue Sessions” between the government and community leaders. – This would remove the argument that Western states are insensitive to the needs of the Islamic Community.
So while the more radical Islamic leaders from Denmark were gathering support for their cause, the Danish government did nothing and the initial public relations victory went to the protestors.
Undoubtedly, hindsight is luxury that the Danish government did not have. But what can governments and companies do when faced with a potentially difficult situation? They should:
• Be aware of the publics involved in the dispute and the way in which they need to be communicated to - Surely, the involvement of 11 ambassadors and the League of Arab States should have been signs that was a larger public at stake? Communications efforts were based to domestic audience rather than an international one.
• Be aware of the issues that need to be addressed and address them – Was this merely a freedom of the press issue or did European-Middle East relations and feelings of marginalisation amongst Denmark’s Muslims come into play? How did protestors start linking George Bush and Israel to Denmark when Denmark’s approach to the Palestinian issue has differed from the US and Israel?
• Be seen to communicate clearly and quickly – There was no effort to communicate with the publics involved and early attempts by the government and newspaper descended into gibberish about the semantics of the word apology. The communications appeared as arrogant to the Muslim community and feeble to those defending freedom of the press.
Copyright Tang Li (c)
maandag, februari 06, 2006
Mahinda's real chinthana
By Sonali Samarasinghe
The telephone threat made by President Mahinda Rajapakse to the Editor, The Sunday Leader, Lasantha Wickrematunge and the ensuing furore last week stunned diplomats and shocked civil society.
The threat issued personally to the Editor by the President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka in gutter language was based on some gossip that had reached the ear of Rajapakse that an article had been published regarding a disastrous visit made by the President and First Lady Shiranthi to the famous Guruvayur temple in Kerala.
It was a visit he feared would tarnish his image as a Sinhala leader and devout Buddhist and he desperately did not want details of the gaffe to come out. In fact he was acting on the mistaken belief that the story was published in this newspaper, hence his venom.
That aside, let's for a moment reflect on President Rajapakse. He is out of his depth. Nobody knows this better than the President himself. If ever there was a man who was out of his league, then that man is this man and President Mahinda Rajapakse knows it only too well.
Out of his league
Already since his election to high office some 68 service personnel have been killed and almost as many civilians. The foreign press has estimated the dead servicemen at well over 100. Only on Thursday another claymore mine took the lives of a further 10 sailors. As the body bags keep rolling in and the dead pile up, Rajapakse knows he cannot cope. He also understands now why the LTTE desperately wanted him as President of the south.
But if he kicked off on the wrong foot at home, he did the same abroad. His first official Presidential state visit across the Palk Strait was straight out of the pages of a comic strip written perhaps by Andare or Gothabaya Rajapakse.
And there he was, the President, fresh from a disastrous official state visit to India where only the cholesterol was present with none of the protocol. He attempted to meet Jayalalitha in Chennai and was snubbed. He tried to engage Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee in New Delhi and was again ignored.
He took a retinue of some 80 nobodies at the expense of the Sri Lankan public to keep him company. None of them had the good sense, the panache, or the decorum to give this rough and ready man from the south a lesson in diplomacy.
Thus it was that a much beleaguered President, ever ready to give ear to anything and everything, ever willing to act on idle gossip and unsubstantiated pish tosh and brimming to the eye balls with pent up emotions grabbed the telephone instrument bearing SLT No. 2392047 sitting quietly beside him somewhere in Temple Trees on the morning
of January 11 (Wednesday) at 11:13 a.m. and agitatedly dialed the number of the Editor, The Sunday Leader, Lasantha Wickrematunge.
The President then went off at a tangent in language even the foulest pirates of the high seas, the worst criminals in Rumy Marzook's prisons, and the most inebriated of winos in Beliatta would blush to utter.
But why he did so even the President did not know. "Thamusai Shiranthi gena liyala," he charged. When Wickrematunge asked him repeatedly what the article was the newspaper was supposed to have published, President Rajapakse could not say. It was obvious he was acting on either a dead rope or the idle gossip of venomous elements
in his circle.
Grave threat
But Rajapakse not stopping to verify facts, not stopping at the very least to read the English language newspaper, not even stopping to think; called the Editor and threatened him with his life. "Thamusava vinasha karala thamai mang ivara vennai," he said. When the Editor told him that he is not one to give in to threats and was not afraid, Rajapakse told him, "You will know fear. You don't know who Mahinda Rajapakse is." (See box for transcript of conversation. We apologise on behalf of the President for the language used by him)
Thus, even as our security forces were getting blasted by claymore mines in Chettikulum, Rajapakse was blasting media personnel in Colombo on some article he was told may have been written. God forbid this man handle a delicate situation like the peace process or even a full-on war.
Be that as it may, a threat to the life of an Editor of the independent media made personally by the President in the foul language he did may have been unheard of in the history of the free world but Wickrematunge was quick to action.
Believing there was a real threat to his life, the Editor who has already suffered several attempts to snuff him out and silence him by various politicians, immediately wrote to the Inspector General of Police, Chandra Fernando and to President Rajapakse himself. The letters were hand-delivered the same day the Presidential threat was issued together with a transcript of the conversation that took place and an English translation for easy reference. (See elsewhere on this page)
Colombo a buzz
The Editor within minutes informed the Free Media Movement (FMM) and other civil society organisations and on the morning of January 12 sent a copy of his letter to the IGP together with a covering letter to the diplomatic community and to other relevant international organisations.
But even before he was to do so, by the afternoon of January 11, Colombo was a buzz. Not only that, shocked diplomats were firing calls to Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera. Samaraweera blushing with embarrassment on behalf of the President was trying hard to engage in some diplomatic damage control but was critical of the Presidential gaffe to several others.
But if Colombo was buzzing, President Rajapakse had still not got over his hissy fit. Within five minutes of having called the Editor at 11:13 a.m. on January 11, he was to call the Leader of the Opposition, Ranil Wickremesinghe at his home. In the most agitated of voices and with anger spewing forth he told Wickremesinghe, "You are his friend, tell
him to stop writing."
However, when asked what the Editor was supposed to have written, again Rajapakse could not say except to utter vaguely that it was about his wife and that he was told about it by Indian High Commissioner Nirupama Rao. Furthermore when asked by others close to him what the article in question was the President with much agitation had said, "Mama danne kehelmalak ne." The Indian High Commissioner told him, Rajapakse was to tell anyone who cared to ask him.
Thus it confirmed that President Rajapakse was not even aware of why he was acting in this manner. He seemed merely to have gone mad. Completely lost control. A characteristic that is lethal to a President of such a fractured country as ours and one that is on the brink of another bloody war.
Given the venomous tone in Rajapakse's voice and being by nature a man who thinks before he acts and/or speaks and not wanting to create dissension, Wickremesinghe did not relay the message of the President to Editor Wickrematunge until about 1:30 p.m. He was to call the Editor and tell him, "I am officially delivering the message given to me by President Rajapakse for your information."
"At a personal level I would ask you to take adequate security measures given the nature and the tone of the message received and would advise you not to take the issue any further," Wickreme-singhe was to also tell the Editor.
However given the seriousness of the threat and the high office from which it emanated, The Sunday Leader decided to investigate the cause of Rajapakse's fit of rage. We found out that it had nothing to do with what we had written but was either more of a preemptive strike by the President on what we may write or a misunderstanding of a message received from the Indian High Commissioner.
Wires crossed
The President may have also got conflicting reports that this newspaper had already published an article relating to the subject which was a source of agitation for him when in fact it was not so, hence his inability to draw the attention of the Editor to the article referred to when repeatedly asked.
What subject you may well ask. And we today will tell you. For indeed we had not intended to publish any details on the matter but President Rajapakse's Billingsgate behaviour unbecoming of the high office he holds and contrary to the Mahinda Chinthana public persona he purports to project compels us to do so. It all started at the Guruvayur temple in Kerala but more of that anon. (See opposite page for full details)
A disaster
One is aware that President Rajapakse though having been in parliament some 20 years was not a man who really did anything. As Labour Minister in the 1994 Kumaratunga government, he was a disaster. Again placing his relatives in high places and in true 'Helping Hambantota' style creating separate companies of which his flesh and blood had controlling interest, with ETF monies. A matter already published in our newspapers over three months ago. As Fisheries Minister, he fared no better.
Throughout his career he was lifted or pushed along by other more able bodied men and indeed women. Never had the man been called upon to engage in true governance. In the run up to the election he was in his element. All he had to do was utter a few vacuous bombastic words which meant little to the gullible masses and let Wimal Weerawansa do the rest.
Today as President and with cannons to the right of him, cannons to the left of him, cannons in front of him, volleyed and thundered stormed at with shot and shell (with apologies to Tennyson) the harried President is submerged. He needs to burst out or he will explode. This he did last Wednesday.
At one of his many election dinners hosted at Temple Trees he was to tell some young outstation lawyers, "Mama edath Mahinda Rajapakse, adath Mahinda Rajapakse, hetath Mahinda Rajapakse." Alas, those who know him only too well will tell you that this is in fact true and it bodes ill for the nation.
If he wants to usher in a new era of decency he must lead by example. If he says the future of this country are its children, he must set an example in his own home. One only hopes his young children were not around to hear their father speak in this manner, particularly in relation to the 83-year-old mother of the Editor.
Untold story that had Mahinda fuming
This newspaper never intended to publish the details of President Rajapakse and his wife Shiranthi's disastrous visit to the famous and sacred Guruvayur Temple in Kerala at the tail-end of their failed visit to India earlier this month. In passing we had mentioned President Rajapakse had gone there for a special pooja for which he had to shed his saluwa and don a vetti. However we refrained from giving any further details. Today we are compelled to do so to point to the motive for his fit of rage.
Humongous blunder
President Rajapakse who had already made every possible diplomatic blunder in India politically was, at the tail-end of his visit, to make a humongous blunder spiritually and socially.
The President and his advisors who obviously do not believe in doing their homework before embarking on an official visit was to visit the famous Guruvayur temple in Kerala - a place so sacred only Hindus are allowed in and that too with nothing but a vetti to cover themselves. Steeped in history and spiritual legend the Krishna temple is the fourth
biggest temple in India in terms of the number of devotees per day.
The temple dedicated to Lord Krishna popularly known as Guruvayoorappan is famous all over India as a pilgrim centre. The Sreekrishna idol of this temple is believed to have been worshipped by Vasudevar and Devaki at Dwaraka. This shrine popularly known as 'Dakshina Dwaraka' (Dwaraka of south) is in the form of a rectangle.
Breaking hallowed traditions
President Rajapakse who had made a large number of vows was also eager to engage in one of the poojas. For this, barebodied and sans saluwa he donned a vetti and proceeded forth. Well and good. But who should accompany him but his charming wife Shiranthi, who being a Christian and Catholic was not allowed anywhere near the sacred
temple in terms of the hallowed traditions of the temple.
But at the time of the pooja no one in the temple was any the wiser and the pooja was conducted and temple activities went on apace. However word gets around and Keralites in general, the Indian media and more importantly the temple administration were buzzing with the news that a Catholic had stepped onto sacred soil. The temple administration was to immediately write to the Indian High Commission in Colombo and ask for clarification and confirmation as to whether the Sri Lankan First Lady was indeed a Catholic.
President Rajapakse got wind of this letter from the Indian High Commission and panicked. The President was told by High Commissioner Rao, the story about Shiranthi visiting the temple was all over and if reported in Sri Lanka and gets back to India would cause a lot of problems.
According to what Rajapakse was to later tell confidants, Rao had also said the only paper that might carry the story is the "Leader."
Rajapakse who has been riding high politically on the Sinhala Buddhist ticket was not about to admit that not only was his wife Catholic but that he did not know the first thing about the sacred customs of one of the most famous temples in India. Indeed a temple many Sri Lankan Buddhists frequent. Buddhist are allowed in, as Buddhism is not considered a religion. So too are Jains allowed into the precincts of the holy place.
Image at stake
The rule is so strict that the world's most powerful woman in terms of numbers she controls, Sonia Gandhi has not been able to visit the temple. Neither has Indian President Abdul Kalam who is a Muslim and one of his predecessors, Giani Zail Singh.
President Rajapakse's Sinhala Buddhist image was at stake - the only reason that he was President of Sri Lanka was due to the racism and intolerance of the majority Buddhists and Rajapakse desperately wanted to preserve his hardline image. He also did not want a backlash in India with the likes of Vaiko taking up the issue as sacrilege. He may have admitted in passing that his wife was Catholic and that his children were fortunate enough to attend one of the foremost Anglican schools in the country but he didn't do it too often.
In fact the rule is so strict that now the temple will have to be closed for three weeks while it is washed and cleansed thoroughly. Not only that according to belief none of the poojas conducted during the month of 'defilement' by Shiranthi will have effect and that includes the one conducted by President Rajapakse himself.
This means that all those poojas will have to be conducted again - a costly affair considering the huge sums of money spent on these poojas by the devotees. But worse still for the temple, it is probably the temple that will have to pick up the tab for the poojas considering that the repeat performances had nothing to do with the devotees but with Sri Lanka's President and First Lady.
Spiritual etiquette
If Rajapakse had only done his homework. If only the very efficient Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry had given him a dos and don'ts list. In fact they could have got such a list off any old website or tourist brochure.
But President Rajapakse need not have gone far to learn the spiritual etiquette. All he had to do was to call Indian High Commissioner Nirupama Rao, a Keralite herself, and ask her advice. She would have certainly known the spiritual sensitivities surrounding Guruvayur. But he chose not to do that.
A President who acts on gossip
President Mahinda Rajapakse while admitting he spoke to Editor Lasantha Wickrematunge however reportedly denied that he used foul language to a daily newspaper last week. But in his denial he again branded himself a liar.
Firstly, in his conversation of January 11, he did not mention his children but only his wife and he did not mention anything about "narrow political ends." But more importantly President Rajapakse alluded to an earlier friendly telephone conversation with Wickrematunge who had later in the newspaper reportedly interpreted this telephone call as an attempt to befriend him because he feared the Editor.
Rajapakse must first read an English newspaper before he attempts to make any allegations or base his actions on articles purportedly written. While we admit that President Rajapakse telephoned the Editor of this newspaper and engaged in a friendly conversation shortly after the election, we categorically deny we wrote anything in any section of
the newspaper regarding the same.
In fact it was Rajapakse who requested the Editor not to write anything on their conversation and we did not. A perusal of our newspapers will bear proof to this fact. And we challenge Rajapakse to submit any proof of this absolute lie. In fact his second lie only confirms the version of the events of January 11 as related by this newspaper. And having a chat with the President is no big deal to report on. We report the news and not how we got it.
And in the true spirit of decency we still refrain from publishing the details of that first friendly conversation, the contents of which President Rajapakse requested Editor Wickrematunge not to divulge.
However, it is obvious that the President is a man who given enough rope will hang himself. If the highest in the land is now to act on the basis of mindless gossip and Chinese whispers, what is to become of this nation? Surely, the Commander in Chief may order a war without verification on a baseless rumour of an incident in the north? He is also a man capable of issuing threats to the media while talking about democracy and human rights. He has proved himself a man who will sooner make this country a banana republic than a democratic one as envisaged by his own Chinthana.
Editor's letter to the President
11 January 2006
President Mahinda Rajapakse,
Temple Trees
Colombo 03.
My dear President,
I was shocked and surprised by the tone and content of your telephone call to me at 11:13 this morning. I cannot imagine that the occupant of the highest office in our land could utter such foul, lewd and disgusting words: indeed the language of the gutter. It is unbecoming and disgraceful of you to have uttered threats against me, and I want to repeat the assertion made by me during your hysterical ranting that I will not be bowed by them. You more than any other
politician have paid lip service to human rights and the building of a decent society in Sri Lanka. It is all the more shocking then, that you should conduct yourself in such a low manner.
Given the office you hold, I have no doubt it is well within your power to do me harm, whether or not through the abuse of the state machinery that lies at your disposal. I have therefore no choice but to give your threats the widest possible publicity in the hope that this will persuade you to desist from the course of action you are clearly contemplating,
to eliminate me or do me harm.
No doubt you will deny the content of the conversation that took place this morning as you would a request made to me prior to the presidential election inviting me to run your election campaign with your brother, Basil Rajapakse which I politely declined. You have no choice but to deny the threat made, given the lip service your public persona pays to the upholding of decent values.
You know better than anyone that The Sunday Leader was infinitely more critical of your predecessor, Chandrika Kumaratunga, than it has been of you. Yet, she never stooped to the level you have, even though she was reported to have given ear to a plot to "kill an editor or two."
Leader of the Opposition, Ranil Wickremesinghe informed me that you had spoken with him at around 1 p.m. on the same subject which was within a matter of two hours of threatening me, and asked him to request me to desist from publishing in future any story you consider provocative.You have specifically mentioned the publication of a story relating to your wife, Shiranthi. I have no idea what story you are referring to: you failed to tell me, and you evidently failed also to tell him. Yet, I wish to remind you that should you have anything to convey to me, your purposes would be best served by informing me directly rather than threatening me in vile language.
Given our long acquaintance, you should know better than anyone that I am not one to be swayed by third parties. I take this opportunity to also remind you in that context your request to me as Prime Minister to refrain from publishing details of the 'Helping Hambantota' account in July 2005 and my refusal to oblige you. Indeed, when there is news that it is in the national interest to publish, be assured that nothing will prevent The Sunday Leader from publishing it.
I urge you even now to respect the great office to which you have been elected, and to conduct yourself with the dignity and decorum the people and Sri Lanka have a right to expect of you. It does not become the presidency that you should threaten journalists or indeed, plot violence against them.
With best wishes for the new year,
Yours sincerely,
Lasantha Wickrematunge
Attorney-at-Law,
Editor, The Sunday Leader
Editor's letter to the IGP
11 January 2006.
Mr, Chandra Fernando,
Inspector General of Police
Police Headquarters
Colombo 1.
Dear Sir,
At 11:13 a.m. today I received a call on my mobile phone from telephone number 2392047. Speaking in Sinhala, the operator told me that she had a call for me from His Excellency, the President. The number is registered on my mobile phone, a certified copy of which can be furnished if necessary. A man then spoke to me in English, and asked me to hold the line as His Excellency the President wished to speak to me.
Shortly thereafter, President Mahinda Rajapakse came on the line. I recognised his voice because he has on several occasions spoken with me by telephone, including after his election as President. I have known President Rajapakse and associated with him for more than 20 years prior to that and am well acquainted with his voice.
I made a contemporaneous note of the conversation, in Sinhala, which I attach hereto, together with a translation in English.
As you will see from this note, President Rajapakse used foul, abusive and threatening language unbecoming of the high office he holds. He told me repeatedly, "What have you written about Shiranthi in the Leader?" However, when I asked him, "What is it you are referring to? Have you read whatever it is you are referring to?" he replied with the words, "I know what to do to you." He continued to mouth vile and defamatory references to my mother and threatened to destroy me, "wait and see what I am going to do to you." As the President continued, apparently in a state of hysteria, I told him not to threaten me and that I will not give into such threats. I have no choice but to interpret the President's words, however, as a threat to my life.
Further, one of the most prominent businessmen in our country (I shall disclose the name to you if it is necessary to aid your inquiries) recently informed me that the President had told him that he intends to "destroy" me. He interpreted this as a threat to my life. So seriously did he take the threat that he spoke also to my brother, Lal Wickrematunge and another mutual friend, and requested them to convey this message to me and urge me to take care.
I am therefore bringing this matter to your urgent attention and requesting you to take immediate steps to ensure my security given the serious nature of the threats made by the President of the country who is also the Commander-in-Chief of the security forces and Defence Minister. I also request you to investigate this matter fully and I am willing to furnish you with such information as may be necessary to facilitate such an inquiry.
I wish to remind you that I consider this a grave threat to my life especially given that several journalists have been assassinated in recent years, including Mr. Rohana Kumara, Mr. Mariyadasan Nimalaranjan and Mr. Dharmaratnam Sivaram. In some of these cases, the murders were preceded by threats made by leading politicians. The threat made against me by President Rajapakse was, however, more serious and immediate than any of those directed at the above late journalists. You will also undoubtedly be aware that there have been two previous attempts on my life, one involving firearms: and in the latter case, despite complaints to the police, no action has been taken.
In the run up to the presidential election of November 17, 2005, The Sunday Leader press at Ratmalana was torched. Shortly after his election, the President was also reported as having told Mr. S.B. Dissanayake that he will use the judiciary to jail some journalists. I have grave apprehensions, therefore, that President Rajapakse will use the machinery of the state to harass and intimidate me, and possibly even take my life.
The President had also within two hours of the threatening call to me spoken with the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe and requested him to speak with me as well and urge me to refrain from writing articles he considers provocative claiming his (the President's) patience was running thin. Mr. Wickremesinghe communicated to me the President's message. The telephone conversation initiated by the President to the Leader of the Opposition
subsequent to the threat issued to me is further proof that the President did speak with me in the morning.
I would be grateful if you would kindly arrange therefore, without delay, to provide me with adequate security against this threat.
In the hope that it will result in additional pressure on President Rajapakse to desist from the criminal course of action he appears to be contemplating, I am copying this letter to the heads of foreign missions in Colombo, the Leader of the Opposition and the presidents of the Free Media Movement, Transparency International and Bar Association of Sri Lanka.
Yours faithfully,
Lasantha Wickrematunge,
Attorney-at-Law,
Editor, The Sunday Leader
The President's telephone call
Telephone call made by the President of the Democratic Socialist
Republic of Sri Lanka, Mahinda Rajapakse to the Editor-in-Chief, The
Sunday Leader, Lasantha Wickrematunge on January 11, 2006 at
11.13 a.m.
(English translation)
Mahinda: What have you written about Shiranthi in the Leader?
Lasantha: What has been written?
Mahinda: You should know what has been written
Lasantha: Did you read it? What are you talking about?
Mahinda: About what? F. your mother (am.. Hu..a), son of a bloody
wh. (k.ri ve.e putha) I will finish you. You have hit me, now you are
hitting my woman as well.
Lasantha: What has the article said?
Mahinda: I treated you well all this while. Now I will destroy you. You
don't know who Mahinda Rajapakse is. You watch what I will do to you.
You hit me even during the election. Pariah. You are hitting even now...
I will destroy you.
Lasantha: Just because you are President, do not talk in that
threatening way. We don't get intimidated by threats. Tell us what it is
we are supposed to have written.
Mahinda: Pariah.You are not scared!.... I will show you what it is to
be scared. I will rest only when I destroy you. You wait and see.You
don't know who Mahinda Rajapakse is.
The telephone threat made by President Mahinda Rajapakse to the Editor, The Sunday Leader, Lasantha Wickrematunge and the ensuing furore last week stunned diplomats and shocked civil society.
The threat issued personally to the Editor by the President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka in gutter language was based on some gossip that had reached the ear of Rajapakse that an article had been published regarding a disastrous visit made by the President and First Lady Shiranthi to the famous Guruvayur temple in Kerala.
It was a visit he feared would tarnish his image as a Sinhala leader and devout Buddhist and he desperately did not want details of the gaffe to come out. In fact he was acting on the mistaken belief that the story was published in this newspaper, hence his venom.
That aside, let's for a moment reflect on President Rajapakse. He is out of his depth. Nobody knows this better than the President himself. If ever there was a man who was out of his league, then that man is this man and President Mahinda Rajapakse knows it only too well.
Out of his league
Already since his election to high office some 68 service personnel have been killed and almost as many civilians. The foreign press has estimated the dead servicemen at well over 100. Only on Thursday another claymore mine took the lives of a further 10 sailors. As the body bags keep rolling in and the dead pile up, Rajapakse knows he cannot cope. He also understands now why the LTTE desperately wanted him as President of the south.
But if he kicked off on the wrong foot at home, he did the same abroad. His first official Presidential state visit across the Palk Strait was straight out of the pages of a comic strip written perhaps by Andare or Gothabaya Rajapakse.
And there he was, the President, fresh from a disastrous official state visit to India where only the cholesterol was present with none of the protocol. He attempted to meet Jayalalitha in Chennai and was snubbed. He tried to engage Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee in New Delhi and was again ignored.
He took a retinue of some 80 nobodies at the expense of the Sri Lankan public to keep him company. None of them had the good sense, the panache, or the decorum to give this rough and ready man from the south a lesson in diplomacy.
Thus it was that a much beleaguered President, ever ready to give ear to anything and everything, ever willing to act on idle gossip and unsubstantiated pish tosh and brimming to the eye balls with pent up emotions grabbed the telephone instrument bearing SLT No. 2392047 sitting quietly beside him somewhere in Temple Trees on the morning
of January 11 (Wednesday) at 11:13 a.m. and agitatedly dialed the number of the Editor, The Sunday Leader, Lasantha Wickrematunge.
The President then went off at a tangent in language even the foulest pirates of the high seas, the worst criminals in Rumy Marzook's prisons, and the most inebriated of winos in Beliatta would blush to utter.
But why he did so even the President did not know. "Thamusai Shiranthi gena liyala," he charged. When Wickrematunge asked him repeatedly what the article was the newspaper was supposed to have published, President Rajapakse could not say. It was obvious he was acting on either a dead rope or the idle gossip of venomous elements
in his circle.
Grave threat
But Rajapakse not stopping to verify facts, not stopping at the very least to read the English language newspaper, not even stopping to think; called the Editor and threatened him with his life. "Thamusava vinasha karala thamai mang ivara vennai," he said. When the Editor told him that he is not one to give in to threats and was not afraid, Rajapakse told him, "You will know fear. You don't know who Mahinda Rajapakse is." (See box for transcript of conversation. We apologise on behalf of the President for the language used by him)
Thus, even as our security forces were getting blasted by claymore mines in Chettikulum, Rajapakse was blasting media personnel in Colombo on some article he was told may have been written. God forbid this man handle a delicate situation like the peace process or even a full-on war.
Be that as it may, a threat to the life of an Editor of the independent media made personally by the President in the foul language he did may have been unheard of in the history of the free world but Wickrematunge was quick to action.
Believing there was a real threat to his life, the Editor who has already suffered several attempts to snuff him out and silence him by various politicians, immediately wrote to the Inspector General of Police, Chandra Fernando and to President Rajapakse himself. The letters were hand-delivered the same day the Presidential threat was issued together with a transcript of the conversation that took place and an English translation for easy reference. (See elsewhere on this page)
Colombo a buzz
The Editor within minutes informed the Free Media Movement (FMM) and other civil society organisations and on the morning of January 12 sent a copy of his letter to the IGP together with a covering letter to the diplomatic community and to other relevant international organisations.
But even before he was to do so, by the afternoon of January 11, Colombo was a buzz. Not only that, shocked diplomats were firing calls to Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera. Samaraweera blushing with embarrassment on behalf of the President was trying hard to engage in some diplomatic damage control but was critical of the Presidential gaffe to several others.
But if Colombo was buzzing, President Rajapakse had still not got over his hissy fit. Within five minutes of having called the Editor at 11:13 a.m. on January 11, he was to call the Leader of the Opposition, Ranil Wickremesinghe at his home. In the most agitated of voices and with anger spewing forth he told Wickremesinghe, "You are his friend, tell
him to stop writing."
However, when asked what the Editor was supposed to have written, again Rajapakse could not say except to utter vaguely that it was about his wife and that he was told about it by Indian High Commissioner Nirupama Rao. Furthermore when asked by others close to him what the article in question was the President with much agitation had said, "Mama danne kehelmalak ne." The Indian High Commissioner told him, Rajapakse was to tell anyone who cared to ask him.
Thus it confirmed that President Rajapakse was not even aware of why he was acting in this manner. He seemed merely to have gone mad. Completely lost control. A characteristic that is lethal to a President of such a fractured country as ours and one that is on the brink of another bloody war.
Given the venomous tone in Rajapakse's voice and being by nature a man who thinks before he acts and/or speaks and not wanting to create dissension, Wickremesinghe did not relay the message of the President to Editor Wickrematunge until about 1:30 p.m. He was to call the Editor and tell him, "I am officially delivering the message given to me by President Rajapakse for your information."
"At a personal level I would ask you to take adequate security measures given the nature and the tone of the message received and would advise you not to take the issue any further," Wickreme-singhe was to also tell the Editor.
However given the seriousness of the threat and the high office from which it emanated, The Sunday Leader decided to investigate the cause of Rajapakse's fit of rage. We found out that it had nothing to do with what we had written but was either more of a preemptive strike by the President on what we may write or a misunderstanding of a message received from the Indian High Commissioner.
Wires crossed
The President may have also got conflicting reports that this newspaper had already published an article relating to the subject which was a source of agitation for him when in fact it was not so, hence his inability to draw the attention of the Editor to the article referred to when repeatedly asked.
What subject you may well ask. And we today will tell you. For indeed we had not intended to publish any details on the matter but President Rajapakse's Billingsgate behaviour unbecoming of the high office he holds and contrary to the Mahinda Chinthana public persona he purports to project compels us to do so. It all started at the Guruvayur temple in Kerala but more of that anon. (See opposite page for full details)
A disaster
One is aware that President Rajapakse though having been in parliament some 20 years was not a man who really did anything. As Labour Minister in the 1994 Kumaratunga government, he was a disaster. Again placing his relatives in high places and in true 'Helping Hambantota' style creating separate companies of which his flesh and blood had controlling interest, with ETF monies. A matter already published in our newspapers over three months ago. As Fisheries Minister, he fared no better.
Throughout his career he was lifted or pushed along by other more able bodied men and indeed women. Never had the man been called upon to engage in true governance. In the run up to the election he was in his element. All he had to do was utter a few vacuous bombastic words which meant little to the gullible masses and let Wimal Weerawansa do the rest.
Today as President and with cannons to the right of him, cannons to the left of him, cannons in front of him, volleyed and thundered stormed at with shot and shell (with apologies to Tennyson) the harried President is submerged. He needs to burst out or he will explode. This he did last Wednesday.
At one of his many election dinners hosted at Temple Trees he was to tell some young outstation lawyers, "Mama edath Mahinda Rajapakse, adath Mahinda Rajapakse, hetath Mahinda Rajapakse." Alas, those who know him only too well will tell you that this is in fact true and it bodes ill for the nation.
If he wants to usher in a new era of decency he must lead by example. If he says the future of this country are its children, he must set an example in his own home. One only hopes his young children were not around to hear their father speak in this manner, particularly in relation to the 83-year-old mother of the Editor.
Untold story that had Mahinda fuming
This newspaper never intended to publish the details of President Rajapakse and his wife Shiranthi's disastrous visit to the famous and sacred Guruvayur Temple in Kerala at the tail-end of their failed visit to India earlier this month. In passing we had mentioned President Rajapakse had gone there for a special pooja for which he had to shed his saluwa and don a vetti. However we refrained from giving any further details. Today we are compelled to do so to point to the motive for his fit of rage.
Humongous blunder
President Rajapakse who had already made every possible diplomatic blunder in India politically was, at the tail-end of his visit, to make a humongous blunder spiritually and socially.
The President and his advisors who obviously do not believe in doing their homework before embarking on an official visit was to visit the famous Guruvayur temple in Kerala - a place so sacred only Hindus are allowed in and that too with nothing but a vetti to cover themselves. Steeped in history and spiritual legend the Krishna temple is the fourth
biggest temple in India in terms of the number of devotees per day.
The temple dedicated to Lord Krishna popularly known as Guruvayoorappan is famous all over India as a pilgrim centre. The Sreekrishna idol of this temple is believed to have been worshipped by Vasudevar and Devaki at Dwaraka. This shrine popularly known as 'Dakshina Dwaraka' (Dwaraka of south) is in the form of a rectangle.
Breaking hallowed traditions
President Rajapakse who had made a large number of vows was also eager to engage in one of the poojas. For this, barebodied and sans saluwa he donned a vetti and proceeded forth. Well and good. But who should accompany him but his charming wife Shiranthi, who being a Christian and Catholic was not allowed anywhere near the sacred
temple in terms of the hallowed traditions of the temple.
But at the time of the pooja no one in the temple was any the wiser and the pooja was conducted and temple activities went on apace. However word gets around and Keralites in general, the Indian media and more importantly the temple administration were buzzing with the news that a Catholic had stepped onto sacred soil. The temple administration was to immediately write to the Indian High Commission in Colombo and ask for clarification and confirmation as to whether the Sri Lankan First Lady was indeed a Catholic.
President Rajapakse got wind of this letter from the Indian High Commission and panicked. The President was told by High Commissioner Rao, the story about Shiranthi visiting the temple was all over and if reported in Sri Lanka and gets back to India would cause a lot of problems.
According to what Rajapakse was to later tell confidants, Rao had also said the only paper that might carry the story is the "Leader."
Rajapakse who has been riding high politically on the Sinhala Buddhist ticket was not about to admit that not only was his wife Catholic but that he did not know the first thing about the sacred customs of one of the most famous temples in India. Indeed a temple many Sri Lankan Buddhists frequent. Buddhist are allowed in, as Buddhism is not considered a religion. So too are Jains allowed into the precincts of the holy place.
Image at stake
The rule is so strict that the world's most powerful woman in terms of numbers she controls, Sonia Gandhi has not been able to visit the temple. Neither has Indian President Abdul Kalam who is a Muslim and one of his predecessors, Giani Zail Singh.
President Rajapakse's Sinhala Buddhist image was at stake - the only reason that he was President of Sri Lanka was due to the racism and intolerance of the majority Buddhists and Rajapakse desperately wanted to preserve his hardline image. He also did not want a backlash in India with the likes of Vaiko taking up the issue as sacrilege. He may have admitted in passing that his wife was Catholic and that his children were fortunate enough to attend one of the foremost Anglican schools in the country but he didn't do it too often.
In fact the rule is so strict that now the temple will have to be closed for three weeks while it is washed and cleansed thoroughly. Not only that according to belief none of the poojas conducted during the month of 'defilement' by Shiranthi will have effect and that includes the one conducted by President Rajapakse himself.
This means that all those poojas will have to be conducted again - a costly affair considering the huge sums of money spent on these poojas by the devotees. But worse still for the temple, it is probably the temple that will have to pick up the tab for the poojas considering that the repeat performances had nothing to do with the devotees but with Sri Lanka's President and First Lady.
Spiritual etiquette
If Rajapakse had only done his homework. If only the very efficient Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry had given him a dos and don'ts list. In fact they could have got such a list off any old website or tourist brochure.
But President Rajapakse need not have gone far to learn the spiritual etiquette. All he had to do was to call Indian High Commissioner Nirupama Rao, a Keralite herself, and ask her advice. She would have certainly known the spiritual sensitivities surrounding Guruvayur. But he chose not to do that.
A President who acts on gossip
President Mahinda Rajapakse while admitting he spoke to Editor Lasantha Wickrematunge however reportedly denied that he used foul language to a daily newspaper last week. But in his denial he again branded himself a liar.
Firstly, in his conversation of January 11, he did not mention his children but only his wife and he did not mention anything about "narrow political ends." But more importantly President Rajapakse alluded to an earlier friendly telephone conversation with Wickrematunge who had later in the newspaper reportedly interpreted this telephone call as an attempt to befriend him because he feared the Editor.
Rajapakse must first read an English newspaper before he attempts to make any allegations or base his actions on articles purportedly written. While we admit that President Rajapakse telephoned the Editor of this newspaper and engaged in a friendly conversation shortly after the election, we categorically deny we wrote anything in any section of
the newspaper regarding the same.
In fact it was Rajapakse who requested the Editor not to write anything on their conversation and we did not. A perusal of our newspapers will bear proof to this fact. And we challenge Rajapakse to submit any proof of this absolute lie. In fact his second lie only confirms the version of the events of January 11 as related by this newspaper. And having a chat with the President is no big deal to report on. We report the news and not how we got it.
And in the true spirit of decency we still refrain from publishing the details of that first friendly conversation, the contents of which President Rajapakse requested Editor Wickrematunge not to divulge.
However, it is obvious that the President is a man who given enough rope will hang himself. If the highest in the land is now to act on the basis of mindless gossip and Chinese whispers, what is to become of this nation? Surely, the Commander in Chief may order a war without verification on a baseless rumour of an incident in the north? He is also a man capable of issuing threats to the media while talking about democracy and human rights. He has proved himself a man who will sooner make this country a banana republic than a democratic one as envisaged by his own Chinthana.
Editor's letter to the President
11 January 2006
President Mahinda Rajapakse,
Temple Trees
Colombo 03.
My dear President,
I was shocked and surprised by the tone and content of your telephone call to me at 11:13 this morning. I cannot imagine that the occupant of the highest office in our land could utter such foul, lewd and disgusting words: indeed the language of the gutter. It is unbecoming and disgraceful of you to have uttered threats against me, and I want to repeat the assertion made by me during your hysterical ranting that I will not be bowed by them. You more than any other
politician have paid lip service to human rights and the building of a decent society in Sri Lanka. It is all the more shocking then, that you should conduct yourself in such a low manner.
Given the office you hold, I have no doubt it is well within your power to do me harm, whether or not through the abuse of the state machinery that lies at your disposal. I have therefore no choice but to give your threats the widest possible publicity in the hope that this will persuade you to desist from the course of action you are clearly contemplating,
to eliminate me or do me harm.
No doubt you will deny the content of the conversation that took place this morning as you would a request made to me prior to the presidential election inviting me to run your election campaign with your brother, Basil Rajapakse which I politely declined. You have no choice but to deny the threat made, given the lip service your public persona pays to the upholding of decent values.
You know better than anyone that The Sunday Leader was infinitely more critical of your predecessor, Chandrika Kumaratunga, than it has been of you. Yet, she never stooped to the level you have, even though she was reported to have given ear to a plot to "kill an editor or two."
Leader of the Opposition, Ranil Wickremesinghe informed me that you had spoken with him at around 1 p.m. on the same subject which was within a matter of two hours of threatening me, and asked him to request me to desist from publishing in future any story you consider provocative.You have specifically mentioned the publication of a story relating to your wife, Shiranthi. I have no idea what story you are referring to: you failed to tell me, and you evidently failed also to tell him. Yet, I wish to remind you that should you have anything to convey to me, your purposes would be best served by informing me directly rather than threatening me in vile language.
Given our long acquaintance, you should know better than anyone that I am not one to be swayed by third parties. I take this opportunity to also remind you in that context your request to me as Prime Minister to refrain from publishing details of the 'Helping Hambantota' account in July 2005 and my refusal to oblige you. Indeed, when there is news that it is in the national interest to publish, be assured that nothing will prevent The Sunday Leader from publishing it.
I urge you even now to respect the great office to which you have been elected, and to conduct yourself with the dignity and decorum the people and Sri Lanka have a right to expect of you. It does not become the presidency that you should threaten journalists or indeed, plot violence against them.
With best wishes for the new year,
Yours sincerely,
Lasantha Wickrematunge
Attorney-at-Law,
Editor, The Sunday Leader
Editor's letter to the IGP
11 January 2006.
Mr, Chandra Fernando,
Inspector General of Police
Police Headquarters
Colombo 1.
Dear Sir,
At 11:13 a.m. today I received a call on my mobile phone from telephone number 2392047. Speaking in Sinhala, the operator told me that she had a call for me from His Excellency, the President. The number is registered on my mobile phone, a certified copy of which can be furnished if necessary. A man then spoke to me in English, and asked me to hold the line as His Excellency the President wished to speak to me.
Shortly thereafter, President Mahinda Rajapakse came on the line. I recognised his voice because he has on several occasions spoken with me by telephone, including after his election as President. I have known President Rajapakse and associated with him for more than 20 years prior to that and am well acquainted with his voice.
I made a contemporaneous note of the conversation, in Sinhala, which I attach hereto, together with a translation in English.
As you will see from this note, President Rajapakse used foul, abusive and threatening language unbecoming of the high office he holds. He told me repeatedly, "What have you written about Shiranthi in the Leader?" However, when I asked him, "What is it you are referring to? Have you read whatever it is you are referring to?" he replied with the words, "I know what to do to you." He continued to mouth vile and defamatory references to my mother and threatened to destroy me, "wait and see what I am going to do to you." As the President continued, apparently in a state of hysteria, I told him not to threaten me and that I will not give into such threats. I have no choice but to interpret the President's words, however, as a threat to my life.
Further, one of the most prominent businessmen in our country (I shall disclose the name to you if it is necessary to aid your inquiries) recently informed me that the President had told him that he intends to "destroy" me. He interpreted this as a threat to my life. So seriously did he take the threat that he spoke also to my brother, Lal Wickrematunge and another mutual friend, and requested them to convey this message to me and urge me to take care.
I am therefore bringing this matter to your urgent attention and requesting you to take immediate steps to ensure my security given the serious nature of the threats made by the President of the country who is also the Commander-in-Chief of the security forces and Defence Minister. I also request you to investigate this matter fully and I am willing to furnish you with such information as may be necessary to facilitate such an inquiry.
I wish to remind you that I consider this a grave threat to my life especially given that several journalists have been assassinated in recent years, including Mr. Rohana Kumara, Mr. Mariyadasan Nimalaranjan and Mr. Dharmaratnam Sivaram. In some of these cases, the murders were preceded by threats made by leading politicians. The threat made against me by President Rajapakse was, however, more serious and immediate than any of those directed at the above late journalists. You will also undoubtedly be aware that there have been two previous attempts on my life, one involving firearms: and in the latter case, despite complaints to the police, no action has been taken.
In the run up to the presidential election of November 17, 2005, The Sunday Leader press at Ratmalana was torched. Shortly after his election, the President was also reported as having told Mr. S.B. Dissanayake that he will use the judiciary to jail some journalists. I have grave apprehensions, therefore, that President Rajapakse will use the machinery of the state to harass and intimidate me, and possibly even take my life.
The President had also within two hours of the threatening call to me spoken with the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe and requested him to speak with me as well and urge me to refrain from writing articles he considers provocative claiming his (the President's) patience was running thin. Mr. Wickremesinghe communicated to me the President's message. The telephone conversation initiated by the President to the Leader of the Opposition
subsequent to the threat issued to me is further proof that the President did speak with me in the morning.
I would be grateful if you would kindly arrange therefore, without delay, to provide me with adequate security against this threat.
In the hope that it will result in additional pressure on President Rajapakse to desist from the criminal course of action he appears to be contemplating, I am copying this letter to the heads of foreign missions in Colombo, the Leader of the Opposition and the presidents of the Free Media Movement, Transparency International and Bar Association of Sri Lanka.
Yours faithfully,
Lasantha Wickrematunge,
Attorney-at-Law,
Editor, The Sunday Leader
The President's telephone call
Telephone call made by the President of the Democratic Socialist
Republic of Sri Lanka, Mahinda Rajapakse to the Editor-in-Chief, The
Sunday Leader, Lasantha Wickrematunge on January 11, 2006 at
11.13 a.m.
(English translation)
Mahinda: What have you written about Shiranthi in the Leader?
Lasantha: What has been written?
Mahinda: You should know what has been written
Lasantha: Did you read it? What are you talking about?
Mahinda: About what? F. your mother (am.. Hu..a), son of a bloody
wh. (k.ri ve.e putha) I will finish you. You have hit me, now you are
hitting my woman as well.
Lasantha: What has the article said?
Mahinda: I treated you well all this while. Now I will destroy you. You
don't know who Mahinda Rajapakse is. You watch what I will do to you.
You hit me even during the election. Pariah. You are hitting even now...
I will destroy you.
Lasantha: Just because you are President, do not talk in that
threatening way. We don't get intimidated by threats. Tell us what it is
we are supposed to have written.
Mahinda: Pariah.You are not scared!.... I will show you what it is to
be scared. I will rest only when I destroy you. You wait and see.You
don't know who Mahinda Rajapakse is.
vrijdag, februari 03, 2006
The Importance to take on lost causes
I was delighted to see a story about Subhas Anandan (Public Defender Number One -12 November) on the front page of Weekend TODAY. I believe Mr Anandan plays an important role in Singapore.
Is Mr Anandan a self-promoter? The mere act of taking Anthony Ler, Ah Long San and similar characters as clients’ guarantees publicity that easily translates into more business. Mr Anandan’s financial rewards have been undoubtedly good. But he has earned it. Taking on ‘lost’ causes requires certain strength of character.
Take the case of Tok Leng Hua and Huang Na’s murder. The disappearance of the toddler captured the nation’s imagination. When the gruesome details of how she was sexually assaulted were revealed, Singaporeans were rightfully revolted and the normally placid public became emotional. Even Tok’s innocent wife bore the brunt of the public’s anger. It takes something special to defend, let alone associate with, someone or something that is the focus of intense public anger.
Mr Anandan claims that he does what he does because he believes in concepts like ‘innocent till proven guilty,’ and the fact that everyone deserves the right to legal representation. One might argue that there’s nothing special in believing in these concepts because they are enshrined in our legal system. It’s simply easier to internalise the desire for retribution than ‘airy fairy’ concepts like these. This is especially true when the crime is especially heinous and a perception of guilt has been established by the public.
Personally, I blame Hollywood. We watch too many cop shows and sympathise and even applaud whenever we see the policemen beat up an ‘obvious’ bad guy. We cringe when a ‘slick’ and ‘sleazy’ defence lawyer prevents the ‘bad guys’ from getting the punishment they deserve.
That’s a tragedy. We forget that the police and public are not always right in assigning guilt. When we convict people wrongly we take their lives away, either through prison terms or capital punishment. This is something we should not take lightly. No legal system in the world can claim to ‘always’ ensure the right person is punished. Sometimes the wrong person does get convicted. But while no justice system is fool proof, civilised societies can do as much as they can by ensuring that those accused of crimes are defended by lawyers who believe in fighting for their rights, regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty.
In Singapore we take pride in the efficiency of our system and are constantly trying to make it more efficient. This laudable when it comes to economics but the drive for greater efficiency should never compromise the human element, especially when it comes to the justice system. Unfortunately we seem to have forgotten this. Our Home Affairs Minister has already argued that it is right to deny suspect’s access to legal council until the police have concluded their investigation because a defence council might ‘coach’ witnesses and impede the prosecutions case.
That disturbs me. Although our government is benevolent, this situation will not last forever. Individuals need more checks against the power of the state not less. The Chief Justice has already admitted an innocent man can be hanged in Singapore due to a lack of procedure in the justice system. This situation does not present our justice system in positive light either on the global stage or to our own people.
What can we do? Singaporeans have to be aware of what it means to send a man to prison and act as their conscience dictates. And in the mean time, we should be grateful that there lawyers like Mr Anandan who believe in fighting for our rights.
Copyright: Tang Li (C)2006
Is Mr Anandan a self-promoter? The mere act of taking Anthony Ler, Ah Long San and similar characters as clients’ guarantees publicity that easily translates into more business. Mr Anandan’s financial rewards have been undoubtedly good. But he has earned it. Taking on ‘lost’ causes requires certain strength of character.
Take the case of Tok Leng Hua and Huang Na’s murder. The disappearance of the toddler captured the nation’s imagination. When the gruesome details of how she was sexually assaulted were revealed, Singaporeans were rightfully revolted and the normally placid public became emotional. Even Tok’s innocent wife bore the brunt of the public’s anger. It takes something special to defend, let alone associate with, someone or something that is the focus of intense public anger.
Mr Anandan claims that he does what he does because he believes in concepts like ‘innocent till proven guilty,’ and the fact that everyone deserves the right to legal representation. One might argue that there’s nothing special in believing in these concepts because they are enshrined in our legal system. It’s simply easier to internalise the desire for retribution than ‘airy fairy’ concepts like these. This is especially true when the crime is especially heinous and a perception of guilt has been established by the public.
Personally, I blame Hollywood. We watch too many cop shows and sympathise and even applaud whenever we see the policemen beat up an ‘obvious’ bad guy. We cringe when a ‘slick’ and ‘sleazy’ defence lawyer prevents the ‘bad guys’ from getting the punishment they deserve.
That’s a tragedy. We forget that the police and public are not always right in assigning guilt. When we convict people wrongly we take their lives away, either through prison terms or capital punishment. This is something we should not take lightly. No legal system in the world can claim to ‘always’ ensure the right person is punished. Sometimes the wrong person does get convicted. But while no justice system is fool proof, civilised societies can do as much as they can by ensuring that those accused of crimes are defended by lawyers who believe in fighting for their rights, regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty.
In Singapore we take pride in the efficiency of our system and are constantly trying to make it more efficient. This laudable when it comes to economics but the drive for greater efficiency should never compromise the human element, especially when it comes to the justice system. Unfortunately we seem to have forgotten this. Our Home Affairs Minister has already argued that it is right to deny suspect’s access to legal council until the police have concluded their investigation because a defence council might ‘coach’ witnesses and impede the prosecutions case.
That disturbs me. Although our government is benevolent, this situation will not last forever. Individuals need more checks against the power of the state not less. The Chief Justice has already admitted an innocent man can be hanged in Singapore due to a lack of procedure in the justice system. This situation does not present our justice system in positive light either on the global stage or to our own people.
What can we do? Singaporeans have to be aware of what it means to send a man to prison and act as their conscience dictates. And in the mean time, we should be grateful that there lawyers like Mr Anandan who believe in fighting for our rights.
Copyright: Tang Li (C)2006
donderdag, februari 02, 2006
Old Buggers are dying and it's more than sad
The year 2005 clearly belonged to old men. Presidents Nathan, Wee and Nair who are in their 80s shapped 2005 in a silent but significant way for Singapore.The passing of Presidents Wee and Nair pointed to the fact that the political ‘Old Guard,’ is dying and Presidnt Nathan's re-election showed how far we have to go in defining the legacy of the "Old Guard."
On one level, their legacy is complete. Today, we simply have no personal experience of the things that were so common to them. We have recently been hearing about how Devan Nair tamed the once militant labour union. Today, labour disputes are settled relatively quickly and we don’t read of wild acts of violence. Devan Nair’s name may be forgotten in a generation but if labour relations are as smooth as they are now, Devan Nair’s legacy is secured.
But nationhood is more than just political stability and prosperity. It involves having a sense of shared history, myths and other intangibles that are part of what anthropologist call culture. I share my Singaporean identity through having served National Service and an enjoyment of Laksah. But I can’t share history with fellow Singaporeans. My Indian friends by comparison can talk about the legacy of Gandhi and Nehru.
Some of the Old Guard have tried to change this. Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew and President Wee Kim Wee have published their books but the ‘Old Guard’ needs to do more to help Singaporeans internalise their history.
Take the Singapore Water Story as an example? How many of us feel something about the fact that we have moved from being water scarce in the 60s to opening our desalination plant this year? I once had the privilege of being commissioned by PUB to interview someone who had worked at PUB for 40-years. I admit that I had an unfair sense of perspective. My maternal grandfather headed the water department in the 60s and my interviewee knew him. He was excited to tell me about how my grandfather had stopped him from leaving PUB. I was able to live history on a personal basis.
Then it struck me. If I had never interviewed this man, I would never have been able to feel the water story. My grandfather died the year I was born and no one else told me the story from their perspective. Isn’t it ironic that we have all the technology to record people but no one is telling their story to be recorded for future generations?
PUB Chairman, Tan Ghee Phaw should set an example and get his story recorded, either as a book or documentary. This should encourage others do the same?
Civil Servants may be less reluctant to share their experiences than politicians. After all they have spent careers trained not to speak to people about their work. But what’s not to stop them after they have retired. We should get people who have lived history to help bring it to the young. Take the example of PUB and the water story. As well as encouraging people who have served PUB for a long time to record their memoirs, we could encourage them to tell stories at schools, thereby bringing history to the young.
Age is catching up and once people die, their story is lost. Now that Singapore is 40, shouldn’t we take a bit of time out and start recording legacies so that valuable knowledge and experiences are not lost with the passing of every individual.
Copyright: Tang Li (c)2006
On one level, their legacy is complete. Today, we simply have no personal experience of the things that were so common to them. We have recently been hearing about how Devan Nair tamed the once militant labour union. Today, labour disputes are settled relatively quickly and we don’t read of wild acts of violence. Devan Nair’s name may be forgotten in a generation but if labour relations are as smooth as they are now, Devan Nair’s legacy is secured.
But nationhood is more than just political stability and prosperity. It involves having a sense of shared history, myths and other intangibles that are part of what anthropologist call culture. I share my Singaporean identity through having served National Service and an enjoyment of Laksah. But I can’t share history with fellow Singaporeans. My Indian friends by comparison can talk about the legacy of Gandhi and Nehru.
Some of the Old Guard have tried to change this. Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew and President Wee Kim Wee have published their books but the ‘Old Guard’ needs to do more to help Singaporeans internalise their history.
Take the Singapore Water Story as an example? How many of us feel something about the fact that we have moved from being water scarce in the 60s to opening our desalination plant this year? I once had the privilege of being commissioned by PUB to interview someone who had worked at PUB for 40-years. I admit that I had an unfair sense of perspective. My maternal grandfather headed the water department in the 60s and my interviewee knew him. He was excited to tell me about how my grandfather had stopped him from leaving PUB. I was able to live history on a personal basis.
Then it struck me. If I had never interviewed this man, I would never have been able to feel the water story. My grandfather died the year I was born and no one else told me the story from their perspective. Isn’t it ironic that we have all the technology to record people but no one is telling their story to be recorded for future generations?
PUB Chairman, Tan Ghee Phaw should set an example and get his story recorded, either as a book or documentary. This should encourage others do the same?
Civil Servants may be less reluctant to share their experiences than politicians. After all they have spent careers trained not to speak to people about their work. But what’s not to stop them after they have retired. We should get people who have lived history to help bring it to the young. Take the example of PUB and the water story. As well as encouraging people who have served PUB for a long time to record their memoirs, we could encourage them to tell stories at schools, thereby bringing history to the young.
Age is catching up and once people die, their story is lost. Now that Singapore is 40, shouldn’t we take a bit of time out and start recording legacies so that valuable knowledge and experiences are not lost with the passing of every individual.
Copyright: Tang Li (c)2006
Who is Singapore's Next PM?
Thanks to the news surrounding the “Four Time Bombs” in the Workers Party manifesto, there is an air of inevitability about a General Election taking place this year. As in previous elections, a resounding PAP win is expected. While the result seems to be a forgone conclusion, political observers are wondering what issues will be raised in an election.
One issue that seems to have escaped attention is the possible identity of the next Prime Minister. It may seem premature to talk about identifying the next PM with our current one barely into the second year on the job, but Singapore’s political leaders have consistently stressed the importance of having a next generation prepared to take over from the current one. Will we have an idea of who will form our next generation of leaders and what is the criterion that we should use when searching for them?
The main criterion seems to be youth. The next PM should for all intents and purposes be at least a decade younger than the current one. This precedent was established by Lee Kuan Yew when he cited the desire to hand over to a ‘new generation’ of leaders as the reason for relinquishing the PM’s office. In 1990, a man in his late 60s handed power to a man in his 40s. Goh Chok Tong followed this example and handed over power to a man in his 50s when he was in his 60s. Both men had deputies who were at least a decade younger than themselves.
Our current PM does not have that. The current cabinet is made up primarily of men older or of a similar age to the Prime Minister. PM Lee is 54 and assuming he steps down in 14 years time, he will be 68. Ministers like George Yeo, Lim Hng Kiang and Teo Chee Hean will be of a similar age.
Will there be moves by the PM to give the few younger cabinet members more exposure? Why, for example, was Dr Ng Eng Heng (six years younger than the PM) the first person to attack the Workers Party manifesto? Should we expect more from Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Vivian Balakrishnan and Raymond Lim? Should we also look to other centres to provide us with political leaders? The opposition parties are divided and in disarray so they look unlikely to provide an alternative for sometime to come. But that does not mean that we lack centres of power where future leaders can develop from.
One example is from women’s organisations like AWARE. Although there are no women in the cabinet, the profile of women in politics has risen thanks to politicians like Lim Hwee Hwa and Lily Neo. The establishment of a women’s branch of the Young PAP is a sign that women are recognised as important constituency that needs to be cultivated. Although there are at the moment no women in the cabinet, the situation could easily change in a reshuffle that takes place after an election.
The current PM does not have the luxury of an obvious successor. This is clearly worrying him and I remember quite clearly that one of the first things he noticed was the fact that Prime Ministers were assuming office at a later age. Could our next PM for example assume office in his 60s?
The idea of a man who does have youth on his side assuming office sounds worrying. Singapore has done well by having leaders who have had the energy and mental prowess to stay in office long enough to have their agenda implimented. Leaders who die in office don't usually do very much and this often leads to political instability.
Having said that, lifespans have been increasing. People are living well beyond their alloted three score and ten years and they are doing it in a rather energetic fashion at that. So, while the idea of the next PM being in his 60s may sound worrying, evidence suggest that it need not be so.
And besides, the older leader may have something interesting to add to the equation. Let us not forget that the US President who has been credited for defining the latter part of the 20th century is Ronald Regan. He became president at the sprinkling age of 70.
We've barely started the current PM's term so it would seem that there are plenty of years for him to groom a potential successor. However, as it is so often said, never too late to start the process. Old criteria for selecting a leader should have vanished. It may make life more uncertain. But that surely should make life more interesting.
Copyright: Tang Li (c) 2006
One issue that seems to have escaped attention is the possible identity of the next Prime Minister. It may seem premature to talk about identifying the next PM with our current one barely into the second year on the job, but Singapore’s political leaders have consistently stressed the importance of having a next generation prepared to take over from the current one. Will we have an idea of who will form our next generation of leaders and what is the criterion that we should use when searching for them?
The main criterion seems to be youth. The next PM should for all intents and purposes be at least a decade younger than the current one. This precedent was established by Lee Kuan Yew when he cited the desire to hand over to a ‘new generation’ of leaders as the reason for relinquishing the PM’s office. In 1990, a man in his late 60s handed power to a man in his 40s. Goh Chok Tong followed this example and handed over power to a man in his 50s when he was in his 60s. Both men had deputies who were at least a decade younger than themselves.
Our current PM does not have that. The current cabinet is made up primarily of men older or of a similar age to the Prime Minister. PM Lee is 54 and assuming he steps down in 14 years time, he will be 68. Ministers like George Yeo, Lim Hng Kiang and Teo Chee Hean will be of a similar age.
Will there be moves by the PM to give the few younger cabinet members more exposure? Why, for example, was Dr Ng Eng Heng (six years younger than the PM) the first person to attack the Workers Party manifesto? Should we expect more from Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Vivian Balakrishnan and Raymond Lim? Should we also look to other centres to provide us with political leaders? The opposition parties are divided and in disarray so they look unlikely to provide an alternative for sometime to come. But that does not mean that we lack centres of power where future leaders can develop from.
One example is from women’s organisations like AWARE. Although there are no women in the cabinet, the profile of women in politics has risen thanks to politicians like Lim Hwee Hwa and Lily Neo. The establishment of a women’s branch of the Young PAP is a sign that women are recognised as important constituency that needs to be cultivated. Although there are at the moment no women in the cabinet, the situation could easily change in a reshuffle that takes place after an election.
The current PM does not have the luxury of an obvious successor. This is clearly worrying him and I remember quite clearly that one of the first things he noticed was the fact that Prime Ministers were assuming office at a later age. Could our next PM for example assume office in his 60s?
The idea of a man who does have youth on his side assuming office sounds worrying. Singapore has done well by having leaders who have had the energy and mental prowess to stay in office long enough to have their agenda implimented. Leaders who die in office don't usually do very much and this often leads to political instability.
Having said that, lifespans have been increasing. People are living well beyond their alloted three score and ten years and they are doing it in a rather energetic fashion at that. So, while the idea of the next PM being in his 60s may sound worrying, evidence suggest that it need not be so.
And besides, the older leader may have something interesting to add to the equation. Let us not forget that the US President who has been credited for defining the latter part of the 20th century is Ronald Regan. He became president at the sprinkling age of 70.
We've barely started the current PM's term so it would seem that there are plenty of years for him to groom a potential successor. However, as it is so often said, never too late to start the process. Old criteria for selecting a leader should have vanished. It may make life more uncertain. But that surely should make life more interesting.
Copyright: Tang Li (c) 2006
Elections Matter!
Reading, “Hamas win throws peace in turmoil” (TODAY: January 27,) was enlightening. Hamas, best known as a terrorist organisation, is dedicated to eradicating Israel. Its victory in the elections was received with shock. The Israeli government has refused to negotiate with any Palestinian government that Hamas in involved in and the US government has expressed similar sentiments. The EU and Asian governments have called on Hamas to reject violence and terrorism. Singaporeans should look behind the usual bluster about Hamas and its terrorist activities.
An analysis of why Hamas won so handsomely is lessons into what Singaporeans tend forget at General Elections – an electorate has a civic duty to ensure that it has good government.
Singaporeans have grown up in a privileged environment. Thanks to more than four decades of benevolent government, Singaporeans enjoy a standard of living that is the envy of many. PUB ensures that you can drink from any tap in Singapore and NEA ensures that we won’t die of the plague because rubbish has not been collected. Thanks to the URA, you would never realise Singapore is a tinny island with four million people.
While this has been good for Singaporeans, and I for one would not want the situation to be otherwise, there’s been a social cost – political apathy. Most Singaporeans simply don’t care about issues like civil liberties as long as does not affect their lifestyle. Honestly, why trouble yourself if some old man accused of hacking up someone is denied access to legal council until the police have concluded the investigation? Caring about it won’t help buy next months Gucci gown. As one letter writer said, “Why insist on political participation especially when there is no need to.”
Would Singaporeans would feel the same if the government was not half as effective and benevolent as it is? The Palestinian electorate knew the answer to that and booted out a government that was corrupt and incompetent. Say what you like about Hamas’s terrorist activities but the organisation ran a domestic issues campaign, promising to deliver the conditions for Palestinians to improve their lot. If anything, the election was loss for the Fataah movement more than a win for Hamas.
Terrorist ideology of groups like Al-Qaeda is loathsome but I also believe that former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten hit the jackpot when he said, “People don’t wake up planning how to become suicide bombers unless they are in unusual circumstances.” Circumstances in the Occupied Territories are unusual – they’re unusually bad. Unemployment and educational levels are abysmally low. Government officials are corrupt. As far as most Palestinians were concerned, Hamas were the only group offering to change this, so should we be surprised by this result?
Thank goodness that Singapore has none of the conditions that are prevalent in the Occupied Territories. The government has always been devoted to making the life of ordinary Singaporeans better.
How long will this situation last? Will the PAP always be able to provide good government? Ironically the PAP government is trying to prepare for the day when this may become an eventuality. As Dr Ng Eng Heng argued in defending the elected presidency, there needs to be a check on the possibility of a corrupt government.
However, all of this is useless if we, as an electorate are apathetic towards political participation. Senior Minister, Goh Chok Tong, said that, “An unthinking press is bad for Singapore,” so surely the same has to be said for the public. As a citizen of Singapore I have benefited from good government. I believe that I have a reciprocal duty to help ensure my government stays that way and no matter how our elections may lack contest, they matter to Singapore
Copyright: Tang Li (C) 2006
An analysis of why Hamas won so handsomely is lessons into what Singaporeans tend forget at General Elections – an electorate has a civic duty to ensure that it has good government.
Singaporeans have grown up in a privileged environment. Thanks to more than four decades of benevolent government, Singaporeans enjoy a standard of living that is the envy of many. PUB ensures that you can drink from any tap in Singapore and NEA ensures that we won’t die of the plague because rubbish has not been collected. Thanks to the URA, you would never realise Singapore is a tinny island with four million people.
While this has been good for Singaporeans, and I for one would not want the situation to be otherwise, there’s been a social cost – political apathy. Most Singaporeans simply don’t care about issues like civil liberties as long as does not affect their lifestyle. Honestly, why trouble yourself if some old man accused of hacking up someone is denied access to legal council until the police have concluded the investigation? Caring about it won’t help buy next months Gucci gown. As one letter writer said, “Why insist on political participation especially when there is no need to.”
Would Singaporeans would feel the same if the government was not half as effective and benevolent as it is? The Palestinian electorate knew the answer to that and booted out a government that was corrupt and incompetent. Say what you like about Hamas’s terrorist activities but the organisation ran a domestic issues campaign, promising to deliver the conditions for Palestinians to improve their lot. If anything, the election was loss for the Fataah movement more than a win for Hamas.
Terrorist ideology of groups like Al-Qaeda is loathsome but I also believe that former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten hit the jackpot when he said, “People don’t wake up planning how to become suicide bombers unless they are in unusual circumstances.” Circumstances in the Occupied Territories are unusual – they’re unusually bad. Unemployment and educational levels are abysmally low. Government officials are corrupt. As far as most Palestinians were concerned, Hamas were the only group offering to change this, so should we be surprised by this result?
Thank goodness that Singapore has none of the conditions that are prevalent in the Occupied Territories. The government has always been devoted to making the life of ordinary Singaporeans better.
How long will this situation last? Will the PAP always be able to provide good government? Ironically the PAP government is trying to prepare for the day when this may become an eventuality. As Dr Ng Eng Heng argued in defending the elected presidency, there needs to be a check on the possibility of a corrupt government.
However, all of this is useless if we, as an electorate are apathetic towards political participation. Senior Minister, Goh Chok Tong, said that, “An unthinking press is bad for Singapore,” so surely the same has to be said for the public. As a citizen of Singapore I have benefited from good government. I believe that I have a reciprocal duty to help ensure my government stays that way and no matter how our elections may lack contest, they matter to Singapore
Copyright: Tang Li (C) 2006
Bugger Off
It disturbs me that people have no idea about what is what anymore. Can you imagine my horror when I looked at Channel NewsAsia’s web site and read the story: ‘Two illegal immigrants arrested for trying to swim into Singapore’(January 10.) What were these two young men thinking when they tried to swim into Singapore without the right documentation? Hasn’t the Singapore government shown that it will not tolerate such deviant behaviour by imposing hefty fines, jail terms and strokes of the cane? Haven’t Singaporeans shown that the only foreigners that are acceptable are ones that have degrees or work in construction sites and as domestic helpers?
Seriously, illegal immigration has to stop! What can Singaporeans do to tell such people that they are not welcome in Singapore? Then again, I really should not be so negative. Perhaps Singapore can help countries like Myanmar promote themselves to their own nationals. I can think of slogans like ‘Stay Here, it sucks over there!’
We need to educate people like the two young men. They need to know that Myanmar has so much more to offer. There are resources galore. Have you seen how much forest the nation has? Myanmar is also rich in culture; there are so many hill tribes there that they could fill a kaleidoscope. When you think of the tourist and the teak alone, Myanmar has more than enough resources to power an economy for years to come.
The military is doing a fantastic job. Contrary to what lily livered liberals in the West may think, Asians need an iron fist and a bit pillaging to keep them in order. Asians, especially those in Myanmar respect leaders use the old fashioned iron fist from time to time. The Myanmar military is a truly Asian institution providing fantastic opportunities for the young of that country. It really baffles me why those two would even consider wanting to come over to Singapore or why we haven’t started a campaign to make our government more like theirs. I’ve heard that ASEAN believes in non interference but there’s nothing to say that we can’t imitate the efficient and iron fisted system in Myanmar.
Really! Illegal immigration just won’t do, especially when they come from benign and competent regime as the one in Myanmar. Why risk your life and come to a country that will only jail and cane you.
Personally, these two young men deserve to be canned for leaving the regime that they left. At the very least they should be punished for being ungrateful to what life has to offer them. Did I read that they could be finned only S$6,000? I seriously urge the government to ensure that the fine would be more like S$60,000 and lets make sure they don’t get a chance to work for it, people in Myanmar are definitely rich enough to contribute to the crimes of such miscreants.
We cannot have any illegal immigrants coming over here. I for one think that the government’s deterrence measures have not been strong enough and would urge Singaporeans not to have any sympathy for people so desperate to make a better life for themselves that they will risk their lives and swim over here.
Illegal immigrants are a pest and scrounge off society. There’s no way we can allow them to take the jobs that hard working Singaporeans won’t take even in an economic crisis and I don’t see how such people could ever contribute to Singapore. As a good and loyal citizen, I’m planning to write to my MP and propose that we do more to stop this horrible situation where people show a desperation to come to Singapore once I get back from my overseas holiday.
Copyright: Tang Li (C) 2006
Seriously, illegal immigration has to stop! What can Singaporeans do to tell such people that they are not welcome in Singapore? Then again, I really should not be so negative. Perhaps Singapore can help countries like Myanmar promote themselves to their own nationals. I can think of slogans like ‘Stay Here, it sucks over there!’
We need to educate people like the two young men. They need to know that Myanmar has so much more to offer. There are resources galore. Have you seen how much forest the nation has? Myanmar is also rich in culture; there are so many hill tribes there that they could fill a kaleidoscope. When you think of the tourist and the teak alone, Myanmar has more than enough resources to power an economy for years to come.
The military is doing a fantastic job. Contrary to what lily livered liberals in the West may think, Asians need an iron fist and a bit pillaging to keep them in order. Asians, especially those in Myanmar respect leaders use the old fashioned iron fist from time to time. The Myanmar military is a truly Asian institution providing fantastic opportunities for the young of that country. It really baffles me why those two would even consider wanting to come over to Singapore or why we haven’t started a campaign to make our government more like theirs. I’ve heard that ASEAN believes in non interference but there’s nothing to say that we can’t imitate the efficient and iron fisted system in Myanmar.
Really! Illegal immigration just won’t do, especially when they come from benign and competent regime as the one in Myanmar. Why risk your life and come to a country that will only jail and cane you.
Personally, these two young men deserve to be canned for leaving the regime that they left. At the very least they should be punished for being ungrateful to what life has to offer them. Did I read that they could be finned only S$6,000? I seriously urge the government to ensure that the fine would be more like S$60,000 and lets make sure they don’t get a chance to work for it, people in Myanmar are definitely rich enough to contribute to the crimes of such miscreants.
We cannot have any illegal immigrants coming over here. I for one think that the government’s deterrence measures have not been strong enough and would urge Singaporeans not to have any sympathy for people so desperate to make a better life for themselves that they will risk their lives and swim over here.
Illegal immigrants are a pest and scrounge off society. There’s no way we can allow them to take the jobs that hard working Singaporeans won’t take even in an economic crisis and I don’t see how such people could ever contribute to Singapore. As a good and loyal citizen, I’m planning to write to my MP and propose that we do more to stop this horrible situation where people show a desperation to come to Singapore once I get back from my overseas holiday.
Copyright: Tang Li (C) 2006
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)