Swiss Bank Powers to Probe Taib Holdings

Written by Our Correspondent

Friday, 13 May 2011

Taib and Najib laugh it up Vast amounts of money believed to be held in Swiss banks by the Sarawak chief minister Just a month after the voters of the Malaysian state of Sarawak returned Abdul Taib Mahmud to office, Swiss President Micheline Calmy-Ray said Thursday that she asking Swiss financial authorities to investigate the chief minister’s assets held in Swiss banks. In a letter to the Swiss-based Bruno Manser Fund, Calmy-Ray indicated that if the investigation finds evidence of corruption from timber sales, Taib’s Swiss assets could be frozen.  The letter was made public by The Sarawak Report, a Sarawak-based website that has published detailed descriptions of Taib’s operations in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia.  The Bruno Manser Fund is named for a Swiss national who disappeared in Sarawak in the 1980s while campaigning for the rights of the indigenous the Penan tribe. In the 30 years of Taib’s reign as chief minister, timber companies have cut more than 90 percent of the tropical rainforest, leaving forest-dwellers like the Penan deprived of their means of subsistence and starving, critics allege. The award of timber concessions has made Taib a billionaire, they charge. In a separate letter made public by the Bruno Manser Foundation, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority, which governs money-laundering, agreed to investigate Taib’s holdings in Swiss banks. The Bruno Manser Fund alleged that Taib is believed to have invested heavily in the Swiss banking system and that Elia Geneid, a Swiss national who married into the Taib family, has profited from  the use of lands held by native Sarawakian tribes. In February 2010, the Fund alleged there are 49 companies connected to Taib in eight countries which are thought to be worth hundreds of millions, if not billions of US dollars.  Transparency International Malaysia and other NGOs have lodged reports against Taib through the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission. “Taib is believed to have invested a great deal in the once secretive Swiss banks over past decades, although, following recent reforms, he has more recently focused his attention on Monaco which remains famously lax on the matter of money-laundering,” the Sarawak Report said. The question that arises immediately is who the Swiss authorities would return the funds to if they were discovered to be gained from the illegal sale of timber or other government assets. The Taib-led Barisan Nasional coalition was returned to office with 54.5 percent of the votes but holds 55 of the state assembly’s 71 seats. If the Swiss were to indeed freeze Taib’s Swiss-based assets, returning them to the Malaysian government would presumably put them back into his hands.  Taib has promised to step down after the election, but so far has not done so and there is considerable reason to believe he has no intention to do so.  The chief minister is considered a close ally and fundraiser for Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. In the recent election, the Barisan Nasional, the national ruling coalition in Kuala Lumpur, pulled out all the stops to aid in the reelection campaign, cris-crossing the state to campaign along with other Barisan stalwarts to aid the chief minister’s reelection campaign. In addition to the Bruno Manser Fund, the Sarawak report, in a long series of reports prior to the election, showed, for instance, that family members and corporations connected to Taib have properties in Canada worth in excess of US$100 million. Taib’s children are the shareholders and directors of numerous companies controlling residential and commercial buildings in Australia, Britain and the United States worth additional hundreds of millions of dollars. Sakti International Corp. in the United States manages properties totaling an estimated US$80 million including the Abraham Lincoln Building, which houses the FBI’s offices in Seattle, Washington.  Records made public by the Sarawak Report showed that a family dwelling in Seattle was purchased for US$1 from a company to which the Sarawak government granted a timber concession. The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission so far has ignored all requests from the Sarawak Report and other NGOs to investigate the Taib family’s assets and how they were acquired.

48 women raped every hour in Congo, new study shows, far surpassing previous estimates

Image via Wikipedia
By Associated Press, Published: May 11 | Updated: Thursday, May 12, 12:06 AM

DAKAR, Senegal — The African nation of Congo has been called the worst place on earth to be a woman. A new study released Wednesday shows that it’s even worse than previously thought: 1,152 women are raped every day, a rate equal to 48 per hour.

That rate is 26 times more than the previous estimate of 16,000 rapes reported in one year by the United Nations.

Michelle Hindin, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health who specializes in gender-based violence, said the rate could be even higher. The source of the data, she noted, is a survey that was conducted through face-to-face interviews, and people are not always forthcoming about the violence they have suffered when talking to strangers.

“The numbers are astounding,” she said.

Congo, a nation of 70 million people that is equal in size to Western Europe, has been plagued by decades of war. Its vast forests are rife with militias that have systematically used rape to destroy communities.

The analysis, which will be published in the American Journal of Public Health in June, shows that more than 400,000 women had been raped in Congo during a 12-month period between 2006 and 2007.

On average 29 Congolese women out of every 1,000 had been raped nationwide. That means that even in the parts of Congo that are not affected by the war, a woman is 58 times more likely to be raped than a woman in the United States, where the annual rate is 0.5 per 1,000 women.

Previous estimates of the number of rapes were derived from police and health center reports in the nation’s troubled east where the conflict is concentrated. The authors of the study used figures from a government health survey and pooled data from across the country.

The highest frequency of rape was found in North Kivu, the province most affected by the conflict, where 67 women per 1,000 had been raped at least once.

“The message is important and clear: Rape in (Congo) has metastasized amid a climate of impunity, and has emerged as one of the great human crises of our time,” said Michael VanRooyen, the director of the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative.

Margot Wallstrom, the U.N. special representative for sexual violence in conflict, welcomed the study.

“Conflict-related sexual violence is one of the major obstacles to peace in the DRC,” she said in statement, using the initials for Congo. “Unchecked it could disrupt the entire social fabric of the country.”

Wallstrom said the figures in the study are higher than the U.N.’s because it covers all sexual violence — including domestic and intimate partner violence — not just from military actors.

U.N. figures tend to be conservative because they must be verified by the organization itself, she said.

Wallstrom said she consistently stresses that “the number of reported violations are just the tip of the iceberg of actual incidents.”

__

Associated Press Writers Saleh Mwanamilongo in Kinshasa, Congo, Edith Lederer in New York and Mike Stobbe in Atlanta contributed to this report.

Bin Laden’s death ‘does not pose a great risk’ on SE Asia

Image via Wikipedia

Yassine Majdi, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Thu, 05/12/2011 10:10 AM | World

Although Osama bin Laden has substantial influence among mujahideen (jihadists) across the world, including those in Southeast Asia, no repercussions are expected to result from his death earlier this month, experts agree.

Sidney Jones, International Crisis Group Indonesian senior adviser, said Bin Laden was an influence to mujahideen in Southeast Asia since his “fatwa in February in 1998 in the name of the World Islamic Front convinced many Southeast Asian mujahideen that the main enemies of Islam were America and its allies”. This fatwa led to the infamous bombings in Bali, and the attacks on the Australian Embassy and JW Mariott hotel, she said.

The 2002 attacks in Bali put Jamaah Islamiyah (JI) in the limelight. This organization, which was added by the UN Resolution 1267 to the list of the terrorist organizations linked to al-Qaeda, aims at establishing a caliphate that would include Indonesia, Malaysia, the Southern Philippines, Singapore and Brunei.

But, according to Jones the threat of an attempt to avenge Bin Laden’s death does not come from JI but “from men who have broken with JI or small groups who never had anything to do with it”.

“Those groups might attempt to avenge Bin Laden’s death with an attack but their chances of success are limited since their capacity of planning operations is not high,” Jones said.

One must wonder if Bin Laden’s death would trigger an interest in the jihadi cause in Southeast Asia. Jones said it was not likely since the recruitment depended more on local than international factors.

In fact, it seems that the attention on Bin Laden’s death has shifted for Southeast Asian jihadists. Their attention may have turned toward the trial of Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Ba’asyir, accused of setting up and financing a paramilitary camp in Aceh. Ba’asyir was described by some as the “Bin Laden of Indonesia”.

In a trial on Monday, prosecutors requested a life sentence for firebrand cleric Ba’asyir for his role in financing a terrorist military training camp in Aceh.

Earlier, Jakarta Islamic State University professor Ismail Hasani agreed that the death of Bin Laden would have no significant effect on local terrorists.

“I believe that most acts of local terrorism are spawned by domestic, sociopolitical issues such as social tensions and religious conflict, rather than an international terrorist agenda,” Ismail said.
He said there was a connection between local groups and Bin Laden’s network. “However, it exists only at the ideological level, not at the operational level,” he said.

Jones said Bin Laden was not the biggest influence on jihadists as Abdullah Azzam who died in 1989 had the biggest influence on them. In fact, the Palestinian theologist’s works are required reading by all Southeast Asian jihadists, Jones said.

In Libya, perfecting the art of revolution by Twitter

Image by altelaumbanua via Flickr
By Gloria Goodale, Staff writer / May 10, 2011

An Egyptian cab driver tells this joke to foreign reporters: President Hosni Mubarak dies and is greeted in the afterlife by former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who asks him how he died. Mr. Mubarak answers, “Death by Twitter.”

Much has been written about the role of new media such as Twitter and Facebook in the so-called “Jasmine Revolution” that has swept the Middle East. But political rebels using the latest communication technology – from hand pamphlets to fax machines – is as old as tyranny.

What’s new is the speed and exponential power of today’s new media to jump over traditional boundaries of time and space, says Philip Howard, author of “The Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Information Technology and Political Islam.”

Non-violent protesters and armed rebels all over the region have begun marshaling this unprecedented power to their cause.

“The media war is as important as the battlefield … if not more important,” a Libyan businessman, known only as Mohammed, told NPR. He is spearheading a delegation from Misurata to Qatar in search of weapons and money.

There has been a learning curve even among the most sophisticated media users, says Professor Howard, who researches information and communication technologies in politics and social development at the University of Washington.

In Tunisia, where fruit vendor Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immolation to protest the government became a cause célèbre, the news spread slowly, from a small number “who were close to him, who took pictures of his burnt and bandaged body and sent the images over trusted networks to families and friends. They passed them on and passed on the story,” he says.

A similar organic process spread the story of Khalid Said, the Egyptian blogger bludgeoned to death outside an Internet cafe, Howard adds. “He had been beaten, and a few family friends took pictures in the morgue and sent them by mobile phone to friends. His bruised face became the image that played out over social networks.”

Libyan rebels learned from the successes in Tunisia and Egypt. One of the most important lessons: Get the message beyond your own borders.

“Before the Libyan protesters had even met for the first time with their shadow cabinet government,” Howard says, “they had come together to build a website and send out the URL asserting their statehood.”

“No longer is it enough to communicate locally or even nationally,” agrees Joan McLean, professor of politics and government at Ohio Wesleyan University.


§


“This reality is what makes social networking so critical to the Jasmine Revolution. The international community in all of its many forms must be reached. Governments, relief agencies, media outlets, nongovernmental organizations, and elites with resources all must be informed and mobilized into action,” she says via e-mail. Social media have transformed the range of voices that can be part of a nation’s dialogue, she adds.

Of course, there’s a difference between “knowing what you need to do – and then doing it,” adds Professor McLean.

The “next big wave of democratization”?

Nonetheless, a digital dialogue about national identity that jumps geographical boundaries is going to be increasingly hard to quell, says Leonard Shyles, a communications professor at Villanova University.

Global media are erasing the traditional constraints of time and space, he points out. Images of cultures where faith and reason coexist without government coercion can now move from one nation to another, bringing Western ideals not just to the educated elites but within range of anyone with a cellphone or access to an Internet cafe.

“It is no longer merely the elites in a society that will aspire to self-definition,” says Professor Shyles. Seeing what is possible – and watching revolutions in neighboring nations in real time – changes the shape of what people aspire to. “It may seem a platitude, but human beings want to be free.”

What the world is seeing in this “Egyptian Spring,” echoes Howard, are “the early signs of the next big wave of democratization. But this time, it will be wrestled into life in the digital living room of the global community.”

From now on, he adds, “you will not be able to tell the story of democratization without an appreciation of how social media works.”

Social media are not the causal factor in these movements, Shyles cautions. “Social media like Facebook and Twitter or texting are the accelerant for things that have been wanting to happen inside these countries,” he says.

Will it work?

It is not yet clear how many of the Middle Eastern countries currently in the throes of insurgent movements will evolve democratically, says John Foram, a sociology professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

“These movements represent some of our best possibilities for a better world,” says Professor Foram, but he notes that some of the countries, such as Syria and Iran, are among the world’s most repressive.

The continuing crackdown on civilian protesters in Syrian may illustrate some limitations of the power of social media to rally public opinion. Indeed, Syrian and Iranian governments are tracking their foes on Facebook, illustrating the technology's double-edged sword.

On the other hand, notes Foram, “If this movement is successful in Syria, then repressive countries around the world will have to consider what they need to do to be seen as legit in the eyes of their own people.”

Analyzing the Singapore Election

Written by Garry Rodan
Wednesday, 11 May 2011




Lee Kuan Yew wonders if this is necessaryA Step on the Long Road to Political Pluralism?

Hardly on a par with developments in North Africa and the Middle East in recent months, Singapore's 7 May general election is nevertheless significant in the struggle against the authoritarian rule of the People's Action Party (PAP).

Opposition campaigns linked the cost-of- living rises, growing inequalities and public infrastructure pressures associated with foreign workers to the absence of parliamentary accountability and genuine political competition.

Enough voters bought the argument to suggest the PAP's elitist authoritarianism might be headed for greater scrutiny. Certainly there is growing skepticism about the PAP's ideology of meritocracy and exorbitant ministerial salaries justified by it. And tensions between the PAP's economic model and its ideological resistance to social democratic notions of redistribution will continue to fuel public disquiet over government policy.

But what is the extent and nature of opposition gains from the recent election? Can these be harnessed to promote sustained progress towards political pluralism? And what are the implications of a greater parliamentary opposition presence for wider political competition through civil society?

To be sure, the PAP still enjoys overwhelming electoral support and parliamentary supremacy. Even after dropping 6.5 per cent of total votes in this election, it commands a 60.1 per cent approval rating. Under Singapore's first-past-the-post voting system, aided by gerrymandering, this translates into all but six of the 87 seats in parliament. The political space opened up by the Workers' Party taking these six seats should thus not be exaggerated.

Yet, coupled with the 2006 election results, the PAP has now lost a combined 15 per cent of total votes since 2001. The opposition now collectively accounts for 40 per cent. This is quite remarkable given the extensive legislative impediments to critical political expression and independent civil society activity. And the Workers' Party victory in the Group Representation Constituency of Aljunied, netting five seats, is also a major psychological fillip for all PAP opponents.

Introduced in 1988, supposedly to guarantee minority ethnic representation, GRCs have enabled the PAP to capitalize on the limited opposition resources, shielded weaker PAP candidates from head-to-head contests and simplified electoral gerrymandering. They now constitute all but 14 parliamentary seats.

However, by a new strategy of concentrating their best candidates in the GRCs, Workers' Party leader Low Thia Khiang and colleagues demonstrated that the GRC fortress is not impregnable. Even senior ministers can be unseated – as was Foreign Minister George Yeo in the Aljunied loss. It is a strategy that opposition parties generally adopted to achieve marked improvements in vote share.

This election has also begun to blur the traditional product differentiation between PAP and opposition candidates on the basis of educational and professional credentials. Most of Singapore's six opposition parties recruited candidates who, by the PAP's traditional meritocratic yardsticks, are high achievers.

The Workers' Party's Aljunied candidate, Chen Show Mao, is emblematic of this. The former Oxford University Rhodes Scholar and graduate of Stanford University was involved in the world's largest initial public offering as a lawyer at international law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell's in Beijing.

Meanwhile, weak PAP candidates are being exposed, as in Marine Parade GRC where Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong conceded that this was a factor in the National Solidarity Party's (NSP) 43.5 per cent of the vote. The PAP's 27-year-old business consultant Tin Pei Ling was unimpressive and widely parodied in the blogosphere as a dud candidate, as were several other PAP candidates. By contrast, NSP's articulate 24-year-old Nicole Seah proved a politically savvy debater and eclipsed Lee Kuan Yew during the campaign as Singapore's most popular politician on Facebook.

For a party that claims utmost rigor in selecting candidates of merit, this raises a question. Will the narrow techno-bureaucratic types who dominate the PAP be able to attract and identify candidates to cope with more natural politicians like Seah, who may increasingly come out of the woodwork for the opposition in the wake of this election?

As Low sees it, the first step has been taken towards realizing a ‘First World Parliament' in which a critical mass of opposition genuinely holds the PAP to account. Significantly, Low asserted the legitimate long-term goal of forming a government to replace the PAP – challenging prevailing political culture among opponents and supporters of the PAP alike.

Certainly the medium- to long-term political opposition in Singapore will continue to be presented with opportunities from tensions between the structural and ideological realities of the PAP's model of state capitalism. This model combines an embrace of global market forces with an array of government-linked-companies and state institutions controlling citizens' access to economic and social resources.

If these controls were ever inspired by social democratic goals of income and wealth redistribution, it is the economic and political interests of a virtual class of state capitalists and functionaries thereof that have increasingly gained ascendancy. Indeed, the PAP has claimed ideological virtue in eschewing welfare-oriented programs that are characteristic of other developed countries.

Consequently, as Singapore's exposure to the disciplines of economic globalization has intensified, social and material inequalities have widened substantially. The average incomes of the top 20 percent of households rose by 50 per cent from 1997/98 to 2007/08, but dropped by 2.7 per cent for the poorest 20 per cent of households in this period. Recent studies by National University of Singapore academics also suggest that intergenerational social mobility in Singapore is now low.

The government's Workfare initiative and other programs meant to ease the pain of rising living costs through government rebates and other handouts are simply too meager to address this growing problem. Either the PAP has to find a solution that doesn't concede ideological ground to social democracy or crank up welfare and redistribution and admit it has been going down the wrong path.

But the challenges for political opposition exploiting these tensions as a basis for a sustained assault on authoritarian rule are also considerable. Despite recent improvements, opposition parties need to transcend inter-personality issues to concentrate on more clearly defined ideologies and programs. Six opposition parties may be a luxury. These parties are also severely restricted in the resources, networks and mobilization capacities available to them.

Most important here are the constraints on collective organization around social and political issues which are heavily regulated under the Societies Act. These are intended to prevent links between opposition parties and wider interest groups as well as to stymie the possibility of social movements and other informal political activities.

It is this denial of organic links to civil society by opposition parties and the confinement of political competition to the consequently stunted competition of electoralism that stands in the way of genuine political competition and pluralism in Singapore.

Resigned to a buoyed up Workers' Party presence in parliament, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has expressed his preference for a ‘constructive relationship in policymaking.' If the ground is to be laid for more meaningful long-term challenges to authoritarian rule, though, exploiting the parliament to subject the political system itself to systematic scrutiny is paramount. Garry Rodan is an Australian Research Council Professorial Fellow at the Asia Research Centre, Murdoch University.

Pop Your Internet 'Filter' Bubble

By Mike Elgan
May 9, 2011 3:25 PM



Think you're on the Internet right now? Well, you're not. You're on your Internet. The exact version of the online world that you see is available only to you.

Most of the major conduits through which you see the world online, including Google Search and Facebook, are gathering all kinds of data about you, then presenting you with a custom version of the world they think you're interested in. They're hiding or de-emphasizing the version of the world they assume you're not interested in.

In the past two years, the biggest gatekeeper websites have gotten very good at figuring out what you want and giving it to you. What's wrong with that?

There are downsides, according to a new book called The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding From You.

In a nutshell, the book argues that the sophisticated personalization engines improve things in the short run. But in the long run, they dumb us down, reduce our exposure to new ideas and ultimately could lead to a society without a shared set of facts about the world. The personalized Internet favors the marketers and propagandists but provides an obstacle for people who are trying to introduce new ideas.

The Internet is increasingly turning us all into dictators and divas. Like the entourages of Saddam Hussein or Jennifer Lopez, the Internet tells us what we want to hear, feeding us a version of the world that feels good, goes down easy and doesn't challenge us.

The book ships May 16. It was written by Eli Pariser, who is the president of the MoveOn.org board. MoveOn is a liberal public-policy group, and Pariser's concerns are mainly political. But the "filter bubble" concept affects you no matter what your interests. And you're going to hear a lot about this concept after the book hits.

In this column, I'm going to tell you how personalization works, why you may not want it, and also how to pop the bubble and opt out of a system that censors your Internet based on stereotyping.

Your own private Google

The "secret sauce" of Google Search has long been an algorithm called PageRank (named after co-founder Larry Page). But on Dec. 4, 2009, Google announced an additional algorithm that custom-tailors search results according to the individual attributes of the user.

According to Pariser, Google uses 57 "signals" -- even when you're not logged in to Google -- to customize search results. (Google was unable to confirm the number of signals.)

These "signals" include where you are, what you have clicked on in the past and who your friends are. But that's just the beginning. Google also gathers information about which browser and device type you use, how much you travel (based on where you use search over time), how long it takes you to click after getting a search result, and many, many other data points.

From all this data, Google decides how to sort your search results. (A Google spokesman told me the company rejects the term "filter" because it implies that Google is hiding links rather than prioritizing them.)

Here's a fun experiment to try. Search for something on Google, and have a friend or two do the same search. See how the results are different? Many of the links are the same. But they're in a different order and "skewed" subtly in one direction or another.
As we increasingly use mobile devices, our exact locations, where we've been, which stores and restaurants we've entered, who we've met with and possibly even activities on unrelated services will be increasingly factored into the decision-making process about what we see and don't see. In fact, all the major improvements Google has promised for search involve far more and deeper personalization.

"The power of individual targeting -- the technology will be so good, it will be very hard for people to watch or consume something that has not in some sense been tailored for them," according to Eric Schmidt, Google's executive chairman.

Google apparently tries to be responsible with its power over your attention. A spokesman told me Google understands that "people value diversity on results pages." The company uses its deep understanding of you not only to target your assumed interests, but also to deliberately challenge you with a few links outside those interests.

Facebook's antisocial filter

Facebook is less responsible, in my opinion. The social networking giant determines what appears in your "News Feed" using an algorithm called EdgeRank. (Facebook ignored my request for an interview.)

Every action you take on Facebook -- clicking "Like," commenting, sharing, etc. -- is called an "Edge" internally at Facebook. Each Edge is weighted differently according to secret criteria.

What you need to know is that relationships and content that don't get enough "Edges" will get "edged" out of existence. Facebook will cut your ties to people -- actually end the relationships you think you have -- and block content that doesn't earn enough Edge points.

For example, many Facebook friendships exist solely through reading each other's Status Updates. An old friend or co-worker talks about a new job, shares a personal triumph like reaching a weight-loss goal, and tells a story on Mother's Day about how great his mom is. He posts and you read. You feel connected to his life.

Without telling you, Facebook will probably cut that connection. Using unpublished criteria, Facebook may decide you don't care about the person and silently stop delivering your friend's posts. Your friend will assume you're still reading his updates. You'll assume he's stopped posting.

Any friends who fail to click or comment on your posts will stop getting your status updates, too. If you have 500 friends, your posts may be actually delivered to only 100 of them. There's no way for you to know who sees them and who doesn't.

Facebook also filters content. EdgeRank keeps track of how many of your friends comment on a link to content, and it will use that criteria in the default view of your News Feed, which is the "Top Stories" setting.

The vast majority of even technical, savvy people I asked about this have no idea that their friends' activities are determining what content they see and don't see on Facebook.
Why everyone is doing it

It's not just Google and Facebook that shape and filter what you see online based on invisible assumptions and behind-the-scenes stereotyping. Amazon, Netflix, Pandora and hundreds of other companies offer "recommendations" or content based on personalization algorithms.

And personalization is becoming big business. Companies like Strands license their personalization engines to other companies. Strands customers include major banks, coupon and discount services and retailers, music sites and advertising companies.

The whole Internet is rapidly being personalized. Nobody can predict what kind of Internet -- what kind of world -- will emerge when everyone has a unique view of the world that nobody else can share.

Companies are aggressively pursuing personalization because it makes users happy. Personalization validates existing beliefs and prejudices. "Consuming information that conforms to our ideas of the world is easy and pleasurable," according to Pariser. "Consuming information that challenges us to think in new ways or question our assumptions is frustrating and difficult."

Personalization can create an "identity loop," according to Pariser. If you click to satisfy some passing curiosity, the algorithm might favor more such links in future. Because there are more links, you click more. You might even monitor your own activity and conclude that you must be especially interested. Personalization not only responds to personal interests. It shapes them.

And personalization based on activity favors the frivolous and the commercial. We all click mindlessly for temporary escapism. But we don't realize that we're training the Internet to favor that kind of content over important information.

Ultimately, personalization is ideal for marketing. We want perfect relevancy when shopping. As one venture capitalist said at this week's Social-Loco conference in San Francisco, "when you walk into a store, the only shoes and clothes available should be in your size."

The Googles and the Facebooks of the world are advertising companies. Their customers are advertisers, not users. And their customers love user personalization, because it's the shortest line between consumer and point of sale.

Of course, most sources of content are "biased." The site you're reading now, for example, is "biased" in favor of technology-related content over, say, stories about Latin music. The difference is that online personalization is invisible. Nobody knows what's being filtered out or why. Most people don't even know that filtering is taking place.
How to pop the bubble

If you don't want your Internet filtered by some invisible stereotype, here's how to pop the bubble. These tips are a combination of my own, plus some offered in The Filter Bubble.

* Deliberately click on links that make it hard for the personalization engines to pigeonhole you. Make yourself difficult to stereotype.

* Erase your browser history and cookies from time to time.

* Use an "incognito" window for exploring content you don't want too much of later.

* Use Twitter instead of Facebook for news. (Twitter doesn't personalize.)

* Unblock the Status Updates of your friends that Facebook has already blocked. Click the "Edit Options" link at the bottom of your Facebook News Feed. The dialog box will show you who is being blocked. You can hide or un-hide each friend manually, or unblock everybody. This dialog box affects only what comes from friends to you. It does not affect what your friends see of your posts.

* Every week or so, post something and then ask the Facebook friends you really care about to go "Like," comment and click. This activity should prevent Facebook from censoring your comments later for these people.

The most important thing about the "filter bubble" is that you know it exists. The Internet you see is not the Internet I see. The Internet you see has recently been redesigned to flatter, pander and validate -- not challenge, enlighten and educate.

The filter bubble is real. But it can be popped.

Mike Elgan writes about technology and tech culture. Contact and learn more about Mike at Elgan.com.

Microsoft buys Skype for $8.5 billion

Posted at 01:18 PM ET, 05/10/2011
By Cecilia Kang

Skype is expected to support Microsoft devices such as the Xbox, Kinect and Windows Phone. (DENIS BALIBOUSE - REUTERS) Microsoft said Tuesday it agreed to buy Skype for $8.5 billion in cash, the company’s biggest bet yet against Google, Apple and Facebook, who are leading the race to bring Internet services to any device.

Through its acquisition of Luxembourg-based Skype, Microsoft bought the world’s biggest Internet voice and video calling service, with 170 million users around the globe.

In a conference call with reporters, Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer said Skype’s service will meld with the Redmond, Wash., company’s diverse range of businesses to help it woo more customers who play games, socialize and conduct work over smart phones, tablets, PCs and televisions.

“By bringing together the best of Microsoft and Skype, we are empowering people around the world with new technologies that bring them together,” Ballmer said.

Skype has a deep footprint in Internet voice and video conferencing over smart phones, which make up about 45 percent of its business. That service gives Microsoft’s struggling Windows-based line of smart phones a big brand name that it hopes will draw in new consumers and better compete against Google Voice on Android phones and Facetime on Apple’s iPhone.

Microsoft’s edge in gaming entertainment, with its XBox consoles, gives Skype a new entre into the U.S. living room. Through the acquisition, Microsoft and Skype plan to provide better communications and video services for XBox and Kinnect users to keep them playing longer. Greater engagement with games and other services over mobile devices and television spells greater advertising revenues, the firms said.

“We want to approach the market around a rich media experience,” said Tony Bates, Skype’s chief executive. Skype will remain a separate division of Microsoft, and Bates will stay as president and report directly to Ballmer.

But the company, whose main business is business software, has struggled to compete against Google, Apple and Facebook. Google’s cloud-based business software including Gmail, calendar and documents, has been adopted by local governments and businesses as an alternative to Windows Office suite. Apple and Google are going head to head for smartphone and tablet customers, while Microsoft struggles with its Windows software for mobile devices. Facebook has become the world’s biggest platform for information sharing and entertainment such as games.

Ballmer said in the call that he first made his offer to Skype in April as the VOIP provider prepared for its initial public offering. The deal was signed Monday night, and Ballmer said he hoped to get regulatory approval for the deal by the end of the calendar year.

Analysts said the deal will likely get the go-ahead by antitrust authorities. Either the Justice Department or Federal Trade Commission will review the transaction for any anticompetitive concerns. The European Commission will also have to review the acquisition.

The acquisition comes amid a scramble by communications, entertainment and Internet services firms to best position themselves in a world where information converges on the Internet.

Comcast bought NBC Universal to add entertainment to its offerings. AT&T wants to be the biggest wireless provider through its acquisition of T-Mobile. Dish Network is buying Blockbuster and satellite companies to be a stronger provider of entertainment over wireless devices.

“This tie-up puts more pressure on other industry players to consider their own strategic deals,” said Rebecca Arbogast, an analyst at Stifel Nicolaus. “And while AT&T/T-Mobile could still get blocked, Microsoft-Skype likely wouldn’t, so it furthers cements the industry trend toward consolidation.”

As for consumers, Microsoft said current Skype users won’t be affected. Ballmer promised that Skype will continue to operate on non-Windows platforms.

On question, though, is whether Microsoft can use Skype to its full potential. Microsoft doesn’t have the greatest track record with acquisitions: Products such as Hotmail have been left to languish, while a series of other promising acquisitions have been shut down. On the other hand, Business Insider has pointed out some notable exceptions: Microsoft’s 2000 acquisition of video game company Bungie yielded the mega-hit Halo and gave the Xbox a solid following.

Staff writer Hayley Tsukayama contributed to this report.

Skype users: What do you think about this deal?

Related stories:

What the Microsoft/Skype deal means, via Skype

Skype hits the skids, suffers extensive outage

Skype fixes Android security problem, adds 3G calling

Broad Taliban Attack Paralyzes Kandahar

By TAIMOOR SHAH and ALISSA J. RUBIN

Published: May 8, 2011

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — For more than 30 hours over the weekend, the Taliban immobilized the southern city of Kandahar, unleashing multiple attacks with small arms and suicide bombers near the city’s downtown, pinning down people in their homes, forcing shops to close and halting most traffic.

Enlarge This Image

Ahmad Nadeem/Reuters

An Afghan police officer watched from a building that Taliban fighters used to attack the provincial governor's office in Kandahar. 

Enlarge This Image

Ahmad Nadeem/Reuters

A car bombing left debris on a Kandahar street on Sunday.

Although the attack, the first major campaign in the Taliban’s announced spring offensive, did not kill many people, the insurgents made clear that they could muster their followers, tie up one of Afghanistan’s largest population centers and elude a heavy police and military presence.

The attack ended as night fell Sunday, when the last two suicide bombers were killed in a hotel near the provincial headquarters of the national intelligence department. Spent casings littered the streets “like hail after a storm,” one Kandahar resident said, and ranks of police officers stood guard at official buildings.

The scale and organization of the attack as well as the targeting of government buildings suggested that the Taliban had been planning it for some time — and that they had relied on support from inside Kandahar.

Among the places singled out were the provincial governor’s palace, the police headquarters, the transportation police headquarters, a police substation and other buildings used by the military, according to a NATO statement.

Those are among the most well-guarded spots in Kandahar, the biggest city in southern Afghanistan and a major base for NATO forces. Still, the 27 insurgent fighters involved in the attacks were able to move in those areas while toting explosive vests or driving vehicles laden with explosives, raising questions about complicity with the attacks.

“How can a big number of armed people with suicide car bombs enter the city?” asked Mohammed Umar Sathi, a political analyst and Kandahar resident.

“How are they able to occupy nearby buildings and stage themselves so they can shoot on the governor’s office and the N.D.S. department?” he asked, referring to the National Directorate of Security, the intelligence department.

“Either the security forces are incompetent, or they have no coordination among each other,” he said. “Also, we have foreign forces who have responsibility for securing the city.”

The scale of the attack suggested that despite NATO’s ability to kill large numbers of fighters, which they say discourages others from joining the cause, there is still a substantial reservoir of men willing to fight to the death.

Of the 27 attackers, according to the provincial governor, Tooryalai Wesa, 13 were killed in combat and 7 were killed when they exploded their suicide bombs. Another seven fighters were detained.

At least two security officers were killed: a police officer and an intelligence officer. A civilian was killed, as was one other person whose identity was unclear, according to doctors at Mirwais Hospital in Kandahar. Doctors said that of 45 people who came to the hospital emergency room, 20 were treated and released while the others were kept for treatment. At least three were in critical condition.

The attacks frustrated and depressed Kandahar residents.

“People are really in trouble; this is the second day the bazaar is closed,” said Abdul Qadus, the owner of a textile shop, who had to leave the market suddenly Saturday when gunmen climbed on the roof of a building near where he worked and began to shoot. “People need to work, they need to buy something and earn their living, but in such circumstances you are not able to come outside.”

As the shooting stopped, the police and intelligence officers found one explosives-rigged vehicle after another: cars, rickshaws, motorcycles and wheelbarrows. In all, 20 vehicles were found with undetonated explosives, said a senior officer at the intelligence department. It was not clear why.

Governor Wesa, who was one of the targets of the attack — the Taliban fired into his compound — implored the insurgents to take advantage of this moment in the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden and lay down their arms.

“I am advising them not to kill themselves nor harm civilians nor destroy the country,” he said at a hastily called news conference. “Come and put down your weapons and join the peace and reconciliation process. You will be protected, your blood will be protected and your property will be protected. You will have a normal life in your own country.”

Governor Wesa was not the only one ready to offer the attackers a political solution.

Mohammed Nadeem Khan, a high school teacher who was standing in line to buy bread for his family as sporadic gunfire sounded in the distance, shook his head and spoke as if he were talking to the Taliban.

“I don’t know the aim of these Taliban or opposition or whatever you call them. What do they want? Power? Do they think by occupying a building, then starting shooting or detonating themselves, someone will give power? I don’t think so,” he said.

He continued: “If you really want to free Afghanistan from foreigners or bring justice to the people of Afghanistan, please appear in a political shape: come with logical reasons for the people to follow you, present a reasonable and proper solution for all these conflicts, get rid of corruption and I will support you, the people of Afghanistan will support you. But by destruction and killing, no one will support you. You will get nothing.”


Taimoor Shah reported from Kandahar, and Alissa J. Rubin from Kabul, Afghanistan.

Syrian President Assad blows his reformist credentials

Image via Wikipedia

BEIRUT — In his almost 11 years in office, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has brought about some remarkable changes to a country formerly run by his notoriously ruthless father, fueling perceptions that he is at heart a reformer, albeit one who has been held back by hard-liners intent on preserving the status quo.

Under his rule, Syria has opened its doors to foreign investment and private ownership. Cellphones, Internet service and satellite TV have proliferated. The capital, Damascus, has been transformed from a sleepy socialist backwater into the beginnings of a thriving modern capital, with shiny glass offices, European fashion outlets and trendy cafes serving flavored lattes to a hip new elite.


Video


Protesters in the Syrian city of Deir El-Zour toppled a golden statue of the brother of President Bashar Al Assad on Sunday, as anti-government activists continued a nationwide uprising. (May 8)


Video


Syrian authorities were conducting fresh raids, detaining hundreds of people as part of a widening crackdown on protests, one activist said Monday. Video about the situation in Syria is coming from state television and activists. (May 9)


Yet in all those years, the younger Assad has implemented not one measure that would relax the ruling Baath Party’s 48-year-long hold on power, lift the draconian laws that enable the security forces to operate with impunity or ease restrictions on free speech.

Now, with the Syrian security forces escalating a brutal and bloody effort to suppress an almost nationwide uprising, it may be too late for Assad to salvage what little remains of his reputation as the thwarted reformist waiting only for a chance to liberalize his country.

On Sunday, the army sent tanks into the southern town of Tafas, according to Wissam Tarif of the human rights group Insan. In Homs, he said, 14 people were killed by sharpshooters. But with communications to many parts of the country severed, it was impossible to draw a clear picture of conditions inside the half-dozen or so towns surrounded by the military, Tarif said.

Assad’s “reaction to the demonstrations has been the reaction of a dictator,” said Radwan Ziadeh, a Syrian human rights activist who is a visiting scholar at George Washington University’s Institute for Middle East Studies. “Even if he dramatically changed his mind and announced reforms now, I don’t think anyone would believe him.”

Cultivating his image

Assad has assiduously cultivated the reformist image since he ascended to power in 2000 at age 34, promising a new and more open Syria. With his youth, his British training as an eye doctor and his elegant British-born wife, Asma, he presented a starkly different figure compared with his somewhat thuggish father, Hafez, a military officer, and the region’s other aging autocrats.

It’s an image that many in the international community have cited in justifying their hesitancy to call directly for Assad’s ouster or to include him in sanctions, despite more than seven weeks of bloodshed in which human rights groups say more than 700 people have been killed.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called Assad “a reformer” during the early days of the demonstrations, though she later said she was referring to the opinions of others. Even after Syrian tanks rolled into the town of Daraa in a clear signal of the regime’s intent to crush the uprising by force, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Assad should be given a chance.

“You can imagine him as a reformer,” he told the BBC. “One of the difficulties in Syria is that President Assad’s power depends on a wider group of people, in his family and in other members of his government, and I am not sure how free he is to pursue a reform agenda.”

GE: “We hear all your voices”, says PM Lee

Image via Wikipedia
By Chitra Rajaram | Posted: 08 May 2011 0401 hrs
www.channelnewsasia.com

SINGAPORE: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong says the voters have decided and he is “humbled” that they voted the PAP government back to power.

Speaking at a post-victory news conference after the General Election results were announced on Sunday, Mr Lee said voters had given the PAP a strong mandate but he is aware of the concerns and issues voters had put across.

“We hear all your voices,” said Mr Lee.

The PAP government was returned to power with a majority of 81 seats including five uncontested seats. The strong showing is a relief for Mr Lee, who was seeking his second mandate as Prime Minister.

Although it was a sweeping win in terms of seats, the PAP’s share of the popular vote slipped to 60.14 percent from 66.6 percent at the last election in 2006.

One of the most challenging contests in electoral history, the polls saw competition in 82 out of the 87 seats among seven political parties.

Sentiments were shifting towards the Workers’ Party and Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) in the last few days of campaigning, with talk that PAP could lose seven or eight seats especially hotbed Aljunied GRC and Holland-Bukit Timah GRC.

But the PAP ended with 81 out of 87 Parliament seats.

Mr Lee called this a watershed election – one that has taken place in a very different world and a very different Singapore from five years ago.

He said the election had heightened political consciousness and awareness among Singaporeans.

Mr Lee, who is also the Secretary General of the People’s Action Party, said the election marks a distinct shift that all Singaporeans, not just the political parties, must adjust to.

The nine days of intense campaigning focused on major issues such as the cost of living and housing and healthcare, and Singapore’s political system and values.

Mr Lee noted that people aired their frustrations and grievances — and he said that the government has heard them.

“The PAP will analyse the results of the election, learn from what has emerged from this General Election, put right what is wrong, improve what can be made better, and also improve ourselves to serve Singaporeans better,” he said.

Touching on the PAP’s loss to the Workers’ Party in Aljunied GRC, Mr Lee said Foreign Minister George Yeo and his team accepted and respected the voters’ decision.

“It will be a heavy loss to my Cabinet and my team of MPs not to have George, Lim Hwee Hua, Zainul Abidin, Cynthia Phua and Ong Ye Kung. They are five good men and women. But we too accept and respect the voters’ decision and we wish the new Workers’ Party MPs well in serving the Aljunied residents,” said Mr Lee.

Prime Minister Lee noted that there will be 81 PAP MPs and nine opposition MPs in the next Parliament — six elected from the Workers’ Party and three Non-Constituency MPs, if the opposition parties take up these seats.

He said the government looks forward to these opposition MPs offering alternative views and helping to improve debate in a constructive manner.

Summing up, Mr Lee said it is time to heal and move forward — not just for the parties, but for all Singaporeans.

“The political contest goes on in every country in one form or another. But in Singapore, we must make sure it’s harnessed for the good to make Singapore stronger and never to divide us. We are all fellow Singaporeans, so at the end of the General Election, let us close ranks to secure our future together,” said Mr Lee.

- CNA/ir

GE: Aljunied win a political landmark, says WP’s Low
Posted: 08 May 2011 0600 hrs

SINGAPORE: Workers’ Party chief Low Thia Khiang has described his victory in Aljunied GRC as a political landmark in Singapore.

He said: “This is a political landmark in Singapore. You have cast doubts and fears and taken a leap of faith.

“Your votes tell us that Singapore is not just an economic success…but (also) your home.

“Your votes tell us that Singapore wants to mature as a democracy and tell the government that you want a responsible, inclusive and transparent government.

“You have entrusted us your mandate to serve you and we will do our best to honour your trust in us.”

The Workers’ Party won 54.71 per cent of the votes, leaving the People’s Action Party (PAP) with 45.29 per cent.

Besides Mr Low, the others in his team include Workers’ Party chairman and law lecturer Sylvia Lim, corporate lawyer Chen Show Mao, freelance counsellor Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap, and post-graduate law student Pritam Singh.

Aljunied GRC was also hotly contested in 2006, with the PAP winning the GRC by a small margin. In 2006, the PAP won 56.1 per cent of the votes, while WP received 43.9 per cent.

- CNA/ir

GE: A new chapter has opened, says George Yeo
Posted: 08 May 2011 0214 hrs

SINGAPORE: The Workers’ Party (WP) — led by its Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang — has won the hotly contested Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC).

The win puts the most number of opposition members into Parliament.

WP won 54.71 per cent of the votes, leaving the People’s Action Party (PAP) with 45.29 per cent.

This means the PAP team has lost three office holders — Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo, Second Minister for Finance and Transport Lim Hwee Hua, and Senior Minister of State Zainul Abidin Rasheed.

WP chief Low said in his victory speech: “This is a political landmark in Singapore. You have cast doubts and fears and taken a leap of faith.

“Your votes tell us that Singapore is not just an economic success…but (also) your home.

“Your votes tell us that Singapore wants to mature as a democracy and tell the government that you want a responsible, inclusive and transparent government.

“You have entrusted us your mandate to serve you and we will do our best to honour your trust in us.”

Meanwhile, Mr Yeo said: “Dear friends, my colleagues and I would like to congratulate Mr Low Thia Khiang and his colleagues.

“It was a great campaign. We fought hard but we had no regrets. And we respect the decision of the people of Aljunied.

“We want to thank the people of Aljunied for giving us the privilege to serve them all these years. We want to thank the thousands of supporters and grassroots leaders who have given us their affection.

“It was our great honour, our friendships will be life-long. A new chapter has opened in Singapore’s history.”

Along with WP chief Low Thia Khiang, WP chairman and law lecturer Sylvia Lim, corporate lawyer Chen Show Mao, freelance counsellor Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap, and post-graduate law student Pritam Singh have now been elected as MPs.

Aljunied GRC was also hotly contested in 2006, with the PAP winning the GRC by a small margin. In 2006, the PAP won 56.1 per cent of the votes, while WP received 43.9 per cent.

-CNA/wk/ac This entry was posted on Sunday, 8 May 2011, 6:50 am

Singapore’s democratic opening

Image via Wikipedia
Bridget Welsh | May 6, 11 1:54pm
Malaysiakini

COMMENT

Singapore’s 2011 general election campaign has been historic, and signals a major transformation in the country’s political landscape. The intensity and tone of this campaign has been unprecedented as the ruling PAP’s (People’s Action Party) record has come under attack.

Given the impressive management of the 2008 global financial crisis and record GDP growth of 14.5% in 2010, this election should have given Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (left) a strong mandate and seen as a celebration of Singapore’s success.

Instead, from the first day of the campaign when thousands thronged Hougang Stadium to attend an opposition rally organised by the Worker’s Party, the PAP has been on the defensive.

A few days ago, the Singaporean premier, in a brave and unprecedented display of humility, apologised for the mistakes of ministers and failings of his government – repeatedly. This move represented an acknowledgment that all is not right in Singapore and that the concerns of many Singaporeans are not been adequately addressed.

In fact, the mood on the ground in Singapore has been one of angst, sometimes anger, as this general election campaign has stirred a revolutionary outpouring of open criticism towards the PAP.

Bold opposition campaign

As the campaign began, the focus initially was on the credibility of the opposition. The opposition – comprised of a handful of parties – is unified in their focus on the PAP, with only one of the contests a three-cornered fight. The minimal infighting bolstered the opposition’s chances.

All the seats were contested, except for the group representative constituency of Tanjong Pagar, the constituency of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. There, the opposition candidates were disqualified for filing their papers 35 seconds late.

Singapore’s opposition has made a bold move to move its old stalwarts Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang from single-member constituencies – single candidate contests have been whittled down in size through the repeated gerrymandering that happens before every election and is announced only a few months in advance – to the larger group representatives constituency (GRC) where there are four to five representatives contesting.

The opposition fielded arguably its strongest slate in Singapore’s history, featuring the talented Chen Show Mao (left), a lawyer of international fame, and former private secretary to Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, Tan Jee Say.

While many of the opposition teams are not even and there is considerable variation in the candidate caliber nationally – which is also the case for the PAP – the opposition has neutralised the PAP claim that it is the only one capable of representing Singaporeans.

The focus has centred on the ‘A Team’ contest in Aljunied (a GRC that represents the heartland of Singapore), which was won narrowly by the PAP in 1997, and is seen as the strongest possible chance for the opposition to break the monopoly of the PAP on GRCs, which comprise the majority of seats and essentially assure the PAP a two-thirds majority.

From the onset, the opposition presented the majority of Singaporeans with an alternative choice. In giving more Singaporeans real choices at the polls this election, the opposition has helped expand democratic space.

Seeking voice and representation

Time and again, the opposition used the analogy of the “co-driver”, calling for the need to have more review of the single dominant party to check mistakes and share alternative views.

Speakers at rallies have pointed to the need to “slap the driver if he falls asleep and talk to him when he is awake”, to open up dialogue with different perspectives and stop the government from going in the wrong direction.

This image – which captures the experience of many ordinary Singaporeans who feel that they have not had a seat in the car, let alone the front, has reinforced a key theme of this campaign – is used to illustrate the need to have a genuinely representative opposition.

To neutralise this, the PAP changed the composition of the Parliament before the polls to include more nominated members of Parliament (NMP), to allow for approved and chosen alternative voices.

With the driver analogy, the opposition has attacked this practice, pointing to the need to have voting members on all matters involving governance. This idea of having a check on power has taken root, with calls for a First World Parliament with different perspectives, and more openness in dialogue.

At the core of the opposition calls for a stronger watchdog role are real concerns about the lack of adequate consultation on policies, such as the construction of two casinos over considerable protest and lingering anger, and need for more transparency in the PAP government.

The attitude that “government knows best” is being fundamentally challenged by the demand for the government be more accountable and consultative. There are real questions being raised by the failure of some PAP ministers to be accountable for mistakes in areas such as the escape of suspected terrorist Mas Selamat, for example.

The high salaries of PAP ministers (and bonuses) have continued to come under attack. Underscoring concerns about accountability is a perceived growing distance of PAP leaders from the concerns of ordinary public. Many speak about the first visit of a PAP member of parliament in their lifetime during the campaign, revealing the lack of connection to local communities of many ruling elites, especially to those living in the government HDB flats.

The recent Facebook chat by PM Lee shows how disconnected the PAP has been from online social media, which has expanded discussion and engagement in Singapore.

Issues and governance

The opposition has tapped into the perception of PAP elite distance effectively in its messaging.

Firstly, the opposition as a whole, led by the popular Workers Party and newcomer Reform Party, has come to the centre, appealing to the middle ground. Traditionally the opposition in Singapore has been marginalised and discredited, and often painted as existing on the fringe.

The surprising dimension of this campaign is how the opposition as a whole has unified under a more inclusive group, capturing the concerns from bread-and-butter issues to political freedoms, all under the “opposition umbrella”. This unity and shared message has minimised differences among the component parties.

Where the opposition has hit hardest is by tapping into the struggles of ordinary Singaporeans. The dominant concerns have been the high cost of living, affordable housing and accessible healthcare. These issues have become common rallying cries for the opposition, and forced PAP ministers to go on the defensive.

The intensity of the public response to these issues highlights the shortcomings the PAP has faced in policy-making. Behind these issues is a reality that not all Singaporeans have shared equally in the success of the country.

Singapore – along with Malaysia – has one of the highest levels of inequality in Southeast Asia. Today there are homeless on the streets of Singapore despite its impressive economic growth, and many hardworking families are being squeezed by inflation – especially those taking care of elderly parents and children.

From a policy perspective, Singapore has to face the reality that its social welfare system is not working and that many of its people are falling through the cracks. And, everyone in the small country like Singapore, sees it.

Personally, I have seen the struggles of the elderly in hospital grappling with unmanageable health costs, as the refrain that is commonly stated in Singapore is that you can die, but you cannot fall sick in Singapore.

This problem by the way is not unique to Singapore as the recent health-care debate in the US has shown. The ability to live a life with dignity and basic affordable health-care is a demand worldwide and developed countries are being called on to provide better policies.

What has happened in this campaign is a questioning of the narrow economic focus of policy for the elites and a challenge to the development model of trickle down benefits without an adequate social safety net. So many people talk about the “pressure” of living in Singapore, which has been tied to intense competition to perform in a system where there is no protection for the weak and diversity in performance.

No matter what happens in the final results tomorrow, Singaporeans have unselfishly called on the government to look out for everyone, not just the few.

Immigration a hot-button issue

Most of the media attention this election has centred on the issue of immigration. In some ways, it ties into the pragmatic concerns of Singaporeans, who are concerned with competition with jobs and the increased demand on services that have strained quality output.

Civil servants who have traditionally operated with personal care and attention have been overwhelmed by the level of new demands in recent years. This is most obvious in public transportation, but extends to all walks of life.

Yet, as a foreign worker in Singapore who fondly remembers the Singapore of old, there is more going on than pragmatic concerns. The entire demographic of Singaporean society has changed, and many Singaporeans feel that they are being left out. They resent the perceived favouritism given to foreigners, who are not asked to make the same level of sacrifice in the form of National Service for example to the country.

In this deeply proud country, the influx of foreign workers has fostered a sense of displacement and in some ways been seen to undercut national identity. This was captured by the commentary of 24-year-old opposition candidate, National Solidarity Party’s Nicole Seah (left), who remarked that she was “living in a foreign country”.

This is not an easy task for the PAP to manage the need for labour and investment with changing identity and interests. The speed at which the demographic change has occurred without adequate appreciation and acknowledgment of the important role of Singaporeans from all walks of life has made this issue very real.

This election campaign points to the need to move beyond thinking about governance in economic terms, but moving toward a broader sense of humanity and inclusion.

Engaging the new media

All of this has played out on the social media. As the campaign has been scheduled during student exams, it has been less viable for many working families to attend rallies. Instead, many have turned to Facebook and YouTube, as speeches have been shared and discussed.

PAP leaders, such as George Yeo and Vivian Balakrishnan, have made personal appeals to voters, especially younger voters who will be decisive in this election as they comprise 25% of the electorate. This is Singapore’s first ‘new media’ election and the level of engagement is unprecedented. Even the mainstream media have adopted more new media tools.

While many continue to rely on the Straits Times and other arms of Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) for news, the level of dialogue has deepened. What is important that much of this dialogue has largely focused on real issues rather than character assassinations, although there has been a fair amount of “he said, she said”.

The real change is that Singaporeans – largely seen to be apathetic politically – have stepped up and shown that they are attuned to developments politically in their country and they care. Across the political spectrum and backgrounds, Singaporeans have been shown that they care about the country’s future.

By law, they are required to vote and more and more are going into the voting booth having experienced a broader range of debate.

Obstacles and political opening

The obstacles to winning seats for the opposition in Singapore are high. These are well-known – constituency delineation, media control and lack of resources.

In this campaign, the opposition has defined the debate and provided a real challenge to the government. The issues are now on the table and will have to be addressed, from inequality and inclusion to policy reevaluations, irrespective of the final outcome in seats.

Minimally, the PAP faces a likely loss in popular support and will not emerge with as strong as a mandate as the past. As to how many seats it will lose, it is too hard to call but chances are we shall see the strongest opposition gains since the 1991 election.

The main groups that will determine the election are younger voters, middle-class voters who comprise the silent majority that largely did not attend rallies and importantly, the Malay community, which has traditionally voted for the PAP in recent elections and been decisive in hot seats in the past.

The PAP’s initiatives in the last stages of the campaign – the Facebook appeal to younger voters, the repeated apologies and more frequent speeches in Malay – reveal how close some of the contests are. They have embraced humility as a tactic, combined with the reminders of their successes and a call by minister mentor not to have to “repent” by voting for the opposition.

Today is the cooling-off period – a day for reflection. In this campaign, Singaporeans have shown confidence in themselves by allowing and encouraging discussion. This has been led by both sides of the divide as democracy is expanding in Singapore through dialogue and greater political engagement.

Voters in Singapore will decide tomorrow whether to continue with the incumbent dominance – to reward the ruling party for the impressive economic gains and management of financial crisis – or to opt for diversity and change, a stronger check on the monopoly of power.

The global and regional trends toward democratic openings suggest that even Singapore is not immune from change. They have already shown that even in arguably one of the most successfully governed states in the world, the demand for greater representation and better governance lives on.

DR BRIDGET WELSH is associate professor of political science at Singapore Management University and she can be reached at bwelsh@smu.edu.sg.

Jeff Ooi takes ‘Christian conspiracy’ to police

Image via Wikipedia
Susan Loone | May 8, 11
Malaysiakini

Jelutong MP Jeff Ooi has lodged a police report against Umno-linked Malay language daily Utusan Malaysia and a blogger BigDog.com, for what he described were “malicious” articles alleging he was involved in a purported Christian conspiracy to change the country’s official religion.

Ooi, who is DAP central executive committee member, wants the police to investigate Utusan over its front page articles on May 7 entitled ‘Kristian Agama Rasmi’ (Christianity the official religion?), ‘Dua halaman blog dedah ikrar paderi seluruh negara’ (Two blogs expose pledge by pastors nationwide), and ‘Jeff Ooi nafi anjur majlis’ (Jeff Ooi denies organising seminar).

On page five, Ooi noted two other articles on the same matter entitled “Malaysia negara Kristian? Dua blog dedah pertemuan paderi bincang agenda jadikan agama rasmi” (Christianity the official religion? Two blogs expose meeting between pastors discussing making Christianity the nation’s official religion).

He also said he wants the police to investigate another blog, called ‘Marahku’, that carried a similar allegation in his blog posting entitled ‘Agong under threat? DAP wants to make Christianity the official religion of Malaysia?’.

Though conceding that he did not have much information about the blogger, Ooi said the articles suggested that Ooi had attended a meeting of Christian pastors in Penang on Friday, where the group had prayed for Christianity to be the official religion of the country and for a Christian to be prime minister.

Utusan Malaysia had based its articles on a blog posting by yet another pro-Umno blogger, Zakir Mohammed, titled ‘Making Christianity the official religion’, which alleged that Ooi had organised the meeting.

Zakir and anonymous blogger Marahku had carried a photo in their blog featuring a group of people in a circle praying with their heads bowed.

At a press conference at the Jalan Pattani police station, Ooi urged Zakir and Utusan Malaysia to apologise to all Christians within 24 hours for the said allegations.

“Apologise in 24 hours or else I will explain the matter to all Buddhist and Christian groups and ask them to vote wisely against extremism in the next election,” he told reporters.

He said that although Utusan Malaysia had quoted him as saying that he was merely a guest at the closed door dinner meeting, the daily had concluded that DAP was involved in a very dangerous act.

“(They accuse us of) bringing the Chinese chauvinistic political strategy to a very high and sensitive level,” he added.

Meanwhile, Ooi took Zakir to task for saying in his post that “The level … is thought to be much higher as compared to the post May 1969 general election where victorious Chinese chauvinists (from) DAP trotted around strategic places in Kuala Lumpur with brooms asking the Malays to ‘Balik Kampung, Tanam Jagung’ (Go home and plant corn).

“That sparked the bloody racial riot of the evening of 13 May,” Ooi cited Zakir as saying.

Ooi felt this was the blogger’s attempt to stir anti-Chinese sentiments among Malays although not everyone in the Chinese community are Christians.

“I deny all the allegations by Utusan Malaysia and BigDog but I believe (in) the coincidence that as May 13 draws nearer, the duo has (tried to) spark these anti-Chinese sentiments by bringing up the issue of May 13 and by hurling accusations that my party is Chinese chauvinistic.

“(They are) malicious and should be investigated under Penal Code section 499 (for defamation)”.

Ooi expressed hope that all religious leaders would appeal to their believers to stay calm, while urging pro-Malay rights pressure groups like Pembela and Perkasa to “stop playing with fire”.

He said Umno should take action against irresponsible editors in the newspaper who play up racial or religious sentiments.

“But would they take action since they dared to expel their own (dissenting) journalist?” he asked, referring to sacked journalist and National Union of Journalists chief Hata Wahari.

The articles has created waves, with Home Minister Hishamuddin Hussein joining in the fray and expressing worries about the seriousness of the allegations were true.

Information, Communications and Culture Minister Rais Yatim has said the bloggers’ allegations should be referred to the Malaysians Communications and Multimedia Commission.

These happened even after a strongly-worded denial by the organisers of the pastors meeting, the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF), together with partners Global Day of Prayer, Marketplace Penang and Penang Pastors Fellowship.

The group described the articles as being “unfounded and totally untrue aimed at creating division and social disharmony in multi-ethnic society of Malaysia and appears to be seditious”.

NECF said the so-called special convention was in fact an unashamedly ethical marketplace seminar organised to discuss and address the issue of bribery and corruption in the marketplace and the Christians contribution in addressing such issues.

“It has nothing to do with political succession,” they said.