Nov 7, 2012
Please Note - Change in Posting Pattern
Almost all my new postings to The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times
will appear once again on my Starting Points and Burma Monitor blogs although these publications usually require you to pay a fee to them in order to view full-text of most articles. The same holds for the few postings derived from other useful but proprietary (restricted access pay) sites. Such fee articles will continue to be available in _very brief_ form on my Google+ posts page -- https://plus.google.com/u/0/114166353305177408369/posts
All other posts -- the vast majority -- should lead to free sites.
will appear once again on my Starting Points and Burma Monitor blogs although these publications usually require you to pay a fee to them in order to view full-text of most articles. The same holds for the few postings derived from other useful but proprietary (restricted access pay) sites. Such fee articles will continue to be available in _very brief_ form on my Google+ posts page -- https://plus.google.com/u/0/114166353305177408369/posts
All other posts -- the vast majority -- should lead to free sites.
Nov 5, 2012
Law as a last resort (Myanmar/Burma)
Law as a last resort (Myanmar/Burma): Law as a last resort (Myanmar/Burma): During President Thein Sein's first press conference ever, he addressed the problem of land disputes. Most reports, including one in The Myanmar Times, have focused on the conference as a sign of the president's warming relationship with the media. However, his answers hint to his administrations larger views towards judicial reform.
In my article for the Australian Journal of Asian Law, I quotes several of Thein Sein's speeches in which he seemed to urge the courts to work in harmony with the other branches of government. In the context of the Saffron Revolution and Cyclone Nargis, these warnings sounded like an ominous sign of judicial independence under a civilian government.
Of course, events haven't panned out quite the way I'd expected. The Constitutional Tribunal was very bold in striking down government acts. Until, of course, it was impeached. As I've noted many times, it seems many in the legislature were unwilling or unable to conceive of courts acting as a constraint on government.
In the press conference, Thein Sein states that he prefers for land disputes to be settled by negotiation, with adjudication as a last resort. Of course, many people prefer non-litigious dispute resolution. Litigation is costly and frustrating. However, the president's comments did recall those earlier speeches he had made and suggest he hadn't simply made those comments under duress.
I have no reason to suspect the government has any intention to try to limit judicial independence in land disputes. However, between the impeachment of the Constitutional Tribunal members and Thein Sein's own views, I wouldn't be surprised if judicial reform in Myanmar focused on alternative dispute resolution (ADR), such as mediation and arbitration. Indeed, as Erik Jensen has often argued, for developing countries less formal dispute resolution might serve societies better.
So far, I haven't heard much about a big push for ADR in Myanmar, but if that's what was on the president's mind during his press conference it might prove a useful direction for Myanmar's legal reforms.
In my article for the Australian Journal of Asian Law, I quotes several of Thein Sein's speeches in which he seemed to urge the courts to work in harmony with the other branches of government. In the context of the Saffron Revolution and Cyclone Nargis, these warnings sounded like an ominous sign of judicial independence under a civilian government.
Of course, events haven't panned out quite the way I'd expected. The Constitutional Tribunal was very bold in striking down government acts. Until, of course, it was impeached. As I've noted many times, it seems many in the legislature were unwilling or unable to conceive of courts acting as a constraint on government.
In the press conference, Thein Sein states that he prefers for land disputes to be settled by negotiation, with adjudication as a last resort. Of course, many people prefer non-litigious dispute resolution. Litigation is costly and frustrating. However, the president's comments did recall those earlier speeches he had made and suggest he hadn't simply made those comments under duress.
I have no reason to suspect the government has any intention to try to limit judicial independence in land disputes. However, between the impeachment of the Constitutional Tribunal members and Thein Sein's own views, I wouldn't be surprised if judicial reform in Myanmar focused on alternative dispute resolution (ADR), such as mediation and arbitration. Indeed, as Erik Jensen has often argued, for developing countries less formal dispute resolution might serve societies better.
So far, I haven't heard much about a big push for ADR in Myanmar, but if that's what was on the president's mind during his press conference it might prove a useful direction for Myanmar's legal reforms.
Ten Reasons Asean Prefers Obama
Ten Reasons Asean Prefers Obama:
On Tuesday, the international community will learn who voters in the United States will choose for their new leader. For the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), it is crystal clear that the incumbent should remain president. Here are 10 reasons for choosing Barack Obama.
1. In general, Asean leaders want Obama to take part in the upcoming East Asia Summit (EAS), which will be held two weeks after polling in Phnom Penh. The seventh EAS will be one of the most important meetings between leaders of Asean and the world’s most powerful countries including the US, Russia, China and India, as each undergoes substantive changes dictated by their own domestic and external dynamics. To Asean, Obama represents a continuity of US commitment to Asia.
2. If the presidential challenger, Mitt Romney, wins the race, he would have no reason to travel to Southeast Asia at any future date. His first task would be to consolidate his new administrative team as well as reshape US foreign policy towards the Middle East, focusing on Israel and Iran. If Asia matters, it is all about China and Japan. Asean will be very low on his list.
3. The Asean chair, Cambodia, is so excited about the upcoming EAS that a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry in Phnom Penh announced on Tuesday that Obama has confirmed that he would attend. It is a clear indication that the White House is confident of his victory in the presidential race.
After July’s hiccup regarding the failure to issue the joint communiqué at the end of Asean annual meeting, Cambodia badly wants to demonstrate that it has a neutral foreign policy regarding major powers, especially towards the US and China.
4. Both Burma and Thailand are anxious to find out if Obama will confirm stopovers during the trip to and from Phnom Penh. Advance security teams from the US have already visited these countries to prepare the ground for his surprise visits ahead of the EAS.
The trip to three Asean members would be historic, especially for Burma. The recent reforms in the former rogue state have won praise from all over the world, so much so that Obama cannot just ignore. Indeed, US-Burma relations appear to be on a rollercoaster after President Thein Sein and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s recent visits to North America.
For him to come this far and visit Cambodia and Burma without touching down on tarmac in Thailand, a long-standing US ally, would be utterly impossible. To reinforce the pivotal role of Thailand, US Defense Secretary Leon Penetta is scheduled to stop over in Bangkok before heading for Siem Reap on Nov. 15. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will also visit the Thai capital two days later on her way to Phnom Penh.
5. If there has ever been any US president that is knowledgeable and appreciative of Asean, it is Obama. Over the past four years, he has developed close rapport and a calm assurance most of the bloc’s leaders. In fact, Asean is thinking of scheduling another round of leaders’ meetings with the incumbent US president in the future.
They have already met a few times with Obama, and these encounters generally produce substantive results. It is not wrong to say that Obama helps define and sustain the US’s role in their relations with Asean.
6. The US rebalancing policy has won accolades amongst Asean leaders. With the incumbent remaining at the White House, this policy will enter its second phase with intensified US engagement with group members in all areas. Obama’s scheduled visit to Burma after the EAS and its invitation to Naypyidaw to be an observer in the Cobra Gold exercise next year is a clear indication of Washington’s intention to augment its security cooperation with all Asean members.
This will be a new security toolbox for the region. With a stronger US presence and commitment, the Washington-initiated Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is gaining ground as additional Asean members try to enter the negotiation process. Thailand would be one among them. Again, Obama’s challenger would not focus on Asia as a whole, even though his Republican predecessor, former President George W. Bush, did make efforts to formulate distinctive diplomacy toward Asia and Asean, particularly on his second term.
7. Asean wants a US president with a practical foreign policy towards China. Proximity to the world’s second largest economy does provide both comfort and stress for Asean. The US as a balancing force is situated in a faraway part of the world. In the past when China was poor and underdeveloped, it did not pose any threat.
Now, Asean is learning how to cope anew with a China that stands tall and is proud of its achievements. The Obama administration’s policy is both competitive and collaborative which augurs well with the Asean approach to the two super dialogue partners. Asean will benefit from this balanced approach providing it has sufficient room to engage and secure influence in ways that would increase the region’s profile, rather than dampen it.
8. Asean prefers a US leader who does not treat Russia as an enemy as it would have a direct impact on overall regional peace and stability. Russia under third-time President Vladimir Putin is returning to the region, in particular the previous Indochina, where the former Soviet Union used to reign supreme.
Moscow wants closer cooperation with Asean and is willing to do more to harness these relations. Visits to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia still betray remnants of its once powerful presence. Back in 2005, it was Moscow which first demonstrated eagerness to attend the nascent EAS.
9. With the same US president, Asean leaders will have extra time to contemplate on the new Chinese leaders in place next week. For the past decade, Asean has taken for granted that China would not act assertively as it would be accommodative to the bloc’s interests and remain at best benign. Of late, disputes in the South China Sea have changed this long-standing perception.
From now on, Asean, individually and collectively, will have to decipher a new batch of younger Chinese leaders and their motives toward the region. Failure to do so would further deepen mutual suspicion that both sides could not afford to have at this juncture.
At the Asean-China retreat in Pattaya at the end of October, senior officials from both sides could not agree on the exact date to kick off negotiations on a code of conduct for the South China Sea. While the Asean officials were soft and positive, Beijing, instead, delivered direct and tough words over the maritime situation by reiterating that it would no longer hold back—any provocation would see a proportional response to the perceived threat to China at the time. This did not bode well for the upcoming EAS as the issue is likely to be raised along with other territorial disputes in this part of the world.
10. Asean leaders, especially those from Muslim countries, do not like proposed US policy under Romney that seems intent on war with Iran as they have maintained good bilateral relations with the Arab state. Despite sanctions, some Asean members have continued to trade with Iran. Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have extensive economic ties which they will not want to see jeopardized.
This article first appeared in the Bangkok-based The Nation newspaper. Kavi Chongkittavorn is assistant group editor of Nation Media Group and his views do not necessarily reflect those of The Irrawaddy.
On Tuesday, the international community will learn who voters in the United States will choose for their new leader. For the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), it is crystal clear that the incumbent should remain president. Here are 10 reasons for choosing Barack Obama.
1. In general, Asean leaders want Obama to take part in the upcoming East Asia Summit (EAS), which will be held two weeks after polling in Phnom Penh. The seventh EAS will be one of the most important meetings between leaders of Asean and the world’s most powerful countries including the US, Russia, China and India, as each undergoes substantive changes dictated by their own domestic and external dynamics. To Asean, Obama represents a continuity of US commitment to Asia.
2. If the presidential challenger, Mitt Romney, wins the race, he would have no reason to travel to Southeast Asia at any future date. His first task would be to consolidate his new administrative team as well as reshape US foreign policy towards the Middle East, focusing on Israel and Iran. If Asia matters, it is all about China and Japan. Asean will be very low on his list.
3. The Asean chair, Cambodia, is so excited about the upcoming EAS that a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry in Phnom Penh announced on Tuesday that Obama has confirmed that he would attend. It is a clear indication that the White House is confident of his victory in the presidential race.
After July’s hiccup regarding the failure to issue the joint communiqué at the end of Asean annual meeting, Cambodia badly wants to demonstrate that it has a neutral foreign policy regarding major powers, especially towards the US and China.
4. Both Burma and Thailand are anxious to find out if Obama will confirm stopovers during the trip to and from Phnom Penh. Advance security teams from the US have already visited these countries to prepare the ground for his surprise visits ahead of the EAS.
The trip to three Asean members would be historic, especially for Burma. The recent reforms in the former rogue state have won praise from all over the world, so much so that Obama cannot just ignore. Indeed, US-Burma relations appear to be on a rollercoaster after President Thein Sein and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s recent visits to North America.
For him to come this far and visit Cambodia and Burma without touching down on tarmac in Thailand, a long-standing US ally, would be utterly impossible. To reinforce the pivotal role of Thailand, US Defense Secretary Leon Penetta is scheduled to stop over in Bangkok before heading for Siem Reap on Nov. 15. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will also visit the Thai capital two days later on her way to Phnom Penh.
5. If there has ever been any US president that is knowledgeable and appreciative of Asean, it is Obama. Over the past four years, he has developed close rapport and a calm assurance most of the bloc’s leaders. In fact, Asean is thinking of scheduling another round of leaders’ meetings with the incumbent US president in the future.
They have already met a few times with Obama, and these encounters generally produce substantive results. It is not wrong to say that Obama helps define and sustain the US’s role in their relations with Asean.
6. The US rebalancing policy has won accolades amongst Asean leaders. With the incumbent remaining at the White House, this policy will enter its second phase with intensified US engagement with group members in all areas. Obama’s scheduled visit to Burma after the EAS and its invitation to Naypyidaw to be an observer in the Cobra Gold exercise next year is a clear indication of Washington’s intention to augment its security cooperation with all Asean members.
This will be a new security toolbox for the region. With a stronger US presence and commitment, the Washington-initiated Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is gaining ground as additional Asean members try to enter the negotiation process. Thailand would be one among them. Again, Obama’s challenger would not focus on Asia as a whole, even though his Republican predecessor, former President George W. Bush, did make efforts to formulate distinctive diplomacy toward Asia and Asean, particularly on his second term.
7. Asean wants a US president with a practical foreign policy towards China. Proximity to the world’s second largest economy does provide both comfort and stress for Asean. The US as a balancing force is situated in a faraway part of the world. In the past when China was poor and underdeveloped, it did not pose any threat.
Now, Asean is learning how to cope anew with a China that stands tall and is proud of its achievements. The Obama administration’s policy is both competitive and collaborative which augurs well with the Asean approach to the two super dialogue partners. Asean will benefit from this balanced approach providing it has sufficient room to engage and secure influence in ways that would increase the region’s profile, rather than dampen it.
8. Asean prefers a US leader who does not treat Russia as an enemy as it would have a direct impact on overall regional peace and stability. Russia under third-time President Vladimir Putin is returning to the region, in particular the previous Indochina, where the former Soviet Union used to reign supreme.
Moscow wants closer cooperation with Asean and is willing to do more to harness these relations. Visits to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia still betray remnants of its once powerful presence. Back in 2005, it was Moscow which first demonstrated eagerness to attend the nascent EAS.
9. With the same US president, Asean leaders will have extra time to contemplate on the new Chinese leaders in place next week. For the past decade, Asean has taken for granted that China would not act assertively as it would be accommodative to the bloc’s interests and remain at best benign. Of late, disputes in the South China Sea have changed this long-standing perception.
From now on, Asean, individually and collectively, will have to decipher a new batch of younger Chinese leaders and their motives toward the region. Failure to do so would further deepen mutual suspicion that both sides could not afford to have at this juncture.
At the Asean-China retreat in Pattaya at the end of October, senior officials from both sides could not agree on the exact date to kick off negotiations on a code of conduct for the South China Sea. While the Asean officials were soft and positive, Beijing, instead, delivered direct and tough words over the maritime situation by reiterating that it would no longer hold back—any provocation would see a proportional response to the perceived threat to China at the time. This did not bode well for the upcoming EAS as the issue is likely to be raised along with other territorial disputes in this part of the world.
10. Asean leaders, especially those from Muslim countries, do not like proposed US policy under Romney that seems intent on war with Iran as they have maintained good bilateral relations with the Arab state. Despite sanctions, some Asean members have continued to trade with Iran. Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have extensive economic ties which they will not want to see jeopardized.
This article first appeared in the Bangkok-based The Nation newspaper. Kavi Chongkittavorn is assistant group editor of Nation Media Group and his views do not necessarily reflect those of The Irrawaddy.
Tibetan Filmmaker Held
Tibetan Filmmaker Held: 
A Tibetan monk who assisted in the filming of a 2008 documentary on the lives of Tibetans under Chinese rule has disappeared and is believed to be in the custody of Chinese authorities who also have destroyed his home in Gansu province, sources said.
Golog Jigme Gyatso, aged around 43 and a native of Serthar (in Chinese, Seda) county in Sichuan, vanished after traveling to the Gansu provincial capital Lanzhou for “personal reasons,” Serthar Tsultim Woeser, a Tibetan living in India, told RFA.
“He was returning from Lanzhou on Sept. 20 and disappeared on the way, and nobody knows where he is,” Woeser said, citing sources in the region.
“Some days ago, Tibetan residents of Golog Jigme’s native area learned that local Chinese authorities were asking questions about him in his home village of Ragcham in Serthar county.”
“Therefore, we are sure he has been detained again,” Woeser said.
Golog Jigme Gyatso had been detained several times in the past after drawing police attention for helping an exile Tibetan filmmaker, Dhondup Wangchen, film the documentary “Leaving Fear Behind.”
The 25-minute film features interviews with Tibetans living in Tibet’s northeastern Amdo region who express their views on Tibet’s exiled spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, the 2008 Beijing Olympics, and the perceived hardships of life under Chinese rule—topics considered politically sensitive by Chinese authorities.
Tortured in detention
Woeser said that Golog Jigme was severely tortured after he was first detained in March 2008.
“He was hanged from the ceiling for many hours with his hands and legs tied behind his back, and he lost consciousness several times because of beatings by Chinese security forces,” Woeser said.
Electric batons were also thrust into his mouth and eyes, and he was deprived of food and sleep, Woeser said.
Golog Jigme was detained again on March 13, 2009, and held for a month before being expelled from Gansu province's Labrang monastery, where monastic authorities eventually provided him with another home.
“On Sept. 5, Chinese officials told him to move out of the house, citing ‘renovation’ as the reason. But after he left, the house was demolished by a Chinese construction crew and the rubble was searched for anything that might incriminate him.”
In spite of Chinese suspicions, “nothing was uncovered,” Woeser said.
Brothers detained
Separately, Chinese authorities at the end of last month took into custody two brothers who had worked to preserve Tibetan language and culture in a restive county in the Tibet Autonomous Region.
“On Oct. 28, Dawa and his younger brother Lhadrub were suddenly detained by the Chinese and were taken to an unknown location,” India-based Tibetan reporter Ngawang Tharpa told RFA, citing sources in the region.
The brothers come from the Do family of Meri town in the Tsala subdivision of Driru (in Chinese, Biru) county in the Nagchu (Naqu) prefecture, Tharpa said.
Driru county has been the scene of frequent protests—including an Oct. 25 self-immolation by two cousins—challenging Chinese rule.
Dawa and Lhadrub were known to be “very patriotic” and had initiated several projects aimed at preserving and promoting the use of the Tibetan language, Tharpa said.
Human rights groups have expressed concern over the increasing number of Tibetan detentions amid the 63 self-immolations in protest against Chinese rule since February 2009.
The London-based Free Tibet said recently it "has grave concerns for the well being of the hundreds of Tibetans who we know are in detention following protests, often in locations unknown to their families, without any legal rights and at very serious risk of being tortured."
Reported by Chakmo Tso and Rigdhen Dolma for RFA’s Tibetan service. Translated by Dorjee Damdul and Rigdhen Dolma. Written in English by Richard Finney.
A Tibetan monk who assisted in the filming of a 2008 documentary on the lives of Tibetans under Chinese rule has disappeared and is believed to be in the custody of Chinese authorities who also have destroyed his home in Gansu province, sources said.
Golog Jigme Gyatso, aged around 43 and a native of Serthar (in Chinese, Seda) county in Sichuan, vanished after traveling to the Gansu provincial capital Lanzhou for “personal reasons,” Serthar Tsultim Woeser, a Tibetan living in India, told RFA.
“He was returning from Lanzhou on Sept. 20 and disappeared on the way, and nobody knows where he is,” Woeser said, citing sources in the region.
“Some days ago, Tibetan residents of Golog Jigme’s native area learned that local Chinese authorities were asking questions about him in his home village of Ragcham in Serthar county.”
“Therefore, we are sure he has been detained again,” Woeser said.
Golog Jigme Gyatso had been detained several times in the past after drawing police attention for helping an exile Tibetan filmmaker, Dhondup Wangchen, film the documentary “Leaving Fear Behind.”
The 25-minute film features interviews with Tibetans living in Tibet’s northeastern Amdo region who express their views on Tibet’s exiled spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, the 2008 Beijing Olympics, and the perceived hardships of life under Chinese rule—topics considered politically sensitive by Chinese authorities.
Tortured in detention
Woeser said that Golog Jigme was severely tortured after he was first detained in March 2008.
“He was hanged from the ceiling for many hours with his hands and legs tied behind his back, and he lost consciousness several times because of beatings by Chinese security forces,” Woeser said.
Electric batons were also thrust into his mouth and eyes, and he was deprived of food and sleep, Woeser said.
Golog Jigme was detained again on March 13, 2009, and held for a month before being expelled from Gansu province's Labrang monastery, where monastic authorities eventually provided him with another home.
“On Sept. 5, Chinese officials told him to move out of the house, citing ‘renovation’ as the reason. But after he left, the house was demolished by a Chinese construction crew and the rubble was searched for anything that might incriminate him.”
In spite of Chinese suspicions, “nothing was uncovered,” Woeser said.
Brothers detained
Separately, Chinese authorities at the end of last month took into custody two brothers who had worked to preserve Tibetan language and culture in a restive county in the Tibet Autonomous Region.
“On Oct. 28, Dawa and his younger brother Lhadrub were suddenly detained by the Chinese and were taken to an unknown location,” India-based Tibetan reporter Ngawang Tharpa told RFA, citing sources in the region.
The brothers come from the Do family of Meri town in the Tsala subdivision of Driru (in Chinese, Biru) county in the Nagchu (Naqu) prefecture, Tharpa said.
Driru county has been the scene of frequent protests—including an Oct. 25 self-immolation by two cousins—challenging Chinese rule.
Dawa and Lhadrub were known to be “very patriotic” and had initiated several projects aimed at preserving and promoting the use of the Tibetan language, Tharpa said.
Human rights groups have expressed concern over the increasing number of Tibetan detentions amid the 63 self-immolations in protest against Chinese rule since February 2009.
The London-based Free Tibet said recently it "has grave concerns for the well being of the hundreds of Tibetans who we know are in detention following protests, often in locations unknown to their families, without any legal rights and at very serious risk of being tortured."
Reported by Chakmo Tso and Rigdhen Dolma for RFA’s Tibetan service. Translated by Dorjee Damdul and Rigdhen Dolma. Written in English by Richard Finney.
Nov 4, 2012
Pew: Obama Re-Takes National Lead
Pew: Obama Re-Takes National Lead: 
President Obama has experienced a resurgence in the well-respected Pew poll of the national presidential election, building a 3-point lead as Tuesday approaches.
Obama pulled 50 percent of likely voters against Republican candidate Mitt Romney's 47 percent, a 3-point bump for the president from Pew's last poll a week ago, which showed the candidates tied at 47 percent.
Pew's numbers have closely followed the national trends over the last two months of the campaign. After convention season in early September, Pew picked up a large bump for the president, finding an 8-point Obama lead. Then after the first presidential debate, Pew showed big movement for Romney, finding a 4-point lead in the former Mass. governor's favor. Then as debate season ended, Obama and Romney had settled into a tie at 47 percent in Pew's Oct. 28 poll. Now the president is ahead again, two days out.
"Nearly four-in-ten (39%) likely voters support Obama strongly, while 9% back him only moderately," Pew pollster wrote. "A third of likely voters support Romney strongly, compared with 11% who back him moderately. In past elections, dating to 1960, the candidate with the higher percentage of strong support has usually gone on to win the popular vote."
Pew pointed out that the president's improved situation seems to draw from groups he's found strength with all along, and Romney is lagging with his strongest:
The Pew numbers also confirm the slight upward movement Obama saw in new national numbers from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, who found the president up 48 percent to Romney's 47 percent.
The Pew poll used 2,709 live telephone interviews with likely voters via landline and cell-phone, conducted Oct. 31-Nov. 3. It has a sampling error of 2.2 percent.
(Photo Credit: Brett Marty)
President Obama has experienced a resurgence in the well-respected Pew poll of the national presidential election, building a 3-point lead as Tuesday approaches.
Obama pulled 50 percent of likely voters against Republican candidate Mitt Romney's 47 percent, a 3-point bump for the president from Pew's last poll a week ago, which showed the candidates tied at 47 percent.
Pew's numbers have closely followed the national trends over the last two months of the campaign. After convention season in early September, Pew picked up a large bump for the president, finding an 8-point Obama lead. Then after the first presidential debate, Pew showed big movement for Romney, finding a 4-point lead in the former Mass. governor's favor. Then as debate season ended, Obama and Romney had settled into a tie at 47 percent in Pew's Oct. 28 poll. Now the president is ahead again, two days out.
"Nearly four-in-ten (39%) likely voters support Obama strongly, while 9% back him only moderately," Pew pollster wrote. "A third of likely voters support Romney strongly, compared with 11% who back him moderately. In past elections, dating to 1960, the candidate with the higher percentage of strong support has usually gone on to win the popular vote."
Pew pointed out that the president's improved situation seems to draw from groups he's found strength with all along, and Romney is lagging with his strongest:
Obama's increases in likely voter support are most notable among women, older voters, and political moderates. Women now favor Obama by a 13-point margin (53% to 40%), up from six points a week ago and reflecting a shift toward Obama since early October. Right after the first presidential debate, the women's vote was split evenly (47% each). Men, by comparison, favor Romney by a 50% to 42% margin, with little change in the past month.
Romney continues to lead among voters age 65 and older, by a nine point margin (51% to 42%) in the current survey. But that is only about half of the 19-point lead he held among seniors just a week ago. Political moderates now favor Obama by 21 points (56%-35%).
The Pew numbers also confirm the slight upward movement Obama saw in new national numbers from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, who found the president up 48 percent to Romney's 47 percent.
The Pew poll used 2,709 live telephone interviews with likely voters via landline and cell-phone, conducted Oct. 31-Nov. 3. It has a sampling error of 2.2 percent.
(Photo Credit: Brett Marty)
Obama Gains in Final Days
Obama Gains in Final Days: The final Pew Research survey finds President Obama has edged ahead of Mitt Romney in the final days of the presidential campaign, 48% to 45%.
"The survey finds that Obama maintains his modest lead when the probable decisions of undecided voters are taken into account. Our final estimate of the national popular vote is Obama 50% and Romney 47%, when the undecided vote is allocated between the two candidates based on several indicators and opinions."
The last NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey shows Obama moved ahead by one point, 48% to 47%.
The last YouGov survey has Obama leading by two points, 49% to 47%.
The Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll finds Obama up by one point, 48% to 47%.
Meanwhile, the Politico/GWU poll and Rasmussen tracker both find the race tied, though both earlier found Romney leading.
"The survey finds that Obama maintains his modest lead when the probable decisions of undecided voters are taken into account. Our final estimate of the national popular vote is Obama 50% and Romney 47%, when the undecided vote is allocated between the two candidates based on several indicators and opinions."
The last NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey shows Obama moved ahead by one point, 48% to 47%.
The last YouGov survey has Obama leading by two points, 49% to 47%.
The Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll finds Obama up by one point, 48% to 47%.
Meanwhile, the Politico/GWU poll and Rasmussen tracker both find the race tied, though both earlier found Romney leading.
Obama Camp Claims 1.8 Million New Swing State Voter Registrations
Obama Camp Claims 1.8 Million New Swing State Voter Registrations: 
President Obama's campaign released numbers Saturday that illustrate the robust ground operation Democrats say will secure him a second term Tuesday night.
In a memo sent to reporters, the Obama campaign said it opened more than 5,000 get-out-the-vote "staging locations" Saturday morning in advance of the big push for votes Tuesday. Based in homes and businesses, the GOTV locations are "localized versions" of Obama field offices from which teams of volunteers using what the campaign says is advanced software will coordinate efforts to win the battleground states.
The campaign revealed some impressive results from its grassroots operations so far. Team Obama says the campaign has registered 1,792,261 new voters across the battleground states. That's "nearly double the number of voters the Obama campaign registered in 2008," according to the campaign.
Obama volunteers have had more than 125,646,479 personal contacts with voters by Saturday via phone calls and door knocks, the campaign said. That doesn't count the "robocalls on auto-dialers, mail, literature drops or any other non-volunteer, non-personal contacts," the campaign said.
A central focus this cycle (as in 2008) for the Obama campaign has been early voting. The campaign said their ground operation has successfully pulled out early voters across the battleground states, putting them in the driver's seat Tuesday. The Romney campaign and Republicans have pushed back on the Obama campaign's rosy predictions, saying they're performing well enough in early voting to match the Obama effort in some of the swing states.
The Obama ground operation has been touted by Democrats and feared by Republicans since the start of the campaign. Republicans have upped their ground game this cycle, but Democrats insist the impressive numbers coming out of the Obama campaign prove the president still has the edge.
President Obama's campaign released numbers Saturday that illustrate the robust ground operation Democrats say will secure him a second term Tuesday night.
In a memo sent to reporters, the Obama campaign said it opened more than 5,000 get-out-the-vote "staging locations" Saturday morning in advance of the big push for votes Tuesday. Based in homes and businesses, the GOTV locations are "localized versions" of Obama field offices from which teams of volunteers using what the campaign says is advanced software will coordinate efforts to win the battleground states.
The campaign revealed some impressive results from its grassroots operations so far. Team Obama says the campaign has registered 1,792,261 new voters across the battleground states. That's "nearly double the number of voters the Obama campaign registered in 2008," according to the campaign.
Obama volunteers have had more than 125,646,479 personal contacts with voters by Saturday via phone calls and door knocks, the campaign said. That doesn't count the "robocalls on auto-dialers, mail, literature drops or any other non-volunteer, non-personal contacts," the campaign said.
A central focus this cycle (as in 2008) for the Obama campaign has been early voting. The campaign said their ground operation has successfully pulled out early voters across the battleground states, putting them in the driver's seat Tuesday. The Romney campaign and Republicans have pushed back on the Obama campaign's rosy predictions, saying they're performing well enough in early voting to match the Obama effort in some of the swing states.
The Obama ground operation has been touted by Democrats and feared by Republicans since the start of the campaign. Republicans have upped their ground game this cycle, but Democrats insist the impressive numbers coming out of the Obama campaign prove the president still has the edge.
Obama's Approval Rises In Superstorm Sandy's Wake
Obama's Approval Rises In Superstorm Sandy's Wake: 
President Obama has seen a boost in his job approval ratings in the past week as the nation has dealt with Superstorm Sandy and its aftermath. Meanwhile, Republican challenger Mitt Romney's favorability has hit a rough patch following almost a month of gains.
The shifts come with the the election just days away and could mark a late turn in a campaign that has drawn on for two years.
Since Oct. 28, a national tracking poll by Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling has shown Obama's job approval making a net gain of 6 percentage points. PPP is also the only national poll tracking a similar metric for Romney, his favorability rating, on a daily basis. During the same period, Romney's favorability has dropped by a net 7 points.
Other daily tracking polls have also shown Obama making similar gains. Republican-leaning Rasmussen showed a 5-point net boost since its Monday poll. A daily ABC News/Washington Post poll has put Obama's approval rating at 50 percent or above in nine of the 12 editions through Friday, and at 49 percent on the three other days.
While pollsters are cautious to point to any one reason for the shifts, the numbers happen to have moved at a time when Americans say they have a positive view of Obama's handling of Sandy's destruction. The storm ravaged the East Coast late Monday and early Tuesday and caused blackouts, flooding and gasoline shortages that have affected millions of people. The most recent poll, released Saturday by UPI, showed 77 percent of Americans surveyed said they had a positive take on Obama's response to the storm.
Romney's favorability ratings had a big boost after the first presidential debate in early October. But the PollTracker Average of the ratings shows his positive numbers appear to have leveled off in recent days while his negatives have started to rise. The effect is a net drop in his overall favorability.
While the personal ratings of both men are significant on a national scale, the election will of course be decided in crucial swing states. Their ratings in some of those states have also shown a tilt toward Obama in recent days.
In Ohio, as one example, President Obama's approval rating had slipped in October after being above 50 percent in the PollTracker Average the previous month. But a diverse set of polls in recent days have all shown Obama's approval rating hitting 50 percent or higher in the Buckeye State. The polls from New York Times/CBS, GOP-leaning Rasmussen, Democratic-leaning PPP, and NBC News/Marist have shown Obama making strong gains before Tuesday's vote.
Romney's image, meanwhile, improved in Ohio following the first debate, but the last three live caller polls in the state have shown he is viewed unfavorably by 48 percent of likely voters. Two of those polls were from the New York Times/CBS News and the third from the NBC News/Marist College partnership. Romney has been buoyed by Republican-leaning Rasmussen and partisan polls, improving his overall standing, but among the media-sponsored numbers, he is yet to bring the negative personal rating down further.
Both men's images have made improvements in certain areas as Tuesday approaches, but just like the divide between the national polls and the Electoral College map, the state polls seem to be doing the president more good than the national push has been for Romney.
President Obama has seen a boost in his job approval ratings in the past week as the nation has dealt with Superstorm Sandy and its aftermath. Meanwhile, Republican challenger Mitt Romney's favorability has hit a rough patch following almost a month of gains.
The shifts come with the the election just days away and could mark a late turn in a campaign that has drawn on for two years.
Since Oct. 28, a national tracking poll by Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling has shown Obama's job approval making a net gain of 6 percentage points. PPP is also the only national poll tracking a similar metric for Romney, his favorability rating, on a daily basis. During the same period, Romney's favorability has dropped by a net 7 points.
Other daily tracking polls have also shown Obama making similar gains. Republican-leaning Rasmussen showed a 5-point net boost since its Monday poll. A daily ABC News/Washington Post poll has put Obama's approval rating at 50 percent or above in nine of the 12 editions through Friday, and at 49 percent on the three other days.
While pollsters are cautious to point to any one reason for the shifts, the numbers happen to have moved at a time when Americans say they have a positive view of Obama's handling of Sandy's destruction. The storm ravaged the East Coast late Monday and early Tuesday and caused blackouts, flooding and gasoline shortages that have affected millions of people. The most recent poll, released Saturday by UPI, showed 77 percent of Americans surveyed said they had a positive take on Obama's response to the storm.
Romney's favorability ratings had a big boost after the first presidential debate in early October. But the PollTracker Average of the ratings shows his positive numbers appear to have leveled off in recent days while his negatives have started to rise. The effect is a net drop in his overall favorability.
While the personal ratings of both men are significant on a national scale, the election will of course be decided in crucial swing states. Their ratings in some of those states have also shown a tilt toward Obama in recent days.
In Ohio, as one example, President Obama's approval rating had slipped in October after being above 50 percent in the PollTracker Average the previous month. But a diverse set of polls in recent days have all shown Obama's approval rating hitting 50 percent or higher in the Buckeye State. The polls from New York Times/CBS, GOP-leaning Rasmussen, Democratic-leaning PPP, and NBC News/Marist have shown Obama making strong gains before Tuesday's vote.
Romney's image, meanwhile, improved in Ohio following the first debate, but the last three live caller polls in the state have shown he is viewed unfavorably by 48 percent of likely voters. Two of those polls were from the New York Times/CBS News and the third from the NBC News/Marist College partnership. Romney has been buoyed by Republican-leaning Rasmussen and partisan polls, improving his overall standing, but among the media-sponsored numbers, he is yet to bring the negative personal rating down further.
Both men's images have made improvements in certain areas as Tuesday approaches, but just like the divide between the national polls and the Electoral College map, the state polls seem to be doing the president more good than the national push has been for Romney.
Republicans Lay The Groundwork To Blame Hurricane Sandy If Romney Loses
Republicans Lay The Groundwork To Blame Hurricane Sandy If Romney Loses: 
In the event that President Obama wins reelection on Tuesday, Republicans have already found their scapegoat: Hurricane Sandy.
Just days before Election Day, GOP pundits and prognosticators -- and some within the Romney campaign -- are roundly describing the devastating storm as the critical event that halted their candidate's upswing in the polls, which give Obama a clear advantage in the electoral college math.
"The hurricane is what broke Romney's momentum. I don't think there's any question about it," said Haley Barbour, a former Mississippi governor, RNC chairman and respected political strategist, on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday. "What happened was the news media absolutely blacked out any coverage of the issues."
Karl Rove made a similar argument to the Washington Post on Saturday.
"If you hadn't had the storm, there would have been more of a chance for the [Mitt] Romney campaign to talk about the deficit, the debt, the economy," said the Republican strategist who is spending millions to help Romney win. "There was a stutter in the campaign." He described it as a "subtle disadvantage to Romney" on balance.
"Obama has temporarily been a bipartisan figure this week. He has been the comforter-in-chief and that helps," Rove said. The storm, he told the Post, was "the October surprise. For once, the October surprise was a real surprise."
Anonymous Romney campaign aides sounded the same note to CBS News.
"Campaign sources concede superstorm Sandy stalled Romney's momentum. For eight straight days, polls showed him picking up support," read an article Saturday afternoon. "[Romney's] leads in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Iowa still hold in the internal polls, campaign sources say, but Romney's movement flattened out or, as the campaign likes to say, 'paused.' Nevada is now off the table, and those neck-and-neck swing states are even tighter."
The argument misstates the timing of the Romney surge. While the first presidential debate early October led to an unquestionable polling swing in Romney's favor, scores of national surveys showed the race stabilizing by mid-October, well before the storm hit. At his polling peak, Romney pulled ahead in the popular vote but lacked any apparent advantage over Obama in the electoral college math.
Barbour fleshed out his case for why the Romney campaign is reeling from the hurricane.
"Any day that the news media is not talking about jobs and the economy, taxes and the economy, deficits and debt, Obamacare and energy, is a good day for Barack Obama," he said. "You had a blackout on all of those issues that started about last Saturday and lasted until about yesterday -- that is what really was good for Barack Obama. Now whether it was good enough remains to be seen. ... You know, if this election had been held last Friday -- the last Friday in October, Romney would have won. ... Nothing was stopping Romney's momentum -- no matter what Obama did he couldn't stop his momentum."
Team Obama dismissed the Sandy-as-scapegoat argument as a face-saving move.
"I think Karl Rove might have said that because a few days ago he predicted a big Romney win," said White House senior adviser David Plouffe, appearing Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "And my sense is Karl is going to be at a crossroads himself on Tuesday when he tries to explain to the people who wrote him hundreds of millions of dollars why they fell up short."
(Photo credit: Brett Marty)
In the event that President Obama wins reelection on Tuesday, Republicans have already found their scapegoat: Hurricane Sandy.
Just days before Election Day, GOP pundits and prognosticators -- and some within the Romney campaign -- are roundly describing the devastating storm as the critical event that halted their candidate's upswing in the polls, which give Obama a clear advantage in the electoral college math.
"The hurricane is what broke Romney's momentum. I don't think there's any question about it," said Haley Barbour, a former Mississippi governor, RNC chairman and respected political strategist, on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday. "What happened was the news media absolutely blacked out any coverage of the issues."
Karl Rove made a similar argument to the Washington Post on Saturday.
"If you hadn't had the storm, there would have been more of a chance for the [Mitt] Romney campaign to talk about the deficit, the debt, the economy," said the Republican strategist who is spending millions to help Romney win. "There was a stutter in the campaign." He described it as a "subtle disadvantage to Romney" on balance.
"Obama has temporarily been a bipartisan figure this week. He has been the comforter-in-chief and that helps," Rove said. The storm, he told the Post, was "the October surprise. For once, the October surprise was a real surprise."
Anonymous Romney campaign aides sounded the same note to CBS News.
"Campaign sources concede superstorm Sandy stalled Romney's momentum. For eight straight days, polls showed him picking up support," read an article Saturday afternoon. "[Romney's] leads in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Iowa still hold in the internal polls, campaign sources say, but Romney's movement flattened out or, as the campaign likes to say, 'paused.' Nevada is now off the table, and those neck-and-neck swing states are even tighter."
The argument misstates the timing of the Romney surge. While the first presidential debate early October led to an unquestionable polling swing in Romney's favor, scores of national surveys showed the race stabilizing by mid-October, well before the storm hit. At his polling peak, Romney pulled ahead in the popular vote but lacked any apparent advantage over Obama in the electoral college math.
Barbour fleshed out his case for why the Romney campaign is reeling from the hurricane.
"Any day that the news media is not talking about jobs and the economy, taxes and the economy, deficits and debt, Obamacare and energy, is a good day for Barack Obama," he said. "You had a blackout on all of those issues that started about last Saturday and lasted until about yesterday -- that is what really was good for Barack Obama. Now whether it was good enough remains to be seen. ... You know, if this election had been held last Friday -- the last Friday in October, Romney would have won. ... Nothing was stopping Romney's momentum -- no matter what Obama did he couldn't stop his momentum."
Team Obama dismissed the Sandy-as-scapegoat argument as a face-saving move.
"I think Karl Rove might have said that because a few days ago he predicted a big Romney win," said White House senior adviser David Plouffe, appearing Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "And my sense is Karl is going to be at a crossroads himself on Tuesday when he tries to explain to the people who wrote him hundreds of millions of dollars why they fell up short."
(Photo credit: Brett Marty)
Nov. 3: Romney's Reason to Play for Pennsylvania
Nov. 3: Romney's Reason to Play for Pennsylvania: Our model puts President Obama's chances of winning Pennsylvania at more than 95 percent, but Mitt Romney's alternate paths to an Electoral College victory aren't looking a lot stronger, especially given the Democrats' early voting advantage.
Sun, Nov. 04 Electoral Vote Predictor
Sun, Nov. 04 Electoral Vote Predictor:
released late yesterday has President Obama leading Mitt Romney 50% to 47% nationally. This is the
first lead of 3 points either candidate has had for weeks. Obama led in all three days of the poll (Nov. 1-3).
His approval rating is now positive (48% to 47%). A week ago PPP found him to be deep under water
(44% to 52%) so this is a 9-point gain in a week for Obama.
Other recent national polls show it to be closer. Both the WaPo/ABC and Rasmussen national tracking polls
released yesterday show the race to be tied at 48% apiece.
Click here for full story
Obama Appears to Have Momentum
A new PPP pollreleased late yesterday has President Obama leading Mitt Romney 50% to 47% nationally. This is the
first lead of 3 points either candidate has had for weeks. Obama led in all three days of the poll (Nov. 1-3).
His approval rating is now positive (48% to 47%). A week ago PPP found him to be deep under water
(44% to 52%) so this is a 9-point gain in a week for Obama.
Other recent national polls show it to be closer. Both the WaPo/ABC and Rasmussen national tracking polls
released yesterday show the race to be tied at 48% apiece.
Click here for full story
Nov 3, 2012
Protect Siam: What’s new?
Protect Siam: What’s new?:
Recently the new anti-government group “Pitak Siam”, or in its English name “Protect Siam”, under its leader General Boonlert “Sae Ai” Kaewprasit rallied at the Royal Turf Club.
It was quite obvious though that this is an attempt to regroup the same alliance whose protests led to the 2006 military coup against the Thaksin Shinawatra government and in 2008 to the ouster of the Somchai Wongsawat- led People Power Party government.
Many old acquaintances were there – several second generation People’s Alliance for Democracy leaders, members of the Group of 40 Senators, General Pathompong Kesornsuk, Dr. Tul, and several groups allied with the Siam Sammakhi network, such as Boworn Yasinthorn, leader of the “Network of Monarchy Protection Volunteers”. The Democrat Party claimed that it was not involved in Pitak Siam, nevertheless, in the days prior to the rally on Sunday, 28 October 2012, the event was heavily advertised on the Democrat Party’s Satellite TV station Blue Sky.
One of its presenters compared the coming Pitak Siam rally with Sondhi Limthongkul’s rally in Lumpini Park back in late 2005 being the spark for the 2006 PAD mass protests. Also guards that were at the recent Democrat Party rally in Lumpini were at the Pitak Siam rally on duty. Santi Asoke’s Dhamma Army organised the food.
One interesting aspect was that Prasong Songsiri made an open appearance at the rally, even spoke on the stage, as far as I know the first time in the political turmoil of the past 7 years.
A group of 52 former members of the Communist Part of Thailand who were stationed in the Khonkaen area during the insurgency took part in the rally as well. I asked them why they now allied themselves with with ultra-royalist forces while in the 1970s they were fighting them. They said that they have changed, and now support the monarchy.
The number of protesters surprised all observers. Initially 2000 to 3000 protesters were expected, but in the end about 10,000 showed up. Estimates of 20,000 are exaggerated — the stadium was not almost full, the center, opposite the stage was full, but towards the upper ranks and the side wings the crowd ranged from thin to non-existent. Also police estimates of 6000 were too low. As usual, I go with Special Branch estimates, which I have found over the last years the most reliable, and mostly correspond with my own impressions as well.
One of the second generation PAD leaders present described the event to me as “warming up the engine”. Given the number of protesters, more than any recent PAD, Siam Samkkhi or Blue Sky event, we may be in for more interesting times.
Recently the new anti-government group “Pitak Siam”, or in its English name “Protect Siam”, under its leader General Boonlert “Sae Ai” Kaewprasit rallied at the Royal Turf Club.
It was quite obvious though that this is an attempt to regroup the same alliance whose protests led to the 2006 military coup against the Thaksin Shinawatra government and in 2008 to the ouster of the Somchai Wongsawat- led People Power Party government.
Many old acquaintances were there – several second generation People’s Alliance for Democracy leaders, members of the Group of 40 Senators, General Pathompong Kesornsuk, Dr. Tul, and several groups allied with the Siam Sammakhi network, such as Boworn Yasinthorn, leader of the “Network of Monarchy Protection Volunteers”. The Democrat Party claimed that it was not involved in Pitak Siam, nevertheless, in the days prior to the rally on Sunday, 28 October 2012, the event was heavily advertised on the Democrat Party’s Satellite TV station Blue Sky.
One of its presenters compared the coming Pitak Siam rally with Sondhi Limthongkul’s rally in Lumpini Park back in late 2005 being the spark for the 2006 PAD mass protests. Also guards that were at the recent Democrat Party rally in Lumpini were at the Pitak Siam rally on duty. Santi Asoke’s Dhamma Army organised the food.
One interesting aspect was that Prasong Songsiri made an open appearance at the rally, even spoke on the stage, as far as I know the first time in the political turmoil of the past 7 years.
A group of 52 former members of the Communist Part of Thailand who were stationed in the Khonkaen area during the insurgency took part in the rally as well. I asked them why they now allied themselves with with ultra-royalist forces while in the 1970s they were fighting them. They said that they have changed, and now support the monarchy.
The number of protesters surprised all observers. Initially 2000 to 3000 protesters were expected, but in the end about 10,000 showed up. Estimates of 20,000 are exaggerated — the stadium was not almost full, the center, opposite the stage was full, but towards the upper ranks and the side wings the crowd ranged from thin to non-existent. Also police estimates of 6000 were too low. As usual, I go with Special Branch estimates, which I have found over the last years the most reliable, and mostly correspond with my own impressions as well.
One of the second generation PAD leaders present described the event to me as “warming up the engine”. Given the number of protesters, more than any recent PAD, Siam Samkkhi or Blue Sky event, we may be in for more interesting times.
In the shadow of strongmen
In the shadow of strongmen:
In the last few years, both Malaysia and Singapore have been undergoing political liberalisation, evident from the increasing parliamentary representation of the opposition and more open political discussion. Yet, with this opening, the challenges the two neighbours face in liberalising are becoming clearer. One of the main obstacles involves dealing with the legacies of Lee Kuan Yew and Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, as their imprint on politics continues to overshadow current transformations. How do the legacies of the two strongmen constrain contemporary political change?
Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad were successful leaders, delivering economic progress and giving their countries international prominence. However, views of these leaders remain divided, with some lauding them as political strongmen who delivered development and stability and others highlighting their excesses. This debate will continue, and likely intensify over time. Still, few dispute the fact that the two leaders profoundly shaped the countries they led. In order to understand contemporary politics in both countries, we need to look beyond these leaders as individuals or their tenures and appreciate how the strongmen continue to shape the two societies.
The Strongmen Psyche
Lee Kuan Yew governed for 31 years, Mahathir 22. Both former leaders continue to play roles in politics, despite stepping down from office. Given their prominence, it is understandable that elements of their style of leadership have become deeply ingrained into the public consciousness. The most evident of these is fear. Fear is defined as an emotion induced by perceived threats and is part-and-parcel of the political landscape of strongman rule. It is not just about the fear caused by the use of the state apparatus through draconian laws for arbitrary arrest or the penalties for breaching the boundaries of what is deemed as unspeakable, it is also the routinisation of warnings and demonisation of the other.
For decades Malaysians and Singaporeans were encouraged to conform to set patterns of political behavior – to not question their leaders and follow. They were expected to fall in line, as the system was deemed the best for them. They were warned repeatedly to behave. Red lines – ubiquitously known as OB (out-of-bounds) markers in Singapore – were clearly drawn – not to criticise leaders, not to discuss ‘sensitive’ issues, or not to express alternative views openly. The end result was possible penalties, which ranged from outright arrest to quiet marginalisation. The actual number of arrests was low relative to other regimes, but such instances took on symbolic importance, especially given the relatively low populations of both countries. While fear has sharply dissipated in the post-strongman eras, it still permeates political life, especially among the generations that lived though these periods.
Fear of the state is just part of the story. During the strongman era, fear was used to buttress power. Threats from outside were a constant refrain. In Malaysia, these threats came from enemies in the form of George Soros, Jews or unknown forces of instability that could not be controlled. The threats also came from within. Mahathir was perhaps the most explicit on this in his book Malay Dilemma, which used sharp ethnic divisions as a source of internal instability. The push for Malay unity was used to fend off the other. In Singapore, the ethnic rubric was one of multiculturalism, but memories of the turbulent ethnic tensions of the 1950s and 1960s remained. Events such as 1969 in Malaysia or 1964 in Singapore continued as part of the political discourse, and still do today. There is unease, anxiety and concern about a return to the ethnic turbulence of the past that meshes with the subtle and sometimes not so subtle dimensions of fear.
Political liberalisation in both countries is constrained by fear and the baggage it brings. A key element of this baggage is mistrust. On an interpersonal level, race relations in both countries are strong – and this is despite a number of high profile and controversial racial comments that have recently received public attention, notably in Singapore. Yet, deep-down the niggling uncertainties of the ‘other’ so prominent in the strongman era remain.
Strongman Control Mode
This strongman legacy is not just about fear – it is also about control. The focus on a specific order was a feature of the strongman eras. The structure of this order varied in both societies, but the pattern of establishing the order was the same – it was to be defined by those in power. Space for alternative conceptualisations was minimised, as leaders set out the course for the country to follow. In many of these decisions, there was wisdom, while in others, less so. But the mode of engagement was the same – the ‘government – a.k.a. leader – knows best’.
The strongman eras in Singapore and Malaysia’s placed the state in a dominant position as the driver of society. In the economic realm, the state was to be the agent of change, usually in alliance with international business. This has meant that the space for domestic private business interests, especially small and medium-sized businesses, as an alternative engine of growth has been minimised. For multiple decades, public spending, allocations and priorities were set by those in power. This provided a powerful economic base for the control of society.
Dominance over the economic levers of power reinforced the strongmen’s position politically. To challenge political power under strongman rule had the potential to undermine your economic fortunes. This dynamic is deeply rooted, as challenges to the status quo are seen to both backfire on those who engage in them and come at a high price. The legacy of this pattern continues, as those who speak out face marginalisation, and in some cases, outright demonisation. The attacks are particularly harsh on those who come from within the system and are seen to betray the incumbent’s political base. The response to Anwar Ibrahim is illustrative.
Politically, the strongman mode of control was also characterised by a ‘divide and rule’ strategy of engaging opponents. As a result, civil societies in both countries are fragmented, wracked by internal suspicion. Those that were co-opted are distrusted by others who are seen as more confrontational. The strategy of division reinforced the position of the strongman leader, a feudal structure of personalised power around one man. Even today, centralised leadership is expected, with heavy burdens placed on the post-strongman leaders to perform and to ‘be strong’. Today’s leaders are constantly compared to the past. Power continues to be personalised, although in Singapore this is less about personality than persona.
Strongmen Institutional Constraints
This element of persona – how people interpret the leadership of the past – still resonates today. Many in both countries refer to the ‘good old days’ when government was omnipotent and the rules of the game simpler. Many in government have trouble dealing with criticism, often viewing discussion of issues as attacks and responding defensively. The irony is that the post-strongman era has led to needless insecure responses by leaders that are hampered by comparisons to the strongmen and the constituencies that claim to act to protect the strongman legacies. The burden of being in the shadow of strongmen is heavy – as it is increasingly laden with discomfort and anxiety as governance has become more decentralised and a broader spectrum of the population has ratcheted up demands on the government and criticism of its performance.
These changes have placed greater burden on the different institutions to govern. The post-strongmen eras have seen the institutions and the bureaucracy move to the frontline. Here is where the trajectories of Malaysia and Singapore diverge. Mahathir’s legacy was to weaken institutions on multiple fronts. This story is well-known – the corruption, the diminished capacities and the inefficiencies. There are talented Malaysian civil servants, but the modus operandi reinforces bad practices and those that rise usually do due to their loyalty rather than merit. The rot inside the system has led to the increasing displacement of the civil service in governing, illustrated by the rising power of consultant agencies in policy formulation. Whether it is the police, judiciary or civil service, it is a constant battle to deliver. This is the Mahathir legacy of disempowerment of government agencies, of neutering initiative and discouraging problem-solving. It is also the result of reinforcing the predatory practice of power for oneself, rather than for the people.
Singapore’s institutions did not suffer the same fate. The public sector plays a prominent and respected role in governing and takes this role seriously. The legacy is exactly the opposite – too much strength tied to insulation. The voices of civil society are missing or even dismissed. There is selective hearing on who to engage and how. Within the system there is over-bureaucratisation of the bottom, and limited checks at the top, as the fundamental operating principle has been to check those below and empower the elite. This limits the quality of the feedback for the system to evolve and address the new challenges ahead, particularly given that many in Singapore’s civil service now comprise the elite in a process of early self-selection and recruitment. As in Malaysia, institutions in Singapore continue to be shaped by the past.
Path Ahead
As these societies change – and they have done so rapidly – the institutional norms and effects of the strongman eras persist. Today, there is much less fear and less control, although many in the system are nostalgic for the period where citizens were subjects and followers rather than participants and questioners. The process of political liberalisation involves tackling the unspoken legacy effects of past leadership – to move from fear to trust, from intolerance to acceptance, from insecurity to security and from constraints on governance to empowerment.
The region shows us that there are two paths – one of big bang change with reforms and another of muddling through. We have seen examples from Indonesia to Myanmar. The reality is that no matter what path is followed, the legacies of strongmen persist. There is always a cohort that holds to the past and the routines that have been institutionalised and normalised are difficult to change. This is why it is so important to understand how the past is shaping the present. This recognition of legacies involve both the government protagonists and citizens – as it is only when both appreciate the relationship between the past and the present that these societies can move toward a more holistic embrace of their potential.
Bridget Welsh is Associate Professor in political science at the Singapore Management University. This article is based partly on her lecture at the Asia Pacific Learning Community Forum, “Malaysia and Singapore – Models for the Asian Century.” The video of her lecture and the forum is available here.
In the last few years, both Malaysia and Singapore have been undergoing political liberalisation, evident from the increasing parliamentary representation of the opposition and more open political discussion. Yet, with this opening, the challenges the two neighbours face in liberalising are becoming clearer. One of the main obstacles involves dealing with the legacies of Lee Kuan Yew and Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, as their imprint on politics continues to overshadow current transformations. How do the legacies of the two strongmen constrain contemporary political change?
Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad were successful leaders, delivering economic progress and giving their countries international prominence. However, views of these leaders remain divided, with some lauding them as political strongmen who delivered development and stability and others highlighting their excesses. This debate will continue, and likely intensify over time. Still, few dispute the fact that the two leaders profoundly shaped the countries they led. In order to understand contemporary politics in both countries, we need to look beyond these leaders as individuals or their tenures and appreciate how the strongmen continue to shape the two societies.
The Strongmen Psyche
Lee Kuan Yew governed for 31 years, Mahathir 22. Both former leaders continue to play roles in politics, despite stepping down from office. Given their prominence, it is understandable that elements of their style of leadership have become deeply ingrained into the public consciousness. The most evident of these is fear. Fear is defined as an emotion induced by perceived threats and is part-and-parcel of the political landscape of strongman rule. It is not just about the fear caused by the use of the state apparatus through draconian laws for arbitrary arrest or the penalties for breaching the boundaries of what is deemed as unspeakable, it is also the routinisation of warnings and demonisation of the other.
For decades Malaysians and Singaporeans were encouraged to conform to set patterns of political behavior – to not question their leaders and follow. They were expected to fall in line, as the system was deemed the best for them. They were warned repeatedly to behave. Red lines – ubiquitously known as OB (out-of-bounds) markers in Singapore – were clearly drawn – not to criticise leaders, not to discuss ‘sensitive’ issues, or not to express alternative views openly. The end result was possible penalties, which ranged from outright arrest to quiet marginalisation. The actual number of arrests was low relative to other regimes, but such instances took on symbolic importance, especially given the relatively low populations of both countries. While fear has sharply dissipated in the post-strongman eras, it still permeates political life, especially among the generations that lived though these periods.
Fear of the state is just part of the story. During the strongman era, fear was used to buttress power. Threats from outside were a constant refrain. In Malaysia, these threats came from enemies in the form of George Soros, Jews or unknown forces of instability that could not be controlled. The threats also came from within. Mahathir was perhaps the most explicit on this in his book Malay Dilemma, which used sharp ethnic divisions as a source of internal instability. The push for Malay unity was used to fend off the other. In Singapore, the ethnic rubric was one of multiculturalism, but memories of the turbulent ethnic tensions of the 1950s and 1960s remained. Events such as 1969 in Malaysia or 1964 in Singapore continued as part of the political discourse, and still do today. There is unease, anxiety and concern about a return to the ethnic turbulence of the past that meshes with the subtle and sometimes not so subtle dimensions of fear.
Political liberalisation in both countries is constrained by fear and the baggage it brings. A key element of this baggage is mistrust. On an interpersonal level, race relations in both countries are strong – and this is despite a number of high profile and controversial racial comments that have recently received public attention, notably in Singapore. Yet, deep-down the niggling uncertainties of the ‘other’ so prominent in the strongman era remain.
Strongman Control Mode
This strongman legacy is not just about fear – it is also about control. The focus on a specific order was a feature of the strongman eras. The structure of this order varied in both societies, but the pattern of establishing the order was the same – it was to be defined by those in power. Space for alternative conceptualisations was minimised, as leaders set out the course for the country to follow. In many of these decisions, there was wisdom, while in others, less so. But the mode of engagement was the same – the ‘government – a.k.a. leader – knows best’.
The strongman eras in Singapore and Malaysia’s placed the state in a dominant position as the driver of society. In the economic realm, the state was to be the agent of change, usually in alliance with international business. This has meant that the space for domestic private business interests, especially small and medium-sized businesses, as an alternative engine of growth has been minimised. For multiple decades, public spending, allocations and priorities were set by those in power. This provided a powerful economic base for the control of society.
Dominance over the economic levers of power reinforced the strongmen’s position politically. To challenge political power under strongman rule had the potential to undermine your economic fortunes. This dynamic is deeply rooted, as challenges to the status quo are seen to both backfire on those who engage in them and come at a high price. The legacy of this pattern continues, as those who speak out face marginalisation, and in some cases, outright demonisation. The attacks are particularly harsh on those who come from within the system and are seen to betray the incumbent’s political base. The response to Anwar Ibrahim is illustrative.
Politically, the strongman mode of control was also characterised by a ‘divide and rule’ strategy of engaging opponents. As a result, civil societies in both countries are fragmented, wracked by internal suspicion. Those that were co-opted are distrusted by others who are seen as more confrontational. The strategy of division reinforced the position of the strongman leader, a feudal structure of personalised power around one man. Even today, centralised leadership is expected, with heavy burdens placed on the post-strongman leaders to perform and to ‘be strong’. Today’s leaders are constantly compared to the past. Power continues to be personalised, although in Singapore this is less about personality than persona.
Strongmen Institutional Constraints
This element of persona – how people interpret the leadership of the past – still resonates today. Many in both countries refer to the ‘good old days’ when government was omnipotent and the rules of the game simpler. Many in government have trouble dealing with criticism, often viewing discussion of issues as attacks and responding defensively. The irony is that the post-strongman era has led to needless insecure responses by leaders that are hampered by comparisons to the strongmen and the constituencies that claim to act to protect the strongman legacies. The burden of being in the shadow of strongmen is heavy – as it is increasingly laden with discomfort and anxiety as governance has become more decentralised and a broader spectrum of the population has ratcheted up demands on the government and criticism of its performance.
These changes have placed greater burden on the different institutions to govern. The post-strongmen eras have seen the institutions and the bureaucracy move to the frontline. Here is where the trajectories of Malaysia and Singapore diverge. Mahathir’s legacy was to weaken institutions on multiple fronts. This story is well-known – the corruption, the diminished capacities and the inefficiencies. There are talented Malaysian civil servants, but the modus operandi reinforces bad practices and those that rise usually do due to their loyalty rather than merit. The rot inside the system has led to the increasing displacement of the civil service in governing, illustrated by the rising power of consultant agencies in policy formulation. Whether it is the police, judiciary or civil service, it is a constant battle to deliver. This is the Mahathir legacy of disempowerment of government agencies, of neutering initiative and discouraging problem-solving. It is also the result of reinforcing the predatory practice of power for oneself, rather than for the people.
Singapore’s institutions did not suffer the same fate. The public sector plays a prominent and respected role in governing and takes this role seriously. The legacy is exactly the opposite – too much strength tied to insulation. The voices of civil society are missing or even dismissed. There is selective hearing on who to engage and how. Within the system there is over-bureaucratisation of the bottom, and limited checks at the top, as the fundamental operating principle has been to check those below and empower the elite. This limits the quality of the feedback for the system to evolve and address the new challenges ahead, particularly given that many in Singapore’s civil service now comprise the elite in a process of early self-selection and recruitment. As in Malaysia, institutions in Singapore continue to be shaped by the past.
Path Ahead
As these societies change – and they have done so rapidly – the institutional norms and effects of the strongman eras persist. Today, there is much less fear and less control, although many in the system are nostalgic for the period where citizens were subjects and followers rather than participants and questioners. The process of political liberalisation involves tackling the unspoken legacy effects of past leadership – to move from fear to trust, from intolerance to acceptance, from insecurity to security and from constraints on governance to empowerment.
The region shows us that there are two paths – one of big bang change with reforms and another of muddling through. We have seen examples from Indonesia to Myanmar. The reality is that no matter what path is followed, the legacies of strongmen persist. There is always a cohort that holds to the past and the routines that have been institutionalised and normalised are difficult to change. This is why it is so important to understand how the past is shaping the present. This recognition of legacies involve both the government protagonists and citizens – as it is only when both appreciate the relationship between the past and the present that these societies can move toward a more holistic embrace of their potential.
Bridget Welsh is Associate Professor in political science at the Singapore Management University. This article is based partly on her lecture at the Asia Pacific Learning Community Forum, “Malaysia and Singapore – Models for the Asian Century.” The video of her lecture and the forum is available here.
Splits in the Singapore elite
Splits in the Singapore elite:
The dramatic electoral setbacks suffered by the People’s Action Party government in Singapore during 2011 have led to speculation about the possibility of a future opposition victory. A major line of thinking within the opposition camp is that such a change would most likely come about following a serious split in Cabinet, whereby a strengthened parliamentary opposition could align itself with a dissident faction in Cabinet. Should such a development come about it would be emulating the ‘Taiwan model’, whereby democracy and a change of government were brought about when the Guomindang’s President Lee effectively endorsed the opposition Democratic Progressive Party and brought about a two-way split in his own party and a three-way split in his party’s popular vote.
I contend that this is a most unlikely development in Singapore for three distinct reasons.
The first and main reason for this logic is that the Singapore elite is much more risk averse than the Taiwan elite ever was. Singapore is so much smaller than Taiwan; its economy is so much more fragile and vulnerable to the mood swings of international finance and markets, that such a split is unlikely unless the country itself is nearly on its last legs. Dissidents in Cabinet would be, in their minds, putting at risk the fundamentals that give the international financial and investment markets confidence in Singapore, and I do not believe that they would take such a risk.
The second reason I doubt the likelihood of such a scenario is a little counter-intuitive: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has used the PAP’s electoral setbacks in 2011 to consolidate his stature within in the elite. By effectively shifting the blame for the parliamentary losses onto others – most notably his own father – and by ensuring that he has been given credit for the result not being any worse than it was, he has now, for the first time, stepped out of his father’s shadow and clearly established himself as the master of the situation. His party lost a significant amount of electoral ground in 2011, but Lee successfully stage-managed the narrative of the election after the event, beginning on election night itself, during which the Elections Department actively cooperated to allow him to mount the podium and claim victory as the government’s white knight and saviour. He is now fully in charge of Cabinet and has used his new power ruthlessly to push aside the deadwood and the duds who had been pulling the party down.
Before the 2011 results there had been some dissident rumblings in Cabinet, but even then this did not amount to very much. Former Nominated MP Viswa Sadasivan told in interview in January 2011 that he had become used to government MPs and even one or two Cabinet members congratulating him for his forthright and highly critical speeches in Parliament – but they would not speak out themselves, nor even associate themselves with dissenting voices. This is decidedly not the stuff of which Cabinet splits are made!
The third reason I doubt the likelihood of a split in the elite is that the best chance for such a split came and went in the mid-1990s when Goh Chok Tong was prime minister. Goh tried to use his position as PM and his control of the Ministry of Finance through his close ally, Finance Minister Richard Hu, to wrest the reins of power from the Lee family – father and son. He was doing this through a deliberate campaign of supplanting the Lee family’s patronage in the civil service and in the huge and powerful government-linked company (GLC) sector. The campaign promised to be particularly effective in the GLC sector.
The key instrument of patronage in this campaign was the secretive Directorship and Consultancy Appointments Council (DCAC) which at the time was responsible for the appointment of boards and executive positions across the whole of the GLC sector, and which operated under the authority of the Finance Minister Hu.
Goh had been working this plan systematically for several years when in 1996 he was given the chance to seriously challenge the Lee family’s hegemony after Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong were reported to Richard Hu for accepting illegal multi-million dollar ‘discounts’ from a publicly listed property developer, on whose board sat one of Lee Kuan Yew’s brothers. This was Goh’s one decisive chance to snatch power, but he backed away completely: he did not even refer the matter to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB).
Having passed up his one chance for power Goh gave up even trying to rule. Soon after this episode, much of the DCAC’s power was stripped from it and passed to holding companies (Temasek Holdings and Singapore Technologies) that were then placed in the hands of Lee family loyalists like S. Dhanabalan, and Lee family members like Ho Ching and Kwa Chong Seng. In response, Prime Minister Goh stopped engaging seriously in domestic politics and left it to then-Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, turning his attention instead to developing Singapore’s trade contacts in the Middle East.
1996 effectively marked the end of the Goh putsch against the Lee family and the consolidation of the Lee family’s power.
My point is that if there had been going to be a split in the elite then the 1990s was when it was going to happen. Not only was there no political storm in 1996, but there was barely even a whisper of a breeze to ruffle the appearance of elite solidarity. If it did not happen then, there is much less chance of it happening now or in the near future when there is not even a challenger.
My reading now is that Lee Hsien Loong is there for as long as he wants. This does not meant that he will not face political problems and challenges – especially now that the opposition is newly invigorated and the elite has lost a lot of its control of the agenda and the flow of information – but he should at least be able to face them as the undisputed head of a united leadership group, without having to look over his shoulder for fear of being undermined either by a challenger or by his overbearing father.
Dr Michael Barr is a senior lecturer in international relations, Flinders University. Dr Barr presented his research at this Year’s Malaysia and Singapore Update at the Australian National University. Video footage of the event is available here.
The dramatic electoral setbacks suffered by the People’s Action Party government in Singapore during 2011 have led to speculation about the possibility of a future opposition victory. A major line of thinking within the opposition camp is that such a change would most likely come about following a serious split in Cabinet, whereby a strengthened parliamentary opposition could align itself with a dissident faction in Cabinet. Should such a development come about it would be emulating the ‘Taiwan model’, whereby democracy and a change of government were brought about when the Guomindang’s President Lee effectively endorsed the opposition Democratic Progressive Party and brought about a two-way split in his own party and a three-way split in his party’s popular vote.
I contend that this is a most unlikely development in Singapore for three distinct reasons.
The first and main reason for this logic is that the Singapore elite is much more risk averse than the Taiwan elite ever was. Singapore is so much smaller than Taiwan; its economy is so much more fragile and vulnerable to the mood swings of international finance and markets, that such a split is unlikely unless the country itself is nearly on its last legs. Dissidents in Cabinet would be, in their minds, putting at risk the fundamentals that give the international financial and investment markets confidence in Singapore, and I do not believe that they would take such a risk.
The second reason I doubt the likelihood of such a scenario is a little counter-intuitive: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has used the PAP’s electoral setbacks in 2011 to consolidate his stature within in the elite. By effectively shifting the blame for the parliamentary losses onto others – most notably his own father – and by ensuring that he has been given credit for the result not being any worse than it was, he has now, for the first time, stepped out of his father’s shadow and clearly established himself as the master of the situation. His party lost a significant amount of electoral ground in 2011, but Lee successfully stage-managed the narrative of the election after the event, beginning on election night itself, during which the Elections Department actively cooperated to allow him to mount the podium and claim victory as the government’s white knight and saviour. He is now fully in charge of Cabinet and has used his new power ruthlessly to push aside the deadwood and the duds who had been pulling the party down.
Before the 2011 results there had been some dissident rumblings in Cabinet, but even then this did not amount to very much. Former Nominated MP Viswa Sadasivan told in interview in January 2011 that he had become used to government MPs and even one or two Cabinet members congratulating him for his forthright and highly critical speeches in Parliament – but they would not speak out themselves, nor even associate themselves with dissenting voices. This is decidedly not the stuff of which Cabinet splits are made!
The third reason I doubt the likelihood of a split in the elite is that the best chance for such a split came and went in the mid-1990s when Goh Chok Tong was prime minister. Goh tried to use his position as PM and his control of the Ministry of Finance through his close ally, Finance Minister Richard Hu, to wrest the reins of power from the Lee family – father and son. He was doing this through a deliberate campaign of supplanting the Lee family’s patronage in the civil service and in the huge and powerful government-linked company (GLC) sector. The campaign promised to be particularly effective in the GLC sector.
The key instrument of patronage in this campaign was the secretive Directorship and Consultancy Appointments Council (DCAC) which at the time was responsible for the appointment of boards and executive positions across the whole of the GLC sector, and which operated under the authority of the Finance Minister Hu.
Goh had been working this plan systematically for several years when in 1996 he was given the chance to seriously challenge the Lee family’s hegemony after Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong were reported to Richard Hu for accepting illegal multi-million dollar ‘discounts’ from a publicly listed property developer, on whose board sat one of Lee Kuan Yew’s brothers. This was Goh’s one decisive chance to snatch power, but he backed away completely: he did not even refer the matter to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB).
Having passed up his one chance for power Goh gave up even trying to rule. Soon after this episode, much of the DCAC’s power was stripped from it and passed to holding companies (Temasek Holdings and Singapore Technologies) that were then placed in the hands of Lee family loyalists like S. Dhanabalan, and Lee family members like Ho Ching and Kwa Chong Seng. In response, Prime Minister Goh stopped engaging seriously in domestic politics and left it to then-Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, turning his attention instead to developing Singapore’s trade contacts in the Middle East.
1996 effectively marked the end of the Goh putsch against the Lee family and the consolidation of the Lee family’s power.
My point is that if there had been going to be a split in the elite then the 1990s was when it was going to happen. Not only was there no political storm in 1996, but there was barely even a whisper of a breeze to ruffle the appearance of elite solidarity. If it did not happen then, there is much less chance of it happening now or in the near future when there is not even a challenger.
My reading now is that Lee Hsien Loong is there for as long as he wants. This does not meant that he will not face political problems and challenges – especially now that the opposition is newly invigorated and the elite has lost a lot of its control of the agenda and the flow of information – but he should at least be able to face them as the undisputed head of a united leadership group, without having to look over his shoulder for fear of being undermined either by a challenger or by his overbearing father.
Dr Michael Barr is a senior lecturer in international relations, Flinders University. Dr Barr presented his research at this Year’s Malaysia and Singapore Update at the Australian National University. Video footage of the event is available here.
China to cut jail organ-harvesting programmes
China to cut jail organ-harvesting programmes: Beijing to implement national organ donation service, reducing dependency on death-row donors.
Russia PM wants Pussy Riot members freed
Russia PM wants Pussy Riot members freed: Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev says he detests their act, but that the women band members should be released.
Ivory Coast's Gbagbo 'fit to be tried'
Ivory Coast's Gbagbo 'fit to be tried': Judges at International Criminal Court rule that former Ivorian president is healthy enough to face war crimes charges.
Bomb kills Pakistani anti-Taliban leader
Bomb kills Pakistani anti-Taliban leader: Suicide bomber kills at least six in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, including head of a local militia.
Egyptian policemen shot dead in Sinai
Egyptian policemen shot dead in Sinai: At least three officers killed and one wounded after assailants opened fire on their car in the el-Arish region.
Hamas rejects Abbas 'right of return' remarks
Hamas rejects Abbas 'right of return' remarks: Ismail Haniyeh says president's remarks apparently rejecting Palestinian refugees' right of return are very "dangerous".
New Yorkers, Rejoice: More than 80 Percent of Subway Service Restored
New Yorkers, Rejoice: More than 80 Percent of Subway Service Restored: In its slow but steady journey to full restoration, the New York City subway system is now at 80 percent of its normal service, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced Saturday. In other words: Really. Good. News. Helping to relieve some of the chaos still permeating the city days after Hurricane Sandy’s landfall will be the restored connection between Brooklyn and Manhattan. As of Saturday morning, the 4, 5, 6 and 7 lines were running along their normal routes, with full service also returning to the F, J, D and M lines later in the day. The Staten Island Railway returned to hourly service Saturday morning and will return to its normal schedule in time for rush hour Monday morning, officials said. (PHOTOS: Scenes of Sandy’s Wreckage and Recovery) More service will continue getting back on track as the weekend progresses. The A line will begin running from Lefferts Blvd. in Queens to 168th St. in Manhattan by Monday morning, the Wall Street Journal reports. Some timelines still remain unclear, but it’s also likely that by Saturday night, the Q line will resume its route from Brooklyn’s Coney Island, through Manhattan and into Queens, according to Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Chairman Joseph Lhota. “Come on out and use the system,” Lhota said in a press conference. And use it, we will. Over the past week, basic 40-minute commutes turned into chaotic, hours-long ordeals as thousands fought for space on city buses and grappled with miles of gridlock. So this recent progress will certainly ease many commuters’ pain, particularly those shuttling in from outer boroughs and damaged parts of lower Manhattan. Of course, some lines will remain suspended indefinitely. The 14th St. tube, which houses the L line — running between Brooklyn and Manhattan — remains completely submerged. (So far, five of New York’s seven under-river tunnels have been completely cleared.) Other lines, like the G, which runs between Brooklyn and Queens, could be restored next week, but the city hasn’t established a definitive timetable just yet. As residents in New York —and all along the Eastern Seaboard — work
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)