Academic Mentions

With my penchant for word play on ambiguous meanings (blame it on law school), here's a quick update for the one person who might still be reading this blog.

1. This blog has been mentioned in the following academic paper, "Is the Singapore Socio-Political Blogosphere a Hambermasian Public Sphere?". But unfortunately (or fortunately), because I did not comment on the particular issue that author was concerned about, all I got was a mention on the list of 51 blogs he used.

2. I'm in the midst of my Practical Legal Course (PLC) right now, which is one of the two requirements before I get called to the bar. Or as I am more fond of putting it, get inducted into the world of soulsuckers. The other part involves pupilage i.e. pupiling with a pupil-master. So I currently occupy the position of lackey. Come next May, I will get promoted to minion. And with time, I will rise to the august position of Minion of Darkness. To preempt any questions, I'm doing my pupilage at "a small sole proprietor". For those who are aware of where I'm pupiling, yes I am aware that it is highly misleading, but that's how I describe it right now.

3. My Boss has very graciously allowed me to be co-author for a paper I was assisting him on. So I now have a publication to "my" name. (I'm well aware that I'm riding on his coat-tails but I did quite some work on the paper. And technically I have published some years back but that was honestly shite. I blame it on my youth.).

I'm not entirely certain how long I'll keep up blogging. I can honestly say that this is the first time I have been free since graduation/starting work. And the stupidity in the press seems to have died down somewhat so there's not much material to get riled up about and fisk.

I might be retooling this blog to focus on legal journalism instead. I have personally found that the quality of legal reporting in the local press has ranged from excellent (BT and ST's coverage of the legal issues in en-bloc sales are pretty good) to abysmal (totally messing up the Jonathan Lock case reporting. I mean if a whole bunch of lawyers and law students cannot understand your article despite specialist knowledge, something is seriously wrong. And they also messed up reporting of the Philippines Marcos bank account case. Admittedly that was really complicated).

It's not apparent to the public but our Court of Appeal has made some rather big shifts in the law but it has been piecemeal. I appreciate that we're not as politicised as the US Supreme Court BUT that's not to say that the tenor of the decisions has remained still since Chan CJ took over and Phang JA got allevated to the Court of Appeal. It's a very frighteningly intellectual and brilliant bench (and maybe somewhat academic but.......yeah....) now, and it shows in their decisions.

But it's really all in the pipelines right now. There's a lull in the course which will not last. And work always beckons round the corner.

Peace

Law ruins your life

Another day, another newspaper headline that automatically kicks in a legal response rather than anything else.

So our beloved tabloid (layout) The New Paper has as their headlines something about how a mother had changed (presumably unilaterally) her daughter's, age 9, surname to her own from her husband. The upset father is now suing all and sundry including the school and MOE. Now mind you, I have not read this report so the following analysis might be entirely wrong but I figure it shouldn't be too difficult to cover most conceivable (and probable) bases so it should be fairly accurate. In fact, the set of facts that shall be covered in the case below is so much more clearcut than the one listed in TNP that if that hadn't, there is nearly no possibility of there being a different outcome this time round.

As an aside, the reason law ruins your life is not only do you view this as a legal issue but specifically through the prism of family law (there are some rather fascinating constitutional issues about surnames but that tends to be in Japan and South Korea for various cultural reasons) as opposed to simply being a human-interest story.

The case that we are primarily interested in is a decade old case of L v. L, [1997] 1 SLR 222 (don't worry about the citation it's for the lawyers who can actually be bothered and have the access to look up the case). The proposition/legal rule that can be derived from this case is that a parent cannot unilaterally change the surname of the child i.e. without the consent of the other parent. This is because for various reasons, the change of a surname is held to be a "serious matter", as serious and important as taking the child out of Singapore for more than a month without the consent of the other parent (parental kidnapping). Anyway, the facts of the case were that the parents were divorced, the mother had sole custody and decided to change the surname of her daughter to the man she was about to marry. The father claimed that this act was unlawful and wanted a reversal of the change to be mandated by the court. Without g0ing into the decision of the Family Court and the High Court, the important part is that the Court of Appeal agreed, held that this was actually actionable and that a remedy would be granted.

Two thing of significance: 1. the mother actually had sole custody, which technically means she has sole authority (this has been strongly militated by judicial decisions) and there was absolutely no statutory prohibition against sole guardian changing name of the charge/ward. 2. the court found that the father was a caring father who was interested and concerned as to his child's well-being.

The second point is of relevance because of this later case of Khor Bee Imm v. Wong Tee Kee, [2002] 1 SLR 101 which also involved mother unilaterally changing surname of child, except that in this case, there was no court order for the reversal of the change. The reason simply was that it was not in the best interest of the child in this case to change his surname back. The father in this case was not as intimately involved nor as concerned with the well-being of the child. Furthermore, the child was not a young girl but a young man of 17 who had been with the changed surname for a good number of years, was known as such, had no desire to change it back, and comfortable with it. Furthermore he told he judge that he had no relationship with the biological father seeking the reversal.

So to iterate, you need the other parent's consent or you need a fairly exceptional set of facts and time to create some form of quasi-estoppel i.e. you are prevented from essentially going back on your "consent" to the surname change. It is quasi because legal estoppel can actually be enforced i.e. whereas this is merely a consideration that the judge will probably take into account.

And Now You Know (go google it). Peace

Developmental Economics in China

My "Elder Sister" thinks I alienated a number of people in class today after I...um...took issue with the prof's "leftist/radical" views of market economics in China. His critique and arguments have great force particularly in terms of the perpetuation of inequity within China as reflected in the rising social tensions between the rural/urban poor and the cosmopolitan middle class/rich.

Except that I threw out a defense of property rights which turned into a defense of globalisation which turned into a defense of prioritisation between economics and environment, which turned into a defense of market forces governing environmental regulation. Into a insane argument that any and every single results in some form of inequity and disenfranchisement (I got rightly corrected of course but I suppose my only argument was that it was a question of spectrum rather than an either-or proposition). And finally a "defense" of cultural relativism via Asian Values (which I absolutely abhor by the way because it is such an empty concept and smacks of the genetic fallacy).

Although along the way I did sneak in a argument that if the international community was concerned about a particular problem in the domestic sphere of a foreign nation and the problem was simply one of resources, their obligation is to pony up the cash.

I think I've toned down a lot in the past few years. I generally don't go into full debate mode unless someone seriously pisses me off so I thought my tone was fairly reasonable. But I'll defer here to an objective third party and probably shut up for a little while =P

Peace!

Asian-American parody inflames Princeton - International Herald Tribune

Heh, it finally hit the IHT. I was wondering how long before it would make the mainstream international news.

But this annoyingly is sucking political oxygen from the underlying debate that needs to get way more attention. For whatever reason, we don't think it's "unfair" discrimination when we elevate historically disadvantaged and disenfranchised minorities to create a level playing field at the expense of the dominant group that would otherwise benefit from a colour blind, apparent level playing field. The most obvious example I can think of would be immediate post-Apartheid South Africa. Not taking into account what had happen would simply re-entrench the white minority.

But it strikes us harder when another minority loses out through such laws and I think it forces a rethinking of what exactly we should be expecting from an institute of higher learning, the value of diversity and how the selection procedure apparently works.

Free Speech Friday - The Daily of the University of Washington Online

Cheap Filler Post

I got a letter published in the University's daily newspaper inadvertently.

Since they had an online version which allows comments to individual articles (something that the local press may want to consider e.g. Todayonline etc.), I posted a comment which was eventually republished as a "letter" to the editor.

The problem is that my writing style when comment on blogs or blogging for that matter tends to be more conversational and a lot snarkier than in contrast to my letters to the press (which reminds me, I should start tagging them as such).

And the thing is, the editing was fairly minimal in comparison to either the Straits Times or Today (I'm not sure if Streats when it existed published any letters of mine). In fact, on checking, there was barely any editing at all (and in fact the editing done was clearly marked out by square brackets).

So *cough*, the functional effect of it was that it was a lot more adversarial and less polite than I would have phrased it. In particular the way I ended the comment

I realize that not all of us are lawyers or necessarily well read in a particular area of law, but seriously, where’s the fact-checking in this regard?

So I feel kinda bad now.....

Arguing, Argumentation and Justification

There was a certain confluence of events today that prompted this post.
1. Roman Law (the right for fathers to sell children into slavery)
2. International Human Rights (the idea of grundsnorm and axioms)
3. Chinese Law (Socialist Legal System....sort of)
4. Ongoing exchange on income inequity and retributive tax regime on YR

There is a theoretical approach called the critical approach which encourages us to be aware and critical of our mental frameworks when evaluating an external system. A somewhat analogous parallel would be what Hart calls the external as opposed to internal critique. The relevance is that it forces us to be aware of and hopefully be able to justify the particular schema or analytical framework that we are using.

For example, to twist an example used by Lon Fuller in his Morality of Law (and validly critique by Hart in his article pointing out that it might as well be called the Morality of Poisoning), he argues that there would be something intrinsically inconsistent and immoral if we randomly assigned rights to people without due regard as to their status or position and the example he uses is abortion. However, given that any abortion regulation e.g. wait periods, 2nd physician, facilities that can be used for termination etc., inevitably places an increased burden on indigent women, is it anymore right/moral/immoral that because of their economic condition they are forced to relinquish control over their own bodily integrity as opposed to a lottery draw for any woman regardless of their economic position?

Or take a less emotive topic e.g. right of road access. In certain cities e.g. Manila and Mexico City (and some European cities), in a bid to curb the number of cars using the roads on any single day, they have a system which only permits cars with even numbers on certain days and odd numbers on others. This system can be contrasted to a system, say Singapore's which puts a huge premium on the prices of cars and further delineates access to certain roads at certain times of the day with willingness (and capacity) to pay.

Or why do we even principally support redistributive policies anyway? One justification is the entire veil of ignorance argument i.e. assume you do not know what your status in life will be, create a system and the system that is created will in turn tend to look somewhat like the capitalist welfare states that we generally have. But even Jon Rawls (the philosopher form which the former proposition was derived) believed the only form of inequity that should exist is that which takes from the rich to give to the poor. But do the rich necessarily consume more resources and when they pay 12 times more in absolute terms, do they get 12 times the vote or 12 times the response time from the police (actually...)? I generally accept redistributive policies on the basis of indifference curves and marginal utility analysis but I don't think there is a particular principled reason why it's necessarily normatively better than another principle.

Or the eternal question of whether a colour-blind Constitution is actually more equal than a Constitution that supports Affirmative Action or vice versa.

Comments?

Name and Shame: Part of Broader Societal Game?

(h/t: The Kway Teow Man: Is it public shaming? Isn't it Citizen Journalism? and Tomorrow.sg)

Mocking Andy Ho shouldn't be this much fun but dang he doesn't disappoint with every single article he writes. Although to be fair, his articles against woo were pretty good, but being a medical doctor, he should be ashamed by his misleading article on the Terri Shiavo case, especially after the entire premise of his article (that she could actually feel "pain" i.e. suffer as opposed to simply reacting to external stimuli was thoroughly debunked by the subsequent autopsy).

But apologies for poisoning the well, here's what he has to say on this subject.

The Straits Times, Jan 11, 2007

For shame, stop this indignity

By Andy Ho, Senior Writer

SOME Singaporeans have taken it upon themselves to shame their fellow citizens when they do not like what they see.

A recent example: Someone posted on the Internet a video of a woman carrying a six-month-old child and boarding a train, whereupon some young, already seated, commuters seemed to fall asleep instantly.

Bloody hell! Why didn't I think of this earlier? As a general rule, I give my seat to anyone whom I think deserves it more than I do. Admittedly, I've stopped giving my seats automatically to females unless they're carrying more stuff than I am (or are carrying particularly unwieldy stuff) but as a general rule of thumb, anyone who looks older, or pregnant women or even kids with those ridiculously large school bags "get a free pass" from me.

As an aside, there was a spirited discussion from a group of elderly (rather elderly in my opinion) after I gave up my seat to one of them. According to my mother (who understands more dialects than I do and was closer to them anyway), they were split into two camps as to whether there was an obligation on my part to give up my seat to any of them. But it generally boiled down eventually to, it's nice but not an obligation.

While I certainly don't expect others to do it to me i.e. not a general obligation, I personally believe that I ought on the simple basis that it's a minuscule sacrifice on my part i.e. small disutility in contrast not only to the potential harm for someone who really needs that seat but also the much large utility accrued. And quite sometimes, I've manage to "persuade" others to do the same. I only bring this up because lately I've been coming across the canard that atheist are amoral since they lack the fear of a big sky fairy punishing them after they die and it's really annoying me no ends.

This act of public shaming drew a lot of online support. But it also evoked much criticism.

By inflicting disgrace on someone for many others to see, such cyber-pillories remove any ambiguity about what some in society expect from others. Friends and families might chide the perps (perpetrators) while neighbours may snicker.

Those who support the action say that not only are offenders chastened, but such shaming could also deter others from misbehaving. It might even rehabilitate the offender, if he is persuaded that his actions were wrong.

Shaming is democratic, they say, in the sense that it reflects a community's values rather than some norm that the authorities may choose to impose willy-nilly. For example, while the Nazis marked the Jews with a yellow star to shame them, the same symbol is now worn proudly in Israel. Same for the pink triangle worn by homosexuals.

Almost Godwin but the point is taken that public adopting of a mark of derision transforms it into a form of cohesive unity and pride. It's a toss-up, Dan Savage used to call on his readers to start any letter to him with "Hey Fag" to diffuse the negative connotations associated with him but there was a huge debate over this particular technique used.

Is cyber-shaming par for the course then?

No, I find something disconcerting about it.

In a sense, shaming is an attempt to coerce conformity. Notice that to make the claim that shaming can be morally reforming requires those who dispense it to do so in the spirit of a parent punishing a child. It also requires the perp to repent and make amends.

But getting offenders to repent sounds like a cleric's job. It may also be how punishment functions in the intimate setting of one's family. If that is the case, we should not be shaming our fellow citizens. After all, who appointed us to guide their moral development?

The "perp"? What the hell? It's one of those times where you really wonder whether he keeps any distinctions straight or it's just one huge mess to him.

Well first off, could we please draw a distinction between criminal law (perp), Positive Morality (the morality, values, norms and mores of a paritcular institution or society) and Critical Morality (think of it as morality with a big M i.e. the values we use to critique positive morality) and a distinction between secularism and theocracy.

Positive Morality (much less Critical morality) is not the sole purview of religion. Society inevitably exerts certain forms of positive morality. Here all these people are doing to to highlight (without criminal sanction mind you) examples of flouting of societal norms.

It's remarkably strange to see Dr. Ho write, "who appointed us to guide their moral development?" considering his rather paternalistic view of the State (societal rights over human rights). Perhaps he believes that only the State ought to have the ability to lay out moral rules, but this runs inconsistently with his disavowal in the previous block quote of the democratic pressure to rein in those who do not conform to societal norms.

Anyway, for the whole thing to work, the offender must first care about what others think of him. The broader and deeper one's communal attachments, and the wider similar views about morality are held, the greater will be one's shame if shown up.

Thus while shaming sanctions are widely and effectively employed in homogeneous Japan, the diversity in Singapore means that their efficacy may be less than obvious.

I think our communities do not have the Japanese level of interdependence or strong norm cohesion, so shaming would be largely retributive - an eye for an eye - in effect.

A better argument but a very strange cultural relativistic one. Considering the uproar which he claims occur, it would be reasonable to say that we believe that people ought to be giving up their seats to obviously pregnant women and that on the whole we frown upon faking sleep to get around it.

And it's also a bit of a non-sequitor because we can draw upon a broader claim that there are certain values, norms and rules that can get a consensus even amongst diverse cultures. And even if we could not, respect for another's culture must end in a line somewhere e.g. the Picairn Island incident and the whole notion of honour killing. At his point, I can't think of any culture on where public transport there isn't a sense that we ought to be giving up our seats to those who need it more than us.

But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that shaming sanctions do turn out to be very effective. This may cause the shunned offenders to form a deviant sub-community where people are numb to shaming: After all, people can adapt quickly to the emotion.

Some economists have even modelled shaming penalties and found that the more people are shamed, the less effective such shaming penalties become. Also, the stigma attached to such penalties decreases as more people are subjected to them.

Maybe, I really wouldn't know about it. The extent of my knowledge is that shaming is much more effective than a monetary penalty system, see Steve Levitt's Freakonomics.

But considering the failure of status quo, we should be doing something about it. And furthermore his argument seems to be premised that too much shaming is a problem i.e. it's not a problem inherent in the policy but one which requires that the policy mechanism be tweaked.

In The Scarlet Letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne's classic about 17th-century Boston, Hester Prynne, who bears an illegitimate child, is forced to wear a scarlet 'A' on her chest. Embracing the contumelies heaped upon her, she even embroiders the scarlet letter herself. And with Pearl, her daughter, she establishes a defiant mini-community on the margins of the town that shamed them.

Likewise, some criminals develop new 'families' made up of fellow criminals who share a perverse pride in their immorality. When this happens, shame no longer deters bad behaviour.

Of course, in reality, there are few completely 'shameless' people, but the risk that deviant sub-communities may form is one instance of a more generic problem: How to achieve the optimum amount of deterrence or retribution? How can we know if the amount of suffering we inflict is proportional to the perp's blameworthiness? Moreover, shame can spill over to the non-guilty family members and close friends of the person shamed.

That's seriously stretching. And brought to its logical conclusion we ought not to shame anyone for any reason whatsoever.

That might well work because I tend to believe that reason is much more effective than shame and in fact reason can counteract shame e.g. if through Reason I establish that my actions were not contrary to it and therefore is no stain on my conscience. But nevertheless, shame appears to a integral part of any culture for wrongdoing and I think that it can be harnessed for good if it is not shaming for shaming's sake but there is also good reason to explain why that particular action is wrong in that regard.

Here is another problem: Shaming invokes the crowd's help, so it may quickly become a form of lynch justice. Publishing the names of sex offenders to shame them, as in some United States jurisdictions, has led to instances of rioting. Even if this does not happen, shaming leaves too much power in the hands of a fickle public.

Alright. Fair enough, I buy the point about Megan's Law (publication of sex offenders details etc.) and there was that ludicrious case of a paediatrician who nearly got lynched because the stupid mob mistaken though it mean pedophile. As it was her property got destroyed.

But the most basic problem with this assertion is that it is a massive non-sequitor. I mean to go from shaming to lynch mob justice is the worst sort of slippery slope argument I've seen in sometime. It's one thing to say that our baser instincts to protect our youth can manifest itself in lynch mob justice. But over spitting in the streets or not giving up a seat? This begins to feel like a descent into Alice's rabbithole

Then again, shaming is too easy a task to do, so private enforcers may use it indiscriminately while alleged offenders could have little opportunity to defend themselves. Eyewitness accounts can be faulty and even video captures could be misinterpreted since the context may not be obvious.

Not a new problem, we already have PIs doing it for unfaithful spouses. And again, it's a problem with the policy mechanism rather than anything intrinsically wrong with policy justification itself. Would it become a big problem? Maybe and if that happens, we shut it down.

While the shamed may suffer disproportionately, those who do the shaming might not themselves be left unscathed either. In many respects it is like any practice that 'in' groups use to make 'out' groups feel inferior, unwanted and rejected - as any teenager can tell you.

I am not saying that all instances of shaming are irrevocably bad.

*Giggle snort* ye gods, it feels like a bad secondary school essay. In and out groups are an intrinsic part of any society. Outside of criminal laws (the most obvious example of in and out groups) society also creates norms which are essentially just part of the social contract. And they are not stagnant either. Some may be good, and some others bad, stupid, ridiculous, foolish and just plain wrong, but society and its norms are not stagnant.

But while it may be a good thing for one to feel guilty and ashamed when one does something wrong, eliciting shame in another person is quite different. The former reflects a conflict between the kind of person I am and whom I had hoped I was or want to be. But the latter - condemning a wrongdoer in the guise of shaming him - involves the desire to see him squirm or suffer: Its goal really is to degrade and dehumanise someone - publicly.

Degrade and dehumanize? Alright, seriously, what was the editor doing when reading through this article? This runs almost contradictory to his premise that the goal of shaming is to ensure conformity. Conformity i.e. a desire to bring someone back into the fold i.e. rehabilitation (of a sort) is based on a desire to bring back someone into the fold of "civilized society". So unless the society is degrading and dehumanizing e.g. totalitarian and theocratic states, this argument simply holds no water whatsoever.

While shaming others publicly may seem impartial - we like to believe we are doing so on the basis of some higher moral principle - what it actually permits is for us to feel justified in expressing raw anger and moral superiority, negative emotions that are usually nicely kept under wraps.

Thus shaming is like very public gossip, whose shock value is what entertains. Its shock value, in turn, comes from the fact that it allows our strongest negative emotions such as hate and vindictiveness to be ventilated. This is why shaming others not only coarsens our own sensitivity to the dignity of others but also fosters the wrong dispositions in those of us who dole it out.

Shaming: It is undignified. Let's not do it.

What?! Can anyone parse this for me? It's just reads like a lot of handwaving and really brings to mind that "it's not even wrong". All I see is a whole bunch of non-sequitor assertions ("Thus shaming is like very public gossip, whose shock value is what entertains") or that it "comes form the fact that it allows our strongest negative emotions such as hate and vindictiveness to be ventilated". These are not arguments, it's rhetoric!

Well, putting all those aside, just one last final point about what I believe is the difference between these and CCTV. I believe the line is very fine and for now (until we descend into the dystopia of Dr. Ho's totalitarian state where citizens are an extension of state secret police apparatus) there are the following two distinctions.
1. Power. I have an innate distrust for any concentration of power in the believe borne out by history that Power tends to Corrupts, and Absolute Power tends to Corrupt Absolutely. CCTV may have very benign intentions are first, but the temptation to use those captured footage in a bid to embarrass political opponents or simply to keep tab on the state's "subjects" is a very real and present danger especially when there isn't transparency.

In contrast, individual citizens occasionally shooting what they feel as unsocietal behavior is nowhere near the threat to privacy that the state through its and resources can bring to bear on this issue.

2. Transparency. Does anyone know what's on those tapes, who has access to it etc.?

3. The law. The state can always change the law to suit its purposes (whether benign or malign) subject to constitutional restrictions and judicial review. The individual citizen is always constrained by the law. And I submit that there is a notion of "reasonable expectation of privacy" which can be used against someone who infringes upon your privacy. The most immediate and obvious example would be those upskirting or spying on changing rooms.

It's not as comprehensive or cohesive as I would have liked it but that's pretty much all the time I have so....

Peace

Addendum: CL points out that it also involved a video of a couple making out at the back of the bus and the discussion of the justification of making the video. And it's true that I do not explicitly state the justification for why I think that the video making was not wrong.

1. It's not legally wrong. There is no right of privacy in Singapore so your likeness can be used subject to copyright. The best that can be said is the "reasonable expectation of privacy" which I point out above is simply not present in these two cases.

2. It's not morally wrong. While a general distinction should be made between law and morality, in this case, I really don't see a moral claim for not publishing the video in light of the fact that given it was a very public place and that our culture (legal or otherwise) does not impute this notion of privacy in public places, there really cannot be any sustaining of a reliance claim on that of privacy.

Public Law Assignment 2006

This essay cost me an A in Constitutional Law but I quite like it and it saves me from having to think of something to blog about. The citations have been omitted but the most important articles have been put in the essay itself.

If nothing else, this acts as a decent primer on Constitutional Developments since Independence. So enjoy.

Constitutional Amendments since 1966: Whither withered effects on Constitutionalism, Limited Government and Representative Democracy


I. INTRODUCTION


In the intervening period between the original Wee Chong Jin Constitutional Commission ("Commission") with its subsequent report ("report") and now, Singapore has come a very long way particularly with regards to its economic growth as well as subsequent social, political and constitutional developments.

The terms of reference of the Commission reflect what was felt to be the urgent problems that Singapore faced in the latter half of the 1960s. But despite the differing socio-economic-political climate, the assumptions and solutions advocated by the report have an as strong a force today, in its advocacy of a non-racial approach with a strong emphasis on protection of the individual's fundamental liberties as the best way to preserve multi-racialism and also formal institutional checks on the government.

This paper will be looking at Constitutionalism from the viewpoint of constitutional supremacy and the type of constitution that the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (“Constitution”) purports to be and its reality. In the area of limited government, this paper will focus on the mechanisms of constitutionalism that limit governmental power e.g. rule of law, separation of powers, institutional and political checks and balances.



II. CONSTITUTIONALISM: SUPREME OR SIMPLY THE SUPREMES?


The issue of constitutionalism revolves around the notion of constitutional supremacy. Article 4 of the Constitution states clearly its supremacy. And any law that is inconsistent with it, is to the extent to which it is inconsistent, void.

So the issue then becomes how easily is the Constitution amended and how often it is amended. There have been 2 major constitutional amendments in this respect, firstly, the restoration of the super majority of 2/3 amongst parliamentarians to amend any aspect of the constitution itself, and the subsequent additions of articles 5A and 5(2A). The first has the effect of making our Constitution a controlled one i.e. it requires something more than a bare majority to amend. That was a positive development for it clearly delineates how the Constitution is a superior law to ordinary legislation i.e. requiring more than a bare majority to amend. The second set of amendments would force any amendments to the stipulated constitutional articles, to also be subject to a 2/3-referendum passage. This strikes an apparent balance between flexibility and rigidity of the Constitution that the Commission captured well when they expressed the opinion that:

We are aware of the adage that a Constitution that will not bend will sooner or later be broken. We are also aware that a Constitution that is too flexible may well turn out to be worse than having no Constitution at all.

However, it must be noted that not only are the entrenching provisions not in force, but they are subject to the discretion of the President, whether to require a referendum. Additionally, amongst all the branches of government, the judiciary is not amongst those entrenched under the provisions. This has disturbing implications as to its role as a check and balance on government. Even so, since this is now a matter of when they would come in force rather than whether they ever will, it should be acknowledged as a positive development to Constitutionalism and applauded.

While the Constitution may be controlled, it is very flexible. The near absolute monopoly the People’s Action Party (PAP) has in parliament, together with its use of the party whip, ensures that any Constitutional amendment would automatically be passed. Furthermore, the Constitution's remarkably flexible can be observed through the great number of amendments made since our independence, in particular the ease in which the EP scheme was passed. Despite being a major amendment to the Westminster system we operated on, there was a refusal to allow submission of the scheme to a referendum. But that the government chooses to amend the Constitution does go towards showing the acknowledgment that it is legally supreme.



III. LIMITED GOVERNMENT: THE LIMIT ON LIMITS


Any study of “limited government” will need to examine how governmental power is theoretically limited with its concurrent reality. From the above analysis on Constitutionalism, it is clear that the Constitution is at best a weak restrain on power. For a number of reasons examined below, the dominance of the party is such that recourse to the ballot box insofar as it provides for an alternative government (and thus a removal of a bad government) is currently not serviceable as an external political check.

Thus we have to turn to internal political checks and balances with the most significant Constitutional amendment to this area being the introduction of the Elected President (EP) scheme in 1990. While the scheme might have been originally promising, subsequent developments have created a relatively much diminished institution.

This development’s significant is its furthering of the doctrine of the separation of powers. Being a Westminster System, Singapore does not have a 'pure' separation of powers. Instead we have a fusion of personnel because the cabinet is drawn from parliament. With the introduction of the EP, who may not be a member of any political party, we now (ostensibly) have a formal check and balance against the Legislature/Executive.

While the pre-EP's powers were almost exclusively ceremonial, in contrast, the EP's role is by far more custodial and was envisaged to be a check on a free-spending, rash and irresponsible government out to drain the nation's hard earned reserves through populist measures. In addition, he too was to be the safeguard of our fundamental liberties, protect the integrity of the civil service, and be a force of anti-corruption.

However, subsequent constitutional amendments and clarifications have diminished his powers. The most significant is probably the introduction of article 151A, which ousters the President's ability to disapprove of any defence or security measure at his discretion. Furthermore, the determination of what constitutes a defence or security measure resides solely in the purview of the executive thereby diminishing the President's ability to be a financial guardian in this respect. In addition, the greater fear would be that a fiscally irresponsible government, which the EP is meant to check, would be able to use this article as a loophole.

Similarly, articles 22B(9) and 22D(9) curtails the EP by removing his oversight of the transfer of reserves and placing that in the hands of the Executive (minister) or political appointees (statutory board chairperson, CEO and various directors). Furthermore, it appears that the power of the EP to act as a restraint on cabinet’s power would tend to be construed narrowly, as was the case of article 144. And while this was not a constitutional amendment per se, it lends credence to the general notion that power ultimately resides in the Executive/Legislature and greatly circumscribes the concept of limited government.

It would have been a positive development if the White Paper on past reserves, been instituted into the Constitution. However, it remains a convention, which though ‘binding’ on future governments and EPs, has an “easy escape clause” in that any party simply needs to notify the other party that it does not wish to abide by the principles enunciated.

But where the EP has the most potential to act as a check on the government is to be found in articles 5 and 5(2A). However, this is only a potential power as these articles are still not in force after over a decade and a half. Furthermore, the amendment of art 22H, which was referred to the Constitutional Tribunal and achieved, now establishes as long as article 5(2A) is not in force, the President only has the power to withhold his assent to (non-constitutional) bills that would circumvent or curtail his discretionary power. It is recommended that these articles be instituted to give the EP his full powers and to strengthen Constitutionalism and Limited Government.

Turning to non-political checks and balances, we observe through the Parliamentary Debates on the rule of law (Lex Rex), that there are two competing (though not mutually exclusive) concept i.e. Natural Justice i.e. procedural fairness and Substantive Justice. Closely correlated with its capability to restraint government is the notion of judicial review and subsequently that of an independent judiciary. For the judiciary must be able to examine and strike down laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution and hence void.

It is in this context that a focus on our fundamental liberties serves as a bulwark against an arbitrary and autocratic government whether it exerts a tyranny of the majority or of a minority. An independent judiciary capable and willing not only to examine the Executive's decision but to also act as the guardian of our fundamental liberties, best serves such a system.

Prior to 1989, the judiciary had been willing and able to take a robust interventionist stance i.e. taking an objective test to and looking behind the decisions of the executive as part of judicial review. Wee Chong Jin CJ said: "the notion of a subjective or unfettered discretion is contrary to the rule of law. All power has legal limits and the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power."

This was subsequently overturned in 1989 with an amendment to "restore the law on judicial review" i.e. back to the subjective test. At the same time, appeals to the Privy Council were limited i.e. abolished "in respect of judicial review of decisions under the ISA, of interpretation of the ISA and interpretation of any provisions in the Constitution relating to subversion and emergency powers contained in Part XII of the Constitution." The result is that at least in matters of national security pursuant to article 149, there is really no limit to governmental power or discretion beyond that of the ballot box.

And similarly, while it is heartening and gratifying that the courts have asserted the right of any individual qua citizen to bring a suit alleging a legislation to be inconsistent with the Constitution, nevertheless, the approach adopted has been more akin to a "bathroom scales" than a "balancing" one. Thus, as long as any of our fundamental liberties clashes with national security, it is axiomatic that national security will prevail absolutely.

Such approaches see Parliament as the principal guardian of our fundamental liberties. However, this does not derogate from the necessity of having the recommended formal institutional checks and balances on government.



IV. REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: WHO REPRESENTS WHOM FOR WHAT?


Representative Democracy refers to “a limited and indirect form of democracy based upon the selection (usually by election) of those who will rule on behalf of the people”. The practice in Singapore is that of parliamentary democracy where the emphasis is that on deliberation through an adversarial ‘loyal opposition’ which is capable of forming an alternative government i.e. political pluralism and plurality of views.

A. G(reat) R(acial) C(ommitment)s?

In general, it can be said that the constitutional amendments made to this area have had a positive effect in the short run but a detrimental in the long term, based upon a cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Firstly, the GRC system, both in its original intent as well as the subsequent enlargements in 1994 and 1996, have had the effect of undermining the notion of one person one vote. As a result, people are selecting on the basis of teams, which prima facie limits the choice of the electorate to “cherry-pick” individual candidates. Furthermore, there is no necessity to have by-elections in the event one of the team members is unable to execute his duty, as an MP as was the case in 1999, where the reason given by then PM Goh was the need to focus on economic recovery.

The GRC scheme also works against parliamentary democracy by effectively eliminating opposition parties as a possible alternative government. This has as much to do with the strength and track-record of the PAP as it does the weakness of the opposition, which is simply not capable of fielding enough viable candidates to contest a true general election while adopting the election tactic of simply allowing the PAP to form the government and offer themselves up as alternative voices in government. Additionally, by prolonging the period the opposition is not in government, this hurts their credibility as a viable opposition.

These detrimental effects are partially offset by the fact that the GRC system was originally conceived and continues to ensure minority (non-Chinese) representation in parliament in a bid to maintain the necessary multi-racialism. This thereby ensures true popular representation in parliament thereby bolstering parliamentary democracy. Unfortunately, the subsequent enlargements of the GRCs to 4 and then 6 member teams in 1991 and 1996 respectively, have reduced the total number of guaranteed minority parliamentarians.

One may well applaud the intent, however, it does presume and perpetuate a very stratified notion of race and race relations, with possible detrimental effects in the long run. The is so given that the “non-racial” approach advocated by the original commission, the reasons for which still has force today, coupled with over half a century's worth of Religious Harmony Days and constant “National Education” to drum the importance of harmony. But if one accepts the premise of the necessity of minorities representing minority views, then in the modern context, the most woefully underrepresented segment of society has to be Women. If so, the GRC system ought to be adapted to ensure female political participation.

B. The non-elected, not-quite-elected, and not-so-elected

Any evaluation of the Non-Constituent Member of Parliament (NCMP), and Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) scheme, must be done via a CBA taking into account Singapore's context. So while on the one hand, such members, not being elected or having a popular mandate should be considered to be undermining Representative Democracy, at the same time, these MPs may well be representing the protest voters or the voters who did not vote for the PAP in the elections.

But the great uneasiness over these schemes can observed via the NMP scheme being subject to a "sunset clause", while the number of NCMPs are limited constitutionally. Particularly so when seen in light of the PAP’s approval of NMPs apolitical nature and presenting of non-partisan 'opposition' views in Parliament with their subsequent expansion in 1997 and 2001. There is nevertheless much force in the critiques levered against the concept of the NMP scheme, ranging as far back as the Randel Commission, and to the parliamentary debates.

However, these schemes were conceived that they would be able to provide an alternative viewpoint in parliament. Thus, while acknowledging the so-called ‘Opposition Gap’ i.e. the lack of opposition members providing opposing viewpoints in Parliament and the necessity of improving the quality of debate, nevertheless a question is raised as to whether this erodes representative or parliamentary democracy in the long run by “co-opting” the best and removing the impetus for an opposition/alternative government.

There is also the further downside of non-elected bodies sharing executive/legislative powers. For example, the provisions for the EP ensures that he has to share power not only with the cabinet but also non-elected bodies like the Council of Presidential Advisors, and Presidential Elections Committee, thereby entrenching them in the Constitution and undermining the concept of representative democracy in our parliamentary system. Similar to this is the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, which bears some similarities to the Council of State envisioned in the report in protecting minority rights. Unfortunately for parliamentary democracy, not only is this a far more limited version of the council originally proposed, but even on the protection of minorities front, it has yet to raise any adverse reports despite the prima facie "differentiating measure" inherent in many of the above-mentioned constitutional amendments.



V. CONCLUSION


The constitutional amendments have constituted a mixed blessing for the three specific objectives evaluated. However, even those can be said on balance to further these objectives, only achieve this in the short run will questionable to detrimental effects in the long term. We would do well to adopt the general advice of the Commission to focus on protecting the individual's fundamental liberties through strengthened and independent institutional checks and balances.

Sometimes You Really Have To Read The Entire Thing

Irony is really dead for me and so is parody as it is simply too hard to distinguish those from the insane and inane ravings of the religious fundies and conspiracy theories nuts. And given that I read Fundies Say The Darnest Things everyday, I get a huge dose of these ravings.

But one post in particular struck me and I'm replicating it here

The pertinent question is whether that pronouncement is an accurate statement of the English common law which is, conceptually, the genesis of the notion that there is no rape where the prior consent is followed by penetration and then withdrawal of consent. Battle says that it is. The concept, undergirding the Battle holding, rooted in ancient laws and adopted by the English common-law,views the initial “de–flowering” of a woman as the real harm or insult which must be redressed by compensating, in legal contemplation, the injured party - the father or husband. This initial violation of the victim also provided the basis for the criminal proceeding against the offender.

But, to be sure, it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape; after this initial infringement upon the responsible male’s interest in a woman’s sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was considered to be less consequential. The damage was done. It was this view that the moment of penetration was the point in time, after which a woman could never be “re-flowered,” that gave rise to the principle that, if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape. Maryland adheres to this tenet, having adopted the common law, which remains the law of the Land until and unless changed by the State’s highest court or by statute."

Normally given huge chunks of words in a long paragraph on this site, I would simply tend to skim through it to get the gist. And while the idea of course gave me a little jolt, I realised that oddly enough, it was a little too well written and some parts of it seem terribly familiar. I meant the words, Common Law, jumps at you when you're a law student and so I took a closer look and in fact checked the attribution of this quote.

To my shock and horror, it was a decision by a judge in the Maryland Court of Appeal and even given all the crazy things that judges have said I just did not want to believe it. So I clicked on the decision and read the damned 51 page decision.

Yup, it was a misunderstanding. The quote above makes a lot more sense if you realise that Battle refers to a case. The "explanation" above is the explanation of the basis of the Common Law ruling in Battle.

The matter before him was an appeal for a criminal conviction and one of the legal issues here is whether the trial judge misdirected the jury by not responding correctly to their question as to whether women have the right to withdraw consent after initial penetration. The answer here as to the current statuts of Maryland Law is no because of the controlling case of Battle v. State of Maryland. The misdirection is actually grounds for a retrial or even an overturning of the conviction on due process so it's pretty important.

As he points out, the legal issue here has not been overruled or commented upon negatively and therefore the trial judge is still bound by legal precedent (unfortunately the trial judge thought it was a factual not a legal issue or he could have ruled as a matter of law that Battle is no longer good law)

And in case you're wondering why he does not simply overturn the ruling in that case, the short answer is that he can't simply because it's not an issue before him. As a judge he can only look at the issues before him and unfortunately the issue here is not the continued validity of the law.

Anyway, you would be pleased to note that the person contributing this quote has very kindly changed the entire submission to reflect that it is very unlikely to be the judge's personal opinion on this matter.

But yes, one of the problems about law is that it's a little hard for laypeople to initial pick up a judgment and read it and understand it. It's not simply a matter of reading and comprehension. Well, it is that but the jargon and structure needs familiarity to properly comprehend as well as a knowledge of how the judicial system works.

But it's fairly easy to teach it and most law students pick it up fairly rapidly. And I think it's a fairly important skill. In a manner of speaking, I think it's way easier to understand than a scientific paper and if we as the public should pick up the skill of reading scientific papers, more so I say for reading court judgements.

Peace.

Art Teacher loses job after kids see nude sculpture

Sigh….at the risk of my Stumble tag continuing to be at sexuality (for what reason I absolute cannot comprehend because not only is my focus on the politics of it but also it's just one of my "hot button issues").

Anyway, award winning art teacher on the urging of the Principle brings Elementary (Primary) School kids to the museum. Parents all sign consent forms. They (kids) see nude statue. Protest raised. School board decides not to renew her contract after she had been there for 28 years.

Oh boy.

My feelings on this issue should now be more than evidently clear given the whole stream of blog post on this issue. But I'm going to try to see if there's some way of saving and salvaging this situation. I think there are but the arguments are fairly weak on balance.

Firstly, there arguably is no direct causal link between the protest and her contract not being renewed. It may well be a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Just because B came after A doesn't mean A caused B. And it may well be a pretext to not renew her contract. But despite all that, a court in civil suit is going to use an objective test based upon the theoretical legal reasonable person and whether s/he would believe that the non-renewal was based upon this particular incident.

Another argument would be based on the fact that it's not a firing. Theoretically, the School Board ought to be within their rights like any other educational institution to determine whether a teacher ought to have their contract renewed. A firing must be with cause. I'm not certain a non-renewal needs to be, although again they may be an implied term in any employment contract of mutual trust and confidence i.e. that the employer would not act unreasonably in the determination of whether to renew contracts or in their general behavior towards the employee. There is an entire corpus of such implied terms but I not certain if they apply here in the US. But I think it wouldn't be a stretch and again, I think a reasonable person would think that this incident could not justify a non-renewal.

But I might well argue at this point that all the parents are consenting to is a trip to the museum and that the teacher has the duty of ensuring that the young innocent minds are not exposed to something unsuitable for their age i.e. the teacher has been negligent. The consent form here is a huge nail in the coffin and I think the teacher ought to be allowed to rely on those consent forms to believe that the parents had indeed consented to the freaking trip to the museum and yes, that should include viewing the exhibits in there. And thus, if they don't do their jobs as parents and determine what they are consenting to, that's their problem not the teacher's.

Similarly, even based upon a fiduciary duty (i.e. one of good faith and loyalty and higher than duty of care), I really don't see that the standard has been breached. Because I personally think art nudity in this circumstance is not unsuitable in any regard. It's art not pornography for goodness sake! But arguably if this had been some of Goya's more disturbing and nightmarish paintings I might well decide otherwise.

But let's take the last point. Is my feelings on this matter based solely upon my worldview i.e. nudity is less harmful (or heck better) than violence? In such a situation I would argue that reality has a liberal bias and that the studies have been fairly clear that nudity has a non to negligible impact on young minds as opposed to violence.

Anyway, let's hear your views on this matter. I'm off to do readings on Sales.

Peace.

Philip Bowring: Malaysia's racial politics - Editorials & Commentary - International Herald Tribune

It's a good article and I do generally agree with what it says. I think it says alot about the politics when there is a racial government party and a racial opposition party e.g. a Chinese-aligned party in UMNO and a Chinese aligned party in opposition.

But what (to me anyway) is interesting about the article is the legal stuff and the legal part is what is truely fascinatiing. Here's the paragraph in question:

Currently attention in Malaysia is focused on a high-profile case, now before the Appeals Court, as to whether a person has the right to cease to be a Muslim and (in this case) become a Christian and hence no longer subject to the Shariah courts. At the most obvious level it is a clash between a secular Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion and the notion of apostasy - that a Muslim must remain Muslim - in a country where Islam has a privileged position.

If anyone actually cares about it, I will point you to the constitutional article in question. Recall that our Constitution is effectively taken lock, stock and barrel from Malaysian Constitution EXCEPT for the parts we changed and this is one of them.

But anyway, since Islam has a privileged position (very privileged actually, another thing that we changed in our Constitution), calling it a secular Constitution is kinda pushing it but I suppose if one considers the alternative to be a theocretic one then secular is fine for the purpose of the article.

Back to the freedom of religion clause in the Malaysian Constitution, this issue is not new and in fact such a case has come up before the Malaysian Supreme Court before. The decision then was that freedom of religion, or more accurately, the freedom to propergate and practice a religion DID NOT include the right to leave that religion.

The reason I mention this is because of the recent fiasco that occured in Malaysia recently when a inter-faith organisation tried to bring up dialogue on this issue. Of course, some called them rabble-rousers and claimed that the manner in which they went about doing it was inciting violence. Tensions apparently got so bad that the PM Abdullah Badawi effectively just shut the entire thing down.

This, in fact, was one of the reasons why I am ever so concerned when speech is silence because it incites violence as opposed to merely provoking violence. The distinguishing feature is that one calls of violence, the other because the other side is unable to deal with it without violence.

Another sad thingw as how people actually considered what that group was proposing as "an attack on Islam" which commits what is called the fallacy of false equivocation. It's the exact same way as a creationist who uses the argument against me that "I have faith in Science" in the same way that I deny their "faith in Religion". The difference is that my "faith" is borned out of the system of open inquiry, checks and balances and the peer-review system and a desire for truth. In that regard, I "accept" Science is more accurate.

Similarly, this is an "attack" on Islam only insofar as it restricts their right and privilege as a religion (yeah, it's kinda vague but acceptable for the purpose of this argument), it is not an attack by preventing adherents from preaching or practicing the core tenents of their faith. Thus the fallacy equivalancy.

If one wants to consider this an "attack" just because adherents should be allowed to get out of the religion, then one must similarly accept that it is an attack on all the other religions that preach evangelism because you are restricting their ability to gain new adherents.

But that's how the world works and the dismaying about about the Fundie Word Redefinition Project. But anyway, now that I know of this case, I'll try to follow up on it closely and see what comes out of it.

Peace

Online Story: Not enough babies? Change the liberal abortion law to solve problem
by Mark Chen Chih-chuan

*Wince*...not again. Alright, time to bring on some logic enforcement.

I listened to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's National Day Rally speech and understood the needs of our nation.

Among the repeated calls to have sufficient and competent talent and a self-replacing labour force, I find the call to have more babies most reasonable.

Um....yeah...okay. Babies good! More babies better! Especially for the economy in terms of labour?

I believe that the notion of nationality and statehood have weaved such a stranglehold that when it comes to various factors of production, while we accept the free movement of trade, goods and service, we refuse to similarly do so for people.

I don't see any necessary reason for why of all the factors listed, having more babies is necessarily the most "reasonable". I mean, how about explaining and providing a definition of reasonable.

In debate (or for that matter in law), we would by now be either screaming for a yardstick or criteria by which we could measure this "soft term". Well that, or gleefully rubbing our palms at the thought of our ability to impose our own definition on it. And then to bill our clients good money for it.

The need is very real and it can be met by all Singaporeans. There is a need to review the Termination of Pregnancy Act. There are three reasons: Demographics, eugenics, and ethics.

Brief answer: No, ewww no and no.

The 1974 Termination of Pregnancy Act states that a registered doctor can perform an abortion on receiving written consent from a pregnant woman.

Those above 14 and below 21 years can have an abortion without the consent of a parent/guardian. In fact, it is the only procedure in Singapore that does not require such a consent.

And I say thank goodness for that. Teenage pregnancies are already horrible enough without having to drag the parents in. Especially if they are not understanding and supportive. It stands to reason as, if they were indeed as such, requirement of consent would be superfluous as they would be notified and consulted. It is in those cases where they are not that the lack of parental consent is important.

Of course there's also the argument based upon the distasteful notion that the parents had something to do with the teen being pregnant in the first place.

On 23 May 2005, Channel NewsAsia (CNA) quoted a study conducted by Singapore National University Hospital which showed that about 14,000 pregnancies are terminated every year, accounting for one-fourth of the total.

According to Mr Lee, there were 36,000 births last year - 14,000 shy of the needed 50,000. This is simple demographics and economics - no supply = no product = no self-replacing labour force.

That's what a) immigration, b) a shift to a knowledge based economy so that c) people can work to an older age are for.

The CNA report quoted the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Society as saying that over 1,000 tertiary-educated married women went for abortions in 2004, tripling the number of 300 in 1988, while those who were not as educated tended to use contraceptives.

If we have more than trippled the number of tertiary educated married women since 1988, then the rate has actually fallen.

In fact, thanks to the internet here's something all too relevant and destructive of his entire chain of argument. From Today we learn that they checked with the Department of Statistics and discovered that the number of university-educated women has increased from 17,300 in 1990 to 68,900 in 2000.

So this was close to a 4 (3.98 to 2 s.f.) fold increase (and by now would be much higher) and thus we can conclude that the rate of tertiary educated married women using birth control as a form of abortion has fallen.

But furthermore, our letter writter conceeds the existance of something that's prevents more births than abortion at any rate - contraception. I note that he doesn't advocate their ban.

A 2001 MCDS survey on social attitudes of Singaporeans entitled 'Attitudes on Family' found that the "pattern of educational differences in attitudes towards having children [was] similar to the national population statistics (Census 2000) that showed a strong negative correlation between family size and the educational level of females, with university graduates having the fewest children on average."

Well, we could prevent women from getting too smart and wanting fewer children (which presumes causation even though that's not a necessity). But let's give Mark the benefit of the doubt and elevate this argument to that of abortion being the least worse policy alternative.

The problem with the argument is that it would in fact conceed that it is probably the least efficacious of all possible policies, given that the low birth rate is multi-causal.

This may be one of the reasons why policies of longer maternity leave and infant care subsidies are not sufficient incentives, in particular, on abortion.

This seriously doesn't make any sense whatsoever. He's effectively trying to tie two correlations (note, the above numbers are not necessarily causal i.e. women who do not want children may be more likely to get a teritiary degree for example) and then pull a massive non-sequitor.

Unless you can establish that tertiary educated women are in fact more likely now than ever (and presumably getting worse) to resort to abortion as a form of birth control (which we learn is plain wrong) AND that they would not simply switch to using contraception when abortions are banned (or simply pop across the causeway for an abortion) makes this an exercise in fruitity anyway.

The implication of this, no matter how distasteful, is clear and it echoes a similar fear in the past that led to eugenic policies.

Argh!!!! HOW HOW HOW?!!!! Show the effing link!

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said in his memoirs "Our brightest women were not marrying and would not be represented in the next generation. The implications were grave."

Definately not one of his best statements ever. I take quite a bit of offence at this because my parents were blue collared workers (who became white collar ones by dint of effort and constant learning) and who nevertheless managed to bring whatever intellectual genetic potential to fruit.

Assuming the truth of and accepting the eugenics argument, there would be a lack of sufficient and competent talent with a liberal abortion policy. In a Straits Times report on 12 November 2005, Ministry of Health figures showed that in five years, an average of over 1,500 teenagers had abortions annually, about 10% of the national figure.

*Sigh* no there won't be.

According to a 31 July 2006 Straits Times report, Minister Yaacob Ibrahim cited 2004 figures showing that 434 Malay girls had abortions, forming about one-third of all teen abortions.

This caused the Muslim community to act to curb teenage sex. There was an ethical consideration.

Or perhaps we could adopt a comprehensive sex education policy instead (demonstrated to be more effective anyway) of pussy footing around on the basis of religion and "morality".

In his third National Day Rally speech, Mr Lee called on Singaporeans to "hold firm to our cultural and moral values." None of the ethnic groups, based on their traditional, cultural and ethical values, nor religious groups, have ever permitted an abortion policy as liberal as that of the 1974 Termination of Pregnancy Act.

I sense bull here. The Jews for example don't hold that the fetus is a person until it's born and Islam believes that ensoulment occurs in the 3rd trimester.

It would be incongruent to hold firmly to ethical mores without the moral courage to stand upon the cultural and moral foundations of the people.

Handwaving here. Piety is not substitute for reality and sound policy.

Although the Act may not be done away with, it is not inconceivable that it be reviewed seriously. There has been a lot of hype about the future economy, foreign ability, basic courtesy, overseas family, new-fangled technology, and political civility. But a solution staring the nation in its face is to preserve local fertility.

Note: all of the reasons above actually makes local fertility a moot issue.

Review the Termination of Pregnancy Act.

Review your entire argument please!

Peace.

The Electric New Paper, Singapore - The Electric New Paper News: We must make kids realise the value of life

I now blame CL for telling me about the post, it's worst than I thought. Full of emotion rhetoric and general BS. Here's why I think her arguments are bad.

I'm taking my information from Religious Tolerance

DO you know how babies are killed inside their mothers' wombs? Well, let me tell you.

No you don't, you simply give an emotional and grotesque description that vastly oversimplifies the issues and ignores something I like to call...oh, reality and facts?

The fact you call them "babies" show very clearly what you do not know. I challenge you to hold up a blastocyst and call it the equivalent of a real baby. In fact I challenge you to say that you will save a petri-dish of 15 blastocysts over a one-day old baby from a burning building.

Once a baby is three months old, he can feel a pin prick. He likes to dance. He swims and kicks in the tiny pool his mother made for him.

I call bullshit. There simply isn't enough synapse connections to do all these things you ascribe to the fetus. It's a fetus and not a child for that very simple reason and thus there isn't the sort of higher level thinking that enables all these stupid emotive and charge verbs you ascribe to it. Dance? Bollocks. Feel a pin prick? Only in the same way a touch-me-not closes up when you touch it. Swim? Bull. Sorry, science doesn't help you here lady, only your personal attribution based on your religious belief.

Human life, as we should recall, it defined as anything with human dna with it, that includes your hair and your nails and your epidermis. So you kill "human life" every single time you wash your hands.

What we're taking about is a human person and that's where the mess comes in. When does personhood occur? And you know she's on shaky grounds when you refuses to answer the question. No go jose, then your entire piece becomes yet another just so story.

Because if a fetus is not a person, then you simply cannot put a false equivallency of abortion with murder. And it becomes like any othe action that ends human life.

His death is by dismemberment - his warm cave is prised open, his head scrapped off. Then everything - the tiny torso, hands too small for nails, and legs which will never tread on anything other than water - is sucked out.

Yet more emotional rhetoric. A clear sign of argumentative weakness if I ever saw one.

Here's something to keep in mind. Half of pregnancies don't even come to term because of spontaneous abortions. Even where abortions are volitional, the vast majority come prior to week 9 where abortions are often induced chemically through pills. So yes, go on and push your reality of how things work in lieu of actual arguments.

His mother never felt him kick. She can almost believe her son never existed.

Another foetus makes it to 24 weeks - or six months old. She pats her tummy, scratches her cheek and rubs her nose. She can almost open her eyes.

Surely she is too old to be killed. Or is she? In Singapore, she could still be aborted. Did you know this?

Many of you would have averted your eyes, shuddered at the graphic details.

But don't. Don't look away because you need to know.

Now I'm mad, this is smug sanctinomy at its best and it's a damning indictment of her character. This ain't about love or what not, this ain't about trying to prevent abortion, this is about a holier-than-thou attitude.

And yeah, I say that abortions up till 6 months are perfectly legitimate because the fetus isn't viable yet (granted that science is pushing the limits), but unless you want to surgically remove the very pre-mature "baby" and artificially incubate it and risk its health and future, I say the choice is ultimately the mother's.

The state could come in but beware the slippery slope there. Once the coersive power of the state comes in, there is no guarantee where it's going to stop. Perhaps it starts with a ban on smoking and drinking, then maybe it creeps into a total prohibition on mothers' travelling by car, and hey while we're at it, let's just keep them in birthing centres so they can't eat fast food or risk the fetus' life.

Abortion is not about sucking out a mass of cells and then flushing it down the loo. It is not about regaining your freedom to pursue your own life.

It is about ending the life of a baby. I have known this since I was a teenager.

More than 20 years ago, I remember a group of us CHIJ Toa Payoh girls huddled in a dark room, looking in horror at the tubs of little bloody babies - dead, eyes shut and arms twisted. The tubs stood as high as a man, and there was no dignity, no grief from the multiple tiny deaths.

We were watching a video on how abortions were carried out. Then and there, we were confronted with the consequences of wrong choices.

Yet more handwaving.....

Today, teenage sex is real. A survey last year showed that 8 per cent of local women had unplanned pregnancies before they were 16.

So what?

I'm currently writing an article and one of its core premises is that an examination of principles is vital if you want to derive an "ought" from an "is" or in other words, a normative statement froma positive one.

She doesn't have one beyond a "pious" "life is precious" assertion.

Aborting their baby is one way of escaping their responsibilities. Abandoning their newborn is another.

And your sanctimonious article makes things worse.

The latter, of course, is a far more horrific course of action. Death is slow but certain - and completely unnecessary, since there are groups willing to take in unwanted newborns.

How many babies abandoned died in that fashion? Or is another one of your just-so stories?

How do we address the problem?

And here we go into the depths of non-logic.

First, most immediately, we have to make mothers aware that someone will care for their unwanted babies. Just give birth safely, make a phone call, and someone will come and get the baby.

*Roll eyes*, let's engage in reality here. And in the process they have to destroy their lives by a) gettting kicked out of the family or b) forced to marry a man she does not want, c) suffers complications from pregnancy (because something the anti-choice side doesn't like to take about is the 5% severe complication risk that threaten fatal repecussion for both baby and mother), d) forced to give up school etc. etc.

Or hey, there's always the back alley abortion clinic which could kill her.

"Destroying" one "life" apparently is very bad. In which case I say two is worse.

Second, a more long-term issue, parents must teach their children the value of life.

I do, which is why I support a mother's right to choice.

Conception is one possible consequence of sex, even protected sex. If you insist on having sex before you are married, then you have to be prepared to be a parent.

Getting into an accident is one of the possible consequences of driving a car or riding a bike, and yes people died or suffer various injuries. Now, I doubt anyone would legitimately argue that we should let those people suffer and refuse treatment to them for whatever reason, even if it were pure stupid negligence.

Getting an abortion is too easy now. Teenagers do not have to tell their parents. They walk into a hospital or a clinic, get counselled and then two days later, go in for the procedure.

Ease of access does not equate to ease of abortion. Note how easily she glides over the fact that a) there's a counselling session and b) a waiting period.

Many people support abortion because they think it is about the rights of the mother versus the rights of the baby. Or esoteric arguments about when an egg and a sperm, surely lifeless things, become a life.

But abortion is not about whether a woman - a girl sometimes - has the right to choose what she wants to do. It is about whether she takes responsibility for what she has already done.

Translation: I don't have a principle to stand on.

Shall we also force the guy to marry her? Or maybe let's take a leave from the old testament and get the rapist to marry her if necessary (and oh yes, making payment to the father at the same time).

There are many ways to take responsibility, one of which is to learn from the mistake rather than committing it again. Or worse, to force the person to live with the mistake and destroy her life.

PARENTS MUST KNOW

There are three things that should be changed to help her do that.

First, anyone who wants an abortion must be made to watch a video about the procedure. Second, parental consent should be compulsory. This is already the case in 28 states in America.

Why? Another assertion and worse still, one that would hurt the most vulnerable section of women seeking abortions i.e. the young.

Also, the percentage of abortion seekers under the age of 18 is less than 10%, so can we say unfair discrimination?

Now, I could make an argument on why it is constitutionally not prohibited or one based on in loco parentis (although given that the parent is not obliged to maintain the child and the child's child, I'm not certain why this necessarily applies) but that's to confuse the status quo for the necessarily good.

In Singapore, which has a more conservative stance on so many things, a pregnant teenager who wants an abortion doesn't even need to alert her parents.

For good reason. It's a vulnerable class of persons that the law should help protect. Stop destroying more young lives already!

Third, we ought to encourage religious groups to share their stance on abortions and family life. In temples, mosques and churches, religious leaders should teach what their holy books say about sex and babies.

*Bwah ha ha ha* Bloody fundies and their code words. But seriously go ahead, but I don't think you'll like the answer. Muslims believe that ensoulment occurs just before the 3rd trimester, so it sure as hell ain't murder. Jews believe personhood occurs at childbirth.

I personally think if I were an omnibenevolent deity who cares, I wouldn't make the rate of spontaneous abortions as high as 50%.

In all schools, students - boys as well as girls - should be shown tapes of what abortion is like. What it does to a baby, as well as to the girl's body.

Sure, but that's only one half of the solution.

If you expect a pro-abstinence policy to work (which seems to be the implication from the first statement), then you naivity is just plain stupid. Put in a comprehensive sex-education policy, make contraceptives even more widely available and promote their usage and then we'll come and talk.

At home, parents should show their children pictures of themselves fresh out of the womb.

'This is you as a baby. We love you, because you were made from our flesh and blood,' parents should say.

The most important lesson of all?

If you love babies, you will not kill them, no matter how 'inconvenient' they appear to be at the time.

*Roll eyes*....I'm so going to puke. Yeah, abortions are taken very very lightly, and yes here I go to get pregnant so I can get an abortion and plan a post-abortion party.

Fuck it.

TODAYonline: Consider banning smoking outright

Consider banning smoking outright
Have laws against possession Set up addicts' centres

Letter from Goh Kian Huat
Letter from Robert W Straughan

I refer to the report, "Its promise distorted, Subutex fades on a low" (Aug 11).

Instead of curing heroin addiction, users are addicted to Subutex itself. So, Subutex has now been listed as a Class A Controlled Drug, with its distribution, consumption and possession (unless authorised) prohibited.

First- and second-time abusers arrested for Subutex consumption will undergo compulsory rehabilitation treatment, while recalcitrant abusers could face up to 13 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. Traffickers face even stiffer penalties.

Wince...I feel sorry for the letter writers. I had a letter similarly conflated and truncated and it was deeply unsatisfying.

But back to the report on hand, anyone who has ever done any bit of debating for a fair amount of time would have come across at some point in time the arguments for the criminalisation of a particular action/vice/sin/social ill etc. And they basically boil down to the Harm Principle, the Black Market and why regulation is better than an outright ban.

But I want to take it from a separate perspective which I don't think is examined often enough in these types of debate.

Now consider this: Smoking is the single most avoidable cause of death. According to the Health Promotion Board, every cigarette contains over 4,000 types of chemicals, 400 of which are poisonous and about 40 are cancer-causing — for example, nicotine, carbon monoxide, tar, hydrogen cyanide. The nicotine is just as addictive as heroin or cocaine.

On a global scale, the World Health Organization estimates that tobacco kills one person every 10 seconds. Smoking is also a major risk factor for coronary heart disease, stroke and chronic obstructive lung disease, which together accounted for close to two-thirds of deaths here in 2000. Smoking harms those around the smoker also.

Yet, while cigarettes are as harmful as other commonly abused drugs such as heroin, cannabis, Ecstasy, ice and amphetamines, the Government has taken a softer approach by introducing laws to prohibit tobacco ads, restricting smoking in public places and imposing stiffer tobacco duties.

I think the numbers are about right, except I think that cannabis ought not to be in that category alongside the other drugs, the harm level associated with it is that much lower than the rest.

And the following logic is fairly impeccable...

It appears there is no neater plan to eradicate this problem than by banning smoking in Singapore. Since cigarettes are as harmful as Subutex and other abused drugs, I suggest the authorities consider laws to prohibit the possession and consumption of tobacco. Existing nicotine addicts may be given a grace period to seek help to quit.

It is good that the Government has taken steps to ban smoking in public places but, on the whole, its actions and intentions confuse me.

We all know underaged smoking (below 18), is illegal. The fact that the young may not be mature enough to make sound decisions regarding a damaging and activity underlies the ban. But smoking is just as damaging no matter what age the smoker.

No matter how harshly the Government discourages smoking, addicts will not be able to stop unless a full ban is implemented.

I suggest permitting smoking only at special centres, where rehabilitators help to cure smokers' addictions. There, smokers would be encouraged to stop but not forced.

Only then will we slowly be able to cure the disease of smoking in Singapore.

Or is it?

Well, the logic only works if you accept its premise i.e. that the government ought to intervene when the individual harms him or herself regardless of whether their actions hurt 3rd party i.e. the paternalistic approach that is the converse of the Harm Principle.

Because if one does not accept that premise, that the logic equally follows that since society is more than able to function with the "evils" of smoking, that drugs with similar levels of harm as enumerated above, should be legalised in the same fashion as smoking.

My personal opposition to smoking is in the harm it causes others in a direct fashion i.e. passive smoking and the fact that it's bloody annonying although if there was no direct harm, I might well change my mind on the current restrictions on smoking in public.

But let's go back to self-determination and bodily autonomy, and the question that we have to ask is on what basis does the government have to prevent self-abuse even till the point of death? One argument is that such actions do cause societal harm in that almost any form of drug abuse will lead to instances of higher medical care that is borne by society.

Two responses to that. One would be to make these people pay more which we already do through sin taxes so that they are not being subsidised by the other tax payers. The other is to question whether this is actually so. Apparently there is a study which has crunched the numbers and it comes to the startling conclusion that the state benefits from smokers dying young and not draining medical resources that are the province of the old and chronically infirm. A nasty state of affairs that.

Another argument is that the basis of all rights is life and without life one cannot enjoy those rights. Therefore, the government is justified in taking action that would prevent people from a course of action that would deprive themselves of those rights i.e. death. The most obvious rebuttal to that is that it may well apply to suicide but we all die anyway and smoking simply increases your risk of a disease that would kill you sooner than a healthy person would otherwise would. And similarly on that line of logic, we're going to have to ban fastfood and a whole bunch of other activities like skydiving (presumably on the basis that unlike driving, there is no societal utility from the others).

But the more fundamental problem is the argument is that it is simply a bald assertion and I should know that because I once used that argument to justify the torture of terrorists, nasty line of argument once you push it to its logical conclusion. It effectively justifies almost anything.

The positive argument in turn argues that the state is simply incapable of demonstrating a compelling interest to prevent their citizens from hurting themselves and might well point to the fact that the Common Law allows even the mentally insane to reject life-saving treatment as long as the person is aware of the consequences on the basis that only the patient is capable of determining what's in their best interest. This is of course part of a broader general proposition that only you know what you want and can determine what's in your own best interest as a rational thinking person.

This is of course not to say that the state is incapable of asserting some form of paternalism and limiting personal autonomy but those are generally on the basis that for some reason the rationality and thinking aspect of the equation has been diminshed or circumvented. Thus we limit the rights of children and do not allow suicide clubs or pacts for fear of undue influence. But it is nevertheless important to keep in mind that this is the exception to the rule and not the rule itself.

I come down on the side of personal autonomy and liberty because I'm simply not arrogant enough to impose my views on others and thus I "impose" (beware the fallacy of false equivocation) a system that would allow all views to promulgate.

Peace.

Gary Becker and Richard Posner joint blog

Need I even say more?

Two of the most prominent figures, some might even say Fathers of the entire Law and Economics movement.

And this is their blog.

I feel like a fanboy.

TODAYonline: Feel the Heat if you Break your Promise

The above letter can be summed up as uber or hyper nationalistic and patriotic. And while there is nothing wrong with those in and of itself per se, like all things, when done to excess, it can only lead to harm and untold misery. The slight hyperbolic untold misery bit is due to the lessons of history where dissent was forbidden and the unchecked power of the authorities (both secular and religious) trampled upon the liberties if not the personal safety and lifes of those who would dissent from what they correctly viewed as ill.

I'm a little hesistant to fisk this as I normally would given that the letter writer is a 16 year old student and I doubt that baracking someone is the best way of persuading him to see the errors of his views.

So I'm going to use this as an explainatory lesson instead. But here's my thesis, dissent is not disloyalty in fact dissent is loyalty and the ultimate form of patriotism. It is only when I believe that my nation can be better and better served that I dissent. If not, I would simply ignore it.

by Jeremy Lim

FIVE years ago, on Aug 9, I was at the National Stadium with 35 others — who represented a cross-section of the people of Singapore — reciting the Pledge on stage. It was a proud, ecstatic moment for me.

I'm glad that he's proud to be Singaporean or at least proud to demonstrate that he is Singaporean. And I believe that there is much to be proud of Singapore (if not necessarily being Singaporean).

But as I will later expound upon, that should not be sufficient reason to put on blinkers and say that all is well with the system or even with policies.

However, I did not realise at first that it was more than a ceremony. It was a commitment I was making to the nation to be part of 'one united people, regardless of race, language or religion ... so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation'. There were millions of witnesses, including those who watched the event on television and the Internet.

The words in the Pledge are powerful. And we would do well as a society to remember and live up to them.

I absolutely agree. But from here on, we take very divergent paths with regards to what it means to live up to the pledge.

As Singaporeans, we have all taken the Pledge. It is a solemn undertaking to the nation. If we do not honour it through word and deed, we have broken a serious promise — and shouldn't we always keep the promises we make?

Hopefully with age comes experience and with experience expertise. I don't necessarily disagree with what he says but the phrasing leaves me very cold. Instead what I will say is that the pledge is a powerful statement of alliegence and in particular what forms the basis of an ideal society. I think that the pledge can be amended to included things like non-discrimination of gender, sexual orientation and belief systems but it doesn't detract too much from the idea of an equitable society (I'm conflating equity and equality because there really isn't much conceptual difference between the two that does not become mired in sophistry).

I believe one of the better ways of keeping our promise to the nation is to always treat Singapore as our home. Before we act, we should ask: 'Would we do this to our own home?'

I think analogies are very helpful as long as one is aware of all times of their limitations i.e. in that they are similar but never identical. Unfortunately, very often analogies are used to overly simplify matters and used in lieu of proper analytical reasoning and very often have loads of emotional baggage loaded with it.

But what is the fundamental problem with the analogy? Basically I think it's overly simplistic and the nuance is what's of upmost importance here. Because the moment one sees the problem with the analogy i.e. how a nation and a "home" are intrinsically different, his entire argument collapses.

The use of the home is misleading insofar as one cannot extrapolate infinitely backwards. The most immediate problem is that it leads to impossibilities e.g. one cannot say that given that the 100m run times have consistently fallen that in the future runners would be able to complete it in negative time or even for that matter 1s. Along the same lines, just because we reduce the age limit for any particular act does not necessarily equate to eliminating it for the simple reason that we acknowledge that children do not have the same mental capacity and capabilities that adults do BUT that we acknowledge that they are readily getting this at a much younger and younger age.

Conceptually, we run into the same critique that Tatcher faced with her explaination of why a budget deficit was bad i.e. by comparing it to a home living in debt. The humourous critique was that it was "home economics" with the slightly degoratory associations with the subject. But basically the short answer is that what is right at an individual level may not necessarily be true when we are talking about the aggregation of many many individuals.

Therefore, the important point here to note is that we are living in a democratic society premised on Constitutionalism etc. The home is not predicated on rule by the ruled and that is an intrinsic difference that lies at the heart of the fundamental flaw of the entire argument.

For example, would we disrupt the peace and harmony in our home by inciting another member of our family? Likewise, we should not provoke others with inflammatory comments about their race or religion, knowing that it may lead to bitterness, unrest and disorder. For not keeping to their pledge to the nation, three racist bloggers were punished.

This of course begs the question that peace and harmony are to be prized. That is of course a fair enough assertion in that it is probably self-evident. But the issue is as follows, at what price?

Taking first the inflammatory comments inciting violence, a clear distinction should be drawn between that an the advocacy of violence. Without that distinction, a critique or expression no matter how justified, will always be at the mercy of extremists prone to violence. Thus to silence speech, one simply needs to threaten violence.

And this has severe repecussions on a number of issues. Firstly, it jepodises the political system of resolving issues i.e. instead of debate and the vote, it legitimises violence as a political tool. Secondly, it undermines the rule of law in that there are criminal codes and penal sanctions against mobs and riots for a freaking reason. They want to protest, go ahead, but the moment violence is used, that's when the coercive force of the government should come in.

And lest this be thought to be a "liberal" critique, conservative right wing fundamentalist (okay, massive redundency there, I probably could have simply said fundamentalist) Christians are upset that they are not allow to make what they consider justified comments/attacks on an "abomination unto God" i.e. homosexuals because the government has controlled speech and currently they consider that unwarrented inflamnatory speech.

In short, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

By the same token, I think all pledge-breakers should be punished by law. I can't help feeling livid when I read about Singaporeans joining forces with foreigners in the condemnation and attack of our home. Have they forgotten their pledge?

Heh, I don't recall our pledge saying that we cannot enlist foreign support for criticisms of domestic polities.

Yes, as citizens, we have the right and duty to give constructive criticism in the best interests of our country. But it is a different thing when you say it in a foreign newspaper or support a foreign organisation in criticising your country publicly. If anyone wants to do that, they should relinquish their citizenship. Why should they be allowed to break a solemn pledge with impunity?

Eh? I don't see the difference. Either those foreign organisations have legitimacy or they do not, either those accusations have grounds or they are baseless. In the second bit, whether or not foreign elements are effected becomes irrelevant to the issue and the tossing about of the word "foreign" becomes like a magician's handwaving to keep the audiences eye away from what's happening.

Of the first bit, the implication of his policy is that no international body has the legitimacy to "interfer" in the politics of the domestic government. If so, we can kiss the UN and all other IGOs and NGOs goodbye. One has to wonder whether the writer has thought through this issue or is simply regurgitating the canards pushed by certain elements of our society.

The slogan for this year's National Day Parade is: 'Our global city. Our home.'

I like it because it highlights and reminds all of us of what Singapore is — a home.

By fulfilling the spirit and letter of our Pledge, we can together continue to build a great home. To do that, we need to lead, support or, at least, get out of the way of efforts to make Singapore a better place.

Ra ra Singapore! If this had been in a letter which was more subtle, nuanced and demonstrated the understanding of complex issues better, I would have such great hopes for the future (to be fair, I'm been impressed by the young crop of debaters).

Let me cite the casino issue as an example. The Government came up with the proposal. After studying views from all sides, it has decided to go ahead. Now, it is our duty to support the idea and make it work or, if we are still not happy with it, to accept it as fact and find ways to ensure it turns out well for the country by mitigating any possible social impact.

Absolutely no. The whole point of a democratic society is the ability to effect change through the vote. Something does not simply become right because the government or the current majority of voters says it is so. Issues like women's sufferage and the Civil Rights Movement come to mind here. While I supported the casino, I realise that to opponents of the casino, my arguments does not necessarily rebut theirs nor theirs mine. This is what we mean by a fundamental clash of (differing) values.

But what I find terribly disturbing is the idea that once the government makes a decision it is our duty to support the idea and make it work. Put another way, surely it cannot be our duty to support the implementation of a policy that would render suddenly half our nation as second class citizens.

Sitting on the fence, however, may not the best thing to do. I am for leading or for being part of the team to make Singapore a better home. After all, a home is not about the place. It is about the people.

We still have problems with littering, ungraciousness, dengue-carrying mosquitoes, bullies, animal abusers and more. There are frequent letters and reports of these challenges in the media for us to be concerned. And the root of the problem? Some people just do not care.

They contribute to the problems and make life frustrating for other people sharing the home. They simply fail to see a good home is created by all the people who live in it. I hope that they do not wait until they lose it to appreciate it.

My wish on the 41st birthday of my nation is for all my countrymen and women to unite in building ourselves — and our future generations — a magnificent home. Happy birthday, my homeland!

At least he didn't end with Majulah Singapura! =P

Peace.