rascott.com  "news, views, travel and an occasional blog"

The deadly floods that protect Bangkok

29 October 2006

It took a game of golf to reveal just how the farm lands of Ayutthaya are being used to protect Bangkok from flooding.

The Bangsai golf course has been protected by sand bags and newly built earthen dykes. But all around the course what used to be rice fields are now lakes. It looks beautiful but this water is on people's land and has flooded their homes. In parts the lakes stretch as far as the eyes can see.

My caddy told me that to get to her home she walks through knee deep water. At her home they have had to move upstairs; no one can live on the flooded lower level. There are snakes and scorpions in the water. And presumably some unpleasant bacteria.

The number of sufferers has apparently topped half a million. And irrigation officials warn that floods could worsen with the approach of Typhoon Cimarron late next week. There has been a deliberate policy to allow the over flowing rivers to spill onto the farm lands north of Bangkok; this keeps Bangkok safe.

But the livelihoods of rural people have been washed away. The Ministry of Public Health revealed that more than 574,000 people had been treated for diseases brought on by flooding. Athlete's foot is the most common affliction, followed by rashes, colds and fever.

Health officials at Sena Hospital in Ayutthaya province said they may have to evacuate patients to Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya Hospital if floods worsened. The area around the hospital has been submerged and the hospital management has asked for military trucks from the army to transport patients and visitors.

Facing similar flood problem, Bang Sai Hospital in Ayutthaya is also considering evacuating its patients.

The good news is that Chao Phaya river levels in the north are now falling.

Fishy meetings in Bangkok

27 October 2006

The big news in Bangkok yesterday was of a meeting between Privy Council President General Prem Tinsulanonda and deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's wife, Khunying Pojaman.

Note that she met with King's top advisor, not the acting Prime Minister or the coup leader and head of the CNS.

What was discussed. It is a safe bet that they were negotiating a compromise in the corruption investigation against Thaksin and his cronies.

So much for the credibility of the ongoing process to expose the corruption scandals that took place under Thaksin's watch and to bring the guilty to justice. Mind you they do not appear to making much progress. In the words of coup-maker General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, "what little evidence they might be able to find" to substantiate corruption charges against Thaksin and his cronies.

Prem carries great influence; it is believed that the September 19 military coup to topple Thaksin could not have succeeded without Prem's blessing. The descriptions of the meeting released to the media suggest a repentant Pojaman, resigned to the terrible fate that befell her husband and their family, receiving sage advice from a magnanimous Prem to try and accept the law of karma.

Remember that the alleged large-scale corruption under Thaksin's regime and his attempts to undermine democracy were cited as the main justifications for the overthrow of his government.

So now what happens; do we have transparent corruption investigations that proceed without fear or favour, leading to the successful prosecution of corrupt parties, however well connected they are, or, a behind the scenes deal at the highest level.

The meeting smells fishy and was probably ill advised. The coup-leaders and its supporters should not forget their noble-sounding intentions that justified last month's coup.

Oasis launch flight left high and dry

25 October 2006

Oasis Hong Kong Airlines’ inaugural flight today from Hong Kong to London was delayed due to a last minute hold-up in approval to over-fly Russian airspace. The airline advised that that despite all paperwork being in order and having received all necessary approvals, the Russian authorities, for unexplained reasons, were holding up the over-flight rights.

So much for the best laid plans....more money is presumably the fastest was to persuade the Russians to allow Oasis to launch their UK service. Or it may be that Aeroflot has been negotiating additional rights into Hong Kong.

As at 7pm flight 08 700 is still on the ground in Hong Kong. It was due to depart at 1pm.

Understanding China's support of rogue nations

24 October 2006

China's unwavering support of some of the most deplorable regimes on the planet came into sharp spotlight this month as North Korea tested a nuclear weapon and in doing so said that they really did not care too much for Chinese sensibilities because they remain confident of continuing Chinese support.

Beijing is using all means at its disposal, economic and diplomatic, to protect a host of governments responsible for the world’s worst violations of human rights.

And the obvious question is Why?

Narrow self-interest. Whether it is to secure Sudan’s oil or capture Iran’s gas to offset energy shortfalls and find markets for exports, including arms exports.

In supporting these regimes China is willing to undermine Western sanctions against Burma, block UN resolutions against Sudan, and supply arms. This is a long way from China becoming a responsible member of the league of nations.

What the Chinese leaders are saying is that they  do not care about genocide in Darfur, mass starvation in North Korea or Burma’s persecution of minorities and democrats. Why would they? They have hardly behaved any better themselves, at home or abroad.

But China is hardly honest about its own history. While mobilising its massive population to berate the Japanese for their invasion of East Asia the Chinese ignore their own internal history and overseas their occupation of Tibet, attacks on India, Burma and Vietnam, the creation of Pol Pot’s Cambodia and support of insurgencies across South-East Asia and Africa.

While the media and internet remain under tight control and text books are issued that so distort history then people in China will understand too little of their own past and care even less about what their government might be doing to perpetuate misery in far off places like Burma and Sudan.

This is a precis of an article first published in AsiaSentinel in August which may be read here.

FEER vs Singapore; let battle commence

24 October 2006

The battle between Singapore Inc and the Dow Jones Company continues. As reported earlier in the month The Far Eastern Economic Review has been under siege from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, for printing the views of opposition leader Chee Soon Juan.

The FEER has fought back with an October edition that has most of its 80 pages providing a strong criticism of Singapore.

It is a bit of a David and Goliath story. Singapore is battling a monthly magazine that has only three full time journalists and had only 1,000 subscribers in Singapore when it was banned.

In the October edition the FEER tackles some of Singapore's most taboo subjects; race, language, religion and culture while acknowledging that there is much to admire in Singapore's development under the PAP.

The centrepiece of the Review’s October issue is a 2,000-word letter from editor Hugo Restall, giving the magazine’s side of the dispute. To emphasize its importance, Review editors held a Hong Kong press conference, accompanied by Paul Gigot, editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, which is owned, as is FEER, by Dow Jones Co. Gigot flew in from New York for the occasion, ostensibly to announce a new magazine feature, “the barometer of Asian Development.”

The Lees filed suit against the magazine in September in a Singapore court, alleging they had been defamed by the Chee interview, which appeared in FEER’s July-August issue and contained statements like these:

“Former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, the man many believe still runs Singapore and who is the current prime minister’s father…” and “While many Singaporeans don’t particularly like the People’s Action Party’s arrogant style of government, the ruling party has succeeded in depoliticizing the population to the extent that anybody who presses them with an action to make change is regarded with resentment.”

The article flatly stated that Chee lost his job as a psychology lecturer at the national university “in a climate of fear” for entering opposition politics. It questioned whether the government deserves its “squeaky-clean” reputation in the wake of a scandal that veered uncomfortably close to the wife of former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and asked whether libel suits are used by to suppress dissent.

After the article ran, the Singapore Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts slapped new conditions on four foreign publications requiring them to post a S$200,000 bond to cover damages from lawsuits and ordering them to appoint an agent in Singapore to accept lawsuits if they wished to continue circulating in the city-state.

In his lengthy response, Restall said the order “had no basis in Singapore’s own law.”  He added that “With Singaporean efficiency, the government bureaucracy leapt into action on the Lees’ behalf, imposing conditions with retroactive effect in order to force the magazine to put its head on the block for the Lees to chop off.  When the Review refused to comply with these conditions, the Lees proceeded with their lawsuits anyway.  This episode tells us much about the use of official power to chill free speech in Singapore.”

The FEER's response has been strong; in part because the journal has no staff or assets in Singapore. The FEER is published from the apparent saftey of Hong Kong.

Some reports have indicated that the Singaporean courts might ask the Hong Kong courts, under a reciprocal treaty, to enforce what appears almost certain to be a verdict in favor of the Lees. Now that will be interesting.

The end of the Thai visa run

24 October 2006

This article by  David Fulbrook in the AsiaSentinel is the most sensible and detailed explanation of the new visa rules that I have seen.

Jay thought that his life as an English teacher in Bangkok was set. There were few hassles with authority, other than traveling off to the Cambodia border once a month to pick up a new Thai entry stamp for his passport.
 

Now Jay may have to change his lifestyle dramatically. He has stopped decorating his apartment and is unlikely to buy any more furniture, after new immigration regulations upended what he and thousands of other foreigners had taken for granted -- that the monthly “visa-run” could keep them in Thailand indefinitely.

Agencies, which bought plush buses and minivans for visa-run packages sold to people like Jay, are bracing for a sharp drop in business over the coming months. “The customer, which is the basis of the business, is gone or they will find another way to stay in Thailand. I think every company will have to cut down from two buses a day to one a day or one every other day,” says Claudio Mattioli, operator of Sawasdee Transport in Bangkok.

New immigration rules are intended to stop people like Jay using border stamps and tourist visas to live and work here, ending so-called grey migration, mostly from developed countries, and turfing out a growing criminal fraternity. While the aims are laudable, the dragnet might prove to be an own goal for the economy. Legitimate small businesses are more easily drawn to the rational structure in Singapore while neighboring Cambodia is happy to grant multiple entry business visas to anybody with $25. The legions of itinerant – but solvent – long term visitors in Thailand could soon be packing up.

In September, after three years of thinking it over, the immigration department announced that from October it would only allow foreigners without visas to visit for no more than a cumulative three months in any six month period. Airlines risk fines if passengers without confirmed return tickets are denied entry at immigration because their three month allowance is up.

Immigration officers are directing those who have used up their three months to apply for visas at a Thai embassy. Passports full of visa exemption stamps and a handful of tourist visas may not fair well though. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which determines visa policy, has advised its consuls to use more discretion when considering tourist visa applications.

Living and working on 30-day stamps and tourist visas has been feasible because changes in policy and technology coincided more than a decade ago. In 1995, to encourage longer stays by package tourists, the immigration department doubled the stay without a visa from 15 to 30 days. The result was a tourism boom just as the regional financial crisis was savaging everything else in 1997.

Around that time Cambodia opened its borders with Thailand to international travelers. A few bright sparks in Thailand soon realized they could, in a day, trip to the border, hop into Cambodia and then back to Thailand with a a new 30-day visa exemption stamp. The infamous visa run was born. For some who could not pass muster with the existing tight immigrant visa and employment permit regime -- like many English teachers, NGO workers, and freelance consultants -- it was more convenient than going to a Thai embassy to apply for a proper visa, which could be refused.

When the baht plummeted in 1997, Thailand become even more attractive. That same year public Internet started to appear. A few years later mobile phone prices finally dropped and not long after, the cost of international calls began to fall precipitously too. So in just a few years Thailand became a much more practical place to live affordably or set up shop for knowledge workers, consultants, and traders. Unfortunately, scamsters also arrived, such as hustlers selling dud stocks through “boiler room” operations to naïve people around the world.

Just how many people live and work here using 30-day stamps is hard to say, but with at least a dozen agencies now operating daily visa run tours, plus those taking public or casino buses, 30,000-50,000 seems a reasonable figure. Most of these are not dead beats. They likely spend at least a $1,000 per month, many considerably more, on rent, meals, laundry, taxis, drinks, shopping or golf. Pull up a seat in a beer bar in Pattaya or Bangkok and pry a foreign resident’s attention from his drink and a bar girl and there’s a good chance he’s here indefinitely on a tourist visa, probably working or whiling away his retirement looking for love. And that costs money. 

The trouble with this large and growing foreign community is that it is undocumented. Tax collectors fret about tax evasion. Police are dealing with more crime by foreigners, especially drug trafficking, sex work, financial scams, and human trafficking.  Cases have also come to light of travel agents couriering passports to the border for immigration stamps while the owners stay at home. Some agents simply cut even that expense, using fake stamps to validate passports in their offices.

Foreign embassies, meanwhile, have complained about the criminal element, warning about terrorism, particularly after bombing in Bali in October 2002. Some doubtless felt a little schadenfraude when in August 2003 the CIA and Thai police, earning a $10 million bounty, nabbed alleged Indonesian terrorist mastermind Hambali in Ayutthaya, where he was apparently plotting to bomb the APEC leaders’ meeting in Bangkok the following October.

Hambali’s arrest was a wake up call. Passport couriering was an embarrassment, not to mention illegal. Immigration officers were under pressure to sharpen their eyes, more so because of increasing violence in Malay-Muslim majority southern Thailand. There was plenty of material for painting conspiracies and drawing up threats.

In March 2004 Thailand signed up to the US terrorist interdiction program, which spent about $2.6 million installing the Personal Identification Secure Comparison and Evaluation System (Pisces) in the immigration department. A request for $400,000 to expand Pisces further in Thailand was made in the Fiscal Year 2007 Congressional budget justification for foreign operations.

Pisces was developed to give advanced warning of suspects planning to travel to America by matching a traveler’s data against watch lists compiled from various police and intelligence sources. About two dozen, mostly developing, countries have signed up for Pisces, including Cambodia. Critics accuse US intelligence agencies of using Pisces to track suspects not planning to visit America and Pisces could also allow immigration officers to discover the real identities of asylum seekers, real or bogus, who destroy their passports and other identifying documents in flight.

Cracking down on abuse of visa exemption stamps and tourist visas also comes as bureaucrats are challenging the legality of foreigners using nominees to get around company ownership limits. That was triggered when Temasek, the Singaporean government investment fund, spent $1.7 billion to buy the Shin Corp telecommunications empire from the family of deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, provoking a popular uproar over foreigners controlling a strategic national asset.

Usually foreigners can own no more than 49 percent of a company’s shares, the rest must be held by Thais, an inconvenience dealt with by some legal hocus pocus. Indeed, such limits seem hard to justify when Cambodia, China and Vietnam allow foreigners to fully own local companies in most sectors. Legally, setting up a company is the only option for self-employed foreigners here, such as footloose consultants. It remains to be seen how the Temasek flap might effect those at the lower end of corporate sleight of hand in Thailand. In Singapore, by contrast, people with a track record and a simple, coherent business plan can apply for the EntrePass work permit. Set-up costs are low and sole trader company registration applications take weeks not months.

Meanwhile, people like Jay, who at least works for a legitimate school, stands a good chance of landing a work visa if their employers stands by them. For everybody else, exit beckons, quite probably to easygoing Cambodia, which issues one-year multiple-entry business visas at the airport for $25.

That may be well and good for keeping out a few bad eggs like soccer hooligans who have been known to vacation in Pattaya for months on end to evade charges in Europe but Thailand’s immigration and company ownership practices are more suited to the analogue world of the 1970s than the 21st century. They are time consuming, paperwork laden and open to endless opportunities for petty graft. While they are not going to sink foreign investment, neither are they an enticement.

And shifting immigration and visa regimes may cause Thailand to lose a significant amount of spending by people who are not criminals and would happily pay taxes if the visa regime clicked with the global economy. That’s bad news for Thais, but clearly good news for Cambodians and Singaporeans.
 

The curious case of the missing assets

23 October 2006

The assets of ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's family were worth 12.65 billion baht (US$339 million; €268 million) as of March 2006, according to the country's anti-corruption agency, a figure that critics denounced as a fraction of the wealth he has allegedly stashed away in secret accounts.

This figure is particularly surprising given his family's sale of Shin Corporation to Temasek in January for approx US$1.9 million.

The National Counter Corruption Commission's long-awaited public release of Thaksin's officially declared assets comes a month after a military coup ousted him from office.

The ex-premier, one of Southeast Asia's richest men before taking office in 2001, was widely accused of corruption and crafting policy to enrich himself and his friends.

Critics denounced the official figures as misleading and inaccurate, saying Thaksin transferred large sums of money and stock holdings to relatives and others close to him, including his maid and driver. Much of his money is also believed to be held in offshore accounts in tax havens like the British Virgin Islands.

U.S. magazine Forbes ranked Thaksin the 18th richest man in Southeast Asia in 2005 with a fortune worth US$1.3 billion, a figure that opponents believe is a more accurate indicator of his wealth.

The Democrat Party argue that this is consistent with Thaksin's previous declarations; that some assets have not been declared but are either under his control or under his ownership.

Thaksin and his family had declared assets of 15.12 billion baht (US$406 million, €321 million) when he took office in 2001.

The 216-page report released Friday said the value of his family's bank accounts, properties and other assets totaled 12.65 billion baht (US$339 million; €268 million) in March.

The disclosures detailed stock ownership, luxury cars, houses and even extravagant jewelry worth millions.

In 2001, Thaksin's wife Pojamarn declared diamond-studded watches, a champagne diamond necklace and 96 other pieces of jewelry worth a total of 276 million baht (US$7.4 million; €5.9 million). One emerald necklace alone was listed as 20 million baht (US$535,500; €424,800).

One of Thaksin's highest-profile, and most criticized, deals was his family's sale of the telecom empire, Shin Corp., for a tax-free US$1.9 billion (€1.6 billion), earlier this year.

The gains of that sale did not register in the asset disclosure because Thaksin and his wife had transferred their ownership in Shin to their two older children, who are over the age of 20, and Thaksin's brother-in-law Banpot Damapong — none of whom are required to report their assets to the NCCC.

According to Thai law, senior government officials are required to declare their assets, along with those of their spouses and children under the age of 20, to the NCCC when they start and finish their terms in office.

BKK airport - a pilot's view

23 October 2006

On one of my favourite websites a 777 captain from a very well known Middle Eastern airline had this to say about Bangkok's new airport after visiting twice last week.

Arrivals

We then taxied to the gate and looked at the new airport with a little more time for it. What an impressive sight! Some architects probably made their childhood science fiction dreams come true.

I was really curious to see what the airport's like on the inside. But, alas, I was so disappointed. Cold steel and concrete everywhere. No personal or human touch to it, designed purely for the tech aspects of it and nothing to make it welcoming to people. Modern, yes, impressive, yes, but so cold in atmosphere. Like a gigantic clean factory. On the way out I saw no seating possibilities whatsoever except at the counter for visa applications. No chairs (yet?) and only tiled floor. Once through immigration and customs (the baggage belts are state of the art and there's enough space to handle luggage) I couldn't believe my eyes. Literally the same chaos as at the old airport. You get out into a small area with heaps of people waiting for the arrivals, more or less blocking the way out. Outside the traffic was piling up again and at least 3 lanes of cars and buses waited for the passengers to be picked up. Hopefully you never get stuck in the first lane, it might take you quite a while to get out again. What a shame, such a new airport and such an unfriendly design and pretty bad concepts for handling arrivals and arriving transit passengers. Honestly, I hope they will do something about that atmosphere. Fortunately the architecture is not the only contributing factor in that so what's done inside matters a lot, too. Perhaps I was only looking at teething problems.

Departures

From a departing passenger's point of view I would say it's probably a lot better than the old airport. But I leave that to the actual passengers to judge, for us there is not too much difference in terms of procedures or what we have to do. Once again the architecture really does strike the eye, it's impressive and big.

The bad part came when having passed immigration. Duty free shops look nice, yup, but I was looking for seats, places where passengers can rest, where families can kill time before the flight or in between. Meanwhile I can only hope that it just cannot be the case that there is no such thing and that resting areas and seating possibilities must be hidden from view somewhere and away from the noise and hectic of the shopping areas. I just wasn't able to spot them (neither on my 2nd time around that I had been there meanwhile). Please you travelers, tell me that's not the case and that there are places for rest and quietness! Otherwise the people designing it should be electrocuted on the spot.

Once you clear security there's, well, nothing. No shops, no coffee bars. The first seats you can find are at the gate. They're made of metal, probably against the naughty kids that otherwise play trampoline on them? No cushioning, no fabric on them whatsoever. Perhaps they have heard my wishes and have prepared them to be hooked up to electricity to give waiting passengers little shocks when it's boarding time to accelerate the whole process? No, honestly, I can see why they did it, to save money in the long term because they will not turn dirty so quickly, won't need a cushion replacement or whatever. But I think it is the most unwelcoming atmosphere I have seen in any rather new airport that I know. I guess the word "charme" or ambience is not part of the vocabulary of those designers responsible for it. I feel sorry for the people working there, I consider it not to be a nice working environment.

All right, all right, that shall be the last remark I made about the airport. You BKK guys please don't curse me for it, it's just a view from an individual. Doesn't reserve the right to be the truth about it and there certainly is nothing personally insulting about it either.

Departing for the second time:

The check-in area was packed with people. This time of the day is probably one of the busiest in BKK, There are heaps of aircraft and travelers and they're heading to all over the planet. Especially the flights to Europe and generally to the west are plentiful and easily fill up these wide body aircraft. On the way to our plane I unfortunately took the wrong way and ended up walking forever before I got to the gate. So if you go to BKK in the future make sure you look at the signs and don't go the wrong way. It may take you to the other side of the world, it appears so big. On the way there I saw a Thai 747 going to Paris and next to it some other trip of which I can't remember where it went. What I do remember is the heaps of people sleeping and lying down on the tiled floor because there were no seats available for them except directly at the gate and they were all taken. It wasn't a pleasant sight, more of a train station in some dodgy city where people end up without wanting to be there.

Luckily I could hold on to a cup of coffee which unfortunately was the worst I probably ever had. The nice part about it was that I could hold something warm in my hands, it made me feel a bit more comfortable. The way the staff at this coffee shop made it and handled the whole process of making it and how long it took them makes me assume that they just started in that shop and had no clue about what the different coffee types are. That really surprised me since I assumed that they would take trained people for an airport like that. Well anyway, I didn't drink it in the end but the cookies were good!

His full report can be read here. It is a great read for anyone interested in flying or in bad weather !

Sadly he sums up the new Bangkok airport so well. Departures are OK; but you would not want to be delayed. There are few places to sit. There are some coffee bars and restaurants now open. Their prices are criminal compared to downtown Bangkok. Add a premium of about 40% over prices in the city.

The seats that are at the departure gates are metal. Metal surrounded by concrete. Water fountains still do not work; washrooms are a mess; and air conditioning is very inconsistent.

Arrivals. It can be a long haul to immigration and you still have to navigate through encroaching duty free shops. Immigration and baggage facilities are good. It is the arrivals, meet and greet and transportation areas that remain third world.

Hong Kong's exchange powers ahead

22 October 2006

One symbol of the changes that have taken place in Hong Kong since 1997 is the rise of Hong Kong's stock exchange which is the listing venue of choice for Chinese companies to tap global institutional and private investors.

This week it was announced that the Hong Kong stock exchange is set to become the first Asian exchange since 1986 to raise more cash from initial public offerings than its rivals in New York and London.

Twenty years ago Tokyo topped the global league tables for IPOs with a single $13.7 billion flotation of Nippon Telegraph and Telephone, according to Thomson Financial, the data provider. After the record flotation next week of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, the HKSE will compete with the London Stock Exchange for top spot.

About $32.2 billion (£17.1 billion) has been raised on the LSE this year. But the HKSE is likely to pull ahead in the coming months with flotations that include China Communications Construction Group, which is expected to raise $1.5 to $2.5 billion.

This year's banner performance for Hong Kong reflects to a considerable extent the initial public offering last week for Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, which raised some US$16 billion in Hong Kong and up to US$6 billion in Shanghai. Add in Bank of China's $10 billion initial public offering in June, and just two deals account for more than half of Hong Kong's volume this year.

China is hot; and while there will not be mega deals next year initial public offerings should be seen for Chinese companies involved in consumer goods, power, insurance, diversified industrial activities, mining, steel, real estate, retailing, telecommunications and transportation.

With the exception of Chinese technology companies listing on Nasdaq, so as to be traded on the same market as many comparable companies from around the world, most Chinese companies have preferred to stay closer to home with listings in Hong Kong or occasionally Shanghai. Some investment bankers attribute that strategy to Chinese wariness of the Sarbanes-Oxley requirements on corporate governance in the United States.

But others say Chinese companies are not venturing to New York or London in appreciable numbers simply because the world's financiers are coming to Asia instead - and bringing their wallets with them.

Clearly China's largest bank, ICBC, was able to access the capital markets without resorting to an overseas listing. And Hong Kong remains the way into China.

Trying to balance growth and identity in Dubai

20 October 2006

From the New York Times

UBAI, United Arab Emirates South Asians call it "the best-run Indian city," Arabs celebrate it as a model of Arab accomplishment, and Westerners have embraced it for its endless sunshine and luxury lifestyle.

With more than 150 nationalities and almost as many expressions of culture, Dubai is one of the most diverse cities in the Middle East. But after decades of selling dreams to foreigners, this Gulf emirate has begun debating the limits of multiculturalism.

Tensions burst into the open in early October when an English-language newspaper published an article decrying the growing disrespect for Muslim customs here during the holy month of Ramadan, setting off a rare public debate about Dubai's cultural identity.

"Too much flesh on show is wrong in a Muslim country at any time - but offense is being felt especially during Ramadan," said the front-page editorial in 7Days, a free daily tabloid.

The article included photographs of women walking in sleeveless tops and shorts at a shopping mall under the headline "Show Some Respect." 7Days, which is run and edited largely by Westerners, advised its readers to "please remember that this is a Muslim country and many of us are guests here."

Within hours, the newspaper was flooded with e-mails and phone calls, many praising the paper for acknowledging the sensitivities of Muslims but many others lambasting it for seeming to toe an official line.

Soon the entire emirate was talking.

"We fear that the expatriate is going to impose his culture on us," said Maya Rashid Ghadeer, a columnist with the daily Al Bayan in Dubai, who writes about the local community. "Most locals are afraid that they are losing their basic identity forever."

For decades the emirate, part of the federation of seven principalities that make up the United Arab Emirates, sought to broaden its economy by welcoming foreigners and their investment dollars, turning itself into a shipping hub, a regional business hub and, more recently, a tourist hub with luxury hotels and resorts.

The city's openness has helped produce dramatic economic growth and development, with wide swaths under construction and more projects in the works. The boom has brought big-city problems like inflation, rising crime, higher divorce rates and traffic.

But beyond that, it has taken a toll on local culture as many young Emaratis have begun looking abroad, abandoning many traditions and even marrying foreigners. With only about 200,000 local citizens, the demographics are daunting, said Abdulkhaliq Abdallah, a professor of political science at United Arab Emirates University.

"Usually minorities assimilate into the majority," Abdallah said. "But we don't want to assimilate into the majority. We want to preserve the localness, the Emaratiness of this city."

At the same time, Dubai is famous for offering a kind of Disneyland fantasy to its tourists. In December, luxury resort hotels have large Christmas trees, and it can be hard to orient oneself. Many outsiders say that is what makes Dubai stand out in the region, and that the reaction to the article on Muslim modesty involved some pushing back.

"Hello, this is 2006, not 1666," wrote one critical reader, who demanded to know what was wrong with the clothing styles. "Does Dubai want to move forward in time where women are no longer regarded as second-class citizens?"

Dubai has implemented strict rules about public behavior - a man and woman kissing in public can be arrested; it is an offense to dress inappropriately during Ramadan; and altercations with locals can land expatriates in detention.

But with millions of tourists passing through here, few of the laws are actually implemented. Ramadan, which ends this weekend, is a month when Muslims fast during daylight as part of what is supposed to be an intense focus on spirituality, then eat at night. This Ramadan, however, stores stayed open throughout the day, rather than closing during the afternoon, and many restaurants continued to serve during fasting hours. Locals and expatriate Muslims have continued to complain of a lack of Ramadan spirit compared with previous years.

"This is still a salad platter with a tomato and cucumber that don't mix," Abdallah said, stressing that Dubai could never be a melting pot because foreigners are ineligible for citizenship. "It is a massive experiment in social tolerance, and it should be promoted as such. But being tolerant should not come at the expense of the local and national identity."

At least part of the tensions stem from the deep cultural divide here. For the most part, locals tend to live apart from expatriates and rarely interact socially with them.

As in many Gulf states, Dubai's ethnic groups also exist in clearly defined socioeconomic stratifications - locals are typically owners, Westerners earn the top salaries, and south Asians generally do the menial labor.

"Here you don't taste the cultural food and you don't have a chance to wear the clothes, because there is no mandate to do so," said Rima Sabban, a sociologist at Emirates University. "There is nothing for you to do; there is no one culture for you to learn. The model that nationals have provided is that it's OK to stay close to your community."

Seizing on that division, the Sheikh Muhammed Center for Cultural Understanding, financed by Dubai's ruler, Sheik Muhammed Al Maktoum, has invited expatriates to locals' homes for dinner and organized tours and meals throughout the city. Inside a local shopping mall this month, Khulood al Atiyat and several other college students have manned a booth inviting shoppers to meet and speak with an Emarati.

"This is a place where they can come and talk to us and ask questions," Atiyat said.

"We are proud of who we are, and we intend to stick to who we are."

Star Bores

19 October 2006

The US President, GW Bush, has put its claim on the final frontier. In a major change to US space policy Bush's government this week claimed America's right to deny access to space to any adversary hostile to US interests.

The new policy outlines the importance of space to the national interest, saying its domination is as crucial to America's defences as air or sea power.

The order also opposes the establishment of arms control treaties that would restrict US access to space, or set limits on its use of space. It calls for the development of space capabilities to support US intelligence and defence initiatives. Presumably this is all good news for the US defence industry.

Bizarrely the US asserts the right to deny access to space to anyone “hostile to US interests”, although it gives no basis for that right. It also rejects arms control talks that would limit future US actions in space. By seeking to limit his adversaries from access to space Bush may be encouraging its very weaponisation.

In recent years some nations have called for talks to ban the deployment of weapons in space. Currently the deployment of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction are prohibited by the 1967 United Nations Outer Space Treaty.

When proposals to ban the weaponisation of space have been put forward at the UN, the United States has routinely abstained. But last October the US voted against a UN resolution calling for the banning of weapons in space.

Likewise, the US has repeatedly resisted efforts to hold negotiations on the issue of banning the placement in weapons by the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament.

In reality the US has the most to lose if there is an arms race in outer space in the long run. If the US puts weapons in space other countries will respond in some way.

A spokesman for the White House's National Security Council said in a statement that the policy was needed to "reflect the fact that space has become an even more important component of US economic, national and homeland security."

It all reads like something from a Bond movie. Indeed in the more recent Bond movies the threat has not come from other nations. The threat is not China or Russia. It is rogue individuals, usually incredibly well financed. Bush may be looking for real or potential enemies in all the wrong places.

Meanwhile if you want a close up of Mars NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is sending spectacular pictures which you can see on this site.

300 million Americans

17 October 2006

At some time later today the population of the USA will reach 300 million. The U.S. Census Bureau has announced that the nation's population will reach 300 million at about 7:46 a.m. on Tuesday.

But don't expect the bureau to identify the 300 millionth American, and don't think that person will necessarily be a newborn baby.

The population estimate — which can be seen on a virtual population clock ticker at http://www.census.gov — is based on an algorithm that takes into account birth rates, death rates and rates of international migration.

"There's no way we can say it's a baby," said Stephen Buckner, a bureau spokesman.

The estimate assumes that, on average, an American is born every seven seconds, one dies every 13 seconds and the nation gains an immigrant every 31 seconds.

The result is an increase in total population of one person every 11 seconds — be it a baby or an immigrant.

It is less than forty years ago that the US population hit 200 million in 1967.

At that time, Lyndon Johnson was president, a gallon of gas cost 33 cents, Dr. Christiaan Bernard performed the first heart transplant and Americans were mesmerized by colour TV.  At that time Robert Ken Woo, an Atlanta lawyer, was anointed by Life magazine as the 200 millionth American, a symbol of the new multi-cultural America.

The estimate is that the population will reach 400 million in the year 2043 such is the rate of population growth in the US. As America adds 100 million people over the next four decades, Japan and the European Union countries are expected to lose almost 15 million.

For Americans it is unclear if this is a day for celebration or consternation. What is does show is that the lure of the promised land is as attractive to 21st century immigrants as it was to 19th century immigrants. Through the 19th and most of the 20th centuries US immigration was mainly from Europe; initially British and Irish settlers and then middle Europeans. Then there was the Asian influx; and more recently large numbers of Hispanics, in particular across the porous Mexican border.

Rather than seeing a vibrant, growing nation, a variety of anti-immigration groups see one that is growing too fast, getting too crowded or speaking too much Spanish. This growth, they argue, is leading to a decline in the quality of life as schools and roads become overcrowded and once close-knit communities change their complexion almost overnight. Environmental groups echo some of those concerns and add others as more and more open space is paved over.

Illegal immigration is an issue; but immigration itself is a necessity to provide the work force for an ageing America. People worry about over crowding. But the population density is one eight that of the United Kingdom.

But the US are massive consumers of food and energy. They create more waste than any other nation and they produce more carbon dioxide. And of course the US sets consumption standards that developing nations aspire to; the US are in no hurry to embrace environmental issues; so there is little pressure on China, India, Indonesia and Russia to manage their growth, consumption and waste.

But the USA remains a great nation and a magnet for many who see the opportunities brought about my an open economy and a society that embraces achievement.

A balanced fight is the holy grail

The Daily Telegraph - 16 October 2006 -

By Tony Francis 
 

Some things don't add up. Caviar; Cleethorpes; Graham Norton. What is the point? Others just make you smile. Women who shove chips through school railings; train journeys on Sunday; Brian Barwick. But if there's one thing we have to sort out, it's the Premiership. When will we stop pretending that Watford's accumulation of cast-offs from Gillingham and Bristol Rovers belong in the same solar system as Arsenal?

That legend of football essayists, Brian Glanville, did his diplomatic best on Saturday by suggesting to Adrian Boothroyd that "our" goalkeeper might be ready for England but as brilliant as he was, Ben Foster had three goals thumped past him (it could easily have been six) and he's owned by Manchester United anyway. On the basis that he'd be leaning against a goal post playing Sudoku if he had Rio and the boys for protection, I guess Foster's better off with us.

Back to my point. The Premiership is a farce. Arsene Wenger knows it; Gary Lineker knows it; the entire population of China must have twigged by now. Four clubs sign the best players, therefore four clubs alone contest the domestic title; four clubs play in the Champions League, get richer still and buy the next crop of talent. It's self-perpetuating. Meanwhile, the rest of us cling to that famous scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail in which a duellist, shorn of his limbs and body, passes it off as a flesh wound while challenging his fully-armed opponent to fight on. That's how it felt at the Emirates Stadium. When Robin van Persie began warming up with Arsenal already out of sight, I wondered for a split second whether he might come on for Marlon King to give Watford a break. Wenger's a decent sort and I'm sure Van Persie wouldn't have minded. Come to that, Wenger might as well let us borrow Theo Walcott instead of trying to convince a World Cup squad member that it is in his best interests to spectate.

So what's the solution? Do we maintain this charade about "the best league in the world" or do we insist that Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester United and Liverpool disappear into a new league called Europe North before it's too late? There is a third way. Oblige privatised utilities, supermarket chains and telecommunications giants to absorb the rest of the division. Wal-Mart Watford has a ring to it. Who could object to Friends West Ham Reunited? I'm only half-joking. The Great English Saturday Afternoon is in jeopardy.

To his eternal credit, Boothroyd remains unfazed by the most lopsided industry ever to escape the attention of the Monopolies Commission. He even managed to "take some positives" from a match which exposed Watford's frailty as much as we feared it might but hoped it wouldn't. Apart from playing Thierry Henry back into form, I'm not certain what they are. Watford's offensive contribution, condensed into 45 seconds, looked reasonably menacing. However, stretched over 93 minutes, our efforts were puny as Fabregas, Rosicky and Henry played three-dimensional chess at speed. You get the feeling Arsenal are having too much fun creating geometric shapes to bother about putting the ball in the net. That's the easy bit.

Even Hornets fans concede it was a joy to watch, though none of us have dared to admit that promotion may be nothing more than an opportunity to tick off exciting new locations before we go back to Luton and Burnley. We desperately want Aidy to build a dynasty at Vicarage Road and to believe that a vibrant youth culture can stand toe-to-toe with unimaginable wealth. We want Bolton and Charlton to be solid role models but we know deep down that these are brittle empires. When you consider that Boothroyd has had one full season in football management, the idea that he should be standing in a technical area next to Wenger, let alone congratulating him on a triumphant 10-year reign at Arsenal, is almost surreal.

Aidy could probably name every player Wenger has signed. He's like that. You might not believe this but our leader calculated to the last kilometre every journey made by Arsenal players during a week of international qualifiers in Europe and Africa. I threw a few names at him for good measure: "Toure?" "Ivory Coast — a 19-hour return trip." "Hleb?" "Bucharest on Saturday, Minsk on Wednesday." "Ok, what about Lehman?" "Bratislava." He explained: "It's an essential part of my planning. If I'm doing my job properly I'm expected to know these things." Little did he realise that Wenger had been tracking the Watford contingent in similar fashion. He was well aware that King commutes every day from Peckham, that Ashley Young nipped out to Blockbuster in Stevenage three times in a fortnight and that Lloyd Doyley has a penchant for Bluewater. Wenger is also confident that Watford will avoid relegation.

He wouldn't tell us how.

Who would be a goalkeeper?

16 October 2006

It is a fair question after two nasty challenges resulted in both Chelsea goalkeepers being taken to hospital after Chelsea's visit to Reading on Saturday.

Reading are not a dirty team; but they are out to prove something. But there has to be something wrong with a game where both goalkeepers, Petr Cech and Carlo Cudicini seem fortunate to have escaped with their lives after suffering  head injuries in the same match.

Chelsea keeper Cech could be out for the season with a depressed fracture of the skull following a challenge by Reading’s Stephen Hunt on Saturday.

And Cech’s back-up Cudicini was warned he could risk his life if he rushes his return after being laid out by Ibrahima Sonko and swallowing his tongue during the Blues’ 1-0 win.

Czech international Cech underwent emergency surgery yesterday and is unlikely to play again this season after being caught on the side of the head by Hunt’s knee with just 15 seconds played at the Madejski Stadium.

Although he was conscious immediately after the challenge, his condition deteriorated in the visitors’ dressing room as further tests were carried out.

As worried medics waited for an ambulance, Cech collapsed and lost consciousness.

He was joined at the Royal Berkshire Hospital by Cudicini, the victim of a thunderous mid-air collision with powerhouse defender Sonko.

The Italian stopper had already swallowed his tongue and was turning purple by the time chief medical officer Bryan English reached him.

Luckily, English was able to release Cudicini’s tongue by manipulation of the player’s jaw before he was rushed to hospital in a neck brace.

Referee Mike Riley did not even award a free-kick for Sonko’s challenge and Cudicini was lying unconscious in the goalmouth when Didier Drogba cleared off the line.

There are many analysts (usually old centre forwards) who argue that goalkeepers are over protected. This is nonsense. The game has become significantly quicker and the players massively fitter, bigger and stronger. The Sonko challenge looked awful. He appeared to have no intent to play the ball and simply launched himself at the goalkeeper.

The Hunt challenge on Cech was  one where the player could have jumped knowing that it was the keeper's ball. The Chelsea management believe that Hunt, who was making his first Premiership start for Reading and was once sent off as a Brentford player for a two-footed lunge on an opponent, dropped his right knee towards Cech before the two men collided.

Mourinho was convinced of it, even if he agreed that Hunt would not have intended to injure Cech to such an extent. It was at a minimum the challenge of someone making his first team debut for the season. Hunt did not know the pace of the game and was clearly seeking to make an impression. It was probably clumsy rather than malicious. But clumsy challenges have been red-carded before and this one should have been.

Chelsea have, for once, every right to feel aggrieved and very right to expect better from the match officials. The return game at Stamford Bridge later in the year may well see some retribution.

Chelsea will urge the FA not to hide behind FIFA regulations by concluding that, because referee Mike Riley gave a free-kick for the challenge, no more action should be taken. Bizarrely, given how serious the injury is, referee Riley asked Cech to crawl off the pitch to receive treatment.

Thaksin - a failure?

15 October 2006

With the Thai government alleging that ex Prime Minister Thaksin has been calling the new government and asking when he may return to Thailand it was suggested to me that Thaksin must be a rather embarrassed to now be such a failure.

It is strange how Thai public perception of their recent PM has changed so quickly and the obsequious media must take a lot of responsibility.

Thaksin was a phenomenally popular three times elected Prime Minister. He built Shin Corporation from nothing to a company that could be sold to Temasek of Singapore for nearly US$2 billion.

He gave Thais a sense of national pride and belief that had been kicked out of them under the IMF regime that followed the 1997 financial melt down. He put Thailand back on the world stage; even schemes such as a proposal to buy Liverpool FC may have sounded a little preposterous but were all a part of this new found confidence.

Sure he took massive advantage of his position; but as far as anyone has been able to show he did this within the then laws, maybe by having supportive colleagues who could help bend those laws.

But to suggest that Thaksin should be embarrassed by his failure is to ignore all that he achieved. He modernised Thailand in many ways. The new ancient regime will hold Thailand back before it can move forward.

Government proposes booze ad ban

13 October 2006

It is hard to determine the priorities of the current government. Is it to prosecute Thaksin and his cronies; is it to establish foreign confidence in Thailand; is it to reassure a doubting public that the military are ready to move towards an open democracy. Or is to to carry on the Thaksin regime's battle against soft targets.

By the end of October the Public Health Ministry proposes to impose a blanket ban on ads and public promotions of alcoholic beverages. The proposed ban covers TV, radio and print advertising. It will also bring to an end one of the more entertaining sights in Thailand; the beer garden girls adorned in dresses and outfits promoting different brands. For many young Thai students this has always been a good source of part time employment. This may now change.

The proposed ban is as follows.

Alcohol displays will be totally banned at convenience stores, shopping malls, restaurants and public places such as sports complexes. The ban covers sales promotions and giveaways at the point of purchase as well as posters, signs and promotional materials.

At beer gardens located in public places staff are not allowed to wear uniforms with logos of alcohol brands. The government is also considering bans on alcohol brand logos on chairs, tables, umbrellas, balloons etc,

Pubs, bars and nightclubs that are registered with the Interior Ministry as entertainment venues are not covered by this legislation.

Tag Board woes

13 October 2006

Here's what happened to my tag board according to the host site.....

Equal opportunity employment

11 October 2006

This is an English translation (with due credit to Steve's Weblog) of an article in Bangkok Today from earlier in the summer. And it really is a very Thai story about following your dreams! While Thailand as a country is in many ways remarkably tolerant of different sexual identities it is hard to the third sex, as Thai ladyboys are known, to be employed in regular work. Full marks to PB Air, who enjoyed a little extra publicity as well.

This is the translated article:

“Sawatdee Ka, Good morning ladies and gentlemen and welcome aboard PB Air”

PB Air’s latest air-hostess, Miss Kiranant, has been amazing her passengers with the sweetest voice to hit the Thai clouds in years! As the male passengers look on with rolling eyeballs at such a beauty, none of them would ever believe that the stunning air-hostess, was in fact, born a man!
 

Miss Nicky can already roll off a whole stream of phone numbers from rich handsome Thai and foreign passengers who have been beckoning Miss Nicky out on a date.

Known as Kiranant (Nicky), just 24 years of age, she is the first ladyboy ever to serve as ‘Senior Cabin Crew’….in the world! For anyone who should dare call Nicky an 'air-steward', they have been promised a karate kick around the head!

Nicky explained her burdensome past “While I was studying at Rajabhat University, I was offered a job as a steward at Oriental (Orient Thai?) Airlines, but I just wasn’t happy having to dress up as a man”. Anyway, Nicky followed her dreams of working in the airline business and stuck at the job until she finished her degree in Tourism.
 

Nicky went on to say “At Oriental Airlines, I wasn’t very satisfied with my male-orientated job, but I did feel proud of studying for a degree while being able to send money to my parents and give donations to the temple.”
 

Nicky jokes about her experiences as a steward and how her colleagues and passengers would tease her with the likes of “Your face is so much more beautiful than handsome!” Even as a steward, Nicky claims she was propositioned constantly by male passengers who just.... adored her feminine face!
 

Wanting to be herself - Nicky, after 3 years of experience at Oriental Airlines, threw away her trousers and tie for a short sexy skirt and blouse and applied for a job at PB Air as an air-hostess. Unbelievably, the personnel bosses just fell in love with the graciousness of Nicky, and even though it was completely against company regulations, they offered her a 3 month probationary position. Throughout that period, she did such a splendid job that she was finally offered the permanent job of ‘World’s First Ladyboy Air-hostess’
 

Unfortunately for Nicky, she had this to say “There is a lot of prejudice in Thailand and especially in the workplace. A lot of people behind the scenes weren’t happy with the decision to hire a ladyboy and many of the other female applicants made a huge fuss to the management. Some of them even scolded me to my face!”
 

Miss Nicky, unhappy at being born a man had to prepare herself for a complete sex-change operation. “I was so happy at the thought, I just wanted to be myself. I even had the full works all done at the same time!”

Source: 'Bangkok Today'

Who next ?

9 October 2006

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il is celebrating as his nation becomes the ninth nation to successfully test an atomic weapon; "I did it before Iran" he must be cooing tonight. 

In Pyongyang the bouffant-haired Dear Leader is hailed as a prodigious general and visionary demigod. Today's test will undoubtedly enter the communist lore chronicling Kim's fight against imperialism. It should be right up there with the 19 that he scored over 18 holes of Pyongyang's only golf course with 17 holes in one.

Mr. Kim certainly has chutzpah. He knows that we all condemned Pakistan for testing a nuclear weapon and then embraced them as allies in Mr. Bush's war on terror. But isn't having nuclear capability a part of what scares us all senseless in the first pace !?

I don't wish to be paranoid but the Burmese generals would get 10 out of 10; and don't doubt they are thinking about a nuclear deterrent for exactly the same reasons that North Korea tested a weapon today. With the Iranians also playing nuclear brinkmanship this is all rather grim.

Could I build a bomb ?

9 October 2006

Let's be honest. The nuclear bomb isn't for everyone. Frankly there are people who can't handle it. They break out in a rash at the very mention of mega-death, fallout, or radiation sickness. 

The following quiz will help you find out whether you have what it takes for home nuclear bomb ownership. If you can answer "yes" to six or more of these statements, then you are (sadly) emotionally eligible to join the nuclear club. If not, a more conventional weapon may be more your cup of tea. Nerve gas seems a popular choice in the middle east wars, or napalm an acceptable alternative for the Americans. 

1. I ignore the demands of others.
2. I subscribe to one or more of the following: Soldier of Fortune, Hustler, Popular Mechanics, Self.
3. Though I have many interesting acquaintances, I am my own best friend.
4. I know what to say after you say "Hello," but I am seldom interested in pursuing the conversation.
5. I have seen the movie "Apocalypse Now" more than once.
6. I know that everyone can be a winner if they want to, and I resent whiners.
7. I own one or more of the following: handgun, video game, trash compactor, snowmobile.
8. I am convinced that leukemia is psychosomatic.
9. I am aware that most vegetarians are sexually impotent.
10. I have read evidence that solar energy is a Democrat conspiracy promoted by Al Gore. 

Kicking Singapore in the Shins!

9 October 2006

The last paragraph of this opinion piece in today's Nation newspapers says all that needs to be said about Singapore Inc's harsh judgments on the Thai coup. At least we could protest the Thaksin government, at least we had a vocal media, and at least we could have a coup.

It may not be the best answer; but it appears to be working for Thailand.

In the meantime Singapore Inc's investment in Shin Corp is looking very shaky. I used to think that undoing the Temasek investment would send a very negative message to other foreign investors; but actually it would not. It simply sends out two good reminders; that you should always do good due diligence and you should never underestimate political risk.

Singapore Inc used a government vehicle, Temasek, to invest in a Thai company that was controlled by the Thai Prime Minister and then they did a deal that left the Thai vendor and his family running off to the back with a massive capital gain and no tax paid. What were they thinking !

REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE The Nation Newspaper, Bangkok
Debating over Asian and Western democracy

Where is the best place to discuss the Asian brand of democracy in the wake of the Thai coup last month? It is Singapore, of course.

The island republic is an ideal place, despite its tiny size (though you cannot see it clearly from the sky these days because of the smog from Indonesia). The country is not totally open, but it is opening up. But with a level of stability that is unmatched by any place in the world, and the undisrupted continuity of social and economic development over the past four decades, foreign investors and expatriates love Singapore.

Its leaders are intelligent, self-centred and unshakeable. There are no coups. The People's Action Party has reigned supreme and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Tolerance of opposition parties is low because the ruling party here is so "damned good" - to borrow a descriptive phrase from a Singaporean journalist. There are few irritants in Singapore at the moment. After all, Dr Chee Soon Juan has been declared bankrupt and is bleeding. James Gomez has been repeatedly branded a liar and is living overseas. The Far Eastern Economic Review is no longer on sale on the island.

So, when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong minced no words in commenting on the Thai coup last Friday to a group of editors from Europe and Asia gathered at Sentosa Island, it was a real eye-opener. He said the coup was a setback for Thailand, and that Singapore would have to accept it. He went on to say that former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra had won two general elections with landslide majorities, but there was implacable opposition from the Bangkok establishment, which subsequently led the military to intervene.

"General elections were scheduled for November as a way to break the impasse. But the military decided to remove Thaksin through a coup instead of waiting for the verdict of voters," he said. He also dissected the development of democracy in Indonesia since the fall of Suharto, saying that although political reform there had produced more checks and balances, it also made it harder for the country to push other critical reforms, such as fixing up its labour laws.

It was hard to disagree with his analysis of the Asian political system when he said that every country in Asia must take its own route and strike its own balance. Importing institutions from other countries and grafting them onto the local political system can end up doing more harm than good. In more ways than one, Singapore has found its own political niche, which it has guarded tooth and nail. One could detect the pride that Lee seems to feel over Singapore's model. It is just the right mix.

Unfortunately, Lee's comments were not taken very well in Bangkok, not to mention "shock and deep concern" expressed by Foreign Minister George Yeo in New York. Over the weekend, the Foreign Ministry had made its position known to the Singaporean Embassy. It is not that the Thais are not used to harsh comments on its political system. The issue is where they come from. The United States - particularly certain American Congressmen - was the first to condemn the Thai coup and was the only country to suspend all bilateral assistance. Bangkok could not have cared less. After all, US Ambassador Ralph Boyce was the first foreign diplomat to congratulate the new prime minister, General Surayud Chulanont at Government House last Monday. Singapore was also among the three countries along with Laos and China to send a letter of congratulations to Surayud.

Some Thai officials bluntly rejected Lee's comments, saying they displayed a high level of political arrogance and indifference to the Thai political situation. They expected Singapore, as a strategic partner, to have more a moderate view. As they saw it, Singapore's strong words about the coup and Thailand's democracy seemed closely linked to the island state's blind support of Thaksin over the past five years and the perceived loss of opportunities and benefits involving the mega Shin-Temasek deal.

The deposed Thai leader was seen as a student of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's political philosophy. The senior Lee saw in Thaksin a leader with great potential and awarded the Thai with a fellowship under his name in 1996, the first foreign politician to receive such an honour. Thaksin was hooked.

He even declared at one time that he would make the Thai provinces into several Singapores. One of Thaksin's long-held plans was to implant the Singapore press model on the Thai press.

That explains why Thaksin was considered a buddy of the island state's leaders. In the past five years, they saw eye-to-eye on how the region could develop and compete with others. He and former prime minister Goh Chong Tong jointly called for an acceleration of Asean economic integration and several other schemes. Singapore's confidence in Thailand's economic performance shot up under Thaksin and served as a key factor in luring investors, including those belonging to the government, to pour money into this country. Now Singapore's level of investment rivals that of Japan and Taiwan.

The "win-win" mentality ignored the political risk associated with Thaksin's leadership and abuse of power, which reached its peak right after he won his second election in 2005. Indeed, Temasek was not the only organisation that had placed all its chips on Thaksin. Many Western corporate leaders in the US and Europe were supporters and were equally impressed with his economic vision. Fortunately they had their views vetted by independent experts before making any decisions.

Last week the Supreme Administrative Court accepted to consider a petition to revoke the licences of Shin Corp because of its deals with Temasek Holdings. However the case is resolved, the ramifications for the future investment climate and the state of Thai-Singapore relations will be serious. It is therefore imperative for the two countries to hold talks and establish a new rapport so they can move past the dramatic changes that have taken place. Both sides have to make sure that it will not directly affect the fledging defence cooperation.

In the end, the coup was a big - or rather a mammoth - setback for Singapore's interest in Thailand. It also exposed Temasek's way of doing business and the nature of its corporate governance. Obviously, the island republic does not worry about democratic development here.

Thailand's democracy will move on, with ups and downs that reflect its distinctive home-grown situation. At the end of the day, Thailand will remain an open society that tolerates dissenting views from the opposition, civil society organisations and media.

Kavi Chongkittavorn

FEER banned in Singapore

9 October 2006

Singapore has banned the Far Eastern Economic Review magazine after it failed to comply with media regulations. The magazine responded by criticising the ban as an infringement on expression in the tightly regulated country.
 
"It is a privilege and not a right for foreign newspapers to circulate in Singapore. If any foreign newspaper fails to comply with the law ... they cannot expect to enjoy this privilege," the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts said Thursday.
 
Singapore revoked approval for the Hong Kong-based magazine to be circulated because it failed to appoint a legal representative and pay a 200,000 Singapore dollar (US$126,000; €99,000) security bond.
 
Both requirements are among tighter restrictions that Singapore imposed in August on five foreign publications: the Review, Newsweek, Time, the Financial Times and the International Herald Tribune.
 
The government said in August that the five publications would be reclassified as "offshore newspapers" and must comply with legal provisions governing such media. Under Singaporean law, an offshore newspaper must obtain a permit to circulate domestically and must appoint a person within the country to accept any notice or legal process on behalf of its publisher. It must also submit a S$200,000 bond with the government.
  
The magazine, which used to have more than 1,000 subscribers in Singapore, described the government's approach toward the media as "repressive."
 
The magazine also said, "We regret that this action infringes on the fundamental rights of our Singaporean subscribers and further restricts the already narrow scope of free expression in Singapore."
 
The Web site of the Review is here. The magazine has now published a complete, and articulate response to the ban, which is published below.
 
The Review, published by Dow Jones & Co Inc., is being sued by Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, Singapore founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, over a July article about opposition politician Chee Soon Juan.
 
The two leaders are also suing the magazine's editor, Hugo Restall.
  
Singapore's leaders have drawn criticism over several successful defamation suits in past years against journalists and political opponents. The leaders say they have sued to defend their personal and professional reputations.

October 2006

Letter from the Editor, Far Eastern Economic Review.

The Singaporean government’s recent decision to ban the REVIEW and the defamation lawsuits against us by its two most powerful politicians take us back to a time when the city-state was a poor speck of a country sitting on one of the fault lines of a fractious region. Besieged from without and within, the government of the young People’s Action Party resorted to Draconian colonial-era laws to crush dissent. Today, Singapore is an affluent and peaceful society with ample means to protect itself, and its Southeast Asian neighborhood has progressed from confrontation to cooperation. So why is it still using repressive measures against a monthly magazine that employs a total of three full-time journalists and has 1,000 subscribers in the country?

The July article that started this most recent dispute with Singapore, “Singapore’s ‘Martyr,’ Chee Soon Juan,” sought to raise a similar question, only it focused on the methods used to silence the leader of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party. We put it to Mr. Chee himself, and he laid the blame squarely on the country’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who now holds the title of “minister mentor.”

The ruthless suppression of dissent must be kept up, he said, because as long as Mr. Lee is alive, a new generation of leaders is unable to emerge and distance themselves from his record. Mr. Lee’s past actions, which have led to human rights abuses and statist management of the economy, haunt the government. Mr. Chee believes that is the true reason dissidents like himself are hounded: “If we had parliamentary debates where the opposition could pry and ask questions, I think he is actually afraid of something like that.”

After the article was published, we received letters from Davinder Singh, a lawyer for Mr. Lee and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, claiming that these sentiments and several other sections of the essay defamed the two men. Mr. Singh demanded apologies, removal of the article from our Web site, and an undertaking to pay damages and legal costs.

We did not comply with these demands, and proposed instead to publish a clarification that the REVIEW did not intend the article to express the defamation alleged by Mr. Singh. After several rounds of correspondence with Mr. Singh, all of which is posted on our Web site www.feer.com, we heard nothing more for 10 days. Then the Singaporean Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts announced new conditions to be imposed immediately on the REVIEW, requiring us to appoint a legal representative in Singapore to accept lawsuits, and post a S$200,000 ($126,000) bond to cover damages from such lawsuits—even those relating to already published articles—if we wished to continue circulating. This order had no basis in Singapore’s own law, which stated clearly that such regulations could be imposed only on publications that publish at least weekly or which have been found to have engaged in domestic politics. We have also posted all of our correspondence with the ministry on our Web site.

The timing and substance of this move were in our view no coincidence. It followed hard upon our refusal to apologize and pay damages. Moreover, to sue the REVIEW in Singapore, the Lees would have to serve the papers in Hong Kong, where the magazine is based, since we do not have any employees in Singapore. This means we could challenge that service and/or the enforcement of damages in Hong Kong.

With Singaporean efficiency, the government bureaucracy leaped into action on the Lees’ behalf, imposing conditions with retroactive effect in order to force the magazine to put its head on the block for the Lees to chop off. When the REVIEW refused to comply with these conditions, the Lees proceeded with their lawsuits anyway. This episode tells us much about the use of official power to chill free speech in Singapore.

The Lees’ court filings of Aug. 22, which we have posted on our Web site, claim that the REVIEW article carried the message that Mr. Lee Sr. is “unfit for office because he is corrupt.” We believe that no rational subscriber to this magazine would read the article in the way the Lees allege. Reporting an opposition MP’s claim that a leader’s policies may have led to human-rights abuses and the concealment of government errors is very different from alleging he is corrupt. Mr. Lee’s probity is legendary; we do not believe that his faults include personal corruption, and it strikes us as fantastical to allege that such an allegation was made by the REVIEW.

The lawsuits also make reference to the section of the article that notes “Singaporean officials have a remarkable record of success in winning libel suits against their critics. The question then is, how many other libel suits have Singapore’s great and good wrongly won, resulting in the cover-up of real misdeeds? And are libel suits deliberately used as a tool to suppress questioning voices?” The lawyer claims that this means that Mr. Lee Sr. “has set out to sue and suppress those who would question him as he fears such questions would expose his corruption.”

Mr. Lee certainly has an impressive record of suing his critics, as do other Singaporean officials, but since we don’t believe he is corrupt, we could hardly have meant that these lawsuits were intended to conceal corruption. Rather we asked the question, one that is legitimate and in the public interest, whether Singaporean officials have used libel lawsuits as a tool to suppress legitimate criticism.

Even defending oneself vigorously in Singapore can incur punishment. For instance, in a case involving a REVIEW article from 1987, a London queen’s counsel vigorously cross-examined the prime minister. After finding for Mr. Lee, the court awarded him aggravated damages in part because the barrister’s questions were calculated to “increase the hurt to his feelings.”

Finally, the Lees’ lawsuits against us allege that the REVIEW defamed them by referring to the scandal of the National Kidney Foundation and Chief Executive T.T. Durai. We noted that this case was exposed only because Mr. Durai, having prevailed in one defamation case, filed a second against a major bulwark of the regime, Singapore Press Holdings, which he lost. The obvious and legitimate question asked by the opposition is, how many more Durais are there in Singapore officialdom who are getting away with abuses because of the lack of an independent media and a vigorous opposition?

Corruption undoubtedly exists in Singapore, as the National Kidney Foundation scandal shows, but asserting this is not a slur—no country is entirely free of this taint. The key thing to watch is whether a government uses sunlight as a disinfectant, or sweeps its errors under the rug. Singapore’s use of press restrictions and politically motivated libel actions makes us wonder whether its reputation for clean government is deserved. For instance, in July, Minister Without Portfolio Lim Boon Heng encouraged the local media to focus more on good news and stop trying to uncover abuses: “If you want to do investigative reporting, there must be something which is wrong which has not been attended to. I think there are not many issues in Singapore that fall under this category.”

Mr. Lim’s words reflect Singapore’s deliberate program to neuter the domestic and international media. Over its 60 years, the REVIEW has often borne the brunt of this campaign. In a 1995 column for the Independent newspaper, the late Derek Davies, a former editor, recalled that in 1976 Mr. Lee Sr. threatened the magazine with ruin if it commented on sensitive matters. Then in 1985, Mr. Lee confided he had a new plan:

“He told me that he was determined to set things straight with the foreign press before he handed over power to the younger generation,” Mr. Davies wrote. “He was drafting a new press law aimed at the pockets of owners and publishers, not editors. If any publication was deemed to be ‘engaging’ in Singapore’s domestic politics, its circulation (and its profits) could be cut to a trickle, while denying it the right to claim it had been banned.”

The new law was passed in 1986, and as a commentator noted in the Times of London the following year, there was little doubt what engaging in domestic politics meant: “As a rule of thumb, any article with which Singapore disagrees and which does not carry its views is deemed to be an interference in its internal affairs.” It wasn’t long before the REVIEW fell afoul of the stricter standard. In 1987, Mr. Lee sued for libel over its coverage of the detention without trial of Catholic social workers, claiming he was portrayed as intolerant of the church and religious freedom. The government restricted the REVIEW’s circulation to a tiny number, and when Mr. Davies withdrew all distribution, it pirated the magazine with the advertisements blacked out.

Sadly, the government’s efforts at controlling coverage of Singapore have been largely successful. For local journalists, whose coverage is controlled by the government through Singapore Press Holdings, resistance is futile. And given that Singapore represents an important market for media in the region, many foreign publications are wary of offending the government. Correspondents who want to tackle controversial subjects find that even carefully nuanced articles involve so much back-and-forth with the lawyers that the effort hardly seems worthwhile. When something critical does make it into print, the appearance of a letter from Mr. Singh demanding an apology and damages has in recent years too often resulted in immediate capitulation.

We respectfully submit that balanced coverage of Singapore in the international media requires deeper reporting and tougher analysis of government actions, as well as an occasional opportunity for opposition politicians to speak for themselves without fear of financial ruin. This is one reason for the REVIEW’s decision to defend itself against these latest defamation suits.

In this issue, academics Michael Barr and Garry Rodan take on two taboo subjects in Singapore: the racial composition of its educational system and the government’s control of the local media. Mr. Barr examines whether Singapore’s claim to be a meritocracy stands up to scrutiny given the striking inequality between the races as shown by the educational advantages enjoyed by ethnic Chinese. Mr. Rodan looks at how the government controls the flow of information for the purpose of protecting and reinforcing the founding myths of the PAP regime.

These articles go straight to the heart of some of the most sensitive issues the Singapore government doesn’t want discussed: race, language, religion and culture. These topics are sometimes said to be “out of bounds.” As Mr. Lee Sr. once explained, “They are not cerebral matters which we can discuss in a Western salon. In our society, these are visceral matters. People take their religion very seriously. It is extremely dangerous to treat this just as another conversational subject.”

Mr. Lee apparently still sees the country he shepherded to independence as fragile and vulnerable. Yet having enjoyed almost 40 years of PAP rule, Singapore has had plenty of time to tame its ideological and racial demons. If after four decades the society remains so volatile that one can’t even discuss sensitive topics openly, the government must have failed in its duty to build a harmonious society.<