Blog Reactions to Bhutto's Assassination

It did not take long for blogs and online comment forums to erupt with reaction to the attack on Benazir Bhutto at a rally in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Ms. Bhutto died in the attack, either of gunshot wounds or injuries from a suicide bombing or both, and more than 20 others at the scene were also killed.

Though there have been a number of attacks on Ms. Bhutto’s life in recent months, along with other political violence in the country, and she has said often that her life was in danger, the common initial reaction to the assassination is naturally one of shock.

On the All Things Pakistan blog, Adil Najam writes:

I, like most Pakistanis, am still too numb with shock and grief to think coherently about what has happened or what the implications of this are for the country and for the world. But this I know, whether you agreed with her political positions or not, you cannot but be in shock. Even as I type these lines I am literally shaking. Hers was a tragic life story.

A poster using the name “Quote” on Sepia Mutiny, a blog for the South Asian diaspora, writes:

Benazir has been in public life for 30 years, and in politics for 20 years and by now you either loved her or hated her. I’m not a real Pakistani, but I remember the euphoria of 1988 pretty well, and the crashing disappointment of the her second term in the 90s, when only dedicated PPP partisans still believed in her. Reading the news this morning was like a punch in the gut.

(PPP is the Pakistan People’s Party, which Ms. Bhutto led.)

Many bloggers and commenters are noting that the Bhutto family is regarded in Pakistan almost as a royal family, and that it has been touched repeatedly by political violence and tragic death — comparisons with the Kennedys are common.

Adil Najam again:

At a human level this is a tragedy like no other. Only a few days ago I was mentioning to someone that the single most tragic person in all of Pakistan - maybe all the world - is Nusrat Bhutto. Benazir’s mother. Think about it. Her husband, killed. One son poisoned. Another son assassinated. One daughter dead possibly of drug overdose. Another daughter rises to be Prime Minister twice, but jailed, exiled, and finally gunned down.

Today, in shock, I can think only of Benazir Bhutto the human being. Tomorrow, maybe, I will think of politics.

Read on about Bhutto's assassination.

Singapore's Political Faces of 2007

It’s been some time since the General Elections 2006. During this period, we often hear news about the following politicians, some from the ruling party, others from the opposition front:

Lee Kuan Yew: From front seat to backdrop but at the age of 84, he is still an influential figure within the Parliament. Many have suspected he is the ultimate decision maker not the PM himself. His famous quote this year would probably be the following:

"Low salaries will draw in the hypocrites who sweet talk their way into power in the name of public service, but once in charge will show their true colour, and ruin the country." - 2007, on Minister's Pay

"You know, the cure for all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government. You get that alternative and you'll never put Singapore together again: Humpty Dumpty cannot be put together again... and your asset values will disappear, your apartment will be worth a fraction of what it is, your jobs will be in peril, your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people's countries, foreign workers." - Justifying million-dollar pay hike for Singapore ministers (Straits Times, 5 April 2007)

One big question to ask: When will he be retiring from politics?

J B Jeyaretnam: Seasoned opposition politician who was MP for Anson but the slew of defamation suits brought against him by the PAP leaders crippled him financially. He managed to get out of bankruptcy this year. A long time political foe of Lee Kuan Yew. Has set up a new party, the Reform Party. Can he still give PAP a scare at 2010/2011 elections?

Chiam See Tong: Still holding on to the seat of the smallest single-member constituency, Potong Pasir. A mild, veteran politician who is frank and direct in his opinions. His consecutive victories at the General Elections have won him much respect from fellow Singaporeans. 2010/2011 Elections would probably be his final one.

Low Thia Khiang: Charismatic leader of the Workers’ Party. A Teochew and Chinese-speaking politician who recently made a promise to expand his party to become a dominant force in Singapore politics to challenge the PAP:

If we want our system of Parliamentary Democracy to be able to function properly, to allow Singaporeans real choices, and to promote good government for the next generation, seeking an opposition breakthrough in a GRC is a must.

The Workers’ Party had targeted winning GRCs since their inception in 1988, but without success. Let me assure you that we shall work toward another watershed at the next election to breakthrough a GRC!

He has been the MP for Hougang SMC since 1991 and has a huge number of supporters all over Singapore. Will he walk out of his Hougang stronghold and contest in a GRC together with Sylvia Lim and Chiam See Tong in the 2010/2011 elections?

Lee Hsien Loong: He won 66.6% national votes in his first election as PM in May 2006 and a much lower than expected 66.4% in his own turf, Ang Mo Kio GRC. He doesn’t seem to be as popular as his predecessors, Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong. Now that the opposition seems to be more organised than before, can he maintain PAP’s power grip in the next election?

Chee Soon Juan: Loudhailer, that’s what some call him. The current Singapore Democratic Party’s Secretary General earned his nick during the 2001 elections when he confronted the then PM Goh Chok Tong at a hawker centre asking for the money which was allegedly lent to Suharto. May have good intentions to bring more democracy and human rights into Singapore but most Singaporeans, who are more concerned with bread-and-butter issues, do not seem to like his confrontational style.

Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Although he had been fined S$1,000 for breaching the Official Secret Act during his tenure as Managing Director and Chief Executive at MAS in 1994, he is still a very trusted figure in the government supposedly for his ability to make “Fortress MAS” more open and flexible and Singapore to be better prepared for global shocks than other ASEAN economies. Education Minister, now Finance Minister. The next Prime Minister in the making?

Sylvia Lim: A fresh political face. High profile woman opposition politician who is the Workers’ Party’s Chairman and a current NCMP. From my participation at the various election rallies, I notice she seems to be rather popular with the young voters. Charismatic English-speaking lady who needs to brush up her Mandarin and perhaps learn the Malay language and a dialect to woo more potential voters. She led the Aljunied team at the polls against the PAP team led by heavyweight Foreign Minister George Yeo and obtained a lower than expected 43.9% votes, possibly due to the James Gomez saga. In the parliamentary debate on Ministerial Pay Hike, she opposed the hike stating:

Citizens should be able to look to leaders for moral leadership and inspiration. If what they perceive are mercenaries at the helm, then asking them to make sacrifices will be met with cynicism and indifference. This will not bode well for Singapore's future. What will happen when crunch time comes? Is this a time bomb planted for the future of Singapore?

Chee Siok Chin: One of the few woman opposition politicians. Sister of Chee Soon Juan. Teacher turned political activist. Like his brother, she is also very critical of the PAP government and its authoritative style of rule.

What's your take? Who do you think is the best politician of the year?

How the Generals Motor their Way to Millions

Targeted sanctions intended to hit Burma’s generals where it hurts have so far neglected one of their major sources of income and personal prestige—the importation and resale of luxury automobiles.

Automobile prices in Burma are among the highest in the world. A new Toyota Land Cruiser, for example, costs around 400 million kyat (about US $312,000), five times the Web site list price of $63,000.

So why the discrepancy? The answer lies deep in the tangle of Burmese corruption and bureaucracy. For a start, an import license is required, and procuring one costs a lot of money—more than the average Burmese citizen can afford. Contacts at the top are also useful.

Automobiles prices have been rising steeply since the late 1990s, when ex-Gen Tun Kyi was Minister of Trade. Tun Kyi was forced to retire in 1997, but until his departure from office he and his family controlled the business of importing automobiles to Burma. He issued import license only to his cronies.

Before Tun Kyi was in charge, Burmese citizens employed in the shipping industry found it relatively easy to import automobiles. They earned hard currency and were in the position of shipping the vehicles into the country.

“But all changed after Gen Tun Kyi became Minister of Trade,” a Burmese seaman from Rangoon told The Irrawaddy. “As result, automobile prices jumped more than ten times.”

The full article can be viewed on Irrawaddy.

Take risk to remove climate of fear, PAP

Catherine Lim brought out a good point in the Reuters’ interview “Climate of Fear hurts Singapore”:

"They seem to have drawn a line when it comes to opening up politically, and that to me is dangerous,"

She had pleaded for a “political opening up” in a recent letter which was rejected by the press. I think PAP do need to understand that the art of taking risk is not only an integral part of economic success, it is also part and parcel of social progress.

Yes, our economy seems to be in good hands. Economic growth seems healthy with GDP constantly at 6% and above annually. Although we may have not fared well in our Shin Corp and Barclay investments, we still have a massive amount of reserves. Our investment arms Temasek Holdings and GIC are continuously expanding into regional and international markets and have reportedly obtained healthy returns of 18% and 8.2% respectively. We have showed to the world and convinced them Singapore’s economic prowess is something which cannot be underestimated. All these can only be achieved through a prudent system of risk management.

But why can’t the PAP allow more risk in its management of people? I understand all ruling parties in the world want to control its people and remain in power forever but PAP’s use of a subtle form of fear tactics to control is irking me and many other Singaporeans: no PAP votes means no HDB upgrading; no good and well-paid government, your mothers and daughters will become maids in other countries etc.

We are often so afraid of incurring the government’s wrath that we have this fixed mentality that going against the government is deadly wrong and toeing the line is a sure way of survival. Of course, it’s nothing compared with what rogue regimes have done: massacres and killings to silence critics.

However, can this continue to work in the future? I doubt so. As what Catherine Lim has said, it stifles creativity with all the invisible “Out-of-bounds markers” and we are losing many talents who seek better lives in freer societies. The government is losing millions of taxpayers’ money over the years nurturing talents who decide to call it a day because they dislike living under this constant climate of fear. I think more people are expected to do so when our society becomes more affluent. So if the PAP government really wants to retain talents, not just in civil service but also in Singapore as a whole, it has to first show to its people that it indeed is a good government and not a “control freak”.

We must agree that PAP is an efficient government. But it needs “upgrading” to learn to drop the use of fear tactics to rule. When that day comes, I will draw a big fat cross neatly on my voting paper beside the lightning logo with pride.

My thoughts on Ministerial Pay Hike

I was utterly wrong. I have been harbouring this thought that the PAP government will not announce a 2^nd ministerial pay hike but they did as “promised” in the end.

In my previous post “Glory for Nation or Money”, I mentioned many people are unhappy with the rising cost of living and the few unpopular policies (Annuity Scheme, GST Hike etc) that were announced some time ago and the ruling elites are running a risk of losing that delicate “bond” with Singaporeans. So I wonder, why would they even think of pushing through with the 2^nd wave of ministerial pay hike now?

To be frank, I cannot accept the government’s repeated justification that it must pay high to match the average salary of the top 8 professions’ earners to attract and retain talents in the government. As many bloggers have pointed out, if there is a need to entice potential candidates of ministerial quality with huge monetary rewards to join the government, it might as well be better for these people to remain where they are in the private sector as serving the nation is ultimately different from “serving” shareholders.

But why is the government unable to attract and retain talents? I think the main reason is not because good people are put off by the “low ministerial salaries”. Neither is it because good people dislike PAP. It is a problem with Singaporeans who are generally politically apathetic, unpatriotic and greedy. Imagine if we have the entire population who is truly concerned about the running of the country, theoretically there would be more elites who are willing to serve the nation whether or not the government provides huge monetary rewards.

What we need to do now is not to continue increasing ministerial salaries to obscene levels but to make more Singaporeans engage in discussions on social issues. When more people care about what’s going on in Singapore, surely some of them would feel the urge to come forward to do something about the problems that the country faces. An active citizenry is important for the survival of Singapore in the competitive world of the 21^st century.

The new ministerial pay structure can be found on The Straits Times "Ministers, top civil servants to get 4% to 21% pay rise in Jan"

UN warns Burma that World's patience wearing thin

WARNING TO BURMA

World's patience wearing thin: UN

Situation is not acceptable and unsustainable, Ban Ki-Moon warns Rangoon

Visiting United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon yesterday urged the Burmese junta to move forward on democracy and human rights protection as the international community's patience was running out.

"I would like again to emphasis that the return to the status quo is not acceptable and is politically unsustainable," he told a press conference.

He did not say what would happen if the international community did lose patience but noted the junta should allow opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi to engage with the senior junta leaders.

The UN secretary-general arrived in Bangkok on Sunday for a three-day official visit to honour His Majesty the King's 80th birthday. He discussed the situation in Burma with Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont during a bilateral meeting.

The UN, through special envoy Ibrahim Gambari, has made little progress in persuading the junta leaders to hold political dialogue with Suu Kyi, Ban said.

However, the junta's appointment of deputy labour minister Aung Kyi as a liaison minister between Suu Kyi and the authorities was regarded as "a good start", he said.

The military crackdown in September in Burma that killed a score of protesters raised international concerns.

The UN chief commissioned Gambari to seek solutions to end the political stalemate. He urged Asean, of which Burma is a member, to continue its role in engaging Burma's leaders and fully support the role of the UN in pushing the military-ruled country towards democracy.

But room for the regional grouping has been very slim since last month, when Burmese Prime Minister Thein Sein rejected an attempt to have Gambari brief leaders of Asean and its allies on his work at a summit in Singapore and emphasised he would work with the UN only.

Surayud said Thailand would take the rotating chairmanship of Asean late next year and would have the chance to hold a summit between the UN and Asean to discuss the matter.

The UN chief said the Burmese authorities should take his warning that the world is "running out patience" seriously as the people of Burma have suffered from isolation for a long time. It was time for the military-run country to bow to the wishes of the international community for full democratisation and protection of human rights.

Yesterday was Human Rights Day, and the 59th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, when the UN began the campaign to promote human rights around the world.

"Therefore, again I urge the Myanmar [Burma] authorities to fully respect the principles and all of the UN charters by fully engaging with the international community and by restoring full democracy and promoting human rights," Ban said.

The article was published in The Nation, Bangkok

Glory for Nation or Money?

The 24^th SEA Games opened yesterday in Thailand but Singapore has already won 10 of its expected 45 gold medals. Two questions came to my mind: First, do our sportsmen compete for the prize money or for personal and national glory? Second, how should the spirit of sporting excellence be similar to the spirit of public service of ministers?

For the first question, I believe it’s the winning of a gold medal, standing on the podium receiving applauses from the spectators and the singing of Majulah Singapura that matters most. I really don’t think any sportsman would say “I am going to win the Olympic gold medal because I want the $1,000,000 prize money”.

Yes, the prize money is certainly an added incentive but I think nothing beats the nobility and glory of striving for victory with passion and dedication. When Joscelin Yeo won a swim race, I felt I was the winner too because there was this special spiritual “link” between us as I could sense the passion for swimming in her and I knew her primary motive for a swimming career was not money.

So how’s it got to do with the spirit of public service of ministers? Right now, our ministers are fetching about $1.6 million-dollar salary per annum after a ministerial pay hike during April 2007. It is expected to rise to 77% benchmark by year end and 88% by end of 2008. Mr Teo Chee Hean, the Minister-in-charge of the Civil Service has said in a parliamentary statement on civil servant salary revisions:

Officers who work in our ministries and statutory boards must feel a sense of challenge and must believe that individually and collectively, they make a real difference in the lives of Singaporeans. We need to tap on their passion, energy and mobilise them to do their best, and achieve their best – for Singaporeans and for themselves.

His statement is the same as what I have been trying to explain earlier. That is the passion and dedication to strive for personal glory and the glory to serve our country. It is something which money cannot buy. But when the issue of benchmarking ministerial salaries to that of the private sector is brought into view, the government is undermining its moral authority to rule. It makes us wonder: “Do the ministers serve the nation because they want the $1.6 million-dollar prize money and more?”

So naturally when the government recently announced a slew of unpopular policies such as GST hikes, many showed their utter displease because when money is placed before passion, the ministers lose that special spiritual "link" which enables them to convince their fellow Singaporeans that the unpopular policies are deemed necessary for the betterment of Singapore.

I think enough is enough. One ministerial pay hike is sufficient. Singaporeans are already unhappy with the rising cost of living and I hope the government does not attempt to break that already delicate bond with us by forcing its way through a 2^nd ministerial pay hike.

Generation Wave’s Statement for 87th National Day of Burma

This was obtained from Sit Mone's blog. The following is not the translation of Generation Wave’s statement, It is only the blogger’s opinion of the situation of the Military ruled Burma)

Background of Generation Wave

A new generation of activists calling themselves "Generation Wave", came together on October 9. They have begun distributing anti-junta pamphlets and posters in Rangoon, as part of a new effort to revive the spirit of the people's movement of September, which the military junta crushed.

The new group, which operates undercover, have begun distributing posters and pamphlets that carry messages such as 'CNG (Change New Government)', 'FFF (Freedom From Fear)', and 88 generation student leader, now detained, Min Ko Naing's poem titled 'Bah Kah Tah', in crowded places in Rangoon since October 15.

His Analysis of the current political climate of Burma

• Burmese Generals have no interest in the National Reconciliation (Officially declared the exclusion of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and NLD in the future Burmese Politics)

• Wishful thinking of China and ASEAN to be actively persuade Generals to the path of Democracy does not materialise.

• Burmese Generals have shown the world that they have no respect for UN.

Conclusion,

They have declared the world that they are the special species in Burma, so that they will continue the policy of modern day Slavery of Burma forever. And they are only afraid of the stick!

On the 87th anniversary of National Day of Burma, only hope of the future of the Burma is in the hand of the Burmese people.

Al Jazeera on Singapore’s Singtel MioTV

It was reported in Straits Times yesterday that Al Jazeera has received permission to be broadcast in Singapore on Singtel’s pay-TV service, MioTV. A few questions may come to our mind:

What is Al Jazeera?

“Jazeera” means island. According to International Herald Tribune’s article titled “How Al Jazeera can go up a gear”, Al Jazeera is a Qatar-based TV which is owned by the royal family of Qatar. It launched its English Service, Al Jazeera International, on 15 November 2006 and has obtained TV rights in several countries and regions such as United States and the Latin America.

Who is in Al Jazeera?

According to Mediachannel.org, Al Jazeera has assembled a team of TV pros from BBC, APTN, ITV, CNN and CNBC, among others, and will have 40 bureaus worldwide with broadcast centres in Doha, Kuala Lumpur, London and Washington. Some of the journalists’ names include Peggy Holter, Josh Rushing and Mark Teboe. The Programming Director, Paul Gibbs worked with BBC and Discovery Channel previously. It would also be interesting to take a look at their code of ethics.

Has Al Jazeera received any criticisms on its coverage since it’s a Middle Eastern TV station?

United States President George Bush and his administrative leaders have called the station’s coverage inflammatory and misleading for its journalistic style biased in favour of Arab causes. Al Jazeera has also attracted numerous criticisms and controversies with regard to the war on terrorism:

The most famous controversy would have to be the false allegation over the telecast of videos of masked terrorists beheading western hostages in Iraq. Other controversies include the broadcasting of Osama bin Laden’s videos. In those videos, Osama defended and justified the New York’s World Trade Centre attacks on September 11, 2001. US accused Al Jazeera of engaging in propaganda for the terrorists.

Shocking enough? It seems Al Jazeera is not going to be another ordinary TV station seeking to increase its viewership base worldwide and their coming to Singapore is going to make a big difference to the already well-controlled mainstream media. Al Jazeera is certainly going to influence the way we see the world with more war news and gory scenes, and with more controversial issues such as the Singapore-Burma ties which has recently caused an embarassment to our Singapore government. Tony Birtley of Al Jazeera reported in the following video which includes interviews with Chee Siok Chin of SDP and Alex Au of yawningbread.org:

Al-Jazeera can be broadcast in S'pore: officials

Al-JAZEERA'S English channel has received permission to be broadcast in the city-state, the government said on Monday.

The Arab broadcaster's English news service will be available to subscribers of Singapore Telecommunications' (SingTel) pay-TV service, the Media Development Authority (MDA) said in a statement.

'MDA has approved SingTel's application to offer the Al-Jazeera English channel on MioTV - its IPTV (Internet Protocol television) service,' Amy Chua, MDA's director for media content division, said in the statement. Officials did not say when Al-Jazeera would go on the air.

Qatar-based Al-Jazeera has said it will provide an alternative perspective to international news channels based in Europe and the United States. Al-Jazeera's Arabic service, which celebrated its 10th anniversary in November 2006, has revolutionised news media in the Arab world, but it has also stirred controversy.

It gained worldwide recognition mainly due to its broadcast of videotapes issued by Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden. -- AFP

Political opinion polls and non-censorships

Pardon me for being forgetful. Did we see such letters being published in our mainstream media during last year’s General Elections? Are Singaporeans so apathetic that not even a single soul wrote such “offensive” letters to the press during the election time? Or did the press simply practice self-censorship during the period?

Also, there are numerous opinion polls on whether children feel happy and on whether people feel disgusted about gays etc but there aren't any opinion surveys on the performance of the Prime Minister and his government. Isn’t it a common practice in many democratic countries and a good way to ensure good governance? I think we have a lot to learn from the Thais:

Thailand's Election Opinion Polls:

Democrats way ahead, says poll

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva is in the lead for the position of prime minister, winning the backing of 46 per cent of those polled. PPP leader Samak Sundaravej trailed far behind with 23 per cent. Banharn Silapa-archa of Chart Thai received 6 per cent and Suwit Khunkitti of Puea Pandin got 3 per cent.

PPP headed for 190 seats

The People Power Party will win as many as 190 seats in the election, sweeping all regions except Bangkok and the South, where the predicted runners-up, the Democrat Party, is more popular, according to the first analysis of the upcoming election by the Nation Group.

Two of the letters to The Nation, the national newspaper:

Political promises are worth the price of a vote: a pittance

The finding from a poll that more than 50 per cent of people would accept money in exchange for their votes should be given serious thought.

It's easy for us to say that these people don't understand that vote-buying will harm the nation. But if we look from another perspective, the finding could indicate these people don't believe in promises made by any political party. They probably believe that promises are just marketing tools to get votes without any real intention to keep them. They might not believe that if they don't sell their votes, in the next few years they will have a school as good as Triam Udom not too far from their homes. They probably don't believe also that their children will have a better future. People, no matter how illiterate, will choose the better choice from their point of view. And if they choose to sell their votes, it could mean that they don't believe their living conditions will improve if they choose otherwise.

If politicians cannot prove through their deeds that they can improve the lives of the poor, increasing numbers of people may sell their votes for cash. And we cannot blame them. While we feel sad about this, it is an embarrassment for the politicians in the sense that a lot of people believe no promises of any party are worth more than a small sum of money.

Prichar, Bangkok

One baht for the forces, one baht for the children

When politicians recently controlled the purse strings of government, they voted themselves big pay rises. Now we have the military in charge, and surprise, they vote themselves big pay rises and a giant budget increase for weapons of dubious need. What if educators were in charge of government; would we then get ample budget for educating children? Here's my proposal: for every baht allocated for military spending, one baht be allocated for education, and one additional baht be earmarked for social welfare to take care of the sick, the elderly and the poor.

Currently, there are many kids who don't go to school for various reasons, all having to do with lack of money: their parents can't afford required new uniforms, shoes and/or books. Another reason is that kids are compelled to work for their parents to eke out a few extra baht per day to survive. Instead of maintaining an aircraft carrier that's non-functional and purchasing two new subs, the government should give more than lip service to seeing that no child is deprived of an education due to poverty.

Ken Albertsen, Chiang Rai

Burma plays a “Blind man’s Bluff” game with ASEAN and UN

The Burmese junta has once again fooled ASEAN and UN with its latest arrest of Aung Zaw Oo, a member of the Human Rights Defenders and Promoters group on 26 Nov and the closure of the Maggin Monastery. All these happened after the signing of the human rights and democracy charter at the recent 13^th ASEAN Summit. The monastery is famous for its hospitality in sheltering HIV/AIDS positive patients who went to Rangoon for treatment.

Obviously, the Burmese generals are playing their usual Blind man’s Bluff game with UN and ASEAN as the “It” and the generals as the teasers. Before you read the Amnesty International’s report on the arrest of Aung Zaw Oo below, perhaps you would like to take a moment to view the video of the killing of the Japanese journalist during the September crackdown.

Myanmar arrests continue two months on

Amnesty International condemns the new arrests of political activists inside Myanmar, despite the commitment by Prime Minister Thein Sein to the UN Special Representative Ibrahim Gambari in early November that no more arrests would be carried out.

"Two months after the violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators, arbitrary arrests continue unabated as part of the Myanmmar government's systematic suppression of freedom of expression and association, contrary to its claims of a return to normalcy," said Catherine Baber, Amnesty International's Asia-Pacific Program Director.

"Normalcy for the military government may mean a return to systematic and widespread human rights violations away from media attention, but the international community must no longer tolerate this situation," added Catherine Baber.

Amnesty International confirms that the following arrests have occurred since early November:

• On 4 November, U Gambira, head of the All-Burma Monks Alliance and a leader of the September protests, was arrested and reportedly charged with treason. Two of his family members previously detained as 'hostages' in an attempt to force him out of hiding, have been kept in detention;
• On 13 November, the government arrested Su Su Nway, a member of the youth wing of the main opposition National League for Democracy party. Fellow youth activist Bo Bo Win Hlaing was arrested along with her while putting up anti-government posters;
• On 14 November, at least three people were arrested in Yangon for passing out anti-government pamphlets;
• On 15 November, authorities raided a monastery in western Rakhine State, and arrested monk U Than Rama, wanted for his involvement in the September protests. He was reportedly beaten during the raid and his whereabouts remain unknown.
• On 20 November, Myint Naing, a senior member of the National League for Democracy was detained;
• On 20 November, ethnic Arakanese leader U Tin Ohn was detained and his whereabouts remain unknown;
• On 20 and 21 November, other ethnic leaders, including Arakanese Cin Sian Thang and U Aye Thar Aung, Naing Ngwe Thein from the Mon National Democracy Front, and Kachin political leader U Hkun Htoo were rounded up but released after questioning;
• On 26 November, Aung Zaw Oo, a member of the Human Rights Defenders and Promoters group, was arrested in Yangon, likely on account of his involvement in planning events for International Human Rights Day on 10 December.

Amnesty International is deeply disappointed by the fact that these arrests are still taking place despite the government's promises to the contrary. Just last week, the Myanmar government was attending ASEAN's 40th Anniversary Summit, where it signed the organisation's new Charter committing it to the "promotion and protection of human rights".

To date, up to 700 people arrested during and since the September protests remain behind bars, while 1,150 political prisoners held prior to the protests have not been released.

Amnesty International is urgently calling on the government of Myanmar to release all those detained or imprisoned merely for the peaceful exercises of their right to freedom of expression, assembly and association, including both long-term and recent prisoners of conscience, and to stop making further arrests.

Check out more Burmese news and opinions on Burma.newsladder.net.

Than Shwe Finds Burma’s Fate in the Stars

Burmese junta leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe’s wife Kyaing Kyaing recently visited the celebrated Shit Myet Hna pagoda in her husband’s birthplace, Kyaukse, in central Burma, but she wasn’t just sightseeing or calling on friends and relatives.

The revered site is known as the “Eight Faces” pagoda because it faces eight points of the compass. Kyaing Kyaing is reported to have prayed symbolically there for support from all sides for her beleaguered husband and his despised regime.

Kyaing Kyaing and her husband, like many members of the ruling military, are deeply superstitious and rely on astrologers and other soothsayers to advise them.

They also indulge in yadaya, a kind of voodoo said to ward off ill-fortune, and are said to have employed its rituals in an occult bid to influence meetings between opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and the official appointed by Than Shwe to act as a go-between, retired general Aung Kyi.

Than Shwe reportedly even attaches significance to Aung Kyi’s name, combining as it does Aung at the start and Kyi at the end. This combination is known in Burmese as “Ket’ Kin,” meaning the state of two names being diametrically opposite to each other and thus astrologically significant.

There are others examples of ‘Ket’ Kin’ within the military junta. The names of Than Shwe, Prime Minister Gen Thein Sein and the official who signs government decrees and statements, Col Thant Shin, all begin with the letter T and end with S—‘Ket’ Kin,” according to the superstitious.

Than Shwe wasn’t always so subject to superstitious belief—one source close to the family says he was no strong believer in astrology when he was regional military commander in the Irrawaddy delta.

His wife Kyaing Kyaing, originally ethnic Pa-O, has long been a strong believer in nats, or spirits, astrology and yadaya.

She is said to have been told by an astrologer in the 1980s that her husband would one day head the government. The astrologer, a monk, also offered the delighted Kyaing Kyaing the information that her husband had been a king in his past life.

After the first prediction came true, Than Shwe (not surprisingly) developed his interest in astrology and yadaya and began to seek the advice of astrologers and soothsayers—including Rangoon’s most famous fortune-teller, ET (also known as E Thi).

A Buddhist nun, Daw Dhammathi, is believed to be one of his family’s most favored astrologists, and Kyaing Kyaing is a frequent visitor to her temple compound in Rangoon’s North Okkalapa suburb.

Than Shwe’s efforts to neutralize the powers of Suu Kyi are also said to account for his extraordinary initiative to force Burmese to grow physic nuts, which are intended to provide alternative fuel for the cash-strapped country.

Physic nuts are known as kyet suu in Burmese, a combination of words that carry the astrological meaning of Monday-Tuesday. Suu Kyi’s own name has the astrological meaning of Tuesday-Monday, and it’s said that Than Shwe’s astrologer suggested that by planting kyet suu throughout the country Suu Kyi’s powers could be neutralized.

There’s no sign of that happening yet. Astrology and yadaya obviously have their limitations.

Source: The Irrawaddy

Burma junta is a bloody murderer not a troubled child

ASEAN leaders have signed a charter on democracy and human rights in Singapore on Tuesday after much international pressure on ASEAN over the atrocities committed by Burma (Myanmar) over the last few decades, in particular the brutal killings of monks and civilians in the recent pro-democracy nationwide protest in September.

Fine. ASEAN, together with the media, can continue to trumpet on the success of ASEAN in getting the democracy and human rights charter signed but as the charter apparently does not comprise any provision for enforcing human rights compliance, the effect of the signing goes to zilch. To quote Mr Sinapan Samydorai, president of Singapore’s Think Centre:

"They're more into rhetoric than real action. They can talk about human rights, but they can't enforce it."

To prove Burma’s sincerity in recognising human rights, it has to release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi who is the opposition leader of NLD, all, I mean ALL, political prisoners including the protesters in the recent crackdown and stop all arrests and tortures of its people with immediate effect. I do not care what ASEAN’s Secretary-General Mr Ong Keng Yong has said:

“If you have a troubled child in the family, you can’t send it away to the mental house or sanatorium. I think our leaders’ instinct will be to see how ASEAN can help Myanmar.”

A troubled child who goes around killing people (not a few but thousands of Burmese since the military junta took over in 1962) is no simple child and should not be protected by his parent (ASEAN) but be tried under the court of law for he is undoubtedly a bloody murderer. No law or parent will ever allow a criminal/child to continue with their evil doings.

ASEAN certainly needs to work harder to address human rights issues in the region and start growing more teeth to stop the world from calling it a toothless tiger.

Arroyo takes parting shot at Myanmar with strong criticism before leaving summit

SINGAPORE: The president of the Philippines took a parting shot at Myanmar's junta Wednesday, deploring the pace of democratic reforms in the Southeast Asian nation as she hastily returned home to oversee preparations for a looming tropical storm.

"Let me be very clear. We ... remain concerned about the pace of progress of Myanmar on the issue of human rights," President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo said.

"We particularly deplore the treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi," the pro-democracy leader who remains under house arrest. "She must be released, now," Arroyo told reporters before cutting short her visit to Singapore by a day.

Philippines is the most vocal critic of Myanmar among the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Myanmar dominated discussions at ASEAN's annual summit this week but scored a diplomatic victory when it blocked a planned briefing by U.N. envoy Ibrahim Gambari to Asian leaders. But Arroyo said Myanmar was still not off the ASEAN hook.

"We will not rest in the pursuit of justice and reconciliation in Myanmar. We must be active in advocating peaceful reforms in that nation. It is good for Myanmar, for ASEAN and the world," she said before heading to the airport.

During the summit, ASEAN adopted a charter that calls on member nations to respect human rights and democracy. Arroyo said her government is pleased that the charter incorporated language that advances these values.

But "we remain concerned that the forces of authoritarianism still move rather slowly toward democracy in Myanmar," she said.

Arroyo was returning home early to focus on the needs of the people likely to be hit by a typhoon that is expected to make landfall in eastern Philippines this week. Arroyo will miss a summit Thursday of ASEAN leaders and the European Union. In Manila, Arroyo's executive secretary, Eduardo Ermita, said Arroyo will fly directly to the southern Philippines to meet with heads of disaster-response agencies.

She has already ordered the evacuation of thousands of people in the eastern Philippines. The area is bracing for tropical storm Mitag, which is packing sustained winds of 85 kph (53 mph) with gusts of up to 100 kph (63 mph).

Activists attack ASEAN on lack of Burma pressure

HONG KONG (Reuters) - A leading Myanmar(Burma) dissident slammed ASEAN's failure to pressure the junta over its crackdown on pro-democracy protests, as the 10-member group unveiled a charter on Tuesday that enshrined human rights and democracy.

"It's a historical moment for them to sign the charter, which is supposed to be the charter for the protection and promotion of human rights, and now they let the (Myanmar) regime take over their agenda," said Khin Ohmar, a former student leader of Myanmar's 1988 uprising, in which up to 3,000 people died.

"Now they're taking sides with the regime it seems. I think it's a bad step and backtracking," she said at the Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents Club.

The ASEAN charter, unveiled at a summit marking the grouping's 40th anniversary, aims to integrate the economies of its 10 member-nations and to "strengthen democracy, enhance good governance and the rule of law, and to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms".

"Burma has been a major shame for ASEAN," Khin Omar said. "The social, economic and security aspects that it's looking to resolve and promote in the region, will not happen if they don't resolve Burma's situation." (Also read "US says ASEAN reputation at stake over handling of Myanmar")

DEMOCRACY THROUGH DEVELOPMENT

Myanmar's Foreign Minister U Nyan Win told his Japanese counterpart on Tuesday in Singapore that Western sanctions had hurt ordinary citizens the most and the way toward democratization was through economic development.

"The West has imposed economic sanctions, which directly harm the lives of ordinary citizens," a Japanese official quoted U Nyan Win as telling Japanese Foreign Minister Masahiko Komura.

"I am not aware of a case in which sanctions resulted in the progress of democratization. Rather, economic development leads to democratization."

Nyan Win also criticized the West for only listening to the opposition.

"Not everything that the opposition, which stands up to the government, says is correct. Only when one realizes that there are mistakes among the opposition, can we come closer to each other."

Small demonstrations around the region were staged to protest what critics say is ASEAN's soft approach to the junta's iron-fisted rule.

In Singapore, four Singaporeans defied a ban on both Myanmar protests and a general law on group protests with a march towards the ASEAN summit venue, while in Bangkok about 20 activists protested in front of the stock exchange.

In Kuala Lumpur, some 200 people from Myanmar living in Malaysia staged a skit mocking Myanmar's crackdown on the recent monk-led protests in the country.

ASEAN diplomats say the group is grappling with a dilemma. On the one hand, Myanmar's membership is complicating its efforts to create a powerful and influential bloc in a globalize world. But shoving the junta beyond the pale would drive Myanmar further into China's embrace and to ASEAN's disadvantage.

ASEAN has instead opted for "engagement" with Myanmar, calling on the junta to work with the United Nations towards democracy and to release political detainees.

"It's been a buffer state between China and India," said Tony Regan at energy consultancy Nexant. "The ASEAN policy was to take on Myanmar as a friend and therefore make it less vulnerable and less paranoid. Now they have a credibility problem."

Khin Omar said ASEAN was setting itself up for more pressure. "If they don't get some kind of resolution toward Burma during this summit, I think the whole international community and governments will put more pressure on ASEAN.

By James Pomfret

(Additional reporting by George Nishiyama and Koh Gui Qing in Singapore, Jalil Hamid in Kuala Lumpur, and Nopporn Wong-Anan in Bangkok; Writing by Bill Tarrant; Editing by Jeremy Laurence)

Singapore bans Burma protest at ASEAN summit

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore has banned all outdoor protest at a summit of Southeast Asian nations (ASEAN) and rejected an opposition party's request to stage a Myanmar(Burma) pro-democracy protest, police and activists said on Saturday.

Leaders of the 10-member Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) are set to sign a common charter that would turn the 40-year-old group into a legal entity. Myanmar prime minister Thein Sein is expected to come, which would mark the first appearance of a top junta member at an international forum since the regime's bloody crackdown on protesters in September.

About 2,500 police have been mobilized for the event and roadblocks have been set up in streets around the venue, where ASEAN will meet other Asian leaders, including Chinese prime minister Wen Jiabao and Japan's Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda.

A police official told Reuters that two applications for an outdoor protest had been rejected, but one for an indoor protest had been approved. He declined to say who the applicants were or where the indoor protest would be held.

The opposition Singapore Democratic Party said on its Web site the government had rejected its application for a protest to "call on ASEAN member states to take concrete measures to promote democracy in the region rather than just make empty promises".

Under Singapore laws, any public gathering of more than four people requires a police permit. "The Charter states that ASEAN would promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people in the region. How does ASEAN intend to do this if its chair bans outright any form of political activity?" the SDP said. An SDP member told Reuters the party had not decided if it will stage a protest anyway.

PROTECTED AREAS

In September 2006, during the IMF-World Bank meetings in Singapore, SDP leader Chee Soon Juan ignored a police ban on outdoor protest and made headlines worldwide with a dramatic standoff with police, which formed a human barricade around the handful of SDP activists, blocking them in a city park for four days and nights to stop them from holding a democracy march.

Police said that for the duration of the ASEAN summit, four areas, including the summit venue and the president's palace, had been marked as "protected areas". This means that police can search or detain anyone in the area or ask them to leave.

A group of international students from the National University of Singapore plans a Burmese democracy demonstration outside the summit venue, a statement on the SDP Web site said. "The students will wear red t-shirts and stand in groups of four to remain within Singapore's stringent laws against the freedom of assembly," it said.

Diplomats expect that the annual ASEAN summit will be dominated by the Myanmar issue. Human Rights Watch has urged ASEAN to establish deadlines to implement a binding regional human rights mechanism. On Friday, the U.S. Senate voted to urge ASEAN to suspend Myanmar until the military regime shows respect for human rights.

The charter that ASEAN is set to sign on Tuesday does not include provisions for suspension or exclusion of members, one of the committee members who drafted the text told Reuters on Friday. Singapore and other ASEAN members have said that keeping Myanmar inside ASEAN offers better chances of putting the country on the road to democracy.

Malaysia's side of story on Pedra Branca

Singapore has failed to adduce evidence to support its claim that Britain had established title on Pulau Batu Puteh (Pedra Branca) in the years 1847-1851, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) here heard.

Malaysia’s counsel Sir Elihu Lauterpacht said that although Singapore had repeatedly stated that its conduct after 1851 merely confirmed and maintained a title already acquired, there was no contemporary documentation of any kind which implicitly or explicitly specified that the island was or had become British territory.

“One looks in vain for evidence of any official, formal, direct or even indirect assertion of title,” he told the 16-member bench. He said that unless by 1851 there really existed British title over Pulau Batu Puteh, there was nothing that could be maintained or confirmed.

“Just as we are taught in school the simple arithmetic that when zero is multiplied by any number whatsoever, the result is always zero. So a title that does not exist cannot be confirmed or maintained by any amount of subsequent state action,” he said. Singapore, which is claiming sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, had argued that it was maintaining and confirming its pre-established title of Pulau Batu Puteh as the British successor and had continuously, exercised State Authority on and in relation to the island.

Sir Elihu refuted this claim, saying that overwhelmingly this was practised with regard to the operation of the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh and had nothing to do with sovereignty over the island. He emphasised that the operation of lighthouses was not a basis for sovereignty, citing the Minquiers and Ecrehos case, where the ICJ had decided that lighting and buoying since 1861 could not be considered sufficient evidence of an intention to act as sovereign. They were not seen as acts of such a character that they could be considered as involving a manifestation of state authority.

He also cited another case where an arbitral tribunal held that “the operation and maintenance of lighthouses and navigational aids is normally connected to the preservation of safe navigation, and not normally taken as a test of sovereignty”.

Turning to Middle Rocks and South Ledge, Sir Elihu said that there was also no substance in Singapore’s claim for these two marine features because, just like Pulau Batu Puteh, they have always belonged to Johor.

On Singapore’s contention that it had also carried out non-lighthouse activities, he said that these could either be attributed to the republic’s role as the lighthouse administrator or were otherwise unconnected with sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh.

Sir Elihu submitted that when Britain built and operated the Horsburgh lighthouse on the island, it showed no intention at all of acquiring sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh. In light of this, plus the strong British practice in the 19th and 20th centuries of building and administering lighthouses on its key trade routes on the territories of other states, the continued administration today by Singapore of a lighthouse, which formed part of the Straits Lights System, could not be regarded as evidence of its sovereignty over the territory where it is located.

Submitting on Singapore’s claim that Johor never carried out any competing activities on the island on its own, Sir Elihu said this point was “meaningless verbiage.” He pointed out that Pulau Batu Puteh was a very small place, no more than half the area of a football field, and all that area had been taken up by the lighthouse.

“Where was Johor to engage in competing activities on the island, what competing activities could there have been on the island. Was it to build a competing lighthouse?” he said. Sir Elihu said that Johor had licensed Britain to construct and operate a lighthouse and after that there was nothing for Johor to do except let Britain get on with the operation of the lighthouse and any related activities. “There was no scope for any competitive Johor activity,” he stressed.

Describing every stage, phase or element in Singapore’s claim to Pulau Batu Puteh as ill-founded, he said that Britain’s conduct between 1847 and 1851, on which Singapore relied to found the establishment of title during that period, could not be regarded as effective.

“Singapore concedes that it must show an intention of British conduct to have acquired title in that period. But there is no evidence of British conduct that can be interpreted as a manifestation of intention to acquire sovereignty between 1847 and 1851,” he said.

The article titled "No evidence from Singapore to support claim of sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh" was obtained from New Straits Times

More: On Malaysia's claim on islands being part of Johor Sultanate

Movie Review – Tom Cruise’s Lions for Lambs

I watched the movie last weekend. “Lions for Lambs” is a 90-minute movie of intense and rather intellectual dialogues between the different characters – Senator Irving (Tom Cruise) and a journalist named Janine (Meryl Streep), the same actor in the movie “The Devil Wears Prada”.

“Lions For Lambs” is really a movie of more talk than action. It attempts to expose the truth that is nothing new to many people: The politicians who defend their ideals with plastic faces, the media companies that work with the government on the war of propaganda, the soldiers (lions) who fight for the country that does not even take care of them in the first place and also activists who try to motivate the politically apathetic citizens(lambs) like the “ace” student Todd.

In my opinion, it’s not that the scripts are so poorly-written but dialogues are too loaded. It tries to explain the US foreign policy on war on terrorism but too much conversations are presented at one go in such a short period of time without allowing the audience to absorb and internalise them. I suspect a good portion of the audience probably found the movie quite boring and they were probably stunned by the abrupt ending. I would grade it a 2.5 stars out of 5. Watch the trailer below to decide if you want to watch it this weekend.

Update: One of the six US presidential candidates, Democrat Mr Barack Obama mentioned that the Iraq war "should have never been authorised and should have never been waged", contrary to this US foreign policy which the Republicans are in support of.

Democracy's Root: Diversity

I have found this interesting article on Diversity and Democracy. The article named Democracy's Root: Diversity was written by Thomas L. Friedman on New York Times:

Last Tuesday, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia met Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican — the first audience ever by the head of the Catholic Church with a Saudi monarch. The Saudi king gave the pope two gifts: a golden sword studded with jewels, and a gold and silver statue depicting a palm tree and a man riding a camel.

The BBC reported that the pope “admired the statue but merely touched the sword.” I think it is a great thing these two men met, and that King Abdullah came bearing gifts. But what would have really caught my attention — and the world’s — would have been if King Abdullah had presented the pope with something truly daring: a visa.

You see, the king of Saudi Arabia, also known as the Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques of Mecca and Medina, can visit the pope in the Vatican. But the pope can’t visit the king of Saudi Arabia in the Vatican of Islam — Mecca. Non-Muslims are not allowed there. Moreover, it is illegal to build a church, a synagogue or a Hindu or Buddhist temple in Saudi Arabia, or to practice any of these religions publicly.

As BBCnews.com noted, “some Christian worship services are held secretly, but the government has been known to crack down on them, or deport Filipino workers if they hold even private services. ... The Saudi authorities cite a tradition of the Prophet Muhammad that only Islam can be practiced in the Arabian Peninsula.”

I raise this point because the issue of diversity — how and under what conditions should “the other” be tolerated — is roiling the Muslim world today, from Lebanon to Iraq to Pakistan. More churches and mosques have been blown up in the past few years than any time I can remember.

A senior French official suggested to me that maybe we in the West, rather than trying to promote democracy in the Middle East — a notion tainted by its association with the very Western powers that once colonized the region — should be focusing on promoting diversity, which has historical roots in the area.

It’s a valid point. The very essence of democracy is peaceful rotations of power, no matter whose party or tribe is in or out. But that ethic does not apply in most of the Arab-Muslim world today, where the political ethos remains “Rule or Die.” Either my group is in power or I’m dead, in prison, in exile or lying very low. But democracy is not about majority rule; it is about minority rights. If there is no culture of not simply tolerating minorities, but actually treating them with equal rights, real democracy can’t take root.

But respect for diversity is something that has to emerge from within a culture. We can hold a free and fair election in Iraq, but we can’t inject a culture of diversity. America and Europe had to go through the most awful civil wars to give birth to their cultures of diversity. The Arab-Muslim world will have to go through the same internal war of ideas.

I just returned from India, which just celebrated 60 years of democracy. Pakistan, right next door, is melting down. Yet, they are basically the same people — they look alike, they eat the same food, they dress alike. But there is one overriding difference: India has a culture of diversity. India is now celebrating 60 years of democracy precisely because it is also celebrating millennia of diversity, including centuries of Muslim rule.

Nayan Chanda, author of a delightful new book on globalization titled “Bound Together: How Traders, Preachers, Adventurers, and Warriors Shaped Globalization,” recounts the role of all these characters in connecting our world. He notes: “The Muslim Emperor Akbar, who ruled India in the 16th century at the pinnacle of the Mughal Empire, had Christians, Hindus, Jain and Zoroastrians in his court. Many of his senior officials were Hindus. On his deathbed, Jesuit priests tried to convert him, but he refused. Here was a man who knew who he was, yet he had respect for all religions. Nehru, a Hindu and India’s first prime minister, was a great admirer of Akbar.”

Akbar wasn’t just tolerant. He was embracing of other faiths and ideas, which is why his empire was probably the most powerful in Indian history. Pakistan, which has as much human talent as India, could use an Akbar. Ditto the Arab world.

I give King Abdullah credit, though. His path-breaking meeting with the pope surely gave many Saudi clerics heartburn. But as historic as it was, it left no trace. I wished the pope had publicly expressed a desire to visit Saudi Arabia, and that the king would now declare: “Someone has to chart a new path for our region. If I can meet the pope in the Vatican, I can host Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Shiite and Buddhist religious leaders for a dialogue in our sacred house. Why not? We are secure in our own faith. Let us all meet as equals.”

Why not?

I need to be Liu Xiang to jump over your high hurdles

To quote MCYS Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan from the Straits Times article:

“I would rather have high political hurdles, so that anybody who seriously enters the contest is a good, strong, honest person, willing to pay the price and able to withstand the scrutiny of the public.”

Oh my, I am so attracted to the term “high political hurdles”. It really reminds me of Liu Xiang, the Chinese world and Olympic record holder in 110m hurdles. The PAP has set many “hurdles” for the oppositions to jump over over the years, all the way to Parliament.

The GRC system is one. Although I do agree it is difficult to elect minority MPs into the Parliament because I think the majority Chinese will naturally vote for a fellow Chinese even if both the candidates are of same calibre, it is ridiculous to increase the size of a GRC from a 3-member in 1984 to the current 5 or 6-member GRC. I do not understand the rationale behind the setting of this “high political hurdle” when the percentage of minorities in our society stands at around 25%. Shouldn’t 4-member GRCs be enough to ensure the representation of all races in our Parliament to be proportionally similar to that of Singapore’s population even when we take into consideration of SMCs which are historically contested by Chinese?

Next, election deposits are forever increasing to match about 8% of the total annual salary of a MP in the preceding year. While it is important that we set reasonably high election deposits to prevent “clowns” or “monkeys” from contesting to cheapen the election process, there is really no need to make it so high (S$13,500) for a SMC and an unbelievable total of S$81,000 for a 6-member GRC. How would “willing to pay the price” make one a good candidate? Must we judge a person’s worth first (his ability to foot the election deposit) before we consider if he is compassionate enough to represent us?

There are many other things which I need to rant on the topic of “high political hurdles” but it is getting really late and I do need my precious sleep while I count my sheeps in my dreams. Fear not, I will not set too high a hurdle for them to jump over while I count my worthy sheeps.

Burma tycoon Tay Za denounces US sanctions

Flamboyant Myanmar tycoon Tay Za Monday denounced US sanctions against his airline and other firms which he said would only hurt the people of the impoverished nation of Southeast Asia. US President George W. Bush last month ordered sanctions against seven companies with ties to Myanmar's ruling junta.

Tay Za's Air Bagan was among seven firms blacklisted to pile more pressure on the regime after its bloody suppression of pro-democracy protests in September which left 13 dead and thousands locked up. "I hereby condemn the sanctions which were recklessly imposed and only hurt the people of Myanmar," Tay Za told officials, staff and businessmen in a speech for celebrations to mark Air Bagan's third anniversary.

"The sanctions are misguided and unfair. Air Bagan Ltd is a legally constituted company with funds earned through 100 percent legitimate means," he said. "No government officials or party outside Htoo Group of companies owns any shares in Air Bagan."

The charismatic tycoon, who was said to be close to members of the ruling junta, also denied he was the son-in-law of one of the ruling generals. "There had been allegations that I am the son-in-law of one of the senior members of the state. It is totally untrue and I categorically and utterly refute these allegations," he said.

He also said his airline was not involved in any criminal activities. "The capital of Air Bagan is not related in any way with such business as drug trafficking, arms sales and money laundering but comes from the earnings of Htoo Group of companies through our legitimate business," he said.

Tay Za however admitted that the airline was facing problems because of the sanctions. "Air Bagan Ltd ... is facing a myriad of problems because of wrongful sanctions imposed by the US administration. Due to restrictions on banking facilities, Air Bagan is encountering operational difficulties," he said.

"Under the circumstances, Air Bagan's Singapore flights have been suspended." Air Bagan had announced from November 4 it would suspend its Singapore service, which was only launched in September.

"It is apparent that the US sanctions will mainly impact on the working population," he said, adding that they would affect the 14,000 employees of Htoo Group companies and Air Bagan. "We shall tackle the sanctions by fair and rightful means, carry on with our second five-year plan and forge ahead in the private sector for the economic development of Myanmar together with the state," he said.

Myanmar-watchers say Tay Za, 43, is also involved in tourism, infrastructure projects, mobile telephone services and was involved in the government's purchase of helicopters from Russia.

The article was obtained from MSN News