Carlyle A. Thayer's 'Vietnam and the Challenge of Political Civil Society' (abstract) in Contemporary Southeast Asia Vol.31 No.1 is focused on our ASEAN neighbour but his attack on the academic bifurcation of civil society and politics has wider currency; like war, civil society activities, surely, should be understood as a continuation of politics (defined broadly) by other means.

For the spectrum of Civil Society Roles, Thayer draws on Joseph Hannah's 2007 University of Washington PhD dissertation on 'Local Non-Government Organizations in Vietnam: Development, Civil Society and State-Society Relations'. On the left-most side of the spectrum is 'Public Resistance to the Regime' through practices of civil disobedience and mass demonstrations; the CSJ part of the supply chain if you will.

Next is 'Opposition' through its press and media arms (I think PAS's Harakah as an example of relative success) and other forms of 'public criticism of policies and/or the regime' - there's still a room for distinction between attacking policies and the regime itself as well as whether fluffy/detailed policies are offered as 'alternatives' and/or 'constructive criticism'. It could be argued that the post-JBJ Worker's Party occupies the part of this part of the spectrum that is closer to the right/middle.

This is followed by 'Watchdog' organizations that monitor state effectiveness (or the lack thereof) and exposing corrupt officials or practices. There is a literature on how environmental, labour and women's NGOs were instrumental in the democratization of Eastern Europe and Taiwan but I don't have the relevant books with me at the moment. That cluster of research could prove to a rich vein to draw linkages in theory and empirical material to generalize Hannah's spectrum. Right of the watchdogs are those Lobbying for policy change, followed by Advocacy for constituents, changes in policy implementation and 'secondary beneficiaries'.

It seems to me that watchdog, lobbying and advocacy often come as a package of mutually reinforcing assumptions and practices. In an anti-regime formulation, such groups could chip away at the regime, within the scope of its own implicit norms and explicit rules, through repeated persistent and organized requests/demands for information, raising sensitive issues justified on the basis of long-term national interest, holding the regime and its functionaries to account (not to international 'standards' but to its own written rulebook and espoused aspirations).

Right on the right of the spectrum are those Implementing State Policy with welfare, social services provision, anti-poverty measures. Those are often categorized as regime collaborators or even part of the regime's patron-client network. Yet the note about it being a potential 'shadow state' reminds one of how political movements seeking to challenge entrenched powers can achieve success through works that fall under this category - providing health care, education, professional advice - in essence, a demonstration of both organizational acumen and of care, concern and service to the wider community.

My thoughts, though, now wonder to how, from a regime perspective, one could propose a matching framework to trim the shrubs of civil society under the banyan of the party/regime/state - surely, not just with the blunt shears of an Operation Spectrum.

Some time back, the Prime Minister of Singapore announced a few sweeping changes to the election system to encourage more dissenting voices within the Parliament in Singapore. He proposed the following changes namely:

(1) Permanency and Number of Nominated Members of Parliament in the Singapore Political System: Nominated Members of Parliament will feature as a permanent fixture in the parliament. The number of NMPs are fixed at 9. In addition, the Constitution and the Elections Act will be changed to allow a maximum of 9 Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs). The number of NCMPs in each parliament is equal to the difference between nine and the number of opposition MPs elected. One important thing to note is that no more than two NCMPs may come from the same GRC ward.

(2) 12 single member constituencies (SMCs) and lesser six-member GRCs: We will have 12 SMCs and we are not sure how these new ones are going to be formed. It is likely that 3 new SMCs will be carved out of the present electoral boundaries. The other change is that there will be fewer six-member GRCs.

It is not in the interest of this article to offer an opinion on the policy whether cynical or positive, but instead, it may be interesting to apply some behavioral economic reasoning involved in how the establishment is applying the problem of relative choice for the Singaporean voters. Based on David Ariely's model about relative choice in his book, "Predictably Irrational", here is a situation which one can relate to. Suppose if I have two choices (A) and (B) where it is difficult to compare given different attributes, the introduction of a decoy choice (-A) will provide an individual with a choice that is comparably be better than (B) and tips the individual towards (A).

We will aggregate these new changes in the Elections Act and Constitution and call it choice (A), which is the outcome that the establishment is willing to compromise, i.e. if all the conditions apply, the new Parliament after the next election will have a maximum of 20% representation from the opposition. Given all the recent debacles made by the Singapore government, for e.g., the escape of Mas Selamat and the loss of investments from Temasek, it is difficult for the establishment to determine the anger that is brewing within the voters in the electorate. So, one possible outcome is a freak election where the voters will end up bringing the opposition to power or the loss of many PAP MPs leading to a possible 70% PAP - 30% opposition scenario. Let me call that option (-A). Of course, it looks increasingly difficult to maintain the option that they will stay in power with a 82 PAP to 2 Opposition scenario. So, we call that option (B) which is likely to be ditched by the voters given increasing unhappiness with the government's policies. To ensure no freak election, the best way is to offer choice (-A) and (B) such that the most optimal choice is (A). Basically, the 20% representation is an option which the PAP has worked out to be a viable option to tempt the voters in making the choice (A).

References:
[1] Dan Ariely, "Predictably Irrational"

Toh Boon Kwan's research note, "It was a thrill to see rows of B-29s going through the sky" in the Journal of Military History (abstract) presents a local perspective on the US bombing campaign against Japanese military targets in occupied Singapore; his findings largely confirm the view found in the literature, wrt bombing campaigns in Europe, that while the bomber was not an independent, war-winning weapon (a claim that strongly resurfaced following the 1991 Gulf War and 1999 Kosovo air campaign), it demonstrated to subjugated populations that the war was not over and the turning of the tide was possible.

In the methodology section of the article, Toh's lament about how 'the voices of the vast majority of Chinese dialect and Mandarin-speakers have been lost to posterity' continues to ring true. The Chinese language voice in Singapore's official circles plays second fiddle and this is echoed by the blogosphere in general as dialect usage continues to fall off a cliff (PDF); even when the Chinese language is used, it seems to be more of an attempt to project the official English voice futher afield via translation and dissemination. Though it is not without some irony that Toh himself forms and reinforces that the 'educational and class prejudices held by the creators of documentary records' that he is more critical and critically aware of.

Aside from the somewhat paradoxical effect of civilians cheering the bombing even though there was extensive collateral damage, it was interesting to note how there's collaboration and there's collaboration. For example Lim Chong Pang was officially appointed by the Japanese to mobilize the local Chinese community in support of Imperial Japan and was detained by the Allies following the Japanese surrender. Nonetheless he was eventually freed following a mass petition - no doubt a testament to his organizational skills but also a good measure, of something that's hard to measure, of the sincerity of his reluctance to collaborate. Likewise the mitigation efforts of the Nam Ann Siang Theon and Blue Cross Society which helped themselves and their fellow human beings also helped their oppressors; who duly recognized this with praise of their activities being 'socially responsible'. While a Hobbesian state encompasses all by appeal to the imperative of physical survival, the Lockean and Kantian counterpoise point out how thinly it quickly wears out.

A particular LOL moment in the article was when it was recounted how the Japanese did their utmost to prove to the population that the B-29s were not invulnerable by showing film footage of fighters knocking a few of them down, parading captured prisoners and so on. And yet the belief that the B-29s were invulnerable (thus being proof of Allied technological superiority) continued to persist. In Toh's words, 'perceptions... triumphed over reality.' It seems that an irrational suspension of disbelief is necessary not just for watching terrible Hollywood movies but also for hope in the possibility of change.

In the most recent issue of Intelligence and National Security, Leon Comber (abstract) points to the 1915 Singapore Mutiny as the key event in the genesis of a political-internal security organization that the current Internal Security Department can trace its lineage to.

I'm not sure how much Comber adds to Popplewell's Intelligence and Imperial Defence or Ban Kah Choon's Absent History (both of whom he cites) but I enjoyed the succinct account and the photographs of the relevant plaques at St Andrew's Cathedral.

Taking several tangents off Comber's piece, my first thought was how, many things, good and bad, were bequeathed to us by our colonial legacy. Some things have been done away with, others seem to have been set in stone (think turban versus tudung in national schools). It also bears remembering how the PAP denounced the evilness of the ISA and ISD prior to assuming power; it won't take too far a stretch of the imagination for opposition politicians of today - who promise the abolition or scaling back of such laws and agencies - to do what the PAP did if and when they ever come to power.

Second, while Comber's article focuses on Singapore, it is also manifestly clear that, to work effectively, Singapore's internal security apparatus worked as part of the whole British imperial intelligence network, with particular influence from India. Another reminder of the residue of the legal legacy of empire via British India was the origin of Sect 377A. Given the importance of regional and international cooperation for internal and international security, I was slightly disappointed at the lack of any mention of cooperation between British and other powers, or explanation of the lack thereof.

Third, Comber's account begins with his account of the mutiny of the Indian 5th Light Infantry and the actions as well as policies of Major General Ridout but the military angle fades out of the story, with the Indian police moving centre-stage soon after. The story of the origins and colonial influence (if any) on Singapore's modern military intelligence apparatus (SID, MIO, MSD) still remains to be told.

Today, in "PRIME: commentary", Senior Writer Andy Ho wrote an opinion piece on "Why men should not be entitled to alimony" in response to Kanwaljit Soin's proposal (read it!) that maintenance obligations be mutual. In this opinion piece, he argues against what he calls Kanwaljit Soin's "egalitarian-sounding" proposal and mentions with implicit approval the argument that since "marriage is a covenant that progressively disadvantages the woman, fairness would indicate that [only] a divorced women must be able to accrue the unrealized gains of her marriage."

Personally, I think that not only should the obligation to pay maintenance after marriage be mutual, all obligations, especially the husband's obligation to maintain a wife during marriage, should be mutual. Marriage is, as the law requires it, a partnership of equals. Section 46 of the Women's Charter demands it explicitly:

46. --(1) Upon the solemnization of marriage, the husband and the wife shall be mutually bound to co-operate with each other in safeguarding the interests of the union and in caring and providing for the children.

(2) The husband and the wife shall have the right separately to engage in any trade or profession or in social activities.

(3) The wife shall have the right to use her own surname and name separately.

(4) The husband and the wife shall have equal rights in the running of the matrimonial household.

One of the main reasons for the enactment of the Women's Charter is to raise the status of women in Singapore back in the 1960s. As you might already have noticed, Section 46(3) provides that the wife shall "have the right to use her own surname and name separately". This assumes that the husband will not have to adopt the wife's surname. Section 47(1) provides that a married woman may have an independent domicile, with no suggestion that a married may have any dependent domicile. Section 51(a) states explicitly that married woman shall be capable of acquiring, holding and disposing of, any property.

Few today can imagine how backward we were then (must have been in antiquity), when a married woman may not even own property! As one may imagine, the status of woman in 1950s Singapore must have been truly unequal, and upon marriage, probably worsened. And the PAP government then, as part of their election campaign, had promised to right the wrongs.

As Chan Choy Siang, during the eventual enactment of the Women's Charter (in 1961) said:

"We of the PAP have suffered hardship and have tried our best to fulfil our Five-Year Plan. We introduce this Bill in order to uphold the rights of women, so that all their problems will be easily resolved. At the same time, we have tried our best to discover the inequalities of men and women in the civil service. We pay great attention to women's problems. These problems were not looked after by the previous governments."

So in the context of grave social inequalities between men and women, the Women's Charter was a noble attempt to, in every way possible, to require husbands to treat their wives as equal partners. It was okay during those days to have one-sided obligations; after all, inequality then too was one-sided (okay, maybe 99.999 percent). However, the egalitarian instincts of the Women's Charter has gone awry as socially, the status of women have progressed to a point where some obligations placed on husbands by way of the Woman's Charter in certain factual contexts are un-egalitarian instead.

The obligation for a man to maintain his wife starts during marriage.

Section 69(1) provides :

"Any married woman whose husband neglects or refuses to provide her reasonable maintenance may apply to a District Court or a Magistrate's Court and that Court may, on due proof thereof, order the husband to pay a monthly allowance or a lump sum for her maintenance."

Only in the continuation of total existing social inequalities between men and women may such a one-sided obligation make any sense. Take a very likely scenario: a handicapped (or sick) husband with a wife who earns a sufficient income to provide for his needs. It is ludicrous that in such a case, the wife will not be obliged to provide for the husband. While the intention and spirit of Section 69(1) is commendable, as it requires husbands to take care of their wives when they can afford to and when their wives are dependent on them; it becomes equally callous to then not oblige the wives to do the same in a similar situation. The expression in Section 46(1) is clear - "the husband and the wife shall be mutually bound to co-operate with each other in safeguarding the interests of the union."

And now to the one sided maintenance obligations after marriage. Well, contrary to what Andy Ho believes, the social context of marriages are not biased in favor of men. Even if it still remains so (which I really doubt), it is no longer biased in all cases. The specific examples Andy Ho gives in his prime commentary are: "Not only does a woman's sex appeal apparently wanes faster with age than a man's, she generally marries a man of the same age or older. Remarriage therefore becomes increasingly unlikely as she ages. That is not the case with men." Can that be right in each case? So therefore a woman should not be obliged to maintain a husband because her odds of getting remarried are lower? So women are therefore to be compensated for entering into marriage and are not equal actually? Such arguments are spurious at best, and cruel to individuals at worst. It demeans woman, discriminates against men, and inherent is this strange and terrible notion - that although on the day the woman enters into the marriage, she promises to be an equal partner in all things, she may one day walk away from the union, if the man she now calls husband becomes destitute, without a care in the world.

And the law as it stands does not oblige her to do any more.

*Am swamped, no time to read it twice-over, and comments (if any) are appreciated, but might not always be readily replied to. Cheers.