In his lecture during a meeting of the New York State Bar Association International Section, Shanmugam observed that many people are criticizing the dominance of a single party in Singapore politics because they are comparing Singapore with other countries. He insisted that Singapore should be judged as a city.

“…nobody questions whether there is a democracy in New York…. This is where most people make a mistake. I have tried to explain that we are different. We are a city. We are not a country.”

Cavalierio accused the Law Minister of “twisting logic” to justify authoritarian rule in Singapore:

And now, for all our efforts and sacrifices put into creating a precious piece of country, we are told that we are not a country after all. It sounded vulgar; sounded like a shirking of responsibility, like a dereliction of duty.

Singapore, if you are not my country, who is?

Shanmugam’s motive was less lofty: he was arguing that Singapore’s political system shouldn’t be measured against the yardsticks of ‘a normal country’, where Singapore would invariably appear undemocratic. Instead, he argued, Singapore should be compared to ‘cities’ like Chicago, San Fransisco, and New York City – cities that have enduring one-party rule. Cities that are democratic.

Sometimes when we reach into the crux of the matter, we find that it is the old chestnut again. The old self-serving chestnut of authoritarian rulers pretending to be a democracy, twisting logic to suit one’s power.

So in the end, the answers that Shanmugam provided to his American guests last week, about our press, our judiciary, our political system, were non-answers really. Pertinent questions explained away in a camouflage of rational non-responses.

Rachel Zeng wants Shanmugam to elaborate his point since she couldn’t understand that line of thinking

Personally, I find that a little difficult to swallow. If Singapore is not a country but a city, then which country is our city part of….

Well, I don’t get it. I will really appreciate it if our dear K Shanmugam will kindly enlighten us here since he has been paid so much to play a part in the governing of Singapore city.

Commenting on this blogpost, Anon clarified that critics should first read the full transcript of Shanmugam’s lecture to appreciate the context of his assertion that Singapore is a city, not a country

Read the transcript. When he spoke about Singapore being a ‘city’ rather than ‘country’ he was explaining why elections in Singapore were so lopsided despite us holding free and fair elections. He compared Singapore to cities in the USA, and how many cities in the US had a single party dominating elections for decades.

While he did say that Singapore “isn’t a country”, he certainly didn’t mean it that way!

Clement Tan is disappointed that Shanmugam, a leader from the new generation, would deliver a controversial argument like this:

I am very disturbed by what the Singapore Law Minister said… At least with Lee Kuan Yew and members of the older guard, I knew what I could expect from them- whether or not I actually agree with them, is another issue. But with K. Shanmugan, part of the newer generation of Singaporean political leaders, I'm not even sure if he actually believes, connects and knows what he's arguing for.

The Temasek Review dissects the loopholes of Shanmugam’s arguments

Did Mr Shanmugam make a “honest mistake” or a freudian slip? If Singapore is NOT a country, then are we still considered a sovereign and independent state? So which country owns the sovereign rights of the city of Singapore?

Singapore is unique in the sense that it is both a country and a city at the same time.

As an important minister in the Singapore cabinet, Mr Shanmugam’s words carry a lot of weight.

Why are Singapore males serving National Service when they are only defending a city and not their country? Who does our Prime Minister report to? What value does our pink IC have? Are we citizens of a country or residents of a city?

The Journey of a Decade believes that yes, Singapore is and has always been a city:

Not say I say what.. This sentence seems to have angered quite abit of Singaporeans…. Lets get this straight… no one said anything about Singapore being a country. We have always been a city.

We have always been an island city state. I can understand how we often we hear things like defending the country among others….it is not exactly correct. It should be defending the city.

The 1961 agreement provides for the selling of 350 million gallons of raw water daily at 3 Malaysian cents per thousand gallons. Singapore also agreed to provide Johor (a Malaysian state near Singapore) with a daily supply of treated water at a price of 50 cents per 1,000 gallons. This agreement will end on 2011.

The 1962 agreement gave Singapore the right to draw water from Johor River. In return, Johor was entitled to a daily supply of treated water from Singapore. The agreement is valid for 99 years.

Since the first water agreement will end on 2011, former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad asks through his popular blog if the current government is thinking of renegotiating the agreement in order to come up with a better deal:

2011 is not too far away. Have we thought about extending the 2011 treaty or not extending it or negotiating a new water supply agreement? Are we going to be charitable again and sell raw water at 3 sen per thousand gallons to our rich neighbour?

Being charitable and not raising prickly issues is a good way to make friends. But what is the cost to the people of Malaysia.

Blogger Kent Moo notes that the former leader “unleashes a tidal wave of sarcasm over the issue of selling water to Singapore, and in the process drowns his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.”

Mahathir’s blog entry, as always, elicited many comments. Abang Din supports a renegotiated water deal:

It is really unreasonable to continue supplying raw water to Singapore if the return profit is totally unacceptable. We are doing business here, let it be a real business. Of course we must consider our friendship with Singapore, but to continue with the ridiculous deal is not an option.

I hope the Malaysia government will see this problem very seriously so as not to give bad reputations to the peoples of Malaysia. Raw water is owned by all Malaysian, so make sure that the decisions are fair and reasonable.

Ifanonline also thinks that water prices to be discussed in the deal should reflect the current market prices

It is a simple common sense. Any layman would know that if there is any new agreement to sell water to Singapore, there should be new prices according to the current market. Malaysia and Singapore can discuss diplomatically on the water issue and come to an agreement about the new water prices. It's easy actually, if Singapore don't like the price, then Malaysia should not be a goody-goody and sell the water at such a horrible low price.

Weesg believes it is still a win-win solution if the first water agreement is not renewed since Singapore can learn to be more self-sufficient

I question why this is being brought up now. Singapore has said that they would let the 1st water agreement lapse in 2011. Since Malaysia feel that the water price is unfair, and Singapore is happy to let the agreement lapse, isn't this win-win? If Singapore does not have enough NEWater after 2011, that is Singapore's own doing, right? Seems like someone is trying to flog a dead horse, yet again.
Anyway, I am glad that Malaysia has refused to extend the 2011 agreement. It is good for both countries. Singapore can also learn to be self-sufficient.

It is important to remind people that an agreement is an agreement (is an agreement). Learn to accept it. Chose your leaders wisely.

Singapore’s Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts published a primer in 2003 to clarify the issues surrounding the Malaysia-Singapore water agreements. In this primer, Singapore insists that it has been fair in dealing with Malaysia regarding the water deals

The water dispute is not about money but Singapore's existence as a sovereign nation. The Water Agreements are part of the Separation Agreement which guarantees Singapore's existence as an independent nation. If the terms of the Water Agreements can be changed by Malaysia at will, then Singapore's independence too could be called into question. This is the root dispute.

The issue is not how much we pay, but how any price revision is decided upon. The Water Agreements contain specific provisions on when the price can be revised and how the revisions should be computed. Price revision cannot be at the whim and fancy of a particular party. If Malaysia can change the terms of agreements solemnly entered into at will, where is the sanctity of agreements? Any future agreement we enter into with Malaysia will have no value.

Rajan Rishyakaran blames Malaysia’s Mahathir for the stalled negotiations between Singapore and Malaysia

Why should Singapore agree to pay significantly more on water when they get absolutely nothing in return?

Certainly, even under Mahathir’s price of raw water, Malaysian raw water will still be cheaper than self-sufficiency: but capitulating to Mahathir’s demand sets a negative precedent on Singapore. Because of Mahathir’s inability to compromise, unreasonableness and impatience with Singapore, Singapore and Malaysia is stuck in a lose-lose situation.

Singapore’s dependence on imported water has forced it to maximize new technologies in order to produce its own water supply. It has developed NEWater (reclaimed water) and it recently constructed the biggest desalination plant in Asia.

People may be too embarrassed to openly talk about it, but everyone does it, toilet or not. World Toilet Day helps people celebrate the importance of sanitation and raise awareness for the 2.5 billion people who don't have access to toilets and proper sanitation. This video by the nonprofit WaterAid highlights the luxury of having a toilet.

Celebrating your can may seem silly, but not having one can not only lead to embarrassment, lack of dignity and safety issues, but also preventable diseases and even death. When people don't have toilets, they're forced to relieve themselves in open streets, fields, or back alleys. The result? The contamination of drinking water and food sources, which leads to a slew of health risks. Lack of sanitation is the world’s biggest cause of infection and kills 1.8 million people, mostly children, a year. Even countries with abundant toilets have to deal with problems ranging from unhygienic public toilets to waterway-destroying sewage disposal.

Vanilla, blogging on Let's Look At It This Way from Singapore, says that people should care about toilets:

“I know this is a crappy topic to most people. It is unfortunate that it is a ‘taboo' topic to talk about openly and many people remain ignorant about the scale of the problem. I fail to understand how this can be an unimportant topic when, on an average, we visit the toilet 2500 times a year, or 6-8 times a day. In our life time, we would have spent 3 years in the toilet.”

Organized by the nonprofit The World Toilet Organization, World Toilet Day is being celebrated globally with various events. To further increase awareness, WaterAid announced the launch of its new ToiletFinder UK App for iPhone users this week. The free app helps Brits find the nearest public toilet while reminding them how lucky they are to have clean and safe toilets. The largest event today, called The Big Squat, asks people to stop and squat for one minute in a public place to raise awareness. These photos show people squatting globally, including this one of preschoolers in Singapore:

A blog from Brunei, the world according to panyaluru …, also shows appreciation for the toilet by putting it into perspective:

“Imagine if we are walking along in the row of shops in Kiulap or Gadong. Suddenly the tummy grumbles, just like the worst ribut you can think off. No rest bite. Grumble and grumble. Rumblings. The light is on amber and ready to turn green. But no toilets in sight. Not a single public toilet in the rows of shops…Add to that no water, no tissue, nothing! That could be the worst day of your life, your worst nightmare, ever worse than the nightmares those kids have in the Nightmare on Elm Street Movies. On this day, let’s show our appreciation to our toilets.”

Despite its serious side, many people have used humor to celebrate World Toilet Day. In the U.K., the blog London City Drains features a 10-question toilet quiz, while in this video high school teacher Matt Cheplic sings about the day.

Some bloggers point out that toilets alone may not be the answer. Sandhya, blogging on Maradhi Manni in India, says many men don't use available toilets:

“In a city like Chennai, where the climate is hot nearly 10 months of the year, I see men urinating on the roadside all the time. When women can control and go home and relieve themselves, why can't men do so, I don't know. So, first of all people should be fined heavily for doing this crime (yes, it is crime) on the spot. I have seen them doing this on the wall of the public toilets! In Srirangam, I saw them urinating on the compound wall of the temple even though every street surrounding the temple had toilets, which were clean, but pay toilets!”

While lack of sanitation impacts everyone, the taboo around toilets can disproportionately affect women. In some countries, modesty forces women do their business in fields before sunrise or to hold it until after the sun sets, leading to health and safety concerns. Joanne Sprague, blogging on Overturning Boulders in India, observes that women are absent from the morning toilet run in Chennai, while in Ethiopia the blog AN ADVENTURE IN ADDIS notices a similar situation:

“I’ve heard so often about the lack of toilet facilities for women or lack of toilets in general; that teenage girls in the countryside get up at 4 am to go out in the dark to do their business so they don’t get bullied by the boys at school or stop going to school altogether. Men just pee anywhere, cigarette in hand and there’s an assumption that women don’t need to, if they are thought about at all….I want to see a huge billboard in Amharic saying ‘Girls go too’ with a picture of Barbie sitting on a toilet.”

To celebrate World Toilet Day, blogger Jonathan Stray, takes readers on an international tour of toilets he's visited, from Thailand and the U.K. to West Africa and Oman, concluding:

“We in the west with our flush toilets and toilet paper and sparkling shower stalls are the exception; the rest of the world thinks a bathroom is a wet, smelly place, when they have a bathroom at all. A good toilet means you probably have a very good quality of life, so enjoy yours. Happy World Toilet Day!”

Photo of Tiled Toilet by nedrichards on Flickr, Creative Commons.

Tham Yuen-C believes enforcing such rule is impossible

Yet, enforcement will be almost impossible.

With so many bloggers opining about anything from restaurants to running shoes to handbags, the agencies in charge of policing the blogs have their work cut out for them.

There will also be many things to pin down, such as who a blogger is, what qualifies as a blog and which legal jurisdiction a person would fall under if he or she were, say, a Singaporean blogger living in London.

Even in the media industry, where there are rules and the threat of dismissal for breaking them, mandating credibility is not an easy task. What more in the nebulous world of the Internet?

She advises authorities to focus on “regulating the practice (of deceptive advertising) and not the medium (of blogs and new media).”

For example, while it will be hard to track all blog posts and bloggers, it should be easier to police companies that use new media channels to make self-serving claims under a cloak of partiality, and the advertising companies that broker these deals.

The Temasek Review agrees that Singapore can’t implement the new ruling:

Given the borderless and anonymous nature of cyberspace, it will be almost impossible for MDA to enforce the rule unless bloggers disclose the information voluntarily.

The author speculates that the real agenda of the MDA is to hurt the financial viability of socio-political blogs:

The real agenda behind the move, however, is probably to deter potential donors from funding and supporting bloggers, especially socio-political blogs with a high readership like ours.

At the present moment, only our site, The Online Citizen and the website of the Singapore Democratic Party accept donations from readers.

If such a rule is indeed promulgated, donations for socio-political blogs will surely dry up because few Singaporeans will dare to have their identities revealed to MDA that they have been supporting sites which are critical of the government.

In the long run, this will have a detrimental impact on the growth and development of the new media in Singapore, especially for popular sites with a sizable readership but hampered by limited funding.

An anonymous commenter believes that netizens should do their own policing:

If ppl get paid to write good things on eg food, spa, etc, consumers will know sooner or later. A better developed media will ensure this fake writeups will be exposed. Let the netizens do their own policing.

Don’t overreact, Silenceisgolden comments:

Lets not over react in this matter. I think bloggers will probably be required to make a statement somewhere within their site that to say that they are being paid for blogging.

Another commenter, Ree, cites an example on how consumers will benefit from the MDA ruling:

Am I being very naive in thinking that the reason MDA wants to implement this is for the benefit of consumers?

To put it very simply, isn’t this just like those long Home Shopping Network ads where there is a disclosure stating that it is a PAID advertisement we are watching?

Commenting in The Online Citizen, HL welcomes the proposal but is pessimistic if Singapore can enforce the guideline:

The declaration would help to state up front where the blogger is coming from. Might not necessarily mean what the blogger writes is or has to be biased towards the sponsor. The decision then becomes a more informed one for the readers, and overall improved health on info reliability. This, I welcome.

The only issue is how best to effect this. Direct regulation is difficult, and not just because of the “vastness” of cyberspace. Someone mentioned taxation, and that’s a good example of a stumbling block – mountains need to be moved before MDA and IRAS can come to some agreement on how to plug this potential policy blackhole – i.e. who collects the taxes, who polices, etc.

Miss Dotty clarifies that MDA may be replicating the move of the Federal Trade Commission in the United States which recently amended its guidelines. But Miss Dotty questions the inclusion of blogs in the proposed ruling

Since the government keeps claiming that there is only lies and disinformation in the internet; this should prompt us all to ask; then what’s the basis to even demand blogs to fully disclose their association with firms should they decide to write favorably or negatively about products or services? This doesn’t make any sense to me.

Uncle Sha notes that it is up to the individual blogger to disclose his/her sponsors

I guess sooner or later the law is catching up on cyberspace. From my own opinion and perception, such policy was only brought up as MDA wants more control, and IRA wants to tax us twice instead of once a year. Well that’s just me lah.

I myself disclose if I do receive remuneration for my blog posting, but I know many bloggers out there who don’t. So there’s an issues of transparency with their entries.

All I can say, in cyberspace you can play hide and seek all you want without getting caught, even with such policy in place, it’s really up to the individual blogger if they want to disclose.

FOOD fuels me to talk also asks if there is need to expand the coverage of the ruling to include paid bloggers who “damn all things about Singapore”

IMHO, I think MDA shouldn’t blindly introduce rules just because the US is doing so. Rather, if we want rules, we should have them, whether the US does so or not.

Moreover, disclosures shouldn’t just be imposed because they go to show a blogger’s bias. They should also be there to help IRAS track income, if indeed, as boasted by the occasional blogger that he/she is pulling in a 4-figure monthly income through blogging.

And more controversially, what about bloggers who damn all things about Singapore, all the time? Shouldn’t they be made to confirm that it’s just that they have a negative disposition; not because someone is sponsoring their ascorbic outpourings?

The(new)mediaslut wants the same ruling to apply to traditional media

On the end of the spectrum, how about journalists declaring the gifts and junkets they go on to cover certain events for vendors?

If MDA decides to put such a ruling on bloggers or New Media as the government likes to call it, why not put in the same ruling traditional media too?