Page last updated at 21:12 GMT, Thursday, 16 April 2009 22:12 UK

Obama publishes 'torture' memos

The memos may justify CIA techniques used at sites like Guantanamo Bay

The US has published four secret memos detailing legal justification for the Bush-era CIA interrogation programme.

Critics of the programme say the methods used amounted to torture.

President Barack Obama has also issued a statement guaranteeing that no CIA employees will be prosecuted for their role in the interrogation programme.

Some in the CIA wanted parts of the memos to be blacked out, fearing full disclosure could trigger lawsuits against agents, reports suggest.

The release of the memos stems from a request by civil rights group the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Harsh techniques

Three of the documents were written in May 2005 by the then acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), Stephen Bradbury.

They gave legal support for the combined use of various coercive techniques, and concluded that the CIA's methods were not "cruel, inhuman or degrading" under international law.

Those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice... will not be subject to prosecution US President Barack Obama

The fourth document, dating from 1 August 2002, was written by OLC lawyer John Yoo and signed by his colleague Jay Bybee.

It contained legal authorisation for a list of specific harsh interrogation techniques, including pushing detainees against a wall, facial slaps, cramped confinement, stress positions and sleep deprivation.

The memo also authorises the use of "waterboarding", or simulated drowning, and the placing of a detainee into a confined space with an insect.

Announcing the publication of the memos, Mr Obama said: "I believe that exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release.

"Withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time," he explained.

But he also gave an assurance that "those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice... will not be subject to prosecution."

Interrogation critics

The memos show for the first time the extent and the substance of the Bush administration's assurances to its intelligence operatives that what they were doing was not torture, and not against the law, says the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington.

Critics of the Bush administration's interrogation programme say the memos provide evidence that many of the methods amount to torture under US and international law.

There was a rift within the Obama administration about whether the documents should be made available to the public in full or should be partially redacted.

Attorney General Eric Holder and White House Counsel Greg Craig were vocal supporters of full publication of the memos, according to reports.

But CIA chief Leon Panetta and deputy director John Brennan called for portions of the memos to be blacked out, or redacted, the New York Times reported.

The intelligence officials were concerned that full disclosure would set a precedent for future exposure of the agency's sources and methods, and would threaten America's relationship with allied intelligence services.

But civil liberties campaigners said anything short of full publication would undermine President Obama's attempts to paint himself as more transparent than his predecessor.

During his first week in office, President Obama issued an executive order officially outlawing the use of harsh interrogation techniques by the CIA, and forcing the agency to adhere to standards laid out in the US Army Field Manual.

Serving God, profiting Taleban

Missionaries from South Korea travel to remote and dangerous lands, intent on spreading their Christian faith. Christianity contributed to modernization in South Korea, and missionaries often link their beliefs with the country’s miraculous economic growth. In July, the Taliban kidnapped 23 young Christian volunteers in Afghanistan, killing two before releasing the remaining hostages in late August. Conditions of release include South Korea withdrawing all its missionaries and NGO workers from Afghanistan. The incident, including a Taliban claim that the South Korean government paid a ransom, has divided churches and the public at large – and could trigger debate on the proper role of churches in international affairs. The US has stressed that its war on terror, started in Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001, attacks, is not a war against Islam. But Christian missionaries enter conflict-ridden Islamic nations on the heels of invading troops, raising questions among Muslims. Preaching – and expecting people to abandon lifelong beliefs – is not a priority for war-torn nations. – YaleGlobal





Sep 6, 2007
SOUTH KOREANS' OVERSEAS MISSIONARY WORK
Serving God, profiting Taleban
By Shim Jae Hoon
IN SEOUL - THEY go anywhere - from the African jungles to the tribal villages of Afghanistan.

Self-designated foot soldiers of Jesus Christ, South Korean missionaries travel the globe, looking for souls to save with the good book in one hand and cash in another.

They carry a special message mixing religion and politics, insisting that the Gospel saved South Korea from communism. Belief in Jesus not only saves souls, but also delivers nations from poverty.

But, as alleged in press reports, if it turns out to be true that the government, working on behalf of the missionaries kidnapped in Afghanistan, had paid millions of dollars in ransom for their release on Sunday, then the church work may have merely alleviated the poverty of a terrorist group.

The global mission of spreading Christian faith has run smack into the United States and Nato global mission against terrorism.

A Reuters report quoting a senior Taleban official as saying that a ransom of more than US$20 million (S$30 million) was paid to secure the hostages' release, though unconfirmed, is sure to add fuel to growing criticism of missionaries and expose the growing complexity of an old globalising force.

The kidnapping of the 23 Christian aid workers in mid-July, two of whom were killed before the release of the rest, has revived criticism of missionaries' no-holds- barred proselytising.

The zeal of some Korean churches in their work overseas, which often offends local sensitivities, has made the missionaries controversial at home and abroad. Some countries such as China and Cambodia, with a historical view that foreign missionaries are agents of imperialism, have already banned them.

South Korea's Foreign Ministry frowns on missionaries going to places where they are not officially welcome and restricts travel to war-torn countries such as Iraq and Somalia.

But eager to serve, some ignore the warnings, risking capture and death; Mr Kim Son Il, a young, novice evangelical worker, was beheaded by Iraqi insurgents in 2004.

This time, besides possibly paying ransom, the government obtained the release of the missionaries by promising to keep them and all South Korean non-governmental organisation workers out of Afghanistan as well as pull out the country's troops.

Officially, South Korea has not responded to speculation about ransom payment, which is alleged to have come from the hostages' church, Saemmul Presbyterian.

Church officials have said they plan to repay the government for airfare, hospitalisation and other costs incurred in the release. But if reports of a ransom are confirmed, it would trigger public outcry, increasing taxpayer anger over missionaries visiting danger zones explicitly prohibited by the government.

The news of the Aug 29 agreement will not quell the debate already raging within churches. While the country's two biggest Protestant groups - the liberal-oriented Korean National Council of Churches and conservative Christian Council of Korea - have issued statements accepting Taleban terms, critics suggest that missionaries pause and moderate their course.

Overall, such changes, they say, would require Korean missionaries to avoid many war-torn regions, especially in places where Islam is the dominant religion. They would have to show greater respect for local cultures and religions. Mission emphasis should shift from total converts reported to pragmatic projects. Thus humanitarian projects - such as providing medical, child-care or education services in Asia and Africa - should be given priority.

Voices within the church have called for moderation: Korean missionaries are 'too loud and aggressive in their ways and self-centred', one unidentified missionary worker writes in www.newsandjoy.com, a church blog.

'Sometimes, they confuse what they do with what they believe God wants them to do.'

One critic, Mr Ryu Sang Tae, is exceptional in that he is not afraid to publicly challenge the church establishment. A former school chaplain in Seoul and author of a book calling for sweeping reform of Korea's Protestant establishments, he told Yonhap News Agency that by insisting on 'recklessly and aggressively converting people of different religions in different countries, in disregard of local sensitivities', the missionaries run the risk of 'aggravating, not ameliorating, the existing conflicts in parts of the world they operate'.

Koreans largely support the call for moderation. One Seoul newspaper poll shows 64.5 per cent of readers saying Korean missionaries should stay out of countries hostile to Christians. A further 85.3 per cent say Korean missionaries should exercise restraint in their work.

In temperament, Korean missionary activities reflect the country's aggressive outward-looking economic push. Expanding economic ties have enticed more Koreans overseas. Like their European counterparts in history, Korean missionaries followed traders to serve their own growing communities abroad.

Today, according to one church estimate, there are more than 16,000 Korean missionaries from some 500 groups in 170 locations. In sheer numbers, they are second only to US missionaries.

Their pattern of growth resembles the economic expansion back home. An obsession with numbers and size has weakened the moral foundation of what Korean church historians say is an otherwise splendid achievement.

Catholicism came to Korea in 1783 and Protestant representatives in 1884; today, one in five Koreans claims to be a Christian. The nation of 44 million people has 8.7 million registered Protestants and 2.9 million Catholics, along with 10 million Buddhists, practising and nominal.

The speedy conversion can be attributed to several factors: The church initially succeeded in focusing on social alienation in a rapidly industrialising nation. Unlike in the Philippines, a foreign religion was not imposed on Koreans by conquerors. The earliest Korean Catholics were modernisers, converted in China of their own volition. American Protestant missionaries came with the consent of the monarch, who welcomed modern education and medicine. Korean Christians played a pioneering role in the modernisation of their country.

But such success is the root of today's problems. Obsessed with over-achievement, pursuing quantity over quality, the churches are often criticised for placing secular interests above spiritual commitment. This trend is evident in Seoul, where most neighbourhoods boast at least three churches, all fiercely competing for converts.

Priesthood in Korea is no longer just God's calling, but a job, with some clerics drawing hefty salaries, plus bonuses and chauffeur-driven cars. At night, the Seoul skyline burns bright with crosses, a city set in a forest of churches.

Critics suggest that vigorous missionary activities abroad serve to cover up the churches' manifold problems at home, including some corrupt and divisive institutions.

Small wonder then that many church groups seek to expand abroad, keeping idealistic new generations connected to the church by inspiring overseas service. Most of the aid workers kidnapped in Afghanistan are in their 20s and 30s, with training in nursing or computer skills. To well-intentioned youths, service in dangerous Afghanistan was more inspiring than high-pressure competition at home.

Within Korea itself, the missionary zeal has earned scant sympathy. 'Why go overseas when there are plenty of things to do at home?' says one taxi-driver, reacting to news of the release.

The image of rich churches sending young adults to dangerous regions has generated only resentment.

The government and churches have not recalled missionaries working in other conflict-ridden areas, but insist that those in places such as Somalia or Iraq move to safe locations.

The Afghan incident prompts not only a hard look at Korea's overseas missions, but also much-needed reflection on the state of the country's religious establishment. If the report of the ransom payment is confirmed, it would deal a blow to the increasingly difficult task of the US and Nato forces to defeat the resurgent Taleban forces.

The writer is a Seoul-based journalist and columnist.

Rights: YaleGlobal Online

Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar: What fear has wrought: an unseemly policy of cruelty

Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar: What fear has wrought: an unseemly policy of cruelty

Any flexibility about use of torture will come back to haunt the United States.

Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar

Published: May 20, 2007

Fear can be a strong motivator. It led Franklin Roosevelt to intern tens of thousands of innocent U.S. citizens during World War II; it led to Joseph McCarthy's witch hunt, which ruined the lives of hundreds of Americans. And it led the nation to adopt a policy at the highest levels that condoned and even authorized torture of prisoners in our custody.

Fear is the justification offered for this policy by former CIA director George Tenet as he promotes his new book. Tenet oversaw the secret CIA interrogation program in which torture techniques euphemistically called "waterboarding,"sensory deprivation,"sleep deprivation" and "stress positions" -- conduct we used to call war crimes -- were used. In defending these abuses, Tenet revealed: "Everybody forgets one central context of what we lived through: the palpable fear that we felt on the basis of the fact that there was so much we did not know."

We have served in combat; we understand the reality of fear and the havoc it can wreak if left unchecked or fostered. Fear breeds panic, and it can lead people and nations to act in ways inconsistent with their character.

The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like that of Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp. Regrettably, at Tuesday's presidential debate in South Carolina, several GOP candidates revealed a stunning failure to understand this most basic obligation. Among the candidates, only John McCain showed that he understands the close connection between our security and our values as a nation.

Tenet insists that the CIA program disrupted terrorist plots and saved lives. This claim is hard to refute -- not because it is self-evidently true, but because any evidence that might support it is classified.

These assertions that "torture works" may reassure a fearful public, but it is a false security. We don't know what's been gained through this fear-driven program. But we do know the consequences.

As has happened with every other nation that has tried to engage in a little bit of torture -- only for the toughest cases, only when nothing else works -- the abuse spread like wildfire, and every captured prisoner became the key to defusing a potential ticking time bomb. Any degree of "flexibility" about torture at the top drops down the chain of command like a stone -- the rare exception fast becoming the rule.

To understand the impact this has had on the ground, look at the military's mental health assessment report released earlier this month. The study shows a disturbing level of tolerance for abuse of prisoners in some situations. This underscores what we know as military professionals: Complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality.

This has had disastrous consequences. Revelations of abuse feed what the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, which was drafted under the command of Gen. David Petraeus, calls the "recuperative power" of the terrorist enemy.

Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld once wondered aloud whether we were creating more terrorists than we were killing. In counterinsurgency doctrine, that is precisely the right question. Victory in this kind of war comes when the enemy loses legitimacy in the society from which it seeks recruits and thus loses its "recuperative power."

The torture methods that Tenet defends have nurtured the recuperative power of the enemy. This war will be won or lost not on the battlefield but in the minds of potential supporters who have not yet thrown in their lot with the enemy. If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable in situations of grave or imminent danger, we drive those undecideds into the arms of the enemy. This way lies defeat, and we are well down the road to it.

Right now, White House lawyers are working up new rules that will govern what CIA interrogators can do to prisoners in secret. Those rules will set the standard not only for the CIA but also for what kind of treatment captured American soldiers can expect from their captors, now and in future wars. Before the president once again approves a policy of official cruelty, he should reflect on that.

It is time for us to remember who we are and approach this enemy with energy, judgment and confidence that we will prevail. That is the path to security, and back to ourselves.

Charles C. Krulak was Marine Corps commandant from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994. They wrote this for the Washington Post.

Is there a place for God in public morals debate?

Pub Date: 18/05/2007 Pub: ST Page: 33
Column: FRIDAY MATTERS
Day: Friday
Edition: FIRST
Headline: Is there a place for God in public morals debate?
By: CHUA MUI HOONG
Page Heading: INSIGHT
Source: SPH


FRIDAY MATTERS
BY CHUA MUI HOONG
SENIOR WRITER
GOD often enters the picture when there is debate on issues of morality and
values.
When it comes to gay issues, for example, some Christians may say that
homosexuality is a “sin” – not just any old sin but a particularly grievous one
that harms individuals and children and families and indeed puts the entire
bedrock of society at risk – and should thus be criminalised.
Back in 2003, when the Government liberalised its hiring policy and said being
homosexual was no longer a bar to holding a sensitive government position, the
gay issue erupted into the national consciousness.
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s recent remarks have caused the issue to be
raised again. He said that if homosexuality is genetically determined, “why
should we criminalise it?” But he also said Singapore is a conservative
society, and the Government did not wish to upset citizens’ sense of propriety.

So the situation in Singapore remains: homosexual sex acts remain a crime, but
the state won’t act like a moral police and go around barging into bedrooms.
Once again, the battle lines are drawn clearly, with the notion of homosexual
sex acts as a “sin” cropping up.
But “sin” is a theological concept, defined by some religions as an offence
against God. Should it have a place in a public discussion on morals?
Or to frame the question in another way, should religion have a place in public
discussions on morality? To what extent? And are there ground rules for such
debate, so people of different or no faiths can engage in meaningful dialogue?
One solution is to give up and say that people of different beliefs can never
engage since they start off with different a priori positions.
Nominated MP and lawyer Siew Kum Hong noted: “How do you convince, through
argument, a Christian who is convinced that homosexuality is evil and immoral,
a sin that needs to be outlawed? I don’t think you can.”
I am more sanguine. I not only believe Singapore can evolve ground rules for
discussing moral issues among people of diverse or no faiths, but I also
believe it is essential that we do so, given the increasing sway of religious
teachings, and the rise in values-related issues Singapore will confront.
The gay issue is just one example. Others include recent debates on casinos and
stem-cell research, and sexuality education (abstention or contraception?), and
one day, perhaps, euthanasia.
With moral debate a certainty in public discourse, it behoves Singaporeans to
develop an understanding of how to engage in such discussions fruitfully.
Some people may respond by saying that religion and private morals have no
place in public debate.
The thinking here is that Singapore is a secular state made up of people of
many or no faiths, so God should be kept out of policy discussions.
But this position ignores the psychological reality that people’s values are
shaped by their religion, so religion will slip into the picture anyway.
As the 1989 White Paper on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act states: “It
is neither possible nor desirable to compartmentalise completely the minds of
voters into secular and religious halves, and to ensure that only the secular
mind influences voting behaviour.”
In Singapore, 85 per cent of the population profess a faith, such as Buddhism,
Taoism, Islam, Christianity or Hinduism and others, with diverse teachings on
ethics.
It may be more realistic to acknowledge that religion affects an individual’s
private morality, and hence shapes his view on public issues.
Should the line then be drawn here, to let citizens practise their private
morality, but curtail their ability to use religiously motivated views to
influence the public agenda?
In 2004, I wrote a commentary arguing this point of view, saying that religious
groups should limit their influence to their own flock, and not try to organise
to get others round to their point of view.
I have since come to see the limits of such a position, which curtails
individuals’ and organisations’ right to influence the policy process.
So, should people of faith be allowed to use religious justifications for their
views and influence others accordingly? For example, can the argument to keep
homosexual acts a crime be based on religion?
Prescribing this would be foolish in a multi-faith society with people who
adhere to different religious teachings.
Those who want to advance public discussion must make use of public reason, and
put up public justifications for what they believe in.
In other words, religion may influence your view on an issue. But when arguing
your case in the political arena, you need to present arguments understandable
and acceptable to those of different faiths.
Influential moral thinker John Rawls’ The Law Of Peoples is devoted to the
issue of whether religious doctrine is compatible with democracy.
He sets out to distinguish a person’s value system or “comprehensive doctrine,
religious or non-religious” as one which “we do not expect others to share”.
In political discussions on an issue, however, “each of us shows how, from our
own doctrines, we can and do endorse a reasonable public political conception
of justice...The aim of doing this is to declare to others who affirm different
comprehensive doctrines that we also each endorse a reasonable political
conception”.
For example, Christians may cite the Good Samaritan story to say that Jesus
taught that we should care for our neighbours.
But to convince non-Christians, they have to “go on to give a public
justification for this parable’s conclusions in terms of political values”,
notes Rawls.
How can they do so? Well, they may argue that we owe a duty of care even to
strangers, using the principles of proximity and reciprocity: You were there,
and can help, so you should, because you would want others to do so if you were
in such a situation.
Such use of “public reason” is accessible to all regardless of religious faith.

This way, individuals may hold fundamentalist religious views that are
non-negotiable, yet are able to take part meaningfully in discussions on
morality using “public reason”, appealing to common values held by those of
different faiths.
But this requires mutual respect, a spirit of civil tolerance and a willingness
to bracket one’s own religious beliefs to hear others out.
Most important of all, it requires a willingness to consider that one’s private
morality, based on one’s own religious beliefs, need not be the basis of public
law.
muihoong@sph.com.sg

Democracy isn't quite what it's cut out to be

WINSTON Churchill is often quoted as saying that democracy is a very bad system, but all the others are worse. The last part of his saying meets with near-universal acclaim. But not enough weight is put on the first part.

At a minimum, democracy requires majority voting. Here, however, one comes to an immediate snag. A majority has a clear-cut meaning only if there are just two candidates or two possible policies. Otherwise, one runs into the voting paradox that was discovered by the 18th-century French thinker the Marquis de Condorcet.

Imagine that there are three candidates or policies, A, B and C. The voters may prefer A to B, B to C but C to A. Everything then depends on the order in which the votes are taken. Experienced committee chairmen realise this in their bones. Numerous attempts have been made to get round this paradox. But none has been generally accepted. Indeed, one contemporary political economist, Professor Kenneth Arrow, won a Nobel prize for showing that there was no decision rule that could satisfy widely accepted canons of fairness.

One practical definition of a fair voting system is one in which electors can express their true preferences without tactical considerations obtruding. Whoever is elected president of France will be the first choice of at most 31 per cent or 26 per cent of voters. In the first round there were 12 candidates. But a rational voter could not just choose his preferred candidate. Suppose that his main objective was to stop Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen from emerging in the final round as he did in 2002. Then voting for any of the eight minor candidates would risk helping the National Front candidate come into the top two.

Now take the position of a supporter of the centrist candidate, Mr François Bayrou. If his main objective was to secure semi-liberal economic reforms, he might have done best to vote for Mr Nicolas Sarkozy to stop Ms Segolène Royal. But if he was chiefly alarmed by the authoritarian tendencies of Mr Sarkozy (who was photographed on a white horse) he might well have voted for Ms Royal as the best way of stopping him.

There are, of course, many other voting systems. There is the alternative vote, in which the elector can show his preferences in order. A similar system is to have a number of successive ballots with the bottom candidates dropping out after each one. This is, in principle, the system used in electing the British Labour leader and deputy leader. In practice, after the first one or two ballots, most of the candidates throw in their hand.

I have often thought that the Blair-Brown stand-off of the past 10 years would have been avoided if Mr Gordon Brown as well as Mr John Prescott and Ms Margaret Beckett had stood against Mr Tony Blair in the 1994 leadership contest. But this is not as simple as it sounds. By supporting Mr Brown, a voter would have risked splitting the New Labour vote and allowing, incredible as it now may seem, Mr Prescott to come top on the first ballot and then acquire a momentum difficult to stop. Most of the complicated systems of proportional representation, like the single transferable vote used in Ireland, are much better than 'first past the post' at stopping a feared candidate than at promoting a positive one.

These voting paradoxes are not, however, the heart of the matter. Even if they did not exist, some 51 per cent imposing its will on 49 per cent is only slightly better than 49 per cent imposing its will on 51 per cent. Market liberals often point out that a supermarket acts as a continuous referendum where each voter can express his preferences and register their intensity. There are, however, collective goods, such as defence, where political decisions are unavoidable.

Even more important, democracy is not itself a sufficient protection for human freedom. An intolerant majority can make life hell for other citizens. For this reason, entrenched provisions are often inserted in Constitutions in places such as Northern Ireland where one religious group is in a permanent minority.

Plato argued that giving every citizen the same say was no more rational than putting a newly recruited sailor on the same footing as a master mariner. The problem with this analogy is that there is no undisputed expertise in ruling a country and that the ordinary citizen has as good an idea of where the shoe pinches as a high-powered civil servant. Democracy is best understood as a decision rule for changing the government without the use of force. At the least, however, one should never praise democracy without qualifying it as liberal democracy.

As Professor Gordon Graham puts it in his under-discussed book, The Case Against The Democratic State (Academic Imprint, 2002), liberalism is a check on democracy, not a reinforcement. US voters might well have chosen to give both presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton a third term, but the Constitution now forbids this as a protection against personal power. Bad offenders in the use of democracy as the be-all-and- end-all of wisdom are the neoconservative supporters of President George W. Bush who act in the spirit of 'fight them, beat them and make them democratic'. Look where that has got us.

FINANCIAL TIMES

浪子回头 笑星当县长

● 符祝慧（东京通讯）

　　日本宫崎县上星期天举行的县长选举闹出一个“政治笑话”，一名毫无政治经验的“谐星”竟然以高票打败有执政党撑腰的政界候选人，当上了县长。这一周来，日本执政当局凡被记者群问起这场选战败选原因时，不是苦笑，就是傻笑。

　　首次登上政治龙门，坐上官位的谐剧泰斗东国原英夫(49岁)在胜战后誓言：要当一个与民平等，为民服务的好县长。

穿工作服上任

　 　上任县长那天，东国原英夫没穿西装，穿的是一般蓝领阶级的工作服。他说：“我家里只有两套西装。”，引来一阵笑声。第一次走进县长办公室时，他也吃惊地 问：“一个人怎么要那么大的桌子，用那么大的办公室？”他接着说：“我上班，不用县厅的高档轿车，我习惯坐自己的800CC小汽车。”

　　最绝的是，给县厅的职员们训话时，他一改往日的嘻皮笑脸，成了不苟言笑的黑脸包公，一开口就说：“你们之中，如果还有收藏见不得光的受贿钱、黑钱，都马上给我一分不少的交出来！”

　　有“保守王国”之称的宫崎县是东国原英夫的家乡，世代被日本保守政客占据。贪官污吏逍遥法外，让有天然风光的美丽土地，变成了贪污腐败之土壤。1988年开始，连续发生多宗受贿丑闻，去年也因为前县长账目不清，被控政商勾结，才有了此次的县长补选。

　 　东国原小时候在作文簿里写道：“长大后要当艺人，也要从政”。为实现当艺人的梦，他到东京上大学时参加电视台的选星赛，在一次比赛中获胜后踏入娱乐圈。 因长相滑稽，他很快便被吸收到日本娱乐圈老大的北野武笑星军团内，专门上搞笑节目。又因为年纪轻轻就秃头，还被套上“秃头笑星”的绰号。东国原在节目中自 嘲：“我全身长得最快的是指甲，每周都要剪一次。我该长的头发不长，不该长的指甲却拼命长。有一计程车司机还受不了我抱怨，曾送我一把最好的指甲刀，可是 至今还没人送来最有效的生发精……”

　　为步入政坛，东国原这次回乡竞选抓住的是保守派的痛脚。他一路上大骂：“宫崎县多年来，该长的不 长，不该长的却乱七八糟的长——贪污、浪费、官商勾结，官业私有化都壮大了，可是，新干线、高速公路却越建越不像样，这些怪现象继续下去，宫崎就要变成一 个无人敢问津的孤岛。”

　　他妙语如珠的骂声震撼人心，也说出了长期在保守政治压抑下的宫崎人民心中的不满。有选民听他演讲后说：“他的话，让我们看到了一个被净化的宫崎。”

不沾裙带关系

　 　因为打的是“反腐、反贪”旗号，东国原不向任何政党靠拢。为表明自己一点也不沾裙带关系，他谢绝所有艺人朋友为他站台。选战中，协助他进行宣传的只有少 数高中校友。他的草根型选举定下节约方针：不提供记者便当，拉拉队都是自愿人士，要打一个不花一分钱的选战。选举期间，少坐车，多跑步，每天要与1300 名选民握手，听取民声。

　　据说，当获知他要出来竞选时，一些看不起笑星的日本政客嘲讽：“若真让一个搞笑的来搞政治，岂不是让宫崎县成为大家的笑柄？”

　　一些评论家后来反驳指出：“因为是谐星，才有流利的口才说服民众，不要轻易相信言而无信的政客。日本选民宁可信任谐星，也不相信政治专家。”

喝酒打架嫖妓
还曾三次被捕

　 　选举时，其支持阵营原本担心，东国原在娱乐圈的一些“污点”纪录会影响选票。从政前，在娱乐圈打滚27年的东国原染上了喝酒、打架、嫖妓的不良嗜好，甚 至还有过三次被逮捕的前科。第一次是以暴力对付一本杂志社，遭受逮捕。第二次是喝醉酒打架被拉进警察局。第三次，则是与娱乐同行逛妓院，被告以与未成年妓 女有染。

　　然而，叫选民对他另眼相看的是，他在犯罪后并没有自暴自弃，能够“浪子回头是岸”，还挑战执政党。1999年，他首次尝到了人 生苦果，被电视台停职，生活从天堂跌到地狱。在自我反省期间，他将自己的经历写成了书，开始对文学有兴趣。2000年，他考进早稻田大学文学系，四年后拿 到了第二张学位文凭。之后，又为了要完成小时候的从政抱负，考进早稻田的政治经济系。

　　东国原的大学指导教官竹内谦接受采访时说：“他在 学习上非常努力，经常不耻下问。对政治，他更是热心，在大学里，研究的是日本的地方选举。他的论文，主张的是有透明度的政治，市民参与型政治，还研究国家 领导人的政策洞察力。他参加宫崎选举时的公约，都是他一个人写的。”

　　在他当选后，在野党议员也开始对他送秋波，称赞他：“或许，政治才是他众多才艺中最出色的一个。”

一个曾被指是吊儿郎当的秃头谐星，一个曾经花天酒地的艺人，从当选县长的那天起，没人敢再说他不正经。问东国原县长的政治抱负是什么？他回答：“为民服务是我最大的政治目标，我要将宫崎县建设成一个能够与国际、亚洲接轨的美丽城市。”

Elections Are Over. Time to Raise Ministers' Salaries!

ST Nov 29, 2006
Ministerial pay 'lags behind benchmark'
But decision on whether to relook salaries rests with PM, says SM Goh

By Sue-Ann Chia

BRATISLAVA (SLOVAKIA) - MINISTERS' salaries are pegged to that of the private sector, but they still lag behind the benchmark.

It is therefore likely that when civil service pay is reviewed, ministers' salaries will also be looked at, said Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong yesterday.

Last week, the Government indicated that salaries of civil servants are likely to go up as it must keep its wages competitive to recruit and retain talent in a tightening labour market.

At an interview yesterday wrapping up his visit to Europe, Mr Goh was asked about the likelihood of the pay increase, including for ministers.

He replied: 'Since the year 2000, six years have gone by with very good growth rates in some of the years, so it's time to have a look at the salary of the civil service as a whole, including the salary of the ministers.'

Right now, he said, ministers' pay packets are at 50 per cent of the benchmark, when they should be at two-thirds level.

According to the formula agreed upon for over a decade now, ministerial pay is benchmarked to the salaries of the top earners in six chosen professions. It is set at two-thirds the median income of the top eight earners in each of these six professions - that is, the pay of the individual at the mid-point of the list.

It must be fun being a minister. Because unlike the rest of Singapore, you'll never have a bad year.

What do I mean? Well, let's say a cardiosurgeon in Singapore does very well in his career this year, makes a lot of money and is the top-earning cardiosurgeon this year.

Next year he may not do so well. Maybe he will have fewer patients. Or perhaps he just won't have so many complicated cases, so he has to charge less for doing simpler surgeries. Consequently, he will earn much less.

That's life. Some years are good, some years are not so good.

Ministers, however, have no such problem. Their salary is pegged to whoever is earning most, in a given year. When our top cardiosurgeon is earning a lot, the ministers will peg their salaries to him. When our top cardiosurgeon has a bad year, the ministers will just drop him out of the list.

They will then peg their salaries to some other doctor for whom 2007 does turn out to be a great year (eg the most successful neurosurgeon or oncologist in Singapore, for example).

Don't you just love the subtle phrasing in the following paragraph:

According to the formula agreed upon for over a decade now, ministerial pay is benchmarked to the salaries of the top earners in six chosen professions.

"According to the formula agreed upon ...".

Heheh. Agreed upon by whom? The people of Singapore? The Opposition MPs? The NMPs? Or just between Lee Kuan Yew and his merry men in white?

黄根成：会议期间禁止户外示威 新加坡已相当开放 但更关注安全问题

黄根成：会议期间禁止户外示威
　　新加坡已相当开放
　　但更关注安全问题

● 陈能端

邝启聪（摄）

　　国际货币基金组织和世界银行常年大会期间，政府最关注的是安全问题。

　　副总理兼内政部长黄根成昨天在“健康人生”嘉年华会上回答记者询问说：“恐怖袭击对新加坡来说是严重威胁，我们是袭击目标之一。作为主办国，我们不能掉以轻心，我们有责任保护与会者的安全和利益，我们也须确保国人的安全。”

　　黄根成表示，他明白有些人觉得新加坡应该更开放一点，让公民社会组织（Civil Society Organisation）举行示威，但他重申这些利益团体并非没有发表意见的管道。

　　他说：“在常年大会上，公民社会组织可在新达城会展中心一楼的划定区内集合，他们有机会讨论课题，或和与会代表交流。这些组织当然不能进入会议室里，因为那是为国家和银行代表准备的场所，但是他们还是能在新达城内发表意见。”

　　对于新加坡禁止户外示威的立场，黄根成解释说，他知道有些人认为新加坡应该更开放一点，“我们已相当开放，但我们更关注安全问题，这并非外人所能理解的”。

　 　他强调，自纽约九一一恐怖袭击和我国逮捕回教祈祷团成员等事件后，新加坡就一直非常关注国家安全课题。“即使到了今天，回教祈祷团在本区域依然相当活 跃。由于这些原因，我国不能为了让外国人在街头游行而改变法律，做出妥协。我国必须一视同仁，不管是新加坡人还是外国人，他们的举动得符合本地法律。”

　　他说：“我们和世界银行讨论过，他们了解我们的立场，我们也了解他们的立场。”