Two political analysts have warned of the downsides to Singapore reverting to the previous system of electing one candidate per constituency, even as the majority of some 4,000 Yahoo! Singapore readers voted in favour of the move.

This comes after human rights activist group MARUAH on Monday presented a report recommending the removal of the current group representation constituency (GRC) system in which groups of candidates rather than individual candidates get elected as in the all-single member constituency (SMC) electoral system. Singapore’s current electoral system involves a combination of GRCs and SMCs.

MARUAH suggested just having SMCs across the board and then having the "best losers" of candidates of ethnic minorities become full Members of Parliament (MPs) should not enough get elected.

Eugene Tan, assistant law professor of the Singapore Management University, and Gillian Koh, Institute of Policy Studies research fellow, both told Yahoo! Singapore they  were not persuaded that the approach would work better in ensuring adequate ethnic minority representation in parliament than the way the GRC system currently does.

In Tan's view, in fact, the proposed alternative presents similar problems.

"The main difficulty I have with (MARUAH's plan) is that when the protective mechanism is triggered, the ethnic minority candidates elected would be seen as 'best losers' first," he said, noting that this would not help the cause of minority race MPs.

Tan further argued that making the "best losers" full MPs with all attendant rights and privileges adversely serves to undermine their legitimacy, weakening the link between them and their constituents since they do not represent them.

"To my mind, (MARUAH's plan) makes the ethnic minority candidates elected lack authenticity and authority as elected MPs. It would reinforce the impression or give rise to the perception that ethnic minority candidates are not electable," he said.

'Best loser' candidates cannot be full MPs

For Koh, the provision that allows the "best-loser" candidates to enter parliament with the same powers as duly-elected MPs does not hold water.

"(This scenario) cannot be the case," she said. "If they are best losers, they cannot have the same standing as duly-elected MPs (and) must have reduced powers, perhaps like NCMPs currently."

Koh echoed Tan's concern of MARUAH's proposed provision, adding that "their system will place even greater scrutiny on the ethnic balance, the percentage of MPs from the four main ethnic categories in Singapore, and yet without direct means by which minority communities feel they can influence things".

She said that the group has to convince the public and its leaders that Singapore's electorate does indeed look beyond ethnicity when voting people into parliament. "My sense is that a broad segment of the public accepts that the GRC system as one that balances quite a lot of considerations," said Koh.

She also voiced her appreciation of the "free-rider" effect that will be resolved in a reversion to an all-SMC system, however, noting that Singapore voters are concerned about and aware of this.

"This is definitely one area that the governing party has to pay greater attention to," she said, although she also pointed out that the expectation that the public has for their potential PAP MPs to have "earned their spurs on the ground" before being fielded does not apply to opposition candidates.

"There is less and less acceptance of having those without a clear record of public service or leadership being parachuted into the field by the PAP,” she noted.

A two-member GRC system?

What would work, then? Tan suggests a two-member GRC system, where electoral wards that are not SMCs will elect two MPs — one from a specified ethnic minority group.

"Here, the ethnic minority candidate will have to pull his or her own weight to ensure that his running mate and him come out against he other two-person teams," he said. "It's like a mini-GRC but it makes 'free-riding' untenable. As such, the minority candidate elected will less likely bear the stigma of his riding on the coattails of his more illustrious team members. Such MPs will also not have to carry any stigma of being a 'best loser'."

Above all, Tan feels that voters must be fully appreciative of the need for sufficient minority representation in parliament, and correspondingly, parties and their candidates have to be seen and recognised as supporters of multiracialism.

Koh stressed the need for sensitivity to parties who prefer a more direct guarantee of representation in the course of debate on the issue.

"We can't be scolding them and asking them to be more enlightened. So tread carefully," she said.

MARUAH's calls for change, the group said, were fuelled by what it saw as the shortcomings of the GRC system—allowing the "free-rider" effect, as well as creating an unlevel playing field between the PAP and opposition parties, among other factors.

Its proposal was well-received by readers, however, 86 per cent of whom voted in favour of it in aYahoo! Singapore online poll conducted between Monday and Wednesday.

Of the 4,303 readers who participated in the poll, about 12 per cent, or more than 500 readers, said they disagreed with the plan, while a little more than 100 said they did not care about the issue at all.

*Article first appeared on http://sg.news.yahoo.com/political-analysts-caution-against-reverting-to-all-smc-system-025003999.html

National Solidarity Party’s Response to National Day Rally Speech 2013

Acknowledgement 

The National Solidarity Party is deeply heartened by the strategic shift presented by the government in the recent National Day Rally message. Many of the policy directions put forth in the message addressed concerns pertaining to bread and butter issues that have been on the minds of Singaporeans for several years. It is encouraging to note that the voices of the people and the viewpoints put forth by academics and the opposition parties have not been made in vain.

While the measures announced are moving in the right direction, the National Solidarity Party would also like to recall earlier alternative recommendations proposed in recent years, which we believe would also help serve the greater needs and interests of Singaporeans.

Healthcare

We thank the government for heeding the call made by the National Solidarity Party’s NCMP representative Steve Chia in Parliament in 2004: to recognize the nation-building efforts and alleviate the burden of burgeoning healthcare costs of the Pioneer Generation. This is a generation of Singaporeans who have played acritical role in the early days of modern Singapore. It is thus right that they should be taken care of in their twilight years.

While the measures announced is encouraging, especially for eldercare and lower income groups, we encourage the focus to be drawn to the sandwiched class specifically, Singaporeans who face the burden of supporting both their children and parents.

The National Solidarity Party’s 2011 General Election manifesto earlier made the recommendation to propose a Comprehensive Medical Insurance scheme, which will entail:-

• Coverage to include hospitalization and outpatient treatments at private or restructured hospitals, polyclinics and affiliated private clinics.-
• Coverage of all pre-existing medical conditions of children-
• Mandatory coverage with government contributing at least 20% of payable premiums, with full undertaking of premiums for citizens under public assistance-
• Coverage of all approved hospitalization treatments with predetermined costing, but excluding rental of hospital beds to discourage extended or unnecessary stays-
• Coverage of medicine costs based on pre-determined drug list 
• Encouraging the use of generic drugs which are comparatively economical

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that he was "flame-proof" and that it was important to be thick skinned when facing critics online. 

PM Lee was speaking at a dialogue session yesterday evening with over 60 young professionals from a variety of professions as well as students. The dialogue also included Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, Lawrence Wong. 

The PM was responding to a question on how he stayed positive on Facebook despite many critics. 

He reiterated that it was important to believe in what you are doing: "If you’re doing something which you believe is right, worth doing, then even if there are some naysayers, you must decide whether you’ve got the majority with you or not."

Going on to talk about the critics he said "There will always be naysayers – that’s the reality. If you want to do something for Singapore, for the population, you should not be deterred because there are some nasty postings. When you are in the public eye, you flame me, I’m flame-proof."

He also explained that there are some people in cyberspace who are just out to disagree. 

How Thickskinned is PM Lee?

Either PM Lee had found a new way of dealing with online criticisms or he has a warped definition of "flame-proof".

If he was truely thickskinned, would he need to issue lawyer letters to bloggers? 

Early this year, PM Lee issued a letter of demand to blogger Alex Au for his post about AIM and before that, in 2012, PM Lee sent a letter of demand to Richard Wan of Temasek Reveiw over a post about Ho Ching's position in Temasek Holdings. 

See: http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/01/05/prime-minister-serves-letter-of-demand-on-yawning-bread/
and: http://forums.condosingapore.com/showthread.php?t=12993

It is clear that PM Lee took offence at these two incidents, having paid for a lawyer to send a letter of demand to those responsible. Is this an example of being 'thick-skinned'? 

As part of being in politics, it is understood that there will be many wild accusations made. There are no other countries were politicians will serve lawyer letters to citizens over their comments.

It seems the PM is being hypocritical. 

Picture: The electoral map from the 2011 General Elections was dominated by GRCs.

ASEAN Human Rights NGO raised valid points in calling for the abolishing of the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system in Singapore and a return of full Single Member Constituencies (SMCs). They released a position paper on this issue:

http://maruahsg.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/maruah-position-paper-on-the-grc-system1.pdf

The key points against the GRCs are that it was not decided by a referendum by voters but by a Parliament dominated by the PAP, Singapore had until its' implementation never voted along racial lines, its high cost to contest (at around $15k per candidate x the number of seats) and of course GRCs allows less capable or popular MPs to be elected.

The GRC system was introduced to ensure that sufficient number of minority MPs were elected to Parliament so as to ensure their ethnic groups had a voice in lawmaking. Although I'm from a minority, I would not simply vote for candidate based on his ethnicity but rather the party he represents, but more importantly his suitability (his educational or work background) and his capability (can he be the voice of the people and manage the constituency) and I believe the Singapore electorate is mature enough to vote in the same fashion.

However, I won't disagree that by ensuring sufficient minority representation we can avoid a situation where Parliament could by some fluke be filled entirely by Chinese MPs leaving no representation by Malay, Eurasian and Indian MPs. Although I have sufficient faith that even if that were to happen, these Chinese MPs would not hesitate to pass Bills that would ensure fairness to all races and to raise whatever issues faced by minority groups, it would be better that such a scenario is avoided. Racial tolerance has long been a way of life here, and we should not give extremist groups a chance to form or gain ground and preach policies or race issues, that could or would create angst even hatred among the racial groups.

In that sense GRCs serve a good purpose in ensuring minority representation. 2 political analysts have also spoken out against MARUAH's proposal which also demands that certain seats be reserved for minority contests or if that isn't done, allowing 'best loser' minority MPs to take their seats to ensure the percentage of minority representation is maintained:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/political-analysts-caution-against-reverting-to-all-smc-system-025003999.html

Both have voiced concerns about MARUAH's proposal to bring in defeated candidates with full membership rights just in order to ensure balance. In fact I would go further and suggest the Non-Constituency MP scheme that allows the best losers a place in Parliament but without full voting rights, to be scrapped altogether. We don't need defeated candidates in Parliament period. Even if it were to serve as platform for people like Sylvia Lim or say Vincent Wijeysingha to raise their public profile, the NCMP scheme just doesn't square up in a functioning democracy or parliamentary system. Richard Nixon describe it best with this quote - 'in the Olympics, second place gets you a silver, in politics - oblivion'. Defeated candidates could either lick their wounds, work harder on the ground and make a comeback or retire. There is much life after politics and much which one can still serve their country, I think George Yeo has demonstrated this.

Defeated Minister George Yeo is still serving Singapore after leaving politics.
 

Coming back to MARUAH's plan, one those anlaysts, Asst Prof Eugene Tan instead proposes a '2 man GRC' in which 1 of them has to be a minority candidate. I think this is a better manner to deal with the GRC system, which incidentally if you buy into my argument that NCMPs are a no-no, then GRCs should be as well. I was until very recently entirely against the GRC system and the manner in the PAP has worked it to their advantage. MARUAH rightly points out that not everyone is happy with certain PAP MPs being parachuted into Parliament either by walkovers or riding on the coattails of their more experienced GRC members, all of which are helmed by at least 1 Minister. Macpherson MP Tin Pei Ling will be the clearest example of this.
 

Very few people believe Tin Pei Ling would be an MP if she had stood in an SMC.

However having a percentage of seats reserved for minority candidates in GRCs is not a bad thing but it should not be in the manner that it's currently being done. In the last elections there were only 27 contests for 87 seats. Furthermore unlike SMCs, where the PM is obliged to call for a by-election, this is not the case in a GRC, where by-elections will only be called if all the members therein vacate their seats.

Asst Professor Eugene Tan in a TV interview on the Punggol by-election.
 

The best alternative I believe is a marriage of some of MARUAH's plans and what was proposed by Asst Prof Tan. We should have '3 man GRCs' and these should not number more than 10 or slightly over half of the Parliamentary seats. If we have 10 '3 man GRCs' now, that would work out to only 45 seats of the 87. This would bring the total contests to 52, and you could work the ratio out for Malay MPs to number at least 8 in these GRCs with Indians and Eurasians taking up the other 7. And there is nothing to stop parties from fielding these minority candidates in SMCs. I'm sure Ministers like Tharman and Shanmugam would be more than confident on retaining their seats in an SMC, just as I believe Worker's Party MPs, Muhammad Faisal and Pritam Singh, would be a match for any opponent whatever the race in the divisions they currently represent.

DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam has proven to be a very capable Minister and would be almost impossible to defeat in an SMC.

Singaporeans tend to look at parties more than the race of their candidates and being a minority is no real handicap. However having smaller and lesser GRCs, will still guarantee representation of minority races. And the caveat must be that should the minority member vacate his seat for whatever reason, a by-election must be called. If the Govt is really serious about being in tune with ordinary Singaporeans as the National Conversation suggested, then bringing in Maruah (which means dignity in Malay) into the GRC system is the best proof that they are doing so.

Sir Nelspruit

*The writer blogs at http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg

During the first five years following the purchase of a flat, also known as the minimum occupation period, a flat owner cannot own, buy or invest in a private residential property (“Different rules on flat ownership” by Mr Daniel Tong Wee Jin; Aug 14).

This rule serves to reinforce the home ownership principle underlining our public housing policies.

A private residential property owner who buys a resale flat will have to meet the minimum occupation period before he can own a private property concurrently. He is therefore given six months to dispose of his private property after the purchase of the flat.

Similarly, an existing flat owner can only own, buy or invest in a private residential property after he has met the minimum occupation period.

In other words, the same rules on ownership of private residential property apply to both resale flat buyers and existing flat owners.

To safeguard public housing for Singapore citizens, we have, since January, revised our policy to require Singapore permanent resident households to dispose of their Housing Board flats when they buy private residential property.

Chan-Wong Jee Choo Lily (Mrs)
Director (Policy & Property)
Housing & Development Board

* Letter first appeared in ST Forum (23 Aug)

Earlier in the SPP’s preliminary statement on the National Day Rally speech, we indicated that we support the Prime Minister’s moves to meet the challenges Singapore faces. Policy changes, such as the proposed new scoring system for PSLE exams and the increase of primary school places for unconnected students to 40, are welcomed.

In this follow-up response to the speech, we seek to raise some questions on policies that were introduced in the NDR speech, in the spirit of furthering the national debate we undertake together.

Social spending

The Prime Minister assured Singaporeans that the government has been distributing permanent GST vouchers and employing the Special Employment Credit. We are also aware of the NTUC vouchers given out at various PAP meet-the-people sessions.

Singaporeans certainly appreciate these gifts. But the fact remains that Singapore’s expenditure on social protection is only 3.5% of all social spending.

This 3.5% includes CPF. CPF cannot be considered government expenditure – it is our own savings. So we would argue that if PM Lee was trying to convince us that the government has done enough through subsidies, the argument is not strong based on the figures.

The wages of Singaporeans

We do not support the above mentioned subsidies as a long term solution. We urge Singaporeans to work with us to push for a higher wage policy, including a minimum wage.

The next step the government should take is to further manage the influx of foreign workers, especially in the PMET group, in order to level the playing field for Singaporeans, and to stop wage depression. It is not true that the pay of Singaporeans is not competitive enough. We are a world class city, but compared to other top cities, our engineers are paid much less for instance.

We want Singapore to be a world class city, but we also believe Singaporeans deserve to be paid world class wages.

 Public housing

We understand that the Sengkang Fernvalue Vista BTO project was priced at S$123,000 for a 4-room flat. In March 2013, the similar 4 room HDB was prices to $361,000. This looks like a huge reduction. When PM said it stabilised, how long a time frame was he referring to though?

During the speech, we were assured that if one is earning S$1,000 per month, one should be able to afford a 2-room flat.

From the feedback we received from the ground, an S$1,000 per month wage earner may not even be paid CPF, as s/he would be taking on freelance jobs such as cleaning and care taking. The feedback we received is that home owners also need to consider home upkeep, furniture expenditure, basic repainting, and so on. I hope the government can provide a more detailed breakdown as to how a $1,000 per month wage earner can afford a basic, sustainable lifestyle in Singapore with two kids – a realistic family size.

Health care

We are worried about is that Singapore’s total health care spending has not been more than 5% of GDP. We are also concerned about the lack of transparent information. We are aware that MediFund surpluses have been transferred to the protected reserves, but why were they not transferred to MediShield instead? What are the interests to be gained from MediFund surpluses?

With regard to the quality of health care, we have two suggestions. We should relook at expanding the list of qualifying universities for doctors to practise in Singapore, and to bring in more medical officers to help support the increasing health care requirements in Singapore. NUS should expand the number of places in the medicine faculty.

Our second suggestion is to work on shortening the queue for subsidised treatment. The feedback we have gotten is that a referral from polyclinics can take up to 6 months – it can take up to 1 year before one can see a specialist.

Project Jewel, or the real issues at stake?

I am not sure how crucial Project Jewel is to Singaporeans, who already benefit from many shopping malls. Project Jewel is an exciting project, but it is not the most vital thing that will affect Singaporeans’ daily lives at this moment.

The real issues are overpopulation, an inadequate public transport infrastructure bursting at the seams, and a deteriorating health care system. We urge the government to look more closely into these issues, as we move ahead.

MRS LINA CHIAM, NCMP

Chairman, Singapore People’s Party

It is more important to be sincere about helping the people on a regular and consistent basis than to seek popularity online.

PAP Branch Chairman for Aljunied Victor Lye has served his community since 1999, and has no intention of giving up anytime soon.

To him, serving is not about impressing the public nor garnering more 'Likes' on Facebook or other social media platforms. Rather, it is about helping those who need help, and making a positive difference in the lives of those who need it.

Mr Lye's recent Facebook post laid out his motivations for serving:

Someone mocked me for having only 200+ FB "likes" - puny when compared to someone else (whom he supports). Clearly, he wants me to stop volunteering in Aljunied. I told him this is not an online popularity contest. While I respect his choice, no need to stoop low. I am already here for 14 years. We have residents who appreciate the work we do. It is more important to be sincere and be here, when and where few dare to tread. And not be here, only when there is something to win.

Source: Victor Lye's Facebook

*Article first appeared on http://www.pap.org.sg/ground/grassroots-activities/we-are-not-serving-wi...

Gerald Giam

Source: http://geraldgiam.sg/2013/08/death-of-inmate-in-prison/ (23 August 2013)

I asked the Minister for Home Affairs these questions in Parliament on 12 August 2013 regarding the death of prison inmate Dinesh Raman in September 2010.

———————–

12 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent case where a senior prison officer was convicted of causing the death of an inmate by a negligent act (a) whether the deceased’s next-of-kin will be compensated and, if so, how will they be compensated; and (b) whether there was a delay in the investigation process given that the senior prison officer was charged in court almost three years after the inmate’s death.

13 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Singapore Prison Service’s restraining methods on inmates pose a continuing risk of fatal or permanent injury; and (b) whether there have been any changes to the restraining methods following the death of an inmate due to positional asphyxia.

14 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs regarding the recent case where a senior prison officer is convicted of causing the death of an inmate by a negligent act, why is the Ministry’s Committee of Inquiry looking into the circumstances surrounding the inmate’s death which occurred in September 2010 only able to submit its report in June 2013.

The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr S Iswaran) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs) : Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take questions 12, 13 and 14 together.

Mdm Speaker : Yes, please.

Mr S Iswaran : Madam, all three questions concern the unfortunate death of a prison inmate, Dinesh Raman s/o Chinnaiah, who passed away on 27 September 2010 after he was restrained and relocated to a cell, following his unprovoked attack on a prison officer.

Madam, every case of death in prisons is taken seriously. Apart from the Singapore Prison Service’s own investigations, the Police conducts independent criminal investigations to establish the circumstances and cause of death; determine whether any criminal offences have been committed; and identify the persons responsible for the incident. The Police’s investigation findings and recommendations are then submitted to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to consider whether prosecutorial action is to be taken.

In addition to the Police’s criminal investigations, my Ministry will thoroughly review the incident, especially the actions of all parties involved, and the appropriateness of protocols and processes adopted by the Singapore Prison Service (Prison Service). Our aim is to ensure the safety and security of inmates and prison officers, and to maintain the integrity of our prison system of strict discipline and order.

Madam, let me first set out the timeline of events to put the incident, and the actions that followed, in perspective.
Prison Service reported Dinesh Raman’s death to my Ministry on 27 September 2010, the same day of the incident. Police commenced criminal investigations immediately. Separately, the Prison Service reviewed their processes and procedures for the use of Control & Restraint (C&R) techniques. The prison officers directly involved in the incident were redeployed from operational to staff duties, pending the outcome of investigations. The Police completed its preliminary investigations and referred its findings to the Coroner, who convened a Mention session on 4 November 2010. The Coroner’s Mention formally commences a public inquiry into the circumstances of a death.

On 17 August 2012, the Police submitted its consolidated findings to AGC. On 4 February 2013, after reviewing the findings and further clarification with the Police, AGC decided to take prosecutorial action.

On 1 March 2013, the Police informed Minister for Home Affairs that the investigations had been completed. After being briefed by the Police on its findings, the Minister decided to appoint a Committee of Inquiry (COI) to conduct an independent audit of Prisons’ broader systems, processes and protocols for bringing violent inmates under control. On 4 June 2013, Minister for Home Affairs accepted the findings and recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry and directed Prison Service to implement them immediately. All the recommendations have since been implemented, or are in the process of being completed.

The charge against a Senior Prisons Officer, who was the direct supervising officer of the incident, was heard in court on 19 July 2013. DSP Lim Kwo Yin pleaded guilty to the charge of Causing Death by a Negligent Act and was fined $10,000.
Madam, it took 28 months from the commencement of Police investigations to the Attorney General’s decision to prosecute. This was due to the complexity of the case. Let me elaborate.

The police investigations included a thorough study of the Control & Restraint doctrine, training, protocols and techniques used in prison; it entailed meeting external experts, both domestic and international, to seek professional views and an assessment on the C&R techniques deployed; and it involved interviews with 130 witnesses comprising 72 prison inmates, 23 prison officers, eight prison medical staff, seven police officers, two CISCO officers and Dinesh Raman’s next-of-kin. In total, the Police conducted 144 interviews. Police investigators also went to the United Kingdom to consult a C&R expert from the National Tactical Response Group, under the UK Ministry of Justice.

In comparison, the recent Shane Todd case, which took 13 months for the State Coroner to reach a verdict, involved 60 witnesses. That case did not involve criminal charges. Another example is the Yishun Triple Murder case of 19 September 2008, which concluded with a conviction four years later on 20 November 2012, and that involved 68 witnesses.

Madam, the prison environment is complex, and the risk of security incidents is real and present. Strict discipline and control is essential to maintain a safe and secure environment, for both inmates and prison officers. While the number of violent incidents in our prisons is low when compared with other jurisdictions, they do happen. Last year, there were 61 assaults by inmates, 40 of which were against other inmates and 21 against prison officers. We have zero tolerance for any violence or abuse that could adversely affect order and discipline in our prisons because it is the foundation for the effective rehabilitation of inmates.

To achieve this, our Prison officers are trained in Control & Restraint techniques, which involve using both defensive and control methods, to subdue a violent inmate swiftly, safely, and decisively. Our Prison Service adopted these team-based C&R techniques from the UK C&R Training Centre in June 1990. They have been adapted to our local prison environment, and are in line with international best practices in the UK, US and Hong Kong. C&R techniques follow a fixed procedure that involves teams of prison officers, each with a specific role or task. The procedure enables prison officers to use reasonable force in a controlled manner, to restrain and manage violent inmates, and to gain quick control over the incident with minimal injuries to all.

Over the last four years, our prison officers have had to use C&R techniques 331 times to deal with a range of violent incidents. Prior to the case of Dinesh Raman, no prison inmate had ever died or suffered serious injuries as a result of C&R techniques.

The COI assessed that the C&R techniques are safe, useful and appropriate for managing violent inmates, as long as safety precautions are observed. The COI did not find any malice in the actions of the prison officers involved in restraining Dinesh Raman. However, the COI identified specific areas of improvements, given the way the C&R techniques had been used in this incident. For example, the officers involved did not maintain constant communication with Dinesh Raman as required by the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), in order to monitor his overall condition. The COI also found that officers should have been more conscious of the risk that the C&R technique might cause positional asphyxia, and of how to prevent this from happening.

All our prison officers are trained in C&R techniques. In addition, officers directly managing inmates are required to undergo C&R recertification biennially. In response to the COI recommendations, the Prison Service has reviewed its C&R doctrines, instruction manuals and training materials to place greater emphasis on the risk of positional asphyxiation, and preventive measures. The Prison Service has also reviewed its recertification requirement to ensure that all supervising officers are covered, including the superintendents of prisons even though they may not need to directly apply C&R techniques themselves.

In addition, the Prison Service has introduced new protocols, such as applying C&R techniques on violent inmates in a standing position where possible, to reduce the risk of positional asphyxia. These new protocols have been adapted from other jurisdictions, such as the UK Prison System and the Hong Kong Correctional Services.

Following the conviction of the senior prison officer on 19 July 2013, MHA has been in touch with the family of Dinesh Raman and their lawyer to discuss the family’s concerns, as well as the matter of compensation. AGC has informed the family and its lawyer in writing that the Government accepts liability and will compensate the family. As discussions are on-going, I am not able to provide details.

In closing, the COI has found that the Prison Service’s overall system and processes for managing violent inmates are appropriate, safe and effective. The COI made recommendations to improve specific aspects of the C&R techniques, which have since been acted upon.

MHA recognises that maintaining order and discipline for the safety and security of inmates and prison officers, is a difficult and challenging task. Nevertheless, we expect prison officers to perform their duties with integrity and professionalism. It is important that the Prison Service has a team of disciplined and well trained officers who obey the law, and manage inmates conscientiously according to rules and procedures.

We take a serious view of any professional misconduct, procedural lapses, neglect or excess of duty by prison commanders and officers, and will take firm action against them according to the law and civil service disciplinary processes. This is important in order to maintain public confidence in the institutions, and also in the people who continue to serve in them.

With the conclusion of the court case, MHA has initiated disciplinary action against the superintendent, supervisors and other officers involved in the incident.

* * * * *

Mdm Speaker : Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song : I have got three supplementary questions. I would also like to extend my condolences to the family of Dinesh Raman. My reason for asking my original question was because I am concerned that even the approved Control & Restraint (C&R) techniques risk fatal or permanent injuries to inmates. So my first question is: was the restraining technique that caused the death of inmate Dinesh Raman on 27 September 2010 an approved technique? Secondly, has Prisons factored in the possibility that a combination of C&R techniques, even though they may be individually approved, could cause fatalities? Lastly, will the review of the C&R doctrine in Prisons apply to the Police and other security services so as to ensure that there is no repetition of such a tragedy, Government-wide?

Mr S Iswaran : I want to thank the Member for his questions. Madam, let me first re-state findings of the Committee of Inquiry, for the record. The findings were that the control and restraint method used in the Prisons is safe, effective and appropriate. The application in this instance may have had certain aspects that were wanting but the overall system and process were found to be appropriate, safe and effective.

Prisons adopted this system, as I said, from the UK system in 1990, and regularly reviews the system according to our own operating environment and also taking reference from any key developments in other jurisdictions. This is no different. In fact, Prisons reviewed it periodically and adapted one of the techniques in 2005 as a result of some changes in international norms, especially in the UK. So the C&R technique regime was applicable at the time of Dinesh Raman’s passing, were up-to-date based on Prisons’ active review of the processes. Whether a combination of techniques can lead to an unfortunate outcome, well, this is precisely why I emphasised the point. The purpose of the Control and Restraint technique — the protocols in the regime and the very well defined roles for individual officers — is precisely to ensure that reasonable force is used in a controlled manner in order to bring a situation under control with minimal injuries to all parties. That is the objective. So we have to understand the context of the prison environment and what its objective is. As I said, also for the record, we have had no incident since these techniques were adopted since 1990 where the death of a prison inmate or for that matter, serious injuries were attributed to the use of C&R techniques.

Finally, whether the review of C&R techniques can be shared with other agencies, where appropriate, the Home Team has platforms where our Departments share areas which are of common interest.

*Article first appeared on http://geraldgiam.sg

The SDP is sad to announce the resignation of Dr Vincent Wijeysingha from the party. Dr Wijeysingha has expressed his desire to get more involved in LGBT and other human rights issues, and that he finds it more effective to do it as an activist in the civil society arena.

While the SDP is disappointed at this outcome, we understand and fully support Dr Wijeysingha's position. Our loss is civil society's gain. We know that Dr Wijeysingha will carry on his work with honesty and courage. The Party has benefited immensely from his keen intellect, and we will miss his participation and contribution.

We wish Vincent the very best in all his endeavours. 

Jufrie Mahmood

Chairman

Singapore Democratic Party

Below is a Facebook status update published by Vincent:

Letter from Vincent Wijeysingha

Dear Friends,

My Facebook post about my sexuality attracted some debate on LGBT rights. The shape of the discussion shows there is misunderstanding of these issues, primarily because of lack of mainstream access to appropriate information. Misunderstanding leads to discrimination that works its way into the lives of LGBT people, resulting in anguish and distress.

I believe that, as a nation, we have a limited appreciation of civil liberties: they have not penetrated deeply into our civic discourse and public administration. There is a great deal of work ahead if we are to achieve the full range of our fundamental liberties.

During the last three years that I have been a member of the Singapore Democratic Party, I have been engaged in social and economic bread-and-butter policy issues. I hope I have contributed in some small way. But after reflection and consultation with friends and colleagues, I have come to believe that I should participate in the more intangible but no less important work to promote our civil liberties.

Therefore, I would like to inform you that I have taken the difficult decision to resign my membership of the SDP in order to explore how I can be of service to the wider cause of our civil liberties, a project which I believe to be the dominant mission of this present period.

I continue to share deeply the values of the party which gave me a political home and the opportunity to learn an ideal of service which I have tried to carry out. I intend to explore ways in which I can honour those values in the civil liberties sphere.

I have discussed my decision extensively with party leaders who have given me their blessing. I would like to ask you also to support me in this decision.

Dr Vincent Wijeysingha

Source: YourSDP.org

I refer to the article titled Double standards when criticising PM’s MediShield Life policy by Mr Albert Lim published in Temasek Review Emeritus where he said that bloggers and readers practised double standards when they criticised the Government’s healthcare proposals but not the SDP’s.

Referring to the concept of national health insurance schemes, Mr Lim commented that:

It is plainly wrong to force people to buy or pay for health insurance or pay for other people’s healthcare, especially if the other is financially irresponsible, could not be bothered to look after his/her health or, abuses free or heavily subsidised healthcare by seeing the doctor just to “chao geng”, as what is happening in Scandinavian countries.

Mr Lim may note that the purpose of an insurance scheme is not to ‘pay for other people’s healthcare’, but to insure oneself against the uncertainty and risk of having to pay for a catastrophic illness that can easily bankrupt a person.

While it is true that abuses can happen in national health insurance schemes, it is also true that these abuses can be better controlled in a well-designed and well-run scheme, compared to the existing non-nationalised fee-for-service schemes.

Profit-based medical practice, especially when covered by insurance or the government, makes medical care so expensive that it cripples the system. Information asymmetry is a major reason for distortion of this practice. The doctor, knowing that some faceless insurance company will pay his bill, regards as “reasonable” whatever sum he can get away with.

Under an insurance scheme, medical practitioners may increase prices as out-of-pocket payments drop. To counter this, SMA Guideline on fees and prices must be re-issued with vigilant policing. Prices in public hospitals will also be fixed, and thereafter linked to inflation level and median wage.

The ‘Buffet Syndrome’

Patients often demand more detailed medical attention, sometimes including unnecessary tests and medications, if their healthcare is insured or prepaid. These increased patient demands will raise the cost of healthcare.

A few measures will be put in place, under the SDP plan to prevent such abuse:

1. The patient co-pays for the tests and treatments. This will discourage unnecessary demand.
2. Acute self-limiting illnesses (common cold or food-poisoning) where the patient feels physically unwell and tends to demand more treatment will not be compensated to the same extent as chronic non-symptomatic illnesses (hypertension or diabetes) where there is greater risk of non-compliance with treatment or medications.
3. All consultations and prescriptions will be logged into the MOH website to identify any abuse of the system e.g. cough mixture addict who doctor shops for cough mixtures or patients who seek third or fourth opinions for the same condition.

Drug cost

The Government will bid for the more expensive drugs to bring cost down, and provide the drug at bid-price to all healthcare sectors, not just to polyclinics and re-structured hospitals, but to all GPs and private specialists on the scheme. With the bargaining power available, drug cost can be reduced tremendously.

Practicing cost-effective medicine

Aggressive cost-containment measures will be established to control prescribing practices, interventional medicine and overly defensive medical practices.

In order to ensure that physicians don’t over-treat or overcharge, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines will be refined and reinforced. Treatment norms should be standardized and formalised in tariff tables which will be worked out by an independent panel of doctors and in consultation with the public.

Additional investment in health education, preventive healthcare and early detection will also reduce overall costs. Screening tests that have been economically evaluated to have a high cost-benefit ratio will be encouraged.

Audit and Compliance

Under the SDP proposal, MOH will conduct annual random audits, including field audits where necessary, of invoices in both the public and private sectors. Action will be taken against practitioners if they repeatedly over treat and overcharge patients.

Referring to the SDP Healthcare Plan premium, Mr Lim also stated:

And the “contribution” would have taken up at least 1/6 of the income of workers earning entry level salary, and at least 30% of the income of blue collared and some part time workers, who usually earn salaries between $800 and $1000. Lastly, there is no opting out, at least for the “contribution” aspect in the SDP’s healthcare plan.

This is inaccurate. Under the SDP plan, families whose incomes fall below $2,000 a month do not have to contribute to the scheme. Families with incomes more than $2,000 per month pay between $50 and $150 per month depending on the income level. The premium under the SDP Healthcare Plan will not exceed 4% of a family’s income.

Moreover, in our plan, Medisave contribution will be abolished, as everyone will be insured comprehensively, negating the need for huge one-time bills.

Although the details have not been worked out, the biggest clue that MediShield Life will not be a truly comprehensive national health insurance scheme is the fact that PM Lee Hsien Loong has announced that ‘contributions to Medisave will have to increase’.

Government vs SDP Plan

Graphically, the Government’s proposed scheme will look something like this:

Will this be the only ‘national insurance scheme’ in the world where the ‘co-payment’ component is 10 times the ‘insurance’ component? A true comprehensive health insurance scheme, like the SDP’s, should be the opposite, looking something like this:

Under the SDP plan, patients co-pay 10% of hospital bills and the government pays 90%.

Limitations of MediShield Life

It is also obvious that the Community Health Assistance Scheme (CHAS) will continue to operate where patients can receive subsidies for outpatient medical treatments for chronic and/or acute conditions at participating CHAS clinics. CHAS subsidies are, however, subject to a cap of $480 per year. This sum is totally inadequate for proper treatment of chronic conditions like hyperlipidaemia and diabetes.

This means that MediShield Life will not cover outpatient treatment for such illnesses where patients still have to pay out-of-pocket amounts beyond the $480-subsidy.

Also, allowing Medisave to be used for more outpatient treatment and health screening will not solve our healthcare financing problems, as this would only result in even less money left over in our Medisave account when a catastrophic illness strikes.

Conclusion

A truly comprehensive health insurance scheme would necessitate a larger ‘pooled’ contribution to the national healthcare insurance fund in place of contributions to a large ‘unpooled’ individual savings fund.

Until this imbalance is addressed, there can be no peace of mind for Singaporeans where healthcare costs are concerned.

To read the full paper of The SDP National Healthcare Plan: Caring For All Singaporeans, please click here.

Dr Tan Lip Hong

* Dr Tan Lip Hong is general practitioner. He is a member of SDP’s Healthcare Advisory Panel.

Source: YourSDP.org

Below is a Facebook status update from Minister Vivian Balakrishnan:

Thrilled to meet Steve Wozniak - and to discuss why Singapore needs to quickly build a critical mass of engineers, artists and angel investors. 

We spoke at the Midas Touch Asia 2013 Enterprise Award ceremony on 26 August.

Edited excerpts of my speech - on Singapore's prospects for making an impact on the ICT revolution.

In 1982, my father bought my first computer - it was an Apple II Plus. Many of you here are too young to have used that venerable piece of technology. 

I was a medical undergraduate, and my father had to take a loan to buy it. The cost then was a lot more than what one would pay for its equivalent today. I recollect the thrill of unpacking it, assembling it, and taking off the lid. I was telling Steve just now, I also remember putting in a Z-80 in order to run the CP/M operating system.

I was a very poor gamer. In fact, I was forced to learn programming in order to hack the games. I learnt Integer BASIC and I just discovered that Steve was the one who wrote Integer BASIC. He told me just now how he wrote it by hand and then transcribed it into the binary code which actually ran on the computer. 

The purpose of sharing all this with you is for us to reflect that in over 30 years, our lives have been completely transformed. We pay progressively lower prices for ever more powerful technology. I experienced for myself the computer revolution in the medical and surgical fields.

Today computers around us can operate at levels of precision, far beyond the ability of my eyes and hands. For instance, for those of you who gone for refractive surgery - I know Steve himself has gone for this, computer-controlled lasers operate at the level of one-quarter of one-thousandth of a millimetre. No human surgeon can achieve that level of precision unaided, but computers have transformed what we can do with our hands and our eyes. 

Of course, beyond the medical field, computers have also revolutionised the finance and technical fields. It has been a source of great opportunity. But let me give you a political angle to this. It has also been a source of great inequality. 

Stop for a moment to think about it. The advent of new technology can lead to different outcomes for people in different circumstances. For example, who gets to borrow the money to access the new technology? Who gets educated on how to use the technology? And who are the people who will devise new uses for technology, which the original creators never dreamt of?

So the point is - although politicians may aim for equality of opportunities, the ability to exploit these opportunities can very often be very unequally distributed. It depends on where you are born; whether you live in a society which has access to technology; whether you have the initial funding to buy or to rent the technology; and whether the education system equips you with the necessary skills to do all these wonderful things. So this has been both a great opportunity and also a cause for inequality. 

Another reason I wanted to be here is because I was very intrigued by Steve Wozniak’s view - I think in December 2011 or 2012 - when he said that a company like Apple could never emerge from Singapore. I didn’t have enough time to discuss this in detail with him. 

But I wanted to share a couple of points. The first thing I wanted to tell Steve is that in Singapore, you can say anything you like. Steve Wozniak, in particular, is a friend of Singapore - your advice is sincere, and you are actually trying to help us. So contrary to popular belief, we are not going to structure your thoughts or your conversations. Thank you for being brutally frank. 

Now, having said that, I also want to say that I do not totally agree with Steve. And let me explain why. First, Singapore only began on this journey 30 years ago. Steve and the people like him embarked on this journey a generation before us. We are late-comers to the party. 

The second point is that I believe we need a critical mass of three groups of people if we are to make a significant contribution to this space. We need engineers, artists, and angels (- angel investors). 

Let me explain. I visited Google in Mountain View a couple of times. Each time I went there, I asked to meet Singaporeans. And I remembered meeting 20 to 30 Singaporeans. And they told me: they are really happy working at Google, and I asked why. And they said: “because this is a company that values engineers. And as engineers, we can change the world”. It is not about getting fabulously rich. But it is that empowering sense that "we can change the world". They were thrilled to have that opportunity to work in teams producing new products and services that could change the world. So we certainly need engineers.

The second group is artists. I use artists in the most liberal sense of word. Just now when I was having a chat with Steve, and he explained the key advantage of the other Steve. Steve Jobs was not as technically gifted as Steve Wozniak. Steve Wozniak would design the chips, the motherboard and did the programming. Maybe because Steve Jobs did not have that same gritty, down-in-the-chips knowledge - his mind was focused on design, packaging, branding; on making technology sexy and available to non-engineers. 

The point I wanted to share with you is it is not enough to just have the engineers who can change the world - you need people who can humanise technology; make people desire that technology; and to want to identify with it and to want to use it. And that is why the whole concept of design is crucial. I think design is really about creating a language that speaks to the human heart and soul. And we need people like that as well.

The third group of people we need are Angels - Angel investors. Frankly, especially in Asia and in Singapore, we are not short of money. But what we need is smart money. People who are willing to invest in companies but who also know enough about technology and design. To give good, honest brutal advice, the same way that Steve Wozniak has given good honest brutal advice to Singapore. People who can put their money where their mouth is, exercise their minds, and to truly nurture and build up entrepreneurs. The way I look at it, we have not yet fully taken off in Singapore. We can, and I hope we will build up that critical mass of engineers, artists and angels. 

For now, our objective in Singapore is to remain one of the world’s most open cities. Because ideas can only be generated in human minds. Only human minds imagine the future. And we need to make sure we get more than our fair share of the dreamers and visionaries of the world. If not to live here permanently, then at least to spend a significant amount of time - exchanging ideas, and building up our idea pool. 

The second point is for Singapore to remain one of the most connected nodes of the world. It is not an accident that we have one of the most dense fibre networks in Singapore. I am not just referring to the fibre that goes into every home. But I am referring to the fact that we are a focal node of the fibres that traverse the globe. That is not very sexy - just fibre optics. But it represents our strategy to be a focal node of an inter-connected world. Because we believe that being an exchange, a focal point for ideas, data and information, will make us part of a larger network and give us access to the critical mass of engineers, artists and angel investors. 

My final point is that we cannot be everything to everybody. The truth is, it is practically impossible for us to be a clone of Silicon Valley. The history, the skills, the climate, the academics, and the engineering expertise in Silicon Valley is not something we can transplant anywhere in the world. Anyone who says that “I’m creating a silicon valley” is probably overreaching. 

But I believe, we should be comfortable with ourselves, by being a secure, beautiful and wonderful place to live, travel, and settle in. A place where you are happy to bring your wife to. A place where your kids can grow up to be educated, and not have to worry about guns and drugs. A place where your parents can get good healthcare. A place where you can meet secure, reliable and honest bankers. A place where you can meet other people with ideas. The point I am trying to make is that an open, secure, comfortable, family-oriented, and welcoming place, is also a core part of our strategy. 

Let me conclude by congratulating all the winners. I have known people like George Quek and Derek Goh for many years. They are also part of the proof that Singaporeans can make it, with imagination and with determination. Because Singapore is so small, all of them had had to go beyond the boundaries of Singapore. 

There are other examples like Sim Wong Hoo of Creative Technology and what he has done for the sound card. You think about the USB Thumb Drive invented by Henn Tan and his engineers at Trek2000 in Singapore. The point I am trying to leave with you is that we do have our own local heroes. But what we need to do now is to urgently build up the critical mass of local heroes who will be entrepreneurs of the world using Singapore as their home base. 

I hope I have given you enough food for thought. And I hope to persuade Steve Wozniak in my own way, "don’t count us out yet". We heard you and we will dearly love to prove you wrong sometime in the future. 

Thank you all very much.

Vivian Balakrishnan

PAP Minister

Mr Donald Low’s article (“Has ‘global city’ vision reached its end date?”; last Wednesday) recommends that the Government shift from prioritising growth to prioritising well-being. This is invidious.

The Government’s vision has always been to advance the well-being of Singaporeans. It was never about turning Singapore into a global city for its own sake. Growth is not the end but the means to achieve well-being.

We pursue economic growth because we must have the financial resources to raise our families, build communities, defend ourselves and fund the policies needed to build a fair and just society.

But growth needs equity. We do not, and should not, pursue growth for growth’s sake. We should recognise that unfettered growth leads to widening inequality.

Hence, redistributive policies are necessary to spread the benefits of our progress and alleviate the negative outcomes of a free market economy.

The Government will strengthen those policies, particularly in housing, education and health. This will help us to stay together as a nation, and build a fair and just society for ourselves and our children.

Mr Low’s argument is however, incomplete. Equity needs growth.

With growth, the lives of Singaporeans have been uplifted. We have funded policies that helped Singaporeans meet their aspirations, to build their homes in Singapore. Without growth, equity will be illusory.

We focused on economic growth as the livelihoods of Singaporeans depended on it. But we were also focused on spending less than we earn, and on providing for the future.

Today, the interest income from our savings makes up a significant part of our budget. Our reserves enabled us to implement the Jobs Credit Scheme, which saved thousands of Singaporean jobs during the financial crisis. If we did not grow, we could not have saved.

We all want our children to have better lives than ours.

In an increasingly competitive and changing world, our children will benefit from a strong and stable economic platform to meet their aspirations and raise their own families in Singapore. Let us leave them a saving cushion, not a debt burden.

Growth is not the Holy Grail for Singapore, and never has been. Growth to build a better life for all Singaporeans – that has always been the goal of this Government.

Hri Kumar Nair
MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC

* Letter first appeared in ST Forum (2 Sep)

Recently, I noted a share on Facebook which described the travails of a Singaporean (let us call him Mr T) living in the northern part of Singapore who was unable to secure housing from the HDB due to "being above the income ceiling”. According to the HDB, Singaporeans are not eligible to rent from the HDB if their household income exceeds $1,500 per month. 

Some might say that Mr T’s case is not very strong, and that there would be many more in even more severe situations than him. However, this does not mean that Mr T’s case does not merit attention.

The SDP raised this problem in Annex B of Housing A Nation: Holistiic Policies For Affordable Homes and also in the article Beyond the income ceiling: Extending the public housing franchise. For clarity, I will repeat the argument made.

This translates into practical problems for lower-income Singaporeans. Last year, The New Paper published a report titled "$50 raise? No, thanks” (2 July 2012) wherein it highlighted the case of a low-wage earner turning down a pay increase as it would have put her in a higher income bracket which would have led to a net loss after accounting for the increase in rent. 

The problem exists not just from rental flats but also for purchase of BTO flats. HDB's rules state that if a household's income is $1,500 and below, a family is eligible for a grant of $40,000 for a BTO flat. If the income is between $1,500 and $2,000, the grant falls to $35,000.

Consider the situation where a household is close to some income ceiling, say $1,480. If the family's income is raised by $50 a month, the increment puts the family above the ceiling and disqualifies it from the higher subsidy of $40,000. 

The monetary benefit of an increase in income by $50 per month is small compared to a decreased grant subsidy of $5,000. Is an additional $50 per month in salary worth as much as $5,000? Young people are also warned to ballot for their flats early before they reach the income ceiling. This goes to show that these incentive issues are real and should be properly addressed.

The real harm of "income ceilings”

In Housing a Nation, we highlighted the income-ceiling problem where grant subsidies fall significantly, inducing a series of disincentives for lower-wage workers to accept wage increments or take on higher value work for fear of sharp drops in their HDB grants. Economically speaking, this doesn't make sense.

In the Perspectives article Beyond the income ceiling: Extending the public housing franchise, I discussed the income-ceiling problem for middle-class Singaporeans whose household income approaches $10,000 (for 4-room and bigger flats, and selected types of 3-room flats). Singaporeans in this category are caught in a bind because  private housing (and even Executive Condominiums) are beyond their reach.  

In such cases, households are presented a massive disincentive to take on higher value work. Such barriers disincentivize productivity increases for the national economy. (Academic economists who are interested in using structural modeling techniques to identify the presence of and the strength of such incentive effects might find this to be a worthy and impactful research project.)

In the aforementioned article, I touched on a possible solution for the middle-class income-ceiling problem. It is similar in spirit to the rental problem that Mr T faces. 
The solution is to allow him to rent, but charge him a bit more. While preference can be given to households with even lower incomes, a soft relaxation of the rule prevents precipitous welfare losses. Of course, rental rates should increase gradually with household income but not at a rate so fast as to make it not worthwhile to pursue higher income.

(Of course, introducing such measures would necessitate a thorough evaluation of of pricing for housing and rental which the SDP has done in Housing a Nation. Making flats affordable for Singaporeans especially those in the lower-income groups would reduce long waiting lists for rental housing.)

It is unfortunate that the Government, with all the economists in its ranks (several of the cabinet ministers have had training in economics), would have designed so many rules around the flawed income ceiling dynamic. The question really is: How did they miss the problem?

Jeremy Chen is pursuing his PhD in Decision Science at the NUS and is a member of the SDP's housing policy panel.

The SDP will be launching our Malay policy paper this Saturday. The single most important motivation for writing this paper is the concern that the Singaporean identity is being eroded with the influx of foreigners.

Titled A Singapore for All Singaporeans: Addressing the Concerns of the Malay Community, the paper calls for the proper regard for, and of, our Malay community which forms an integral part of our national culture and identity.

Neglecting the Malay-Muslim community will also mean destroying a part of who we are, and have come to be, as Singaporeans. It has grave implications for our future as a people.

But A Singapore for All Singaporeans is more than an affirmation of our nationality, it is an alternative blueprint to building a truly multi-racial and multi-cultural society that lives up to the promise of our national pledge: We the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people regardless of race, language or religion...

Many Singaporeans complain that they feel alienated and have become strangers in their own country with the current population policy. This is a result of the sudden and massive increase in foreigners on the island.

The antidote is not to become xenophobic. It is to develop an inclusive system. When we do this, we build trust and cohesiveness amongst the various races in our country. With trust comes loyalty. Only then will we be able to hold together if and when a crisis befalls our nation.

To achieve this noble and necessary objective, we must tackle the underlying causes that put the Malay community in Singapore at a disadvantage.

For example, we examined the number of scholarships awarded by the Public Service Commission (PSC) and counted the number of Malay recipients. (PSC scholarships are awarded to promising students at the pre-university level to groom them for leadership positions in the Public Service). Of the 380 awarded holders between 2009 to 2013, only 6 (0.016 percent) were Malays.

Are Malays less hardworking or less intelligent than the majority Chinese – and by such a large margin – and therefore undeserving of the scholarships? Or is there some other dynamic at work that is causing such a skewed outcome?

These questions will be discussed at the public forum on Saturday. More importantly, we will present realistic and viable solutions to address such shortcomings in our system.

Other topics that will be discussed are the economic disparity between the Malays and other ethnic groups in Singapore, the lack of Malays in our armed forces, and the narrow definition of the Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools.

The other issues tackled in this paper include pre-school education, madrasah schools, the Tertiary Tuition Fund Scheme, healthcare, housing, and social spending issues, each topic accompanied by concrete and viable proposals.

As stated at the outset, of central importance in presenting this alternative paper is the fact that Singapore's future depends on building a strong Singaporean identity that must necessarily include the Malay community.

Already, nearly 40 percent of our population are non-Singaporeans. This number threatens to increase if more foreigners flood this island and native-born Singaporeans leave. When this happens, we will not know where is home and who is the Singaporean.

Let us begin the process of building A Singapore For All Singaporeans. 

"A Singapore for All Singaporeans: Addressing the Concerns of the Malay Community"

Event: Launch of SDP's Malay policy paper
Date: 7 September 2013, Saturday
Time: 2pm - 5pm
Venue: Bras Basah Complex, Action Room, #04-41 Location map

Some years ago, my old teacher, a retired principal from Raffles Institute (RI), brought me to a small café near his house for lunch. Over some roti prata and tea, we spoke about many things but the only thing that stuck in my memory was his mention of his son in UK.

He told me that his son was very happy there and looked like not coming back. However, he could not be sure. He told me I would find him interesting as he shared concerned about social and civic issues. Instantly a thought flashed across my mind: What a waste if he doesn’t come back. He would have made a good minority candidate.

Few years later, I was invited to a brainstorming session by the SDP. I listened as the members went about allocating work and duties for a coming event. I noticed a young man, who looked like a Bollywood-version of my favourite actor, Yul Brynner, being assigned a lot of work and accepting the tasks without hesitation. This was not a one-off behaviour of a rookie out to impress his superior. Subsequently, I was to discover that throughout his membership in the SDP, he was to show the same kind of enthusiasm and dedication, never shirking any task given to him.

(There was one exception however. When he promised to cook at the SDP Kampung Kook-off event, he did not. Instead he bullied his aunties into doing the job for him. Nevertheless, the use of free involuntary women labour was the only blemish in his impeccable human rights record.)

On that day, he left the meeting soon after accepting his job assignment and I had no opportunity to be introduced to him. I later found out he was Dr Vincent Wijeysingha.

After the meeting, Dr Chee Soon Juan approached me. He told me he was keen to have Vincent as a candidate for the next general election and wondered if I could have a chat with him to give him some encouragement. He mentioned that Vincent’s father was the ex-RI principal. Immediately, my mind went back to the roti prata lunch meeting I had with his father a few years earlier. I assured Dr Chee that Vincent would not need any encouragement. Furthermore, with his talent, he would not need to worry about being jobless after the election.

Vincent confirmed my faith when he announced his intention to contest the coming general election not long afterwards. To give him moral support, I organized a dinner for him. The dinner was well-attended. His parents were also invited so as I thought they, too, might need some psychological comfort. In Singapore, it is expected that most parents would suffer some anxiety and insomnia when they see their children going into opposition politics.

At the dinner, Vincent did not disappoint. He spoke eloquently about his vision and impressed his listeners with intelligent answers to their searching questions. He performed like a season veteran. I was wrong when I thought Vincent would make a good minority candidate. He is too qualified to play a cameo role. He is a natural leader in his own right.

I told his father Vincent was very impressive and he should be proud of him. Mr Wijeysingha replied, "If he debates with me, I will easily demolish all his arguments.” We laughed heartily. Of course, Vincent did not know we had spoken behind his back.

Subsequently when I joined him in other brainstorming sessions; I found his intellect not limited to the gift of the gab. He talks and acts as well. Moreover he is not only endowed with a good brain but also has a soft heart and an affable nature that makes him connect easily with people.

Here is an elite who does not sneer at the ordinary folks, a person with a middle-class background who can empathise with the poor and the exploited; a talent who does not look down on the unskilled; the intellect who does not pour scorn on the common folk; an activist who does a service without a selfish motive and a campaigner who believes that the law and society should be just and fair to everyone.

These are all the reasons why Vincent would have made a good politician. They also make Vincent’s departure from politics a great loss to the country.

Perhaps Vincent may be right to choose to focus his work on human rights at this point of time. His future endeavour may slowly help to break down prejudices, bigotry and discrimination against all kinds of minorities that still exist in our economic, social and political life. If his future work can remove the mental obstacle to allow a minority, whether he or she is a Malay, Indian, monk, divorcee or gay to be elected a Prime Minister on his or her own merit, then his resignation from electoral politics would not have been in vain. 

Dr Wong Wee Nam is a medical doctor and a member of the SDP's Healthcare Advisory Panel. 
Source: YourSDP.org

The Workers’ Party has inducted three new members into its Central Executive Council (CEC). They are Mr Toh Hong Boon, 33; Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong, 43; and Associate Professor Daniel Goh Pei Siong, 40.

This decision was made at the recent monthly meeting of the CEC, pursuant to Article 19 of the Workers’ Party’s Constitution, which empowers the CEC to co-opt members into the Council. The new appointments will take effect from 1 October 2013.

Brief profile of the three new CEC members

Mr Toh Hong Boon (卓鸿文), 33, was a member of the Workers’ Party team that contested in Moulmein-Kallang GRC in the 2011 General Election. He works as a Project Coordinator in the research and development (R&D) division of a global agrochemicals company. Mr Toh holds a Bachelor of Science in Life Sciences from the National University of Singapore and a Master of Science in Biomedical Sciences Research from King’s College London. He is married with one daughter, and he lives in Hougang.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (陈立峰), 43, is a lawyer and partner at a shipping law firm. He holds a Bachelor of Laws (Honours) from the University of Nottingham and a Masters in Maritime Law from the University of Southampton. Mr Tan is married and lives in Joo Chiat.

Dr Daniel Goh Pei Siong (吴佩松), 40, is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the National University of Singapore (NUS). Dr Goh graduated with a Bachelor of Social Sciences (Honours) and Master of Social Sciences from NUS, and obtained a PhD in Sociology from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dr Goh lives with his wife and son in Punggol 21 town.

The SDP commends the police for approving the application for a permit for the launch of our Malay policy paper A Singapore for Singaporeans: Addressing the Concerns of the Malay Community.

We are encouraged that the authorities have shown maturity in dealing with an issue that has long needed public airing. 

(Even though indoor forums where speakers are locals do not require a permit, subjects regarding race or religion are exceptions and require police approval.)

The SDP had conducted a public forum to discuss Malay issues last year to a packed house and demonstrated that open and honest debate of race and religion can be held in a civil and dignified manner (pictured below). 

While the PAP keeps the discussion of Malay issues confined to within the Malay community, the SDP maintains that what happens to Singaporean Malays affects the whole of society and must be therefore debated openly at the national level. 

The reason is clear: The only way that we can build a united people is that we all care for one another. What happens to our fellow Malay citizens must be of concern to our Chinese and Indian Singaporeans. Likewise, Malay Singaporeans must reciprocate that bond as nationals of this Republic. 

If we don't seek to understand the problems that beset Malays in Singapore, the frustrations of the community will fester. Frustration begets distrust begets disunity. 

The SDP has shown that the matter can be broached in a mature and responsible manner, and we intend to continue doing this at today's launch of our alternative paper. 

We are happy to note that the Government acknowledges the SDP's approach to the matter and has approved our application. We hope that this decision is not a one-off but a genuine maturation of our political system. 

"A Singapore for All Singaporeans: Addressing the Concerns of the Malay Community"

Event: Launch of SDP's Malay policy paper
Date: 7 September 2013, Saturday
Time: 2pm - 5pm
Venue: Bras Basah Complex, Action Room, #04-41 Location map

Singapore Democrats

<Above Pic: Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong shakes hands with Australian Opposition Leader Tony Abbott at Parliament House on October 11, 2012 in Canberra, Australia>

Australia's conservative leader of the Liberal Party, Tony Abbott, defeated the Rudd government's Labour Party yesterday in a the Federal election in Australia. During Abbott's victory speech, he mentioned a few key issues that the country will change under his leadership.

He promised to remove the Carbon Tax and lower taxes on the mining industry as well as stopping the boats carrying asylum seekers from entering Australia. 

He won't be legalizing gay marriage as promised by Kevin Rudd as he is a faithful catholic who was previously a seminarian. 

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has congratulated Abbott on his victory in the Federal elections.  

PM Lee wrote a letter to Mr Abbot saying that Abbot's resounding electoral success reflects the confidence that Australians have in his leadership and vision for the country. 

Mr Lee said he looks forward to working with Mr Abbott to strengthen Singapore-Australia relations. 

He said Singapore and Australia are longstanding partners, with excellent bilateral relations.

They cooperate in many areas including trade and investments, defence, education and people-to-people exchanges. 

Mr Lee also said both countries work well together, including the Five Power Defence Arrangements and the East Asia Summit.

He invited Mr Abbott to make an official visit to Singapore in the near future.

This is the 7th time the Australian government has been changed since the world war. The liberal party led by the John Howard government lost to the labour party led by Kevin Rudd back in 2007. Back then, Tony Abbott was a Minister of Health and Ageing for the Howard government.

Singapore is the only democratic nation in the world that has had the same ruling government for 50 years without change.

The current system is placing unnecessary obstacles in the way of the Malay community and thwarting its progress in society. As a result, Singapore is not only not developing its full potential but also losing a integral part of our national identity.

This matter was raised at the SDP's launch of our Malay policy paper A Singapore for All Singaporeans: Addressing the Concerns of the Malay Community.

Party Chairman Jufrie Mahmood said that the situation needed to be discussed at the national, instead of the communal, level because Malays in Singapore are first and foremost Singaporeans. Furthermore, the Singaporean identity can only be strengthened if we stop compartmentalising ourselves into separate races as the PAP is wont to do.

Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan then presented the major problems that the Malay community faced and the SDP's alternative solutions to deal with them.

Are Malays less capable?

At the heart of the matter is education which Dr Chee pointed out is the key to overcoming the problems that Singapore Malays faced. Education is what is needed for social mobility, something that is lacking in the present system.

He cited the median household income in 2010 for the Malays was $3,844 while they were $5,100 for Chinese and $5,370 for Indians.

Many conclude that this is because under a meritocratic system in Singapore where reward is dispensed according to ability, the Malays are less capable and therefore do not earn as much.

The situation is less straightforward from what it appears, Dr Chee pointed out. Take, for example, the award of Public Service Commission (PSC) scholarships: Of the 380 awarded holders between 2009 to 2013, only 6 (1.6 percent) were Malays. Of the 288 President's Scholars given out between 1966 and 2012, only two were Malays.

Under PSC guidelines, however, candidates for the awards must "refrain from participating in activities which are, or are likely to be, inimical to the interests or security of Singapore."

Given the views of Government leaders who have questioned the loyalty of Singaporean Malays to Singapore, could the selection of scholars have been prejudiced against the community?

Another indication that Government policy may be the factor behind the "poor performance” of the Malay community is the given in the figure below which shows that the number if medical graduates decreased dramatically around the late 1950s and early 1960s: 

From 1910-1959, the percentage of Malay-Muslim medical graduates was 6.12 percent of the total number of doctors. From 1960 onwards, this number dropped to 1.96 percent.

Opportunity for fair competition

To ensure that state scholarships are awarded in an exemplary manner, the SDP's paper proposes that the Government must reiterate its stand that it does not condone any form of discriminatory practices in the Public Service. 

In addition, the PSC must conduct its selection processes in a transparent manner by submitting a report to Parliament, detailing their evaluation and justifying their selection of the award recipients.

It is imperative that the public have confidence in the PSC and scholarship selection committees when it comes to choosing our state scholarship holders.

Another issue that the paper takes up is the impact of economic disparity on the community. One-fifth of Malay households live on $1,500 a month or less. Such conditions, apart from exerting heavy financial pressure, exact a toll on families and children which often lead to the breakdown of family units which, in turn, affects educational progress and gives rise to criminal behaviour (nearly 50 percent of drug abusers are Malays).

Poverty also affects health and, since Malays are disproportionately represented in the lower-income groups, it retards the overall functioning of the community. For example, a low-income mother with poor nutrition is likely to give birth to a baby of low birth weight and this could affect the child’s learning abilities in later years. Also, children with poor nutrition are less alert, curious, and less able to interact.

To minimise such adverse conditions, the SDP plan advocates the introduction of minimum wage and retrenchment benefits to alleviate the circumstances of needy families. The SDP's National Healthcare Plan – which charges low-income families minimal rates for healthcare – will also give such families a much needed opportunity to compete fairly in society. 

Worrying levels of emigration

Dr Chee also pointed to Malays emigrating to other countries. As a result of the paucity of opportunity and the disadvantages that they face, many Malays are leaving Singapore. 

In 2009, Berita Harian reported that Malay emigration to Australia was on the rise. An immigration consultant in Singapore said that 30 percent of his clients were Malays. Together with the mass importation of nationals from China and India, the percentage of Malays in Singapore has shrunk from 15% to 13.5%. 

The change in composition of the native-born Singaporean will not contribute towards the strengthening of the Singaporean identity. The continued marginalisation of the Malays in Singapore will, tragically, speed up the process of the erosion of our national identity. This policy paper is drawn up to prevent such an occurrence.

To read a summary of the paper, please click here.

To read the full paper, please click here.

Singapore Democrats

The SDP has launched the policy paper titled A Singapore for All Singaporeans: Addressing the Concerns of the Malay Community in which we propose a 10-point plan to improve the conditions of the Malay community in Singapore:

1. Improve economic conditions. In terms of earning power, 20% of Malay families live on less than $1,500/month. Malays still significantly lag the Chinese and Indians in terms of earning power. The SDP will push for minimum wage and retrenchment benefits to help uplift the Malay community economically.

2. Make healthcare affordable. Healthcare in Singapore is expensive. Many Singaporeans avoid screenings and are saddled with huge debts when they are hospitalised. Also, low-income mothers with poor nutrition are likely to give birth to babies of low birth weight and this could affect the child’s learning abilities in later years. To keep healthcare affordable, the SDP's healthcare plan proposes that 

• Medisave be scrapped and the money returned to our CPF accounts.

• Singaporeans pay an average of $40/month (taken from our CPF) into a national fund. This is one-third of what we currently pay into Medisave.

• When we are hospitalised, we pay only 10% of the bill, the government pays 90% from the national fund.For more information about SDP's heathcare plan, click here.

3. Nationalise pre-school education. Kindergarten education can affect future learning and classroom achievement of students. As such, the Ministry of Education should take charge of kindergartens and provide trained teachers and inexpensive fees instead of leaving pre-schools unregulated.

4. Lower tertiary education fees. Malays make up only 5% of university students, compared to 22% for the Chinese and 35% for Indians. To help reduce this gap, the SDP proposes that tertiary education fees be lowered so that all students who qualify, especially those from needy families, can afford its fees.

5. Fund madrasahs. Madrasahs do not receive state funds even though their students take the PSLE and O-level exams. Under the SDP alternative, Madrasahs will receive state assistance in funding, consistent with the government funding missionary schools. In return, madrasah schools will recruit non-Muslim teachers to teach secular subjects.

6. End discrimination in the SAF. Distrust of Singaporean Malays to serve in the SAF will breed disloyalty and negatively affect our country's national security. The SDP proposes that recruitment and promotion of SAF personnel, including NSmen, be based on performance and not race.

7. Introduce the Fair Employment Act. Workplace discrimination against minority ethnic groups remians a problem. Anti-discrimination legislation should be introduced to minimise the problem.

8. Abolish the Ethnic Integration Programme (EIP). The EIP restricts where ethic minorities may live. This is unfair as the political voice of these groups is dissipated. Also, re-sale prices of their HDB flats are negatively affected because they can only sell their flats to their own race which has lower buying power. The SDP alternative will abolish the EIP.

9. Make housing affordable. Public housing in Singapore is very expensive. The SDP has drawn up an alternative housing plan that makes HDB flats affordable: We want to introduce Non-Open Market (NOM) flats where HDB sells flats without adding the cost of land.

This reduces prices by more than half of present levels. The reduced prices allow flat owners to save their CPF money for retirement or to make other investments. If and when NOM owners want to sell their flats, however, they have to sell them back to the HDB. For more information about SDP's housing plan, click here.

10. Make Mendaki non-partisan. Mendaki was first set up more than 30 years ago to raise the level of education of Malays. After three decades of its existence, the majority of Malays are still lagging in education. This is because Mendaki is highly partisan with a PAP minister as its chairman and several PAP MPs on its board of directors.

The SDP wants to see Mendaki's governing body nominated by civil society and Malay-Muslim organisations to be confirmed through a parliamentary process and serve a two-year term. The unhealthy practice of putting PAP members in the organisation's leadership structure will stop.

To read the full copy of A Singapore for All Singaporeans: Addressing the Concerns of the Malay Community, please click here.

Singapore Democrats