Singapore Democrats

SDP Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan called on Liberals and Democrats in Asia and Europe to focus on the well-being of the people instead of power and greed. He was speaking at the 6th ALDE-CALD Meeting recently held in Manila.

The event also marked the 20th anniversary of CALD. (Photo, from left, SDP representatives at the conference: Yeo Poh Hong, Chee Soon Juan, Jaslyn Go, Jufri Salim.) 

Sir Graham Watson, Leader of the Alliance for Liberal Democrats in Europe (ALDE), 

The Hon Sam Rainsy, Chairman, Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD),

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, 

It is with much interest that I followed today's proceedings which discussed the present and future relations between Asia and Europe. And as with many of you, I would like to credit the speakers for their keen insight on the subject.

I would like to zero in, however, on one of the themes of today's programme which is the anticipated shift of power to Asia as many countries in this region rise to become powerful global players.

Expectedly, much of the discussion centred on economic power. This is understandable because it is the increase of economic power that will determine the country's political and military might, and ultimately provide the power holders global hegemony.

Focus on need not greed

But here is where we need to pause. In our rush to become economic powerhouses, we, inadvertently or otherwise, fuel humankind's fatal weakness – greed.

What we often fail to realise is that the GDP, often used as a measure of economic growth, is not a good indicator of a nation's well-being. It is merely an aggregate of the amount of goods we produce and services we render. The more of these goods and services we offer, the greater the GDP.

This indicator does not, however, tell us anything about the well-being of the people working to produce that GDP growth. The person who formulated the GDP, Simon Kuznets, had specifically warned against using the index as an indicator of an economy's health.

In fact, there is an argument to be made that beyond a certain point, GDP expansion results in the impoverishment of the people and our quality of life.

Think about it. A company that pays handsome bonuses to its directors and another that doles out painful retrenchment benefits to its workers both do their part in boosting the GDP. But while one group gets increasingly richer, the other is out of a job. 

When a father stays home to be with his son or takes him out to the park, it does not contribute to GDP growth. But when he stays out late and drinks with his beer buddies, he helps too increase the GDP. 

When trees stay rooted and produce oxygen and reduces carbon dioxide, no GDP growth takes place. But when they are cut down to make paper and furniture, the GDP is bumped up.

It is important that we make this important note that GDP growth does not equal a better quality of life. We must not lead our peoples into this false notion that achieving GDP growth makes us all wealthier, healthier and happier.

Think about China. Even though the economy has been growing at breakneck pace, the environmental degradation has resulted in the "cancer villages” sprouting up all over the country – villages where incidents of cancer and cancer-related illnesses have increased dramatically due to the pollution of the air and waterways.

Then there is Singapore whose economic growth is the stuff of legends. At $65,000 our GDP per capita is one of the highest in the world. And yet, Singaporeans have seen their real wages decline over the years even as the GDP hit record highs.

The focus on creating ever higher GDP growth rates have also resulted in the generation of greater poverty. Sir Graham Watson this morning lamented about the dire situation Europe finds itself. Not long ago the US found itself in an even more apocalyptical situation during the financial meltdown. China's economic growth masks a dangerous bubble that when burst will wreak economic and financial havoc throughout the world.

Such monumental disasters can be distilled into one word – greed. While the world's richest 1 percent own nearly half of the planet's wealth, hundreds of millions are mired in hunger and poverty. Such an arrangement is unsustainable and is the single biggest threat to modern life as we know it.

And it is the obsession with the GDP that has driven economies to absurd contradictions. Take again, Singapore. As quickly as our GDP has risen, we have a Gini coefficient – a measure of income inequality – that is the biggest among advanced economies.

What about happiness? While Singapore boasts of the highest number of millionaires per capita globally, a Gallup poll recently surveyed peoples in 148 countries and found that Singaporeans ranked as the unhappiest people in the world.

A fool's errand

If all we do is talk about whether Europe or Asia is richer and hence more powerful, and focus on the mindless pursuit of GDP growth without regard as to how that growth is generated and how it affects our well-being, can we say, hand on heart, that we are leading our peoples in the right direction? Or are we ultimately running a fool's errand? 

No, there must be something else other that GDP growth that will ultimately bring contentment to the people.

How much more can we mine, how much deeper can we drill and how many more trees can we log before we irrevocably denude our earth of the very resources that sustain life itself?

But there is no decree from on high that we have to pursue GDP growth at all cost. There are alternatives. In its place, why don't we compare happiness? There are alternative indices such as the Genuine Progress Index that allows us to assess the level of production of goods and services while taking into account the social, political and environmental costs that go into generating the GDP. 

Such a measure actively takes into consideration the happiness and quality of life – which is not the same thing as standard of living – of the people. Why don't we evaluate the competence and relevance of governments through such indices?

In addition, research has shown that genuine participatory democracy allows people to achieve greater satisfaction and well-being. Should we not focus on competing with each other on who can be more democratic even as we rank ourselves on the size of our GDPs?

Perhaps ALDE and CALD could promote the practice of comparing how responsive political leaders are to the real needs of our peoples instead of continuing the exclusive focus of chasing GDP growth?

There is no more receptive audience than a roomful of progressive minds, such as the ones presently assembled, to discuss tackling the ultimately futile effort of outdoing each other in power and greed, and to think of a more enlightened approach towards achieving progress – real progress – for humankind.

Thank you.

Singapore filmmaker, Martyn See, barred from commenting on PM Lee’s Facebook page.

It appears that a chronic sense of insecurity runs deep in the Prime Minister, which would explain his recent comments on the Internet.

In his latest baffling move, he has banned a filmmaker and known PAP critic, Martyn See, from commenting in his Facebook page.

According to Martyn See, since PM Lee launched his Facebook, he has only posted 5-6 comments on the page. None of them were inflammatory or would fall under the definition of “trolling”.

It seems that behind PM Lee’s public image of a “listening” and “emphatic” leader lies a mean-spirited and petty persona who is unable to tolerate criticism even on Facebook.

See:
https://m.facebook.com/martynsee/posts/10200891325621170?refid=28&_ft_=qid.5949825321937440397%3Amf_story_key.-6794286749825912327

http://publichouse.sg/categories/community/item/570-live-in-my-3-room-flat-martyn-see-to-pm-lee?tmpl=component&print=1

The Alternative View

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=612542368807099&set=a.5980976869...

Mr Lee Kuan Yew once boasted that East Asia was successful because of its Asian values which placed discipline over democracy, communities over individuals. It was code for continuing authoritarian control over democratic accountability.

Of course, that was 30 years ago. Then, the so-called Asian tigers of South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, all under one-party rule, were sprinting ahead economically, unimpeded by (Western) democratic values that were alien to the Asian mind, or so Mr Lee claimed.

But in a space of one's lifetime, dramatic changes have taken place throughout the Asian political topography. South Korea transitioned from a brutal dictatorship to a vibrant democracy, Taiwan evolved from Chiang Kai-shek's rule to a robust two-party system, the Philippines' People Power toppled strongman Ferdinand Marcos, and Indoneia overcame Suharto. 

Ironically, it is Indonesia and the Philippines which, together with Turkey, have become the so-called breakout nations of TIP (Turkey, Indonesia and Philippines) by registering impressive economic gains in recent years. 

Even countries like Burma, Cambodia amd Malaysia are making great strides towrds democratic reform. The military rulers of Myanmar have released Ms Aung San Suu Kyi and other dissidents, instituting deep political reforms in the process. 

Malaysia went to the polls earlier this year and the majority of her people voted for the opposition. Only gerrymanderig by the Barisan Nasional kept it in power. 

In Cambodia, the people voted to give the opposition an unprecedented 55 parliamentary seats (compared to 68 seats to prime minister Hun Sen's party) amidst allegations of vote cheating by ruling party officials. 

Indeed, Asia has altered beyond recognition politically, making Mr Lee's Asian-values argument distinctly unintelligent. One of the factors for the transformation has been due to the steadfast and perseverance of democrats in the region many of whom are members of the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, or CALD. 

CALD, of which the SDP is a member, recently celebrated its 20th anniversary in Manila, Philippines. It is the mutual support extended to each other that has given liberals and democrats in the region encouragement to soldier on and win democracy for their peoples. 

As SDP looks on at the achievements of our counterparts in CALD, we take heart that one day in the near future, we will also be successful in our endeavour to bring democracy to Singapore. Our turn is coming.

We will do this by continuing to stand up for the political rights and civil lberties of our fellow Singaporeans and also by drawing up a blueprint for an alternative vision to better provide for the healthcare, housing, and economic needs of our people. 

The SDP has never been afraid of taking the path less trodden and doing the right, instead of merely the popular, thing. Today, we are seeing increased levels of support for our ideas and alternative policies. 

But change will not be automatic. It wll take hard work, sacrifice and leadership from the SDP, and together with our people's active support, democratic change is inevitable. 

Source: YourSDP.org

Madam Lim sells evening papers and magazines at Tanjong Katong Complex. I bumped into her this evening at the rear entrance as I arrived for our Hainan Tan Clan's 78th Anniversary. Her table was crammed but neatly laid out.

As I left, she was still there and business must have been good! Only some items left. We chatted for awhile. See the bicycle behind? She cycles there every evening at about 4pm or so. She is 60+ and has 4 children and 8 grandchildren. Her husband passed away a few years ago.

She has a caring family and shared that if she stays home, she would feel very 闷 or bored. 

It reminded me of a recent heartbreaking sharing by Sam Tan on the sad demise of Mdm Loke. She and her family are his residents. They were a wonderful loving family who looked after Mdm Loke. I do not understand why Wanbao ran the story. And worse, there was the repulsive online lies and distortion that caused the family no end of grief. I don't really care how anonymous you are online, but your impact is real. There are real people hurt when we run themes for our own purposes...and when we criticise people when we don't know the situation. Please note and have a care. Please?

When things happen, there are many reasons for it. One thing that does appear consistent is that our older generation is remarkably resilient and selfless.They are fiercely independent. They seek to live within their own means. And they value their dignity and self respect. They do not like to burden others. I see these virtues almost eveytime I talk to our old uncles and aunties. 

Rather than feel pity, perhaps as a result of our own inaction, perhaps we can learn? Talk to them.

But there are those who do need help too and we should be there for them. Key is to find out as early as possible. Again. Talk to them and let us know? 

My last attempt while speaking to a lady pushing her trolley outside Parliament House failed. Caught up with her outside the Supreme Court. She was really very nice. When I patted her shoulder, she was wiry and strong despite being sightly hunched. She insisted that she and her husband, who does odd jobs, were managing. They were just glad to be active and that they did not have to pay when they saw the doctors. They rented their flat and were comfortable with their simple life.

I have encountered sad stories. But more often than not, my encounter with our pioneer generation just leaves me in awe.

There are many reasons why Singapore has survived and thrived. They are one of the key reasons why we have our today.

Thank you. And thank you for teaching us through your living stories.

Minister Tan Chuan Jin

*Article first appeared on his FB page here.

Prof Paul Ananth Tambyah spoke at The Online Citizen’s healthcare forum on Saturday where he highlighted the key proposals of the SDP’s alternative healthcare plan.

The SDP’s plan is premised on the following problems with the PAP Government’s healthcare system:

• Singapore has the highest out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure in East Asia.
• Our Government pays only 30% of the country’s total healthcare expenditure compared to 70 percent in comparable economies.
• Singaporeans are in debt of $110 million to public hospitals as of end 2011. Many put off crucial health screenings and early treatment.

Such a system is unfair and, more important, unsustainable. Because of this, the Singapore Democrats drew up an alternative titled The SDP National Healthcare Plan: Caring For All Singaporeanswhere we make our healthcare system universal, that is, every Singaporean is entitled to quality medical care regardless of one’s financial state.

The SDP proposal includes:

• Replacing the 3M system (Medisave, Medishield, Medifund) with a single-payer system called the National Health Investment Fund (NHIF).
• Singaporeans pay an average of $600/year to the NHIF depending on income levels (taken from one’s CPF). Lower income workers and the elderly poor do not have to pay. The amount is a fraction of what we currently pay into Medisave.
• In the event of hospitalisation, the NHIF will then pay 90% of the hospital bill. Patients pay 10% up to $2,000 (per year).
• The SDP plan will increase the Government’s portion of the expenditure to 70%, easing the burden on our people.

The SDP’s healthcare plan aims to make healthcare in Singapore universal, affordable and sustainable. Singapore is one of the last few remaining countries in the world that has yet to make healthcare universal.

This is the first time that an opposition party has proposed a detailed and comprehensive alternative healthcare plan. To help make universal and caring healthcare system in Singapore a reality, please spread the word to support the SDP.

Read the full paper The SDP National Healthcare Plan: Caring For All Singaporeans.

Also: Universal healthcare consistent with political freedom

Singapore Democrats

After the AG’s Chambers was given permission on Wednesday to take action against blogger Alex Au for contempt of court, the following statement was issued. I am pleased to say that  nearly 170 people signed it, including academics and civil activists. Sadly there are only a few politicians included in the signatories, John L Tan and Teo Soh Lung of the SDP, Osman Sulaiman and myself from the RP. Like everyone else I would like to see Mr. Au’s claims rebutted in public. We need to uphold public confidence in the judiciary and that means the public must be allowed to form their own opinions on judicial processes.

This is part of a larger picture in which the Law Society had its independence removed by Lee Kuan Yew along with the right of appeal to the Privy Council after my father’s conviction in the Singapore courts was overturned by a Privy Council judgement. We also lost trial by jury. In 2012 the UK Law Commission recommended abolition of the offence of scandalizing the judiciary saying, “You might commit the offence if you do or publish anything that ridicules the judiciary “. But what ridicules the judiciary more, removing the Law Society ‘s independence and abolishing the right to trial by jury, a fundamental right of the English legal system since Magna Carta in 1215, or subjecting the judiciary to some degree of public scrutiny.  You might find it helpful to read my letter to the Wall Street Journal in support of Alex Au in which I mentioned that defamation suits in the Singapore courts are used to silence critics of the regime.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

Singapore 29th November 2013

We are deeply concerned that the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) has been granted leave to take action against Singaporean blogger, Mr Alex Au, for “scandalising the judiciary” in his blog post, “377 Wheels Come Off Supreme Court’s Best Laid Plans”.¹

The right of free expression is enshrined in Article 14 of our Constitution.  We believe that robust public debate is necessary for national progress.  The AGC’s action, however, reflects an overzealous desire to police public opinion.  This cannot be healthy for a mature, first world nation.  If Mr Au had erred, then his claims should be rebutted in public. This would enable Singaporeans to make up their own minds.

We agree that it is important to uphold public confidence in the judiciary.  However, this cannot mean that our judges should not be subject to scrutiny.  The AGC’s action, rather than enhancing confidence in the judiciary, might weaken public confidence.  It also implies that the public is not allowed to form opinions on judicial processes.

International legal opinion supports the advancement of the law in respect of public comment. In 2012, the UK Law Commission recommended abolishing the offence of “scandalising the judiciary” because it is “an infringement of freedom of expression and out of step with social attitudes”.  The Commission noted that the offence,

“belongs to an era when deferential respect to the judiciary was the norm.  But social attitudes have changed.  Enforcing the offence today would do little to reinforce respect for the judiciary and, if judges are thought to be using it to protect their own, could strengthen any existing distrust or disrespect.”²

We note that the AGC action against Mr Au is not in keeping with the spirit of Singapore’s position at the 2011 UN Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights that “Political postings on the Internet are prevalent, including many that are highly critical of the Government.  No blogger or other online publisher has been prosecuted for such postings.”³ Further, this AGC action contradicts Singapore’s obligations in the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, adopted on 18 November 2012. Article 23 states, “Every person has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information, whether orally, in writing or through any other medium of that person’s choice.”⁴

We call upon the AGC to help the Government of Singapore uphold its ideals and its international commitments, for the continued progress and prosperity of our nation.

Signed:-

Simeon Ang
K Z Arifa
Dr Charan Bal
Jacqui Ch
Sharmeen Nina Chabra
Xin Hui Supanee Chan
Qizhong Chang
Kenneth Chee Mun Leon
Jeremy Chen
Chew Kheng Chuan
Leslie Chew
Tania Chew
Priscilla Chia
Joshua Chiang
Damien Chng
Brendan Chong
Bryan Choong
Jean Chong
Chong Kai Xiong
Chong Wai Fung
Chua Chuen-Seah
Lucy Davis
Fazlur Yusuf
Fong Hoe Fang
Foo Hui Shien, Catherine
Assoc Professor Cherian George
Jessica Goh
Johannes Hadi
Han Hui Hui
Kirsten Han
Helmi Yusuf
Gerald Heng
Ivan Heng
Dr Russell Heng
Adrian Heok
Irene Ho
Sam Ho
Vanessa Ho
Isrizal Mohamed Isa
Kenneth Jeyaretnam
Kwan Jin
Shawn Kathiravan
Dr Khoo Hoon Eng
Koh Boon Luang
Dan Koh
Patrick Koh
Ronald Koh
Stephen Koh
Joses Kuan
Annie Kwan
Ken Kwek
Dana Lam
Vincent Law
David Lee
Lee Gwo Yinn
Howard Lee
Kevin Lee
Lynn Lee
Richard Lee
Lee Shiuh Meng Kevin
Philip Selwyn Lemos
Tricia Leong
Leow Zi Xiang
Dr Liew Kai Khiun
Corinna Lim
Angie Lim
Gary Lim Meng Suang
Lim Jialiang
Lim Kay Siu
Lynette Lim
Michelle Lim
Nicholas Lim Yew
Andrew Loh
Loh Chee Leong
Dr Loh Kah Seng
Andee Loo
Low Yit Len
Braema Mathi
Marayd McElroy
Haron Mong
Neo Swee Lim
Ng Mei Fay
Ng Yisheng
Roy Ngerng
Dr Noor Rahman
Brian Nugawela
Irene Oh
Kay Omar
Ong En Hui
Yanchun Ong
Stephan Ortmann
Pak Geok Choo
Vivian Pan
Engsien Pek
Ravi Philemon
Francisco Raquiza
Indulekshmi Rajeswari
Gene Sha Rudyn
Alfian Sa’at
Mansura Sajahan
Nora Samosir
Katerina Sandiman
Seet Cheng Yew Michael
Ariffin Sha
Rev Miak Siew
Siew Kum Hong
Frederique Soh
Onh Solly
Dickson Su
Osman Suleiman
Assoc Prof Paul Ananth Tambyah
Alvin Tan
Alvin Tan Cheong Kheng
Bian Tan
Caryn Tan Sun
Eugene Tan Siah Yew
Joe Tan
Joel Bertrand Tan
Jolene Tan
John L Tan
Tan Joo Hymn
Kenneth Tan
Kirsten Tan
Netina Tan
Petrus Tan
Dr Roy Tan
Serena Tan
Shawn Tan
Sylvia Tan
Estee Tay
Jennifer Teo
Kathy Teo
Teo Soh Lung
Professor Tey Tsun Hang
Callan Tham
Thaw Win
Melissa Tsang
Kelly Then
Shelley Thio
Ivan Thomasz
Dr Pingtjin Thum
Jeremy Tiang
Dawn Toh
Toh Boon Hwee
Jason Wee
Lawrence Wee
Jolovan Wham
Dr Vincent Wijeysingha
Andy Wong
Brenton Wong
Wong Chee Meng
Dexter Wong
Joe Wong
Melissa W S Wong
Wong Tong Kwong
Teresa Woo
Dr Woon Tien Wei
Terry Xu
Benjamin Xue
Julius Yang
Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao
Dezmond Yeo
Yeo Yeu Yong
Antoinette Yzelman
Rachel Zeng
Zeng Ziting
Zulkarnain Hassan

Reference links

[2]http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/news/2140.htm. The full report is available at http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc335_scandalising_the_court.pdf. The offence has since been abolished in the UK.

[3]http://www.mfa.gov.sg/content/dam/mfa/images/media_center/special_events/upr/UPR%20National%20Report_Singapore.pdf.

[4]http://www.asean.org/news/asean-statement-communiques/item/asean-human-rights-declaration.

I heard Ms Lily Neo was sad. Some days ago, she posted on her Facebook wall about how she felt down after not being able to help an elderly resident with an appeal to the CPF board. She had said that the regulations in place didn't give her the opportunity to help her residents. 

(See: MP Lily Neo: I cant help S'poreans when there is too much red-tape surrounding CPF)

We note that the LTA is expected to call a tender for the installation of the next generation of electronic road pricing (ERP) system, which would be satellite-based, in the first half of next year.

The LTA shared that trial shows satellite-based system likely to be feasible in Singapore. We would like the LTA to show the results to the public and justify the success and accuracy of the system. This is not a small matter, as Singaporeans can expect ERP coverage to be expanded and ERP charges to be increased.

We would also concerned that the use satellite technology to track vehicles will be used for unwarranted surveillance. Given this potential intrusion on privacy, this matter must clear Parliament.

The government’s focus should be improving MRT and bus services first. Public transport improvements must be the priority. If Singaporeans trust an efficiently-run system, as defined by frequency, adequacy of capacity and a sustainable price, the car population will automatically fall. As an example, we still hear complaints from the public that the waiting time for MRT trains during peak hours are sometimes still over 6 minutes, which is behind most major city metro systems.

Source: http://www.spp.org.sg

The recent spate of legal action or threats of legal action against activists and bloggers signal that despite its promises to change, the PAP has remained largely unreformed.

During the last general elections, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong expressed contrition for "mistakes" his administration made. Mr George Yeo admitted that Singaporeans resented the Government and said that the PAP had to change its ways.

But that was then when the PAP was trying to shore up its vote count prior to polling day. A couple of years after the elections, the party is back to its old ways, taking citizens to court and threatening them with punitive action when criticisms are levelled at the Government.

Ms Han Hui Hui was sued by the Council of Private Education (although the suit was later rescinded), cartoonist Leslie Chew was cited for contempt of court, and filmmaker Lynn Lee was harrassed by the police and threatened with prosecution for her reporting. 

Most recently, political commentator Mr Alex Au was charged with scandalising the court. This is not the first time that Mr Au has been threatened witb legal action.  

The PAP must realise that criticisms of the government and its policies are not a bad thing. In fact, they are necessary feedback for the system (and, therefore, society) to improve. To silence civil society and its actors is to cripple the feedback mechanism that keeps a healthy check on government.

Such freedom of expression is not only a fundamental right and important in itself, but it is also a necessity where creative impulses are encouraged in order to develop a vibrant society. It is the key to Singapore graduating to a higher phase of economic development.

Without an innovative culture, we cannot get out from the low-wage, MNC-dependent economic model and move on to a higher, ideas-driven economic paradigm. 

It is unfortunate that the PAP Government refuses to accept this fact. The danger is that its continued unenlightened approach towards governance will cause Singapore to become less and less competitive. Ultimately, it is ordinary Singaporeans who will will suffer the most. 

Protecting our political rights is also necessary to protect our economic rights – without the former, we cannot have the latter. It is the inability of the people to speak up all these decades that has caused our healthcare, housing, wage, and population policies to become so skewed against the interests of Singaporeans.

The SDP repeats its call for the Government to stop taking legal action against citizens, starting with the cessation of proceedings against Mr Au. Singapore desperately needs a new start to our political system. 

Singapore Democrats

Source: YourSDP.org

The PAP is set to release a ‘resolution’ statement at its biennial convention this weekend.

The statement is supposed to map out the direction of the PAP going into the future. This is especially important as the PAP faces a rapidly changing environment.

To lead up to the announcement, the PAP has engaged with the public more actively over the past two months taking feedback from activists within the PAP policy forum.

The feedback and dialogue with their party branches have helped to shape the way forward.

This year’s PAP biennial convention is themed “Our New Way Forward: A Call to action”.

The convention will see a number of speakers including PM Lee, Chan Chun Sing, the PAP’s Organising Secretary and a number of activists. 

In an earlier post, I criticised the Workers’ Party (WP) for refusing to take a stand on contentious issues. Many have commented on the post, for which I am grateful. Some agreed with me, some offered excuses on behalf of the WP, others resorted to insults.  But nobody, not a single soul, disagreed with the assertion that the WP runs away from difficult issues.

Some have even highlighted other matters the WP has kept mum on, such as the hacking of government websites and where the government should draw the line on welfare and social assistance programs.   

So what would the WP say about my post?  The ST on 18 November 2013 reported that it was considering whether to respond.  Three weeks have passed, and not a squeak from them.   

How far will the WP run?  

In October this year, the Singapore Forum on Politics and Policy organised a panel discussion entitled "IS IT SAFE TO SAY... THERE IS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN SINGAPORE". One would have thought that this was the kind of platform the opposition would jump at to share their views. The organisers invited a representative each from the PAP and the WP. I agreed to participate. Two days before the event, I received a call saying that it was cancelled.   

Why?    

The WP declined to send a representative.  

Last Saturday’s edition of the ST referred to my post and noted that Gerald Giam had recently spoken in Parliament about healthcare. But that misses the point. The crux of Gerald’s speech was that Government should spend more on healthcare. That is precisely the kind of safe position the WP takes because it carries little risk of losing votes.

Let me be clear – there is nothing wrong with asking the Government to do more. But a call to “do more” does not require any genius. The more difficult questions include “how much more?”, “where is that more going to come from?”, “will there be better outcomes?” and “are there any down sides to the government doing more?”. These are necessary to test the feasibility and rigour of any proposal. Unless you offer your views on these questions as well, you are giving the misleading impression that there are simple solutions to every problem. 

Opposition parties have long campaigned on the premise that it is unhealthy to have only one party in Parliament, and that it is good for alternative views to be expressed. This is a reasonable argument. But it presupposes that the Opposition, once elected, will pull their weight and give serious alternative views, especially on difficult issues. A multi-party system only works if there is a genuine clash of ideas, and the pros and cons of policies and alternatives are scrutinised.     

Singapore is at a critical phase of her development. We will have to confront serious and difficult issues which affect our social compact.  Important policies on healthcare, education, welfare, taxation and redistribution are currently being re-examined. The interests of Singaporeans are not advanced when the Opposition’s instinct is to say only what they think people want to hear, and then retreat from difficult questions. Is this how a “First World Parliament” operates?   In truth, we do not know how one functions in the real world because the WP has declined to identify any.   Just like Humpty Dumpty in "Through The Looking Glass", when the WP uses a word, it means just what it chooses it to mean.

Benjamin Disraeli once said that silence is the mother of truth. We now know the truth about WP’s brand of politics. Singaporeans are best served by politicians who make a stand, not those who sit on fences. Because we all know what happened to Humpty Dumpty.

Hri Kumar

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/notes/hri-kumar/uniquely-singapore-politics-part-2-the-sounds-of-silence/628550650524869

Related:

PAP MP Hri Kumar: Worker's party likes to sit on the fence on tough issues

I derive no inspiration from my country's current (and past) government leaders.

My only source of patriotism is drawn from the scarifices made by political dissidents, both past and present, who has/had been persecuted, imprisoned and vilified by their own government for their beliefs.

They, I believe, are the real patriots of Singapore.

The above is taken from Martyn See's facebook page, as part of his Original Thought series.

Singapore's forgotten founding fathers.

Dr Chia Thye Poh [left] with Mr Lim Chin Siong.

Picture from National Archives.

Record date : 24/07/1962

----------------------------------------------

BLAST FROM THE PAST

Research by Isrizal Mohd Isa

Extracted from Parlimentary Debates of the Dewan Ra’ayat (House of Representatives)

Thursday, 19th September, 1964

*****

Mr Speaker: You have one more minute left.

Enche' Chia Thye Poh: I think one more minute is too short.

Mr Speaker: I will give you one more minute.

Enche' Chia Thye Poh: I think it is most unfair for me to complete my speech in one minute. I beg you to ...

Mr Speaker: No, I will give you one minute.

Enche' Chia Thye Poh: Sir, when the Prime Minister talks of defending our country, we find it hollow. This Government has betrayed all the vital interests of the people to the British. It has no right to talk of defending the nation. This Government is oppressing the people; more than 200 political leaders and trade unionists are in the jails of Singapore. Our Secretary- General, Mr Lim Chin Siong, is in Changi and political dwarfs like Mr Lee Kuan Yew can strut around and talk big only when giants like Mr Lim Chin Siong are kept out of the political arena (interruption).

Mr Speaker: Do not disturb him.

Enche' Chia Thye Poh: The Prime Minister has spoken about the communal riots in Singapore. He says that the Indonesians and the Communists caused it. We are from Singapore and we know that this is just to cover up the real culprits. The Prime Minister of Singapore is telling, in Europe, that the UMNO politicians have caused it. The UMNO in Singapore says that the P.A.P. has caused it. We who are in Singapore know that the communal riots were the work of the UMNO and the P.A.P. who were indulging in a bitter fight for power . All this nonsense about the Indonesians and the Communists causing these riots is just to hide the truth that the main culprits belong to the ruling parties.

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS : Nonsense! Lies

Enche' Chia Thye Poh : We challenge the Government to have a public enquiry into this. When the riots started . . . .

Mr Speaker : Order, order! Your time is up—it is already one minute.

*****

2 years later, at the age of 26, Member of Parliament for Jurong Mr Chia Thye Poh was arrested and detained without charge or trial. He spent a total of 23 years in prison and another 9 years under restrictive orders in Sentosa. Upon his release in 1998, he publicly called for the abolition of the ISA. He attained his phD recently, but his last known whereabouts are uncertain.

Singapore Rebel

*The author blogs at http://singaporerebel.blogspot.sg

Editor's Note: TRS was started after being inspired by the blog above. We urge all readers to have more interest in Singapore's political history and find out the REAL history behind Singapore.

Freedom of Expression is important in any functional democracy.

Activists, Writers, Artists, Academics, Students, Politicians, and Professionals – need the space to speak, to express diverse views, to offer criticism, to ask questions, to be wrong and to be right – and as citizens we want a healthy media landscape and a robust Parliament.

Inclusivity. Multiplicity. Diversity.

An informed and engaged citizenry.

The right to freedom of expression is enshrined in our Constitution, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and even in the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration.  Right of reply is crucial.

Limitations. Guidelines. Contempt.

Come hear our speakers share their thoughts on Freedom of Expression in Singapore.

The Panel:-

·         Dr PJ Thum, Research Fellow, Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore  & Co-ordinator, Project Southeast Asia, University of Oxford

·         Mr Martyn See,  Blogger and Documentary Film-maker

·         Mr PN Balji, Editor of The Independent Singapore

·         Dr Cherian George, Associate Professor, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University

·         Mr G Raman, Veteran Lawyer

Date: 15th December 2013 (Sunday)

Time: 4pm to 6pm

Venue: #13-16, 9 Penang Road-Park Mall, Singapore 238459 (Take Dhoby Ghaut MRT Exit B)

Please see the attached poster for more details:

Please register at: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1yOiBQGtk6aWw9U0VZPsnlB6_Sg8tI_wIcQMrtHLhess/viewform

Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/events/595072597207707

regards,

MARUAH Secretariat

In January 2012, Mr Fandi Ahmad, who was much loved for his prowess in the local footballing scene, gave an interview to theToday newspaper in which he recounted some of the hard times that have befallen him and his family.

Mr Fandi rose to fame in the 1980s when he helped Singapore to win the Malaysia Cup in 1980 and then took his skills to Europe, playing with some of the big names in the football world.

Passed over for foreigners

When his playing career ended, he returned to Singapore to try his hand in coaching and business.

Unfortunately, the path was less straightforward. He was passed over for national coach by the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) and a couple of business ventures he entered failed.

He is not alone. Another local footballing great, Mr Terry 'Captain Marvel' Pathmanathan (photo on right), feels the same way. 

Also ignored for the national coaching position, Mr Pathmanathan said: "Maybe it's the thinking the FAS has - believing local coaches are inferior to foreigners. I'm tired of saying that local coaches should be given a chance."

He added: "I don't think we're short on local options...FAS has no respect for local coaches. After all I have done for my country as a player and as a coach, this is what I get?” 

Fandi's and Pathmanathan's treatment reflects a bigger problem where foreign workers are often unjustifiably hired over locals under the PAP's foreign talent policy. 

Such discrimination will not be allowed under the SDP's alternative immigration policy where the FAS would have to demonstrate why Messrs Fandi or Pathmanathan do not have the requisite skills before it is allowed to hire a foreign coach.

Read also SDP unveils six-point plan to control population

This does not mean that the Association is bound to employ a local. It does, however, mean that FAS would have to justify its stance. At the very minimum, our homegrown talent would not be treated so shabbily.

A family tragedy

In 2008, Mr Fandi's wife, Ms Wendy Jacobs, slipped and fell in her home. She suffered head injuries and had to undergo extensive medical treatment and care. This took a toll on the family's finances. Mr Fandi was unhappy with FAS' attitude as he felt that the Association was not respectful of his talent. Calling the organisation "incompetent", he said: "To tell you the truth, I was ready to continue then. But they (the FAS) never got back to me. They only did so in March, three months later, and offered excuses like they could not contact me earlier."

Mr Fandi admitted: "The medical bills are mounting for me and made worse by the fact that her condition is not covered by insurance."

In return, she would pay only 10 percent of her hospital bill and would be afforded complete treatment, with the patient and her family given peace of mind. 

Read also The SDP healthcare plan made simple 

Such a policy would certainly not burden the Fandi household (they have five children). No family should be financially ruined just because one of its members meet with an major illness. 

Buying an affordable home

Under financial strain, Mr Fandi had to sell his terrace house and buy an HDB flat. But even that was not easy. He said: "I am in the process of applying to buy a HDB flat. But I don't have enough in my CPF savings. So things are a bit complicated."

The SDP's housing policy would allow Mr Fandi to buy a 5-room flat for about $200,000 under the Non-Open Market (NOM) scheme. Such a price is much more realistic and affordable for the Fandi family, or for that matter, thousands of families across Singapore.

Under the NOM scheme, Mr Fandi would then not be able to re-sell his flat on the open market but only back to the HDB. The trade-off would be that he would not have to sink his life's savings into finding a home for his family.

Read also SDP proposes non-open market flats in housing policy 

Policies have the ability to help or hurt people. This is why the SDP has drawn up workable solutions that focus on helping our people and raising their quality of life as opposed to policies that are oriented towards profit-generating for the Government. If the SDP's healthcare policy had been in place, Mrs Fandi would have paid an annual premium based on their income at the prevailing time (which would have worked out to a fraction that they pay to their Medisave) into one national fund which would then pay the bulk of the bills. 

If a national soccer hero like Mr Fandi Ahmad can be hurt by current policies, what more the average Singaporean? 

Source: YourSDP.org

[Comrade Benjamin Tay, 34, is a member of Woodgrove branch. He is also the Assistant Treasurer of PAP Policy Forum Council, a Resource Panel member of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) and a member of the S50 Education and Youth Committee. He is a elite lawyer by profession. Read Mr. Benjamin Tay's full speech at today's #PAPConvention below]

Good morning Comrades.

I'd like to touch on three points today. The first is how Singapore was the obvious choice to me when choosing where to raise my family, the second is about the Party's founding mission and the third is the Party's desire to make things better.

The Obvious Choice

On the first point, through my work, I was posted by my employer to live and work in other countries. Four years ago, my wife told me that we were not going to get much sleep in the next few years. What did she say? She told me that she was pregnant.

When she told me this, I knew we had to return home, to what was in my view the best place to raise my children, Singapore. Why do I say that?

If you go and watch a Pixar movie, you expect something that is safe for kids, communicates good values and has a high likelihood of a happily ever after. Well, a country is certainly not a movie, but I think Singapore too is safe for kids, communicates good values and hopefully, has a high likelihood of a happily ever after as well.

As we all know, Singapore is consistently ranked as having the lowest crime, corruption and drug abuse levels in the world.

On education, an OECD report called Singapore the "poster child" of education with a goal to "nurture every child, no matter what their ability or achievement level".

Our overall unemployment rates stand at a very low 1.8 per cent.

As to housing, over 80 per cent of our population lives in good quality affordable government housing.

On health, certain surveys rank Singapore as the healthiest country in the world, in mentioning this, it is also good to highlight measures that have been taken to increase access to subsidies for outpatient care through the Community Health Assistance Scheme.

The Founding Mission

Having said all this, how have we got to a position where all over the world, people look to us to learn.

Many policies have contributed, though I will focus on two connected policies that have helped. These also surfaced as important to you, my fellow comrades, during the extensive dialogues held by the PPF.

The first policy to speak of is the founding mission of the Party, which is to create a fair and just society. The second policy relates to emphasis of meritocracy.

Why do we work towards a fair and just society? It is only where people believe they are in a fair and just society, that they know there is a strong link between being a good and useful member of society and a fair chance of reward.

Where that link is broken, disengagement occurs.

Looking to Europe, we can see examples of disengagement. In the United Kingdom, disengaged youths are known to set fires to call out fire brigades. When the fire brigades arrive, the disengaged youth throw stones and physically abuse the firemen that arrive. In Spain, a severe brain drain is occurring. There, youth unemployment rate stands at 56.1 per cent, as a result talented driven individuals, the ones that any country would want most are deciding to leave.

A sentiment held is that these youths do not feel that they want or are able to contribute to the society that they are in.

These examples show the importance of our founding mission. That of a fair and just society so that we feel like we are one people, belonging to one nation with one destiny.

A fair and just society forms the soil for us to grow and nurture a democracy of deeds where being a citizen brings along a sense of duty to one another and our community to create the best home possible.

How do we seek to do this? Again the dialogues made clear that a progressive system of taxes and benefits which ensures fruits of common success are distributed is important. The focus on constant improvement and provision of affordable housing, affordable healthcare and quality education and remembering those that have helped to get us to where we are today are also all very important.

Sharing the fruits was therefore highlighted as key to creation of a fair and just society during the recent dialogues.

I would now like to speak about the second inter-related policy of meritocracy.

Meritocracy plays a key role in creating a fair and just society where people can believe their dreams can be fulfilled.

Close to home and heart, my brother-in-law was not from the most advantaged back ground. He came from a low income household, he went to a primary school, Jubilee Primary School, which is no longer with us. Nonetheless, as a beneficiary of the system, he did well enough to obtain scholarships to allow him to further his education and he is currently doing his Masters at Stanford, again on a government scholarship. He to me is an example of someone who believed, worked hard and has done well for himself.

Meritocracy has granted him opportunities which he may not otherwise have been given.

However, the dialogue also raised questions on meritocracy. How it can breed excessive competition and division and perhaps it is time to consider what version of meritocracy is most in line with our founding mission. Perhaps traditional meritocracy could be restructured so it rewards those who act toward the benefit of society as a whole as opposed to the most intelligent and able.

One where merit is not just grade based, but where merit is viewed on a more holistic level to reward the ones that work towards the common good.

In a previous organisation I worked for, the success rate to be selected as a new hire was 0.5 per cent. About four hundred applications were received for two vacancies. Needless to say, many of the applications received had very good grades. In such a situation, how does an organisation decide? An increasingly important consideration is whether the candidates gave back to society. Candidates who recognised the benefits to improving society as a whole are likely to be viewed more favourably within any organisation seeking to create a strong team oriented environment.

Another question raised was how to keep meritocracy fair, so each child should, as far as possible, have an equal chance to excel and lead full lives, in spite of the inequalities which will always exist in reality.

What has the Education Ministry recently done? They have focused on pre-primary education. They are developing programs to level the playing field, to ensure those that may not be as advantaged, receive assistance so they can compete and actualize their full potential. These are changes which have occurred and must continue to happen.

A desire to do better

These changes show that the Party knows that it is not perfect, that it can always do better.

How is the Party looking to do better? It is listening. It is taking a ground based approach. This shows the Party's desire to be relevant. To meet the needs of the people on the ground.

How do we see that it is listening? We can see this in the Singapore Conversation, the activities of Reach, the dialogue sessions held by the PPF, Women's Wing and the Young PAP. These are some of the activities that show a party that listens, that wants to have a dialogue but more importantly the Party has taken meaningful action after it has listened.

Has the supply of HDB flats increased? Yes. Has the Community Health Assistance Scheme been expanded, so more enjoy outpatient care subsidies. Yes. Is the PSLE evolving to try and create less stress by using grades instead of t-scores? Yes. These are a few examples which show the party is listening.

Your party wants to engage you,

Your party wants to work with you,

Your party is listening.

Thank you.

*This speech was delivered by Mr Benjamin Tay at the Party Convention 2013 on December 8, 2013, at Kallang Theatre.

Today, Minister Chan Chun Sing said that the PAP will “do battle everywhere as necessary” and not concede physical and cyber space to get their message across.

I’m not sure if I’m the only one who thinks this sounds like government propaganda. We live in a democratic nation, and I hope the government knows and respects that. Already, our press standards and rankings are among the lowest globally.

I do not understand why the PAP wants to fight dissenting voices, since the voices come from the voters. It doesn’t make sense for the PAP to fight those who have put them in power. The government’s policies have created much unhappiness. The Opposition spends much of its time helping the people and listening to their needs.

Many will remember that the Prime Minister apologised to the Opposition for speaking about his intention to “fix” them during the 2006 General Election.

Will the Minister similarly apologise for stating his intention to do battle against the voices of the people?

Chiam See Tong

Secretary-General, Singapore People’s Party

There is a "need to demarcate areas and time drinking (is) allowed," says Member of Parliament for the area Lui Tuck Yew on visit to area hit by last night's Little India riot. 

Will we be seeing stricter regulations on drinking activities in future? Stricter rules on the times that alcoholic beverages can be served and further restrictions on the areas that drinks can be purchased might be implemented soon. 

Twenty-seven suspects from South Asia have been arrested after a 400-strong mob started a riot at Race Course Road in Little India at about 9pm yesterday (Dec 8). 

The incident was apparently sparked off by a fatal accident involving an Indian national knocked down by a private bus.

The 33-year-old victim had been crossing the road when he was ran over and trapped under the bus. SCDF pronounced him dead upon their arrival. 

He has been identified as Mr Sakthivel Kumaravelu, a construction worker who had been working in scaffolding company Heng Hup Soon for two years.

MrKumaravelu's body was not decapitated as reported by some news outlets but he did suffer injuries to his face, reports The Straits Times.

The mob, believed to be made up mainly of foreign workers, apparently attacked an ambulance and a traffic police highway patrol car responding to the accident. Projectiles were thrown at the rescuers while they were extricating Mr Kumaravelu's body.

Shortly after, a riot involving a crowd of about 400 subjects broke out. They damaged five police vehicles and one ambulance. Several other private vehicles were also damaged and there were at least two explosions at the scene.

Some 300 police officers responded to the Little India riot but not a single shot --- lethal or non-lethal -- was fired.

Ten police officers and four Civil Defence officers were injured. It was reported that 18 casualties were conveyed to Tan Tock Seng Hospital. The driver of the private bus remains in hospital after undergoing an operation, and is not arrested.

Commissioner of Police Ng Joo Hee said that no Singaporean was believed to have been involved in the riot, adding that destruction of property and fighting the police is not the Singapore way. Further arrests can be expected to be made in the days that follow.

Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, who is also the Minister for Home Affairs, said that the government will not tolerate such 'lawless behavior', urging the public to stay calm and not to speculate.

Members of the public in the area have also been advised to stay indoors while police investigations are ongoing.

Back in April this year, Khaw Boon Wan had said that Singapore could consider housing foreign workers on offshore islands.

Khaw had said that Singapore was “open to the idea” citing that Singapore had done so in the past.

Workers were previously housed on small, offshore islands such as Jurong Island and Pulau Brani for some time.

He further said that not all islands are suitable because of infrastructure and other considerations but he said that the Government would continue to look for suitable options.

Since then, we have not heard too much more about the idea despite Khaw saying the MND will work to find solutions that can help to house the foreign workers without causing too much inconvenience to them or Singaporeans.

Would shipping off the migrant workers to a near-by island fix some of the issues Singapore faces with cultural clashes and overcrowding of certain areas? 

The policies the PAP have put down thus far makes absolute sense when looking at the event in an economical sphere. However, politics is never solely reliant on economic logic, social factors have to come in play at some point, whether it's the need to please your voters at the polls in a democracy, or to prevent a general uprising in an absolute dictatorship.

The policies of the PAP have thus far largely ignored the growing dissent on the ground. Whether that dissent is entirely justified or not, I believe no man can answer. The point is, there is dissent and current government policies and measures do not take sufficient steps towards addressing such issues.

I personally believe that should the opposition claim 100% of the seats in Parliament, the situation could prove dire with inexperience bringing the potential for greater chaos to the fore. Yet, proceeding on with the current PAP's plan of action would lead to an inevitable future social calamity as tensions boil further than before. Today's riot was one such incident, no matter how interpreted, of social tensions in Singapore slowly building up to unsustainable levels.

Therefore, with the option of leaving either political sides entirely in charge out of the question, the best case scenario would then be a greater coalition between the two sides in an effort to come to a reasonable compromise that would placate either side. Should that fail, then perhaps the symbolic message of a greater majority of Singaporeans voting for the opposition would snap the PAP from their current slumber and perhaps push policy in the right direction.

Brennan

TRS Contributor

Singapore People’s Party releases statement on the riot at Little India and the subsequent temporarily ban on alcohol at Little India the weekend.

The SPP salutes our brave law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line during the riot of 8th December, which was the first in Singapore since 1969. We wish the injured officers and victims a speedy recovery.

We also wish to extend our sincere condolences to the family and friends of the victim of the traffic accident.

The Prime Minister has called for a Committee of Inquiry (COI) – we look forward to the report of the COI, since not all details of the riot can be fully ascertained yet. We also hope that the traffic conditions of Race Course Road will be addressed, in view of the road accident that took place, and in view of feedback from residents there.

This incident has highlighted the importance of social media. Video footages were captured by observers and circulated online, thus keeping Singaporeans aware of the situation on the ground that night in a timely manner. The police have even appealed for these footages to be shared with them, to help their investigation.

Finally, we hope disruptions to businesses in the aftermath of the riot can be minimised. An alcohol ban instituted for the neighbourhood this weekend will add on to these disruptions, and the ban may potentially be extended. We hope the authorities will be sympathetic to businesses there as they try to forge a balance.

SINGAPORE PEOPLE’S PARTY

On Monday evening, Second Minister for Home Affairs S Iswaran announced that there will be a complete ban on the sale and consumption of alcohol this coming weekend in the Race Course Road area where a riot broke out at.  He further said that the details of the ban, such as exactly what time it will apply and what geographical area it will cover, will be worked out by the police.