http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kV0ikuC6Hg

Chong Wai Fung and Clarence Dorai present SDP’s 2013 Christmas message – We need a more compassionate society (text available below).

The Christmas season is upon us again – a season of giving and forgiving, a season of festive cheer and goodwill. But Christmas is also a time where we remember what humanity is all about – compassion and the ability to care for one another. For what would the Christian faith stand for without the virtues of care and empathy?

Singapore is renowned for its tinsel and glitter at Orchard Road especially at this time of the year. We go about shopping for gifts and partake of the fun and food that is in abundance. But even as we spread cheer and laughter, let us also remember those who continue to live in poverty and pain.

Let us remember 95-year-old Mdm Lu Dai Hao who took her own life because she didn’t want to burden her family with medical bills. Or the 81-year-old lay who suffered a heart attack after queuing up for three nights just for a free meal at the temple. Or those homeless families camped out at the beach.

We cannot leave those who need our voice be unheard. We cannot leave those who are defenceless without rights and dignity. We can do better than this, we are better than this.

We need to build a compassionate society, A society that can look into the needs of it’s weaker and more vulnerable brethren. After all, Christmas would mean nothing if all there is to it is the emphasis on shopping.

Caring and compassion for our fellow men and women is what makes us all human, it is the decent thing to do, it is the true message of Christmas. Let us re-dedicate ourselves to this message and see to it that power be accompanied by compassion. The two must not be separated.

And so from all of us here at the SDP to all our Christian friends have a Blessed Christmas and to everyone else Happy Holidays!

Singapore Democrats

Singapore’s foremost political leader once famously stated [1]:

“What political party helps an opposition to come to power? Why should we not demolish them before they get started? Once they get started, it’s more difficult to demolish them.  If you are polite to me, I’m polite to you but I’ll demolish your policy.   It is the job of every government to do that if you want to stay in power.”    

The elder statesman has candidly explained that a ruling party which is in power would want to stay in power. One way to stay in power is to demolish opposition before they get started. For once they get started, it is more difficult to demolish them.

Singapore’s ruling party has stayed in power for over 50 years.  So firm has the PAP’s grip been that since the first post-independence general elections were held up to the 2011 general elections, there were never more than 4 elected Members of Parliament from the opposition.  Currently, there are just 7 out of 87.

With respect, I do not agree that it is laudable for a ruling party to seek the demolition of opposition parties. When a political party wins the mandate to form the government, it takes on the responsibility of serving the nation. The ruling party must serve the nation in priority to its own interests.

Is it in the interest of Singapore to have weak opposition political parties and feeble civil society organisations? I do not think so. Allowing circulation of differing ideas and opinions will build a more robust nation, one which would have the full complement of solutions for its problems.

Systems to guarantee plurality in politics are entrenched in many democratic nations. For instance, in Germany, Sweden, Canada, Australia and other democracies, political parties are entitled to receive subsidies or cash grants from the government for their political activities. [2] Such government grants help to ensure the survival of political parties, their ability to play their part in the political process and the continuance of healthy competition for political office.

Laws and regulation are necessary but must not curb healthy political competition.  Sad to say, we have many laws which have the adverse effect of stifling the activities and growth of opposition political parties and non-partisan civil society groups.  One of which is the Political Donations Act (Act) [3].

According to the Elections Department [4], the Act seeks to prevent foreigners from interfering in Singapore’s domestic politics through funding of candidates and political associations.

The Act imposes an onerous compliance regime on both the political association and its donors.

A political association is defined to include not just political parties, but also non-partisan groups like The Online Citizen (a socio-political website) and MARUAH (a non-governmental organisation).

An organisation which is deemed to be a political association can only receive donations from Permissible Donors.

A “Permissible Donor” is defined as a Singapore citizen not less than 21 years of age; or a Singapore-incorporated, Singapore-controlled company, the majority of whose directors and members are Singapore citizens and which carries on business wholly or mainly in Singapore.

Onus is on the political association to verify that the donor is a Permissible Donor before accepting the donation.

Hence, in order to comply with the Act, the political association has to request the donor for his NRIC and to give his personal details. In the case of a corporate donor, the political association would need to inquire or do checks on the company’s business, directors and shareholders. All these inquiries are an intrusion on the donor’s privacy and discourage the donor from making the donation.

Political associations can only accept less than $5,000 in anonymous donations per financial year.  Any anonymous donation which will bring the total of anonymous donations beyond $5,000 in that financial year, will have to be returned or surrendered to the Registrar of Political Donations (Registrar).

If the political association receives a single donation of an amount not less than $10,000, or multiple donations from the same donor the aggregate of which is not less than $10,000 in a financial year, it must submit a Donation Report to the Registrar giving the name, identity number and the address of the donor and the date, value and description of the donation.

In addition, a donor who has made multiple small donations with an aggregate value of $10,000 or more to the same political association in a calendar year, is himself also required to submit a Donation Report and a Declaration Form to the Registrar. Failure to do so is an offence under the Act.

I am not clear how the requirement to report donations of $10,000 or more serves the stated aim of prohibiting foreign donations.  It is clear though, that such a requirement makes donors wary of making other than small donations.

The phoenix is a bird which rises from its own ashes to fly again stronger and fuller of life than before.

The Act is yet another hurdle for opposition parties, by making it difficult for them to raise funds for its activities.

It is a ‘Hard Truth’ that money is necessary for democratic politics. Political parties need funds for their activities. Lack of funds inhibits the activity and growth of the political party.

It is evident that the opposition cause has many supporters and well-wishers, and the numbers are growing.

If only some of the many supporters would be convinced to brave the gauntlet of making political donations, I believe that it would spark such a huge game-change, that the phoenix will rise from its ashes.

Then the promise we saw in the watershed general elections of 2011 will be allowed its fulfilment in 2016.

References:

[1] “HARD TRUTHS TO KEEP SINGAPORE GOING” (2011) by Lee Kuan Yew, at page 82
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_subsidies;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_funding
[3] Cap. 236, enacted on 15 February 2001
[4] http://www.eld.gov.sg/registry.html

Jeannette C. Aruldoss

* The author is the Secretary-General of the National Solidarity Party (NSP). This article is written in her personal capacity. The author appeals to readers to consider making a donation to NSP. Click on this link to find out how to donate to NSP: http://nsp.sg/donate

FROM PMO WEBSITE:

TRANSCRIPT OF PRIME MINISTER LEE HSIEN LOONG’S DOORSTOP INTERVIEW DURING VISIT TO ROCHOR NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICE CENTRE

Qn: What is your takeaway from today’s visit?

Well, I came to meet the Home Team, people who were involved in handling the riot the night it happened, as well as the follow up, to meet them, to talk to them, to express my appreciation for what they are doing, to hear their views, their accounts and their experiences in this incident. I think they have a very difficult job - the Police, different parts of the Police, the Traffic Police were involved, the SOC, Special Ops Command were involved, they had the dog unit, they had the people from Tanglin Police Station and there were also the Civil Defence responders, the ambulance group, the paramedics. I think each of them had a different responsibility and had to do their job to handle this most serious and most unfortunate situation. I think that they had done a good job. I came to express my appreciation and to encourage them to continue to do their duty - as Singaporeans expect them to do.

Qn: What went through your mind when some of them were giving their own personal accounts and experience?

These are people who know what they are supposed to do. They are experienced, some of them have been 20 years in the Force, some of them not so long - there are NS men, NSFs, they are in their second year of NS, well-trained, and they know what they are supposed to do. They have been drilled, they have practised, they understand what the situation is, they made an appreciation of the situation and then they decided on a course of action to deal with it. I have a lot of respect and I was impressed with the way they explained what they were going to do and how they planned and acted. It was not precipitated, it was not on the spur of the moment, but their years of training as well as their collectedness, their calm and their courage at the key moment I think makes a difference. 

Qn: PM, some analysts have spoken about the need for Singapore to have a new social compact with the foreign workers, some of them have been saying that the policy all this while has been one of segregation, and maybe we should move beyond that to integrate them emotionally and think about their social and psychological needs. What are your thoughts on it?

I think we deal with the riot and what led to the riot - the broader issues we can argue and debate. They have a point of view, as far as we are concerned, dealing with this riot, what is it which caused this to happen and how can we make sure that something like this does not happen again. I think this is our priority. Much broader factors which you can extend them to the limits of our entire social policy, population policy, I think these are broader issues which we deal with separately. 

Qn: What are your thoughts about how we should go forward then as a society? 

I think first we deal with this riot and the problems, and then after we have got the COI and we have identified what caused this. Were there deeper causes? Was this an incident of a riotous mob isolated in Little India on that evening? Then, we can discuss whether this raises broader questions for our society. I do not accept that we must straight away ask whether fundamental approaches or the whole way of our society is organised needs to be rethought immediately. Let us establish what caused this. 

Qn: But it is something you need to think about eventually? 

Let us deal with this problem first and we can think about and see whether it leads to much broader implications. 

Qn: PM, after having spoken to the first responders this morning, do you feel that the security should be beefed up both in terms of numbers and maybe technology perhaps?

I think we will certainly be looking to see how we can strengthen and make the Police more effective. Technology is one aspect which we can make a lot more use of and the Police have already been experimenting – CCTV cameras, wearable cameras, communications, even equipment to deal with a situation like this. We will make sure that our people are equipped with what is the best available so that they can do their job best of all. Numbers is a much more difficult thing. I think compared to many other cities and police forces; we are much smaller and leaner than them. In Singapore, it is not easy to build up the numbers. I think the Police will be looking at this very carefully.  

Qn: PM, there is a lot of accusation online about police running away from the situation but after today you have heard it from them, that it is not the case. What is your advice to the officers then? 

My advice to the officers is you do the right thing, you know you have done the right thing, you have the confidence that eventually, this will come out and we will back you up. So I will not give a lot of weight to random stuff which appears in the social media – all sorts of stuff appear on the social media and we have to decide which ones are serious which ones are not. There is a COI which has been convened and the COI will look into all of this. So I told them, I do not read all the stuff which is on the internet everyday and you have to focus on what is meaningful, what is serious and then decide what you just have to let pass. There is a lot of stuff there, some to be taken seriously, some not. 

Qn: PM, after your discussion with the officers today and the briefing, has it informed you in any way of the cause of the riot? 

It has given me a feel from the point of view of the people who were there - how they felt it, what they saw, how they reacted, how they felt. It is very useful to me when I am reading the reports and deciding what to do next, to have that almost first hand feel of what happened that night. 

Qn: 总理，你刚才跟警务人员和民防人员交流了之后有什么感想跟看法呢？ 

我今天来，主要是要会见我们的警察人员和民防部队人员，和其他当晚，１２月８日那天晚上，处理这个骚乱事件的人员。他们的责任是很重的。他们时时刻刻都是要维持我们的治安，维持我们的秩序。那当晚,突然间这个事情爆发了，他们必须有恰当的反应，并且必须适可而止，不能够采取太低调的反应，也不能够有过分的反应。所以我觉得欣慰因为我知道这些人员他们，第一，许多是有相当的经验。第二，他们受过良好的训练。第三，他们得到警察，整个队伍跟我们政府的全力的支持。所以我相信他们当晚做的，当然我们不能够说是完全已经是尽善尽美的，但是我觉得他们已经尽了他们的能力，并且我对他们是有信心的。我今天来是感谢他们，同时鼓励他们继续尽他们的责任，维持我们社会的秩序，安宁，及稳定。 

Qn: What lessons do you think you can take away from this incident? 

I think as I said, we will deal with all that later on. One of the lessons which we have to realise is that even in a stable society, something like this can happen, and when it happens, it is important that we have a Home Team which is able to deal with it appropriately in a calibrated, measured, thoughtful way and decisively. Deal with it at the moment, deal with it after in the follow-up actions, in the investigations, in the enquiry, in the investigations which lead to criminal prosecutions and other actions, and also in the other actions we are taking to make sure that the foreign worker population in Singapore are being properly looked after and I think this is what matters.

As far as I can remember, I've voted for the opposition at least for the past 2 GEs. Back then, my conviction was for a functioning check-and-balance role for the opposition as in any other parliamentary democracy. I had even participated enthusiastically in the Our Singapore Conversation last year. Pretty normal, someone from a foreign democracy would have commented on my attitude.

However, circumstances on the ground did not match the political rhetoric of our government. The last straw was broken (as with many Singaporeans) when the Population White Paper was announced and swiftly bulldozed through Parliament. Angered and hurt, I began to find political soulmates like Gilbert Goh and Leslie Chew on the net as well as getting my articles published by TRS and TRE. I'm grateful for these websites and they are not the demons as portrayed by the mainstream media.

Even then, I continued to stretch an olive leaf to the PAP, posting polite petitions on ways to contain (not reduce) the foreign population on the Facebooks of ministers and PAP MPs. In early October, I handed a hard copy of my petition to Minister Chan Chun Sing when I attended a session of his Informal Policy Discussion. My last petition (7 Dec) was to MP Lily Neo on her Lily Neo Page, warning her of immigrant riots just one night before the Little India riots.

Have I done enough?

My wish is a population cap of 5.5 million in 2020 before increasing up to 5.8 million (upper end of the Worker's Party plan) in 2030. Make no mistake about my proposal. Even at these levels, we can only hope for anti-foreign sentiment to be contained, that is, maintained at the current anger level. Social stability will be severely at risk if our population increase to the 'working parameter' of 5.8 to 6 million in 2020, which is only a few years away. There is no need for me to talk about 6.9 million. If you can understand the enormity of the situation and the seemingly formidable entrenched mindset we are fighting against, an opposition win in 2016 is no longer academic, but a life and death issue for the only homeland I know.

David Ching

TRS Contributor

2013 turned out to be a very meaningful year for the SDP with our emphasis on our groundwork and publication of alternative policy papers.

January

Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan started the year by calling for a better quality of life for Singaporeans in our 2013 New Year message.

The party kicked off our campaign at the Punggol East constituency in preparation for the by-election. Observers commented that it was the SDP’s announcement that prompted the PAP to call for the by-election because it anticipated a three-corner fight. The SDP eventually withdrew from the contest to prevent a split in opposition votes and allowing the PAP to retain the constituency.

February

We conducted our customary Chinese New Year walkabout to meet residents in the various constituencies we contested in 2011 and to help usher in the Year of the Snake.

We launched our alternative policy Building A People: Sound Policies For A Secure Future in which opposed the Government’s plan to raise our population size to 6.9 million and proposed measures to lower the number of foreign workers as well as tighten the entry of foreigners into the country. The guiding indicator for optimal population size is the happiness of our people.

March

March saw us present our annual Shadow Budget: Transforming Our Capabilities, as in previous years, where we outlined an alternative budget that would initiate a much-needed economic and social transformation.

We continued our ground campaign by making house visits in the Clementi housing estate.

April

The SDP launched our Chinese website in our continuing effort to reach out to Chinese-speaking Singaporeans. We are the first political party in Singapore to do so.

We continued with our house visits, knocking on doors of residents at the Bukit Panjang estate in the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC.

The SDP spoke up against a raft of actions taken by various Government departments against bloggers and activists. This was not in keeping with the PAP’s promise during the last elections to do things differently.

May

The party honoured our workers in a public forum for May Day. The event, conducted in Mandarin, called for the protection of workers’ rights and for the reform of labour laws so that workers can freely and independently organise their unions.

May also saw the Minister for National Development make a shocking revelation that the HDB lost “hundreds of millions” of dollars every year. This was despite the Government charging Singaporeans enormous amounts of money over the cost of building the flats.

In reality, the Government makes a handsome profit by factoring in the “cost” of land into HDB prices. In our housing policy paper, Housing A Nation: Holistic Policies For Affordable Homes, we proposed the Non-Open Market (NOM) scheme for HDB flats where the cost of land is removed from the prices.

Dr Chee Soon Juan spoke at the Oslo Freedom Forum in Norway where he talked about the need for Singapore to develop a sustainable economic model which included the necessity of democratising the political system in the country.

June

The party spoke up about the Media Development Authority’s (MDA) decision to regulate online news sites. The SDP has fought for our fellow citizens’ right to freedom of the press because without a free media, the public is often misled by its rulers.

June also saw the worst haze enveloping Singapore. The SDP issued a statementsupporting the Government’s efforts to address the severe condition and urged the authorities to look into the illegal clearing of Indonesia’s forests through fires.

July

Dr Paul Ananth Tambyah, a specialist in infectious diseases at the Department of Medicine at NUS was promoted to Full Professor with tenure.

McGill University undergraduate Mr Chris Liu became the SDP’s first intern under the party’s internship programme.

The Young Democrats embarked on a trip to Pulau Ubinand discovered that some of the residents there were still anxious about their high rents and threats of eviction despite the authorities’ claims that they would not be chased out of the island.

August

We kept up our ground work by visiting our constituents in the south and southwestern parts of the island during which we sold our newspaper The New Democrat, warning them about the PAP’s intention to push our population to 6.9 million.

We held our annual fund-raiser and had a great time performing with and for our friends and supporters.

Dr Chee delivered the SDP’s response to PM Lee Hsien Loong’s National Day Rally speech, pointing out that the announced changes in housing and healthcare did not get at the root-cause of our people’s problems. He counter-proposed the SDP’s alternative ideas.

The SDP announced the resignation of Dr Vincent Wijeysingha from the party. Dr Wijeysingha expressed his desire to get more involved in LGBT and other human rights issues.

September

We launched A Singapore for All Singaporeans: Addressing the Concerns of the Malay Community in which we proposed alternative social and economicpolicies to uplift the conditions our fellow Singaporean Malays.

The PAP Government announced the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) and urged employers to consider employing Singaporeans first. This was a page from the SDP’s population paper with the major difference being that the FCF is only an appeal, not legislation.

Party activists attended our annual retreat which allowed us time for some R&R as well as an opportunity to make plans for the future.

October

In another sign that the SDP’s National Healthcare Plan is taken seriously by establishment circles, the Singapore Medical Association (SMA) News published an article co-authored by Professor Paul Tambyah and Dr Tan Lip Hong in its September issue.

The party held its biennial party conference during which it elected its 16th Centrel Executive Committee (CEC).

New faces were introduced into the leadership even as familiar ones continue to provide the necessary experience. Secretary-General Chee Soon Juanreiterated party’s ideologyof building a caring and fairer system which puts people first.

We held our annual futsal competition to reach out to Singaporeans (especially our youths) and to raise awareness of the nation’s politics among them.

November

The party re-stated our support for Muslim women in Singapore to wear the tudung at the workplace if they so wished.

December

We SDP repeated our call for the Government to stop its punitive actions against bloggers and activists, and reiterated the need to reform our political system.

December also saw our first ever riot in Little India in nearly 50 years. In response, the party called for a review of present population and immigration policy which is fomenting unhappiness and social problems among the populace.

As in previous months, we ended the year with our regular ground activities by visiting residents in the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC.

Goodbye 2013, Hello 2014

If 2013 is anything to go by, the next year will be even busier and more productive. Calling all our friends and supporters, come on board and let’s make democracy a reality in Singapore!

Singapore Democrats

THE YEAR IN 2013

1.     Singapore continued to make progress in 2013. We have set new directions for Singapore, and are working steadily towards them. Change can be unsettling, and we have encountered a few rough spots this year. As a society, we were tested, but we came through together.  As we work through the transition, we can look forward to a better future for all.

2.     Our economy has done well. It grew by 3.7% in 2013 – better than initially expected. Median salaries increased by 3.9% in real terms, and pay for the lower-income went up too. This means better jobs and new opportunities for workers. It also means that we can do more to make ours a gracious city for all. Next year we expect to grow by 2-4%.

3.     In other fields too, our people are scaling many peaks of excellence. Cultural works like “Ilo Ilo” are winning international awards. Team Singapore athletes did well at the SEA Games, winning medals in a wider range of sports and inspiring Singaporeans. In the latest Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), our students ranked among the top three countries worldwide for reading, mathematics and science.

OUR NEW WAY FORWARD

4.     In the National Day Rally, we set a new direction for Singapore. The Government and community will give more support to individuals. We aim to keep our society open and mobile, especially through education, so that anyone can rise regardless of family background. We will strengthen social safety nets to ensure that anyone can bounce back from difficulty, and to give Singaporeans, especially our seniors, greater peace of mind on their healthcare costs. We will share the fruits of progress more widely, including through home ownership schemes and support for low wage workers.

5.     We are making steady progress. The first-timer queue for HDB flats has shortened, housing prices have stabilised, and targeted subsidies have made homes more affordable. We are investing in quality pre-school education for all, and refining the Primary 1 registration and PSLE scoring systems.  Our schools are stressing values and character education. Equally, we are broadening definitions of success as we seek to make every school a good school. MediShield-Life will provide all Singaporeans, including those with pre-existing illnesses, better lifelong protection against high medical bills. We are also working out the Pioneer Generation Package to honour the special generation who built today’s Singapore. We will announce details soon.

6.     These are major shifts in our way forward. We will implement changes progressively, and improve on our programmes as we learn what works best. In the next few years we will take further initiatives to address other needs, and deal with new problems that arise. After the Budget session, we will prorogue Parliament. When Parliament reopens in May, the Govern-ment will set out our agenda for the rest of our term.

7.     Another long-term issue we addressed this year was population. The White Paper in January laid out the choices before us. It provoked an intense response, but the debate has helped everyone understand why population is such an important issue, and why we cannot avoid difficult trade-offs. Whether we bring in more immigrants and foreign workers or fewer, whether we aim for higher growth or lower, there are no easy choices for Singapore.

8.     We are taking a balanced approach, reducing but not cutting off the inflow of foreign workers. This is why companies are finding it harder to hire the workers they need, especially SMEs. We are helping companies adapt by exploiting technology and becoming more productive. At the same time, we are encouraging firms to develop their Singaporean workforce and adopt fair employment practices. But we still need foreign workers to keep our economy running and to build critical infrastructure for Singaporeans, like HDB flats, MRT lines, and schools.

9.     We will continue to treat foreign workers fairly, but we expect them to obey our laws and social norms. The riot in Little India was inexcusable. We have taken firm action against the culprits. Several have been charged, others warned and repatriated, and still others advised to abide strictly by our laws. The Committee of Inquiry will establish how the riot happened, and how we can prevent such incidents in future. The riot reminds us that we can never take good order, peace and stability for granted.

10.     As we focus on domestic issues, remember that how we fare depends also on the world around us. The European and American economies are stabilising. Asian prospects are still positive, but there are problems and tensions. In Northeast Asia, the disputes between China, Japan and South Korea over historical issues and the ownership of various islands have sharpened, and stability of the Korean peninsula is a serious worry. In Southeast Asia, several ASEAN countries and China have overlapping claims in the South China Sea.

11.     Singapore is not directly involved in these issues, but we do have a vital interest in a peaceful and stable region. We hope the countries will work out their disputes peacefully and in a spirit of friendship. This is the way to maintain the stable and open environment that has benefited all Asian countries.

A BETTER FUTURE FOR ALL

12.     Provided nothing untoward happens in Asia, I am confident that Singa-pore will do well. We are investing in our future, and developing new capabilities for tomorrow’s economy, like 3D printing, data analytics and consumer insights research. Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah is chairing the ASPIRE (Applied Study in the Polytechnics and ITE Review) Committee to strengthen applied education pathways, and enhance career and academic prospects for ITE and polytechnic students. We are transforming our physical environment: Opening new train lines and expressways, and working through their teething problems; in the longer term expanding Changi Airport, reclaiming land for Tuas Port, and planning the Southern Waterfront City. We are creating exciting opportunities, to hand on to our children a better Singapore than the one we inherited.

13.     Our shared goal is a brighter future for ourselves and our families. Our families mean everything to us. They anchor our identity, inspire us to do our best, and love us unconditionally. So it is right that we take care of them and honour them with our love and concern.

14.     We celebrate the 20th anniversary of the International Year of the Family in 2014. Many activities are lined up, including Family Days, Children’s Day celebrations and inter-generational events for grandparents and grandchildren. Do join in them, and make a special effort to spend more time together as a family. Do also invite friends, colleagues and neighbours who are away from their own families to join you, and embrace them as part of our larger Singapore family.

CONCLUSION

15.     The Singapore spirit burns bright in our people – in the concern of volunteers who distributed masks to vulnerable groups during the haze, in the determination of a SEA Games cyclist who fought back from a serious car accident to win gold, and in the courage of Home Team officers who formed human shields to protect colleagues during the riot in Little India. We must nurture this spirit, and keep faith with our nation and our people. By trusting and helping one another, we will create a brighter future for ourselves and our children.

16.     I wish all Singaporeans a very happy New Year.

Lee Hsien Loong

Prime Minister of Singapore

*Article first appeared on his FB page here.

With a New Year comes new hope, the hope that things will change for the better. But hope without effort cannot change anything. 

Yet, change is what Singapore desperately needs - change from the way the government responds to our aspirations. Unfortunately, it seems that the more we call for change the more intransigent those in government get.

Instead of becoming more responsive, our leaders have chosen to continue to take punitive action in misguided attempts to bring back the political silence of years past. 

We have reason to be angry with the recent raft of threats and actions against our activists and bloggers. But even though we have every right to be bitter about such intimidation, let us not retaliate in vengeful anger.

Instead, let us re-dedicate ourselves to work in a spirit of forgiveness and constructive action. Let us demonstrate to our rulers that we cannot be intimidated and that every act of administrative aggression will be met with an even more determined will to overcome injustice - not with spite but with reason and peaceful resolve.

Let us help our nation's leaders see that change is to be embraced, not feared, because change - democratic change - cannot be avoided. It is an idea whose time has come. In fact, it is the only way that Singapore can remain relevant in this fast-changing world.

We are at a crossroads and the choices we make now will determine how we live in the future. If we allow anger to be the captain of our actions, if we - because of our own oppression - lash out by victimising foreign workers in our midst, or if we retreat into fearful and silent cynicism, then our future will be lost.

I have never been more hopeful about our future, a future where political power is used to better the lives of all, starting with the weakest among us.

But such change will need the courage and dedication of all of us who care to come forward and make it happen. It will need foresight to recognise that there are alternatives and that we are not forever wedded to an out-moded form of governance. We have the ability to take this country in a different direction, to a better place.

We must take care of our own people and invest in them. We must make their happiness and well-being, not profit, our priority. To achieve this, my colleagues and I have drawn up alternative policy plans which we offer our people. 

I know that many of you believe in the same things we do. We invite you to share this vision with us and, more important, work with us towards that Singapore which we all want to see.

And so here's to a New Year, my fellow Singaporeans, may it be filled with courage and compassion.

Chee Soon Juan

Secretary-General

Singapore Democratic Party

Many friends, party comrades and other Singaporeans were surprised to learn from the posting in the 'Unseen Singapore", that I had at one time worked in, and detained by the ISD . Though this was no longer an issue as it has been brought up several times during the elections since 1984 when I first stood, many, especially the young seemed unaware of it and have no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding my detention. 

Some have asked me to tell my side of the story to "clear the air" less I be accused of being either a mole or a traitor to my country . I shall try to do just that and be as brief as possible without losing tract of the main issue. 

In 1969 I was appointed as a translator at the CID. Served my NS from 1969 to 1971. I was an instructor at the school of section leaders in SAFTI holding the rank of Corporal/Acting Sergeant. Was recommended for officer training but was overruled.

Returned to CID after ROD and, soon after, transferred to the ISD. Being a Malay I was not called for any army reservist duty - not once. I, together with all the other Malays in my batch were de-mobilized not long after our ROD and were asked to return all our military kits. 

In the ISD I was stabbed in the back by a senior colleague and accused of not being cooperative and for having views which did not conform with the 'norms'.

I was warned that I should be "reducated".As a result I was sent back to the CID. 

Outside my office hours I was involved in voluntary social and religious work. I was concurrently the Secretary of Masjid Khalid, Madrasah Asriah and Rose Badminton Party and the General Secretary of the Singapore Malay Badminton Association, whose President was the late Hj Mansor Sukaimi, the ex MP for Kg Kembangan.

As Secretary of Masjid Khalid I represented the mosque in meetings with the MUIS. In one of the meetings I had a skirmish with the then President (Hj Buang Siraj, whom I was told was a PAP member) and the Mufti, over some issues which many in the community were not happy with. This included the issue of toning down the volume of the "azan" to a ridiculously low level which the MUIS was instructed to implement. It seemed that non Muslims living near mosques had complained of it being a source of noise pollution.

This practice of broadcasting the azan had been in place for hundreds of years. I had argued that the British had allowed it without any problem. Even during the Japanese occupation, I argued, the soldiers would mercilessly have your heads chopped off if anyone would dare to defy them. But they never disturbed the azan. 

To my surprise, after the meeting I was called by the ISD and warned for going against the MUIS and instigating others to do the same. I was told that Hj Buang had reported me to the ISD.

After the incident I knew that I had been put on a watch list. 

Some time after the above incident and over another incident which was thought to have involved me the ISD raided my house in the early hours of the morning and took away most of my personal belongings, including my type writer, personal diaries and other personal documents.

I was blind folded and driven to the detention centre. The moment the blind fold was removed I found myself in a small room with powerful search lights shone of my face and immediately assaulted by a senior officer by the name of Hussein Salleh, a Police Superintendent in charged of the ISD Malay Section.

That was the first taste of police brutality with many more to come. I was accused of trying to "bite the hands that fed me".

This time I had been accused of circulating a petition accusing the government of ill treating the Malays, in particular over the detention of a group of university students who were members of PERMUSI (Singapore University Muslim Students Society) and allegedly involved in clandestine activities. 

The fact of the matter is, though I knew some of the students who were detained, I had no knowledge whatsoever of what they were doing nor was I involved in any way with them. I was also not responsible for writing and circulating the petition because as an ex ISD staff I Knew the rules and would not have done such a stupid thing as that. (This fact was determined by the ISD much later after a colleague of mine, a fellow translator in the CID who was quite close to some of the detainees admitted to being responsible for it. It was done a few days earlier in my absence as I was on sick leave) He was also detained at the same time.

But I admit that I had been earlier approached by the relatives of some of those detained to help find out where the students were held and why they were arrested since they were kept incommunicado for some time. I had tried to contact some of the people I knew in the ISD for information which I could give to the families of the detainees. I did not make any headway and left it at that.

During the detention I went through the works and was completely at the mercy of the officers. Sleep deprivation for days on end and under intense cold and walloping sessions to extract confessions finally took their tole. I was admitted to the Changi Prison Hospital for observation when my limbs went numb. 

I had thought that after the fellow translator had admitted his guilt the right thing they should have done was to apologise for my wrongful detention and release me.

But fat hope. They had to justify my detention no matter what the facts of the matter said. They resorted to a technical issue. They pounced on the discovery of some copies of my translation which I had kept in my office under lock and key in the CID and the alleged revelations of the ISD operational methods to the colleague (who was also bound by the Oath of Secrecy) and charged me in court. (Note, not revelations to any member of the public or any other party)

Before going to court an officer asked me how I was going to plead. I grudgingly said "guilty". He responded by saying, "You better do so or heads will roll and yours would be the first".

Do I have a choice?

Before I forget I also would like state that my beloved mother who had been unwell for some time passed away during my detention and the inhumane officers did not even allow me to attend her funeral. I was only brought out to view her body very briefly the night before as though I was a dangerous criminal. This was an additional factor which made the stressful condition worse.

In part II tomorrow I would give my take on the whole issue.

Mohamed Jufrie Bin Mahmood

*The author is the current Chairman of the Singapore Democratic Party. 

Recently, SPH carried an exclusive Mdm Halimah Yacob interview "Singapore Still Ageist" and Mdm Halimah chairs a new PAP Seniors Group. [Link]  

Mdm Halimah has always championed Womens' Rights, "Hire Singaporeans First", re-training and also headed NTUC Union since elected as MP. 

Many times, we hear too many PAP MPs talk about our needs in Parliament but how many of them dared to even walk the talk?

PAP leaders, if they really want to lead, must learn to walk the talk. Simply talking about transforming convinces few. Action speaks louder than words.

For example, the Yellow Ribbon campaign to re-employ ex-convicts was supported and fronted by ex-President Nathan. How many of our PAP Stats Board are willing to hire ex-convicts?

"One very common tactic for enforcing political orthodoxies is to malign the character, "style" and even mental health of those who challenge them. The most extreme version of this was an old Soviet favorite: to declare political dissidents mentally ill and put them in hospitals. In the US, those who take even the tiniest steps outside of political convention are instantly decreed "crazy"..."

But what is at play here is this destructive dynamic that the more one dissents from political orthodoxies, the more personalized, style-focused and substance-free the attacks become. That's because once someone becomes sufficiently critical of establishment pieties, the goal is not merely to dispute their claims but to silence them. That's accomplished by demonizing the person on personality and style grounds to the point where huge numbers of people decide that nothing they say should even be considered, let alone accepted. It's a sorry and anti-intellectual tactic, to be sure, but a brutally effective one."

Read more of the article at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/23/noam-chomsky-guardian-personality

Does this tactic sound familiar?

Singapore Democrats

The SDP has sent our alternative healthcare plan to the Medishield Life Review Committee (MLRC). Titled The SDP National Healthcare Plan: Caring For All Singaporeans, the 87-page paper proposes reforming our healthcare financing system to one that is universal, affordable and sustainable.

The MLRC, headed by Mr Bobby Chin, was appointed after PM Lee Hsien Loong announced in his National Day Rally last year that the Government would amend the Medishield scheme, now called Medishield Life, to increase patients' coverage of medical bills. 

Details have not been announced and the MLRC was set up to study the proposed parameters of the scheme.  

But even at this early stage, PM Lee has signaled that "contributions to Medisave will have to increase." Does this mean that Singaporeans will have to continue to shoulder the main bulk of the healthcare expenditure?

This contrasts with the SDP's plan, a detailed and comprehensive alternative proposal, which shifts the onus of paying for the major portion of the nation's healthcare expenses onto the government, a practice in line with other comparable European and Asian economies.

Singapore is one of the last few countries where the healthcare system is not universal. Because of this many in the poorer segment of society do not receive adequate medical care. For those who meet a catastrophic illness, their savings are often wiped out because of high medical bills.

By sending our healthcare plan to the MLRC, the SDP hopes to inject into the healthcare debate the need for a genuinely affordable national insurance scheme where healthcare extends to all regardless of one's station in life.

One of the terms of reference of the MLRC is "to consult widely with the public and key stakeholders”. As such, the SDP looks forward to participating constructively in the consultation process and bringing a fresh and much-needed perspective to the topic. 
 

6 January 2014

Mr Bobby Chin

Chairman

Medishield Life Review Committee
 

Dear Sir, 
 

Allow me to congratulate you on your appointment as Chairman of the Medishield Life Review Committee. 

I would like to bring to your attention The SDP National Healthcare Plan: Caring For All Singaporeans of which a copy is linked here. The document highlights the various problems brought about by the current healthcare system. Our paper also details a comprehensive programme that would alleviate these problems and bring about a healthcare system that is universal, affordable and sustainable for our citizens.
 

Given that the Medishield Life Review Committee has been charged with reviewing and studying the parameters of our healthcare financing system, I am sure that you would be interested in studying the proposals contained in the SDP plan. 
 

We look forward to contributing to the review of our healthcare system and make it one that will take care of all Singaporeans.
 

As this subject is of public interest, I hope you will not mind if this letter is published on our website. 

I wish you and your Committee members the very best. 

 

Chee Soon Juan

Secretary-General

Singapore Democratic Party

Whenever it comes to General Elections rallies, Ms Sylvia Lim always like to cite 1991 General Election as a good reminder as to why PAP should not be given a high mandate. She would cite that 1991, when PAP lost 4 seats to Cheo Chai Chen, Ling How Doong, Low Thia Kiang and Chiam See Tong, PAP set up a committee to address the concerns and kept costs of living low to win back votes from Singaporeans.

Conversely, we should look at what happened in 2001.

In 2001, Singapore PAP called for elections in Nov, which is 2 months after Sep 11 happened in United States. There was fear, uncertainty as recession loomed as many businesses in US may affect Singapore's operations. PAP played on this fear and called for election in 2001. 

Many expected the election to be 2002 (5 years after 1997) but PAP decided to take this golden opportunity and Singaporeans bought the bait and voted for familiarity. PAP thus received a high mandate of 75%, the highest since 1980. Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Kiang's votes were also dangerously low and won by a slim margin.

Some punters said that it was also because during GE2001, Dr Chee Soon Juan behaved like a lunatic on one occasion when he openly yelled at Goh Chok Tong that made many Singaporeans turn against opposition politicians. Dr Chee also lost heavily and won only 20 per cent of the votes in Jurong.

After winning a high mandate, PAP took Singaporeans for granted. 

The former Manpower Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen let in a flood of Indian national IT people to flood the banks etc.

Then in 2003, Singapore was hit by SARS and there was a recession. 

We still remember even though there was a recession, hawker food, utilities and transport fares continue to increase despite our concerns.

I still remember that SMRT had a record profit of more than $20 million but yet when we gave PAP a high mandate, PAP did not even bother to talk to SMRT to tell them to put their fare increases on hold.

Therefore, for those Singaporeans who still think PAP will listen to your concerns if you vote for them,  it is not to your advantage to give PAP a high mandate come GE2016.

Let Parliament be a microcosm of a society. Voting for more opposition with humble backgrounds will put a voice for you in Parliament so that the society will be more equal. 

CJ

TRS Contributor

With the bed shortage at several public hospitals around Singapore, Gan Kim Yong, the health minister has urged all hospitals to make patients feel as comfortable as possible.

He said that they are already working to build new hospitals and nursing homes but they take time to build. In the meantime, they are working to find suitable solutions for patients such as moving patients to other hospitals that aren't full.

The Ministry of Health also explained that part of the reason for the bed crunch is the aging population putting more demand on health services.

Other factors include the shrinking family sizes meaning that there is less support available at home.

What is puzzling is that the government is playing catch-up with health services.

They have known for a long time that we had an ageing population and shrinking family sizes. This is precisely the reason that was cited for bringing in so many foreigners.

Why weren't they able to plan ahead and start to build more hospitals and facilities earlier rather than realising the problem only when there were frequent bed crunches and then turning around and telling Singaporeans that 'it takes time to build hospitals'?

In the meantime, the health ministry is working to make more bed available this year. There are also suggestions that the public and private healthcare sectors can partner up to spread out demand.

There is also a greater focus put on home-care to reduce hospital stays and reduce the need for re-admissions.

The National Solidarity Party (NSP) refers to the Transport Minister’s announcement on 6 January 2014 about a new monetary penalty and incentive scheme for public transport operators (PTO) to improve their en-route bus reliability, the Bus Service Reliability Framework (BSRF).

Under the BSRF scheme the reward of $2000 to $6000 for every 0.1 minute reduced, is greater than the penalty of $1300 to $4000 for each 0.1-minute deviation from the buses’ scheduled arrivals at the bus stop. Why is the quantum for rewards set to be higher than the penalty?

Also, will this monetary penalty and incentive scheme compel PTOs to pressure their bus drivers to perform in a manner without proper consideration of safety risks for bus passengers and with reduced regard for road safety?

It would have been more understandable if the BSRF scheme intends to reward service standards which are over and above the expected levels for PTOs.

Since that is clearly not the case here, NSP proposes that the Government refrains from offering further subsidies using tax-payers money for PTOs to conduct trials on how to improve their operations, especially when the PTOs are highly profitable private businesses.

This new scheme comes hot on the heels of another scheme, the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP) launched in March 2012, where $1.1 billion package would be progressively disbursed to PTO to improve service standards. On 2 September 2013 the Transport Minister released a one-year progress report of the BSEP.  According to that report[1]:

• About half of the 550 buses under BSEP have been added on the road
• 111 existing bus services have been improved
• Waiting times on popular services have shortened by 3 to 5 minutes
• 40% reduction in number of bus services with persistent crowding during peak hours
• Improved connectivity with introduction of 14 new bus services

Even with all these enhancements, the problem of over-crowded public buses still persists.  The BSRF scheme seems to shift the responsibility for this problem onto the PTOs and the bus drivers – as if the problem of over-crowding in our public buses can be solved by getting bus drivers to be more punctual.

Many of you wrote to me via Facebook to complain about racially offensive remarks by “Heather Chua”. I’m glad that the Singapore Police Force has established the identity of a 22-year-old man who is believed to be behind the fictitious profile. He is currently assisting the Police with investigations.

The Internet allows us to share information and connect easily with one another. We should harness this powerful tool positively and responsibly. Let’s remember to be mindful of our words and to respect one another. We must uphold our racial harmony and social cohesion. 

Lee Hsien Loong

*Article first appeared on his FB page here.

Related: 22 YR OLD MAN BEHIND FAKE FB ACCOUNT HEATHER CHUA UNDER INVESTIGATION BY POLICE

Editor's Note: The Singapore police have warned the public that anyone found stirring hatred among different racial or religious groups or otherwise undermining the harmony in our society could be jailed up to 3 years, fined or both. Do note that this is a very vague law and the sedition act can be abused by the authorities in their favour to silence Singaporeans.

For example, Leslie Chew the cartoonist published a cartoon depicting the decreasing Malay population percentage and an increasing Chinese population percentage through the influx of PRCs despite the Malays having a much higher fertility rate. In our opinion, this cartoon does not cause civil unrest and disharmony, it is a valid point made about the population statistics. 

In Leslie Chew's case, the authorities came to their senses and dropped the sedition charges against him. They continued on the charge of contempt of court for quite some time afterward.

Contempt of court is another very vague law which can be used by the authorities to silence critics. Where do we draw the line between an innocent opinion about rulings made by the court and a comment which is seen as contempt?

In many other western democracies, contempt of court is rarely used and it was recently abolished in the UK as it was decided that if courts need such an ancient law to protect their integrity, then there is something seriously wrong with the judicial system.

Of course the case of Leslie Chew is very different to this current case involving 'Heather Chua'. There is a difference between discussing racial or religious issues with sound arguments and making degrading or insulting remarks about a certain race.

If the discussions are about statistics and problems, then we should break down the taboos of talking about such issues and be able to discuss them maturely and openly.

On the other hand, treating other racial or religious groups as inferior is clearly highly inflammatory.

However, when it comes to political discussions, the line must also be drawn differently as the very nature of politics is to point out the flaws and discuss better solutions for problems. Each political party has it's own set of ideas for how Singapore should be run, if showing support for one group and putting down the ideas of another group (eg. The PAP government) were to be seen as seditious due to it's possibility to 'cause civil unrest', then it would be impossible for a democracy to function. 

The Government has decided to introduce a licensing regime which will require employers to pay cleaners a starting salary of no less than $1,000. It has done the right thing.

The PAP will not admit that this is akin to setting a minimum wage, which it has always resisted. Nevertheless it is a positive development for workers in Singapore especially those in the low-income groups. The SDP welcomes the policy change.

There, however, remain concerns. First, $1,000 is still not fair wage. Given that the cost of living in Singapore is one of the highest in the world, a salary of $1,000 is not sufficient for workers to survive on.

In addition, the entry-level salary should be legislated across the board as a national wage law where no Singaporean employee will be allowed to be paid anything less than the minimum wage. The proposed measure of the licensing regime that will be introduced in Parliament next month leaves out workers who are not in the cleaning service industry and who are still not paid a living wage.

Third, the idea to legislate a minimum wage should be made at the hourly level. This will enable part-time workers to be covered.

The SDP has recommended that the minimum wage start at $7 per hour. This will work out to at least $1,232 per month for workers who work the standard full-time of 44 hours a week. Under such a plan, part-time workers will also be assured that they are paid no less than the mandated minimum amount.

The SDP calls on the Government to legislate a minimum wage law and not handle the important matter of workers’ wages in a half-hearted and piecemeal manner like the current proposal.

The SDP has campaigned for minimum wage for more than a decade because we believe in investing in our people. We are glad to see the PAP finally coming round to the idea even though much more needs to be done.

Singapore Democrats

One of the ways in which you know if your MP is doing a good job in Parliament is his/ her absentism record.

Many residents think that just because an MP such as Er Lee Bee Hwa who wayangs around by showing up during festival celebrations or occasions in your neighbourhood means you are doing your job.

Another is to show up in Parliament and to speak up in Parliament to pressure PAP to refine their policies and to block / vote for Bills or Amendments. However, sadly, many residents do not follow Parliament closely and may lose out on critical information.

Mah Bow Tan has a high absentism record so far, and I am not just talking about 2013. In 2012, there were 28 Parliament sittings. Mah Bow Tan was absent for a total of 17 Parliament sittings without valid reasons. 

In schools or work, you can be called up for disciplinary hearing so I don't understand how come Mah Bow Tan can get away with his absence.

Ever since he had a poor showing in Tampines in GE2011, one would expect him to wake up after stepping down as MND Minister. However, Mah Bow Tan is very active in the private sector and has held a few jobs in private sector. This reaffirms why we need full time MPs who should not hold more than 1 job or portfolio when he is elected as MP.

Compared to opposition MPs which have a very clean attendance, all Singapore citizens should pay attention to PAP's absentism record.

Nicole Seah should challenge Mah Bow Tan again in Tampines come GE2016 to ensure Mah Bow Tan can retire comfortably in Australia with his ang-mo Aussie wife. 

TRS: I understand that you have been shopping around with Reform Party, SDP, SPP, NSP and WP. So how have you been volunteering with opposition parties? What are some of the activities that you have been doing?

CJ: There are many ways for you to volunteer. For example, you can make a cash donation which is the easiest and simplest way to do so. Another is their outreach activities. Every time, they publish their newsletters, you can volunteer by peddling around their newsletters, going up door-to-door to residents who may not eat at coffee shops etc.

For Workers Party, they need definitely more volunteers as People's Association don't work with them, so their volunteers are needed to conduct more MPS, community events such as Countdown 2014 or festivals etc. It's hard work as you are expected to stay as long as past midnight. The level of commitment is high and all for no money at all. 

For those volunteers who wish to do more in policy research, policy debate or writing their Manifesto, it's only when you have volunteered enough hours and gained some trust before they allow you to get involved in this area. For me, I am satisfied with playing just the supporting role. 

TRS: Having volunteered in PAP and Opposition Parties, are there any significant differences you have observed?

CJ: I have attended some open houses events in opposition parties and there are definitely some anger, resentment and some are loose cannons.

PAP volunteers are usually more reserved and even if they do voice out some real issues and if the RC Chairman over-rides them, they will usually compromise. During these meetings, People's Association full salaried staff also sit in so even if these staff don't really see eye to eye with RC Chairman, they keep quiet as their jobs are at stake.

Opposition party volunteers, being non-salaried and nothing to lose, can be rather opinionated and stubborn and challenge their Senior volunteers over issues or policy debates or nominations over CEC.

That's why sometimes, you have read about how some former SDP members Tan Jee Say, or ex-Reform Party members who left over differences of opinions. For some reason, they cannot compromise and have nothing to lose so they leave. But overall, this is bad image. 

Most swing voters want to see reliability.  No matter how qualified you are, but with this track record of going public or leaving in a whim when you feel shortchanged, any political party or voters will think twice before recruiting you.

TRS: Any good things to say about PAP, despite your change in alliances?

CJ: I have volunteered in PAP MPS too and also organised People's Association Sing-a-Nation and CountDown parties in previous years. These mega-events are really tough to manage because we need to back goody bags, ensure that the stages, chairs, seating arrangement and logistics are in order.

Only salaried staff from People's Association take charge of this events and we volunteers just follow their orders. Most volunteers aren't rewarded but we also get our hands on goody bags.

Although it's tiring but it's worth it, for the sake of building a nation.

I believe Workers Party also will steal some of these ideas for their celebrations as People's Association don't work with them.

On these occasions, PAP MPs also contact needy families through People's Association and get these families to join in these celebrations.

Many residents had a great time during these events and it's this kind of events that make people want to vote for PAP again. 

Already, PAP has monopolised so many festive occasions and always show up on these occasions so the brand name is there. Familiarity breeds comfort and so residents may still vote for PAP.

Therein, lies the danger of ignorance. Residents should be informed of how Parliament works and if their MP is not doing a good job in Parliament, they should think twice about voting for them again. 

At the end of the day, after cheering festive celebrations have ended, have the residents' lives improved? 

Do they have better jobs? Or has their salaries stagnated? Has it become easier to take public transport?

Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said last week that "a minimum wage system has crippled countries in Europe and the United States, particularly in worsening employment conditions." Such a statement demonstrates a careless disregard for facts.

The economic crisis which led to the high unemployment rate in the US and Europe was not brought about by the minimum wage system but by the criminal acts of Western bankers who played fast and loose with the financial system.

It was the buying and selling of credit default swaps and the subprime loans in the US that triggered the financial collapse in 2008. This - and not the minimum wage system - caused the destruction of the economy which led to massive unemployment.

If minimum wage has crippled economies, how do we account for Switzerland and Norway which have unemployment rates and economic performances similar to Singapore's? The minimum wage in both countries is set through collective bargaining. 

Australia's economy, which includes one of the highest levels of minimum wage (A$16.37 per hour) in the world, has been out-performing ours. In the last 5 years, the annual GDP growth averaged 3.4% for Australia and 1.3% for Singapore.

Perhaps, the most significant indicator is that the citizens of these countries enjoy a quality of life and experience a sense of well-being and happiness that Singaporeans can only dream of.  

Another case in point is Hong Kong which introduced minimum wage in 2011. The territory's Minimum Wage Commission (MWC) found that since the introduction of the law, the number of long-term unemployed persons (i.e. unemployed for six months or above) actually fell in the period after the implementation of minimum wage. The Commission concluded that

In sum, local enterprises did not seem to cut down recruitment significantly after the implementation of the initial [minimum wage] rate. On the contrary, with the expanding economic activity, the number of establishments increased in tandem. Incentives for business start-up stayed positive generally.

Then there are the so-called breakout TIP nations (Turkey, Indonesian and the Philippines) which have been singled out as economies that show the most promise going forward. They all have minimum wage. 

To give the idea that minimum wage is the cause of high unemployment, as Mr Tharman (who is also the Finance Minister) does, is to cherry-pick information and present the case in a manner that is devoid of intellectual rigour. 

The truth is that minimum wage is not the magic pill that causes economies to excel. But neither does it cause them to fall apart or unemployment rates to go up. 

Minimum wage is one of the many measures that, if designed and implemented intelligently, protects workers in low-income groups and helps a society to progress in a sustainable manner.

While the PAP government has taken a step in the right direction by mandating that cleaners be paid no less than $1,000/month, it is disappointing that, given the dire situation of our wide income gap, the Government continues to refuse to implement a national minimum wage law. Worse, it resorts to using dubious analysis to support its position.

By refusing to do what is almost universally accepted as an essential economic measure (joining countries like Burundi, Tonga, Somalia, UAE and Yemen), the PAP Government continues to hurt the most vulnerable in our society. 

The SDP will present a comprehensive case for minimum wage for our workers in our forthcoming alternative economic plan. 

SDP

*Article first appeared on http://yoursdp.org/news/tharman_is_wrong/2014-01-13-5765

The Workers’ Party (WP) welcomes the new and enhanced concession schemes to make public transport more affordable for people with disabilities, senior citizens, low-wage workers, students and full-time national servicemen. These groups will finally enjoy some overdue relief for their travel needs, for which the public and the WP have lobbied for years.

The concessions, however, should not be used as a sweetener to make the latest fare increases palatable.

With an initial increase of 3.2% in 2014 and an increase of 3.4% rolled over to the fare review exercise next year, this could mean a heftier increase in 2015. We are concerned that the majority of the commuters may still experience a very large overall fare increase of up to 6.6% in the next two years.

This latest round of fare hikes comes on the back of a substantial $1.1 billion government subsidy in our public transportation system through the Bus Services Enhancement Fund (BSEF) last year.

The fare hike has also come despite train breakdowns having become a regular affair, further compounding the frustrations of commuters, who are frequently affected by such service quality and reliability lapses.

We are disappointed that the fare hike will take place three months before the concession schemes for low-wage workers and people with disabilities are to be implemented. We call for the fare hike to be delayed until the new concession schemes are implemented.

The WP believes that public transport should be provided as a public good and not for profit. Service quality, reliability and fare affordability should come before the need to ensure the profitability of PTOs.

DENNIS TAN LIP FONG (陈立峰)
Executive Council Member
The Workers’ Party

For media queries:
Email: media@wp.sg