30 Jan 2014

IMPORTANCE OF FAMILIES

1. The Year of the Snake has been eventful. We made good progress, despite some difficult moments. I am confident that we will continue to move forward in the Year of the Horse. The global economy is looking up. At home we still need to improve public transport, but housing queues have shortened and low-wage workers like cleaners are getting more help. The festive mood is all around us. I visited Chinatown two weeks ago and was cheered to find the shops bustling with families shopping for Chinese New Year decorations and goodies.

2. Chinese New Year is a time to strengthen our family bonds. Families are the foundation of a cohesive, harmonious society. Our families anchor our identity and sense of belonging. They inspire us to reach for the stars, and support us when we are down. Our extended families too provide a valuable network of kinship and mutual support. We are raised to respect our elders, and do our best for our children.

THE PIONEER GENERATION

3. As a society, we are making a special effort to take care of our elders. Many elders lead active and fulfilling lives. We are promoting healthy living and lifelong learning, and helping those who wish to work do so, so that more people can age happily. We are also addressing retirement and healthcare needs, by increasing medical subsidies, building more hospitals and nursing homes, and expanding home care services. Beyond infrastructure and financial help, we are creating a social environment where people can age with peace of mind, and be valued and respected for their contributions.

4. One group of elders that deserves special recognition is our Pioneer Generation. They saw Singapore through our most difficult times. They worked hard to build Singapore, and transform it from Third World to First. All of us today benefit from their efforts and achievements.

5. It is right and fitting to honour this special group as Singapore approaches our 50th birthday. We are preparing a Pioneer Generation Package to thank them for all they have done. I am also holding a special event at the Istana on 9 February to honour members of this Pioneer Generation, and hope to present them a little hongbao!

FUTURE GENERATIONS

6. While we honour our seniors, we must also keep Singapore the best home to raise our children and fulfil their aspirations. We love our children unconditionally and place great hopes in them. We want to pass on to them a better Singapore than the one we inherited. We hope that our children will build on what they will inherit, and will create a brighter future for themselves and their children, just as the Pioneer Generation did for us.

7. For this to work, we do need enough children to form the next generation. Unfortunately, despite our efforts to promote marriage and parenthood, our birth rates are still too low. Singapore’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR) was 1.19 last year, far below our replacement rate of 2.1. The TFR for Chinese Singaporeans (1.06) was even lower. We must try our best to do better.

8. I hope the Year of the Horse will see some improvement. This year we will have a “double spring” or “双春”. Valentine’s Day coincides with Chap Goh Mei, the 15th day of Chinese New Year. Almost 300 couples have registered to marry on this auspicious day, so we are off to a galloping start. I hope to hear more wedding bells and newborns’ cries throughout the year.

9. One important factor when couples decide to start families is access to good childcare and pre-schools. We are creating more places as quickly as we can. We added 7,000 new childcare places last year, and will reach our target of 20,000 new places in all by 2017.  MOE has started running five kindergartens, and will expand this to 15 over the next few years. We have just identified three more pre-school Anchor Operators, to add to the two existing ones – PCF and NTUC (My First Skool). We must create a pro-family environment which gives families the confidence and support to raise their children.

INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE FAMILY

10. This year we celebrate the “International Year of the Family”. We have planned many family-friendly activities, including at the River Hongbao and Chingay Parade. The response has been enthusiastic – many families will perform in the “Singapore Celebrates Family” float in Chingay, including 3-G families, families with disabled members and extended families with aunts and nieces. They have spent many weekends practising their dance moves, and treasure the special family moments they have shared together. The events continue throughout the year, including Family Days at places like the zoo and National Family Celebrations. You can find out more at www.iyf2014.sg.

STRENGTHENING OUR SINGAPORE FAMILY

11. Beyond our own families, we should also strengthen the larger Singa¬pore family. Do look out for the less fortunate and lonely, especially the elderly, during this festive occasion.  Also let us nurture our ties with fellow citizens of different races. We live in peace and harmony because we have strived to overcome differences in our ethnic or religious backgrounds, and expand the common space where we all interact comfortably. We must continue to make this effort, to protect what we have achieved and build upon it.

12. Visitors from other countries are often amazed at what we have achieved, but we ourselves sometimes take our religious harmony for granted. In our multi-racial, secular society, we must all live and let live, and be willing to compromise for the common good. As the majority race, Chinese Singa-poreans have to be sensitive to the needs of the minorities, and give them ample space to practise their cultures and ways of life. Minorities too must give and take, and work with other communities to make progress together.

CONCLUSION

13. Strong families and close ties with our fellow Singaporeans have underpinned our success, and will continue to be the foundations for a brighter future. Next year we celebrate Singapore’s 50th birthday. It is a time to celebrate our achievements, and rededicate ourselves to building a better Singapore. The SG50 campaign which we have just launched engages Singaporeans on this shared endeavour. Do join the SG50 campaign, and share your ideas on how we can celebrate our golden jubilee together.

14. Let us stick together as one family, and work with one another to build a brighter future for all. Together we can ride into the Year of the Horse with confidence. Together we can create an even better Singapore for ourselves and our loved ones.

15. I wish all Singaporeans a very Happy Chinese New Year!

PM Lee Hsien Loong

[Source]:http://www.pmo.gov.sg/content/pmosite/mediacentre/pressreleases/2014/Jan...

After Low Thia Kiang’s infamous analogy of slapping a driver that had gone to sleep or taking the wrong turn, there were high expectations that the slapping would continue and be more frequently done. This is especially so when the driver is seen to have been driving wildly, speeding and breaking all the traffic rules. With this background, one can appreciate why there is a sense of anger and frustration when the slapping somehow has stopped.  Some were even accusing the co driver for falling asleep or been bought over by the driver. Many are now using this self assigned role of the WP to judge their performance, and found them wanting.

Why has the slapping stopped suddenly? The curiosities surrounding this turn of event are growing. Has the WP back tracked on what it professed to do? It is definitely not a case of a driver driving well and proper and no reason to slap. That makes thing more uncomfortable and the critics more impatient. You could actually hear them screaming for more slapping. The unlikely thing now is that the critics are turning around to slap the co driver for sleeping on the job instead, for inaction.

What would you do if you were Low Thia Kiang or the WP? One school of thought is that it is better to let the driver continues driving all over the place and to the wrong place or over a cliff. Why bother to correct him? Would it not be better to let the driver in his drunken stupor or state of delirium to drive over the cliff?

There is some wisdom and practical values to this. When the enemy is making all the mistakes, do not stop him. Instead, the enemy should be encouraged to make more mistakes and believing that everything is fine. Now, is this the new strategy of the WP? To make sense of what is happening, this is the only logical reason. The WP cannot be seen as inept or losing their little balls if they want to be the main opposition party to take on the PAP. Losing credibility in the eyes of their supporters is a very serious slip and would undermine their efforts to win more supporters and voters to their side.

The good thing about a good teacher or a good driver constantly slapping a driver to take the right course of action is that it would benefit the driver more than the co driver/teacher. For all the hard work of slapping, everything turns out well and the co driver cannot reap any rewards for his effort. Let it fall, let the wayward driver drives in whatever way he wants, let him get into accidents and crash the car would be a better result but with a bigger price to pay for the passengers.

To slap or not to slap the driver is a tough choice really.

Chua Chin Leng AKA RedBean

*The writer blogs at http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com/

At the young guns forum organised by the National University of Singapore's Political Association, 4 young party members from Singapore's political parties were asked how they rated their parties' performance since GE2011.

MP Baey Yam Keng went to the forum to speak for PAP and he responded that since 2011, he would give the PAP a 6 out of10.

He reasoned that at the last election, PAP won about 60% of the votes and since then there are still several problems in the way that the PAP runs the country.

He felt that the PAP has done well in some areas and improved in many aspects and he believes that the people are aware of the improvements.

However, given their huge majority in parliament there is actually a lot more that the PAP can do.

The biggest point of improvement that Baey Yam Keng identified was that the PAP needs to work on its relationship with the people.

He said that even with good intentions and good policy outcomes, the PAP needs be able to communicate and connect with the public.

The other members at the forum were:

• WP – MP Pritam Singh
• SDP – Ms Chee Siok Chin
• NSP – Mr Syafarin Sarif

The absence of an independent electoral commission is inconsistent with Singapore’s claim to be a democratic nation.

Norfolk, England

On 11 May 1963, an English gentleman by the name of Frank Adler, somehow managed to gain access into Markham Royal Air Force Station in the English county of Norfolk. While within the boundaries of the Station, he obstructed a member of Her Majesty's forces and was promptly arrested. 

According to the UK Official Secrets Act 1920, the Markham Royal Air Force Station was a prohibited place and it was an offence for anyone to obstruct a member of Her Majesty's forces while ‘in the vicinity of any prohibited place’. 

Thinking he was clever, Mr Adler argued before the Court that as he was actually in the prohibited place, he could not be said to be "in the vicinity" of the prohibited place. 

The learned judge was not going to let Mr Adler get away with such a ridiculous argument.  Mr Adler was found guilty of the offence. 

The judge explained that the words "in the vicinity of" should be interpreted to mean on or near the prohibited place.  If the Court was confined to only the literal meaning of the words, it would have produced absurdity - as someone obstructing a member of Her Majesty's forces near the Station would be committing an offence, whilst someone doing the same thing inside the Station would not.

Mr Adler's case[1] is well-known to law students as being a classic example of the courts applying what lawyers call the "Golden Rule" for statutory interpretation. Under the Golden Rule, where a literal interpretation of a wording gives an absurd result, which Parliament could not have intended, the judge can substitute a reasonable meaning in the light of the statute as a whole.   

Cheng San, Singapore

2 January 1997 was Polling Day in Singapore.  On that day, top PAP guns walked into and stood inside a Cheng San GRC polling station while people were lining up to cast their votes. They were Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong, Deputy Prime Minister Dr Tony Tan and Deputy Prime Minister Brigadier-General (NS) Lee Hsien Loong, none of who were candidates for Cheng San GRC.

At that time, Cheng San GRC was being hotly contested by The Workers' Party. As to the extent to which citizens at Cheng San GRC polling station were influenced to change their votes upon seeing high-ranking PAP leaders congregating there, we will never know. 

PAP won Cheng San GRC by a narrow margin of 54.8% to 45.2%.

After the 1997 General Election, the Workers' Party lodged a complaint to the police that Mr Goh Chok Tong, Dr Tony Tan and Brigadier-General (NS) Lee Hsien Loong had been inside a Cheng San GRC polling station on Polling Day.  The Workers' Party cited two sections of the Parliamentary Elections Act:

Section 82(1)(d):

"No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote".

Section 82(1)(e):

"No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day."

However, the Attorney-General stated that the PAP leaders had not broken the law. 

Pointing to the use of the word “outside” in Section 82(1)(d), the Attorney-General explained[2]:

“Plainly, persons found waiting inside the polling stations do not come within the ambit of this section. …. Only those who wait outside the polling station commit an offence under this section unless they are waiting to enter the polling station to cast their votes.”

As for Section 82(1)(e), the Attorney-General pointed to the use of the word “within” and explained[3]:

“The relevant question is whether any person who is inside a polling station can be said to be "within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station". … Plainly, a person inside a polling station cannot be said to be within a radius of 200 metres of a polling station.”

All these explanations of the English prepositions “in”, “within”, “inside”, “outside” – is making my head go terbalik[4]!

I need to go back to reading nursery books to refresh my understanding of “inside” and “outside”. (By the way, a very good nursery book which explains the meanings of these words is the children’s classic "Inside, Outside, Upside Down" by Stan & Jan Berenstain. I used to read that book to my children when they were toddlers.)

If Singapore had an independent election commission overseeing the election procedures, the Workers’ Party would have been able to lodge their complaint to such a body, instead of lodging their complaint to the police as they did. 

Unfortunately, Singapore does not have an independent election commission.   

In 2011, UN member countries called on Singapore to establish bodies such as a human rights institution and an independent electoral commission. The Singapore Government rejected the UN calls, arguing that such bodies were not necessary. The Singapore Government said:

“Elections in Singapore have always been conducted fairly. The electoral system and its procedures are clearly spelt out in Singapore law which applies to all political participants, regardless of affiliation. The Singapore Elections Department, staffed by civil servants, adheres to the Parliamentary Elections Act and conducts elections in a fair and transparent manner. During the conduct of elections, there are equal opportunities for all political participants to observe and monitor voting operations. The result is an electoral system of integrity that has enjoyed high public trust and served Singapore well." [5]

The Singapore Government’s official explanation side-steps the actual problems of not having an independent electoral commission.

Notably, we have no safeguards against gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is when electoral boundaries are drawn so as to manipulate vote percentages to benefit the political interests of an incumbent government. Gerrymandering undermines the integrity of the electoral process.  Hence, it is crucial to have an independent body to oversee the process of boundary delimiting.

At every general election in Singapore, boundaries have been drawn and re-drawn; constituencies have come and gone.  The reasons for making those changes have never been satisfactorily explained to the public. 

The Elections Department being under the purview of the Prime Minister’s Office, it is a hopelessly constrained agency.  We need an independent electoral commission to safeguard the integrity of the process of choosing our national leaders, and more importantly, to give citizens confidence in the legitimacy and fairness of the result.

The lack of an independent electoral commission is a glaring gap in Singapore’s electoral system.  The Singapore Government’s official explanation for denying its citizens the benefit of an independent election commission, is inadequate and unconvincing. 

Up to now, the ruling party has had to continually fend off persistent criticisms that it has created an un-level political playing field in order to preserve its political incumbency. However, when the PAP-led Government sets up an independent electoral commission, I am sure that PAP critics will have a lot less to complain about. 

But the time when it will be of greatest significance to the PAP, is on the day when the PAP becomes an opposition party. When that day comes, I have no doubt PAP would then be very glad for the existence of the independent election commission they had established while they had been the ruling party.  

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

*Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss is a practising lawyer who earned her law degree in the United Kingdom. She also holds a Masters Degree in Corporate & Commercial Law from the London School of Economics & Political Science and was called to the English Bar in 1986. Jeannette is happily married and a mother of four children. She was the National Solidarity Party's Candidate for Mountbatten SMC in Singapore's 2011 General Elections. She garnered 41.38% of the votes cast. 

*Article first appearaed on her blog at http://jeannettechongaruldoss.blogspot.sg/2014/02/inside-outside-upside-...

On 28th January 2014, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told the students attending the NTU Students' Union Ministerial Forum that Singaporeans need to be united and cohesive, with a common purpose and a common goal to make Singapore better. There is nothing profound in this statement and anyone with a bit of common sense will not disagree with Mr Lee.

There is no doubt the world will change in the next 50 years in ways that we cannot imagine. His reassurances are "We need to educate our students better, with knowledge and skills for the future, with values and good character to deal with life's uncertainties.

"We need to create more opportunities for them in a rapidly changing society -- which means growth, which means jobs, which means new investment, which means upgrading. So we want to encourage the bold and enterprising to go forth."

These are good intentions, but not all good intentions will lead us to heaven.

We don’t need anyone with a keen sense of observation to know that it now takes an irritating longer time to get from point A to point B whether you take public transport or drive a car.

It doesn’t take an impatient customer, diner or a commuter to encounter slower services or being squeezed in crowded conditions.

We read about train breakdowns and tents being built to house patients because of lack of beds. There are also the frequent flooding that were supposed to happen only once in every fifty years and the sudden unexpected riot in Little India at the end of last year ended a peace that had lasted for fifty years.

These are signs of hairline cracks in our society. When we do not pay attention to a fissure, it is going to become a small slit. When we do not repair a small slit, it is going to grow wider. If we still don't take any remedial action, a big crack will soon appear and become so big that collapse becomes inevitable.

A wise man will study the nature of the slit, ruminate over the problem and go to the root cause of the slit so that the right solution can be found. This is the nature of things: a fissure can eventually cause even a mountain to cave in. 

So far the government’s attitude is not reassuring. Take the issue of the rich and poor divide. Instead of telling us of the solution his government has in mind, the Prime Minister went on to point out the importance of keeping our society open so that all Singaporeans can interact comfortably with one another. How will this reduce the income gap? I would have been reassured it Mr Lee had come out with a programme of affirmative action for the children of the lower income group so that they would go to the same starting line as the rest the first day they go to school.

Instead he went on to mention the lack of restraint on the social media could complicate matters and could lead to "pack behaviour". He forgot to mention that before the age of social media, the state-controlled media had made brain-washed Singaporeans live the life of "pack behaviour”.

In fact, it is the internet that has now made it possible for the citizens to behave as informed individuals ready to participate in discourses and take ownership of their country, a challenge he had thrown to his young listeners.

Mr Lee wants Singaporeans to be cohesive and united. Generally, Singaporeans who have lived and grown up in this country and performed National Service duties have no problem having this feeling of community. They have been conditioned since young to queue, to live with other races and not to litter. We speak Singlish and enjoy curry, durian, teh tarik and rojak.

New immigrants should have no problem adopting these traits over time. However, when new immigrants flock to Singapore in large numbers, they find security in their own community. This makes it harder for them to assimilate and become part of the larger Singapore community. It is even more difficult when, with modern technology and communications, they are still connected by easy travels, internet, cable TVs to the motherland where they had come from.

Moreover, the liberal immigration policies employed by the ruling government over the past decade have caused Singaporeans to be placed in a state of disorientation and fragmentation. With local-bred Singaporeans being pushed into a near minority status, it will soon precipitate a crisis of national identity. Without any clear integration and induction program catered for these new migrants, Singaporeans are beckoned to welcome and aid their integration into our society often at the expense of our way of life. The truth is, decades of nation building efforts have been undone with the liberal influx of immigrants in just the past ten years alone.

Thus. this lack of foresight is the problem, not the social media. The social media merely exposes the crack.

Even with our current 5.3 million population, the hairline cracks have appeared. What happens when we reach the suggested 6.9 million, bringing the average number of persons per sq km is 16,640? So far the government has not given us an optimum number for our small island. Instead, in the mainstream media not long ago, we have an expert telling us that we should have no problem accommodating up to 8 million. He was obviously trying to tell us 6.9 million is actually very comfortable. There is a Chinese saying 管中窥豹 which means to look at a leopard through a pipe. This is the narrow range of vision of experts. They can only see the leopard’s spots and not the whole animal. 

Even with 5.3 million our social behaviour has degenerated. Notice the littering in your carparks? Aggressive behaviour has increased significantly on trains, buses, on the roads and other public places. 

What then should citizens expect when Singapore becomes over-populated? We must expect noise levels to be increased, more traffic congestion and more pollution from smoke emission and waste. Singaporeans must put up with having to manoeuvre through crowds in public areas, long queues for a lot of services and the squeeze on public transport. There will be very little space for fun and recreation and whatever there are, all these places will be packed during the weekends. Trying to get across the Causeway during the weekends will take many more hours than now.

With each additional person there must be a demand for additional resources. We need more homes, more cars, buses, trains, food, water, electricity, waste disposal, recreation spaces and other services like healthcare and education. Singapore is already the most expensive place it the world. With increase demands, it will become a paradise for the rich and a hell for the rest. As competition for jobs, goods and services increases, the income gap will further widened and, with inflation, an even larger share of our population will descend into poverty.

When there is over-crowding, people become more susceptible to catching and spreading disease, With more people traveling and immigrants going and coming back from their countries of origin, new bugs are likely to be introduced into the country.

On the health side, the control of an outbreak of infectious diseases in a dense population will spread easily and be harder to manage.

Over-crowding also reduces fertility and causes stress-related diseases like ulcers, enlarged adrenals, chronic heart disease and mental illness.

On the social side, there will be a higher rate of crimes, drug abuses, suicides, accidents and juvenile delinquency. You can expect to see more road bullies and other anti-social behaviours like urinating and defecating in public places.

Over 2500 years ago, Aristotle postulated that there is an optimum size of a population for a city-state to function. To him a very populous city can rarely be well-governed. 

"First among the materials required by the statesman is population: he will consider what should be the number and character of the citizens, and then what should be the size and character of the country. Most persons think that a state in order to be happy ought to be large; but even if they are right, they have no idea what is a large and what a small state. For they judge of the size of the city by the number of the inhabitants; whereas they ought to regard, not their number, but their power.……. Moreover, experience shows that a very populous city can rarely, if ever, be well governed; since all cities which have a reputation for good government have a limit of population. We may argue on grounds of reason, and the same result will follow. For law is order, and good law is good order; but a very great multitude cannot be orderly…………. To the size of states there is a limit, as there is to other things, plants, animals, implements; for none of these retain their natural power when they are too large or too small, but they either wholly lose their nature, or are spoiled. For example, a ship which is only a span long will not be a ship at all, nor a ship a quarter of a mile long; yet there may be a ship of a certain size, either too large or too small, which will still be a ship, but bad for sailing. In like manner a state when composed of too few is not, as a state ought to be, self-sufficing; when of too many, though self-sufficing in all mere necessaries, as a nation may be, it is not a state, being almost incapable of constitutional government……… A state, then, only begins to exist when it has attained a population sufficient for a good life in the political community: it may indeed, if it somewhat exceed this number, be a greater state. But, as I was saying, there must be a limit. What should be the limit will be easily ascertained by experience.…………….. Clearly then the best limit of the population of a state is the largest number which suffices for the purposes of life, and can be taken in at a single view.

The government needs to think if there is going to be a future for our children and our children’s children. In thinking of this, the government must also remember Aristotle words about the ship. Singapore is not a ship. As Mr Lee mentioned not very long ago, we are only a sampan. We need to grow according to our size. 

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

SDP

*Article first appeared on http://yoursdp.org/publ/perspectives/mind_the_cracks/2-1-0-1429

[Article first appeared in http://geraldgiam.sg on 1/2/14]

I asked the Minister if public hospitals had considered converting their higher class (A and B1) wards to C class wards. This was a suggestion I had made during the Committee of Supply debate in 2012. Back then, I had pointed out that 22% of beds in public hospitals were non-subsidised (i.e., A and B1 class). My assessment is that since A and B1 class wards use up more space per bed, if they can be converted (permanently) to C class wards, hospitals would be able to free up more bed space for patients and this will help alleviate the bed crunch. During Question Time in Parliament on 20 January 2014, several MPs asked the Health Minister what was being done to alleviate the severe bed crunch in public hospitals, which has forced some hospitals to house their patients in tents or on corridors.

The Minister responded that this could not be done because of the re-wiring and re-piping that would need to be done. I am not convinced. If hospitals are willing to permanently convert their A and B1 class wards to C-class wards to maximise space for more beds, the necessary renovation works can be done.

On a related issue, I asked whether public hospitals were still marketing their international patient services to foreigners. Note that this had nothing to do with public hospitals treating foreigners who are already living and working in Singapore. (Of course we cannot deny medical treatment to these foreigners.) I was asking if the hospitals are still pro-actively marketing their premium healthcare services to foreigners residing outside Singapore. The Minister’s response was that these patients “only” take up 2% of hospital beds. But with many hospitals hitting 100% capacity during certain peak periods, wouldn’t this 2% make a difference?

Below is the relevant section of the debate. The full transcript can be found here.

———-

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I have two supplementary questions. First, have the hospitals considered converting the A and B1 class wards to C class wards, especially in this period of bed crunch so as to free up more space for the patients? And, secondly, are the public hospitals still marketing their international patient services to foreigners because these would naturally add to the bed crunch as well?

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Madam, first, let me explain that for the wards in the hospitals, the conversion has to take into account the infrastructure design. It also needs to take into account the manpower capacity as well. Some of the wards in B1 may not be able to be converted into C class wards by simply adding beds because we need to ensure that the pipes are there, the wiring is there, and the system is capable of accommodating more than the number of beds that are currently in B1. But in the hospitals, what they have done is they have taken a very practical approach for patients when the bed capacity is tight. When they need more hospital beds to cater to the demand of the patients, they would allow the patients to be uplodged. Even if they are C class patients, we allow them to be uplodged to B2 or B1 wards. So I think all the private wards are being used as a potential capacity to cater to the need of the patient when the bed demand is high.

On the second point of foreign patients, I think I have replied in one of the PQs earlier. Foreign visitors form a very small component of our hospital beds. Some of them come for day surgeries, some of them are in the emergency and treated as outpatients and they go off. From my recollection, I remember that foreign visitors in our hospitals take up less than 2% of our hospital beds and these are sometimes urgent cases and some of them are already here in the emergency department. From the hospital’s point of view, these foreign visitors do not pose a significant stress on our hospital beds. If you look at the historical trends, as I mentioned earlier, I think extension of the length of stay and rising of proportion of patients aged 65 and above are key drivers of hospital bed demand. Of course, hospital bed occupancy is also a very dynamic number. It varies from day to day as you can imagine. It also varies from hospital to hospital. It depends to a very large extent on the number of emergency admissions and the number of discharges the hospital is able to undertake on each day. So it depends on how many patients arrive at the A&E, how many patients we plan to discharge and, therefore, in certain days, when we plan for a certain number of discharges but there could be a significant number of emergency cases that arrive at the emergency departments, and we have to address them and we may have to hospitalise them. If that situation happens, you tend to see a high bed occupancy rate for that particular day of that particular hospital. Once you admit a patient into a hospital ward, it is not just for one day. Sometimes it takes two or three days. For an elderly, it may take a bit longer. So even for that particular day, the occupancy rate is high because of high admissions. It will take a few days for the occupancy rate to come down even if you have low admissions because the patients will take up the bed for a couple of days, or three-four days, depending on the situation. So it is not just a simple factor. That is why I explained in my answer that a combination of factors will contribute towards a high bed occupancy.

[Source: Singapore Parliament Reports]

Gerald Giam

Non-constituency Member of Parliament

Source: Gerald Giam’s blog

ALJUNIED GRC MP Pritam Singh alleged that recent disputes over hawker centre cleaning and trade fairs stemmed from the "politicisation" of grassroots organisations ("Opposition politicians lament politicisation of grassroots, lack of progress since polls", ST Online, last Wednesday).

The truth is that the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC), of which Mr Singh is vice-chairman, has repeatedly sacrificed the welfare of hawkers and shopkeepers in Aljunied for its selfish interests.

AHPETC is run by Workers' Party supporters who own FM Solutions and Services, its managing agent.

In June last year, AHPETC failed to clean ceilings in a food centre. The hawkers lost income when they shut their stalls for several days. Adding insult to injury, AHPETC tried to charge them $7,200 for the scaffolding required.

When confronted, Mr Singh and AHPETC chairman Sylvia Lim denied that the town council had tried to collect money from the hawkers.

Last year, AHPETC organised a 70-day trade fair that affected Aljunied shopkeepers' business.

On Oct 13, I asked Ms Lim for a private meeting. She took 18 days to meet me, and said she doubted the shopkeepers were affected. I then encouraged her to speak to the shopkeepers.

There was no action. The matter later became public when the media reported that AHPETC had called in the police to handle the unhappy shopkeepers.

Last month, AHPETC told Kovan shopkeepers they would be fined $1,000 a day, backdated for a week, because a tent, dustbin and a rope were 1m out of place ("Town council, PA in festive fair spat"; last Thursday). When shopkeepers highlighted this pettiness, Mr Singh backpedalled and denied any "formal fine" had been issued.

Why is AHPETC cutting corners, organising illegal trade fairs, and levying arbitrary and exorbitant fines?

To date, it has given $26 million of public funds in contracts to close supporters - $5.2 million handed over without tender.

Their managing agent is paid 50 per cent more than People's Action Party town councils - and it might be 70 per cent higher this year. Why is it paid so much more? Where is the money going to?

Mr Singh accused Aljunied grassroots leaders of lowering his standing. But it is Mr Singh and AHPETC that shirked responsibility, dismissed legitimate concerns and blamed others.

Aljunied grassroots leaders have been helping hawkers and local businesses seek redress for problems caused by AHPETC.

It is not surprising that Mr Singh is trying to cover up his sorry record, and blame his problems on grassroots leaders instead.
 

Victor Lye

Chairman

Bedok Reservoir - Punggol

Citizens' Consultative Committee

*Article first appeared on ST Forums (4 Feb 2014).

If I showed you a picture of this man [image of Nelson Mandela] you would instantly know who he is. But if I showed you a picture of this man, do you know who he is? I’m sure you’re having a hard time identifying him.

It is a pleasure to speak to you at this extraordinary Forum, even though I cannot be there in person. It’s less than a perfect way to introduce myself, but it will have to do for now.

You see, I was sued for defamation by two previous Prime Ministers, as well as a current one. The courts have ordered me to pay them a total of more than US $1 million in damages. Because I am unable to come up with the money, I was declared bankrupt in 2006. Because I’m bankrupt, I am barred from standing for elections, as well as traveling out of my country, Singapore. Hence, this video.

Not only have I been sued, I have also been arrested and imprisoned on numerous occasions for taking part in peaceful protests, speaking in public without a permit, distributing fliers critical of the government, for trying to attend conferences such as this, and for contempt of Singapore’s courts.

But don’t misunderstand. I’m not complaining. I didn’t do this to demonstrate how difficult this is. This isn’t about me.

It’s about justice and equality and human dignity. It’s about giving voice to the voiceless, and empowering my fellow citizens. It’s about freedom and democracy. When you speak truth to power, you must expect autocrats to do everything they can to silence you. And when they do, you must speak even louder.

Why then, in Singapore, the third richest country in the world, where everyone is happy, would we speak up? Per capita we have the greatest number of millionares. After all, Singapore’s authoritarian rulers have turned it into a gleaming financial metropolis.

But this is only the headlines. The paragraphs in the story tell a very different tale.

There is no minimum wage, and there are no independent trade unions. These people are left at the mercy of their employers. While those at the top continue to rake in the big bucks, lower income earners have seen their incomes shrink in the last decade. The number of homeless families continues to rise, and lines for free meals at temples and charities continue to grow longer.

All this, in a country where government ministers are paid the highest salarties in the world. Last year, the prime minister’s salary was six times that of US President Obama. Are you then surprised that among the rich economies of the world, Singapore has the worst income gap? The income gap as measured by the Gini coefficient, the measure of income inequality, is comparable to Ecuador, Nepal, and Rwanda.

Because of the socio-political situation, Singaporeans are emigrating in numbers that are alarming to the country’s rulers. Every month, about 1,000 people seek permanent residence elsewhere. That’s a huge number for a population of only 3 million.

37% of young Singaporeans say they feel no loyalty to this country. Life is so stressful and expensive that young couples are putting off marriage and children: with only 1.2 births per person, we have the lowest birthrate in the world. High immigration and low birthrate have caused our population to shrink to dangerously low levels.

So what does the government do?

It brings in 2 million foreigners, so that nearly 40% of residents on this tiny island are not Singaporeans. The systems are under so much strain that they break down on a regular basis.

But foreigners are also vulnerable when they come to Singapore, exploited for cheap labor. Foreigners, from Bangladesh, India, China, Burma and so on, come and find themseleves cheated and abused, in working conditions that are simply intolerable.

But despie all this, we’ve grown fabulously rich. Howe is this possible? We’ve turned ourselves into a tax haven, attracting funds from the rich from all over the world, much of it illicit, and laundered in Singapore.

Out of 73 countries surveyed in the Financial Secrecy Index, Singapore ranks the 6th most secret in the world. The danger in all this is that autocratic regimes like Russia, Burma and China are looking at us as a model.

I’ve often said that economics and politics cannot be seperaed. They are two sides of the same coin. When rulers monopolize political power, they get to decide who gets millions and who gets nothing.

Remember the picture of the gentleman I showed you in the beginning? His name is Chia Thye Poh. Like Nelson Mandela, he was jailed for decades.

There are differences, of course. Mandela was tried in court, however egregious the process was, and he was sentenced for 27 years. Chia Thye Poh was never accused of a crime, much less given a trial. He was simply detained for 32 years, longer than Mandela, because the former Prime Minister ordered it. Mandela belonged to the ANC, an illegal organization in South Africa at that time. Chia was an elected member of parliament. Mandela was eventually released, and went on to become president of his country. Chia lives in silence, forbidden from any form of political participation.

And how does Singapore get away with such outrageous abuses of the law? That’s the beauty of dictatorship in democratic clothing. Under the guise of capitalism, and by paying lipservice of the law, one can do almost anything to perpetuate one’s rule.

The world must not be deceived anymore.

More importantly, the Singaporean people are beginning to awaken and realize that the continuation of one party rule that we have had at this half century is going to be fatal to our country. They know that we need openness and accountability, we need democracy.

Democracy is not a Western concept. Or an Asian concept. It is a human concept. Oppression anywhere in the world is just that, oppression. But it cannot last. It is fighting something just as universal, but only much more powerful.

It is called the human spirit.

*Article first appeared on http://www.oslofreedomforum.com

I refer to the Straits Time Insight report on Hougang Constituency published on 24 September 2010.

Mr Eric Low said, “at every wake, he would send a blanket from the town council”. I would like to clarify that blankets and donations to families of deceased residents are given in my personal capacity as MP for Hougang to offer my condolences, not from the town council.

He was further quoted to have invited me for the meeting of HUDC cluster privatisation, to which I have replied, “too busy and didn’t want to come”. Mr Eric Low had brought this up in a conversation when we met at a lunar seventh month dinner. Never had it crossed my mind that a brief casual conversation was actually an official and important invitation to a formal dialogue session and not a grassroots meeting. In any case as I understand it, the dialogue session was organised by the People’s Association (PA) and Mr Eric Low was invited as the Guest-of-Honour. I was not informed nor invited to the meeting by the PA.

Next came the most intriguing point raised in the report, and I quote: “When the opposition lose in PAP wards, where do they go to? Do you see them in the PAP wards?”

These words and the underlying meaning behind them show exactly the kind of political system we have in Singapore.

Let me touch on the first point: “Where do they go to?”

When a PAP candidate loses the election, he is appointed or will remain as “Adviser” to the grassroots organisations. He heads the Community Club (CC) and nominates or endorses members of the Residents’ Committee (RC) whose activities are co-ordinated and routinely administered by the PA which is funded by government budget.

At the party level, he is in charge of the PAP’s branch in the constituency which is closely affiliated to the PAP Community Foundation (PCF). The PAP party office is usually located inside the premises of PCF, which is registered as a charitable organisation and runs pre-education classes for residents in the ward. The PCF premises are granted “concessionary rent” by the HDB.

To summarise, when a PAP candidate loses the election, he goes to the CC under the umbrella of the PA and to his party office under the PCF, where he can conduct meet-the-people sessions in a proper office in air-condition comfort.

Now, when a WP candidate loses the election, he has to, quite simply put it, ‘roam the streets’ if he wishes to continue extending his reach in the ward.

When the WP narrowly lost in the 1997 General Election, the former Secretary-General of the Workers’ Party, JB Jeyaretnam, wanted to continue to meet the residents of Cheng San GRC weekly to hear their concerns. This was held in a coffee shop but the coffee shop was soon branded as a place used for political purposes.

The second point: “do you see them in the ward?” makes a mockery out of our supposedly democratic political system.

We see the PAP’s presence in every ward, be it in their own or in the opposition’s.

Firstly, government initiated programs, such as Lift Upgrading Program and HUDC Estate Privatisation exercise, mandate the “Adviser” to play a central role.

The adviser is to assist in implementing privatisation of HUDC estates by endorsing the Protem Committee members and interacting with residents through dialogue sessions, house-to-house visits, etc. In the case of HDB flat Lift Upgrading, the Adviser is to announce the precinct being selected, preside over the exhibition in the ward and oversee the LUP working committee.

The elected MP has no say!

Secondly, the PA assists the grassroots organisations, which include the RCs, Constituency Sports Club, CC etc to organise social and community events and the Adviser is invited as Guest-of-Honour. This gives a great opportunity to the Adviser to be seen and heard by the people in the ward. The Adviser is also invited to other functions such as lunar seventh month dinner organised by the residents and to functions organised by schools within the constituency.

Thirdly, PCF, the charity arm of the PAP which offers nursery and kindergarten classes to residents, also invites the Adviser as the Guest-of-Honour for their graduation ceremonies. This is usually well attended by parents who live in the constituency.

Finally at the national level, the Adviser is invited to events such as National Day Parade, official ceremony of governmental events or campaigns, as well as, events such as the F1 Race.

As for WP, what options do we have? We have applied to Town Councils and CCs managed by the PAP to hold dialogue sessions and block parties for residents previously but these applications were promptly rejected.

Given such limitations, we can only try to enhance our presence in the various wards through house-to-house visits.

Unlike the PAP candidates who lost in the General Election, our candidates have to rely on our own limited resources amidst the constraints and obstacles hurled upon us.

Therefore, I am surprised to hear such sarcasm from Mr Eric Low “where do they go to?” and “do you see them in the ward?” The PAP puts in overwhelming resources to have their presence felt and is equally determined in quelling the opposition’s presence.

Singapore is supposedly at the crossroads of an era where many good things are happening in our country. We talk about the YOG competitive spirit and fairness. We talk about openness and democracy. We talk about empowering our people.

But are we truly promoting the spirit of competition? Can we truly be open with our views? Are we truly empowered?

Low Thia Khiang

*Article first appeared on http://wp.sg/2010/09/press-release-by-mp-for-hougang-on-insight-report-f...

Singapore Democrats

Dear friends,

We are a little past the halfway point in between elections and very soon the GE will be upon us again. Unfortunately, never has the mood of Singaporeans been so dark and our confidence in our future so low.

With overcrowding, MRT breakdowns, fare hikes, hospital-bed shortages, a riot, income inequality, unaffordable housing, record number of suicides, unhappy workers, immigration checkpoint failures, etc, many Singaporeans are despondent.

But we don't have to despair; we can, and must, turn Singapore around. To do that, we need to first see that we are not inextricably locked to the present policies. There are alternatives - alternatives drawn up by the SDP - that will take our country down a better, more promising path. 

Our policies on healthcare, housing and population are real and workable, they can make our lives more meaningful and less stressful. Like you, we want to see a Singapore where we live a more balanced lifestyle, where society is more compassionate, and where the government is open and democratic.

But we can't build this Singapore alone. We need your support.

The Prime Minister can call for elections anytime. When he does, we want to be ready. We cannot wait until the announcement is made, by then it'll be too late. We need to start preparations now and, for this, funds are crucial. 

Please consider making a donation. If each of you makes a small contribution, our work for the next elections will get a good head-start. 

So click on one of the buttons below and let's start the effort of turning Singapore around. Let's start building our vision of a better Singapore. Thank you.

DONATE ONLINEVISIT shop@SDP

There is a cure for Anton Casey, as well as others who have made names for themselves making thoughtless remarks - Amy Cheong, Sun Xu, Shinmun Lai, etc. But we need to first understand why people say such offensive things.

A few years ago, I had the privilege of attending a talk given by Robert Putnam. Mr Putnam is a political scientist, and author of the famous (and controversial) book "Bowling Alone -  America's Declining Social Capital" (see hyperlink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone).  He spoke about his latest book “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us”, and gave an interesting anecdote.     

As part of his research for the book, Mr Putnam carried out a survey to determine the levels of trust Americans had of various religious groups. The results were startling. The group Americans least trusted were Muslims. This was not surprising following 911 and the events thereafter. But just above Muslims, and very low down the trust scale, were Buddhists. The researchers were puzzled – why would Americans be suspicious of Buddhists? They thought there was something wrong with the data, and re-did survey. Same result. What happened?

The answer turned out to be simple, yet revealing. Americans did not trust Buddhists because very few of them actually know a Buddhist.   

The simple fact is that we tend not to trust people who are different from us AND who we do not know. Putnam spoke about the “Aunt Susan Effect”. If you had a relative or close friend (“Aunt Susan”) who was of a different ethnicity and someone said something nasty about that race, your reaction would be "But Aunt Susan is not like that!", and those remarks would have little influence over you.  It is hard to demonize people of a certain group when you are close to someone in that group.   

I believe Anton Casey would not have made those remarks if he had Singaporean friends, or more precisely, Singaporean friends who are less well off than he is. Those who have published rude remarks about the colour, smell or habits of people of a different race are likely not to have friends of that race.  Likewise those who demean others for their ethnicity, religion, socio-economic status or even sexual orientation, are unlikely to have friends in those groups. Why? Because no one, not a single person, would ever mock or demonize his real friends.

So what is the cure for Anton Casey? In one my favourite scenes in Attenborough’s movie “Gandhi”, Gandhi lies weak from fasting as a protest against the Hindu-Muslim riots. He is confronted by an angry Hindu who demands that he eats. The man said that he killed Muslims in the riots because they killed his child. He was going to hell, but he did not want Gandhi’s death on his soul. Gandhi offered the man a way out of hell. He told him to find a Muslim boy orphaned by the killings, take care of him but to raise him as a Muslim. It was a powerful statement about salvation (See hyperlink http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PYsyl4xBDA).

The real cure for Anton Casey and others like him is simple. It is not to issue apologies or perform demonstrations of contrition managed by public relations firms. Neither is it to issue death threats or make life miserable for his family, especially his young son. The cure for Anton Casey is for him to get to know and make friends with Singaporeans, especially those who are not as wealthy as he is. Only then will he truly understand the wrong he has done, and start on the road to salvation. 

Hri Kumar

*Article first appeared on his FB page here. 

SORRY

You are “un-invited” to the Chinese New Year Garden Party.

On 27 Dec 2013 I received an invitation from People’s Association to the CNY Istana party (9th Feb 2014). I told them I will come with my wife as usual.

Then on 8th Jan 2014 l was informed by Minister Lim Swee Say, deputy chairman PA that this was an error! He conveyed to me by phone and email. There was a change in ‘policy’ to invite only those ex-advisers to grassroots organisations, from the immediate past GE (2011). I did not fit into this category as l stood down in 2006.

Since 1980 l had always been invited to attend the CNY garden party and l never failed to go. I get to meet grassroots leaders and old colleagues and we exchange warm New Year greetings.

The warm reception usually given me by those grassroots leaders at the function, were overwhelming, more so, after the Presidential election. At times it was very touching. Last year l had to be helped to get back into my car because the crowd kept me from moving forward.

I shall miss meeting all these friends there again this Sunday.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock

*Article first appeared on his FB page here.

Editor's Note: Dr Tan Cheng Bock was a PAP MP who often speak up his mind honestly and does not follow the Party Whip of the PAP. He lost to President Tony Tan with a narrow margin in the last Presidential Election.

PM Lee has issued an order to the Election department's Registration Officer to revise the Register of Electors by March 31st 2014.

This means that the list of voters in each constituency will be revised and with it, it is possible that some Gerrymandering (the re-drawing of constituency boundaries) may occur.

The Register of Electors is a list of all the eligible voters in a constituency. In Singapore the boundaries of constituencies are decided by the Prime Minister.

Each constituency has its own register of electors that lists the particulars of every single eligible voter in that constituency. By conducting a revision of the Register of Electors, some people may be moved from one constituency to another.

According to the Parliamentary Elections Act, the PM can order the Registration Officer to revise the register of electors  no later than 3 years after the last General Eelction.

The last GE was held on 7th May 2011, so PM Lee is acting within his power, but it is also possible that with this power, he can re-draw some of the constituency boundaries in the PAP's favour.

For example, if there are a lot of opposition voters in the east part of Singapore near the WP held Aljunied, Hougang or Punggol East constituencies, the PM could decide to re-zone some of the opposition favouring estates into the WP held wards so that their votes will not impact neighbouring PAP held wards.

By grouping more opposition supporters together in a few wards, the PAP can preserve their share of votes in other, neighbouring constituencies and ensure that they can still comfortably win those.

The Elections department has responded to the PM's order for revision saying that the newly revised Register of Electors will be available for public inspection from the 17th of February.

From then the public will have 2 weeks to check the records and make any applications for changes to the register before the lists are finalised and published.

Members of the public can inspect the registers of electors at the inspection centres, such as the Elections Department, Community Centres/Clubs, or through the online facility available at the Elections Department website. During the 2 weeks that the registers are open for inspection:

• any person who considers that he is entitled to have his name entered in a register of electors for any electoral division and whose name has been omitted from the register may apply to the Registration Officer to have his name entered therein (referred to as a claimant); and
• any person whose name appears in the register for any electoral division may object to the inclusion in the register of his own name or the name of any other person appearing or may object to the insertion in the register of the name of any claimant (referred to as an objector).

PAP suffered the worst election results since independence in the last GE in 2011 and with the way that Singapore has been headed since then, many are observing that their vote share may slide even further in 2016.

Perhaps the PM is aware of this and is attempting to redraw the electoral boundaries in order to try and preserve as many of their seats as possible in the next elections due by 2016.

[Article first appeared in http://geraldgiam.sg on 5/2/14.]

Question Time in Parliament on 20 January 2014 saw a debate about the criteria for registration of websites with the Media Development Authority (MDA). MP for Sembawang GRC Vikram Nair had asked the Minister for Communications and Information what are the factors which the MDA takes into account in deciding which websites are required to register under the Broadcasting (Class Licence) Notification.Criteria for registration of “political” websites.

In his reply, Senior Minister of State (Communications and Information) Lawrence Wong cited a “longstanding principle” that foreign entities are not allowed to engage in Singapore politics and that “foreign interests should also not be allowed to control or worse, to manipulate our local media platforms which are prime vehicles for influence”.

He revealed that the Government was trying to prevent websites like The Independent, which he said engage in the “propagation, promotion or discussion of political or religious issues” and are structured as corporate entities, from receiving foreign funding, including foreign investments.

I sought further clarity from the Senior Minister of State, asking if overseas subscriptions or advertising would constitute “foreign funding”. He could only say that “there will be issues of advertising” and that MDA is still in discussions with The Independent about it.

The relevant transcript of the Parliament debate is below. The full transcript can be foundhere.

——————

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): Madam, to follow up on the earlier question, will foreign funding include subscriptions from overseas as well as advertising from overseas? He mentioned that advertising restrictions do not apply for the traditional media because they are subject to other regulations. But would it apply to online media as well for both subscriptions and advertising?

Mr Lawrence Wong (for the Minister for Communications and Information): I understand the restrictions will apply more in terms of the actual receipt of funding by the corporate entity to run its business but there will be issues of advertising, because if you look at Internet advertising, it is growing. And then the question would be where do you get these sources of revenue from. So that is something that MDA has been in discussion with The Independent, particularly in sorting out some of the implementation issues. But the main concern with foreign funding would apply, firstly, to receipt of funding by the corporate entity itself to run its business which, I think, the undertaking by these entities would then address, because then they would undertake not to receive foreign funding. On advertising itself, I think that is something that we have to discuss the specifics, because it is more complicated in the Internet world where you may have difficulties in tracking the source of funding. But that is something that they are working through in discussion, the details, between MDA and The Independent.

[Source: Singapore Parliament Reports]

——————-

My thoughts on this issue were articulated during my recent Supper Club interview with the Straits Times, I had said this in response to a question from the reporter asking what I made of the moves by the Government to tighten the regulatory framework for websites:

I think the Government seems to be concerned about the influence of a few popular websites that might be able to sway public opinion. That’s why they feel a need to hold these websites “accountable”, so that they are kept in line to a certain extent. I feel that these restrictions on online websites are not a very productive use of Government resources.

I think there are so many other things that the Government should be paying attention to, rather than spending so much time and energy and money on just regulating a few websites. What really are they so fearful about? Why can’t they just let Singaporeans decide what they want to read? Especially when it comes to news, why can’t they let Singaporeans decide what is the right news to read, rather than try to regulate every single channel of news?

Gerald Giam
Non-constituency Member of Parliament

Source: Gerald Giam’s blog

Tan Kin Lian, the former presidential candidate has called for NS to be shortened to only 1 year.

He started an online petition on the issue and a facebook page calling for shorter NS and fewer Reservist cycles.

The online petition has almost 800 signatures already and Mr Tan is aiming to get 10,000.

Mr Tan feels that defence is important to Singapore but it should be reviewed and NS shortened as it may not be a fully efficient use of our manpower.

Several key points are raised by Tan Kin Lian, namely comparing NS durations with other countries that also have NS. On top of this, the amount of inconvenience that reservist causes to many workers is unacceptable.

The petition page explains the cause as follows:

National defense is important for Singapore. However, we should review our approach to make sure that the budget and resources are effectively used to produce the desired outcome.

Our defense budget is high as a proportion of GDP in relation to other countries. We also require our male citizens to spend two years full time for military training and to be called back for reservist training over a period of up to 15 years.

Two years is too long. In many countries that have conscription, they are able to achieve their training within 12 months.

Many conscripts said that the actual military training could be completed within 12 months. They spend a large part of the remaining period idling, doing general cleaning, being involved in National Day Parade preparations, and waiting to be discharged. Their effectiveness would not be compromised, if they are discharged earlier.

Some conscripts are selected to be trained as officers and need to spend more time on their training. These conscripts should have to serve an additional 6 to 12 months, but they should be paid a higher allowance to make it worth their time.

If there are insufficient NS men who are keen to be selected as officers, this role should be performed by career soldiers. It is costly to train an officer and this investment can get better results when they are given to career soldiers.

We also need to review the regular call-up for reservist training. This is a heavy strain on the work and family life of the NS men. It is also a disadvantage to them, when they have to compete for jobs against non-citizens who do not have to be called up. Many employers do not like to see the disruption to their work schedule and prefer to employ non-citizens.

We also need to review the remedial training (RT) that NS men have to do for failing the physical proficiency (IPPT) test. It is unfair that non-regulars have to meet the same passing requirements as professional soldiers. Professional soldiers use working hours to keep fit but the non-regulars cannot ask their employer to give them time within working hours to keep fit.

 

CALL TO SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT

This is a call to the Singapore Government to reduce the duration of full time conscription from 24 months to 12 months, and to reduce the call-up for reservist and remedial training.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/petition-to-reduce-national-service

Related:

PAP Government spends more on foreign students than NSmen

Short reduction in NS will bring about great benefits for Singaporeans!

Increasing evidence that NS has an adverse impact on our economy

5 key flaws of the outdated RT system!

Speaking at the PA garden party yesterday at the Istana, PM Lee said that the Malays who chose to stay in Singapore when it separated from Malaysia in 1965 have been a very important part of making Singapore the unique multi-cultural, multi-religious country it is today.

He said that in 1965, many Malays had to make a choice of whether they should go to Malaysia and join the majority or stay in Singapore to become the minority.

PM Lee thanked the Malay community in his Malay speech to the pioneer generation thanking them for their confidence and loyalty.

During the time of separation, Singapore had no natural resources and the future was very bleak, said PM Lee. However, it was thanks to the hard work of the pioneer generation that Singapore was able to survive and grow.

As thanks for their many contributions, PM Lee said that he pioneer generation package, while it cannot "fully repay" senior Singaporeans, attempts to give them more peace of mind, particularly in terms of healthcare costs.

He promised that the package will "take care of them" for the rest of their lives.

The circumstances are now more dire for Singapore if any recession were to come visiting. The substantial reliance on cheap foreign labours and foreign talents to promote growth will be one of the main causes Singaporeans will be made to suffer more than it should.

During a recession, demands for goods and services drop. As businesses cut operating cost, retrench workers or move overseas altogether, many jobs will be lost. Unemployment will rise. Singaporean workers who are deemed to be ‘expensive’ will no doubt be the first to go. Foreigners will have to leave the country due to inadequate jobs vacancies.

Whatever jobs left to be filled will most probably be given to foreigners due to their lower asking salary. That is provided quotas are still available.

In the event that quotas are a premium, businesses will then have to employ Singaporeans that normally commands a higher base salary. This will lead to an increase in operating cost. Businesses that are not able to sustain, will have to pack and fold and further add to unemployment numbers.

PRs and foreigners, who bought and rent houses during golden times, will have to sell, vacate and leave the country as they are unable to service mounting bills while being jobless.

Houses will be sold dirt cheap due to the urgency of those leaving. Prices of HDB flats will be affected. Supply outstrips demand many fold. Housing agents will meet with increasing difficulties to secure any deals. Thus they will also succumb and contribute to the unemployment digits.

Some banks will fold too. Banks loan your money out and then collect a profit from it. During recession, people couldn’t pay their loans back, which caused the bank’s money supply to drop. Then when someone wanted to take their money out of the bank, it wasn’t there. The news would spread and cause a panic. Panics are when everyone runs to their banks to take out their money. These runs on the bank cause it to go bankrupt and fail.

Renovation companies will go bust. Insolvency cases will go northward. Bankruptcies will be the order of the day.

Houses will be empty. Property will crash, and burn those who over-leveraged on their mortgages. In Singapore, you cannot help but to over-leverage on your house loans. It’s not entirely the fault of a person. While pay has stagnated over the past 10 years, prices of flats had quadrupled. In order to have a decent roof over our heads, we have no other choice but to over-leverage on their house loan. I’m sorry, but living in a cramp L-Shape flats are not an option for big sized families.

Rent will fall in tandem with dirt cheap flats. Those who survive on rental income will need to find alternatives. Commercial buildings will have many unoccupied office spaces. Even now it has been seen that many of the private properties were only partially occupied.

The gov is ramping up the infrastructure to materialize the 6.9 million population white paper. By then, the percentage for native and foreigners will be almost 50/50. Our liberal immigration policy is hurting us but this govt is bent on implementing it.

In the event of a recession, almost as high as 2 million foreigners will leave Singapore leaving behind inconceivable damage to our country and economy.

The 60.1% will then realise their follies. A new govt will be voted in. While Singaporeans bite the bullet and start rebuilding, our million dollar ministers are nowhere to be found. Probably, they will be perched at some exotic countries, sans remorse, sipping their hot Milos contentedly.

God bless Singapore.

Regards,

Osman Sulaiman

*The writer is a member of RP.

PAP supporters, or at least defenders of the Government's position, were obviously unhappy with our previous post We must turn Singapore around as several of them took to the SDP's Facebook to register their defence of the ruling party.

The SDP welcomes such discussion as it is our view that political debate raises the level of politics in Singapore. In the piece, we had summarised the current dismal situation in this country and the equally bleak outlook of the people.

We have chosen, for ease of discussion, to group the Facebook comments according to their themes. One set of responses makes the point that the woes that have befallen Singapore happens in other countries too:

"Subway breakdown is not unique only to Singapore. It happens in any country where there are subways."

"Riot in Singapore in 48 years and you make a big deal over it! Hello!! Wake up lah. Riots are happening all over the world even this minute."

"Homeless in JAPAN!! Line up for soup kitchen!!"

The corollary is that Singapore cannot, therefore, be that bad. But such a view ignores what PM Lee Hsien Loong said in Parliament in 2012:

Singapore has to maintain a high quality of government, otherwise we are going to go back down and we are going to be a mediocre country...We are different and because we are different and exceptional, therefore Singaporeans have reaped a Singapore dividend...

And because of such excellence, the PM pays himself in excess of $2 million annually - a salary no other elected head of government comes even close.

If the PAP is going to proffer exceptionalism as a reason for the high pay of ministers, then its supporters cannot, at the same time, argue that Singapore is really no different from other countries when it comes to the kind of problems we face. Either you perform at the level of your hubris or you accept that you are really no better than others and pay yourselves salaries that are commensurate with your talent and competence. You can't have it both ways.

Having a riot, repeated MRT breakdowns, hospital-bed shortages, record suicides, unhappy workers, etc, all taking place within the recent past makes this Government anything but exceptional.

Another line of argument is whether the SDP can do any better. One post reads: "Is the SDP claiming and assuring the public that IF they are in power, all the above mentioned will be solved or eradicated?"

No, the SDP is not making such a claim. What we do say is that the current policies employed by the PAP is taking Singapore in the wrong direction. We have taken pains to study the situation and developed remedies which we are confident will put Singapore on a better path.

For instance, the current policy of increasing our population to 6 million by 2020 and 6.9 million by 2030 has resulted in overcrowding, the ballooning of housing prices, unfair competition for jobs, social tension, and so on.

The SDP's alternative will only increase the population size if it enhances the quality of life and well-being of Singaporeans. Our plan will allow only bona fide foreign talent to work in Singapore and, in addition, employers will have to hire Singaporeans first. For a full discussion of our plan, click here.

We are happy to subject our proposals to public scrutiny and compare them to the current policies in place. It is the Government and the state media that are suppressing such comparisons and debate. We are confident that the more Singaporeans come to learn of our plan, the more they will prefer it over the PAP's foreign talent policy.

Finally, there are those comments that simply don't make sense: "SDP will just make things even more expensive for our future! look at their policies closely and model it to your future taxes!! they want to tax us till we are dead...worse off than PAP govt."

We have called for the GST for basic goods to be abolished, the Medisave to be scrapped (and in its place implement a national insurance scheme where Singaporeans pay much less for healthcare), and for HDB flat prices not to include land costs. How this translates into SDP wanting to "tax us till we are dead" defies explanation.

We welcome comments on the very serious issues that confront Singapore today and are willing to engage in meaningful debate to make Singapore a better place. 

Singapore Democrats

Source: YourSDP.org