The Singapore Government will contribute S$50,000 through the Singapore Red Cross to support China’s disaster relief efforts in Sichuan.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong wrote to Chinese Premier Li Keqiang to convey his condolences to the people and government of China.

Mr Lee said he was saddened to learn of the earthquake that struck on Saturday and that it was unfortunate that a major earthquake struck Sichuan again.

He had visited Sichuan in September and was “deeply moved to learn first hand of the hardships that the people in Yingxiu experienced during the 2008 earthquake, and inspired by their fortitude in rebuilding their lives”.

Singapore is ready to assist those now affected, he said, adding that he is confident the people of Sichuan will overcome this tragedy with resilience and determination.

Source: CHANNEL NEWSASIA

Malaysia's Umno party has sacked 61 members for defying the party and contesting as independents, including the former deputy chief of its women's wing.

The party's disciplinary committee also issued three members with show-cause letters for proposing members as independent candidates and for not submitting nomination papers.

The decision was made on Monday morning by the Umno disciplinary board headed by Tengku Ahmad Rithaudeen.

Bernama reported Tengku Rithaudeen as saying said the decision was made in line with Clause 20.10 of the Umno Constitution which states that any Umno member contesting the general election as independent candidates will be expelled from the party and their membership cannot be accepted forever.

"Membership expulsion letters have been sent to those concerned," he said in a statement on Monday.

Ms Kamalia Ibrahim, the deputy chief of Wanita Umno, was expelled for contesting as an independent candidate in the Kuala Kangsar parliamentary constituency.

Among the others are Datuk Seri Shariff Omar, the former Deputy Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Minister, who is contesting the Tasek Gelugor parliamentary seat and Sepang Umno division Youth head Datuk Suhaimi Mohd Ghazali who is going for the Sepang parliamentary seat.

Datu Badruddin Tun Mustapha was expelled for contesting in the Semporna parliamentary and Senallang state seats.

Tengku Rithaudeen said that in addition, three Umno members would be called up this week to answer the show-cause latter why action should not be taken against them for becoming proposers, seconders or failing to submit the nomination forms on nomination day last Saturday.

"The Umno Disciplinary Board again reminds Umno members that it is ready to take action on any Umno member who sabotages the party during the campaigning period for the 13th general election.

"Stern action including expulsion and membership suspension would be taken after proofs and reports from the observers appointed had been received and investigated in detail," he said.

Tengku Rithaudeen also called on all members to be united and to support the Barisan Nasional candidates nominated to contest by the top party leadership.

Source: TheStar.com.my

Minimum salaries of foreign EP holders to be raised soon

In an interview with Business Times (BT), Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin said entry-level salaries for Singaporeans have been stagnant over the past 5 years, a state of affairs which cannot continue.

Mr Tan said the Govt will make an announcement soon to raise the minimum salary for foreigners to secure Employment Passes (EP), which is the pass typically applied for by foreign PMETs. This is to ensure that their lower wages do not depress the wages of young Singaporeans.

At present, there are 3 kinds of sub-passes for EP:

Q1 Employment Pass
•Young foreign graduates earning at least $3,000
•Older foreign applicants would have to command higher salaries to qualify, commensurate with the work experience and quality they are expected to bring

P2 Employment Pass
•Fixed monthly salary = $4,500 and above
•Possesses acceptable qualifications

P1 Employment Pass
•Fixed monthly salary = $8,000 and above
•Possesses acceptable qualifications

Mr Tan said the Govt will raise salary requirements not only for the lowest Q1 tier, but also for the upper P2 and P1 tiers.

He said that MOM will hold its “Our Singapore Conversation” in the next few months to talk about job issues as well as to shape the future workforce of Singapore.

Mr Tan admitted that the Govt has not been successful in tightening the influx of foreign manpower in the last few years. He said, “Obviously, we have not been very successful in the last few years, with the (foreign manpower) tightening.” Despite higher levies and dependency ratios, growth in the number of work permit and S-pass holders has stayed strong as economic growth meant that it still made business sense for many employers to hire foreigners.

Even though the number of foreign EP holders may have dropped for the first time in a decade from 175,400 in 2011 to 173,800 last year (1% drop), Mr Tan acknowledged that more needs to be done, especially when entry-level salaries for Singaporean PMETs have remained stagnant over the last 5 years.

Mr Tan pointed out that he is “not particularly happy” with this situation, given that the economy continued to grow in the meantime. He asked, “Should $3,000, for example, be the threshold where we admit in people on the employment pass?”

“I think the numbers will go up … I don’t think it should be $3,000.”

So will the minimum thresholds for P1 ($4,500) and P2 ($8,000) tiers of EP. He added, “I think the (P1 and P2) levels would go up. But the overall framework as well, I’m looking at refreshing it.”

He said that these changes are meant “to make sure wages are moving correctly, so that Singaporeans have fair opportunities, have good, fair remuneration”.

Complaints of discrimination by nationality

He said that the Govt will also address complaints of discrimination by nationality – said to be especially common in the financial services sector. During a parliamentary debate in March 2013, Mr Tan said that he and DPM Tharman, who is also the finance minister, had met senior members of the financial industry to urge them to develop a local talent pipeline. Mr Tan also told Parliament that there had been complaints of foreign managers preferring to hire their countrymen and his ministry was investigating this alleged bias. One “fairly prominent company” had its work pass privileges suspended after it advertised for workers of a certain nationality.

Mr Tan: “Singaporean-first” or “Singaporean-only” system will not serve Singapore well in the long term

During the interview, Mr Tan made it clear that the desired outcome is not a “Singaporean-first” or “Singaporean-only” system, as it would not serve Singapore well in the long term.

This is because competition for jobs is no longer confined to Singapore’s shores due to outsourcing, Mr Tan explained. Companies are taking advantage of lower operating and labour costs in third world countries through outsourcing.

“The fact is, actually, people are competing even if they are not here,” he said. Hence the need to ensure that sectors generating good jobs are not unintentionally driven out by manpower policy changes.

“Companies don’t invest in Singapore because they love Singapore. They invest in Singapore because it makes dollars and sense,” he said.

“The worry is when you lose sectors, I think you also lose the jobs and opportunities,” he said. “At least, if the foreigners are here, helping to blend the cost to some degree, at least I can get the jobs here,” he added.

He said MOM will analyse the impact of various approaches to find a solution with the least unfavourable trade-offs to both businesses and Singaporeans, as changes to the EP framework will definitely impact business costs.

Still, he is convinced of ‘refreshing’ the current EP framework as entry-level salaries for Singaporean PMETs cannot continue to remain stagnant.

Editor’s note: What do you think the minimum threshold salaries for foreign EP holders should be?

TR Emeritus
*Article first appeared on www.TREmeritus.com

I'd like to share Fatimah's post. Someone had written in to make some allegations about people being turned away by Fatimah, questioning Pei Ling's efforts in helping her residents etc.

These days, it really cost nothing to run people down and cast aspersions. None of us are perfect and I am sure we can all improve. But it is another thing altogether when we just denigrate people's work from behind our keyboard. 

Many of us have people coming to see us from beyond our own wards. For example, I see many from my neighbouring Aljunied GRC. As do my colleagues. We don't hold anything against these residents or other. We will assist where we can. And when we can't, we will find alternatives or advice as best as we are able to. There are often local solutions that we can bring to bear. 

In fact, there is a a recurrent case that I am following up on. It is a dire because the individual is having serious psychiatric issues. But it was because Pei Ling adviced him to seek psychiatric help that it triggered him to finally be willing to do that with his family. That was when we found out how severe his situation was.

Well, whatever that goes on online, the real world continues. We will continue to serve our people to the best of our ability. We hope that others step forward and work with us to reach out to those in need, or who sometimes just need a listening ear. 

For that, we are grateful to our volunteers and helpers. Thank you.

Tan Chuan Jin

Acting Minister in the Ministry of Manpower

Minister Tan Chuan Jin was responding to a Facebook post on Minister Fatimah Lateef status update

Below is what she wrote: 

Life is full of perceptions..... one may not necessarily have all the evidence and information and yet one gets carried away with the "herd mentality " of joining what is rolling on... esp on social media. Not every thing seen on these platforms are valid with clear explanations. As MPs we serve in whatever capacity we can... at my MPS sessions i have residents from even out of marine parade GRC coming to see me. This week alone, there were people from as far as Woodlands.. do we turn them away? NO... because they have travelled all the way to see us. We explain to them , make their case representation and cc to their own MP s . In fact not many people will know that i actually go and visit unit by unit to check and from these visits alone, issues i discover are raised... i dont even have to wait for them to come to MPS or to surface to me... i go and sought them out... . .last night alone ( not related to MPS), I made 8 representations to agencies just from things I found out.. this goes on daily in a proactive way.

So if people who do not have the accurate information, do not know the real issues, do not bother to find out the real thing, join the 'herd' and say i "look like a monkey" , "i am ugly", "my ears are big" ( i say the better to hear what my residents are saying), blow things out of proportion and develop personal attack.... am i going to let it l stop my work of serving. You know what my answer will be…

In the mean time more work in the community, more letters to sign , more emails , more patients to see and help and work at the hospital till tomorrow as I am on call today

[Source: https://www.facebook.com/TanChuanJin1/posts/534254166617363]

Editor's Note: What do you think? Please keep it to a healthy discussion and agree to disagree. Thank you!

*This article first appeared back in 2010 on SDP's website*

Source: Singapore Democrats

I tried really hard to believe what Tharman said the other day, that the PAP will be 'open to diversity, welcoming of a responsible opposition'. That the PAP has changed and will continue to change with a younger generation of ministers leading the charge. 

But even before I can try to overlook how they had not only dominated, but also crushed without mercy any dissenting views in the past, a cartoonist was locked-up, and threats were allegedly made to withdraw funding to a community organisation, because one of its directors' civil society activities in his personal capacity. 

Now, I am more inclined to believe what Catherine Lim. "I believe that the PAP is incapable of re-inventing itself, because true re-invention would require the opening up of one crucial area, that the PAP seems determined to keep under control at all cost. This is the area of political liberties—open debate and criticism, independence of the media, public assemblies and street demonstrations for a cause, etc., all of which are taken for granted in practising democracies."

Ravi Philemon AKA Pooh Bear

*Comment first appeared on https://www.fb.com/raviphilemon/posts/10151780327973277

When Mr Lee Hsien Loong watched the news of the recent bombing at the Boston Marathon, he was inspired by the many stories of people behaving selflessly when faced with fear and danger. In his Facebook, he wrote, “If ever Singapore encounters an incident like this, may we have the courage and the humanity to respond with the same grace and unity as the Bostonians.”

How the people of a society behave depends on the society they grew up in. The cultural, the political and the social environments all play a part in the moulding of a people’s values and their attitudes towards the community.

Boston has generally been socially progressive and politically liberal. It is known for having a passion for politics. There is a great intellectual community and it is a place where progressive ideas are shared. It has a strong, vibrant arts community. There, gays are not frowned upon or criminalised.

What does this mean? It means that the people are free to express themselves without fear. It means people there generally support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property. These are democratic rights and governments must not violate these rights.

If the Prime Minister wants Singaporeans to have the courage and the humanity to respond with the same grace and unity as the Bostonians, then his government must provide the Bostonian environment conducive enough for us to develop the attitudes and values of the Bostonians.

The change in Singapore is not going to come anytime soon. The Internal Security Act is still retained, instilling fear into the people. And as long as it is around, it could still be used. There is still the lack of political will to remove Section 377A of the penal code, although the government had said that it would not be used.

Bloggers are still asked to take down their postings and apologise with the threat of legal action if they don’t. A video maker has been investigated for making a video of some SMRT bus drivers. Recently, a politician had to pay damages to a minister for alleged defamation. Just few days ago, a satirical cartoonist was arrested for alleged sedition,

At the moment, far from having a passion for politics and a belief in justice, freedom and equality, Singaporeans are still “kiasi, kiasu and kia chenghu” (afraid to die, afraid to lose and afraid of government). In Kohlberg’s Stage of Moral Development, we are only at Stage 1 or Stage 2 – very obedient, punishment-orientated, selfish and me-orientated. Thus in times of crisis, the people will not respond like the Bostonians, but will respond with a kiasi, kiasu and kia chenghu mentality.

When he was a minister, Mr Tony Tan’s vision was to make Singapore the Boston of the East. But there is still a long way to go.

However, there is still hope. Many of our young people are still blogging and speaking their minds. Some have taken up causes and championing them tirelessly. Others have begun to challenge legal and constitutional points in courts. On February 16th 2013, 5000 ordinary citizens converged on Hong Lim Park to register their protest against the Government White Paper on a 6.9 million population.

These are signs that we are slowly moving up Kohlberg’s ladder of moral development. Maybe one day in the future Singaporeans will have the courage and the humanity to respond with the same grace and unity as the Bostonians when disaster strikes.

Dr Wong Wee Nam

* Dr Wong Wee Nam (MBBS 1972, Singapore) is a general practitioner. He has contributed numerous articles on social and political issues for various publications and has given numerous talks on politics. In 1997, he contested the general election as an opposition candidate in the Hong Kah GRC. He is a member of the SDP’s Healthcare Advisory Panel.

Lawyer and civil society activist Nizam Ismail has resigned from the Board of Directors of the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP) and stepped down as Chairman of the Board of Centre for Research on Malay and Islamic Affairs (RIMA), the research arm of AMP, on Mon (22 Apr).

According to Nizam, who wrote the account on his blog (‘Nizam: Why I decide to resign from AMP & RIMA‘), he received a surprise phone call from Mr Azmoon Ahmad, Chairman AMP on Sat (20 Apr). Mr Azmoon informed Nizam that he received separate phone calls from 2 Ministers to the effect that they were concerned about:

1. Nizam’s participation as a speaker at the Hong Lim Park protest;
2. Nizam’s participation as a panelist at a Workers’ Party Youth Wing Youthquake Seminar and
3. Nizam’s critical leanings on social media.

Mr Azmoon then relayed the Ministers’ message to Nizam, telling Nizam to “take it easy” and refrain from such activities. Otherwise, the Govt will withdraw all funding from AMP, which amounts to about $1 million of matching grant annually from the Govt. This will put AMP in a difficult situation. Mr Azmoon also painted the alternative that if Nizam was to continue with his civil society activities, he suggested that Nizam “disassociates” himself from AMP.

Nizam considered this carefully and decided to resign from AMP and RIMA. He said, “I was appalled by the threats of withdrawal of funding from AMP being made on account of activities I have done in my personal capacity and not in my capacity as an AMP/RIMA director.”

“More fundamentally, the threat of withdrawal of funds (meant to benefit the Community through AMP’s programs) on account of what appears to be political reasons is deplorable.”

“I could not, as a matter of principle, see myself functioning as an activist in AMP or RIMA’s Board in an imposed non-critical state, in return for continued funding of AMP’s programs… In fact, this goes against the spirit of the founding of AMP. AMP was set up as an independent platform in light of the perceived issues with Mendaki then. This certainly went against my own personal belief and conviction that made me serve AMP in various capacities since since 1998, in the belief and conviction that AMP, as a movement of professionals, would serve as the conscience of the Community.”

“I therefore could not associate myself in an organization that, time and time again, allows itself to be threatened with the withdrawal of funding in instances where its activities or proposals were perceived to be threatening.”

However, Straits Times reported today (24 Apr) that both Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Yaacob Ibrahim and AMP chairman Azmoon Ahmad “stressed that the Government did not interfere with the management of the association”.

In a statement yesterday (23 Apr), Mr Azmoon dismissed Nizam’s claims as “inaccurate”. He said, “I would like to clarify that any suggestion that external parties whom AMP work with influence the decisions that I (as AMP chairman) or the AMP board make is inaccurate.”

AMP is a movement which aims to uplift the Malay-Muslim community and “holds closely to our core principles of independence, non-partisanship and critical collaboration with all parties that share our mission in the community”, he said. He added that Nizam decided to resign “to avoid further misperception” that he reflected AMP’s official stand on political and civil society issues.

Dr Yaacob also replied to media enquiries yesterday saying, “AMP is an important partner. In our discussions with AMP, we have never touched on their internal organisation, how they are being managed.”

He also noted that the association has “written in its Constitution that whoever is involved in AMP must be non-partisan and we assume therefore not involved in politics”.

He added, “Our concerns are not just about Mr Nizam, our concerns are about how government funds are being used.”

“At the end of the day, we have to be very candid here. Money which is given by the government to Malay-Muslim organisations must be for the purpose of voluntary work that will help the community move forward. It’s not for the purpose of creating a platform for people to be involved in partisan politics.”

“So, as to whether or not that was the concern that AMP has with Mr Nizam, that’s for AMP to decide.”

Nizam spoke against the Population White Paper as one of the speakers during a public protest in Hong Lim Park (‘Nizam Ismail’s speech at Hong Lim, 16 Feb‘), which garnered some 4 to 5,000 participants.

Nizam spoke during the Hong Lim Park protest, “The White Paper has stated that it places Singaporeans at the Core. The question is – has it really? What does it mean for Singaporeans to be placed at the Core? I will argue that the White Paper has not placed Singaporeans at the core.”

He also spoke of Govt’s rushing to endorse the White Paper in Parliament without consulting Singaporeans, “Where was the voice of all of us Singaporeans in the White Paper?”

“Various members of the govt have been dismissive of views on social media or blogs – saying that these are ‘noises’.  This is regrettable because the Govt risks shutting itself to many important sources of feedback.”

“So we are now left with a rather peculiar situation where Parliament has technically approved the White Paper, but the people at large has not been consulted. And there has in fact been a lot of disquiet about the White Paper… Fundamentally, Govt must engage Singaporeans, especially on an issue as important as those in the White Paper.”

“You don’t win the hearts of Singaporeans by ruthless efficiency and rushing through a White Paper in Parliament… Put another way, the overwhelming support of White Paper in Parliament cannot be taken to reflect the sentiments of Singaporeans.”

Meanwhile, in reply to the media over his resignation, Nizam said that he spoke in his personal capacity at the Hong Lim Park protest and WP’s Youth Wing Youthquake Seminar. When asked who the 2 ministers were who called AMP Chairman, Nizam declined to name them.

Nizam also clarified that he is not a member of any political party and “the circumstances behind me leaving AMP have got nothing to do with any intention of joining any political party”.

Nizam, in a farewell message, wrote on his blog, “And so it was with a heavy heart that I decided to withdraw from the Boards of AMP and RIMA, having put in 15 years worth of time and effort for AMP.”

“But it is a decision I must make, out of a broader and bigger principle that I must uphold. I hold the conviction that Singaporeans must be allowed, and even encouraged to speak up on the many issues that are of grave concern to them. Singaporeans must reclaim the space in civil society and play a direct role in shaping the future of the Country.”

TR Emeritus

*Article first appeared on www.TREmeritus.com

 Mr Anwar said businesses in Iskandar will have to be “more transparent” and the opposition will “generate interest and participation (in the commercial projects) for the locals”. 

Responding to remarks from the Barisan Nasional (BN) camp that the opposition will stymie the progress of the Iskandar region if Johor falls into opposition hands, Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim yesterday dismissed these as scaremongering attempts and reiterated that the opposition wants the Malaysian economy to continue to grow and commitments would be honoured.

However, he said “investors, including (those) from Singapore, cannot assume that business must be as usual” should the special economic zone come under opposition rule. Among other things, he wants more opportunities for Malaysians. Speaking to TODAY while campaigning in Selangor, Mr Anwar said: “The politics of fear is always a tactic of the ruling establishment. Of course, our concern is that the economy continues to grow (and) whatever commitments were given have to be honoured.”

Nevertheless, should the opposition win Johor, there will be changes in policies. Mr Anwar said businesses in Iskandar will have to be “more transparent” and the opposition will “generate interest and participation (in the commercial projects) for the locals”.

“These are issues which will not in any way hinder investment or development,” he said.

Iskandar Malaysia was developed in 2006, and Singapore is the largest single foreign investor there.

According to statistics from the Malaysian Investment Development Authority, Singapore companies have set up more than 300 manufacturing projects there so far. Some Singapore companies have reportedly said that they will adopt a wait-and-see attitude in investing in the Iskandar region, with the elections underway.

Johor is known as a BN fortress. Going into the elections, the ruling coalition held 25 out of 26 parliamentary seats, and 50 out of 56 state seats. But political analysts have said that the opposition could make deeper inroads given the political developments since the last general election in 2008.

In recent weeks, UDA Holdings Chairman Nur Jazlan Mohamed and Malaysian Chinese Association president Chua Soi Lek have warned Johorians that investments worth billions of ringgit received by the Iskandar region and Johor would be stopped if the opposition is voted in.

Read more at: http://www.todayonline.com/world/asia/no-business-usual-if-opposition-wins-johor-anwar

One issue that has emerged is the view that my participation at a civil protest in Hong Lim Park and a Workers’ Party (WP) Youthquake Seminar was tantamount to involvement in partisan politics (and therefore purportedly incongruent with AMP’s charter of independence).

The narratives from the Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs and AMP has not sought to dispute this fact – that there was communication made to Mr Azmoon Ahmad, Chairman of AMP, on the threat of withdrawal of funding.  In fact, the Minister stated, according to a Berita Harian report that funding of Malay-Muslim Organizations (MMOs) was not meant for political participation or for a political agenda.

This ignores the fact that I have spoken at Hong Lim Park and at the WP Youthquake Forum in my personal capacity. The fact that I had spoken in my personal capacity was made clear in these two events. I certainly did not receive government funds to participate in these 2 events.  I reinforced this with a message on my Facebook update. Hong Lim Park was a civil protest movement.  The speakers came from a wide spectrum of Singaporeans.  There were many speakers who were not aligned to political parties. Myself included.

Does speaking at WP event on the issue “Does Race Matter” constitute partisanship? It has been suggested by the ST-sponsored Singapolitics that participation at a platform suggest an “endorsement of the politics of the organisers.”

This is a huge leap in logic.

There was a wide range of topics raised by different speakers at Hong Lim Park.  Each speaker had no idea what the others would speak about.  Hong Lim Park was about citizens coming together to air their own views of the White Paper.  In relation to the WP Youthquake event, there was no communication of WP’s stance on any of the issues to me prior to the event.  I doubt that WP has articulated its position on many of the issues that were discussed. I had specifically mentioned at the beginning of my presentation that I was speaking in my personal capacity, and the views are not those of any organization.

I am disappointed that my activities in these events have now been made an issue by AMP (including a director who purportedly spoke to Berita Harian on condition of anonymity).

This is especially when I had been above board to AMP.

I had informed the AMP Chairman, as a matter of courtesy, of my speaking at Hong Lim Park and at the WP event, before these events took place.  In relation to the WP event, I had specifically asked AMP Chairman whether he had any issues with me speaking.  He replied that he was fine with that.  I even sent him a copy of my presentation, on his request, before the event.

Since the issue has now been raised by AMP and an anonymous director, I would need to address it and bring out some matters that have been discussed within the Board.

At an AMP Board meeting on 13 Apr 2013, the AMP Board discussed the issue of my involvement at Hong Lim and the WP event.  At the meeting, some members of the Board mentioned that concerns had been raised to them by political leaders about my participation in the two events. Whilst some directors expressed concern of the risk of cut of fundings to AMP arising from my participation, the leaning of the Board was not to prohibit directors speaking in their personal capacities, but to work on a code of conduct to make clear what is acceptable and what is not, in relation to such speaking engagements.  I was one of the directors who would be drafting the Code of Conduct. Importantly, the Board had also specifically discussed  my impending participation at during the May Day Protest.  The Board had specifically agreed for me to speak, subject to making it clear that I was speaking in personal capacity.  This was entirely consistent with the approach I had taken for the Feb 16th Hong Lim Park protest and the WP Youthquake event.  And so, I was entirely comfortable with this approach, which I thought was a sensible one.

But alas, this was superceded by events.  it was only when the threats of funding cuts was whispered into Chairman AMP’s ears by two Ministers after the 13 Apr 2013 Board meeting that there was a different stance taken – requesting that I “tone down” my activism.  The fact that this was done by two Ministers shows that this was a coordinated action.  Putting aside semantics of whether this was tantamount to “interference in the internal affairs of an MMO”, the threat of withdrawal of funding was clearly designed to obtain an outcome.   Why else was the threat of funding cuts made?

But the more important point is that the threat of funding cuts to AMP was not just made in relation to these two events.  It is not just about partisanship, but a broader issue of the State being intolerant of a diversity of views, especially where they are critical in nature or they are perceived to be a political threat.

I had mentioned in my blog post yesterday that the State has threatened to withdraw funding for AMP when it had proposed a Community Forum (ComFor) during June 2012 Convention.  ComFor was meant to be an independent platform to discuss community and national issues (where it has an impact on the Community), and to track and monitor implementation proposals for Convention.  This was an extension of an existing platform – the annual Community in Review organised by RIMA for AMP.

ComFor was therefore not about partisan politics.  In fact, its independence would be a key feature of the platform. The ComFor proposal was made known to political leaders, including the Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs, well before the Convention.  No objections were raised then, until a few days before the Convention. 

On the day of the Convention itself, I had squarely asked the Minister whether he was asking for AMP to not proceed with ComFor.  He replied that AMP could still proceed with ComFor so long as we invited the MMO partners in CLF.

However, there was a change of stance subsequent to that.  In a meeting with Minister that both Chairman of AMP and I attended, it was made clear that there would be funding cuts to AMP should it proceed with ComFor.  There were views expressed that ComFor might be seen as threat to the state-sponsored Community Leadership Forum (CLF).

How does one rationalize the use of threat of funding cuts for ComFor?

This had nothing to do with partisan politics.  This was all about preventing the emergence of an independent platform in ComFor which would discuss issues affecting the Community.  Given its independent nature, the Establishment was probably concerned about the emergence of diverse views which reflected the real concerns of the Community, as opposed to the largely top-down approach taken by the CLF.

It is therefore apparent that the threat of funding cuts is used whenever the Establishment perceives a threat to it .

It is not about quashing partisan political participation.  It is really driven by principle of being intolerant of critical views and to curtail citizen activism.

Postscript:

Berita Harian today reported an unnamed AMP director as stating that I had acted against the principles of independence of AMP.  This is highly unusual and unprecedented.  In all my 15  years serving at AMP, the organization did not have any practice of making statements through unnamed directors.  Have things now changed? If so, what has caused the change? Is there a new compact made with the State?  It also raises question whether the position of this anonymous director reflects the position of AMP.  If it does, it goes entirely against the grain of what I have described above.

More sadly, how does AMP aspire to be a thought leader for the Community if directors do not have the conviction and courage to be named, but choose to hide behind a cloak of anonymity?

Nizam Ismail

* Nizam Ismail is a civil society activist. He has resigned his positions as Chairman of the Centre for Research for Malay and Islamic Affairs (RIMA) and director of the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP). He was formerly Chairman of AMP and founding President of Young AMP. Nizam is legally trained and has assumed legal and compliance roles in the financial sector. He was one of the speakers at the first public protest against the Population White Paper at Hong Lim Park on 16 Feb 2013. He blogs at http://nizamosaurus.wordpress.com.

The SDP is concerned about recent legal actions or threats of legal action issued by various Government departments.Websites such as EDMW Loves Singapore and The Real Singapore that had commented or carried comments on the outcome of the courts were ordered by the Attorney-General's Chambers to remove the offending posts.The Council for Private Education has threatened a 21-year-old blogger with a defamation lawsuit for comments related to the Council.Cartoonist, Mr Leslie Chew, was arrested for sedition and questioned for almost three days over his cartoons.Freelance journalist, Ms Lynn Lee, has been warned that action may be taken against her for filming SMRT bus drivers who were convicted for going on a strike.Freedom of expression is not only guaranteed under the Singapore Constitution but also an important avenue where the people provide feedback, often on public policy and service. Such commentary come in various forms, some in a more serious tone and others in light-hearted satire.Citizens who critique matters of public interest help to contribute to good governance. A bold and outspoken public will help to encourage independent thinking which will, in turn, foster innovation and enterprise - qualities that will help to regenerate our economy and make it more competitive.If the Government and its agencies disagree with the views or finds them not in order, they should issue responses and, if necessary, engage the writers in a debate. These are opportunities to educate the Singaporean public of how the Government works. Through patient explanation and persuasion, the authorities will gain the confidence and respect of the people - even though differences in opinion may remain. Ultimately, Singaporeans appreciate reasoned argument.By taking legal action, however, the Government may silence its critics. This will breed resentment and misunderstanding among Singaporeans which is not healthy for our nation.The PAP Government must accept that as our country matures Singaporeans, unlike in the past, are increasingly concerned about the public policy and want to speak up in our country's decision-making process. Their voices are becoming louder with the Internet age. They should be welcomed, not silenced.For the reasons cited above, the SDP calls on the Government to withdraw its legal actions. Source: The Singapore Democrats

There is "something wrong somewhere" with the Executive Condominium (EC) scheme, said National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan on Thursday, and the scheme cannot carry on in its current form.

Speaking to 40 participants at an evening session of the Our Singapore Conversation (OSC) dialogue on housing, Mr Khaw said that there is "a sense of inequity" at the profit that EC buyers can make when reselling their units. First-time buyers of both ECs and Build-to-Order (BTO) flats get grants from Housing Board (HDB) to offset the price of their units, the size of which depends on their income.

But the "upside in the property market" gives EC-owners a far higher profit upon resale than the average three-room flat owner, noted Mr Khaw. This translates into "a sense of inequity, that the lower-income is getting less subsidy". This goes against the principle that HDB's subsidies should be progressive, and that the lower-income should get more, he said.

ECs are marketed and built by private developers, rather than HDB, and the income ceiling is $12,000, rather than $10,000 for a BTO flat. After 10 years, ECs become private property and can be sold to foreigners. Mr Khaw said that he hoped that "clarity and a conclusion" on how to tweak the EC scheme can be found through the ongoing OSC sessions on housing.

Source: The Straits Times

Last month, I highlighted in a posting (here) that Hong Kong and mainland China have a better approach in solving the twin problems of population ageing and low female fertility that are also faced by Singapore. This observation followed from my discussions with population and sociology experts at the University of Hong Kong. I expanded on this theme in a lecture (here) that I delivered at Peking University HSBC Business School a few days later on 25 March.

One month after my two postings, DPM Teo Chee Hean, minister in charge of the Population White Paper, was in Hong Kong where he had discussions and briefings with senior officials on urban planning issues including population planning (news report here). His officials from the National Population and Talent Division held discussions with Hong Kong’s Population Commission.

“Need to think of what people want”

What one commission member Paul Yip said, was revealing : “I shared how we might be obsessed with big numbers for GDP growth, but we need to think of what people want and the need to get their support.” This is exactly what Singaporeans have been telling the PAP government. We will tell them more at the coming May Day rally in Hong Lim Park. I will be speaking at the rally when I will spell out what I see as the real and inevitable solution to the population problem.

Courage to change course?

DPM Teo should have visited Hong Kong earlier and studied how Hong Kong and other cities tackle population issues before he finalised the White Paper. The whole world now knows that the White Paper is a seriously flawed document. I hope he has the courage to persuade his colleagues to change course as it would be the right thing to do.

The only downside (from his point of view but not that of Singaporeans) is a serious dent to the ego and image of PAP leaders, but then Singaporeans are already past the stage of seeing PAP ministers as competent and having foresight. After all, didn’t the Prime Minister himself admit in January this year that PAP had no foresight?

Tan Jee Say

* Jee Say was a Presidential candidate in the 2011 Presidential Election. The article first appeared on his facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TanJeeSay.
 

Singapore’s Second Deputy Prime Minister gives a polished performance in an extensive interview with the media.

For two hours, Tharman, who joined the Cabinet only nine years ago, gave a polished performance befitting his title as a possible or potential prime minister.

He spoke about the gradual shift of ruling party’s ideology – from centre to centre left – to a new emphasis on social objectives, and more proposed taxation on wealth.

Other subjects covered were wide-ranging. The tone was firmer than the generalities and hedging that the public has been hearing from some leading politicians.

At the end of the interview conducted with The Straits Times, serious-minded Singaporeans can feel a bit better about succession choices.

Not enough capable Singaporeans are attracted by politics.

Many people have often wondered who will immediately take over if something untoward happens to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

The People’s Action Party (PAP) has never made public its plan for crisis succession for prime ministers in such an event. A plausible explanation is that it wishes to avoid heated rivalry.

Presumably, it would be one of the two deputy prime ministers: First DPM Teo Chee Hean, 59, and Second DPM Tharman, 56, who is also Finance Minister. By comparison, PM Lee is 61.

On paper, Teo, who acts as PM when Lee is abroad, comes across as first among equals, but that could not be the full story.

An ex-naval commander, he is now Home Affairs Minister but has rarely figured in the public mind as an automatic choice.

Some major points Tharman covered included the following:

> Foreign workers – “Keep the ratio of foreigners in the workforce to about one-third over the long term.” (No mention if it includes permanent residents).

> Politics – It is in Singapore’s interest to have a dominant party and the PAP wants to remain that dominant party.

> Winning back votes – “The PAP today is quite different from five years ago and almost unrecognisable compared to 20 years ago. You can see that the PAP today is quite different from five years ago … Still a lot of work to do.”

> Asset taxes to rise – Two moves were made in the last three years and this year. I don’t think that’s the final step.

More interesting was his reference to ideology, something that Lee Kuan Yew had long shunned.

“When I first entered politics about 11 years ago, I would say that the weight of (Cabinet) thinking was centrist but there were two flanks on either side of it,” he said.

“There were some (in the Cabinet) who were a little right-of-centre, and there were some a little left-of-centre. Now I would say the weight of thinking is left-of-centre.

“You still get diversity of views in Cabinet, but the centre of gravity is left-of-centre.”

Not everyone agrees that the Cabinet during the Lee Kuan Yew era was “centrist”.

Many saw it as right-wing, conservative in nature, which differed from its early constitutional definition of itself as a “democratic socialist” party.

I remember during early days of reporting, someone asked Kuan Yew whether it was time – in view of so little welfarism – to drop the word “socialist” from the PAP constitution, but Kuan Yew firmly turned it down.

He thought it justified it because public housing, healthcare and education were subsidised.

But I suspected it was more to preserve the PAP support base.

For a long time, the PAP was a member of the Socialist Interna­tional.

In practice, however, it was somewhat different from other socialist governments.

At most, it was a practical form of socialism.

Blogger Abhisit wrote that Kuan Yew was once (in 1995) so annoyed when he was addressed as “Comrade” that he threatened to detain anyone else calling him that under the Emergency Regulations for being a communist sympathiser.

In a way, Tharman’s long interview rekindled talk about potential leaders.

Officially, prime ministers are elected by an informal gathering of ministerial peers.

The official position is that PM Lee will lead for another 10 – possibly 20 years – which is not given too much public credence.

This was aimed at stifling unhealthy speculation.

So far, the decision of who will be prime minister has entirely been an internal party matter.

But with the changed political environment, it would be irrational to exclude public viewpoints.

Last week, Tharman, whose chances are considered slim because of his race, has emerged as the most promising minister.

Many elderly Singaporeans in this predominantly Chinese city feel that as an ethnic Indian, he may find acceptance tough. It is something Tharman seems to agree with.

Asked in the interview about a non-Chinese prime minister, Thar­man replied: “My own sense is if you talk about in 20 years, I’d say entirely possible. I’d find it very odd if we only have Chinese prime ministers forever … I have no aspirations by the way to be prime minister! I enjoy being part of the team, contributing as much as I can.”

However, after nearly half a century of independence, the younger generation of Singaporeans are generally less influenced by a person’s race when judging qualities for leadership.

Besides, with an ambition of becoming a world-class city, race has become even less of a leadership factor today than 40 years ago.

Seah Chiang Nee

Chiang Nee has been a journalist for 40 years. He is a true-blooded Singaporean, born, bred and says that he hopes to die in Singapore. He worked as a Reuters corespondent between 1960-70, based in Singapore but with various assignments in Southeast Asia, including a total of about 40 months in (then South) Vietnam between 1966-1970. In 1970, he left to work for Singapore Herald, first as Malaysia Bureau Chief and later as News Editor before it was forced to close after a run-in with the Singapore Government. He then left Singapore to work for The Asian, the world’s first regional weekly newspaper, based in Bangkok to cover Thailand and Indochina for two years between 1972-73. Other jobs: News Editor of Hong Kong Standard (1973-74),  Foreign Editor of Straits Times with reporting assignments to Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and The United States (1974-82) and Editor of Singapore Monitor (1982-85). Since 1986, he has been a columnist for the Malaysia’s The Star newspaper. Article first appeared in his blog, http://www.littlespeck.com.

When I went for NSP’s walkabout last Wednesday, I heard some of the Party volunteers narrate about how Residents’ Committee members would sneakily discard NSP’s informational flyers which the Party volunteers would leave behind in flats when there appeared to be no one at home, because the RC members did not want the residents to receive what an opposition Party has got to say.

Hmm…here we have a grassroots organisation which is supposed to be apolitical and serve all residents regardless of political affiliation, which recently received $44 million in Government funding [Link] to rejuvenate itself; where at least some of its members act in a manner which is anything but apolitical, but are let off scot-free because of its symbiotic relationship with the ruling Party.

And then you have a community activist, Nizam Ismail, who the State media (another organisation with symbiotic relationship with the PAP) has claimed has acted in a partisan manner because he participated in one opposition political Party event on invitation, and at a rally of citizens to express our collective unhappiness over the population White Paper.

It doesn’t count that he participated in his personal capacity says the State media, because even if he did, because of ‘his position in AMP’, he was endorsing ‘the politics of the organisers’, it claims.

Ironic!

Ravi Philemon

* Comment first appeared on Ravi Philemon personal Facebook page.

While we can all condemn Amy Cheong for the unthinking racism of her remarks, we should wonder whether they just reflect the tone of institutional racism that is projected from the very top of the government. Her crime was perhaps that she took her cue from the frequent racist utterances from of our former Minister Mentor which instead of being condemned are labelled “hard truths to keep Singapore going.”  Recently even the Australian PM praised MM Lee for his “straight talk” from three decades ago and said “We never forgot his warning that without reform we would be the “White Trash of Asia”

She obviously did not realise that the latitude accorded to the gods do not apply to mere mortals such as her.  The PM was quick enough to jump on the bandwagon of condemnation from PAP ministers but has been noticeably silent about his father’s remarks. That surely ranks as hypocrisy or double standards to say the least.

She undoubtedly violated her corporate code of conduct. However she was dismissed without being given a chance to defend her actions by going through the company’s usual disciplinary procedure. Should not a reprimand or a written warning have been the first stage as she had already issued an apology? It was a salutary reminder of how few employment rights Singaporeans have. As Subra points out in his Article 14 blog (http://article14.blogspot.sg/2012/10/race-responsible-speech-and-hasty.html) it is particularly shocking, or would be to a naive observer, that a so-called government trade union should dispense with due process.

The question of whether she should be prosecuted is another matter. Most countries ban hate speech directed at an individual or group on the basis of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc. The US is perhaps alone in protecting hate speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution dealing with the right to freedom of expression.

One must be careful not to curtail free speech rights just because they give offence to a particular group (for example fundamentalist Christians would no doubt wish to stop the teaching of evolution theory on the grounds that it is offensive to their beliefs). However against the belief in an absolutist right to free speech there is an important argument that hate speech undermines a public good which Waldron (“The Harm in Hate Speech”, reviewed in the NYT,http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/the-harm-in-free-speech/) “identifies as the “implicit assurance” extended to every citizen that while his beliefs and allegiance may be criticized and rejected by some of his fellow citizens, he will nevertheless be viewed, even by his polemical opponents, as someone who has an equal right to membership in the society. It is the assurance — not given explicitly at the beginning of each day but built into the community’s mode of self-presentation — that he belongs, that he is the undoubted bearer of a dignity he doesn’t have to struggle for.”

To quote Waldron again, “In its published, posted or pasted-up form, hate speech can become a world-defining activity, and those who promulgate it know very well — this is part of their intention — that the visible world they create is a much harder world for the targets of their hatred to live in.”

But postings like Amy Cheong’s do not occur in a vacuum. It is no accident that we get these numerous instances of hate speech in Singapore. There is not only Amy Cheong but also Shimun Lai, Sun Xu and Jason Neo.  A few years back there was the case of Chua Cheng Zhan, the PSC scholar, who made racist remarks about Indians dominating the Singapore association (perhaps he could not stand the competition!). Yet he was allowed to apologise and let off whereas Amy Cheong was sacked for saying something much milder!

Before that there was the case of MP Choo Wee Khiang who said in Parliament that “One evening, I drove to Little India and it was pitch dark but not because there was no light, but because there were too many Indians around.”   Surely, if they had not been protected by parliamentary privilege, his remarks could have been construed as inciting racial violence. They are qualitatively in a different league from Ms. Cheong’s. I myself have had to endure an onslaught of anonymous online postings calling me “ape-man” and “son of Ah Meng”.

It is because of a climate of institutional racism that is fostered from the very top and that is explicit in the racist attitudes and utterances of Lee Kuan Yew himself. If every citizen should have an implicit assurance, as Waldron puts it,  that he will be viewed as someone who has an equal right to membership in the society, then this is lacking in the case of minorities in Singapore, and in particular in the case of the Malay minority. The latter have always been viewed with suspicion as potential fifth columnists. Many Malays were excluded from national service or when they were enlisted assigned to low security classifications or part-time service. This served and continues to serve to stigmatize them in the eyes of employers.

Similarly the Ethnic Integration Act treats minorities as second-class citizens by denying them the right to live where they want. It also penalizes them economically because they are often unable to sell their property to the highest bidder if the quota has been filled.

The proportion of minorities who are selected as government scholars is also so much lower than their share of the population (and many of those classified as minorities are new immigrants or children of mixed-race parentage). From 2002-2010 the proportion was 5.8% (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/02/government-scholarships-a-case-for-greater-representation-of-minority-races/) but of these only 2.3% were Indians and 1.2% Malays. Surely in any country that wanted to portray itself as not institutionally racist there would be an inquiry and steps taken to either remove cultural bias in the selection process or remedy deficiencies in the education system.

It was only in 2009 that MM Lee gave an interview with National Geographic (http://www.news.gov.sg/public/sgpc/en/media_releases/agencies/pmo/transcript/T-20091228-1.html) where he said about Malays that “The influence from the Middle East has made them have head-dresses for no rhyme or reason.”  Later in the same interview he said “Well, we make them say the national pledge and sing the national anthem but suppose we have a famine, will your Malay neighbour give you the last few grains of rice or will she share it with her family or fellow Muslim or vice versa?”

In January 2011 the Association of Muslim Professionals felt obliged to issue a statement in response to LKY’s book “Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going”:

The Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP) deeply regrets certain comments made by Minister Mentor (MM) Mr Lee Kuan Yew in his book Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going. These comments are in relation to the practice of Islam by the Malay-Muslim community (MMC) where MM Lee had urged the MMC to be less strict in their practice of Islam in order to facilitate integration, and in relation to the issue of gaps between the MMC and other communities in Singapore, where MM Lee opined that the MMC will never catch up with the other communities. We note that these views of MM Lee are not new. It is not clear why MM Lee has chosen to repeat them at this point.

Some of LKY’s other memorable quotes may be found athttp://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew.

His pseudo-scientific theories of racial superiority were acquired apparently from Toynbee, a British historian of the early twentieth century, who published “A Study of History”. While it is now universally discredited and hopelessly out-of-date, it still seems to command a certain support among members of the PAP elite, judging by quotes on George Yeo’s FB page when he was a minister. Toynbee naturally put the white races at the top. Lee Kuan Yew has modified this by putting East Asians at the top above the whites, South Asians in the middle and South-East Asians at the bottom. From his often-quoted comments on the IQ Bell curve, he clearly believes Africans are some way off being human which makes me wonder how he got on with President Obama when they met.

In this climate of officially condoned institutional racism, it is not surprising that Amy Cheong should have felt that her posting was acceptable.  PM Lee was quick to condemn a little person like Ms. Cheong:

“Fortunately the person has promptly apologised for her grievous mistake. But the damage has been done, and NTUC did the right thing in terminating her services.” 

However it is regrettable that he did not adopt the same moral tone in dealing with his father’s comments. Perhaps he should consider setting up a commission of inquiry into what has led to this climate in the first place and what steps can be taken to remedy it. It would seem difficult for the police to act against Ms. Cheong when they have turned a blind eye to some of MM Lee’s more outrageous comments.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

*Article first appeared on http://sonofadud.com/

The Straits Times reported yesterday that PM Lee Hsien Loong had said that, “for incomes to rise, the economy must grow … Everyone would like their lives to become better and one important way of doing that is to make sure your pay goes up, especially with low-income workers. And for the pay to go up, the economy has to grow.”

The Straits Times also said that this made “clear the centrality of economic growth which has been disputed by some who are worried about foreign workers and inequality.” Essentially, what is being said is that Singaporeans should prioritise Singapore’s economic growth, and put aside our concerns of over-crowding and income inequality.

• So, should we stop thinking that Singapore’s income inequality is that high, and that we should stop asking the government to increase our wages?
• Is it true what PM Lee had said that as long as the economy grows that we will have higher wages?

Let’s take a look.

In the charts below, I will compare the following:

• GDP per capita
• Wage levels
• Price levels
• Domestic purchasing power

I will compare these indicators with two different sets of countries (developed vs developing economies). Note that except for GDP per capita which is based on the countries, the comparison is based on the cities. I am unable to locate the GDP per capita for the cities.

The data source for GDP per capita is taken from the Human Development Report 2013. All the rest are taken from UBS Prices and Earnings report. The 2012 report did not include Singapore in the report but I had managed to locate the 2011 report, which did include Singapore. You might perhaps understand why Singapore was omitted in the 2012 report after reading this article.

Comparison with Other Developed Economies

In this first set of comparison, I will compare the indicators with a select group of developed economies.

Chart 1 shows the GDP per capita of the developed countries. You can see that Singapore has the highest GDP per capita.

Chart 1

Now, according to PM Lee, if the economy does well, so will our incomes right? So, let’s take a look at Chart 2. Chart 2 shows the wage levels of the cities, with New York = 100.

Chart 2

You can see that even though Singapore’s economy is doing very well and we are the richest country, we actually have the second lowest wage level among the cities compared!

So, when PM Lee says that, “for incomes to rise, the economy must grow”, is that even true? Obviously, not.

In Chart 3, you can see the price levels. What is shocking is that even though Singapore has the second lowest wage level, we actually have quite a high price level – we have the fifth highest price level.

Chart 3

Which means that if you look at Chart 4, because we earn such a low wage and prices are so high in Singapore, we actually have the lowest purchasing power, as compared to the other developed economies.

Chart 4

In sum, what you can see here is that even though Singapore is the richest country and has the strongest economy, by per capita, we earn comparatively much lower wages, and because prices are so high, we have a severely eroded purchasing power.

Comparison with the Developing Economies

In the next set of comparison, I will compare the indicators with a select group of developing economies.

In Chart 5, you can see that Singapore has a much higher GDP per capita than all the other countries.

Chart 5

In Chart 6, you can see that our wage level is higher as well, but more importantly, even though Singapore’s GDP per capita is nearly 4 times higher than the next highest country and 7 times higher the third highest, our wage level is barely twice as high as the second and third highest city!

Chart 6

In Chart 7, you can see the price levels of the cities. Note that price levels in Kuala Lumpur is actually half that of Singapore.

Chart 7

Finally, and more importantly, when you look at Chart 8, you can see that Singapore’s purchasing power is similar to the next highest city – Kuala Lumpur. This is even though our GDP per capita is nearly 4 times higher than Malaysia!

Chart 8

Singaporeans, We Are Being Cheated

What’s going on here?

• Even though Singapore is the richest country in this comparison, we are paid the lowest wages among the developed economies. Among the developing economies, their peoples are paid comparatively higher wages even though the country is much poorer.
• Even though Singapore is the richest country, we have the lowest purchasing power among the developed economies. Not only that, when compared to the developing economies, our purchasing power is the same as that of Kuala Lumpur.

What the F is PM Lee Hsien Loong talking about when he says that, “for incomes to rise, the economy must grow”?

If this is indeed the case, what has happened to the past two or three decades of economic growth? Where has all the supposed wage growth that PM Lee is presumably talking about gone to? Why is it that even though Singapore’s economy was growing so strongly and that we are the richest country, that our wages are the lowest in the developed economies (as compared to countries in this comparison)?

Not only that, why is it that even though we are the richest country, we have the lowest purchasing power among the developed economies and our purchasing power is almost on par with that of the other developing economies.

For a country so, so F-ing rich, why are we able to afford only a standard of living which is only on par with the developing economies?

Behind all the glamour and blink-blink, have we been had, Singaporeans?

Last year, the government said that they had hoped to increase productivity by 30% in the next 10 years so that our wages will increase by 30% as well. As I had written previously, this proposal was doomed to fail because:

1. Singapore’s productivity growth did not even reach an average of 2% annually over the past decade. In fact, Singapore’s productivity growth had been dropping decade-on-decade for the past 3 decades. How did the government intend to miraculously grow productivity by 3% annually for the next decade?
2. Also, Singapore’s wage growth had never kept pace with productivity growth in the past decade so even if productivity growth did miraculously grow by 30%, our wages wouldn’t have grown by as much.

So, after one year of telling people that we need to grow our productivity, so that wages will grow – knowing how it will not work at all – the government has finally changed tack and said, well, we would need to grow the economy.

Of course, when you increase productivity, you would be able to grow the economy. So, is PM Lee saying one and the same thing? Well, he could be.

Old Wine In New Bottle: Still Not Interested to Increase Our Wages

More importantly, the government is trying to repackage what they had been saying. The government would be thinking – you know what? People might not understand what productivity growth means and if we keep saying that and they don’t see results, they will know that we are lying to them. Let’s say something else. Maybe let’s say if the economy is growing, their wages will grow? Maybe they will buy into that?

And wa-la – economic growth for wage growth. Whereas last year, the government came out with some statistics, no matter how erroneous, thrown together to explain how productivity growth will lead to wage growth, I don’t see any statistics this time.

Perhaps PM Lee will show some statistics on the May Day Rally on Wednesday, but I wouldn’t think too much of the statistics, if there were to be any. The statistics that I have presented here are already very clear. Whatever the government wants to show us, you can trust that it is not going to work, because it didn’t.

As I had discussed before, the government gets to decide how much wages can grow. When the government comes out with fanciful concepts of how if we grow this, wages will grow, or if we do that, wages will grow, it will not. The only way wages will grow is if the government DECIDES to grow our wages. It’s all in the government’s hands.

So, it’s a matter of whether they want to or not. They have insisted that they do not want to implement a minimum wage. As said, Singapore is one of the few countries which still does not have a minimum wage. All the Asian Tigers and even Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia have minimum wages to protect their people.

There are a few countries without the minimum wage law but which pay their workers well – the Nordic countries and Switzerland – but this is because they have very strong and independent unions which fight for their workers’ wages and are not lackeys. You can read more about it here (link).

I have also discussed here (link) before that Singapore has the highest income inequality among the economically developed economies.

So, what is PM Lee trying to tell us when he knows jolly well that even if the economy grows, that our wages wouldn’t grow in tandem. And what is The Straits Times trying to tell us when they tell us not to focus on income inequality but on economic growth, when our income inequality is so dire! (Please read the link)

Holding Singaporeans Ransom to Our Wages

Do you know what the government is doing? The government is holding us ransom. Essentially it is this, the government is saying – you know what, you want to have higher wages? Well, we don’t feel like it. We will pay ourselves high wages but you can stay as low as we want you to be. And you know what, if you want high wages, well we can raise it. But – only if you increase productivity for us. Can’t do it? Well, we know. Guess what, let’s try growing the economy. You know what, if you can do it, we will increase your wages. How about that?

So, you might say – but you have the power to increase our wages if you WANT to!

But, the government would say – precisely, I have the power. So, now what? Do you want to work hard for us or not? If you don’t, you will not get any increase. If you do, well, let’s think about that when we come to that, shall we?

Roy

* The author blogs at http://thehearttruths.com.

Initial article here: http://therealsingapore.com/content/heard-pap-activist-all-pap-members-a...

Choa Chu Kang Member of Parliament Zaqy Mohamad has come out to clarify that a recent Facebook note alleging that the People’s Action Party had issued a “social media protocol” was false and “posted by impersonators.” 

“We wish to clarify that no such note was issued and that there is no truth in its contents,” said Mohamad on his Facebook post.

The note in question was first posted by Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) member Patrick Lee Song Juan on his Facebook page on Sunday.

In the note, Lee claims to have heard “from the horse mouth (sic)” about a new “PAP directive” issued to its supporters.

This “directive” allegedly informed the PAP ministers, MPs, activists and volunteers that with effect from 1 April 2013, they were advised to refrain from engaging with netizens on social media “without HQ approval”. 

It went on to say that while status updates, photo sharing and information about ministry activities would still be encouraged, party members were “highly discouraged” from responding to negative or positive online comments in a personal capacity or otherwise

Finally, the note claimed that MPs Hri Kumar, Janil Puthucheary, Zaqy Mohamed, Tin Peiling and Vikram Nair would form a “Committee of Media Relations” and should be contacted by e-mail, phone, or text message if any party member encountered abusive, defamatory, or high negative media content.

It said that this Committee would then pursue “legal action escalation” through the “Committee of Legal Procedures”.

In Singapore and Malaysia, or most ill-democratic countries in the world, opposition parties are fighting on the moral high ground of Democratic principles. 

However, for any political parties that fought on such Democratic principles, they must first TRULY EMBRACE and PRACTICE such Democratic principles themselves. Else it would really be hypocritical for such parties to talk and sing high about Democratic principles while internally, they do not welcome or even scorn at Democratic practices and contests within. 

For a start, political leaders should expect healthy contests from fellow comrades and not try to demonize any challenge to their positions. It is also a good time to gauge on their own support level among party cadres. If you don't get satisfactory vote count, it means that you will have to work harder to gain their support. 

In Democracy, there will be healthy contests and definitely, win and lose. It is quite a normal process. But it is unhealthy to treat every leadership challenge as sinister plot of moles or otherwise. Most parties in Singapore install the cadre system to protect themselves from "infiltration" by political opponents. However, the flip side of such cadre system is that it tends to lead to "inbreeding". This is because only the CEC members or just the key leaders of CEC could approve promotion of cadre membership and obviously, as human nature dictates, the CEC members will only approve those who are in support of them. This will ensure uninterrupted support and election of the few individuals into CEC. This is unhealthy as it hinders diversity and promote group thinking within. 

In fact, I have always tried to change the present ill-democratic practices and constitutions of the party, to balance the values of democracy vs safeguards of infiltration.The power of appointment of cadre membership should not lie solely on the few CEC members only but rather, the whole Congress of party cadres should have the right to move motions to appoint any members to be cadre members. As long as 50% of the Congress voted in support for such appointment, the promotion of the respective members to cadre status should take effect immediately. 

The other safeguard I have proposed to change is that any MPs of the party should only be sacked or removed by the Congress of cadre members, with the means of calling for Extraordinary Party Congress to decide on such important matters. MPs are key assets of the party and they should not be subjected to the power of the few in the CEC and removed due to politicking. Such safeguard should be installed to prevent unwarranted sacking of MPs by the CEC. If any MPs have made grave mistakes, he or she should be "trial and judged" by the Party Congress of cadre members. He or she should be given the chance to put up defence of such sacking. 

On the other hand, we cannot just blush off healthy contests and challenges as "instigation" or attempts of "moles working" just like that. If you are good, you won't be worried about challenges. If you are mediocre, be prepared to lose and step down for better player. That's real Democracy for you.

Goh Meng Seng

*The author is a freedom fighter and a former secretary-general of the NSP in GE2011.