Chee Soon Juan [Article first appeared on YourSDP.org]

Dr Chee Soon Juan spoke at the 59th Congress of the Liberal International (LI) at Rotterdam, Netherlands on 25 April 2014. Below are excerpts of his speech. 

Let me first express my gratitude for the continued support of LI for me personally as well as for the struggle for democracy in Singapore. LI has been a good friend all these years not just of Singapore but also Asia.

In 2003, Singapore's former prime minister Goh Chok Tong signed the US-Singapore Free Trade Ageement (USSFTA) with then president George W Bush. Singapore became the first country in the world to sign such a pact with the US.

At that time, the USSFTA was touted as a job creator and that the world needed more, not less, free trade. I remember the US Ambassador to Singapore at that time had said that as many as 50,000 jobs would be created in Singapore because of the Agreement.

I wasn't so sanguine. I visited the US and spoke up on the matter, pointing out that without clauses to guarantee human rights and rights of our workers, the trade pact would just help the business elites in the US and Singapore to exploit cheap labour. Of course, given the might of the corporate interests in the US, the USSFTA was quickly passed.

That was in 2003. Ten years have since passed and the FTA has had many years to work its effects. In 2011, US Ambassador to Singapore Mr David Adelman said: "The agreement with Singapore is perhaps our most successful FTA globally.” I have do doubt the FTA is successful, the question is: For whom?

Singapore is very rich or at least has become very rich in the past decade. We have the most number of millionaires per capita in the world. In terms of GDP per capita (at US$57,000), we are the richest country in the world. This is, in large part, due to the influx of a staggering number of billionaires emigrating to the city-state.

Between 2000 to 2012, the richest 10 percent in Singapore saw their real income increase by 4.1 percent. Over the same period, the poorest 10 percent of the population saw a negative change in household income. In other words, the lowest paid workers saw their already meagre wages shrink.
 

As a result, income inequality has widened. Singapore’s Gini coefficient has been increasing over the last decade (with a break between 2007 and 2008 because of the global financial crisis).

In fact, Singapore's income gap is the highest among advanced economies.

Given the wealth flowing into the country, it is perhaps inevitable that there would be significant economic changes. The Economist Intelligence Unit rated Singapore as the most expensive city in the world in 2014. And yet, about 5 percent of Singapore's workforce draw an annual income of less than US$5,000 – that's less than US$100 a week - in the most expensive city in the world.

In addition, most of the 50,000 jobs that USSFTA promised have gone to foreigners that the Singapore Government has brought in, making unemployment and underemployment a problem in Singapore.

Working conditions have also deteriorated. According to a survey conducted by the International Labor Organisation (ILO), Singaporean workers work the most number of hours. We are the most stressful places to live in Asia and one of the unhappiest peoples in the world. In a survey of 14 economies, Singaporean workers were found to enjoy going to work the least, are the least loyal to their employers and have the least supportive workplaces. Only 19 percent of those polled in Singapore look forward to their work each day, the global average is 30 percent.

These are not just statistics, they have real impact on real lives. Take the case of 46-year-old Tan Jee Suan, his wife, who suffers from polio, and their two teenage sons. An odd-job labourer, Tan had difficulty making enough money to feed his family and they subsisted on his wife’s meagre income of $500 as a factory hand. Tan finally managed to earn a few hundred dollars to buy his wife a bed that made it less of a struggle for her to get herself up in the morning. The family could afford little else. In 2006, unable to cope with the pressure, Tan jumped in front of a speeding train and killed himself. 

Behind the facade of wealth and opulence is a city with much hidden poverty.

How is it possible that in the most expensive city in the world, there are Singaporeans earning so little? Because there is no minimum wage. And why is there no minimum wage? Because there is no opposition to fight for it.

The ranks of opposition parties have been decimated with years of persecution, there are no independent trade unions because labour leaders have all been imprisoned or run out of the country. It's not like we have free and fair elections like you practice here. Former prime minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew had said: "Please do not assume that you can change governments. Young people don’t understand this.”

There is no free media – all Singaporean TV stations, radio channels and newspapers are owned and run by the government. Reporters Sans Frontier ranks the Singapore media 150th out of about 170 countries.

I understand the importance of trade, without it modern world comes to a standstill. I also understand that in an imperfect world, no one expects perfect equality. Inequality in wealth and income is inevitable and there is truth that a measure of inequality spurs diligence and entrepreneurship, and, therefore, economic progress. However, extremes in income inequality does not conduce to society’s well-being.

But if we are going to ensure that trade remains sustainable then we must strive to make trade pacts beneficial for all – and I mean from the lowliest worker to the mightiest CEO. In order for this to happen, the Singaporean worker must have rights and not be exploited.

The European Union (EU) is about to sign its own free trade agreement with Singapore. All EU members have to ratify the Agreement and it becomes law.

The EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA) makes extensive provisions for businesses. But there is no commitment to ensure that workers and their rights are protected - workers who will, in the final analysis, determine whether businesses are profitable or not and, hence, whether the EUSFTA succeeds or fails.

I will repeat to the EU what I said to the US: Without freedom there can be no free trade. Without democracy there can be no workers rights' and without workers' rights, there is only exploitation. How do you think such a system is sustainable?

Let history not repeat itself only now with Europeans joining in with the Americans to exploit Singaporeans and the peoples in the region. Cheap foreign labour are recruited enmasse from poorer countries like China, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and so on to service your businesses in Singapore. They are horrifically exploited.

Let not history remark that Liberals did not have the foresight to see that the EUSFTA, in its current form, is not sustainable. Instead, let us have the courage, the compassion and the conviction to do what is right, not just what makes us rich.

No, I didn't come all the way to Rotterdam to say that things are right in this world. I came because I wanted to be among friends whom I have long believed to be principled defenders of human rights, friends steeped in life's wisdom, friends who instinctively understand compassion. I came to restore my faith in the Liberal family, in humanity; I came because I believe that there are those of us who continue to dedicate ourselves to working for a world that is more equal and more just. Thank you.

Dr Chee Soon Juan is the Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party.

Chee Soon Juan will be standing as a candidate for the SDP in the next GE. He has completely discharged his bankruptcy obligations after losing several libel suits against the PAP politicians. It has been a long time since he stood for a GE, best known or remembered when he challenged Chok Tong with the call, ‘Where is the money?’ or something like that. And that was followed by the sagas of postage fees and taxi fare claims when his professor had to take taxis to confirm that his claims were not in order. The thing that prevented him from standing in past GEs was his bankruptcy status due to his inability to pay the compensations awarded to those who brought suits against him. 

Chee Soon Juan is back. Actually he never left. He was watching from the sideline or sitting at the benches, acting as manager or coaches to his team in every GE. How would the public view his return to the political fray? What were the wrongs of this man that had kept him away from political office for so long? He is no Anwar Ibrahim and less controversial in many ways. Would the voters take his past as a price he had to pay for being in politics at the wrong time when politics was vicious and ugly? I am not sure if it is less vicious and less ugly today. Only time will tell. 

How would the PAP handle him this time with the old guards out of the way? Would Chee face the likes of LKY and Chok Tong again and go through the same political ordeal one more time? Or has time changed and the political climate is more stable, more mature and less vindictive and more civil? The PAP would likely put every obstacle they could find in his way to keep him out of Parliament. And they would have a lot to say about Chee Soon Juan. The only thing that matters is whether the voters would believe them or would even view them in favour of Chee. 

There are many good things to talk about this man as a politician, tenacity, believing strongly in his cause and mission, offering an alternative formula to the current mantra, a no fly by night operator or fair weather politician. He would not go away after a defeat. He comes back fighting. Above all, he is a great orator and would give all the great debators in the PAP a run for their money in Parliament.

Would the people see the good things in this man to send him into Parliament? Or would they believe in the PAP narrative of Chee Soon Juan and turn away from him?

Chua Chin Leng AKA RedBean

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

Dr Chee Soon Juan is officially setting his sights on the next GE which must be called sometime before the end of 2016, but he has not yet decided which constituency to contest in.

He missed the last two General Elections thanks to being declared bankrupt over the inability to pay the compensation in a series of civil lawsuits brought against him by Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong about 'defamatory' remarks made during the GE2001 campaigning.

Dr Chee is the secretary general of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and one area that they are considering contesting is the PAP stronghold of Tanjong Pagar.

This is a GRC which has typically been a PAP walkover with no opposition contesting against Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and his team. It is also the constituency where SDP has been doing active walkabouts in the last few years.

Commenting on the elections generally, Dr Chee said that Singaporeans see the avoidance of a multi-cornered fight as a very important issue. This was seen particularly in the Punggol East by-election where SDP had pulled out at the last minute.

Perhaps this was a lesson that many Singaporeans learnt from the most recent Presidential elections where many felt that opposition votes were 'split' and this allowed the PAP's Tony Tan to win the Presidency despite only winning 35% of votes.

Dr Chee said that it is important not to split the votes and so there is quite a bit to think about when the different opposition parties decide upon which constituencies to contest in.

[Below is a Facebook status update by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong]

Making some changes to strengthen my Cabinet.

Promoting Tan Chuan-Jin and Lawrence Wong to full ministers.

Promoting Sam Tan to Minister of State (at PMO and MCCY) to help me coordinate delivery of social policies like the Pioneer Generation Package.

Appointing Dr Lam Pin Min Minister of State at MOH, to help Gan Kim Yong oversee our major healthcare projects including MediShield-Life.

There will be two new Mayors: Denise Phua (Central Singapore CDC) and Low Yen Ling (Southwest CDC).

These changes will help us serve Singaporeans better, and form part of our continuing leadership renewal. I ask all Singaporeans to give them your full support, and work with my team to build a better Singapore for all. - LHL

For the full statement, please go to http://bit.ly/1m5sAta

(Chuan-Jin and Lawrence at JP Morgan Corporate Run in Apr 14. / Photo courtesy of JP Morgan)

Mr Leon Perera has been seen working the ground in Workers' Party Colours prompting some political analysts to speculate that he may be a potential candidate for the WP in the coming election.

He was photographed next to MP Chen Shao Mao and actively volunteering in full media view.

The PAP has been introducing several new potential candidates to the media recently citing that they want candidates to be on the ground early, a point that they themselves had learned was beneficial to the Workers' Party in GE 2011.

With the series of new introductions on the PAP side, there is now one from the WP with Mr Perera, a 44 year old ex civil servant who now works as the CEO of Spire Research and Consulting. He also serves as the vice president of the board of Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics.

Mr Perera was seen handing out food rations and necessities to elderly residents at Paya Lebar.

He is a relatively new face to the WP who used to be the assistant head of the Economic Development Board (EDB)'s Enterprise Development Division.

He is not the first former high ranking civil servant to join the opposition and political analysts are predicting that he is certainly not going to be the last.

As politics in Singapore continues to develop, there will be less stigma attached to joining the opposition and more and more good candidates will be joining both sides.

Mr Tan Kin Lian said:

"This is the third time that I tried to register to speak at Hong Lim Park at 4 pm on 3 May, and it failed again. After entering the full details, I get this page. 

When I called the helpline each time, the staff answered my call politely but was not able to take down my application by phone, i.e. refused to take the responsibility. 

Our Government is making the citizens waste a lot of time on their inefficiency. They can't even have a simple website to work properly."

During last year August,

There was both personalised email and personalised message to be printed out from the website

During last year November,

There was no personalised email but just a personalised message on the website

During this year March,
There was no personalised email or personalised message on the website

And now in April…

Mr Tan Kin Lian, Mr Leong Sze Hian, Roy and I, the four of us are unable to register, is this the outcome of so much taxpayers money being spent on “maintenance”?

Han Hui Hui

*The author blogs at http://huihui247.blogspot.sg/

STRAITS TIMES, June 8 1965

The Central Government was today urged to take consitutional measures to exclude Singapore from Malaysia or to "put Mr Lee Kuan Yew away to sober him up."

The call came from the Alliance whip in the Senate, Dato T.H. Tan, who said,"Either of these measures will ensure peace and harmony in our country. No one who has gone berserk should be let loose."

The Senate was debating a motion to thank the king for his speech from the Throne when he opened the present session of Parliament.

During the debate, all sections of the House took Mr Lee to task for talking about a Malaysian Malaysia and convening the Malaysian Solidarity Convention.

Dato T.H. Tan thought that Mr Lee should be told on no uncertain terms that Malaysia could do without Singapore.

Steps

If Mr Lee persisted in his "anti-Malay and his unpatriotic conduct", constitutional steps should be taken to separate Singapore.

Appealing to the public "not to follow Mr Lee", Dato Tan said,"There appears to be little doubt that Mr Lee through his words and deeds is stirring up emotions and causing dissension.

"The man must be stopped before irreparable harm is done. Mr Lee is trying to split the races here and to partition our country.

"It was on the basis of inter-racial unity that Tengku Abdul Rahman and his colleagues won independence for us. Now this very unity is being undermined."

"He added: "Let Mr Lee stew in the Communist soup bowl that is Singapore. If he does not think much of the Communists, then let us release Lim Chin Siong and other comrades and let us see how Mr Lee can stand up to them, face to face, man to man."

Inche Ahmad Haji Taff (Singapore) said Singapore's Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, was like a frog in a coconut shell.

Referring to his concept of a Malaysian Malaysia, Inche Ahmad sais: "Mr Lee is doing nothing except to irritate the feelings between the non-Malays and Malays."

He accused Mr Lee of trying to get rid of the Malay Rulers and the head of the nation.

"Mr Lee is trying to get rid of all Sultans and make this country a republic with himself as the president. Perhaps he is not satisfied with Islam being the State's religion."

He told the House: "Let Mr Lee spell out exactly what he wants. Let him show when the Alliance Government had infringed the Constitution.

"Let the Malays in the PAP tell him to change his attitude and not to kill our nation. We do not want to have two Prime Ministers."

Dato Dr Cheah Toon Lok said that "political parties like the PAP living in a different envirnment cannot think as we do."

Since Mr Lee has said that he was neither a Communist or a pro-Communist but a neutral, he could be only one thing - a political opportunist willing to sacrifice the peace of Malaysia for his own ambition.

Inche Saidon bin Kechut described Mr Lee as a "troublemaker with a hatred of the Malays and who wants to destroy them."

He was also greedy for power. "Not satisfied with being a dictator in Singapore he is now seeking to extend his power. He now wants to control the Central Goverment."

STRAITS TIMES, July 9 1965

Dr Toh Chin Chye, Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister, said here today that instructions had been issued for a case to be made out for the detention of Lee Kuan Yew.

But Dr Toh would not say who had issued the instructions, and to whom they had been issued.

At a press conrference in City Hall this afternoon, he said: "I personally do not wish to enlarge on the matter, but I would say that those in the Government who are responsible for such matters know that we know.

"It can rest at that."

Soilidly united

The press conference had been called to explain the Singapore Government's stand on the expulsion of free-lance journalist Mr Alex Josey and "attempts by extremists in the Alliance, particularly the UMNO," to have Mr Lee arrested.

With Mr Toh were the Minister for Law, Mr E.W. barker, and the Minister for National Development, Mr Lim Kim San.

Dr Toh opened the conference with the announcement that the entire Singapore Cabinet was solidly united on this matter.

'First step'

The expulsion of Mr Josey was only the first step towards the suppression of liberalism in Malaysia's political field, he said.

Then, reading from a prepared statement Dr Toh said: "If the Central Government continues to placate these extremist elements, further respressive measures must be taken which must lead to the break-up of Malaysia.

"Another demand was the arrest and detention of Mr Lee Kuan Yew."

STRAITS TIMES, July 21 1965

The Minister of Education, Inche Mohammed Khir Johari, today said that the Allaince Government would "never make a martyr" of the Singapore Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

He was commenting on a statement by Singapore's Minister for Culture, Mr S. Rajaratnam, that the expulsion of freelance journalist, Mr Alex Josey, was a "makan kechil" to whet the appetite of UMNO extremists for the "main dish" - the arrest of Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

"I cannot understand why Mr Rajaratnam keeps on harping on this when both Tengku Abdul Rahman and Tun Abdul Razak have already said there was no move to arrest Mr Lee," Inche Khir said.

"We will never make a martyr of the Singapore Prime Minister. All this hope of impending arrest exists only in the minds of the PAP leaders."

Martyn See

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

Even as we celebrate May Day, we must remember that Singapore's workers continue to labour under a system that makes life harder for them. Here are some indicators:

• Singaporeans work the most number of hours compared to other similar economies.

• We are the most stressful place to live in Asia

• We are the unhappiest people in the world.

• Singaporean workers were found to enjoy going to work the least and have the least supportive workplaces.

• At the end of our working lives, we cannot withdraw our CPF savings for retirement.

On top of this, the Government will continue to bring in 20,000 foreign nationals every year that will add even more pressure on our workers struggling in an already over-crowded city. The situation is untenable, it will cause a breakdown of our social cohesion and undermine our national security.

If we are to progress and build for ourselves sustainable living conditions where we enjoy a healthy work-life balance, our infrastructure is not over-stretched, and our wages can afford us a decent quality of life we must change direction.

The SDP will speak up for our workers, as we always have, and struggle for their rights. Our campaign for minimum wage and for independent trade unions will continue until the PAP listens to our hardworking people who play by the rules but keep getting the short end of the stick. They deserve better.

It is only when our workers are empowered that they will be a respected community again and not be exploited as they have been all these years.

The fortunes of our workers and those of the SDP's are inseparable. On this May Day, we move forward together.

Source: YourSDP.org

LABOUR Day is the day we honour the hardworking men and women who provide for our families and power the wheels of our economy. Singapore has one of the most competitive and skilled workforces in the world. The progress of our economy and our nation has been built on the backs of our workers, and our nation owes them a debt of gratitude.

Even as we celebrate the progress made by many of our workers, one group of workers who are of particular concern to us are our mature workers. Close to two-thirds of resident workers made redundant in 2013 were aged 40 and above, and this group is less likely than younger workers to re-enter employment after being made redundant. Less than half of the workers aged 40 and above re-entered employment within 6 months of redundancy in 2013. Many have lamented about being replaced by younger workers, including foreigners earning lower salaries.

Our Party has stated before that employers should give priority to hiring Singaporeans, and foreign workers should be employed only in positions that Singaporeans are unable to fill. The Fair Consideration Framework, which is expected to go into effect later this year, must work for the benefit of Singaporeans, including mature Singaporean workers.

Mature workers deliver tremendous value to our workplaces. Employers have reported that mature workers bring greater experience, higher levels of loyalty and commitment, and a stronger work ethic to the organisations they work for. We urge all employers to appreciate these positive attributes in mature workers, especially when considering them for employment and re-employment.

The Workers’ Party wishes all our workers a very happy Labour Day.

GERALD GIAM (严燕松)
Non-constituency MP and Chair, Media Team
The Workers’ Party

Source: WP.SG

Reform Party notes the NTUC chief and PAP Minister Lim Swee Say’s May Day message to the workers of Singapore. As usual with PAP government messages, it made little or no economic sense. It contained nothing new and was the familiar mixture of simultaneously telling our workers to work harder (the “Cheaper Better Faster” slogan again) and shifting the blame for the PAP’s own failed economic model. The PAP seem to expect the Singaporean worker to be like Boxer, the carthorse in Animal Farm. He recited every day the mantra “I must work harder! Comrade Napoleon is always right!” until finally he fell sick and was sent off to the glue factory.

Lim talks about a tighter labour market lasting till 2020 but strangely seems to regard this as an evil rather than something to be welcomed, as we do. Perhaps our workers will finally enjoy some real wage gains after years in which wages have failed to keep pace with inflation once housing costs are properly measured. Those in the bottom 40% have probably seen declining real wages over the last ten years though accurate statistics are hard to come by. A tighter labour market should actually be the norm rather than the exception particularly if we want to encourage productivity growth by encouraging firms to use less labour.

So why has it not been the norm in Singapore? We should remind ourselves that it was the PAP who deliberately adopted a policy of opening the floodgates to an abundant supply of cheap labour from the rest of Asia as a means of boosting economic growth. Economic growth was indeed artificially boosted but at the cost of stagnant productivity growth and rising income inequality. Your wages suffered and in order to maintain your real incomes you ended up working the longest hours of any nation in the developed world.

We doubt that the labour market is as tight as Lim claims. Our feedback on the ground indicates that there are still many Singaporeans who are only able to find part-time work if they can find jobs at all. Many of our graduates now do jobs for which they are overqualified. Even though this is a global phenomenon this has been worsened in Singapore by the PAP’s policy of having no restrictions at all on the employment of foreign graduates provided they are paid only a little more than the median wage.

Even though the PAP have raised foreign worker levies and tightened slightly the rules governing how many foreign workers a business can employ there are still many loopholes, as the example above of how easy it is to obtain an Employment Pass illustrates.

A tighter labour market is at least as much a function of rising real wages in countries like China, which is one of our main sources of foreign labour. This may only be a short-term phenomenon. We are likely on the threshold of a Third Industrial Revolution spearheaded by disruptive technologies like robotics, intelligent software, 3D printing, the Internet of Things, and rapidly falling energy costs from renewable sources. This has the potential to make large numbers of workers redundant even in relatively well-paid areas like law, finance and medicine.

However historical experience is that rapid productivity growth and new technologies lead to new industries, which end up providing just as many jobs as before. We need government to ensure that there is enough demand in the economy through the right fiscal and monetary policies and that the some of the gains from this growth are redistributed to those affected by technological change.

These new technologies also give us the opportunity of finally ditching the outmoded PAP economic model of maximising growth through the use of low-cost labour without a rise in productivity. Instead we will be able to produce more with our own indigenous workforce rather than having to import so many workers from the rest of the world.

However there is no sign that the PAP will adopt the right policies. Under the PAP the gains from faster productivity growth are unlikely to be shared with our workers just as the higher returns earned on capital and land from lowering the cost of labour through immigration were not shared with the bottom 80% of Singaporeans. Instead we may find real wages driven down even further as the PAP continues to have a relatively open policy towards foreign labour but refuses to share any of the gains from higher productivity with Singaporeans.

Reform Party embraces the new technologies as the best hope of reducing our dependence on foreign labour. We have consistently called for a minimum wage or for greater controls on the use of foreign labour and to ensure that Singaporeans get priority in employment. We advocate the use of a cap on total foreign worker numbers with visas being auctioned annually. This would replace foreign worker levies. The cap could be raised or lowered depending on whether wages were rising faster or slower than productivity.

By giving every Singaporean the freehold of their HDB and the distribution of shares in Temasek and GIC to citizens, we want to create a property-owning democracy. We want to free Singaporeans from being serfs of the government and reduce the conflict between the interests of capital and labour, as everyone becomes a shareholder.

Reform Party also sees the new technologies as an opportunity to level the playing field between the owners of capital and labour, and between producers and consumers, as some of the huge investments in old technologies are rendered obsolete and monopolists lose their control over markets. Unfortunately the PAP government with its monopoly over huge areas of our economy is likely to try to slow down change so as to preserve its monopoly at a huge cost to innovation.

Reform Party ends by wishing all Singaporeans a very happy May Day 2014. We believe we have the best vision for Singapore’s future and the best policies. It’s time for change.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam
Secretary General

Source: http://thereformparty.net

Dear Workers of Singapore,

Happy Labour Day!

May Day is an auspicious day to celebrate and honour workers’ contributions to the nation. It is also a time to rally Singaporeans particularly the youths to have a stake and future of the nation.

For Budget 2014, the government dished out GST vouchers – this is nothing new. We have them almost every year. They also rolled out the Pioneer Generation Package, which is long overdue. The scheme is also so complicated that the government has problems trying to get people to understand it.

While these are positive initiatives, the SPP feels that at this point in the evolution of the socio-economic needs of Singaporeans, the government must go further to help Singaporeans. It is not sufficient just to create jobs. It is equally important to create relevant jobs that Singaporeans want and can handle. Tools and policies must also be aligned to ensure employers do not prioritize short term cost savings over long run productivity growth. It is only economically sound to allow non-competitive firms to restructure, move overseas or wind down so that resources can be freed up for the most competitive local firms.

For instance, the SPP feels that the government’s accountability to its people must be based on the following indicators:

• the percentage of Singaporeans employed in newly created jobs;

• the median pay of Singaporeans versus our foreign counterparts;

• what incentives are in place to motivate companies to help meet the indicators above.

The government needs to encourage more productive, innovative and cutting edge companies to help build up our productivity. There will then be limited growth for companies that are overly reliant on low wage foreign labour. Singapore has a few of these companies in the marine industry, for instance.

To dream of a Singapore that will last beyond the next 50 years, we need to build on what we always had – our human capital. We need to continue to invest in our people and educate them for the future. Our education system has to be robust and dynamic to meet the challenges ahead.

Chiam See Tong

Secretary-General, Singapore People’s Party

Source: http://www.spp.org.sg

On April 23 the Straits Times (ST) hosted a roundtable to sit around and discuss a survey of people’s perceptions of key policies, three years after the 2011 General Election. The panelists were the usual PAP-approved pundits.  A safe group carefully selected to be more interested in the con than the conversation.

One of this panel was Eugene Tan, who is now seeking a second term in that affront to parliamentary sovereignty the NMP position. Even though I would never be invited and my alternative model is never represented in the media or in forums, I noted that my ideas are very much NOT non-ideas.  I have seen them enter the mainstream of Singaporean political thinking to such an extent that on this occasion Eugene Tan could not avoid paraphrasing me. He even used  a title and the ideas from an article I wrote a few years back.  This is what Eugene Tan said:

“I had some issues with how immigration came out in the survey, the issue was ranked rather lowly in terms of the different concerns. I look at immigration as the mother of all issues in our political landscape. You can trace all the different complaints about transport, housing, cost of living, national identity very much to immigration. So I think like in 2011 GE, immigration is a dog that didn’t bark in the survey.

 Immigration is the elephant in the room, it will be very much in the hearts and minds of voters and candidates in the next GE.”

My article, published in December 2011, was entitled “Immigration is the Elephant in the Room”.   I was prompted to write it because of an article I saw  in the ST on rising inequality in Singapore. While two economists in that article rightly brought up the subject of stagnation in real incomes for the majority and absolute decline for those in the bottom 20%, they could not bring themselves to mention the main cause. The main cause of rising inequality which I highlighted - is the fact that the PAP government implemented an open-door foreign worker policy with no minimum wage or protections for Singaporean workers.  Here’s a quote from that article which you have probably all forgotten by now.

“However they fail to mention the elephant in the room, which is immigration policy or the lack thereof. Undoubtedly the government’s determination to allow our wages to be determined by those in the poorest economies in Asia has played a major part in depressing real wages, particularly for the lower-skilled workers. Not only was there very little restriction on foreign labour, and no restriction at all for those earning more than $2,500 a month, but there appears to have been lax enforcement of what rules there were and ample loopholes. This has been demonstrated by a recent case where an employer was jailed for putting phantom Singaporean workers on his payroll to allow him to bring in more foreign Work Permit holders.

 Whether we have a minimum wage, or a cap on foreign labour (which amounts to the same thing), this is The Elephant in The Room whose emissions are causing the inequality. Unfortunately, we risk the Elephant turning into a Raging Bull if the xenophobic ranting in cyberspace is anything to go by. What we need now, and urgently, is some serious and open and reasoned debate on the future of Singapore.”

Not only does Eugene seem to be channeling me in this recent discussion but my predictions about the raging Bull make it seem as though I had a time machine.

Since I wrote that article the Elephant in the Room has indeed metamorphosed into the Raging Bull. Witness the current declarations of war ( metaphorical) over the Philippines Independence Day Celebrations.  Sadly kicking those weaker than you is not an appropriate way for Singaporeans to vent their anger with the PAP government’s policies. Not only is it not appropriate it is also plays into the PAP’s hands as it allows the government to paint those  people as xenophobes and continue to divide and rule. Fanning the flames of anger and hatred will probably ensure more seats for the PAP in the next GE.

Someone posted a marvelous quote on the Facebook tribute page for my late father recently. ” If your Dream starts to fade,wake up!”   Well the 10% of the elites in Singapore are fully awake and benefitting just as the  bottom 20% are fully awake and unable to dream due to suffering  but when will everyone else wake up?. Will they wait for that fading dream to become a full-blown nightmare?

The problem is simple. The PAP government knows only one economic model. That model which I first pointed out and which these days is explained back to me by taxi drivers is this. It is a sausage making machine.  You feed in additional inputs of labour at one end of the sausage machine to produce additional units of output, or GDP, at the other. In between there is no rise in underlying productivity. Despite a Budget devoted to productivity in 2010 and Tharman’s promise to raise productivity growth to 2-3% per annum and real incomes by 30% by 2020,the facts show that productivity growth was -2% in 2011 and 0% in 2012. That’s a clear sign for you. Wake up!

A Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman exposed this same model in the 1990s when he debunked the Asian economic miracle and that led to the downfall of the Soviet Union in 1990. This is a basic model of economic development that has been around since 1954 when Arthur Lewis first propounded it (“Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour”). Sooner or later this model just runs out of steam or collapses because there is no innovation. The PAP have just put off  the day of reckoning by opening the floodgates to cheaper and cheaper labour supplies from the developing countries of Asia.

Eugene Tan seems to be saying that the PAP have only to solve the Immigration issue to win back the voters.  I wonder if that is true? But even if that was the easy solution to another 50 years of PAP rule, it is not that simple. Firstly, I don’t think PAP can abandon their model. It would remove their raison d’être. Not only that, but it would lead to a severe economic slump at least in the short-term.  The answer is surely to change the economic model by putting a better one in place and that would mean removing or fatally wounding the PAP government.

The unfettered population issue is not just about crowding on the SMRT. Everything in Singapore, from ceaseless construction activity to inflating property prices, is dependent on continued population growth. That growth through immigration depresses wages and increases returns on investment. Without continued population inflows, the whole fake bubble of inflated values for HDB leaseholds will collapse. It will no longer be economically viable to regularly tear down old HDB blocks to put bigger and taller ones in a smaller area of space. The illusion of ever rising prosperity for HDB owners will be destroyed. Already Khaw Boon Wan is warning you that SERS will only happen where it is profitable for the government.

The real reason you need to wake up dear readers is this. To the PAP, Singaporeans have no value in themselves. The only value is in the real estate and then only because of Singapore’s strategic position. The PAP’s ideal is to dispense with citizens altogether and just have a disenfranchised global population who come to Singapore to work and then go home or get deported without ever being a burden on State services.

The PAP government is the principal owner of land and capital. By transferring resources from us the workers to themselves, facilitated by the role of immigration in depressing wages and pushing up land prices, that wealth stays out of our hands. Make no mistake, in the last 50 years that wealth could have been used to develop a strong middle, each generation better off than the one before, free universal education, joined up health care, a professional paid army, benefits for the most needy.
Instead our sick are housed in tents like the wounded in a war zone and that wealth disappears abroad into unaccountable entities controlled by Temasek and GIC. Every year Tharman makes the pretence that part of the returns is recycled back to us but as I have exposed in 2012, this is an accounting sham (see “Smoke and Mirrors in the Government’s Accounts“)

Any attempt by Singaporeans to gain any information about the true level of assets and investment returns,  as well as the remuneration of the PM’s wife and relatives who work for these entities, is met with the arrogant and contemptuous rebuff that the disclosure of such information is not in the public interest.I should know having taken the government to court in an effort to get them to live up to their obligations of due process and accountability.

So immigration is not the elephant in the room everyone is trying not to mention.  It is  the doomed policy of a Great White Shark. The shark is a dangerous, efficient but fairly primitive organism that can only survive if it continues to keep moving and water flowing over its gills. If it stays still it drowns.  In the same way the PAP must continue to keep our population growing rapidly as it is the only way they know to create growth. This leads to the myth that  somehow the laws of Economics don’t apply to the PAP and that they alone have invented an economic miracle.

The only miracle here is that so many blindly believe in this myth that the PAP have fabricated.  I’ll end with an uplifting quote from the song Mac the Knife in the Threepenny Opera by Kurt and Weil.

“Oh the shark babe has such pretty teeth, dear. And he shows them pearly white.”  

Links

http://sonofadud.com/2013/02/01/the-paps-white-paper-on-population-reveals-that-the-government-has-all-the-benefits-of-surround-sound-and-a-wide-screen-picture-at-the-cost-of-losing-the-plot/

http://sonofadud.com/2014/04/04/cpf-and-hdb-10-real-dirty-tricks/

http://mafhom.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/23-things-they-dont-tell-you-about-capitalism.pdf

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

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

Since October last year, HDB has stopped the practice of transferring tenancies among HDB commercial and industrial tenants.

The past practice had the advantage of allowing the exit of tenants whose businesses were not doing well. Unfortunately, over time it had led to high rental bids by businesses, in the hope of reaping high assignment fees down the road. Such high rents and assignment fees translate directly to higher operating costs which must eventually be passed on to consumers.

The new HDB rule has been effective. The average assignment fees for HDB commercial and industrial properties have fallen by about 33% and 42% respectively since. To allow the existing tenants to adjust to the new rule, they were allowed a 3-year grace period (i.e. until Oct 2016) to make any business adjustments.

Over the last few months, HDB met up with various groups of tenants, to explain the rationale of the policy and to seek their understanding. Some tenants who have been operating out of the same premises for many years, asked HDB for a longer grace period, to give them more time to make business adjustments. A significant proportion of them will in fact be retiring in a few years’ time, or would be near retirement then.

In view of this feedback, HDB has reviewed the rule and has decided to make a policy tweak. As a special concession for these long-time tenants, HDB will double the assignment grace period from 3 years to 6 years. This concession will apply to existing HDB commercial and industrial tenants who have already been HDB tenants for at least 15 years (as of 16 Oct 2013).

About 7,100 long-time tenants, or 40% of HDB commercial and industrial tenants, will benefit from the special concession. Among them, 77% are aged 55 years and above.

I hope the extended grace period would better help them make the necessary business adjustments to dovetail with their retirement plans. This concession is a good way to recognise their many years of serving the local community. I commend this HDB gesture.

Please visit the MND Facebook to leave a comment.

Source: Ministry of National Development

I always thought the first population white paper (PWP) protest held in February last year was the toughest event to organise but the recent 2nd labour day protest proved to be more difficult to organise than the first PWP.

There was the police warning a day before the event and I am sure many who intended to join us were scared away. What shocked me more was the use of the government's huge propaganda machine to grind us down. Are they afraid of us now?

Will they arrest me on the third knock I wondered? Am I prepared to be jailed because of the cause?

All these are hard questions which I have no ready answer now but I am very sure I won't give up easily because of the wide support our movement receives.

During our transport protest in February, a police inspector warned us not to burn the effigy of transport minister Mr Lui Tuck Yew an hour before the event. A day before the labour day protest, another inspector called me not to deface the poster of our PM and requested me to take down any statement that incited the crowd to do the same.

We have complied on all their requests and will remain law-abiding and co-operative.

Six days before the protest, someone also impersonated my FB account and the culprit was reported to the police. It was related to the Philippines Independence Celebration held in June at Orchard Road.

Our intense outcry against the Philippines Independence Celebration (PIC) also distracted us for a while but we thought that it was inter-related as all the current issues are directly linked to the population white paper.

There were certainly more heckling from PAP IBs this time round, more intense and more hurting and one of my volunteers even had her children photos splashed all over the internet one week before the event.

She was shakened up for a while and I am glad that she is made of sterner stuff. I was prepared for the worse frankly...as people have left us when the fire gets too hot previously.

We have lost many good volunteers because of such online antics previously and before people volunteer with us, we always try to prepare them for the worst but nothing can really cushion them from the adverse impact when it actually comes.

The shock, numbness and questioning will all come at once - is it worth it? You ask yourself.

Why not just be a ordinary silent Singaporean and enjoy the cushy salary and modern amenities here? Why fight against the giant, when the chances of winning are so slim and minute?

When IBs go after your family, they attack you at your weakest point as you feel bad for dragging your family into the fray. Your cause is your own personal quest but your family is innocent and when they are affected, you will seriously question the worth of your involvement.

When my daughter's photos were splashed all over the internet last year after the February event, my daughter was very mad and didn't talk to me for a while.

Of course, I felt bad and apoligised profusely to her for a while.

We have received threats before but take it as part of our occupational hazard. If we report everything to the police, they will be busy opening case files just for our movement.

Someone told me maybe the messaging this time is fiercer and darker so the authorities are pulling the brakes on us before it goes awry. The police ststement a day before the event is their most direct warning to us since we started organising protests three years ago.

We only posted up people's power posters almost daily this time round to try and unite our people together as a pure lethal force to be reckoned. The posters on our prime minister were taken down after the police warning though frankly we found nothing wrong with it.

If you can't burn effigy or deface a minister poster then there is a serious issue with freedom of speech and human rights here.

For the authorities to take notice of us, the attendance needs to be good and the messaging straightforward and focused. Though the attendance is somewhat lacking for this year's labour day protest compated to last year, we are thankful to know that we have a core support strength of at least 500 die-hard Singaporeans ready to come out despite the adverse publicity.

Singaporeans are not used to protest against the authorities due to decades of autocratic iron-fist rule but that does not mean we will remain like this forever.

Our people need to blend together as a force to be reckoned with as a divided population can be easily tamed and subdued.

Politicians can only do so much due to certain inherent constraints so activists are needed to fill in the gaps within our society.

I must confess our activism movement is still in its infancy stage now and more young people need to step up the game to push the movement forward.

However, last year's population white paper protest has given the movement a hard push and the way to go from now on can only be up...

Gilbert Goh

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/goh.gilbert/posts/10152830856363975

[Article first appeared on http://geraldgiam.sg]

The Straits Times did an interview with me last week about the performance of public transport since the last General Election, quotes of which were published on Saturday’s (3 May 2014) Insight article, “On track to solve public transport woes?”. Below is the full transcript of the interview.

—————

[Straits Times] In terms of train reliability, the disruptions in December 2011 were probably the turning point for the worse. 2012 saw the number of train delays hit a high, and according to LTA stats the number of delays and withdrawals came down last year. Some measures the Govt has implemented to tackle this include setting up joint teams with the operators post COI, and raising the maximum fine this year. What is your sense of rail reliability since 2011? Has the situation improved, stagnated or deteriorated, and why?

[Gerald] The number of delays lasting longer than 5 minutes may have come down last year, but this was from a high base of 396 in 2012 and 393 in 2011. The number of delays in 2013 was still higher than in 2010 and 2009. So I think it is still too early to declare victory.

Furthermore, I have often experienced trains stopping many times for less than 5 minutes along the way, resulting in the overall journey being significantly delayed. This has also been the experience of other commuters I have spoken to. Sometimes the statistics that the Government looks at don’t tell the whole story.

[Straits Times] Looking ahead, what needs to be done in to improve train reliability further?

[Gerald] It is usually cheaper to maintain a machine regularly than to replace a machine that has broken down because of poor maintenance. Our MRT system has suffered for years of under-investment in maintenance. It will take a massive re-investment in maintenance to restore reliability to acceptable levels. Beyond maintenance, technology and infrastructure needs to be upgraded to keep up with population and commuter growth. For example, I believe the multiple short delays during trips that I mentioned earlier are often due to the signalling system not being able to accommodate shorter headways (the distance or time between trains).

[Straits Times] In terms of crowding, have trains become even more packed since 2011? Any feedback you have gotten from commuters or residents about this issue?

[Gerald] I find that the train frequency during peak hours has increased slightly, but trains are often still not arriving fast enough to clear the continuous stream of people who are entering the station platforms. Once there is even a slight delay, the platforms would be overflowing with people. While MRT operators may have increased train frequency, there are also more commuters due to continued population increases. It is meaningless to tell commuters that trains are now arriving every 2 minutes instead of every 5 minutes, when they needs to wait for 3 full trains to pass by before being able to board a train.

[Straits Times] Some measures to ease train overcrowding include travel demand management schemes such as free travel and Insinc, as well as introducing express/parallel bus services under the BSEP. To what extent do you think these have been effective? And do you think the overcrowding situation will ease when the Downtown and Thomson lines open a few years down the road?

[Gerald] If we can find a way to spread out the commuter load away from peak hours, that would help ease peak hour overcrowding. However, I don’t think free travel or other incentives will make a significant impact. These will only work if most commuters have flexible working hours, which is clearly not the case now. More employer mindsets need to change to allow for more flexible working hours and telecommuting.

We also need to develop more alternative city centres so that commuters do not all head in the same direction at the same time, as this causes additional strain on the public transport network.

I hope overcrowding will ease with the opening of new lines, but keep in mind there will also be more commuters in the coming years because of an increasing population. Furthermore, many of the new lines are serving areas which previously had no easy access to MRTs. I think the main benefit of these new lines would be an increasing mode-share of commuters taking the MRT. It may not translate to less crowded trains along the existing lines.

[Straits Times] Do you think bus services have improved overall since the BSEP was rolled out, and to what extent? Why or why not?

[Gerald] I understand there has been an improvement in bus frequency along routes benefiting from BSEP, with some services seeing waiting times of 30 minutes reduced to 10 minutes. With $1.1 billion of taxpayer money poured into this programme, plus another $1 billion or so on the way (with BSEP 2), I think this is the least that commuters can expect.

[Straits Times] Are there any problematic routes you know of – whether in terms of being too crowded/very long waiting time/bunching – that need to be addressed?

[Gerald] I am not able to itemise every problematic route, but I am told that SBS services 225G and 225W from Bedok Interchange often experience very long queues, such that passengers at the back of the queue are not able to board the bus or have to squeeze themselves onto the steps of the bus entrance.

[Straits Times] Moving forward, what else needs to be done to improve the bus network? More bus priority schemes, moving more quickly to the contracts model, or even nationalization?

[Gerald] We need to prioritise the needs of public transport commuters over users of private transport. The former mayor of Bogota, Colombia once saidthat if all citizens are equal before the law, then “a bus with 80 passengers has a right to 80 times more road space than a car with one.”

With this in mind, I would like to see more all-day bus lanes to make bus journeys smoother and more predictable in terms of timing, even if it means taking away some road space from cars.

I think whichever public transport model we adopt must incentivise operators to place reliability, affordability and commuter comfort and convenience ahead of profits. I can’t see how this can be achieved with two operators that are profit-oriented and enjoy de facto monopolies on each of their routes. The PTOs’ profits should be used to lower fares and for maintenance and upgrades, not to distribute as dividends to shareholders. Alternatively, we should, where feasible, introduce genuine competition that will spur innovation and productivity improvements to lower costs and improve service quality. It is competition that spurs efficiency and productivity improvements, not the profit incentive as our Government leaders wrongly assume. PTOs cannot be allowed to keep their profits yet be shielded from competition, because the ones who will suffer are commuters, who come mostly from the middle and lower income groups.

—

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Ten-year-old Lysher Loh climbed over the parapet on the fifth floor of her flat and jumped to her death. Two weeks before she committed suicide, she told her maid she did not want to be reincarnated as a human being because she did not want to have to do homework ever again. The last straw came when she fared poorly in her mid-year exams.

Tragically, Lysher’s case is not uncommon. Twelve-year-old, Simran Kaur, jumped 12 floors to her death when she found out that she was placed in the Normal (Academic) stream. In 2009, an 11-year-old student killed himself when he jumped 16 storeys from his apartment block at Compassvale Walk after an exam.

The statistics below paint an all-too-depressing picture of the pressure that the education system piles on our children.

• 22 percent of Singaporean children aged between 6-12 indicated or entertained thoughts of killing themselves.
• 17.2 percent of primary-school children in Singapore have symptoms of depression.
• The number of youths seeking psychiatric help increased by 16 percent from 2005 to reach 3,126 in 2010. More than half of them were primary-school children.
• The number of children warded for “aggressive, suicidal or hallucination tendencies” at the IMH jumped by 35 percent from 259 cases in 2005 to 351 in 2010. Mental health professionals attribute these problems to academic stress.
• Calls to an IMH programme to help schoolchildren with psychological problems increased from 306 in 2007 to 8,336 in 2008 - a nearly 30-fold jump with one year. 70 percent of the cases involved primary-school children.
• One in three students say they sometimes think that life is not worth living because of the fear of exams. “That’s scary. What kind of life are we putting our kids through if they’re so frightened of examinations?” a psychiatrist said.
• While a majority of the American and Japanese children said that losing a friend or the death of their parents was their number one fear, Singaporean students said that not achieving good grades was what they were most afraid of.
• Over 50 percent of our schoolchildren diagnosed with shortsightedness which, according to the Health Promotion Board, is caused by engaging in “long hours on near work such as reading and doing homework”). Singapore is the myopia capital of the world.

In spite of this, PM Lee Hsien Loong boasted: "Among the top performers worldwide, we have the highest proportion of students who are in that top performing group." This is the price our children pay so that the Government can claim that they are the top performers in the world.

This is wrong. We must not subject our children to such crippling school pressures that they are psychologically maimed and, in some cases, have their young lives taken.

The SDP has a different idea about education. We must let our children be children. At such a young age, they should be encouraged to read, play, discover themselves and develop a love for books. In so doing, they will develop a love of learning.

Subjecting them to such cutthroat competition during their formative years is not only inhumane but also socially counterproductive. Also, our economy gains nothing - especially in a world that is changing so rapidly - by making our children learn by rote and streaming them at such a young age. 

The goal should be to lead our students to learn, not push them to study. The former will open up their naturally enquiring minds and foster creativity, the latter will kill off curiosity.

It's time for Singapore to have a rethink of our approach to education and, to this end, the SDP will propose our policy ideas in our soon-to-be-released paper.

Bibliography

1. Student, 10, jumps to death over school workload, AFP, 22 August 2001
2. Girl jumps to death over PSLE results, Straits Times, 30 December 2000
3. 11-year-old boy jumps 16 floors after exam, Lianhe Wanbao, 15 October 2009
2.  At sixes and sevens over PSLE Maths, Straits Times, 21 October 2007
3.  Singapore National Eye Centre opens myopia clinic, Asiaone.com, 17 December 2013
4.  What is Myopia?, Health Promotion Board
5.  In Singapore, as in much of Asia, stress starts early, FEER, 9 August 2001
6.  Under 12 and stressed out, Sunday Times, 11 July 2010,
7.  More children get early help with mental health issues, Straits Times, 28 November 2012
8.  Alvin Liew, Choon Guan Lim and Daniel Fung, Suicidal behavior in children and adolescents: Prevalence and risk factors, 2009

Singapore Democrats

Source: YourSDP.org

There was a question put up by a human rights social activist on what we are trying to achieve by raising the red flag and complain to the authorities about Filipino and Mexican shops putting up their national flags on their signage. Well, that human rights social activist has admitted that it is indeed against our law, the National Emblems Act. 

I find it weird for the activist to make that remark and I was trying to understand on what angle or grounds he is trying to see from. Is he trying to say just because this illegal act is done by foreigners, we should just close both eyes and let it be? Is he trying to say that because they are foreigners and may be ignorant of such law, that is why we should excuse them? Then the logic would extend to other general rules and laws. Foreigners will be excused from jay walking, littering, spitting, urinating or poohing in public etc etc because it was their unique culture back home and they didn't know how drastic the law we have in Singapore against all these!?

My dear activists, the sole purpose, is not about racism as you are so quick to label it, but rather to maintain the basic RULE of LAW on this little tiny island. If the foreigners aren't aware of our law here at first, after actions have been taken, they will sure know it from now on. Ignorance, is not a good excuse for committing an illegal act. 

You either believe in Rule of Law or you don't and before you talk about human rights, you must also understand Rule of Law is the fundamental basis of maintaining human rights as well.

One of the main problems with "integration" between Foreigners and Singapore is the mismatch of "social practices". If we frown upon their "social practices" which are really unacceptable, would it be considered as "Xenophobic" or "Racist"? The recent big hoohaa between Hong Kongers vs Mainland Chinese have provided an exceptional case study.

On numerous occasions, Mainland Chinese have been caught poohing and peeing openly in public places. It is unhygienic and annoying to Hong Kongers to the extend that Hong Kongers start to take photos of such disgusting acts and put them up on the internet. The Mainlanders fought back, complaining that it is "common" or a "non issue" because public toilets are scarce in Hong Kong. In fact, that is what they do in China as well, hinting that it is an acceptable social norm or practices to them in China and Hong Kongers are just making a fuss over a trivial mater.

The situation exploded, of course. Now the question is, are Hong Kongers really "Xenophobic" in this instance? IMHO, not at all.

The tension arises because of difference in cultural social understanding of what is and what is not acceptable. But at the end of the day, it is Hong Kong where the act has been committed and Hong Kongers should have the last say. When you are in Rome, do as Romans do. You will have to follow the custom of the society or place where you stay or visit and respect the laws and social norms, definitely not the other way round! If you, as a foreigner, try to assert yourself, your way of life, your mentality and cultural-social practices in the host country, you will definitely become a person who will not be welcome there. What gives you the right to go into other people's land and try to do it your way? Mess it up the law and order of the society which you are just a guest there?

Thus, in my view, the only way to prevent further frictions and unnecessary unhappiness and deterrence to REAL Integration, we will have to exert and enforce our cultural-social norms and it is for foreigners to integrate into such social order instead of the other way round.

One of the important Enforcement of law and order fairly and clearly to foreigners and Singaporeans alike, will set the key tone to whole social norm which is acceptable to Singaporeans. We cannot become lax just because they are foreigners with the excuse that they do no know the law. If so, the social tension between the citizens and foreigners will aggravate because it would be seen as double standards which lack rule of law. Secondly, the persistence infringement of social norm or contravene of our law will eventually create a deeply imprinted generalized BAD perception of these foreigners and it will become a time bomb for future explosion.

Thus, back to the Human Rights Activist who questioned the purpose of me raising the red flag on Filipino and Mexican shops which put up their national flags which clearly contravene our law, in which he too admitted this fact. Contrary to what he thinks that this is some dubious act of racism, it is actually an attempt to nip the bud of the problem right at the heart of it. If these shops were allowed to carry on their ways, citizens will start to wonder why foreigners have special privileges to break the law or disrupt the social norm. Such development will definitely be most unhealthy to our nation and society. Rule of law is the simplest and effective way of maintaining social standards and stability.

If you do not want citizens to differentiate or discriminate foreigners, you have to get the fundamentals right: it is for the foreigners to respect our social norms, abide by our laws and stop doing things that is culturally annoying to Singaporeans. On top of that, respect our country and sovereignty. Everybody likes to have good and well behaved guests in their house.

If Human Rights Activists cannot get this right, I do not think they can get very far in their pursue of their human rights cause.

Goh Meng Seng

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/notes/goh-meng-seng-singaporeanfirst/get-it-rig...