Below is the speech that Dr Chee Soon Juan gave at the University of Sydney on 10 June 2014:

Professor John Keane, Professor Lily Rahim, my fellow Singaporeans, ladies and gentlemen,

I want to thank the Sydney Democracy Network and the Sydney Southeast Asia Centre for organising this event and the opportunity to address you. I’ve been to the University of Sydney a few times and each I’ve been made to feel very welcome.

The situation is little different in Singapore as you might expect. When I visited the National University of Singapore a few years ago, I was promptly surrounded by university officials and told to leave.

At the Nanyang Technological University, mass communications students came up to me when I visited there and did an interview with me, but the president of the university, no less, intervened and forbade the publication of the report.

But I finally managed to figure how to address university students. All I have to do is to get on the plane and fly 4,000 miles to this place that everyone calls Australia and - voila - I can talk to students again.

This is the side of Singapore that few people outside of the country know about. Singapore has always made the headlines for its cleanliness and efficiency, a great airport and pristine public parks - and, may I add, they are well-deserved. We have had a government, dominated by the PAP, during the early years of our Republic which saw that orderliness and a clean, well-functioning environment contributed to respectable standards of living.

The downward slide

Of late, however, there has been deterioration in the quality of life in Singapore. And the populace, long known for its docility, is becoming increasingly restive over this downward slide.

With about 7,000 persons per sq km, Singapore has the third highest population density in the world. Not surprisingly, it is also one of the most stressful places in which to live and work. For example,

• Singaporeans are more likely to have suffered from depression, stress and fatigue than most of our Asian counterparts.
• Psychiatrists reveal that up to 90 percent of their patients are suffering from mental health issues caused by stress from work.
• Singaporeans work the most hours compared to other comparable economies with falling real incomes.
• Singaporean workers are the least happy in Asia.
• We rank 70th position out of 194 societies in the Quality of Life Index.
• In the Happy Planet Index, we poll a dismal 90th position out of 151 countries.
• The elderly are pressured to continue working after retirement; the number of elderly Singaporean men working is at a record high.
• In 2012, Singapore recorded 467 suicides – the highest number in 20 years and a 30 percent increase from the previous year. That's more than one person taking his/her own life every day. The Samaritans of Singapore (SOS), an organisation that works to prevent suicides, attributes the tragedy to extremes in stressful living conditions in Singapore.
• Among similar economies, we have the highest income inequality.

This is the Singapore that doesn't quite fit the postcard picture of a gleaming metropolis, economically. The situation has deteriorated to the point that Singaporeans are actively demonstrating their unhappiness:

• A historic protest against the government's plans to bring in more foreigners into the country saw thousands of people participating.
• Foreign workers rioted in Little India - the first in half-a-century.
• Last year, hackers hacked into theStraits Times and posted anti-government messages.
• 15 people donned the Guy Fawkes mask and gathered in downtown Singapore in opposition to new regulations curtailing Internet use.
• Graffiti with expletives against the PAP was spray-painted on the roof of a block of flats.
• Another individual defaced several bus-stop signs protesting against the withholding of our CPF savings.

All this occurred in the past year or so. Bloggers, both anonymous and otherwise, are coming out in droves to pillory the government.

A top-class team?

Yet, Lee Kuan Yew refuses to admit that Singapore is facing unprecedented challenges. He continues to insist that one-party rule – a party that has of late demonstrated a shocking lack of competence and foresight – is the way forward. “Incompetence” and “lack of foresight” are not words you usually associate with the PAP government. And yet the facts speak for themselves.

• In 2008, a terrorist suspect escaped from a maximum security facility by jumping through the toilet window. It was later revealed that the CCTVs were not working.
• A Malaysian woman drove through the Causeway checkpoint unchecked and drove around in Singapore for three days undetected before she was stopped.
• The mass rapid train system has been breaking down with such frequency that it’s come to be expected nowadays.
• In 2010, hospitals in Singapore hound themselves facing a bed-crunch and patients had to be placed along corridors. In 2014, hospitals again had to build tents to accommodate an overflow of patients.
• The Commission of Inquiry set up to investigate the riot in Little India found that there were insufficient number of officers available, they were not properly equipped, radio airwaves jammed at the crucial moment, the commanding officer did not have any idea how many men he had at his disposal, and officers on the scene admitted that they were not trained to handle a full-scale riot. And when the riot police finally arrived at the scene, it did not have the numbers to contain the mob.
• The Singapore government lost about $120 billion when their investments in UBS, Merrill Lynch, and Citigroup went bust during the 2008 financial crisis. It was only the TARP, or Troubled Asset Relief Program, money given by the Washington that saved the banks and our investments.

Two things. One, if the current administration is Mr Lee’s idea of a top class team, then Singapore is in a lot more trouble than we think.

Two, is it true that Singapore doesn't have sufficient talent to produce an alternative to the PAP? In the past we have had a corporate lawyer, a former solicitor-general, a judge, medical doctors, academics, journalists, who joined and led the opposition in Singapore. Lee imprisoned them without detention, sued them for defamation, and prosecuted them in criminal courts.

For nearly a decade in the 1980s, there was no opposition representation in parliament. All the opposition leaders were either in prison or in exile.

Repression in the more than half-a-century left an opposition decimated and a people utterly bereft of their political rights. The demise of human rights also led to the loss of transparency and accountability resulting in the dismal state of governance that we witness today.

The alternative

Presently, the Singapore Democratic Party is regaining our toe-hold in opposition politics. With the help of the Internet, more and more Singaporeans are seeing and hearing what the opposition has to say, and our support has been growing.

One of the most important factors that the opposition can contribute to the establishment of a democratic polity in Singapore is the provision of an alternative to the PAP. The SDP has published a series of policy papers proposing alternatives ideas:

On immigration and population, we have proposed to slow down immigration and ensure that our infrastructure and employment situation is able to cope with the increase in before we open the floodgates. We want to vet foreigners coming into our economy, especially the PMETs, and ensure that only the genuinely qualified are allowed to work in Singapore.

Another important policy paper that we have published is on housing. We have advocated that the government sell the flats at cost, and not include the cost of land. This way, young couples can afford to buy the flats and they will not be saddled with these crippling loans and leave their CPF savings unmolested.

Healthcare: The SDP will increase the government's expenditure for healthcare to 70 percent of total expenditure. We will want to introduce a national insurance scheme where government and citizens co-contribute and where upon hospitalisation the government pays 90 percent of the bill and the patient picks up the remaining 10 percent – up to $2,000 a year. This way, healthcare will be made affordable for everyone and the poor will not have to compete with the billionaires for first-rate medical treatment.

As for the economy, we want to see the legislation of a national minimum wage and the introduction of unemployment insurance. We also want the government to get out of business and divest the multitude of companies and businesses under Temasek Holdings, and we want our CPF savings to be returned to us when we retire.

The SDP's education policy spells out steps to ensure a healthy, well-rounded education for our students by removing the focus on exams and reducing the syllabi. We also want to broaden the curriculum so that we can produce intelligent, well-adjusted citizens who can think critically and creatively.

Why an alternative?

Why does the SDP put in all this effort to draw up detailed alternative plans for Singapore?

Through the decades, Singaporeans have been told that there isn't and cannot be a credible opposition, they have become conditioned into thinking that there is no alternative. In such a situation, it is a case of better the devil you know and voters will continue voting for the PAP despite their qualms and misgivings about the present situation. It is human nature that we fear the unknown.

It is easier to change behaviour, in this case voting behaviour, if a substitute to the existing option is provided. It’s not enough to ask voters to vote against something. If we are going to facilitate a switch in voting behaviour, it is more effective if we ask the people to vote for something.

The SDP has drawn up an alternative vision of the future for Singaporeans. This alternative is not only not scary but is, instead, sound and good for the future of our nation.

It is an alternative that appeals to hope, nor fear; one where we appeal to our better angels and not our basest, most selfish instincts;

an alternative that measures progress by our happiness and quality of life is rather than just how quickly the GDP grows;

an alternative where the people have a say in a democratic society, where the government serves rather than sues, debates rather that detains, and raises up rather than dumbs down the people;

an alternative where our success is measured by the content of our character, not the size of our bank accounts;

an alternative where our guiding light is compassion, not crass consumerism;

an alternative where egalitarianism, not elitism, forms the bedrock of our policies.

I want to take a minute to address my fellow Singaporeans in the room tonight. When I was studying in the US for the better part of the 1980s, I was often asked whether I would return to Singapore after I graduated. My answer has always been: “Why not?”

But since I have returned I have been sacked from the NUS; sued for defamation by prime ministers, both past and present; ordered to pay more than a million dollars in damages; sold our house and our possessions to pay the damages; made a bankrupt because I couldn't afford to do it any more; prosecuted and imprisoned for exercising my rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.

Last week, an Australian friend of mine asked me the same question: Will I return home after my fellowship here? My answer hasn’t changed.

Many of you have left Singapore for various reasons, and I respect that. But I’ve always believed that you can take a Singaporean out of Singapore but you cannot take Singapore out of the Singaporean. Even when you are here, there is much that you can do to help our country become a democracy.

Singapore is at a cross roads. How we, as citizens, respond to the changes taking place presently will determine how we live in the future. This is why it is important for us to continue to press on for change.

I would like to invite you to take the initiative to form networks, both online and in person, to help spread the word about the work that the SDP is doing, that there is an alternative, that we are not stuck with the PAP, that there is another path to a better, brighter and more secure future.

Talk to your friends and families at home in Singapore about the need to build up the opposition, and when the election draws near help us campaign and raise funds.

Singapore is my home, I know of no other. When someone comes into your home and robs you of all of your possessions, you don't leave. You stay and you fight, and you demand the return of all that is yours. You do it because it is the right thing to do, you do it because there’s something called justice, you do it for your children and future generations.

If I leave the PAP wins. And if the PAP wins, the people lose and we cannot let our people lose. I ask you to join me on this, admittedly, long and arduous but, ultimately, exciting and meaningful journey to a better place called democracy.

We will get there. Singapore will get there and victory for democracy is a matter of time. I say this not with hubris but an abiding sense of humility and a firm grasp of History.

Thank you.

Source: YourSDP.org

Scholars of Singaporean politics have sometimes characterised the enduring political stability in the country as the result of an implicit social contract between the Peoples Action Party (PAP) and the masses. As long as the PAP’s technocratic elites provide political and social order alongside overall rising standards of living, then Singaporeans will repay the PAP with support at the ballot box and everyday political acquiescence.[1]

With new economic and social realities, however, such a social contract is at risk of being torn apart. An aging society combined with rising inequality driven by globalisation and liberal immigration policies mean that there needs to be higher taxes on the wealthy and upper-middle income population, so as to redistribute to the lower-middle income, poor, elderly and disadvantaged. For now, the Singapore government has paid for such redistribution through budget surpluses and a portion of returns from its large reserves accumulated over the years. Yet, there will be a point where the government has to finance higher social spending through higher taxes on the rich, be it on their assets or incomes.[2] In parallel, there are mounting claims to put “Singaporeans first,” or to focus on a “Singaporean core.”[3] The General Elections of 2011 can be viewed as one of the first signals that the electorate sent to the PAP that a new social contract will have to be negotiated.[4]

Thus, the defining question for Singaporean politics in the next few years is this – how will the negotiations for a new social contract between the masses and the PAP develop? There are a number of perspectives through which one can study this question. One popular way, for example, utilises the concept of the “new normal,” which is a view that simply says that Singaporean politics will become more contested as Singaporeans increasingly distrust the PAP while the PAP struggles to locate and placate the demands of the masses. I wish to offer an alternative metaphor – the simple Rubinstein bargaining model.[5]

In the basic Rubinstein bargaining model, two players alternate their offers to each other over how to divide a fixed pie. Player 1 offers Player 2 a portion of the pie, X. Player 2 can choose to accept or reject. If Player 2 accepts, the game ends. If Player 2 rejects, then Player 2 will have the initiative to counter offer Player 1 a portion of the pie, Y. Player 1 can choose to accept or reject. If Player 1 accepts, the game ends. If Player 1 rejects, then Player 1 will again have the initiative to submit an offer to Player 2. The game continues until one player accepts the offer. A crucial feature of this game is that both players discount the gains that they will obtain as the game is played further and further into the future. That is, each player has their own discount factor (a fraction greater or equal to 0 but less than or equal to 1), which may or may not be the same to each other. As Rubinstein proved in his paper in 1982, there exists a specific size of the pie that Player 1 will offer Player 2 and vice versa – an amount that depends on their respective discount factors.[6]

For the purposes of studying the negotiation of Singapore’s new social contract, it is not necessary to explicate the mechanics and results of Rubinstein’s bargaining model. What is important, however, is that we have a framework to begin thinking about (a) discount factors, and (b) the enforcement of social contracts.

The basic result of Rubinstein’s model suggests that as a player’s discount factor increases (i.e. the discount factor approaches 1 reflecting that the player is very patient), then that player has a very high leverage in negotiations to offer a small amount of the pie to the other player to induce it to accept the bargain. If the other impatient player rejects the small offer, the patient player can always wait for its next turn to offer again. In contrast, as the player’s discount factor decreases (i.e. the discount factor approaches 0 reflecting that the player is very impatient), then that player has very little leverage in negotiations because she wishes to close the deal quickly, and therefore can be exploited by the more patient opposition.

From this view, then, a broad segment of Singaporeans are relatively disadvantaged because the perils of an aging society and rising inequality are directly hurting their immediate wellbeing, making them relatively more impatient negotiators vis-à-vis the PAP government. The PAP, on the other hand, with its monopoly of control over the coercive instruments of the state and its wealth of resources, is a much more patient negotiator, thereby giving it much more leverage in negotiating and setting the terms of any future social contract. We can thus surmise that if the PAP offers a new social contract, the offer for reform and redistribution will be small, and that the terms of the deal will be heavily tilted towards the PAP. Perhaps another 50 years of domination?

To be sure, this does not necessarily mean that the masses of Singaporeans must definitely accept a bad deal. Agreeing to the terms of a new social contract still leaves open numerous problems, one of which is the important problem of a credible commitment to those terms. In the past, if the PAP did not provide security and prosperity, then Singaporeans could, in theory, kick them out through the ballot box. Now, if the PAP renegades on its promise for significant redistribution and to build a Singaporean core, can Singaporeans still rely on the ballot box to enforce punishment on the PAP for infringing this new social contract? Maybe. Maybe not. Recent rhetoric in the newspapers suggests the there is declining trust amongst Singaporeans that the PAP government will commit to its claims of more redistribution, even with regular elections.[7]There is also a substantial fear within the Singapore civil service that declining public trust in the bureaucracy will impact its ability to implement policies over the coming years.[8] More recently, popular Singaporean writer Catherine Lim wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, sounding an alarm over what she sees as a “crisis of trust” in the PAP government.[9] These trends reflect that many Singaporeans continue to think that PAP’s claim of commitment to substantive redistribution and to put Singaporeans first is cheap talk.

In the language of game theory, one way to overcome the credible commitment problem in the absence of punishment is for the inducing party to send a costly signal. To reassure Singaporeans that the PAP is committed to keeping to the bargain to redistribute more and to put Singaporeans first, the PAP needs to send some signal that impinges some costs onto itself so as to gain credibility with and signal their resolve to the Singaporean masses. The signal can involve some kind of institutional reform, or some kind of mechanism that ties that PAP’s own hands committing to redistribution and reform. Whatever it is, the signal must be perceived to be costly enough for the PAP to gain credibility of its commitment to the new social contract. A failed attempt by the PAP to send a costly signal is the immediate initiative by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to set up a committee to review ministerial salaries in the immediate aftermath of the 2011 General Elections.[10] In the end, the decrease in the salaries of cabinet ministers recommended by the committee was so little as to render the entire exercise meaningless.

In the upcoming General Elections due by 2016, Singaporeans will have a chance to signal to the PAP if it deems the reforms that the PAP has undertaken since 2011 to be acceptable or not. Opposition political parties will likely emphasise a “The reforms are not enough” rhetoric, urging Singaporeans to reject PAP’s offer of a new social contract, to vote for the opposition to force further reforms and a costly signal from the PAP. The PAP, on the other hand, will want to frame any improvement or maintenance of its vote share as having permanently “sealed the new deal,” being confident of the fact that it always had the upper hand in the negotiations because it was the relatively more patient negotiator.

Ultimately, there is no reason to think that the PAP is not interested in negotiating a new social contract to ensure its continued dominance over the next few years. What the foregoing analysis has revealed is that any social contract is likely to be heavily biased towards the PAP (because it is more patient), and also that the PAP needs to enact some kind of reform to send a costly signal to the masses that it will credibly commit to the terms of the new contract. Otherwise, the PAP risks the continued erosion of the public’s trust in its existing model of technocratic governance.

Background Story: 

PAP MP HRI KUMAR REJECTS ROY AND KENNETH JEYARETNAM FROM HIS CPF DIALOGUE EVENT

PAP MP HRI KUMAR LIES TO AVOID KNOWLEDGABLE S'POREAN FROM ATTENDING HIS CPF DIALOGUE

I returned from a short holiday with my family to see that my humble dialogue on CPF with my residents has been denounced as a sham even before it has taken place!

Let me put some things right.

1. I have no national constituency. My duty is to the residents in my constituency. I organise dialogues with my residents as one of several ways to gather feedback. These are usually on topical issues such as COE, the Budget etc. I even submitted a paper on the COE to the Ministry of Transport on the feedback received. Those who have attended these forums have said that they have found the sessions interesting and useful.

2. The CPF dialogue is therefore nothing out of the ordinary. It was an express invitation to my residents to attend and give their views on an important and topical issue. Registration closed when we hit our maximum number.

3. I received personal requests from a few non-residents to attend. However, my direct response to a request from a non-resident, Mr Malek appears to have been understood by some people as an “invitation to all Singaporeans”. This is odd. Surely, the polite and proper thing to do is to ask whether you can attend and only claim to be invited when you receive a positive response?

4. Some pointed out that my update where I said non-residents have signed up is an invitation to all non-residents to sign up. Odd again. That update states no more than the facts.

5. Some have alleged that I want to control the attendees so that the dialogue will be a “wayang”. That is an insult to residents of Thomson – Toa Payoh. They can think for themselves and have always been out-spoken and honest in their views.

6. Opposition politicians who want a platform to share their ideas should organise their own forums. If their ideas are really better, people will support it. That’s how things work.

I know some people are itching for the opportunity to run me down. That’s ok – that’s how they understand politics and they are welcome to take their best shot. I will go on serving my residents to the best of my ability. Ultimately, it is their opinion which matters.

Hri Kumar

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/HriKumarNair?fref=nf

Editor's Note:

Firstly, Roy is not even an Opposition member, so it doesn't make sense for Hri Kumar to suggest that "opposition" should organise their own dialogues. Perhaps he was only referring to Kenneth Jeyaretnam in his rant.

While Kumar can attempt to justify his rejection of certain, outspoken Singaporeans from outside his constituency while accepting others to his "honest" CPF dialogue, most Singaporeans are simply fed up with the PAP's one-sided CONversations.

When it comes to dialogues, the PAP has a history of only selecting the right individuals to attend.

Back in 2012 when PM Lee held a "Singapore Conversation", netizens had a lot of fun pointing out that pretty much all the attendees were PAP grassroots leaders and volunteers. When 40% of the population voted for opposition, can it really be claimed that the PAP is having an 'honest' conversation when they only talk to PAP supporters?

Opposition voices are not represented at all. Will they really know the struggles of Singaporeans if they don't want to listen?

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's latest defamation suit against blogger-activist Mr Roy Ngerng has attracted the ire of many Singaporeans. The action is in stark contrast with the contrite demeanor Mr Lee displayed during the 2011 general elections.

Such a ‘split-personality’ political approach has raised questions about the PM’s real political intentions. Singaporeans had hoped that he would expand political space in Singapore. But his actions of late have disappointed many.

In such a scenario, is change possible under Mr Lee’s prime ministership?

Dr Chee Soon Juan will address this issue in a talk he will give at the Australian Institute for International Affairs (AIIA) in Sydney on 17 June 2014 (for more information about the talk, please click here).

The AIIA is Australia’s oldest think-tank established in 1924 which promotes public engagement with pressing international issues by organising seminars with academics, diplomats, journalists, and specialists as speakers.

Dr Chee has been invited to speak on the likelihood of a more open Singapore in the near future and the role that the SDP will play in such a scenario.

The PAP’s current tactics to continue the type of strong-arm one-party politics is at complete variance with the aspirations of the Singaporean people.

The outcome of the contest is not in question. But how the PAP responds and how much it resists the changes demanded by the people will determine how badly Singapore is damaged.

International investments and interests that Singapore has so painstakingly cultivated will also be casualties if the ruling party remains intransigent to the call for transparency and democratic accountability.

The Prime Minister’s disinclination to reform politics is, of course, also saddled with his father’s political ‘take-no-prisoners’ approach. Mr Lee Kuan Yew is 90 years-old but shows no sign of ushering in a less autocratic style of governance.

Dr Chee will lay out the SDP’s strategy of attenuating the negative effects that continued one-party rule will have on Singapore as well as paving the way for a democratic state to take root in the country.

Source: YourSDP.Org

Last Thursday (12 June 2014), it was announced that parents who become grassroots volunteers will have to do at least two years of grassroots work and not one year as was the case previously, to qualify for getting priority for their children in the Primary 1 registration exercise. They will also be restricted to schools in the constituency where they live. The changes were announced by the People’s Association (PA) in a circular sent in April 2014. It was reported that the PA had reviewed the scheme and felt it was still “relevant” in promoting collaboration between schools and the community. The report stated that the changes were made to ensure that only “deserving” grassroots leaders and district councillors would benefit.

I think it is time to totally review this scheme. I had spoken on this issue a few times in Parliament, the records of which I have extracted and appended below.

The stated reason for this privilege is to promote collaboration between schools and the community. While I think it is relevant that there should be collaboration between schools and the community, it is questionable how many community leaders have actually been actively doing so. If the intention is really such, there can be a change to the rule. The principal of the school that the community leader is applying for priority entry for their children into, must endorse that the community leader is actually actively involved in collaboration projects with the schools for a sustained period. Right now, it appears that this is not the case from the reply given by Senior Minister of State, Ms Indranee Rajah to my question on 13 May 2013 (see below).

Anyone who wishes to serve as a community leader should serve voluntarily. I fail to see how active service to the community but not to the school will actually “promote collaboration between schools and the community.” By attaching various benefits to service as a community leader, it may distort the meaning of community service. The reason stated by the PA that “only deserving grassroots leaders and district councillors would benefit” seem to imply that these leaders must receive various benefits for their service.

 ————— Extracts from Singapore Parliament’s Reports ————–

1. Priority for Primary 1 Registration (13 May 2013)

http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00000108-WA&currentPubID=00000021-WA&topicKey=00000021-WA.00000108-WA_1%2Bid-d0092b7e-8fb7-4aa8-a342-5c6f5a1a6329%2B

Mr Yee Jenn Jong (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Earlier in her reply, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that the community leaders are important to build the bond between the schools and the community. I would like to ask if the Ministry has done any survey to see how many community leaders have actively contributed to the schools that their children are enrolled in, and if it can be a criterion for community leaders to have first made specific contributions to the schools before they are being considered for priority.

Ms Indranee Rajah: I am not aware of any survey. I do not have that information at the current time. If the Member would like to file a specific question on that, I can check. But currently, the criterion is based on contribution to the community, as opposed to contributions specifically to the school. Contributions specifically to the school would be under the parent volunteers scheme or on the Advisory Council of the school. But with respect to the community leaders’ contribution, it is contribution to the community.

2. COS 2013 – Ministry of Education (13 March 2013)

http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00079140-WA&currentPubID=00079143-WA&topicKey=00079143-WA.00079140-WA_4%2Bbudget%2B

Primary One Admission

Mr Yee Jenn Jong: Madam, while MOE wants every school to be a good school, there is great disparity in results between schools. The highest and lowest medium PSLE T-scores amongst schools last year are 247 and 160 respectively, a difference of 87.I feel community leaders need not be given priority. Being a community leader for the purpose of getting into top primary schools does not gel with the spirit of community service. With the change, we can have a better mix of students of different social backgrounds in our schools, allowing better integration among pupils.

I hope MOE can better spread resources across schools, reduce class size and review the need to centralise gifted students into top schools, then it may not be as much stress over which primary schools to enter.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew had observed that admission to primary schools is based on the social class of parents. Six out of 10 pupils in six of the top primary schools live in private houses. But it is useful to review the primary one admission system. It is a stressful process for some; shifting house and doing volunteer work to get their children into top schools. I agree that priority should be given to those with siblings already in the school for the sake of convenience. Beyond that, we can consider a system with higher balloting chances for alumni, school volunteers and those living near the school. But it need not guarantee their position over others like in the phase system today.

(3)  Priority for Primary One Registration Based on Active Community Leadership (13 AUG 2012)

http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00077817-WA&currentPubID=00077751-WA&topicKey=00077751-WA.00077817-WA_2%2BhansardContent43a675dd-5000-42da-9fd5-40978d79310f%2B

Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Minister for Education with regard to the priority granted for Primary One registration based on active community leadership by the child’s parents (a) what constitutes active community leadership; (b) how many children have gained admission to primary schools yearly based on this priority over the past five years; and (c) whether the Ministry plans to review the necessity for this priority.

Mr Heng Swee Keat: Under the current Primary One (P1) Registration Framework, current serving committee members of the Residents’ Committee (RC), Neighbourhood Committee (NC), Citizen’s Consultative Committee (CCC), Community Club Management Committee (CCMC) and the Community Development Council (CDC) are eligible to register their children under Phase 2B as active community leaders. To qualify as active community leaders, the People’s Association (PA) requires the community leaders to serve actively in these Committees for at least one year prior to the P1 registration exercise.

While active community leaders can choose to register their child under Phase 2B, there is no guarantee that they will be successful in obtaining a place in their school of choice if the number of applications in Phase 2B exceeds the number of places in a school. In the last five years, an average of 330 children, or less than 1% of the primary 1 cohort, were admitted annually under the active community leaders scheme.

The Ministry regularly reviews the P1 Registration Framework, taking into consideration the feedback received after every exercise.

Yee Jenn Jong

*Article first appeared on http://yeejj.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/pri1-priority/

Make it clear if NMP applicant can be political party member

In his commentary, “Improving the system for selecting NMPs” (June 17), Dr Ameen Talib stated that I had quit the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) youth wing after a public outcry.

Although I resigned from the Young PAP only after I was appointed on July 6, 2009, I had announced my intention to quit to TODAY on July 7, when a reporter from this newspaper called to interview me.

That was the first time any media outlet, online or offline, reported about my Young PAP membership. By the next morning, the day the article was published, I had officially quit. I did not quit after a “public outcry”.

That said, I agree with Dr Ameen that it must be made clear whether an applicant for Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) can be a member of a political party. It is now not a constitutional criterion, even though NMPs are described as non-partisan.

One must, however, make a distinction between non-partisanship and not being a member of any party. While the latter can be achieved through a simple act, the former is a state of mind that is hard to achieve.

Few individuals are non-partisan or neutral. Even in a mature democracy such as the United States, polls have shown that although up to a third of respondents say they are swing voters, only about 3 per cent of people truly are.

I believe even if non-membership of a political party needs to be written into the Constitution as a criterion, Parliament should consider expunging the description of non-partisanship.

NMPs are independent, not being under any party whip, but an objective state of mind cannot be a qualifying criterion. One need not have joined a party in order to be partisan.

This means that, much as I agree with almost all of Dr Ameen’s recommendations, past party membership should not disqualify one from being an NMP.

Calvin Cheng

*Article first appeared on TODAY, Voices (18 June).

When I read in the papers on the police report that two 17-year-old students were issued advisories and counseled for the 'unauthorised removal' of 5 empty ballot boxes found in the storeroom of a school 10 months ago, I was puzzled.

In August 2013, the Elections Department made a police report on the discovery of the five ballot boxes. I commented on the matter in my FB post of 17 Sep 2013 (https://www.facebook.com/TanChengBock/posts/511253665615840) and I wrote to the Elections Department on 27 Sep 2013 and they replied via their letter on 11 Oct 2013 (http://www.tanchengbock.org/election/correspondence-between-drtanchengbock-headelectionsdepartment)

I was not satisfied with Elections Department’s reply but decided that I should wait for the police report to be out before I comment further. Now, after 10months of investigations, we are merely told that 2 teenage students were cautioned with police advisories for this offence.

Had it not been for their discovery of the used ballot boxes, Singaporeans would never know of the existence of the new boxes introduced at the counting centres to contain the counted ballot slips.

The ballot boxes in question were among those used in PE 2011 in which I contested.They were left in there for more than 2 years after PE. Singaporeans were told by Minister Chan Chun Sing that the boxes were 'not controlled' items after the voting slips had been removed from them.

In fact, he informed us that the used ballot boxes were supposed to be taken away by a contractor for disposal. If the boxes were really of no importance, then it begs the question: why issue advisories to two teenagers who pick up something of no importance? Clearly, the boxes must be of some importance and value to warrant the police issuing the advisories.

The discovery of these ballot boxes have actually highlighted a possible flaw in the process and procedures of the Electoral Voting System. Therefore we should thank the 2 students instead.

Let me explain further.     

Ballot boxes are specially designed boxes into which voters dropped their ballot slips at the polling stations. After polling is over, these ballot boxes are sealed and transported to the counting centres. The seals on the ballot boxes are then cut open and the ballot slips poured onto a big table for counting. The emptied ballot boxes are put aside and these were the type found in the school store room by the two teenagers.

Discovery of the boxes actually reveal that there were new boxes introduced at the counting centre. These new boxes were not inspected as the candidates and counting agents were not aware of the existence of these new boxes at the counting centres.

Introduction of these new boxes without the candidate and counting agent’s knowledge, create doubts that these boxes may not be empty in the first place.

Is this procedure right? Why the need to bring in these new boxes? Why the need to change? 

Let's look at the PE Act. 'Ballot boxes' as defined in Sect 24 of the PE Act clearly refers to boxes that are used for the casting of ballot papers. They are boxes for which the presiding officer at a polling station must carryout specified actions in the presence of witnesses of the candidates at the polling station to ensure that there is no tampering of the ballot boxes before polling starts and after polling ends.

Clearly, based on this definition in the PE Act, the new boxes are not ballot boxes because they were not used to put in the ballot slips at the polling stations.  They are just boxes brought in to contain the counted votes. Why can’t they use back the same controlled ballot boxes? Why the need to change boxes?

This is not an issue of security of the votes and voting secrecy.

This discovery of the new boxes has pointed out a weakness in the process and procedure of our electoral system. Let us correct this, leave no doubt in the minds of the electorate, and move on. We must always protect the transparency and integrity of our electoral system. It is a fundamental pillar of our democratic society.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/notes/dr-tan-cheng-bock/protecting-the-integrit...

Reform Party leader Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam invited himself to the CPF Forum for Thomson – Toa Payoh residents. We allowed him and his supporters in anyway.  

During the breakout session, his views were roundly demolished by the other participants in his group. Because they did not agree with him, he claims they were “planted”. Of course, they were not planted. They were just ordinary Singaporeans who were frank in giving their views. Mr Jeyaretnam should not insult people just because they don’t agree with him.

After, the Forum, he posted a note entitled “8 Dishonest Things About Hri Kumar’s Honest Conversation”. He attributed to me things I did not say, and mischievously misrepresented other points. In the interests of transparency, I have posted videos of the Forum so that you can judge for yourself.

Since it is a very serious thing to accuse someone of being dishonest, I am setting out a point-by-point comparison of how Mr Jeyaretnam claims I have been dishonest, and my responses:

• Mr Jeyaretnam claims I said: “The returns paid by the CPF to account holders compare favourably with those achieved by pension schemes in other countries.”

I did not say this. I did not compare CPF with other pension schemes.

• Mr Jeyaretnam claims I said: “Your CPF funds are absolutely safe because you are lending to the Government, which has a solid AAA rating. This justifies the low returns.”

I did not say this.  Mr Jeyaretnam made this statement up.

• Mr Jeyaretnam claims I said: “HDB owners have achieved far higher returns from the appreciation in HDB prices than they could have achieved by investing in the stock market.”

I did not say this. Once again, Mr Jeyaretnam simply made this up.

• Mr Jeyaretnam claims I said: “Letting us withdraw our CPF at 55 would lead us inevitably to squander our money (either at the casinos or on trips to Batam!). If this happened then other taxpayers would have to pick up the tab for supporting them.”

I did not say this. In fact, I said the complete opposite. If you watch the video, I said that I am NOT saying that people will act irresponsibly with their money.

• Mr Jeyaretnam claims I said any change to the CPF system would mean taking from one group and giving to another.

I did not say this.  What I really said was that if the Forum participants proposed higher payouts for some groups, then other groups will have less. I did not say that “any change” would mean taking from one group and giving to another. That is ridiculous.

• Mr Jeyaretnam claims I said: “This is not about politics but about devising the best system in the interests of all Singaporeans.”

Yes, I said that the Forum “is not meant to politicise and this is not meant to be a political dialogue. This is meant to be talking about how we can improve lives together in Singapore.  I hope everyone takes that in the right spirit.” My question to Mr Jeyaretnam is this: Why do you think this is being dishonest?

• Mr Jeyaretnam claims I said “If there is greater welfare spending by the government then this would require higher taxes.”

I said words to that effect at a group discussion. I do sincerely believe that greater welfare spending would require higher taxes, and many people i know share that view. I don’t understand why Mr Jeyaretnam feels that this is dishonest.

• Mr Jeyaretnam claims I said “Singaporeans are lightly taxed and get a better deal from their government compared to citizens of other countries with more generous welfare systems.”

I did not say this.  I said that Singaporeans pay lower taxes.  However, I also said that there was no right or wrong answer and it was for people to decide what kind of system they wanted.  Mr Jeyaretnam conveniently leaves that part out.

So, this is what Mr Jeyaretnam has been reduced to: lying, fabricating and mis-quoting statements, and then launching attacks based on those false statements. Mr Jeyaretnam cannot deal with the facts, so he makes up his own. This is smoke and mirrors.   How are Singaporeans better served by this? 

Singapore, like every country in the world, is dealing with difficult issues.  While we have done well in the last 50 years, the next 10 or 20  will be challenging.  Our institutions and policies have served us well, but they will obviously have to be constantly reviewed and revised to keep them relevant and effective.  

All Singaporeans should be part of that process, but we also need honest and capable Singaporeans to step forward, lead and serve. And that applies to opposition politicians too. Singapore is our home - we must come together to build it, not destroy it.

Hri Kumar

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/notes/hri-kumar/disruptive-politics/71715872166...

Background Story:

Catherine Lim: An Open Letter to PM Lee
Catherine Lim: PAP has achieved many things, but S'poreans is losing trust in them
Catherine Lim - A follow-up on the letter to PM Lee

IN DRAMATIC terms, Ms Catherine Lim announced that "we are in the midst of a crisis where the people no longer trust their government" and "the Government no longer cares".

After being challenged, Ms Lim now admits the mistrust may involve only "a minority" ("Government has achieved much, but trust remains an issue"; Monday).

It appears that Ms Lim cannot be trusted to be consistent in her own statements. Perhaps she should have started with a more positive view of Singaporeans.

Contrary to her characterisation, Singaporeans do not as a rule behave like angry children.

In my interactions with residents, I have found thoughtful feedback to be the norm. Indeed, my colleagues and I strive to engage our voters precisely so we can incorporate their considered, decent and reasonable views into policymaking.

Maintaining trust between Government and the people is a never-ending process.

For half a century now, this Government has chosen the path that leads to better outcomes in the long term, often despite temporary pain.

In the short run, this may draw on the goodwill between the Government and the people. But as our policies work, both trust and goodwill are rebuilt and strengthened.

No government in the world can only do things that all voters approve of and never encounter any problems or cause any pain.

Even Prime Minister Narenda Modi of India, freshly elected with a massive mandate, has said: "I am well aware my steps may dent the immense love the country has given me.

"But when my countrymen realise these steps will result in getting financial health back, I will regain that love." ("Modi's big plans and bigger challenges"; Monday.)

Maintaining trust also requires us to protect the integrity of the system.

We must defend ourselves robustly against sweeping attacks on our nation, our government, our people or our leaders.

We may not convince the few who hold on to their views despite overwhelming, objective evidence.

But the majority of Singaporeans do not want our nation's reputation tarnished and do not deserve to have their views warped by jaundiced commentators on the sidelines.

Janil Puthucheary (Dr)

Member of Parliament

Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC

*Letter first appeared on ST Forum Letters (19 June)

Related:

Consul-general of SG in Hong Kong: S'poreans still have high trust in the PAP government

PAP: Ignore Catherine Lim at your peril

The Philippine Embassy in Singapore has raised concerns about and called on the Government to take action against a blogger who posted a racist, anti-pinoy article to his blog recently.

The article was featured on blog "Blood Stained Singapore" on May 24 and it outlined tips for Singaporeans on how to blatantly discriminate against Pinoys in Singapore and make them feel unwelcome without breaking the law. Despite the original post being taken down due to violation of Blogger terms, it was reposted again on June 16th.

The blog post has gone viral with many people complaining that the post is highly racists and offensive.

Below is a Facebook comment made by Minister Tan Chuan Jin:

There are many things that are posted on the internet. We may not always like it or agree with things said, but that's the nature of the medium. But what we should not accept is when it crosses a line. Let us be clear. This is not about freedom of speech or a debate about immigration or foreign workforce policy. This is about racism and xenophobia and there is no place for racists and xenophobes in our society.

We have always been an open society where people come to our shores for a range of reasons. Many have settled down over the years, others may move on, as do some of our own Singaporeans. Many leave as friends with Singapore always in their hearts. That is what will make us big despite being a little red dot.

Vile and vicious blogs like this do not reflect who we are as a people and we should make a stand and call it out when we see it.

I am glad that the blog has been taken down. The Police is investigating.

*Comment first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/tan.chuan.jin/posts/10152235004967992

I am seriously concerned that the PM has breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct by using his Official Press Secretary to write a letter to the Economist newspaper defending the PM's private defamation suit against the blogger Roy Ngerng. This states:

"4.3 A Minister must not direct or request a civil servant to do anything or perform any function that may conflict with the Singapore Civil Service's core values of incorruptibility, impartiality, integrity and honesty.

He should respect the duty of civil servants to remain neutral in all political matters and matters of public controversy."

Neutral? This is quite apart from the fact of whether it is right for the PM to use a civil servant paid by the taxpayer to assist him in his private capacity and not his official one.

He is suing Roy as a private individual and yet he uses a state employee, paid by you the tax payer, to write to the foreign press defending his personal matter. I believe the principal has been established that State Institutions cannot sue a private individual so why can a state employees be put to work on it. Is the Press Secretary working for us, who put the government in place as public servants or is the Press Secretary working for LHL as a private indivuiudal. It needs clarifying.

http://www.economist.com/news/letters/21604530-ukraine-singapore-employment-housing-food-trucks-john-birch-society-football-0

Source: Kenneth Jeyaretnam's Facebook

The Alternative View

On 18 June Hri Kumar, MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC and Senior Counsel, put up a post on his Facebook page presenting me in a false and wholly negative light in an attempt to damage my credibility and both my personal and professional integrity.  He titled this “Disruptive Politics” and ended his post with the words “Singapore is our home – we must come together to build it, not destroy it”, thus repeating the smear that the PM used in his infamous condolence letter.

The opposite of constructive is actually unconstructive (not disruptive) and its simplest meaning is ‘unhelpful’ or “providing no assistance”Those of you who watched the video of Hri Kumar at the forum dodging a simple question from me will agree there could be no better definition of that fiasco. Unhelpful. Providing no assistance.

I found the MP’s midnight post on Facebook (HRI KUMAR: REFORM PARTY'S KENNETH JEYARETNAM IS A LIAR) and manner of writing to be histrionic and his content less than convincing. It was a strange way to behave. If Mr Kumar feels I have represented his arguments falsely then he needs to sue me for defamation in open court.

For my part I am not going to bring myself down to his level or use his behaviour, as a model.  There is nothing constructive about arguing in a, ‘he said/I said’ manner.  Nobody is impressed by the SC’s response where he says that he never said “Singaporeans are lightly taxed” but instead said “Singaporeans pay lower taxes”, to take but one example from his post.

To stoop to name-calling is not behaviour worthy of a Member of Parliament either. But no matter, I feel very strongly that the more the PAP resort to calling me a ‘liar’ the closer I must have got to the truth.

Hri Kumar deals with several points where he says I have misquoted him. I never claimed to be giving a verbatim report. Mr Kumar was showcasing PAP policy and I dealt in general with the arguments advanced by the PAP at the forum. These arguments therefore also apply to Hri Kumar unless he operates an independent and separate micro-economy exclusively in Thompson-Toa Payoh.

Hri Kumar’s response and the government’s response in general have been so unconstructive as to rattle citizens already suspicious of government’s motives in holding back their money.

To take one such response,  I touched on CPF’s safe AAA rating. Hri Kumar announced in bold, “ I did not say that.”  So what did he say? He doesn’t tell us. What are the citizens to conclude? That CPF is not AAA rated and safe?

Repeatedly saying, I did not say that without further elucidation is the most unconstructive method  of presenting an argument that I have ever seen. People all over Singapore are wondering what he isinsinuating.

Enough. The people have had their fill of this mixture of half truths, oversimplifications, falsehoods, disinformation and propaganda.

They do not want the minimum sum to be raised and they are not swallowing the government’s rationale for raising it. In fact they do not see why the government needs to keep any of their money beyond 55. This is not a question of taxpayers having to foot the bill because people are living longer. The CPF is purely self-funded. What right does the government have to keep our money because some of us are living longer? What next?  The government takes all our salaries and gives us a weekly allowance based on some criteria like how likely we are to use it wisely.

Is it so surprising that the citizens would take that leap and begin to wonder if their money is just not there anymore?

The whole rationale for the PAP regime is prudent financial management. The citizens are beginning to lose trust in that claim. The people have every right to demand to know where their money is, how it is being used, where it is ending up and how much there is left.  An elected government has a duty and an obligation to be transparent over fiduciary management and to explain that in a manner that is accessible, easy to understand and demonstrable.

 There is a video of the forum that shows me asking questions about the Budget figures put up on a slide that Hri Kumar presented as part of the Forum.  It is clear that Hri Kumar avoids answering my question. He dodges it with the flippant remark that I should put up my own figures. I was an attendee at Hri Kumar’s forum not he an attendee at mine. The figures being questioned were those being presented by Hri Kumar on a slide on behalf of the government. If he were an intern of mine and was unable to answer a question on his own slide, in his own presentation, then I would be extremely concerned. Mr Kumar is a public servant. He has failed in his duty.

It is also clearly audible in the video that Hri Kumar refers to “my friends”. On his Facebook post he again refers to “we allowed him and his supporters in”. This is simply not true. I have irrefutable evidence and witnesses to say that I attended on my own. Those angry people at the forum were all unknown to me. If the PAP truly believe that all dissent at that forum was pre-organised by me in some kind of conspiracy or possible Marxist plot then they are in serious trouble indeed.

There was only one person really known to me. This was Abdul Malik, who was previously with PKMS and SDP and had hit the headlines when he was arrested for online threats against the PAP and then later applied to become a member of the PAP. If anyone deserves the moniker disruptive it is he.

No Party members attended. No friends of mine attended. . I attended not as a party member but independently, in my capacity as a Singaporean at the age when I would like to withdraw my CPF funds and therefore deeply interested in this topic.  It is common wherever I go that complete strangers will come up and want to shake my hand as was the case with the line of charming retired nurses. This seems to have unnerved Hri Kumar.  It should not What Mr Kumar must accept is that the CPF Minimum Sum is a national issue

Hri Kumar titled his post “Disruptive Politics” as though asking questions is disruptive. In a robust democracy the voices of ordinary people are not seen as disruptive but as a signpost to a better way for all. It is wholly unconstructive to suppress dissent.

Mr Kumar and the political party that he represents need to understand that this objection to the raising of the Minimum Sum is not some secret conspiracy but a genuine and spontaneous public outcry.  People at that forum were very angry indeed and wanted their questions to be answered not brushed aside or met with lies and evasion.  I can understand that the PAP are rattled that the aims of civil society and political society are starting to intersect and that they may be dealing with a mass movement. However the solution is not to evade the questions and brand me some kind of Marxist agitator.

The PM can be as unconstructive as he wishes and sue as many bloggers as he chooses but he will not be able to stop people asking the questions.  He has stepped into a media death spiral and if he is not careful he will find himself replaying a pivotal scene from the movie Spartacus. Already Singaporeans en masse have stepped forward to say, “I am Roy”, and have donated over S$100,000 to aid Roy to defend the PM’s defamation suit against him.

The PAP must open up the books to scrutiny. In the end it is a political question not an economic one and it will ultimately be decided at the next election.

I am grounded in reality, economics and numbers. I am on record as saying that Roy got his numbers wrong. I have criticised Chris Balding for double counting and other mistakes.  They make leaps for which there is no evidence. However I am still an absolute supporter of Roy and others because the crux of the matter is that we will all benefit from the answers. Coming from the world of finance and investment, I know only too well the risks that lack of transparency brings. Like all of us I merely want to see a fairer and better Singapore, a free and dynamic Singapore and a Singapore that delivers prosperity to all not just a chosen few. I believe this can be achieved in an entirely constructive manner.
 

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

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

Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, urged Muslims to be more accommodating when dealing with differences in opinions.

He said that Singapore is a multicultural society and therefore it's bound to have differences in opinion. These differences should be tackled with quiet consultation, he said.

The government's official approach, including the advisory issued by MUIS is that Muslims should be non-confrontational.

His comments come at a time when there is growing debate between the religious and LGBT community about the events on 28th June including the annual Pink Dot event celebrating the right to love and also the Wear White campaign which is organized by a group of Muslims.

Recently, Pastor Lawrence Khong of Faith Community Baptist Church, also threw his support behind the Wear White campaign and there is a growing divide around the Pro-LGBT and Anti-LGBT communities.

Yaacob Ibrahim insisted that MUIS's approach was right as it helps to avoid dividing the community.

 “Let us find the big-heartedness that we have, to accommodate differences that exist in any society.

That is the approach that we should have taken and I think that is the approach that MUIS has adopted and that's the approach that I'd like to encourage all -- not just Muslims -- in Singapore to deal with differences." he said.

I made the following posts on Facebook at midnight on Friday. I have now decided to put the posts up on my blog to answer some online comments

I am seriously concerned that the PM has breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct by using his Official Press Secretary to write a letter to the Economist newspaper defending the PM’s private defamation suit against the blogger Roy Ngerng. This states:

“4.3 A Minister must not direct or request a civil servant to do anything or perform any function that may conflict with the Singapore Civil Service’s core values of incorruptibility, impartiality, integrity and honesty.

He should respect the duty of civil servants to remain neutral in all political matters and matters of public controversy.”

Neutral? This is quite apart from the fact of whether it is right for the PM to use a civil servant paid by the taxpayer to assist him in his private capacity and not his official one.

He is suing Roy as a private individual and yet he uses a state employee, paid by you the tax payer, to write to the foreign press defending his personal matter. I believe the principal has been established that State Institutions cannot sue a private individual so why can a state employee be put to work on it. Is the Press Secretary working for us, who put the government in place as public servants, or is the Press Secretary working for LHL in a private capacity. It needs clarifying.

I pointed out the uncanny parallels with the alleged misconduct that led to the blogger Roy’s sacking from Tan Tock Seng Hospital:

I have had another thought. If the PM used his Private secretary to write to the Economist on his personal matters was this also a misuse of office resources, computer etc such as got Roy fired?

 The posts have already attracted a lot of online comments. Some of the commentators have defended Lee Hsien Loong’s actions in getting his Press Secretary to write since, they say, Roy Ngerng’s defamation brought the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) into disrepute.

However I would disagree. The defamation was against the person and not the office. Lee Hsien Loong is suing Roy for damage to his personal reputation not to the reputation of the PMO. If he succeeds in his action for damages the money will not go to the PMO but to Mr Lee personally. The proper person to have written to the Economist should have been Lee Hsien Loong’s lawyer, and not his Press Secretary who is paid by the taxpayer.

Who has responsibility for determining if there has been a breach of the Code and what sanctions should apply?

The preamble to the Ministerial Code of Conduct makes clear that any breaches of the Code are to be treated extremely

This Code of Conduct for Ministers sets out the “rules of obligation” that all Ministers are to abide by in order to uphold these standards. Breach of any of these “rules of obligation” may expose the Minister to removal from office.

 However the Code goes on to say that:

This Code does not have the force of law and therefore any issue concerning the compliance or non-compliance with it is not subject to review by any court or tribunal.

 The Code is silent on how it is to be enforced. While responsibility for Ministers’ observance of the Code would appear to rest with the Prime Minister, it is not clear from the Constitution how breaches by the Prime Minister would be dealt with. The onus for investigating breaches would appear to lie with the President though this needs clarification. In matters involving corruption the President has the power under the Constitution to concur with the Director of CPIB’s decision to authorise an investigation even if the Prime Minister refuses to give his consent. However the CPIB comes under the PMO so it is not independent. The President does not have the power on his own to initiate investigations.

In this instance a request should be made to the President asking him whether he has jurisdiction in this matter?  If he does not who does? If he does, then he should investigate whether Lee Hsien Loong has breached the Code and make his findings public. Surely Lee Hsien Loong would not be able to continue in office if he was found to have committed a serious breach of the Code?
 

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

*The author blogs at www.sonofadud.com

On June 13th,  The Economist published  an opinion piece on Singapore, about blogger Roy Ngern and LHL which they entitled Butterfly on a Wheel, adding more controversy to the PR fiasco otherwise known as LHL’s defamation suit.

Butterfly on a wheel carries a similar meaning to the phrase, “using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut”. That phrase accurately sums up  the PAP’s system of knuckleduster politics and rule through control and fear and non accountability. More crucially it sums up a view that the PAP sees dissent to their policies or differences of opinion on the normally self levelling and democratising cyber-sphere as a nut that needs smashing.

Originally they attempted to tip the balance by forming an Internet Brigade but then law suits and defamation came into play. The law suits as tools of control are why we talk about Rule BY Law  to emphasis that it is not the Rule OF Law which is the one necessary for democracy to function.

In Singapore we have already established that public bodies cannot sue individuals through such cases as that of Han Hui Hui. No doubt this is why LHL sued Roy in his personal capacity as a private citizen but whatever the reason, it is an incontrovertible fact that the law suit is private and personal.

It is therefore follows that any PR fiasco or disrepute attaching to the PAP or the office of the PM because of LHL’s law suit is as a result of that individual’s private actions. With all due respect I suggest that LHL should have  given more serious consideration to his high public profile, position as a public servant and more respect for the office he represents  before commencing personal litigation.

To be fair to LHL, The Economist did make some blunders in their article.  In this paragraph they say,

“He is now jobless, sacked for engaging in conduct “incompatible with the values and standards” the hospital expects of its employees. This is but one of Mr Ngerng’s travails. He is being sued for defamation by Singapore’s prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong. He might face financial ruin.”

Later in the piece they say, “Even many Singaporeans who think Mr Ngerng is wrong have some sympathy for him and feel the prime minister is bullying him.“

The emphasis in bold is mine. To be correct the Economist should have said, he is being sued for defamation by LHL and they could have added, who is also Singapore’s PM and as such a very wealthy individual and Roy might face financial ruin. Further references in the article  should have been to LHL not The PM.

You can read the economist’s article here to judge for yourself how much LHL’s suit is negatively affecting global opinions of Singapore. Link. http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/06/opinion-singapore

What happened after that article was published is extraordinary. LHL in his official capacity as the PM directed a civil servant, his Official Press Secretary  no less, and caused that person to use State resources and time and tax payer money to write a letter  regarding the personal business of LHL as a private individual.

Of course there is always a danger of the private bleeding into the public. People will see overlaps that don’t exist and this will create confusion in everyone from the Singaporean on the street to writers for the Economist.  You can understand that confusion. LHL is suing Roy but because he is also the PM and the son of ex PM LKY known for his lawsuits, it is seen as bullying. The responsibility for that lies wholly with the man wearing  both hats.

I presume it is precisely because  this kind of situation is  a minefield that The Ministerial Code was drawn up, to provide guidance for ministers including the Prime Minister. The code aims to hold Ministers up to certain standards and sets out rules of obligation that Ministers must abide by.  Judge for yourself.

“This Code of Conduct for Ministers sets out the “rules of obligation” that all Ministers are to abide by in order to uphold these standards.”

I have produced  section 4.3 of  the code here so that again, you can judge for yourself, whether the Prime Minster has failed to abide by his rules of obligation.

“4.3 A Minister must not direct or request a civil servant to do anything or perform any function that may conflict with the Singapore Civil Service’s core values of incorruptibility, impartiality, integrity and honesty.

He should respect the duty of civil servants to remain neutral in all political matters and matters of public controversy.”

Now let us look at the letter that the PM directed his civil servant to write.

“SIR – I refer to the article “A butterfly on a wheel” (June 13th). You referred to an “alleged ‘serious libel’” by Roy Ngerng. This is not an allegation. Mr Ngerng has publicly admitted accusing Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister, of criminal misappropriation of pension funds, falsely and completely without foundation. After promising to apologise and to remove the post, Mr Ngerng did the opposite; he actively disseminated the libel further. This was a grave and deliberate defamation, whether it occurred online or in the traditional media being immaterial.

What is at stake is not any short-term positive or negative impact on the government, but the sort of public debate Singapore should have. When someone makes false and malicious personal allegations that impugn a person’s character or integrity, the victim has the right to vindicate his reputation, whether he is an ordinary citizen or the prime minister. The internet should not be exempt from the laws of defamation. It is perfectly possible to have a free and vigorous debate without defaming anyone, as occurs often in Singapore.

Chang Li Lin

Press secretary to the Prime Minister

Singapore”

I want you to note in particular that the Press Secretary signs as, “Chang Li Lin, Press secretary to the Prime Minister,
Singapore”. She  is not defending LHL as an individual whom she feels has been wronged in the Economist and is maybe coincidentally a friend of hers. If that were the case she would sign it “Ms Chang Li Lin.”

So what could or should have been done to correct the Economist’s confusion? The only appropriate and correct action would have been for LHL’s lawyers to defend his case to that media if they felt their client had been misrepresented as a bully.

Let’s look at the money flow. LHL has instructed the lawyer Napier and Drew and is paying them from his own (albeit considerable) pocket. Any money they win for him will go back to his pocket.  He may give it to charity but he sure as heck won’t be giving it back to the taxpayer  by reimbursing his Press secretary or his office for the use of those resources.

If the PM’s office feels it has been draggged into this and its reputation damaged then they possibly could have written a very short request for clarification thus:
“Dear Sir,
I write on behalf of the office of the PM and I refer to the article “A butterfly on a wheel” (June 13th).  The law suit you refer to  is not connected to the office of the PM. The defamation action in question is being taken out by LHL in his personal capacity. If you wish to know more about his reasons please ask him directly or speak to his lawyer…. Press secretary etc etc. “

Now I am NOT a lawyer  but I do think the PM’s office or any individual public or private should have included the following in any letter.

“As the allegations have not yet been found in a Court of law that whole matter is sub-judice”

As you can plainly see, our Press secretary refers to what Roy’s defence still calls alleged defamation, as “malicious”. The whole letter is sub-judice and IMHO that part more than the rest.

The consequences for a minister of a breach are clear. Again the code tells us that” Breach of any of these “rules of obligation” may expose the Minister to removal from office”.

By now you are getting tired but stay with me a little longer.

How do we determine if there has been a breach? Who would investigate? Is this a breach of mis-use of State resources which is corruption or is it a breach of impartiality?

The code says, ” This Code does not have the force of law and therefore any issue concerning the compliance or non-compliance with it is not subject to review by any court or tribunal.

 The Code is silent on how it is to be enforced. Does enforcement rest with the Prime Minister and if so, it is not clear from the Constitution how breaches by the Prime Minister would be dealt with. The onus for investigating breaches would appear to lie with the President though this needs clarification. In matters involving corruption the President has the power under the Constitution to concur with the Director of CPIB’s decision to authorise an investigation even if the Prime Minister refuses to give his consent. However the CPIB comes under the PMO so it is not independent.

The following action needs to be taken.

• Roy’s lawyer needs to write to the Economist pointing out that the Press secretary’s letter is sub judice and asking them to take it down. (If they do not do this then they should not complain later.)
• I and everyone else would then need to erase any copies of that letter in order not to prejudice Roy’s chances of a fair hearing.
• LHL’s lawyer needs to write to the Economist either defending their client or alternatively explaining that the previous  letter was a mistake and possibly sub judice.
• A letter needs to written to the President asking him to clarify jurisdiction
• A letter needs to be written to the Director of the CPIB asking the same
• A letter needs to be written to the PM asking him to clarify the Ministerial Code
• For the sake of our Nation we need a fully independent CPIB distanced from the PM.

Finally as for that drivel propaganda in the letter about” free and  vigorous debate”  we have all seen the video of the grassroots man attempting to physically manhandle the 76 yr old retired teacher away from the microphone.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

*The author blogs at www.sonofadud.com

By Sun Xi

Eventually, another military coup happened in Thailand as the traditional last resort, which while being alleged by the junta as a means to bring an end the year-long political impasse, may lead to further turmoil.

The undemocratic coup has clearly disappointed the West, especially the U.S. The U.S. State Department has cancelled ongoing military exercises and other exchange programs with Thailand, based on U.S. law and so-called "democratic principles.''

Democracy's flaws or flawed democracy 

Thailand was ever lauded as one of the best replication models of Western democracy in Southeast Asia but now democracy is accused of having caused "losses'' for the country, according to a spokesman for Thailand's coup leaders. Then, is it really democracy's fault?

Thailand's democracy has been trapped in the vicious coup-election-coup cycle. Democratic elections did not bring the country peace and prosperity, but deeply divide the society. A flawed democracy has failed in Thailand, not because of the lack of elections, but the lack of really effective IUU (checks and balances'' of a sound liberal democracy.

Powers should be theoretically separated into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary. Thailand has copied such de jure "separation of powers,'' but de facto powers are controlled or influenced by the monarchy, the military and the government. Even worse, Thai political parties fail to unite the whole society and maximize the interests for all citizens, but only serve the interests of certain groups and regions.

Learn from Singapore or Japan? 

Robert Hardy, a U.S. consultant, suggests that Thailand may learn from Singapore's managed democracy, under which "the people can vote for their representatives, but civil servants appointed by its elite hold the power of the purse."

However, first, it is arguable whether Singapore's democracy is managed; second, will Thailand have the same fortune to have a strong and wise leader like Lee Kuan Yew and a clean and capable party like the People's Action Party (PAP) in Singapore? Thailand is so different from Singapore, from historical and cultural perspectives.

Japan may be a better sample for Thailand. Both Thailand and Japan have long and similar histories of monarchy. Thailand has experienced 12 military coups in the recent eight decades since the establishment of constitutional monarchy in 1932. Similarly, Japan also suffered from the long-time feudal hereditary military dictatorship (shogun) from 1192 to 1867. Differently, nowadays Japan has become one of the most democratic and prosperous constitutional monarchies around the world. Japan's successful transition to modern democracy was largely due to U.S. help and guidance after World War II.

However, times have changed. Even Thailand is willing to accept Western help to clean its political chaos and fix its flawed democracy, the West is unlikely capable to intervene constructively. Ukraine is the most vivid case of failure.

Lessons from China 

Democracy has been propagandized as a universal value by the West, but actually it is conditional and incremental. High-quality democracy requires certain prerequisites, such as citizens' high economic, educational level and full consciousness of citizenship. Democracy also needs time to develop into maturity gradually. A simple and quick copy will only create a troublesome democracy, which has been commonly evident across Asia and other developing regions.

Moreover, Western-style liberal democracy is not the only right answer and there is no "one-size-fits-all'' and "plug-and-play'' solution to successfully introduce such a democracy. In fact, the forms of democracy can be diverse. Each country should find its own really suitable political model, rather than simply copy others'.

China tried many different types of political systems, includingconstitutional monarchy, imperial restoration, parliamentarism, a multi-party system and a presidential system during the end of the Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China's warlord government, but all failed. Finally, the People's Republic of China led by the Chinese Communist Party realized that China must seek an independent political path, according to China's actual and special national conditions. Although China's current political model may not be superior to the West as advocated by certain optimists, China's so-far successful practices prove that "finding your own right course'' is critical to prosperity.

The West is no longer the savior, and Thailand has to rely on itself to find the way out. Currently, it is difficult to say what kind of democracy is best for Thailand, but trying to fix those systematic flaws rather than giving up on democracy will prove to be a more sustainable solution to end Thailand's political impasse. 

The writer is a socially responsible investment analyst and independent commentary writer based in Singapore. He is an alumnus of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore from China. Contact him at sunshinelkyspp@gmail.com. 

Background Story: LIM SWEE SAY: TO RETIRE COMFORTABLY, YOU SHOULD WORK LONGER AND NOT USE YOUR CPF

The Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), Mr Lim Swee Say, has clarified a Channel NewsAsia report which quoted him on Sunday (June 22).

He has penned the following letter in response:

I refer to the article, "Prepare for retirement 'by using less CPF money when young'" (23 June).

The article para-phrased my comments and wrote, "The best way for Singaporeans to prepare for retirement is to use less of their Central Provident Fund (CPF) money when they are young." It gave the impression that I have urged Singaporeans not to use their CPF monies before retirement for any purpose including housing, healthcare and education for our children.

This is incorrect.

For the record, I made three points about CPF:

Firstly, CPF is your money. Nobody can take away that money from you.

Secondly, your money with CPF is 100% safe and continues to earn risk free interest, even during challenging times like the global financial crisis in 2009.

As the third point was reported out of context, I reproduce the relevant text of my interview here:

"Thirdly, the money is mainly for your retirement purpose. Besides housing, healthcare and education for your children, a very important part of CPF is to cater for retirement. So, for every dollar, if you can defer the use of the dollar, it is better to defer the use of the dollar when you are still young. For example, instead of thinking of whether you can spend your CPF savings at the age of 55, I think we should think about how we should help our Singaporeans remain employed, to continue to earn a good living, a good job and at the same time, to continue to contribute to the CPF. Because the more money you have in your CPF and the longer you defer the use of the CPF, the more you will have for retirement, as all of us are living longer and longer. So, these are the three basic points: firstly, the CPF is your money, no one can take away from you. Secondly, your money is 100% safe. Thirdly, the less you make use of your money when you are young, the more money you will have for retirement."

It is clear in this context that 'young' refers to those who are aged 55 and "less use" of the CPF money refers to the CPF cash withdrawal for purposes other than housing, healthcare and education for the children.

Lim Swee Say

Secretary-General

National Trades Union Congress

Source: Channel News Asia

Giving CPF account holders the free choice to decide what to do with their own retirement savings is the key.  

By Loke Hoe Yeong and the SNPT team

In the midst of all the recent debates on the Central Provident Fund (CPF), and the government’s moves of raising the CPF minimum sum and enforcing a compulsory annuity scheme on all account holders, we must go back to the fundamental principle behind the CPF – that it is a compulsory savings plan for retirement.  

The key issue, therefore, is that we must allow CPF account holders the free choice to decide whether to withdraw everything at 55, or opt into an annuity scheme, or opt for something in between.

If CPF account holders think they can benefit from the annuity if they live long well beyond 80 years of age, let them do so. If they want to withdraw their retirement savings in toto to invest in a private scheme that provides for a higher yield of annuities, let them do so.

CPF account holders do not withdraw their savings just for reasons of pleasure and holidays, although it is perfectly their right to do so. Health care costs, for themselves, for family members, for rare diseases, for their children’s further education – these are the things Singaporeans need to spend on in this non-welfare state system.

Compulsory annuity scheme for CPF: where is the justification?

So why is there a need for a compulsory annuity scheme for CPF? Where is the statistical substantiation that a mandatory annuity is needed across the board – is there a substantial enough proportion of the population that has such a dire lack of savings that warrants this? Is there such a substantial proportion of the population that is proven to be absolutely incapable of planning their retirement financially?

Our policy working group has not seen any such analysis or evidencing that typically accompanies government policymaking. Without this information, it is understandable why Singaporeans simply cannot accept the latest changes to the CPF.

Since the government has said that it is helping Singaporeans plan for retirement, then we would need to know – how were the projections for the minimum sum and the monthly annuity worked out? We don’t believe it is out in the public domain.

This brings us to the issue of income replacement rate (IRR) – what percentage of a worker’s income should we replace when he or she retires? Note that the higher the IRR, the greater the present burden on the worker who is at the threshold of retirement. The 2012 Chia and Tsui study on the IRR,[1] typically cited by the government, reported that the median male earner will be able to replace 70% of his wages when he retires, and female workers 64%. But these are the result of their academic study – it is not the government’s planning target, of which we have not been informed.

This makes the compulsory annuity scheme like a straitjacket for a madman – you are forced wear it to restrain yourself, so that you would not hurt yourself and those around you, we are told. But what if you are not a madman in the first place? What if you’ve been wrongfully diagnosed as a madman?

Management of the CPF funds

Then there are the issues about how the government should manage the CPF funds.

Our sovereign wealth funds should raise capital from international capital markets.  

The default linkage of CPF funds to the sovereign wealth funds should be severed. This would give us the chance to rethink and restructure our retirement funding mechanisms.

The government has tried to defend the contention that CPF money a cheap source of funds for the sovereign wealth funds.[2] And we are told that government bonds still the most secure, with its AAA rating.

We can agree with this statement if the government were to borrow 10% or 20% of GDP. But note that if the government were to borrow up to 100% of our GDP, the credit ratings of Singapore will quickly fall, leading to very high borrowing rates.

In fact, it is not news that Singapore and Japan enjoy reasonable credit ratings because the national debt of these countries is internal. The rationale behind the credit ratings is that Singaporeans and the Japanese will not exit their countries en masse suddenly, like in the case of a bank run.

As such, we believe it is unfair for the government to claim that CPF is not providing a cheap source of funds.

Changes to CPF must pass through Parliament from now on

In conclusion, it is paramount that CPF account holders must have the choice and flexibility what is to be done with their retirement savings. They should have choice on whether to have their funds invested in the sovereign wealth funds or other instruments such as an equity index, a fixed income scheme, in funds or other such instruments. This would give Singaporeans the freedom of choice over the interest rates they wish to see from their savings, corresponding to their risk appetite. 

And if they wish to withdraw all the CPF savings, whether to foot an urgent medical bill for treatment of a rare disease, for their children’s education, or for the holiday they have also dreamt about, they must be allowed to do so.

Finally, all changes to CPF policy must be presented to and passed by Parliament, and not be made a matter for subsidiary legislation. The political climate in Singapore on the CPF issue has reached such a point that the government ignores the voices of the people at its peril.

[This article is based on a speech given by Loke Hoe Yeong, in his capacity as Assistant Secretary-General of the Singapore People’s Party (SPP), for the SPP’s forum on the CPF held on 21 June 2014.]

• In February 2013, there was a protest against the government's plans to bring in foreigners into the country to augment our population size from the current 5 million to 7 million. Unremarkable in Australia and other democracies, perhaps, this protest rally was historic in an island silenced by decades of autocratic rule.

• If I showed you this picture, you would never guess that it is Singapore. In December last year, a riot – the first in half-a-century – broke out in Little India. Security vehicles were overturned and torched, and dozens of police personnel were injured.

• Last year, hackers from an online group who call themselves Anonymous hacked into the Straits Times, the leading government-run newspaper and posted anti-government messages.

• A 23-year-old man was prosecuted for organising the “Million Mask March” in opposition to new regulations that would curtail Internet use. Fift\ people donned the Guy Fawkes mask and gathered in downtown Singapore.

• Last month, Singaporeans awoke to a sign that was spray-painted on the roof of a block of flats with expletives against the ruling party.

• Soon after this incident, another individual defaced several bus-stop signs protesting against the withholding of our CPF savings. A 71-year old man was arrested for the deed.

• Bloggers, both anonymous and otherwise, are coming out in droves to point out the follies and foibles of the government who seems to be in a rather cooperative mood in providing the fodder.

Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I'm going to spend all my time thinking what’s the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes?

I hope you will understand when these problems vex you or disturb you or upset your lives, please bear with us, we are trying our best on your behalf. And if we didn't quite get it right, I'm sorry but we will try better the next time. No government is perfect…we will make mistakes. I think you've got used to our style…we spend some time to talk, to explain.

• In 2013, an independent filmmaker came under investigation when she video-recorded the statements of four bus drivers who had gone on strike because of low wages, and then said that they were beaten up while under police custody.

• A cartoonist was threatened with contempt proceedings over a comic he posted on his website that poked fun at the judicial system.

• A political commentator was also charged with scandalising the judiciary when he alleged that the court registry had manipulated hearing dates to favour the government’s case.  

• A 21-year-old activist was sued for defamation by an outfit run by the Ministry of Education when she criticised practices by lecturers and staff in an international college in which she had studied.

• A former member of the SDP was sued for defamation when he criticised the Minister the Manpower.

• Most recently, a 33-year-old blogger-activist was sued by Mr Lee Hsien Loong when he accused the Prime Minister of impropriety over the retention of workers’ CPF savings. The defendant was later sacked by the hospital at which he worked.

• release the control over the media,
• reform the election process,
• abolish the POA and allow freedom speech and assembly,
• stop suing his critics and contempt of court,
• return workers their right to organise freely.  

We must recognise that there is wide-spread unhappiness about the Government. It is not only about specific policies. It’s more than that. And we cannot allow those emotions to be bottled up…We need a transformed PAP.

• Drawing up an alternative vision and agenda
• Working with civil society
• Voicing the people’s concerns and aspirations

Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Tuesday called on Japan to turn the page on World War II, saying that persistent reopening of history worsened relations within Asia.

While China and South Korea have vociferously criticized conservative Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on history, Lee said Singapore approached the issue as a partner of the Japan "which wishes it well."

"Unless you can put the Second World War behind you and not keep on reopening issues of comfort women, of aggression, of whether or not bad things were done during the war, I think that this is going to be a continuing sore," Lee said at the Council on Foreign Relations on a visit to Washington.

Abe has said he will not change a landmark 1993 apology to "comfort women" forced into sex during World War II. But his government last week released a review that said there was no evidence to corroborate the testimony of Korean women in Japanese military brothels.

South Korea responded angrily and summoned Japan's ambassador.

Around 200,000 women -- mainly from Korea but also from China, Taiwan, Indonesia, the Philippines and elsewhere -- were forced to work in brothels for Japanese troops as they stomped around Asia before and during World War II.

While mainstream Japanese opinion holds that the wartime government was culpable, a small but vocal tranche of the political right -- including Abe -- continues to cast doubt, saying the brothels were staffed by professional prostitutes.

Japan captured Singapore in February 1942 in the British military's biggest ever surrender. Singaporean historians say Japanese forces killed 50,000 ethnic Chinese in the island city before surrendering in 1945.

Despite the dark past, Japan had developed warm relations with Singapore and other Southeast Asian nations.

Source: AFP