By Nizam Ismail:

I read with disappointment the letter by Ho Ka Wei, Director of Corporate Communications, Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth which was published on 29 Apr 2013 in the Straits Times’ Forum page.The letter suggests that I had used “AMP as a platform and a cover to promote (my) race-based politics.”This suggestion is incorrect. I also take exception to the suggestion that I had engaged in self-promotion at AMP.All strategic decisions of AMP are discussed and collectively decided by the Board of Directors of AMP (led by the Chairman), which consists of highly qualified professionals. The AMP Board had also overseen the Convention process, which had brought together many suggestions and ideas from different groups of professionals. The proposals made at the Convention are made collectively, after going through many processes of debates and iteration.The proposed strategy of a Community Forum (ComFor) was part of a series of proposals suggested by the Leadership and Civil Society Sub-Committee of the Convention.In gist, ComFor was meant to be an extension of an existing platform – the Community in Review forum organized by AMP and RIMA (AMP’s Research Arm) to discuss issues affecting the Community. ComFor was an extension of CIR, as it was meant to also track strategies proposed at the Convention annually.The ComFor proposal came under a broader umbrella of adopting a national approach (as opposed to the current community-centric approach) in addressing issues affecting the Community (e.g. education, social issues, economic development).All the Convention proposals were briefed to political leaders prior to the Convention, including the Convention’s Guest of Honour, PM Lee, as well as the Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim.In fact, AMP had dropped one proposal arising from concerns expressed by political leaders.One key strategic thrust at the AMP Convention in 2012 was to look at issues from a national approach.ComFor was certainly not meant for racial politics, and this assurance was explicitly given to our political leaders before the Convention.The ComFor proposal was eventually altered by AMP, after taking into accounts concerned expressed by the Establishment. AMP then proceeded to use the existing CIR platform (albeit on an expanded basis) earlier this year.In relation to my blog entries, I had, when I was a still a Board member of AMP and RIMA, explicitly mentioned that the comments made therein are my personal ones and do not reflect the views of AMP and/or RIMA. I removed this disclaimer after I had stepped down from the boards, as it was no longer necessary. The setting up of my blog was also known to AMP’s directors at the outset.My thoughts on approaching the various issues within the Community is to relook them as Singapore issues, and not as Malay issues.In fact, I believe that a State-led approach in approaching issues affecting disadvantaged groups across all communities would be more effective and efficient (compared to the current paradigm of essentially relying on ethnic-based self-help groups to shoulder the burden of approaching educational and social problems).I have also argued that race-based SHGs could perpetuate cultural stereotypes or the myth of race-based deficiencies.I am concerned and have commented on issues affecting all Singaporeeans – e.g. rising income inequality, issues of social mobility, a revamp of the educational system as being key to social mobility , meritocracy etc.While a lot of my social work has been connected with the Malay-Muslim community, I see “class-based” programs as opposed to ethnic-based programs, as the way forward. PAP MP Zainal Sapari has himself mentioned the need for a class-based affirmative action program during this year’s Budget debate. I believe in such an approach to mitigate the harsh edges of meritocracy, and have made such an argument in my blog.Turning to the Facebook Group ‘Suara Melayu Singapura’ (Voice of Malay Singaporeans) – in which I am one of several administrators in the Group – some PAP MPs and AMP directors and members have been invited in that Group. All discussions are above board. Some members of the Group are from outside the Malay community.I fear that my intentions have been misperceived.I have earlier set out the circumstances and underlying reasons behind my leaving AMP and RIMA Boards. I have made it clear that my departure was not because of a desire to join any political party, but out of my personal disagreement on the use of funding cuts as a means to curb civil society activism or to discourage critical views.I have always been an advocate of a vibrant civil society – which Singapore needs to embrace and nurture, for it to become a resilient society.In fact, I had advocated this at the Singapore Perspectives 2013 seminar organized by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) in Jan 2013. The thrust of my presentation was that Mr George Yeo’s seminal call for greater civic participation by Singaporeans, made in June 1991, is still relevant and far from being actualized today.During my speech at the Hong Lim Park protest on 16 Feb 2013, I had argued for the need for Singapore to embrace a diversity of views.At the Workers’ Party Youthquake forum, I had broadly argued for taking a national, as opposed to ethnic-based approach to address social issues. I also argued that race-based policies tended to divide us as Singaporeans, rather than to pull us together. Finally, I concluded by remarking that race should not matter in Singapore.I hope that I have clarified my intentions above. In summary, I am a firm believer of taking a national approach, across all ethnic groups, to address issues of such as social mobility, education etc.Far from engaging in racial politics, I am a believer that Singapore needs to nurture a vibrant civil society, in order for it to be resilient.

Nizam Ismail

*Article first appeared on http://nizamosaurus.wordpress.com/

Lee Kuan Yew: The Grand Master’s Insights On China, The United States, And The World: Interviews and selections by Graham Allison, Robert D. Blackwill, with Ali Wyne. Foreword by Henry A. Kissinger 2012, Belfer Center Studies in International Security 186 pages, US$10.98 Hardcover, US$9.99 Kindle version

If you follow Southeast Asian politics, you will find yourself paying extra attention to Lee Kuan Yew.

This is not only because Lee is a highly respected politician who lead Singapore from third-world to first-world status. He is also a critic, one who is fearless in arguing against or even mocking what he disagrees with. (He was once quoted in 2011 by WikiLeaks calling Islam a “venomous religion” _ a statement Lee vehemently denied).

Lee Kuan Yew: The Grand Master’s Insights On China, The United States, And The World is an anthology of selected interviews and speeches Lee has given over the past four decades.

The book is divided into eight themes _ mainly the geopolitics between China and the US, the future of India, Islamic extremism, and the future of democracy.

The world according to Lee is full of promise, which can become reality thanks to technological innovation and the free market. It is also a world full of chaos and potential anarchy caused by the clash between ideology and pragmatism.

As an authoritative commentator on the relationship between China and the US, Lee has been known to have acted as a consultant for leaders from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama on one side of the Pacific Ocean, and from Deng Xiaoping to Xi Jinping on the other.

Lee does not believe the two countries will go to war because China does not pursue any ideological agenda.

The US needs a peaceful China to ensure world stability, and US trade and investment, while China still wants to access to the US market. “Both are competitors, not adversaries.”

Yet Lee warns against the West’s imposing on China universal values _ pressing the issue on democracy and human rights might force the government to take a hostile position. “China has to be persuaded that the US does not want to break up China before China becomes more open to discussing questions of world security and stability.”

A descendant of a Chinese immigrant, Lee understands the mindset of the world’s most populous country.

“China wants to be China and to be accepted as such, not to be seen as an honorary member of the West.”

Lee has great faith in the People’s Republic and predicts it will outperform the US in terms of economics, but never on creativity and innovation.

China has its own problems. The complexity of the Mandarin language will prevent the country from attracting foreign talent. It is also impossible for China to control the rest of Asia the way it did for centuries when it had an empire of vessel states.

At first glance, the book strikes you as a serious academic work. But after reading a good 20 pages, readers will be mesmerised by Lee’s lucidity and entertained by his acerbic tongue. After all, he is a good critic because he is not wholly shaped by ideology, nor does he try to be politically correct.

For example, despite a glowing admiration for America, Lee has unique take on the superpower.

“Americans prosper not because of universal ideology but because of geopolitical good fortune, resource energy, generous flows of capital, and technological flow from Europe.”

Lee looks at modern political campaigns in the US with scepticism, warning the country may fall victim to populism because leaders follow opinion polls. “A spin doctor is a high-income professional, one in great demand. From such a process, I doubt if a Churchill, a Roosevelt, or a de Gaulle can emerge,” he says.

His view on radical Islamism is controversial. Lee envisages a radical plan to establish a worldwide Islamic state by distorting the religion’s teachings. “Muslims want to assimilate us. It is one-way traffic. They have no confidence in allowing choice. Islam is exclusive.”

His opinion on India is interesting. Once a true believer in India’s potential, Lee became disillusioned when Indira Gandhi failed to abolish the caste system. For him, India’s ethnic and language diversity, poor logistics and archaic bureaucracy prevents the country from maximising its abundant potential. Lee describes India as having an “unfulfilled greatness”.

This book is sure to upset human right activists. Lee’s advocacy of authoritarianism and his contempt towards freedom of the press and democracy will only inspire hardline governments. The question is whether these authoritarian leaders can do for their countries what Lee did to Singapore _ now known as merit-based society with almost corruption-free government.

The final chapter, “How Lee Kuan Yew Thinks”, reveals the human side of this formidable man and is a must-read.

Unlike many leaders, Lee is proud of his pragmatism. A public enemy of democracy, his view on the Chinese government’s reaction to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protest is shocking. “I understood Deng Xiaoping when he said: if 200,000 students have to be shot, shoot them, because the alternative is China in chaos for another 100 years.”

But Lee is highly interesting because of his self-contradicting character. Never one to believe people are born equal, he repeatedly pours scorn on the caste system and feudal societies that award people based on birth rights, not merit.

“People are not born equal, but they must be given equal opportunity to compete under fair, transparent rules, with respected referees.” He abhors the socialist welfare style as it runs counter to a system of incentives and rewards. He warns the US will decline if it follows Europe’s model of social welfare.

In all, this book is a good read not only for students of politics, but also for readers interested in strategic thinking.

Right-wing activists and liberal thinkers alike should read this book because gifted authoritarian figures such as Lee are increasingly rare.

Lee, the Sage of Singapore, will turn 90 in September. Many of his views seem medieval, especially in terms of human rights. But readers will soon know that Lee Kuan Yew does not care much about what other people think. After all, he says: “I always try to be correct, not politically correct.”

[Source]: http://www.bangkokpost.com/lifestyle/book/347508/

From Yahoo! Singapore 

By Shah Salimat

[UPDATE 30 Apr 3pm: Former AMP board director Nizam Ismail has pulled out from speaking at the May Day protests "as a personal protest against untruths on my purported political objectives".

In a Facebook post Tuesday morning, Nizam clarified that his pull-out reinforces how he is not seeking "political mileage" after deciding to drop his position at the Malay/Muslim self-help group and speaking at the upcoming protests.

As Nizam rubbished suggestions he was using AMP for political gains, he said he is in favour of a strong civil society and diverse views for Singapore to be resilient.

"This will also allow my family and I to take a step back and have some quiet time on May Day for us to heal and to restrengthen our bonds," said Nizam.]

The charitable organisation from which a Muslim civil society leader resigned as director over alleged government efforts to stifle his airing of critical views declined to make further comment on the issue.

A spokesperson for the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP) instead referred Yahoo! Singapore to a statement made on Tuesday by AMP chairman Azmoon Ahmad.

In the statement, Azmoon clarified that Nizam Ismail quit the organisation "to avoid further misperception" that his activities were linked to AMP's stand on political and civil society issues.

Azmoon also said that suggestions of external parties influencing his or the AMP board's decisions are "inaccurate".

"AMP holds closely to our core principles of independence, non-partisanship and critical collaboration with all parties that share our mission in the community, including other Malay/Muslim organisations, non-Malay/Muslim organisations, national bodies and agencies, and the government," said Azmoon.

In a post on his personal blog Wednesday, Nizam Ismail explained why he decided to quit as board director of the AMP and chairman of the Centre for Research on Islamic and Malay Affairs (RIMA) effective earlier that Monday.

Nizam said that AMP chairman Azmoon Ahmad called him on Saturday to say that he received separate phone calls from two government ministers expressing concern over Nizam's participation as a speaker at next week’s May Day protest at Hong Lim Park.

The protest, organised by Gilbert Goh of transitioning,org, is to be a follow-up to an earlier protest criticising the Singapore government’s top range projection of a 6.9 million population by 2030.

The ministers were also said to be concerned about Nizam's participation as a panelist at a Youth Wing Youthquake Seminar for the opposition Workers' Party and his critical leanings on social media.

Azmoon relayed a message that Nizam should “take it easy” and decline participation from such activities, or else, the government would withdraw all funding from AMP.

Nizam said that Azmoon suggested Nizam “disassociate” himself from AMP if he were to continue with the activities.

Saying he was appalled by the alleged threats of withdrawal of funding from AMP on account of activities he had done in his "personal capacity", Nizam deplored what appeared to be "political reasons" behind them.

"I could not, as a matter of principle, see myself functioning as an activist in AMP or RIMA’s Board in an imposed non-critical state, in return for continued funding of AMP’s programs," Nizam said of his decision to resign from the two organisations.

Nizam also alleged that the latest incident was not the only attempt at influencing AMP, which was established in 1991 as a non-partisan group to help Malays and Muslims in Singapore.

State funding of AMP’s programs were cut in the wake of a proposal in 2000 for a collective community leadership and threats of funding cuts were also made in reaction to a the group's proposal in 2012 for an independent Community Forum, Nizam claimed.

"The readiness to use the threat of withdrawal of funding when the State feels displeased or threatened also ignores this important fact – that these funds are being used to fund programs which benefit thousands of beneficiaries – be they low-income families, youths at risks, [and] students," he said.

"The interests of these beneficiaries seem to be readily steamrolled," he added.

As of Thursday evening, Nizam’s name had been removed from the AMP’s board of directors’ page on the organisation’s website though his profile page was still live. His name had also been removed from RIMA’s page.

In reply to the matter, Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Yaacob Ibrahim said to Berita Harian that the government does not interfere with the internal affairs of Malay/Muslim organisations. However, he stressed that government help should not be used to fund political motives.

"What is clear from the comments made from Nizam is his wish to be more politically-active. The government considers AMP as an important Malay/Muslim self-help group like Mendaki, and offers assistance to help AMP handle social and education issues in our community. However, this assistance should not be used to aid political activities or self-help groups to carry out political agendas," said Yaacob.

*Article first appeared on http://sg.news.yahoo.com/singapore-protest-speaker-resigns-from-posts-af...

At Singapore’s Fullerton Bay Hotel, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Malaysian counterpart Najib Razak smile and toss yusheng, a raw-fish salad symbolizing prosperity, and in this case a thaw in five decades of feuding.

The traditional feast in February after the Lunar New Year was the latest annual retreat between the sons of former leaders, whose fathers were more likely to hurl accusations than culinary delicacies. After half a century of fighting over everything from a pile of rocks in the ocean, to water supplies and ownership of a railway station, the two premiers are trying to foster cooperation as they face rising competition from other Southeast Asian economies and declining voter support at home.

Malaysia is Singapore’s largest trading partner and bilateral trade amounted to S$113.4 billion ($92 billion) in 2012, up from S$77.2 billion in 2003. The island’s investment into Malaysia has climbed about 25 percent annually over the past three years, according to DBS Group Holdings Ltd.“The two leaders have good chemistry and rapport and there is a high comfort level,” said Ong Keng Yong, Singapore’s High Commissioner to Malaysia, who has attended annual meetings that Lee and Najib hold. “When businessmen see a good political relationship, they are more comfortable about investing.”

Najib’s visit this year comes as he’s fighting to retain power in elections next week, in contrast to his first official trip as leader in May 2009, a month after he took office. Then, he and his wife Rosmah Mansor had a new hybrid orchid named after them -- Dendrobium Najib Rosmah. Najib said at the time that Singapore and Malaysia should not have rollercoaster relationsor be encumbered by historical baggage.

‘Lo Hei’

The day after the “lo hei” fish tossing in February, Najib and Lee traveled to Iskandar Malaysia, a special economic zone in Johor state, to unveil projects that will include homes, retailers and spas. One will be developed by Khazanah Nasional Bhd. and Temasek Holdings Pte, the state-owned investment companies of Malaysia and Singapore.

In Singapore’s presidential palace hours earlier, the two leaders had announced plans for a high-speed rail link by 2020 that would cut the 300-kilometer (180-mile) journey to Kuala Lumpur to 90 minutes, with Lee saying the two capitals could be seen as twin cities like London and Paris.

“I think we’re in a much better place now than we’ve been in a long time,” Singapore Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said in a February interview. “Not just at a political level but just the sense amongst the middle class and the professional class and the intellectuals that says ‘look, it makes a lot of sense to work together.’”

Wealth Race

Economically, Singapore has flourished faster than its resource-rich neighbor, with gross domestic product per capita of $60,688 compared with Malaysia’s $16,051, according to World Bank data for 2011. The island is Southeast Asia’s only advanced economy. Malaysia said last month it may reach high-income status as early as 2018.

With other developing economies in Southeast Asia vying for a bigger share of investment, including Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, Malaysia is keen to make better use of Singapore’s financial muscle.

“The wealth they have in Singapore could certainly benefit Malaysia as well, and Malaysia’s hinterland will benefit Singapore,” Najib said in an April interview. “I told Prime Minister Hsien Loong ‘I don’t mind, you can be the Manhattan, we’ll be New Jersey. But we’ll prosper together.’”

Separate Ways

It wasn’t always thus. British colonial rule had left a tangle of connections on the peninsula that became touchstones for disputes after independence. Singapore and Malaysia were part of the same union for two years until the city-state was ousted in 1965. Much of Singapore’s fresh water came from a pipeline across the causeway that linked it to Johor, while the island’s main railway station and track remained part of Malaysia.

The two soon bickered over water. Tunku Abdul Rahman, then Malaysian prime minister, said he may pressure Singapore’s foreign policy “by threatening to turn off the water,” according to archival records. When Lee’s father, Lee Kuan Yew, was prime minister, he once said he was prepared to send troops to Malaysia if it tried to turn off the taps.

Even as late as 2003, both nations placed full-page ads in the Asian Wall Street Journal to air their water gripes.

A dispute over Pedra Branca, a football-field-sized islet named for its white guano-covered rocks, lasted 29 years, until the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled in favor of Singapore in 2008.

Investment Rivals

Competition for investments fueled the rivalry. Johor’s Port of Tanjung Pelepas more than a decade ago offered lower fees than Singapore’s PSA Corp. to lure away shipping lines on one of the world’s busiest trading routes.

Meanwhile Lee, 61, and Najib, 59, were on paths to power.

Both went to university in the U.K., with Najib graduating in industrial economics at the University of Nottingham while Lee read mathematics at Trinity College, Cambridge, before pursuing a master’s degree in public administration from the Harvard Kennedy School.

Lee’s father was leader of Singapore from the time of independence in 1965, when Najib’s father, Abdul Razak Hussein, was deputy prime minister and a key player in Singapore’s departure from the union, according to the elder Lee’s memoirs. Abdul Razak became premier of Malaysia in 1970.

After college, the younger Lee was in the army, where he quickly rose to the rank of brigadier general. In 1984, at the age of 32, he entered politics and soon became a junior minister in trade and defense.

Father’s Death

Najib’s career outside politics lasted only two years, during which he served as an executive at state oil company Petroliam Nasional Bhd., before the sudden death of his father in 1976. He stood for the parliamentary seat Abdul Razak had vacated and was elected unopposed at 23.

Najib got his shot at deputy minister posts in energy, education and finance, before the two sons’ paths aligned with both becoming finance ministers and deputy prime ministers.

As leaders, they have attempted to remodel their economies rather than continuing where their predecessors left off. Lee lifted a four-decade ban on casinos within a year of becoming prime minister, allowing two multi-billion-dollar gaming resorts that now have gambling revenue equivalent to two-thirds of the total on the Las Vegas strip.

Shifting Focus

While his father promoted the island as a low-cost manufacturing center for companies such as Texas Instruments Inc. in the 1960s, the son presides over one of the world’s largest foreign-exchange centers, with a S$1.34 trillion asset- management industry.

Najib unveiled a so-called economic transformation program in September 2010 that identified $444 billion of projects that the government planned to promote in cooperation with non-state companies, ranging from mass rail to oil storage.

Still, voter pressure has increased on both leaders, with Najib facing the prospect of a general election that could throw him out of power.

His ruling Barisan Nasional coalition faces its biggest challenge in 55 years as it battles a revitalized opposition led by former Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim in polls on May 5. He has said a win by a fractious opposition could bring “catastrophic ruin.”

Malaysia’s benchmark stock index is Southeast Asia’s worst performer this year, rising 1.1 percent, compared with gains of more than 15 percent in Indonesia and the Philippines.

Crying ‘Wolf’

Anwar called Najib’s comments “shameful” and accused the leader of being like “the proverbial boy who cries wolf.” In a separate interview on March 8, he said he would continue the special relationship with Singapore if he won the election.

“Singapore’s a very important component” within the region, Anwar said. “It has a special relationship and history with us. We need to continue this.”

Lee is also feeling political strains. His People’s Action Party in 2011 had its narrowest election victory since independence after the government’s immigration policy increased voter ire. An influx of foreigners has boosted the population by 1.1 million since mid-2004, to 5.3 million, to make up for a low birth rate among Singaporeans.

With an increasingly crowded island and rising labor costs, Singaporean companies are looking across the causeway to a neighbor that is more than 470 times bigger in size, with a population that’s only about six times larger.

Basic Interests

“Whatever government is put in charge through the democratic process will understand that both economies are intertwined and they will have to work with each other,” said Ong, Singapore’s high commissioner to Malaysia. “Stability and continuity are important.”

One such area of cooperation is Afiniti Medini, a 5-acre (2-hectare) project in Iskandar expected to be completed in 2015 that will include about 400 homes and a health spa.

Singapore companies have invested about S$2.5 billion in Iskandar since it was set up in 2006, making the nation the largest foreign investor, according to the Iskandar Regional Development Authority. The zone, almost three times the size of New York City, is located in a state Lee’s father once described as “notorious for shootings, muggings and carjackings.”

Singapore has “pragmatic and strategic reasons” for being interested in Iskandar, said Irvin Seah, an economist at DBS.

Regional Competitors

“Profit margins are being eroded and local enterprises that are unable to restructure their businesses or improve productivity will either have to cease their operations or relocate,” Seah said. “When you have lower-cost manufacturers like Indonesia and Vietnam emerging and catching up, relationships that are just focused on the manufacturing value- chain will break down. Iskandar includes collaboration in services, property, tourism and this is a model which will be more sustainable.”

Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp. (OCBC), Southeast Asia’s second- largest lender, expects loans to Singapore companies relocating to Iskandar to triple in the next two years, according to Tan Chor Sen, who heads international business at OCBC’s global commercial banking division.

“We’ve had water spats, sand spats but it’s like a brother and sister thing which you have once in a while,” said Leslie Foo, managing director for global markets at Malayan Banking Bhd. in Kuala Lumpur. “I think what has happened in the last three years is what I call a merging of talents. There’s a lot more people who have gone to Singapore to work and there are a lot more guys who have come over here.”

In the April 17 interview, Najib said he was determined to remove the obstacles to bilateral ties when he came to power in 2009 by seeking agreements with Lee on long-standing issues that were mutually beneficial.

“He is someone I can do business with,” said Najib. Singapore officials “are tough to negotiate with but once they agree, things happen, things flow.”

*Article first appeared on http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-29/malaysia-singapore-bonding-prov...

Honour our workers and protect their rights. This was the message of the speakers at the SDP's Labour Day public forum held on Saturday.

Speaking in Mandarin, the speakers marked this year's May Day by highlighting the continuing restrictions Singaporean workers face. (Photo - from left: Bryan Lim, Chng Min Oh, Jaslyn Go, and moderator Gerous Khung)

Today's Singaporean workers find themselves in an unenviable position: They face diminishing real wages while saddled with a high cost of loving and one of the longest working hours in the world. 

Ms Jaslyn Go kicked off the forum by highlighting discrimination against women in the workplace such as maternity benefits, hiring women of child bearing age, and inequality in pay between men and women performing the same job.

Even though working conditions have generally improved through the years, there is much discrimination in the workforce and women still bear the brunt of it.

She recounted her own situation as a working mother. In a company that she worked for, all female employees had to undertake not to get pregnant in the first 12 months of their employment. In other interviews she attended, employers were more interested to know if she was starting a family soon rather than inquiring about her qualifications and skills.

Ms Go called for the protection of the rights of women workers. "There must be no place for discrimination against women in the workforce," she said. "Our labour laws must protect the rights of all women workers."

Mr Chng Min Oh, a trade union leader in the 1960s, was another speaker. He talked about how Singaporean workers had united against the British colonial government and campaigned against their own exploitation.

They had supported the PAP when it was first formed because labour leaders like (the late) Mr Lim Chin Siong, who was a founding member of the PAP, had the workers' welfare at heart. However, after the PAP became the Government in 1959, it started to work against the interests of workers.

After the arrest of political and trade union leaders in the 1960s, Mr Chng said, the Government controlled the labour movement through the NTUC and, since then, workers have not been able to exercise their rights. 

CEC member Mr Bryan Lim rounded up the forum presentations by highlighting what the SDP can do to improve the conditions for workers in Singapore. He raised theSingaporeans First Policy where the SDP recommends that Singaporeans be given priority when it comes to jobs. 

"Our policy includes the rigorous examination of the qualifications of foreigners who wish to work in Singapore as professionals, managers, executives and technicians," Mr Lim said. "Also, employers must demonstrate that they have made every effort to hire Singaporeans before they can employ foreign workers."

He also brought up the issue of minimum wage, a policy long championed by the SDP. Mr Lim noted that more and more establishment figures are slowly accepting the SDP's position that minimum wage is necessary to address the income disparity in Singapore. Acting Minister for Manpower Tan Chuan-jin has even admitted that he does not oppose minimum wage. 

Mr Lim repeated the SDP's stand to empower our workers. He said, "The people of Singapore have made many sacrifices for our country's prosperity and wealth. Unfortunately, the People's Action Party  took much of the credit and deprived rights of our workers." 

The SDP wishes all workers a meaningful and productive May Day!

Singapore Democrats

Dear fellow Singaporeans,

The workers of Singapore need every ounce of support to meet today’s problems – the rising cost of basic necessities, stagnant wages, a decreasing quality of life, longer working hours, and over-population. If we do not push hard to reform, workers’ pay will not increase.

There is a real danger that we are creating a Singapore for the super-wealthy. Last month, I read reports that Singapore is taking over Switzerland as the new playground for the ultra-rich. My heart sinks. Young Singaporeans give their lives to the country through National Service, and this is what they get in return.

In Singapore, we have a cabinet minister also serving as our Labour Chief, and he is fronting the arguments against a minimum wage. Does the PAP really care for Singaporean workers?

I believe that strong and free trade unions are in the best interests of Singaporeans. It is the best bulwark against bad policy. Trade unions should not be distracted by running supermarket chains and holiday chalets, as NTUC is. The best way to achieve this is to make your voice heard at the 2016 General Election.

Today I wish all Singaporeans a Happy May Day!

Chiam See Tong

Secretary General, Singapore People’s Party

Email: media@spp.org.sg

新加坡人民党劳动节献词2013

亲爱的新加坡人，

今日的工人需要社会的支持来面对今天的问题。他们面临通货膨胀，工资停滞及生活质量的下降。跟着工作时间的延长，外劳人口的增多，如果我们不去使劲地推动改革，工人的工资断定不会增加。

我们是在为超级富豪塑造一个我们不认识的新加坡。近来新加坡已快速接管以前瑞士超富城市的“美名”。这是我们捍卫的新加坡吗？

也只有在新加坡，内阁部长也可以担任劳工总代表。这令人难以置信，难怪他反对最低工资的政策

强大和自由的工会是对国人最有利的。这是抵御不良政策的最好方针。

祝国人五一快乐!

詹时中

新加坡人民党, 秘书长

电邮: media@spp.org.sg

Every year, Labour Day serves to remind us that the economic progress we have achieved as a nation would not have been possible without our workers’ immense contributions and sacrifices. Today, we pay a special tribute to our Singaporean workers, who are well-regarded around the world for their hard work, responsibility, knowledge and skills.

For over five decades, the Workers’ Party has given our workers a voice with which they can be empowered, protected and heard. We have pointed out that job creation and economic growth must benefit Singaporeans first. We have said that the creation of more value-added jobs which will pay our workers better should be a key outcome of a successful productivity and training effort. In Parliament, our MPs have pressed the Government to ensure that companies pay their workers fairly and adequately, prevent discrimination against Singaporeans in hiring and promotion decisions, promote better work-life balance, and better track the outcomes of training programmes to ensure that they benefit workers. We have also called on the Government to provide better employment and training opportunities for older workers, retirees and homemakers. We have emphasised the need for stronger social safety nets and to reduce the widening income inequality in Singapore.

The Workers’ Party has noted that in Budget 2013, the Government has responded more positively to our calls and the needs of Singaporean workers. It has put forward more measures to improve the standing of Singaporeans in the job market and to raise the incomes of lower-wage workers through further wage subsidies, industry upgrading and training programmes for workers. More must still be done to ease the burden of the rising cost of living and to increase the wages of our workers.

We urge businesses and employers to make full use of new measures announced in this year’s Budget to improve the efficiency of their business processes and upgrade the skills of their workers. This will enable them to move up the economic value chain, boost productivity and pay their workers more. We acknowledge the challenges small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) face as our economy undergoes restructuring. We urge the Government, especially the Ministry of Manpower and economic agencies, to assist SMEs and workers through this difficult transition period.

The Workers’ Party will continue to speak up for Singaporeans and hold the Government accountable to the people in a rational, responsible and respectable manner. We are confident that the perseverance of Singaporean workers, together with the strong cooperation of the business community, will help our country to move towards a more equal and just society, and a more developed economy.

The Workers’ Party wishes all workers in Singapore a Happy Labour Day.

GERALD GIAM
CHAIR, MEDIA TEAM
THE WORKERS’ PARTY

The WP must be the oddest opposition party in the world. They are the product of many years of the total and withering pressure from the government against any political challengers to the PAP. There is no way to survive and thrive except to align with the people like no political party anywhere in the world. It is in no hurry or professing any ambition to form the government in the foreseeable future. Where do you find such? Why are these men and women in politics?



They have left the PAP in a conundrum on how to counter them. I think the best and most effective way for the PAP is to be more than the WP. Is that possible?


The PAP brought with them the strategy of might using the Law and Power. The WP finally figured that the only other thing more powerful is the strategy of Shrewd. The PAP has successfully educated the population against accepting freebies otherwise the strategy of Shrewd would never work and there is no moral high ground to anchor such an approach. This is unique in the world. The contest between these two parties is unlike any. The liberal western press is reading and reporting it all wrong. This is the gold standard but it is also surreal because it isn't like normal human nature. It can only happen in man made Singapore. What is real is creating function out of dysfunction which is what we are seeing everywhere.



This has been a political Black Swan for the PAP but it is good for Singapore and kudos to Tharman for recognizing this quickly.

Article first appeared on http://blogging4myself.blogspot.com.sg/2013/04/the-oddest-opposition-party.html

Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has stressed the importance of tripartism in the country.

Speaking for the first time on the illegal strike by the bus drivers from China last year, Mr Lee said the government “will not tolerate illegal action or any party undermining industrial harmony”.

Mr Lee said Singapore cannot have a strong economy without a strong labour movement and noted that while the fundamental role of unions is to protect workers, workers’ demands should be reasonable.

Both sides should strive for an equitable outcome if disputes do arise, he added.

Mr Lee said the strike was a timely reminder of the importance of tripartism and he called on all parties to strengthen mutual trust.

He said: “Doesn’t matter how things happen overseas, you may have strikes, you may have riots, you may have demonstrations when you have unhappiness. In Singapore, if there’s a problem, let us find out early. Let’s talk about it, let’s nip it in the bud, resolve it harmoniously and if necessary through arbitration. Let’s do it in a mature, adult way, which is constructive and helps us to move forward together.”

Source: CHANNEL NEWSASIA

Najib Abdul Razak has urged the people of Kelantan to reject PAS in the 13th general election on Sunday as the party leader had deceived the people by making promises which were not fulfilled throughout its 23-year rule in the state.

He said the party's leader only knew how to shout slogans but they had not done anything to bring development to the state as aspired by the rakyat.

"Twenty-three years of lying to the people is enough. (It) wants to construct the Kota Baharu-Kuala Krai expressway, sets up a fund, they think they can build a highway by setting up a fund (collecting donations from the rakyat), how much had been collected, the cost is RM2 billion... cannot implement," he said at a programme 'Himpunan Rakyat 1Malaysia' at the SMK Sungai Petai in Pasir Puteh today.

Also present with about 20,000 people at the gathering were Kelantan Barisan Nasional (BN) chairperson Mustapa Mohamed (right), and his deputy Awang Adek Hussin.Najib , who is on a day-long visit to Kelantan, questioned about the mosques built by PAS, which frequently claimed that they championed the Islamic cause in the state.



Najib, who is also the BN chairman, assured the people of Kelantan that the BN government would fulfil all the seven promises he had pledged previously to bring development to the people and state when they give their mandate to the BN in the polls on Sunday.



The seven promises were to build the Kota Baharu-Kuala Krai expressway, build the state mosque which will become the state's icon, as well as a stadium, the Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) town campus, 3,000 units of affordable homes, introduce the Kota Baharu rapid bus service, and resolve the water problem.



"I assure you that when the BN wins in the GE13, we will implement the expressway, stadium, mosque and others. I have promised to build affordable homes in Kota Baharu which has already started.



"We will also build in other places, in Pasir Puteh too. The seven promises are just the beginning, we will implement many other things," he said.

Clean record

The Prime Minister said Mustapa was the best choice to become the Kelantan menteri besar due to his clean record, and his sincerity and vast experience as a cabinet minister and at the international level.



He was confident that Mustapa was capable of bringing considerable investment and implement various major projects for the benefit of the people in the state.



Najib said the BN government also had a vision to turn Malaysia into a stronger Islamic nation, with dignity, respect and emulated by other Islamic nations.



"I, and Mustapa attended the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) conference with other Islamic nations, we have Mali, Senegal, Comoros.



"But these Islamic nations, I'm sorry to say, are backward and poor. At the OIC level, Malaysia is still respected because they see that under the BN leadership (Malaysia) is progressive and successful.



As such, Najib advised the people to make the right choice in GE13 to ensure a better future for the nation.

- Bernama

*Article first appeared on http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/228793

This morning, Johor caretaker Chief Minister Abdul Ghani travelled to Singapore to campaign for votes. It is said that almost of 400,000 Malaysians overseas are in Singapore, and most of them have their constituencies in the state of Johor. Ghani is contesting in Gelang Patah against DAP’s veteran Lim Kit Siang. Refer to this blogpost for more on the Battle for Johor.

The Malaysian Insider carried an article on his visit to Singapore. In it, it was stated that,

Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman will take his Barisan Nasional (BN) campaign for Gelang Patah to Singapore today, likely to canvas for votes from Johor folk residing and working in the island state

Ghnai’s plan is said to be,

Ghani is going to Singapore. We only invited limited media…Instructions just said to gather in Bukit Indah at 6am… once we arrive, only then we will know what the programme is.

Amazing that a BN candidate and caretaker Chief Minister at that, campaigning in the territory of Malaysia’s neighbor is widely publicized (even by the Singapore press) and seen as an action not inappropriate.

This also seems to be unprecedented. As Singaporeans also travel to Malaysia over the weekends, and some do reside in Johor, would it then be appropriate for Singapore political leaders to travel to Johor to campaign (during the weekends) when Singapore holds its own elections which is due in 2016?

Singapore does have a sizable Thai community in the Golden Mile areas, but have we seen Thai political leaders descending upon Singapore to canvass for votes during the Thai election campaign period?

Singapore does have a sizable Singaporean community residing in Australia, but have we seen Singapore political leaders traveling to Australia to canvass for votes during the Singapore election campaign period?

I must say that the Singapore authorities must have very much treasure the Singapore-Malaysia bilateral ties that they allow these campaigning activities to happen in Singapore. When faced with such activities as a caretaker leader visiting Singapore to campaign for votes, the Singapore press gladly publicize it. Just imagine the possible reaction of Malaysia press if Singapore leaders were to canvass for votes in Malaysia during Singapore’s campaign period. Will they gladly publicize for the Singapore leaders, or will they say there should be a restriction of political activities of foreign nature in Malaysia?

Moreover, not only that the Singapore press seems very eager to help publicize the activities of the Malaysia’s ruling party candidates, it also does not dare to utter a single word of dissatisfaction when BN supremo Dr Mahathir and other BN leaders alleged that DAP is a proxy of the PAP (ruling party of the city-state) or that the PAP was a Chinese chauvinistic party inciting racism in Malaysia while it was still in the Federation. Just imagine the possible reactions from personalities such as Dr Mahathir, if Singapore leaders were to canvass for votes in Malaysia during Singapore’s campaign period.

As we were told, Ghani even reached the Jurong East bus interchange, presumably to canvass for votes there.

This morning, Singapore’s press carried pictures of Ghani’s visit,

*Article first appeared on http://thatsmyopinions.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/ghani-brings-malaysian-p...

Many people have overlooked one very important fact of these two protests in Hong Lim Park... Even without any opposition party acting as organizer, it can draw a sizable crowd. Particularly, Workers Party is no where to be found but yet, thousands and thousands of people attended these protests.

What does this mean? It means that the anger on the ground is REAL and opposition party branding itself, doesn't effect such anger. It was PAP's own doing that has caused such dissatisfaction and anger on the ground. It also means a dangerous signal... next time round, not only WP will win seats into parliament, as long as there isn't any multi-corner fights because this anger, when translated into protest votes, will be independent of opposition parties which stood against PAP. Singaporeans are just angry with PAP and will have only one singular aim... to teach PAP a good lesson and vote PAP out of parliament, irregardless who they send as candidates. 

This is the hypothesis I held for the Punggol East By-Elections. WP won in a 4 corner fight with such big swing, dumping the other two opposition parties so badly, basically because of this anger. Voters are voting strategically, they just want PAP to lose and WP in their view, has more chance of winning over PAP. Thus, all votes swing tactically to WP. 

The danger is looming for PAP if it continues to brush aside such signs.

Goh Meng Seng AKA Freedom Fighter

*The author is a former Secretary-General of the National Solidarity Party.

Boasting a fast-growing economy and riding a US$2.6 billion (S$3.2 billion) deluge of government handouts to poorer voters, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak would seem to have the recipe for electoral success on Sunday.

Instead he faces what some say is a class war between aspiring young Malays and ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities against the rich, powerful and long-ruling Malay elite.

The paradox of Malaysia's election is how Mr Najib's Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition is struggling to turn growth and cash into votes, giving the opposition real hope for the first time as it taps into concerns that an elite few have gained at the expense of the masses.

Mr Najib came to power in 2009 promising reforms to promote more inclusive growth, a year after millions of formerly loyal voters handed BN its worst electoral result.

Malaysia's already wide income gap has grown since then, despite progress Mr Najib's government has made towards its goal of doubling incomes by 2020.

"I don't feel this big economic growth," said Mr Wan Mohamad Yusof, a 49-year-old office clerk in Kuala Lumpur, a beneficiary of Mr Najib's two rounds of handouts of RM500 (S$202) to Malaysia's 4.3 million poorest families.

"This RM500 bribe from the government seems a bit insincere to me," said the long-time supporter of the BN as he smoked a cigarette outside his small house.

Rising living costs and concern over inequality risk being particular problems for the government among ethnic Malays like Mr Wan Mohamad, despite robust economic growth of 5.6 per cent last year.

They make up 62 per cent of the population and are the bedrock of Mr Najib's United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) that heads the BN. Ethnic Chinese make up about 25 per cent of the 28 million population, with ethnic Indians accounting for about 8 per cent.

In the past, Malays could be counted on to vote for UMNO and the BN, seen as the guardian of an "affirmative action" policy that gives them privileges in government contracts, housing and education.

Yet in recent years poorer Malays have come to share a common grievance with the ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities over the perception that the policies have fostered corruption and favouritism, benefiting a well-connected few.

In 2008, about 10 per cent of the ethnic Malay vote swung to the opposition, with the BN losing its two-thirds parliamentary majority for the first time and the opposition making record gains.

"It is no longer about ethnicity. It is a class war in Malaysia," said Dr Terence Gomez, professor of administrative studies and politics at Universiti Malaya in Kuala Lumpur.

"We are seeing conflict within the Malays and within other races that is class based."

Dual risk for Najib

The BN is widely expected to win the election, but could end up with a smaller parliamentary majority that would weaken the next government and put Mr Najib's job at risk.

There are mixed signs on Malay support for Mr Najib.

An April survey by University Malaya's Centre for Democracy showed that 54 per cent of the Malay respondents favoured opposition leader and former finance minister Anwar Ibrahim as prime minister, compared with 28 per cent for Mr Najib.

Other surveys have shown a rebound in Malay support for the government.

The BN needs just a 2 per cent swing in the overall Malay vote to win 153 out of 222 parliament seats, regaining the two-thirds majority that allows it to change the constitution, according to a poll simulator programme by online news portal Malaysiakini.

The opposition has a tougher task, needing a 10 per cent swing in the overall Malay vote to win more than 112 parliament seats and form its first government, the simulator showed.

Mr Najib pledged to reform the affirmative action policy to make it more needs-based and inclusive. He unveiled an Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) to draw in US$444 billion in investment and create millions of jobs that helped drive last year's strong growth.

The government says gross national income per capita rose nearly 50 per cent from 2009 to just under US$10,000 last year, but critics say that figure is misleading because it does not take into account inflation and the uneven distribution of wealth.

Mind the gap

Malaysia has the third-highest level of income inequality in South-east Asia after Thailand and Singapore.

Data from the government's statistics department shows the mean household income gap widened between the top 20 per cent of the households and the bottom 40 per cent from 2009 to 2012.

Among ethnic Malays, who are referred to as bumiputra, or "sons of the soil", the gap has widened the most - by nearly 17 per cent to RM8,980.

Mr Idris Jala, the government minister spearheading the ETP, acknowledged in a commentary in the Star newspaper that the gap between the rich and poor was too high.

"We are taking measures to deal with this," he said, referring to cash handouts and the imposition of a national minimum wage last year. "Sometimes, the best way to help the poor, especially the very poor, is to simply give them money to alleviate their suffering."

The first RM500 handout in 2012 added 2.4 per cent to the annual household income of a Malay family in the bottom 40 per cent. That just outpaced inflation of 1.7 per cent last year but followed 5.4 per cent inflation in 2008.

Critics of the government say that favoured businessmen get far juicier handouts. The opposition has singled out ethnic Malay tycoon Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary as benefiting from a government programme to divest stakes in state-linked firms.

Revenue in the nine months to December 2012 for Syed Mokhtar's DRB-Hicom conglomerate doubled to 9.7 billion ringgit (US$3.2 billion) from the previous year after it bought national carmaker Proton for US$411.9 million in early 2012 in a closed bidding process.

Mr Syed Mokhtar, who holds a monopoly on sugar and rice in Malaysia and remains close to Mr Najib and former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, denies he is favoured by the government.

Smaller ethnic Malay businessmen also fear being left out.

The influential Malay Chamber of Commerce has criticised developers of a 36 billion ringgit Kuala Lumpur rail project for favouring a few firms, including MMC, owned by Mr Syed Mokhtar, and Gamuda.

The chamber, which has 10,000 professional members, said none of its members won the smaller contracts on offer. MRT Corp, the developer under the Ministry of Finance, said it awarded more than 40 per cent of the jobs to Malay firms.

'Deserving' Malays

A Reuters survey of 16 Malay companies shortlisted for the civil works portion of the rail job shows a majority with strong links to UMNO, with half listed on the Kuala Lumpur exchange.

Mr Najib told Reuters in March he had made progress in improving transparency, but said there were certain federal government tenders carved out for "deserving" Malay companies.

But Mr Hanafee Yusoff, secretary general of the Malay Chamber of Commerce, said: "We need a government that helps all Malay entrepreneurs. The current government has the intention, but the problem is with the delivery."

UMNO is relying on the feel-good effect of its cash gifts to extend the BN's 56-year rule, especially in rural areas where living costs are lower. Its confidence stems from a heavy weighting of parliamentary seat allocations in favour of rural constituencies that tend to favour UMNO.

But election results from 1995 to 2008 show support for UMNO and the BN see-sawing in the ethnic Malay rural heartlands. In 2008, there was a swing of 5.8 per cent among rural Malays in favour of the opposition.

"We are seeing some return in support from the rural Malays because of the cash handouts, but we are not taking it easy," said a senior UMNO politician.

The opposition concedes it is difficult to make inroads in the Malay heartland and is counting on younger Malays, especially urban dwellers who go back to their villages to vote.

"Our best campaigners are the young, working-class Malays in the city," said Rafizi Ramli, strategic director for Anwar's Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR).

"They are going through the difficulties of living in a city. They can tell their parents about the unfairness and the growing class divide."

Source: Reuters

Below is PM Lee's full statement on the review of AIM by the MND:

In January, I instructed the Ministry of National Development (MND) to review the sale in 2010 of Town Council (TC) management software belonging to PAP TCs to Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM), in the interest of transparency and maintaining trust in the system.

by John Berthelsen | Asiasentinel.com

Corruption, race and public weariness combine to give the opposition a real chance

If the Barisan Nasional coalition loses the national elections on Sunday and has to relinquish its 57-year stranglehold on Malaysian politics, the seeds of the defeat were sown well before the last polls in 2008, when a rag-tag opposition of three disparate parties with no real affinity for each other did better than anybody thought they would.

The opposition has grown stronger since then and at stake this time around is the future of Malaysia. The country could - could - be moving from being a virtual one-party state in which the ruling elite controls government, the media and business to finally joining the ranks of Asia's more open democracies. If it happens, the United Malays National Organization, the biggest ethnic party in the coalition, has only itself to blame. 

In 2008, UMNO's old bulls blamed then-Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for the debacle at the polls and drove him from power. Pushed by the increasingly splenetic former Premier Mahathir Mohamad, they installed one of their own, Najib Tun Razak, in his place. He can now be expected to extend his neck for political execution, win or lose.

The power brokers thought that Badawi had veered too far from the old ways of doing things. But the truth was that he hadn't veered far enough. He set out to close some of the white elephant projects Mahathir had put in place and which cost the country tens of billions of dollars. He tried to implement rational and transparent contracting procedures and to appoint a relatively independent judiciary. And when he began to seriously threaten some of Mahathir's misguided industrialization schemes, the party elite came down on Badawi and he backed away.

The general public saw what was happening and wanted reform. The opposition, made up of the ethnic Chinese Democratic Action Party, the rural-based, Islamist Parti Islam se-Malaysia and Anwar Ibrahim's urban-based Parti Keadilan Rakyat, almost won the popular vote despite a lack of cohesiveness. They ran what candidates they could, some of whom had left UMNO not out of principle but because they were jealous at being left out of the trough. Many of them departed after the 2008 election because they found there was no golden goose to pluck.

This time around, the opposition candidates are better, the coalition more cohesive. And the Barisan didn't learn its lesson after losing its crucial two-thirds parliamentary majority in 2008. The Cattlegate scandal, in which the family of UMNO women's wing leader Shahrizat Abdul Jalil misused millions of ringgit from a soft loan designated to establish a cattle feeding program, is a good example. But there are others. Asia Sentinel received a long email from a Chinese businessman who wanted to establish an operation to sell pork to merchants. He figured he could do it cheaper and more efficiently than the existing suppliers. But he was frozen out because a cartel run by the Malaysian Chinese Association had its favored rent-seeking pork suppliers. There are dozens of these small cartels.

In the end, it comes down to economics. Why has Malaysia, with a well-educated work-force, extensive infrastructure and abundant natural resources, not been able to break out of the middle income trap? The comparison with Singapore, just across the Causeway, is devastating. Per capita income by purchasing power parity is US$60,900 in Singapore against US$12,900 in Malaysia.It is largely because of the New Economic Policy, an affirmative action program for the majority ethnic Malays, which has hobbled business for decades, and these insider deals, big and small, which have multiplied.There is hardly a medium-level business transaction, let alone a major one, in which someone close to the Barisan isn't standing there with his hand out, and favored businessmen aren't there to fill it. 

When roads are built, they are built, often badly and vastly over cost, by Barisan companies, most of them UMNO-linked. There has been a long continuing controversy over the delivery of water in Selangor, the rich, populous state that surrounds the federal capital of Kuala Lumpur. The opposition, which controls the state, refuses to honor the contract given by the previous Barisan administration to a favored company, saying the firm dramatically overcharges consumers. 

Defense purchases in many countries are an opportunity for graft, and it is no different in Malaysia. Much has been written about the purchase of submarines from the French defense giant DCN and its affiliates, in which records in France show at least ?150 million (US$197.6 million at current exchange rates) in kickbacks flowed to either UMNO or Najib and his close associate, Abdul Razak Baginda. Ironically, the scandal probably would never have come to light if two of Najib's bodyguards hadn't murdered Altantuya Shaariibuu in 2006 to shut her up. Altantuya was a 28-year-old Mongolian translator who was Razak Baginda's girlfriend and who played a minor role in follow-up details to the transaction after it was completed. 

Questions about Altantuya's death eventually led to French prosecutors throwing the case open. But no outside probe followed the purchase of Russian Sukhoi jet fighters and another for the purchase of Malaysian Royal Navy patrol boats that appear to have produced at least US$300 million for UMNO cronies, Najib's friends and others. Beyond a few questions by opposition leaders in parliament, these deals have not gained traction with the wider public, as the submarine deal did because of the woman's death.

Nonetheless, the continued scandals put a heavy patina of corruption onto UMNO and the Barisan. At the same time, the party listened far too long to Mahathir, whose racial politics became increasingly strident after the 2008 election, defending ketuanan Melayu, or the Malay first policy, despite the fact that many urban Malays had long-ago moved into the middle class.

"Besides being almost chief campaigner for UMNO, [Mahathir] is also their biggest vote-loser among the Chinese, Indians and non-Malay Sabahans. That is a view many UMNO old timers like Musa Hitam, Rafidah Aziz, Shahril Abdul Samad and Badawi share," a political insider said. "But Najib is too weak to do anything about Mahathir and Muhyiddin Yassin [the deputy prime minister] is riding on Mahathir's coat tails for his own personal ambitions."

Rather than adjusting to a changing and more demanding society, UMNO has doubled down on race, with the emergence of the hard-line Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa Malaysia, or Perkasa, backed by Mahathir and dominated by Malay nationalist Ibrahim Ali. The assumption is that if UMNO gets the lion's share of the ethnic-Malay vote, which comprises 60.1 percent of Malaysians, it can maintain its grip on power. Apparently at Mahathir's urging, Najib installed a man who has ridiculed Hindu religious beliefs, Perkasa vice president Zulkifli Noordin, as a candidate in the suburban city of Shah Alam. He also engineered the candidacy of Perkasa head Ibrahim Ali, in Kelantan by having the UMNO candidate drop out of the race. 

It is thus basically UMNO against the world. The historic three-race coalition has in effect collapsed. The other two ethnic ruling parties - the Malaysian Chinese Association and the Malaysian Indian Congress have been largely abandoned by their voters because equally big scandals and because of the strident race-baiting by Perkasa and many UMNO followers.

All of these factors - corruption, racism and a general feeling that the Barisan has finally been in power too long - have combined into a huge outpouring of support for the opposition, with rallies routinely drawing as many as 50,000 people. 

"Basically, there has been a grand showing at all opposition gatherings and many people I know are flying back from Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, etc. to vote," said a Malaysian businessman in an email. "It probably won't make much difference as they are likely to be in opposition strongholds anyway. But I have never seen such involvement at ordinary people level before. They are volunteering as observers in droves."

Nonetheless, the Barisan has a built-in advantage. The country is heavily gerrymandered.It has the power of the incumbency, a first-past-the post electoral system and a considerable war chest. In 2008, the Pakatan Rakyat got 46.5 percent of the vote compared to 50.1 percent for the Barisan, yet it only picked up 82seats to the Barisan's 140. It will take a significantly higher voter turnout on the part of Pakatan Rakyat supporters to overcome that disadvantage.

It could happen on Sunday but it won't be surprising if it doesn't. If the Barisan ekes out a thin victory, it is likely that Najib will be gone from power to be replaced by Muhyiddin, who could be expected to reign in an interregnum that would keep the country in paralysis for five years. 

It would be better for UMNO if it loses. As the Kuomintang learned in Taiwan, it isn't the end of the world. After the KMT lost power in 2000, the party of Chiang Kai-shek, at the time considered to vbe the richest political party on earth, was forced to reform itself and it eventually become the party of Ma Ying Jeou, shorn of its business interests and revitalized by the competition. 

The desire for change in Malaysia is palpable but despite the undoubted charisma and long struggle of Anwar Ibrahim to take power, there is no guarantee that his coalition would be able to govern effectively. UMNO's best chance to restore the luster it once had as the party of independence is to spend time in opposition and learn how to compete in a real democracy. That would be an outcome that could move the country forward.

*Article first appeared on http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53...

Singapore’s ruling party bears similarities with one of Malaysia’s opposition parties, according to Malaysia’s former Prime Minister,Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad. 

Dr Mahathir posted an opinion piece on a news publication on Friday stating the similarities between Singapore’s People’s Action Party (PAP) back in 1963 and the Democratic Action Party (DAP) in Malaysia today.

He stated that both parties did not support the spirit of sharing between multiple races and believed that “Sino-Malay cooperation” should not be used as a basis for a country’s growth. Instead, a meritocratic system should be adopted, which the former prime minister claimed did not come without a higher agenda.

He said that the PAP’s campaign to promote meritocracy in Malaysia was in line with their goal to “antagonise” the Chinese against the Malays. At that time, PAP had done so by informing the Chinese in Malaysia that the country was being ruled by Malays instead of the “cleverest” and “qualified”, and even suggested that the Chinese were being treated as “second class citizens”.

In his opinion piece, Dr Mahathir explained that this is similar to DAP who is campaigning in the current general election in Malaysia.

He believes that DAP is currently “breaking up the community and splitting Chinese voters from the Malays” and added that the similar acronym to PAP was “not accidental”.

In reference to DAP candidate Lim Kit Siang who is contesting in Gelang Patah, a constituency in Johor, Dr Mahathir said that Kit Siang hopes to split the Malay votes in order to defeat the ruling party coalition that is Barisan Nasional.

“Now, UMNO (United Malays National Organisation) is contesting Gelang Patah with little hope of getting Chinese support.”

According to him, DAP was formed by a group of Singaporeans who had stayed behind while the rest left Malaysia in 1965. He further assimilated DAP to the PAP stating that the former had claimed to be multiracial despite being made up of mostly Chinese. 

While Singapore based its growth on meritocracy, Malaysia depends largely on “Sino-Malay cooperation”, which is also witnessed during elections when the Chinese would support the Malays in terms of votes and vice versa. The share of support is also reflected within political parties representing the respective races. 

*Article first appeared on http://sg.news.yahoo.com/mahathir-states-similarities-between-singapore%...

There is, no doubt, a thin line that separates gratuitous or irresponsible comment from legitimate criticism of public authorities. Modern, civilised nations inspired by the rule of law have endeavoured to establish practicable doctrines that protect reputations while simultaneously allowing – even encouraging – private citizens and public interest organisations to evaluate the workings of public officials and public bodies. Thus did the poet, Juvenal, ask the question that is the title of this essay: Who guards the guardians?

Criticism, sometimes vigorous and forceful, achieved decolonisation; prohibitions against child labour; workplace safety and health standards; the abolition of slavery; better protections for children, widows and the disabled; the emancipation of women, and many of the contemporary civil liberties we take for granted.

In previous, more primitive, times colonial servitude; child labour; forced labour; slavery; fifteen hour workdays; children considered as the chattels of their parents or guardians, and the subjugation of women were taken-for-granted features of societies. Moves to eradicate them were considered so radical, so dangerous, so inimical to the established social order that men and women suffered imprisonment, torture, and execution to stamp them out.

Throughout the ages, these oppressive conditions served the interests of a particular group: colonialism favoured the foreign overlord; slavery benefited the landowner; child labour suited the industrialist, and the subjugation of women bolstered male rights. But as nations have matured and, indeed, as humanity itself has matured, the notion of human rights, residing in the very person of human beings by the mere fact of their personhood, have come to occupy a central place in the human value system that underpin our laws. These rights, generally of speech, assembly, association, but more widely protecting belief, movement, security, and Roosevelt’s freedoms from want, fear, ignorance and sickness, have come to be regarded as the undergirding of our communities and the stimulus to our public arrangements.

They are indivisible. They apply to all people at all times. They mandate our personal and corporate behaviour. As Irina Bokova (pictured left), Director-General of UNESCO, said in 2011, "Whatever the circumstances or complexity of the challenges that we face, the observance of human rights is not negotiable.” At the same time, there is equally no doubt that human rights, through common consent, may be modulated – or even suspended – in times of national crisis. A nation at war is one such example. At all other times, however, human rights remain inviolate. They have been the propellant which improved the conditions of the people.

In England, the consideration of human rights led to untold improvements in the quality of life for ordinary citizens. France, Russia and China got rid of despotic and evil monarchies. The nations of north America threw off their colonial yoke and built for themselves among the most prosperous and productive nations on earth. And in our very own Singapore less than six decades ago, where previously an Asian might never aspire to head his department, where she might never represent her fellows in Parliament, where their families should never enter the hallowed portals of the Cricket Club, our anticolonial leaders achieved for us independence, wealth and, most importantly, self respect.

The magnitude, the centrality of human rights in achieving for the children and grandchildren, and lately great-grandchildren, of our founding fathers the ability to live fulfilling, satisfying lives cannot be overestimated.

But in recent months, and particularly in the last fortnight, the heavy hand of government has been raised against numerous citizens who appear, on the face of it, merely to have exercised their right to the fundamental freedoms in order to make legitimate comment about the conduct of our public authorities. The trend is disturbing. It appears to hark back to the darker days of the earlier administration but without the conviction that underlay the worldview of the first Prime Minister.

In the era of the Lee Kuan Yew administration, the subordinate relationship of human rights to material advancement was articulated clearly and cogently. In the face of spiraling unemployment, widespread homelessness, poor public health, a geopolitical threat from Indonesia, and the expulsion from the Malaysian Federation, Prime Minister Lee made no bones of his conviction that what he saw as the more esoteric of human endowments should take second place to feeding, housing and educating a population newly emerged from colonial tutelage.

There was a seemingly tidy logic to his worldview and over the years citizens became habituated to the Lee worldview.  However, the desire for self-determination, never far beneath the surface, began to re-emerge. The 1984 general elections resulted in a substantial decline in the PAP vote and the entry of two opposition MPs to Parliament. Elsewhere in the region, cracks in the social compact began to show. In a spectacular display of ‘people power’, our neighbours in the Philippines threw out their dictator and the first democrat in twenty years entered Malacanang Palace.

Lee Kuan Yew, sensing his party’s grip on power loosen, acted to re-establish its authority and dominance. Having already corralled the print and broadcast media, he moved to contain the Law Society. Then he lashed out at a group of social activists. Later, Mr J B Jeyaretnam, the first opposition MP in almost fifteen years, was removed from Parliament. Subsequently, moves were taken to discredit the Singapore Democratic Party. There also followed a spate of defamation suits that frightened politicians and electors alike. For the next almost two decades, with the exception of the SDP which continued to raise matters of public liberty, civil society went into abeyance.

In the early years of the millennium, aided by the newly emerging internet, a new generation of activists began to emerge. Unfettered by memories of Operations Coldstore and Spectrum and motivated by a care and compassion for the less fortunate, movements to advocate for the rights of migrants, women, nature and animals began to form. A campaign to abolish the death penalty emerged. Bloggers began to express views consonant with the hope of a new era articulated by the activists.

In the 2006 general elections, internet campaigning was restricted. In 2009, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong declared a ‘cooling off day’ at the next elections. But there was a noticeable reduction in recourse to the courts. There was hope that a new dawn might imminently break and the new PM might depart from the methods of his predecessors.

During and following the 2011 general elections where the PAP had its poorest showing since 1963, the Cabinet, including younger ministers entering Parliament at those elections, appeared to take an about turn. What can only be described as a charm offensive seemed to take place. The PM apologised for his government’s lacklustre performance; tears of remorse were shed; bloggers were invited to the Istana, and younger ministers sought to engage the blogosphere and even participate in it through their own blogs and Facebook pages. Tan Chuan Jin made a visit to a migrant worker organisation in Little India and Chan Chun Seng began a series of discussion forums. Although the government opened a debate about a possible Code of Conduct for the internet, it dropped it shortly thereafter. A new mood was in the air: people began to speak of a new normal.

But the Singapore Spring may not come so soon. Ministers and MPs began to decry criticisms of them on the internet, protesting their bona fides, and one new MP even went so far as to say that the government need not listen to complaints from citizens. And things appear to have ratcheted up a notch in these last several months. As I said, a trend is emerging. 

Shortly before the 2011 elections, Alan Shadrake, was convicted for statements made in a book on the death penalty in Singapore. In late 2012, Alex Au, the widely-read blogger, was threatened with a defamation suit by none other than the Prime Minister himself. And in the last fortnight, a blog commenting on a case recently before the courts was ordered by the Attorney General to take its post down; activists involved in supporting the SMRT strikers were threatened with legal action; the Council for Private Education is seeking to sue a blogger for defamation and, perhaps most alarming of all, a political cartoonist was arrested for sedition and questioned for three days over the content of his cartoons which he publishes on the internet.

Why should these events even concern us? Are they not esoteric legal wranglings over issues that have little – if any – bearing on our day-to-day lives? Do not those who take it upon themselves to comment on matters political deserve the heavy hand of the state upon their backs? Should they not mind their own business? Have they forgotten that prosecutions await those who dare criticise the government? Have they forgotten Catherine Lim?

To a large extent, the longevity and success of the PAP government has depended on three factors: (a) the ability to deliver material benefits to the people; (b) the ability to control information; and (c) the preparedness to use political measures against critics. Among the more memorable examples are the numerous sovereign investments that went sour. We suffered the ignominy of learning about them from foreign journals courtesy of the internet. Another was the allegation against Tang Liang Hong that a speech he gave showed him to be an anti-Christian Chinese chauvinist so as to discredit his parliamentary candidacy. When the speech was made available some years later, also on the internet, we found that his text contained no anti-Christian sentiments or Chinese chauvinism whatsoever. In recent months, the AIMS saga highlighted worrisome dealings at the heart of the governing party.

Were it not for the internet, Singaporeans would never have come to know of their existence. It has weakened the government’s control of information. And therefore, its control of the citizenry. The general elections of 2011, where the internet allowed for a fairer representation of candidates (notwithstanding The New Paper’s attempt to smear members of the Singapore Democratic Party), saw the government suffer its worst defeat in 50 years. The internet, as a vehicle of public information, is re-balancing the relationship between state and citizen.

Fundamentally, citizen criticism of public authorities helps to improve the quality of government. No one individual or agency can claim to know all and therefore be able to act with absolute correctness in all situations. Not all policy outcomes can be envisaged by planners at the time of their enactment or subsequent operation. People make mistakes. Therefore, feedback is crucial to progress. In the courts, properly and respectfully criticising the decisions of judges leads to better law. This principle is nowhere more respected than in the scientific community: the ability for other scientists to test your findings and falsify them is a cornerstone of the scientific method.

In 1976, when British Prime Minister Jim Callaghan devalued the sterling, he ignored the voices from the ground. He went on to suffer a massive electoral defeat which saw his Labour Party out of office for almost twenty years. In the late 1980s, the recently deceased Margaret Thatcher ignored the opposition to her community Poll Tax. She was unceremoniously thrown out of office in an internal coup engineered by her own party colleagues. In 2010, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown who had channelled vast amounts of money to the irresponsible banks involved in the global financial crisis himself lost office. When Sherron Watkins (pictured below) blew the whistle on irregular accounting practices at Enron Corp in 2001, she was silenced by senior management and her report covered up. By the end of the year, the company which employed 20,000 people and posted profits at one third of Singapore’s GDP became bankrupt. These instances occurred in countries with a far freer press than ours and yet such devastating outcomes occurred. What more the situation in Singapore with this renewed attempt to stifle legitimate criticism?

We Singaporeans have always been asked to place human rights at second place to bread and butter issues. Perhaps at one time some may feel that this was justified. However, as time marches on and a community becomes more educated, better housed and fed, healthier, the equation starts to change. Or, indeed, should. There is no more stark example of their close congruence in our current age than when we consider how the suppression of legitimate criticism led to crises in other nations.

In short, when governments not only decline to listen to their voters but expressly try to silence those who critique public behaviour, one can safely surmise that crises will eventually arise. It is the phenomenon told in the story about the Emperor’s New Clothes. The government takes shelter in the argument that to criticise the public authorities or the courts is to place their reputation in jeopardy. This is a circular, self-seeking argument with no merit. When Alan Shadrake was jailed, I wrote in a local blog that serious criticism of public authorities should be taken seriously and attempts made to ascertain the truth and correct any mistakes. If mistakes are found, correcting them leads to better governance. Holding the proposition that public bodies cannot be criticised because this leads to a decline in their standing is, in logical terms, a nonsense because if the criticism is found to be true, then their standing is indeed wanting and requires remedy. It is the refuge of the insecure and it puts the long-term stability of our nation at risk. 

Dr Vincent Wijeysingha is the SDP Treasurer and Head of Communications Unit.

On 29 April 2013, Malaysian PM Dato’ Sri Najib Razak made a whistlestop tour of the politically critical state of Johore, as he looked to secure victory for the Barisan Nasional coalition at Malaysia’s general election on Sunday, 5 May 2013.

At an afternoon rally at a shopping mall in Johor Baru, Dato’ Najib announced that the city’s 100-year-old Foon Yew High School, the largest independent Chinese school in Malaysia, would be allowed to set up a second branch.

In the evening, he attended a dinner with over 1,000 residents, Chinese community leaders and alumni at Southern University College in Gelang Patah seat. In his dinner speech, Mr Najib said he was committed to ensuring fair education opportunities for all Malaysians, adding:

Outside of China and Hong Kong, Malaysia is the most liberal and accommodating towards Chinese education.

Not far across from Johor, across the Causeway, you won’t find any Chinese schools there. Here, you not only find Chinese schools, but also Southern University College.

Mr Najib does not mention Taiwan, but that is probably because Malaysia does not officially recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state.

Is it true that there are no Chinese schools a short distance “across the Causeway” from Malaysia? Or is Mr Najib exaggerating?

Is it true that “outside of China and Hong Kong, Malaysia is the most liberal and accommodating towards Chinese education” despite the Chinese there making up only about 25% of the population?

Is the corollary true that Singapore is less liberal and accommodating towards Chinese education despite the Chinese here making up the majority i.e. about 75% of the population?

What do you think?

TR Emeritus

*Article first appeared on www.TREmeritus.com
 

National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan has urged those who might be looking to buy property to take into account future spikes in interest rates.

Speaking during a dialogue with young Singaporeans, he also cautioned buyers not to over-commit.

He explained that the current low interest rates for home loans will not last forever, and the eventual rate may be many percentage points higher than it is today.

Some 150 youths from Sembawang spent yesterday afternoon discussing their hopes and aspirations for Singapore with their MP Mr Khaw.

They also engaged the Minister in an hour-long dialogue, as part of the Our Singapore Conversation.

Even though housing may not be an immediate concern for them, the issue did not escape attention.

Mr Khaw assured the youths that housing will be made available and kept affordable.

He also offered advice for property buyers.

Mr Khaw said: “They assume two things. Property prices will keep going (up). Two, interest rates will keep on remaining low. Both are wrong and therefore one day, both will collapse on them. So, if you are over-committed, let’s say you can only afford a 3-room flat, (but) you decide to buy five room flat. Yes, based on today’s interest rates you can afford a five-room flat. But, when interest rates go up as it will, you will no longer be able to afford a five-room flat and what will happen, your bank will start calling you up to please top up or sell your flat and that’s when trouble starts.”

In addition, Mr Khaw said the high property prices will not last in the long run.

At the same time, he acknowledged he cannot be certain when and how much prices will come down.

He added: “Only when you can get enough buyers who can afford, will prices stay up, if not they will come down. Today because of low interest rates, this bubble is being pushed up and sustained longer than it should have. So, it will collapse in a matter of time and therefore do not think that prices will keep on going up.”

Mr Khaw also stressed the importance of re-igniting the kampong spirit in public housing estates, and hinted at what the design of HDB flats will be in the future.

He said more common spaces, or so-called “watering holes” will be created for residents to meet naturally.

He said: “We are emphasising this point on how to create more and more common spaces, where people meet, what we call watering holes. We must try and create more and more watering holes to allow people to just naturally interact. I think it’s a very bad HDB layout design if you just go straight from work, reach Sembawang, go straight up to apartment or flat, and then leave your apartment, go straight out to the bus stop and off you go. A good design will naturally create things for you (so that) to reach from A to B you must go through places which are natural watering holes that people naturally meet together.”

These watering holes can be spaces where residents do gardening, or engage in sports activities.

Source: CHANNEL NEWSASIA

Singaporeans do not need to be university graduates to be successful, said National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan yesterday.

What is more important is that they get good jobs after leaving school, Mr Khaw told some 160 students and young adults in an Our Singapore Conversation dialogue.

"If they cannot find jobs, what is the point? You own a degree, but so what? That you can't eat it. If that cannot give you a good life, a good job, it is meaningless," he added.

Mr Khaw was responding to a participant who said the Government should set aside more university places for Institute of Technical Education (ITE) and polytechnic graduates.

Toh Yong Chuan, SPH