Reform Party notes the latest announcement by the Economic Development Board (EDB) that manufacturing output fell by 2.5% compared with the same period a year ago and by 5.7% on a seasonally adjusted annualized basis compared with last month.

The technical definition of recession is two quarters of negative growth. After annualized quarterly growth of only 0.1% in Q1 2014 (which looks suspicious in any case and may be revised) second quarter growth is likely to be unambiguously negative. We are very close to recession even if not actually in one yet, according to our Statistics Department, which is not independent of the PAP government. While the EDB and the government expect a recovery in global demand to revive growth, this is probably over-optimistic given a slowing global economy, Chinese debt problems and the likelihood that Europe is back in recession.

In April Reform called for a stimulus package (see link) of at least $2.5 billion, or about 0.6% of GDP. This would still be less than 10% of the government’s real surplus for the year. Part of the cost would be recouped through higher tax receipts.

This was to be in the form of cash payments to each Singapore citizen household member with payments to children below the age of 18 going to the mother. The details were as follows:

Bottom 20th Percentile $2000
20th-50th Percentile $1000
50th-75th Percentile $ 200
For children below the age of 18, the payment should be made to their chief caregiver, normally their mother.

In light of the likelihood that the economy is on the brink of recession, Reform now calls for the stimulus to be raised by 50% for the bottom 50% of the income distribution. This would raise the cost to approximately $4 billion, or just over 1% of GDP, before factoring in the additional tax receipts that would be generated by the increased output.

Longer term, as part of efforts to reduce poverty, Reform wants to see the introduction of a scheme similar to the US Earned Income Tax Credit in Singapore to replace the inadequate Workfare Scheme, which many low-income workers fail to claim. This would provide low-income households with children with a guaranteed income top-up, which would be gradually withdrawn as their income approached a level of, say, 50% of the median income. The size of the credit would be linked to the number of children.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam
Secretary General

An average Singaporean

TRS Contributor

Since its inception, The Reform Party, as befitting its name, has been campaigning for Reform.  Economic Reform, Political Reform, Constitutional Reform and particularly Electoral Reform. Also since inception we have called for the scrapping of the GRC system and reversion back to SMCs amongst other reforms that we consider essential.

A little over a year ago the idea of Reforming the electoral system to re-introduce SMCs firmly entered the National Conversation with the publication of a position paper by NGO MARUAH stating that the GRC system had outlived its usefulness.

Since then there have been other papers by academics such as James Gomez and numerous articles, blogs, conversations and Party forums including one being hosted by the NSP on July 4.

We believe the time has come therefore to move that conversation on and translate it into action. We are therefore calling on all the Opposition Parties to come together and agree on the Reforms that we all in common want to see introduced, whilst there is still time before GE 2016.

By putting aside our differences and coming together to sign a joint Position Paper on areas where there is clear agreement, we hope each Party can show solidarity without homogeneity. Homogeneity denies choice to the electorate. Additionally the development of a competitive market place of ideas is essential to Singapore’s development as an advanced economy and the establishment of democracy.

The GRC system is a major obstacle to democracy and disenfranchises more than 40% of Singaporeans. In 2006 nearly half of seats went uncontested because of the obstacles presented by the GRC system, handing the PAP victory before a single vote had been cast in their favour. In 2011 40% of the electorate voted for the Opposition but the net result was only 7% of the seats in Parliament. In 2006 it was 33% and 2% of the seats.

Whilst there are many areas that need a complete overhaul and other area so new to our way of thinking that much more debate and thought is required (such as a system of voting based on Proportional Representation or the Single Transferable Vote) we do hope that agreement may be reached on the following in some form.  The list is not exhaustive but only those areas where we believe common ground on Electoral Reform can be reached.

As, by convention an open letter does not require a response I have separately sent this message in the form of a private letter to the leader of each political party and prospective party.  Mr Low Thia Kiang, the Honourable MP for Aljunied and Secretary General of the WP, Mrs Lina Chiam, NCMP and Chairman of SPP, Mr Sebastian Teo President of NSP, Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of SDP, Mr Abu Mohamed, President of PKMS, Mr Desmond Lim, Secretary General of SJP, Mr Benjamin Pwee, Secretary General of DPP, and Mr Tan Jee Say, leader of the prospective SFP.

Remove Control of the Elections Department from the PMO

This is the Electoral Reform upon which all other Reforms depend. The elections department must be removed from the PM’s office and replaced by a fully independent Electoral Commission with representatives from civil society and all political parties on the Commission.
The task of redrawing the electoral boundaries and policing elections should pass to this body.

There should be an independently elected Commissioner with powers to stop the use of state and taxpayer resources to buy votes, e.g. through a threat to withhold upgrading of HDB estates.

Abolish GRCs

We are all acutely aware that the GRC system hands a vastly disproportionate share of the seats in Parliament to the PAP. It creates an uneven playing field leading to democracy by deepest pocket.  Many also feel that the (GRC) system allows “free-riders” to enter politics on the coattails of more established party members.

The justification given for the GRC system by the PAP has always been that it ensures minority representation in Parliament.  At the Reform party we argue that in fact it entrenches tokenism and we should trust the voters to vote on merit not ethnic lines. Before the GRC system was introduced, minority members were not under- represented.

Other methods could be explored which do not deprive the voter of choice. The most expedient method would be to retain 25% of the seats as two- or three-seat GRCs  as an interim measure till full reform could be achieved. Ethnic minority representation could be entrenched through short lists or by tweaking the NCMP system to install the closest losers among the minority candidates in the event of under representation.

Reform the Political Donations Act

The limit above which political donations have to be declared should be raised significantly as the current system acts as a substantial impediment to Opposition parties attracting funding.

The independent Elections Commission should police donations as it is not appropriate that the leader of the PAP can oversee the donors to competing parties without reciprocity.

Reduce the Electoral Deposit and Threshold

Together with the GRC system the very high electoral deposit and threshold which candidates have to attain contributed in the past to nearly half the seats going uncontested in 2006. Though almost all seats were contested in 2011 we still had one GRC where voters did not get their democratic right to choose. The Singapore electorate are sophisticated enough to decide which candidate they wish to represent them in Parliament.

Reform the Media Laws

The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act and the Broadcasting Act need to be repealed so that we have a free media. The State Media companies should be privatised and competitors allowed to enter the market.

Extend the Campaign Period

In line with other democracies this needs to be at least three weeks to allow Opposition parties adequate time to campaign and get their message out

Fixed Terms Between Elections

There should be a fixed term between elections unless the Government loses a vote of no confidence. This is to remove the big advantage that the incumbents have, in combination with the very limited campaign period and the control of the media

State Funding for Political Parties

The State should also provide funding to the leading Opposition Party and a state allowance for an office or a researcher. There should be an official title of Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.

Reform the Town Councils

Town councils should be separated from the SMCs. Making the MP responsible for running the Town Council and Estate Management is a complete distraction from her proper purpose, which is to represent her electorate and to hold the Government accountable in parliament.

We should replace the present system with one in which Town Councils are larger but directly elected by the people.

Reform the Presidency

The (S)Elected Presidency should either be:

1. Abolished
2. Returned to a purely ceremonial role
3. Reformed by removing the current restricted selection criteria and given greater resources and powers to investigate and expose corruption, mismanagement or wastage in government. The CPIB should be removed from the PMO and placed either under the President or under a directly elected Commissioner.

Abolish NMPs
This system has outlived its purpose.

Thank you for reading this. We look forward to an early response and a robust dialogue.

Links

http://votingrp.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/reform-party-anniversary-dinner-speech-by-secretary-general-kenneth-jeyaretnam/

http://maruahsg.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/maruah-position-paper-on-the-grc-system1.pdf

Source: http://reform.sg/about-2/press-releases/reform-electoral-system/

ELECTORAL REFORM PROPOSAL:

CONSTITUENCY RESERVED FOR MINORITY SCHEME

Dear Members of the Media

INVITATION TO ATTEND PRESS CONFERENCE

Date: Wednesday, 2 July 2014
Time: 7.45pm to 9.30pm
Place: NSP HQ 297 Jalan Besar Singapore 209007

Programme:

1. Presentation of NSP’s Electoral Reform Proposal – The Constituency Reserved for Minority Scheme

2. Question & Answer Session

BRIEF:

A.  The Group Representative Constituency (GRC) Scheme was incepted to uphold multi-racialism by guaranteeing minority representation in Parliament.

B.  However, the GRC Scheme hinders political competition, fortifies the incumbents and works against democracy.

C.  NSP proposes that the GRC Scheme be abolished, the nation reverts to single member constituencies and the Constituency Reserved for Minority (CRM) Scheme be implemented.

D.  The CRM Scheme will be as effective as the GRC Scheme to ensure a multi-racial Parliament but without exacting the heavy price on the democratic process as the GRC Scheme does.

If you wish to attend, please email me at secgen@nsp.sg and I will send you an embargoed copy of our CRM Paper for your review ahead of the Press Conference.

Warm regards

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, Secretary-General

On behalf of the 15th Central Executive Committee

of the NATIONAL SOLIDARITY PARTY

The SDP reiterates our support for the Government's move to increase its expenditure on the healthcare in Singapore. It is a step in the right direction and will ensure that Singaporeans receive the kind of healthcare that they deserve.

However, the announcement that it will provide $0.8 billion per year in subsidies for the next five years is disappointing. Considering that our nation's total healthcare expenditure tops $12 billion a year, the Government's latest subsidy increase is a miniscule 6.5% increase.

Furthermore, we are concerned that these subsidies may not go directly to patient care but rather towards the Medishield Life provider which is already one of the world's most profitable insurance companies based on its MLR (Medical Loss Ratio).

Given the needs of Singaporeans for adequate financial support for healthcare, one can only conclude that the initiative is significantly inadequate and will do little to help the average Singaporean in any meaningful manner.

In particular, we are concerned that the high deductibles will persist as these high costs have been shown in many studies to reduce access to essential care. Furthermore, the schemes are very hospital centric and will drive patients to our already overcrowded and over-stretched hospitals instead of channelling more resources to primary care.

While the CHAS scheme is a good start to supporting primary care, the caps and limitations in the number of conditions covered in addition to the huge amount of bureaucracy and paperwork involved limit the effectiveness of such a scheme in improving the overall health of Singaporeans.

In addition, the Ministry of Health has said that the premiums for Medishield Life, taken from the people's Medisave accounts, will increase although this will be held constant for the first five years.

Such a statement is disturbing in two ways:

First, Medisave money is taken from the people's CPF accounts. There is already little left in one's CPF after the money is used for paying HDB loans. Taking even more money out to service Medishield Life premiums will mean greater hardship from Singaporeans when they retire.

The recommendations made by the Medishield Life Review Committee (MLRC), which have been accepted by the Government, adds yet another layer to an already confusing system that continues to place the burden on the people without significantly making a dent in healthcare costs.Singaporeans must beware that this could be a sugar-coated poison that could cost them dearly in the years to come.

Currently, Medisave, Medishield and Medifund, or the 3Ms, together account for less than 10% of total health expenditure in Singapore.

Our proposal to make healthcare in Singapore universal, as spelt out in The SDP National Healthcare Plan: Caring for All Singaporeans, is the better alternative.

Under our plan, healthcare payment is made simple through a single-payer system – the National Health Investment Fund (NHIF). Under this plan, we scrap the 3Ms system and return the money to Singaporeans' CPF accounts.

Singaporeans then pay a average of $400/year (compared to $1,600 we currently pay for Medisave) into the NHIF. The Government will make up the remainder of the total healthcare budget.

When we are hospitalised, we pay only 10% of the bill (capped at $2,000/year) while the NHIF pays the remaining 90%. Payments are limited to evidence-based healthcare as determined by experts in the field.

Read also The SDP healthcare plan made simple

                 Healthcare: A comparison between the SDP and PAP systems

Under the SDP proposal, the Government pays 70% of our total healthcare expenditure, a percentage which governments from other developed economies are paying.

At present, the PAP government pays only 30% and makes Singaporeans and their employers shoulder the main bulk of our healthcare expenses. This is wrong.

The SDP will present our alternative healthcare policy to the people at the next general elections and we look forward to their support.

Source: YourSDP.Org

KUALA LUMPUR, June 30 — Bumiputera must unite under Umno to stem the rise of opposition party DAP, an Utusan Malaysia columnist wrote today, warning that Singapore could still possibly re-enter the Federation of Malaysia to dilute the community’s majority among the races.

He claimed that Article 2(A) of the Federal Constitution allows the inclusion of new states into the federation with a two-third majority vote in Parliament, which he said could open the door for Singapore to re-join the federation that expelled in 1965. Cautioning the Malay youth not to be sold on the notions of liberalism espoused by the opposition, Datuk Ahmad Faris Abdul Halim said the country’s largest ethnic group was not certain to always maintain its numerical superiority over the other races.

“If this happens — bolstered by the recent statement by Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew who repeatedly said it was not impossible for Singapore to re-unite with Malaysia under certain conditions — then imagine the ‘implications’ of Singapore with its 87 parliamentary seats,” he said.

“Therefore, Singapore’s 87 seats included into our country’s 222 parliamentary seats. What would happen to the Malays?”

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/singapore-could-rejoi...

When the government responded to Catherine Lim’s open letter to the Prime Minister about a crisis in trust on 13 June 2014, it chose to cite only one major indicator of the 2014 Edelman Trust Barometer, namely the survey result that showed 75% of Singaporeans trust government institutions; this, it claimed, proved that the vast majority trust the government.

But a second key indicator gave a different dimension, namely that only 26% of Singaporeans trust their government leaders to tell the truth regardless of how complex or unpopular it is. Does this 26% trust in leaders to tell the truth mean that 74% of Singaporeans cannot trust PAP government leaders to tell the truth or expect them to tell untruths or even lies? Now this is telling.

If the statistics are true, it speaks volumes about the low level of trust Singaporeans have in PAP leaders. It is definitely a crisis for the PAP however hard the PAP might want to deny, ignore or gloss over it, not just in its response to Catherine Lim but also in DPM Tharman’s speech to the Administrative Service in March earlier this year.

Again, if the statistics are true, this is a crisis of trust in PAP but not a crisis for Singapore. Indeed there is a silver lining for Singapore. In the survey, Singaporeans have made an important distinction between government institutions (which are supposed to be neutral) and government leaders (who are clearly PAP leaders).

In past years, most Singaporeans regarded the government and PAP as inseparable and believed that Singapore could not and would not have a functional government without the PAP. Now Singaporeans have become more sophisticated in their view of government and can separate it from the party. Will this increased sophistication give confidence to Singaporeans to vote for a change of party in government in the next general election?

Tan Jee Say

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

Lee Li Lian just gave to her first baby girl on Tuesday morning and it has come to light that she apparently scheduled her baby's delivery for the day after her Meet-the-People (MPS) session on Monday night. 

She has been a dedicated MP to her residents in Punggol East and even during her confinement period just after the delivery of her baby, she is going to be replying to residents and working hard via email and phone.

On Tuesday afternoon, she updated the public via her facebook page to say that Low Thia Khiang and Png Eng Huat would be helping her cover her MPS during her confinement period:

Announcement:

This is to inform that I have smoothly delivered my baby girl this morning. During my confinement period, both MP Low Thia Khiang and Png Eng Huat will take turns to cover me for Meet the People Session (MPS) duties. 

Like always, I am contactable via email at lilian.lee@wp.sg or if you prefer to speak to me please call 
6686 6221 during office hours and leave your contact details. I will do my best to get back to you as soon as I can.

Ms Lee's baby was delivered via caesarean intersection so she could pick the time to deliver her baby. She chose to deliver after he Monday MPS session and she attended her Monday MPS in the evening, working hard right until the morning she was due to have her baby.

Ms Lee Li Lian is clearly working hard for her residents and will undoubtedly be back at work as soon as she can after her confinement period.

Her dedication to her residents is admirable, much better than some other PAP MPs such as Mr Lee Kuan Yew who has pretty much permanently delegated him MPS responsibilities to Indranee Rajah and almost never attends parliament.

While Mr Lee Kuan Yew may be respected as a 'founding father' by many, isn't it a waste of tax payer money and an insult to residents in Tanjong Pagar that they are paying him $15k a month to delegate his duties to other MPs.

BRIEF

The Government has established that multi-racialism is a fundamental tenet of Singapore society and that it is necessary to ensure minority representation in Parliament.

The Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Scheme was incepted to uphold multi-racialism by guaranteeing minority representation in Parliament.

However, the GRC Scheme hinders political competition, fortifies the incumbents and works against democracy.

NSP proposes that the GRC Scheme be abolished, the nation reverts to Single Member Constituencies and the Constituency Reserved for Minority (CRM) Scheme be implemented.

In this paper, we shall explain how the CRM Scheme works.

The CRM Scheme will be as effective as the GRC Scheme to ensure a multi-racial Parliament but without exacting the heavy price on democracy as the GRC Scheme does.
 

Download Paper here: http://bit.ly/TSP7kF

Source: http://nsp.sg

Singapore Democrats

This picture which we posted on our Facebook  two days ago attracted the ire of some PAP supporters who called it a "circus" and "populist bo liao G bashing." One even scolded: "Super Disgusting Party!"

Unfortunately, these folks continue to tell everyone to believe the PAP and not their lying eyes.

They refuse to accept reality. Reality like this elderly couple who had to walk 1 km home after visiting a polyclinic - they didn't have enough money for transportation after paying their medical bills.

Watch the video here.

Or these elderly woman and man struggling to clear plates and bowls.

Or these retirees collecting airport luggage trolleys.

The PAP reacted to the negative publicity about struggling elderly Singaporeans by coming up with the Pioneer Generation Package. It spent millions of tax dollars putting up commercials and posters to show that it was doing something for them.

But it could not have escaped our ministers that the older generation has been suffering for decades without proper financial support. And when they do what they should have done a long time ago and as a matter of duty, they spend public money making themselves look like Robin Hood.

The crux of the matter is how the PAP values the people. It treats us like votes to win and digits to boost the economy.

How else can you explain that when the elderly cried out for lifts to be built to stop on every floor because they couldn't climb the stairs, the PAP told them that they had to vote for the party before they would get priority for the lift upgrading.

This is not what good governments do, it is how self-serving governments operate to stay in power - even if the elderly have to pay for it.

Ultimately, the photograph comparing cleaners in Singapore and Australia isn't about minimum wage or even the right of older people to work.

It is about how we treat our weak and vulnerable, the Ah Kongs and Ah Mas in our midst. How we do this reflects on our Government, on our values and on us as a people.

Source: YourSDP.org

“Ong Ye Kung poised for comeback in new GRC”, so crows the lapdog sheet, the Straits Times.

If readers can recall, Ong was among the losing PAP candidates in Aljunied GRC.

Shortly after he lost the election, he also resigned from NTUC despite having been just promoted to the post of Deputy Secretary General during the elections.

Ong Ye Kung joined NTUC as Assistant Secretary General in 2008. In the last few years, Singapore’s income inequality rose to the highest level among developed countries.

Ong is also on the SMRT’s Board of Director and we all know SMRT had been fraught with morale problems under Saw Phaik Hwa culminating in the strike by a group of drivers in 2012. It was also revealed that unlike SBS in which 9 out of 10 China drivers were in the union, only 1 in SMRT was.

Where was Ong Ye Kung when all these problems were developing? What significant constructive contributions did he make to enhance the welfare of workers as the Assistant and then Deputy Secretary General?

So voters need to ask themselves: can you trust Ong Ye Kung to be your representative, your leader; if he did not and could not even take care of workers’ welfare?

The Alternative View

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Alternative-View/358759327518739

Ong Ye Kung, one of the PAP candidates who stood in Aljunied GRC last election, is looking set to return to politics and run in a different GRC in the next election.

He has recently been seen helping with grassroots activities and meet-the-people sessions with other Ministers.

National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan invited Mr Ong to help him out in Sembawang GRC, and Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Education and Manpower, Hawazi Daipi is planning to have Mr Ong join him during his Meet-the-people sessions in Marsiling soon.

Ong has been a high flying civil servant who was part of the PAP Aljunied GRC team which lost to Workers' Party in 2011.

He was the NTUC Assistant Secretary General before quitting shortly after the election. He also serves on the board of directors at SMRT. 

I am compelled to write this article to record this event not because of the low turnout we have but rather, the fantastic event I have enjoyed should not went unrecorded.

This event is special because it has included a live band singing of songs which inspires political struggles. All thanks to Gilbert Louis, Tina Mercury de Costa along with her long lost cousin, Daniel de Costa. They have uplifted the spirit of the protest with their inspiring songs.

We have impressive young speaker like 17 year old Ariffin Sha to 72 year old elderly layman like Sulaiman to share their views. Of course, not to mention the "agent provocateur" who spoke in support of PM Lee Hsien Loong but was met with unexpected reactions from the crowd who just booed him out of stage half way through his speech.

I have learned something from Mr. Sulaiman. The PAP government has not spent enough money to help Singaporeans and we should not be a "Beggar State" whereby citizens have to beg the government for help. This may sound too simple to many people but it means something very profound to me. It simply sums up how stingy PAP government is when it comes to helping our citizens in need.

There are a few songs sang by Gilbert Louis group. The songs include my all time favourite John Lenon's "Imagine", the infamous song from Les Miserables "Do You Hear the People Sing", "Wind of Change", "Voices That Care", "From a Distance", "Shout" (by Tears for Fears) etc. I personally feel that these songs are great songs which could become a group of Theme Songs for any protests held in Hong Lim Park. These songs are not just any other songs but come with meaningful background and lyrics. 

I have seen how the protest organizers in Hong Kong utilize various songs effectively for their events. They even have their own written songs for their own events. The annual 4th  June Vigil is one good example. 

Music and songs are powerful medium and tools to create the appropriate atmosphere for such events. These are so powerful and influential that PAP has to ban them altogether for any political rallies held during General Elections. But I believe we need to change all that.

Next, I will come to my own speech, which is in fact, "incomplete" as we were running out of time then. I am going to run through the rationale of my speech here.

The whole theme of my speech is, what are the reasons which will justify an urgent need to ask Mr. Lee Hsien Loong to resign as Prime Minister? I have somehow missed out some important points during the rally as there was a time constrain but the following are my thoughts:

1) Leadership Quality

The role of the government and thus, Prime Minister, is to take care of Singaporeans' welfare and interests. What does a Prime Minister needs, beside eyes, ears and a brain? It is the HEART. If you do not have the HEART to take care of the citizens' welfare and interests when you are making every decisions, then you are not fit to be our political leaders, least Prime Minister. 

PAP has always been OVERLY GENEROUS towards themselves while being EXTREMELY STINGY towards Singaporeans in need. As the other speaker Mr. Sulaiman has mentioned, we have become a "Beggar State" under PAP rule. The Singapore Government hardly spent any money extensively on the welfare of Singaporeans. Even hospitals are no longer "Government Hospitals" but business oriented "Restructured Hospital".

There is little help available for Singaporeans who have, for whatever reasons, fallen into temporary hardship. We have to BEG PAP government for that miserable help they squeeze out of their tiny little pocket hole. That's what "Beggar State" is all about.

I am going to talk about the problem of having Ho Ching even though none of other speakers have spoken on this. I am not interested to DEFAME Lee Hsien Loong but the truth is, when he agreed to put his wife Ho Ching as the CEO of Temasek Holdings, he has set a VERY BAD EXAMPLE for such an important leadership position.

There are numerous corruption cases being investigated and charged in court. High level, well paid civil servants are deemed to give special favours or special treatments to their mistresses, students turned girlfriend or simply friends, are charged for corruptions. What is the fundamental problem of all these? Conflicts of interests! (the crowd responded as well) Yes, it is all about conflicts of interests. But in two cases, the accused have been acquitted of corruptions even though there is such a glaring conflicts of interests! Why? Conflicts of interests may not necessarily be considered as "corruptions" even though it might have created doubts or speculations. However, what is considered as "legally acceptable" may not be "politically" acceptable.

When the Prime Minister agreed to put his wife in such a high prominent position which runs the government owned Temasek Holdings, no matter what due diligence has been made whatsoever, it is inevitable that such arrangement will be seen as a problem of Conflicts of Interests! How can the Prime Minister have the moral authority to lead when such conflicts of interests has been displayed? Can the Prime Minister tell the civil servants off if they did the same thing?

The Prime Minister, as the TOP LEADER of the government, should lead by examples. The proper thing for the Prime Minister to do, is to practice AVOIDANCE of Conflicts of Interests! It means that no matter who want to "por" (flatter or attempt to show favor) the Prime Minister by suggesting to put his wife or sister or whoever in his family members at top positions in the civil service or government owned entities, he should DECLINE as a good practice of "Avoidance of Conflicts of Interests"! 

Else, he will lose the critical moral authority to lead politically.

2) Really BAD Diplomatic Gaffes 

We can't fault Mr. Lee for some of the embarrassing gaffes that he has made over the years, from "Mee Siam Mai Hum" to labeling Singaporeans as "Kao Peh Kao Bu" (Cry Father Cry Mother which implicitly cursing one of making noise as if their parents are dead. ) when we made too much noise in the internet. This is basically because he was born in with a Golden Spoon, has never eve stayed in a Condominium or Terrace House before, least a HDB flat like most of us. But when he made a gaffe that would affect International Diplomatic Relationship with one of the most important country in the world, that will no longer be just "funny" but actually DEAD SERIOUS.

During his visit to Washington and after meeting President Obama, PM Lee recounted a sick joke about Beijing's air pollution, alleging that you just need to open the window to get a "free smoke"! This was speculated to be one of the main reasons why China's President Xi has deliberately give Singapore a by-pass while he was shuttling between Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur while he was attending the APEC meetings in Bali, Indonesia.

If we allow Mr. Lee Hsien Loong to continue to lead us as Prime Minister, I do not know how many such embarrassing and damaging gaffes we would have to suffer in future.

3) Vision? Mission? Core Values? What is Mr. Lee Hsien Loong's Principles?

Does anyone know exactly what is Mr. Lee Hsien Loong's Vision? Mission? Core Values? Principles? The only come to our mind is MONEY $$$ ! (In fact, the crowd responded with the same answer as well.)

We got used with the "Pay and Pay" notion of the ruling party PAP way back from 1980s till now. It is ok for most Singaporeans to tolerate such "Pay and Pay" situation as long as they can have a good job and earn more than enough money to cope with such culture. 

However, after Mr. Lee Hsien Loong took over as Prime Minister, the situation is really worse than Pay and Pay. The Core Principle of Money-Minded government has evolved into a bigger monster. We, Singaporeans, have been sold out for whatever money they can get from the deals they made.

For example, when there was a huge protest against the White Paper on 6.9 million, PAP announced that they might have to slow down the intake of foreign workers. Which was the first country to make noise about this? India. India government claimed that by doing so, Singapore would have breached the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) that we have signed with India! I did a little research on this FTA which PAP has signed with India. This is what I have found:

The India-Singapore FTA is called CECA which stands for Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement. It was signed on 29 June 2005, just about a year after Mr. Lee Hsien Loong became our Prime Minister.

If you read carefully through the CECA, the main benefits for us is for our mostly banks and companies owned by Temasek Holdings to have the right and access to invest in India, mostly in their financial, telecommunication and real estate industries. (Read Trade in Services):

The sectors which Singapore gets preferential access include business services, construction and related engineering services, financial services, telecommunication services, tourism and travel related services and transport services.

For Financial Services, Singapore owned or controlled financial institutions have been given greater privileges to access the Indian market. In banking, DBS, UOB and OCBC can each set up a wholly owned subsidiary (WOS) in India to enjoy treatment on par with Indian banks in branching, places of operations and prudential requirements. Alternatively, should they choose to set up as branches, they have been allocated a separate quota of 15 branches (for all 3 banks) over 4 years, over and above the quota for all foreign banks.

For asset management, Singapore owned or controlled fund managers have the additional privilege of offering Indian investors mutual funds and collective investment schemes (CIS) listed on the Singapore Exchange (SGX) as well as exchange traded funds (ETF). These instruments offered by our asset managers are free from the restriction that they must only invest in entities which have a stake in Indian companies.

For asset management, Singapore owned or controlled fund managers have the additional privilege of offering Indian investors mutual funds and collective investment schemes (CIS) listed on the Singapore Exchange (SGX) as well as exchange traded funds (ETF). These instruments offered by our asset managers are free from the restriction that they must only invest in entities which have a stake in Indian companies.

India has similarly lifted this limitation for India owned or controlled fund managers. Both Singapore and India owned or controlled fund managers can also invest an additional US$250m in equities and instruments listed on the SGX, including mutual funds, CIS and ETFs. This is in addition to the US$1 billion cap that all asset managers can invest abroad.

For Telecommunication Services, India will bind its foreign equity limit from 25% to 49% for most services including basic, cellular and long distance services and 74% for internet and infrastructure services. India will also ensure that telecommunication providers from Singapore are treated fairly, transparently, and allowed to obtain access to the necessary public infrastructure in order to offer their services, thereby creating a more level playing field in India for our Singapore's telecom providers.

It is all good but at whose expense? We must first remember that although our CPF money is mixed into the Main Reserves and allocated for GIC or Temasek Holdings to invest, we do not benefit FULLY on the actual returns made from their investments. In spite of the inherent risk resulting from the investment made from GIC or Temasek, we are only given a fixed return of 2.5% to 5% on our CPF accounts.

In order to let Temasek and GIC made in-route into India's emerging market, our jobs have been totally sold out to India by PAP government led by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. This is clearly stated under Chapter 9 Movement of Natural Persons. It comes with an attached list of 40 professional fields of jobs which Singapore should allow Indian Nationals to access for employment! Furthermore, not only should Singapore be obliged to allow Indian Nationals to gain employment in Singapore for these 40 professions, but we are also obliged to allow the spouses and "dependents" to gain access to our Singapore job market in ANY OTHER FIELDS!!!

This is clearly stated under Article 9.6:

ARTICLE 9.6: EMPLOYMENT OF SPOUSES AND DEPENDANTS 

For natural persons of a Party who have been granted the right to long term temporary entry and have been allowed to bring in their spouses or dependants, a Party shall, upon application, grant the accompanying spouses or dependants of the other Party the right to work as managers, executives or specialists (as defined in paragraphs 2(f)(i) to (iii) of Article 9.2), subject to its relevant licensing, administrative and registration requirements. Such spouses or dependants can apply independently in their own capacity (and not necessarily as accompanying spouses or dependants) and shall not be barred by the Party granting them the right to work from taking up employment in a category other than that of managers, executives, or specialists solely on the ground that they as the accompanying spouses or dependants are already employed in its territory as managers, executives or specialists.

Now, let's get this straight. Even for Singaporeans with foreign spouses, Permanent Residencies are not easily granted to their foreign spouses. For the first numerous years, they will only be granted some long term visit passes that do not grant them any rights to work in Singapore at all. Here, we have PAP government under PM Lee's leadership, promising to provide jobs not only to Indian professionals listed in the list of 40, but also to provide jobs to their spouses in any jobs in other fields with absolutely no restrictions at all!

India is a huge country with a huge population of almost 1.3 BILLION people, about 370 times of our population size of 3.5 million! Is it logical for us to provide UNLIMITED jobs to India which has a population so much bigger than us? Got logic or not?

Thus, it is obvious that this India-Singapore CECA is basically a blatant TOTAL sell out of our Singaporeans' jobs to India in exchange for the benefits of Temasek Holdings and GIC! We Singaporeans' welfare and interests can be sold out for their benefits!

Did PM Lee and PAP give any thought to our Singaporeans' interests, welfare and jobs when they sign this FTA with India? Apparently not. They are only concerned of how much money they can make from the opportunities of investing in India and the number of CHEAP LABOUR from India to help their GLCs and MNCs to save more labour costs! And obviously, that is at the expense of Singaporeans' wages and jobs! Our wages will definitely be suppressed by such influx of Indian workers!

Furthermore, did they care about the impact of such move upon our infrastructure? When we complain about the THIRD WORLD conditions in our "Restructured Hospitals" all over Singapore, PAP Doctor MP has the cheek to declare "Don't Politicise Healthcare issues". I have to reiterate again, ANYTHING that affects Singaporeans' lives, interests, welfare and benefits, IS POLITICAL. More so for the CRITICAL situation we have in our hospitals' A&E departments! PAP MPs and Ministers may not have the opportunity to experience first hand how bad the situation is due to their privileged background but I still want to get this message straight to PM Lee, his RECKLESS, ILL PLANNED and IRRESPONSIBLE action in increasing our population size by importing FTs rapidly, is ENDANGERING our Singaporeans' lives!

I speak from my personal encounters when my mother was admitted to KTPH. I believe the other hospitals around Singapore is as bad as, if not worse, than the situation in KTPH. And this is EVERYDAY PROBLEM we are facing in hospitals, not just an outlier happening.

I shall not elaborate here as I have written a separate article on this issue. But my point is, has PM Lee thought about such deadly consequences when he decided to sign this FTA with India? Absolutely no. 

Thus, PM Lee has basically led us into some very dangerous situation whereby the concept of Pay and Pay no longer satisfy his vision of $$$. Singaporeans' jobs and interests can be and have been sold off for the benefits of Temasek and GICs!

4) What is Lee Hsien Loong's Economic Policy direction?

Do we know exactly what is Lee Hsien Loong's Economic Policy Direction? There are two. One is Casino. Two, increase labour and MNC investment.

The Casinos, under the guise of "Integrated Resorts" have been introduced after Lee Hsien Loong took over as Prime Minister. Up till now, we are still unsure how many jobs have these casinos created for Singaporeans but we definitely know how these Casinos are killing Singaporeans with so many suicides due to debts, problem gambling incidents and affecting our economy adversely when not only aunties and uncles got hook on casino gambling but wealthy businessmen who should be spending more time to enhancing their businesses, ended up hooked or even bankrupted by casino gambling!

The second madness of PAP's economic policy under Lee Hsien Loong is GDP growth at ALL COST. Why does he need that? To justify his and his ministers' multi-million dollar annual pay!

Basic Economics state that GDP= Labour + Capital Investment + Land.

If you want to grow GDP, just increase labour and capital investment. This is why PAP is so engrossed in opening up the floodgate to CHEAP foreign workers as well as MNCs, even though sometimes, these MNCs are only employing overwhelmingly CHEAP foreign workers instead of Singaporeans! 

But did Lee Hsien Loong plan properly? Has he considered the impact on the various infrastructure in Singapore? The impact on inadequate Public Transport system? Housing? Hospital care?

During last elections, MBT kept saying that HDB is "affordable" but when I challenged him to a live open debate on this housing issue, he just siam ah! Who pay for PAP's mistake? Our younger generation Singaporeans! When I suggested the Cost-plus pricing mechanism for our young Singaporeans to lower prices of new HDB flats drastically, MBT proclaimed that this would effect a "raid on our reserves"! Well, my simple retort is, when PAP keep increasing their million dollar pay, isn't that also "raid on our reserves"?

Lee Hsien Loong's administration has gone so far to come up with that infamous "6.9 population White Paper" without first solving the immediate mess that his past screwed up economic policy has created! What is he really thinking in his brain?

5) Clear and Present IMMEDIATE Danger of PM Lee's recent Decision...

I am not so sure whether PM Lee has studied physics or not but he should know that for nuclear substance, there is something called "half life". For nuclear substances, half lives can range from over 60 years to almost 100 years. What does this mean? It means that it will take more than 60 years before the nuclear substance is being half, thus, radiation also being halved.

It means that it will not just take a few couple of years for the nuclear leaks in Fukushima to be solved but it will take tens and maybe hundreds of years before nuclear contamination could be minimized in Fukushima!

How can PM Lee decide to lift the ban on food imports from Fukushima right now when even farmers in Fukushima don't even dare to consume their own produce? Is Lee Hsien Loong putting Singaporeans' health is utter danger of nuclear contaminated food?

Why would PM Lee do that? Now, most probably, it is encourage Japan to get into the Trans-Pacific Partnership TPP agreement! 

Do we still want a Prime Minister that would put our immediate health in danger just for some economic benefits from a broad free trade agreement which most likely, benefiting mostly Temasek and GIC again? 

Conclusion

Apparently Mr. Lee Hsien Loong has completely lost the moral authority to lead Singapore and he has to be removed immediately because his totally bizarre decisions which will not only compromise Singaporeans' jobs but also endanger our lives. If we were to wait until next GE before we could remove him by voting him out, it might be too late as these irreparable and irreversible harm would be entirely instituted into our system.

Goh Meng Seng 

*The writer is the former secretary-general of the NSP. He also blogs at http://singaporealternatives.blogspot.sg

Vivian Balakrishnan, the Environment and Water Resources Minister, suggested changes to the Transboundary Haze Pollution bill in Parliament today.

He suggested that the penalties for companies who burn and cause haze should be S$100,000 for every day that burning has occurred causing haze in Singapore.

This way, explained Dr Balakrishnan, companies would be incentivised to put out fires as soon as possible instead of feeling like they are already going to be punished for burning for 1 day, meaning they will not care about burning on subsequent days.

The bill also proposes that companies be fined $50,000 for every day on non compliance with an order to take preventative measures.

The total maximum penalty will be S$2 million.

The bill also creates civil liability for companies that are caught burning so that individuals and companies can take up civil lawsuits against polluting companies.

If directors of errant companies visit Singapore, a court can order that he remain in Singapore to give evidence or information in court.

While the bill would put harsh penalties on haze causing companies, the difficulty lies in the fact that Singapore laws are only applicable in Singapore. Where foreign based companies are involved, it may be extremely difficult to bring them to justice in Singapore.

Talking about this problem, Vivian Balakrishnan explained that Singapore needs effective collaboration, cooperation between governments and plenty of shared information to properly address the issues. 

Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew explained in Parliament today that bus fares will need to continue increasing at regular intervals if the new bus contracting model is going to remain sustainable.

MR Liu was responding to several questions about the new bus contracting model, where the government will buy over all bus infrastructure and contract out route servicing to private companies.

Mr Lui emphasised the over the past few years, costs have increased much faster than bus fares and this cannot go on much longer.

He also spoke about how requests for better service standards and new routes must also be carefully assessed  and may not always be possible.

Mr Lui explained that if new routes have low ridership or if the costs of providing better service are too high, the government will need to subsidise the transport system too heavily and this would be bad.

He said that in order to ensure this doesn't happen, new routes will need to be carefully researched or put on trial periods to ensure that they are viable in the long run.

When asked what the government has budgeted for the whole system, Lui Tuck Yew declined to give a figure of how much it would cost, saying that making public the government's budget could "skew the bids" when bus operators start to make bids for the route contracts. 

This afternoon, Roy Ng and me went to Parliament House to watch the Parliamentary Debates. We will be attending tomorrow too, as 14 Questions about how our CPF monies are invested will be answered. Here are the questions, taken from the Order Paper.

The next sitting of Parliament will commence tomorrow at 1.30pm.

Proceedings of Parliament are open to the public. The Public Entrance is located along Parliament Place. Visitors who drive can find ample parking space at the public basement carpark. The entrance of the public carpark is situated along Parliament Place.

Visitors are required to deposit their bags and belongings, including electronic devices such as handphones with camera features into the lockers available at the Terrace. Lockers are chargeable at 40 cents (small-sized lockers) and 60 cents (medium-sized lockers) for one-time use only. The lockers only accept 20-cent coins. For more details, click here.

Looking forward to a robust and interesting debate!

Ariffin Sha

*The writer blogs at http://ariffin-sha.com/

Singapore Democrats

Singapore needs to turn to intrinsic incentives to stimulate innovation and raise productivity, and not just depend on a state-driven dollars-and-cents approach,  DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam said at the DBS Asian Insights Conference 2014 last Friday.

“At the end of the day, we need a less dollars and cents approach to this,” Mr Tharman advised. “But at the end of the day, it is a matter of social culture. It has to be more intrinsic, not just relying on extrinsic incentives. I have to want to be the master of what I am doing, whatever it is."

This is exactly what the SDP has been saying for years. Dr Chee Soon Juan wrote in his book Your Future, My Faith, Our Freedom: “At a societal level, an intrinsically motivated people is a people more productive and innovative than one fed on a staple of extrinsic rewards.” The year was 2001.

Why did it take so long for the PAP to recognise this – almost 15 years late? In the meantime, how much have we lost in terms of productivity and innovation? How far have we fallen behind in our economic competitiveness?

But recognising a problem is one thing, taking measures to resolving it is quite another.

The DPM says that we need to "transform" our economy (or at least that's how Channel News Asia reported it). To do that, he added, we need to change our social culture.

In Singapore, unfortunately, the social is also the political. Remember Lee Kuan Yew's we-decide-what-is-right-never-mind-what-the-people-think dictate?

For more than half-a-century, the Government has used heavy-handed control over the population and, as a result, shaped a social-political culture that is unquestioning and conformist.

Such a culture is not conducive to fostering the entrepreneurial spirit. It certainly has not allowed Singaporeans to adopt the, in the words of Mr Tharman, "I have to want to be the master of what I am doing, whatever it is" mindset.

To change this, we need to return Singaporeans their right to freely express themselves and dissent, not be mere digits. We need a media that informs, not propagates. We need a thriving political opposition in Parliament where ideas go to be debated, not buried.

In other words, we need democracy.

The SDP has been calling for democratic reform because our economy depends on it. Now Mr Tharman has affirmed what we have been saying all these years. But, unfortunately, he ignores the most crucial aspect for transformation: political change.

When will the PAP leaders stop being politicians and provide real leadership?

Source: YourSDP.org

In Parliament yesterday, the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act went through its second reading without any objections. It is likely to be passed today.

Senior Minister of State for Law, Indranee Rajah, explained that the changes are designed to allow copyright owners to more easily protect their copyrights online.

She explained that online piracy is prevalent in Singapore and this has negative impacts on both the creative industry and Singapore's reputation.

The main change in the proposed amendment will give power the copyright holders to apply for court orders to get infringing websites blocked.

This will simplify the process as currently, copyright owners had to approach each individual internet service provider in order to try and get access to the unauthorised copies blocked by each ISP.

Parliamentary questions on the CPF today will attempt to evade the question on transparency issueregarding Singaporeans’ $260 billion retirement savings. That the majority of CPF members need our money does not seem to concern our MPs. Every MP seems clueless despite so much online discussions and the “Return our CPF” protest at Hong Lim Park.

Do MPs not understand the meaning of “return”?

Roy Ngerng’s persistence on the CPF issue has finally woken our slumbering parliament. The 87 MPs have not served the interests of their constituents as far as the CPF issue is concerned. They are still evading the real issue.

Simply put, we are demanding our rights for CPF monies to be returned to their rightful owners and for GIC to reveal where they have been invested.

In an earlier post, I suggested that GIC should follow the Norwegian model. MPs could take a look at ithere and stop wasting everybody’s time.

If Roy gets elected into Parliament, he will be able to ask really inconvenient questions. Likewise for Kenneth Jeyaretnam.

Some of the CPF questions:
- how many CPF members do not withdraw their CPF monies after setting aside the CPF Minimum Sum? (Gan Thiam Poh)
- can CPF exercise more flexibility…? (Seng Han Thong)
- can lower income CPF members continue to use their CPF to service existing housing mortgage…? (Irene Ng)
- are there plans to increase the drawdown age? (Ang Wei Neng)
- can MOM provide current CPF data? (Tin Pei Ling)
- how is the government helping Singaporeans to improve their retirement adequacy? (Christopher de Souza)
- how many are active/inactive CPF members when they turn 55 this year? (Lina Chiam)
- what is the percentage average amount of CPF used for housing at 55 and above? (Png Eng Huat)

CPF members are telling the PAP government not to decide for us on our retirement plans and we want our money back. Do the above questions address this? You go figure.

CPF members have lost complete trust in the government. If GIC were able to generate superior returns, the government should be confident that members would form overnight queues outside GIC’s office with wheelbarrows of our savings. But no. The government legislated all CPF monies to be channeled into GIC.

Investments must not only be viewed in dollars and cents. There is simply no dollar value equivalent when it comes to investing in our children’s education!

MP Lim Biow Chuan will ask “what are the rates of interest paid by the CPF Board..for the past 10 years?”. In fact, CPF Board has already provided a list of historical rates stretching back to 1955 here.

MP Lee Bee Wah seems to be tailoring some questions to expected parliamentary replies:

a) How CPF monies are invested?
Lee Bee Wah would do well to read up on CPF issues before firing off redundant questions. Read Question 19 on MOF’s website “How are CPF monies invested?” here

b) What are the rates of returns from CPF Board’s investments?
This can be found on CPF Board’s website and is similar to Lim Biow Chuan’s question.

c) How does the CPF Board determine the interest to be paid to CPF account holders..?
The arbitrary formula for computing CPF interest rates has already been on CPF’s website for years.link

MPs must act responsibly by asking probing questions on transparency. Without transparency, they could ask a thousand questions in parliament but nobody will know the health of GIC.

The PAP government cannot expect trust from citizens when it continues to hide what should have been publicly available information decades ago. The Nowegian pension fund is 4 times larger thanCPF’s S$260 billion. Their complete list of equities here. If they could be transparent, why not GIC?

If there is no solvency issue, why does the government legislate insane amounts of OUR CPF savings into GIC while retired CPF members are struggling with high cost of living issues?

If there is an issue, wouldn’t it be better to be upfront, resolve it now rather than postpone and compound it?

MPs are really not serving their constituents on the CPF issue by not highlighting our needs ie. our right to our retirement savings and transparency at GIC/CPF. We do not need redundant questions and more tweaks. The CPF system is inherently unstable and urgently needs a revamp.

Phillip Ang

*The writer blogs at http://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.com/

KUALA LUMPUR, July 9 — Datuk Bung Moktar Radin tweeted a salute to Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler today, presumably after Germany thrashed Brazil 7-1 in the World Cup 2014 semi-final early this morning.

“Well done… Bravo… Long live Hitler…” tweeted Bung early this morning on his social media account @MyKinabatangan.The Barisan Nasional (BN) Kinabatangan MP’s salute  led  many Twitter users to chastise him. An unrepentant Bung then heaped abuse on them.

The tweet has since been reposted over 140 times.

Austrian-born Hitler was the leader of Nazi Germany between 1934 and 1945, and was at the centre of World War II.

Hitler was also behind the Holocaust, the mass extermination and execution of millions of European Jews in concentration camps.

When a user @An____________ replied, implying that Bung’s remark was a result of him “sniffing glue”, the BN MP retorted: “Mungkin kamu mcm P Ramasammy baru minum todi.”

“Maybe you are like P Ramasamy after drinking toddy,” said his reply translated from Malay, referring to the Penang Deputy Chief Minister.

Ramasamy, who is Batu Kawan MP, had challenged Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin last Sunday to “bring [on] May 13” in response to the deputy prime minister’s remark on the deadly interracial clash between Malays and Chinese 45 years ago.

When another user @redzwanrashid mentioned that he was “not surprised” of such remark coming from Bung, the latter shot back “Whatever.”

DAP’s Serdang MP Dr Ong Kian Ming has since called the remark “Disgraceful tweet by an ignorant MP”.

Meanwhile, Selangor Speaker Hannah Yeoh tweeted “Well done BN, Long live BN!” in response to Bung.

At the time of writing, Bung still could not be reached by The Malay Mail Online for clarification on his tweet.

Bung is no stranger to controversy with his politically incorrect and sexist remarks.

He had previously in Parliament mentioned women’s menstruation in reference to another MP, and criticised women drivers.

Source: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/kinabatangan-mp-salut...