The Workers' Party has just announced their new team of leaders and office holders following their Central Executive Council (CEC) elections.

The party's elections were held today and Ms Sylvia Lim was re-appointed as Chairman.

Mr Low Thia Khiang was also re-elected into the position of Secretary General.

The other members of the CEC now include:

Mr Chen Show Mao

Mr Muhamad Faisal bin Abdul Manap

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song

Dr Daniel Goh Pei Siong

Ms Lee Li Lian

Mr Png Eng Huat

Mr Mohammed Rahizan bin Yaacob 
Mr Pritam Singh

Mr L Somasundaram

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong

Dr John Yam Poh Nam

Mr Yee Jenn Jong

Singapore Democrats

There has been much debate in recent weeks over the CPF scheme and how our savings are being managed by the Government. Unfortunately. the recent accounts given by DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam has raised more questions than answers.

Such a confusion has raised the ire of many Singaporeans, and rightly so. The stewards of public funds must be transparent and consistent in their dealings.

The suspicions of the people over our hard-earned CPF savings would have arisen if the PAP had not reneged on its promises and, worse, kept Singaporeans guessing on how these funds are being managed.

Such an approach needs to be corrected which is not a difficult thing to do. What we need is for the GIC to be fully accountable to the people and for the Government to keep its promises.

In our forthcoming economic policy paper, the SDP proposes the following:

1. Abolish the Minimum Sum Scheme (MSS) and return retirees their CPF savings.

The reason given by the PAP that retirees will squander their CPF cash and therefore the need for the MSS is a non-starter. If the Government is concerned with retirees blowing their savings, why did it establish casinos to further tempt them?

It argues that those who gamble away their fortunes at casinos are a minority. Precisely. If those who are not minded to spend their money prudently, why should the majority who do be penalised by having their savings withheld? Do we ban driving because a minority drink and drive or outlaw football because a few hooligans cause trouble at matches?

2. De-couple housing and healthcare from CPF.

The major reason why Singaporeans are left with insufficient retirement funds is because the PAP gives Singaporeans no choice but to use what is their retirement money to pay for their HDB flats and hospital expenses.

The SDP plan ensures that HDB flats are sold without the inclusion of land cost (see here) and that the Government stops profiting from healthcare (see here)In this way, our CPF savings are left unmolested for retirement.

3. Require the GIC to submit annual reports to Parliament.

All the confusion and allegations stem from the fact that the public is not given full accounting of GIC's transactions. The veil must be lifted by requiring the body to open its books - including all investment activity as well as extracts of the GIC’s financial accounts - for scrutiny and questioning by Parliament.

4. Hold the GIC publicly accountable for its actions. 

The Corporation shall give an account of its funds, management costs, investment strategies (including strategies on socially responsible investments), a projection of value creation and risk management of these strategies. These can then be tracked and its managers held accountable for their decisions.

5. Ban ministers/former ministers from GIC leadership. 

The current practice of having ministers helm the GIC is undesirable and must be discontinued. Instead, the management team of the GIC should be appointed to limited terms by the President subject to a public confirmation process conducted by Parliament.

The SDP in Parliament will push for the above measures to be enacted.

Source: YourSDP.org

By Non-Constituency MP, Yee Jenn Jong
[Delivered in Parliament on 5 August 2014]

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill.

Since 1991, Singapore has endured recurring haze episodes resulting from land and forest fires in Indonesia, with last year’s being the worst ever. While I appreciate the efforts of our officials over the many years in trying to find workable solutions with our ASEAN neighbours on this issue, I have been concerned about our lack of ability to take more actions that are within our controls.

Hence, two years ago[1], I had asked the government to consider legislative measures to allow us to prosecute companies found guilty of causing haze in Singapore through illegal burning, even if the acts were committed outside of our shores. This Bill will now give us a new legal lever to exercise our rights to clean air, covering both criminal and civil liabilities for commercial entities responsible for land clearance if their actions outside of our territorial boundaries cause haze pollution in Singapore. This Bill signals Singapore’s seriousness in combating this issue. Agricultural companies that wish to do business with Singapore or have their operational headquarters here will have to think seriously about their practices if they are not already practicing good land clearing practices.

My speech will focus on some details of the Bill and the potential challenges to put it in operation, which the Minister and other Members had also pointed out.

Presumptions

Firstly, there is a string of sweeping presumptions under Clause 8 of the Bill which we need to especially convince our regional neighbours that these are fair and reasonable.

Clause 8 contains a series of legal presumptions to assist the prosecution to pin guilt on entities. There will be much controversy surrounding Clause 8(4), which presumes the accuracy of land maps obtained by the Singapore government from the foreign government or from any person requested by the Singapore government to furnish a map. If the Singapore government decides to rely on that map, it is presumed under Clause 8(4) that the entities reflected on the map as occupying particular geographical areas will be presumed to be doing so unless the entity proves otherwise. Is this presumption from a map reasonable? Therein lies a potential minefield.

Experts in Agrarian land laws have cited the complexity of the law related to land in Indonesia[2] and the need for reforms in land registration[3], [4]. There are reportedly ambiguities in land rights between the customary law or adat, which deems land as belonging to communities, and the formal law called the Basic Agrarian Law giving individual title to land. There are thus unregistered but valid land rights, which would not show up in maps as they are generally not recognized by the state. A further complication is that under the Basic Forestry Law of 1967, all forest land is deemed to belong to the State, even when communities recognize their customary rights to the forest land among themselves. The Basic Agrarian Law of Indonesia recognizes four types of land tenure that can be registered: (a) the right of ownership, (b) the right to use, (c) the right to exploit, and (d) the right to build. Different entities can hold the four different rights to the same piece of land. Many of the rights to the urban and rural land in Indonesia have not been registered. In addition, foreign entities may also team up with local entities to get de facto land rights, making it unclear as to who is the actual entity that is in charge of activities on the land parcels.

Given the state of affairs, how reliable would land maps from Indonesia be? Do the Indonesians themselves accept their government maps as accurate? This may call into question the reasonableness of the presumptions under Clause 8(4).

Besides Clause 8(4), the rest of Clause 8 also places the burden of proof on a suspected entity to disprove its guilt. Clause 8(1) presumes that haze pollution in Singapore is caused by a land or forest fire outside Singapore if the meteorological data suggest so. Clause 8(2) presumes that an owner or occupier of the land alleged to have caused haze pollution in Singapore had engaged in conduct that caused or condoned the haze pollution. Clause 8(3) presumes that if any entity is believed to have caused or condoned haze pollution in Singapore, any other entity that participates in the management of the first entity has also caused or condoned haze pollution in Singapore.

While presumptions have been used in Singapore laws before, such as in the Misuse of Drugs Act, shifting the burden of proof to persons is likely to be more demanding, and even more so when the evidence is overseas. Where a legal presumption operates against an accused, it is not sufficient for the accused to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case; instead, the accused has the burden of proof to rebut the legal presumption on a balance of probabilities. In order to do this, the accused entity is expected to bring its witnesses and documents to Singapore and foot the expenses of such. Even assuming that a foreign entity does all these things and is acquitted, there is no provision for it to recover its expenses or legal costs, since this is a criminal proceeding. A challenge will be that a foreign entity may not be interested to clear its own name at its own expense in Singapore.

Defence

Next, on the defences provided in the Bill. The Bill provides as defence to condoning haze pollution that if the accused Primary Person proves on a balance of probabilities, that the Primary Person took “all such measures reasonable” to prevent or stop or reduce substantially such conduct by the Secondary Person, if the haze pollution has already happened.

It will be good for parliament to clarify what standards of behavior are the Primary Persons expected to implement to constitute a good defence? It would be a perverse policy outcome if Primary Persons are able to get away by simply inserting clauses into their contracts with their supplier Secondary Persons that the Secondary Persons must not engage in conduct that causes haze, and with the rights to terminate their contracts in the event of a breach.

Should we expect a higher standard of behavior to be met before the clause can be invoked, such as for the Primary Persons to conduct regular audits of their contractors, plus provide resources to fight fires once they have broken out, and to do everything possible to prevent and fight haze fires?

Fines

The Bill provides for a fine of $100,000 per day if a party is found guilty of causing haze, plus $50,000 per day for failing to comply with preventive measures, up to a cap of $2 million. This was an increase from the earlier draft for caps of $300,000 to $450,000.

The Minister had said that we need to increase the overall level of deterrence[5]. For the purpose of clarity to the public, I’d like to know the processes which the government had used to arrive at these figures. Were other methods of computations for caps considered? I feel it is important for the government to have a principled basis for these figures so that there will be greater acceptance of this Bill by our regional neighbours.

Enforcement

Next, on enforcement. The Bill provides for the Director-General of Environmental Pollution or an authorised officer to give notice to any person, whether within or outside of Singapore to furnish information or documents. The challenge is to get the cooperation of contractors or sub-contractor, whether persons or corporations that do not have presence in Singapore or are not even managed from Singapore. Large plantation companies often work through contractors. Our courts will need to have concrete evidences if we wish to prosecute these plantation companies. Would this make it vulnerable for prosecution under this Act to fail due to the lack of evidence?

There are provision under Sections 4, 6(3) and 6(4) for “extra-territorial application”. Singapore currently does not have any umbrella extradition treaty with Indonesia. If the accused fails to appear in court, a warrant of arrest is issued under Section 17. This will likely have little to no effect if the person is not in Singapore. We have many examples of such cases in other aspects of our laws. For example in divorce-related maintenance issues, there are many cases that have stalled for indefinite periods at this stage of the legal process because the accused is in a country which Singapore does not have an adequate extradition treaty with, such as Indonesia.

Good evidence is needed given the complex nature of the ownership and operations of plantations in Indonesia. Last year in the midst of the haze, several large plantations were flagged out publicly as possible culprits. The press[6] reported that several of the named companies said that they followed strict no-burning policies, demanded their contractors do the same, and had in fact worked to put out fires in neighbouring areas. They also stated that while the permits for lands may be listed as belonging to them, they were not conducting activities on these concessions, or the permits have expired, or were not under their control as parts of the land may be occupied by others.

Regional Cooperation

Finally, while having this new legislation is good for signalling Singapore’s strong intent to fight transboundary haze, we will still have to rely heavily on good ol’ fashioned diplomacy and extending our strong support to our neighbours to help them prevent and fight forest fires. We also need their cooperation to ensure that prosecution and the enforcement of punishment can be carried out.

In this respect, it is very encouraging that Indonesia’s President-elect, Mr Joko Widodo, who also happens to be a forestry graduate, has backed our plans to impose heftier fines on transboundary polluters, but with a caveat to respect the sovereignty of Indonesia[7].

Ultimately, the fires are burning in a sovereign foreign country. We need to have accurate and up-to-date land concession maps in order to have evidence against the companies implicated in unlawful forest fires. Most of all, it is best to be able to prevent these fires from starting.

An important step to solve the regional haze problem is for Indonesia to ratify the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution. Indonesia has remained the only ASEAN country not to have ratified the Agreement, with some officials citing the need for detailed protocols to guarantee Indonesia’s sovereignty. As the Minister and others had also pointed out, the haze, unfortunately affects ordinary Indonesians even more than it does to their neighbours as those in Riau and Kalimantan are where the most intense fires are. Our diplomacy efforts can extend towards helping Indonesia achieve their stated aim for a more sustainable agro-industry.

Last year, the Minister shared[8] about Singapore’s collaboration with the province of Jambi. He had termed it as one of our more successful efforts that saw a greater reduction in the number of hotspots in Jambi Province during our years of collaboration, compared to other fire-prone provinces in Sumatra. He attributed the success to the strong support given by the then Governor of Jambi, Pak Zulkifli Nurdin. The collaboration was not renewed after 2011.

I believe our officials must be hard at work trying to build up that same level of close collaboration that we had back then with Jambi province and with other Indonesian provinces. This is a tireless effort that must not stop. With the signal of support sent by President-elect Mr Joko Widodo to have greater ASEAN collaboration on various environment issues, let’s hope the Minister can soon share more success on this front of preventing fires at the frequent hotspot areas.

Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the challenges to operationalise the Bill, I am pleased that we now have the legislative means to allow us to do more in the fight for our right to clean air. Thank you.

References

[1] http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00078137-WA&curr...
[2] http://www.landcoalition.org/sites/default/files/publication/1357/2012As...
[3] http://www.landcoalition.org/sites/default/files/legacy/legacypdf/angoc/...
[4] http://usaidlandtenure.net/indonesia
[5] http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/up-to-s-100-000-fine-for/1...
[6] http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-story/the-haze-singapore/story/haze-...
[7] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-29/haze-fines-win-indonesia-s-supp...
[8] http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00000206-WA&curr...

*Article first appeared on http://wp.sg/2014/08/debate-on-transboundary-haze-pollution-bill-ncmp-ye...

In a Facebook post, PAP MP Hri Kumar wrote: “Opposition politicians who want a platform to share their ideas should organise their own forums. If their ideas are really better, people will support it.”

So the SDP did what Mr Kumar suggested: we wrote to the Sembawang and Bukit Panjang-Holland Town Councils as well as the Thomson Community Club to hold a forum on the CPF:

Dear Sir,

The Singapore Democratic Party wishes to organise a public forum to discuss the CPF issue with residents of Ghim Moh/Holland-Bukit Timah. The event is entitled "CPF – A Public Conversation".

We would like to do this at the pavilion next to Blk 7 Ghim Moh Road on 26 July 2014 from 2-5pm. If the venue is unavailable, we would be grateful if you could suggest an alternative within the constituency.

Thank you.

 

Christopher Ang
Assistant Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

The Two Councils rejected our applications and the Thomson Community Club (the place where Mr Hri Kumar conducted his CPF dialogue) said that their venue was unavailable but would not give us an alternative date despite our requests.

The PAP MP also wrote in his post: “If their ideas are really better, people will support it.” That is true. But how can Singaporeans support our ideas if they don't get to hear them?

The SDP has come up with alternative ideas which we believe are better. But we are prevented from effectively and meaningfully reaching out to the people.

This is the kind of PAP double standards that anger Singaporeans. The PAP may think that it is a clever strategy: telling the people that the opposition can organise our own forums but denying us the venues in which to hold them.

In the past, the SDP has repeatedly applied for permission to tell Singaporeans of our ideas and policies. All of them have been denied (see here, here and here).

Mr Hri Kumar also said: “Some have alleged that I want to control the attendees so that the dialogue will be a 'wayang'.”

The wayang that Singaporeans are so angry about is the PAP using unfair and undemocratic means to deny them alternative views and ideas from the SDP while pretending to be open and fair. The PAP's tactics only breed resentment among the people.

The time has come for politics in Singapore to grow up.

Mr Hri Kumar then parted with this statement: “I know some people are itching for the opportunity to run me down. That’s ok – that’s how they understand politics and they are welcome to take their best shot.”

No, Singaporeans are not “itching” to run him or his party down. They just want to be treated fairly and not be manipulated.

Dismissing his critics with such scorn is most unfortunate and uncalled for. Singaporeans have legitimate concerns about our CPF money and do not deserve to be addressed in such a tone.

One final and cautionary note: Inviting an oppressed people to take their “best shot” is like waving a red flag at a raging bull – while lying down.

Source: YourSDP.org

1. Disunity of opposition - we have a disunited opposition and a coalition looks almost impossible. A splinter divided opposition will only benefit PAP. Even if WP win more seats in 2016 and after, it will not be able to completely dislodge them from power. At worse, PAP will find another smaller winning opposition party to form a coalition government with.

2. New citizen votes - new citizens will continue to play a bigger role in 2016 with almost 250,000 of them voting for the first or second time. In 2011, almost 120,000 new citizens voted mostly for the first time and they managed to counter the swing votes from former PAP supporters. Their total votes will comprise of about 12% of the estimated 2,300,000 voting electorate in 2016.

3. Loyal senior citizen voters - our senior citizens still continue to vote for the government even though they are played out through the CPF system and many vote because of LKY - their benefactor. It is envisaged that many may consider voting for the opposition when LKY is gone. There are at least more than 300,000 senior citizens now aged 65 years old and above.

4. Immigration exodus of pro-opposition Singaporeans - at least 300,000 Singaporeans now work and live abroad and they are mostly anti-establishment. In 2011, less than 10% of them voted and if the opposition could launch a campaign to persuade this huge group of overseas Singaporeans to vote, we may see more seats fall to the opposition. Lack of sufficient convenient voting stations abroad is the main reason for the poor voter turn-out of overseas Singaporeans.

5. Civil servants - more than 80% of our civil servants should vote for the government out of both fear and loyalty. Many don't want to bite the hand that feed them and even though they may be unwilling, they still vote for their paymaster out of gratitude. Though our civil servants don't earn alot, it is still a stable job and sufficient to put food on the table for the family - especially crucial during this tumultous time.

6. Redrawing of boundaries - a friend told me he just receives his keys to his new BTO flat in Punggol but he is being placed under AMK GRC! The redrawing of electorade boundaries will definitely benefit the PAP as they could do so to their benefit. It is also envisaged that the size of GRC in future may be reduced to prevent a big group of PAP MPs losing their seats like in the Aljunied GRC. WP should win at least two GRCs in 2016 including Aljunied.

7. Voting habit - voting is a strange habit and it takes alot for people to swing their votes to the opposition. Seventy percent of people also vote for the same party because they fear that amending their vote may bring forth adverse changes. Things like losing their jobs to foreigners or their homes due to unfortunate circumstances may however be strong reasons for them to swing their votes despite their psychological fear. There is no point for a person to loyally part their vote for a certain party if his basic survival is at risk.

This is a status update posted to Facebook by PAP MP Denise Phua in response to the recent news that the Sungei Road Flea Market would be closing down for good.

(Related: Iconic Sungei Road Flea Market to close down to make way for redevelopment)

"There are mixed reactions to the news that the Sungei Road market will have to go.

This is what I shared with the ST journalist who interviewed me: "The Sungei Road second- hand market of today is not the same as what we remember of the market in days of old ; the goods traded, profiles of buyers and sellers are not quite the same.

Not all goods sold are recycled goods and the environmental cause can be far from many of the sellers' minds. Some of the sellers are elderly and in need of social assistance ; some simply love the lifestyle of peddling in a free space and highly resistant to change; others are opportunistic traders who are highly motivated by the free rent and the city location.

One of the difficulties some of my residents face are leaks in their flats. This can be very distressing, especially if the leaks cause further damage to the flat. 

The Toa Payoh portion of my constituency has some of the oldest blocks in Singapore, and it is inevitable that leaks occur from time to time as a result of the deterioration of materials.

By and large, the HDB and Town Council respond and repair the leaks quickly. However, in some cases, it takes a very long time.  One problem is when the source of the leak is unknown. 

Why does the source matter? 

You see, if the leak is from the unit above, it is the HDB's jurisdiction, but if it is coming through the external walls, it is the Town Council's. The external walls are regarded as common property, which the Town Council is required by law to maintain. The floor/ceiling separating two units is not common property, and will be governed by the HDB lease. 

The division of responsibility is important as HDB funds and Town Council funds are different and cannot be used to effect or subsidise repairs they are not responsible for. So, the division makes legal sense.  But it gives rise to real, practical problems, with the residents bearing the consequences of the delay.

IN PARLIAMENT TODAY: Frail but still a Giant - Mr Lee. On 3 June 1959, a momentous event occurred at City Hall. Yet, despite the historic impact that the day will make there was no photographic record. No pressmen or photographers were allowed. On that day, Mr Lee Kuan Yew was sworn in as Prime Minister of the State of Singapore, signaling that Singapore was now self-governing. He and our early pioneers weathered the storm with fellow Singaporeans, creating a dynamic and developed nation in a short 50 years. 

This afternoon at our tea break, the conversation at our table fell into a respectful silence for a moment. With my back to the door, I had not seen Mr Lee enter the Members' Room. We all stood up and made space for him. He insisted on getting up from his wheelchair and to sit with us and just have a drink. While he looks much thinner and gaunt and halting though his speech, the conversation we had over the next 15minutes reveal the continued sharpness of his mind and the wisdom and counsel of his years.

On 9 August 1965 we made a declaration, that as of that day, “Singapore shall be forever a sovereign democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and equal society”[i].

The spirit of that declaration is captured and enshrined in our National Pledge, “We the Citizens of Singapore”. And to us, the Citizens of Singapore, does Singapore belong to; just as we belong to her.

Through the many events in the last 49 years, we the citizens of Singapore, have bonded and grown stronger together as a people. NSP strongly believes that Singapore must be be a home and not a hotel for its people.

Our Pledge is a constant reminder to us that Singapore is our Home.

So as we celebrate 49 years of independence let us allow our pledge to be the guiding light to lead us forward, towards the next 50 years.

Happy birthday Singapore!

1.    What are the changes to the Causeway Tolls with effect from 1 August 2014?

On 1 Aug 2014, Malaysia introduced a new Causeway toll for all vehicles, except motorcycles, travelling from Johor to Singapore. Malaysia has also increased the tolls for all vehicles, except motorcycles, travelling from Singapore to Johor through the Causeway.

2.    What is the Vehicle Entry Permit (VEP) and Goods Vehicle Permit (GVP) fee?  

The VEP fee is levied on foreign motor cars and motorcycles travelling into Singapore on a per day basis. The GVP fee is levied on foreign goods vehicles travelling into Singapore on a monthly basis.

Unlike a toll, the VEP and GVP do not charge vehicles for using any specific road. Instead, they are meant to equalise the cost of owning or using a foreign vehicle in Singapore, with the cost of owning or using a local vehicle.

The VEP only affects about one in ten foreign-registered cars. Most foreign-registered vehicles will not be affected as they enter and stay in Singapore on VEP-free days or during VEP-free hours.  

3.    Does the incident at JB’s CIQ have to do with Singapore’s decision to raise VEP and GVP fees?  

No. Singapore’s VEP/GVP fees do not apply to commercial or public transport buses, such as the Bas Kilangs involved in the incident.  

According to Malaysian authorities, the incident was caused by the refusal of two bus drivers to pay the increased Causeway toll imposed at the JB CIQ. According to the Malaysia Highway Authority, the increase in tolls charges will be used for the maintenance of the Eastern Dispersal Link and other CIQ facilities in JB.  

A home is where the heart is.

But it is also where the mind works and plays. Increasingly, our hearts are telling us one thing but our minds another.

We grew up on this island with family and friends, and the sights, smells and sounds have become second nature. They play with our emotions and pull at our heartstrings.

But our mind sees our home leaving us, alienated and distant.

When our hearts and minds are in discord, our home is in disorder. When our home is in disorder and we push ahead, we lose our way.

When we lose our way, we don't know where we've come from, and when we turn around, all we want to see is no longer there.

As we mark another National Day, let us look hard and find the path back so that one day, we can say we have finally come home.

Happy National Day!

Singapore Democratic Party

Source: SDP.org

The Singapore Democratic Alliance wishes Singaporeans a Happy National Day.

As Singapore celebrates its 49th Birthday and celebrates the success and prosperity of the past 49 years, SDA says its time to look to the future. We have a shared future ahead which is vastly different from the shared past that we have so far enjoyed.

It is now important to ensure we continue to build an inclusive society and achieve a sustainable Singapore.

Read the SDA's full National Day Message below:

Dear Fellow Singaporeans,

Today we celebrate our 49th National Day, one year short of the historic 50th anniversary that will be used by the PAP as a springboard for their 2016 General Election campaign. Over the next year, our Government-controlled media will step up their campaign of propaganda and disinformation on behalf of the PAP. The media will bombard you with images of how well off you are now compared with 1965. They will say that this is due to the genius of the PAP and to Singapore’s so-called “founding father”, Lee Kuan Yew. They will say that you wisely chose prosperity over freedom and accepted authoritarian rule in preference to democracy.

While of course you are better off than in 1965 (as is most of the global population) to say that we would not be where we are today without sacrificing freedom is a completely false rewriting of history. Whatever the PAP would like you to think Singapore was never a mangrove swamp until the genius of the Lee family conjured a global city out of nothing.

The Straits of Malacca has for centuries had an unequalled strategic position at the crossroads of world trade routes. Singapore has always been best-placed to profit from it. Singapore was already one of the richest cities in Asia. When the British left Singapore they already left in place an infrastructure that was well ahead of most of the other cities in the region. They also left behind a significant presence in many of the industries that constitute Temasek today including shipbuilding, ship repair, a port that was already the fourth busiest in the world, aviation services, aircraft repair and financial services associated with trade.

Over the decades since independence we have had rapid economic growth. But while living standards may have risen rapidly in the first few decades, since the mid 1990s most economic growth has been generated by population growth. The PAP may point to our GDP per capita as being one of the highest in the world. But if we look at GDP per hour worked, or productivity, we rank poorly compared with other advanced countries, let alone the global cities we should be compared with such as London, New York and Tokyo. A UBS survey in 2011 put Singaporean workers’ living standards on the same level as those of workers in Kuala Lumpur and behind Seoul, Hong Kong and Taipei. If we look at cities like Hong Kong which grew as fast as Singapore over the same period pursuing free market economic policies from a much lower initial level of income then it is complete rubbish to say that we needed the PAP to build prosperity.

In fact Singaporeans could be forgiven for thinking that we never gained our independence and were still under the yoke of our colonial masters. The PAP took power by trickery with the aid of our former masters, the British, as a result of Operation Cold Store in 1963. They took power through a walkover and since then have tried to ensure they retain power through walkovers. Until 2011 the PAP were used to taking power again at each election on Nomination Day because less than half the seats were contested.

The PAP have relentlessly tilted the electoral playing field in their favour and harassed their opponents until Singapore is more like Russia or Kazakhstan than a real democracy. But we Singaporeans bear much of the blame for what has happened. By voting for the PAP in election after election, by allowing ourselves to be intimidated by the threat of losing amenities like upgrading that are ours by right or by fear of freedom, we have allowed ourselves to become second-class subjects in our own country.

The PAP want you to think that what has been good for them and the Lee family has been good for Singapore. But this has never been the case and is not so today. Without freedom and democracy we do not have innovation and technological progress. Government control of the economy through Temasek and its monopolies has meant the dominance of old industries and old companies, a factor that has been pinpointed in the US as a contributing factor to slowing productivity growth.

What does it mean to say we have become second-class citizens? The PAP’s mantra is that we are a global city and that “Singapore belongs to everyone”. The land, which is 80% owned by the Government, is treated as the primary asset and our people are regarded as disposable, because they can always be replaced by cheaper foreigners.

Reflect on how few rights you have on this the 49th anniversary of independence:

• 90% of you do not own your own homes but hold them on a 99-year leasehold where you can be moved on by the HDB if it sees a profitable development opportunity, a profit that you will not share in.

• You do not control your savings since the PAP Government can alter the terms at will on which you get access to them. Promises have been continually broken and the reasons why the Government needs to retain your money make no sense unless GIC has been mismanaged to the point where it is in deep financial trouble.

• You compete for jobs in your own country with foreign workers on an unequal basis. The Government you elected will continue to increase the population without limit because without a continuously growing population the PAP economic strategy will start to unravel and may end up bringing down the pillars of PAP control, HDB, CPF, Temasek and GIC.

• You cannot risk falling sick because of the danger that this will end up bankrupting you, your family and your relatives before the Government will step in to help

• If you are a man you give up two years of peak earnings, and many years of reservist liability, to make your country safe for wealthy foreigners, PRs and new citizens, some of whom have become PAP MPs without fulfilling their obligations

• You are told that there is no money to help those who fall through the cracks and that taxes will have to go up yet the figures the PAP Government tries to hide from you show that the Government runs a surplus of $30 billion a year and apparently has net assets of $400 billion. Yet without transparency and accountability we will never find out the truth.

The National Solidarity Party (NSP) is organising a conference on the CPF tomorrow at 7:45pm to discuss their alternative propositions on the CPF system:

Dear Members and friends,

In an atmosphere where there is more heat than light on a topic as complex as the CPF Scheme, populist and reactionary proposals do not provide the needed vision and clarity to address such a fundamental issue as serving the retirement needs of an aging society like Singapore.

NSP believes that what Singaporeans need is a Principled Approach which will help us to better rationalise the complexities and to regain trust and belief in the benefits of the CPF Scheme.

NSP invites you to our Media Conference at which we will be presenting our Paper entitled "Re-Visioning the CPF Scheme with 6/6 Clarity."

In our Paper, we will set out and explain our 6 Principled Proposals to reform and improve the CPF Scheme. 

For more information about the event, visit the event's page on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/718005991606297/?ref_newsfeed_story_type...

As early as 2000 (and even before) the SDP has been warning about the PAP withholding our CPF money.

We wrote this article 'Don't let the PAP retain your CPF savings' in 2000 in our newspaper The New Democrat and urged Singaporeans to vote the opposition so that we could keep a check on the ruling party.

But that was before the widespread use of the Internet which meant that the PAP's control of the media ensured that our message could not be communicated effectively to the public.

Because of this, Parliament was without meaningful opposition allowing the PAP to double the Minimum Sum today to $155,000.

The next GE is fast approaching, we must not squander the opportunity again. Take a look at the piece we published nearly 15 years ago. We said it then, we say it now: Help get the SDP into Parliament and we will work to get your CPF savings returned to you.

Don't let the PAP retain your CPF savings
September 2000

Imagine waking up one morning and finding out that your bank has decided to retain your savings. It tells you that it is doing this for your own good.

It also tells you that you can withdraw a certain anmount when you retire and the rest will be given to you in small monthly instalments until you die or when the money runs out whichever comes first.

Impossible you say? Well, it's already happening. The bank is the CPF and the banker is the PAP Government. Under the innocently named Minimum Sum Scheme, the PAP has decided it will withhold $80,000 for every person's CPF account.

From the age of 60, your savings will be disbursed to you in monthly instalments of about $200.
How are retirees going to survive on $200 a month?

But why is the Government introducing this scheme in the first place? Because, according to the PAP, we will squander away our savings if we are given all of it back.

This is utter rubbish. The CPF is our money and we will manage it the way we see fit.

No, the real reason for the retention is that the CPF is an excellent source of revenue for the Government.

In the beginning, the PAP said that Singaporeans had to save for our old age and passed a law to deduct 40% of our wages for the CPF. At that time, it assured us that we would be able to get our money back because this is a form of savings and not taxes.

But now the Government makes a U-turn and passes a law to withhold our savings. This is outrageous, not to mention immoral, because any bank which tries to do this will meet with lawsuits from its customers.

Furthermore, the amount of $80,000 is not fixed. Any time the Government so decides to up the $80,000 sum it can do so without any opposition. In fact, there are plans to raise the amount by another $30,000.

Singaporeans thought that by voting for the PAP in the last GE (1997) you stood to benefit from HDB upgrading programmes. Many are coming to realise that what you gain on the one hand, you've lost much more on the other because of the Minimum Sum Scheme.

Given the growing levels of public discussion surrounding the CPF system, the National Solidarity Party has published a paper outlining it’s position on the issue.

The NSP explained that there is “more heat than light” in the current CPF debate and they wish to see a system with greater clarity.

NSP also highlighted that resorting to populist and reactionary ‘tweaks’ will not be able to deliver good results for Singaporeans.

This in mind, NSP set out 6 broad principles and initiatives to guide and reform the CPF system.

They said that “a Principled Approach will help Singaporeans to better rationalise the complexities and to regain trust and belief in the benefits of the CPF Scheme.”

Some of the principles that NSP highlighted in their paper include engaging employers more to be an active part of the system, supplementing retirement income instead of focusing on retirement adequacy, giving members more control of their contribution rates and seeing CPF as more of a tripartite responsibility.

They also suggested that the government should top-up the retirement savings of the poor.

In their paper, NSP also suggested that the Minimum sum scheme be phased out and the contribution rates be reviewed.

These are the highlights from PM Lee's National Day Rally 2014.

See also: HIGHLIGHTS FROM PM LEE'S NATIONAL DAY RALLY 2014 ENGLISH SPEECH

Malay Speech:

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong kicks off the Malay portion of his Rally speech by wishing the audience a Happy National Day and Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri.

Congregants of Masjid Kampong Holland were sad to leave their mosque, but were warmly received by the Mujahidin Mosque in Queenstown, which has been recently upgraded. This is in the same spirit of partnership and sacrifice that Singapore's Pioneer Generation displayed. Pioneer Malays had a choice at Independence, and you cast your lot with Singapore. Your choice enabled Singapore to grow into a multi-racial, multi-religious society. Thank you for having faith in Singapore, and working with other communities. 

To honour the contributions of the first President, we will be naming a new Mosque in Woodlands after him: the Yusof Ishak Mosque. The Institute of South East Asian Studies (ISIS) will also be named the Yusof Ishak Institute. Finally a new scholarship, the Yusof Ishak scholarship for social studies at NUS.

PM Lee highlighted how more Malay students are completing post secondary education and achieving better results.

While there have been improvements, some Malays are suffering from obesity, hypertension and other health issues, perhaps because of all their unhealthy but delicious food. He urged the Malay community to exercise more and look after their health.

I have set up ASPIRE to encourage more Singaporeans to reach for higher education.

PM Lee also said that our Pioneers showed we can do anything, provided we set our minds to it. We must build on their legacy, giving every Singaporean the confidence to shoot for the stars. Education is an important part of this, and this year, I will focus on ITE and polytechnic students.

Singapore Democrats

PM Lee Hsien Loong's National Day Rally signalled the PAP Government's intent of withholding the people's CPF money, continuing to dishonour its original promise to return Singaporean's their hard-earned retirement savings.

Mr Lee's announcement of future adjustments to allow retirees to withdraw more money fails to address the all-important question: How are older Singaporeans going to survive in their retirement?

As it is, most Singaporeans do not have enough to meet the Minimum Sum of $155,000 (which will be increased to $161,000 in 2015). Giving back retirees small monthly instalments of a few hundred dollars under the Minimum Sum Scheme will not allow them to survive in a city ranked the most expensive in the world.

The PAP must stop playing these money games and, instead, honour its pledge to return to Singaporeans their CPF savings.

To solve the problem of giving our retirees the means to survive, the SDP has proposed the following measures:

1. Remove land cost from HDB prices

It is estimated that Singaporeans pay more than 100% in excess for their HDB flats because of the mark up in price by the Government. The PAP says that it needs to factor in the cost of land sold to HDB. What it doesn't say is that the land costs the Government nothing.

The SDP's idea of Non-Open Market (NOM) flats will allow Singaporeans to convert their existing flats to NOM ones and, in return, the Government will give back the money deducted for land cost (which could range between $100,000 to $300,000 per flat depending on the flat-type) to their CPF accounts.

Read alsoSDP proposes NOM flats in housing policy

2. Scrap Medisave

The SDP healthcare plan will do away with the 3M system. Money retained under the Medisave scheme (currently at $43,500) will be returned to our CPF accounts.

In its place will be the National Health Investment Fund (NHIF) into which members will pay from their CPF a fraction of what Medisave withholds. The Government will contribute the remaining amount into the NHIF to make up the country's total healthcare expenditure.

In this manner, there will be universal healthcare in Singapore and Singaporeans will be relieved of the burden of paying unaffordable healthcare expenses.

Read alsoThe SDP healthcare plan made simple

3. Return CPF to the people

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

With NCMP Gerald Giam at NDR 2014, ITE College Central

Yesterday, I attended the National Day Rally 2014 at ITE College Central. Amongst others, the Prime Minister touched on pathways to success, especially for non-graduates, retirement adequacy and making Singapore as an endearing home for all. My Parliamentary colleague NCMP Gerald Giam touched on issues related to changes to CPF. I will be sharing my thought about shifting our mind-set to support different pathways to success.

The PM shared the stories about the successful non-graduates from Keppel Corporation. Keppel’s positive attitude to create opportunities for all its employees is commendable. These stories, however, are actually common in the private sector. I know of many cases of those with vocational training or diploma climbing high in the corporate ladder exceeding that achieved by their graduate peers. Amongst those that I had personally supervised in the course of my work, I had one who came through the now defunct Baharrudin Vocational Institute (later merged into ITE). We took him into our company even though he did not have a diploma which we generally expected of staff as we were running a technology business then that required people trained in specific skills. He came through because he had the relevant work experience. He demonstrated great work attitude and initiative and eventually rose to head the software team, a very critical part of our business, with many graduates reporting to him. His skills were self-taught or through courses attended along the way. There are many other such examples.

The elephant in the room is actually in the government services. The structures are well defined and it is no secret that scholars and those identified early as having potential are fast tracked through the system. These are typically those with stellar academic achievements. The promotion pathways are fairly rigid, with paper qualifications being sometimes the barrier preventing someone from jumping into a new career track within the civil service. While the PM had said changes will be made to the public service to merge the career tracks of graduates and non-graduates, no details were yet given and the execution remains challenging. It is helpful though that they have acknowledged this problem. What ASPIRE wants to achieve in providing fulfilling opportunities for Polytechnics and ITE graduates will need a major mind-set shift across the country, especially in the Public Service Division. Putting DPM Tharman to head the tripartite committee to make this happen sends an appropriate signal that this needs attention at the highest level. 

In this globalised and highly connected 21st century, information becomes obsolete rapidly. The pace of change is rapid. Economies compete aggressively with one another. it is appropriate for Singapore to move away from a paper chase culture. It is useful to look at countries such as Germany and Switzerland that have placed strong emphasis on vocational training, and have ensured that those with the right skills are compensated competitively against their graduate peers. I had touched on this during the Parliament debate on the Singapore Institute of Technology bill.