“There are gainers and losers of a country’s immigration policy. Gainers are the users of immigrant labour namely, employers and consumers. Losers are native workers who compete with the immigrants.”

A simple, logical and bold statement from one of the world’s leading scholar-researchers on immigration economics. When I met Professor George Borjas at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government recently as part of my Harvard Fellowship, he made it clear to me that he was not taking sides in the ongoing debate on immigration in the US. He just wanted to state the facts as he saw them. Far too often, policy makers focused on the positive aspects but neglected to address the negative and harmful consequences.

Big losers – choosy natives?

Prof Borjas reminded me of PAP ministers who constantly exhort Singaporeans to be grateful to foreigners for making the creation of jobs possible. They and their apologists even claim that the immigrants are merely doing the jobs that local citizens shun.

Prof Borjas said he heard a similar argument in the US but retorted that it was a false statement, stating categorically that “immigrants do jobs natives don’t want at the going rate“. He cited the example of taxi drivers in New York; there were hardly any native American driving cabs in the Big Apple as immigrant taxi drivers were cheaper. However in the countryside such as in Iowa, cab drivers were predominantly natives. I told him of a comparable example with cleaners in Singapore. Like their counterparts in the US, employers in Singapore suppress the wages of Singaporean workers and blame them for being choosy. So Singaporeans lose jobs to cheaper foreigners or work at wages that only the weak and elderly would accept.

I asked about the minimum wage: wouldn’t it protect native American workers? He said the minimum wage in the US was too low and applied mostly to teenagers. And there were older workers particularly illegal immigrants who accepted wages lower than the minimum wage.

Prof Borjas told me US immigration is bi-polar in proportionate terms. A lot come in at the lower end with little education; the typical Mexican immigrant has only 6-8 years of schooling. There are also a substantial number at the high end, that is, immigrants with high degrees. However, there are very few in between. This is unlike Singapore where rules are relaxed for middle level foreigners to come in on S passes and replace middle level Singaporean managers and professionals.

The other losers – institutions, cultures and values

In addition to native workers, local institutions are the other losers of immigrant labour. Prof Borjas explained that immigrants come from societies that are at a different level of development from the US. They have a long term impact on the institutions, cultures and values of the host country. We notice the differences in Singapore too. Their standards of efficiency are also different and have an impact on the quality of services that has been negative in many areas of public services, in restaurants and over the counter.  We are all too familiar with frequent disruptions and breakdowns of MRT train services, burst water pipes at the world’s best airport, falling ceilings in shopping malls, major telecommunication and trading disruptions affecting financial institutions, and the failure of many other previously acclaimed world class services.

Limits of tolerance

The differences in culture and values have also given rise to increasing instances of social tension between Singaporeans and foreign workers. Have the limits of tolerance been reached? I put this question to Mary Waters, who is Professor of Sociology at Harvard and a renowned researcher on integration of immigrant communities in the US.

The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) believes that the next general election (GE) will be held at the last quarter of this year.

It said this at the GE2015 Campaign Kick-Off today to kick-start a series of monthly events to also commemorate SDP's 35th anniversary this year, which falls on August 6.

The events will culminate with a pre-election rally that the SDP will be holding at the Hong Lim Park in October, where it would also introduce its potential candidates and issues for the GE.

SDP also unveiled its campaign slogan today: Your Voice in Parliament.

"You can disagree with us (because) we are a democratic party," Dr Chee Soon Juan, SDP's Secretary-General said at the press conference today.

But a look at the policies that the SDP has put out over the years showed that there is much to agree with.

Dr James Gomez who also spoke at the press conference, said that the SDP has been introducing alternative policies for Singaporeans every six months since the 2011 GE.

The SDP's policies are grounded in compassion, justice and equality, Dr Gomez said.

Some of the highlights of the key policies that the SDP has unveiled over the last few years were summarised at the press conference today.

The prime minister should only earn $50,000 a month. In comparison, PM Lee earns over $180,000 a month now.

"Cabinet ministers are currently overpaid," SDP said in its press release.

"The SDP proposes that the MP allowance be 10 times the mean wage of the poorest 20th percentile, while ministers be paid three times the MP allowance and the prime minister 4 times more.

"Such an approach will ensure that the living standards of low-income groups rise with the rest of the population."

There should be a cap of $2,000 that every Singaporean need to pay for healthcare every year. Currently, there is no cap and there have been reports of Singaporeans paying tens and thousands for healthcare every year.

New flat prices should be pegged to the cost of land, which SDP said will make housing truly affordable.

Currently, the PAP government adds in land costs to 60 percent of the prices of flats, jacking up the prices of flats to more than five times the annual median income of Singaporeans, much higher than in the past.

"SDP will focus on alternative policies", it said in its presentation.

"We want to stand on policies to run in the elections," Dr Gomez said.

When TRS spoke to an audience member, he said, "The SDP has sound policies that take care of the people. This is better than the policies from the PAP which have not changed."

Indeed, this was what Dr Chee observed as well.

"The PAP has become lazy," Dr Chee said, "it does not think out of the box."

"(But for SDP), we look at what the problems in Singapore are and respond accordingly."

For example, Dr Chee said that one of the education policies that the SDP has proposed is to provide free lunch to all students.

"Some people think it is socialist but we do not think so," Dr Chee said.

He said that with the policies that the SDP has developed, "I don't think anybody can dispute these are problems people are concerned with."

Indeed, "the most important thing in parliament is to listen to the people," Dr Chee also said.

And to also do so, the SDP has conducted 44 campaign activities since 2011, or an average of one every month.

It has concentrated its focus at Tanjong Pagar, Sembawang, Yuhua, Bukit Panjang, Holland-Bukit Timah, West Coast and Punggol East.

But where will the SDP contest?

Dr Chee said that it would contest in the seats that it did in 2011, but it will have a better idea after the electoral boundaries are redrawn.

The PAP is known to gerrymander and change the electoral boundaries at each general election so as to swing the votes back for itself.

But Dr Chee hopes that people would focus on the alternative policies.

We should stop the name-calling and move up the level of discussion to a more intelligent level, Dr Chee said.

He also said that Singaporeans are today more mature and intelligent and the government should treat them as such.

The SDP plans to introduce their next policy paper next month, on economic policy.

However, even though the PAP government has taken some of the SDP's policies to implement, the PAP has only done so in a "haphazard" way because it only wants "placate" its critics, Dr Chee said.

For example, the SDP has proposed that minimum wage should be implemented in Singapore. Pointing to Hong Kong, Dr Chee explained that there were fears that a minimum wage would cause the economy to go down, but since its implementation in 2011, the Hong Kong economy has stayed intact.

He criticised the Progressive Wage Model, which adapts the SDP's ideas of a minimum wage but only for cleaners and does so in a "piecemeal" manner.

The SDP will focus on our alternative policies at the next GE and called on Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to have a national debate on issues that Singaporeans are concerned about.

Party chief Chee Soon Juan emphasised that it was important to raise the standard of politics in Singapore by focusing on policy debate.

“We should move away from the name-calling and character assassination,” Dr Chee said, “Singaporeans are mature and intelligent enough to see what good and bad policies are.”

He asked what good would it do Singaporeans if the PAP was only interested in hurling insults at the opposition and not address policies which affect the people's lives.

The SDP also announced our campaign slogan: “Your Voice in Parliament”. Professor Paul Tambyah was on hand to do the honours. He added that “if people like our policies, they should support our campaign to be their voice in Parliament.”

Professor Tambyah called on Singaporeans to deny PAP the two-thirds majority at the next polls as this would prevent the party from changing the Constitution at will.

Dr James Gomez, a candidate with the Sembawang team in 2011, highlighted the policies that the SDP had drawn up over the last few years.

One of these was the SDP's proposal that ministerial salaries be pegged to the bottom 20 percent of wage-earners.

“Under our formula, the prime minister would earn about $50,000 and the ministers about $40,000,” Dr Gomez pointed.We peg the salary levels to the lower percentiles to ensure that the poor are not left behind.

SDP Vice-Chairman John Tan listed out a series of monthly activities for the party's 2015 campaign. These will include the launching of the party's Town Council Management Manifesto where we will spell out how our MPs will efficiently take over and manage the town council should we win our contests.

The party will also be publishing a book on Dr Chee Soon Juan written by friends and associates. This will be done in March 2015. The objective is to present the other side of Dr Chee, someone whom the PAP and state media have demonised over the years.

Founded on 6 August 1980, the SDP will celebrate our 35^th anniversary this year. Party Vice-Chairman John Tan (below) announced that the celebration of SDP35 will consist of a series of activities culminating in the pre-election rally to be held in October.

We kicked off the year with a bang with our GE2015 campaign launch last Saturday where we announced our campaign slogan: Your Voice in Parliament. We also plans to publish our town council management manifesto as well as economic policy paper (see below)

February: Economic policy paper

The SDP will launch our economic policy paper in which we highlight, among others, problems with CPF, income inequality, and economic transparency. More important, we propose realistic and comprehensive solutions for them.

March: Book on Chee Soon Juan 

The SDP will launch a book on Dr Chee Soon Juan written by several of Dr Chee's associates and friends. Much of the public's understanding of the SDP Secretary-General has come from the state media's negative coverage. The book will counter the PAP's portrayal of Dr Chee by presenting the side which has, thus far, not been told.

April: 35 years – A Look Back 

This event will showcase the SDP's past achievements and take the public down memory lane. It will highlight the party's ups and downs, and how the events have shaped us and made us stronger and more determined. The one-day event will include talks on SDP's development, an exhibition of SDP's work in photos and items, discussions about SDP's past and how it will affect the future, etc.

May: SDP manifesto

The SDP will launch our manifesto for the coming general elections in May in which we spell out our vision and plans for the Singapore.

June: Town council management manifesto

The party will publish our town council management plans in which we will spell out concrete plans on how we will take over the town council and manage the transition of its operations of estates should we win. The manifesto will also lay out the blueprint of how the town council can better serve the people in the five years that the SDP is in charge. 

July: Constituency committees

2015 – A year we go Back to Basic (B2B)

Over 50 years since the independent of Singapore, we had become the first world country like US, 

UK and Japan. But the citizens are crying louder each day due to the key areas listed below:

1) CPF
2) Housing
3) Education
4) Public Transport

We feel the above have already deviate from their initial purpose.

1) CPF

The intention of CPF is for Singaporeans to retire once they reaches 55 years old. Over the years, it has expanded to pay for housing loans, educational loans and etc. It supposed to be of good intention. With the ever increasing of minimum Sum, more Singaporeans are not going to retire upon reaching age 55 as many will fail to reach the minimum sum.

CPF top priority should be retirement. As of 1 Jan 2015, the allocation rate Special Account 

(SA) is still and only 6%.It would be easier to reach the minimum sum if we were to fall back to 1984 where the contribution goes as high as 50%.Over the years of contribution rate adjustments, majority of the money are still used for repayment of housing loan. If this goes on, the contribution still doesn’t favours our retirement at all. 

CPF primary reason is for retirement. As part of our B2B campaign, we will continue to fight for Singaporeans to withdraw their money at the age of 55. This is your entitlement after years of hard work.

2) HDB

Government housing should be affordable, which they had kept their promise in the past. It is until Build-to-Order (BTO) flats emerges, the prices started to increase sharply. By having BTO, there is a shortage of available units, hence further increase the price.

Without a place of their own, couples tend to delay having babies as they might feel a lack of privacy.

By having high HDB cost, it also means to deduct more money from our CPF. Again this contributes to the problem as discuss above.

To stabilise housing prices, more rental units should be available to young couples which they can accumulate their wealth to purchase flat of their own in the future. In our B2B campaign we will also fight to reduce HDB cost.

Freelance writer Ms Elaine Ee reported yesterday on The Online Citizen about a PAP MP, whom she declined to identify, having difficulty defending the policies of his own party.

The MP even seemed to disagree with those policies but couldn't or didn't know how to correct them.

“In fact, there were moments when it sounded like he was apologizing for these policies,” Ms Ee wrote, “saying that he agreed with the audience, knew that the policies are flawed and have always been flawed – but he can’t do anything about it. The big ship can’t be easily turned around.”

One of these involved the PSLE. Those present at the meeting raised the issue, pointing out that the exam was too stressful for children and wondered if it could be removed.

But instead of telling his audience of the merits of such an exam, the MP simply pointed to the fact that the MOE conducted a survey showing that parents wanted the exam to stay.

The first problem is that he did not say how the survey was conducted: which parents were asked or the type of questions that were asked. These have an impact on the results.

Second, if the PAP doesn't provide an alternative to parents and show how such an alternative is better than the current practice, how are parents going to want to scrap the PSLE?

This is the problem with Singapore today. The PAP sees the problem, understands the problem but have no idea how to rectify it. Groupthink within the party is so strong that no one is able to think out of the box and propose alternative and better ideas.

Worse, they don't seem to have the courage to speak out. No ship is too big to turn. If we all adopted such a fatalistic attitude, the Singapore ship – currently drifting without a compass – will, sooner or later, run aground.

Leadership is not about suing bloggers and activists and trying to look strong. It is not about controlling the media to present only one side of the story.

Leadership is about having principles and values, and formulating policies based on those values. It is about explaining the merits of policies to the people and then having the confidence to let them choose freely in elections. No matter how long the process takes.

This is what PAP MPs must learn. Defending the indefensible or playing tai-chi does not benefit anyone. Singaporeans elected them to lead, not obfuscate.

For the record, the SDP has said that the PSLE must be done away with. Why? One, it causes much psychological, and even physical, harm to our children. (Read this) Two, it kills creative thinking which is what the future demands. Three, it is unfair to poor students and late developers and a waste of potential talent.So what is the alternative?

Chee Soon Juan replies to Chan Chun Sing

Mr Chan Chun Sing is certainly an accomplished man in Singapore. He has risen quickly through the ranks of the army and appointed a minister. I commend him on his remarkable achievement, there is much to be admired.

I have, unfortunately or otherwise, chosen a different path. It is, admittedly, not a conventional path and, certainly, not one that leads to power, privilege and a high salary. In this respect Mr Chan is right, I have not succeeded.

I have instead undertaken to speak up for the people of Singapore in what was, to put it mildly, a very difficult political terrain.

Nevertheless, I am proud of my achievements, as I am sure Mr Chan is of his. But I do want to sound him a note of caution: When we attain our goals in life, we should not look down and criticise others who have yet to achieve theirs.

Even if I have failed in Mr Chan's eyes, he must resist the urge to denigrate. Wasn't it Albert Einstein who said: “You never fail until you stop trying”? I have not stopped trying and I don't think I will.

I do, however, find Mr Chan's comments troubling on two fronts.

The Straits Times has refused to publish Dr Chee Soon Juan's letter to Mr Chan Chun Sing. It wanted to edit out the essence of Dr Chee's reply. When Dr Chee said that he would like the letter to be published in full, the Straits Times refused.

(The paragraphs in bold are the ones the ST wants to remove.)

IT IS NOT I WHO IS SACRIFICING SINGAPORE 

In his letter Chee sacrifices S'pore to win points overseas: Chan Chun Sing (ST, January 16, 2015), Minister Chan suggests that I am anti-Singapore because I publish op-eds in the international media.

I did not write these pieces to criticise Singapore, I wrote them to criticise PAP policies. The PAP and Singapore are two different things. We must not equate one with the other.

The reason I have written in these news sites is because Singaporean newspapers are reluctant to publish my pieces. Just in the last three month, the Straits Times has rejected all three of my op-eds which I submitted.

If Mr Chan insists that I am undermining Singapore, then he should note that it is not I but Mr Lee Kuan Yew who, in an interview with National Geographic (a Western magazine), rather uncharitably likened Singaporeans to indolent animals where "spurs [had to be] stuck into the hide” to make us work harder. 

It is not I but the PAP who are persuading young Singaporeans not to pursue a university education while giving foreign students generous financial grants to study at our universities. 

It is not I but the Government who has allowed in millions of foreigners to work in Singapore at the expense of Singaporeans' jobs and wages. 

Mr Chan should not be directing his anger at me.

He says that I betrayed Mr Chiam See Tong. Former High Court Justice Warren Khoo who presided over the trial between Mr Chiam and the SDP said that he could find no malicious behaviour on the part of the SDP since the Central Executive Committee did attempt to seek reconciliation with Mr Chiam.

To be sure, Mr Chiam has contributed significantly to Singapore and the SDP honours him. We will do this by inviting him to our 35th anniversary dinner to be held later this year.

The differences between the SDP and him are miniscule compared to the problems Singaporeans are facing. It is important that we come together and work for the good of our nation.

There are genuine differences in how the SDP and PAP want to take Singapore forward. On this we can have an honest, even robust, debate. But let us not continue to demonise each other just because we hold different views.

Singaporeans want us to have a contest of ideas, not call each other names.

Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

Why does SingFirst choose to walk in Tampines this morning Sunday 18 January 2015?

SingFirst wants to highlight the failings of the PAP government for which the minister-in-charge of the PAP team, Mr Heng Swee Kiat, must take primary responsibility. Mr Heng, the Member of Parliament for Tampines GRC, is also Minister of Education, chairman of SG50 Committee and former managing director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore.

Education Policy that works against Singaporeans

As education minister, the major failings of Mr Heng are :

1. Parents have to spend an estimated $1 billion a year on private tuition for their children which shows the failure of his ministry in providing adequate and effective teaching in schools;
2. About $400 million is spent on scholarships and free tuition grants for foreign students every year when 60% of our students in the local universities need financial assistance to pay fees and one-third of school children have no pocket-money for lunch;
3. Large numbers of foreign students on scholarships and free tuition grants take up places in schools, polytechnics and universities, thus depriving Singaporean children of their rightful place. In the case of university places, parents have to spend their hard-earned savings to finance their children in overseas universities;
4. There is a serious shortage of places for Singaporeans in tertiary institutions but instead of taking ownership of the problem they have created, PAP ministers told Singaporeans to lower their expectations and forgo university education, and last but not least;
5. Singapore students spend the world’s third longest number of hours on homework, thereby making schooling a stress, not a joy.

Glorification of one man in SG50

As chairman of SG50, Mr Heng will spend enormous state resources of funds and personnel in activities that will

1. Give undue advantage to the ruling party in the run up to the next general election and
2. Glorify one man, Lee Kuan Yew, more than any others at a time when doubts have been raised about his role with the publication of declassified British government documents. With the arrests and detention without trial of PAP’s political opponents, was Mr Lee truly a hero or something else? Before the chairman of SG50 even starts to spend a single cent on this glorification, should he not ensure the authenticity by asking for all documents relating to the arrests and detentions to be released and published? Does he not owe this simple duty to Singaporeans before spending our money?

Remember Mini-Bonds?

When Mr Heng was managing director of MAS, financial institutions sold some dubious investment products to the public including ordinary Singaporeans and town councils who lost millions of dollars of their savings in the subsequent financial crisis.

There are two other reasons for SingFirst to walk in Tampines GRC that are not directly related to Mr Heng but for which his government must take responsibility.

If we take PM Lee's words seriously, the next GE will be either after the planning or the celebration of SG50 is over [PM Lee said: "We are busy planning the SG50 celebrations, so we haven't had time to think about when it (i.e. Boundaries Review Committee) will be set up. When we set it up, everyone will know."]

SingFirst is calling all alternative parties in Singapore to start to plan as if the next GE is round the corner. We must quickly get together to discuss how to avoid 3 or 4 corner fights. We must allow what we have achieved in the watershed GE2011 (i.e. all seats except one were contested and all contested seats except one were 1 to 1 contest) to happen again in the next GE to create a tsunami GE. Let the unthinkable (e.g. the fall of a GRC to the opposition in the last GE) happen again. Another black swan event is awaiting us.

Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP, Dr Ng Eng Hen, said that poor students should not be disadvantaged in studies because they are poor.

He said that over $100,000 had been given out in subsidies to about 500 needy students in his constituency on Sunday.

He explained that over the last 5 years, his CCC has given out about $1 million in bursaries to students from low-income families.

Dr Ng urged residents to reach out to their MPs if they know of people in their communities suffering or struggling with financial difficulties.

The scholarships that the Bishan-Toa Payoh CCC has given out include for amounts from $100 to $5000.

When Singfirst had a walkabout in Tampines GRC yesterday 18 Jan 2015, PAP was similarly walking their constituency in Tampines East. We did a double take when we read the articles by the mainstream media this morning.

Why is PAP repeating our name?

Our members wish to thank PAP’s acknowledgement of our party with the following messages:

By Chia Cheok Chong

“PAP has no words to put to Singaporeans except to use our party’s name…barely 5 months after we registered as a new political party…. If SingFirst wasn’t optimistic and daring, 4 walkabouts would not have been completed, its name would not have been featured on the national papers today. Singaporeans first was used by the 50 year old ruling party to call out to Singaporeans!”

By Abel Soh

“Most suitable pun with FREE publicity. Government puts Singaporeans first above all. What an honour, respect and acknowledgement to Singaporeans First (SingFirst)!”

By David Foo

“This is great news headline as we visited Tampines yesterday.”

By Mohd Sharil Amir

“PAP is walking in SingFirst’s shadow.”

By David Tan

“Great! Now everyone is SingFirst!”

By David Wong

“Government finally puts the interests of Singaporeans first. What have they been doing all this while? Putting their own interests first?”

By Roger Lim

“Put Singaporeans first? Really? Awaken after forgetting to do the right things most of the time. A good reminder for them too.”

By Alice Choo

“Singfirst & beloved Singaporeans make the changes for a fair & just society with their hearts & deeds!”

Zao Bao article on 19 Jan 2015

Perhaps the best double pun of the day from Tan Peng Ann

I wrote in 2010 that whenever the elections draw near, the PAP never fails to resurrect Mr Chaim See Tong's departure from the SDP and run the story that I had ousted Mr Chiam and usurped his post.

Quite predictably, the PAP has done it again, this time through Mr Chan Chun Sing's letter to the Straits Times last week where the minister said: “Dr Chee plotted against Mr Chiam and pushed him out of the party he had founded.”

It is the PAP's constant attempt to indulge in character assassination that compels me to set the record straight:

#1: “Chee plotted against Chiam”

Mr Chiam resigned as secretary-general of the SDP. No one kicked him out. In fact, after he resigned, a few CEC members and I persuaded him to come back. We held back the announcement of Mr Chiam's resignation for one month.

If I had “plotted against Mr Chiam” why would I persuade him to return? I would have pounced on the opportunity and quickly announced his resignation. After all, I was in possession of Mr Chiam's hand-written resignation note - complete with signature. (Read Part 1: The truth about Chiam See Tong's departure)

#2: “Chee pushed Chiam out” 

When his resignation was made public, Mr Chiam was invited to the Singapore Press Club to speak in which he attacked the SDP's leadership.

Even then the CEC held its counsel. The Straits Times reported that while Mr Chiam “was gaining political capital from the public at the expense of the SDP's 'collective leadership', the CEC has maintained a stony silence.” (The Sacking of Chiam See Tong, 28 Aug 93)

Three weeks later, the CEC convened a disciplinary enquiry and summoned Mr Chiam to attend. At the hearing, Mr Chiam did not express any regret about his talk at the SPC. The meeting ended close to midnight on 6 August 1993. The CEC discussed what action to take against Mr Chiam with arguments going back and forth until 5am.

In the end, a vote was taken and a majority decided to expel Mr Chiam. But even after the decision was made, we still wanted to reconcile with him. The CEC assigned three members to meet Mr Chiam that very morning to convey to him our decision and to see if there was anyway that we could avoid sacking him.

The delegation visited Mr Chiam, faxed him a letter requesting a meeting, and telephoned him several times to see if there was any chance of reconciliation but to no avail. Mr Chiam did not deny this in court but only said that the overtures were not sincere.

We have received the outcome of our Appeal to the President.  Our Appeal is rejected.

The Istana’s letter to us dated 12 January 2015 and signed by the President’s Principal Private Secretary states:

I refer to the National Solidarity Party’s (“NSP”) appeal to the President dated 20 October 2014 under section 21(8) of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, and the NSP’s additional submissions dated 8 December 2014 (“the Appeal”).

I am instructed to inform you that the President having considered the Appeal, on the advice of the Cabinet, has decided not to accede to the Appeal.

The Registrar of Newspaper will be informed of the President’s decision.”

No reasons or grounds of decision were given to us.

Whether the Cabinet made their decision arbitrarily or after careful consideration, whether the Cabinet relied on legal principles or policy considerations in arriving at their decision – we will never know. Unlike a judge in open court, the Cabinet made its decision behind closed doors and its deliberations are not transparent to us.

While we are utterly disappointed with the outcome of our Appeal, we are not surprised.  The Appeal process is flawed.

Under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, the only recourse for any grievance with a ministerial decision is to appeal to the President.  The logic of appealing to the President is mysterious because the President has no power to make his own decision.  He can only decide on the advice of the Cabinet.

However, we do not regard the Cabinet to be an independent or neutral party, especially in our case.  Thus, we had in our Submissions, called on the Cabinet to appoint an independent tribunal or ombudsman to decide the outcome of our Appeal.

Ignoring our call, the Cabinet has gone ahead to decide our Appeal, and their decision is to reject our Appeal.

Singapore under the long-standing PAP government has never sought to establish ombudsmen – independent persons empowered by law to receive, investigate and address complaints by citizens of improper government decisions.  Ombudsman help to safeguard citizens against abuses of executive power.

Perhaps when the PAP’s super-majority hold on Parliament is eventually demolished would Parliament finally see the wisdom of setting up ombudsmen for the benefit of citizens,   For now, a citizen who doubts the fairness of a government decision made against him has very little recourse.

NSP took a stand against the Minister for Communications and Information (MCI) in order to draw attention to unfairness in MCI’s newspaper permit renewal process:

1. 1. MCI loads extra burdens on Political Associations.  CEC members of Political Associations are required to disclose their personal financial information, but no such requirements are imposed on members of the governing body of applicants who are not Political Associations.  Singling out Political Associations for greater scrutiny raises the question whether MCI has exercised its powers in the interest of citizens, as opposed to serving the interests of the ruling party.
   2. NSP found evidence of double standards.  The Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts required the CEC members of all political parties, except the People’s Action Party (“PAP”), to disclose their personal financial information to the Registrar of Newspapers.  If this is the current practice, it means that PAP CEC members enjoy the privilege of financial privacy.

The rejection of our Appeal only means that the ruling party desires to continue with MCI’s discriminatory practice of loading extra burdens on Political Associations.

MCI’s discriminatory practice in the newspaper permit process joins a range of many factors which conspire against the development of political diversity – factors such as the Political Donations Act, the Internal Security Act, defamation laws, the Group Representation Scheme, to name a few – all of which create an un-level political playing field and work against political competition.  Small wonder that the PAP has won a super majority of seats in Parliament in every general election since 1965.

After more than half-a-century of growth, Singapore's economy now faces new and difficult challenges. The current economic model requires fresh thinking and a new vision.

Surveys show that Singaporeans are increasingly becoming less happy and satisfied with current economic circumstances. Productivity is down and wages are not keeping up with the high cost of living. All this adds to highly stressful conditions in which our people live and work.

The SDP has drawn up an alternative economic programme in which our vision is to achieve a more gracious society where GDP growth is not the end-all and be-all of our existence.

Living a higher quality of life where there is less stress, where we have more time to spend with our families and loved ones, and where we are compassionate towards those less fortunate than us is the kind of society our party wants to build.

Our proposals are targeted at transforming Singapore into a country in which our citizens are genuinely happy and proud to call Singapore our home. We seek to achieve this by setting the following goals:

Goal #1: Change our economic philosophy and approach

The PAP's current economic strategy is GDP-growth-at-all-cost where crass consumerism prevails. The SDP's goal is to cultivate a less materialistic society and where the country’s development takes place in a more holistic manner.

Goal #2: Build a fairer and more compassionate society

In a system that emphasises elitism, Singaporeans in the lower rungs of society are neglected and exploited. The SDP will level up society and provide more care for our weak and elderly. We seek to empower those who are economically powerless.

THE NEW LIQUOR CONTROL PROPOSED BILL

On Monday, 19 January 2015, Second Minister for Home Affairs S. Iswaran tabled a new Liquor Control Bill. While we, Singapore Justice Party (SJP), agreed that some form of control of sales of liquor is necessary to minimise public disorder and littering.

What we, SJP, disagrees with the curb timing and reasoning given by Mr S. Iswaran.

1) Why the curb of sale in retail stores are affected? Is it only necessary that people purchase the liquor of the shelves instead purchasing in the clubs are tend to be excessive drinker? Or is Mr S. Irwaran implying that certain groups of people are not well behaved?

Does it matter whether they drink in the open space, coffeeshops or in the clubs, if they want to misbehave, are you able to differentiate them if they are drinking in the open space or in the clubs? Does that make any difference?

Dr Chee Soon Juan will speak at a luncheon organised by the Foreign Correspondents Association (FCA) at the Pan Pacific Hotel on Monday, 26 January 2015. (See here)

The SDP secretary-general will speak on the upcoming elections expected to be held later this year. He will address the current political developments including the PAP's lack of ideas to take Singapore forward.

Income inequality is wide, the elderly have insufficient retirement savings, the youths are seeing their opportunities diminish, the middle-income families live from paycheck to paycheck and the cost of living in Singapore continues to rise. 

In addition, productivity has been languishing in the past decade, Singaporeans work the most number of hours in the world, they are the unhappiest and most disengaged workers in Asia, and our suicide rate at 467 deaths last year is the highest in 20 years and a 30 percent increase from 2012.  

And yet, PM Lee Hsien Loong has not announced bold and comprehensive measures to tackle these serious problems.

Instead, he has sought to tinker around the edges, for example, introducing the Progressive Wage Model for a small band of workers instead of enacting minimum wage to invest in all low-income workers. He has also enacted the confusing Medishield Life scheme instead of making the healthcare system a universal one with a single-payer system and where public hospitals are not profit-driven.