We Refer to: Singapore Budget 2015: LTA to consult on wider use of bicycles, personal electric vehicles (ST, Mar 11)

First allowed people to bring in electronic bicycles, and proposed to introduce riders to take test for licence to cycle, impose road tax and compulsory insurance etc. When the electronic bicycles population increased is like setting a trap waiting for people to fall into it.

Such actions is no different from current road situation. Whenever, there is a congestion, the next moment we will see new ERP entry erected. Instead of actively educate the riders on road safety, widen the bicycle track or impose heavy penalty. 

When will the PAP stop capitalise on issues and make money from the people while solving the problem?

先来个引进电动自行车,当拥有电动自行车的国人到了一定的数量之后,脚车道没有扩张,也没有机及的搞安全骑脚车教育活动,更没有严厉的处罚违规的骑士就建议让骑士必须考骑士驾照,收路税,买保险等等等于是设下陷阱对民众掉进去。

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Low Thia Khiang
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 11 March 2015]

There is a growing trend of molestation on public transport. In 2014, there were 164 reports of molestation; in 2011, there were only 114 reports. This is a 44% increase in 3 years.

Although the numbers seem small, I believe the reports are only the tip of the iceberg, as it is very embarrassing for many women to cry out in a crowded train and claim she was molested in front of everyone.

Molesters get away with their crime most easily when trains are packed during peak hours, with people standing very close to each other.

I doubt the current attempts at public education are working. National Crime Prevention Council posters in public transport showing a male attempting to molest a woman from behind and asking women to protect themselves may be backfiring. Internationally, such anti-crime campaigns and posters have been criticized for putting the onus on women to prevent the crime and promoting a culture of blaming the victim for the crime.

I was in Parliament today to hear Mrs Lina Chiam's Speech on the Bill on Community Disputes. An MP who spoke in support of the Bill recounted a case where there was a dispute among neighbours in his constituency.

On the higher floor was a family with little children. They were just being children, running around and knocking some furniture around while doing that. Unfortunately the noise created by the moving furniture was intolerable to the neighbour who lived just below. This neighbour is an older woman who is on a ventilator.

The MP expressed how it has been difficult to get one of the neighbours to come to the mediation table to resolve this case. He was glad that they now have this new Bill where the Tribunal could compel parties who are unwilling to comply.

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Low Thia Khiang
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 11 March 2015]

Changi Airport Terminal 5 (T5) is a huge investment in aviation infrastructure. The initial injection of $3 billion for the Changi Airport Development Fund represents just a small fraction of the total cost upon completion.  Already, a $1.1 billion contract has been awarded to clear the land and strengthen the soil before T5 and the third runway can be built. We need to ensure that the cost is managed well and does not become an unnecessary burden on our finances.

How did the Government come up with the figure of $3 billion as the initial injection? Does the Government have an estimated cost at completion of T5?

The Ministry of Finance has a Gateway Process where projects above $500 million are subject to staged approvals for concept, design and implementation. Will the Gateway Process be adopted for the development of T5?

<Pic Credit: SPH>

Stay-at-home mothers play a vital role in nurturing our families, and for many years, PAP women MPs have championed the cause of providing them with more security and empowerment.

With the introduction of government programmes such as the Pioneer Generation Package, MediShield Life and Silver Support Scheme, stay-at-home mothers can now enjoy greater independence, with improved assurance of health care and financial support in their autumnal years.

The SkillsFuture initiative is a game changer, especially for housewives who, until now, do not benefit from employer-sponsored training. For the first time, women can take charge of their own skills development.

Stay-at-home mothers can continue to keep their skills current, which will then ease their re-entry into the workforce, should they so choose. We hope all women will seize this opportunity to embrace lifelong learning and leverage SkillsFuture to pursue their life goals.

The tight labour market has enabled more women to be re-employed and to enjoy more flexible work arrangements.

Employers can tap into the pool of 190,900 economically inactive women, still in their prime working age. They will need to think creatively about making jobs more attractive and flexible.

Improvements in childcare capacity and services have also helped women better juggle family and work commitments. As a result, the women labour force participation rate at prime working age is now at an all-time high of 76 per cent, having grown at its fastest rate in four years.

Withholding our CPF savings, keeping the cost of living down, ensuring that foreigners don't compete in employment - these are some of the issues that we raised during our weekly house visits.

And what we heard back was Singaporeans feeling anxious about their economic and financial well-being in a city ranked as the most expensive in the world. 

A housewife in her 40s told us that even groceries now are more expensive. "I work in the supermarket and I see some of the poorer people having a hard time shopping for basic stuff," she said.    

But many, if not most, residents are not online. They have little knowledge of what the SDP has done and is doing despite our presence on the Internet. This continues to be the PAP's tactic: Keep the people uninformed and resigned.

While this may help the ruling party perpetuate its rule, it is Singapore and her people's future that is going to suffer if such a situation persists. What Singapore needs now is not more state control over a fearful and disengaged people, but a free and open society abuzz with informed and intelligent citizens.

The SDP visited families living in one-room flats in Marsiling yesterday to spread a message of empowerment and hope to lower-income families.

An indication of the difficulties of these families were clearly demonstrated by the fact that several of these units had paint splashed on their gates and doors – a clear sign of the prevalence of illegal loan sharks.

We also came across several units that had HDB eviction and debt collection notices pasted on the doors. A resident told us that his rent was $235 despite his difficulties making a living; he muttered a few expletives directed at the Government.

We came across two young Malay boys (no more than 5 or 6 years old) on their way out. We asked them where they were going.

"Downstairs," one them replied.

“Going to buy lunch?” we enquired.

“No, we're going to call our mother on the phone downstairs,” said the older brother, opening his hand to show us a couple of coins.

“So no one is home with you?”

“No.”

“Have you had lunch,” we asked.

“Yes, Maggie noodles,” the younger boy answered before his older sibling pushed him along.

This is the side of Singapore people seldom see, the side where poverty bites hard and where people live in quiet but desperate resignation.

Thinker, Teacher, Rebel, Why? Portraits of Chee Soon Juan is a new book written by several authors about Dr Chee Soon Juan to counter the decades of PAP smear campaign against the SDP leader.

One of the contributors, Ms Constance Singam, wrote in her chapter that during the 2001 elections,

Goh [Chok Tong] denounced Dr Chee as “a dangerous man” and an “incorrigible liar”. Asked if he was concerned if Dr Chee entered Parliament, Goh declared: “...we must deny him that. Better to have anybody else other than Chee Soon Juan.”

Ms Singam also cited Mr Lee Kuan Yew calling Dr Chee a “political gangster” and noted in her chapter that

These strongly worded denouncements, coming from the most powerful individuals about one opposition politician who had neither the power nor the resources they had, should have led us Singaporeans to question the reasons for the attack.

Another contributor Dr Wong Souk Yee, NUS lecturer, playwright and ex-ISA detainee, recounts in her chapter Dr Chee's fight for free speech and the establishment of Speaker's Corner at Hong Lim Park:

Lee Kuan Yew was quoted in the New York Times that “if everybody just turns up at a busy junction and makes a speech and runs around...there would be pandemonium. We are not that kind of society.” The interviewer William Safire then asked Lee if Singapore would set up a place like London's old Hyde Park Corner. To which, Lee unexpectedly, replied: “We'll probably do it.”

Soon Juan's first breakthrough came after eight years of roiling in Singapore's political quagmire when Speaker's Corner at Hong Lim Park opened on 1 September 2000.​

The latest figures for non-oil domestic exports were extremely weak and signal that GDP growth is likely to be weaker than the MAS’s projection for this year of 2-4%. They fell by 9.7% in February compared with the same month last year. As non-oil domestic exports comprise about 40% of GDP, it is likely that the economy will enter a recession later this year if the trend is confirmed (though on the past track record one cannot rule out further manipulation of the figures by the Statistics Department). The decline in exports to China can hardly have been a surprise for the Government as most data have indicated that China is already in recession despite the official figures purporting to show that the Chinese economy is still growing at 7%. In addition the Japanese government’s deliberate depreciation of the yen is doing exactly what it is supposed to do-curb imports and stimulate exports.

The PAP Government does not have any strategy to deal with this other than to blame it on industrial restructuring caused by their decision to restrict the inflow of cheap foreign labour in an effort to boost productivity growth. However if this were part of a planned restructuring we would expect to see a booming export sector complaining about lack of access to cheap labour. Instead local manufacturing has been forced to restructure by a combination of weak global growth and uncompetitive or poorly positioned exports. The fact that commentators expect the MAS to respond by depreciating the SGD further, a move that will cut real wages, shows that the Government is panicking and this is not a planned strategy to increase productivity. The fall in exports and manufacturing output, unless accompanied by lay-offs, will actually have the opposite effect of leading to negative productivity growth.

Part I: Our man 
08 Jul 07

"The men who led Singapore to self-government and independence were swift to produce an authorized version of their struggle…,” historian T N Harper observes, "it began with Lee Kuan Yew's dramatic broadcasts as Prime Minister on Radio Malaya in 1961. The plot and the moral of this story are clear: by the political resolve and tactical acumen of its leaders, the fragile city-state weathers the perils of a volatile age and emerges into an era of stability and prosperity."

However, much to the discomfort of the Minister Mentor who hitherto has had a relatively free reign in portraying "the period as one in which Lim Chin Siong and the left were outmanoeuvred by the tactically more astute Lee Kuan Yew," Harper cautions that "authoritative new archival research sheds new light on the high politics of the period."

In other words, Lee's bravado with which he presently speaks covers up much that took place during those years. 

In truth, Lim Chin Siong's fate was sealed right from the very beginning by the power of the British colonialists – and not Lee Kuan's political prowess. 

At that time British authorities were already devising ways on how to stop Lim's ascent in Singapore's politics. Southeast Asia historian, Greg Poulgrain, writes that "In the Public Record Office in London are some of the observations and stratagems pursued by both the Colonial and Foreign Office – revealed now more than thirty years after the events – on how to deal with this rising star, Lim Siong Chin."

With Singaporeans becoming more educated and the advent of the Internet, events surrounding the heroics of Lee and his PAP during the period of independence and merger with Malaya "no longer looks so unilinear and uncontested."

The emergence of Lim Chin Siong

Harper recounts the "meteoric" rise of Lim Chin Siong as a student and trade union leader in the early 1950s who was at the heart of the anti-colonial politics that had erupted all over Asia following World War II. 

By unifying the labour movement and galvanizing the overwhelmingly Chinese-speaking electorate through his formidable oratorical skills (he once told his massive audience: "Saya masuk first gear, lu jangan gostan!"– "When I go into the first gear, don't you go into reverse!"), Lim captured the attention of the masses.

And Lee Kuan Yew's too. This led to an association between the two men and the subsequent formation of the PAP. The anglophile Lee (Harry, as he once wanted to be called) saw the power of his younger Chinese-educated comrade. 

Even within the PAP, "Lim eclipsed Lee Kuan Yew and other leaders in the popular following he commanded..."

But in his memoirs, The Singapore Story, published in 1998 Lee Kuan Yew condescendingly described Lim as "modest, humble and well-behaved, with a dedication to his cause that won my reluctant admiration and respect."

The truth is that Lee didn't have much of a choice. Lim Chin Siong was at the front, back and center of a political movement that commanded national attention. From all accounts, Lee would have been marginalized if his parasitic instincts had not been so acute.

Popular as he was locally, Lim Chin Siong did not confine his politics to within Singapore. Despite British efforts to isolate the island from anti-imperial movements that engulfed much of Empire, Lim would draw inspiration from liberation movements elsewhere in Africa and Asia. 

His speeches in the early 1960s repeatedly made reference to events in the colonial world as well as to South Africa, Korea, and Turkey. This sense of internationalism had a "deep resonance" in Singapore. 

The colonial government countered by censoring imported reading material. "This," writes Harper, "would continue, even intensify, after self-government as the PAP government increasingly saw itself as pitted against what Lee Kuan Yew was to term the ‘anti-colonialism' of global liberation movements." 

In other words, Lee was not the hero who led the fight for Singapore's freedom. This might come as a shock to some but as declassified documents reveal, it was Lim Chin Siong who insisted that Singaporeans' freedom and independence were not for compromise.

It was also "what really caused the British authorities to consider [Lim] such a threat."

The talks collapse…

When David Marshall became the chief minister after his Labour Front won the elections in 1955, he organised a delegation to London the following year to negotiate independence from the British. Marshall included both Lim Chin Siong and Lee Kuan Yew in his team.

The chief minister fought hard, some say too hard, to wrest power from the British in the internal affairs of Singapore. He opposed Britain's power to appoint the police chief who in turn had power over the Special Branch, as it was then known. It was the Special Branch that gave the authorities the power of detention without trial. 

The idea of retaining the power of internal security whilst granting self-government, Marshall accused the British, was like serving "Christmas pudding and arsenic sauce." 

Lim Chin Siong supported the chief minister on this and demanded a constitution that transferred power to the local government with only defence and foreign relations left in British hands. 

The British refused the demand and the talks collapsed. Marshall returned to Singapore frustrated and, amidst condemnation by Lee Kuan Yew, resigned as chief minister. 

...Lim Chin Siong is detained…

Lim Yew Hock took over the position and led another visit to London the following year, which again included Lee Kuan Yew. But this time, Marshall and Lim Chin Siong were not part of the negotiating team. 

More accurately, Lim Chin Siong could not go because Lim Yew Hock, as chief minister, had placed him under arrest, ostensibly for instigating a riot.

The episode began when Chief Minister Lim closed down a Chinese women's group and a musical association. A week later, he banned the Chinese Middle School Union which provoked further unhappiness with the locals.

Undeterred he arrested Chinese student leaders and shut down more organizations and schools, including the Chinese High School and the Chung Cheng High School. Given the already tense situation between the Chinese-speaking people and the colonial authorities, this was a highly provocative act. 

At that time any Singaporean leader worth his salt could not have sat by idly. And so Lim Chin Siong came to the fore and spoke up for the students. The late Devan Nair, former Singapore president, joined in.

A 12-day stay-in was organised at one of the schools and Lim Chin Siong was scheduled to speak at a nearby park one evening. 

It wasn't long before the police appeared and ringed the crowd. Suddenly a mob started throwing stones at the police who then charged with batons and tear-gas.

Violence erupted and spread, with police stations being attacked and cars burned. By the end of the chaos 2,346 people were arrested and more than a dozen Singaporeans were killed. 

The blame was squarely pinned on Lim Chin Siong who was arrested.

But did Lim Chin Siong really cause the mayhem? Who was the "mob" that started attacking the police?

At that time, Chief Minister Lim made no bones that the Lim Chin Siong was the front man for the communists who had started the violence. Lim was arrested by the Special Branch the following day. 

Lim vehemently denied this accusation and countered that the chief minister was a colonial stooge. As declassified documents now reveal, Lim Chin Siong was largely right.

Entitled Extract from a note of a meeting between Secretary of State and Singapore Chief Minister, 12 December 1956, the archival note recorded that it was Chief Minister Lim who "had provoked the riots and this had enabled the detention of Lim Chin Siong."

Poulgrain even documents that full-scale military assistance was requested by prior arrangement. Singapore Governor, William Goode, acknowledged that the colonial government was not beyond employing the tactic of provoking a riot and then using the outcome to "achieve a desired political result."

Indeed, Poulgrain noted that "[Public Record Office] documents show these were the tactics of provocation that were employed in the 1956 riots that led to Lim Chin Siong's arrest." 

A few weeks after Lim Chin Siong was behind bars, Lim Yew Hock visited London in December 1956 and was "warmly congratulated on the outcome by Alan Lennox-Boyd, Secretary of State for the Colonies."

And yet, in his memoirs, the Minister Mentor concludes that the Malayan Communist Party "in charge of Lim Chin Siong" were behind the whole affair and that Lim Yew Hock had purged Singapore of the communist ringleaders.

…and the talks are resurrected

And so in the 1957 with Lim Chin Siong under detention, Lim Yew Hock led the delegation to London. But during the negotiations, it was Lee who "played a crucial role in sweeping away the earlier obstacles to agreement on internal security by resurrecting the proposal for an Internal Security Council (ISC)." 

The ISC was structured in a way that Britain and Malaya outweighed Singapore in the outfit. Why was the PAP supportive of such an arrangement? 

Historian Simon Ball said it best: "Lee wanted an elected government but not one that could be blamed for suppressing its own citizens."

Even more damning was an archival "Top Secret" document that recorded: "Lee was confidentially said that he values the [Internal Security] Council as a potential ‘scape-goat' for unpopular measures he will wish to take against subversive activities."

But the PAP continues the charade. Recall what Dr Ow Chin Hock wrote in his letter in 1996 about the arrest of Lim Chin Siong and other Barisan leaders: "The [ISC] had a British chairman, two British members, one Malaysian members and three Singaporean members. Together these four non-Singaporeans outnumbered the three Singaporeans on the council."

In any event, unlike the one led by David Marshall, the negotiations in 1957 had little spine and gave away too much of Singaporeans' rights. As a result, both sides expeditiously reached an agreement for self-government, an agreement that Marshall called "tiga suku busok merdeka" (three-quarters rotten independence).

But self-government was not the only subject being discussed. On the side, the British also wanted to introduce a clause that would bar ex-detainees, or subversives as the authorities called them, from standing for elections.

Lee supported such a move – one that he would surely have known would cripple party comrade Lim Chin Siong's political career. 

In his memoirs, however, Lee Kuan Yew wrote: "I objected to [the introduction of the clause] saying that ‘the condition is disturbing both because it is a departure from the democratic practice and because there is no guarantee that the government in power will not use this procedure to prevent not only the communist but also democratic opponents of their policy from standing for elections'."

A declassified British memo contradicts this: "Lee Kuan Yew was secretly a party with Lim Yew Hock in urging the Colonial Secretary to impose the ‘subversives ban'."

Perhaps this is not surprising as the British had noted that the "present leadership of the PAP is obsessed with the need to persuade the politically unsophisticated masses that the PAP is ‘on their side' and this involves demonstrating that the PAP is not a friend of the foreigner…"

And this is perhaps the reason why Lee told Britain's Secretary of State, Alan Lennox-Boyd: "I will have to denounce [the clause]. You will have to take responsibility."

The Government has taken a step in the right direction by implementing MediShield Life, a national health insurance scheme that is both universal (covers everybody) and comprehensive (covers all illnesses). No longer will anyone be denied coverage due to old age, pre-existing illness, congenital conditions or mental illness.

Under-Insurance

However, one of the main inadequacies of MediShield Life is that it does not adequately cover large medical bills. In other words, it under-insures us, requiring us to still pay out large sums of money in the event that we fall ill, despite being insured. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that each of us is still required to maintain a huge Medisave balance for use in case of illness.

Below is a representation of the portion of a medical bill that is covered by MediShield (in green) versus the portion that is paid by patient, either out-of-pocket or via Medisave (in blue):

Note that of the total bill, MediShield Life only covers the green portion. The blue portion is paid out by the patient. Note also that the claim limits – for each day’s stay in hospital, for surgery, procedures, medicines and ICU stay – are based on subsidised B2 class bill sizes.

As can be seen from the above diagram, the two main factors contributing to the problem of under-insurance as regards MediShield Life are the high deductibles and low claim limits. In cases with small medical bills, the high deductible forms a relatively large portion of the final bill and poses a significant barrier to patients from low-income households, thus limiting healthcare access.

On the other hand, in cases with multiple complications, or multiple or severe illnesses, the overall bill can become very large, and the portion above the claim limit becomes very significant. In this case, the portion (in green) paid out by MediShield Life remains capped, and the portion paid by the patient (in blue) gets proportionally greater the larger the bill size. This is especially true if the person is means tested to receive less subsidy, or if the person stays in a B1 or A class ward.

In the MOH’s own example of a fully subsidised low-income patient admitted to a B2 class ward for a heart attack the total bill after government subsidy comes to $8,100. Of this, MediShield Life pays $5,645, and the patient has to pay $2,455, which is 30% of total bill size! This is a very large proportion and amount for a nationally insured, low-income person to pay.

The unsubsidised (B1 or A class) bill would come to at least $18000. Of this, MediShield Life pays a maximum of $$5,645 (31%), and patient pays at least $12,355 (69%).

And for bill sizes in excess of $50,000 – $100,000, the out-of-pocket payment will wipe out all savings in one’s Medisave account, and that would still be insufficient.

It can be seen that MediShield Life is not structured to insure patients against large medical bills. What then is its purpose?

Large Sums Remain in Medisave Accounts

Due to the severe inadequacies of MediShield Life, each of us remains poorly insured against large medical bills.

This is the reason that we are all compelled to continue to keep large amounts of money in our Medisave accounts. The Minimum Sum for each citizen was $43,500. This has been increased to $49,500, and re-named the Basic Healthcare Sum. This is a huge sum for the majority of Singaporeans, and yet it remains barely sufficient to cover the co-payment of large medical bills even with the implementation of MediShield Life.

The government has also been touting MediShield Life premiums as being ‘affordable’, with annual premiums of around $400 for middle income working adults, and about $1,000 for the elderly. However, this ‘affordability’ is meaningless when the majority of citizens are severely under-insured against large bills by MediShield Life, and all working adults have to continue paying large amounts of money, equivalent to 7 – 9.5% of one’s monthly wages (at least $260 per month or $3,120 per year for a median income earner of $3,700), into one’s Medisave account.

In total, there is $71 billion (as at 2014) sitting in members’ Medisave accounts, largely sitting idle. And the total Medisave balance has been steadily rising over the last 5 years (see chart below).

Instead of locking up our monthly Medisave contributions in individual accounts, the money should be pooled together towards a proper National Health Insurance scheme that adequately covers all medical bills, with affordable co-payment.

Over-charging for coverage – huge profits made by CPF Board

In any health insurance scheme, there are methods to prevent the health insurer from over-charging the insured for health insurance. In America, under ObamaCare, private profit-making health insurance companies are restricted in the amount of profit they can make out of health insurance schemes. This calculation is based on the total money paid out for claims versus total premiums collected in a year. The ratio above is known as the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR).

ObamaCare mandates by law that the total pay-out for claims has to be at least 80% of the total premiums collected:

Total Claims paid out
––––––––––––––––––––– > 80%
Total Premiums collected

This ensures that not too much premium is collected so that the insurance companies do not make too much profit (in this case a maximum gross profit of 20% before expenses).

The table below shows the MLR and ‘profit’ that MediShield has made over the past few years:

It can be seen that MediShield has only paid out an average of 64% of the total premiums it has collected yearly in the years 2008 to 2013, the rest (36%) being profit before expenses. In this way, the CPF Board has managed to accumulate huge (untouchable) reserves from our MediShield premiums.

<Pic Credit: Straits Times>

NSP Statement on Nursing Care for Sick and Elderly Singaporeans

1. The National Solidarity Party (“NSP”) believes in building families with strong ties and a nation with strong moral values.

2. In the Sunday Times dated 15 March 2015, a troubling report appeared with the headline“Singaporeans sick and elderly pack Johor Bahru nursing homes”.

3. It was reported that there is a growing number of infirmed Singaporeans who have been admitted to nursing homes in Johor Bahru, Malaysia, where prices can be as low as half those in Singapore. The growing influx is convincing major nursing home players to expand in Johor Bahru and more homes are being built to house Singaporeans.

4. It would appear that all is well and good when Singaporeans are able to find cheaper alternatives in neighbouring Malaysia because they cannot afford the higher costs of nursing homes for their aged parents here. However, NSP is concerned that if this situation is allowed to develop further, there will be serious implications for our future as a nation. This statement is issued by NSP with regards to these implications.

The plight of elderly Singaporeans – PGP benefits and the right to live and die in Singapore

5. The Pioneer Generation Package (“PGP”) was implemented to honour and thank elderly Singaporeans who are 65 years old or older as at 31 December 2014 for their contributions to nation-building. As many of the Singaporeans staying in these foreign nursing homes would be entitled to the PGP benefits, there is the concern whether or not they are missing out on their PGP benefits and if so, what is being done about it.

6. Loneliness, sickness and dying in a foreign land are amongst the greatest fears of the elderly. Every citizen has the inalienable right to live to a ripe old age in their own country. Whilst we make provisions for new citizens and foreigners to settle down in Singapore, it would be a sad day indeed if our aged citizens cannot find a place here to live out their remaining days.

7. NSP believes that elderly Singaporeans who have been forced out of Singapore by the high costs of nursing homes are being denied their right to live out their lives in their homeland. This is particularly so if they do not even know that they are not living in Singapore. With our constant emphasis on family values, the plight of these elderly Singaporeans cannot be ignored.

Source: MICA
A portrait of Dr Goh, taken during a press conference in 1967  

The passing of Dr Goh Keng Swee (1918- 2010), who laid the foundation stones of Singapore’s economy and defence forces, has left the nation without one of its most well respected citizens.

NAS expresses its deepest sympathy and heartfelt condolences to the family of the late Dr Goh Keng Swee, and pays tribute to Dr Goh for his central role in establishing the Oral History Unit within NAS in 1979. In the words of Mr Kwa Chong Guan, Chairman of the NAS Board:

We salute and remember Dr Goh for his foresight in establishing an Oral History Centre within the National Archives of Singapore. With his support and guidance the establishment has grown to become the premier Oral History Centre in the region. We are delighted to have had the honour of interviewing Dr Goh in 1980 and look forward to releasing the interview for public consultation, in honour of Dr Goh, and to help a new generation of Singaporeans understand Dr Goh better.”

Apart from his oral history interview, Dr Goh’s memory has been preserved in a rich collection of oral history interviews, speeches, photographs and video recordings possessed by the National Archives of Singapore (NAS). NAS holds over 4,000 photographs of Dr Goh, 700 video clips and some 350 transcripts of public speeches of Dr Goh. These materials are available to the general public for viewing. 

Dr Goh was among the most important members of Singapore’s founding generation of leaders. He played a critical role as Minister of Finance in the crucial early years 1959-65 and 1967-70 laying the groundwork for Singapore’s subsequent economic development. Though on hindsight Singapore’s economy could appear to follow a clear progressive path, at the time the task to build an economy was fraught with grave uncertainty, as Dr Goh said in this 1969 speech:

“When my [PAP] government first assumed office on June 3rd 1959…..businessmen and industrialists, far from hailing this event as a happy augury for the future, felt for the most part that the end of the world was around the corner. The stock market collapsed and there was a flight of capital out of Singapore. Several people fled the country. [But] In a short space of ten years, we brought about a transformation of the business climate.” ¹ Among Dr Goh’s many achievements in helping to bring about this transformation was his role in establishing the Economic Development Board (EDB) in 1961, the Jurong Industrial Estate in 1962 (which he promoted in spite of severe public criticism, though it turned out to be the right move) and the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS) in 1968. These institutions have made, and continue to make, vital contributions to Singapore’s economic success.

Source: MICA

Dr Goh (far left) during a visit to the proposed site for Jurong Industrial Estate, 1960. The unpromising ground (below), and distance of Jurong from Singapore’s town and port led the project’s detractors to term it “Goh’s Folly”. However the Jurong Industrial Estate turned out to be a great success. By 1976, 650 factories were in operation in Jurong, which became central to independent Singapore’s industrialisation efforts.

Source: MICA

Source: MICA
Dr Goh launching operations at the National Steel and Iron Mill, the first factory established at the Jurong Industrial Estate, 1962

Dear TRS,

Most Singaporeans' eyes are misty from tears after the passing of a most revered leader. As a colossus of a man has just passed leaving an emptiness in our hearts , we should not forget the void that he has left in his Tanjong Pagar GRC too.

This was the man who had stood bravely and fought seemingly monumental political battles in his ward and won them bravely. From there, he went on fighting each battle with his able lieutenants to capture the hearts and minds of most Singaporeans to establish a city-state that has become first world in the eyes of many. That constituency now stands with other GRC members but not the giant on whose coat tails he gave a free ride.

It would be good of the Prime Minister, his son Mr Lee Hisen Loong to call for a by-elections to fill that emptiness immediately after Mr Lee Kuan Yew's funeral on Sunday even though he is not required to hold one under the law. 

Opposition Leader Low Thia Khiang gave a speech today in Parliament during the tribute to Lee Kuan Yew. Speaking in Mandarin, he praised Mr Lee for his achievements but he also reminded the house that there were several Singaporeans who were sacrificed in the nation building process and our success was not because of the PAP's one party rule. 

He noted that Mr Lee was a controversial figure but he was an extraordinary political leader. 

Mr Low credited Lee Kuan Yew for making Singapore what it is today from a time when there was high unemployment and regional uncertainty.  It was but a small island which relied on the port for the economy and relied on the British for defence.

Mr Low said that during these uncertain and turbulent times, Singapore needed a global vision and it needed to attract foreign investment without becoming a disposable pawn for larger countries. This was a big test for Mr Lee Kuan Yew. 

It was thanks to Mr Lee's wisdom and courage that he was able to win the respect of global leaders for Singapore's benefit. 
 
Low Thia Khiang also said that it was thanks to Mr Lee's fighting spirit, tenacity but above all, his sincerity which won the hearts of the people who had a mutual trust in him and a common direction. 

It was because of this relationship and consensus with the people that Mr Lee was able to bring Singapore form third world to first in just 1 generation.

However, while acknowledging Mr Lee's achievements, Low Thia Khiang also noted that he felt it was not the PAP's one-party rule which was the key to Singapore's success. 

In his chapter in the bookTeacher, Thinker, Rebel, Why? Portraits of Chee Soon Juan, Dr Wong Wee Nam recounted his effort to bring Mr Chiam See Tong back into the SDP fold:

Some time towards the end of 2010, Mr Chiam See Tong was having some problem in the Singapore Democratic Alliance of which he was Chairman. The differences finally reached a stage when he had to leave the SDA and withdraw his Singapore People’s Party from the Alliance.

On 20 December 2010, at the Face-to-Face Forum organised by The Online Citizen, Mr Chiam met me and said he wanted to talk to me. He invited me to his SPP Christmas party and later on to have coffee at his residence. At his house he revealed he intended to contest a GRC and wanted me to consider joining his team. I told him I had a better idea and invited him, his wife, Lina, and my friend, Bentley Tan, to my house a week later to listen to my proposal.

At that meeting, we explored how we could help Mr Chiam leave a lasting legacy. With his problems with the SDA, all of us acknowledged that the public perception of Mr Chiam as a one-man show needed to be addressed. We wanted the public to remember Mr Chiam as the leader he was when he fought his first political battles and built SDP into a potent force, not someone who could not hold the SDA together. He needed to show Singapore he was magnanimous and had big ideas.

SDA Walkabout on 4 April 2015

<Pic Credit: SingFirst>

SingFirst held its inaugural dinner on 22 Mar 2015 from 7pm to 11pm in Qian Xi Restaurant at Tanjong Katong Complex.

We were graced on this very special occasion by leaders and representatives from the 8 political parties (mostly by their Secretary Generals and Chairmen). More than 430 friends and supporters attended the dinner together with journalists from the Straits Times, Lian He Zao Bao (联合早报), The New Paper and Channel News Asia.

We also held a donation drive where guests were encouraged to contribute to our unique collection of t-shirts, baseball caps and pin buttons.The members of the political parties included:

1. Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Yee Jenn Jong – Workers’ Party (WP)

2. Mrs Lina Chiam and Mr Loke Hoe Yeong – Singapore People’s Party (SPP)

<Pic Credit: YourSDP.Org>

Professor Paul Tambyah and Dr Chee Soon Juan spoke last week at a closed-door session at the Institute of Policy Studies' (IPS) Glass Tank Conversation series.

The two SDP leaders spoke about the urgent need for democratisation and the SDP's effort to raise the level of politics in Singapore by coming up with alternative policies. They are seen here with Dr Gillian Koh, Head of Politics and Governance Research Cluster at IPS. Below are excerpts of Dr Chee's presentation:

You may be aware that productivity levels have been disappointing in the last decade and, try as we might, we have not been able to resolve the problem. We have thrown money at it, suggested a plethora of schemes including making the public pay for gizmos that private companies acquire and tweaking foreign workers levies – none of which have worked.

We have tried everything except one which, to my mind, is the most crucial. Such a measure necessitates that we situate our economic and political intuitions within the view that productivity is about human behaviour. And this is where economics ends and psychology begins. I have not heard of a situation – whether in an experiment or the real world – where anyone has brought out the innovative and productive best in people, be they employees or entrepreneurs, by instilling fear and conformity in the populace, a process that seems to be de rigueur with the PAP since in took over the reins of power more that half-a-century ago.

There is a reason why North Korea does not produce the Steve Jobs and J K Rowlings of the world. There is much take away from Dan Acemoglu's and James Robinson's book, Why Nations Fail, where they talk about extractive and inclusive systems. Where extractive institutions concentrate power in the hands of a few and extract resources from the many for the few, inclusive institutions emphasise pluralism and innovation. Inclusive systems, the authors note, have the ability to engage in creative destruction and ultimately be able to regenerate their economies.

There is little argument that Singapore relies more on extractive institutions than inclusive ones.

In Singapore, low productivity means that wages are kept low. To augment low productivity levels, the Government turns to bringing in foreign talent including cheap foreign labour. Such a measure exerts downward pressure on wages especially those in the low-income groups. This exacerbates income inequality and leads to unhappy and unproductive workers.

On the other end, the Government attracts the super-rich which exerts enormous pressure on the cost of living. The high cost of living is cited by younger Singaporeans as the main reason that they put off having children (or have fewer children). The PAP then cites the falling birthrate as justification to further loosen the immigration policy – and the vicious cycle continues.

It seems to me that there are several entry points that policy interventions can be made to arrest the downward spiral created by the morass of socio-economic problems that our society faces. One of them is something that I've alluded to earlier on and something which I have been talking since I got into politics nearly 25 years ago, which is that the system needs a good dose of democracy.

Our intuitions, our observations – our studied observations – and our experiences all point to the fact that openness, transparency and political freedoms – values embodied in the concept of democracy – will allow us to resolve, or at least facilitate the resolution, of the socio-economic problems that I have cited.

It is more than a correlation that the happiest and most productive peoples in this world live in the democratic and free countries.

One of the longer evenings at MPS for some time.

1) Had spent quite a lot of time trying to explain to a lady why I felt her appeal didn't have strong grounds. We often ask for waiver or appeal for subsidies and grants when families are financially strained. But I have also come to learn that it is very relative term. It was clear in my mind that the individual family was probably in the top single percentile of the population, but still felt that their situation warranted asking for waiver.