The labour market remained tight in the first quarter of the year, with more job vacancies and fewer workers losing their jobs, according to figures released yesterday by the Manpower Ministry.

There was also a slight improvement in long-term unemployment, which was 0.6 per cent in March for Singaporeans and permanent residents — down from 0.7 per cent a year ago.

The number of job vacancies rose by 17 per cent, reversing the decline of 7 per cent in the previous quarter. Of these, 43 per cent were for professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) while the remainder was for production, transport operators, cleaners and labourers, and clerical, sales and service workers.

Commenting on the figures, Adecco Singapore Country Manager Femke Hellemons said: “This job report will be particularly encouraging to those graduates who are looking to enter the workforce this year, with a growing number of graduate job opportunities in the areas of IT, engineering and pharmaceuticals.”

First quarter lay-offs fell to 2,120, compared to 3,350 in the three months before, and 2,600 in the first three months last year. However, fewer of those laid off in the last quarter of 2012 were able to find jobs within six months — 49 per cent, compared to 57 per cent in the third quarter of last year. Of those, three in four were PMETs, and two in three were aged 40 and above.

Unemployment in the first quarter remained low at 1.9 per cent, up from 1.8 per cent in the previous quarter. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 2.9 per cent for Singaporeans. Unemployment was highest for those aged 30 and below at 5.3 per cent, up from 4.7 per cent a year ago.

*Article first appeared on http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/more-job-vacancies-unemployment-stays-low-first-quarter

[Looking at the new MDA licensing for internet, it means you have less options and perhaps only one option - the ‘right thing’ media. So, it is important to have strong oppositions in the Parliament to increase the options or best still a change of government. ]   

There are quite a number of flats that need a fresh look under the Repair and Redecoration programme at Paya Lebar estate. The money, of course, comes from the sinking fund – part of the monthly maintenance fees that we pay to the town council.

I believe this is the first time residents will have the options to select the colours of our flats.  Under the PAP town council, decision was made under the group thinking of grassroots leaders, CCC, RC and MPs.  They made decisions on our behalf and the contractors carried out the painting accordingly. 

Now, you compare this to the new MDA licensing. The government wants you to read the “right things” and there is a group of officials who will decide the “right things” for you.  You have no options like the residents of the old (PAP) Aljunied TC. The TC made the decision and chose the “right colours” for residents. 

Yes, it is very efficient and even very environment friendly (there is no need to print the option forms). But is it the “right colours” that are preferred by the residents?

I am not saying by giving 4 options (see below) the WP is doing the excellent work.  At least, there are options and WP knows that there are improvements to be made. And surely, if there are good and better suggestions, WP town council will listen and make improvements.

The new MDA licensing and future changes in rules and regulations regarding social media reporting on Singapore news will leave netizens with one option – the right news.  And the persons who decide the right news are not independent, certainly not the netizens themselves.

Protest against new MDA licensing indicates more options are needed

So, Aljunied voters face an interesting question:  Do they want to go back to “no option” PAP town council of the past or continue to vote for a WP town council with at least 4 options in 2016?

Like the netizens, the answer is quite obvious.

It is not surprised that bloggers and netizens are angry with the new MDA licensing. It is telling the whole world we are going back to the old regime of controlled press and media with one option. While we already know we have options for alternative news and opinions.   

We are prepared to have all these nonsenses when we vote for WP

In 2011 GE, it was a child thinking to assume that there was no nonsense or nuisance if WP won Aljunied GRC. Aljunied voters had been pressurized to think twice of the consequence. They know too well the warnings and threats Hougang voters received from the PAP.

From the AIMgate to the recent hawkers’ dispute, voters here are psychologically prepared for all these nonsenses and nuisances.  And we are expecting more to come.

Compare this to the new MDA licensing again. What you will see the right things will be the MND report on AIM, the NEA side of story, the original version of Population White Paper and many others like the (not real) wage increase, (unaffordable) housing, education, health etc.

Without alternative news and analysis, without social media, and with only the main stream media, you will have no option at all.

The case of colour options in Aljunied reminds us the importance of options, alternatives and choices.  The government cannot assume it is doing the right thing without proper consultation and feedback from the people.  Its decision on making the right things for the people is a past tense.

Just imagine if Aljunied GRC were still under the PAP management, the right thing they will do is to choose the right colours for the residents.  And then they proudly claim that this is the product of their group thinking after getting feedbacks from the people.

So, remember if you really want to have options for alternative news and analysis, you will have to vote like the voters in Aljunied, Hougang and Punggol East.

At least, you are telling the PAP you know (and decide) the right things and not the imposed PAP right things.

What do you think? Options for alternatives or no option likes the PAP.  

Piji Tailai

*The writer blogs at pijitailai.blogspot.com

Minister for National Development, Khaw Boon Wan, criticized young Singaporeans at the World Cities Summit Mayors Forum in front of 250 representatives from 50 different cities yesterday. 

He spoke about the importation of foreigners into Singapore, saying that many felt 'unsettled', 'anxious' and even 'suspicious'. The minister also warned that if these sentiments turned into an anti-globalisation mood, the world would be poorer for it. 

“Some of our youths are losing optimism, as they remain unemployed or under-employed for months or years."

Khaw recognized that many people are blaming the influx of foreigners for their lack of employment, but also pointed out that it is not just Singapore that was seeing 'greater competition' in the job market. He pointed to rapid changed in technology and globalization as the causes for this increased competition. It appears that the Minister does not recognize that there is a problem with the level of job competition in Singapore, he thinks that looking for a job for "months or YEARS" is a normal and acceptable consequence of globalization. 

He said that it is the government's job to "steer the economy in the right direction and inspire the people". He said this would be through "strong leadership". 

Again, it appears our government may be confused about what a 'strong' leadership to 'inspire' the people means. Implementing strict regulations and ruling with a strong iron fist is not the way to inspire the country. 

Mr Khaw also urged cities to constantly transform to stay relevant saying that it is part of the process to make change sensitively to enable the people to feel that their lives are improving with the changes. 

Perhaps the Minister should practice more of what he preaches or teach his own government how to make change 'sensitively'. 

You just need to look at the recent changes to the MDA regulations to see that Singaporeans don't feel that our lives are 'improving'. 

Just when I thought it was clearing up....it got worse with the PSI level close to unhealthy range.... While most of us will not be affected by the current PSI levels, friends with a history of breathing difficulties, sneezing, coughing, eye irritation etc. please take preventive measures, desist from streneous activity and stay indoors if need be. 

This latest bout of haze reminds me of the parliamentary questions asked by Sylvia and Jenn Jong late last year.....

In response to Ms Sylvia Lim's question (see below) in parliament in September 2012, Minister Balakrishnan replied, "NEA is currently in the process of enhancing its air quality monitoring network. The enhancement will include the development of predictive modelling capability for tracking air pollution plumes and the forecast of air quality. The enhancement will also build capabilities to provide more frequent updates on our air quality for public information. These enhancements will be introduced in stages over the next three years." Would be useful to explore how better the public can be better served with more timely information of PSI levels, not just measured at ground level, but at higher levels, since so many of us live in HDB flats that in some cases go up 40 over floors. 

TRACKING AND REPORTING THE POLLUTANT STANDARDS INDEX (PSI)

10 Sep 2012

Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in respect of the Enhanced Air Quality Reporting for the pollutant standards index (PSI) and particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) (a) where are the monitoring stations in the town centres in each region and at what height are these stations situated; (b) how many roadside stations are there to measure kerbside pollution in view of vehicular emissions; (c) what are the justifications for the current reporting times of 8am, 12noon and 4pm of each day and whether the Ministry will consider increasing the frequency of regular reporting; (d) whether the Ministry is studying more comprehensive Geographic Information System tracking of fine particulate pollution; (e) whether the Ministry will consider providing 24-hour forecasts of PSI and PM2.5 levels for public information; and (f) whether the report of the Advisory Committee on Ambient Air Quality will be made public. 

Dr Vivial Balakrishnan: The National Environment Agency (NEA) currently has a network of 11 air monitoring stations on the mainland of Singapore to measure ambient air quality and another two stations to measure roadside air quality. All the air monitoring stations are located at ground level except for the station at Newton which is located at the roof (above 25th Floor) of the Environment Building. The 11 air monitoring stations are operated in accordance with international guidelines. The locations of the air monitoring and roadside stations are indicated in the Table and Map below.

As the state of air quality has an impact on our health and quality of life, we recognise the need for the public to have more frequent updates on air quality. Since 24 August 2012, the PSI and PM2.5 readings of the five regions (North, South, East West, Central) have been reported on the NEA website at http://app2.nea.gov.sg/psi.aspx or “myENV” mobile application three times a day at 8.00 am, 12.00 noon and 4.00 pm to help the public better plan their activities for the day. Health advisories for the five regions will be issued whenever necessary. NEA will also increase the frequency of reporting on air quality to hourly ones in the event of significant transboundary haze. 

NEA is currently in the process of enhancing its air quality monitoring network. The enhancement will include the development of predictive modelling capability for tracking air pollution plumes and the forecast of air quality. The enhancement will also build capabilities to provide more frequent updates on our air quality for public information. These enhancements will be introduced in stages over the next three years.

The executive summary of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Ambient Air Quality is available on the NEA website athttp://app2.nea.gov.sg/topics_air.aspx.

EFFORTS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE LAND CLEARING PRACTICES IN NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES 

12 Nov 2012

Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the exact plans and timeline that ASEAN has to exert commercial pressures on plantation owners to practise responsible land clearing; and (b) if the Ministry will consider amending the Environmental Protection and Management Act to give powers to our authorities to prosecute Singapore-linked companies or Singaporeans who are found to have practised illegal burning activities in neighbouring countries.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: All ASEAN countries have ratified the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution, except for Indonesia.

A sub-regional Ministerial Steering Committee on Transboundary Haze Pollution has been meeting regularly since 2006 to co-ordinate projects to mitigate this problem. At the recent 14th MSC Meeting on 31 Oct 2012 in Bali, MSC Ministers agreed to facilitate more deterrent and effective enforcement measures. Ministers agreed to explore the sharing of digital geo-referenced concession maps and leverage on satellite and mapping technologies to monitor hotspots in order to hold plantation companies and land owners accountable for their land-clearing activities. A technical task force comprising technical experts from the forestry, meteorological services and environment sectors of the five MSC countries, would be formed to study the implementation details.

All commercial companies, regardless of ownership, must comply with the laws of their host countries and be held accountable if they cause transboundary haze pollution. All ASEAN countries, including Indonesia, already have domestic legislation which prohibits the use of fire for forest clearance. The gathering of evidence and prosecution will be most effective if assiduously pursued by local authorities. Unfortunately, commercial companies will take advantage of situations where there is weak enforcement on the ground and a lack of political will at the national level. There are currently no legal sanctions which Singapore can apply against plantation companies whose extra-territorial actions affect our local environment. However, we will support the investigation and prosecution of errant companies in their host jurisdictions, and will co-operate fully with the relevant authorities to do so.

There is scope for commercial pressure to be applied. Corporate behaviour is most effectively shaped by market forces. If consumers become increasingly environment-conscious and demand products that come from sustainable sources, companies would have little choice but to align their production and supply chain practices in order to protect the fragile eco-system and to avoid damaging public health of millions of citizens. Therefore, stakeholders such as manufacturers, retailers, non-government organisations, investors, bankers and consumers, all have a crucial role to play in resolving this chronic problem.

Pritam Singh

*Article first appeared on his FB page here.

Sharing a photo of the haze taken from Istana. The city in the distance is barely visible.

We are all affected by the haze. Farmers and plantation owners in Sumatra are burning crops to clear land in the dry season, and unfortunately the winds are blowing the smoke all the way to Singapore. Ministers Vivian and Shanmugam have called their Indonesian counterparts to register our serious concerns and offer our help to fight the fires.

We are monitoring the situation closely and will stay in close touch with the Indonesian authorities. Meanwhile, please stay indoors whenever you can, especially children, seniors and those prone to respiratory problems. And do monitor NEA’s website (or use their myEnv app) for the latest updates. – LHL

http://app2.nea.gov.sg/corporate-functions/newsroom/advisories/update-on-haze-situation-17June2013

PM Lee Hsien Loong

[Source]: https://www.facebook.com/leehsienloong

Many have commented about the haze situation, some have said - why keep talking. Why cant you do more ? Some like Mr William Sin uses expletives (against the PAP). I suppose for some people like Mr Sin, every occassion is an opportunity to make a political attack - doesnt seem to matter whether there is rationality in the comments.

I will ask Mr Sin - what more do you think we can and should do ? Look at the map, see where we are. Every country is sovereign and we cant intervene in the actions in other countries. The burning is taking place in Indonesia. What do you think Singapore can do about that? Singapore has raised it with Indonesian Ministers, and over several years, we have offered technical assistance, expressed our deep distress at what is happening, and have also raised the issue internationally.

The problem recurs, nevertheless. The reality of international law, international relations must be recognised. That is what we have been saying - in every field, our size and geography means that we are often price takers, not price makers - whether it is economics, geo politics, or the environment. But despite that we have done well, much better than bigger countries with more resources - because we have managed to deal with most situations by anticipating them. But the haze situation is quite outside our control. If Mr Sin or anyone else thinks we can do more about the haze that is caused by burning in Indonesia, perhaps they can tell us - but I suppose, for some, the temptation to direct expletives and use this occassion to attack the Govt and the PAP is too great .

I thank those who have noted the reality of the situation, and the limitations within which we operate.

K Shanmugam Sc

*Article first appeared on his facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/k.shanmugam.page

The PSI has been at unbearably unhealthy levels again. One of the things that we can do is to support companies with proven good land clearing practices and boycott those found to be burning. However, we currently do not know who the good companies are and who are the ones doing the burning.  Perhaps there can be cooperation amongst ASEAN governments to push through a sort of labelling programme where agricultural companies with good land clearing practices can be independently certified and use the label on their products. At the same time, we need more information on the owners of the land with hotspots.

We should also have the ability to take action on agricultural companies listed or registered in Singapore if they are found to be the culprits of burning in a foreign land. Our laws currently do not have this provision. So even if we do know that a Singapore-listed company or a company controlled by Singaporeans is burning to clear land in a neighbouring country, we will need the foreign government to impose action. That will impact our ability to deal swiftly with the culprits. I believe we can do more.

Below are two parliamentary questions I filed last year on this issue.

15-Oct-2012: Efforts to Resolve Transboundary Haze Problem

http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00078046-WA&currentPubID=00078007-WA&topicKey=00078007-WA.00078046-WA_2%2Bid-69d01997-b19e-4c73-8bb9-3333f669e785%2B

Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources if the Ministry will consider (i) publishing the identity of errant companies which it is aware of that have been found to be conducting illegal burning activities in neighbouring ASEAN countries; and (ii) taking action against any of the companies identified if the company or its subsidiaries are registered, listed or operating in Singapore and, if so, by what legal means.

…

Mr Yee Jenn Jong (Non-constituency Member): Yes, Sir, I do have some supplementary questions. I thank the Minister for answering the questions. At last month’s meeting, it was said that the ASEAN Environment Ministers met and talked about the identifications of these companies. I would like to know if in the identification of these companies, are any of these companies listed in Singapore or are owned by Singaporeans or have their subsidiaries based in Singapore. What can the Singapore Government do to these companies that are Singapore-owned or Singapore-operated? Also, what particular methods can we use to prosecute these companies?

12-Nov-2012 Efforts to Encourage Responsible Land Clearing Practices in Neighbouring Countries

http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00078137-WA&currentPubID=00078220-WA&topicKey=00078220-WA.00078137-WA_1%2BhansardContent43a675dd-5000-42da-9fd5-40978d79310f%2B

Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the exact plans and timeline that ASEAN has to exert commercial pressures on plantation owners to practise responsible land clearing; and (b) if the Ministry will consider amending the Environmental Protection and Management Act to give powers to our authorities to prosecute Singapore-linked companies or Singaporeans who are found to have practised illegal burning activities in neighbouring countries.

Yee Jenn Jong
Non-constituency Member of Parliament

[Source]: Yee Jenn Jong’s blog (http://yeejj.wordpress.com/).

In a Facebook post, Minister for Communications and Information, Yaacob Ibrahim has defended his parliamentary speech where he highlighted blogger Ravi Philemon and some other online websites for spreading rumours about the haze. 

His speech in parliament on Monday had highlighted the fact that many netizens were spreading misinformation and he gave specific examples of netizens doing the "wrong" thing. Following his speech, many prominent bloggers criticized him. 

In a response to the heavy criticism about his speech, he said "I decided to cite specific individuals and specific sites where they could be identified. This is because otherwise, the majority in the online community may be inadvertently associated with spreading rumours. That would be unfair..."

He also added that "there were many examples of Singaporeans pulling together and using the Internet to help do good as well as clarify doubts."

The reason Ravi Philemon was targeted specifically by the Minister was due to a post that the former had made on his personal facebook page on June 22. He was sharing a status that had suggested that the 9 million N95 masks brought into Singapore were not for the public. 

Dr Yaacob had clarified that the government was in fact distributing 1 million of those masks and had made public their intention to do so the day before Ravi's posting. 

The Minister was making a point in his parliamentary speech on Monday about the government's efforts to ensure the distribution of timely and accurate information during crisis situations. 

He stands by his speech and in his facebook posting today he even re-highlighted Ravi's faults: "what is his basis for suggesting so? The truth is, he had no basis for his assertion. I am happy to learn that he distributed some masks to people in the community. But let’s be clear – doing good offline does not mean one is excused from acting responsibly online."

Vivian attempted to cloud the AHPTC saga by refusing to acknowledge that his argument was out of context. The first point he needed to address before he spews more irrelevant garbage is to bring himself into the context of how the saga started. He has to ask himself whether he was honestly barking up the wrong tree or he had actually resorted to misleading the public by insisting that the spring cleaning was meant to include the cleaning of the high ceilings. All other questions he may have revolve around this key point.

If the spring cleaning was not meant to include the cleaning of the ceiling, which Sylvia Lim had been explaining was the case, then all these talks about getting the hawkers to pay for the cleaning of the high ceiling become moot. Unfortunately, this is the only straw that Vivian is hoping to build his case upon.

This is a dangerous personality trait of this blundering man. Was he also hard on hearing when he was put in charge of the YOG? Was it the same attitude that saw him miscalculate the budget by million miles?

He had better go examine his own integrity before he goes about questioning the integrity of others. In case he or the State Press had missed what Sylvia Lim had explained in Parliament, below are the two key points which were conveniently excluded from the print press as well as the video footage showing a seemingly confused WP chief, Mr Low TK. 

The exchanges between Vivian and Sylvia before Low TK stood up to speak, omitted all of Sylvia's retorts. Singaporeans have witnessed a blatant disregard of the responsibility the state press has in bringing truthful and credible news to the people. If there is any bigger liar in this episode, it would be the state press. So much for all these talks about integrity. It's more like synchronized tango between the PAP and the State Press.

Sylvia's parliamentary retort here: ...

Secondly, Minister makes a lot of substance over certain e-mails that our Property Manager Mr Tai may have sent to the hawkers about spring cleaning. But does he not agree that spring cleaning, and the annual cleaning of high areas, are not the same thing. And his e-mails, as far as I recall the Minister talking, were referring to spring cleaning as such and not the annual cleaning of high areas.

14 Third point is that the annual obligation of the Town Councils to clean the high areas of hawker centres –I don’t think any goes as far as to dictate the dates of these annual cleanings. There is no law requiring the annual cleanings to coincide with the spring cleanings as such and during our Town Council’s discussions with NEA, we are given to understand that NEA was open to us having alternative dates for the cleaning of the high areas. So does he not agree that really, annual cleaning and spring cleaning need not coincide?

The Alternative View

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=547470238647646&id=358...

Vivian attempted to cloud the AHPTC saga by refusing to acknowledge that his argument was out of context. The first point he needed to address before he spews more irrelevant garbage is to bring himself into the context of how the saga started. He has to ask himself whether he was honestly barking up the wrong tree or he had actually resorted to misleading the public by insisting that the spring cleaning was meant to include the cleaning of the high ceilings. All other questions he may have revolve around this key point.

If the spring cleaning was not meant to include the cleaning of the ceiling, which Sylvia Lim had been explaining was the case, then all these talks about getting the hawkers to pay for the cleaning of the high ceiling become moot. Unfortunately, this is the only straw that Vivian is hoping to build his case upon.

This is a dangerous personality trait of this blundering man. Was he also hard on hearing when he was put in charge of the YOG? Was it the same attitude that saw him miscalculate the budget by million miles?

He had better go examine his own integrity before he goes about questioning the integrity of others. In case he or the State Press had missed what Sylvia Lim had explained in Parliament, below are the two key points which were conveniently excluded from the print press ad well as the video footage showing a seemingly confused WP chief, Mr Low TK. 

The exchanges between Vivian and Sylvia before Low TK stood up to speak, omitted all of Sylvia's retorts. Singaporeans have witnessed a blatant disregard of the responsibility the state press has in bringing truthful and credible news to the people. If there is any bigger liar in this episode, it would be the state press. So much for all these talks about integrity. It's more like synchronized tango between the PAP and the State Press.

Sylvia's parliamentary retort here: ...

Secondly, Minister makes a lot of substance over certain e-mails that our Property Manager Mr Tai may have sent to the hawkers about spring cleaning. But does he not agree that spring cleaning, and the annual cleaning of high areas, are not the same thing. And his e-mails, as far as I recall the Minister talking, were referring to spring cleaning as such and not the annual cleaning of high areas.

14 Third point is that the annual obligation of the Town Councils to clean the high areas of hawker centres –I don’t think any goes as far as to dictate the dates of these annual cleanings. There is no law requiring the annual cleanings to coincide with the spring cleanings as such and during our Town Council’s discussions with NEA, we are given to understand that NEA was open to us having alternative dates for the cleaning of the high areas. So does he not agree that really, annual cleaning and spring cleaning need not coincide?

The Alternative View

Dear friends,

The SDP website continues to be inaccessible from Singapore and Malaysia due to a DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attack on our web hosting provider uCoz.

The present attack targets one of uCoz’s servers which houses several websites including the SDP’s. DDoS attacks operate by overwhelming the server with bogus traffic.

The scale of the present attack is massive, with the perpetrator utilising in excess of 160Gbps to conduct its task. To provide some perspective: It is more than 50 times larger than the average size of a typical DDoS, which is about 2-3Gbps, and over half of the current world record of 300Gbps.

As our website shares the same server with many others, it remains unclear if we are the direct target of this unprecedented attack. Our server provider is working to find out which website is being targeted and to identify the source of the attack. Only then can we restore normal functioning of our site. We will keep you posted on developments as they occur.

We apologise for the disruption of service. In the meantime, we will publish announcements and news articles on our Facebook. Please help us disseminate this announcement. Thank you.

SDP Website Team

I refer to Dr Yaacob Ibrahim’s speech in Parliament on 8 July 2013 in response to parliamentary questions on haze. As the Minister for Communications & Information mentioned me by name twice in his speech, also because of his subsequent reference to me on his Faceook post [Link], I feel compelled to respond appropriately.

Attached in Annex A is the relevant sequence of events for 20, 21, 22 and 23 June 2013. In Annex B is the statement by the originator of the comment Dr Yaacob had referred to in Parliament. And in Annex C is my congratulatory message sent to the Chairman of the Media Literacy Council (MLC) in July last year.

Annexes A, B and C are facts, and readers can decide for themselves if I was being malicious or irresponsible. I did not blast out the comment from my friend as a fact on my blog. Instead, I reposted it on my personal Facebook page, with the intention of not asserting, but getting more information on that topic.

The facts are, comments such as the one reposted by me arose because the Government assurances did not tally with the situation on the ground on 20 and 21 June 2013.

The originator of the comment has also now highlighted that the doubts such as his arose because of the “mismatch between the government announcement on Thursday, 20 June 2013 and the actual situation on the ground throughout Friday, 21 June 2013″. The originator has mentioned his appreciation of my reposting his comment, and also explained the circumstances behind his comment, at http://www.facebook.com/raviphilemon/posts/10151904258253277.

As ordinary citizens like me are not in a position to verify what is truth and what is not, it is not irresponsible of me to highlight such sentiments so that the Government can appropriately clarify them.

The Ministry of Communication and Information has since written to me that they decided to clarify my repost following requests for clarification from members of the public. I am glad that members of the public made a reasonable and rational decision to verify the accuracy of this repost with the Ministry, as only the Ministry can clarify what is true and what is not.

Ravi Philemon

11 July 2013

[Attachments]: Annexes A, B, C to press release dated 11 Nov 2013

1.     Mr Low Thia Khiang said that the grave charges made by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan in Parliament, that MPs Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Pritam Singh were untruthful, were ‘personal attacks’. He also questioned if Minister Balakrishnan’s statement was good politics for Singapore. Mr Low is wrong to have done so.

2.     Good politics is first and foremost about integrity. Singapore has succeeded because we have honest, upright people in politics: people who can be trusted to uphold the public interest, to speak the truth even when it is inconvenient, and to admit mistakes when things go wrong. This is how we have built trust between Singaporeans and their leaders, worked together to build the nation and improved everyone’s lives.

3.     If we cannot trust a politician to tell the truth, then we cannot trust him or her to safeguard public funds, to put public interest ahead of personal gain, or to make decisions affecting the well-being and security of Singaporeans. This is the standard that we must hold ourselves to, and that Singaporeans have rightly come to expect from those in politics, whether in government or opposition.

4.     This is why we must take accusations of dishonesty against political leaders very seriously. If any of my PAP colleagues is accused of lying, I will investigate and get to the bottom of the matter. If he has lied, there is only one option – he has to go. If he is innocent, I will insist that he clear his name publicly. The matter has to be resolved one way or other. It cannot be left as an “I say, you say” matter of opinion, which leaves a permanent question mark hanging over his reputation, and the reputation of my government.

5.     Conversely, before any Minister accuses any one of dishonesty, he must make sure that he is fully able to back up his charge. Minister Balakrishnan’s statement in Parliament was not just his personal opinion, but the government’s official position which the Cabinet had approved.

6.     Minister Balakrishnan circulated a dossier in Parliament setting out evidence that AHPETC’s Property Manager, Mr Tai Vie Shun, and AHPETC’s contractor, ATL Maintenance Pte Ltd, attempted to make the hawkers pay extra to clean the high areas. These documents directly contradict the statements by Ms Lim and Mr Singh that the Town Council and its contractor had not asked the hawkers to pay extra for the cleaning. The core issue is therefore honesty and integrity.

7.     In Parliament, Mr Low maintained that he had neither spoken to Mr Tai nor previously seen the documents in the dossier. He promised to try to find out who had actually asked the contractor to quote for the cleaning. But the next day, Mr Low reversed course without explanation, and said that he would not conduct any investigation.

8.     This is troubling, especially in the light of previous similar incidents. In the Budget session last year, Mr Singh plagiarised an article from the Internet, passing it off word for word as his own speech. More recently, AHPETC failed to explain why in 2011 it had appointed FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd (FMSS), a company owned and run by close Workers’ Party supporters, to manage their Town Council, without tender and at a much higher price than the prevailing rate. Now FMSS, running AHPETC, has tried to charge hawkers extra for cleaning their hawker centres, and Ms Lim and Ms Singh have tried to cover it up.

9.     Mr Low cannot leave these grave doubts about the integrity of his fellow MPs unresolved. This is not how members of a First World Parliament should conduct themselves. Neither is this the sort of politics Singapore needs.

PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE

12 JULY 2013

**TRS EDITORIAL PIECE**

At the NUS U@live Forum today, Shanmugam highlighted some of Singapore’s main challenges going into the future.

He said that rising expenditure, coupled with a decline in the number of working adults is likely to be a challenge in Singapore’s future.

He also cautioned that high public spending is a great risk to Singapore, saying that government expenditure will only “mushroom” and is not sustainable in the long run despite it being popular with the masses.

Like many PAP members, Mr Shanmugam is against increasing public spending citing the usual arguments of sustainability.

However, a recent report by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) has identified that Singapore spends very little on social spending relative to GDP per capita compared to other nations in the Asia Pacific.

The ADB Report includes a comprehensive analysis of 2009 data on Government social protection programs and it uses a Social Protection Index (SPI) to allow the comparison of the effectiveness of social programs across different countries.

Below is a table contained in the report where different countries are compared by SPI, GDP per capita and social protection expenditure as a percentage of GDP:

It was identified by the ADP report that an SPI of 0.200 is considered an attainable benchmark for middle-income countries in the Asia Pacific region.

Singapore, with GDP per capita of $35 514, is considered a high income country. Despite this, it is still not even at the SPI expected of a middle-income country.

It can also be seen that Singapore spends only 3.5% of GDP on social protection programs compared to 19.2% in Japan and 7.9% in Korea. Even neighbouring Malaysia spends 3.7% of GDP on social protection.

Is Shanmugam suggesting that all these countries with higher social expenditure are heading down an unsustainable path? Except for Japan, all these other countries have a much lower GDP per capita than Singapore, yet they can still afford to spend much more, relatively, on social protection.

Singapore has very little social welfare and this has caused hardships for many of it’s citizens that have fallen through the gaps. One need only to look at recent examples such as Rebecca Loh (The story behind the Mum who killed her 9 year old son) to understand the severe shortcomings of social protection in Singapore.

Is Singapore really in such a fragile state that, as Shanmugam suggests, increasing social protection expenditure will pose great risk and challenge to Singapore’s future?

Mr Shanmugam who is also the Foreign Affairs Minister, insists that one of Singapore’s key advantages over other countries in the region is it’s “very good” government system, but does a very good system allow so many citizens to fall through the cracks while still insisting that social spending cannot increase?

Well, you voted for this government and there is nothing you can do about it.

[This is a response to the Prime Minister's statement over the Hawker centre cleaning issue here: http://therealsingapore.com/content/statement-prime-ministers-office-aljunied-hougang-punggol-east-town-council-hawker-centre]

Response to PMO Statement dated 12 July 2013

1. I refer to para 8 of the statement where it was stated, “Mr Singh plagiarised an article from the Internet, passing it off word for word as his own speech.” I ask for your forbearance as I put this sentence into context, something that the PMO statement did not do.

2. I sought the blogger’s (Groundnotes) permission to use his post on the proposal for an Ombudsman for Singapore for a “cut” during the Supply Debate in March 2012. This fact is corroborated by the blogger (Groundnotes) himself: http://groundnotes.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/i-note-that-the/. 

3. However, I did not caveat my Supply Debate cut on the Ombudsman to say that my speech was an abridged version of Groundnotes’ blogpost on the Ombudsman and more importantly, that I had secured Groudnotes’ permission to do so before delivering it. I should have done so to avoid any prospect of doubt or for aspersions to be cast over the matter. Even though the 2011 Supply Debate was my first experience of a Supply debate and took place about five months after I was sworn into parliament, I should have expected any oversight to be politically exploited for all it was worth. While my conscience has always been clear on the matter, I leave the public to judge why the PAP officially raised this issue some 16 months after it took place, that too in the context of a completely separate matter. 

4. I continue to look forward to serving the people of Singapore, improving our lives, and to make my little contribution in bringing checks and balances to our parliamentary democracy through the Workers’ Party. That critical mission remains until a robust and broadly representative multi-party democracy takes root in Singapore.

PRITAM SINGH

WORKER'S PARTY MP

We refer to the statement issued by the Prime Minister’s Office on 12 July 2013.

The various allegations against the integrity of Workers’ Party’s Members of Parliament contained in the statement have already been fully responded to and rejected by the Party, both in and out of Parliament.

Regarding the cleaning of hawker centres, we have put forth the facts as we have found them, based on our own earlier investigations. We defended our position in Parliament on 9 July 2013 with a clear conscience.

This matter has been in the public headlines since late May. We have made our position known both inside and outside Parliament and the relevant documents are already in the public domain, so the public can make its own judgment on the matter. We do not find it productive to continue debating and arguing with the ruling party over this issue.

The Prime Minister referred to the Workers’ Party’s slogan for General Election 2011: “Towards a First World Parliament”. The concept of a First World Parliament is not about the People’s Action Party or the Workers’ Party, but about what Singaporeans want for our country and what they believe is necessary to secure our country’s future.

LOW THIA KHIANG
SECRETARY-GENERAL, THE WORKERS’ PARTY
MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT (ALJUNIED GRC)

Chang Li Lin, the Press Secretary to the Prime Minister has issued the following response to the media after queries regarding Mr Low’s statement (‘Low Thia Khiang: Our MPs’ consciences are clear‘):
 

AHPETC’s conduct in this matter has raised very serious questions of integrity and honesty. These arise both from what the Town Council did, and what Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Pritam Singh said.

Minister Vivian Balakrishnan in Parliament, and the Prime Minister in his statement yesterday, pointed out that Ms Lim and Mr Singh had made false and untruthful statements, and tried to cover up the Town Council’s wrongdoing. Mr Low’s latest non-statement addresses none of these serious charges, which therefore stand unrebutted.

PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE
13 July 2013

The National Solidarity Party (NSP) is troubled by what we see as the declining level of discourse in our politics recently. The last sitting of the House is a good case in point. There appears to be a growing culture of partisan bickering, which if it becomes the norm, threatens to foster a spirit of division. 

We unequivocally call on both the People’s Action Party and the Workers’ Party not to exploit the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council issue for political gain, and instead focus on a thorough post mortem to ensure that such issues do not again arise in future. 

We further call on both Parties to begin honest debates on two issues that are top of mind for all Singaporeans at the moment, namely the new rules for online media and our apparent lack of preparedness to cope with the recent haze.

New Rules for Online Media

The new rules for online media provide the Media Development Authority with broad powers without accountability. Among other things, it gives the Media Development Authority the right to issue takedown notices for online content it deems offensive without either having spelt out clear guidelines for the same or providing a path of appeal in the event of disputes. So far, the rationale for these new rules remains unconvincing.

This kind of arbitrary exercise of power has a chilling effect on free expression which will ultimately hamper the ability of Singaporeans to have open and honest discussions about issues that matter to them. It is also a puzzling move since by the Government’s own admission, the new rulings are not expected to change content standards and can therefore only be superfluous legislation for legislation’s sake. We wish to remind the Government that the Court of Appeal has recently reaffirmed the principle that all power must have legal limits and we see no reason why this has to be an exception. 

Emergency Preparedness

The haze is an annual occurrence, yet this was an eventful year because of the severity of the haze and our lack of preparedness to cope with it. The Government needs to answer two specific questions: one, why did it not issue stop-work orders even when the PSI had hit hazardous levels and two, why were masks bought with tax payer money given to retailers for sale for profit?

A further issue of concern is the Government’s inability to communicate clearly in emergency situations. We also saw this during the Mas Selamat escape incident. We would like to see a permanent inter-ministry committee set up with senior minister at the helm to direct our response exigent circumstances - an Emergency Response Czar. 

Conclusion

Finally we would like to say something about leadership. Good leadership is one that is not only itself confident, but also imparts confidence to others. Good leaders do not point fingers when things go wrong or single out private citizens in an attempt to embarrass them. 

Instead, they are honest and open about errors, and relentlessly focused on troubleshooting and problem-solving. That is the kind of leadership that Singaporeans voted for in the last general elections, not what we have been seeing in Parliament of late.

Parliament time is the people’s time, and our elected representatives have a duty to ensure that this time is focused on discussing issues that matter to the people, which have an impact on their lives and Singapore’s continued flourishing.

Singaporeans know good leaders when we see them, and it is to them that we will give our trust and support.

Hazel Poa,

Secretary-General

On behalf of the Central Executive Committee, 

NATIONAL SOLIDARITY PARTY 

Singapore recorded 467 suicides in 2012 – the highest number in 20 years. On average, more than one person took his/her own life everyday in Singapore last year. That's a 30 percent jump from 2011.

The Samaritans of Singapore (SOS), an organisation that works to prevent suicides, attributes the tragedy to extremes in stressful living conditions in Singapore.

Such a trend is but one manifestation of the quality of life in this country where our people are driven harder and harder by the Government to pump up GDP growth, often at our own expense.

The Government recently launched its population white paper announcing its plans to increase Singapore's population to 6.9 million. One of the reasons for such a drastic increment is the need to expand GDP figures.

Read also Why the SDP does not propose a target population

What ails this country is the Government's obsession with GDP growth, wrongly interpreted as a measure wealth and progress. The latest suicide statistic attests to the degeneration of the quality of life in Singapore. The continued inability and unwillingness of the PAP to re-evaluate the definition of economic progress is much cause for concern.  

Pushing up GDP figures for its own sake often leads to a deterioration of life for Singaporeans. As we strive to generate wealth, we must also ensure that this is not done at the expense of our health, both mental and physical. 

Work-life balance, family values, and social relationships must also be taken into account when we measure success. Without these non-economic and life-affirming aspects of our well-being, we cannot claim to be a prosperous nation.

This is why the SDP advocates that we introduce another index to measure success – the Genuine Progress Index, or GPI. The GPI, like the GDP, is an economic indicator. But unlike the GDP which only takes into account the production of goods and services in monetary terms, the GPI also measures factors like public health, pollution, juvenile delinquency, family breakups and, of course, suicide rates.

Read also GDP - a cancer causing agent? 

The gains that we make in GDP are counter-balanced by losses we incur from deterioration of our quality of life. The result, captured in the GPI, will give us a more accurate and holistic reading of our progress. 

A high GPI would mean that as we get materially richer, our quality of life is also improving. Governments, in particular cabinet ministers, should not measure their success (and the size of their salaries) by just pointing to GDP growth but rather to the growth of the well-being of Singaporeans.

The happiness of our people should be the main driver of government policy. There is hardly any point in registering record GDP figures when our people continue to live under stressful conditions to the point where the only way to relieve the burden is to end life itself.

Singapore Democrats

YourSDP.org