Singapore Democrats
Assistant Secretary-General John Tan gives the SDP's Christmas message. Mr Tan was a Bible scholar and a missionary intern. He is currently a social psychologist.
Singapore Democrats
One stall sells bananas for 50 cents each. Another prices them at $1 but posts a sign: "Buy One Get One Free!" Who do you buy from? Unfortunately many shoppers are attracted to the latter.
It is this psychology that the PAP preys on when it says that HDB flats are subsidized: Jack up the price of the flats and then sell them at a "discount". This way, the Government calculates, Singaporeans will be eternally grateful for the make-believe assistance.
Here's how things work in reality. The Government owns most of the island. From time to time it puts out parcels of land for sale and invites private developers to bid for them. (“Private” is used very loosely here as some of these real estate companies are GLCs).
The Government then sells land earmarked for HDB flats to the HDB at a lower price (say, 60 percent) of whatever amount the successful private bid comes to. In other words, the PAP claims, HDB land is subsidized (by up to 40 percent).
Deliciously diabolical, isn't it? The Government, in the form of the HDB, "purchases" the land from itself, factors the amount into the price of flats, makes a tidy profit from Singaporeans and then claims that it subsidizes the flats!
But so what if the Government makes a bit of money on the side? Does it not provide nice, clean housing at an affordable rate, you ask?
"Affordable" is a rather malleable word. While the Minister for National Development never fails to assure Singaporeans that they can afford the flats, he doesn't let them in on a secret: They really can't.
Most Singaporeans use the main bulk of their CPF savings to pay for the HDB loans that they take for their flats. They usually take up to three decades to finish paying up the mortgage – just in time for their retirement.
Lest anyone forgets, the CPF is a retirement savings scheme. It started off as one, anyway. It has since morphed into a housing, investment, medical and insurance fund all rolled into one. But that's another story.
If you have to use your retirement funds to buy a flat so that you end up with nothing to retire on, it means that you cannot afford the property. All you are doing is to party now but pay for it later, a practice which many retirees are unfortunately finding out the hard way.
The really scary thing is that most Singaporeans don't know that they don't have enough to retire on. Those who do just worry.
And work. The Government now tells everyone to retire later. Better still, don't retire at all.
What about those who cannot work? You hope that you have children rich enough to look after you.
And if you don't? There's always the sidewalk.
In the meantime, Mr Lee Kuan Yew boasts how our reserves have expanded from $3 billion to $300 billion and the ministers get invited to places to teach others the wonders of the HDB system.
Affordability means that the amount of money you earn every month is enough for your basic expenses which must include paying for your housing loan and putting aside an amount for retirement. If the housing portion is so large that it leaves nothing for you to save for your retirement, it means that you can't afford the flat. That's the unpalatable truth.
In a perfect world the opposition and the media would have alerted the people to this abuse. But alas, we're not even living in a democratic one. As a result the PAP continues to get away with the humbug.
(Did someone say that civil liberties have nothing to do with our economic well-being?)
So the next time the Government tells you that your flats are subsidized and that because of this the HDB continues to run a deficit, think of the guy who sells you a banana and offers the other one free.
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
In our Let's Talk series, we interview personalities from the opposition as well as civil society. This week we bring you Mr M Ravi, a human rights lawyer, who has worked tirelessly to abolish the death penalty in Singapore. Mr Ravi has led the campaign to stop the execution of small-time drug peddlers in Singapore and has represented several of them on Singapore's death row.
Singapore Democrats
In our Let's Talk series we interview personalities from the opposition as well as civil society. This week we bring you Dr Wong Wee Nam, a physician who was an opposition candidate in the 1997 general elections. Dr Wong continues to be an active player in the blogging and political circles. In this interview, he talks about the climate of fear in Singapore.
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
In the second episode of Let's Talk, the Singapore Democrats present writer and social activist Ms Constance Singam. Ms Singam is a longtime advocate of women's rights and was the president of the Association for Women's Action and Research (AWARE).
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
The Singapore Democrats are proud to present Let's Talk, a groundbreaking video series where we interview personalities and political figures in and around Singapore. This is another historical first by the SDP. In this inaugural episode we feature Mr Alex Au, a prominent blogger and gay rights activist. We hope you enjoy it.
Singapore Democrats
One of the reasons why Mr Lee continues to resist introducing Minimum Wage is because he lives in constant fear that foreign investors will pull out of the country. He contends that higher wages means higher business costs and higher business costs means less investment.
Such a view was also intimated by Mr George Yeo in his Facebook exchange with Dr Chee Soon Juan. Mr Yeo who was then the Trade and Industry Minister said that high wage levels make investors "go elsewhere." (See here)
This begs the very huge question: Why, after half-a-century of PAP rule, are we still unable to get out of our addiction to foreign capital?
Foremost is the fact that under the PAP's authoritarian control, where the ruling clique and its loyalists remain the sole arbiter and beneficiary of power, entrepreneurship has all but withered. In a dumbed down society, we have no entrepreneurial class to speak of which means that we have no choice but to continue to rely of foreign investors.
Unlike other Asian economies like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, who have nurtured global enterprises of their own, we lack the breath and depth of an innovative economy. Singapore is a glamorised service station for multinational companies, or MNCs.
Because of this reliance on foreign capital we are at the mercy of the corporations who insist on keeping wages - workers' wages, that is - down while maximising their profit margins.
In the meantime, many of our homegrown talent leave for other shores where freedom, both economic and political, beckons.
Mr Lee admits that the exodus of skilled Singaporeans is a "pretty serious" problem. Admitting a problem is one thing, knowing what to do about it is quite another. So what does the Minister Mentor do? He opens the flood gates and calls in 2 million foreigners to come and work on this island.
He tells Singaporeans that these are foreign talent that Singapore cannot do without. According to the MM, our economy would deflate faster than a souffle if we did not take in foreign talent and in such drunken numbers.
Which raises an interesting question: Why is it that after 50 years of an education system that has been chopped, kneaded and cooked by the PAP are we still unable to come up with a talented enough populace to sustain our economy?
In order to continue to provide fuel for its GDP-growth-at-all-cost policy, massive numbers of foreigners - talent or no - are imported into this island. (While doing our walkabout last week, the Singapore Democrats came across a busker in a wheelchair crooning through a microphone. He turned out to be a Chinese national.)
Why? Because foreign workers come cheap. The low cost of living in their home countries compared to Singapore's allows them to accept wages that Singaporeans can't. To employers, especially the MNCs, this is manna from heaven.
In such a scenario is it any wonder that Mr Lee rejects the Minimum Wage policy, no matter how much sense it makes?
Make no mistake, our economy is like an old showgirl. We have to constantly keep ourselves attractive by piling on layer after dreadful layer of economic makeup just to keep ourselves looking attractive for the foreign businessman. Meanwhile the gobs of powder and lipstick hide the ageing rot beneath.
And all this while Mr Lee continues to live in his own detached, sycophantic world where the minions around him treat him as infallible. They, of course, have much to benefit from propping up this decrepit system.
This, coupled with the foreign business community who continue to lavish Mr Lee with praise, makes him impervious to warning signs that the use-by date of the PAP system has long expired.
Read Part 1 here.
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
“Never mind your Gini coefficient,” Mr Lee Kuan Yew told his audience at the National University of Singapore on Sunday night, “If you don't have a job you get zero against those with jobs.” In other words don't gripe about how much you are paid, just be glad you have a job.
End of discussion.
The MM was arguing against Minimum Wage, a policy that the SDP had proposed almost 10 years ago, the first opposition party to do so. It is also one where Mr Lee argued would bankrupt Singapore if introduced.
Isn't this the same man who foretold that Singapore, just months before the country entered into its worst recession ever, was about to experience a “golden period [that] can stretch out over many years”? (See also Holding Lee Kuan Yew Accountable)
Mr Lee said that employers would hire less people if wages were to rise as a result of Minimum Wage. What he doesn't understand, or want to acknowledge, is that higher wages would also mean more disposable income and spending power of workers.
In a rational economy, this would increase spending and consumption which would lead to expansion of businesses. The result is more hiring, not firing.
Of course this works up to a point where wages do not outstrip productivity. The Singapore Democrats have repeatedly argued that the other extreme where wages go beyond the means of businesses is just as undesirable.
This is where market forces come in, the kind where labour is free to organise and negotiate with management. Not the kind that the MM espouses where NTUC masquerades itself as the trade union and where the National Wages Council, on which foreign businessmen sit, determine the pay of Singaporeans.
Consider this: When the late Ong Teng Cheong, former president, deputy prime minister and NTUC chief, sanctioned a strike in the shipping industry, he did not tell the cabinet about his decision because his colleagues would have stopped him. "The minister for trade and industry was very angry," Ong revealed, "his officers were very upset. They had calls from America, asking what happened to Singapore?—we are non-strike." (emphasis added)
Depriving workers the ability to speak up while allowing corporations to dictate wage levels is not market forces. It is bad policy making. It is exploitation. It is greed.
It is also unsustainable. Society is going to be so drained of spirit if we keep paying our workers lower and lower wages that our competitiveness and productivity will be critically undermined. Economist and management expert (the late) Peter Drucker wrote:…I have often advised managers that a 20:1 ratio is the limit beyond which they cannot go if they don’t want resentment and falling morale to hit their companies. I worried back in the 30’s that the great inequality generated by the industrial revolution would result in so much despair that something like fascism would take hold. Unfortunately, I was right. Today I believe it is socially and morally unforgivable when managers reap huge profits for themselves but fire workers. As societies, we will pay a heavy price for the contempt this generates among the middle managers and workers.
Unfortunately, he was right again. The current economic crisis gripping the world is a result of unbridled greed fuelled by the lust for control and power.
Such a trend is magnified in Singapore. Already productivity has been declining in the recent past. And according to a survey by marketing group Taylor Nelson Sofres, Singaporeans are more likely to suffer from depression, stress and fatigue than our Asian counterparts.
So don't worry about the Gini coefficient, Mr Lee says? Pay the the top any amount it demands, and then keep the wages of workers down?
The MM is obviously still living in his “golden period” days. No runner can hope to compete if he only takes care of his brains and not his legs. If we fail to take a holistic view of progress we are headed straight for doom.
The NUS talk was set up with one objective and one objective only – to make the MM appear as god-like as ever and for him to talk at the people again.
With no one from the cabinet to the civil service to the media willing to tell the emperor he has no clothes, Singaporeans are in for an even rougher ride ahead. Fasten your seatbelts.
Read more...
The Singapore Democrats wish all our Hindu and Sikh friends a Happy Deepavali: சிங்கப்பூர் ஜனநாயகக் கட்சி இந்துக்களுக்கும் சீக்கியர்களுக்கும் எங்களின் மகிழ்சிகரமான தீபாவளி வாழ்த்துக்களை தெரிவிக்கிறோம்.
Read more...
Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party remembers the late J B Jeyaretnam on the first anniversary of his passing.
Read more...
Jufrie Mahmood of the Singapore Democratic Party delivers a Hari Raya message to one and all.
Read more...
Singapore Democrats Dr Lim Hock Siew speaks from Singapore prison
His ISA captors wanted him to "concede something" so that then prime minister Lee Kuan Yew would not lose face, writes Dr Lim Hock Siew in a statement which was cited by filmmaker Mr Martyn See in his blog (see below).
Mr See took on the Straits Times for ignoring the roles played by PAP founding members and long-term ISA detainees such as Dr Lim Hock Siew and Mr Said Zahari in Singapore's formative years. Dr Lim, a medical doctor, was detained by Mr Lee for 19 years.
Mr See writes in his blog that the newspaper "goes to great lengths to depict the book [Men In White published by SPH] as a definitive and objective account of PAP's history" while completely neglecting to mention Dr Lim, who is the longest serving ISA detainee after Mr Chia Thye Poh (32 years).
"But remarkably, the two full page report mentions not a single whiff of Operation Coldstore," writes Mr See. Operation Coldstore was conducted in 1963 where mass arrests of the opposition leaders left the PAP the sole player in Singapore's political scene.
This is another example of how the PAP and its media continue to rewrite history. But Dr Lim, now 78, is penning his memoirs and gives us a sneak preview of what may be in store:
18 March 1972
(Through his legal adviser; released by Dr Beatrice Chia, wife of Dr Lim Hock Siew)
I and hundreds of others were arbitrarily arrested on the 2nd of February, 1963. Many are still in prison. Ever since that day, we were, and are, unjustly and arbitrarily detained in prison without any kind of trial whatsoever for over 9 years. We have gone through various kinds of persecution, struggles, hardships and difficulties during this very long period of over nine years of detention in prison. Recently an unusual development took place. On the 13th of January, 1972, I was taken to the Headquarters of the Special Branch at Robinson Road where I was detained for 40 days together with my brother, Lim Hock Koon.
Two high-ranking special branch agents of the P.A.P. regime indicated to me that if I were to issue a public statement of repentance, I would be released. They told me that 9 years had passed since the date of my arrest and that it was time that my case be settled. They admitted that 9 years was a long time. I told them that it was pointless to remind me of this long period.
A week after my transfer to the Special Branch Headquarters, the same two high-ranking employees spelt out the conditions of my release. They demanded from me two things. They are as follows: -
1. That I make an oral statement of my past political activities, that is to say, "A security statement." This was meant for the Special Branch records only, and not meant for publication.
2. That I must issue a public statement consisting of two points : -
a. That I am prepared to give up politics and devote to medical practice thereafter.
b. That I must express support for the Parliamentary democratic system.
I shall now recall and recapitulate the conversation that took place between me and the same two high-ranking Special Branch agents during my detention at the Special Branch Headquarters.
Special Branch: You need not have to condemn the Barisan Sosialis or any person. We admit that it is unjust to detain you so long. 9 years is a long time in a person's life; we are anxious to settle your case.
Dr Lim Hock Siew: My case will be settled immediately if I am released unconditionally. I was not asked at the time of my arrest whether I ought to be arrested. Release me unconditionally and my case is settled.
Special Branch: The key is in your hands. It is for you to open the door.
Dr Lim Hock Siew: To say that the key is in my hands is the inverted logic of gangsters in which white is black and black is white. The victim is painted as the culprit and the culprit is made to look innocent. Four Gurkha soldiers were brought to my house to arrest me. I did not ask or seek arrest or the prolonged detention for over 9 years in prison without trial.
Special Branch: You must concede something so that Lee Kuan Yew would be in a position to explain to the public why you had been detained so long. Mr Lee Kuan Yew must also preserve his face. If you were to be released unconditionally, he will lose face.
Dr Lim Hock Siew: I am not interested in saving Lee Kuan Yew's face. This is not a question of pride but one of principle. My detention is completely unjustifiable and I will not lift a single finger to help Lee Kuan Yew to justify the unjustifiable. In the light of what you say, is it not very clear that I have lost my freedom all these long and bitter years just to save Lee Kuan Yew's face? Therefore the P.A.P. regime's allegation that I am a security risk is a sham cover and a facade to detain me unjustifiably for over 9 years.
My stand on the Making of a Secret Oral Security Statement for the records of the Special Branch
I cannot and will not make any statement to condemn my past political activities. My past political activities were absolutely legitimate and proper. Whatever I had done or said was in the interest of and in the service of the masses of our people and of our country. Even an accused person need not say anything to incriminate or to condemn himself. Why should I who am arbitrarily detained without any kind of trial for over 9 years be coerced to act as an agent to the Special Branch by making a secret deal behind the backs of the masses? I resolutely reject this demand. Furthermore, I have not the slightest obligation to account my past political activities to Lee Kuan Yew.
A. My Stand on the Demand of Making a Public Statement
I completely reject in principle the issuing of any public statement as a condition of my release. This is a form of public repentance. History has completely vindicated my position. I was arrested for opposing merger with "Malaysia" because I held the view that "Malaysia" was a British sponsored neo-colonialist product and the creation of "Malaysia", far from uniting our people and our country, would cause greater dis-unity and dissension among our people. I believe that the formation of Malaysia would be a step backward and not forward in our struggle for national unity.
I have nothing to repent, to recant or to reform. If anything I have become more reinforced in my convictions, more reaffirmed in my views and more resolute to serve the people of Malaya fully and whole-heartedly. I have nothing to concede to Lee Kuan Yew. By right, he should make a public repentance to me and not I to him.
B. My Stand on the Demand that I must give up Politics in Exchange for my Release
I hold the view that these two demands are self-contradictory, because if there is democracy, I need not give up politics. The fact that I had been detained for over 9 years in order to coerce me to give up politics is proof enough that there is no parliamentary democracy. The question of taking part on politics is a fundamental right of the people.
An indirect offer was made to me to leave Singapore for further studies. I have replied to the P.A.P. regime that if I had to leave the country at any time, it must be on my own free volition and not under coercion by the P.A.P regime.
C. My Stand on the Demand for support for Parliamentary System
I hold the view that to support the P.A.P. regime's so-called parliamentary system would mean giving the public and the masses a false impression that there exist today a genuine parliamentary democratic system in Singapore Island. It is an undeniable and unforgettable fact that comrade LEE TSE TONG who was elected by the people of Singapore in the 1963 General Elections, was arbitrarily arrested and detained without trial soon after he was elected. Subsequently, he was deprived of his citizenship and he is still under detention as a so-called "banishee" in prisoner's clothes in Queenstown prison. The arbitrary arrest and prolonged detention of Comrade Lee Tse Tong affords concrete proof that the so-called parliamentary democracy is a cruel mockery. It does not exist in Singapore Island. Giving support to such a sham parliamentary system means complete betrayal of the people. I will never betray the people of my country under any circumstance. Bitter sacrifice strengthens bold resolve.
Parliamentary democracy does not mean merely casting of votes once in 5 years during election time. Far more important than this is the freedom of thought, the freedom of expression, the freedom of association, the freedom of organisation everyday during the 5 years period and continuously thereafter. I was arrested when the Barisan Sosialis was actively participating in the parliamentary system. For such participation, the colonial government, the Lee Kuan Yew and Rahman regimes had rewarded me with over 9 years of imprisonment. This again amply indicates the utter shamness of the so-called parliamentary democratic system. After over 9 years of detention, I am now asked to give support to their so-called parliamentary system in order to secure my release. I firmly refuse to give my support for the sham and illusory democracy in Singapore Island.
My Stand on the Request by the Agents of the P.A.P. Regime to Concede something to save Lee Kuan Yew's Face
Since history has fully vindicated my stand and my position, Lee Kuan Yew should openly and publicly repent to me and to all other political detainees, now unjustifiably detained in prison. By right a just and proper base for my release from my prolonged and unjustifiable detention (and this equally applies to all political detainees now under unjustifiable detention) should be : -
a. Our unconditional and immediate release from detention and the complete restoration of all our democratic and human rights.
b. Payment of adequate compensation to me and to all other political detainees for the prolonged and unjustifiable detention in prison.
c. The issuance of public apology by Lee Kuan Yew to me.
We are willing and prepared to concede the last two conditions as listed above. We do not believe that an arrogant man like Lee Kuan Yew will aplogise or to compensate us.
On the first condition that is to say, our demand for unconditional and immediate release from detention, and for the complete restoration of all our democratic and human rights - we must resolutely say : WE WILL NEVER CONCEDE, BITTER SACRIFICE STRENGTHENS BOLD RESOLVE.
http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-pap-book-neglects-founding-members.html
Read more...
Singapore Democrats Muhd Khalis with Tian Chua at PKR's campaign office (From left) Khalis, Jarrod Luo with DEMA Media Coordinator Azrul and Burmese activist Phyo Win Latt Jarrod Luo, Muhd Khalis and Mohd Shamin are members of the Young Democrats. 
Keep up the struggle. Those were the words of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim as we joined him on stage at the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) rally at Permatang Pasir, Malaysia.
The SDP's Young Democrats (YD) were there at the invitation of Angkatan Muda Keadilan (Keadilan Youth Wing), to observe the recently concluded by-election - which the opposition Parti Islam se-Malaysia (PAS) won handily.
Upon arrival at the PKR campaign operations centre at Taman Samagagah we met Mr Tian Chua, Member of Parliament and Strategy and Information Chief of Keadilan, and followed him on his campaign trail.Mr Khalis updated Mr Chua about the situation in Singapore and the continuous harassment of opposition members and activists by the Government. Mr Chua, who was himself detained under Malaysia's ISA, said that Singapore too must work towards true and real democracy.
He encouraged the YD to keep up with our work. He said: "It is important for youths to be part of the struggle."
We also had a chance to meet with Mr Shamsul Iskandar, Keadilan's youth chief. Mr Shamsul said that he was glad to know that SDP members and other activists are still pushing for change and reform even though there are many obstacles.
We were also introduced to a few other youth wing state leaders, among whom Mr Sim Tze Sin and Mr Chua Jui Meng (former health minister under the Malaysian Chinese Association).
During the rally later that night PKR deputy youth chief, Mohd Faris Musa, introduced us to the crowd and praised the Singapore Democrats for daring to take on the PAP.
The highlight of the evening was when we introduced ourselves to the Leader of the Opposition, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Mr Anwar, who told us not to concede defeat and to keep up the struggle.
Mr Shamsul left us with these parting words: "PKR will always be supporting SDP in its journey. We always identify ourselves with groups that dare to challenge oppressive regimes. We hope to have more of such exchanges between the SDP and PKR in the future."The YD delegation was also invited to attend the Malaysia Youth & Students Democratic Movement (DEMA) 10th Annual General Meeting in Kajang, Malaysia. DEMA is a national student movement organisation formed to push for human rights and a democratic society in Malaysia.
The exchange between the YD and DEMA was fruitful. When told about the reality of the political situation in Singapore, many of them expressed their concerns and reiterated their solidarity with our struggle for democracy.
Many of the DEMA's members were keen to find out more about Singapore's current political situation as well as the activity level of our youth and student movements here.
We also learned that youth groups in Malaysia faced obstacles put in place by their government in their struggle for human rights and democracy, not unlike our situation in Singapore.
Leaders of DEMA, Mr Lucas Yap Heng Lung and Mr Ryan Gan, expressed their desire to see more exchanges and to establish closer ties with the Young Democrats.
We all agreed that it is vital for our youths and students to play a bigger role in the political and activism scenes in our countries. History has shown that political change is always aided by the active participation of society's youths and students.
The YD aims to continue to network with other similar organisations or movements in the region and beyond. This is crucial in our work for freedom, justice and equality.
Singapore Democrat Wong U-wen, who is deaf, delivers SDP's message calling for a more equal and caring Singapore towards the disabled and deaf communities.
Earlier this year a group of disabled Singaporeans held a protest at Speakers' Corner urging greater transport subsidies (see here).
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
The SDP's youth wing, the Young Democrats (YD), met last week to elect a new set of leaders to bring the group forward to meet the exciting challenges lying ahead.
Under the YD Charter, the Council comprising of the President, Vice-President and Honorary Secretary are elected once every two years. The officers will lead the youth wing to further the aims and objectives of the Singapore Democrats.
Mr Priveen Suraj, currently serving his remaining few months in the National Service as a commando, was elected President. Mr Priveen will pursue a law degree after he finishes his army stint. He joined the SDP when he was still a junior college student.
"I am proud to serve as president of the Young Democrats," he said. "We are a motivated group of Singaporeans who will be actively reaching out to our fellow youths to get them interested in politics and involved with the SDP."
Mr Jufri Salim will deputise as Vice-President. A young father of three, Mr Jufri has shown exceptional courage and political maturity when he took part in the Tak Boleh Tahan protest outside Parliament House. He pleaded guilty to the offence because of work commitment but insisted on going to prison instead of paying the fine.
The Honorary Secretary's post was taken up by Mr Jarrod Luo, a biomedical science and microbiology graduate from Australia's University of Queensland. Mr Luo became active with the Singapore Democrats last year and has shown tremendous drive in helping to organise the YD.
The YD was formed in 2000 with just four members. The number has grown steadily through the years and is now an active component of the Singapore Democrats. Its members and associates provide the skills and know-how in the party's online work.
The YD is a member of the Young Liberals and Democrats in Asia (YLDA) as well as the International Federation for Liberal Youths (IFLRY). YD member Ms Surayah Akbar recently participated in a workshop for women in Hong Kong organised by YLDA.
There are already high expectations of the three leaders, all in their 20s. They are tasked with expanding the YD's membership and to promote the mother party's message of reform and political change in Singapore.
At the meeting, members expressed that it was important for the YD to conduct community service and extend a hand to those who have been left behind under the system. They also indicated that they would reach out to younger Singaporeans through social events.
Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan congratulated the leaders and called on them to demonstrate effective leadership by working with all YD members to bring about an organisation that will be the pride of not just the SDP but also the whole of Singapore.
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
The unmanageable surge in job losses in Singapore has brought into sharp focus the contrast between words and deeds of the PAP government.
In the second quarter of this year, close to 19,000 jobs have disappeared despite PAP’s much hyped Jobs Credit Scheme (JCS) to stem the tide of unemployment and retrenchments.
It was with much fanfare that the JCS was introduced in Budget 2009 as a means to “encourage businesses to preserve jobs in the downturn.” Under the scheme, a $4.5 billion cash grant was promised to employers “to provide a significant incentive for businesses to retain existing workers, and where their business warrants, to employ new ones.”
But from the latest figures on job losses released by the Ministry of Manpower, words and empty slogans seem to be the feature of the PAP government.
So far more than 100,000 employers have benefited from the scheme since its implementation in March but the rise in retrenchments and unemployment is staggering.
The hardest hit is the sector that depended on the US and European markets, mainly exporting consumer goods on contract manufacturing, employing cheap labour. Singapore’s manufacturing sector, overwhelmingly dominated by foreign multi-national corporations (MNCs) is in the doldrums.
The weak demand for their low-value added goods has resulted in layoffs, while others are moving out of Singapore to a cheaper location. The latest manifestation of this trend is Seagate Technology which will move its hard disk drive manufacturing operations from Singapore to other countries by end-2010, laying off 2,000 employees in the process.
How is the Jobs Credit Scheme helping? Are we assured that the money doled out by the Government is making its way to workers instead of their employers?
This continued gloom that is surrounding the economy of Singapore for the past ten months without any solution in sight raises serious questions about the Government's strategy.
Mr Lim Swee Say, minister-without-portfolio in the Prime Minister’s Office, warns repeatedly “of further layoffs” towards the end of the year. And for his part, his cabinet colleague, Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong said: “The most important message is to remind all of us that the worst is not yet over.”
Yes, we know that. Those are words that are easily uttered especially when you are sitting in the comfort of your office and drawing your multi-million dollar “salaries” regardless of the number of thousands of people losing their jobs.
The Jobs Credit scheme obviously cannot help those who are retrenched. For these people how do they survive without income?
This is where the SDP's proposal for retrenchment benefits can help. The Government should provide temporary income at a reduced rate for the retrenched while they seek alternative employment. Such a provision will also enable these affected individuals to continue spending which will in turn help the economy.
As mentioned the money dished out to the employers under the Jobs Credit Scheme may be hoarded by the bosses and not circulated back into the economy. This, however, is unlikely to be the case with retrenched workers as they will have to spend the money they receive on essentials.
The PAP Government needs to do more than talk.
Gandhi Ambalam is the chairman of the Singapore Democrats.
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
Last year Mr Wong Kan Seng's facade adorned the landscape of his constituency of Bishan-Toa Payon GRC. It was a time of unbridled celebration of the “Singapore Spirit” as he and his fellow MPs erected larger-than-life billboards to promote their own images. (See here)
This year, however, the hoopla is more subdued. In fact, Mr Wong's picture can hardly be seen around the estate.
Absent is the beaming smile greeting motorists and pedestrians as they go about their daily business.
So is the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs' feeling a little guilty and, dare we say it, vulnerable?
Given all that has happened in the last year with and to Mr Wong, perhaps it is not entirely surprising that the Minister seems to be adopting a lower profile.
Remember, Mr Mas Selamat incredibly escaped from the highest security facility under his watch. Not only that, the suspected terrorist limped – without his pants – across the island and then swam across a short stretch of water to Malaysia on a “simple floating device”.
A Commission of Inquiry (COI), of which one of the members was Mr Wong's subordinate, was then established to look into the debacle. Its findings was, of course, met with skepticism and even outright derision by the public. The climbing through an unsecured window, the toilet rolls, the simultaneously non-functioning security cameras all made for unbelievable reading.
(Photos: Left - A happy Mr Wong on a billboard in Toa Payoh in 2008. Right - Same spot this year.)
And when Mr Mas Selamat was finally found in Johor, Mr Wong did what came naturally – he tried to claim credit by saying that it was the close cooperation between his people and the Malaysians that led to the fugitive's re-capture.
This was embarrassingly slapped down by the Malaysian authorities who said that the tracing and capture of the suspect was “carried out fully by the Malaysian police.”
The episode remains unresolved because now the Malaysia Government refuses to hand the captive back to Singapore, adding to Mr Wong's discomfiture. Is Mr Mas being used as a bargaining chip for negotiations over contentious issues? If he is, Mr Wong's boss(es) may be none too pleased with his bungle.
If that was not bad enough just months after the great escape, a Singaporean traveller flew all the way to Vietnam on his son's passport before the Vietnamese customs spotted the problem. The man had mistakenly taken the wrong document but made it past the Singapore airport checkpoint anyway.
During that same period an elderly Singaporean woman, 73 years old to be precise, was reported lost while on a trip to Malaysia. A week later, she was inexplicably found back in Singapore – without her passport and her memory (she couldn't remember anything about events that week she was gone).
But the wonder is that despite all these hugely damaging lapses to our nation's security, Mr Wong is able to muster more than 15 police officers just to stop a group of Singapore Democrats distributing flyers announcing a protest.
Better still, he's found new energy to introduce a brand new law that stipulates that even a one-person protest can be considered an illegal assembly.
All in all, its been an eventful year for the Minister. Perhaps it's just as well that he keeps under the radar and not show his face too much. He might just lose more of it.
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
A police officer testified that he and his teammates were performing foot-patrol when they spotted SDP leaders distributing flyers at the Raffles City Shopping Centre outside the City Hall MRT Station, and proceeded to stop the act.
But his teammate said that they did no such thing. They were assigned directly to the area to "keep observation" and did not do any foot-patrol. This clash of testimony happened in the trial involving Mr Gandhi Ambalam, Ms Chee Siok Chin and Dr Chee Soon Juan who are charged with illegal assembly.
The three SDP leaders were distributing flyers on 10 Sep 06 announcing the WB-IMF rally and march the following week.
In an earlier tranche of the trial, Station Inspector Kelvin Bong (far right in photo) had testified that he was in-charge of a team of three other officers who were assigned to perform anti-crime rounds that morning in the vicinity of Raffles City. As a result, he led his men on foot-patrol inside the shopping centre from a little after 10 am.
A couple of hours later at around 12:30 pm, he received a call from the police Command Post instructing him to proceed to the entrance of the mall at the City Hall MRT Station because of an illegal assembly.
The team, who was inside the building at that time, then walked to the location and it was there that they saw Dr Chee and the others distributing flyers.
One of SI Bong's teammates was Sgt Bokhari (red shirt in photo) who has since quit the police force and joined SingTel. When he took the stand the week before, Mr Bokhari said there were no instructions to do any foot-patrol.
Instead, the instructions from the top was to go directly to the area at the entrance of the MRT station to “keep observation”. As a result, the team proceeded to the area and took up positions there. No one, the sergeant said, did any foot-patrols that morning.
Sgt Bokhari also testified that at about noon, SI Bong gave instructions for the men to take a lunch break whereupon Mr Bokhari then found a seat outside Starbucks Coffee. Several minutes later at around 12:40 pm, he saw the SDP leaders appearing at the location.
Why were the testimonies of the two officers so contradictory? Only one can be telling the truth.
In addition, Mr Bokhari said that there were a total of 6-7 police officers under Mr Bong's charge. Mr Bong, however, repeatedly told the court that there were only three other officers in his team.
In addition Mr Bokhari said that after engaging Dr Chee and the rest, he and his fellow officers met with two other senior officers at the “exterior of the building” for a few minutes. Mr Bong, however, said that the group immediately went back into Raffles City to resume their foot patrol after engaging the group.
Why are these discrepancies important?
The defendants are alleging that there was a concerted effort by the police to target the group. After all, how many Singaporeans are charged with assembly without a permit for merely distributing flyers? In fact, every officer who came on the stand admitted that distributing flyers is a normal and common activity that many groups of Singaporeans carry out.
It seems obvious that the only reason why the police took action against Dr Chee and colleagues is because they were from the SDP and because of the content of the flyer. Indeed, investigating officer DSP William Goh admitted that it was the content of the flyer that led him to proceed with the charge.
He also revealed that there were at least three teams of more than 15 officers that day at the location to stop the group from distributing flyers.
Under the Constitution such discrimination is illegal as all are equal under the law and have to be treated accordingly. The group cannot be singled for prosecution just because they are Singapore Democrats or because of the content of the flyer.
The defence applied for Mr Bong to be recalled to the stand as new (and contradictory) evidence was revealed. District Judge however dismissed the application.
The hearing will continue in October.
Read the whole series of contradictory evidence given by police witnesses here.
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
Dr Chee Soon Juan recently addressed cadres at the party's biennial conference where he laid out the vision, values and mission of the Singapore Democrats (watch excerpts of the speech here). Below is the full text of the speech:
Dear friends, colleagues, fellow CEC members, Mr Chairman,
I am happy to report that since we last met at this conference in 2007, we have grown. But that's not really earth-shattering news. After all, many political parties can similarly report an expansion within their ranks.
Our situation is a little different, however. First this is Singapore we are talking about and second it is the Singapore Democratic Party we are talking about. We have grown not because of the freedom that we enjoy or the media coverage that we get. We have grown despite the persecution and harassment of our party.
This party has been sued, its leaders and members repeatedly prosecuted, and our beliefs and activities viciously vilified. Yet despite all this we have seen a more than healthy jump in the number of Singaporeans coming forward to serve the party and its cause. Why is this so? Looking around and talking to our new members, I can identify two things: Vision and values.
Vision and values
Firstly, we have articulated our vision clearly and, more important, shown determination to work towards it:
A vision where social, economic and political justice thrive.
A vision where our elderly can live dignified and meaningful lives in their retirement years rather than having to wash urinals or sell tissue paper or clean tables at hawker centres just so that they can eke out a living.
A vision where our youths are free to realise their potential and aspire to great things rather than be mere digits for economic production.
A vision where our economy works for all the people, not just the elite and the rich, where we have economic growth that makes sense, growth that is authentic, sustainable and shared by all – not growth at all cost.
A vision where society is deeply engaged in matters of public interest and where intelligent, civilised debate is the norm; where our rulers are accountable and responsive to the needs of the people.
Secondly, our values – values such as courage, integrity and self-sacrifice – are also what attracts Singaporeans. The sense of loyalty to one another and the fact that when one falls the rest rally around him or her is an important quality that we must continue to nurture and cultivate.
We proudly claim that ours is not a convenient vehicle for members to get on so that they can achieve their own self-centred goals. It is a party where self-interests are subordinate to the collective work of making our dream of democracy a reality.
The shared purpose of fighting for justice and freedom has created a bond among the young and the veterans, the new and the experienced in the party. Our abiding love for what is fair and just is what keeps us together.
This sense of togetherness and belongingness will serve us well both in good times and bad. It is what will make more Singaporeans want to become a part of our growing family.
There are no prima donnas, no indispensable stars in this party, just a team of never-say-die defenders of democracy who happen to care deeply about our country and who will go to incredible lengths, walk extraordinary distances and make whatever sacrifices in order to achieve our vision.
The Internet age
With newcomers come new skills and with new skills, come new capabilities. One of these capabilities is the more efficient and productive use of the New Media.
We have a group of activists who are developing a programme for our Internet campaign. The face of politics and how we campaign has irrevocably changed. The Internet will figure prominently in the next election.
For this reason, we have been and will continue to use the Internet to break the hold that the PAP has on information flow in Singapore. Because the mass media will do their utmost to turn voters against us, we will have to turn to cyberspace to help us get our message across.
But let us not be under any illusion. The reach of the Internet is still very limited. But we have no better option, not when the PAP-controlled media are bent on seeing our destruction.
We will not yield, we will not break. We will fight back. It will not be an easy task and our success will not come overnight.
We must be patient as we are diligent and we must continue to build on our Internet capability to reach out to our fellow citizens. Every year more and more younger Singaporeans who are Internet savvy are coming into voting age. The Internet is a natural source of information for them. We need to focus our energy and resources on the new technologies that will better help us reach out to these people.
Whatever happens at the next elections we must run the best campaign ever in the history of our party, one that Singaporeans will talk about in the years to come.
For that we call on our Young Democrats to come to the fore and present yourselves boldly. We ask you to take the reins and do what that fire in your belly is calling you to do and that passion in your heart that is crying out for you to achieve.
You have to be leaders of the youth of Singapore – and leaders don't wait to be called, they step forth and do.
Where there is darkness, they burn just a little brighter; where there is no path, they make one; and where there is fear, they bring forth hope.
And when you have forged your characters in the crucible of the struggle, your reward will be a Singapore that is strong, open and just.
Destined to succeed
The next elections is not far away. Now is not the time for us to take a break. We must step up our efforts to get our message out.
We must step up our campaign for our Singaporeans First Policy where our citizens are not discriminated against in our own country and not sold out for cheap labor from overseas.
We must make louder our call for minimum wage so that the poorest of our poor can earn a living that will allow them to feel like human beings, rather than coolies.
We must push harder to rid our society of the greed epitomised by our ministers, the greed that brutalises society and pushes people to flee their own country and make home somewhere else.
We must confront the Government with these truths. We must confront it with reason, not aggression; with conviction, not destruction. But confront we must for we cannot stand up for democracy on bended knees.
For this we will get hit and we will get battered but I have never been more proud to stand with all of you as we overcome prejudice and hardship to win freedom, justice and democracy for this nation of ours.
We must assume our role as leaders not just as a political party but as a community leader to encourage civil society and individual citizens to get involved, to care about what's happening in society and to work to bring a new politics to Singapore.
So tonight, I ask all of you, members and friends, supporters and volunteers, to re-dedicate yourselves to the cause – a cause that is at once noble and enduring, a cause that we the Singapore Democrats have come to call our own. It is the cause of freeing our nation, one that is destined to succeed.
I say this not out of hubris but out of a firm knowledge of history which favours those who stand on the side of right. This doesn't mean that success will be automatic. Far from it will depend much on how hard we work and how smartly we do it.
We have laid the foundation and it is sound. We must continue to strengthen this foundation while simultaneously erect the pillars that will allow us to build a party based on our vision and our values, one that Singaporeans will come to respect and cherish.
Thank you and God Bless.
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
At a time of expansion and growing confidence, the Singapore Democrats have elected a 14-member Central Executive Committee to lead the party into the next general elections.
At its biennial party conference held last week, cadre members came together to re-dedicate their efforts to work for the cause of reform and democracy in Singapore.
The party's top four posts remain unchanged. Mr Gandhi Ambalam retained the chairmanship and Mr Francis Yong continues to serve as the Vice-Chairman.
Dr Chee Soon Juan and Mr John Tan were re-elected as the Secretary-General and Assistant Secretary-General respectively.
A change was made in the post of Treasurer which was taken up by Mr Gerald Sng, a Marketing Manager, who contested in the 2006 elections. Deputising him is Assistant Treasurer Mr Jeffrey George, an engineer in the oil-rig industry.
After a keenly fought elections, the following six were elected into the executive body: Ms Chee Siok Chin, Ms Lilian Chia, Mr Johnny Ho, Mr Mohd Isa, Mr Jufrie Mahmood, and Mr Sylvester Lim.
This year saw a couple of “new” faces added to the line-up: Messrs Jufrie Mahmood and Sylvester Lim. Mr Jufrie, a party stalwart who was once “loaned” to the Workers' Party when the late J B Jeyaretnam was the secretary-general, returned to the SDP's leadership.
“I came back because I have confidence in the present leadership of the SDP,” the opposition veteran said, “and I think that the party is moving in the right direction. The growth in its ranks attests to this.”
The other first-timer is Mr Sylvester Lim whose quiet demeanour belies a fierce commitment to the ideals of democracy and justice.
“We are excited about what lies ahead and we are determined to work for change and for a government that genuinely cares for the people,” Mr Lim said.
Anticipating the intense work ahead, the newly elected leadership intends to co-opt two more members into its fold. They are Mr Laurence Lai and Mr Warren Eswaran. Mr Lai served in the previous CEC. Mr Eswaran, 25, is a member of the Young Democrats and has been with the party since his National Service days.
“Warren's inclusion in the CEC is a reflection of the increasing interest young Singaporeans are taking in us,” Chairman Ambalam noted. “We want to ensure that our Young Democrats are actively involved in the party's direction and development.”
The Young Democrats, the SDP's youth wing, will also shortly elect its leaders.
The new CEC has expressed its determination to continue expanding the party in numbers as well as capability to reach out to Singaporeans. It will rely on the Internet, as it has in the past, to call on Singaporeans to step forward and help spread the message of working towards a free, open and just Singapore. (Watch video of Dr Chee's address to party cadres here.)
Photo:
(Standing L-R) Sylvester Lim, Jufrie Mahmood, Chee Siok Chin, Lilian Chia, Johnny Ho, Gerald Sng
(Kneeling L-R) Chee Soon Juan, Francis Yong, Jeffrey George, Gandhi Ambalam, John Tan, Mohd Isa
(Laurence Lai and Warren Eswaran are not in the photograph)
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of the Singapore Democrats, recently addressed party cadres at the 14th Ordinary Party Conference held on 24 July 2009. Watch excerpts of his speech here:
Singapore Democrats
Is it a coincidence that victims of the Lehman Brothers scam in Hong Kong are being compensated for their losses whereas those in Singapore are not?
Hong Kong's financial authorities have taken action to pressure banks to pay back at least 60 percent (more for older victims) to each investor for their losses incurred as a result of buying the toxic financial products from Lehman.
In contrast, Singaporeans are told that they have to jump through hoops just to have their claims heard.
Even then, they are made to wait for their cases to be heard and, in many cases, are told that their money is irretrievably gone.
Either that or they have to initiate litigation to claim compensation which is an expensive process with no guarantee of success.
Perhaps, the most telling difference is DBS's reaction to the two sets of investors. The Singapore bank volunteered that it would refund Hong Kongers who purchased its troubled products whereas no similar move was made for Singaporeans.
So why the difference between Hong Kong and Singapore?
For one thing, the authorities of Hong Kong are still accountable (and therefore responsive) to its people. This is because its elections are much freer and fairer compared to what we have in Singapore. Elected representatives have to respond to the voice and mood of the electorate.
In Singapore, MPs also have to remain attuned to the voice and mood, but not of the voters. Instead they have to keep an eye and ear out from what their party bosses say. In this matter the PAP, and hence all its MPs, were more intent on protecting the establishment and its system than helping the investor-victims.
And their party bosses have molded the election system in such a way that they will never lose power. If they cannot lose power, what incentive is there for them to pay attention to the voters?
Members of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong have to be sensitive to what their constituents say. Public opinion matters because it is broadcast and published by the media which is reknowned for its freedom and independence from the ruling class.
Singapore's media, on the other hand, can be turned on and off by the PAP. This is not hard to do when the Singapore Press Holdings is controlled by none other than former deputy prime minister Dr Tony Tan.
In addition, Hong Kongers enjoy freedoms of speech and public assembly – and the Lehman victims have exercised their freedom well. It was through their public protests that the banks agreed to compensate them for their losses.
Alas, Singaporean investors can only gather at Hong Lim Park – away from the eyes and ears of the people for whom their angry message was intended. As a result, the banks were free of the pressure to negotiate and compensate.
Free and fair elections, a free media, the freedom to assemble are what made the difference between Hong Kong's investors and Singapore's, even though both groups were sold similar products and were caught out by similar events.
So the next time anyone says that democracy and human rights can't make you money, just remember these four items: Hong Kong - Singapore - Lehman Brothers - compensation.
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
The title to this report "Political parties go online to extend their reach" by Valarie Tan of Channel News Asia seems straightforward enough -- Singapore's political parties, both ruling and opposition, are fully utilising the Internet to achieve their ends.
But wait, there's no mention of the Singapore Democrats anywhere! It reports on only two parties - the PAP and WP. This is particularly strange when the SDP's website, updated daily, is by far the most read website of all political parties in Singapore.
CNA also writes that "Social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter are the latest ways Singapore political parties are reaching out to people online."
This website employs all manner of online instruments to reach out to Singaporeans. We have produced the most number of YouTube presentations, we were the first to get on Twitter with the most number of followers, and our supporters have even established a Friends of SDP Facebook page.
And yet in CNA's report, only silence about the Singapore Democrats.
The report also talks about the youth wings of both the PAP and WP. Yet, the SDP is the first opposition party to establish a youth wing. The Young Democrats was formed in 2000 and has since grown robustly. Again, absolutely no mention of this in CNA's report.
It is obvious that the media want Singaporeans to know as little as possible about the Singapore Democrats. If and when they do report on us, they will put on the worst possible spin. This is what the SDP is up against.
This trend will intensify as elections draw closer. The question that must be asked is: Why is the media so intent on hushing up news about, particularly, the Singapore Democrats?
In another instance, Alicia Wong of Today reported yesterday about the installation of CCTVs at Hong Lim Park (see here), obviously reading and then following up on the SDP's report two days before (see here).
Yet the newspaper refuses to acknowledge that the story was first reported on this website.
Are we complaining? No. We take this as the PAP badly wanting to get rid of us and a signal that we must work even harder to deny them the pleasure.
It is important that Singaporeans know the truth. The Singapore Democrats are not only alive and well, but leading the way on the Internet. We cannot let the media cover up this fact.
We ask our supporters and followers to step up efforts to help us overcome this hurdle by spreading the SDP's news as far and as wide as possible through your emails, Facebook pages, blogs and so on.
Don't let the PAP use the New Media to fool the people too.
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
Just when you thought that freedom of expression could not become any more farcical in Singapore, the police install a CCTV at Hong Lim Park.
Already, public speaking is banned in Singapore, a group of 5 or more persons gathered to "support or oppose the views of any person" require a permit (that the police categorically state they will not grant), and even one person conducting a protest can be considered an illegal assembly and ordered to disperse.
Freedom of expression is strictly confined to Speakers' Corner. On Tuesday this week, however, workmen were seen installing surveillance cameras at the venue.
"What are you doing? You cannot take a picture. This belongs to the police," one of the workers said to our cameraman. Some of his colleagues darted away out of camera range.
"Well, actually it doesn't, it belongs to taxpayers and I am a taxpayer," our SDP reporter shot back. "So what are you guys doing?"
Seeing that we were not going to be fooled or intimidated, one of them said that they were contractors installing the cameras for the police. Another was busy keying in data on a laptop programming the CCTV.
Looking around there were two other such cameras installed around the park to cover the entire field.
If this is not a police state where even a so-called tiny free speech corner is monitored by the state, we don't know what is.
Watch video here:
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
The about turn in Temasek's appointment of Mr Charles Goodyear as CEO to replace Ms Ho Ching is a sad but accurate reflection of the abysmal leadership seen at the organisation.
Chairman of Temasek, Mr S Dhanabalan, had said in an announcement in February this year when Mr Goodyear was first appointed that the company had been "working on this appointment for more than a year.” He added that Mr Goodyear "shares the vision and values" of Temasek.
Barely four months later, we learn that this appointment has been reversed because of "differences regarding certain strategic issues that could not be resolved."
Given that Mr Goodyear's appointment has been deliberated for over a year, is it plausible that strategic issues cropped up only at the last minute? What were these differences and why can't they be resolved?
As Temasek is fully-owned by the public, Singaporeans have the right to know the answers to these questions as well as the details of the abrupt termination of Mr Goodyear as CEO.
Given the amount of public money that Temasek handles and, worse, the $58 billion that the company lost from March to November 2008 (Temasek has kept mum about losses incurred after November 2008), the non-transparent way with which the matter has been dealt is truly mind-boggling.
Making a nonsensical and completely banal statement like "It is with much regret that both Chip (Goodyear) and the Board have accepted that it is best not to proceed with the leadership transition" is a waste of bandwidth and an insult to the intelligence of the people. (See Temasek news release below.)
In addition Ms Ho Ching, PM Lee Hsien Loong's wife who will now carry on as CEO even though she presided over the monumental losses, said that Mr Goodyear had started a number of "initiatives" which she hopes to complete.
What are these initiatives and why are they so important that Ms Ho needs to complete them and make an announcement about it? What's the point of telling us that there are initiatives and not tell us what they are? Was the comment added just to make the statement look longer and more substantial?
Finally, in Singapore few things happen without Government consent. Did Mr Lee Kuan Yew or Mr Lee Hsien Loong have anything to do with the decision not to go ahead with Mr Goodyear's appointment?
Given the stakes that we are dealing with and the fact that every cent that Temasek has belongs to Singaporeans, the public has every right to demand the answers from Ms Ho and Mr Dhanabalan.
Temasek's News Release
Temasek Holdings and Charles W. Goodyear mutually agree not to proceed with CEO appointment
21 July 2009, Singapore
The Board of Directors of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited (“Temasek”) today announced an agreement with Mr Charles (“Chip”) W. Goodyear not to proceed with his CEO appointment.
Mr Goodyear was appointed a Member of the Board on 1 February and CEO-Designate on 1 March. He was to succeed Ms Ho Ching as CEO on 1 October 2009.
Four months into the leadership transition, the Temasek Board and Mr Goodyear have concluded and accepted that there are differences regarding certain strategic issues that could not be resolved. In light of the differences, both parties decided that it is in their mutual interests to terminate the leadership transition process and hence the executive relationship with effect from 15 August 2009. Mr Goodyear will also step down from the Temasek Board effective the same date.
Mr Dhanabalan, Chairman of Temasek Holdings, said, "It is with much regret that both Chip and the Board have accepted that it is best not to proceed with the leadership transition. We wish Chip all the best in his future endeavours, and are happy that Ho Ching has agreed to continue as Executive Director and CEO."
Added Mr Chip Goodyear, "I'm sorry that we are unable to continue with the leadership transition. Temasek has a fantastic platform and I wish the Board, Ho Ching and the team all the best."
Ms Ho Ching elaborated, "In the short time with us, Chip has started a number of initiatives which I believe will help strengthen the Temasek platform. I am sorry he is unable to continue with the leadership transition, and hope to complete the initiatives that he has started."
http://www.temasekholdings.com.sg/media_centre_news_releases_210709.htm
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
District Judge Christopher Goh dismissed a Magistrate's Complaint filed by Ms Chee Siok Chin and Mr John Tan last week.
Ms Chee and Mr Tan had filed the complaint in February this year for unlawful detention and selective use of the law by the Singapore Police Force when the two were walking along Orange Grove Road in 2007 (watch video Part I and Part II).
In her complaint, Ms Chee stated that during the ASEAN Summit that year, police officers along Orange Grove Road harassed and stopped her and Mr Tan from walking to Shangri-la Hotel. The police had told them that the area was under gazette at that time.
Ms Chee argued that if that was the case, why were other pedestrians and vehicles allowed in the vicinity while she was being prevented from proceeding.
Mr Tan also said that he had been assaulted by the police officers in the the van.
The SDP leaders stated that after they were forced into the van, the police officers told them that they were not being arrested but refused to answer repeated questions about where they were being taken.
On Tuesday last week, the judge told both complainants that in response to the complaint, the Internal Investigation Department of the Singapore Police Force had come to the conclusion that Ms Chee and Mr Tan were removed from the vicinity under the Protected Area and Places Act. The report was sent to the Attorney-General's Chambers who decided that there was no case for the police to answer. The judge thus dismissed the matter.
Ms Chee pointed out that the investigation was carried out by the same body against whom the report was made.
Mr Tan argued that the two main issues highlighted in the complaints were not being addressed by the investigation. He asked the judge to demand answers to the questions raised, but was rejected. The selective application of the law and the wrongful detention of the aggrieved persons were dismissed by the district judge.
Judge Goh responded by saying that he had no powers to initiate prosecution. In other words, he could only act on the direction of the AGC.
Despite much explicit reasoning, the judge could not see the absurdity of an investigation carried out by the perpetrators and the decision not to carry out further action by their accomplices.
The PAP has for decades used public institutions against its political opponents and dissenters. This is a serious misuse of power. Unfortunately, Singaporeans have been subjected to such abuse for so long that many have come to accept it as normal.
Is this the Singapore-styled democracy to which Mr Lee Kuan Yew is referring when he rejects "liberal democracy?" Is this the kind of democracy that Singaporeans have pledged to uphold? The answer is clear. The function of all government agencies or public institutions is to serve the people, not the party in power.
This is why the Singapore Democrats and Friends continue with the struggle for democracy and pursuit of justice and equality for all.
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
The Board of Film Censors (BFC) had refused to classify the film One Nation Under Lee (ONUL, here), a documentary made by Mr Seelan Palay about Mr Lee Kuan Yew's oppression of Singapore.
Mr Martyn See, another filmmaker, submitted ONUL to the BCF in May this year for approval and rating. However, as Mr See reports in his blog, the authorities have declined to classify the film.
“It is probably the only video submission in BFC's history that has been deemed unclassifiable,” Mr See writes.
The stated reason from the censors is that the video contains material from another film Zahari's 17 Years (click here) produced by Mr See about the legendary Mr Said Zahari who was imprisoned without trial by Mr Lee Kuan Yew for 17 years.
Because Zahari's 17 Years was banned and ONUL contains parts of it, the BFC is saying that Mr Seelan's film is therefore unclassifiable.
This reason, if it can be considered one, doesn't make sense. Why can't the authorities make a decision on whether to approve ONUL and rate it accordingly based on its contents? The reference to Mr Said Zahari in the video is minimal and does not alter the film's theme.
The real reason for not classifying the film, one suspects, is because to do so would be to allow it to be screened to the public at large. Sacre bleu! What would Mr Lee think?
But to ban it would be to draw more attention to the film. As it is, because of the Media Development Authorities' seizing of ONUL when it was first screened, the film has attracted tens of thousands of viewers. Google and YouTube have removed the video because of “copyright” reasons. (See here)
And so the effort to control what Singaporeans watch continues – a sure sign of the nervousness of our undemocratic rulers.
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
It cannot be denied that the SDP attracts the brunt of the PAP's machinations. We do not boast about this nor do we see it as a shame. It is reality – reality that comes with the fact that we do not accept the existing political system and insist on reforming it.
We have been criticised for being confrontational. Again, we do not deny this. But we confront the PAP not with violence but with reason and with the truth. And the truth is that the continued denial of democratic freedoms to Singaporeans is harming our nation.
Resisting immediate gratification
Admittedly, it is easier to keep our heads down and go with the political flow. But times such as these call for leadership – effective and bold leadership.
Effective leadership means being able to look beyond the immediate horizon. As the masses march towards the edge of the cliff, lulled and silenced by the PAP, we must sound the alarm – loudly and persistently. We must alert our fellow citizens of the approaching danger.
Effective and bold leadership also means that we must resist the temptation of immediate gratification. We cannot exclusively focus on contesting the elections and hope to win a seat or two against a system controlled by the PAP, one that Mr Lee Hsien Loong admits to fixing his opponents and buying support.
Without a reform of the electoral process, the opposition will be forever consigned to contesting in unwinnable elections – much like kittens chasing their own tails. We must store up for the future and not indulge in short-term but temporal gains.
Participate or not
But this does not mean that the Singapore Democrats will not take part in the coming elections. We are gearing up to take on the PAP at the ballot box. In fact, we pledge to run a campaign that will make our supporters proud.
But calling for reform also means that the PAP will do whatever it can to destroy our efforts. One obvious way that the PAP can do this is to black out news about the Singapore Democrats. It will report unfair and untrue criticisms of the party and refuse us our right of reply.
This, however, is a signal for the opposition to rise to the challenge, not a deterrent to submit to the repression.
Again, we do not complain. We state it as a matter of fact that this is what we have to fight against. And fight against it we will.
With the advent of the Internet, we have an opportunity to overcome the hurdle of media-control in Singapore. But the reach of the Internet is miniscule compared to the mainstream press. The PAP still has a mountain of an advantage.
We will strive to overcome this obstacle and in so doing continue to provide honest and unyielding leadership.
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
What's wrong with this picture? Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong recently visited Burma and said that investors would invest in Burma in a “big way” if the country moved towards democracy and held free and fair elections.
In the first place, Singapore already has lucrative deals in place with the Burmese generals, making us the one of the biggest investors there. The problem is that our dollar is greasing the palms of a very corrupt and murderous bunch of soldiers.
While billions of dollars are poured into Burma, the Burmese people remain mired in poverty. It is estimated that nearly 30 percent of the population live below the poverty line. This is because the generals use the money to fatten their own bank accounts, much of which is in all probability stashed in Singaporean banks, instead of benefitting the people.
In addition, the US and Europe maintain tight economic sanctions on Burma and because of this the country is shunned by the international trading community. Given the situation, how is investing in a pariah economy a wise move?
This is not a new development. Burma has been under a dictatorship for the past several decades. What makes Mr Goh think that just because he says that there would be more investments coming to the country if the junta held free and fair elections, that the generals would pay heed?
What incentive is there to democratise the country if the rulers already benefit from the money given to them by governments like the PAP? Hasn't the Senior Minister figured this out already?
The other problem could be that the generals don't take Mr Goh's call seriously. Who would? Singapore calling on other governments to conduct free and fair elections? Might as well have Genghis tell Attila to be more humane.
Mr Goh’s propaganda blitz is reminiscent of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s right hand man in Germany during the Second World War. He said: “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play...If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
The truth is that while most of the countries in the region and beyond are moving towards freedom, democracy and openness Singapore, on the other hand, is heading south.
The recent expansion of the NMP and NCMP schemes together with the introduction of the Public Order Act, where even one-person protests are considered an illegal assembly, make the political system even more moribund.
With the running of elections still firmly in the hands of the Prime Minister's Office, the GRC scheme the order of the day, redrawing of constituency boundaries announced only at the last minute, and state media fawning over the PAP can elections in Singapore be any less free and fair?
By putting all these controls in place, elections in Singapore have become a charade to be orchestrated by the PAP once every four or five years to hold the people accountable.
It might be better for Mr Goh to look at his own house before sermonizing to others about the benefits of free and fair elections. You know what they say about people who live in glass houses.
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
In the first part of this post, we listed out the criteria by which Singaporeans say they measure the credibility of an opposition party, chiefly that the opposition must: One, be able to propose credible alternative ideas; two, speak up on issues that matter to the people; three, ask the hard and necessary questions; four, not become dormant in between elections; and five, foster opposition unity.
As we have spoken at length on the first two criteria (see here and here), we will not dwell on them in this post. Instead, we focus on the latter three measures and examine how we strive to live up to our own expectations as well as those of our fellow Singaporeans.
Asking the hard questions
One of the most important roles of an opposition is to check the government and hold it accountable. A checks and balance system is one of the key strengths of the democratic system.
Without a strong opposition to ask the hard and necessary questions, the government is not compelled to reveal information crucial to the public. Left on its own, no ruling party will volunteer information. Transparency is the casualty.
In this regard the Singapore Democrats have not been found wanting. We have consistently been asking the hard and necessary questions on various issues.
Take for example, the acquisition of Shin Corp to the strategy of promoting Singapore as a tax haven to our ill-advised investments in Western banks where billions of dollars have been lost.
But because the SDP is not represented in Parliament, we are unable to pose such important questions to the Government and hold its feet to the fire. As a result the ruling party has been able to get away with much.
This is why the PAP goes all out, fair means or foul, to ensure that the Singapore Democrats are prevented from getting into Parliament. http://www.singapore-window.org/sw01/011122a1.htm
Not dormant in between elections
The PAP has always accused the opposition of going to sleep in between elections and coming alive only to contest the polls. In other words, the PAP says, the opposition is lazy and incompetent.
Of course, it doesn't mention the myriad of rules and regulations the Government puts in place to ensure that opposition parties are prevented from actively engaging in the political arena in between elections.
Be that as it may, the Singapore Democrats have not allowed the obstacles to keep us inactive. Despite the PAP's best efforts, we have been doing everything we can to strengthen ourselves as well as to empower Singaporeans.
In the past, it was easy for the PAP and its media to paint the SDP in such negative light. With the advent of the Internet, however, such an underhanded tactic is harder to carry out successfully.
Our readers can attest to the fact that we have been organising campaigns or forums, visiting students, meeting with residents, doing research, and so on. We have posted these activities on this website to keep you updated.
Nonetheless, it is hard for our news to reach the wider public because the mainstream press continues to censor of much of what we do and say, leading Singaporeans to think negatively of the party. (See here)
In the spirit of the SDP, however, we will not let the adverse conditions defeat us. We have a mountain to climb but we will be resolute in overcoming the adversity and bringing democracy to our shores.
Calling for reform
In a one-party state like Singapore, must not bury its head in the sand and pretend as if we are operating in a democracy. Even though we will get knocked hard by the ruling, we must always sound the call for reform.
Failure does not come when we get knocked down, it comes when we give up trying. We must not give up trying to reform the system and fighting for our political freedoms. We don't have to this at the expense of bread-and-butter issues.
Surely the opposition can campaign on these two areas in tandem. After all, political rights and economic rights are two sides of the same coin. Talking about the latter while ignoring former is naive at best.
We need to teach the people how to fish instead of constantly asking the government to provide more fish. We need to empower the people and work for change so that the people become the masters, not remain as the PAP's servants.
Indeed the opposition must work towards bring about a system that encourages citizens to actively participate in the public process and one that allows them to vote freely and fairly.
Of course, championing reform will attract the wrath of the PAP. But if the opposition in an autocracy cannot call tell the emperor that he has no clothes, what good is it to the people.
Read more...
Singapore Democrats
When one clicks on the link to YouTube's One Nation under Lee, a film made by activist Mr Seelan Palay, the following message appears: "This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions" (e.g., see here), or "Skipped to the next available video. One or more videos were no longer available" (e.g., see here).
Copyright? As far as anyone knows Mr Seelan has not complained about copyright problems. In fact, the filmmaker wants to spread the message in the film through the new media such as YouTube.
Perhaps the website is concerned about the use of the music in the video. But if that's the case, then half of the posts on YouTube would be blocked as well.
Obviously something else is at work. Was YouTube acting on its own policies or did it come under pressure from certain quarters in Singapore?
Apparently, YouTube contacted the uploader of the video and mentioned that it violated the copyright of the Universal Music Group. It just seems strange to me that this happens 1 week after my police interview.
- Seelan Palay
One Nation under Lee has chalked up 50,000 views before its removal a few days ago (see here). We believe that this is the first time that YouTube has blocked a video in Singapore. It was recently submitted to the Singapore authorities for clearance.
The film, a 45-minute video documenting Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s oppressive tactics, also features interviews with prominent opposition figures such as the late J B Jeyaretnam and Mr Francis Seow (see review here and here).
It was launched in May 2008 at a private screening in a hotel during which Government officials forced their way in and seized the video (see here). Mr Seelan was subsequently called up for questioning (see here). It has since been screened around the region (see here and here).
And now it seems that YouTube is also in on the act to censor the video by blocking its viewership.
Fortunately, the film can be found elsewhere on the Internet. Readers can watch the film at this URL (or this) until, that is, it is removed because of “copyright” problems again.
Editor's note: At press time, only the full-length version of the film on YouTube is affected. Those that are posted in parts are still available (e.g., see here). Read more...More at yoursdp.org
