Singapore Democrats

Singapore Democrats

In a report discussing the recent proposals to alter the make-up of NCMPs and NMPs in Parliament, the Straits Times took in the views of opposition parties -- except, of course, those of the Singapore Democrats.

This is despite the SDP stating quite unambiguously our position on the matter -- that the "generous" act is designed to hoodwink the gullible into thinking that the Government is actually moving towards democratising Singapore.

We had pointedly reminded Singaporeans that, through the years, the PAP has done everything to hammer the opposition into comatose with the use of the ISA, defamations suits, and changes to election rules.

And now that it wants to to create more NCMP seats, we are supposed to clap and cheer?

Of course Singaporeans shouldn't be allowed to read and hear such a viewpoint. Hence, the Straits Times' censorship of our statement.

This is not the first time that the newspapers and, more broadly, the media have selectively blacked out news of the SDP. Through the years, they have consistently ensured that our stand on issues and our work in general are not publicised.

Not only do the media not publish our views, they go to extraordinary lengths to distort and lie about the party. Especially blatant was the last GE in 2006 when the Singapore Democrats were singled out for the most biased treatment.

Is this agenda related to the PAP's? In 2007, Mr Lee Kuan Yew repeated his motivation of introducing the GRC system: To keep opposition politicians like Dr Chee out of Parliament. (See here) Mr Goh Chok Tong echoed this sentiment saying that the Government would not give the Singapore Democrats a chance to survive. (See here)

In such circumstances, what should the SDP do? Do we yield to the might of the PAP in the hope of being perceived as "moderates" so that we can gain some leniency and be given a chance to get elected?

Before we answer these questions, it is important to note that the Democrats are not radicals and others are not moderates.

We see the dangers and the futility of pretending to fight as if we are operating in a democratic system. We see the need for urgent political reform, not meaningless tweaks to the NCMP and NMP schemes. More than that, we will do all that is necessary to bring about such reform.

To do otherwise is to play along with the PAP game which will only prolong and strengthen the undemocratic system in Singapore.

But here's what readers should note: If what the SDP is doing is so outrageous and unacceptable to the Singaporean public, why not report our actions and views as they are, and let the people see our foolishness?

But they can't. The PAP knows that if it allows our views to be accurately reported, Singaporeans will see that we make sense and increasingly support us.

This is the reason why the media will continue to black out our news. When they do run stories on us, they will print lies (and then refuse to give us the right of reply) to ensure that the public gets as twisted a picture as possible about the party.

So no, we will not kow tow to the PAP. We will stick to our principles and our strategy of openly and loudly calling for reform.

And we will rely on the Internet to disseminate our views. The new media may not be able to compete with the press and broadcast media, at least not in Singapore -- yet.

With time and technology, we are confident that this will change. Read more...

Singapore Democrats

If there is any indication that the Government is nervous about the unhappiness of the people, it is the latest increase in the number of NCMP seats and the consolidation of the NMP scheme.

Anxious to avoid facing an angry electorate, the PAP is desperately trying to divert the attention of the voters by telling them that they don't have to vote for the opposition because seats will be allocated to opposing voices.

In the first place, Parliamentary seats are not for the Government to give out. They are legislative positions to be earned by competing parties and candidates whose power is derived from the voters.

The problem with such schemes is that parliamentary seats given by the Government also means that they can be taken away at a whim. Unfortunately this epitomises all that plagues Singapore's politics. The PAP runs the country like a fiefdom and appoints law-makers rather than have them elected.

In the second place, all these changes are purely cosmetic aimed at trying to prettify the ugly face of an election system that is neither free nor fair.

Parliament, if the PAP needs to be reminded, is not a feedback session to canvas for a “wider range” of views. It is an institution where laws are made and where the Executive is called to account for its actions and policies.

As such, rigorous debate is called for and each legislator brings his popular power to bear on the arguments that he makes. Even then, if the PAP is truly desirous of a wider range of views in Parliament, then it should implement five simple measures:

1. abolish the GRC system
2. announce the constituencies at least 6 months before elections
3. ensure that there is at least three weeks for the official campaign period
4. give at least one month between the dissolution of parliament and polling day
5. free up the media

There is no need to conduct this wayang exercise with the NCMP and NMP systems. Do the right thing by ensuring that the electoral process is transparent, free and fair.

Electoral process: Best practices

Below are some existing commitments for democratic elections in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) participating states. Compare them to the ones in Singapore.

OSCE: When necessary, redrawing of election districts shall occur according to a predictable timetable and through a method prescribed by law and should reflect reliable census or voter registration figures. Redistricting should also be performed well in advance of elections, be based on transparent proposals, and allow for public information and participation. (emphasis added)
Singapore: In the 1997 GE, the Election Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC), after substantial alterations of the boundaries, presented the redrawn electoral map less than a month before elections were called. In the 2001 GE the boundaries were announced 1 (yes, one) day before the elections were called.

OSCE: The administration of elections must be conducted autonomously, free from government or other interference, by officials or bodies operating transparently under the law.
Singapore: Elections are conducted by the Elections Department which is supervised by the Prime Minister's Office.

OSCE: No additional qualification requirements, beyond those applicable to voters, may be imposed on candidates except, for certain offices, concerning age and duration of citizenship and/or residence.
Singapore: A candidate for the presidential elections must have been a Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker, Attorney-General, Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Auditor-General, Accountant-General or Permanent Secretary, chairman or CEO of a statutory board, chairman or CEO of a company with a paid-up capital of at least $100 million. Or anyone who in the opinion of the Presidential Elections Committee is qualified to do the job of president.

OSCE: States should provide an adequate opportunity, on an equitable and non-discriminatory basis, for election contestants to inform the public about their candidacies and political programmes, including through the state media.
Singapore: All media organisations are controlled by the PAP. Reporters Without Borders consistently rank Singapore's media amongst the lowest in the world.

OSCE: States must ensure that equal access and fair treatment of election contestants is provided by all state-owned media outlets, including all electronic and print media. This obligation extends to news reports, editorial comment, and all other content.
Singapore: See above.

http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2003/10/772_en.pdf

Read more...

Singapore Democrats

At the present Parliament sitting, the Today newspaper reported that there was an "overwhelming sentiment" from MPs that we needed to focus more on our local small-medium enterprises (SMEs) and less on the multinational companies (MNCs). They have just woken up and, for that matter, are more than a decade late. (See here)

These views are not borne so much from enlightenment as they are a reaction to altered circumstances resulting from the current global economic meltdown.

At the heart of the crisis is the crippling of the economies of the United States and Europe from where the bulk of our multinational investments come. Without the continued inflow of capital and expertise from Western corporations our economy becomes a damp squib.

But how did we allow our economy to come to this stage in the first place? The simple answer is that the MPs have been extraordinarily efficient in engaging in groupthink.

All of them have meekly toed the line and couldn't see the dangers of and hawking our economy to the cheapest bidder.

Now that these MNCs no longer have the wherewithal to continue investing in Singapore, the MPs are suddenly asking for our economy to be less dependent on the multinationals. What choice have we got?

Even if we wanted to return to the pre-crisis years and cling on to MNCs, we can't because these corporations are facing economic uncertainty themselves. US President Barack Obama is even pushing for legislation to lure American MNCs back to the US.

The situation we find ourselves is unfortunately reminiscent of the colourful description of PAP MP Ms Lee Bee Wah: You don't start looking for a toilet only when nature beckons. In other words, the MPs lack foresight.

For the record

In contrast, way before it became fashionable to question Singapore's dependence on MNCs the Singapore Democrats have been urging a rethink of this economic approach.

In 1994, Dr Chee Soon Juan had already cautioned against such an addiction to foreign multinationals in his book Dare To Change:

Have we become overly reliant on MNCs and foreign capital? If so, is it wise for us to continue being so dependent?...For the long-term well-being of its economy, Singapore must pay more attention to its private sector. To achieve this, the Government begin by re-channeling some of the low-tax incentives given to the MNCs to the local private sector.

This was repeated in Your Future, My Faith, Our Freedom in 2001:

If Singapore is going to assist local private companies in becoming more competitive, it must wean itself away from dependence on MNCs...The argument for scaling back Singapore's dependence on MNCs is strong.

The latest was in A Nation Cheated:

Singapore's over-reliance on MNCs has created an economy that finds it extremely hard to develop onto the next stage. SMEs have found it very difficult to survive, let alone flourish, in such an environment.

Were the MPs asleep all these years? Are these people paid to only react to problems when they arise by which time the problem often becomes ingrained and intractable?

If we had dealt with this problem years ago when the SDP first brought it up, might we not have been able to avert the current predicament in which our economy finds itself? At the very least, could we not have taken steps to minimise the effects on our economy when foreign investments retreat?

As it is, our Parliamentarians are now frantically trying to shut the proverbial barn door after the horses have bolted.

If this can happen, what about the other problems that the Singapore Democrats have identified?

The price we pay for stifling the opposition

Two important issues arise from this unfortunate scenario. The first is that it is never wise to stifle dissent as alternative ideas often come from opposing views that are relevant, even crucial, to the well-being of the country.

In any democracy, the SDP's views would have been highlighted in the media. Economists, businesspeople, and consumers would have been able to weigh in on the issue which would then enter into public debate.

Second, the Singapore Democrats have often been accused of focusing on human rights and not proposing viable alternative policies. Does this episode not show once and for all the untruth of such an allegation?

At the very least, should not the media now give credit where credit is due and tell the people that, one, SDP is a constructive party and, two, that we have anticipated a problem that the Government is only now recognising?

Such information would be tremendously important for the electorate to know because vision, competence and the ability to anticipate problems are qualities that voters look for when choosing political parties during elections.

But we all know that the newspaper will not report favourably about the SDP. There is a reason why the PAP conrols the media.

This is the tragedy of an authoritarian system. Valid and important views are not heard as opposition parties are villified and shut out of the political process. As a consequence, society is the worse for it.

This is where our readers come in. Because the media's agenda is to continue to censor the views of the Singapore Democrats, we ask our supporters to help us spread the truth by distributing this article to your family and friends.

Read more...

Singapore Democrats

Lawyer Chia Ti Lik stood his ground today when he told a district judge that “as a citizen of this country, I have to stand up against the law that violates the principles of democracy and freedom”.

Mr Chia made the defiant statement when he was asked by Judge James Leong if he had anything to say before sentence was passed.

Earlier, Mr Chia, one of the Tak Boleh Tahan (cannot stand) protesters, had pleaded guilty to two charges of “illegal assembly and procession” in front of Parliament House to mark World Consumers Day on 15 March 2008 where nearly 30 people had gathered to protest against the escalating cost of living. This afternoon, Mr Chia pleaded guilty to the charges due to work commitments.

Before he was sentenced, Mr Chia read out a statement in which he told the judge: “I am not in defiance or disrespectful to the court. But because of my political conviction I can’t say this will be the only offence.”

Hearing this, Deputy Public Prosecutor Mr Isaac Tan noted that Mr Chia had shown “no remorse”.

Agreeing, Judge Leong said: ”Chia is unable to ensure the court that he will not do it again.”

The judge then fined Mr Chia, $800 for each offence, making a total of $1,600 or ten days’ jail in default. For his "unremorsefulness", the lawyer was fined $400 more than the amount meted out to Mr Chia's co-defendents who had siimilarly pleaded guilty also because of work commitments. The maximum fine for each offence is $1,000.

Another accused, Ms Suraya binte Akbar, a 26-year old housewife with three young children also pleaded guilty at the same court to the two charges and was fined a total of $1,200 or eight days’ jail in default.

Meanwhile, the trial involving thirteen other protesters continues at Subordinate Court 5 tomorrow at 9.30 in the morning. Read more...

Singapore Democrats

Much has been made about the apathy of Singaporeans towards politics and political issues. Is such a "tidak apa" attitude a result of the fact that Singaporeans are a contented lot or is it because the authoritarian system has instilled fear into the minds of the people by criminalising political activities through the decades?

The former explanation cannot be true going by the recent flurry of activities held at Hong Lim Park. Political and social activists of all persuasions and interests have conducted numerous protests and commemorations at Speakers' Corner.

Just in the last eight days, four events were staged at the park. Last Saturday, the gay and lesbian group came together for the "pink dot" event to encourage tolerance of homosexuality.

Five days later, a group of young activists converged on the green to remember the 1987 "Marxist" detentions and to call for the abolition of the Internal Security Act.

Yesterday, disabled members of our society, including those visually handicapped, made a strong pitch at the Speakers' Corner for transport subsidy from the government. At the same time, a peace activist staged a hunger strike to call for an end to the violence in Sri Lanka.

Disabled protest

Taking turns to address a crowd of some 60 people, a group of disabled Singaporeans urged the authorities to hear their plea for transport subsidy.

"What is the point of providing accessibility at MRT stations when there is no subsidy?" asked one speaker. They said transport subsidy will go a long way to provide mobility for them, most of whom are in the low-paying jobs.

Another speaker was 37-year old social worker Mr Wong U-Wen. A deaf, Mr Wong used sign language to articulate his views on the need for transport subsidy.

He said: "Because the government does not believe in a welfare system, disabled persons face the economic hardship. The costs of living standards are pretty high, I mean crazy. I think the government needs to cut down on our transport costs."

The half-hour event, organised by social activist Mr Ravi Philemon, ended with a petition signing asking the authorities to consider subsidizing their transport costs.

A call for peace in Sri Lanka

Also at Hong Lim Park yesterday was a group of Singaporeans supporting a peace activist. Mr Rajasegaran is conducting a 48-hour hunger strike to call attention to the Eelam Tamils who are casualties in the on-going war in Sri Lanka.

Visitors were asked to sign petitions to the United Nations, Sri Lankan government and the Singapore government to a quickly and peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Mr Rajasegara will end his hunger strike on Monday morning.

Causing public order concerns

All these protests were not possible a few years ago because Mr Lee Kuan Yew insisted that pandemonium would break out if Singaporeans were allowed to come together for such events.

Such scare-mongering is the hallmark of anti-democrats. The appeal to fear is a potent weapon in getting the masses to fear itself and its own voice.

Just years ago the word protest was taboo. Even progressive-minded individuals thought that public demonstrations were unnecessary, if not altogether dangerous.

The past few years have, however, proved such fear unfounded. Every single one of the events held at the Speakers' Corner over the years have not resulted in a single act of violence.

Ironically it is the PAP MPs that have been the source of violent confrontation. Going by Mr Lee's logic, he should ban all public meetings involving his MPs. These events are obviously of public order concern. Instead, the Government prohibits peaceful protests.

Whatever the PAP's motives, the truth is that Singaporeans are not the contented and uninterested people that we think we are. It is the continued authoritarian system that instills fear and keeps citizens away from engaging publicly in issues that concern them.

The myth of the apolitical Singaporean has been shattered. It is now a matter of getting more people to overcome their fear of gathering in a public place, albeit at Speakers' Corner, to exercise our right to freedom of expression. Every society starts with small groups leading the way, the masses will eventually follow.

And while we're at it, we should never forget that this right cannot and must not be restricted to Hong Lim Park. Read more...

Singapore Democrats

"May 21, 1987, will long remain a day of ignominy in the history of modern Singapore." These were the words Mr Francis Seow, former solicitor-general of Singapore, chose to mark the 22nd anniversary of the arrests of a group of 22 young professionals under notorious Internal Security Act.

Today's event, organised by a group of human rights defenders, attracted more than 80 people to the Speakers Corner at Hong Lim Park, including some of the detainees themselves - Mr Vincent Cheng, Ms Teo Soh Lung, Ms Wong Souk Yee and others.

Promisingly, several of the participants were students. A few had made their way to Hong Lim Park still in their school uniform. They were obviously enthused by the significance of the occasion.

Mr Seow found himself detained when he had tried to represent the detainees. His message today was read out by one of the organisers, Mr Seelan Palay:

Francis Seow

May 21, 1987, will long remain a day of ignominy in the history of modern Singapore.

It is the day when Lee Kuan Yew, then Senior Minister, in an arrogant but foolish display before his young cabinet colleagues that he was omniscient in national politics, instructed the supine new head of the Internal Security Department to commence Operation Spectrum leading to the arrest and detention of 22 young innocent Singapore men and women professionals and social workers on the pretext that they were dangerous Marxists, who had planned to overthrow his PAP government through violence and replace it with a Marxist government.

They were, in truth, no more Marxists than the average Singaporean. How those 22 young men and women without military training and/or hardware were going to accomplish this monumental task was not spelt out – to this very day! It was all a figment of Lee’s overwrought imagination! They were in fact caring men and women with a keen sense of social justice.

Lee Kuan Yew has often used the pretext of Communism to move against perceived political opponents so as to neutralize them. As Communism began to wane world-wide, Lee Kuan Yew switched to labelling his political opponents as Euro-communists in the arrest and detention of several other professionals some years earlier. Communism is now passé. So his agile mind began to conceive possible opponents as Marxists in its place.

On May 21, 1987, twenty-two young men and women were arrested on the allegation that they were trying to overthrow the PAP government through violence and replace it with a Marxist government. These were, and are, serious charges. No guns, no ammunition, no armaments of any kind whatsoever were ever seized or produced to substantiate this fetid allegation. One can rightfully conclude that Lee Kuan Yew is a sick person with over-wrought imagination.

Not a single Marxist was ever tried in a court of law. Why? Because there was never any evidence. No evidence was ever produced to substantiate Lee’s grievous allegations, except for the statements of the detainees obtained under duress from the detainees. And those, as we know, are not worth the paper on which they were recorded.In a separate statement, the group expressed their outrage of the use of ISA against innocent Singaporeans and called for the setting up of a commission to investigate any wrongdoings in the detention in 1987.

Ms Noora Zul then read out a poem written by one of the ex-detainees in the recently published book entitled That We May Dream Again.

The crowd then responded to a call from the organisers by raising their fists and shouting "Abolish ISA! Abolish ISA! Abolish ISA!" The Internet community had responded to calls by the organisers to help promote the event. Several Facebook users did so by replacing their photographs with the event logo.

The group ended the half-hour event by singing Blowing in the Wind, a Bob Dylan song often sung at human rights events.

Earlier, a statement was read out by the organisers namely Mr Seelan Palay, Mr Chong Kai Xiong, Ms Rachel Zeng, Mr Muhd Khalis, and Mr Shafi'ie:

ISA outrage

We, a group of concerned Singaporeans, have come together on this day to strongly condemn the arrest, detention and torture of 22 fellow Singaporeans under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in 1987.

We remain outraged over the government's usage of the ISA to violate the fundamental human rights of the 22 Singaporean citizens, including young social workers, lawyers, businessmen, theatre practitioners and other professionals.

The ISA, which provides for indefinite detention without trial, is a draconian law that severely infringes the fundamental liberties of a citizen in a democratic country. Our government should not feel intimidated by the expressions of their citizens of their opinions and concerns. Likewise, there should be no corresponding fear of intimidation by the citizens of Singapore to articulate these expressions. Instead, the ISA threatens the primary rights of freedom of expression and freedom from fear of the people and should be abolished.

If the 22 who were detained in 1987 had committed any offence, they should have been charged and tried in an open court in accordance with the Rule of Law. Under the Rule of Law, everyone has the basic right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court, in the determination of his/her rights and obligations and of any charges against him/her. Everyone charged with an offence also has the basic right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The ISA is an outright violation of these rights.

We ask that a truth and reconciliation commission be set up and tasked with discovering and revealing wrongdoings by the state officials in 1987, in the hope of providing proof against abuse of power by the state and human rights abuses committed against the 22 detainees.

Watch event video here.

Read more...

Singapore Democrats

The recent online attacks on Mr Siew Kum Hong and his reputation is unworthy and cowardly. They come in the aftermath of the Aware imbroglio where Mr Siew spoke up against the “new ex-co” for taking over of the organisation. The message accused Mr Siew of being funded by foreigners and that he is a mole of the SDP.

But as nonsensical and distasteful as these slurs may be, making reports to the police, which Mr Siew did a couple of days ago, is not the solution.

In the first place, the attacks were written and passed around on the Internet. The writer chose to remain anonymous which is what the overwhelming majority of Internet users do. This ability to hide one's identity is both good and bad.

Good because many stories which would not otherwise see print in the state press are reported on the Internet. Without the cover of anonymity that the Internet provides, much of such information would not get into the public domain as its sources would be too afraid to reveal their identities.

Bad because people can write scurrilous things about you and get away with it.

Of course, we want to keep the good and get rid of the bad. But that's not possible with the Internet because this is the nature of the beast. We have to take the bitter with the sweet.

But that's not to say that those attacked are completely helpless. The best way to stop these attacks is to take the accusations head on like what Mr Siew did and refute them. Challenge the accuser to produce the evidence to back up his or her claims, and even offer to reproduce them on your blog.

Then proceed to demolish these allegations with reason and facts. In other words take the fight to the accuser.

If the attacker refuses to take up the challenge, there is only one of two things he or she can do: Shut up or step up with the ad hominem attacks. Either way the silliness of the attacker will be made plain for all to see.

By going to the police, however, we send the signal that we want the identity of the perpetrator revealed so that action can be taken.

If the police launch a probe and uncover the individual, what happens to the Internet? Would it not lose its usefulness as a alternative source of news and analysis? Will not users start to look over their shoulders every time they post a message especially one that is unflattering of the powers-that-be? What will that do to the cause of democracy where a free flow of information is crucial?

Get the police involved and we destroy the promise that the Internet offers.

For those of us who are involved in the political and social spheres where public debates and taking sides are the norm, there will always be attacks against our persons and reputations. Get used to it.

But good leaders should not seek to take action, even though we can, against those who speak ill of us. However venomous and hurtful the words may be, we should rise above the attacks and seek dialogue and debate with our opponents.

The Singapore Democrats have been called all sorts of names and attacked in all sorts of ways. For us, the best way to deal with these attacks is to use this website to expose these lies with reasoned confrontation and in so doing show up the silliness and emptiness of such people.

Through the years, we have had to endure not just words but punitive actions as well. We have no recourse to the police because sometimes they are our accusers. In such instances, what do we do? We hold on to the truth and speak it at every opportunity we get.

We refute their allegations with reasoned argument and we let the force of logic be our weapon. We may be on the receiving end of the PAP's oppressive tactics presently, but things will change because history is on our side and the truth will ultimately prevail. It always does.

As for the comment that Mr Siew Kum Hong is a mole of the SDP, we wish to state for the record that the Singapore Democrats have little or no contact with the NMP. In fact, we are opposed to the NMP scheme because it is used by the PAP to undermine democracy in Singapore. As such, as highly as we may think of the individuals selected as NMPs, we have no interest in asking them, Mr Siew included, to speak on our behalf.

We wish Mr Siew the very best in all that he does. Read more...