Singapore Democrats

SDP's alternative economic programme

2010-02-01T08:23:00.000-08:00

Singapore Democrats

Egalitarianism. It's a big word. But it's also an important one.

It is the key word in the SDP's economic programme for Singapore which we will be launching this week through a series of posts on this website. We will put forward an alternative economic model that is fundamentally different from that practiced by the PAP.

It is a programme that, as mentioned, emphasizes on egalitarianism, a philosophical concept that promotes equality and equal opportunity.

Above all, it is an alternative that is both realistic and workable for our economy.

Why is it even important to mention this? Because for too long Singaporeans have believed that all the brains and talent in Singapore have been vacuumed up by the PAP, leaving only the mediocre and insipid to the opposition parties.

Which is also to say that it is a veritable lie that there can be no viable alternative to the current system.

After all the years of propaganda by the media, Singaporeans have been led to believe that anything else other than PAP's policies is rubbish and written for its own sake.

Nothing could be further from the truth. There have been many policies proposed by the SDP that the PAP has used and called them its own.

For example, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said last week that: "Our own population is growing slowly, and we cannot indefinitely expand our workforce by importing more and more workers from abroad. We have to extract maximum value from the resources that we have; every piece of land must be put to optimum use, activities which are no longer competitive or productive have to be gradually phased out."

A full 5 years ago, however, Dr Chee Soon Juan wrote in his book A Nation Cheated: "Singapore’s labour productivity...is notoriously mediocre." He went on to cite the influx of foreign workers which "expeditiously and artificially inflate[d] GDP figures." This, he added, was problematic especially in the absence of "a concomitant increase in labour productivity."

Lately, economists have echoed what Dr Chee has been saying all these years. In 2009, Citigroup economist Kit Wei Zheng pointed out that Singapore's rapid growth has, over the recent past, been mostly driven by a massive increase in the workforce and warned that it is clear that "growth powered by importing foreign labour is simply not sustainable."

This is also true for another of the SDP's proposals - Minimum Wage. The Singapore Democrats campaigned on this issue as early as the 2001 general elections. Shortly thereafter, economist and NTU vice-dean Professor Hui Weng Tat repeated the call for the introduction of Minimum Wage.

The problem with the SDP's economic ideas is that Singaporeans are not hearing or reading about them because of the media's censorship of our news. Hopefully, however, this will change with the growth of the internet.

Singaporeans must break out of the mindset that only the PAP has the ideas that work for Singapore. We must believe that opposition parties like the SDP have solutions and alternative programmes that are not just workable for Singapore but crucial for our future economic well-being - solutions that, as we have stated, even the PAP has adopted.

This coming collection of articles on the economy and the alternatives that we will be putting forth will demonstrate once and for all that the PAP does not have a monopoly of ideas for Singapore, including economic ones.

Let it never again be said that the opposition only knows how to complain and throw stones at the PAP without coming up with proposals to better Singapore. With this claim, the Singapore Democrats firmly establish our credentials as a party that not only boldly speaks up for Singaporeans, but also a constructive one.

SDP's Christmas Message 2009

2009-12-22T00:33:00.000-08:00

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.

The banana and your HDB flat

2009-12-13T23:45:00.000-08:00

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.

Let's Talk with M Ravi

2009-12-08T21:17:00.000-08:00

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.

Let's Talk with Dr Wong Wee Nam

2009-11-22T07:22:00.001-08:00

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.

Let's Talk with Constance Singam

2009-11-04T02:00:00.000-08:00

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).

Let's Talk with Alex Au (Singapore's 1st Internet talkshow)

2009-10-28T02:54:00.000-07:00

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.

Spoken like an emperor (with no clothes): Part 2

2009-10-26T07:06:00.000-07:00

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.

Spoken like an emperor (with no clothes)

2009-10-20T10:41:00.000-07:00

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.

SDP's Deepavali Message 2009

2009-10-16T02:31:00.001-07:00

The Singapore Democrats wish all our Hindu and Sikh friends a Happy Deepavali: சிங்கப்பூர் ஜனநாயகக் கட்சி இந்துக்களுக்கும் சீக்கியர்களுக்கும் எங்களின் மகிழ்சிகரமான தீபாவளி வாழ்த்துக்களை தெரிவிக்கிறோம்.

Tribute to J B Jeyaretnam by Dr Chee Soon Juan

2009-10-16T01:29:00.001-07:00

Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party remembers the late J B Jeyaretnam on the first anniversary of his passing.

SDP's Hari Raya Message

2009-10-16T01:28:00.000-07:00

Jufrie Mahmood of the Singapore Democratic Party delivers a Hari Raya message to one and all.

ISD to Lim Hock Siew: Confess to save LKY's face

2009-09-03T22:49:00.000-07:00

Singapore Democrats

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:

Dr Lim Hock Siew speaks from Singapore prison
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

Keep up the struggle, Anwar tells Young Democrats

2009-09-03T22:39:00.000-07:00

Singapore 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.

Muhd Khalis with Tian Chua at PKR's campaign office

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."

(From left) Khalis, Jarrod Luo with DEMA Media Coordinator Azrul and Burmese activist Phyo Win Latt

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.

Jarrod Luo, Muhd Khalis and Mohd Shamin are members of the Young Democrats.

SDP's call to care for disabled and deaf communities

2009-08-30T23:32:00.000-07:00

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).

Young Democrats elect new leaders

2009-08-12T22:50:00.000-07:00

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.

Women Democrats deliver SDP's National Day message video

2009-08-06T19:42:00.000-07:00

Women Democrats deliver the SDP's 2009 National Day message: It’s time that Singaporeans come together to reach out with the Singapore Democratic Party to bring about political change.

YouTube link here

We want deeds, not words

2009-08-06T02:35:00.000-07:00

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.

Is Wong Kan Seng feeling vulnerable?

2009-08-06T02:32:00.000-07:00

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.

Distribution flyers trial: Truth battered

2009-08-06T02:29:00.000-07:00

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.

SDP's vision and values: Full text of Chee's party address

2009-08-06T02:26:00.000-07:00

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.

Democrats establish 14-member CEC to lead growing party

2009-07-30T22:35:00.000-07:00

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)

Why the SDP is expanding

2009-07-29T23:38:00.000-07:00

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:

youtube link here

Are you sure democracy cannot help you financially?

2009-07-27T20:50:00.000-07:00

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.

Ssshhh! Don't say "SDP"

2009-07-26T22:26:00.000-07:00

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.

Police put up camera at Speakers' Corner

2009-07-23T19:52:00.000-07:00

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:

Temasek has much to explain over Goodyear: SDP

2009-07-21T20:23:00.000-07:00

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

Judge dismisses complaint against police

2009-07-19T21:17:00.000-07:00

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.

Government refuses to classify One Nation Under Lee

2009-07-19T21:15:00.000-07:00

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.

Unyielding leadership

2009-07-17T00:54:00.001-07:00

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.

Goh's propaganda

2009-07-13T20:34:00.000-07:00

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.

A credible and effective opposition: Part II

2009-07-09T20:32:00.000-07:00

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.

Did YouTube censor film on PAP?

2009-07-05T21:15:00.000-07:00

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).

A credible and effective opposition

2009-07-01T20:53:00.000-07:00

Singapore Democrats

The PAP, or rather Mr Lee Kuan Yew, has tried -- and is still trying -- to define what the opposition in Singapore is and how it should function. He wants to see a "constructive" opposition.

By that, Mr Lee means that the opposition should play the game within his rules and accept the PAP's dominance in Singapore's politics. Anyone working outside this definition is labeled "destructive". The late J B Jeyaretnam and Dr Chee Soon Juan are examples.

From reviewing the input of Singaporeans through the years, however, we have crystallised five essential features that Singaporeans feel an opposition must possess in order to function effectively. We then show how the Singapore Democrats have stacked up against these criteria.

1. Proposing alternative ideas

Voters want the opposition to not just criticise the Government but to articulate clearly its own alternative policies.

To this end, the Singapore Democrats have not been found wanting. In 1994, we published Dare To Change which outlined our major policy areas. These alternative ideas were subsequently refined and elaborated in various publications, including our newspaper The New Democrat.

These ideas are also spelt out in this website. The clearest demonstration yet of our commitment to providing credible alternative ideas was during Budget 2009 where we made several policy proposals (see here), some of which were even taken up by PAP MPs.

2. Asking hard and necessary questions

One of the most important roles of an opposition is to check the government and hold it accountable. The SDP does not shy away from this role. We have questioned the PAP on various issues ranging from the acquisition of Shin Corp to the strategy of promoting Singapore as a tax haven to our ill-advised investments in Western banks.

3. Speaking up on important issues

Through the years Singapore Democrats have emphasized heavily on issues that matter to the people such as the cost of living, minimum wage, retirement income, distribution of wealth, and poverty in Singapore.
Readers of this website will agree that we have repeatedly spoken up on these matters. What we have added is that without political rights and freedoms, these economic concerns will not be heeded by the Government.

4. Not dormant in between elections

The opposition is often accused of coming alive only when elections are called. This cannot be said of the Singapore Democrats. Again, readers of this website will see that we have been organising campaigns and forums, visiting students, meeting with residents, doing research, reaching out to Singaporeans through the Internet, and so on.

We have been hard at work in between elections. Unfortunately Singaporeans know little about our work because the media refuses to report our activities. We therefore rely on the Internet and on our supporters and friends to help us spread the word.

5. Calling for reform

In a one-party state like Singapore, it is simply not credible for the opposition to pretend like we are operating in a democracy. The opposition must work towards political reform to bring about a system that is transparent and democratically accountable, one that would encourage citizens to actively participate in the public process and allow them to vote freely and fairly.

We have been able to do these things even without a presence in Parliament. Imagine what we can achieve if we are voted in. Support the Singapore Democrats. If you believe in what we are doing and want to see more of such proactive opposition, please contact us at speakup@yoursdp.org. Don't wait until the elections are called, by then it will be too late. Contact us now.

ONUL acclaimed by local art critic

2009-07-01T20:50:00.000-07:00

Singapore Democrats

A leading member of Singapore’s art fraternity has acclaimed the documentary One Nation Under Lee (ONUL) produced by Mr Seelan Palay who is under police investigation (see here) for the 45-minute video that highlights the republic’s rule under Lee Kuan Yew.

Writing in a portal (www.arterimalaysia.com), that caters to readers in the region and beyond, Ms June Yap who is an independent art curator in Singapore says the charge against Mr Palay “raises the spectre of a witch-hunt” (see here). So far, the documentary that is available in Youtube has attracted close to 50,000 viewers.

Below are excerpts from Ms Yap’s critique:

As Sharon Chin (not a Singapore journalist) has mentioned in her post the purpose of the practice of censorship is one of power, and what is politics if not power? The issue however I would like to argue is perhaps not so much whether one is provoked by the naked behind, but the meanings inscribed on the body and other that are then seen as violated, transgressing and subject to policing. The bogeyman or rationale for censorship routinely marched out for the masses is that without censorship there would be “riots on the streets” with a capital “R”, proving if nothing else how useful it is to terrorise a community with nebulous terrors.

While the terror may be unclear, the policing however is real. During the group’s discussion a video experiencing such policing was mentioned: One Nation Under Lee is a work for which artist and activist Seelan Palay is currently under investigation, the DVD having been seized by censorship officers during a private screening at Excelsior Hotel on May 17, 2008. The act of screening the video is being charged under the Films Act. Section 21 of which states that:

(1) Any person who (a) has in his possession; (b) exhibits or distributes; or (c) reproduces, any film without a valid certificate, approving the exhibition of the film, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction.

If the Act is strictly upheld, it would also mean that your nephew’s birthday party video needs a license before his grandparents may proudly show off the delightful child he has grown up into to their golfing clique.

With formal police investigations beginning as of last week (22 June 2009), the charge raises the spectre of a witch-hunt, as the Act quite clearly (even if arbitrarily employed) implies that all video and film are suspect until proven otherwise, and by none other than a board of officially approved and predisposed censors. That the video touches on history does not enter into the police investigation, only the act of screening - who brought the film into the room, how many copies were there in the room, who was operating the system when the film was screened? Between history and logistics, logistics would appear more tangible to navigate.

But if this is not about the sheer impertinent audacity of the artist showing unclassified video to people he knows (and as a private event, surely it was but preaching to the converted), what is it of the content that transgresses? Perhaps it challenges a dominant historiography, but would that merit draconian censure? Standing at 45 minutes long, One Nation Under Lee is not for the lax, it is undoubtedly critical, but it does not pretend to be otherwise, and it raises topics of national development and management that one would be hard-pressed to find in mainstream media. The attention however that the attempt at seizing the video has aroused is far greater than the interest the video would have received had the attempt not been made.

That the private viewing of a work might turn into a convicted offence seems extreme, and while it might be taken by the media (and authorities) as a call for a spurious discussion of the line between art as critique and art as sedition, the point is that when art appears to transgress it does so within a context that frames it and which it produces meanings from - it is on the inside, even if they are meanings that some may not agree to. Art does not, and perhaps should not, acquiesce to a dominant ideology or oblige for the sake of; art is not a “product” of “creative industries”, manufactured in factory lines and quality circles, and labelling it activism is the prerogative of the artist, not his / her audience, and certainly not the state.

Chee in Taiwan for in-law’s funeral, judge rescinds warrant of arrest

2009-06-29T20:16:00.000-07:00

Singapore Democrats

District Judge Toh Yung Cheong (photo) had issued a warrant of arrest for Dr Chee Soon Juan who is presently in Taiwan for his father-in-law’s funeral but rescinded it earlier today. Judge Toh issued the warrant last Wednesday, 24 June 2009, the day the hearing for the trial over the WB-IMF protest in 2006 was to resume.

Dr Chee did not appear in court that day as he had left for Taiwan four days earlier because his father-in-law was dying.

He had applied for an adjournment before he left but Judge Toh rejected the request and ordered that the hearing proceed as scheduled. Dr Chee then asked to see Mr Toh in person but was told that the Judge was on vacation.

He then asked to see the Pre-Trial Conference Judge Mr Liew Thiam Leng to make the urgent application. Judge Liew refused. The SDP leader then asked to see the Duty Registrar but was told that this was not possible.

Dr Chee had earlier obtained clearance from the Official Assignee to travel to Taiwan. The OA’s office had rejected a similar application in 2006 to see his ailing father-in-law.

Co-defendants Mr Gandhi Ambalam and Ms Chee Siok Chin made another appeal to see Mr Toh on Dr Chee’s behalf on Monday, 22 June but the Judge refused to see them.

When the trial resumed on 24 June, another appeal was made. The Judge again rejected this and issued a warrant of arrest for the SDP secretary-general. The rest of the defendants were told to return to court on 26 June.

In the meantime Dr Chee’s father-in-law passed away on 25 June.

The judge was informed about this when parties went back to court on the 26th. The defence asked on Dr Chee's behalf that he be allowed to stay on to attend the funeral. Again Judge Toh refused. "The warrant of arrest still stands," he ordered.

Dr Chee explained that his request was not unreasonable and that he would have to stay on in Taiwan to see through familial obligations. He would face the consequences upon his return. He just wanted to make arrangements to ensure that his children would be brought home safely should he be arrested at the airport.

This morning, however, Judge Toh reversed his decision and cancelled the warrant. He told the defendants that the court had not asked for the documentary proof of the death when it should have. Due to this oversight and now that he had been furnished with the proof, the Judge decided to withdraw the warrant of arrest for Dr Chee.

New dates will be picked for the on-going trial.

Operation Spectrum open forum: a good start

2009-06-28T20:36:00.000-07:00

Singapore Democrats

After 22 years, we are beginning to see more public events that address the Internal Security Act (ISA) detentions in 1987.

In May a group of five activists came together to mark the 22nd anniversary of the Marxist arrests. Led by Seelan Palay, the group got together at Hong Lim Park and called for the for the abolishment of ISA. (See here and here.)

On Sunday afternoon, Martyn See organised discussion forum about the 22 arrests. The indoor event was supposed to have taken place last Saturday. However, about before that, the owner of the venue called Martyn to inform him that he had to cancel the booking to to an ongoing CID investigation (see here.)

Undeterred and despite further police harassment, Martyn sought out another venue and held the forum yesterday. Activists, bloggers, politicians, civil society actors and reporters turned up for the event.

Ex-detainee Michael Fernandez spoke about why he was detained by the Internal Security Department (ISD) in 1964 for nine years for his role in championing for workers rights back then.

Alex Au pointed out whilst Singaporeans were bombarded with the Marxist plot propaganda, that the other side of the story, has never quite been told. He urged the ex-detainees to write about their arrests and their experiences thereafter.

Former ISEAS senior fellow, Russell Heng wondered why the government had arrested these 22 young men and women when it flew against the face of logic. He was also unsure if civil society has evolved to become less afraid of the threat of the ISA being used on them.

SDP's Chee Siok Chin then spoke about the lack of public outrage when it was clear that the arrests were farcical. She spoke about the current JI detainees and how similar it is to the 1987 arrests in that there have been no questions asked about these non-transparent detentions. Ms Chee also spoke about the PAP's strategy of making sure that the people do not come together to challenge oppressive policies. She urged those in the audience to contact groups who are advocating for transparency and to work with them, including the Singapore Democrats.

John Tan encouraged the audience not to turn a blind eye to injustice and violations of human rights. Civil participation is badly needed in our society if we want to be a vibrant democracy. He honed in the point that Singaporeans must look out for each other and even those beyond our shores. In the final analysis, Mr Tan argued, the ISA must be abolished in order to prevent another Operation Spectrum in the future, and to remove the fear that grips Singaporeans when it comes to citizen participation.

The forum discussion was peppered with Martyn reading excerpts of torture from So That We May Dream Again, a compilation of brief essays of the 1987 arrests, To Catch a Tartar by Francis Seow and also an extract about Chia Thye Poh from Chee Soon Juan's book To Be Free.

Martyn ended the forum with the assurance that this will not be the last forum he will hold about the ISD's unlawful arrests of the 22 young people some 22 years ago.

Seelan Palay under investigation for One Nation under Lee

2009-06-24T22:53:00.000-07:00

Singapore Democrats

Mr Seelan Palay, maker of One Nation Under Lee (ONUL), was called up yesterday for questioning by the police. The 24 year-old Singaporean filmmaker had produced the 40-minute video narrating the rule of Singapore by Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

The film was screened at a private function last year at the Peninsular-Excelsior Hotel when the police and Media Development Authority officials barged in and seized the video. Since then ONUL has been making its rounds on YouTube attracting tens of thousands of views.

Below is the police interview as provided by Mr Seelan:

Police investigation regarding my film One Nation Under Lee

Introductory question (Q): What do you know about the facts of the case? (Posed to me as "Tell me about yourself" by the officer but strangely printed as "What do you know about the facts of the case?" in the version I was to sign at the end.)
Answer (A): I am an artist.

Q1: Can you remember where you were on 17 May 2008 at about 2pm?
A1: I cannot recall.

Q2: I am now informing you that the investigation into this offence is of the incident that happened at Excelsior Hotel on 17 May 2008. Do you recall this incident?
A2: I do not recall it as an offence.

Q3: Can you explain why you were at the Excelsior Hotel on 17 may 2008?
A3: I remember that I was at the Excelsior Hotel on that date to attend a private event.

Q4: Are you aware of a film that was screened on this date at Tulip Room at Excelsior Hotel?
A4: Yes.

Q5: Were you in the Tulip Room when this film was screened?
A5: Yes.

Q6: What was this film all about?
A6: That is a private matter.

Q7: Who is the one who is in charge of this event?
A7: It was a private event so that is none of anyone's concern.

Q8: Do you know who brought the film to the Tulip Room on 17 May 2008?
A8: That is a private matter.

Q9: Do you know who prepared this film?
A9: That is a private matter.

Q10: How long was this film screened?
A10: I cannot recall.

Q11: Can you remember what happened after the film was screened?
A11: Some uninvited guests entered the room.

Q12: Do you know who these uninvited guests were?
A12: I cannot recall.

Q13: Can you explain what happened after the film ended?
A13: The uninvited guests asked for the DVD of the film. The DVD was given to them.

Q14: How many copies were there in the room?
A14: I do not know.

Q15: Who handed over the DVD to the uninvited guests?
A15: I cannot recall.

Q16: What is your role in this private event?
A16: That is a private matter.

Q17: Who was operating the systems when the film was screened?
A17: That is a private matter.

Q18: Were you at Jalan Gelenggang on 16 May, one night before the incident?
A18: I cannot recall.

Q19: I'm going to show you a document, can you tell me if you have seen this document before? (Officer then shows me a letter from MDA apparently sent the night before the event with a warning not to screen the film. Films Act sections were quoted in the letter.)
A19: I cannot recall.

Q20: The officers who served this letter at No.2A Jalan Gelenggang claim that you were the one who received the letter. What have you got to say about this?
A20: Did they identify themselves as police officers? If they claim it was me, did they ask for my name or IC?

Q21: Did you remove the DVD from the player and hand it over to Madam ---? (Name undisclosed for the purposes of this post.)
A21: That is a private matter.

Q22: Do you have anything else to add?
A22: The uninvited guests should be investigated for barging in to and disrupting a private event.

Constructing Singapore: "pragmatism" and personalised power

2009-06-23T20:31:00.000-07:00

Singapore Democrats

Below are excerpts from:

Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethnicity and the Nation-Building Project
Authors: Michael D. Barr & Zlatko Skrbis
Publisher: NIAS (Nordic Institute of Asian Studies) Press
Paperback
304 pp
ISBN: 978-87-7694-029-4
Available from: NIAS Press, Amazon.com and Select Books

The legitimating myth of the primacy of innovative, problem-solving 'talent', unearthed through 'meritocracy' and the quest for ever-higher levels of organisational efficiency in all aspects of society, business and government operates in tandem with another legitimating myth: that the government operates in a purely rational, scientific, problem-solving manner, free of ideological considerations. The mantra for this plank of legitimation is the purest distillation of technocratic ideology: 'pragmatism'. Talk to Singaporeans and they will assure you that the government is 'pragmatic', that Singaporeans are 'pragmatic', and that even if there are problems and faults in outcomes, the Singapore system of meritocracy and 'pragmatic government' is only 'logical'. This is one of the main features that give Singaporeans a perception of their special place in the world. Singapore is tiny, but while most of the world is bound by 'ideology' and 'politics', Singaporeans punch above their weight because they operate as a 'pragmatic' and inherently logical meritocracy.

Of course, the argument is specious. Far from being the distillation of impartial rationality, the Singapore system of governance is systemically pervaded with ideological, social, ethnic and class biases. Yet the denial of the operation of ideology, or even politics, in the practice of government has a direct and profound effect on politics.

It restricts the space for legitimate social and political discourse, de-legitimizing the interrogation of aspects of the Singapore system that lie beyond the restrictive parameters of efficiency and effectiveness.

...Days after taking up the premiership Lee Hsien Loong revealed that he had been closely involved in bringing them ( Mr Khaw Boon Wan and Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam) into Cabinet while he was still Deputy Prime Minister.

These three men are the epitome of the Singapore technocrat, but their collective story -- and particularly the story of Lee Hsien Loong -- demonstrates a central feature of the Singapore system of governance that is not celebrated by the regime. We refer to the highly personalized nature of power, a feature that seriously diminishes the transparency of the system and disrupts its predictability. Patronage or sponsorship is a vitally important element in the rise of anyone in the Singapore political and administrative elite.

...The oil that lubricates the Singapore system is the exercise of personal power. The personal character of power is demonstrated without much effort in the person of Lee Kuan Yew, who remains in Cabinet 15 years and two prime ministers after his retirement from the premiership, with the creative title of "Minister Mentor". He was previously "Senior Minister" for the duration of Goh Chok Tong's premiership, but now Goh holds that title.

His presence in Cabinet must be most uncomfortable for Lee Hsien Loong. Not only does he have to work in the shadow of the founding father of modern Singapore, as did his predecessor, but in his case the man in question is his father. Even if Hsien Loong is really his "own man", who is going to believe it? Hsien Loong did not even get to announce this Cabinet line-up. It was Lee Senior who announced that he would continue in Cabinet for as long as he was fit and able to serve, and it was Lee Senior who announced the new hierarchy (for protocol purposes) within the Prime Minister's Office, whereby he would be third in line behind Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong. An anonymous "government official" was left to confirm Lee Senior's announcement six days later.

Why does Lee Hsien Loong not simply remove him from Cabinet, as is his constitutional right? Why did not Goh Chok Tong do so when he was Prime Minister? Regardless of the power they notionally possess or possessed by virtue of their institutional positions, they both understand that in or out of Cabinet, Lee Kuan Yew retains his personal networks and his personal power.

He needs a seat in Cabinet only so that he can legally have open access to Cabinet and other official papers and legally retain his privileged links to the Internal Security Department. On balance Lee Hsien Loong may not even want to see him gone yet because his own power networks are still underpinned by his father. In the case of Goh Chok Tong, his efforts as Prime Minister to build a personal and independent power base were thwarted by both Lees -- father as Senior Minister and son as Deputy Prime Minister.

In the end, after being outflanked by father and son during a property scandal involving the Lee family in 1996, Goh gave up trying to exercise real power and handed the reins of domestic government over to Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

In any case, Goh's efforts were never going to be very complete because he had no relatives in government. It was probably this characteristic more than any other that made him an ideal stop gap between father and son.

Your flame will always shine, Anthony

2009-06-21T23:14:00.000-07:00

Singapore Democrats

It is with very heavy hearts that the Singapore Democrat and Friends write this about Anthony Yeo. Anthony passed on last evening due to complications that arose from the cancer that he had been suffering from.

In this very difficult time, we can only hope and pray that his family is encouraged and comforted by all the love that is pouring in from those who knew this wonderful man.

Anthony has a very special place in the hearts of those of us in the SDP. He was a friend whom we never hesitated to invite to our functions and events and one whom we could readily call on if we needed his help.

Anthony was an advocate for justice and rights. He often spoke up for those whom he felt were unjustly treated. He was progressive minded and was not bound to dogmatic beliefs and practices. Anthony lent his voice to bringing democracy to Singapore and appeared in the SDP's video The Flame of Democracy.

He was an invited guest to the screening of One Nation under Lee when it was premiered in April 2008 when officials from the Media Development Authority intruded into the event. Anthony attended the event with one of his sons.

Anthony's voice will be missed especially when there are too few voices here in Singapore that dare to stand up to the authorities and speak up against injustice.

Even though you will be missed, your flame will always carry on in our hearts, Anthony.

Govt: No beatings and torture under ISA

2009-06-11T23:36:00.000-07:00

Singapore Democrats

Mr William Dobson recently wrote a piece The Best Guide for Gitmo? Look to Singapore on the treatment of ISA detainees in Singapore where he lauded the rehabilitative effect of the program. Dr Chee responded to Mr Dobson's naive piece. Today, Ambassador Chan Heng Chee replied to Dr Chee's letter, denying that the Singapore Government beats or tortures its ISA detainees.

Note how the Government cleverly steers clear in mentioning the detention of Singaporean opposition leaders, trade unionists, and activists which Dr Chee's letter was clearly referring to. Instead it tries to distract readers by talking about suspected terrorists.

Don't follow Singapore's lead

William J Dobson's take on the rehabilitation of terrorism suspects in Singapore borders on the propagandistic ["The Best Guide for Gitmo? Look to Singapore," Outlook, May 17]. He wrote that since 2001, 40 former terrorists have been rehabilitated and released.

To be clear, the suspects are held under the Internal Security Act (ISA), the same act that has "rehabilitated" and "released" more than 100 opposition members, journalists, human rights advocates and trade union leaders, as well as a group of lawyers, Catholic Church workers and social activists for seeking to "violently overthrow" the Singapore government through a Marxist network. The fact that not a shred of evidence has been presented against these detainees doesn't seem to bother Mr Dobson.

Such a rehabilitation program has been so successful that there is no political opposition or civil society to speak of in Singapore. Of course, as in Guantanamo, rehabilitation in Singapore comes with beatings and other forms of torture. A few people have been reported to have died in Singapore's cells. But unlike with Guantanamo, there is no debate on the detentions because there is no free press and free speech in my country.

Unlike with Guantanamo, there can be no change in the government that administers the ISA because Singapore is not a democracy. And unlike with Guantanamo, there is no one and no institution here to intervene on behalf of the detainees. You stand guilty as accused until the accuser "rehabilitates" you.

Mr. Dobson describes the regime in Singapore as a strict law-and-order government because it bans chewing gum. Banning chewing gum is the least of our problems. The government recently passed the Public Order Act, which effectively bans even one individual from carrying out a protest. This is not strictness, it is repression.

Look to Singapore? Mr Dobson should be careful what he wishes for.

CHEE SOON JUAN
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/22/AR2009052203473.html

Singapore's treatment of terrorists

In his May 23 letter, "Don't Follow Singapore's Lead," Chee Soon Juan of the Singapore Democratic Party asserted that rehabilitation of terrorists detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in Singapore entails beatings and torture. He also said that there have been deaths of detainees in their cells and that there is no mechanism for looking into detainees' well-being. These assertions are false.

Terrorist detainees in Singapore undergo a program incorporating psychological, social and religious rehabilitation. The religious counseling program is driven by volunteer leaders from Singapore's Muslim community. There are no beatings or torture. There have been no deaths. Two-thirds of the terrorists arrested since 2001 have been released and have reintegrated into society. None has strayed back into terrorism so far. Singapore's program is often cited by international experts, including William J. Dobson of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, as a model for the detention and rehabilitation of terrorists.

The ISA was enacted to protect Singapore from national security threats that cannot be dealt with under general criminal laws. The act has built-in due-process safeguards, including yearly reviews by a panel headed by a Supreme Court judge. The panel has the powers and immunities of a court of law. It can subpoena witnesses and examine documents, including classified intelligence. While the government decides on detentions, the president has the right to overrule the government's decisions.

In the face of terrorist violence, a government's priority must always be to protect the lives of its people.

CHAN HENG CHEE
Ambassador
Embassy of Singapore
Washington

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/10/AR2009061003697.html

Note how the Government cleverly steers clear in mentioning the detention of Singaporean opposition leaders, trade unionists, and activists which Dr Chee's letter was clearly referring to. Instead it tries to distract readers by talking about suspected terrorists.

This can mean one of two things: Either the Government was diffident in wanting to remind the world that it had detained its political opponents without trial or it cannot deny that it had beaten or tortured Singaporeans who had legitimately opposed its autocratic rule through the decades. It was probably a bit of both.

Either way it was a rather cowardly way of responding, or rather not responding, to Dr Chee's letter.

More at yoursdp.org

Kent Ridge Common interviews Chee Soon Juan

2009-06-08T21:40:00.000-07:00

Kent Ridge Common conducted an online interview with Dr Chee Soon Juan. The SDP secretary-generall talked about everything from political reform to being an activist. We reproduce the interview here.

Foreword: Dr Chee Soon Juan (CSJ) obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Georgia and is a neuropsychologist by training. He joined the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) in 1992, and subsequently became its secretary-general. He was formerly an Honorary Research Associate at the Monash Asia Institute (1997) and University of Chicago (2001), and was a Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow at the Washington-based National Endowment for Democracy (2004). He received the Defender of Democracy Award (2003) given by the Parliamentarians for Global Action. He is the the Chairman of the Alliance for Reform & Democracy in Asia (ARDA).

What measures would the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) propose that would help Singapore tide through the current recession?

During the Budget 2009 debate we proposed the following which, by the way, was echoed by some PAP MPs:

Suspend the GST for at least two years. This will help especially the poor and lower-income groups, not to mention businesses that need customers and patrons to survive.

Reduce ERP rates as well as bus and MRT fares. Such a step would help to keep expenses down for the average individual and motorist.

Introduce an unemployment entitlement programme. It will ensure that retrenched workers receive temporary relief from a sudden loss of income.

Give out spending vouchers. Again this will assist the lower-income households in their daily struggle. The measure will keep the economy alive.

These proposals are explained in greater depth in Budget spending not transparent, SDP proposes alternative 5-point plan.

Which current economic policy is in most urgent need for reform? And what are the proposed reforms?

In the immediate term it is crucial that we stop the mindless and indiscriminate influx of foreign workers. The foreigners are being exploited for their cheap labour to artificially suppress wages of Singaporeans. The foreign talent policy needs an overhaul: Only foreigners with the requisite skills unavailable from the local population should be allowed to join the Singaporean workforce.

Apart from economic consequences, the mass of foreigners forced upon the locals and competing with them for survival will have grave social repercussions which we have yet to examine. Is this an accident waiting to happen?

In the longer term, we must wean the economy off our dependence on MNCs. We have become addicted to foreign direct investments so much so that we have not allowed home-grown enterprises to flourish. Coupled with GLCs, our domestic private sector and SMEs are squeezed out of the corporate scene. During a major economic crisis like the present one, we find our economy much harder hit than anyone else.

In addition, the crush of MNCs and GLCs ensure a dearth of Singaporean entrepreneurs. Apart from economic consequences, the lack of the entrepreneurial spirit has a spill over effect into the social and political circles, making our society distinctly lackadaisical.

Without the verve and dynamism, the quality of life here suffers. This is why Singaporeans continue to be one of the most stressed and unhappiest people in the region and our youths constantly express a desire to leave the country.

Would the losses at Temasek Holdings and Singapore Government Investment Corporation (SGIC) lead to a decline in votes for the PAP? Why?

We are not looking for just a decline of votes for the PAP. The opposition needs to make significant inroads into Parliament to effect policy change. This is only possible if the election system is fair and the media is free.

No matter how badly Temasek or the GIC perform, or for that matter how disastrous PAP policies are, as long as the Elections Department and the media operate at the behest of the ruling party, no one can change policy and the Government will not be held accountable.

At the moment, our political culture is one driven by fear and ignorance. Without addressing these twin scourges, the PAP will always be "victorious" at the polls. This is why the Singapore Democrats emphasize so much on reforming the political system.

You wrote a book "Dare to change" way back in 1994 with a set of recommended changes for Singapore's future. How many of your recommendations have been considered currently or implemented already by the government and what are they?

In the area of education, I wrote that the process of streaming our children at the primary school level was inane. This is because neural processes are still developing at such young ages and attempts to grade and categorise our students is woefully premature. While I'm glad the PAP has acknowledged the problem of streaming, the changes it has made to the education system in this area are cosmetic and do not address the real problem.

The Government is also belatedly beginning to see the problems I raised about our over-reliance on MNCs and GLCs, and the suppression of local SMEs. But there will not be any serious attempt to change the economic approach because to do so would entail a concomittant liberalisation of the political system, something that the PAP will not do voluntarily.

I had also written in Dare To Change that because of the stifling political climate Singaporeans were leaving the country in alarming numbers. Today, Mr Lee Kuan Yew admits that the brain drain is a serious problem.

The Government is now trying to encourage Singaporeans to be creative in the hope of fixing the creativity problem here. Apparently there is a course at NUS that teaches students how to think.

But Singaporeans know how to think. We are no different from our American or European or Japanese counterparts. What we need is political space to express those thoughts. This is the nub of the problem. As long as the PAP keeps its choke-hold on the people, this society will be soulless and the exodus will continue.

Do you think a typical heartlander will be able to grasp the idea of democracy and its benefits? Assume you come across a typical heartlander during your walkabout, how would you convince him into voting for democracy so to speak?

The average Singaporean understood the meaning of freedom and democracy in the 1950s. That's why they rose up against the British and kicked them out. They are now our parents and grandparents. If they could appreciate the importance of freedom of speech and assembly then, why can't we now especially when the population is now much better schooled?

The difference is that, unlike in the 1950s, the PAP Government has locked up the media and disallowed Singaporeans to think and express themselves. We interpret that as Singaporeans not understanding nor wanting democracy. If Singaporeans are really that uninterested in their rights, why is the Government nervously putting in place more laws that further ban people from gathering in public and speaking out?

How do I convince a voter into voting for democracy? I don't. Democracy is something you practice and experience, not vote for. If you have to vote for democracy, chances are that you are doomed to labour under an autocratic state in the first place.

I have, however, tried to speak to voters about policies that are hurting them. The result is that I have been convicted of six charges of speaking in public and face another six more. This will never happen in a democracy. Without the ability to be able to freely communicate with the people, we cannot break the cycle of fear and ignorance that the PAP has so successfully instilled in society.

It is not that Singaporeans don't understand democracy, it is that they are not allowed to practise it.

It is rare for politicians in Singapore to take on the role of an activist, and I think SDP is the only party whose members have such dual roles. How did you all manage to reconcile the role of an activist with that of a politician?

In a democracy, the roles of a politician and an activist can be neatly separated and compartmentalised. This is because they have distinct roles to play: One makes laws by contesting for power while the other seeks to affect legislation on specific issues.

Both need an open and democratic society to function effectively. In a non-democratic state where opposition politicians and activists are deprived of their roles, doesn't it make sense for both groups to come together to work for democracy first? Without democratic freedom there can be no oppositionist and civil society activist to speak of.

In our situation, it would be wonderful if democracy activists could come out to actively campaign for freedom and make all the necessary sacrifices. The SDP can then step in when the heavy lifting is done and just campaign to win power. We won't have to go through all the difficulties and hardship of fighting the autocrats.

But this is not the reality. There are no democracy activists fighting for reform. Under the such circumstances the Singapore Democrats can do one of two things: Play it safe and let others do the dirty work, or roll up our sleeves and lead by example. We choose leadership.

Under undemocratic regimes, activists and opposition politicians often merge into the same role. Nelson Mandela, Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, Kim Dae Jung, and Xanana Gusmao were all activists fighting for democracy before they became heads of their governments when democracy was realised. Is Aung San Suu Kyi purely a politician? Even the Mahatma Gandhi straddled both camps. He was a member, a very influential member, of India's Congress Party.

Of course, to lead also means to sacrifice. But we know that even as we pay the price now, Singapore and Singaporeans will reap the rewards in future.

Given the difficult circumstances that the opposition face at the polls (GRC system, high electoral deposits), do you see the civil societies as having a bigger role in bringing about changes to our political landscape? Why?

Not only does civil society have a bigger role in changing the political system, without it change cannot come. Civil society, together with the political opposition, must mobilise the masses to compel the PAP relinquish its undemocratic hold on power.

This has been most clearly demonstrated in Malaysia where NGOs, including the law society, were at the forefront of speaking up against the ISA and other undemocratic practives of the ruling coalition. They then joined forces with opposition parties to put pressure on the government to make concessions on political freedoms.

What are the ramifications of the changes to the Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) and Non-constituency Member of Parliament (increase in number of seats) on the opposition's chances for the next elections? Why?

The PAP did not introduce the NMP and NCMP schemes to democratise Singapore but to get voters to bypass the opposition. In the long run this will make it even harder for opposition parties to gain a foothold in the political system.

Singaporeans and the opposition must stop looking for the easy way out and hoping that the PAP will liberalise the system on its own accord. If pro-democracy forces don't actively push for change and make the necessary sacrifices, democracy and a fair fight for power will always be a pipedream.

In your exchanges with Mr Lee Kuan Yew during the hearing of the defamation suit against SDP, you told Mr Lee: "We get to meet at last." Have you ever considered contesting at Tanjong Pagar GRC which will pit you against Mr Lee when you were still a competing candidate? Why?

In 1992, I contested in a GRC against then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. The question is not who we contest against. With an election system completely under the control of the ruling party, it is silly to think that we will make any meaningful headway.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself admitted without the GRC system. I would have been elected over PAP leaders like Mr Teoh Chee Hean.

But I can't contest in elections because Mr Lee and Mr Goh made me a bankrupt. They won't allow me to speak during rallies. They won't even allow me to get up on stage during election rallies. Does this sound like a confident and secure government?

Get the fundamentals of the political system right and the opposition is more than capable of challenging the PAP anytime, anywhere.

More at yoursdp.org

Constructing Singapore: Book review by Chee Soon Juan

2009-06-03T19:53:00.000-07:00

Far Eastern Economic Review

Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethnicity and the Nation-Building Project
Michael Barr and Zlatko Skrbis
Reviewed by Chee Soon Juan

The “Singapore Story”—the title of the first volume of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s autobiography—is that a mandarinate elite built a bastion of political and economic success on twin pillars of good governance: meritocracy and multiracialism. “Chimeras,” say Michael Barr and Zlatko Skrbis, professors at The Flinders University of South Australia and The University of Queensland, Australia, respectively.

The authors tear apart the Lee mythology with commendable academic rigor and gusto, arguing that such propaganda serves only to “facilitate and legitimize rule by a self-appointed elite dominated by middle-class Chinese in general, and by the Lee family in particular.”

This issue is examined not just through the lens of Singapore’s political system. Messrs. Barr and Skrbis delve at length into the education system, documenting in extraordinary detail how from an early age students are molded into the People’s Action Party’s image of the ideal Singaporean. The PAP Community Foundation, which runs over half of the preschools in Singapore, puts five- and six-year-olds through a demanding kindergarten regime. Over the next 10 years, children are pushed to participate in a bewildering number of programs through which the “best” are identified and scooped up to join the elite.

These schemes are designed to support and enhance a political infrastructure where power is concentrated in a select few. If all this seems like social engineering at work, that’s because it is. Mr. Lee has never been shy about his intentions to rear future generations of elites.

A more in-depth examination of the programs and considerable resources used to implement Mr. Lee’s eugenics agenda would provide the reader with a better understanding of the extent to which the Party went to ensuring that the elite reproduced and that the “lumpen masses” (to use Mr. Lee’s term) did not. In the 1980s, the PAP sought to increase fertility among university-educated women through financial incentives and dating services, while providing major subsidies for the voluntary sterilization of poor and uneducated parents.

How public policy impacts ethnic groups in Singapore is also keenly examined. Ethnic discrimination is carried out at the highest level of government. One prominent indicator is Singapore’s government-sponsored overseas university scholarships to students. Citing statistics from 1966-2007, the authors note that of the 228 President’s Scholarships awarded only 14 (about 6.1%) went to minority ethnic students. The percentage dropped to 3.5% in the years between 1981 and 2007, even though minority ethnic groups make up more than 20% of Singapore’s population. The number of scholarships given by the Singapore Armed Forces to minorities is even more telling: only 2.2% of the awards given between 1971 and 2007 went to non-Chinese recruits. Messrs. Barr and Skrbis point out that it is not so much a question of whether, but rather of how consciously, these selection panels base their decisions on the wishes of Mr. Lee.

Both Mr. Lee and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, have openly stated that Singapore is not ready for a non-Chinese head of government. But in an irony that only autocratic systems can sustain, Mr. Lee has outlawed public discussions of race relations in Singapore. Using The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the government could interpret any discussion of religious issues as stoking racial sentiment, and could potentially detain without trial persons found doing so, putting any honest discussion of the subject in a deep freeze.

The system is so successful in inculcating the PAP’s values, Messrs. Barr and Skrbis note, that even “cynics and opponents have trouble thinking outside the parameters of imagination set by the ruling elite.” Such intellectual and psychological hegemony has exacted a price, however. The imposition of a narrow political culture has left a society which lacks the passion and conviction necessary to weave the fabric of nationhood: “It has oppressed the imagination without uplifting the spirit, leaving the regime in a position that is outwardly secure, but is relying upon emotional roots that are shallow and brittle,” they write.

Messrs. Barr and Skrbis cite an ACNielsen survey of 1,000 Singaporeans, which found that 21% indicated a “desire to leave the country permanently.” The authors missed out on a couple more statistics: In a survey of 800 younger Singaporeans (ages 15 to 29) carried out by Singapore Polytechnic and reported in January 2007, 37% of the respondents said they are not patriotic and more than 50% said they would migrate overseas if given the chance. Mr. Lee admitted in 2008 that the brain drain presented a “pretty serious” problem. About 1,000 of Singapore’s most talented people are giving up their citizenship each year—and the numbers are growing.

Despite these figures, the authors assert that the system works: “There is enough talent in the dynasty and enough truth in the myths of meritocracy, elite governance and pragmatism to ensure that the city-state is stable and profitable.” This begs the question: For whom does the system work? Can a national system that results in one of every three of its younger citizens feeling no loyalty to the country be considered successful? This dissonance is left unaddressed by the authors.

It is also curious that Messrs. Barr and Skrbis choose to measure the success of a political system in terms of profitability. The authors are evidently impressed by the economic growth that Singapore has experienced over the past few decades. But again that success story needs significant qualification. The income disparity in Singapore has widened in the last decade. Between 1998 and 2003, the average household monthly income of the poorest 20% of the population decreased by nearly 15%, while that of the richest quintile surged by 11.7%.

It would be foolish to argue that Singapore’s overall economic situation has not improved over the years. But to attribute this growth to the PAP system is equally foolhardy. As nobel laureate and economist Paul Krugman aptly noted: “When Asian economies delivered nothing but good news … it is easy to assume that so-called planners knew what they were doing. It is easy for government policy makers to look competent in a prosperous economy. But they may not have a clue!” Mr. Krugman’s statement (made in 1998) is noteworthy because 10 years hence, with the global economy unable to continue producing the kind of capital that has been flowing into Asia and Singapore, the pap leaders are now quite bereft of the star qualities they had been attributing to themselves during the boom years.

Constructing Singapore is worthy of the attention of analysts and policy makers. It is unfortunate, however, that the book already appears dated, as the economic upheaval has created vastly different circumstances. It would be interesting to see how, if at all, these changes will impact the elite-model in Singapore. A revised edition tracking and analyzing such developments would command even greater attention.

Chee Soon Juan is the secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party.

Breaking news: Government reverses ban on Tiananmen performance

2009-06-02T20:38:00.000-07:00

Singapore Democrats

The Government had initially banned an art project that was to mark the 20th anniversary of the massacre of students and protesters at Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China. The decision was, however, reversed later in the day.

The organisers were informed of the ban today because the event, to be held at The Substation this Thursday, was deemed "inappropriate". The reason given is because it is located in a government-owned building.

The reversal, the Singapore Democrats understand, was because the Government did not want the bad publicity that the ban would attract as it was part of a worldwide project.

Entitled “Tank Man Tango”, the project is scheduled to be held in places like Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Taichung (Taiwan), Seoul, Weimar, Leipzig, London, Bristol, Washington DC, and Mexico City.

On 4 Jun 89, the Chinese government sent in tanks to clear Tiananmen Square which had been taken over by thousands of mainly student protesters calling for political and economic reforms. It is estimated that as many as 3,000 demonstrators were killed by the army.

The iconic image that came from the infamous episode was a man who stood in front of a column of tanks, clutching only a plastic bag, to temporarily prevent the armour from entering the Square. Hence, the title “Tank Man Tango” which, according to the organisers, is a “stylised recreation” of the steps of the Tank Man. Watch video here.

It is understood that the PAP Government remains unhappy about the decision to allow the event to go ahead but feels that it would not be worth the international criticism if the ban stayed.

Activists had already vowed to hold the event at Speakers' Corner if the performance at The Substantion was prohibited. Activist Mr Seelan Palay had written to the National Parks Board to stage the event.

Perhaps, the PAP calculated that the ban would have created a bigger stir and attracted more people than it otherwise would. Did it learn its lesson from banning and seizing videos like Singapore Rebel and One Nation Under Lee?

It probably figured that the ban would not stop the event from going ahead at the Speakers' Corner – with a bigger audience – and the PAP would still end up an international laughing stalk. Conclusion: Not worth it.

In any event, Singaporeans should make their way to The Substation on 4 Jun 09 to see for themselves what the fuss is all about:

Tank Man Tango: June 4, 1989 anniversary commemoration at The Substation

As a way of commemorating this anniversary, The Substation is participating in a worldwide public art project to be performed in the cities of Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Taichung (Taiwan), Seoul, Singapore, Weimar, Leipzig, London, Bristol, Washington DC, and Mexico City.

On June 4, 2009, from 6.30 to 9pm in The Substation theatre, come join us to learn and perform the Tank Man Tango together as an artwork and a vigil; or come for conversation, and share memories and perspectives. The Tank Man Tango is a simple, stylised recreation of the steps of the Tank Man as he defied the tanks. The video can be found on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MziREAZ_WqA&feature=channel_page

Then on June 5, join us at The Substation Gallery between 12 noon and 9pm: we will be erecting replicas of the Goddess of Democracy statue from a D-I-Y kit, filling the gallery space with them.

Everyone is invited.

Documentation from both days will be uploaded onto the memorial website: www.forget2forget.net

The Singapore that we aspire to build

2009-06-01T22:27:00.000-07:00

Jufrie Mahmood

My youngest son, Khairul Azrie, is in Secondary 3. Like his brother Khairul Anwar he too represents his school in basketball. It is a known fact that most Malay boys their age either play soccer or sepak takraw.

When time permits my wife and I would make it a point to watch them play in the numerous inter school and inter district tournaments, especially if the games are played at the Aljunied Basketball Centre, which is a stone’s throw away from where we live. And we are proud to say that when they are on the court they play their hearts out, making meaningful contributions to their teams.

My sons’ choice of sport has given them an exposure that is somewhat different from what we normally see. The friends that they go around with are almost entirely non-Malay. Come Hari Raya their friends would converge on our house to savour the ketupat and rendang prepared by my wife. The dessert has always been the traditional kueh normally served during Hari Raya. To many of them the food was so finger-licking good that they would tease my wife to let them come for makan more often than just once a year.

What my children are going through reminds me of my childhood days at the government quarters in Haig Road where I grew up. It was a multiracial setting in every sense of the word where everyone was oblivious of their racial background. We were completely colour blind. Whether you are Chinese, Malay, Indian or Eurasian it made no difference at all. We had Ali as well as Ah Lee, the Kanagasabai children and the Pereiras.

Even the hawkers in their tricycles and pushcarts were multiracial. The ‘chi chong fan’ lady and uncle Karupayah, the kacang putih man would take turns making their rounds. Soon after came Ah Heng, with his ice kacang ball, to be followed by Wak Karto plying his mee rebus and tahu goreng. Not to be left out was Mama Maideen with his famous mee.

All of them could speak bahasa Melayu, our so-called Bahasa Kebangsaan. Once a week we were treated to a movie at the open field in Kulim Place where the GSWO (Government Servants Welfare Organisation) club house was also situated. Those were the wonderful days, gone forever.

Though the environment we find ourselves in today is vastly different from the one that I grew up in I am nonetheless happy to see my children coping well with their circle of friends. Last weekend however, when we were just about to finish our dinner Azrie suddenly asked me whether it is true that as a Malay he would not be allowed to join his friends should they opt to serve in the air force. What about the army or navy? He further said, without being asked, that he learned this from his friends in school.

On hearing what his brother said, Khairul Anwar chipped in and said that he too had heard about this. His teacher had told the students in a class discussion that since he is a Malay he would not be called upon to serve his nation in the services mentioned above because "Singapore is surrounded by Malay countries."

"What’s wrong with that, papa? Are they not countries friendly to us?" They are also our major trading partners and members of the ASEAN family, he continued.

I took a deep breath, told him and his two siblings (my eldest child, a girl, studies at Temasek Polytechnic) to finish their dinner, help their mama to clear the table and move to the living room.

I had planned to discuss this issue with my children sometime in the future when they are more mature. I did not want to disrupt their growing up years. But when this very subject of racial discrimination was brought up by my children themselves I had no choice but to bring forward the process of politically educating them.

I related to them some of the more pertinent points of disagreement serious-minded opposition personalities are having with the PAP Government. As for me I have said all my life that I had stood for multiracialism.

The PAP also claims to adhere to the concept of multiracialism. When Singapore was a part of Malaysia its leaders pushed for a "Malaysian Malaysia" so aggressively that the Malays got very irritated. They feared that the concept pushed by the PAP would deny them their special rights, as enshrined in the constitution. Its actions infuriated the Malaysians to such an extent the Tunku, Malaysia’s Prime Minister at that time, was left with no other choice but to expel Singapore from the federation.

Not long after attaining independence the PAP put into practice discriminatory policies which they were so dead against when Singapore was in Malaysia. And make no mistake about it, such policies cannot be justified no matter how the Government tries to rationalize them.

One explanation put forward by the PAP is that they did not want the Malays to face a dilemma should a war break out between Singapore and its neighbours. So, to "save" them from this so-called dilemma it is best that they did not be put in such a situation. To do this they must not be allowed to serve in the armed forces, especially in the air and naval forces.

I related to them an article entitled The Ghosts That Walk With Us written by the late Mr S Rajaratnam in which he concluded that the chances of Singapore going to war with its immediate neighbours were real. Under such circumstances the Malays in Singapore would not want to fight, thus justifying the discriminatory policies.

This perhaps explains the absence of Malays in the air force and the navy and their preponderance in the civil defence and to a lesser extent, the police force. How wrong can the PAP be? This is certainly not the way to build a united nation. Perhaps Singaporeans need to be reminded that during Indonesia’s konfrontasi when then President Sukarno sent his commandoes to infiltrate our country, our soldiers in the 1st and 2nd SIR Battalion, almost entirely Malay, proudly defended their country against the Indonesian intruders. Quite a number of them got killed in the process.

Unlike the colour-blind environment in which I grew up, every turn we make nowadays we are reminded of our racial origin. We can’t, for instance, move into any housing estate of our choice due to the racial quota and you inevitably are reminded of your racial origin.

We cannot enroll in SAP schools unless we take Chinese as a second language; we go to CDAC or SINDA they tell us to go to MENDAKI.

We cannot serve in many fields in the armed forces although many foreigners-turned-Singaporeans can. For that matter, as a contractor, we are not allowed into military compounds even to cut grass or do pest control work.

We are not allowed to wear something as basic as the tudung (head scarf) when our young women reach puberty in secondary school even though religious freedom is guaranteed in the Constitution.

We cannot have more than one full minister as the quota has always been only one and that too is almost always a ministry in charge of clearing garbage. If we choose to stand for elections we have to prove our racial origin and first be issued with a certificate even though our NRIC clearly identifies us by race.

The funniest thing about this requirement is that for repeat candidates you still have to do it at every election as though in the short span of time between GEs our race undergoes a change.

This is the kind of discrimination and humiliation that the ethnic minority groups in Singapore have to live with. On one occasion a member of the approving panel was an Arab and it took an Arab to tell a Malay that he was a Malay and therefore qualified him to stand in the GRC. There are, of course, many other instances that keep reminding Singaporeans of their racial origins.

But I continue to have faith that there are enough Singaporeans of all races who oppose such discriminatory policies. Sooner, if not later, such policies will be dismantled and Singapore will be a truly multiracial society, a society that we aspire to.

I have gone into politics to oppose PAP’s hegemony, and to strive to give Singaporeans an alternative voice. I do not subscribe to the thinking that the PAP has a monopoly of ideas that are good for the nation. I believe in the establishment of a multiracial, democratic Singapore in the true sense of the word. PAP’s discriminatory policies have no place in a truly democratic Singapore.

To the PAP, any group that poses a serious challenge to its rule is labeled either a communist, a communalist or a religious extremist. And it never fails to play the racial card whenever it suits its purpose. That was how they robbed the Workers' Party team in 1991, of which I was a member, in the Eunos GRC of victory by accusing me of mixing religion with politics. The "sin" was my usage of two very common Islamic expressions of "insya Allah" and "Alhamdullah" (God willing). That, in short, is how the PAP operates and with the media under its absolute control it gets away with everything.

Apart from racial discrimination, I told my children there is a long list of other issues and policies which my comrades in the SDP and I oppose and strive to change. I intend to register in their minds the unfair tactics employed by the PAP in order to stay in power. I told them I shall be going through with them the issues in small doses so as not to overload their minds.

We in the opposition staunchly believe that it is in Singapore’s long term interest to have at least an alternative group of dedicated Singaporeans which can challenge the PAP and be ready to take on a leadership role should the PAP falter further, lose control and quickly degenerate into an unworthy outfit. I do not believe in putting all our eggs into the PAP basket. It is suicidal.

This after dinner session marked the beginning of my children’s political education.

Jufrie Mahmood is a veteran oppositionist. He stood as a candidate in the 1988, 1991, and 1997 general elections.

Blackout on Singapore Democrats

2009-05-31T22:27:00.000-07:00

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.

Just make elections free and fair, no need for wayang

2009-05-28T22:26:00.000-07:00

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:

abolish the GRC system
announce the constituencies at least 6 months before elections
ensure that there is at least three weeks for the official campaign period
give at least one month between the dissolution of parliament and polling day
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

MPs follow SDP's lead

2009-05-27T22:26:00.000-07:00

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.

Singapore lawyer challenges “law” that violates democracy, freedom

2009-05-25T22:25:00.000-07:00

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.

Public order concerns: Look who's talking

2009-05-24T22:25:00.000-07:00

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.

Francis Seow: A day of ignominy

2009-05-21T22:24:00.000-07:00

Singapore Democrats

Young activists saying no to ISA

"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.

Let's refrain from making police reports

2009-05-13T22:23:00.000-07:00

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.