Thursday, May 28, 2009 22:51
Singapore’s security and evolving the political system
In Top Story • 1,162 views • 15 Comments
H1N1 Flu Update: Singapore confirms 3 more H1N1 flu cases. Not local transmissions. Confirmed cases returned from the U.S
Worker’s Party NCMP Sylvia Lim addresses in a parliamentary speech the incoming electorial changes.
At this late stage of the debate on the Presidents Address, I will focus on the coming security challenges, and evolving the political system including responding to the Prime Ministers Statement yesterday on changes to the system.
The coming security challenges
The security landscape of Singapore is set to become more demanding than ever in the coming months.
The opening of the 2 integrated resorts with casinos is just a few months away. This event has the potential to threaten the quality of life in Singapore for all of us if mishandled from a law and order perspective.
I am aware that the law enforcement agencies have been making extensive preparations for this event. The casinos will demand tremendous resources towards meeting criminal activity of an unprecedented nature in Singapore. Indeed, the MHA Addenda states that the Ministry is studying how overseas organisations deal with transnational crimes and criminal organisations, and strengthening measures against loan shark activity.
It is foreseeable that police would need to have heavy presence both inside and outside the casinos, both in uniform and plainclothes, to battle the problems caused by foreign gangs, prostitution, illegal money-lending, money-laundering, casino fraud, robberies and thefts, among others. These are complex problems and our approach must be wholehearted from the beginning, otherwise it will be much more difficult to recover if organised crime takes root here.
In 2005 when the casinos were debated in the House and among the public, thousands such as the group called Families against the Casino Threat in Singapore (FACTS) campaigned against them. The government assured Singaporeans that measures would be put in place to reduce the collateral damage to society which the casinos would bring. The Home Affairs Minister told Singaporeans that the Ministry would do its best to keep Singapore safe and secure, which would need adequate resources.
Last August, when the House debated an adjournment motion on security lapses, the Second Home Affairs Minister showed a table of police-officer to population ratio in Singapore, Hongkong and New York. Singapore was seen to have the smallest ratio at 239 officers per 100,000 population, which was 60% of Hongkongs ratio and 55% of New Yorks ratio. We were also told of huge numbers of ovetime hours clocked by Immigration officers.
At that time, without counting the added demands of having the casinos, it was already acknowledged that the Home Team was stretched and strained, and unable to clear their leave, leading to a Human Factors study on operational fatigue within the Home Team. This study confirmed work overload and understaffing in several areas, even before the casinos are functional.
Since preparations for the casinos commenced, there has been further draw down on manpower as experienced officers have been drawn from other units to man the new units in charge of casino-related matters.
Meanwhile, our population of 4.84 million is expected to continue to grow, to a capacity of 6 million eventually. This population also has a high percentage of foreigners who bring new law enforcement challenges due to language and lifestyle differences.
In addition, on the community policing front, there is a public perception that police presence in housing estates has dropped from the levels in the 1990s when the Neighbourhood Police Posts were in full swing. This can be explained by the fall in intimate patrols such as foot and bicycle patrols, fewer house visits, and shortened NPP hours.
MHAs Addenda states that it will recruit 1,500 additional officers into the Home Team as a whole, with these officers being spread to police, immigration and other units. Will this be sufficient to meet the challenges in the coming months and years? How does this figure compare with the findings of the Human Factors Study? Will Singaporeans find that the spillover effects from the casino were not sufficiently contained because of inadequate resources, leading to a deterioration in the quality of life in Singapore? The government must make these answers known in the coming months.
Evolving the political system
The Member for Hougang has already touched some aspects of why the existing political system cannot be said to be robust. He cited how the executive government controlled Parliament due to its overwhelming majority and why the only real check on the ruling party had to come from outside it through elected opposition Members.
Our firm belief is that it is the threatened or actual loss of elected seats which will temper the dominance of the ruling Party. More than any Parliamentary debate, this threat of loss of territory reminds the government of where its mandate comes from and that they govern at the will of the people. It also enables opposition MPs to prove that they are able to take care of constituents and work with them directly to improve their lives.
Some PAP members in this House have different views and they all believe that continued domination of the PAP in political, social and economic arenas of our society is the best way forward and best assurance of the future of Singapore. Some PAP MPs also believe that the PAPs self checks to ensure a clean and non-corrupt government is the most viable approach, as opposition parties may becomes corrupt when they take over the government. We believe we can leave it to Singaporeans to judge and to decide whether they agree with this thesis.
I would like now to respond to the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday on changes to the political system.
Overall, my distinct impression is that the ruling party now realises that it has gone too far with the GRC system, and that this has affected the political development of its own MP s. The ruling party may also realise that the demise of the Opposition is not good for the PAP nor for Singapore.
Let me now move to the specific changes announced.
First, the proposals regarding the size of electoral constituencies. It is natural to welcome the formation of more SMCs, from the legal limit of 8 to 12. The Workers’ Party’s position still remains that we should revert the entire system to SMCs. Though the PAP’s claim is that GRCs ensure minority representation, we have seen that in Singapore’s past, minority candidates were elected as individuals, without any need for such affirmative actions. The PAP’s own minority Ministers and MP s, and the late Workers’ Party Secretary-General JB Jeyaretnam, are testament to this. Be that as it may, this increase from 8 to 12 is a step in the right direction as far as we are concerned.
Next, the indication that the size of GRCs will be reduced overall is overdue. It will ensure that each candidate identifies more with the voters and is more accountable for outcomes. It also lowers the barrier for electoral competition, which should in theory increase the likelihood of contest and enable more people to vote. However, this will mean extensive reconfigurations of existing boundaries, which will cause confusion among voters and affect the work of political parties. As such, the new configurations should be made and justified many months in advance of the elections.
I next refer to the proposal to assure at least 9 opposition members in Parliament through the NCMP scheme, up from the current legal default minimum of 3. Though this can never replace having elected opposition MPs, it is overall supportable because it will give greater recognition to the desire of voters who cast votes for opposition candidates in significant numbers, which would otherwise be shut out in a pure first-past-the-post system. It will also facilitate opposition parties serving the people in Parliament based on results obtained at General Elections.
Regarding the NMP scheme, the Workers’ Party continues to be against the scheme as we believe that MP s must contest the election as an essential precondition, to obtain some sort of mandate from the people.
There are still other unsatisfactory aspects of elections in Singapore which we believe should be changed. These include removing the Prime Ministers Office from being in charge of elections and having an independent elections commission, and having greater transparency and public accountability in the way the electoral boundaries are drawn.
Nevertheless, overall, the Workers’ Party believes that the changes announced yesterday are improvements over the current system.
Finally, Sir, as the ultimate beneficiaries of such changes should be the people and not political parties, the people’s views on these changes should be actively sought before they are finalised.
Related posts:
15 Comments
Lifeobzervr
David
Silvia Lim giving great & well analysised speeches again. Not surprising our main stream media, as usual, did not provide fair coverage. That explains why new media must constantly give our oppositions voices heard especially during election. She is right in every sense of her speech, better than the two pap pea-brained women, who entered politics thru walk-over and supported one-party system. Let’s see what LHL has to say though his motion iin parliament s very much predictable with or without logic.
David
To 1# Lifeobzervr
Her speech is many times better than pap juniors who has not battled during election. Anyway, she made a very good conclusion:- “the ultimate beneficiaries of such changes should be the people and not political parties, the people’s views on these changes should be actively sought before they are finalised.”
Thus no point criticising how she drafted her speech, and we the citizens of Singapore are not putting words into action in support of her and the alternative parties. The oppositions can only said so much in parliament, the balls are in the peopel’s hand to make change we want to see.
Andrew Loh
As far as the political changes are concerned, the Workers’ Party has lost the plot.
History Repeats
To me and some of my friends, WP after 2006 GE seems to have lost its “fire” and its key people seem to tow the PAP’s line. So, this has confirmed my suspicion that WP has been “infiltrated” and “taken over”, after JBJ has been “kicked out”.
On the other hand, I have all this while been suspecting that the SDP has also been “infiltrated” after its founder, Mr Chiam, has been “kicked out” unceremoniously.
The same trend also goes for PAP during the early days of its foundation.
Lifeobzervr
Well, you said it right, better than the PAP juniors… that is what I hear from her, a PAP line of argument with snippets from a Worker’s Party manifesto.
Frankly, at this point in time, the weight of Opposition’s presence is not in Parliament. It should be out in the real world. Beautiful speeches without clear reform agenda are meaningless. It’ll be good to hear consistent views ‘from the people’ speaking of WP what is said in parliamentary speeches. There is a huge crisis facing workers whose collar is in the colour of the shirt WP is donning. Unfortunately, it is the collar of the colour of the shirt PAP is wearing that becomes WP’s fascination.
An Opposition is No Opposition if their agenda is only a degree or two different from the Ruling Party. Halimah Yaacob in the Ruling party has had more consistent Worker’s Agenda tabled. It is important that Opposition parties begin to float policy proposals that will adress significantly the quality of lives of citizens under the median mark.
The Oppositions have to show substantively that there is an alternative… better still show that there are many alternatives. Otherwise, the presence of more opposition members in parliament who are as dysfunctional as the ‘walkover – free ticket’ PAP MPs, (i.e. hardly speaking, unable to critically address the impact of policies beyond the imagination of those visible to them and even when speaking couldn’t help but tow the cabinet’s position with a tinge of paraphrasing so as not to look like a plagiarist) would be a convenient case example to kill off any future arguments for the need for more Oppositions in parliament to ensure better ‘check and balances’.
Donaldson Tan
I am still waiting for responses from political parties outside Parliament, namely Reform Party, National Solidarity Party and Singapore Democratic Party. NSP’s response to the Budget 2009 was commendable even though they weren’t represented in Parliament. Political campaigning should never stop whether General Election is around the corner or just ended.
Lifeobzervr
Editing Error:
It’ll be good to hear consistent views ‘from the people’ speaking of WP outside what is said parliamentary speeches.
Anon
“Singapore was seen to have the smallest ratio at 239 officers per 100,000 population, which was 60% of Hongkongs ratio and 55% of New Yorks ratio”
I’m very concerned about this. We have already seen how police had brushed away “minor” injuries as a civil matter, rather than criminal. There are also reports of sloppy investigative work.
rather than spending money to broadcast of singapore’s “low” crime rate, they shld concentrate on improving the public perception by actually doing some solid work.
btw, “solid” work does not include work done against the marxist 22/ dr chee / jbj etc
David
To 6# Anon
I am also surprised, with shortage of policemen, they can still mobilised so many of them against the Chee’s family, surround them and gag them into submission. Mas Selamat never gottens such “priviledges” as the Chee’s. We should roughly now how our men-in-blue were deployed, to protect the elites, resulting in shortages of our poodles.
gemami
Agree with Lifeobzervr @ post #1.
WP Member
Hi TOC, please quote your source when copy pasting from another website. Sylvia Lim’s address was released in the Hammer and the symbol errors in this post matches exactly to those in the Hammer.
I understand and appreciate TOC helping spread the words of WP members doing this will only divert readers away from the Hammer.
Link to Sylvia Lim’s speech in the Hammer
http://www.wp.sg/wordpress/2009/05/singapores-security-and-evolving-the-political-system/
Dumb and Dumber
“Strangely, it seems that her seriousness about debating the electoral changes is rather weak. She sounded like a PAP MP having to tow WP line. It is apalling to hear that she actually said that the proposed changes is an improvement to the current system. The reference point for comparison shouldn’t be the present system rather, the reference should be the best system Singapore once had which was abandoned. The line should read: Nevertheless, …., the changes announced yesterday are gradual reparation and reversal to the pre-1988 PE Act.”
#1 lifeobzervr, You got this spot on. I am sure WP’s would welcome you as an editor. But I don’t think that has change their intentions or beliefs; albeit the effect and impact of the speech could be magnified many times over.
Nonetheless, I am always glad that WP has always taken the neutral approach. The last thing any sensible people want is to see WP oppose for the sake of opposition.
To Anon #9
9) Anon on May 29th, 2009 9.09 am
[“Singapore was seen to have the smallest ratio at 239 officers per 100,000 population, which was 60% of Hongkongs ratio and 55% of New Yorks ratio”
I’m very concerned about this. We have already seen how police had brushed away “minor” injuries as a civil matter, rather than criminal. There are also reports of sloppy investigative work.]
=-=–=-=-=-
Could you give some clearer examples of them ‘brushing away’ cases?
I have some experience with their handling of minor offences. I cannot comment here for obvious reasons.
I wonder with more people in this dot, how well are they maintaining low crime rate? The way statistics is collected is important and interesting to me.
mice is nice
well, for 1, is there statistics of unreported crimes?
Strangely, it seems that her seriousness about debating the electoral changes is rather weak. She sounded like a PAP MP having to tow WP line. It is apalling to hear that she actually said that the proposed changes is an improvement to the current system. The reference point for comparison shouldn’t be the present system rather, the reference should be the best system Singapore once had which was abandoned. The line should read: Nevertheless, …., the changes announced yesterday are gradual reparation and reversal to the pre-1988 PE Act.
Sylvia’s using the Late JBJ as an example is lame. The fact of the matter is that WP after JBJ is not the same WP during JBJ’s time. WP seems to be posing itself as the Waiting Party rather than Worker’s Party. The theme’s being raised by WP seldom depart from those by the ruling party. Thus the consistency for the Worker’s agenda is rather abysmal. The worker’s agenda is not just about questioning employment figures or effectiveness of PAP backed programmes such as SPUR. Surely WP can be more creative in forwarding the Worker’s Agenda.
Perhaps, the best measure for Sylvia and her team to prove that breaking down the GRCs into full SMCs is to convince Singaporeans that WP will be able to attract and field credible minority candidates and argue for the 3 SMCs to be created be in a cluster so as create a SMC election contests effect. At this point- the best location for the cluster would be the Nee Soon – Sembawang area. With Nee Soon East and Nee Soon Central already SMCs. Nee Soon South from AMK GRC should be freed to be an SMC. Two other SMCs should be drawn out from Sembawang GRC.
However, at this point, I have my doubts that WP would even field a minority candidate in an SMC contest.