Andrew Loh / With contribution by Ravi Philemon
Singaporeans do not need to choose between prosperity and freedoms, declared Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam, secretary general of the Reform Party (RP). “The Reform Party’s message continues to be that this Faustian pact is unnecessary,” he said in his party’s first National Day message. “[You] do not have to choose between freedoms on the one hand and prosperity and opportunity on the other,” Mr Jeyaretnam told the estimated 60 people in the audience at Speakers’ Corner.
In what perhaps sounded more like an election speech than a message for National Day, the party, to its credit nonetheless, addressed both economic issues and issues of freedom.
The party’s promise to remove restrictions on the freedom of speech, assembly and peaceful protests will go down well with the more liberal-minded Singaporeans. However, what is unclear is how far the party thinks such freedoms should be allowed.
The party perhaps fares better with regards to the Internal Security Act (ISA). “The Reform Party will abolish the ISA and replace it with an Act specifically designed to combat modern day threats of clear-cut terrorism,” it says. Perhaps the RP is contemplating an Act along the lines of the Patriot Act in the United States? The Patriot Act itself is a controversial piece of legislation which detractors have accused of curbing individual freedom and privacy rights. How would such an Act, or one similar to it, complement the freedoms which the RP has vowed to uphold? One would, however, agree with the RP that the ISA needs to be fine-tuned or indeed replaced.
We concur with the party when it said, “[We] will do away with the current press laws and allow an independent press and media to develop.” Kudos to the party for saying it out loud.
On the economic front, the RP proposes a “minimum wage with exemptions for both young and older workers.” Has the RP got something against “young and older workers”? The older workers especially have contributed much towards nation-building. Why should they be discriminated against in RP’s call for a minimum wage, especially when these older workers constitute one of the most vulnerable segments of the population? It would have been good if the secretary-general had spent some time explaining this particular proposal as Singapore has one of the fastest ageing populations in the world; and where job security and retirement are amongst the top concerns among older Singaporeans. Aren’t these older workers, who are employed in low-skilled, low-paying jobs, the very ones which a minimum wage should be intended for? This sounds rather contradictory to the other promise which the RP made: to “provide a better safety-net for the most vulnerable.”
The party also suggested a re-distribution of wealth through various ways. It hopes to “link the value of the assets in the SWFs to the incomes and retirement savings of ordinary Singaporeans”, reduce the government’s stake in the economy, provide more help to Singaporean SMEs and start-ups, and eliminate unnecessary waste in government expenditure, particularly in the area of defence spending.
While these are all lofty goals, or some might say popular ideas, the RP seems particularly peeved with national defence. First, Mr Jeyaretnam’s remarks – “And as we have just watched the helicopters and commandos and other dazzling military feats on National day – displays intended to feed our fears…” – seems a tad too callous. Contrary to what Mr Jeyaretnam said, such ostentatious military displays seem to induce feelings of pride and a sense of security, rather than fear, among Singaporeans.
Second, the threats of extremism and terrorism are real; and Singapore cannot afford an attack like that of Bali or Mumbai. We must be quick with intelligence gathering and even quicker in dealing with those that perpetrate extremist views and violence.
Will a reduction in defence spending, as the RP proposes, have serious and dire consequences for the security of our nation? Also, as our birth rate remains stubbornly low, the SAF will have to depend on more sophisticated weaponry to make up for the lack in manpower. Such weaponry would undoubtedly cost a lot more, both in terms of actual cost and in training NSmen to operate them. And in a globalised world, national defence is no longer restricted to national borders.
It is commendable that the secretary-general of RP calls for “free compulsory education for at least up to secondary level”. However, he did not elaborate if it is for all Singaporeans that RP advocates this. Compulsory education is still not compulsory for children with special needs in modern Singapore, for example. It would be good to hear what the RP proposes in the area of special needs education.
Members of the Young Reformers, the party’s youth wing, were present to give support to its party secretary general at Speakers’ Corner. The ones missing, apparently, were members of the Central Executive Committee (CEC). Why were members of the CEC absent at such a momentous public event for the party, this being its first National Day message?
Perhaps it is time for the Reform Party’s CEC members to come out of the woodwork. Even its website does not provide a listing of its CEC members, and it has been one year since the party was first established by Mr Jeyaretnam’s father, the late Mr JB Jeyaretnam.
Lastly, the RP’s National Day message was, undoubtedly, an attempt by the party to express its vision for Singapore. Given its infancy (the party celebrates its first anniversary in September), expectations of a General Elections being called soon, the lack of media publicity for opposition parties in general, and its need to make up for lost time perhaps, it is understandable that the RP took the opportunity – on National Day – to lay down what was, effectively, an election manifesto – albeit a limited one.
The Reform Party’s National Day message gives Singaporeans a good starting point to know what the party stands for. However, it is easy to draw broad strokes. The devil, as they say, is in the details.
—–
Defence spending must definitely be cut. Most of our budget is not spent on new shiny gadgets but rather used to make-up or cover-up administrative and/or operative waste. A better developed military industrial complex will also reduce cost rather be fleeced constantly on every project by Singapore technologies. Also, increased accountability among commanders will force directive changes to spend wisely rather than with the free reign they have right now which lets them buy plasma tvs into their offices to play xbox.
I agree with Mr. E. Rather than reduce the defence budget, we should ensure that it is spent effectively and with responsibility. The SAF has too many cock-ups.
The problem with the SAF is so entrenched that it is impossible to eradicate. NSF who felt unfairly compelled to perform national services has absolutely no regards for waste control. Military commanders who have absolutely no private experience have zero accountability, knowledge or understand the obligations to control waste.
Anyone who has done national service can give examples after examples of wastage.
If we want to pay our military officers top dollars, they should be benchmark against private industry… to which I fear none will be able to live up to.
If only the average Singaporean understands what a false dichotomy is.
“…what is unclear is how far the party thinks such freedoms should be allowed.”
A more important question will be “what will be the party’s STRATEGY to obtain its promise to remove restrictions on the freedom of speech, assembly and peaceful protests.”
I agree with you, Anony.
No offence here.
But RP feels like the somewhat “off coloured” party of SDP.
It wants to be “gun ho”, but then not that “gun ho” also!
If everyone minded their business like me, an ethical egoist, we wouldn’t even need government. Trade will be laissez faire, citizens will be competitive, racism and religion will be wiped out. Academia and art will thrive for people are no longer concerned with just the basic physiological needs. Zero sum becomes non-zero sum. Not exactly an utopia, but the closest we can get.
Comment #4)
The devil, as they said, is in the strategies.
I don’t know what sophisticated weaponary SAF has, but the amount of money that goes down the drain daily just to have it operate is already unimaginable.
Meanwhile I’m okay with RP setting their goals for an ND speech. I mean, why not? What else do we expect them to say? Moral boost that we’re a country doing okay? Anti-PAP speech? No, right?
I’m expecting more detailed informations on what they want to do when elections are near. But that’d be around another 3 years. Keep up the good work, both ToC and RP.
I can’t make up my mind whether to support or oppose on RP’s “minimum wage with for both young and older workers” – unless RP defined how old is the young and old. E.g., in our civil services, one need to downgrade, i.e. salary will be reduced if he/she wants to continue to work when reached retired age. But again, it depends on ones expertise and whether he/she is still valuable to the company they belong to. Btw, i support minimum wage coz it’s not equal to welfarism nor it’s a dirty word.
Which is the most liberal party we can vote for? I’ll go for that.
On 10)
i’m referring to the “exemptions” of the “minimum wage with exemptions for both young and older workers.”
the PAP has been accused of being a ” Pay And Pay” gahmen
if seen from a better light, you may reckon they have built up a huge reserve though sometimes at the people’s expense.
now here comes the next generation wannabe leadership who called themselves the RP
what does RP means really?
looking at their party’s vision( shared by most opposition parties anyway), you get the feeling they’re “Ready to Party” away a significant amount of wealth accumulated by our first generation leadership or the sweat money of our parents without giving much consideration to future consequences until of course when it happens and the hard task master will rise once again.
obviously it is a populist vision because it’s like giving away freebies with someone’s bank account you broke into.
Hence the false dichotomy. :D
“It is easy to draw broad strokes, the devil is in the details” to use the writer’s words.
Reform Party is in its infancy. Words should not speaker louder than action.
With due respect to late JBJ, Kenneth has a long rough road ahead. Stand focus on the necessary, do not over-emphasise your noble intention. Rome was not built in a day.
The exigencies ahead for Kenneth is to lay bare the facts of how he can win the support of the voters so as he can enter parliament to be a representative MP
with the vigor of his late father but stay rational on confrontational politics.
Let me just highlight the few important points of his speech:
1) Freedom of speech: A good platform, as Singaporean are suppressed in this area. Freedom of speech means also no opposition candidates to be sued when making political speeches. That is real freedom. ( Old Lee has abused his monopolic power to act as the one almighty and sued many opposition to bankruptcy.)
2) Independent press is important. Our ST is a tool and mouth for PAP, grossly
partial and compliant only to the system of PAP and old fart.
3) Senior citizens were the pillars of our society. We should not alienate them but put forward legislation to help them. Many are poor and destitute. how can minumun wage not be for them. Though many factors have to be instituted.
4) Defence spending should not be scrapped but tone down for the sake of national defence. A modern defence ensures the security of our nation.We cannot be complacent on it.
Lastly, Kenneth with his academic record and experience, but lacking in political exposure can take a leaf from the veteran opposition members for fruitful consultation for the future of Singapore. Kenneth started on the wrong note when he ousted Mr Tan Cheng Siong (hope I got his name right) the once loyal right hand man of JBJ. Power need not be merciless. LKY has such bad reputation .
We progress, we learn, we stay humble. Humility is the wise man’s measuring rod.
On the political platform, never make promises you cannot deliver. Public image is paramount. CSJ had lost some of it due to character assasination by the public , which PAP (LKY) played a great part.
Do not fall into this trap. Credibilty for success to Reform Party.
i have been forwarding the national day speeches of PAP, WP, SDP and RP to my friends who are academics, think tanks and economists and asked them to rate the speeches based on the following.
below are the ranking results (left being highest in scores and right being lowest in scores)
1. Overall
RP, WP, PAP, SDP
2. Good economic strategies
RP, PAP, WP, SDP
3. Good social and political strategies
WP, SDP, RP, PAP
4. Worst Rhetoric
PAP, WP, SDP, RP
can you guys conduct a similar rhetoric also and we can compile them
oops i meant can you guys conduct a similar exercise also and we can compile them… lazy saturday blues..
I got moderated for my “false dichotomy” comment that was propensed towards political apathy at worst and yet this joker is absolved of any blame with remarks like these:
“2) Independent press is important. Our ST is a tool and mouth for PAP, grossly
partial and compliant only to the system of PAP and old fart.”
Is this site a mouthpiece for the opposition?
OriginalResonance,
Apologies for the mix-up. Your comments were not moderated.
All the christian bashing got me all riled up. I’m sorry for sounding belligerent here.
In this age of new media, seeing is believing. A youtube video or a single photo of K Jeyaretnam delivering the speech will be better than nothing at all.
In fact, it should be the Number One task in its logistic planning, and not just an afterthought.
Remember: Even the greatest ideas need marketing.
17) abdulgafoor
Forget about your amateurish attempt at polls, might as well say that the RP is No. 1 in everything, haha…
“Remember: Even the greatest ideas need marketing.”
Thank you, Captain Obvious. :D
we can talk and talk and offer a lot of messages, what use when you dont have any say in anything?
i think RP should go plan and win 1 GRC and some seats. and walk the talk!!! th
Not job of opposition to give details so that govmin can steal ideas. Juz enough details to convinve people that they can do better.
/ the RP proposes a “minimum wage with exemptions for both young and older workers.” Has the RP got something against “young and older workers”?/
RP proposal shows that KJ knows his economics, unlike his dad.
One reason why “mw” is disparaged by people like PAP is that there is evidence that it makes employers reluctant to employ the young and old.
26) A Tan on August 22nd, 2009 4.46 pm
Not job of opposition to give details so that govmin can steal ideas. Juz enough details to convinve people that they can do better.
KJ not supposed to disclose anymore details less those MIW will start stealing ideas and claim its theirs later. As the chinese saying goes, the master always keep the last but the most powerful kungfu skill to himself and use it during emergency time.
to RIP :
If we burn money on fireworks everyday for the next 50 years, we would still have not burn as much money as HJ has lost for TH last year.
40 billion is a lot of money.
The best part is we didn’t get a single enjoyment out of it.
RP might suggest party but at least the society had fun.
The loss by TH has not delivered any vallue at all.
#27
“Opposition do not win elections. Govmins lose elections,” Goh Keng Swee. .
To everyone that oppose RP:
Assuming that during the next election, your area has RP to contest the PAP, who would you vote? Are you going to vote PAP and let RP lose? Well, then I am sorry to say that you are the 66% that most of the people kept complaining.
Do the math guys, you know what I am talking. I still remember during my last eligible election at the west, contest between CSJ party and PAP. I don’t even consider so much even when most people at that time don’t even consider him or his party and think he is crazy. I can spoil vote, but I get myself and my parent vote for him.
Reading this articles, I am laughing for the fact that most people here still arguing over some NDP speech by RF. So, I do believe you would either spoil vote or vote for PAP if the above mentioned do happened. So, why bother to hang around TOC and complain?! Go to form a party yourself and see how Many people vote for you then, to proof what KJ speech is nonsense and lame. 懂少少，扮代表。the Cantonese like to say.
I am amazed with the fact that so many people speak like expert in politic and yet we only have a handful out there like KJ RP, Low WP, Chiam etc to contest PAP.
Mr. Ravi and TOC, I think we people here have enough from the national newspapers and TV. What is TOC intention when writing articles such as this on SDP, WP and RP? Another question I wish to ask is, why is RP speech posted so late?
Or it TOC feel the urge to justify itself, knowing that P65 had revamp themselves? Then maybe migrating to Mr. Happy Tan blog might be a wise thing to do.
17) abdulgafoor on August 22nd, 2009 11.27 am
below are the ranking results (left being highest in scores and right being lowest in scores)
This just shows each political party has different strength. It is better that all of them are in our Parliament attempting to solve various problems using their unique strength. National Solidary Party (Steve Chia’s party) does not even make it to the lists. LOL.
24) OriginalResonance on August 22nd, 2009 1.38 pm
“Remember: Even the greatest ideas need marketing.”
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
This is not obvious to some commentators at the NSP thread.
I definitely agreed with the RP that defence spending should be cut. If the defence spending is cut, the GST, income tax and corporate tax may also be cut as well. Thus, bringing more income and purchasing power to Singaporeans and businesses. With more purchasing power in the hands of Singaporeans, it can lead to more demands for goods and services and thus, better business to the companies.
With a reduction in corporate tax rate, it can also boost business profits in Singapore and attract more foreign investments into the country and create more jobs for Singaporeans.
Why should the welfare of 1 big money wasting machine (not war fighting machine) come at the expense of Singaporeans? Does a huge defence spending lead a strong SAF? With a huge army based on a forward defence strategy, with its offensive weapons such as attack helicopters, MBTs, Chinooks, it also generate the risks that a war with our neighbours can be sparked off in times of crisis due to military necessity, instead of resolving through diplomacy.
Moreover, by launching a 1st strike becos of military necessity in times of crisis with our neighbours, Singapore will become the aggressor in the eyes of international community. Hence, Singapore may be condemned by UN instead.
Well, terrorism is an internal threat and comes under the purview of the Home Affairs. Does a few terrorists need such a big army to fight? Moreover, while the PAP is calling Singaporeans to defend their home, they are at the same times bringing in more foreign talents to take away the jobs and HDB flats of Singaporeans. Hence, Singaporeans had been called to serve 2 years of NS and 10-ICT cycle to defend the jobs and homes of the foreigners living in Singapore. Statistics of Singapore revealed that 34% of the population are PRs/foreigners.
With the influx of foreigners into Singapore, Singapore has already been colonised by foreigners through economic means, not military means. Hence, the threat of national security and defence of our nation is no longer at the military front. Hence, defence spending should be cut and foreign talents restricted in Singapore. This is what the government should be focus on in terms of national security. The PAP is focusing on defending Singapore in the wrong front and the RP is right that defence spending be cut and foreign workers restricted in Singapore.