Joshua Chiang/
“I’ve always thought that period from ’68 onwards was the period that PAP started consolidating and regrouping because ’67 all the Barisan walked out,” Dr Vincent Wijeysingha tells me. “Then ’68 when they brought in the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Amendment Act, that was the time when they really began to consolidated their power.”
Dr Wijeysingha is giving me an impromptu history lesson on how the Parliament gradually ends up being dominated by only one voice – Lee Kuan Yew’s – over the course of 50 years. He mentions all the key players – Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, Goh Keng Swee, S Rajaretnam, Toh Chin Chye, speaking more like an academic than a promising new face from the Singapore Democratic Party.
With a PhD in Social Policy, (“My thesis was on social policies in Singapore in the period ’59 to ’97 and how social policies have contributed to economic growth in the country,” he reveals) Dr Wijeysingha is among the crop of fresh candidates with strong credentials joining the opposition in recent years.
Since he became a member last July, Dr Wijeysingha had assumed many roles in the party – he is the Assistant Treasurer, is one of the chief architects behind SDP’s Shadow Budget , and is expected to stand as a candidate this General Elections – a clear sign of the party’s confidence in him.
With his deep understanding of Singapore’s socio-political history, you can be forgiven for thinking that Dr Wijeysingha has lived here most of his life. But in fact, the 41 local-born citizen has spent nearly 16 years in England.
“I wanted to practice in social work so that was the easiest, quickest way to go,” Dr Wijeysingha explains. He graduated in 1996 with a Bachelor of Fine Arts in Applied Social Science and then moved on to Sheffield University to do his doctorate.
It was during this period that Dr Wijeysingha discovered a book – Dragons in Distress (ISBN:0935028552) by Walden Bello – which led him to question the direction Singapore was headed.
“I read the chapter on Singapore, and it gave me a very different picture to the rosy picture that was being painted at home. Even he (Bello) was suggesting that Singapore has no fundamentals, it’s a rentier economy you know. We’re not building any kind of capacity unlike China for example,” he says.
After receiving his PHD in 2002, Dr Wijeyasingha worked as a social worker in child protection. He then started his own social work consultancy in 2006. By 2008, his life, according him, was “very settled”. Then he decided to return.
————————-
What makes you decide to come back to Singapore?
By the end of 2008 my life was very settled; I had a flat, I have a stable job and friends, I had a social life but there was very little meaning in my life. Going to work, coming back, going out with friends, come back sleep, next day same thing.
And then my uncle who has moved to England in 1960, he died in 2009. He had lived his very nice suburban life, nice flat in London, children, grandchildren. And I thought in 50 years time I might not have done anything meaningful in my life you. So I thought okay I needed to change what I was doing now
Then I came back to Singapore and I decided that I must contribute. This is all we get. And I remember reading the 2008 National Day Rally Speech and Lee Hsien Loong saying how he wanted more critical analysis, he wanted people to be more involved, he wanted the youth to bring their own perspective to the government and I thought things are changing here in 16 years since I’ve been here.
So you took up the offer.
I was considering voluntary work, considering charity work, academia. And then I read (ex ISA detainee) Teo Soh Lung’s book which came out last year and I was quite outraged by that. It’s quite scary that the government can do – just bully citizens you know. And in the meantime I met Soh Lung, then Vincent (Cheng) and I thought this is true. Just because they disagreed with a particular aspect of the government policy, they were treated so harshly by the government. Then I said to myself, “yah but that was 23 years ago, things can’t be the same now”. A few months after that Alan Shadrake’s book (Once a Jolly Hangman) came out . The launch was on Saturday, but on Monday he was arrested and bailed. Someone lent me his book and I read it overnight on Monday and I kind of said, “okay things haven’t changed in Singapore”. You’re willing to silence someone who’s raising quite key questions about our judiciary and if you silence him, quite un-selfconsciously you put him in jail rather than look into his allegations then you know that phrase from Shakespeare, something is rotten in the state.
Why did you choose the Singapore Democratic Party? It had a poor showing during last the elections.
Yah I’ve had people asking me that. “Why don’t you join the Reform Party?” Okay the first thing I would say is one of the reasons why SDP is so vilified and has such poor showing in the polls is precisely because it’s such and effective party for a range of reasons.
One, its policy program is the most coherent, it’s the most humane, and it’s the most sustainable. Secondly, it’s a party which says clearly that we are not here to tinker with government policy, we’re here to form a replacement to the PAP government. And the third thing I would say is their commitment to human rights, to individual rights is the strongest and the most clear among all the major parties. And also they’re the most effective in terms of how the party is structured and it’s internal democracy and its ability to get things off the ground. Our pre-election rallies are a good example of that. Our website is another good example of that. So that’s the first thing I would say.
The second thing I would say is that I don’t believe politics is only about winning elections because there’s no point winning the elections on the basis of a policy that’s not going to benefit human beings. And I think you have to agree on your values first and then enter into the political frame and then change on that basis. You have to be principled first. You cannot come into politics looking for the main chance and then saying – these are the people that will get me into parliament quickest. Because you play so fast and lose with your values and principles, you will play fast and lose in the same way once you get into power. I don’t believe that we should get into power at all costs. It shouldn’t be power at all costs; it should be values and principles first and then you fight for your beliefs after that.
You know, that poem ‘Compromise’ - compromise, that’s the way to rise. You know that’s how people do it, you compromise here, you lose a bit of your values. Compromise until you get to a point like the PAP – they’ve compromised so much that they are left now with nothing except their own priorities and objectives.
You’ve been in England for 16 years. For some voters that may seen that you would be out of touch with issues here. Would that actually matter?
I think it doesn’t. My grasp for the development of issues over the years, my grasp of what people are feeling on the ground, I think I would admit that that’s not as in-depth as someone whose lived here for many years. On the other hand however, I think there’s something to be said firstly for the fact that I’ve never left Singapore emotionally and you know, in fact during the time when I did my PhD I lived through the entire history of Singapore. I read everything that was to read. My literature review, the first years literature review, I reviewed 700 chapters and articles – literally and this was the days before email. So that’s one thing, I think I’ve been immersed in Singapore’s politics.
Secondly coming back as I said, every year at least once, sometimes twice. So that’s the other thing I’ll say – I’ve never left Singapore.
The other thing I would say, I might sound a little bit xenophobic, I don’t know but you know there’s something about being Singaporean that cannot be replicated. We are a very unusual society; we have a different outlook on the world, we have a different way of relating to the realities of life, you know. And I don’t think I’ve lost that.
So what experiences in your years in England that you think could be applied here?
Well the first thing I would say is my research, as I said it immersed me in Singapore’s history – every aspect of it, all aspects of government, of society, of policy and the geopolitical thing as well because I located Singapore very much within the geopolitical. I don’t think you can look at our country independent of the world. That’s the first thing I’ll say.
The second thing I’ll say is my experience in child protection meant that for all those years, I was involved with the lowest families in society – by lowest I mean families who’ve had the worst deal of all, generational abuse, generational poverty that kind of entrenched endemic disadvantage. So living and working with these people with families with this kind of demographic for so many years has given me a kind of deep sense of the needs of people at the bottom of the ladder. And that cannot go away and I don’t think that’s different for different cultures you know, if you’re poor, you’re poor in whatever culture you live in. So that’s the next thing I would say.
Working in the civil service and being a manager in the civil service also helped me to develop a kind of understanding of managing priorities because there’s always more need than there are resources. So being able to manage between, when a family needs a service and when a family shouldn’t get a service, these are the things you deal with everyday.
Setting up my own consultancy was also good because it helped me to understand how you operate as an SMC in the real world, I wasn’t protected by the civil service. I was out there, admittedly only for three years but I had to build my reputation, I had to market myself, I had to manage my own accounts you know. So I have an understanding of the struggles that an SMC faces in the marketplace.
What about the social political climate in England? I mean is there something Singapore can learn from?
Two things – first thing is the democracy in England, and I don’t mean democracy in the House of Commons, I mean democracy on the ground you know. There’s a free flow of ideas. Nobody is put in jail because they say that Tony Blair is a despot; people can say and can contribute. And you see the thing about contributing is that it can create problems in society. You cannot have this openness without creating some problems. There will be xenophobic parties like what is happening in England. And I don’t believe that the society as a whole cannot contain this; I believe that the society as a whole can contain this – we’ve seen this in the UK.
The second thing I would say is that you know, underlying the political structure, whether or not you are right wing or left wing is the belief that the government is there to serve the people. The government is not like Lee Kwan Yew says – have a sense of proportion for the 0.03 percent GDP – it takes for its own wages, nothing like that. Government is about serving the people and if you don’t serve the people, then the people themselves have the right to throw you out at the next elections. And that’s very much a part of their culture – very much within that sociopolitical realm. We don’t have it.
So after being back for two years, what’re your observations about the sociopolitical climate here?
- Dr Wijeysingha speaking at the SDP pre-election rally on 13th Nov 2010
The idea that the government no longer operates for the benefit of the people - that’s something I have had to develop as a result of these last two years. The fabric is very different. The anger of the people – this is how they’ve been treated – the eight months of bonus while people- I mean there’s an old guy who works at this hawker centre here. He’s 71 years old, he’s depleted all his CPF savings and now at the age of 71 he works as a cleaner for $600 something a month. Now if you want an elderly person whose earning $600 something a month while you yourselves in the government are upholds a 1.3, 1.4 million a year, then something is profoundly wrong because how can you be happy with that level of remuneration when you know that people that you’re supposed to be serving are earning $600 a month? So that callousness is something else that I observe as being untenable.
You’re the executive director of the migrant workers NGO Transient Workers Count Too which is about advocacy for migrant workers’ rights and fair pay. On the other hand you’re with the SDP which is extremely critical of the immigration policy. Does that actually create a sense of paradox?
No it doesn’t you know.
The SDP, even from its earliest writing, has always believed and prioritized the rights of everybody. Human rights are not something that are closed to certain people; human rights exist within the body of each individual person. So our view has always been that the human rights of individual workers in Singapore, regardless of whether they’re foreigners or local, have to be protected and defended.
Having said that, we also are critical of the immigration policy because they immigration policy has effects that has got nothing to do with the individual people that benefit from the policy. Not take advantage but you know, benefit from the policy. We know very clearly that the reason for the huge inflow of foreign workers in Singapore – low wage foreign workers – is in order to depress the wages of everybody, whether its locals or foreigners, which is why you can pay a Singaporean person some $600 something a month.
So the SDP’s position is yes, we’re outraged by how workers are treated, whether they’re Singaporeans or foreign workers but we know that the reason for this structure is the misguided immigration policy.
The PAP has said that this election is about electing the leaders of tomorrow. During your walkabouts with the SDP, when you speak to people does it appear that that is the issue that they care about – the leadership?
I certainly haven’t heard anything about how- no one has said to me during our walkabouts that the leadership is an important issue for us. None.
So what’s the issue?
Cost of living. It tends to be said in less finesse terms but the issue of foreigners in the country you know, and overcrowding. The eight months bonus is something that the people are starting to talk about. I think people are scandalized by that. They know that wages have gone up, you know the wages for the middle income people have gone up only by some measures 0.5, 0.4 percent, 3 or 4 percent by other measures. Even the government is not pretending it’s more. And yet we have these guys who pay themselves a bonus of eight months – it’s scandalous by any measure. Particularly hey if you think about it there’re almost $300 billion in reserves, last year we made in the region $290 billion in GDP and if we look around and I mean not a large community, 5.2 million people – if we cannot guarantee a minimum kind of baseline quality of life for people, then something is clearly wrong.
Were you to stand for elections, on what issues will you stand on?
Okay, cost of living which has gone through the roof and cost of living in relations to all those areas of social welfare, education, housing which have also gone through the roof. People cannot afford to buy a house, literally not buy a flat. My parents live in a little house in a landed estate. When they bought it in 1960 something, ’63 ’62, my father was a junior teacher, my mother wasn’t working yet they were able to afford to buy. With this house on mortgage they were able to afford a domestic worker at home, they have two children within the first two years of their marriage and they- all the modern – at that time all the modern amenities. So that was affordable at that time. Now young people starting off are not able to afford that. My father’s house has now gone up hundreds of times. That’s scandalous by any measure because the cheapest flat you can buy in Singapore is what, $365,000 for two-bedroom flat? People cannot afford that. The Singaporean household debt is 170 percent of annual household income.
Healthcare is another issue. I know people who are not going for key operations because they can’t afford it. I was in a taxi once and the taxi driver said he couldn’t afford a cataract operation – and this was a guy who uses his eyes, which I think is very short sighted to not provide basic services for people because it’s the basic services that allow people to participate in the economy. That’s why we have social welfare. And if you’re pricing ordinary people out of social service, you’re impacting on the economy.
The other thing I would say in relation to this is our economy, our economic growth program is not looking to fundamentals, it’s not looking to address the creation of a framework – an economic framework that will endure the next ten, 20, 30 years. What we have now is the framework that Goh Keng Swee put in place in the 60s. That’s another problem. Look at the budget that came out in February. There’s nothing in there that makes me think yes, this is going to bear fruit in ten years from now. So that’s the second thing I would say.
And the third thing I would say is the government has lost its belief, lost its understanding in itself as a servant of the people. It’s now clearly the master of the people and it’s not even pretending it’s anything other than that. So these three areas I think which clearly has to be brought into the public sphere:
The other thing I would say is the increase in defend spending which is crazy – another $1.5 billion this year, very unsustainable. You go around the world and create problems with your neighbours, and then you say that justifies to have $12-13 billion, it doesn’t make sense. I would rather spend that $1.5 billion on building links with our neigbours, building relationships in order to reduce our defense spending. I would love to have a Singapore where there’s no army, no military whatsoever.
An academic once made a point – the two economies, apart from the US, that prospered the most after World War II was Japan and Germany. What do both these economies have in common? Under the post-war settlement they were not allowed to have armies so all those billions and billions of dollars they would have spent on the armies went into economic production, went into building the social infrastructure. So by the time of the 90s Germany is still in place today, the way it was able to lend money to Greece and also to Spain. I think it’s very clearly partly to do with the lack of spending on defense. You’re not wasting money. Singapore is spending a quarter of its expenditure on defense.
Will the call for minimum wage be one of the key messages that you will touch on?
Yah, basic economic justice. You cannot have people working like this – working for $4 an hour. Domestic workers from dawn working for 20 cents an hour, cannot! It’s basic economic justice. The Prime Minister earns $10,000 a day.
But you know there’s this very strong view going around that minimum wage doesn’t work. It’s workfare that should be the way.
Yah you have serious people out there making that argument, that workfare is the way. I don’t think it’s the way for two reasons: One, workfare isn’t a cash handout deal. Two-thirds of it goes into your CPF and the CPF doesn’t build any capacity now. CPF build capacity in the future. That’s the first thing I’ll say.
The second thing I’ll say is, by not encouraging more spending in the economy, on one hand you’re allocating this for people but on the other hand you’re preventing it from use now. When is it going to be used? There’s no you know, a Keynesian kind of approach. Yes you need to develop spending capacity in the economy so workfare clearly doesn’t work.
The minimum wage does work. 90 percent of countries have a form of minimum wage. China has a minimum wage. England brought in the minimum wage in 2000, 1999 and I was there at that time they were talking about minimum wage. They brought in a commission to study the idea and the same arguments that are being made now were made then in England. It’s going to lose jobs, the economy is going to collapse, small and medium industries are going to suffer the most from that. Nothing of that happened. In fact the rate of job creation has remained the same, if not risen higher because of the minimum wage. So I think the minimum wage – all the arguments against the minimum wage has no validity. In fact based on the countries that already have it, the arguments are purely being made by the people who have a kind of emotional objection to the poor being paid more. Because we’ve got no problems for the minimum wage for MPs, no problem with minimum wage for doctors, lawyers. It’s only the poor and the less skilled that we have a problem with paying more to and I think that’s an emotional position, nothing to do with policy and whether the policy will be effective.
You’ve known Dr Chee since 1991, and now working with him. So how is it been working with Dr Chee?
Inspiring, exhilarating, but humbling at the same time. You know I sit in a meeting with him and he listens to me with the same interest as he would listen to anyone else. And I mean he could approach it in a different way: “listen to me, I’m the one with 20 years of experience” but he doesn’t you know. He listens to each and every person so it’s a very humbling experience but it’s a very humane experience as well because I believe that he came to politics as a result of his deeply-held values, you know his human values, his spiritual values and that has impacted how he behaves. So when you’re with him you cannot not be drawn along with his kind of hurricane of effort, of optimism, values, concern and commitment.
Ok, last question. Why is Singapore worth fighting for?
Because it is my home. Even when I lived abroad for so many years I never called England home, you know. Singapore is always home. I have uncles who have lived in England for 50 years and when they come for holiday here they still talk about going home on holiday. I have aunts who lived in the US for many years they still talk about going home.
So it’s home; it’s a home like no other in the sense that you know our food, our Singlish, our architecture – it didn’t develop anywhere else and then get transported here. It developed here you know, and I love it. I love our architecture, our hybrid cultures that have emerged here – the Peranakans and the Eurasians. Both my grandmothers are of Eurasian ancestry. So unlike those Singaporeans for example who can look to say China or India as their ancestry, I can’t because I’m of such mixed ancestry that Singapore is the only place I can call home you know. There’s no other place that could have spawned me from an ethnic point of view.
Read also The Third Chee Soon Juan
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Whether you leave or had left, this is absolutely NOT an ISSUE.
It is only a PAP issue, an issue that PAP want to make an aggenda out of in order with the help of Shit Times Spin, to divert ALL voters attention from the REAL issues which are a plenty.
DON’T let the PAP lead ALL opposition into this Diversion of Real Issues trap.
The PAP is very cunning to form aggenda out of non-issues with the help of Shit Times.
Opposition, hold fast, stick to the CORE of your beliefs, the citizens grouses, the citizens complaints over ALL these years – viz, PAPs failures in population procreation, low productiity, low wages, foreigners STEALING jobs, increasing Govt loss of ideas eg the Casino build causing now beginning to grow SOCIAL problems of debts and SUICIDES family breakdowns etc, Orchard floods blamed on gods, CPF Hugh Lie and Mistake as IT IS NO LONGER retirement at 55 institution for funds withdrawal, it is a Housing Debt trap Accomplice…
After Debunking the PAP, move on. They can harp and harp senslessly, citizens will know wht the crap PAP talked.
Conclusion – Physical presense is INSIGNIFICANT. We ARE living in age of Ultra high speed Interconnectivity. DONT let the PAP bull shit. Not in Sgp means out of touch – Out of touch of what? Reading tons of propaganda??
Come on PAP bluff big time…
Cute guy…
I like him
hmmmm…
Great write-up. All the best Vincent and SDP.
Will the ST lapdogs feature these? Whores will fly.
The problem is there are a lot of PAP sympathetiser. Many ppl believe in PAP.
I believe in PAP.The true PAP left with the older generation.When i found out that none of the ideals that build Singapore to where we are came from LKY,i was astonished!When i ask around my friends,no one believe me.
Everyone still believe LKY created HDB.
The truth is Lim kim San was the person who came up with the ideal and proceed with the plan with many ppl objecting to his plans.
Even Goh keng Swee was another great man that did great things for Singapore.
All these smart talented ppl left PAP to prevent becoming the same fate as ppl from Barisan Socialis.
They were like Zhang Liang from Han Dynasty.Who knew the emperor was afraid of them being to powerful.Quick hide from public to prevent a fate worst then death…
This is the first time I read about Dr. wijeysingha.
He has a lots of ideas and suggestions. I think government will definately welcome his suggestion.
It is so good if we all voters can hear Dr. wijeysingha in parliament. This will be the blessing for Singaporeans or voters.
I hope has has the smooth political path. I hope PAP loves him also.
Thanks TOC for sharing this interview with us. The Straits Times may give oppo candidates too little coverage, but thankfully I don’t need to rely on them these days.
It will be sad to see a capable person end up in prison or fined or sued over some dumb protests, hunger strikes, demonstrations. Afterall he is in the singapore demonstration party
brave souls stand firm and just don’t do
stupid things, we will support u
Thanks for doing this interview. PLEASE do more of these!
It gives the opposition more credibility in the eyes of the public.
I need more explanation on the minimum wage thing.
Bravo!
This is the kind of leader I want and respect. All the best, Dr V.
As a layman, I agree it is not about who wins in the election. The issue here is about ‘re-defining’ our society and how we go about doing it. The advancement of technology these few years really made us just a click away from the world. Voters today and from previous elections are definitely more aware of what is going on in our society and are also more vocal about issues here.
In the past few elections, its all about how we move forward to be the world’s top cosmopolitan city through economical development from various industries sectors, implementing strategies and policies to generate more money to make our live better. But the in the process, we lost our way. IR and casinos for example surely did generate income, creating jobs, boost tourism and helped in our economic development bring in tourist and income from over the world. We did plan for contingency to prevent social problems too. But till now, how much social problems had it created? How much are we doing to prevent or to solve these problems? These are some of the things we cannot say ‘ lets move on..’
Although we are progressing in economy aspect , our basic citizen’s welfare is far from progressing. As we become richer, we must also think about whether the majority of our fellow countrymen are catching up with the few in front. Our fast progressive economy as its own negative impact on our society.
Once such example was that even the health minister mentioned that when he was ill, staying in hospital going through operations was not a affordable expenses for the people.
But from my point of view, serving the military or home team is still a need in Singapore. Apart from the defense budget, having go through the NS is a life experience for every male Singaporean. It is a bedrock of the society bonding us together. Although it is tough, but every parent definitely be able to tell that their sons mature and gotten ready for the society after serving NS. In political and security aspect, as what we know, Singapore is located in a sensitive area. Our X and Y axis have neighbours that do not see eye to eye with us. Some time after our independence, people did flex their muscles to us. And even before that, remember the McDonald house incident? and in recent time, the yishun mrt incident that we intercepted… We cannot afford that to happen in Singapore.
That is why we need to have capable oppositions to raise the voice from different perspectives to help improve and fine tune our system so we can look back, look forward and re-define our society. We cannot say that PAP are not doing their part because Singapore in general still progress. Although they are doing well, but they are far from perfect. Re-define is what i meant to fine tune our system.
My humble thoughts.
Good interview. The readers feel connected. We need straight forward communication like this. This interview certainly let us go into the mind of what candidates-to-be like Dr Vincent and understand where he is coming from and where is heading together with us.
We do not need candidates that tell us their greatest regret is not bringing their parents to Universal Studio.
Do more of this with other opposition candidates, whom till date, are deprived of proper and deserving space in the MSM.
I used to feel very negatively about SDP but with this interview, at least now I am able to realign my thoughts and feel happy that there are very good people in this party.
But then again, this is an interview. What is left is walking the talk after the election. The opposition members should be given a chance to perform.
Thank you, Dr Vincent. And thank you TOC for this interview. Give us more like this please.
Fantastic. A man of enormous substance who has a great grasp of issues that are interlinked and understands what makes the political, economic and social ecosystem of Singapore tick to really benefit Singapore citizens for the very long-term.
The PAP candidates are just managers/implementors (look at their background and experience), not visionaries or true leaders!
Great article, allow us voters to know more about Dr Wijeysingha. This is the quality of people we want to vote into parliament, not the likes of Tin Pei Ling who get in through GRC backdoor. Thumbs up!
I thought we have a fresh face, but after reading his comment, how naive to even suggest to do away army, his grasp on regional relationship is craps.
He is lacking in his understanding of the international realities facing Singapore, not just regional but at a global level.
We did not partner NATO for fun and games, that much is for sure. But, his understanding of our social issues is pretty much spot-on and I must say that credit must be given when it is due.
I always read criticisms of people wanting to downsize or do away with the military being ‘naive’.
I challenge these non-naive folks to tell us what these ‘international realities’ are that require such a large, offensively equipped army.
We have a good candidate here who is in touch with the ground and understand it 1st hand. May he represents us in the govt.
Good. Dr Wijey, I will definitely give you Full 100% support. Wish you all the luck you need, all the strength that God shall give you, and all the wisdom from above needed to counter the cunningness of the PAP, an armour to shield you not from darts and arrows, but the jeers, the provocative comments from PAP trolls, PAP supporters, and brain-washed pro PAP Sillyporeans.
Most of all, cloak yourself with humility and humbleness. But be as swift as a deer to defend your integrity which the PAP undoubtedly will seek the slightest ray of entry to penetrate an attack. And Do NOT ne entrapped by PAP’s sleigh of hand and their mouthfull of spoken or/and unspoken filth which can be invisible at times, disguised bt Shit Times reporting.
Thank you for reading.
It is correct that pap does not apologize
for the way they operate today. Little
regard for our people’s legitimate concerns is accepted as normal. Migration problems will be big when even
diploma and degree holders get displaced.
if more scholarly singaporeans could think and ‘feel’ LIKE VINCENT FOR OUR COUNTRY,OUR FELLOW SINGAPOREANS, especially those marginalised by the haughty PAP’s so-called ‘meritocratic’ system ,- that, to me has many flaws and even rewards ‘failures’ and failings by our elites – singapore would indeed be a BETTER PALCE AND ‘HOME’ for all of us.
i am not against migrant WORKERS,per se, but i think ‘CHARITY MUST BEGIN AT HOME’.
the ‘MIGRANTS’ have their OWN elites and govt to take care of and if our ‘ELITES’ and govt leadership think they wnat to help,they should really go down to the core of the problems of these migrants and offer ‘help’ there?
why IMPOVERISH OUR OWN POOR and make them even poorer in trying to help ‘poor’ migrant workers?
is this truly what social justice is all about?
singaporeans,by and large,are socially UPRIGHT people and we are much more ompassionate than even the ‘MIGRANTS’ who flock here,i must say.(JUST LOOK AT HOW WE HELP THE NEEDY OF THOSE MIGRANTS’ COUNTRMEN).
it is time for REAL CHANGE in singapore as the current govt policies are indeed leading us to nowhere except to make ‘fools’ and ‘beggars’ out of our own kind and good-hearted singaporeans.
Pacifist,
Do you know the amount of time and effort we expend in Track I and Track II diplomatic channels within ASEAN and without ASEAN?
Look at the geographical region that we sit in, then look at our strategic partnerships/alliances. We are in a vulnerable geo-political part of the world, smack in the middle of the post-2000 energy security axis where influence and NTS (non-traditional security)policies of all stakeholder nations change as the tides.
You tell me we don’t need a capable military that can deter? I will simply say you are uninformed.
The world is not a campfire with brownies and scouts singing friendship songs, much as we strive to make it so.
mackinder,
No. Answer the question instead of begging more questions.
Quite frankly, even if I accept your logic, what you say still does not explain the size and capability requirements of our military. You might as well use the same assertions to justify the need for nuclear armament.
Hey mackinder, so I guess the first place you and your army should storm is Lee Kuan Yew’s house.
Because his recent remarks on Malays and Islam are sure to cause more national security threats due to the “geographical region that we sit in”.
Please get your capable military to deter the damage he has and continues to cause to our national security.
We should have more people like him – committed to the cause and fighting injustices.
My vote goes to you for your humility and personal sacrifices..
Hope you win and speak for the man in the street.
A very impressive interview. He appears to be more dynamic and substantial than Puthucheary’s son.
Vincent, i have heard your speech at speaker corner and you come across as a humble and likeable candidate. you do make sense except for doing away with military in totality is not entirely acceptable given our ‘hostile’ geographical location. i wish you do well in this election and look forward to more qualified candidates like yourself.
@paul, mackinder and shanti,
Please point out EXCACTLY where in this interview or the SDP’s shadow budget did either Dr Wijeysinghe or the SDP propose the abolishment of the military services?
Do the three of you know the difference between:
a) REDUCING the scale of the military services AFTER improving relations with ASEAN members states as well as proposed joint ASEAN military. (“Do member states of a poiltical-military union attack themselves internally? Duh!”
AND,
b) ABOLISHING the military services altogether, and especially after not ensuring security via improved foreign relations, as well as reducing the irrationality of the racism against Muslims?
The part on S without an army, I believe, is simply an ideal but non-practical case. No matter what, history has taught us that a strong army is necessary.
On an over-simplified analogy, would you not spend your dollars on a lock (or strong door) in spite of good relationship with neighbours?
“The other thing I would say is the increase in defend spending which is crazy – another $1.5 billion this year, very unsustainable. You go around the world and create problems with your neighbours, and then you say that justifies to have $12-13 billion, it doesn’t make sense. I would rather spend that $1.5 billion on building links with our neigbours, building relationships in order to reduce our defense spending. I would love to have a Singapore where there’s no army, no military whatsoever.”
He never says anything about abolishing the army. His comment at the end is a personal opinion about his ideal. The rest of the paragraph talks about how he cannot understand the need for an INCREASE in the Defense budget.
military expense.
i agree to some extent,having and therfore,FEEDING,an army and all the related ‘capital’ expenses IS IMPORTANT to uphold the integrity of our country.
however,the QUESTION is HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH???
do we think that even 30-40 pct of our budget IS SUFFICIENT to ‘effectively’ defend ourselves against potential enemies?
WILL OUR ARMED FORCES be stronger or are we willing to increase our military spending even more JUST TO MATCH UP with those ‘potential’ enemies?
there is really no end to all these military spending to acquire military might.
see, even the MIGHTY USA had lost in recent warfares in VIETNAM AND KOREA and these are countries with ‘backward’ military might compared to the mighty ‘MARINES’?
NETT OF EVERYthing, I THINK,in this present circumstances,MORE should be spent on HELPING TO ‘BUILD’ the OSCIO-ECONOMIC aspects OF OUR TOTAL DEFENCE structure,isn’t it?
how come a ‘hungry and angry’ populace be motivated to fight,tell me?
Good answers from Dr Wijey. And why not, as he comes from very good pedigree.
His father Eugene was one-time principal of Raffles Institution.
Nothing lightweight about this prospective candidate.
ASEAN military? Impartical and just as a joke as the EU military–which faces oppposition every day
doing away with military in totality is not entirely acceptable given our ‘hostile’ geographical location
Girl, what are you smoking? ;-)
Dr Vincent Wijeysingha
Dr Chee and you are the men we are looking for all these years to run the government.
Unfortunately, the PAP is so scare about SDP that they always tried to smear Dr. Chee.
I sincerely hope the SDP every success in this coming election.
Thank you for this article, Joshua.
Wow here you guys are, slamming one guy who has a mind of his own and taking a standpoint. How about Kate-spade girl who speaks about non-issues and other potential MPs speaking about ‘how they can relate to the poor’ with their intro speeches that are sugar-coated to fool the electorate and are published to unknowing folks in the mainstream media?
And do you think such a major policy like abolishing NS will just be passed like that, given that he’s in the opposition? What we need is robust debate. We want to have a free exchange of ideas, listen a few opinions from different sides, then we can judge what’s feasible or not. This is democracy, not like the ruling party who makes decisions without debate or consultation, just because they have 82/84 in the house.
From this exercise, it just shows that singaporeans are not ready for democracy. They are not prepared to hear an alternative voice and are so quick to judge put someone down just because he has an alternative viewpoint. They don’t even want this alternative viewpoint to be raised make it into parliament for everyone to hear and think about issues they would not have thought about on their own, and then through free debate and possibly a referendum, let singaporeans decide for themselves what they feel, such that singaporeans have a voice.
Too childish. You people deserve TPL in parliament.
@spy:
I have said this before but it is worth re-iterating: Singaporeans vote in greatest numbers, the party that does the least for them proportionate to the resources that that party has. I have also said that it is tied to their lack of self respect that the PAP has nurtured in them. (“I don’t deserve better than the crap that the PAP throws at me.”)
That’s why they appreciate parties like the PAP and the WP. Conversely, that’s why SDP bashing, for no rhyme and reason other than it is the SDP, is their cherished national sport. With the SDP bashers in particular, I find that you just have to scratch the surface and you will find a diehard PAP loyalist.
Whether or not these peopla are ready for democracy is immaterial to me. As far as I am concerned, they are saboteurs who deliberately drag their feet over personal change and in that process, ensure that disadvantage will befall many sections of Singapore society.
I am not waiting for them to be ready for democracy; I am ready for it and its too bad for them that I am speaking out against them. I have no sense of solidarity with opposition supporters of their quality if that’s what they are calling themselves.
I think its beneficial for Singapore that men (or women) of the highest calibre, in any party, steps forward for election.
I like this guy but, he is in the wrong party. Hate Chee SJ who always use the foreign press to spread lies about living condtion in Singapore. WP is more credible but not Chee’s party. Move out now dude!!
Incumbent will play KIASU game again this GE. SO please remember Oppo parties
to plan with care, not only courage.
The people if they fully understand where
incumbent is pushing them, will in reality want to vote oppo in. Let the people know where they will end up – most
of them anyway AFTER this GE.
What a breath of fresh air! I’ve always supported SDP and this is the reason – candidates like this. You won’t find such a good mind among the PAP robots!
Good work again TOC.
These are some questions for Dr Vincent.
You mention that Singaporeans are;
“I don’t know but you know there’s something about being Singaporean that cannot be replicated. We are a very unusual society; we have a different outlook on the world, we have a different way of relating to the realities of life,”
What do you mean by this. Can you kindly explain?
My feet didn’t stay rooted to the ground after reading his. Is that a good sign?
Given his credentials, Dr Wijeysingha is no doubt a force to be reckoned with but would the fact that he wasn’t here for nearly 16 years cost him dearly? Time will tell. Two issues he touched on sounded a little bit jarring and that leads me wondering: would his primary views and future mission cause discontentment in the govt body and the people? Maybe I was reading too much into it..
Appears slightly an idealist to me but that is redeemable with experiences. He could be useful – buffering between local authorities and the heartlanders, and not to mention he appears genuinely a “people-person”.
An ‘Animal Farm’ in Singapore
http://theowlcritic.blogspot.com/2011/03/animal-farm-in-singapore.html
If this was the 1990s or before that, Dr Vincent would be tortured and imprisoned by PAP using the draconian act of ISA (Internal Security Act).
Such is the high calibre of personnells that the opposition are attracting that I suspect the PAP will launch its smear campaign in due time.
Thank goodness for the internet; the only place where you can find freedom in a prison island that is Singapore.
Do you know the amount of time and effort we expend in Track I and Track II diplomatic channels within ASEAN and without ASEAN?
Look at the geographical region that we sit in, then look at our strategic partnerships/alliances. We are in a vulnerable geo-political part of the world, smack in the middle of the post-2000 energy security axis where influence and NTS (non-traditional security)policies of all stakeholder nations change as the tides.
You tell me we don’t need a capable military that can deter? I will simply say you are uninformed.
The world is not a campfire with brownies and scouts singing friendship songs, much as we strive to make it so.
=========
you’re living in the 19th or 20th century, my friends, making money out of weapons of mass destruction is the norm.
costa rica has no army, will or did chavez invade, and costa rica has same pop but more land and resources than tiny red dot.
would you want to invade and feed, clothe, give water, lights to tiny red dot…..if so, you have been brainwashed.
winning a war and conquering barren land is not “wise”, more on “stupidity”
one very good reason why tiny dot was “kick” off.
why not tha same with sarawak or sabah, because at one time, sabah wants to break free….????
why…..nobody in the right mind wants,
“barren land”
and to feed, clothe, provide water and basic needs, does the above comes “free”
you people are a bunch of BRAINWASHED and SOILED dafts as mm said
Dear Dr Vincent Wijeysingha,
Don’t give up the fight believe one day you will make it,the speech given by you and CSJ so far has given me much confident ,all the best to you and SDP.
IF the PAP wins by even a single seat, you can expect them and their media to whack the oppos with their propaganda machinery. You can also expect more FTs, up to a million new FT to fight for jobs that yo have and against your children and relatives. Your HDB will increase in price and you have to live with your children and your children will not be able to afford a home of their own. Your hospitals and clinics and transport system will be so traumatised that only 3rd and 4th world standards can be achived.
Your forefathers built this country for you to be free and not to be slaves to 84 MPs from the PAP!!!
Vote out the PAP and reclaim your country. Merdeka Singapore! Merdeka from PAP!!! Merdeka!!!!!!