He was an orange-and-white domestic short haired (DSH) kitten, probably no more than a couple of months old. He was hiding timidly underneath a neighbourhood park bench overlooking a long canal, along a route I usually take when I walk home every night. I’ve seen many stray cats before in the Bishan area, but this one caught my eye immediately when I first encountered him a few months back.

For one, he looked really hungry, and it showed in his skinny physique and tender, bony paws. I bent down to take a closer look but he scurried off, so I decided to leave him alone.

The next night however I saw him again, under the same bench, looking even skinner than before. For some reason, I decided to sit down on the bench to see how he would react. To my surprise, he did not scurry off like before. Instead, he stayed put where he was sitting, and after a while, he tentatively approached me and took a few sniffs of my shoes and socks. When he realized I meant him no harm, he grew a little bolder and started to toy with my shoelaces.

I realized then that he was not a completely feral cat (who are naturally afraid to approach strangers), but more likely a kitten that had been previously cared for by someone and who had either been lost or abandoned. He looked extremely pitiful, with that particular expression on his small, cute face betraying his intense hunger. In the past, I left stray cats alone, but that night, I felt compelled to do something for this little kitty.

I reached down and picked him up, and that surprised him a little. I held him gently with two hands, one hand holding his front paws so he could not leap off, and another supporting his slender belly so that he would not feel too uncomfortable. Then I walked towards the nearest block of HDB flats that I knew had some other community cats who are being fed by caregivers on a regular basis. I wanted to see if I could find him some food left out for the other cats.

It was disconcerting for the sweet little kitten to be taken away like that, and he struggled a few times, but did not try to bite me or claw at me. I tried to comfort him, and I somehow knew I was doing the right thing for him even though I was taking him away from a place that was familiar to him.

I managed to find a big pile of cooked chicken scraps that someone had dumped near the rubbish bin area for the other community cats to feast on. I sat him down immediately and actually half-expected him to leap out of my grasp and dash away in fear. But there was no fear in him, only hunger.

The moment I released him, he lurched toward the food and started eating ravenously. And boy, was he a hungry one. When I checked back on him a good 15 minutes later, he was still ferociously clawing at the scraps of chicken bones and meat and wolfing them down like there was no tomorrow. My heart totally went out to him.

The next few days however when I went in search of him around the same area, I couldn’t find him anymore. I wondered what happened to him. Perhaps he had been chased away by the other community cats who can get pretty territorial. Or perhaps he had wandered off elsewhere in search of another meal.

I never did see him again but to this day I remember that famished little kitty digging frantically into that dirty pile of cooked chicken, barely pausing once or twice to gaze at me with a pair of teary eyes.

Even to this day sometimes I would sit under that HDB block or around the bench where I first picked him up, hoping beyond hope that perhaps I might see him again.

__________________________________

By Ng E-Jay

Headline image courtesy of Love Meow

_____________________________________________

Related posts:

1. SPF should build strong community partnerships in cyberspace
2. Self-regulation by the blogging community: why not?
3. TOC – a community of Singaporeans

The following is the latest statement by the Chairman of the Singapore Democratic Alliance, Mr Chiam See Tong:

“My feelings on the meeting between Singapore Democratic Alliance and The Reform Party are that the talks are still ongoing, and should not be construed as a deadlock between our parties. I believe that there is much constructive discussion ahead, which will demonstrate that common sense and goodwill amongst the Opposition parties will prevail. Ultimately, our objective is to unite the Opposition in Singapore.”

———————-

The Reform Party (RP) has kicked into high gear by unveiling five new candidates who will be standing in the upcoming elections even as talks of an alliance with the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) hit a roadbump.

At a press conference on Friday, the RP unveiled its slate which included former Singapore Armed Forces scholar Mr Tony Tan and wife former Public Service Commission Overseas Merit scholar and onetime Assistant Deputy Director at the Ministry of Finance Ms Hazel Poa.

In an earlier interview with TOC, Mr Tan told TOC that he went into politics to “make a difference to the people in the street however small it is” and that his views on the need for poverty reduction were shaped by being raised by a single mother with his three brothers and three sisters.

Also introduced at the press conference were Mr Alec Tok, artistic director for a New York-based theatre company and Mr Jeisilan Sivalingam, a process improvement manager at a multi-national company.

Mr Tok is a Master’s degree holder from Yale, while Mr Sivalingam holds a BSC from the University of Southern Australia.

A New York based actress who has worked with Alec before described him to TOC as “one of the most effectively bilingual people I’ve met…and someone who knows precisely what he wants from his actors on stage and sets very high standards while still managing to be understanding”.

Mr Abdul Rahim Bin Osman was the only opposition veteran to be unveiled as a candidate at the press conference on Friday. He has experience contesting two previous general elections.

The RP said that it aimed to contest in at least two Group Representation Constituencies and two Single Member Constituencies in the coming general elections, which will be confirmed when the electoral boundaries are released. The party has already been doing walkabouts in several constituencies in the last few months.

Alliance talks on hold

However, a proposed Reform Party-SDA alliance came to a temporary standstill.

In an interview with MediaCorp on Saturday evening after the Reform Party’s first annual conference, the party’s Secretary-General said that the proposed alliance “is off for now“. He also expressed dissatisfaction with a leak of negotiation proposals, saying that “we won’t be conducting any further negotiations … because we’re not entering into negotiations with an organisation that leaks confidential documents to the press“.

Mr Jeyaretnam was referring to a list of eleven conditions that the Reform Party wanted the SDA to accede to as part of the agreement for an alliance — a set of terms that was rejected by the SDA after a meeting of the SDA’s central executive committee on Friday night.

SDA’s rejection of the eleven conditions was confirmed by Mr Desmond Lim, Asst Secretary-General of the SPP and Secretary-General of the SDA, also in an interview with Mediacorp on Saturday.

Mr Jeyaretnam had wanted the alliance to be billed as a partnership of equals, and for himself to be installed as either chairman or secretary-general of the alliance.

Additionally, the terms included Mr Chiam See Tong contesting with Mr Jeyaretnam and at least two Reform Party candidates in the West Coast GRC, delegating the responsibility for writing and presenting the SDA’s televised political broadcast at the next election to Mr Jeyaretnam, and allowing the Reform Party to continue contesting under its own name in other wards of its choice.

It is understood that Mr Chiam and his wife, who is also a member of SDA’s central executive committee, had privately agreed to most of them.

In his comments to the press, Mr Jeyaretnam claimed that SDA’s rejection of the conditions indicate that “Chiam did not have the agreement of the SDA when he entered into negotiations“.

Talks not foreclosed

Despite the leak of the negotiation positions, Mr Jeyaretnam noted on the SDA Facebook page that talks were still possible on the condition that the source of the leak was identified and that a singular SDA negotiating position was achieved. The RP will be meeting this coming month to discuss whether, and if so, how to move ahead with talks.

As for the SDA, Mr Desmond Lim struck a philosophically optimistic note when interviewed by TOC about the question of opposition unity:

“Unity is about unconditional love-simply acceptance and compassion-If one knows that he is an object of someone else’s affection and love, it is bound to have an impact, and this will be much appreciated”.

By: Choo Zheng Xi and Ng E-jay

———-

Pictures courtesy of newasiarepublic.com

Related posts:

1. Reform Party seeking alliance with SDA
2. Reform Party chief on impasse with SDA
3. “The door is always open to him,” says Reform Party of chairman

Three bills were tabled in Parliament last week to amend the Constitution as well as the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections Acts. The proposed changes include raising the maximum number of Non-Constituency MPs from six to nine, making the Nominated MP scheme permanent, and introducing a cooling-off day prior to polling day in which no form of election campaigning is allowed except for party political broadcasts. [1] [2]

These bills will be debated by Parliament next month and are expected to become law.

The proposal to introduce a cooling-off day in particular is cause for grave concern. It has the potential to stifle legitimate political discourse by non-partisan players in cyberspace, and create an unfair playing field in which the mainstream media has a distinct advantage because it would be given free reign to express its views at a time when alternative voices might be silenced by law.

The idea of having a cooling-off day was first broached by PM Lee Hsien Loong in November 2009. Under the proposal, all election campaigning will be disallowed 24 hours before polling day, including mass rallies, door-to-door visits, and the display of party logos and symbols. The only exceptions will be party political broadcasts which are televised on the eve of the polls, as well mainstream media reports on the election. Mr Lee said that the cooling-off period “would give voters time to reflect rationally on issues, after the emotional high of election campaigning“. [3]

Bill No. 4/2010: Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill, which was first read on 11 March 2010, is the relevant bill that seeks to change the election laws to include a cooling-off day.

According to the bill, the original section 78B of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chp. 218) that pertains to bans on election advertising on polling day would be replaced by a revised one that states that no person on polling day or the eve of polling day shall knowingly publish or permit the publication of election advertising. This includes election advertising on the internet. The bill does not clarify exactly what constitutes election advertising. Presumably, this might be covered in subsidiary legislation that could be introduced later.

This rule however does not apply to publication of election news in a newspaper or other medium permitted under the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act (Chp. 206), or radio or television broadcasts licensed under the Broadcasting Act (Chp. 28). The rule also does not apply to election advertising published on the internet before the eve of polling day, and which was not changed after its publication.

Any person in contravention of these rules would be liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months, or to both. The law is also to be made stricter, in that offences committed in respect of elections advertising are now seizable offences within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code (Chp. 68).

In the absence of subsidiary legislation that specifies exactly what constitutes election advertising, webmasters and blog owners could find themselves in a conundrum because there is no clarity regarding what is allowed or disallowed on the internet on polling day or the eve of polling day.

For example, when exactly does expressing opinions on local current affairs issues veer into the forbidden zone of elections advertising? No one can tell for sure. Politics is inextricably linked to economics, social issues, and indeed, to everyday life. And when politics is discussed, is it realistic to avoid mentioning political parties and their differing policies?

What kind of self-censorship would bloggers and online forum participants have to impose on themselves in order to stay within the law? There is zero clarity on this matter. When there is a deliberate vagueness in the law and a distinct lack of clarity, it would be up to the authorities to arbitrarily define and enforce the rules. This would make for a dangerous Catch-22 situation. The climate of fear of discussing politics online would only be further entrenched.

Other examples: Would reader comments on blogs and posts on online forums be allowed on cooling-off day, especially if those comments express explicit support or disapproval of specific political parties? Would avatars bearing the likeness of political party logos be permitted on Facebook or on forums? Would a simple “I support the National Solidarity Party!” comment posted on Twitter constitute election advertising and render one liable for prosecution?

As can be seen from these examples, the proposed amendment to the Parliamentary Elections Act has the potential to open a can of worms that could nibble away at the confidence of internet participants to engage in mature, responsible dialogue online. And when confusion and lack of clarity regarding the rules is allowed to fester on the internet, charges of discrimination and unfairness is likely to follow.

The idea of having a quiet period before the vote is taken is not unique to Singapore. Countries like Australia, Indonesia and Italy all have some variation of this feature in their electoral systems, with anything from one to three days of campaign silence before the poll is conducted.

However, the necessity for a cooling-off period in these countries is dictated by their much larger geographical area with the view of accommodating people from rural or inaccessible locations who might need more time to vote. That factor obviously does not apply to Singapore.

Moreover, these countries have a free and independent mainstream press, unlike Singapore.

In Singapore, the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act restrict the publication of newspapers to companies that are licensed by the authorities. With the exception of MediaCorp’s daily freesheet Today, all daily newspapers including the Straits Times are printed by Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), whose management shareholders are appointed by the government. There is little trust amongst cyberspace participants that the mainstream press would report on the election in a purely objective and non-partisan fashion.

If the government was sincere about opening up political space in Singapore, it could welcome applications for publishing licenses from bloggers, NGO and civic groups, even if only for the election period. If the status quo remains, the mainstream press would always be seen to have an unfair advantage, especially in the area of election reporting.

The permission given to the mainstream media to continue reporting on the election whilst alternative voices and opposition parties have to grapple with vaguely worded legislation in a bid to stay within the law creates an unfair playing field that can only sow greater mistrust for the electoral system.

If the mainstream press makes what is widely observed to be an unfavorable report on opposition parties on cooling-off day, would opposition parties not be allowed to respond to and rebut the points raised? Would they be unfairly silenced under the guise of allowing emotions to cool and maintaining public order?

Until these questions, amongst others, are satisfactorily answered, few are likely to believe that the government is sincere about progressively liberalising political space in Singapore.

_____________________________

References:

[1] Channel News Asia, “3 bills tabled to amend Constitution, Presidential & Parliamentary elections“, 11 March 2010

[2] Straits Times, “Changes to political system by next month“, 12 March 2010

[3] Channel News Asia, “PM Lee proposes extra day of non-campaigning before polling day“, 01 December 2009

__________________________________________________

Related posts:

1. Cooling-off day open to abuse in ruling party’s favour : Sylvia Lim
2. Cooling-off…. into a deep freeze
3. PM Lee proposes “24-hour cooling-off” period before Polling Day

By Ng E-Jay

Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam delivered the Budget Statement in Parliament on Monday 22 Feb.

In the opening paragraphs of his budget speech, the Finance Minister acknowledged the vulnerability of Singapore’s export-oriented economy which caused it to suffer a 10% GDP contraction during the most recent recession. However, it is disappointing to note that the budget statement did not mention ways in which Singapore’s economy could be diversified so as to make it less reliant on exports.

Mr Shanmugaratnam said that Budget 2010 aimed at positioning Singapore’s economy to deliver growth based on productivity gains rather than ever expanding use of manpower, as per the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) recommendations.

Emphasizing the need for transforming our economy and raising worker skills has been a constant refrain of the Singapore government since the late 1970s. The initial success of the government in the early days of nation building was due to the fact that we started off from a low base in terms of worker skills and overall educational level of the workforce. By the late 1990s, growth in productivity had stagnated after a couple of boom decades.

What has the Finance Minister said to convince us that it will be different this time, especially when the proposed measures in Budget 2010 are nothing novel or radical, but are merely variations of what the government is purported to have been doing in recent years?

According to Budget 2010, the government will spend $5.5 billion over the next 5 years on sustained initiatives to help businesses and workers raise productivity. While $5.5 billion may sound like a lot of money, it is just half the amount spent on defence in a single year. It is also a tiny fraction of the amount of money lost by GIC and Temasek during the 2008 financial meltdown. Is the government truly serious about its latest initiatives at raising productivity?

Mr Shanmugaratnam said that the government will support the growth of globally oriented companies including those involved in R&D. While that sounds positive on the surface, the government’s poor track record at picking industry winners casts doubt as to whether it should really be in a position to decide who should succeed or fail.

Very often, the free market makes much better choices compared to a team of ivory-towered bureaucrats. There are also conflicts of interests because many of Singapore’s globally oriented companies are Government-Linked Corporations.

The Finance Minister also acknowledged in his budget statement that reducing the dependence on foreign labour will pay off in higher productivity over the longer term, but impact growth in the short term.

The undesirable outcome of having to deal with reduced growth in the short term could have been avoided had the government calibrated the inflow of foreign workers right from the start, as opposed to waiting till the population had become saturated with foreigners before narrowing the valve. In this instance, the government has shown itself to be reactionary rather than proactive.

The Finance Minister also said that median incomes rose by 20% in real terms from 2005 to 2008, justifying the government’s growth strategy of importing large numbers of foreign workers.

Unfortunately, Mr Shanmugaratnam has neglected to consider the fact that wages at the lower end of the income spectrum are still stagnating. Therefore, contrary to what Mr Shanmugaratnam has said, the government had indeed embarked on a “growth at all cost” model of economic management in recent years, because the growth strategies contributed to larger income disparities and failed to take into account the strain on the social fabric of our nation as a result of uncontrolled population expansion.

The Finance Minister’s proposal for the government to facilitate mergers and acquisitions (M&A) through enhanced tax benefits and waiver of stamp duty on transfer of unlisted shares is disconcerting. M&As are good for an economy only up to a certain extent. While they help weed out companies that are not so competitive, in a small economy like Singapore’s, they also have a tendency to create monopolies that eventually retard productivity growth because of reduced competition and crowding out of smaller players.

The Finance Minister also spoke about nurturing the next generation of business leaders, such as spending money to enhance SPRINGS’s Business Leaders Initiative, which is a grooming programme for young business talents.

In order to successfully groom the next generation of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, the entire educational system has to be overhauled to encourage creativity and innovative thinking. The stigma of failure has to be removed. The stifling political climate which infects the civil service and our educational institutions must also be addressed, because vibrant minds cannot flourish in an oppressive environment. Unfortunately however, the ruling party does not seem to have the political will to make the necessary changes.

The government has made the right decision to focus on productivity and reduce the reliance on unskilled foreign labour. The Finance Minister also made the right connections in asserting that future productivity growth can only come about by a concerted effort by businesses, individuals, and the government.

However unless fundamental issues concerning our educational and political system are addressed, the government will only be able to go so far before it hits a brick wall and has to retrace its steps all over again.

__________

Read the finance minister’s full budget speech here: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/budget2010

_____________________________________________________

Related posts:

1. YOG budget over-run, Comcare budget under-run?
2. BUDGET – NSP takes to Speakers’ Corner on Friday
3. Budget deals directly with economic issues

On Wednesday 17 Feb, PM Lee Hsien Loong called for the Registers of Electors to be updated, exactly one year after the Elections Department had conducted the previous revision. [1]

The Registers of Electors contain the particulars of all eligible voters at the time of revision. There is one Register maintained for each electoral division. According to Section 5 of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 218), a person must be a citizen of Singapore, be not less than 21 years of age, and be an ordinary resident of Singapore in order to be a qualified elector.

The latest update of the voter rolls would allow people who became new citizens since the time of the previous revision to be eligible to vote. There seems to be a consensus in cyberspace that new citizens would tend to vote for the incumbent People’s Action Party (PAP) out of gratitude at having been given a chance to live and work in Singapore.

According to the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA), a revision to the Registers of Electors has to occur not more than three years after each general election. The previous revision was completed in April 2009, almost three years after the last general election in May 2006, within the timeframe stipulated by the PEA.

The current revision however is occurring at a time when not required by law. This has fueled speculation that elections are due soon as the ruling party would want to include as many eligible voters as possible, especially new citizens. Are we on the beat to the hustings?

On 18 Feb, a day after the Elections Department announced that the Registers of Electors were being revised, the government gazette also published the boundaries of altered polling districts pertaining to the current 14 group representation constituencies (GRCs) and 9 single-member constituencies (SMCs). [2]

However, prior to the publication of the Electoral Boundaries Report which is normally released shortly before the general election, opposition candidates will have to continue to play the guessing game as to whether the constituency they are targeting will remain intact or be absorbed into other constituencies.

The government announced last year that the number of single seat wards would be increased and the average size of the GRCs would be reduced. Other proposed changes to the electoral system include having up to 9 non-constituency members of parliament from the opposition camp should there be insufficient opposition MPs to make up the number.

However, fundamental defects to Singapore’s electoral system remain. Elections are currently under the sole purview of the Prime Minister’s Office and there is a complete lack of independent oversight. Election deposits which currently stand at $13,500 per candidate make barriers to entry unreasonably high for the opposition.

Without a free and pluralistic mainstream media, and without any independent body overseeing the conduct of elections, these changes to our electoral system are merely cosmetic makeovers that bear the semblance but not the substance of liberalization.

Former PAP stalwart Lee Khoon Choy wrote in the preface to his autobiography that “It is often said that one must write history from a distance”.

With the current monopoly that the ruling party has over political discourse in Singapore, it is often hard to envision a political destiny different from what the PAP has laid out.

Yet I am sure that if the PAP does not level the political playing field and bring fairness and transparency back into the game, history will not judge it kindly even if it is written from a distance.

_________________________________________

A note for overseas voters:

Shortly before the 2006 general elections, the laws were amended to allow citizens living overseas to vote.

When the revised Registers of Electors are exhibited for public inspection, Singaporeans residing abroad may apply to be overseas electors by registering online at the Elections Department website, or by submitting an application form by registered mail or by hand to the Elections Department or to any of the overseas registration centres as stated on the Elections Department website. [3]

Registration for overseas voters will remain open until the writ of election is issued, and will resume after the election.

Once an applicant has been successfully registered, his or her status as an overseas elector remains valid until the Registers of Electors are next revised.

_________________________________________

References:

[1] Channel News Asia, “Electoral rolls to be updated“, 18 Feb 2010.

[2] Channel News Asia, “Government gazette publishes boundaries of altered polling districts for GRCs, SMCs“, 18 Feb 2010.

[3] Elections Department website: http://www.elections.gov.sg

___________________________________________________________

Related posts:

1. Don’t beat down activists
2. TOC Blog Feature: UK election vs S’pore election
3. SDP calls for Government to release Electoral Map

How will raising the foreign worker levy improve the lot of locals who are faced with stagnant wages and rising costs?

By Ng E-Jay

The Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) has suggested raising the foreign worker levy to discourage businesses from importing too many low-skilled foreign workers and motivate them to invest more in productivity.

Speaking to the Straits Times a day after the ESC had released its recommendations for overhauling the Singapore economy, Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong said that companies that cannot raise productivity might have to go out of business or leave Singapore, and that the rate of import of foreign workers has to be moderated in light of “social constraints”. [1]

However, it is not clear how raising the foreign worker levy, which is a blunt instrument that merely increases business costs for companies hiring foreign workers, would help very much in achieving the intended objective of raising productivity or of raising the overall standard of living of our workforce.

Some economic analysts seem to have accepted the notion that penalizing companies for hiring foreign workers would magically make them think about investing in new technologies or improving the efficiency of their business operations.

This could be unrealistic in many situations, for example, in the case of a construction company that is already operating on a tight schedule, or in the case of a wholesaler that is constrained more by cost factors rather than lack of technological investment. For such companies, merely increasing their cost of hiring foreign workers would only hurt their bottom lines, but would do nothing to spur higher productivity.

A higher foreign worker levy may also not be effective in making businesses look upon local workers more favourably. Businesses do not have to make CPF contributions on behalf of foreign workers. Hence, even with an increased foreign worker levy, they may still find it cheaper to employ unskilled foreigners who are prepared to accept very low wages because they don’t have to finance an expensive mortgage or raise their families in high-cost Singapore.

Certainly, merely increasing the foreign worker levy will not in itself do anything to raise overall wages and improve living standards if Government policies still favour foreigners over locals.

Ultimately, the decision to hire or fire is also influenced by many other factors such as overall business costs which include rental and cost of raw materials, as well as the ability to compete effectively in our small domestic market. For instance, small businesses who feel crowded out by the growing entrenchment of Government-Linked Corporations would not be able to expand their workforce to include more locals because they would be more worried about operating as a going concern.

The Government has to make fundamental changes to its policies, such as controlling the overall rate of import of foreign workers from the top down, fine-tuning the criteria for awarding various employment passes, and paying more attention to attracting quality foreigners rather than indiscriminately importing unskilled foreigners.

To make the domestic economy more competitive, the Government also has to keep a lid on escalating costs which are hurting small and medium enterprises. It also has to reduce the entrenchment of Government-Linked Corporations in the economy, which might be an unpalatable move to the establishment, but necessary if we are to revitalize our economy.

Despite the Manpower Minister denying that the increase in foreign worker levy is politically motivated, it is hard to deny that the Government is pulling out all stops in assuring Singaporeans that their interests are being taken care of.

However in this case, raising the foreign worker levy is a blunt move that is will likely only penalize businesses that hire foreign workers but will not improve the lot of low income Singapore workers whose wages have remained stagnant for the past decade.

_______________________________

References:

[1] Straits Times, “Unproductive firms may just have to quit“, 03 Feb 2010.

Related posts:

1. Raising foreign worker levy will not solve problems, say critics
2. Employers bear brunt of unnecessary foreign worker levy hike
3. Who pays for increase in foreign workers’ levy?

In his article entitled, “A masterstroke?” (Jan 9), TODAY correspondent Loh Chee Keong argued that the recent proposal of allowing more NCMP seats might fragment the opposition and diminish the lure of trying to capture a GRC.

Loh argues that the extra NCMP seats would test the opposition’s unity and cohesiveness as candidates from rival parties would now have an incentive to compete against each other tobe one of the nine “best losers” rather than focusing on fighting against the PAP.

Some opposition candidates might also be more eager to contest in single seat wards as opposed to GRCs in the hopes of increasing their chances of entering Parliament.

These arguments unfortunately caricature opposition candidates as selfish individuals who are more concerned about their own prestige rather than with working for their respective parties and for the opposition as a whole.

In his opening paragraph, Loh accepts the view that the proposed electoral changes seem to be steps forward for the opposition cause, save that the NCMP scheme may deter voters from voting for the opposition (as there would be nine guaranteed seats for the opposition).

But what the mainstream media has consistently ignored is the fact that elections in Singapore are neither free nor fair. The ruling party has itself admitted that the GRC system serves its own interest by making it easier for fresh recruits to enter Parliament. High election deposits make it a challenge for opposition candidates to contest. Furthermore, elections are overseen not by an independent council but placed under the purview of the Prime Minister’s Office. There is a complete absence of independent oversight to ensure accountability and transparency both in the drawing of constituency boundaries as well as the elections process.

The recently proposed amendments to our electoral system to allow more NMPs and NCMPs are merely cosmetic changes that do not address the above-mentioned issues which have been repeatedly brought up by opposition parties.

In my view, these changes are hardly a political masterstroke but merely an acknowledgment by the ruling party that the ground has shifted in favour of the opposition.  It is therefore an attempt by the ruling party at limiting the damage it may suffer in the next election.

Reducing the size of the GRCs would mean the PAP would lose less MPs should the opposition manage to capture a GRC or two.

Granting the opposition more space in Parliament might serve to assure voters that there would be a plurality of voices in Parliament and encourage them to continue voting for the PAP.

In reality however, NCMPs have less voting rights than regular MPs, and such a token concession to the opposition does not in any way  strengthen democracy in Singapore or address the flaws in our electoral system.

Singaporeans would be far better served by a fair and transparent election system that allows opposition MPs a fair chance of entering Parliament on their own merit by winning the hearts and minds of the people, rather than on the patronage of the PAP.

If opposition candidates succumb to the temptation of competing with each other rather than against the PAP to be one of the nine “best losers” and miss the forest for the trees, than these electoral changes could turn out to be a clever way of fragmenting an already fragile opposition.

But in my opinion, these electoral changes are just an attempt by the ruling party at accommodating society’s need for more dissenting voices while maintaining a firm grip on power.

These token concessions ultimately bear the semblance, but hardly the substance, of liberalization.

—-

Related posts:

1. Where is accountability, where is fairness?
2. TOC at Hong Lim Park on Saturday – Social Justice and Fairness
3. The Satirist Says: Vice-Raids to encourage IR patronage

In the latest edition of  Petir, the People’s Action Party’s bi-monthly party magazine, Law Minister K Shanmugam warned party members that younger voters could erode the PAP’s political dominance if they are not convinced that Singapore needs strong political leadership capable of making effective and speedy decisions.

On one hand, Mr Shanmugam is acknowledging that younger voters seem more ready to vote  the opposition. On the other hand, he is also asserting that if one believes in having effective and efficient government, then the PAP must be the right choice. Implicit in his statement is the assumption that the opposition will not provide the strong political leadership that our country needs. This is an example of arrogant, presumptuous thinking that supporters of multi-party democracy must refute.

Mr Shanmugam also suggested that students be provided with greater political education, but that the “education should not trumpet the virtues of any particular system.”

It is hard to fathom exactly what the Law Minister means by “not trumpeting the virtues of any particular system”, when his message seems to lend support to the PAP idea that the western model of democracy should be rejected because Singapore, being different, requires its own system of government. He also mentioned that adopting the western model of democracy would result in a lower quality of life and more social tensions. Isn’t Mr Shanmugam trumpeting the virtues of the PAP system whilst denouncing that of western democracy?

In reality, western democracy is not a simplistic, narrow set of ideals that Mr Shanmugam makes it out to be but instead comprises an entire spectrum of ideas from which each political party in the western world adapts to suit their own needs and purposes. Fundamental to the western concept of democracy however is the notion that human rights are universal and inalienable, and that there should be effective separation of powers between the legistive body and the judiciary.

Left to its own devices, the education ministry here would most likely steer any political education programme toward glorifying the “achievements” of the PAP government, such as how far we have progressed as a nation and how the political system engineered by the PAP has enabled this progress to take place.

Educating students about politics can easily degenerate into educating students that only the PAP is qualified to govern Singapore. The classroom can easily be turned into an arena for political campaigning on behalf of the ruling party behind the veneer of providing an all-rounded curriculum.

As it stands, student organizations in our tertiary institutions have been gradually de-politicized over the years. Major policy issues are hardly debated in our universities except perhaps in political science classes, and the closest our universities come to organizing political events is inviting cabinet ministers to give a speech or host a dialogue session.

In fact, within the confines of campus life, censorship with regards to political expression takes place regularly. Examples were raised by Mr Lin Junjie, editor of the Nanyang Chronicle, an NTU student newsletter, in his article “It wasn’t just Chee Soon Juan”, which was published at the Enquirer.sg website in Oct 09. In his article, Mr Lin explains that articles written for the NTU newsletter are “edited or played down to avoid offending the powers that be, or in extremely rare cases such as the Chee saga, removed entirely”, and that “decisions to edit, downplay and censor potentially sensitive stories are made within the confines of the newsroom and the school, by the people who oversee the student editors”. Mr Lin also adds that these actions which take place behind the scenes and sometimes involve nothing more innocuous than removing a photograph “gave the illusion of a relatively free press”, but that “most of the time, the stories in the Chronicle are ultimately sanitised under the care of a teacher adviser”.

The NTU’s decision to censor a student report on a visit by Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of the SDP, is not the only example in recent times of suppression of free speech by university authorities. Other examples include SMU’s banning of Dr Chee’s intended visit to the school campus, and Loo Zihan’s protest speech at his graduation ceremony of NTU’s disallowing a poster of a film he had made which contained political overtones. (See reports listed below.)

How does our Law Minister propose to promote greater political awareness in schools when there is active censorship and restriction of expression of political ideas?

How can any meaningful political education take place if there remains a general climate of fear about openly criticizing Government policies, especially in the civil service?

How can any meaningful political education take place if the mainstream media continues to provide overwhelming, one-sided coverage of the PAP’s ideology but only limited coverage of the hopes and aspiration of its detractors?

Can the Government realistically provide good political education for students if it attempts to do so in an environment in which the media is tightly controlled, publications deemed undesirable are banned rather than openly discussed without fear or favour, and where the Government is often seen promulgating the idea that freedom of speech must be regulated rather than harnessing its power to the maximum?

At the end of the day, the Government must loosen its stranglehold on the media and allow greater freedom of expression before any meaningful political education can be provided to students.

—-

Read also:

The Enquirer – It wasn’t just Chee Soon Juan

The Online Citizen - NTU censors campus news coverage of Chee Soon Juan visit

The Online Citizen – NTU students protest at Speakers’ Corner

The Online Citizen – NTU student protests school’s censorship in graduation speech

The Online Citizen – Becoming a world-class university: NTU and campus media freedom

The Online Citizen - “If you want to do journalism, don’t do it in Singapore.”

The Online Citizen – The importance of editorial independence in the news process

The Online Citizen - Student activism – what’s next?

—–

Related posts:

1. My awakening: political education of an ordinary Singaporean student
2. It is not about just providing food
3. HDB – providing homes or a monopolistic business model

Ng E-Jay

What should the National Day message from a political party be about? Should it be a statement of the party’s values, mission, and plans for the future? Should it be a simple statement of solidarity with Singaporeans? Or should it be a little bit of both?

Reading the Worker’s Party’s National Day message left me with the impression that they tried to be a little bit of everything, but whatever message they wanted to convey was lost in a sea of vague and disjointed thoughts.

It starts off by saying that our country was founded 44 years ago on the ideals of democracy, peace, progress, justice and equality, but that we have been losing our way on some of these ideals. I thought a more significant milestone would be our nation’s 50^th anniversary of self-government rather than the teary goodbye with Malaysia 44 years ago.

A few rhetorical questions are then asked, like if we want a future where we are judged only by our economic worth, or a future where the less able have to fend for themselves.

But WP’s message does not address these concerns. It does not elaborate on what it thinks are the causes of these problems or the possible ways to resolve them.  Instead, they immediately start talking about how they believe Singapore can be a truly great nation in which each Singaporean is regarded as a valuable citizen, and our nation is respected not just for its material wealth but also for the kindness and generosity of its people and leaders.

If readers of WP’s message started falling asleep at this juncture due to the boredom at being doused with yet another array of apple pie and motherhood statements (after having been inundated by the mainstream media with similar statements for two weeks running), I would not blame them.

The party then invites fellow Singaporeans to “reflect on the relation between being more and having more”. What exactly does this vague, poorly worded statement mean? Reading further, I figured that they meant that Singaporeans should not focus all their attention on material pursuits, but also pay attention to the intangibles like our humanity, conscience and dignity.

How many Singaporeans can afford the luxury of contemplating the intangibles in life when the Government has allowed the cost of living to escalate and people are finding themselves caught up in a rat race in which they have to compete with an increasing number of foreigners for jobs?

The Worker’s Party places the onus on Singaporeans to improve themselves and become better people. Nothing at all is mentioned about our political leaders. Nothing is mentioned about how Singaporeans should work together to address the concerns that were mentioned earlier.

The message then ends with an invitation to readers to participate in the “being more” events organized by their Youth Wing, such as their essay writing competition and a Town Hall dialogue.

What was the whole point of WP’s National Day message? Has anyone gotten it yet? I certainly have not. The message starts off on a political note, listing out some national ideals that have been abandoned, and mentioning issues like our votes being diluted due to gerrymandering. But it quickly fizzled into an amalgamation of fortune-cookie sentiments that makes for a boring read.

To top it off, the party’s message was signed by Mr Koh Choong Yong, Vice-President of the party’s Youth Wing. The question that naturally arises is why the message was not directly endorsed by either the Secretary-General, Mr Low Thia Khiang, or the Chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim?

Perhaps the intent was for a fresh face to be seen delivering the message on behalf of the party.  If so, then the WP could have been more creative and invested some time and energy in producing a video clip, or even better, having some young faces deliver the message at Speaker’s Corner. For the WP to simply have the Youth Wing vice-president sign off on a written statement appears quite lackadaisical.

All in all, this is not the kind of National Day message I expect from an opposition political party that has openly expressed its vision of being a credible check on the ruling PAP and possibly becoming large enough one day to form an alternative Government.

——

You can read the WP ND message here.

——

Related posts:

1. Cookie Boy waxes on Earth Hour-not, and Starbucks
2. Wheel of fortune?
3. Anti-PAP sentiments take a new turn