Another PAP MP echoes SDP’s policies
By the Singapore Democrats
30 Aug 2009
Original link
PAP MP Josephine Teo recently called on the Government to “re-tune” the Foreign Talent Policy (see report below). She says that this is to reduce our “over reliance” on foreign workers.
If that sounds a wee bit familiar, that’s because the Singapore Democrats have been saying this for quite a while now – ten years to be precise. We have been advocating our Singaporeans First Policy since the turn of the century and we campaigned on it in the 2001 general elections. It is engraved in our manifesto (see here).
We invite readers to compare what we have proposed with what the “labour” MP is now saying:
AFP Video: 76 year old destitute Singapore woman
This is an AFP video about a 76 year old Singapore street scavenger who became destitute after paying for her late husband’s medical bills.
The Government in Singapore subsidizes only 36% of healthcare, compared to 50% to 85% for other developed nations.
From the Blogs: Singapore Malays Hold Special Position?

Quotable Quote
Source: The Malay Dilemma, 21 Aug 2009
This badge of honour is a dubious one. So there is supposed to be affirmative action in terms of status, but in other areas like Malays in the SAF, our community is sidelined. We don’t even have free education anymore. The irony of this whole protection of the Malay community under Article 152 actually makes us more a subject of criticism although we don’t have much real privileges.
Yes the GRC is supposed to protect the interests of the non-Chinese minorities but the GRC system seems more like a poltical tactic rather than a structure to protect Malay interests. The stereotype is that the PAP counts on the vote of the Malay community. Whether that is true now nobody will know. We are just like any other community in Singapore – some will be pro-PAP, some will be anti-PAP, and most would have mixed feelings. BN’s inability to hold on to the Malay vote in the last Malaysian elections tells us that there is a limit to race politics and voting anyway.
Temasek updates its charter, but any difference in accountability and transparency?

(Temasek’s updated charter is attached below.)
Quick Snippets from the Editor
27 Aug 2009
Temasek Holdings recently updated its charter to distance itself from the role of managing investments on behalf of the Government.
Temasek now portrays itself as an investment holding firm operating purely on commercial interests whose role is no longer focussed on diversifying away from local companies. Its updated charter also states that it seeks to create and deliver sustainable long-term value for stakeholders, as opposed to the old charter which states that it manages investments for the long-term benefit of Singapore.
Amidst all these cosmetic changes, we should ask: Will there any difference in Temasek’s level of accountability and transparency?
We need a minimum wage in Singapore

(This is an elaboration on a recent article by the Singapore Democrats, which I have attached below.)
Quick Snippets from the Editor
26 Aug 2009
The issue of whether Singaporeans should be entitled to a minimum wage has cropped up from time to time and sparked heated debates.
Some people have argued that the presence of a minimum wage may paradoxically lead to an increase in unemployment, due to the fact that the profit margins of companies employing low wage workers will be reduced, forcing them to either close down or relocate.
Allegedly, in response to larger labor costs, businesses will then try to compensate for the decrease in profit by simply raising the prices of the goods being sold, thus causing inflation and hurting consumers.
But in my opinion, such arguments fail to take into account the responsibility of a Government to provide for its citizens by making sure there is always a level playing field for all, including working class Singaporeans. Such arguments also neglect to consider the unique circumstances Singapore is in and the failed economic policies of the PAP.
Credit cards: Don’t let the banks go scot-free

SEE ALSO: Grossly inadequate protection for credit card users by the editor.
ST letter by Liew Yeng Chee, 24 Aug 2009
I REFER to last Wednesday’s letter by Mr Fong Sau Shung, ‘Card fraud: Users ultimately responsible’.
The question is not who is ultimately responsible for what. The question is, has due diligence been exercised to protect the cardholder from loss that is not his fault?
One may lose one’s card, but since a card is not cash, procedures must be in place to prevent someone from using it unlawfully. If the procedures are not sufficient to do that, better ones must be implemented.
We, the Citizens pledge …

By Dr Wong Wee Nam
22 Aug 2009
Like the majority of Singaporeans, I learned to say the National Pledge when I was in school. Since then I think I have lived by the vow that I had made. I am still committed to building a democratic society as I am to speaking out against injustice and inequality. To me a pledge is a solemn promise or a vow. It is not like a New Year’s resolution that you make on the first day of the year and forget it immediately the next day.
When Mr S Rajaratnam crafted the National Pledge, I don’t think he meant it to be just a New Year’s resolution. I believe he wrote it with conviction. It is not just an aspiration to be desired but a goal to be attained.
The words in the National Pledge meant a lot to me as it was to the founding fathers of Singapore. After being suffocated by the turbulent years in Malaysia, all Singaporeans wanted was to breathe the air of freedom.
Did NMP Viswa Sadasivan just shake the foundations of the PAP facade to the very core? (Part Two)

READ the full text of Mr Viswa Sadasivan’s maiden Parliamentary speech here.
Sgpolitics.net Special Feature (Part Two)
Written by Ng E-Jay
20 Aug 2009
On Wednesday, Parliament accepted an amended version of the motion submitted by NMP Viswa Sadasivan, after a total of 14 MPs had taken turns over a two-day period to lambast Mr Viswa’s “highfalutin” ideals.
Amongst those who severely criticized Mr Viswa’s motion was Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew who delivered his scathing rebuttal in a rare Parliamentary appearance after his previous speech in April 2007 during which he defended ministerial pay increases.
Opposition MP Low Thia Khiang also gave Mr Viswa a very humiliating thumbs down by dismissing his motion altogether, and stating categorically that he did not want to have anything to do with the debate.
The MP for Hougang also said that the National Pledge should not be brought up unnecessarily, and that we should not invoke it for the sake of argument.
With both PAP MPs as well as Opposition MPs ganging up against Mr Viswa, and mainstream media channels like Channel News Asia zooming in on the new NMP in an attempt to portray him as acting nervous under pressure, it is time to give an objective assessment of the debate.
NMP Viswa Sadasivan: Did he just shake the foundations of the PAP facade to the very core? (Part One)

Sgpolitics.net Special Feature (Part One)
20 Aug 2009
Did new Nominated Member of Parliament Viswa Sadasivan shake the foundations of the PAP facade to the very core in his maiden Parliamentary speech on Tuesday, and in so doing, attracted an avalanche of criticism from PAP MPs who sensed that very essence of their self-serving political philosophy had been given a thunderous jolt?
Viswa Sadasivan’s motion was deemed so threatening, so audacious, that no less a personality than MM Lee Kuan Yew was compelled to state that it was dangerous to allow such high falutin ideas to go un-demolished lest they mislead Singapore.
In tabling his motion on Tuesday, NMP Viswa Sadasivan wanted Parliament to reaffirm its commitment to the principles enshrined in the National Pledge. In his view, this entailed strengthening Singaporeans’ sense of citizenship, and upholding the fundamentals of democracy and racial and religious unity. He admonished Parliament to stay mindful of these tenets when pursuing economic and other national policies.
ND message critique — the SDP’s response

EDITOR’s NOTE: The Singapore Democrats have re-iterated that the party leadership is one with the video presentation, in both form and substance. They also thank Mr Andrew Loh and Ms Tng Ying Hui for their effort in providing their valuable critique, and welcome it graciously.
By the Singapore Democrats
19 Aug 2009
Original link
We note the critique of Ms Tng Hui Yi and Mr Andrew Loh of the SDP’s National Day Message (watch video here) at The Online Citizen. It is apparent that much thought went into the review and the criticisms were considered ones. We welcome them.
We note that much of the critique dwelled on the substantiveness of the arguments, or the lack of it, rather than on the presentation of the message. Some of these observations are valid and will be taken on board in future presentations.
Unlike a speech delivered live to an audience, however, the attention span of viewers on an Internet video is limited. Our experience has been that a longer video filled with too many statistics and charts will attract less interest among viewers.
Straits Times: LTA did not overpay for MRT screen doors

Source: Straits Times, 19 Aug 2009
RECENT online gripes that the Land Transport Authority (LTA) overspent on new platform screen doors for its MRT stations have proven to be far off track.
Checks by The Straits Times show that the prices of similar doors overseas are comparable with what the LTA has paid.
Last Tuesday, workers began installing 1.5m-high platform screen doors at the Pasir Ris MRT station. The doors, which will be up at all 36 elevated MRT stations by 2012, will prevent people from falling onto or entering the tracks.
The LTA is spending $126 million on the project – an amount that got online forums in Singapore buzzing.
Several blogs highlighted the fact that platform screen doors were installed on Taipei’s new Neihu line, which has 12 stations, for only $10.5 million.
Finance Minister remains evasive on Temasek Holdings and former CEO Charles Goodyear

Written by Ng E-Jay
19 Aug 2009
Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam was so evasive about questions posed in Parliament in Tuesday concerning Temasek’s short-lived CEO Charles “Chip” Goodyear that one cannot be blamed for thinking he could have been hiding some private secret that he does not want dragged into the light of day.
According to a Channel News Asia report, Mr Tharman was grilled for nearly 20 minutes by MPs who raised various questions pertaining to Temasek Holdings, including whether it should be headed by a foreigner, as well as the reasons for the sudden departure of Mr Goodyear after he had obtained the ringing endorsement of the Government only months ago.
Mr Tharman told Parliament that the Government will leave the decision to Temasek on when to appoint a new successor, but he added the next CEO should ideally be a Singaporean.
However, when he was asked for more details on why Mr Charles Goodyear left Temasek Holdings recently after having held the job for only 5 months, Mr Tharman flatly refused to divulge anything, saying it “serves no strategic purpose” for the public to know.
Social cohesion and religious harmony: Look who’s the complacent one

Written by Ng E-Jay
18 Aug 2009
This year, PM Lee chose to make the topic of social cohesion and religious harmony the central theme of his National Day Rally speech.
Coming on the heels of the AWARE saga which saw a religious group infiltrate and attempt to take over a secular organization through subversive means in order to impose a homophobic agenda on Singaporeans, such a message seems timely.
PM Lee advanced his opinion that Singaporeans tend to shy away from talking about race and religion, because they think it is too sensitive a subject, or believe it is not a problem. He also said that from time to time, we have to discuss such topics honestly but tactfully, to recognise the trends in our society and tell ourselves where we need to do better.
I wonder how sincere PM Lee was when he promoted the idea of discussing race and religion in an open but considered manner in order to clear the air surrounding various issues.
Can filial piety be legislated?

Written by Ng E-Jay
18 Aug 2009
During PM Lee’s National Day Rally speech in mandarin, he said that the Government will study how best to use the Maintenance of Parents Act to get children who dump their elderly parents in hospitals or nursing homes to do their filial duty and help pay for their parents’ care.
He also openly dismissed the line allegedly taken by some people who say: “There is no filial son for long-term illness“.
Many would agree that the Maintenance of Parents Act is a well-intentioned piece of legislation.
But could it also be a symptom of a desperate Government trying to push the buck of parental care to children who are already overly burdened with living in high-cost Singapore?
Could it also be a symptom of an uncaring Government which allows the cost of healthcare to escalate and then saddle young adults with lifelong debt and financial desperation as a result of having to fork out an arm and a leg to pay for medical treatment for their chronically ill parents?
Church leaders handled Aware saga responsibly

Source: Straits Times, 17 Aug 2009
By Zakir Hussain
PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said he is grateful for the responsible stand taken by church leaders concerning the leadership tussle at the women’s advocacy group, the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), earlier this year.
During the episode, the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) issued a statement to say it did not support churches getting involved in the matter, and that the pulpit should not be used to push such causes.
Catholic Archbishop Nicholas Chia also issued a statement to say he had communicated to priests that nothing should be said about Aware, and that secular organisations should remain secular.
PM Lee warns of religious fault lines
Source: Straits Times, 17 Aug 2009
By Clarissa Oon, Senior Political Correspondent
ON THE 50th anniversary of Singapore’s self-government, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong used the year’s biggest political platform to issue a rallying call for unity across different races and religions.
A large part of his speech in English was devoted to addressing the climate of rising religious fervour, which he acknowledged was ‘an unusually serious and heavy subject for a National Day Rally’.
But he said that social cohesion was critical to Singapore’s long-term success, and singled out racial and religious divides as the ‘most visceral and dangerous fault line’, potentially worse than the rich-poor gap or any divide between Singaporeans and foreign residents.
Consultation Workshop: “Engaging the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) — The People’s Views”

Message from MARUAH
EDITOR’S NOTE: Maruah requested that I publicize this event on my blog. Those interested in ASEAN human rights issues are strongly encouraged to attend.
MARUAH is a human rights group that has been dialoguing at the regional and national level with governments and other stakeholders on the ASEAN Human Rights Body under the ASEAN Charter.
The ASEAN Human Rights Body, now termed the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights, is here to stay — you can see the Terms of Reference here.
We feel that a crucial precondition for the AIGCHR to be meaningful (even within the constraints of its TOR) is for all civil society members and other stakeholders to at least know what it is about and how it can impact our work.
Accordingly, MARUAH is organising a public consultation to be held on 22 Aug 2009. The attachments provide more details on this public consultation and also include the registration form. You may also register online here.
Human rights is only going to gain more significance in the Singapore political landscape. We strongly encourage you to be part of this consultation. We intend to offer a one-stop shop for those who need more information, and we will also seek to gather views (without attribution to any particular group or person, to encourage a more open and frank discussion).
The Singapore Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism (MARUAH) would like to invite you to a Consultation Workshop: “Engaging the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) – The People’s Views”. Read more in our e-flyer.
Details below
Saturday, 22 August 2009
8.30 am to 3.45 pm
Novotel Hotel, Clarke Quay
177A River Valley Road
Singapore, 179031
Sign up online here
Alternatively, you can fill up the registration form. Please submit by Tuesday, 18 August 2009.
Why the large discrepancy in value of contracts awarded to ST Electronics for installation of platform doors at SMRT stations and at Taiwan’s Neihu Line?

Quick Snippets from the Editor
14 Aug 2009
Why is there such a large discrepancy between the value of contracts awarded to Singapore Technologies Electronics for installation of platform screen doors at SMRT train stations and at Taiwan’s Neihu Line?
It was reported in the Straits Times on 13 Aug that the first sets of platform screen doors had been erected at Pasir Ris MRT station.
Despite repeated calls for platform screen doors to be installed at all above-ground MRT stations to prevent the obvious tragedies, the Government chose to place the lives of commutes second to cost considerations, and agreed to this suggestion only when costs had come down due to the global downturn.
This pussyfooting by the Government resulted in 31 unnecessary deaths in 2007, or around one death every 12 days, as a result of accident or suicide on the MRT tracks.
The Agenda

By the Singapore Democrats
13 Aug 2009
Original link
As the dust settles after the National Day hoopla, the media have had a field day pushing forward whatever message it wants to push through. High on the agenda was of course their continuing glorification of the party that feeds them.
Also high on the agenda is its continuing effort to blackout news on the Singapore Democrats. While the media published the Workers’ Party’s National Day message made by its youth wing, it completely ignored the SDP’s.
Our Women Democrats had delivered a video message whose number of viewers shot up to more than four thousand in just a few days since it was posted on YouTube. (Watch video here) Yet, there was absolutely no mention of this in the newspapers.
The fine art of cherry picking

Written by Ng E-Jay
12 Aug 2009
If there is one thing about how issues are debated in Singapore that irks me, it is the tendency of pundits to miss the forest for the trees, spend an inordinate amount of time and energy dwelling on the periphery rather than the main issues, and engage in the fine art of cherry picking.
A couple of years ago, someone uploaded a video on Youtube showing a teacher reprimanding a student openly in class. After a lengthy and humiliating tirade in which the teacher scolded the student for lacking punctuality in handing up assignments and for writing about anti-establishment views, she unceremoniously tore up the student’s homework and threw it back at him. This sensational scene attracted thousands of views on Youtube as well as a wide variety of comments.
Some people felt that the teacher was wrong to have openly humiliated the student and trampled on his dignity. Others felt that youngsters nowadays are so arrogant that they deserve to be taught a fine lesson from time to time. Yet others laughed off the incident as commonplace, if a little bit humourous.
But soon into the discussion, the focus turned to the person (most likely a student) who filmed the tirade and uploaded it onto the Internet. The entire debate eventually revolved around whether the student who uploaded the video should be disciplined for his or her actions, and whether there had been any breach of privacy.























