Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva of Thailand Rejects Emulation by Thailand of Singapore’s One Party Rule

EDITORS’ NOTE:

Abhisit is only half right. Singapore is not just a one-party system, it is fast becoming a ONE-FAMILY system if not already one ! A one-party system is DETRIMENTAL to Singapore in the long run because it is completely devoid of any internal checks and balances. All we need is a nutcase like Hitler to turn Singapore into a fascist state.

Even now, we see ordinary Singaporeans being subjugated to the will and power of the one-party state. We have no voice in Parliament, no bargaining rights as citizens and no power to change our destiny. We have become serfs in our own land of birth, toiling hard not to better our lives but to merely to sustain our physical bodies so that we may continue to contribute to the state funds.

It is IMPOSSIBLE in a real democracy to have one party being returned to power repeatedly for 50 continuous years ! Singapore has one of the best education system in the world. Almost 50% of our population has some sort of tertiary education, be it a degree or diploma. There are more than enough talented Singaporeans to form not only one, two, but multiple political parties to challenge the incumbent. Only when there is a healthy competition for ideas can there be better refinement of policies to suit the real needs of the people on the ground.

Then why aren’t Singaporeans stepping forward ? Because they are afraid of the ruling party. They have seen capable men who dare to oppose them and end up being sued, bankrupted and ruined for life. They have no choice but to shut up and being herded around like sheep to safeguard themselves and their families. For those who refused to allow their basic rights to be trampled upon like shit, they pack up and leave for greener pastures overseas where they can live as free men without fear or apprehension.

A one-party state can bring about social stability and economic prosperity for a short period of time only for as long as there are capable and benevolent leaders at its helm. Once these leaders pass on and if corrupted politicians were to take over, there will be NO EXTERNAL bodies or entities in place to remove them. And no citizens in the world will want to make such a fascist state as their homes. The United States is home to so many migrants from all over the world who stay on and become its citizens for life. Ask any PRC and Indian foreign workers here if they are willing to retire in Singapore and the answer is likely a “no.”

Singapore is too small and fragile a nation to be dominated and ruled by only a small clique of people. We need to have more heads and hands to govern it and more voices to contribute to to the nation-building process. It may slow down the speed and efficacy of policy implementation, but it will surely benefit a larger segment of the population in the long run with a fairer and more equitable distribution of wealth.

 ”Few years ago when former Prime Minister (Thaksin) said that he wanted the Thai political system to emulate the Singaporean system, I made a very clear statement on my part that I don’t believe that a one-party system will benefit Thailand, even if that party were to be the Democrat Party. So I hope to see competition in politics which is the essence of democracy and so I have throughout my career and I will continue to make sure there will be healthy political competition and that minority rights are protected.”

-  Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva of Thailand

The Tan Yong Soon cooking fiasco: what lessons it hold for both the government and blogosphere

By Fang Zhi Yuan, Senior writer

It was supposedly an innocuous travelogue about his family holiday in Paris, France. When Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources Mr Tan Yong Soon accepted the Straits Times’ invitation to write about his experiences at the prestigious french cooking school, ‘Le Cordon Bleu’, he probably did not anticipate the backlash from Singapore’s vociferous blogging community in the aftermath of his article’s publication.

Mr Tan’s article titled “Cooking up the holiday spirit” was published in an inconspicuous subsection of the national English daily dedicated to trivial and insignificant news pertaining to lifestyle and recreation - The Straits Times’ “Life”. (read Mr Tan’s essay here) on 6 January 2009. The 3 week lesson costs S$15,500 per head and in total S$46,500 for Mr Tan, his wife and son, not including air tickets and living expenses in France.

It would have raised few eyebrows if not for a scathing commentary written by blogger Eugene Yeo of influential socio-political blog, Wayangparty Club barely 2 hours later on the same day (read Eugene’s article here) lampooning Mr Tan for his apparent lack of empathy and sensitivity in flaunting his wealth during an economic recession which has seen many ordinary Singaporean struggling to make ends meet.

Like a wild bush fire, the article about Mr Tan’s expensive holiday soon make its way around internet forums and chatrooms with a dozen blogs writing about the matter thereafter, most of them critical of Mr Tan.

The focus was initially on the protagonist, but soon snowballed to engulf other contentious issues such as the high salaries and perks enjoyed by civil servants and ministers. In an online poll posted on the same blog, 76% of 683 netizens polled expressed dismay and outrage at Mr Tan’s excesses.

The local press did not carry any reports on the furore at first till the international media agency, Reuters got wind of the news and reported it (read the Reuters report here) a week later.

The Straits Times reported the fiasco only 2 weeks later when the issue was brought up in Parliament by NMP Siew Kum Hong who  who described the article as being ‘unnecessarily provocative and unimaginably insensitive’  (read Straits Times report here). The minister in charge of civil service, Mr Teo Chee Hean expressed his disappointment at Mr Tan’s writing and has asked him to “take note of the feedback and learn from this episode.” (The New Paper carried a mild critique of Mr Tan on the same day here)

What lessons does Mr Tan’s personal misfortunate hold for both the government and blogosphere ?

The government has always been reluctant to engage annonymous netizens in a public discourse. This fiasco has shown that it can no longer afford to ignore what it used to denigrate as “internet ramblings” anymore.

Public opinion must now envelop online discussions which will continue to grow in importance as more and more Singaporeans utilize the New Media as an alternative source of news. When incongruity occurs between what was reported on the print and the online media, questions will inevitably be asked about the accuracy, credibility and objectivity of the latter.

Prominent socio-political blogs such as Wayangparty Club, The Online Citizen, Yawning Bread, Mr Wang and Sgpolitics have a combined readership rivaling the online editions of the print media and their opinions will carry some weight amongst netizens especially those who have always harbored skepticism about the state media’s agenda.

As for bloggers, the eventual capitulation of the government to acknowledge the folly of a top civil servant due to criticisms emanating from blogs and internet forums can be savored as a small victory for them. They can take heart at the fact that despite the government’s persistent refusal to engage them, their existence is not completely forgotten either.

The question now is how far bloggers are willing to go to translate their online activism to politics in real life like Malaysian bloggers Tony Pua, Jeff Ooi and Elizabeth Wong who won a seat in the Federal Parliament in their very election and if they are able to make a real difference in the current political landscape.

A decade ago, such an open reprimand of a top civil servant in Parliament by a minister would be almost unimaginable. Will we see more of such castigation of under-performing civil servants, MPs and even ministers themselves in Parliament ? Will a Raja Petra emerge in Singapore to “harrass” and “torture” the nation’s top leaders like what the Malaysian namesake did to the country’s Prime Minister-Elect, Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak over his alleged involvement in the murder of a Mongolian model ?

The government has always been slow and cautious in its approach to engage citizens in public discourse by opting for traditional channels like feedback sessions, print media and its official online portal REACH.

A year in cyberspace is like an eternality. Going by the rapid rate at which the new media has evolved over the last few years, the government may have not much time left to keep pace with it. It needs to find ways to engage this growing segment of voters in cyberspace soon before it gets unnerved by a similar political tsunami which hit our neighbors’ shore not too long ago.

Is it so difficult for our leaders to say a simple ’sorry’ ?

By Fang Zhi Yuan, Senior writer

The recent Tan Yong Soon fiasco has drawn polarizing opinions from two different camps. While the majority of netizens lampooned and condemned Tan for being insensitive and callous in flaunting his wealth in a national paper, some defended his travelogue as an innocuous sharing of one’s unique holiday experience.

Even before the dust has settled, a MP – Charles Chong of Pasir Ris – Punggol GRC unwittingly added oil to fire by alluding Tan’s critics as “lesser mortals” who are simply envious of him. Though he subsequently tried to limit the damage by offering an ambiguous clarification to queries by a blogger, many remained unconvinced at his half-hearted attempts to appease his critics.

There were many calls for the two protagonists to issue a public apology for their indiscretion. In spite of the head of civil service, Peter Ho expressing his regrets about Tan’s untimely article, the latter has remained defiantly silent so far. Neither did Charles Chong issue any public statements about his remarks.

It appears that both Tan Yong Soon and Charles Chong do not think they have made a mistake and therefore there is no need for them to explain themselves further.

Short of an outright apology, the very least they can do is to acknowledge the furore their remarks have caused and expressed regrets over them.

Let me draft a sample template for them to follow:

Tan Yong Soon:

“When Straits Times approached me to write a travelogue for their Life section, I thought it would be a good idea to share with the readers my unique experiences at Le Cordon Beu. It was never my intention to flaunt my wealth or to belittle anybody. Nevertheless, I do acknowledge that some feelings may be hurt and I would like to express my sincere regrets to those Singaporeans who do not take kindly to the words I have used.”

Charles Chong:

“When TODAY called me up for a phone interview about the Tan Yong Soon fiasco, I told the journalist that Tan’s article left me with the impression that he was a bit boastful and maybe insensitive to (us) lesser mortals. This may naturally lead to unhappiness and even envy especially during difficult times. However, the way my words were phrased in TODAY gave the wrong impression to unsuspecting readers that I am denigrating Tan’s critics as “lesser mortals” which was never my intention in the first place. I have since clarified my stance with the journalist and I would like to express my regrets over this unfortunate misunderstanding which has caused unhappiness among some quarters.”

Tan and Chong could have brought the matter to a proper closure by a simple acknowledgement of the furore their remarks have caused in public unless they feel it is not worth their efforts to account to those whose feelings are hurt by their off the tangent remarks.

During the 2006 General Elections, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong offered an unreserved apology the next day after he made his infamous “fix the opposition” gaffe at a lunchtime rally. Tan and Chong should learn some basic humility and graciousness from the Prime Minister.

In other ’Confucianist’ societies like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and even communist China, it is not uncommon to see political leaders and senior civil servants apologizing publicly for their gaffes or mistakes.

It appears that Mr Tan and Mr Chong have forgotten that they are “servants” of the people and not “masters” and apologizing is not tantamount to a “loss of face” of them, but should be a gesture they undertake with “honor”.

The massive furore arising from Mr Tan’s ill-timed article and Mr Chong’s insensitive remarks may soon die down soon, but it still remain deeply etched in the collective memory of aggrieved netizens who you trust will revive it at the next earliest opportunity.

“Decisive” budget does not address long-term inadequacies in the corporatist model

By Eugene Yeo and Jeremy Koh

PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong has described the $20.5 billion Resilience Package as a ‘very decisive Budget’ that aims to help see Singaporeans through the difficult economic times ahead.

Much has been said about the Budget lately with most PAP ministers and MPs, labor union leaders, employers and ordinary Singaporeans echoing the Prime Minister’s words.

The package consists chiefly of measures to help companies save jobs, retain workers and to keep them afloat during the economic downturn. Measures to help households include doubling of GST credits and a personal income tax rebate of 20% which was unchanged from last year.

The government had argued that the most effective way to help Singaporeans cope with the recession is to save their jobs through supporting the employers. However, it does little to address glaring long-term deficiencies in our corporatist economic model.

The S$20.5 billion ($13.7 billion) package — a whopping 8% of GDP — looks like past stimulus plans instead of a forward looking economic blueprint to retool our export-oriented economy.

Why does Singapore suffer the most from the global economic turmoil as compared to our nearest neighbor Malaysia ?

For far too long, we have been overly dependent on external trade while certain government policies like the compulsory CPF saving scheme and the high prices of public housing squeeze the middle class dry and dilute their spending power in the domestic economy.

Singapore’s economy would be more resilient if it were better balanced. Consumption composes only about 40% of GDP — far less than other developed Asian economies, nearer to 55%. (read Wall Street Journal’s commentary here)

The best way to prevent companies from retrenching workers and shutting down is to provide a steady flow of  businesses for them. Only when there is demand will there be supply. The government’s incentives to the business sector are only temporary measures to tide them over these hard times and does not generate a demand for their services or products.

Why is our domestic consumption so low as compared to other developed Asian countries like Japan, South Korea or Hong Kong ?

Take the example the average Singapore worker earning a median pay of $2,500 a month to support his family of four – his wife and two children. He takes home $2,000 after contributing 20% of his pay to his CPF. Assuming his CPF is enough to pay for his monthly mortage, all he has is $2,000 for the living expenses of his entire family. How much spare cash does he still have to spend ?

The limited spending power of Singapore’s middle class is the real scourge of the current malaise pervading every sector of our economy and we will be able to shower the storm better had we have a greater domestic consumption.

The GST credits and personal income tax rebates provide more relief to the lower-income group who does not spend much anyway than the middle income group.

We propose two measures which will put extra cash in the pockets of the middle class almost immediately:

1. Decoupling the price of newly built HDB flats from the resale market:

New HDB flats are currently sold at 70% of the resale value of neighoring flats. With the HDB resale market being popped up artificially by downgraders from private homes and foreigners, this impose a heavy strain financially on newly-wed couples looking for their first home.

Public housing must be kept cheap and its prices should reflect current economic realities on the ground. Singaporeans should not be allowed to spend more than a certain percentage, e.g. 15% of their monthly salaries on servicing their housing loans. Those whose incomes failed to reach the benchmark should be offered rental flats instead.

The prices of new HDB flats should be pegged to the median pay of the average Singapore worker, calculated based on the amount the average worker will need to fork out over a 30 year period. For example, 15% of $2,500 gives us a monthly installment of $375, and a loan of $135,000 which middle-income households can afford easily.

2. Reducing employeers’ CPF contribution to 10% or less:

An extra 10% cash for each Singapore worker to bring home monthly will translate to greater spending power beyond basic subsistence levels.

Less Singaporeans will need cash handouts which the government can redirect to give more to the lower-income groups to lift them out of poverty.

Upon the recovery of the economy, Singaporeans can be encouraged to buy life annuities and health insurances from private insurance firms to supplement their CPF and medisave.

CPF has already failed in its original function of serving as retirement funds for Singaporeans. How many of us can afford to depend on our CPF when we retire ? The government should stop meddling in the personal finances of its citizens and allowed them to manage their own hard-earned savings.

Singaporeans have one of the highest saving rates in the world at 34.5%. We are also home to the richest sovereign wealth funds in the region with Temasek and GIC amassing assets of more than $100 billion dollars combined. Why then do we have less spending power compared to our counterparts elsewhere ? Why can’t we retire comfortably in our golden years and instead have to continue working for as long as we can ? Why are there still homeless Singaporeans with no roofs over their heads in a developed country like ours ?

There is something fundamentally wrong in our corporatist model and it is time we rectify it. Singaporeans from three generations – our grandparents, parents and now ourselves have contributed immensely to build up these SWFs through our CPF contributions and HDB flats purchases and yet they can afford to lose billion of dollars in failed overseas investments with impunity.

Reducing both the employees’ CPF contribution and prices of new HDB flats will benefit every Singaporean far more than GST credits and cash handouts. It is time we reduce our contribution to Temasek and GIC unless they are made to be accountable to the people like the Norwegian Pension Fund which publishes an annual statement of account for every Norwegian with a stake in it.

Let us mindful of the potential pitfalls ahead while being grateful for what we have

By Fang Zhi Yuan, Senior writer

I am heartened by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s  call for families to draw closer together during these hard times. For far too long, we have been so pre-occupied with the rat race that we have neglected our families and friends. (Read Prime Minister’s speech here)

In order for us to spend quality time with our families and to bring up the next generation, we need to have the means to procure a decent standard of living for them and a politically stable climate free from any strife or conflict. How can one afford to even spend time at home if he has to work 2 jobs a day to support his family ?

Prime Minister ended his speech by exhorting us to ”be grateful for what we have in Singapore – a stable society, a sound economy, and a reputation which draws talent, investment and jobs to our shores. We must continue building on these strengths, so that we will emerge stronger from this crisis, ready to thrive in what will be a very different and more challenging world.”

While I am thankful in a way for the stable society and sound economy we have enjoyed over the years, I hope our leaders are aware of the potential pitfalls lying ahead.

In spite of the apparent social stability we have now, there exists hidden undercurrents of tension and discontent beneath which will erupt eventually when the conditions are ripe.  There has been a growing disgruntlement and disenchantment on the ground for quite some time now from certain groups who are feeling increasingly marginalized by some of the government’s policies.

Our over-reliance on foreign labor has led to a depression of the wages of both the blue and white collar workers who are feeling the pinch of the economic downturn.

CPF has failed miserably in its function as a retirement fund for the lower income group who are facing a grim and uncertain future with no social safety net put in place to prevent them for being stuck in a vicious cycle of perpetual poverty and deprivation.

The educated professionals and managers who are retrenched in their 40s and 50s have to manage their expectations in taking up a lower-paying job which does not commensurate with their academic qualifications. The middle income group will be squeezed harder as they do not qualify for cash handouts and workfare from the government and yet their monthly incomes are barely enough to provide for their families.

Many undergraduates who had borrowed heavily from the banks to pay for their tuition fees will be burdened with debts if they are unable to secure a decent-paying job upon graduation.

In the past, a university degree is generally regarded as the ticket to a better life, but not so anymore. Gone are the good old days when graduates earn enough to purchase a home of their own and start a family within 5 years. Now they will be considering themselves lucky if they are able to land a job.

I graduated in 2002 in the aftermath of the 911 terrorist attack. Even though the economy is growing at a slow pace of 1 to 2% then, jobs are still plentiful for graduates. An engineer often command a starting pay of $2,500 to $2,800. Chemical Engineers were especially hard sought after and could earn more than $3,000 if they have first class honors. A lawyer earned about $4,000 after finishing his/her pupillage and a first year medical officer more than $3,000 monthly. Administrative executives can expect a salary range of $2,200 to $2,500 while those in the banking and finance industry could earn more than $5,000 a month exclusive of commission and bonuses.

In today’s job market where jobs are scarce, fresh graduates have to compete with recently retrenched middle-aged managers and executives who have more experience than them and foreign workers willing to put up with lower pay and longer working hours. As a result, their starting pay is very much reduced and they have little bargaining rights to negotiate for better working conditions.

Take for example a graduate earning a median pay of $2,500 a month and needs to repay $700 for his study loans, subtracting his CPF contribution of $500, he will only take back $1,300 in real cash. Assuming he needs to spend $600 on food and transport, he will have $700 left. Is $700 enough to pay for the monthly mortage of a 3 room HDB flat ? It may be enough, but will he and his wife be able to raise a child ?

Singaporeans have been asked by the government to lower their expectations accordingly with our economy in dire straits. Tell that to a senior level manager who used to earn $7,000 a month and now have to slog daily as a taxi-driver for less than half his usual pay or a fresh graduate whose parents had invested heavily to put him through to university and now suddenly find himself getting less than what he bargained for with a low-paying job as a contract worker.

Please do not get me wrong, I am not blaming the government for the economic woes we are in now and neither am I disparaging these Singaporeans for not being contented with their lot. We must not forget that every one of us have aspirations in life and human nature is such that we tend to blame external parties for unfulfilled dreams and the government often becomes the most convenient scapegoat.

The government’s draconian laws curbing civil rights and space give few channels for unhappy citizens to vent their anger and let off steam so as to speak. Besides, years of political repression have made much of the population docile and tamed with few daring to express their dissent openly in public.

While we will not see a massive protest against the government happening any time soon at Hong Lim Park or elsewhere, we may encounter a rise in petty crimes such as vandalizing of public properties, bizzare physical assaults on MPs and civil servants. Divorces, child/spouse abuse and suicides may also rise and there will be more depressed and anxious Singaporeans seeking help from psychiatrists.

On the whole, the impending crisis will not shake the fundamentals of our economy and neither will it rock the foundation of our nation. The present political status quo with one single ruling party controlling the entire government including both its executive and legislative wings and an essentially non-existent, feeble opposition will continue to remain. An election called now is likely to return the ruling party to power with an increased margin.

In such extraordinary times, it pays to be extra careful and aware of the possible dangers lying ahead. We can no longer rely on past accolades and successes alone to steer us safely out of stormy waters. Let’s not take our social stability for granted and expect the unexpected.

Why Chee Soon Juan enjoys being bankrupt

By David Wu, Guest Columnist

‘What is Singapore’s national costume?’

I could not think of a satisfactory answer to my friend’s question, since there are so many types of dress that Singaporeans can identify with.

Then came the perhaps unsurprising answer: ‘The defamation suit of course!’

Chee Soon Juan, the self-termed Singapore rebel, is probably the synonym for the defamation action in modern day Singapore. While I am not going to proceed to discuss the merits of his pursuits, I will put forth a case why ignoring his often exaggerated remarks may be the better solution.

If you seek the advice of any lawyer, he would probably advise you that a pauper like Chee is not worth suing. He is already bankrupt and is therefore not afraid of any additional sanction that seeks to deprive him of his possessions. What he would probably fear losing, I would think, is exactly what these defamation suits give him: the attention of the public.

The media coverage on Chee has always been focused on his brushes with the law, and thus inadvertently bringing attention to his cause and beliefs. While the man may believe himself to be a martyr, it is difficult to connect his position with someone like Gandhi or Aung San Suu Kyi, since not many would pay attention to his preachings if he was left alone. The only similarity between them is perhaps that they were all subject to government prosecution, something that arguably is Chee’s presently most valuable possession. Chee ingeniously uses the courtroom as his soapbox, and his portal to influence public opinion. It is therefore not a surprise that he commits the offence of defamation over and over again, to the extent that some may think he actually enjoys it.

In the United Kingdom in the 1980s, the British government banned a book called the Spycatcher, written by an ex-MI5 agent Peter Wright, in which he made bold claims about the misdoings of the government. The book itself might not have gotten much readership if left alone, and the few who did read it might not have believed its contents. Nevertheless, the enthusiasm the authorities showed to prevent the book from being published made everyone curious about what they wanted to hide. The book went on to become an international best-seller, published in every other country but the United Kingdom.

If the defamation suits did any good besides depriving Chee of his materialistic possessions, it would have been the fact that doubts are raised in the public mind about the veracity of his claims. Why would the government pay so much attention to silencing him if it was just baseless nonsense? It is human nature to be curious about what we are prevented from knowing, even when most of the time we would admit that if we knew in the first place we probably wouldn’t have bothered to find out. Moreover, the government’s attempts to silence Chee merely made him a fighter for the freedom of speech in the eyes of Western media.

The American philosopher Thomas Scanlon believed that an essential part of a democracy is that citizens should be given the autonomy to receive information freely and evaluate its truth for themselves. Although most of us would agree that it is necessary for the government to protect society from dangerous racist hate speech or the promotion of terrorism, we would also agree that the public is capable to make the correct judgement in Chee’s case. The times have changed since the threat of Communist sedition and the significant improvement in education standards means that the majority of Singaporeans can be trusted to distinguish truth from falsity, especially in unsubstantiated claims such as Chee’s. Even if a minority of people believed these allegations, the importance of the right to the freedom of expression means that we should allow speech, especially when even more people might have believed it to be true if it was suppressed through prosecution. The free ‘marketplace of ideas’, as it is suggested in the United States, would mean that only the truth would emerge unscathed through the scrutiny of public opinion. The truth is naked, and it requires no additional help from the authorities. The Singapore government has often been criticised for being a nanny-state, and I believe that the populace has now matured enough to be not easily swayed by the boisterous claims of a demagogue.

Looking from the point of the defamed politicians, it is true that their reputations have been attacked. Nonetheless, the fact that they willingly entered into the public eye when they decided to run for office should mean a greater tolerance towards such accusations, and the willingness to put themselves up for public scrutiny to clarify matters. Moreover, even if only the false statements were censored, such liability to prosecution would have a ‘chilling effect’ on important investigative journalism or other constructive criticisms towards those in power. Such restraints against free speech would only be viewed as undemocratic, as were the Napoleonic laws prohibiting the criticism of government officials. John Stuart Mill has argued powerfully that the government should not have an ‘assumption of infallibility’ and allow criticisms on its policies, since they ‘ought to be moved by the consideration that, however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth’.

The ability of the Singapore government is evident in its good governance and recognised throughout the world. Politicians should therefore not prevent accusations that are clearly not true, but rather to clarify these false claims to make their reputations even stronger. It is often that a sore-loser accuses the winner of cheating, but the true champion always chooses to take such allegations in his stride.

What is Tan Yong Soon apologizing to Peter Ho for ?

By Eugene Yeo

I read with amusement this letter written by Mr Peter Ho, Head of the Civil Service purportedly to Singaporeans which was published in the Straits Times Forum today.

Mr Ho wrote:

” Mr Tan has apologised to me, acknowledging that his article was ill-judged and insensitive to the feelings of Singaporeans.”

May I ask Mr Ho his purpose of writing the letter ?

Is he apologizing to Singaporeans on behalf of Mr Tan or is he simply conveying the message to Singaporeans that Mr Tan is remorseful for his ill-timed article ?

Since Mr Tan has realized his mistake, why wasn’t the letter written by him instead ? Is Mr Ho trying to tell us indirectly that Mr Tan lack the language ability to draft a simple letter of apology ?

Is this just another ruse to defray rising disgruntlement and anger on the ground towards bloated salaries received by the upper echelons of the civil service ?

I seriously do not see any sincerity in Mr Ho’s letter.

When I was young, I was often taught by my parents that a man should be brave enough to own up and apologize for one’s own mistakes. Once, I got into a fight with my neighbor’s son and punched two front tooths off his mouth. My mother dragged me to my neighbor’s house to apologize to his parents in person. She did not tell them: “Eugene has apologized to me, acknowledging that he was wrong to punch your son.”

During the 2006 general election, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made an unreserved apology to Singaporeans a day after making his now infamous “fix the opposition” gaffe.

He did not ask his father, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew to write a letter to the Straits Times Forum saying: “Hsien Loong has apologized to me, acknowledging that his choice of words – ‘fix the opposition’ was ill-judged and insensitive to the feelings of Singaporeans.”

If even the Prime Minister can be humble and gracious enough to apologize for his mistake, why can’t Mr Tan Yong Soon, who is after all, a “servant” of the people do so ?

Is he too proud to apologize to us ? Or he feels that we are merely “lesser mortals” who do not deserve a personal apology from him ?

I don’t see any sense or meaning in him APOLOGIZING to Mr Peter Ho. It is utterly ridiculous ! It is unlikely that Mr Peter Ho will take offence to Mr Tan’s article since both of them belong to the same elite “supergrade” civil servant clique.

Is Mr Tan apologizing to Mr Peter Ho for causing him embarrassment and inconvenience for his ill-timed article with the end result that his superior has to clear up the mess he has left behind ?

A man should be responsible for his own words and actions. I will be flabbergasted if our civil servants go running to hide behind the skirt of their boss each time they commit a mistake. Are we paying the top salaries to the right people ?

Mr Tan Yong Soon has apologized to the wrong person and Mr Peter Ho has apologized for the wrong reason.

Mr Tan Yong Soon should apologize to Singaporeans and NOT Mr Peter Ho. And Mr Peter Ho should apologize for failing to inculcate the right values and attitude in his senior civil servants as their immediate superior in charge of them.

This letter is NOT ENOUGH to assauge the feelings of hurt and aggrieved Singaporeans. You guys are paid by taxpayers’ monies to serve the people and you should have a modicum of honesty, sincerity and respect in your liaisons with us instead of treating us like idiots ! What do you take us for ? As masak-masak for you to toy around ?

As a save-facing gesture for Mr Tan Yong Soon, we will not call for him to issue a public apology. A letter to the Straits Times expressing his regret over his ill-timed article in person should suffice to bring the matter to a proper closure.

Sounding the death knell for ‘civil disobedience’ in Singapore

By Fang Zhi Yuan, Senior writer

In an extensive interview given to The Straits Times last Saturday, Home Affairs Minister Mr Wong Kan Seng revealed that his ministry is currently reviewing public order laws to give the police greater powers to enforce them. (read the full article here).

According to Mr Wong, Singapore’s security forces need the powers to deal with such potential security situations pre-emptively on the ground and not let them occur and then deal with the consequences and perpetrators later.

Though he did not explicitly outline the possible changes to the existing laws, my hunch is that a new law will be legislated to deal specifically with ‘civil disobedience’.

Under the present circumstance, processions and assemblies are regulated under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (MOA) in which the police is unable to prevent the assembly from taking place and can only follow up with investigation after the show is over.

Activists from the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) had made used of this loophole in the law to stage protests against the government notably at the IMF-WB meeting in 2007 and the Tak Boleh Tahan protest outside Parliament House in 2008.

The events were filmed, including the sight of police manhandling and arresting the protestors at the scene. The recorded clips were subsequently uploaded to Youtube where it was viewed by thousands of Singaporeans who were both stunned and disgusted by the excessive use of force by the police against unarmed, peaceful fellow Singaporeans thereby exerting the maximum possible impact and blow to the government’s image.

In fact, this has been a recurring theme in the SDP’s standard modus operandi to generate awareness about their cause and to shame the Singapore government via the sympathatic international press covering their activities who seldom writes in favor of the government.

The government is acutely aware of the damage these fiascos have done to Singapore’s reputation as a modern democracy in the eyes of the world and hence the urgent need to revamp the current legislation to prevent history from repeating itself in this year’s APEC summit.

Under the proposed public order laws, the police now has the power to remove anybody they suspect to be holding an illegal rally or demonstration immediately from the scene before they are allowed to stage their show.

Civil activists will not even have the time to reveal their placards, let alone film the non-event before they find themselves being handcuffed and whiskered away in police vans with the end result that their intended message never quite get across to the outside world.

In Singapore’s conservative political climate where protests and rallies are frowned upon by many, civil activists are walking a lonely road fraught with unseen dangers and pitfalls.

Ironically, the greatest threat to their existence and effectiveness does not lie in the impending law to pre-empt them from striking, but with a range of “liberalizing” measures the government introduced last year including allowing outdoor protests at Hong Lim Park which has since proved to be a red herring.

In the past, the government is often rapped for draconian laws curtailing the civil rights of citizens by outlawing outdoor assemblies and protests.

Civil activists no longer have any grounds now to cry foul against unfair laws to draw public attention to the repression they have suffered at the hands of the government.

Rather than keeping the momentum going, they would have to be on the defensive now, being stuck in a quagmire between making use of the little space granted to them or to continue to defy the existing laws.

Public protests draw the most attention when they are held at appropriate venues. Restricting them to an unimportant corner of the island will reduce their significance and impact.

On the other hand, certain groups have shown that in spite of the limitations and disadvantages put in place, clever and skillful use of Hong Lim Park can achieve a desirable outcome as illustrated by Mr Tan Kin Lian’s minibond rallies at Hong Lim Park which drew record crowds of over 1,000 and exerted indirect pressure on MAS and the financial institutions to offer more investors compensation.

With the economy being the most pertinent issue on the minds of most Singaporeans and an administration bent on stifling dissent, is there still a place for ‘civil disobedience’ in Singapore ? Or has its death knell been sounded ? Should SDP continue to adopt a hardline stance against the government by openly flouting its laws in public or is it more practical for it to accept its erstwhile adversary’s offer of a token ‘olive branch’ by limiting its political activities at Hong Lim Park from now onwards ?

Unless SDP is able to attract a crowd of at least the size of Mr Tan Kin Lian’s rallies, its political forays, however heroic and meaningful, are unlikely to effect a significant change in the political status quo in the near future.

Something new + time to move on

Today I wrote my Opinion about a article Unionists, economists hope Budget will do more for sandwiched class in my own post @ Good Times maybe a Bad Time for Some.

And I realise that maybe it’s time to move on. I do not mean that I should quit blogging or give up trying to effect a change. What I mean is that I think I should start to do more.

And the thing I’m thinking about is to start writing Proper Letters to explain about Alternative Views on the Same Article. For Articles that has a Singular Angle, I’m going to start trying to write properly about the Alternative View on the matter and send it to the proper channels.

So this article, Unionists, economists hope Budget will do more for sandwiched class will be my first Attempt.

Read rest of article here

Top civil servant’s extravagant travel draws polarizing responses from two camps

Translated from Lianhe Wanbao (20 Jan 2009) by Cheng Siew Peng:

Permanent Secretary Tan Yong Soon spent $40,000 for a family trip to France to learn cooking, triggering a polarizing response from ordinary Singaporeans.

While older uncles and aunties criticize him as “hao lian” (hokkien for arrogant), the younger generation feels he is simply writing the truth and has no intention of belitting others.

The minister in charge of the civil service, Mr Teo Chee Hean criticized Mr Tan’s article in Parliament yesterday as lacking sensitivity and being “ill-judged”.

Tan Yong Soon brought his wife and son to Paris for a 5-week cooking course last Deccember and wrote a travelogue on about which was published on 6 January in the Straits Times Life section.

The exorbitant fees for the cooking course which costs $15,000 per head and $45,000 in total earned the irk of netizens who felt “top civil servants do not practice what they preach and even brag about their wealth to the public.”

Most netizens are of the view that Mr Tan is not empathetic towards the plight of ordinary Singaporeans facing the threat of retrenchment in teh face of an economic recession. On one hand, they ask Sinagporeans to lead an austere life and yet they are happily bringing their family for a holiday cum cooking course overseas.

Said Madam Chang (67 years old): “My children says they consider themselves very lucky not to be retrenched during this period. Being a civil servant, he should understand the sufferings of the common people, our treasured societal values of thrift and humility have disappeared.”

Mr Lee (46 years old) said: “I need to spend a few months to earn even half of his cooking course fee. I feel disgusted at him spending such a big sum of money during an economic downturn like this.”

However, young Singaporeans whom we interviewed and a portion of netizens felt that Mr Tan did not wrong in writing about the truth.

Miss Shen (29 years old) said: “There are many people who spend more than him to enjoy their holidays, just that it is not reported in the press ok ? How to spend one’s money is a personal freedom and there is nothing wrong with it.

Source: Lianhe Wanbao

Next Page »