Why PAP MPs are no more but a “wayang” in Parliament

By Richard Lu

I refer to Miss Chua Mui Hoong’s article ‘No wayang – MPs serve as early warning system’ filed under ‘From the Gallery’ section of the Straits Times of 12 March, 2010. 

This article is a shaggy dog story.  In it Miss Chua says “MPs play a valuable role in the political process, often as an early warning system on issues simmering on the ground but not yet on the national radar.”

I beg to differ.

 

ROLE OF MPs IN PARLIAMENT

The main functions of Parliament are lawmaking, controlling the nation’s finances, and ensuring ministerial accountability.  By and large, it is the cabinet ministers and the public servants who have direct responsibility for drafting new legislation.

MPs can influence the Government policy by participating in debates in the House and in the Committees where new legislations are being formulated and thereby contributing both substantively and fine-tuning amendments.  MPs sit in Committees where Government spending is discussed.  They also lobby the ministers.   MPs can also introduce ‘private members bills’. Opposition MPs use Question Time in the House to raise issues of concern and bring them to the attention of the public.

 

SINGAPORE MPs IN PARLIAMENT

MPs are the eyes and the ears of the people.  They are voted into Parliament for this purpose and more.  In Singapore, 82 of the 84 seats in Parliament belong to the PAP.   Because of their overwhelming majority in the House for such a long time – 51 years, the PAP MPs have gone ‘soft’ and lazy and are relatively ineffectual.  One only has to watch a session of a Parliamentary debate on TV to be convinced. 

The debates are basically dour and docile affairs presented without much detailed research and barest of details.  MPs cannot articulate and there is a distinct lack of flair, aplomb (lacking self-confidence) and passion.  The ‘cut and thrust’ of debate or ‘off the cuff’ rebuttals and ‘humoring’ of fellow Parliamentarians are largely absent.   Too gentlemanly.  

MPs rely heavily on their scripted text and reading.  Their ‘theatrics’ or ‘wayang’ – prepared questions and answers meant to praise or polish the ‘marbles’ of the ministers are too prevalent in these debates. But in the main, the abysmal quality of debates is reflective of the “poor quality” of the MPs’ persona (many having entered the House courtesy of the open “back door”).  

Like the quintessential or arch-type Singaporean, these PAP MPs too are afraid to speak up for fear of retribution (or being dropped) and always want someone else to lead.   Hence the “wayang” i.e. questions and answers prepared before hand as evidenced by the scripted text.

Maybe it is the “corruption” of the high MP allowances that keeps these PAP MPs in check – the pervasive “don’t rock the boat” and the “better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt” attitudes. 

In the last session, the PAP MPs raised mundane, unexciting and inconsequential issues like cyclists on the pavements, number of steps on overhead bridges (good God, she can count – and up to 67!) and lifts.  There was even a nonsensical question raised by a doctor MP asking the Minister of Health how he stays looking young.  If this doctor does not know, who would?   Many suspect he was merely “marble” polishing.

In the meantime, look at what had happened in Singapore under the MPs’ national radar that had escaped their attention entirely:

1.  PRs buying up HDB flats and prices going up to the detriment of Singaporeans;

2.  Foreigners imported in Singapore in such alarming numbers (3.6 million) and such fast rate;

3.  The fast tracking and making of PRs and citizens;

4.  Demand of private homes hitting the roof and these MPs still do not see the bubble being formed;

5.  Hospitals and hospices are inadequate;

6.  The productivity of the Singaporean workers has dropped and the MPs are not even aware;

7.  Older Singaporeans out of jobs due to cheaper, faster and better foreigners;

8.   The MRT & buses are choked ;

9.   Unsavory behavior of our foreign imports;

10.   Stagnant incomes, lower purchasing power, lower quality of life, etc.

The above are just some bread-and-butter issues tugging the heart-strings of Singaporeans that our MPs are so oblivious to.  It was left to the vigilant netizens who relentless pursued and cajoled the Government in their postings and the 2 vs. 82 opposition MPs who championed these concerns and raised them in Parliament. 

 

AN EXAMPLE OF THE PAP MP ROT

PAP’s Baey Yam Keng, a ‘back-door’ MP in MM Lee’s GRC, must surely take the cake.  In a ‘Meet The People’ session in his Tanjong Pagar constituency at the end of last month, Mr. Baey promised to raise residents’ concerns in Parliament to ‘change’ government policies.  Doesn’t he know that this is his basic and sacred duty as a MP?  Has he been sleeping all this while? 

He did stutter and splutter last week despite reading from a prepared scripted text.  And what of the ‘residents’ concerns’ did this joker raised in Parliament?  Setting up a food museum!  How does MM Lee tolerate such fools?  This Minister Mentor is surely not doing his job!  MM Lee is NOT even mentoring his charges in his own GRC.  Or rather, has he given up as a consequence such low quality inputs?   

Where then is the early warning system, Mui Hoong?  And look at what were also debated in Parliament recently:

a.   $10 million to help migrants integrate;

b.   Migrants need not perform NS or they may not want Singapore citizenships;

c.   Migrants to join People’s Association;

d.   Foreign workers are necessary for Singapore;

e.   HDB flats are affordable;

f.   Even Ministers asking Singaporeans to be “more realistic” over HDB flats and being tolerant to foreigners.

The old maxim “pay peanuts and get monkeys” is reversed here in the Singapore Parliament. Singaporeans pay TOP DOLLARS for monkey PAP MPs. 

 

FAILURE OF PAP MPs

May I ask Miss Chua Mui Hoong how then do these MPs play a valuable role in the political process and more importantly how do they justify their shameless monthly MP allowances? 

In 1990, the Nominated Member of Parliament scheme was introduced.   Wong Kan Seng, DPM and Minister for Home Affairs and the then-House Leader, gave a reason for the scheme – the performance of the opposition MPs (there were four at that time) had been disappointing.   But I suspect he too was of the opinion that the PAP MPs were as just as guilty of this fact.  

Save for the former PAP backbencher Dr, Tan Cheng Bock and now Mr. Inderjit Singh, most of the other PAP MPs must either be from the mute association or the deaf association. 

Some of the NMPs, Siew Kum Hong and Chia Shih Teck in particular provided spirited debates.  But alas, their terms were not extended leading one to enquire if the Government was sincere in wanting diverse views or once again merely paying lip service. 

Singaporeans are such simpletons and imbeciles that MPs can be easily milk them for their astronomical MP allowances and Ministerial pay!  It is just taking candies from babies.  And we will vote them in again come next election!  

Even Abe Lincoln would have approved of this:

“You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can fool Singaporeans all of the time.”

 

JOURNALISM IN SINGAPORE

Like Rachel Chang, Miss Chua Mui Hoong too is doing ‘her ‘wayang’ …….. playing the tune for their political master and employer.  Like good pets, they bark or bite when told to do so.  Journalism in Singapore is dead.

My recommendation for Rachel, Mui Hoong, Main Stream Media journalists, reporters and presenters, are to embrace these 2 aspects for good journalism – i.e. journalist skills and journalistic principles. 

a.   5 journalistic skills – curiosity, sense of adventure, need to share, joy of storytelling and making a difference.

b.   5 basic journalistic principles – accuracy, thoroughness, fairness, transparency, and independence.

Otherwise quit journalism.

 

CONCLUSION

Parliament is becoming a farce if not an outright “wayang” thanks to these non-performing, ineffectual and lackluster PAP MPs who are there simply as dummies to fill up the empty seats.

As PAP’s omnipresent octogenarian “Dear Leader’ Lee Kuan Yew puts it succinctly:

“To be the prime minister, you don’t have to know every instrument, but you got to recognise, ah, he’s a good violinist, he’ll be the first violinist, he’ll be the double bass. He will play the viola, he will have the trumpet, he will do the drums. Then you coordinate them and then you have great music. And if you already have a great orchestra, you can put a dummy there and you still got great music.”

[Source: Channel News Asia, 5 March 2008]

PAP MPs have failed miserably in their responsibilities to speak up for Singaporeans, let alone be an “early warning system.” They do not deserve a single cent of the $13,000 monthly MP allowance that taxpayers have been paying.

A real “wayang kulit” will be much worthwhile watching than the pathetic “wayang” these PAP MPs put up in Parliament to masequerade Singapore as a “democracy” to the world.

 

Read also:

10 most unforgettable quotes by PAP MPs in the recent parliamentary debates

 

Other articles by Richard Lu:

1. Independent judiciary in a liberal democracy

2. Why an independent judiciary is an important part of a liberal democracy

3. Advantages of an open and democratic society

Independent judiciary in a Liberal democracy

By Richard Lu

In liberal democracies, citizens are mandated to obey the rule of law.  It stands to reason that the independence of the judiciary is not only an important part of a liberal democracy, but some might suggest it is essential.
 
To understand why an independent judiciary is an important part of a liberal democracy we must briefly acknowledge what a liberal democracy is.  A liberal democracy, at its purest, is a democratic government that seeks to represent the will of the people through the entrenchment and protection of individual rights and freedoms.  It is of the utmost importance to maintain independence of the judiciary in order to prevent the possibility of undue influence exerted by other governmental agencies on the courts.
 
Within the Singapore Constitution are the essentials for a liberal democratic system including the rights and freedoms and the powers of Government and its commitment to the rule of law.  The rule of law applies not only to the people, but also to the government.   We have chosen to protect the ability for the judiciary to maintain the rule of law, independent of undue external influence, and thereby protect some of the core aspects of our liberal democratic framework.
 
The Singapore Judiciary
 
The full Judicial power in Singapore is vested in the Supreme Court as well as subordinate courts by the Constitution of Singapore.
 
·         The Supreme Court consists of the Court of Appeal and the High Court.  The Court of Appeal exercises appellate criminal and civil jurisdiction, while the High Court exercises both original and appellate criminal and civil jurisdiction.
·         The Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal, Judicial Commissioners and High Court Judges are appointed by the President from candidates recommended by the Prime Minister.
·         The Prime Minister must consult with the Chief Justice before recommending the Judges.

·        Singapore practices the common law legal system, where the decisions of higher courts constitute binding precedent upon courts of equal or lower status within their jurisdiction. ·         The President has the power to grant pardons on the advice of the cabinet.

Recent milestones
 
·         Jury trials were abolished in 1969;
·         The Criminal Procedure Code was amended in 1992 to allow for trials of capital offences to be heard before a single judge;.
·         In 1986 the Legal Profession Act was amended to only allow the Law Society to speak on legal issues upon request by the Government; and·         The Court of Appeal is Singapore’s final court of appeal after the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London was abolished in April 1994. Judicial independence in Singapore – recent comments*
In 2004, the US Department of State claimed that:
·        Although Singapore’s judicial system provides citizens with an efficient judicial process, the judiciary is largely compliant and the Government often uses defamation suits or the threat of such actions to discourage public criticism and intimidate the press;·         The President of Singapore and the Minister for Home Affairs have substantial de facto judicial power, leading “to a perception that the judiciary reflected the views of the ruling party in politically sensitive cases.”; and ·         Singapore’s “judicial officials, especially the Supreme Court, have close ties to the ruling party and its leaders”. Notable cases include those against opposition leaders J. B. Jeyaretnam, Law Society ex-President Francis Seow and Dr. Chee Soon Juan.
* Available in the Internet.
 
Conclusion
 
·         Adherence to the rule of law is crucial to a liberal democracy;
·         It is importance that the laws are correctly interpreted and applied within the context of a liberal democracy;
·         Within a liberal democracy, governmental powers are not above the scope of the law.;
·         It is therefore essential that the judiciary, as the vehicle for enforcement of the law, be at arm’s length from other pillars of government that may come under legal question;
·         Immunity from legal liability for Judges while performing their duties;
·         Guarantees of tenure;
·         Salary protection; and
·         Judicial appointments, free from political interference, is therefore a central tenet of an independent judiciary.
 
 
 
Notes:
 
Constitution of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore and it is a codified constitution. The constitution cannot be amended without the support of more than two-thirds of the members of parliament on the second and third readings. The president may seek opinion on constitutional issues from a tribunal consisting of not less than three judges of the Supreme Court. Singaporean courts cannot offer advisory opinion on the constitutionality of laws.

Part IV of the constitution guarantees the following:

Liberty of a person (limited).
Prohibition of slavery and forced laborProtection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trialsEqual protectionProhibition of banishment and freedom of movementFreedom of speech, assembly and association (limited)
Freedom of religionRight to education

Part XII of the constitution allows:
 
The Parliament of Singapore to enact legislation designed to stop or prevent subversion. Such legislation is valid even if it is inconsistent with Part IV of the constitution. The Internal Security Act (ISA) is a legislation under such provision.
 
 
Further reading
 
http://www.singapore-window.org/1028judi.htmhttp://www.theage.com.au/news/business/suffering-singapores-slings-arrows/2006/04/18/1145344082712.htmlhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/3939236/Rule-of-Law-in-Singapore-Independence-of-the-Judiciary-and-the-Legal-Profession-in-Singaporehttp://www.news.gov.sg/public/sgpc/en/media_releases/agencies/pmo/press_release/P-20091111-1http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121674589942074015.html

Why an Independent Judiciary is an important part of a liberal democracy

By Richard Lu

 The Judiciary
 
“The judiciary (also known as the judicial system or judicature) is the system of courts which interprets and applies the law in the name of the sovereign or state. The judiciary also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not make law (which is the responsibility of the legislature) or enforce law (which is the responsibility of the executive), but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case.

This branch of government is often tasked with ensuring equal justice under law. It usually consists of a court of final appeal (called the “supreme court” or “constitutional court”), together with lower courts.

The term “judiciary” is also used to refer collectively to the personnel, such as judges, magistrates and other adjudicators, who form the core of a judiciary (referred to as a “bench”), as well as the staff who keeps the system running smoothly.” …… Wikipedia
 
Why is an Independent Judiciary an importance part of a liberal democracy?
 
In 1985, the UN General Assembly adopted the “Basic Principles on the independence of the Judiciary” at its 7th Congress.  With this, each member state is expected to guarantee the independence of the judiciary in the constitution and by law.  What does this mean?  Simply put:
 
·         Judicial independence is the ability of a judge to decide a case free from pressures or inducements;
·         Institutions of the judiciary must be independent i.e. separated from the legislature and executive arms or any concentration of power; and
·         The principal role of the judiciary is to uphold the rule of law and ensure its supremacy. 
 
If the judiciary is to be truly impartial and independent it must have special powers to keep its distance from:
 
·        Political parties,
·        Government bodies,
·        Pressure and interest groups, and 
·        Be free from repercussions from all outside interferences and influences.
 
Basis of Judicial Independence
 
It is the duty of all governments and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary on the following basis:
 
·         Equality of all before the law;
·         Presumption of innocence;
·         Right to a fair and open or public hearing by a competent and impartial tribunal established by law;
·         Judiciary to decide matter before them impartially base on facts and in accordance with the law;
·         No interference whatsoever – internally or externally, with the judicial process;
·         No improper influences, inducements, pressures or threats;
·         Judicial decisions shall not be subject to revision(s);
·         Doctrine of Separation of Powers;
·         The principle is not compromised by judicial reviews, mitigation or commutation by competent authorities; and
·         Public bodies such as state departments, the military, government corporations as well as the state itself are subject to the same laws.
 
The executive branch often acts as the litigator and enforcer of criminal law.  It is inevitable that there are dealings between the courts and the executive branch.  The executive branch has a legitimate interest in the proper co-ordination of the justice system as a whole, but the co-operation is an administrative one only.  The government branches do not instruct the courts how to arrive at their decisions and the courts do not tell the police how to investigate or perform their duties.
 
 
Other requirements for Judicial Independence
 
a.       Remuneration and tenure
 
The term of office of judges, their independence, security, adequate remuneration, conditions of service, retirement age, pensions, etc. shall be adequately secured by law including:
 
·         Removal from office;
·         Judges appointed or elected shall be guaranteed tenure until retirement age or expiry of their term;
·         A charge or complaints against a judge in his/her personal capacity shall be expeditiously heard under appropriate rules and procedures and provisions.  The judge in question shall have the right to a fair hearing; and
·         Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal if found unfit to discharge their duties.
 
b.      Open court requirement
 
Perhaps the most important safeguard for an independent judiciary is the ‘open court’ principle where justice is dispensed ‘in open court’’. With
the ‘open court principle’, justice will not only be done, but will also “be seen to be done.”  ‘Seeing’ in this context enables the public to have
access to trials and to reports of those trials and the actual reasons for the judicial decisions.
 
·         Every member of the public has a right to enter any court at any time as a trial is in progress; 
·         The public has the right to be present to witness how justice is being dispensed in their courts;
·         The public can access if their judges are acting independently and in accordance with the law;
·         The press has the right to attend hearing and communicate to the public court proceedings;
·         The courts may restrict dissemination of information to ensure a ‘fair trial’; and
·         The courts give full recorded reasons for its decisions for the benefit of all and for public record.
 
c.      Requirement to communicating the Law to the People
 
It is difficult sometimes to explain the law and the legal system to the public. Those who are involved in the system, judges, lawyers,
prosecutors, police and correctional institutuion personnel, must all reach out to make such explanations 

d.      Judicial Appointment Process
 
To have a superior judiciary, greatest care must be taken at the initial stage and in the selection or appointment process:
 
·         Persons selected for judicial appointment shall be of integrity and ability with appropriate training or qualifications;
·         In the selection of judges, there shall be no discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, political orientation, national or social origin, property or birth or status;
·         That a candidate for judicial office must be a national of the country concerned shall not be considered discriminatory;
·         There shall be safeguard against judicial appointments for improper motives;
·         The judicial function is often a creative one and it is necessary to recruit highly trained, competent, ethical and intelligent men and women,   reflective of the society they serve;
·         The need to remunerate them appropriately and with substantial salaries reflective of the society they serve;
·         This element of creativity, the special adjudicative function that judges play and their role in society makes their job of particular importance to a balanced society;
·         This is even more so if their reasons and decisions become precedents because of the effect these decisions will have on subsequent cases and the development of the law; and
·         Because of the significance of the initial selection process, it may be useful to review various judicial selection processes in place in a number of jurisdictions.
 
e.      Common Law Systems
 
·         The body of law based on precedents i.e. on the prior decisions of judges;
·         Statute law legislated by the state plays a significant role and so does the law made by judges (called the common law);
·         Common law is made as judges decide cases and state the rationale for their decisions;
·         The accumulation of principles goes into a body of law that evolves to meet social changes and expectations; and
·         In a common law system, statute law (including constitutional law) predominates over common law.
 
f.        Civil Law Justice Systems (not applicable to Singapore)
·         Most of the judicial systems of major industrialized nations do not operate on the common law system, but rather in a legal system sometimes referred to as the civil law;
·         In this system the legally trained individual follows a career path into the judiciary, frequently directly from law school;
·         Typically the judicial personnel participates initially in some level of service in the judicial administrative branch, progresses to lower levels of judicial service, and then is promoted to higher levels;
·         Judicial structure is more hierarchical and specialization is possible; and
·         A judge’s progress depends on the performance assessments of his or her superiors.
 
·         Elective Judicial Appointment (not applicable to Singapore)
In the United States, many state judges are elected.
 
g.      Judicial Associations
 
Judges are free to form and join associations of judges or other organizations to represent their interests, promote professionalism and to protect their judicial independence. 

Quoting the late Justice Thurgood Marshall of the US Supreme Court:   “We must never forget that the only real source of power that we as judges can tap is the respect of the people.”

 

DISCLAIMER:

The writer is not a legally trained person but one who may be considered as “better read”.  The sources of the information are from text found in books, articles and in the Internet.  It is the writer’s aim to promote discussions.  The writer recognizes the subject is a difficult one and certain portions of the article may require further detailed explanations.  The article is deliberately kept short in the hope that it would informative and stimulate interest.  He apologizes if parts of the article are found wanting.

Pastor Rony Tan and the great homosexuality debate

By Richard Lu

There is an interesting, intense on-going discussion in the Temasek Review pages on Pastor Rony Tan’s views and comments on lesbians and homosexuals in a video posted on the Lighthouse Evangelism website (since removed).  I choose not to delve into religion.

Many of us so called liberals deem we are all created equal and must not discriminate on the basis of sex, gender, creed and color of the skin and we should all fight for human liberation as a whole.  Neither should sexual orientation, gender, creed and color govern our meritocratic system of government or other organizations wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based on proven talents and abilities.  Discrimination should also not dictate our ability to lead for otherwise it must surely divide us.  It is unproductive at best and counterproductive at worst.

Homosexual acts were decriminalized in some parts of the Western world (e.g. Poland – 1932, Denmark – 1933, Sweden – 1944, United Kingdom – 1967).  It was not until the mid-1970s that the gay community first began to achieve limited civil rights in some developed countries.  The turning point was in 1973 when the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, thus negating its previous definition of homosexuality as a clinical mental disorder.  In 1977, Quebec became the first country in the world to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.  Most developed countries have enacted laws decriminalizing homosexuality.

Homophobia is a term that represents negative attitudes or actions toward homosexuals. Homophobia is prejudices toward homosexuals, fears and negative beliefs or attitudes that accompany this prejudice.  Rigid sex role stereotypes are barriers to accepting homosexuality in both homosexuals and heterosexuals.  Lesbian and gay people are often discriminated in employment, housing, and services.  In some liberal societies e.g. America, many unsophisticated minds would rather tolerate Mormon polygamists and abortionists than gays.

Homosexuality in history and religions

Homosexuality (defined as sexual interest in and attraction to members of one’s own sex) had been variously approved, tolerated, punished or prohibited during different eras, cultures, and religions.  Homosexuality was not uncommon in ancient cultures.  In most of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, both the subject and the behavior are considered taboo, with some slight exceptions made in urban areas. The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans generally accepted homosexual behavior within certain contexts.

·        Hinduism and Buddhism view homosexuality from the standpoint of its karmic effects.

·        Jewish, Christian, Sikh and Muslim cultures have generally perceived homosexual behavior as sinful.

·        Many Jewish and Christian leaders, however, have gone to great lengths to stress that it is the homosexual acts and not the homosexual individuals or their “orientation” that is condemned.

·        In recent developments, some liberal Protestant Christianity and Reform Judaism advocate the full acceptance of homosexuals and their relationships.

Liberal Singaporeans’ views

In six countries, homosexual behaviors are punishable by life imprisonment; in ten others, it carries the death penalty.

In Singapore Section 377A of the Penal Code of Singapore is the main remaining piece of legislation which criminalizes sex between mutually consenting adult men.  Section 377A (”Outrages on decency”) states that: “Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.”

How should Lesbians Gays Bisexuals Transgender (LGBT) persons be treated

It is no surprise that major conflicts exists over equal rights and protections for gays and lesbians, including whether to alter the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage. Within even a single religion e.g. Christianity, we see active, un-resolvable debates over how persons with a homosexual or bisexual orientation should be treated.  Amongst the more vocals, the arguments are diametrically opposite.

The Christians in Singapore are by nature conservative and many are vocal and regard same-sex behavior as profoundly immoral and hated by God regardless of the nature of their relationships.   Most advocate continuing the current denials and restrictions.

However, most LGBTs, their friends and families, including some religious liberals (Christians included) and progressives, secularists, mental health professionals and their associations, civil libertarians, human sexuality researchers, etc. favor equal rights and protections for persons of all sexual orientations, including the right to marry. You see, these are the more enlightened with the “live and let live spirit”.

Religious moderates tend to be split between the conservative and liberal viewpoints.  Supporters for same-sex marriage remain in a minority, but may be increasing in numbers.   Many favor the hate-crime laws to include violent crimes motivated by hatred of the victim’s sexual orientation. Most regard homophobia – any denial of human rights based on sexual orientation – to be as profoundly immoral as is sexism and racism.  Most believe that homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual orientation and behavior are not intrinsically sinful and would like to see persons of all sexual orientations protected from abuse, firing, discrimination in accommodation, violence in hate crimes, etc.

Section 377A of the Penal Code

Quilting Wikipedia:  “What is clear from the rejuvenated debate on whether homosexual acts under should be decriminalized is that passions run high over this issue. And where passions run high, reason often runs dry.  Much ink has been spilt arguing whether homosexuality is about nature or nurture, choice or instinct, whether it is sinful or simply an alternative choice of lifestyle. It is unlikely that a consensus is going to be reached anytime soon……. Indeed, for over 10 years, there has been no prosecution under section 377A for gay sex between consenting adults.”

Here is a paradox and a contradiction, for we are a global and vibrant city with an archaic law.  Does it mean that there are gay activities in Singapore?  By the way, Section 377A criminalizes only male homosexual activities but not lesbian acts.

What is the purpose of retaining Section 337A?

Ms. Indranee Rajah, a PAP MP and former chairperson of the GPC for Law and Home Affairs, reiterated the MHA’s “assurance” that it would not actively prosecute people under that section.

PM Lee Hsien Loong: “However, as recognition that homosexuals do and are contributing to the country, 377A would also not be actively enforced. Homosexuals would be left to lead their lives in privacy.”

I see no purpose in its retention but Pastor and the Lighthouse Evangelism should be mindful of what PM Lee said i.e. “Homosexuals would be left to lead their lives in privacy.”

How should Singaporeans treat LGBTs?

As Singaporeans fight for human liberation as a whole, we cannot exclude the rights of the gay people. This fight is part of our democratization process.  Whilst we do not encourage LGBT activities nor condone them, we DO NOT promote nor discriminate.  It is morally wrong as our actions will come back to haunt us later.  This is how Singaporeans should view and react to gay people in our community.

In the West, politicians looking for votes have even joined gay parades and approved civil unions for gays. LBGTs  have gained ground over several years and now they celebrate how far they have come in their gay parades.  I am hopeful the day will not come when our politicians have to elicit the votes of the LGBTs in exchange for standing up for their rights.

Finally, I quote Jesus Christ and the Bible: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”  Christians, do not deny the LGBTs their rights!

*Notes: The terms “LGBT” and “GLBT” are acronyms for: “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender/Transsexual, and “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender/Transsexual.”  Sometimes, additional letters “Q” for Queer, “I” for Intersexual.  Persons with all three sexual orientations – (heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual) and various sexual identities (cisgendered, transsexual, transgendered) are sometimes included.

Advantages of a democratic and open society

By Richard Lu

Dear Singaporeans,
 
I have been reading the comments in the Temasek Review and here are some of my thoughts on democracy.
 
Democracy exists in several shades and hues – from liberal to sinister to diabolical.  Ask Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong-il.  Democracy is characterized by:
 
·         “majority rule”;
·         rule of law; and
·         separation of powers.
 
Within the 3 characteristics we find:
 
a.      Freedom of expression
b.      Social and political tolerance
c.      Civil society and
d.      Accountability and transparency
 
An essential process in liberal or representative democracies is competitive elections that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.
 
Liberal democracy
 
Liberal democracy or constitutional democracy is the dominant form of democracy in the 21st century. The term “liberal” in “liberal democracy” refers to adherence to the ideology of political liberalism.   Liberal democracies feature constitutional protections of individual rights from government power.
 
There is general agreement that the states of the European Union, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, the United States, Canada, India, Israel, Mexico, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand are liberal democracies.
Structure
 
According to the principles of liberal democracy, the elections should be free and fair, and the political process should be competitive. Political pluralism is usually defined as the presence of multiple and distinct political parties.
 
The liberal democratic constitution defines the democratic character of the state. The purpose of a constitution is often seen as a limit on the authority of the government. The  European and American political traditions emphasize the separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and a system of checks and balances between branches of government. 
 
Many European democracies emphasize the importance of the state that follows the principle of rule of law. Governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedure.

Political stability

One argument for democracy is that it is a system where the majority can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis or the constitution. Democracy reduces political uncertainty and instability.  It assures citizens that they will be given a regular chance to change the government, or policies they disagree. This is preferable to a system of violent political changes.
 
Some think that political stability is excessive or undesirable when a group remains in power the same for too long.
 
In the past, it was feared that democracy could be easily exploited by leaders with dictatorial aspirations. However, the actual number of liberal democracies that have elected dictators into power is low.
 
Loyal Opposition

The notion of a “loyal opposition” exists in various Commonwealth realms.  In the United Kingdoms it is termed formally as Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition and informally as the Official Opposition, with the head of the largest opposition party – that which holds the second largest number of seats – typically designated as the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.
 
Some other advantages of democratic government structure
 
1.      The freedoms and rights of the citizens in liberal democracies are usually seen as beneficial.2.      Democracies are more often associated with a higher average self-reported happiness in a nation.3.      Democracy correlates with a higher score on the human development index and a lower score on the human poverty index.4.      Democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption.5.      A democratic system may provide better information for policy decisions.

Democracy in Singapore
 
Mr. Daniel Adelman, US Ambassador-designate to Singapore has admitted that Singapore is not a democracy and replied that the United States must engage Singapore on these issues:
 
“My view is the United States must engage Singapore on these issues. You identified the area where, quite candidly, Singapore needs the most improvement if it were to live up to the ambitions Americans have for democracy. Make no mistake, currently Singapore is not a multi-party democracy, and I intend, if confirmed, to use public diplomacy to work towards greater press freedoms, greater freedom of assembly and ultimately, more political space for opposition parties in Singapore to strengthen Singapore into a multi-party democracy.”

The Economist Democracy Index ranks Singapore as 82nd in the world in terms of democratic development, below neighbors such as Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.
 
Reporters Without Borders ranks Singapore 133rd out of 175 for press freedoms. 

Quoting one founding father, Lee Kuan Yew:
 
“But we either believe in democracy or we not. If we do, then, we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from the any democratic processes, other than by the ordinary law of the land, should be allowed… If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought, and no excuse, whether of security, should allow a government to be deterred from doing what it knows to be right, and what it must know to be right… “- Legislative Assembly Debates, April 27, 1955
 
Conclusion
 
In conclusion, Singaporeans understand the necessity to democratize Singapore; the advantages of an open society – freedom of expression, social and political tolerance, civil society and rule of law, separation of powers, loyal opposition and finally happiness.  Can we make it happen?
 
Yours sincerely,

Richard Lu

Temasek Holdings – Transparency a Perception ?

By Richard Lu

Transparency International (TI) publishes an annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) according to “the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians”.
 
Corruption is best described as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain”.  The maximum score or index is 10 and a country with a high score is “perceived” as being least corrupt.   In 2009, Singapore was placed No. 3 after New Zealand and Demark with an index of 9.2.
 
Just in case we go away with the notion that we have arrived, readers must understand how the index is derived and why it is controversial and not accepted as an accurate measure of corruption.
 
Firstly, the CPI is derived from a compilation of surveys that ask businessmen and analysts, both in and outside the countries they are analyzing, their perceptions of how corrupt a country is.  The index therefore relies on third-party surveys that may be potentially unreliable.  Data vary widely because of the different methodologies used, the completeness of the surveys and different samples employed every year.
 
Secondly, the laws of each country vary and so is the enforcement process.  Therefore the actual number of corruption cases in each country cannot be an accurate measure.
 
Thirdly, corruption happens behind the scenes and hence the difficulty in its detection.
 
The survey is controversial although it does not lack objectivity.  TI receives criticisms over the years. The CPI authors reply to criticisms by reminding the users of the data that the CPI is meant to measure perception and not “reality”.
 
The results are therefore difficult to evaluate due to the constant moving of the goal posts and yardsticks used.  What is important to note is that “perceptions matter in their own right, since… firms and individuals take actions based on perceptions”.
 
Statistics like the CPI in itself is not accurate.  By looking at the index over a few years, the year-to-year changes in a country’s result and the samples and methodology used, a perception of a country’s performance can be obtained.  This means that a change in perception of corruption of a country would only emerge in the index over longer periods of time.
 
Although the CPI is put out by Transparency International it is an irony that it does not measure the “transparency” of a government or government-linked businesses and activities e.g. GLCs, sovereign wealth funds, statutory boards.  Singaporeans will never know what goes on in say the GLCs, Temasek Holdings, GIC, People’s Association, etc.  
 
Thus we will never be told how Temasek Holdings’ CEO Ho Ching appointed this “special adviser”, the former SGX CEO Mr. Hsieh Fu Hua; why was he appointed, what are his terms of engagement, what is his remuneration, etc. 

Is this a retirement job or a reward for his faithful service as CEO of SGX?   Wasn’t there a head-hunt for the appointment?   What makes him so eminently qualified that a position was created for him immediately after his stint as CEO of SGX?   Really, to be transparent and accountable, the answers to these questions must be forthcoming and released quickly.
 
Temasek Holdings must ultimately belong to the people of Singapore and must be accountable to the people of Singapore.  The sooner the people in charge of Temasek Holding realize this, the better.  This is not a perception like the CPI but a reality.  Singaporeans want and demand transparency and now.  Will they (the people in charge) not see this?
 
By the way, we should not be shouting or crowing about the fact that we are third after New Zealand and Demark on the TI list of least corrupt countries.  The Government must not bask in this fact and feel that there is no need to be transparent or accountable at all.  Whilst we may least corrupt, we may also be the least transparent of countries and this perception is not a good one.

Beyond the PAP: Thinking aloud

By Richard Lu

I am apolitical.  It is not important who or which party or parties gets into power ultimately.  So long the government of the day gives back our dignity, our rights to freedom and restores true democracy to our beloved Singapore.
 
Singaporeans are always fearful and skeptical – fearful that if an opposition were to wrest power from the PAP, Singapore would sink and we are doomed; always skeptical that the opposition would not be able to do the job, let alone a good one.
 
Let us consider what would happen if, in the best or worst case, an opposition (a party or a coalition of parties) gets into power:
 
The new government may find it uphill initially.  You see, the organs of the state – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary are so intertwined with the PAP after 47 years of uninterrupted PAP rule. 
 
Consider these: 
 
a.      We have a first-class civil service and administration but unfortunately the civil service is less than independent.  They do not even think independently as it is too tied to the PAP’s apron strings.  Separation may be may be difficult initially.  Look at the PKR state government in Selangor.  The civil service there (including the head) was less than cooperative to their new political master
 
      The situation is worse in Singapore.  The PAP hand-fed the civil service and so generously remunerated them that the lines between the legislative and executive are often blurred. 
 
b.      The judiciary has been PAP-leaning.  Why, our Chief Justice is appointed by you-know-who!  The “elected” president must get his approval as well.   As a mater of fact, PM Lee Hsien Loong is not even his own man.  Do you see the problem?
 
c.      The People’s Association is a grass-root organization and along with its branches are almost all PAP operated despite being funded by our taxes.  How independent is the PA?  Even LKY admitted “……they see the PAP in the RCs (residents’ committees), CCCs (citizens’ consultative committees), and the CCs (community clubs).” (source) Would the PA and these grass-root organizations – the RCs, the CCCs and CCs stay independent and co-operate with the new government?  Readers please see TR’s article:  

d.      The Town Councils should independent bodies running the HDB estates.  However, many are so “programmed” by their PAP Mayors that they are now thinking for PAP.  Would these PAP Town Councils work smoothly with the new government?
 
e.      The meshing is so complete in the Police that they view opposition members as their enemy.  Look at what happened to Chee Soon Juan and Gandhi Ambalam in court three week ago !  The Police treated them worse than common criminals !
 
And all this despite the Policemen’s pledge “to serve our community and our country and to be courteous and humane in our dealings with every fellowman.” 
 
f.        Finally, the Military – the PAP Government has had a very cozy relationship with the military.  The Military leaders are heavily be-medaled, decorated, titled and honored by their political masters .  As a matter of fact, several Ministers have been drawn from the Military.
 
In political shifts, the Police and the Judiciary initially hold the balance.  The Military however must absolutely independent or we will see a Thai-solution in Singapore.  Singaporeans often underestimate themselves.  We are a product of the “fear” syndrome that LKY and the PAP has imbued us with.   Workers, citizens and students are the ultimate arbitrators of power.  We have seen in the Philippines and Indonesia that dictators were brought down by “people power’.
 
Other factors in Singapore’s favor in the event of an opposition victory – Singapore is a financial hub, aviation, education and medical centers.  We have a world class airline, seaport and an airport that have been consistently rated the best in the world.  We are a Research and Development hub and a Law Center for Arbitration and other legal practices.  Younger Singaporeans habitually go to Cambridge, Harvard and the Ivy League universities and win accolades.  Do we lack the talents and abilities?  Would we sink and fail?  
 
Please do not for one moment think the opposition is going to take over the Government immediately .  This is not possible due to the GRC mechanism and gerrymandering by the PAP.  Neither is this desirable.  Ideally, opposition members need to be elected into Parliament, learn the ropes, earn the trust and respect of the people and maintain some continuity before taking over the Government. 
 
What alternatives beyond the PAP?  Companies close, investors pull-out and unemployment?  Singaporeans faced many crises in the past and stood at the cross-roads on many occasions.  Between 1955 and 1963 and again in 1965 we faced challenges that were monumental and had thought that these challenges were beyond us.  We rose on every of these occasions, did not cringed and did not wallow in self-pity.  We picked up the cudgels!   To be sure, there will always be challenges and Singaporeans will always rise and overcome. 
 
I place my faith on our younger Singaporeans……and to the doubters and quitters – please migrate now.

“It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.”…….. Aung San Suu Kyi

 

Other articles by Richard Lu:

1. Yes Singapore, you deserve a dose of incompetent government

2. Singapore: Morality and freedom

A rebuttal to Rachel Chang’s article: Was Pastor Rony Tan let off the hook?

Dear Rachel,

I refer to your article published in the Straits Times on 12 February 2010 titled “Netizens: the new vigilante citizenry and would like to rebuke some of the points brought up by you.
 
Quote: 

“It effectively put Pastor Tan in the dock – and assumed the role of prosecutor, judge and jury.”
 
You got it wrong.   The public is angry because of the DOUBLE STANDARDS applied to this Christian leader on several counts:
 
·         Netizens prefer the courts to pass judgment as they believe Pastor Rony Tan was let off lightly.
·         Netizens believe that ISA should not have been used.
·         What basis was the ISA’s decision to let him off with a warning?  
·         DPM Wong Kan Seng was wrong to interfere.
·         The law should take its course.
 
What now if another religious leader does the same thing?  Does ISD to call him up to have coffee and a natter?  Is this what ISD is set up to do?
 
This is a religious infraction with social connotations.  This is not about an immediate security issue or violence or terrorisms at this stage.  Mistakes had been committed by the authorities.   

Quote: 

“It is clear Pastor Tan did not realise the inappropriateness of his remarks. He also certainly did not realise that in uploading the videos on his website, his church was casting his comments into the World Wide (public) Web that is the Internet.”
 
Rachel, are you mitigating for Pastor Rony Tan?   If so, it is an abominable mess.  Play the video again and critically examine the presentation.  Observe the smirk on Pastor Tan’s face when he was industriously driving home his points and the utter satisfaction when his audience applauded or laugh in amusement at his stabs and barbs.
 
Make no bones about it – Pastor Rony Tan is a clever chap.  He knows how to work the grounds and so your attempt in the mitigation is really rather insipid and denigrates the man.   If the Pastor truly does not realized “the inappropriateness of his remarks” he should step down from his ministry.   
 
And you sincerely believe he did not know that uploading the video will it not get into the WWW?  Why do you think he uploaded there it in the first place?  Surely you must be naïve.

Another quote:

“The Government’s message from Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng was that Pastor Tan had apologised; that the leaders of the religions he disparaged had accepted his apology; and that he should be allowed to put the incident behind him, with the knowledge that he cannot trespass again.”
 
DPM Wong is wrong.  He should not interfere or comment.  This is for the Police to take actions and justify their actions. 
 
The public, other religious leaders, Pastor Rony Tan’s friends and congregation, etc. can all forgive him but the LAW MUST TAKE ITS COURSE.  “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.”
 
DPM Wong should also not deceive the public into believing that a call for an interview by the ISA equates to being arrested and charged in court under the Sedition Act.  This is wrong – not sad or unfortunate.
 
The market is abuzz with talk that the mega-church’s Pastor got away while three youths were charged by the Police for essentially the same “thing”.  The Government appears silly.

Finally again quoting:

“There is one bright spot in the entire sorry incident: For all the anti-Government views expressed online, netizens seem to agree with the authorities on one fundamental issue: that no one should be allowed to mess with Singapore’s secularism and get away with it.”
 
Rachel, you are very wrong again on another two counts:
 
·         There are no bright spots here only sorry stains.
·         Neitizens are upset because of the double standards and not about messing with secularism.     
 
 
Rachel, you are a government apologist.  The Straits Times is like the government’s pet dog – the PAP master says “bark” or “bite” it does so.  You obviously know the hands that feed you.  Your piece concurs with my firm belief that journalism is dead in Singapore.
 
Yours sincerely,

 

Richard Lu

Yes Singapore, you deserve a dose of incompetent government

By Richard Lu

“You know, the cure for all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government. You get that alternative and you’ll never put Singapore together again: Humpty Dumpty cannot be put together again…and your asset values will be in peril, your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people’s countries, foreign workers.’”
 
(Lee Kuan Yew justifying pay hikes for Singapore ministers, The Straits Times, 5 April 2007)
 
Singaporeans are an apathetic lot, always afraid to express an opinion or to take risk, preferring others to make the first move.  They are afraid that the vote is not secret and fear losing their jobs if found out they voted the opposition. They are afraid to express the truth about someone in power.  They are even afraid to speak up about things that effecting them directly e.g. the high cost of living, unemployment and poor quality life.
 
This is because they are quite unaware about their rights to free, fair and honest expression.  The ISA inherited from the British and perfected by the PAP has a lot to do with this “Politics of Fear” resulting in PAP getting away with intimidations and threats.  Consider these coercions:
 
a.  Lee Kuan Yew (2006): “Please don’t assume that you can change governments. Young people don’t understand this.”
b.  Lee Kuan Yew (2006):“Without the elected President and if there is a freak (election) result, within two or three years, the army would have to come in and stop it.”
  
If we dare to dream and we live our dreams…….. then imagine this:    
 
Singaporeans get an opposition government and as promised, they reverse some of these past bad policies e.g.
 
1.      Revise ministerial and civil service pay to a realistic level;

2.      Revert to the original constitution and strengthen citizen rights and abolish ISA, EP, GRC and NCMP;

3.      Abolish the following appointments – Minister Mentor, Senior Minister, Ministry Without Portfolio, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Minister of State and Parliamentary Secretary; and

4.      Repeal Newspaper and Printing Presses Act of 1974 (NPPA) with all its attendant amendments permitting state control of the media, Legal Profession (Amendment) Act of 1987 (LP(A)A of1987), Public Order Act 2009 (POA), Official Secrets Acts (OSA).
 
To prevent collusion, corruption and nepotism, the opposition government then presses into law the following:
 
5.     Limiting to one (1) Deputy Prime Minister;
         Limiting the number of ministries and appointments to minister and deputy minister only;
         Limiting Prime Minister and Ministers to a maximum two terms;
         Limiting the age of MPs to 65 years; and
         Limiting MPs to a maximum services life of 15 years;

6.      Preventing MPs and civil servants from sitting on boards of listed companies; and

7.      Preventing PM and Ministers from appointing their family members and relatives to GLC companies, Temasek and GIC.
 
To assist Singaporeans and attain a good standard of living, the opposition institute and implement the following:
 
8.      Minimum wage;

9.      Freedom of Information rules;

10.   Policies to regulate and limit foreigners workers and new citizens into Singapore;

11.    Polices to safeguard Singaporeans’ interests – good housing, health, education etc.;

12.    Independent panels to oversee judicial appointments, ministerial pay, civil service & military appointments, election boundaries; and

13.    Independent panels to oversee our sovereign wealth – GIC, Temasek and CPF;
 
To liberalize the political landscape and level the playing field for all political parties:

14.    Free the local media from Govt. and PAP control;

15.    Establish permanent Judicial Commission to hear complaints of political nature;

16.    Reduce Govt.’s participation in commerce and de-couple GLCs from Govt.;

17.    De-couple the PA and NUTC from the PAP and Govt. and passes law to prevent NTUC and PA from being associated or controlled by any Government of any political parties;

18.    De-couple the Police and the Military from the Government and PAP; and

19.    Ensure real competition on open and fair basis for the telecom, electricity, power and gas industries;
 
Finally, to heal the country from years of political and mental abuses, the opposition government should:
 
20.    Apologize to all ex-political detainees and political exiles;

21.    Revoke all charges against all political detainees and annul all judgments pronounced against them and reimburse their losses (even if the Govt. has to compensate them);

22.    Ask all political exiles to return and enjoin Singaporeans in the re-building of our political landscape;

24.    Pay a one-time token compensation for the hardships, pain and sufferings caused to political detainees and exiles by the previous government; 

25.    Allow and encourage all forms of open and honest debates and discussions; and

26.    Set up a Truth and Re-conciliation Commission to enable the country bring closures and heal wounds caused by the past government misdeeds.
 
Are we dreaming?  Do we dare to live our dreams?  It is not time for us to move away from this politics of fear?
 
Singaporeans, I ask and urge you search your innermost conscience and heart of hearts and see if the above are not what you have always want, prayed for and wished for our beloved Singapore?   Yes, if we have the courage we can together rebuild a nation – a nation free of fear and one that to be proud of. 
 
If so, Singapore really deserves immediately nothing less than a huge dose of “bad” and “incompetent” government and we Singaporeans must send to the PAP Government in no unintelligible terms  (and in the MM’s words) a “good dose of election signal” by not voting PAP in the next election.

Singapore: Morality and Freedom

By Richard Lu

The foundation of a free society is the general level of morality.  If there is no morality or accountability, freedom does not work.  Freedom is the absence of interference with the sovereignty of an individual and when that morality becomes unimportant, we lose our freedom and we head towards a dictatorship.  This has happened to Singapore.  

Our generation of the Sixties and Seventies failed to understand the importance of morality / amorality.  For dictatorship to take root, morality of the people must firstly be eroded.   In the case of Singapore, the erosion was subtle – little by little – employment, economic progress, material gains, the 5 C’s, etc.   How we sold ourselves cheap!  

Consider these:

The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA of 1974) and subsequent legislations effectively put the media in the hands of the Government.

In 1986 Mr. Francis Seow became the President of the Law Society.  He attempted to involve the Law Society to comment and check on legislations that the Government had then rushed through unrestricted and without appropriate and quality parliamentary debate. Then-PM Lee Kuan Yew had him castigated.   And to ensure that lawyers could not repeat their acts of disobedience, then-PM Lee introduced amendments to the Legal Profession Act that barred the Law Society from commenting on existing or proposed legislation, unless its views were specifically sought by government.

In 1988 the GRC was imposed on us and in 1992 the Elected President.  All these were fiat accompali, thrust upon us seemingly innocuously at first.  

The decimation of the opposition ranks mainly through foul methods;

Lastly the lack of transparent separation of powers between the Elections Department and the ruling party should be clear for all to see. 

As a matter of fact, Goh Chok Tong admitted in 2006 that the GRC system is a method to enable new PAP candidates to win election easily.  So what is this telling us?  Younger Singaporeans must awake or we will be voting into government either PAP Team A, PAP Team B or even a PAP Team C – the election process merely a sham democratic exercise.

Tang Liang Hong was accused for being a Chinese chauvinist,  made a bankrupt and had to flee Singapore.  Today Singapore leaders’ noses are deep in the butts of the powers-that-be in China.  What hypocrites!  

There is a lack of morality in the present Government from the Ministerial salaries to the appointment of the Judiciary.  In a recent interview, Dr. Lim Hock Siew said his integrity (and that of Chai Thye Poh, Zaid Zahari, Dr. Poh Soo Kai, Lim Chin Siong, etc.) was sustained by 17 years in jail but the integrity of the Ministers and Government leaders are sustained by their shamelessly high salaries!

On 18 July 2008, Singapore together with ASEAN called on Myanmar to release all political prisoners.  Political prisoners are not only found in the confines of prisons.  Political exiles, asylum-seekers and conscientious political objectors are also prisoners.  Ayn Rand quotes “The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”  We are arriving towards this end for the Government sadly lacks morality. 

Chia Thye Poh, Dr. Lim Hock Siew, Dr. Poh Soo Kai, Francis Seow, Said Zahari, Tan Wah Piow, Tang Hong Liang and others have sacrificed much because in the words  of Aung San Suu Kyi “It is not power that corrupts but fear.  Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.”

I now call MM Lee and PM Lee to do two things: to go back to Confucian basics to practice morality and be moral guides to the rest of society.  We call on them to cultivate themselves morally, show filial piety and loyalty where these are due and cultivate humanity, or benevolence.  Isn’t this the gracious society they countenance? give us back our original constitution (minus Elected President, GRC, etc.) as in the words of Patrick Henry: “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government”. 

Finally let me quote my then-1955 hero Lee Kuan Yew and ask him to  self-examine what he said and  honestly ask if he deviated:

”If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought ,…. “ – Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates April 27, 1955.