Liberal democracy gives rise to social ills? Part 2

In his bluster in the Foreign Affairs magazine in 1994, Mr Lee Kuan Yew said: “The expansion of the right of the individual to behave or misbehave as he pleases has come at the expense of orderly society. In the East the main object is to have a well-ordered society…”

If Mr Lee’s main object is to achieve a well-ordered society, he has missed it by a mile. For starters, streaking – a fad normally reserved for decadent societies in the West that Mr Lee excoriates – seems to be catching on in Singapore.  A couple flashes buck naked at patrons of a kopitiam at Holland Village, a guy walks into a MacDonald’s joint in his favourite skin, and a lady disrobes at a bus-stop and boards a bus in her full glory.

Another lady, a 19-year-old, had a little bit more class. She chose Fullerton Hotel for her act. She climbed on to a lamp. In her buff. On the second floor balcony. After scrambling past five rooms.

These weren’t one-off shows. In 2010, there were 105 reports of indecent exposure in Singapore in the first half of the year – that’s one strip act every two days. Public nudity cases went up by 22 percent between 2009 and 2007.

And what is a well-ordered society without an altercation or two? Spats between ordinary folks on our buses are a common occurence.

If this is a well-ordered society, we shudder to think of what a crazy one looks like.

All this is not just harmless expressions of frustration. In Part 1, we pointed out the explosion of crime and vice in Singapore.

One really can’t type fast enough to keep up with reports of violence. Before we could post this piece another murder took place last night, this time at Bukit Batok. A 29-year-old man was found dead – in a church compound – with bruises on his face and a shirt soaked in blood.

The pastor of the church said: “We seem to be hearing of quite a number of incidents of violence in our society.”

The worst part is that it is rubbing off on our children – yes, children. Gang fights involving eight-year-olds (that’s a boy in primary two for easier reference) and violent robberies by kids in their early teens seem to be the norm. (See here)

And girls? In the first half of 2009, there was a 70 percent increase in prosecutions of statutory rape (sex with underaged girls). And these are just the cases that get reported to the authorities. One 12-year-old girl was found to have had sex with 15 men.

Confucius confounded

What happened to our Confucianist culture that Mr Lee was such a fan of, the one that prides itself on communitarian values and high moral standards? Yes, the very same one that decries and rejects democratic values.

“We focus on the basics in Singapore,” Mr Lee wagged his finger. “We used the family to push economic growth…”

Apparently not anymore. Casinos, it appears, is the way forward nowadays. Family, shmamily. Easy Street, fast money is the new mantra.

But what about vice and crime that come with casinos? Mr Lee’s son, the prime minister, concedes that casinos bring “undesirable activities” but then comes to his senses: “We had no choice.”

No choice? You mean we have no choice but to see our sons kill each other in gang fights, our underaged daughters have sex with older men, our  youths parade themselves naked in public, our uncles and aunties engage in fisticuffs, our rich turn to drugs, and our poor to suicide?

We pay him $3.8 million to tell us we have no choice but to tear our society apart?

Anything but democracy

We hope that it is clear by now that social ills don’t come about because we have political freedom. We still live under a very authoritarian regime, and yet our social problems are only increasing.

The truth is that democracy and political freedom do not cause crime and vice. Rather it is the blind pursuit of wealth by the elite at the expense of the rest of society that is fueling a breakdown in order. Social breakdown comes about when a ruling party is left unchecked. Its excesses perpetuate income disparity and places an unbearable strain on society. The result is a degeneration in social order.

In fact it is in democratic societies (and they are not confined to the West) that the people can balance misguided government policies through open debate and elections, and exert an ethical influence over public policy.

The irony is that the PAP has copied all the undesirable traits of crass consumerism and corporate greed from the West while eliminating the moderating influence of an open and democratic system. Singaporeans must understand the democracy is not a Western value. It is a practice that allows the governed to prevent the government from bringing a country to ruin.

The PAP will tolerate and allow anything – even social ills. But it will not allow democracy because social ills do not affect members of the ruling elite. Democracy does.

View the original article here

Idealism of Youths Needs to be Encouraged

EDITOR’S NOTE: Permission must be sought for reproduction of any article from this website.

By Dr Wong Wee Nam
12 Jan 2011

“???????,???????“

“Good mediClick Here!">cine is bitter to the mouth but cures the illness; honest words grate the ears but right the act.”

Who is Kenneth Lin? Well, he is a boy who has just turned 16. He is also a smart lad who was recently given a scholarship at a grassroots scholarship award presentation. After the ceremony when the crowd had thinned out, Kenneth approached the Guest-of-Honour, a minister, to have a chat with him.

The conversation started cordially about what Kenneth did in school. Then Kenneth started asking difficult political questions. The conversation ended amicably but the parting of ways left a sour taste in the mouth after Kenneth was asked if he had recorded the conversation on his handphone and whether he was a member of a political party.

After reading the conversation recounted by Kenneth, I could not help but be reminded of the story of David and Goliath.

Like Kenneth the choirboy, David also used to sing and even founded the Temple of Singing. Like David, Kenneth does not appear to be intimidated by more important or powerful people.

The Idealism of Youth

I can understand Kenneth because, like him when I was young, I used to approach ministers whenever I got the opportunity and engage them on political issues. To me, 16-year-old Kenneth is probably just an idealist trying to look for a perfect society.

This type of idealism may be an anomaly in today’s Singapore but in the 50s and 60s, it was not uncommon for a fifteen year-old to be interested in politics. Singapore would not have got its independence without the idealism of its youths then.

There is, therefore, nothing wrong for a young boy to be idealistic. They should be. In fact, this is what is sorely lacking in Singapore’s youths today. Instead of frowning on the likes of Kenneth Lin, Singapore would do well to have more young people like him instead of having those who run around killing each other, posting their sexual escapades on the internet, taking pictures of female underwear and getting all the A’s in school while being oblivious to society’s problems.

Young people are naturally full or dreams and idealism. If Singapore’s youths are stifled to the extent that they are no longer idealistic or are afraid to share their dreams, then this country, as a nation, is going to be in serious trouble in future.

Thus a young person should be encouraged to speak his mind and have his questions answered instead of getting them brushed aside. In this age and time, we should try to eradicate the climate of fear and replace it with a more conducive environment for youths to develop a more enquiring mind.

I do not understand, therefore, why a meeting between a young boy and a minister should start so well and end up in such an unhappy confrontation.

I do not understand because it did not happen to me when I was young.

The Older Politicians

The Old Guard ministers that I had met were not condescending even though the style of their government at that time was certainly much more intimidating. They did not avoid thorny political questions. In fact you could see their face light up when political issues were brought up. If they did not agree with you, they would try to show why your premise was wrong, sometimes even with facts that could not be published in the press.

At no time did they appear to be worried that I would record our conversations (they did not ask if I had a tape recorder on me) nor did I care if anyone else had been covertly recording what had been said.

Even when I became an active Opposition politician, MPs like Dr Tan Cheng Bock, Tan Soo Khoon and some others felt comfortable talking to me. To these people, belonging to another political party does not make a person any lesser a Singaporean.

Only just last night I met a minister at a function. After we shook hands, he asked what I was doing now. I told him I am cultivating some young people. He told me that is a good thing to do. We need more young people coming forward. It would be good for Singapore.

There were no bodyguards staring at me. There was no sour ending. Kenneth would certainly have benefited from such an encounter.

It would, therefore, be good for political newbies to learn from these political veterans. Political affiliations should not devalue the merits of a political debate. In fact, diversity will enrich such a discourse.

Political leaders must know that their plans for the country are not the necessary the only workable solutions. Once they can realize this, they will be able to accept criticisms as positive feedback.

Wisdom From The Past

One exemplary leader that they can learn from is Duke Huan of the State of Qi.

Duke Huan of Qi (???) had a half-brother called Jiu. Each had a mentor to groom them to take over the throne. Duke Huan’s teacher was Bao Shuya (???) and his brother’s tutor was Guan Zhong(??).

When their father Duke Xiang was killed and the usurpers of the throne were in turned murdered, a vacuum was created. At that time Duke Huan was in the State of Ju and Jiu was in the State of Lu. Both brothers then led their men and raced back to Qi to try and claim the throne.

As State of Ju was nearer State of Qi, it was likely that Duke Huan would reach Qi first. Guan Zhong, Jiu’s mentor, decided to intercept Duke Huan before he reached Qi. Just outside the city, he met the Duke’s entourage, took out his bow and shot an arrow at the Duke.

As Duke Huan was wearing an armour at that time, this did not hurt him at all. Nevertheless he led out a loud cry and pretended to be dead. Satisfied, Guan Zhong rode away. Subsequently Duke Huan managed to arrive in Qi earlier than Jiu and took the throne and became the Marquis of Qi from 685 BC until his death.

After he came onto the throne, he demanded that Guan Zhong be extradited to Qi to be executed. When Guan Zhong was sent back to Qi, Duke Huan’s mentor, Bao Shuya, advised that the former be not put to death but be made the Prime Minister instead because he was such a talented person. Though Duke Huan was very unhappy at being nearly assassinated by Guan Zhong, he, nevertheless, took the advice and indeed, under the latter’s reforms, Qi became the strongest state of the time.

The moral of the story is to look at the positive side of a person.

The Young and The Future

The future of the country belongs to the young of today.

However, the young need to feel they belong and have a stake in this country. The political climate must, therefore, allow for the maximum development of intellect, the moral character and the creative energy of our youths.

The best guarantee of a good future for our country is the participation of a better-informed and educated young people.

Without such participation, we will only encourage bright young people to drop out of society, the talented to migrate and the majority to live their lives of apathy without any love or passion for their country.

Thus our youth, people like Kenneth, must be made to feel that there is a future and they have a hand in molding it. When we stifle idealism of young people, by refusing to engage them, we destroy their motivations, hopes and love for the country.

This is the meaning of being a true blue Singaporean.

Who then is this Kenneth? He is a true son of Singapore.

View the original article here

The essence of a democratic society

 

With the General Elections looming near, it is important to understand what true democracy is all about. The most important ingredient of a democratic society is a co-operative society. It is a society in which everyone pools their resources for the common good.

On the other hand, capitalism is a threat to real democracy. It encourages the spirit of greed, self-centredness and consumerism. Capitalists tend to be corrupted and consumed by the love of money. Money is their idol and they labour under the misconception that money makes the world go round.

It has been said that nothing is certain but death and taxes. We may not be able to avoid death but death can teach us to number our days and to seek the meaning of life. We can learn to face death so that we will live well. And as we live well, we will die well. Likewise, we can seek to make better use of our taxes.

Taxes in a democratic society are to be used for the welfare of the community. This is very different from a feudal society in which taxes are collected to enrich the feudal lord. Hence taxes in a democratic society will be used to fund essential services such as defence, health and education. One dollar collected from one million people each will amount to $1,000,000 and this can used for essential services. However, $1,000,000 given out to one million people means that each person will receive only ONE paltry dollar!

In a co-operative society, our small change can be used to make a big change in our society. Budget surpluses can be better used to provide education for our children up to secondary level. This is NOT welfarism but an investment in our young. Likewise it is not welfarism to provide medical services for our elderly sick – it is our grateful response as well as responsibility in recognition of their contributions in the past.

Unless and until we change the mindsets of the people about the purpose of taxes, we will not be able to cultivate a caring and compassionate society. And to change the mindsets we need a change of heart – from narcissism to altruism.

To live meaningful and fruitful lives, our focus cannot be on ourselves but on others. A meritocratic society tends to encourage selfishness and motivate through greed. A better alternative is a creative society which seeks to develop the potential of every individual. Success will not be measured in terms of one’s salaries and material acquisitions but on how one has been a blessing to others.

We need selfless leaders to show the people the way to a life of love, joy and peace. We need such leaders to develop the fruits of love and compassion in a co-operative society. General elections are the time for the people to choose such leaders. Those seeking only to win elections, more often than not, do not have the interests of the people at heart. Candidates from whatever party who resort to “gutter politics” do not deserve to be elected. The people have the responsibility not to cast their votes for such candidates.

True leaders will not seek to “sell” themselves or promise goodies to the people. They offer themselves to serve the people and to present ideas and visions that will inspire people to be more caring and creative. If we want servant leaders we must be prepared to take the risk to elect new leaders who have presented themselves for service to the nation. Unless the people are prepared to move out of their comfort zone and take a risk to give new leaders a chance, how can such leaders prove themselves?

Elections are a time for leaders to be accountable to the people as well as a time for the people to send leaders reminders that power lies in the people and not in the elite. Our people must be prepared to exercise their power through the ballot box. Concern for the nation and not fear must dictate the way they vote. Leaders need to be held accountable and that is the purpose of elections.

Finally it is important to recognize that many of those who are standing for the opposition are not anti-Singapore but who have a passion for Singapore. In fact they have more to lose than those standing for the ruling party. A democratic government is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people – it is a government that comprises of both the ruling party and the opposition parties.

View the original article here

PM wants TOC labelled as political association

Posted by The Online Citizen
Original link here.

The Prime Minister of Singapore has revealed his intentions to declare The Online Citizen as a political association.

According to an email sent to TOC at 5pm yesterday evening by the Prime Minister’s office, the Prime Minister  ”intends to declare the owners, editorial team, and administrators of The Online Citizen, by order in the Gazette, to be a political association for the purposes of the Political Donations Act. The owners, editorial team, and administrators of The Online Citizen have been determined to be an organization whose objects or activities relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore.”

This means that TOC is barred from receiving funds from foreign donors, letting foreigners take part in its events, operating as a political party and being affiliated to any local or foreign political party.

It is also not allowed to use its funds, premises and new media platforms in any election here, including the sponsoring of any candidate or member.

TOC has 14 days to reveal the identities of its owners, editorial team and administrators. TOC is also required to designate a President, Treasurer and Secretary of the association, and they will be responsible for the preparation and accuracy of the donations reports for The Online Citizen.

The last group to be gazetted is human rights advocacy NGO Maruah in November last year. Maruah is the fourth group -after the Open Singapore Centre, the Think Centre and Singaporeans For Democracy – to be gazetted as a political association.

If TOC complies, it will be the fifth. It will also be the first time bloggers are considered a political association.

View the original article here

Liberal democracy gives rise to social ills? Part 1

“[I]t has a lot to do with the erosion of the moral underpinnings of a society and the diminution of personal responsibility. The liberal, intellectual tradition that developed after World War II claimed that human beings…would be better off if they were allowed to do their own thing and flourish. It has not worked out…Westerners have abandoned an ethical basis for society…”

Thus saith Lee Kuan Yew in an interview he gave to the Foreign Affairs magazine in 1994.

He surmised that democracy equals Western values and Western values equal individualism. Individualism, in turn, brings about moral decadence leading society to eventual ruin. Democratic values, by implication, must be rejected.

The ‘erosion of moral underpinnings’

Ethics and morality are terms Mr Lee chooses to frame the discussion of the success – or failure – of a society. Against this premise, let us examine the situation in Singapore and the kind of society he has forced on this country.

Our sex industry is thriving where high- and low-end sex workers flood the island. In 2007, 5,400 unlicensed prostitutes were arrested, an increase of 25 percent from the previous year. We have become the centre for the trafficking of sex workers.

And where prostitutes gather, so will pimps. With pimps come gangs and with gangs come crime – violent crime. Orchard Plaza, a venue permeated with adult stores and sex bars, came into the spotlight recently where a gang, wielding machetes, brutally murdered a man in the wee hours of the morning.

Another gang, also with parangs, went on a chopping spree in Kallang, killing one and severely wounding another including hacking off the victim’s fingers.

Retiree, Mr Lee Kaw, had gone to buy a newspaper in the evening. When he stepped into a lift, another man pulled out a knife and slashed him across the throat. Mr Lee stumbled out and with blood gushing from his neck, managed to get help from neighbours.

“First, you must have order in society,” Mr Lee lectured. “Guns, drugs and violent crime all go together, threatening social order.”

We may not have guns in Singapore but knives do just as well.

And drugs? A Reuters report stated: “Evidence tells of the emergence of an underground party drug scene mostly at night clubs frequented by the wealthy.” In 2007 heroin arrests exploded by 600 percent.

Our youths are violent too

On youths Mr Lee said: “Then the schools; when you have violence in schools, you are not going to have education, so you’ve got to put that right.” That’s the rhetoric.

Here’s the reality: In Singapore, students are killing students. Nineteen-year-old, Darren Ng, was cut to death in a youth-gang fight, a group of teenagers, in which the youngest member was 8, went on a rampage slashing passers-by at Bukit Panjang; two boys, aged 12 and 14, punched and robbed an elderly man in Ang Mo Kio; a gang of three, aged 13, 15 and 18, nearly severed the hand of a man in a violent confrontation. All this in a matter of weeks over November and December last year. (See here)

Then on Christmas eve, youths fought each other in three separate incidents: a couple was attacked at Downtown East (the place where Darren Ng was killed) and left the man with blood dripping from his eye; 10 youths attacked another at Orchard Road until he was unconscious and in critical condition; and a brawl took place at Clarke Quay leaving the victim with a broken nose. (See here)

Democratic values to blame?

The liberal, intellectual tradition has abandoned an ethical basis for society?

Let’s look at the facts. Singapore is not even a democratic society, let alone a liberal one, where individuals enjoy political rights. It is very much a state where the ruling party sits on top of all and sundry and directs society from its perch.

And yet, we are seeing drugs, crime, and youth violence hit this country like never before.

In truth, it is not that liberal democracy causes social breakdown as Mr Lee would have us believe, rather it is the wayward policies forced on the population by this regime.

Much of this is fueled by the PAP’s lust for all that glitters. Its relentless push to achieve GDP growth, no matter the havoc that it wreaks on society, is inflicting much injury on the social arrangement in this country.

The opening up of the casinos and the re-writing of our banking laws to turn Singapore into a tax haven has opened up our society to easy money for the Government. The result of such a policy cocktail is an explosion of crime and vice in this country.

The irony is that without democracy, dissenting – and moderating – voices are silenced. The PAP, with all its machinations of the electoral system and the control of the media, continues to tell us the lie that democracy is bad and dictatorship is good.

For our part, the Singapore Democrats will continue to speak up. More important, however, Singaporeans must wake up to the dangers that we face with an autocratic PAP.

In Part 2, we will take a further look at the erosion of social order in Singapore and examine its causes.

View the original article here

TOC strengthens its resolve in the face of gazetting

The Online Citizen website has affirmed that it would not be intimidated by the recent action of the authorities in gazetting them as a political association or being required to register with the Media Development Authority (MDA).

In a statement entitled “Keep Calm and Carry On” released today at 1800hrs, TOC said they have been completely above board in their operations, and that they have nothing to hide nor fear from being gazetted. TOC added that “shutting down or going underground is precisely what those who misunderstand us want”, and they will not give them that satisfaction.

TOC has also written to the Prime Minister’s Office seeking a clarification on why it is being gazetted as a political association. In an open letter published together with their press release, TOC said that they “do not engage in partisan politics, and have no interest in engaging in partisan politics”.

They also added that “TOC is political to the extent and in the exact same way that all ordinary Singaporeans are political: by being interested in, and talking about, political issues that impact us and our country”.

As such TOC believes that being gazetted as a political association on the basis that it is “an organization whose objects or activities relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore” in unreasonable, and they asked the PM to reconsider his decision.

TOC also affirmed that they have never received foreign donations, and never intend to, and as such, have nothing to fear from being gazetted as a political association. Nonetheless, TOC has chosen to raise the objection as it feels that the threat that bloggers face in being gazetted “will have significant chilling effect on free expression in Singapore“.

Pending the outcome of TOC’s appeal to PMO to reverse the gazetting decision, TOC also said in a letter to MDA that they would, for now, not be sending MDA any information.

I personally believe The Online Citizen has handled the matter very professionally. They clearly understand the significance and implications of being gazetted as a political association, and have articulated why they feel it is an unfair move by the authorities.

But one thing stands clear: TOC is not afraid of being gazetted as it has already remained open and transparent, and has never availed itself to foreign funding. All their editors long ago have revealed their identities, and they are also likely to be prepared to put their names down on record and be held collectively responsible for TOC in the legal front.

In fact, on the issue of foreign funding, it is the government that has been hypocritical. Our government through its investment arms have regularly interfered in the domestic politics of other countries.

In fact, Singapore’s Government-Linked Corporations (GLCs) have even funded Australia’s political parties: see here. This is very shameful.

The government has enacted laws that seeks to intimidate its citizens and curtail freedom of speech. However, some people would not be intimidated or curtailed in such a cowardly manner. Only those who live in the shadows and attack other people behind a veil of anonymity should be afraid of the glare of sunlight. TOC has absolutely nothing to fear indeed.

View the original article here

Idealism of Youths Needs to be Encouraged

 

Who is Kenneth Lin? Well, he is a boy who has just turned 16. He is also a smart lad who was recently given a scholarship at a grassroots scholarship award presentation. After the ceremony when the crowd had thinned out, Kenneth approached the Guest-of-Honour, a minister, to have a chat with him.

The conversation started cordially about what Kenneth did in school. Then Kenneth started asking difficult political questions. The conversation ended amicably but the parting of ways left a sour taste in the mouth after Kenneth was asked if he had recorded the conversation on his handphone and whether he was a member of a political party.

After reading the conversation recounted by Kenneth, I could not help but be reminded of the story of David and Goliath.

Like Kenneth the choirboy, David also used to sing and even founded the Temple of Singing. Like David, Kenneth does not appear to be intimidated by more important or powerful people.

The Idealism of Youth

I can understand Kenneth because, like him when I was young, I used to approach ministers whenever I got the opportunity and engage them on political issues. To me, 16-year-old Kenneth is probably just an idealist trying to look for a perfect society.

This type of idealism may be an anomaly in today’s Singapore but in the 50s and 60s, it was not uncommon for a fifteen year-old to be interested in politics. Singapore would not have got its independence without the idealism of its youths then.

There is, therefore, nothing wrong for a young boy to be idealistic. They should be. In fact, this is what is sorely lacking in Singapore’s youths today. Instead of frowning on the likes of Kenneth Lin, Singapore would do well to have more young people like him instead of having those who run around killing each other, posting their sexual escapades on the internet, taking pictures of female underwear and getting all the A’s in school while being oblivious to society’s problems.

Young people are naturally full or dreams and idealism. If Singapore’s youths are stifled to the extent that they are no longer idealistic or are afraid to share their dreams, then this country, as a nation, is going to be in serious trouble in future.

Thus a young person should be encouraged to speak his mind and have his questions answered instead of getting them brushed aside. In this age and time, we should try to eradicate the climate of fear and replace it with a more conducive environment for youths to develop a more enquiring mind.

I do not understand, therefore, why a meeting between a young boy and a minister should start so well and end up in such an unhappy confrontation.

I do not understand because it did not happen to me when I was young.

The Older Politicians

The Old Guard ministers that I had met were not condescending even though the style of their government at that time was certainly much more intimidating. They did not avoid thorny political questions. In fact you could see their face light up when political issues were brought up. If they did not agree with you, they would try to show why your premise was wrong, sometimes even with facts that could not be published in the press.

At no time did they appear to be worried that I would record our conversations (they did not ask if I had a tape recorder on me) nor did I care if anyone else had been covertly recording what had been said.

Even when I became an active Opposition politician, MPs like Dr Tan Cheng Bock, Tan Soo Khoon and some others felt comfortable talking to me. To these people, belonging to another political party does not make a person any lesser a Singaporean.

Only just last night I met a minister at a function. After we shook hands, he asked what I was doing now. I told him I am cultivating some young people. He told me that is a good thing to do. We need more young people coming forward. It would be good for Singapore.

There were no bodyguards staring at me. There was no sour ending. Kenneth would certainly have benefited from such an encounter.

It would, therefore, be good for political newbies to learn from these political veterans. Political affiliations should not devalue the merits of a political debate. In fact, diversity will enrich such a discourse.

Political leaders must know that their plans for the country are not the necessary the only workable solutions. Once they can realize this, they will be able to accept criticisms as positive feedback.

Wisdom From The Past

One exemplary leader that they can learn from is Duke Huan of the State of Qi.

Duke Huan of Qi (???) had a half-brother called Jiu. Each had a mentor to groom them to take over the throne. Duke Huan’s teacher was Bao Shuya (???) and his brother’s tutor was Guan Zhong(??).

When their father Duke Xiang was killed and the usurpers of the throne were in turned murdered, a vacuum was created. At that time Duke Huan was in the State of Ju and Jiu was in the State of Lu. Both brothers then led their men and raced back to Qi to try and claim the throne.

As State of Ju was nearer State of Qi, it was likely that Duke Huan would reach Qi first. Guan Zhong, Jiu’s mentor, decided to intercept Duke Huan before he reached Qi. Just outside the city, he met the Duke’s entourage, took out his bow and shot an arrow at the Duke.

As Duke Huan was wearing an armour at that time, this did not hurt him at all. Nevertheless he led out a loud cry and pretended to be dead. Satisfied, Guan Zhong rode away. Subsequently Duke Huan managed to arrive in Qi earlier than Jiu and took the throne and became the Marquis of Qi from 685 BC until his death.

After he came onto the throne, he demanded that Guan Zhong be extradited to Qi to be executed. When Guan Zhong was sent back to Qi, Duke Huan’s mentor, Bao Shuya, advised that the former be not put to death but be made the Prime Minister instead because he was such a talented person. Though Duke Huan was very unhappy at being nearly assassinated by Guan Zhong, he, nevertheless, took the advice and indeed, under the latter’s reforms, Qi became the strongest state of the time.

The moral of the story is to look at the positive side of a person.

The Young and The Future

The future of the country belongs to the young of today.

However, the young need to feel they belong and have a stake in this country. The political climate must, therefore, allow for the maximum development of intellect, the moral character and the creative energy of our youths.

The best guarantee of a good future for our country is the participation of a better-informed and educated young people.

Without such participation, we will only encourage bright young people to drop out of society, the talented to migrate and the majority to live their lives of apathy without any love or passion for their country.

Thus our youth, people like Kenneth, must be made to feel that there is a future and they have a hand in molding it. When we stifle idealism of young people, by refusing to engage them, we destroy their motivations, hopes and love for the country.

This is the meaning of being a true blue Singaporean.

Who then is this Kenneth? He is a true son of Singapore.

Gazetting group blogs as political associations is oppressive

 

Yesterday morning, The Online Citizen website announced that it had received an email sent by the Registry of Political Donations, under the PMO, stating that the Prime Minister intended to gazette it as a political association for the purposes of the Political Donations Act.

Then, in a late afternoon development, the Media Development Authority (MDA) informed TOC editors Choo Zheng Xi and Joshua Chiang that TOC has to be registered with the MDA “under condition 4 of the Schedule to the Broadcasting (Class License) Notification”, as MDA had deemed it to be a website that “providing a programme for the promotion or discussion of political issues relating to Singapore”.

My contention is that gazetting groups blogs such as TOC as political associations and requiring political bloggers to register with MDA would paradoxically lead to less transparency and less accountability over time, in contradiction with the stated purposes of the authorities.

As a gazetted political association, TOC would be barred from receiving funds from foreign donors, letting foreigners take part in its events, operating as a political party, and being affiliated to any local or foreign political party.

In my assessment, the majority of the above requirements should not affect TOC in any way, except possibly for:

not allowing foreigners to participate in events.

This is a gray area that afford the authorities too much administrative discretion and create a climate of uncertainty.

For example, while foreigners would still most likely be allowed to attend events organized by TOC at Speaker’s Corner or at indoor venues, they would presumably not be allowed to address the audience. Would they still be allowed to ask questions or carry placards? Would they still be allowed to wear a common attire?

There are no clear cut answers, and this is the evil of administrative discretion that makes being gazetted as a political association insidious.

The stated intent of being gazetted as a political association is to promote accountability and ensure no foreign funds are procured. In itself, this intent is noble, but unfortunately, the government has turned existing legislation into a double-edged sword that cuts also on the side of oppression.

Under the Political Donations Act, TOC would have to open its finances to scrutiny and report donations in excess of $5,000. While this is unlikely to impact TOC financially, TOC would face the same obstacles to fund raising as do current opposition parties. Ask any opposition party and they would readily testify that the Political Donations Act as it is currently structured makes it harder to raise funds through legal avenues. While foreign funding should logically be disallowed, there is a need to revamp the Political Donations Act so that it does not make it unfairly difficult for political entities to procure much-needed funds.

Being asked by the MDA to register under the Broadcasting (Class License) scheme is by itself no more than a cosmetic procedure that does not in any way change TOC’s current legal liability should it run afoul of the law in any way, such as by making defamatory remarks.

TOC’s owners and website administrators would have to reveal their full identities and details to MDA, but this should pose no problem as all of them are already prepared to identify themselves online.

However, this might have a disquieting effect on other political bloggers who do not wish to reveal so much to the authorities. There would be now be a greater incentive for bloggers to remain anonymous in order to avoid being asked by MDA to register under the Broadcasting (Class License) scheme. Paradoxically, this would lead to even less accountability and transparency from the blogosphere as a whole, contrary to what the authorities say they want to have.

Taking a step back, one can see that current legislation creates a climate of fear and allows the government to maintain control of sources of free speech and expression. There is a need to overhaul current legislation as well as restore democratic principles to our institutions.

The government’s approach thus far has been to use seemingly innocuous legislation to stifle constitutionally-legitimate avenues of speech and expression, while maintaining the semblance, but not the substance, of liberalization.

On the surface, gazetting group blogs and requiring registration with MDA seems justified, until one digs deeper and uncovers loopholes and layers of unjustified administrative discretion that serves the ruling party’s interest rather than the interests of citizens.

View the original article here

TOC strengthens its resolve in the face of gazetting

Written by Ng E-Jay
14 Jan 2011

The Online Citizen website has affirmed that it would not be intimidated by the recent action of the authorities in gazetting them as a political association or being required to register with the Media Development Authority (MDA).

In a statement entitled “Keep Calm and Carry On” released today at 1800hrs, TOC said they have been completely above board in their operations, and that they have nothing to hide nor fear from being gazetted. TOC added that “shutting down or going underground is precisely what those who misunderstand us want”, and they will not give them that satisfaction.

TOC has also written to the Prime Minister’s Office seeking a clarification on why it is being gazetted as a political association. In an open letter published together with their press release, TOC said that they “do not engage in partisan politics, and have no interest in engaging in partisan politics”.

They also added that “TOC is political to the extent and in the exact same way that all ordinary Singaporeans are political: by being interested in, and talking about, political issues that impact us and our country”.

As such TOC believes that being gazetted as a political association on the basis that it is “an organization whose objects or activities relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore” in unreasonable, and they asked the PM to reconsider his decision.

TOC also affirmed that they have never received foreign donations, and never intend to, and as such, have nothing to fear from being gazetted as a political association. Nonetheless, TOC has chosen to raise the objection as it feels that the threat that bloggers face in being gazetted “will have significant chilling effect on free expression in Singapore“.

Pending the outcome of TOC’s appeal to PMO to reverse the gazetting decision, TOC also said in a letter to MDA that they would, for now, not be sending MDA any information.

I personally believe The Online Citizen has handled the matter very professionally. They clearly understand the significance and implications of being gazetted as a political association, and have articulated why they feel it is an unfair move by the authorities.

But one thing stands clear: TOC is not afraid of being gazetted as it has already remained open and transparent, and has never availed itself to foreign funding. All their editors long ago have revealed their identities, and they are also likely to be prepared to put their names down on record and be held collectively responsible for TOC in the legal front.

In fact, on the issue of foreign funding, it is the government that has been hypocritical. Our government through its investment arms have regularly interfered in the domestic politics of other countries.

In fact, Singapore’s Government-Linked Corporations (GLCs) have even funded Australia’s political parties: see here. This is very shameful.

The government has enacted laws that seeks to intimidate its citizens and curtail freedom of speech. However, some people would not be intimidated or curtailed in such a cowardly manner. Only those who live in the shadows and attack other people behind a veil of anonymity should be afraid of the glare of sunlight. TOC has absolutely nothing to fear indeed.

View the original article here

PM wants TOC labelled as political association

 

Posted by The Online Citizen
Original link here.

The Prime Minister of Singapore has revealed his intentions to declare The Online Citizen as a political association.

According to an email sent to TOC at 5pm yesterday evening by the Prime Minister’s office, the Prime Minister  ”intends to declare the owners, editorial team, and administrators of The Online Citizen, by order in the Gazette, to be a political association for the purposes of the Political Donations Act. The owners, editorial team, and administrators of The Online Citizen have been determined to be an organization whose objects or activities relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore.”

This means that TOC is barred from receiving funds from foreign donors, letting foreigners take part in its events, operating as a political party and being affiliated to any local or foreign political party.

It is also not allowed to use its funds, premises and new media platforms in any election here, including the sponsoring of any candidate or member.

TOC has 14 days to reveal the identities of its owners, editorial team and administrators. TOC is also required to designate a President, Treasurer and Secretary of the association, and they will be responsible for the preparation and accuracy of the donations reports for The Online Citizen.

The last group to be gazetted is human rights advocacy NGO Maruah in November last year. Maruah is the fourth group -after the Open Singapore Centre, the Think Centre and Singaporeans For Democracy – to be gazetted as a political association.

If TOC complies, it will be the fifth. It will also be the first time bloggers are considered a political association.

View the original article here

Desmond Lim engages lawyer to get response from SDA

CNA, 23 Dec 2010

SINGAPORE: The rift between Potong Pasir Member of Parliament Chiam See Tong and his former right-hand man Desmond Lim looks set to deepen, after the latter engaged a lawyer to defend him in disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.

Colin Ng & Partners’ Peter Low, a former Law Society president, will be representing Mr Lim. MediaCorp understands that a lawyer’s letter was sent to Mr Chiam on Wednesday.

On Dec 6, the Singapore People’ Party (SPP) central executive committee had sent Mr Lim a letter detailing nine charges against him, including the allegation that Mr Lim had made defamatory remarks about Mr Chiam in an October newspaper article over the issue of the Reform Party (RP) joining the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA).

The SPP, a component party of the SDA, was also unhappy with Mr Lim for speaking in his capacity as SDA secretary-general to the media.

Mr Lim, who had fended off an attempt by Mr Chiam to remove him from the SDA, responded to the charges the next day, but is still awaiting SPP’s replies.

Mr Lim told MediaCorp that he had “no choice but to engage a lawyer to formally ask them to respond to my letter”.

Said Mr Lim: “I’m taking this matter very seriously … It’s not that I want to get a lawyer to fight them. I also wish to find out who are the cadres in the disciplinary committee.”

MediaCorp understands that in his lawyer’s letter, Mr Lim pointed out that Mr Chiam should take him to court if he felt he was defamed, instead of subjecting Mr Lim to disciplinary proceedings.

Mr Chiam held a Christmas Party on Thursday, which was attended by several opposition leaders including RP chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam and the National Solidarity Party’s Sebastian Teo. When approached, Mr Chiam declined to comment on the lawyer’s letter.

View the original article here

TOC face to face forum: Meeting of Bodies but not of Minds

 

I went to the TOC Face to Face Forum as a guest of The Online Citizen and came away pleased and puzzled.

I was pleased to see the various political parties coming to share their views on the same stage. This is the first time that all the major parties are seen together at a single event. Except for the PAP who did not turn up and the Worker’s Party who sent a representative, all the secretary-generals of the invited parties honoured the occasion.

It was not a forum where the political parties make speeches about their stands on issues. It was a Q and A Session. However from the answers given, the listeners were able to know what the various parties stand for. From the answers given by the leaders of the various political parties, it was obvious that there were really not many differences in views and stands to the many issues that were brought up.

All the leaders agreed that the problems faced by Singaporeans had been brought about by the PAP and the people should vote for the opposition. In the past, speakers sometimes prefaced their speeches with some concession to the economic achievements of Singapore. Not this time around. No one credited the PAP with anything.

Why then did I say I come away puzzled? With so much in agreement and so little discernible differences, I was wondering, why no one embraced one another at the end of the evening and tell each other, “Hey we share the same views. Why don’t we meet up and see how we can work together to advance a common cause?”

Everyone just shook hands politely and smiled for group photographs. I don’t know if they were more pre-occupied about their own performance that they could not think of seizing the opportunity to strengthen ties that could be developed further for the benefit the country.

The forum had given them this golden opportunity. Yet during the post-forum socializing, none of the leaders gathered and exchange views. During and after the forum, the various parties had not given any indication that they are willing to come together to fight this round of electoral battle that is looming. The feeling is that in spite of all these agreements and lack of differences, everyone is still trying to keep the status quo and trying to fight the giant on its own.

The current political landscape is akin to a situation where many provision shops selling the same thing are trying to compete with an efficient hypermarket. Instead of pooling and combining resources and getting the economy of scale, these small outfits are trying to see who can battle the giant best and muscle out the rest at the same time.

The end result is the hypermarket gets stronger and more powerful and the provision shops get weaker and ineffective.

I don’t know if the various parties at the forum realised that they share many things in common. As far as I can see, the differences are only in the personality and temperament of the people in charge. From the views expressed at the forum, there is no difference at all in ideology.

Unfortunately, if differences in personality and temperament cannot be set aside for a common cause, then any alternative to the PAP will continue to remain fragmented and ineffective. This would indeed be a disservice to Singapore.

As long as political parties stay in their own cocoons, they will continue to make motherhood statements without being effective in changing things.

Take for example the question of the ISA (Internal Security Act). Everyone wholeheartedly agreed that it should be abolished.

Mr Chiam See Tong summed the mood very eloquently by his stunning declaration “I agree with Dr Chee” (that the ISA should be abolished). It is telling because Mr Chaim and his protégé, Dr Chee Soon Juan, had fallen out almost 20 years ago.

From the look of things, this issue is likely to remain just a little line in the various parties’ election manifestos (or even not at all).

If the parties were so convinced that the ISA should be abolished, why were they not committed enough to call a press conference immediately after the forum to issue a joint press release on this? After all the main stream media and the yahoo news reporters were all around and certainly ready to give audience.

The answer is simple. Truth be told, the bodies have met but the minds have not. Hopefully, the forum would be a step towards the meeting of minds. Otherwise all the wonderful individual manifestos put up by the political parties will not stop the juggernaut from continuing to run the lives of Singaporeans completely in the manner that it has been doing for the last 51 years.

View the original article here

Liberal democracy gives rise to social ills? Part 1

January 5, 2011 by admin
Filed under: SDP 

 

By Singapore Democratic Party
05 Jan 2011

“[I]t has a lot to do with the erosion of the moral underpinnings of a society and the diminution of personal responsibility. The liberal, intellectual tradition that developed after World War II claimed that human beings…would be better off if they were allowed to do their own thing and flourish. It has not worked out…Westerners have abandoned an ethical basis for society…”

Thus saith Lee Kuan Yew in an interview he gave to the Foreign Affairs magazine in 1994.

He surmised that democracy equals Western values and Western values equal individualism. Individualism, in turn, brings about moral decadence leading society to eventual ruin. Democratic values, by implication, must be rejected.

The ‘erosion of moral underpinnings’

Ethics and morality are terms Mr Lee chooses to frame the discussion of the success – or failure – of a society. Against this premise, let us examine the situation in Singapore and the kind of society he has forced on this country.

Our sex industry is thriving where high- and low-end sex workers flood the island. In 2007, 5,400 unlicensed prostitutes were arrested, an increase of 25 percent from the previous year. We have become the centre for the trafficking of sex workers.

And where prostitutes gather, so will pimps. With pimps come gangs and with gangs come crime – violent crime. Orchard Plaza, a venue permeated with adult stores and sex bars, came into the spotlight recently where a gang, wielding machetes, brutally murdered a man in the wee hours of the morning.

Another gang, also with parangs, went on a chopping spree in Kallang, killing one and severely wounding another including hacking off the victim’s fingers.

Retiree, Mr Lee Kaw, had gone to buy a newspaper in the evening. When he stepped into a lift, another man pulled out a knife and slashed him across the throat. Mr Lee stumbled out and with blood gushing from his neck, managed to get help from neighbours.

“First, you must have order in society,” Mr Lee lectured. “Guns, drugs and violent crime all go together, threatening social order.”

We may not have guns in Singapore but knives do just as well.

And drugs? A Reuters report stated: “Evidence tells of the emergence of an underground party drug scene mostly at night clubs frequented by the wealthy.” In 2007 heroin arrests exploded by 600 percent.

Our youths are violent too

On youths Mr Lee said: “Then the schools; when you have violence in schools, you are not going to have education, so you’ve got to put that right.” That’s the rhetoric.

Here’s the reality: In Singapore, students are killing students. Nineteen-year-old, Darren Ng, was cut to death in a youth-gang fight, a group of teenagers, in which the youngest member was 8, went on a rampage slashing passers-by at Bukit Panjang; two boys, aged 12 and 14, punched and robbed an elderly man in Ang Mo Kio; a gang of three, aged 13, 15 and 18, nearly severed the hand of a man in a violent confrontation. All this in a matter of weeks over November and December last year. (See here)

Then on Christmas eve, youths fought each other in three separate incidents: a couple was attacked at Downtown East (the place where Darren Ng was killed) and left the man with blood dripping from his eye; 10 youths attacked another at Orchard Road until he was unconscious and in critical condition; and a brawl took place at Clarke Quay leaving the victim with a broken nose. (See here)

Democratic values to blame?

The liberal, intellectual tradition has abandoned an ethical basis for society?

Let’s look at the facts. Singapore is not even a democratic society, let alone a liberal one, where individuals enjoy political rights. It is very much a state where the ruling party sits on top of all and sundry and directs society from its perch.

And yet, we are seeing drugs, crime, and youth violence hit this country like never before.

In truth, it is not that liberal democracy causes social breakdown as Mr Lee would have us believe, rather it is the wayward policies forced on the population by this regime.

Much of this is fueled by the PAP’s lust for all that glitters. Its relentless push to achieve GDP growth, no matter the havoc that it wreaks on society, is inflicting much injury on the social arrangement in this country.

The opening up of the casinos and the re-writing of our banking laws to turn Singapore into a tax haven has opened up our society to easy money for the Government. The result of such a policy cocktail is an explosion of crime and vice in this country.

The irony is that without democracy, dissenting – and moderating – voices are silenced. The PAP, with all its machinations of the electoral system and the control of the media, continues to tell us the lie that democracy is bad and dictatorship is good.

For our part, the Singapore Democrats will continue to speak up. More important, however, Singaporeans must wake up to the dangers that we face with an autocratic PAP.

In Part 2, we will take a further look at the erosion of social order in Singapore and examine its causes.

View the original article here

The New Year that I would like to see

 

By Dr Wong Wee Nam
31 December 2010

It is no good for democracy if a country is run by a monolithic political party.

Neither is it good to have a ragtag army of small political parties running around unable to provide a coherent alternative, let alone being able to form an alternative government.

It is for this reason that for the past one year, I have been trying to get the opposition parties to come together to work out a common plan to contest this coming general election. To this end, I roped in Mr Bentley Tan to help.

For a start, we decided to get the various parties to meet informally and without a fixed agenda to feel things out. The first meeting at a local hotel was called on 24 April 2010. Mr Tan Kin Lian, who is non-partisan, was also invited by us to help moderate the discussion.

The response was encouraging. SDP’s Dr Chee Soon Juan came, as did SPP’s Sin Kek Tong, NSP’s Sebastian Teo and USD’s Jaslyn Go.

Kenneth Jeyaraetnam turned down the invitation because he thought such a meeting was unnecessary. The PKMS were not invited because there was no clear leadership at that time. The Worker’s Party did not respond.

It was a cordial meeting and there was a general consensus that we have to work towards some kind of opposition cooperation and unity. Each party agreed that they would discuss the meeting with their respective CECs and invite the three of us (myself, Bentley and Kin Lian) to clarify our ideas before their committees before we moved on to have the next meeting and have a definitive agenda to discuss more concrete things.

SDP’s CEC called us up first and after a thoughtful session, they said they would support a second meeting. NSP met us next. Though they had some misgivings, they were also in support of a second meeting.

We did not hear from SPP and when we called Mrs Lina Chiam, she told us to wait until after their Annual General Meeting where a new CEC would be elected.

Subsequently, the Reform Party’s demands to join the SDA were wickedly leaked out and this caused some internal problems within the SPP. Any talk of opposition unity received a stunning blow and Tan Kin Lian decided he did not want to be involved further.

Later when I met Tony Tan Lay Thiam of Reform Party over lunch, he fully supported the idea of unity and cooperation, and urged me to try again. Indeed, Tony may be a young politician, but he can see a bigger picture than many more experienced ones.

However, this unsuccessful exercise was not a waste of time for me. From it, I gained a better insight into the people involved, or not involved, and it also reinforced my image of Mr Chiam as a selfless politician.

I have known Mr Chiam for twenty years. We first met when I wrote to the SDP, of which he was the then Secretary-General, to complain that they had not honoured my subscription to their newsletter, The Democrat. He immediately called me up to meet him for coffee. We met at the Pizza Hut in Jalan Jelita and he offered me party membership straightaway. I told him that we had just met and how could he trust me? But then, that is Mr Chiam. He has only one political opponent in his mind and everyone else could be his ally.

This attitude was to be reinforced again in 1997 at a Chinese New Year’s gathering hosted by him. I told him he needed to have a Barisan Nasional kind of arrangement amongst the political parties to fight the PAP. He immediately went to form the Singapore Democratic Alliance. In spite of misgivings by many others, he even invited the PKMS, a party that not many liked to be associated with at that time, to join.

Unlike many political leaders, Mr Chiam does not just pick people who think like him and exclude people whose views do not match his. Yes, this is Chiam. He has only one political opponent and everyone else is free to be his ally.

This is why I had no difficulty in getting him to agree to the meeting on the unity and cooperation of the various opposition political parties that Bentley and I had arranged.

He may have fallen out with his protégé Dr Chee Soon Juan for nearly twenty years. The painful scar still remains till today. Yet that has not prevented him from agreeing to sit down on the same table with the latter for the sake of opposition unity or saying “I agree with Dr Chee…” at the TOC Face-to-Face Forum.

Amongst the opposition political leaders, he is the only one I would consider a true statesman.

What then is my wish for the coming year? Below is the photograph I have taken this year. In the coming year, I just hope I have many more opportunities to take such photographs.

 

This article is written for sgpolitics.net and theonlinecitizen.org. Please provide link to either website if you wish to re-publish the article.

View the original article here

Goh Meng Seng declares war on HDB and housing issues (part two)

By Goh Meng Seng
20 December 2010

The mismatch of Demand and Supply in the New HDB flat market due to MBT’s “caught off guard” has been transferred to Resale Market via this increase in grants for “lower income” couples.

One must not look at the difference in prices of the flats in both New and Resale flat markets as just that difference. For every dollar difference, you must add in interest cost. This difference in prices will compound over time with interest rate.

Who benefits from these “grants”? Many think it will benefit Singaporeans, especially those first time buyers. Look deeper into the situation. If you are a citizen selling your flat in the resale market, whether you downgrade or upgrade, you will have to buy another flat. These grants which sustain the high prices will not benefit you unless, you are like me, sold my flat and stay with my parent.

When in the short term, housing stock is fixed, an increased in demand will create a mismatch to supply. Who are the ones who could just sell off their flats and take full profits from such sales? Definitely less so for Singaporeans. PRs, yes. They could just sell off and retire back home with lower cost of living. That’s the truth that many people cannot see. And that is why many PRs are trying to buy resale HDB flats now.

The influx of foreigners thus increase of PRs buyers in resale market will definitely push prices up. They do not have loyalty to this land. Most likely, they are here to earn enough money so that they could live a comfortable life back home or migrate to somewhere else.

The complexity of the influx of foreigners and PRs is not easy to solve. They are here and need accommodation. HDB will become of their option when the rules do not prevent them from owning one. They also create “excess demand” on the market. Well, imagine if only citizens are allowed to buy HDB flats, regardless of New or resale. There will be less problem of mismatch of demand and supply.

When PRs come into the picture, it creates excess demand on the market. Without an increase in the housing stock, there is no way we could accommodate both Singaporeans and PRs with the present HDB system without pushing up the prices in resale market. The worst thing to happen is that HDB failed to build more flats for new citizen entrants but instead, to take the quick remedy to their incompetence, pushes these new citizens to resale market with more grants!

The result is pretty obvious now. You will start seeing more and more HDB flats over-populated. I have come to know of 3 room HDB flat being populated by 14 people altogether!

HDB resale market will crash someday. The reason is simple. When people over commit themselves with 30 year mortgage, they will inevitably forced to sell off if the present low interest rate starts to climb. The PRs will be the first one to sell off and leave.

Stopping this fire with soft landing is an urgent task right now. Young Singaporeans should not bear the brunt of the incompetency of HDB and its negligence in not building enough new flats. It is difficult to give you a full picture because of the complexity. But please don’t be fooled by half baked people like Ramseth who goes around to talk nonsense anything about economics when they don’t even know what’s going on there.

Goh Meng Seng

View the original article here

Liberal democracy gives rise to social ills? Part 2

January 6, 2011 by admin
Filed under: SDP 

 

By the Singapore Democrats
06 Jan 2011

In his bluster in the Foreign Affairs magazine in 1994, Mr Lee Kuan Yew said: “The expansion of the right of the individual to behave or misbehave as he pleases has come at the expense of orderly society. In the East the main object is to have a well-ordered society…”

If Mr Lee’s main object is to achieve a well-ordered society, he has missed it by a mile. For starters, streaking – a fad normally reserved for decadent societies in the West that Mr Lee excoriates – seems to be catching on in Singapore.  A couple flashes buck naked at patrons of a kopitiam at Holland Village, a guy walks into a MacDonald’s joint in his favourite skin, and a lady disrobes at a bus-stop and boards a bus in her full glory.

Another lady, a 19-year-old, had a little bit more class. She chose Fullerton Hotel for her act. She climbed on to a lamp. In her buff. On the second floor balcony. After scrambling past five rooms.

These weren’t one-off shows. In 2010, there were 105 reports of indecent exposure in Singapore in the first half of the year – that’s one strip act every two days. Public nudity cases went up by 22 percent between 2009 and 2007.

And what is a well-ordered society without an altercation or two? Spats between ordinary folks on our buses are a common occurence.

If this is a well-ordered society, we shudder to think of what a crazy one looks like.

All this is not just harmless expressions of frustration. In Part 1, we pointed out the explosion of crime and vice in Singapore.

One really can’t type fast enough to keep up with reports of violence. Before we could post this piece another murder took place last night, this time at Bukit Batok. A 29-year-old man was found dead – in a church compound – with bruises on his face and a shirt soaked in blood.

The pastor of the church said: “We seem to be hearing of quite a number of incidents of violence in our society.”

The worst part is that it is rubbing off on our children – yes, children. Gang fights involving eight-year-olds (that’s a boy in primary two for easier reference) and violent robberies by kids in their early teens seem to be the norm. (See here)

And girls? In the first half of 2009, there was a 70 percent increase in prosecutions of statutory rape (sex with underaged girls). And these are just the cases that get reported to the authorities. One 12-year-old girl was found to have had sex with 15 men.

Confucius confounded

What happened to our Confucianist culture that Mr Lee was such a fan of, the one that prides itself on communitarian values and high moral standards? Yes, the very same one that decries and rejects democratic values.

“We focus on the basics in Singapore,” Mr Lee wagged his finger. “We used the family to push economic growth…”

Apparently not anymore. Casinos, it appears, is the way forward nowadays. Family, shmamily. Easy Street, fast money is the new mantra.

But what about vice and crime that come with casinos? Mr Lee’s son, the prime minister, concedes that casinos bring “undesirable activities” but then comes to his senses: “We had no choice.”

No choice? You mean we have no choice but to see our sons kill each other in gang fights, our underaged daughters have sex with older men, our  youths parade themselves naked in public, our uncles and aunties engage in fisticuffs, our rich turn to drugs, and our poor to suicide?

We pay him $3.8 million to tell us we have no choice but to tear our society apart?

Anything but democracy

We hope that it is clear by now that social ills don’t come about because we have political freedom. We still live under a very authoritarian regime, and yet our social problems are only increasing.

The truth is that democracy and political freedom do not cause crime and vice. Rather it is the blind pursuit of wealth by the elite at the expense of the rest of society that is fueling a breakdown in order. Social breakdown comes about when a ruling party is left unchecked. Its excesses perpetuate income disparity and places an unbearable strain on society. The result is a degeneration in social order.

In fact it is in democratic societies (and they are not confined to the West) that the people can balance misguided government policies through open debate and elections, and exert an ethical influence over public policy.

The irony is that the PAP has copied all the undesirable traits of crass consumerism and corporate greed from the West while eliminating the moderating influence of an open and democratic system. Singaporeans must understand the democracy is not a Western value. It is a practice that allows the governed to prevent the government from bringing a country to ruin.

The PAP will tolerate and allow anything – even social ills. But it will not allow democracy because social ills do not affect members of the ruling elite. Democracy does.

View the original article here

Goh Meng Seng declares war on HDB & housing issues (part 1)

 

I was invited to be one of the panelists at TOC end of year event, Face-to-Face Forum on 16 Dec 2010. Housing issues became one of the hottest again.

Due to time constrains, I have given key points and short answers to the questions asked. I would like to elaborate further here on what I have said during the forum.

The first question asked was whether HDB should be privatized. My first response is that it should not. HDB is part of a socialist Land Reform program. Due to scarcity of land in Singapore, it is important for us to avoid land hogging by a small group of landlords while the masses and future generations suffer. The fall of the ancient feudal systems was basically due to the income and wealth inequality partly exaggerated by the unequal distribution of land.

Thus it is important for the government to act as an arbitrator in making sure that land can be recycled over generations for public usage like housing. The 99-year leasehold HDB flats are part of this scheme to maintain sustainability of land usage across generations. Privatizing HDB will not do us good. It will most probably result in higher prices for HDB flats due to the profit maximizing nature of a private entity.

The second question about HDB is on what will happen to those who have paid hefty prices for their HDB flats but now I am advocating lower HDB prices. I explained that the HDB has two market segments. First, we have the NEW HDB flat market and second, the resale market. The government, via HDB, is the sole monopoly of supply in the NEW HDB flat market. The demand comes from citizens only. The resale market is basically a free market where sellers are those who own HDB flats (both PRs and Citizens) and buyers from both PRs and citizens as well.

The government has FULL CONTROL over the New Flat market as the monopoly. It should sell these flats at cost to Singaporeans as I have explained earlier that our forefathers have sacrificed their land for the development of this Nation. It is the unwritten social contract that the government in return should take care of Singaporeans’ basic public housing needs.

On the other hand, the government should not meddle or distort the resale market, which is a free market by giving grants to first timers. This is a bit “counter-intuitive” which results in people calling it a “radical view” but it is not!

The rational is very simple. Just taking an analogy of a fireman trying to put out a fire. Will he add oil to the fire? Obviously not. If there is a pipe leaking oil to the fire, what will he do? Obviously, it is to stop the leakage.

Money and easy credit are just like fuel to the fire of high prices. Giving grants to first timers to buy resale flat is an act of market distortion to increase the demand of resale market. There are a few implications:

The present system is such that the NEW HDB flats prices are pegged at the resale market prices. It is naturally for the government to want to maintain a high Resale prices.The grants given to first timers have to come from somewhere. i.e. from the higher prices of New HDB flats. At the same time, resale levy is charged on those who sold their flats and apply for new flats.It is basically a scheme that goes round about, self-feeding itself to maintain or push up the prices of HDB flats, both resale and new HDB flats.Such grants coupled with easy credit and low interest rates will encourage more young couples to OVER COMMIT themselves. If these young couples, in spite of low interest rate of 1.5% or less from private banks need to commit 30 years loans to buy their resale flats, they will be in trouble if interest rates rise in future! That will become Singapore’s Subprime!

My proposal of a new system is:

Sell NEW HDB flats at cost.Don’t meddle in the free resale market by removing the grants.

Many youngsters may scream at the second point. I would advise them to take a step back and ponder. The proposal is a package. New young couples will have a far CHEAPER OPTION of having their first new HDB flat when it is sold at cost.

After you get your first HDB flat at CHEAP price, it will provide you a good financial position to get your resale HDB flat later on. My concern now is that too many young couples are over committing themselves by going for resale HDB flats. This will add financial burden to the new families and in the end, you may not have enough finances to have babies.

It is also an important thing to show to young couples that it is more worthwhile to buy NEW HDB flats with a big difference in the prices. If young couples are to be lured into resale HDB flats with the HDB grant and resulting in over committing themselves, a 30 years mortgage loan starting at low interest rate but going up later one, most people will be forced to sell their flats for retirement in the end!

However, I also caution that our only HDB flat is OUR HOME and SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED AS INVESTMENT. A HOME is not something you can sell off that easily. Each and every corners of your HOME are embedded with the collective memories of your family members.

I am asked about how I am going to make such “unpopular” idea to Singaporeans. I just replied, we just have to make it “popular”. We should be careful about politicians trying to sell you GREED and be populist. My generation as well as my father’s generation has been hoodwinked by PAP’s sales of GREED through “ASSET ENHANCEMENT SCHEME”. Who suffers in the end? My generation, the younger generation as well as future generations.

Two years ago, nobody would have thought that the campaign on HDB issues would be fruitful. Nobody believes that I could convince so many people that the HIGH HDB PRICES IS BAD FOR THEM. Nobody sees the bad points of 30-year mortgage for HDB flats. With the help of the online media, blogs and networking tools, we have managed to get the message viral. Many people are talking about the ills of the 30-year mortgage. I strongly believe that I can go a step further to bring forth my point about my “instinctively unfavorable” or even “politically incorrect” policy views that this is the best way for Singapore’s future generations.

Of course, for those who have committed at high HDB prices, I just have to remind them that it is PAP who makes them suffer with such bad policy. Look on the bright side. Just like many people of my generations who were caught in the late 1990s property boom and subsequent bust, as long as we treat our flat as our HOME, whether the price went up or down, it didn’t affect us, even when we became negative asset holders. On top of that, in my proposal, the resale market will be allowed to grow on its own. In the long run, the HDB resale prices will still grow although in a relatively slower pace.

One sensitive HDB issue was raised by M Ravi on the ethnic quota. It is a well-known fact that ethnic quota restrictions affect the minority races adversely.

I went a bit further to say that the present restriction may have impact on ethnic economy. Look at Tampines. It has a bigger proportion of Malay community of 24%. Tampines has the most number of Muslim coffeeshops as compared to other places. There are even shops selling Malay traditional clothing. A critical mass congregation of the minority ethnic group will provide more opportunities for their ethnic entrepreneurs to strive.

Thus in my view, I have no problem with any precincts or groupings with less than 50% composition of the minority races. Why not more than 50%? If the minority race becomes the majority composition of a precinct, that would mean statistically, it has become a big outlier!

I have not mentioned the lower band. My proposal is to have a band, instead of a tight rule of 25%. The band will range from 15% to 45%. It also means that the Chinese majority race cannot exceed 85% of the composition in any precincts.

Many people would suggest to get rid of the ethnic quota once and for all. I do not favor that but instead, take a progressive step towards that aim. I have spoken to foreign visitors from Australia, Sri Lanka and other places on Earth and they admire our racial policies in this aspect. It is something that we may have taken for granted for all this while. But a relax of such rules may foster better ties and lessen the price that any ethnic groups may suffer as the result of the ethnic quota rule.

I hope that these elaborations on my comments and responses given during the TOC Face to Face Forum will provide more insight into the policy rationale behind them.

Goh Meng Seng

View the original article here

On the beat to the hustings — Elections are nearing

 

From the Editor’s Desk
08 January 2011

The Elections Department (elections.gov.sg) has announced another round of changes to boundaries of polling districts. The update can be accessed here.

By itself, changes to polling district boundaries need not be indicative that a general election will soon be called. The last time polling district boundary changes were announced was in February 2010. Only when the Electoral Boundaries Report is released by the Elections Department can we be sure that elections would be held within a few weeks time.

Nonetheless, it is expected that elections will be held soon, as there are only two possible time-frames for elections to be held this year. One is after the budget is announced, and another possible period is the last three months of this year. It is unlikely elections will be held next year so close to the Feb 2012 constitutional deadline.

The Prime Minister has also ordered an update of the register of electors to be completed by Feb 28. The last revision also occurred around the same time last year. Repeated revisions allow the ruling party to include as many eligible voters as possible, especially new citizens who are inclined to vote for the incumbent PAP.

In a related development, Aljunied GRC MPs have thrown in more incentives for residents to vote for the ruling party again. It unveiled last Friday a five-year scheme which includes plans for lift upgrading, high-speed Internet access, and a 13-kilometre park connector which is touted to improve access to three new MRT stations — Kaki Bukit, Bedok Town Park and Bedok Reservoir.

Widespread lift upgrading works have also been carried out in the past year throughout Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, and most HDB blocks are expected to have lifts that stop at every floor within the next few months, in time for a mid-year election.

View the original article here

Singapore Rocks

Singapore is a lively and unique travel destination. Singapore is a mixture of Eastern and Western cultures reason why this nation in Southeast Asia is a popular tourism for Asian and European travellers.

Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles plays an important role in the history of Singapore. Raffles was an official British Government that more or less puts Singapore on the map as a strong trade and business centre.

Hundreds of years before Raffles acquired Singapore from Johor, rule at the beginning of the 19th century. Singapore had been insignificant settlement at this time however under the command of British ruler send quickly blossomed into one of economic powers in Asia.

The Japanese took control outside of Singapore in 1942 during the half of the second world war. At the end of 3 years of the Japanese occupation, Singapore was returned to the British.

The population of Singapore shortly before he made it clear to his British rulers who wanted to actually govern and control your own country that lead to their self-government, which began in 1959.

During the early 1960s, Singapore joined briefly for a period of 2 Federation Malaysia however soon became clear that Singapore was better as a fully independent nation.

Many of the countries largest regions of thought at that time that Singapore was making a mistake due to its small size and its limited supply of natural resources.

However, Prime Minister at that time, Lee Kuan Singapore believes Singapore had a right existence as an independent nation and right proofed himself starting and expanding an export-oriented toward industry as well as a thriving tourism industry.

The tourism industry has proved to be a great success and has been an important part in the success of Singapore. Tourists love especially the mixture of different cultures and cuisines to the background of its citizens.

Singapore many have Chinese ancestors, Malaysia or India, you can view of Singapore. A stroll through the streets of Singapore and you can see a temple in a corner, a church in the next and the mosque right next door.

Singapore dining is a pleasure due to the merger of several that have created some excellent dishes that are unique to Singapore kitchens, has not only proven to a popular destination for tourists, however, has also been a great success with Singapore business travelers.

Due to the excellent facilities for meetings and congresses in Singapore, many of major international events are held in Singapore attracts thousands of visitors and exhibitors each month that have increased levels of occupation of the hotel on the highest in the region together with Hong Kong.

Singapore remains an extremely clean city where you will find that Singapore efforts to keep its impeccable city. Throw rubbish on the street is strongly failed by locals and large fines are issued to those that do.

Laws and regulations in Singapore we know that you among the toughest in the world such as punishment to those who break the law.

Singapore still has the death penalty and one of the highest averages per capita which means the number of people executed.

There have been a number of high profile runs recently with aliens, however, Government Singapore was not flexible or indulgent whatsoever when foreign Governments requested clemency or thanks to its citizens.

Singapore is something of the leader of the Group of countries that make up the ASEAN as an acronym for the Association of Nations of South Asia, which also include countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand for example.

Singapore has been a factor in stabilising the region, although it had its own share of tensions with Malaysia neighbours on various topics, including territories fishery, air space and natural resources. Singapore however has always been able to resolve issues at the negotiating table.

James lives in Phuket and is working on a number of projects. If you are looking for a great hotel in Phuket, then, consider staying at Club Bamboo Resort. Learn more about Samui Samui guide