Letter from a Grassroots Leader to PM
Feb 17, 2013 (source)
Dear Prime Minister,
I am one of your grassroots leader. I’ve voluntereed and served in one of your constituency for the last 20 years. I’ve had these thoughts percolating in my mind for many months. With what I observed in the last 2 weeks, starting with the Punggol BE then the White Paper, I decided to take the risk and go ahead and send this letter to you. I hope you do not take any of these the wrong way.
After the GE2011 elections, the PAP was dealt a big blow with the unprecedented loss of a GRC. You did a post-mortem with us, and with your MPs. One of the message we tried to send you then was: You (meaning the PAP leadership) just didn’t listen to us. We told you there were many problems on the ground, you did not listen. After the GE, you said PAP will change.
The next challenge came in Hougang BE. You picked a great PAP candidate and for a while, we thought he could pull off a win. But against the advice of the candidate and the PAP grassroots, you deployed your big guns (KBW, TCH etc) and hijacked the message on the ground. You did not listen.
The Punggol BE decisive loss was unexpected. The PAP grassroots told you to send one of us, a grassroots type person, to the fight. You chose to parachute in an unknown, someone who just joined the party weeks ago. He commited gaffe after gaffe. You did not listen.
And right after the Punggol BE, you unveiled the White Paper.
I know that those close to you, including the mainstream media, are praising you for daring to take on the problems of the future, of not sweeping things aside. But let me tell you this : I think you, and your top leadership, screwed up big time.
I am sorry I have to use this language. You see, I’m a business leader too. I know what its like to be surrounded by people reporting to you, who are naturally disposed to tell you what you want to hear. Or are all molded in the same way. I am outside your – sorry to use this word, “bubble” – so from the outside, sometimes, I can see things a bit more clearly.
Virtually all your PAP grassroots leaders and members were taken aback by the White Paper. And it became obvious very quickly that so were all the PAP MPs. Seah Kian Peng said he’s skeptical about the White Paper and thought the targets should be scaled by to 80% (how's that different from WP's 5.9 million?). Jessica said that she, and a few other MPs, would not have been able to support the White Paper in its present form. Even Tin Pei Ling said she supported the amended proposition with a heavy heart.
Why didn’t you bother to run through the White Paper with your fellow MPs before you publicly released it? They could have told you how toxic the Paper came across and how to refine it. Why didn’t you do that?
In other words, once again, why didn’t you listen? Time and again, our team scored our own goals because of the sheer arrogance of the top leadership.
And look at how your top leaders handled the White Paper since its roll-out. Within days, KBW started back-tracking saying 6.9 million was just a “worst case target, which we hope we never reach, that is for planning purposes only”. And you quickly followed suit, saying you agree. And the rest of the Ministers echoed the same language.
And then it was pointed out to you that in the past, PAP had also used the words “worst case target” or “planning purposes only”, only to have those numbers quickly exceeded.
And you actually got ESM Goh, Mah Bow Tan and Wong Kan Seng to speak in defence of the Paper? With MBT saying “lets go for the maximum”? Are you and your leadership team really that tone deaf? These are the very guys who are most associated with Singapore’s “lost decade” – a decade where we seemingly pursued GDP growth for its own sake, where the social fabric of Singapore was put under tremendous (and some say, irreversible) stress, where you yourself said to have “lacked 20/20 vision” in infrastructure planning. And yet, you actually got these people to speak? Do you know what message you are sending – you are essentially thumbing your nose at Singaporeans and saying, “So?”.
I now know why MBT, WKS, VB, RL, etc did not show the slightest remorse over their egregious mistakes during their tenure. It is because you, the PM, set the tone at the top. You did not see these as any big deal, and that tone filtered through your entire organisation. In other words, you still do not listen.
On the very last day of the Parliament debate, you said that the population numbers for the future is for future generation to decide. Huh ???? What then have almost 60 MPs been debating these 5 days ? You put up a White Paper, you start back-tracking and now you think that just because you've muddied it up, its become palatable?
Why did you put the party through this? Did it have to be handled in such a – pardon my language again – incompetent way? And how do you think we, your faithful foot-soldiers, feel ? You put us in the difficult position of having to defend something we did not agree with. How do we answer to our family members and friends, who asked what are we fighting for, what's wrong with today's PAP leaders?
Let me tell you something honestly. The reason I, and some of my friends, volunteered was because we were grateful for what the Old PAP did for this country. We believed in its policies and its leadership. But in recent years, you and your team have gradually undermined this reservoir of goodwill and support. You know, I heard that in the Punggol BE, some PAP grassroots members actually told their family members to vote opposition, while they put up the show of canvassing for KPK’s support. In my heart, I also sometimes root for the other side, especially the WP. I know. I should not feel this way. But you guys just don’t listen.
Let me tell you something else too – I personally like you. And I think many Singaporeans do too. You gave a good speech in Parliament, just like you did in the last day of Punggol BE rally.
But you know – after I actually got over the emotional high from your speech, and think through about what you said, more doubts actually crept in.
“Growth is not for its own sake. But growth is not unimportant. If you are in the top 5, 10% of the population, you may say, well, I have enough, I can manage .. (but) if you are in the bottom 10, 20% of the population, ..it would be patronising for us to say growth is unimportant… Our experience has shown that in fact when the economy is growing, the low income Singaporeans get benefits, their incomes go up.”
Mr PM, do you know that in the last 10 years, the bottom 10% and 20% didn’t see their real income rise at all? If the last 10 years of growth, with 1 million increase in population, didn’t increase their income or make their lives better, how do you expect Singaporeans to believe you that the next 10 years of growth will be different? And Mr PM, did you realise that, until Lim Chong Yah came up with his radical proposal, even the top Union leader did not even realise that incomes of cleaners etc have not risen over the years, and didn’t realise they (the Union) have done nothing about it? In other words, they – the Union – was caught with their pants down (sorry to use this analogy, I know, Palmer-gate still hurts).
“Singaporeans, "feel together" as when the nation grieved with Mr and Mrs Francis Yap when their two sons, aged 13 and seven, were tragically killed in a Tampines accident last week. And when Singaporeans triumph, as Mr Nickson Fong, 43, did in winning an Oscar this year for a new animation technique, the country celebrates with him, said Mr Lee. .”
PM, Singaporeans did not feel together when Ma Chi crashed his Ferrari. It became a symbol of how Singapore threw its door open in wanton abandonment to the rich, and how they lived it up in Singapore. And Singaporeans feel divided, not united, when the China-imported table tennis team won medals in the London Olympics. It became a symbol of the "instant tree" mentality of the Govt. And I guess you now no longer cite the example of Feng Tian Wen as a unifying factor because she'd said bye-bye to Singapore and moved back to Beijing.
You see, Mr. PM, you cannot just quote examples in isolation, take us to an emotional high, and assume it assuage all of our raw wounds. Its almost like you are burying your head in the sand, when it comes to examples that do not fit with your idealised notion of how it should have been. We do not exist in that alternate reality. When I think through these parts of your speech, I actually wonder if you are disconnected from us.
“He concluded with the promise that the Government will "watch the numbers" and make sure Singaporeans are clearly in the majority. It will always treat citizens better than non-citizens, he said”
Mr PM, you may not realise this, but in our public spaces – like the MRT, bus, Chinatown, Little India etc – we Singaporeans already no longer feel we are in the majority. My children tell me of attending classes in University, where Singaporeans are the minority and they feel they are in a foreign country. Do you realise that in some offices, large cliques of Filipinos or North Indians prevail, and they tend to hire their own? You see, you work in the Civil Service –when you look out of your office, everywhere you look, you see Singaporeans. It is not like that in many other offices. How do you “watch the numbers” when you do not even have an accurate sense of the current ground reality?
“For Singapore to thrive, we Singaporeans must always stay lean and hungry," he said. "If we lose our drive, we will lose out."”
OK, I now get it. Its all about money isn’t it? You are afraid that whatever counter-proposal anyone comes up with – whether it be reducing our reliance on foreign labor, or improving SME productivity, or reducing income inequality – you are afraid that it basically means touching the reserves.
But isn’t your proposal to give additional grants for children also raiding the reserves? And when KBW said that he (yes, not “we” but “he”) has decoupled BTO flat prices from the resale market by essentially increasing subsidies, isn’t he also – in the words of MBT – raiding the reserves?
“You said that 6.9 million is a worst case, and you see that the number for 2030 will be significantly below that. But that 6 million proposed by the WP will be too low and it will be higher than that. And that after this, you expect that the population will flatten out. The resident population is going to stabilise and the non-resident population will also eventually level off”
Mr PM, do you know what you just did? You, and your team, have made the argument strenuously that there is simply no way to grow the economy without population increase. And that as the population ages, we have to supplement with foreign labor.
And yet you are saying that between 2020 and 2030, this need will magically disappear. In other words, there is no intellectual coherence to your argument.
And do you know what this sounds like? You sound like someone who’s hooked on drugs or gambling. And he’s saying : just give me one last sniff, or just lend me another $100, and after that, I promise, I will not need it anymore.
And the worst part is this – nobody is going to believe you that 6.9 million is not real. Because come 2016, as long as the population increases from today’s 5.3 million to 5.6 million, the WP can easily say : See, the PAP is going along the trajectory in the White Paper. Ignore all their talk. Its already happening. If you vote PAP, you will have 6.9 million people.
In other words, you have fallen onto a trap that you dug yourself. How sad.
Let me end with the same words you used in your speech. You said you and your colleagues got into politics to improve the lives of Singaporeans. I do not doubt your sincerity. As I said at the very beginning, many Singaporeans like you and want to see you succeed, even though they disagree with your policies.
I am a grassroots leader. I’m spending time helping the PAP party because I believed that this will help Singapore and Singaporeans. I’m not paid for this. I’m doing it out of my own free will and with my sacrifice of time.
I’m rooting for you to pursue the right policies. I’m rooting for you to succeed.
But just like in GE2011, or Punggol BE, or in the recent White Paper – you do not listen.
At this rate, you will continue to erode the trust (yes, trust) and support of the people. Including people from the older generation who remembered and are eternally grateful to what LKY did for Singapore. In fact, the White Paper had turned out to be a big wake up call to Singaporeans - they better think twice about putting the PAP in such a dominant position in Parliament, if they want to maintain the Singapore they know.
So what do I want from you, other than “listen to us”? A hallmark of a successful, good leader is not his charisma, or his heart, or his
eloquence, or his intelligence. The starting point is always this – who is he listening to? Whose inputs do he value, whose has he learnt to discount?
Some of the lousiest emperors in China surrounded themselves with eunuchs who told the emperor what he wanted to hear. Some of the best, like Qian Long, disguised himself as a commoner to understand the true situation on the ground.
You do not have to listen to me. But find your own channels to listen to the ground. Seriously think again about who constitutes your inner circle.
But, listen, you must.
Yours sincerely,
Mr. Tan Ah Kow
Here appear occasional jottings of my random musings. Profound or jejune, they reveal the contours of my mental universe, with world history, intellectual history, civilizations, philosophy, religion, society, knowledge, and books as some major themes. Since May 2011, this blog has been exclusively focused on Singapore. All my other reflections are now posted in "Notes from Noosphere" (see link under "Miscellany" on the right margin).
Showing posts with label Singapore politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Singapore politics. Show all posts
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Friday, November 30, 2012
SingaPolitics' interview with Dr Chee Soon Juan
by Andrea Ong
Nov 26, 2012 (source)
In an interview on the day he was due to be discharged from bankruptcy, Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan spoke on a wide range of topics including his plans for the party, his thoughts on opposition unity and why he made an offer to settle his bankruptcy.
Here are some highlights:
On his plans to contest the next General Election
Q: Now that your bankruptcy has been annulled, what are your immediate priorities going forward?
Dr Chee: Well, there isn't a big shift in terms of my, the annulment of my bankruptcy. I will just continue to do what I've been doing. That is, really to build up the party in preparation for the next GE.
And by that, you know that we're working on some alternative policy papers. And that will continue for the foreseeable future in the coming months and years. And as a result, we've also seen more people coming on board and that really taps into the policymaking part, and then that brings in more people, that kind of thing.
And then, of course, the bread and butter of political parties, and that's going down on the ground making sure that (people) get to meet, see what we're up to. It's not a time when you start; it really is a progression and continuation of everything that we've been doing since the last GE.
So that will continue as I said and the annulment for bankruptcy, in the immediate future, it won't make a lot of difference. The difference, of course, will come in when I'm eligible for the next GE.
Q: Have you given any thought to where you will run, whether it will be a single seat or GRC?
Dr Chee: No, and it's only because right now things are so fluid in terms of the constituencies. And that's really the government's game, in the sense that they're going to keep us on tenterhooks and we'll never know which single seat then remains or which gets absorbed, and how then the GRCs are in fact redrawn. So, much as we'd like to be able to at least have a forecast, for us right now it really is impossible to do.
Q: Do you have a preference for any area, perhaps where people may know you best?
Dr Chee: Not exactly. Singapore is so homogenous; there are no regional rivalries in that sense, unlike, say, in Malaysia where there is a lot of rural and urban areas. So in that regard I still see things pretty much more our groundwork and that really is rather uniform throughout. So specific areas that we can see in terms of electoral support, no, we haven't really detected that kind of thing. Things seem pretty uniform right through.
Q: The party has been active on the ground, especially in areas like Tanjong Pagar.
Dr Chee: We have, that's because in the last GE nobody contested there. And we're looking to campaign in more areas because we do see our ranks growing as well. And I see the next elections, us campaigning and contesting more GRCs.
Q: But will you be going back to the areas the party contested previously?
Dr Chee; Yes, definitely. The ones that we contested in the last elections, we will continue, we have been continuing our campaign work there. And with the added constituency of Tanjong Pagar. But then as I said the boundaries change...so we do tend to just go on general vicinities rather than just hard demarcation of the constituencies.
Q: Will you be targeting more of the western part of Singapore?
Dr Chee: If we kept to the constituencies that we contested in the last elections, right now it looks as if we tend to be more focused on the central part of the island. But don't forget, last election also we've been working in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC. And it was only because Mr Chiam (See Tong) wanted to contest in that constituency and because it was adjoining Potong Pasir and they wanted to use that as a geographical strategy. We thought that was a valid point as well so we didn't contest it. But the next election, depending on what happens, we still hope to be able to get back in there as well. So that would then cover more of the central part of Spore.
And then Tanjong Pagar comes right at the south. We haven't discounted going further to the west as well.
On settling his bankruptcy
Q: On the point of your settlement, why did you make that offer to Mr Goh Chok Tong and Mr Lee Kuan Yew? How did you arrive at the amount of $30,000?
Dr Chee: The amount that I offered was something that I calculated I could afford because I was going to come up with this book. And if you look at projected sales, after I lop off for printing cost and so on and so forth and my own income, that's all that I could afford. That's what I offered. So there wasn't any magic to that.
Q: The offer surprised some because you said in the past that you wouldn't pay.
Dr Chee: Look, to me it makes very little difference in terms of the work that I do. Even if I were bankrupt, I'll continue to do what I did, which is what I did in the last elections as well. I could not stand for elections but you make sure that you organise the party, get in the candidates and then present it to the electorate. So in that sense I think it was because Singapore has changed. And I thought since I was going to come up with this book, I also wanted to see if there was any change in attitude. They came back and they said they accepted it.
Q: Were you surprised that they accepted your offer?
Dr Chee: Well, if you think about it in terms of… the mood of the electorate, I think there would have been a backlash if they didn't want to accept. I thought perhaps the calculations were look, let's move on. I'm hoping that, at least, is something that is more substantive, that there is a genuine interest in wanting to move politics in Singapore forward rather than cling on to what's been the practice of old. So in that sense, I thought politically it makes sense for them to want to not continue. Otherwise, my own sense is the electorate would have turned very sour.
On opposition unity
Q: There's been a theory floated that your offer was accepted so that the opposition vote would be split in the next GE.
Dr Chee: I don't know where this theory came from. That to me is basically an overactive imagination. I've always maintained the fact that opposition needs to, even if we don't come together and amalgamate as one single political entity, we should at least have a platform whereby we have more in common than differences.
That said, the reality is that there are still differences. I don't see it as so much policy platform differences, more I think personality. But I don't see that as impossible to overcome. I still believe that where there's a will, there's a way. We're going to work towards us cooperating more. What's the end result, what's the level of cooperation, I couldn't tell you right now. But I honestly believe that if we put in effort towards that end I think we can get somewhere.
Before the last elections and then just recently as well, we've always tried to organise activities whereby we can start talking about how we can work together just that little bit more. Before the elections, we had behind-the-scenes private meetings, that kind of thing. We've also been getting together. You know, we're not going to be able to achieve it in a short span of time but it's something that needs to be worked on. But I'm hopeful that… we'll be able to make progress.
Q: Recently, the SDP tried to do a national conversation event with other opposition parties…
Dr Chee: Ya, they did respond but they declined the invitation. But, you know... (it) wasn't very surprising in the sense that we've had previously organised forums also. As I said, we'll continue to work at (it).
Q: How optimistic are you that the opposition can work together?
Dr Chee: My own sense is that as the electorate also begins to mature, I think they are going to get more and more impatient looking at what those differences are between opposition parties. If they begin to feel that look, these are more superficial than anything else, I think the opposition parties will hear of it.
And if they continue to just brush it aside, we'll also pay a price. There's a lesson there that we have to learn as well. If the differences are fundamental, they are real, I think the electorate will say, look, that's ok.
But if you're talking more personality differences, I don't think Singaporeans will tolerate that very much. In the hopes that before we get to a point where we find out the hard way, we should sit down and try to really sort out and look at what are the differences, what are the commonalities, let's weigh it up. If we cannot agree, then let's agree to disagree.
But if we can, and there's room for us to cooperate, I think wiser heads will prevail. I'm still confident about that.
Q: Do you think the differences now more personality-based than on, say, political philosophy?
Dr Chee: I'm not going to commit now and say these are personality. I think that there are differences, but those differences are not entirely on political philosophy. It's also by default that PAP has been so entrenched in one position, so it's just de facto you get these other positions that almost write themselves. In that sense, I believe there is a lot more in common.
Q: As far as SDP is concerned, which party feels closest to it politically?
Dr Chee; You know, I don't mean to cop out of this but I honestly feel that none of the parties are that far away, seriously. For example, take one issue of, say, housing. You cannot, if you're in opposition, it's hard for you to argue that, well, HDB flats are really affordable, right?
You can't make that argument. You then have differences in terms of approach, the finer points in those policy areas. But as I said in terms of the various parties, I don't think anybody is really that far away. So I think things are still very discussable, if I can use the word.
On whether the party is ready to take over government
Q: Parties like the Workers' Party and the National Solidarity say that they are not yet ready to take over government. SDP seems to take a different approach...
Dr Chee: I think if I may try to just read into what they're trying to say, the thing is looking at the situation now, they're probably saying that if nothing changes, if everything stays the same, then things may not be any different from the last elections, right?
But the way that I see it, if you've looked at what's happened in the last elections and look at history, change never comes about in a linear progression. Nothing happens for a long time and everything stays flat.
One cataclysmic event comes, or a very significant event comes and changes - that change takes place very abruptly. I would not wager that that event will not happen between now and 2016. And when that happens, you will see, as I'm looking at it right now, there's a lot of discontentment, especially if you're talking about among the professional groups, people who analyse just a little more, think just a little bit more beyond the headlines, they're extremely unhappy with the direction of this country.
If they all decide to say, ok, fair enough, all right, we will put our money where our mouth is, we'll stand for the elections, you will see a distinct change. And then you're going to have to live up to the electorate already, isn't it? And by which time, we're not going to be sitting there and say, well, you know, we're still not ready.
It may be in the form of a coalition, I don't know.
Q: On the ability to attract talent, as it is today, does the party have everybody it needs to take over government?
Dr Chee: I think if you look at pre-2011 GE and right now, you know, I don't want to exaggerate but the difference is day and night. Whereas a lot of people would not touch us with a 10-foot pole before, they are coming round.
Q: Are you there yet?
Dr Chee: Oh no, certainly not. With the people still waiting in the wings that we have not talked to yet in terms of hard politics and will you stand for elections, that kind of thing. But I'm confident that as we go along you will get more of these professionals, candidate material, coming in bigger numbers. What the numbers are, I couldn't tell you right now. But I'm confident that it will be quantitatively, qualitatively, very significantly different from (the) election itself.
On whether the SDP has changed
Q: People see SDP as being much more mainstream than it was before. What is your take on this?
Dr Chee: This one has got to come courtesy of the press, the media. I think I've said this often before. I cannot see how qualitatively what I have been doing is different.
Now I'll give you a concrete example. As early as 1994, I published Dare To Change and at that time I very consciously subtitled the book An Alternative Vision For Singapore. And in there, I wrote extensively, put in a chapter in on the economy, distribution of wealth, issues which we continue to be talking about today.
If you look at it, healthcare was in there, housing was in there as well... Now the difference between then and now is that instead, you know, with the advent of social media and new media, it has allowed people to see that we talk a lot more about some of these, what you'd call the kitchen table issues, bread and butter situations, which we have never neglected before.
But because the press has never really come out and said: Look, this is what SDP (stands for). If you can recall 2001, we brought up these issues on immigration, on foreign talent. We campaigned on a Singaporeans first policy. We talked about minimum wage as well. That was never highlighted.
And so people get this impression, they think oh, SDP very, you know, rights-based kind of thing, very high-falutin kind of ideas, which is not true.
It was only after the coming of the Internet that people began to say, yeah, they do talk a lot about (bread and butter issues)... And so you find that then people think that we're actually a lot more mainstream.
But if you were me, you would be scratching your head and saying, what have I said and done differently then and now?
Q: In the past when the party makes the news, it tends to be because of an act of civil disobedience. But there appear sto be in the past few years nothing at all like that, there have been no more processions...
Dr Chee: But don't forget, when we had those activities, the media actively censored the news, right? ... So I wouldn't attribute that to, you know, people who are reading it and therefore they came to know of SDP's activities because you guys were not reporting on those anyway.
But having said that and you come to this point about, you know, we're not doing it right now, as I said, conditions change, you know, and therefore your strategy changes. Why do I say that?
You know, we think back, the end of 1999 or that particular year when I went to Raffles Place to give a talk over there. I was prosecuted but shortly thereafter, there were calls for us to have a free speech venue, if you recall.
And then there was this discussion, and people started to talk, and they said, why can't we have this free speech venue, right? ... And then they said, okay, well, let us have a Speakers' Corner. But when it first started, you couldn't do what you were doing there today - no musical instruments, no voice enhancement instruments, we couldn't even hold our hands up and chant slogans.
I remember doing an event there with JB (Jeyaretnam) and Think Centre at that time where we said: Abolish ISA, Abolish ISA [raises fist]. The organisers were called up (and were told) you cannot, no gesticulation, no chanting of slogans, that kind of thing.
Well, as far as we're concerned, that's a joke, isn't it? So we pressed on. We pressed on and then those few protests then came about. And it was only in, if I'm not mistaken, was it 2008 or was it 2007 that the Government announced that it was going to relax the rules, allowing protests and so on. That was when conditions changed.
And so we adapted our strategy. It was not a gift from the Government, mind you, it was a hard-won concession. But when things like that happen, then you begin to recalibrate, you begin to evaluate what you need to do. And then of course with that came civil society, some of these non-political party groups started forming and coming up. That coincided with the Internet mushrooming and so on. So, you know, you evaluate your position again and from then we thought, look, let's try to encourage civil society to take up this kind of role and then SDP can then focus very much on winning the battle in elections.
Q: So there was a qualitative strategy change...
Dr Chee: Yes, yes.
Q: That the SDP would not do as much civil disobedience?
Dr Chee: No. I really don't think it was more civil disobedience or not (as much) civil disobedience, I think that fundamental question of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, those remain the cornerstone of a democratic society. Without those freedoms, political parties will find it tremendously difficult to gain any traction with the electorate.
Q: So what is the change?
Dr Chee: So right now we have already begun to establish at least the very fundamentals of it and we want to encourage right now civil society to continue with that line, that whole campaign. And then what we want to do is then make sure that we focus on winning the elections.
One example that I can give you is the mandatory death penalty. You remember, a few years ago, we were at the forefront of making sure that the mandatory death penalty became more of an issue. Once, you know, I remember we conducted this forum and we had quite a good turnout, and then from there there were other people who really began to understand what was at stake in some of the issues at hand. And then they started organising their own activities.
We felt at that point perhaps they would be better placed to start actively organising in that area, so we took a step back and right now, I think we've got some of these activists that are very, very active in pushing that issue... And because those things change, you know, people then get more involved and we feel that okay, we can then move on to other things as well.
Q: But having built a base as far as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc is concerned, now you are looking more at building up on policy. That is a change of focus, is it not?
Dr Chee: But how do you then account for the fact that we've been talking about policy countless times as well? You follow what I'm saying?
Q: You did not have the health policy paper and housing policy paper in the past?
Dr Chee: That was because, again, we didn't have the necessary human resources to do it. But how did we get those human resources? It was because people saw us on the Net as well as what we've been doing all this time. So in that sense it wasn't so much that focus is different right now. It's more an expansion of what we've been doing all along.
I don't know if you see that difference because I'm finding a tremendous difficulty in trying to figure out for myself: Now what did I do that was qualitatively different?
Q: So it's not that you left this behind but you added on.
Dr Chee: Yes. and that addition came because more people are coming on board and that's why we find that, look, we've got the people that can help take up some of these tasks right now.
Q: Because when we look at your website today, housing and health feels more prominent than issues like death penalty and freedom of speech.
Dr Chee: Well, if you've got a product that's good, you of course put it up more prominently. But then it also still begs the question, how does it become more prominent? That's where people then talk about it. You just can put it out there, nobody pays any attention to it, it dies a very natural death, isn't it? But when people start talking about it, then it gains that prominence and how do people talk about it? Again the Internet. So, you know, it's very much driven by the sense that things are changing because people have access to what the SDP is saying.
Q: Do you feel that your success is mainly among PMETs?
Dr Chee: Oh no, no, I hope I haven't given you that impression because if we hadn't kept up with some of the more grassroots work, it would have been difficult also to grow. We are not going to have just the people sitting around and making policy and then you don't have the arms and legs of the party. That has continued to be very important. But the professionals coming in and helping us do the work and so on is just one part of everything that goes on.
On a two-party democracy
Q: There is a sense from the past election that we are headed towards what will look more like a two-party democracy, more so than a multi-party one.
Dr Chee: Well, look, come on. Politics in Singapore is still so unsophisticated. Why? Media is not anywhere close to what it should be in a proper democratic society. How do you make that conclusion is, I don't think that's very realistic in trying to say whether this is going to be a multi-party or two-party systems.
Q: But what is your own view of where Singapore's politics is headed?
Dr Chee: Again, that's hard to say. In the sense that, you know, it could very well turn out to be a two-party system. Which party fills up the other, that party, or whether PAP will really just fall off - you know, become so far extreme and archaic in its policy that it could fall off the political radar also - we don't know.
But I'm just saying right now, nothing is inconceivable. And frankly speaking, I think in that sense, not just a multi-party but a mixed, proportional, first-past-the-post system a la the German and I think Korea adopted it... still makes for a lot more sense and a more responsive government than this traditional two-party system.
Q: So you prefer the multi-party system?
Dr Chee: I think it works better if you have proportional representation in as well... The Germans for example, when they go in and they vote, they don't just cast the vote for that particular candidate in that constituency. There's a second vote that they can cast - and that is for the party itself. So you know, a proportion of Parliament, the Bundestag, is actually reserved for the party list and then another portion for the candidate who gets first-past-the-post. That, I think, works a lot more efficiently and effectively.
On the PAP since GE2011
Q: What do you think of the PAP since the election? Do you think they have changed?
Dr Chee: You couldn't hand-on-heart say that, substantively, they have changed. They may have just put in more effort if you will, to say, oh, you know, you have our ear, we would like to hear from you. The problem is, what they do with that after the feedback has been given to them is something else. If they really, really wanted to, and there was really a change of heart, as expressed by PM, then you would see them making more substantive changes in terms of the structure.
I mean, one good one would be national conversation. You pack your entire committee with, you know, it doesn't make sense, isn't it? And it's not that they don't know that we exist. We've been putting up policies... Look, talk with us, right? Engage us. If you don't agree with us, you know, let's have this honest debate. But again, this is more of the same that they've done before.
Q: If they invited you to a national conversation session, would you go?
Dr Chee: We have made it very clear that anytime they did something like this, we are there. The only thing is that they always do it in such a way that it's... You see, to me, they don't come across as sincere. It's always "Ok, we can't get out of this or we do it but let's see how we can tilt it in as much to our favour as we possibly can".
And I come back to this again. When you look at the UK election, the last one, they had Nick Clegg, they had Gordon Brown, they had David Cameron. Even though one of them was Prime Minister but you know, they had a good, genuine debate. And the people are the better for it. Same thing with the last election between Obama and Romney. All we're doing is looking for that.
And I'm just not persuaded that if they invite us, it will be under a lot of conditions and so on and so forth.
************************
Nov 26, 2012 (source)
In an interview on the day he was due to be discharged from bankruptcy, Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan spoke on a wide range of topics including his plans for the party, his thoughts on opposition unity and why he made an offer to settle his bankruptcy.
Here are some highlights:
On his plans to contest the next General Election
Q: Now that your bankruptcy has been annulled, what are your immediate priorities going forward?
Dr Chee: Well, there isn't a big shift in terms of my, the annulment of my bankruptcy. I will just continue to do what I've been doing. That is, really to build up the party in preparation for the next GE.
And by that, you know that we're working on some alternative policy papers. And that will continue for the foreseeable future in the coming months and years. And as a result, we've also seen more people coming on board and that really taps into the policymaking part, and then that brings in more people, that kind of thing.
And then, of course, the bread and butter of political parties, and that's going down on the ground making sure that (people) get to meet, see what we're up to. It's not a time when you start; it really is a progression and continuation of everything that we've been doing since the last GE.
So that will continue as I said and the annulment for bankruptcy, in the immediate future, it won't make a lot of difference. The difference, of course, will come in when I'm eligible for the next GE.
Q: Have you given any thought to where you will run, whether it will be a single seat or GRC?
Dr Chee: No, and it's only because right now things are so fluid in terms of the constituencies. And that's really the government's game, in the sense that they're going to keep us on tenterhooks and we'll never know which single seat then remains or which gets absorbed, and how then the GRCs are in fact redrawn. So, much as we'd like to be able to at least have a forecast, for us right now it really is impossible to do.
Q: Do you have a preference for any area, perhaps where people may know you best?
Dr Chee: Not exactly. Singapore is so homogenous; there are no regional rivalries in that sense, unlike, say, in Malaysia where there is a lot of rural and urban areas. So in that regard I still see things pretty much more our groundwork and that really is rather uniform throughout. So specific areas that we can see in terms of electoral support, no, we haven't really detected that kind of thing. Things seem pretty uniform right through.
Q: The party has been active on the ground, especially in areas like Tanjong Pagar.
Dr Chee: We have, that's because in the last GE nobody contested there. And we're looking to campaign in more areas because we do see our ranks growing as well. And I see the next elections, us campaigning and contesting more GRCs.
Q: But will you be going back to the areas the party contested previously?
Dr Chee; Yes, definitely. The ones that we contested in the last elections, we will continue, we have been continuing our campaign work there. And with the added constituency of Tanjong Pagar. But then as I said the boundaries change...so we do tend to just go on general vicinities rather than just hard demarcation of the constituencies.
Q: Will you be targeting more of the western part of Singapore?
Dr Chee: If we kept to the constituencies that we contested in the last elections, right now it looks as if we tend to be more focused on the central part of the island. But don't forget, last election also we've been working in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC. And it was only because Mr Chiam (See Tong) wanted to contest in that constituency and because it was adjoining Potong Pasir and they wanted to use that as a geographical strategy. We thought that was a valid point as well so we didn't contest it. But the next election, depending on what happens, we still hope to be able to get back in there as well. So that would then cover more of the central part of Spore.
And then Tanjong Pagar comes right at the south. We haven't discounted going further to the west as well.
On settling his bankruptcy
Q: On the point of your settlement, why did you make that offer to Mr Goh Chok Tong and Mr Lee Kuan Yew? How did you arrive at the amount of $30,000?
Dr Chee: The amount that I offered was something that I calculated I could afford because I was going to come up with this book. And if you look at projected sales, after I lop off for printing cost and so on and so forth and my own income, that's all that I could afford. That's what I offered. So there wasn't any magic to that.
Q: The offer surprised some because you said in the past that you wouldn't pay.
Dr Chee: Look, to me it makes very little difference in terms of the work that I do. Even if I were bankrupt, I'll continue to do what I did, which is what I did in the last elections as well. I could not stand for elections but you make sure that you organise the party, get in the candidates and then present it to the electorate. So in that sense I think it was because Singapore has changed. And I thought since I was going to come up with this book, I also wanted to see if there was any change in attitude. They came back and they said they accepted it.
Q: Were you surprised that they accepted your offer?
Dr Chee: Well, if you think about it in terms of… the mood of the electorate, I think there would have been a backlash if they didn't want to accept. I thought perhaps the calculations were look, let's move on. I'm hoping that, at least, is something that is more substantive, that there is a genuine interest in wanting to move politics in Singapore forward rather than cling on to what's been the practice of old. So in that sense, I thought politically it makes sense for them to want to not continue. Otherwise, my own sense is the electorate would have turned very sour.
On opposition unity
Q: There's been a theory floated that your offer was accepted so that the opposition vote would be split in the next GE.
Dr Chee: I don't know where this theory came from. That to me is basically an overactive imagination. I've always maintained the fact that opposition needs to, even if we don't come together and amalgamate as one single political entity, we should at least have a platform whereby we have more in common than differences.
That said, the reality is that there are still differences. I don't see it as so much policy platform differences, more I think personality. But I don't see that as impossible to overcome. I still believe that where there's a will, there's a way. We're going to work towards us cooperating more. What's the end result, what's the level of cooperation, I couldn't tell you right now. But I honestly believe that if we put in effort towards that end I think we can get somewhere.
Before the last elections and then just recently as well, we've always tried to organise activities whereby we can start talking about how we can work together just that little bit more. Before the elections, we had behind-the-scenes private meetings, that kind of thing. We've also been getting together. You know, we're not going to be able to achieve it in a short span of time but it's something that needs to be worked on. But I'm hopeful that… we'll be able to make progress.
Q: Recently, the SDP tried to do a national conversation event with other opposition parties…
Dr Chee: Ya, they did respond but they declined the invitation. But, you know... (it) wasn't very surprising in the sense that we've had previously organised forums also. As I said, we'll continue to work at (it).
Q: How optimistic are you that the opposition can work together?
Dr Chee: My own sense is that as the electorate also begins to mature, I think they are going to get more and more impatient looking at what those differences are between opposition parties. If they begin to feel that look, these are more superficial than anything else, I think the opposition parties will hear of it.
And if they continue to just brush it aside, we'll also pay a price. There's a lesson there that we have to learn as well. If the differences are fundamental, they are real, I think the electorate will say, look, that's ok.
But if you're talking more personality differences, I don't think Singaporeans will tolerate that very much. In the hopes that before we get to a point where we find out the hard way, we should sit down and try to really sort out and look at what are the differences, what are the commonalities, let's weigh it up. If we cannot agree, then let's agree to disagree.
But if we can, and there's room for us to cooperate, I think wiser heads will prevail. I'm still confident about that.
Q: Do you think the differences now more personality-based than on, say, political philosophy?
Dr Chee: I'm not going to commit now and say these are personality. I think that there are differences, but those differences are not entirely on political philosophy. It's also by default that PAP has been so entrenched in one position, so it's just de facto you get these other positions that almost write themselves. In that sense, I believe there is a lot more in common.
Q: As far as SDP is concerned, which party feels closest to it politically?
Dr Chee; You know, I don't mean to cop out of this but I honestly feel that none of the parties are that far away, seriously. For example, take one issue of, say, housing. You cannot, if you're in opposition, it's hard for you to argue that, well, HDB flats are really affordable, right?
You can't make that argument. You then have differences in terms of approach, the finer points in those policy areas. But as I said in terms of the various parties, I don't think anybody is really that far away. So I think things are still very discussable, if I can use the word.
On whether the party is ready to take over government
Q: Parties like the Workers' Party and the National Solidarity say that they are not yet ready to take over government. SDP seems to take a different approach...
Dr Chee: I think if I may try to just read into what they're trying to say, the thing is looking at the situation now, they're probably saying that if nothing changes, if everything stays the same, then things may not be any different from the last elections, right?
But the way that I see it, if you've looked at what's happened in the last elections and look at history, change never comes about in a linear progression. Nothing happens for a long time and everything stays flat.
One cataclysmic event comes, or a very significant event comes and changes - that change takes place very abruptly. I would not wager that that event will not happen between now and 2016. And when that happens, you will see, as I'm looking at it right now, there's a lot of discontentment, especially if you're talking about among the professional groups, people who analyse just a little more, think just a little bit more beyond the headlines, they're extremely unhappy with the direction of this country.
If they all decide to say, ok, fair enough, all right, we will put our money where our mouth is, we'll stand for the elections, you will see a distinct change. And then you're going to have to live up to the electorate already, isn't it? And by which time, we're not going to be sitting there and say, well, you know, we're still not ready.
It may be in the form of a coalition, I don't know.
Q: On the ability to attract talent, as it is today, does the party have everybody it needs to take over government?
Dr Chee: I think if you look at pre-2011 GE and right now, you know, I don't want to exaggerate but the difference is day and night. Whereas a lot of people would not touch us with a 10-foot pole before, they are coming round.
Q: Are you there yet?
Dr Chee: Oh no, certainly not. With the people still waiting in the wings that we have not talked to yet in terms of hard politics and will you stand for elections, that kind of thing. But I'm confident that as we go along you will get more of these professionals, candidate material, coming in bigger numbers. What the numbers are, I couldn't tell you right now. But I'm confident that it will be quantitatively, qualitatively, very significantly different from (the) election itself.
On whether the SDP has changed
Q: People see SDP as being much more mainstream than it was before. What is your take on this?
Dr Chee: This one has got to come courtesy of the press, the media. I think I've said this often before. I cannot see how qualitatively what I have been doing is different.
Now I'll give you a concrete example. As early as 1994, I published Dare To Change and at that time I very consciously subtitled the book An Alternative Vision For Singapore. And in there, I wrote extensively, put in a chapter in on the economy, distribution of wealth, issues which we continue to be talking about today.
If you look at it, healthcare was in there, housing was in there as well... Now the difference between then and now is that instead, you know, with the advent of social media and new media, it has allowed people to see that we talk a lot more about some of these, what you'd call the kitchen table issues, bread and butter situations, which we have never neglected before.
But because the press has never really come out and said: Look, this is what SDP (stands for). If you can recall 2001, we brought up these issues on immigration, on foreign talent. We campaigned on a Singaporeans first policy. We talked about minimum wage as well. That was never highlighted.
And so people get this impression, they think oh, SDP very, you know, rights-based kind of thing, very high-falutin kind of ideas, which is not true.
It was only after the coming of the Internet that people began to say, yeah, they do talk a lot about (bread and butter issues)... And so you find that then people think that we're actually a lot more mainstream.
But if you were me, you would be scratching your head and saying, what have I said and done differently then and now?
Q: In the past when the party makes the news, it tends to be because of an act of civil disobedience. But there appear sto be in the past few years nothing at all like that, there have been no more processions...
Dr Chee: But don't forget, when we had those activities, the media actively censored the news, right? ... So I wouldn't attribute that to, you know, people who are reading it and therefore they came to know of SDP's activities because you guys were not reporting on those anyway.
But having said that and you come to this point about, you know, we're not doing it right now, as I said, conditions change, you know, and therefore your strategy changes. Why do I say that?
You know, we think back, the end of 1999 or that particular year when I went to Raffles Place to give a talk over there. I was prosecuted but shortly thereafter, there were calls for us to have a free speech venue, if you recall.
And then there was this discussion, and people started to talk, and they said, why can't we have this free speech venue, right? ... And then they said, okay, well, let us have a Speakers' Corner. But when it first started, you couldn't do what you were doing there today - no musical instruments, no voice enhancement instruments, we couldn't even hold our hands up and chant slogans.
I remember doing an event there with JB (Jeyaretnam) and Think Centre at that time where we said: Abolish ISA, Abolish ISA [raises fist]. The organisers were called up (and were told) you cannot, no gesticulation, no chanting of slogans, that kind of thing.
Well, as far as we're concerned, that's a joke, isn't it? So we pressed on. We pressed on and then those few protests then came about. And it was only in, if I'm not mistaken, was it 2008 or was it 2007 that the Government announced that it was going to relax the rules, allowing protests and so on. That was when conditions changed.
And so we adapted our strategy. It was not a gift from the Government, mind you, it was a hard-won concession. But when things like that happen, then you begin to recalibrate, you begin to evaluate what you need to do. And then of course with that came civil society, some of these non-political party groups started forming and coming up. That coincided with the Internet mushrooming and so on. So, you know, you evaluate your position again and from then we thought, look, let's try to encourage civil society to take up this kind of role and then SDP can then focus very much on winning the battle in elections.
Q: So there was a qualitative strategy change...
Dr Chee: Yes, yes.
Q: That the SDP would not do as much civil disobedience?
Dr Chee: No. I really don't think it was more civil disobedience or not (as much) civil disobedience, I think that fundamental question of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, those remain the cornerstone of a democratic society. Without those freedoms, political parties will find it tremendously difficult to gain any traction with the electorate.
Q: So what is the change?
Dr Chee: So right now we have already begun to establish at least the very fundamentals of it and we want to encourage right now civil society to continue with that line, that whole campaign. And then what we want to do is then make sure that we focus on winning the elections.
One example that I can give you is the mandatory death penalty. You remember, a few years ago, we were at the forefront of making sure that the mandatory death penalty became more of an issue. Once, you know, I remember we conducted this forum and we had quite a good turnout, and then from there there were other people who really began to understand what was at stake in some of the issues at hand. And then they started organising their own activities.
We felt at that point perhaps they would be better placed to start actively organising in that area, so we took a step back and right now, I think we've got some of these activists that are very, very active in pushing that issue... And because those things change, you know, people then get more involved and we feel that okay, we can then move on to other things as well.
Q: But having built a base as far as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc is concerned, now you are looking more at building up on policy. That is a change of focus, is it not?
Dr Chee: But how do you then account for the fact that we've been talking about policy countless times as well? You follow what I'm saying?
Q: You did not have the health policy paper and housing policy paper in the past?
Dr Chee: That was because, again, we didn't have the necessary human resources to do it. But how did we get those human resources? It was because people saw us on the Net as well as what we've been doing all this time. So in that sense it wasn't so much that focus is different right now. It's more an expansion of what we've been doing all along.
I don't know if you see that difference because I'm finding a tremendous difficulty in trying to figure out for myself: Now what did I do that was qualitatively different?
Q: So it's not that you left this behind but you added on.
Dr Chee: Yes. and that addition came because more people are coming on board and that's why we find that, look, we've got the people that can help take up some of these tasks right now.
Q: Because when we look at your website today, housing and health feels more prominent than issues like death penalty and freedom of speech.
Dr Chee: Well, if you've got a product that's good, you of course put it up more prominently. But then it also still begs the question, how does it become more prominent? That's where people then talk about it. You just can put it out there, nobody pays any attention to it, it dies a very natural death, isn't it? But when people start talking about it, then it gains that prominence and how do people talk about it? Again the Internet. So, you know, it's very much driven by the sense that things are changing because people have access to what the SDP is saying.
Q: Do you feel that your success is mainly among PMETs?
Dr Chee: Oh no, no, I hope I haven't given you that impression because if we hadn't kept up with some of the more grassroots work, it would have been difficult also to grow. We are not going to have just the people sitting around and making policy and then you don't have the arms and legs of the party. That has continued to be very important. But the professionals coming in and helping us do the work and so on is just one part of everything that goes on.
On a two-party democracy
Q: There is a sense from the past election that we are headed towards what will look more like a two-party democracy, more so than a multi-party one.
Dr Chee: Well, look, come on. Politics in Singapore is still so unsophisticated. Why? Media is not anywhere close to what it should be in a proper democratic society. How do you make that conclusion is, I don't think that's very realistic in trying to say whether this is going to be a multi-party or two-party systems.
Q: But what is your own view of where Singapore's politics is headed?
Dr Chee: Again, that's hard to say. In the sense that, you know, it could very well turn out to be a two-party system. Which party fills up the other, that party, or whether PAP will really just fall off - you know, become so far extreme and archaic in its policy that it could fall off the political radar also - we don't know.
But I'm just saying right now, nothing is inconceivable. And frankly speaking, I think in that sense, not just a multi-party but a mixed, proportional, first-past-the-post system a la the German and I think Korea adopted it... still makes for a lot more sense and a more responsive government than this traditional two-party system.
Q: So you prefer the multi-party system?
Dr Chee: I think it works better if you have proportional representation in as well... The Germans for example, when they go in and they vote, they don't just cast the vote for that particular candidate in that constituency. There's a second vote that they can cast - and that is for the party itself. So you know, a proportion of Parliament, the Bundestag, is actually reserved for the party list and then another portion for the candidate who gets first-past-the-post. That, I think, works a lot more efficiently and effectively.
On the PAP since GE2011
Q: What do you think of the PAP since the election? Do you think they have changed?
Dr Chee: You couldn't hand-on-heart say that, substantively, they have changed. They may have just put in more effort if you will, to say, oh, you know, you have our ear, we would like to hear from you. The problem is, what they do with that after the feedback has been given to them is something else. If they really, really wanted to, and there was really a change of heart, as expressed by PM, then you would see them making more substantive changes in terms of the structure.
I mean, one good one would be national conversation. You pack your entire committee with, you know, it doesn't make sense, isn't it? And it's not that they don't know that we exist. We've been putting up policies... Look, talk with us, right? Engage us. If you don't agree with us, you know, let's have this honest debate. But again, this is more of the same that they've done before.
Q: If they invited you to a national conversation session, would you go?
Dr Chee: We have made it very clear that anytime they did something like this, we are there. The only thing is that they always do it in such a way that it's... You see, to me, they don't come across as sincere. It's always "Ok, we can't get out of this or we do it but let's see how we can tilt it in as much to our favour as we possibly can".
And I come back to this again. When you look at the UK election, the last one, they had Nick Clegg, they had Gordon Brown, they had David Cameron. Even though one of them was Prime Minister but you know, they had a good, genuine debate. And the people are the better for it. Same thing with the last election between Obama and Romney. All we're doing is looking for that.
And I'm just not persuaded that if they invite us, it will be under a lot of conditions and so on and so forth.
************************
Saturday, October 13, 2012
No Man in an Island: James Minchin talks with Vincent Wijeysingha (video)
In this episode of Let's Talk, hosted by Dr Vincent Wijeysingha, we discuss the historical aspects of Singapore's politics with the Reverend Father James Minchin, author of "No Man is an Island: A Study of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew" (1990).
*******************************************
James Minchin refused entry to Singapore
Singapore Democrats
Nov 9. 2012 (source)
The Reverend James Minchin, an author and Anglican priest, has been barred from entering Singapore. He was turned back at Changi Airport when he arrived on a visit from Melbourne. No reason was given.
He was held at the airport on Wednesday (Nov 7, 2012) evening for nearly 24 hours, and subsequently escorted by the police to the plane for his flight back to Melbourne the following night.
Father Minchin was recently interviewed on the SDP's talkshow, Let's Talk, when he discussed his book No Man Is An Island - A Study of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, which was published in 1987.
He has been a regular visitor to Singapore and a long-time observer of its social and political developments. As he describes in his Let's Talk interview, he started visiting Singapore in the 1960s and even served for a time as Pastor of St George's Church, Minden Road.
Given that Fr Minchin has never faced any problems entering Singapore, this recent prohibition may well be attributed to his interview on Let's Talk. If so, this move on the part of the Government is petty and small-minded. Does the PAP want to punish Fr Minchin for appearing on the SDP programme.
No doubt, the charge will be laid that by appearing on the show, Fr Minchin, who is an Australian citizen, is "interfering" in Singapore's politics.
But in this interdependent and interconnected age, does it achieve anything for the PAP Government to stop non-Singaporeans from commenting on Singaporean issues?
Is the Government so thin-skinned that it seeks revenge on individuals who express their honest opinions on Singapore? Does not the Government regularly invite non-Singaporeans to speak at public events which are then reported by the media?
If we aspire to be a global city, let us be confident in our own ability to think for ourselves and discern what is good and bad for our country - regardless of whether they are expressed by Singaporeans or non-Singaporeans.
In the past, the Government has barred other visitors from Singapore. Most recently, Mr Robert Amsterdam, SDP's international lawyer, was turned back at the airport when he tried to visit Dr Chee Soon Juan. Mr Amsterdam had published a White Paper on Singapore in which he highlighted the lack of the rule of law in Singapore and detailed the legal actions taken against the SDP secretary-general.
The Home Affairs Ministry must come clean on its decision to bar Fr Minchin from entering Singapore.
**************************************************
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Sylvia Lim: a Portrait (Bloomberg Businessweek)
Lim in Opposition Praising Singapore’s Economy Seeks Change
By Shamim Adam and Sharon Chen on October 03, 2012 (source)
When Sylvia Lim entered Singapore politics in 2001 as an opposition member, her father said he would visit her in jail, recalling how past adversaries of the ruling People’s Action Party were sued, bankrupted or imprisoned.
“It was half in jest because when you get involved in opposition politics, you never know where the road may lead,”said Lim, 47, who became Singapore’s first elected female opposition lawmaker last year. “We grew up in an era where we saw certain opposition figures being more or less crucified.”
Now the Workers’ Party’s No. 2 official, Lim avoided the fate that befell some predecessors even after her tenacity earned a comparison with a legendary female Chinese general. Key to success has been softening socialist rhetoric that kept the party at the margins of influence in past decades, says Terence Lee, who teaches politics at National University of Singapore.
The party said a free-market system has its benefits in a manifesto before winning its best election result since independence in 1965 last year, taking after parties from the German Social Democrats to Britain’s Labour that have moderated platforms to broaden support. The Workers’ Party’s rising stature has seen the government shift toward its central concern: a widening wealth gap. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong pledged in an annual address in August to boost social spending.
To woo a population that has benefited from a 44-fold increase in gross domestic product under the PAP’s stewardship, the Workers’ Party has toned down the rhetoric against Singapore’s governmental system espoused by its former leader, the late J.B. Jeyaretnam.
Jeyaretnam, who quit the party in 2001, criticized restrictions on freedoms of expression and favored a stronger role for parliament relative to the executive branch. He was found guilty of defaming at least one senior member of the PAP in remarks made while campaigning for the 1997 general election, and was later declared a bankrupt.
Lim commends Singapore’s economic success while saying more needs to be done on social policies.
Lim credits a book by U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman that caught her eye at Hong Kong’s airport with helping shape her political thinking. Lieberman wrote in his “In Praise of Public Life” that the U.S. Democratic Party reconnected with voters and regained the White House after recognizing in the mid-1980s that it had moved too far to the left in prior decades.
The Democrats won the White House in 1992, when Bill Clinton unseated George H.W. Bush. Lieberman, an independent senator for Connecticut and former Democrat, declined to comment for this article. Lieberman ran as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee on the ticket headed by Al Gore in 2000, and was the first Jewish candidate on a major national political party’s presidential ticket. He isn’t running for re-election this year to the seat he has held for four terms.
Under Lim and the party’s secretary-general, Low Thia Khiang, the party advocates higher pay for lower-income Singaporeans, public housing affordability, reduced reliance on government-linked and multinational companies, comprehensive hospital insurance and a slowing in the pace of immigration.
“There’s less rhetoric and more focus on policy issues and limitations,” said Gillian Koh, a senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies who conducts surveys on political attitudes of Singaporeans. “It’s still focused on the welfare of the Singapore population but it’s less of making extreme arguments saying you need an overthrow of the system.”
Since the elections, Lee’s government has implemented stricter policies on foreign workers and cut ministerial pay. The prime minister also made permanent a program to provide cash, utility rebates and medical funds for the elderly and low-income households. In August, he pledged to ensure citizens’ access to sufficient affordable housing, invest in pre-school education and add nursing homes.
“We have slowed down the intake of foreigners but we will continue taking in foreigners at a pace” that citizens “find comfortable,” former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, 89, said last month. He is the father of Lee Hsien Loong, the current leader.
On the party eventually taking the island’s helm, “at this point we’re definitely not ready,” Lim said. “While we have made progress in attracting new blood, we do not have the critical mass in terms of forming a cabinet at this point.”
Lim’s efforts haven’t gone unappreciated. Before she spoke at a campaign rally in May, a man handed her a painting of his mounted on cardboard. She identified it as a portrait of Mu Guiying, a female general in Imperial-era China as recognizable to Chinese as Hua Mulan, who was memorialized in the 1998 Walt Disney Co. movie.
The supporter said it was to encourage her to continue fighting for greater political discourse and a better life for Singaporeans.
“I was very, very touched,” said Lim, who has the work displayed in her office. “I’ve forgotten the anger part that made me join politics. But we know that the political system still needs more balance -- that keeps me going.”
Born the year Singapore gained independence, the eldest child of a nurse and a police inspector-turned-criminal lawyer, Lim grew up listening to her father’s monologues on politicians and current affairs at family dinners. She credits an early education at a Catholic convent with imbuing a spirit of activism and individual responsibility to right perceived wrongs.
Her interest in politics deepened when the government pushed through a change in the constitution to prevent judicial reviews of decisions or actions under the Internal Security Act.
“What is the constitution after all, what protection does it really give?” Lim said. The incident “set me thinking about checks and balances on the government and how the system really works and how it’s supposed to work,” she said.
Singapore cannot afford a U.S. model of checks where the constitution is very difficult to amend and it takes some time to reach a consensus, Law Minister K. Shanmugam said in February. Executive power is intentionally made strong because the“government has to adapt to changing needs, and change laws and seize opportunities,” he said.
The decision angered her dad, who “felt I was selling myself short” and barred her from home, according to Lim. Rather than give in, she stayed at the police academy. After three years on the police force, she practiced civil and criminal litigation for four years, then lectured in law at Temasek Polytechnic.
“That really made me angry because I just don’t think elections should be like that,” Lim said. “That pushed me to join the Workers’ Party because I think there’s really a need for us to ensure that our elections don’t become a farce.”
She met Secretary-General Low for lunch after the 2001 elections and submitted her forms to join the party the same day. Less than two years later, she was elected party chairman.
“To operate in a political landscape where men have been very dominant and for her to be able to rise up within the party hierarchy in such a short time obviously required her to demonstrate that she was more than capable and that gender was not an issue,” said Tan at Singapore Management University.
*************************************************
By Shamim Adam and Sharon Chen on October 03, 2012 (source)
 |
| Sylvia Lim |
When Sylvia Lim entered Singapore politics in 2001 as an opposition member, her father said he would visit her in jail, recalling how past adversaries of the ruling People’s Action Party were sued, bankrupted or imprisoned.
“It was half in jest because when you get involved in opposition politics, you never know where the road may lead,”said Lim, 47, who became Singapore’s first elected female opposition lawmaker last year. “We grew up in an era where we saw certain opposition figures being more or less crucified.”
Now the Workers’ Party’s No. 2 official, Lim avoided the fate that befell some predecessors even after her tenacity earned a comparison with a legendary female Chinese general. Key to success has been softening socialist rhetoric that kept the party at the margins of influence in past decades, says Terence Lee, who teaches politics at National University of Singapore.
The party said a free-market system has its benefits in a manifesto before winning its best election result since independence in 1965 last year, taking after parties from the German Social Democrats to Britain’s Labour that have moderated platforms to broaden support. The Workers’ Party’s rising stature has seen the government shift toward its central concern: a widening wealth gap. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong pledged in an annual address in August to boost social spending.
Cooling Rhetoric
“Sylvia is very gutsy and a shrewd political tactician,”said Eugene Tan, a Singapore Management University assistant law professor and a non-elected lawmaker with limited voting rights.“The Workers’ Party’s rise has a catalytic effect on the political landscape. It has forced the ruling party to raise its game, to focus more on social policies and try to take the wind out of the Workers’ Party’s sails. We are in uncharted waters in Singapore politics.”To woo a population that has benefited from a 44-fold increase in gross domestic product under the PAP’s stewardship, the Workers’ Party has toned down the rhetoric against Singapore’s governmental system espoused by its former leader, the late J.B. Jeyaretnam.
Jeyaretnam, who quit the party in 2001, criticized restrictions on freedoms of expression and favored a stronger role for parliament relative to the executive branch. He was found guilty of defaming at least one senior member of the PAP in remarks made while campaigning for the 1997 general election, and was later declared a bankrupt.
Lim commends Singapore’s economic success while saying more needs to be done on social policies.
Giving Credit
“You have to give credit where credit is due,” she said.“I think the PAP is very proactive in macro-economic issues and finding niches to make Singapore globally relevant and competitive. It’s more on the social justice side that we don’t think they’re doing enough.”Lim credits a book by U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman that caught her eye at Hong Kong’s airport with helping shape her political thinking. Lieberman wrote in his “In Praise of Public Life” that the U.S. Democratic Party reconnected with voters and regained the White House after recognizing in the mid-1980s that it had moved too far to the left in prior decades.
The Democrats won the White House in 1992, when Bill Clinton unseated George H.W. Bush. Lieberman, an independent senator for Connecticut and former Democrat, declined to comment for this article. Lieberman ran as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee on the ticket headed by Al Gore in 2000, and was the first Jewish candidate on a major national political party’s presidential ticket. He isn’t running for re-election this year to the seat he has held for four terms.
Martial Art
“I’m quite clear that if we want to contribute towards substantive reform in a certain policy area, we don’t necessarily take the confrontational route,” Lim, who practices a martial art called wing chun, said in an interview in her office in June. “If you feel you really want to achieve some policy change, you have to use various ways of getting there.”Under Lim and the party’s secretary-general, Low Thia Khiang, the party advocates higher pay for lower-income Singaporeans, public housing affordability, reduced reliance on government-linked and multinational companies, comprehensive hospital insurance and a slowing in the pace of immigration.
“There’s less rhetoric and more focus on policy issues and limitations,” said Gillian Koh, a senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies who conducts surveys on political attitudes of Singaporeans. “It’s still focused on the welfare of the Singapore population but it’s less of making extreme arguments saying you need an overthrow of the system.”
Most Seats
The party made its greatest impact to date last year when it won the most seats of any opposition group on record, and contributed to drawing 39.9 percent of the popular vote away from the PAP -- the most since Singapore broke from Malaysia in 1965 in the aftermath of the end of British rule.Since the elections, Lee’s government has implemented stricter policies on foreign workers and cut ministerial pay. The prime minister also made permanent a program to provide cash, utility rebates and medical funds for the elderly and low-income households. In August, he pledged to ensure citizens’ access to sufficient affordable housing, invest in pre-school education and add nursing homes.
“We have slowed down the intake of foreigners but we will continue taking in foreigners at a pace” that citizens “find comfortable,” former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, 89, said last month. He is the father of Lee Hsien Loong, the current leader.
’Not Ready’
The ruling party’s shift, and the Workers’ Party’s relative size, reduces the likelihood its recent success will translate into running Singapore anytime soon. The opposition group fielded 23 candidates for the 87 seats up last year. They now hold six elected seats, in comparison with the PAP’s 81, rendering them powerless to change any legislation or block bills they oppose.On the party eventually taking the island’s helm, “at this point we’re definitely not ready,” Lim said. “While we have made progress in attracting new blood, we do not have the critical mass in terms of forming a cabinet at this point.”
Lim’s efforts haven’t gone unappreciated. Before she spoke at a campaign rally in May, a man handed her a painting of his mounted on cardboard. She identified it as a portrait of Mu Guiying, a female general in Imperial-era China as recognizable to Chinese as Hua Mulan, who was memorialized in the 1998 Walt Disney Co. movie.
The supporter said it was to encourage her to continue fighting for greater political discourse and a better life for Singaporeans.
“I was very, very touched,” said Lim, who has the work displayed in her office. “I’ve forgotten the anger part that made me join politics. But we know that the political system still needs more balance -- that keeps me going.”
Carving Niche
“The Workers’ Party has carved out a niche for themselves,” said Lee at National University of Singapore.“It’s an alternative, an outlet where Singaporeans who are unhappy can express their displeasure without feeling as if they have to cast a vote for the devil” in exchange for having more opposition politicians in Parliament, he said.Born the year Singapore gained independence, the eldest child of a nurse and a police inspector-turned-criminal lawyer, Lim grew up listening to her father’s monologues on politicians and current affairs at family dinners. She credits an early education at a Catholic convent with imbuing a spirit of activism and individual responsibility to right perceived wrongs.
Her interest in politics deepened when the government pushed through a change in the constitution to prevent judicial reviews of decisions or actions under the Internal Security Act.
Marxist Conspiracy
The Internal Security Department in May 1987 arrested 16 people authorities said were involved in a Marxist conspiracy to overthrow the government of then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who led the country to independence, the Straits Times reported then. The Internal Security Act allows the government to detain people without trial. After some detainees challenged their imprisonment in Singapore’s courts, parliament amended a law to abolish judicial reviews in matters of internal security.“What is the constitution after all, what protection does it really give?” Lim said. The incident “set me thinking about checks and balances on the government and how the system really works and how it’s supposed to work,” she said.
Singapore cannot afford a U.S. model of checks where the constitution is very difficult to amend and it takes some time to reach a consensus, Law Minister K. Shanmugam said in February. Executive power is intentionally made strong because the“government has to adapt to changing needs, and change laws and seize opportunities,” he said.
Selling Short
Lim has made law her specialty, earning a law degree at the National University of Singapore, a postgraduate degree in the field at the University of London, and is even today pursuing a master’s degree in criminal justice from Michigan State University. After being called to the Singapore Bar in 1991, her interest in criminal justice led her to follow in her father’s path and become a police officer.The decision angered her dad, who “felt I was selling myself short” and barred her from home, according to Lim. Rather than give in, she stayed at the police academy. After three years on the police force, she practiced civil and criminal litigation for four years, then lectured in law at Temasek Polytechnic.
2001 Election
After years of interest in politics, Lim became an active participant after a 2001 election in which the government in less than 20 days redrew electoral constituency boundaries, dissolved parliament and went to the polls. Opposition parties only managed to field candidates for 29 of 84 seats, and won two.“That really made me angry because I just don’t think elections should be like that,” Lim said. “That pushed me to join the Workers’ Party because I think there’s really a need for us to ensure that our elections don’t become a farce.”
She met Secretary-General Low for lunch after the 2001 elections and submitted her forms to join the party the same day. Less than two years later, she was elected party chairman.
“To operate in a political landscape where men have been very dominant and for her to be able to rise up within the party hierarchy in such a short time obviously required her to demonstrate that she was more than capable and that gender was not an issue,” said Tan at Singapore Management University.
*************************************************
Friday, October 5, 2012
Must you talk only among yourselves? (The SDP alternative)
Jufrie Mahmood
Chairman of the Singapore Democratic Party
Singapore Democrats (source)
It seems that there is no end to PAP charade that would inevitably cost tax payers quite a bit of money. There is a total of 87 Members of Parliament, three non-constituency MPs and nine nominated MPs.
Elected MPs hold weekly meet-the-people sessions in their respective constituencies to listen to and offer solutions to their constituents’ problems. There are also thousands of Resident’ Committee members in the PAP comprising voters in the same constituencies where they serve and from whom the PAP can draw feedback.
Then there is the Citizens Consultative Committee whose members are appointed by the PAP to help PAP MPs manage their constituencies. Next we have the Community Centre Management Committee, appointed by the People’s Association to run the community centre or club.
Two more rungs of command and control were later introduced in the form of mayors and CDCs (Community Development Councils), a quasi –governmental body that functions as a local administration of its district, initiating planning and managing community programmes.
All the above can be said to be in close touch with the ground.
Lest we forget, we also have the Feedback Unit and the restyled ‘Reach’,helmed by a government MP and whose declared aim is to encourage and promote public participation in shaping government policies. Its three main aims are to gather and gauge ground sentiments, reach out and engage citizens and promote active citizenry through citizen participation and involvement.
Should all these institutions fail to deliver or fail to influence the formulation of policies we can always go back to Parliamentary Committees or Parliamentary Select Committees which can formally invite public participation to present their views on any particular issue.
Is the PAP now telling Singaporeans that all the above institutions set up by the party and helmed by its MPs have failed to function so much so that they have to get a National Conversation going?
Isn't this an admission that all its feedback mechanism from the plethora of committees have been an utter failure, serving to be the PAP's mouthpiece rather than hearing aid?
The PAP could have also relied on friendly voices from among the legions of journalists serving in its stable of printed and broadcast media. Have they not been telling the truth to their political masters? If the main stream media could not be relied upon the PAP could, if it is serious about getting at the truth, always turn to the social media to strike a balance and counter-check the information obtained from the state media.
Last but not least the opposition parties have always been around, shouting themselves hoarse, so to speak, pointing out the many flaws in policy making. The SDP has even presented alternative policy initiatives drawn up by qualified and respected members of society who have aligned themselves with us.
If only they would we could save a lot of time and energy – not mentioning a huge sum of money since PAP ministers are very highly paid – by not staging the wayang all over the island and get the same result.
As we have said earlier this is what they will get if they only talk to and among themselves and exclude the opposition.
**********************************
The Singapore Democratic Party: Challenges and Opportunities
Dr Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party
Global Views, October 3, 2012 (source1, source2)
Burma is undergoing deep political change with the release of Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi and other opposition leaders from prison, the liberalization of the country’s media and the tolerance of peaceful public assembly.
Malaysia has recently seen its own political reform. The country’s High Court defied the decades-old authoritarian regime by declaring the largest and most potent civil-rights organization, Bersih (clean), a legal entity. It also overturned a government ban on a non-state news portal to publish a print edition. Another landmark decision ruled that the imprisonment of dissidents without trial in 2001 was not warranted, awarding the detainees a total of US$1.5 million.
All this sits uncomfortably with one of the last holdouts of autocratic rule in Southeast Asia – Singapore. While the region moves inexorably towards democracy, the Singapore government labors to contain political discontent among the people who are finding expression on the Internet, a medium out of the grasp of the authorities.
If present socioeconomic trends are any sign of the future, public voices demanding change look set to get even more vehement. With public housing out of reach for many younger Singaporeans, public transport that breaks down on a regular basis due to a burgeoning influx of foreign workers (forty percent of the population are non-Singaporeans), and jobs and wages under pressure from cheap foreign labor the immediate future looks far from rosy.
The People’s Action Party (PAP), having been in power for more than half-a-century, continues to rely on extractive economic policies that are ultimately unsustainable. Beyond the facade of modernity, Singapore has the biggest income disparity among comparable economies in the world. The segment of the underclass is significant and growing.
What the political system needs at this stage is a fresh perspective of how and in what direction the country should proceed. New ideas accompanied by a new entrepreneurial energy of an educated and diligent younger generation are brimming. Tragically, instead of harnessing the verve, the government shows no sign of easing up on its authoritarian dominance.
The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), of which I am Secretary-General, laments such a state of political affairs. We recognize that without economic and political liberalization, Singapore will be unable to meet the challenges ahead in a global system that increasingly relies on openness and innovation.
Singaporeans, seeing how we are falling further and further behind a world that is increasingly embracing democratic change, are questioning the status quo. The anticipation of democratic change started a few years ago with the expansion of the social media which provided the public with new tools to disseminate information and dismantle state propaganda. To this end civil society actors, including the ones in the blogosphere, have played and continue to play a significant role.
This resulted in a stark rise in support for the opposition in the 2011 general elections resulting in unprecedented electoral losses for the PAP – by Singapore standards. The enthusiasm was not a flash in the pan. Recently, I appealed for assistance to raise $30,000 to pay Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong to clear my bankruptcy. The two former prime ministers had sued me for defamation in 2001 and I was ordered to pay them damages which I could not afford. As a result I was made a bankrupt which barred me from running for office. The money was raised in ten days.
The fund-raising was unprecedented in Singapore and signaled the people’s frustration of the continued crackdown on the opposition and their desire for change. The clearing of my bankruptcy means that I will be eligible to stand for the next elections. Within the SDP, there is keen anticipation of the road ahead. We have seen professionals joining our ranks – a development unimaginable only a few years ago. They have helped us to formulate alternative policies to rival the PAP as the ruling party.
This augurs well for Singapore’s future. But whether change materializes will depend on how effectively Singapore’s political opposition and civil society work together. How the government reacts will determine the price of that change.
*******************************
(Dr. Chee Soon Juan is the Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party. He was awarded Defender of Democracy by Parliamentarians for Global Action in 2003 and Prize for Freedom by Liberal International in 2011)
********************************
Chairman of the Singapore Democratic Party
Singapore Democrats (source)
 |
| Jufrie Mahmood |
It seems that there is no end to PAP charade that would inevitably cost tax payers quite a bit of money. There is a total of 87 Members of Parliament, three non-constituency MPs and nine nominated MPs.
Elected MPs hold weekly meet-the-people sessions in their respective constituencies to listen to and offer solutions to their constituents’ problems. There are also thousands of Resident’ Committee members in the PAP comprising voters in the same constituencies where they serve and from whom the PAP can draw feedback.
Then there is the Citizens Consultative Committee whose members are appointed by the PAP to help PAP MPs manage their constituencies. Next we have the Community Centre Management Committee, appointed by the People’s Association to run the community centre or club.
Two more rungs of command and control were later introduced in the form of mayors and CDCs (Community Development Councils), a quasi –governmental body that functions as a local administration of its district, initiating planning and managing community programmes.
All the above can be said to be in close touch with the ground.
Lest we forget, we also have the Feedback Unit and the restyled ‘Reach’,helmed by a government MP and whose declared aim is to encourage and promote public participation in shaping government policies. Its three main aims are to gather and gauge ground sentiments, reach out and engage citizens and promote active citizenry through citizen participation and involvement.
Should all these institutions fail to deliver or fail to influence the formulation of policies we can always go back to Parliamentary Committees or Parliamentary Select Committees which can formally invite public participation to present their views on any particular issue.
Is the PAP now telling Singaporeans that all the above institutions set up by the party and helmed by its MPs have failed to function so much so that they have to get a National Conversation going?
Isn't this an admission that all its feedback mechanism from the plethora of committees have been an utter failure, serving to be the PAP's mouthpiece rather than hearing aid?
The PAP could have also relied on friendly voices from among the legions of journalists serving in its stable of printed and broadcast media. Have they not been telling the truth to their political masters? If the main stream media could not be relied upon the PAP could, if it is serious about getting at the truth, always turn to the social media to strike a balance and counter-check the information obtained from the state media.
Last but not least the opposition parties have always been around, shouting themselves hoarse, so to speak, pointing out the many flaws in policy making. The SDP has even presented alternative policy initiatives drawn up by qualified and respected members of society who have aligned themselves with us.
If only they would we could save a lot of time and energy – not mentioning a huge sum of money since PAP ministers are very highly paid – by not staging the wayang all over the island and get the same result.
As we have said earlier this is what they will get if they only talk to and among themselves and exclude the opposition.
**********************************
The Singapore Democratic Party: Challenges and Opportunities
Dr Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party
Global Views, October 3, 2012 (source1, source2)
Burma is undergoing deep political change with the release of Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi and other opposition leaders from prison, the liberalization of the country’s media and the tolerance of peaceful public assembly.
Malaysia has recently seen its own political reform. The country’s High Court defied the decades-old authoritarian regime by declaring the largest and most potent civil-rights organization, Bersih (clean), a legal entity. It also overturned a government ban on a non-state news portal to publish a print edition. Another landmark decision ruled that the imprisonment of dissidents without trial in 2001 was not warranted, awarding the detainees a total of US$1.5 million.
All this sits uncomfortably with one of the last holdouts of autocratic rule in Southeast Asia – Singapore. While the region moves inexorably towards democracy, the Singapore government labors to contain political discontent among the people who are finding expression on the Internet, a medium out of the grasp of the authorities.
If present socioeconomic trends are any sign of the future, public voices demanding change look set to get even more vehement. With public housing out of reach for many younger Singaporeans, public transport that breaks down on a regular basis due to a burgeoning influx of foreign workers (forty percent of the population are non-Singaporeans), and jobs and wages under pressure from cheap foreign labor the immediate future looks far from rosy.
The People’s Action Party (PAP), having been in power for more than half-a-century, continues to rely on extractive economic policies that are ultimately unsustainable. Beyond the facade of modernity, Singapore has the biggest income disparity among comparable economies in the world. The segment of the underclass is significant and growing.
What the political system needs at this stage is a fresh perspective of how and in what direction the country should proceed. New ideas accompanied by a new entrepreneurial energy of an educated and diligent younger generation are brimming. Tragically, instead of harnessing the verve, the government shows no sign of easing up on its authoritarian dominance.
The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), of which I am Secretary-General, laments such a state of political affairs. We recognize that without economic and political liberalization, Singapore will be unable to meet the challenges ahead in a global system that increasingly relies on openness and innovation.
Singaporeans, seeing how we are falling further and further behind a world that is increasingly embracing democratic change, are questioning the status quo. The anticipation of democratic change started a few years ago with the expansion of the social media which provided the public with new tools to disseminate information and dismantle state propaganda. To this end civil society actors, including the ones in the blogosphere, have played and continue to play a significant role.
This resulted in a stark rise in support for the opposition in the 2011 general elections resulting in unprecedented electoral losses for the PAP – by Singapore standards. The enthusiasm was not a flash in the pan. Recently, I appealed for assistance to raise $30,000 to pay Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong to clear my bankruptcy. The two former prime ministers had sued me for defamation in 2001 and I was ordered to pay them damages which I could not afford. As a result I was made a bankrupt which barred me from running for office. The money was raised in ten days.
The fund-raising was unprecedented in Singapore and signaled the people’s frustration of the continued crackdown on the opposition and their desire for change. The clearing of my bankruptcy means that I will be eligible to stand for the next elections. Within the SDP, there is keen anticipation of the road ahead. We have seen professionals joining our ranks – a development unimaginable only a few years ago. They have helped us to formulate alternative policies to rival the PAP as the ruling party.
This augurs well for Singapore’s future. But whether change materializes will depend on how effectively Singapore’s political opposition and civil society work together. How the government reacts will determine the price of that change.
*******************************
(Dr. Chee Soon Juan is the Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party. He was awarded Defender of Democracy by Parliamentarians for Global Action in 2003 and Prize for Freedom by Liberal International in 2011)
********************************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)