Something Seriously Wrong with Singapore

By Chia Ti Lik

Dear All

As of this afternoon. Another letter to the straits times forum page. he he

Don’t think they will publish this though. It is far too hard hitting.

Happy reading! PAPpies and its supporters are invited to attack this posting with unrestrained fervour.

Regards

Ti Lik

 

What do we make out of this? 

We have a Government who promised the people immediately after the election that they will implement policies to stay together and move ahead with the people.

 

Shortly thereafter we had a Minister Mr. Mah Bow Tan deciding to keep opposition wards out of the upgrading queue because “the people had rejected the upgrading program”.

 

We have seen ERP charges increased, utility charges increased, public transport fare increased to silence from the 82 PAP MPs who claim to speak for the people.

 

We had a dozen post 65 PAP MPs who were happy to spend time training for a few months to dance hip hop at the coming Chingay procession.

 

We also have a Government telling us just days ago (with the accompanying articles of support from ST) that the GST needs to be increased to 7% because there is Government expenditure that needs to be financed.

 

Today, we have the ST attempting to explain that 40% of our bursaries go to foreign students is a justifiable policy which we should accept.

 

Today, we have the Government announcing a bigger bonus for the civil service of a total of 2.7 months for the entire year.

 

Given this little summary, we don’t need even a primary six education to tell us that there is something seriously wrong with this country is it not? Time to think.

 

Chia Ti Lik

GST Hike Propaganda (Letter to ST Forum Page)

By Chia Ti Lik

The Saga of the GST Hike continues. The press is unrelentingly offering support to the PAP Government’s initiative. Over here, i wage a war against one sided information and skewed perspectives. This is my letter in response to Article at Page 6 Sunday Times yesterday 19th November 2006.

 

GST Hike Propaganda (Letter to ST Forum Page on 20th November 2006)

The article at page 6 of Sunday Times 19^th November 2006 by Ken Kwek is referred to.

 

Lending support to the Government’s GST hike gig, the article reveals that Mika Sampovaara, a Scandinavian quitter is able to – earn the same and have more time for a better life in Singapore by fleeing from the heavy taxation levied by a welfare state. These are some points to put the article in proper perspective.

PRESS STATEMENT

Is the Prime Minister play-acting when he calls upon the Opposition to stop evading serious issues (ST 29 April)?

The most compelling question facing our people in Singapore today is whether the present system of government, which has been in place for 47 years, is capable of producing a dynamic and progressive society, promoting the happiness of ALL its people. The present system now brought to light by the disclosure of the system which ran the NKF (the NKF system) has divided Singapore into a country of two nations – one a nation of the rich and the other a nation of the poor – something which Disraeli said of Britain at the beginning of the 20th century. The gap between the rich and the poor has continued to widen and is now reaching alarming proportions.

Under the system our workers are no better than the serfs in the middle ages. We have become a beggar society – a people without any rights. The Rule of Law does not run in Singapore. Elections are programmed by the ruling party to produce determined results. The civil service and the police are subject to political control. The system has spurned falsehoods about Singapore. Truth and justice do not matter in the system. How is this country any better than Belarus or North Korea? The people of Nepal have rejected one-man rule after four (4) years. In Singapore the one-man rule still prevails after 47 years.

Both the PAP, who have put in place this system, and the Opposition Parties, the Workers’ Party now under its present leaders, and the SDA accept the system. Is it any wonder that the Prime Minister taunts Chiam and Low that they have had nothing to offer despite having been in Parliament for well over 15 years except to raise trivialities?

I have said from the time I entered Parliament in 1981 that the system under which Singapore is governed is bad for Singapore and has to go if our people’s lives are to improve. It is for this reason that the PAP have gone all out to keep me out of Parliament, removing me from Parliament in 1986 on false convictions, bringing forward elections in 1991 to two months before I became eligible again to stand for Parliament and now keeping me a bankrupt to prevent me from challenging them in this election. The Inter-Parliamentary Union has said my bankruptcy is politically motivated.

If the Prime Minister is really in earnest when he laments the lack of debate on the issues facing our people, he knows what he can do. I have in my statement released on 12th April 2006 invited him to debate with me. It is no good calling on the WP and SDA because as I said both parties accept the system – the NKF system.

It is still not too late, Mr Lee, for a public debate that is if you sincerely want to know what issues are uppermost in our people’s minds.

Do not dismiss my call as a publicity stunt which I am sure your obedient press will make it out to be. I am deadly serious for the future of our people. If you feel you cannot debate what system is best for Singapore, ask your father. It is he who after all put the system in place.

J B Jeyaretnam

1st May 2006

GE2006 Statement

I see the Prime Minister was rubbing his hands in glee at his press conference on Sunday that his henchmen had succeeded in keeping me out of the elections (Sunday Times 7th May).

He is, without any questionm right when he says that it is better for his government to have Chiam and Low as the Opposition in Parliament because, in his own words (ST 29th April), Chiam and Low have had nothing to offer for their fifteen years (more inChiam’s case) in Parliament. And he said it again in the elections that he would like an Opposition on whom he did not have to spend any time but get on with whatever he wanted to do. So it is understandable that he should shout for joy for having got what he wanted.

As for his snipping at me from his protected position, let it be said that when I led the Party in the 1997 elections, my first return to the hustings after I was falsely removed from Parliament in 1986, my team in Cheng San was only kept out of Parliament by the then Prime Minister nakedly threatening the voters with dire consequences if they voted for the WOrkers’ Party and following up on the threats with him and the present Prime Minister unlawfully invading the voting centres and even booths to remind the voters of the threats. This is something that only happens in mafia-run countries. And in spite of their blatant intimidation (an offence under the Parliamentary Elections Act) we only narrowly missed being elected.

How are the present results of the Workers’ Party an improvement brought about after I stepped down from the Party?

The Prime Minister talks as though it was an achievement for the Workers’ Party to capture Hougang. Hougang was won for the Workers’ Party in 1991 when I was leading the Party. In every election after the 1972 elections, when I first led the Party, the Workers’ Party has done better than the others.

What I have said are not surmises and guesses but true facts.

Finally, unless the Prime Minister displays that he has a sense of fairness and tells his press to give me my right of reply, this release will never be published in the Singapore press, Will he?

Signed,
J B Jeyaretnam
8th May 2006

Public Letter to the Editor, Straits Times

LETTER TO ST

13th April 2006

The Editor
Straits Times
Singapore

Sir,

To be expected from your paper, your report on the statement I issued yesterday turns it into an attack on the opposition parties instead of an attack on the PAP, as my statement was intended to be.

My statement was not an outburst. It was a response to the Prime Minister. You chose to call it an outburst. It is totally mischievous.

I challenged Lee Hsien Loong to set out what future he sees for Singapore and also asked him if he cared enough about Singapore’s future, would he agree to a debate with me on Singapore’s future. ALL THIS YOU DELIBERATELY OMIT.

In saying that the opposition parties accept the PAP system, I am not saying anything new. Lee Kuan Yew has said this more than once that Chiam and Low were acceptable because they do not challenge the system but I am not acceptable because I do not accept the system and want to change it.

As a responsible paper, which you must claim to be, will you publish this letter to present my statement in its true perspective.

You should have published my statement in full rather than have Aaron Low edit it for me.

Yours faithfully,

(J B Jeyaretnam)
c.c. local and foreign press

Singaporeans First or PAP Government First?

By Goh Meng Seng

Finally, after so much “shouting” and criticism (My first post on this topic is “A Singapore without Singaporeans“) of PAP government’s Foreign Workers’ policy, PAP government has decided to do something about it.

However, when I read about what PAP government intended to do, my first reaction is “Again?”! PAP government is world first in policy packaging as well as calculative. A Casino Resort that comes with great potential social ills is packaged as an Integrated Resort full of economic benefits and jobs. Well, I will revisit the Casino issue in my next post.

PAP government says that in order to make Singaporeans feel more privileged, PAP government will INCREASE fees paid (cutting subsidies and incentives) by Permanent Residents and Foreigners, instead of lowering fees for Singaporeans! Well, this is actually a “good policy”, one stone kill two birds! It will save money for the PAP government and at the same time make Singaporeans “feel good” that the PRs and foreigners are paying more than them!

My question is this, if it is really Singaporeans First, then it must be a policy that BENEFITS Singaporeans in terms of lower ABSOLUTE payment but no, to the PAP government, it is only about saving money for the government coffers! If it is really Singaporeans First policy, all the savings from such cut of subsidies and incentives to PRs and foreigners should be transferred as benefits to Singaporeans!

Thus, in my view, these cuts in subsidies and incentives to PRs and foreigners, are PAP Government First policy, not Singaporeans First policies as the only beneficiary of these policies is the PAP government, not Singaporeans.

The Online Citizen – Moderation vs Freedom

By Goh Meng Seng

A new initiative is being taken up by some political concerned citizens in Singapore to start a new website accompanied by a forum. This website, The Online Citizen, has been planned with the idea of putting up an alternative credible information/ discussion website for Singaporeans who are politically concerned and aware. The discussion forum is moderated to weed out those flamers (like those you see in my blog’s comment section on every posting) and irresponsible posters. However, I was told that rational, sensible and critical comments will still be allowed. There is a fine thin but distinctive line between flaming and critical comments.

Yes, most of us do not like to be moderated but when you read those comments by my detractors in my blog, you will have a good idea why it is a necessity to exercise moderation in order to prevent these agents from trying to discredit these internet forums or websites by putting up flames and graffiti. This seems to be the new strategy of “managing” the internet nowadays!

Personally, I don’t really mind these agents from such malicious act as I want the whole world to know that’s how politics are being carried out in Singapore. Besides, they could only put up such nonsensical comments in the comment section which did not do much harm to my blog. Besides, we must learn the most important thing about freedom of speech or anything…. it will always come with a little “price” that there will be a minority who will try to put dirt on such freedom.

But for a forum like The Online Citizen, these agents/ detractors/ “internet sub-managers” could just hijack the whole forum and try very hard to discredit the forum altogether. Their aim is, of course, to deprive Singaporean netters a good place to have healthy discussions and discourses.

All the best to The Online Citizen and I hope there will more of such initiatives to come from citizens of Singapore. We could only wear these “internet managers” down by having more and more independent discussion forums.

Shooting Stars?

By Goh Meng Seng

I was talking to someone and he mentioned that I am just like a “shooting star”. I gave him a big smile and say that he will be very disappointed if he is going to spend time watching the sky for this little shooting star!

On second thought, I think his view is very common among many Singaporeans who are more aware of Singapore’s politics. There are quite a number of “shooting stars” in opposition politics. Even PAP has quite a number of “shooting stars”, especially those “one term MP”. However, there are some misconceptions here. Some veteran politicians might have chosen to work on the background after their first appearance as a candidate for a particular political party. In fact I have known quite a number of past WP candidates who are still with WP after they retire from frontline politics. Some of the them are still active in one way or another.

Personally, I have unfinished business in the political process. I may or may not participate in the next GE as a candidate but rest assure that I would definitely be working on the background to support and help out anyone who needed help in the political process.

Many options are opened now for me and I am keeping them open for the moment. I was contemplating of writting a book on Election Campaigning in Singapore so that I could share whatever experience I have garnered in GE 2006 with other potential contenders in future or even present alternative parties’ members. Election Campaigning needs to be planned quite a few years in advance, right from the strategic considerations to how to conduct systematic political activism on the ground, designing the stage, preparing the venue for press conferences/rallies, conducting various seminars and training for potential candidates, logistics and manpower planning, roles of election and counting agents etc etc. It would be a good book for anyone who wants to contest in an election, especially those who plans to stand as an independent candidate.

The only problem is that I do not have the necessary skills and experience in writing a book! Besides, such technical book on political participation may not sell well in Singapore!

The next best thing I could do is to help other political parties in their preparation for the next GE.

Whatever my plans will be for the coming years, I am very sure that I will still be politically active in one way or another. Who knows, I may start my very own NGO/ think tank or political party one day!

Days of Being Wild

By Goh Meng Seng

Finally the first book on General Elections in Singapore is out! This is a coffee table book which includes photographs taken during the May GE in 2006. It is written from a layman’s points of view about how opposition parties, particularly Workers’ Party, fight their electoral battles. Many interviews and quotations were taken from supporters, WP volunteers as well as WP candidates on how they feel about GE 2006.

The author, Dana Lam, is a fantastic writer. Once I got hold of this book, I could not put it down as the writer has managed to write in a way that will make you want to finish it in one go. There are as much information about Singapore elections in the past as well as how WP conducted its GE 2006.

The only disappointment, to me personally, is that it has too few photographs printed in it. I have submitted significant number of photographs to the publisher but I think it is due to huge cost of printing full colour photos that limited the inclusion of these photographs in the final print.

The major problem now is that you could not really get the book from any major bookstores at this moment. I don’t really know the reason but I think for “politically sensitive” book like this one (well, LKY memoirs do not have such problems!), it may or may not appear on the shelves of the major bookstores in Singapore at the end of the day!

I hope WP will start selling this great book at their weekly open house (every Monday except public holidays) or by any other means if the major bookstores refuse to put this book on their shelves.

This book will add an important chapter in our historical records where history is told from the layman’s perspective. It would be a great shame to Singapore if this book is “technically banned” in Singapore due to reservations from bookstores in Singapore. This is definitely not a good sign of “Open Singapore”.

Shin Corp a “Good Buy”?

By Goh Meng Seng

Quite a number of articles have been written on the Shin Corp deal and on the amount of money that Temasek Holdings has lost “on paper”. Singapore Elections and Yawning Bread have written on the deal as early as March 2006.

However, one fundamental question still remains: was Shin Corp really a “good buy” in the very first place? Readers may want to understand Shin Corp better by visiting its website on the subsidiaries that it holds.

According to the press release issued by Temasek Holdings on 23 Jan 2006, Temasek Holdings has paid THB 49.25 for each share of Shin Corp. If we take a look at the historical data of Shin Corp’s price, right from 11 Jan 2002 till now, this price tag of THB 49.25 is the highest price ever paid for one Shin Corp’s share.

Purely from the commercial point of view, Shin Corp is a good company to buy in to, though the price is just too steep.

Shin Corp is a profitable company which owns strategic assets that matters to a Nation. It is similar to Singtel which holds strategic communication assets. As it weilds control on strategic assets and thus, monopoly power over the Thai market, the potential revenue and profit for this company would have been great.

However, isn’t this deal “too good to be true”?

In Singapore’s context, when we first “privatised” Singtel, Singapore Government only offered 25% of Singtel shares to the public. There are certain restrictions on foreign ownership on Singtel shares as well. Thus, it is intriguing to me why would Temasek Holdings consider that it is “politically safe” to buy out Shin Corp?

Well, of course there is a certain assurance in the deal when the seller was related to the country’s Prime Minister himself. However, with the development in Thai politics at that moment, it would make anyone “nervous” about getting involved with Thaksin family.

Thaksin was heavily bombarded by his opponents prior to the April elections on corruptions charges and abuse of power to benefit his family related businesses. But this is not the most important root of trouble for Thaksin.

In Thailand’s history, the Thai King is a well respected political figure, though constituitionally, he holds no “parliamentary power”. But it is not difficult to understand from the past political history of Thailand, military coups are common and most of them needed the blessings of the Thai King before it could be considered as “successful”.

The trouble of Thaksin is not about his political opponents’ attacks on him but rather his rough edges with the Thai King. As early as at the end of 2001, there was visible unhappiness of the Thai King of the way Thaksin handled the Thai economics and politics. Subsequently, the Thai King has specifically lectured Thaksin over his intolerance of criticisms from his political opponents as well as the free press in Thailand.

These are the significant signs of the instability of Thaksin adminsteration. When the Prime Minister of Thailand no longer has the endorsement from the Thai King, it will be a matter of time he would be forced to resign. Thaksin is not the first one to face such fate and he will not be the last one also. This is the unique political culture of Thailand which Temasek Holdings may lack the understanding.

Thus, for any politically savvy investors, when Thaksin family put Shin Corp up for sale, it was an obvious move of “cashing out”. It is just a deal “too good to be true”.

What is disturbing to me is that if one realises that Thaksin family was cashing out, in a hurry, why would one agree to pay the highest price ever for Shin Corp’s share? Especially so when the total amount of the deal is so enormous that it would not be easy for Thaksin family to find any buyer with so much cash in such a short notice. Thus, from the commercial perspective, this should be the buyers’ market and obviously, it makes no sense for the buyer to pay too high a price for such a deal which involves great political risks.

No doubt that if Thaksin managed to overcome his political barriers, Shin Corp may prove to be a very good buy. His adminstration would not question the legitimacy of Temasek Holding’s total control of Shin Corp. Shin Corp would continue to enjoy concessions from the Thaksin adminstration…. etc. But in view of his political standing at that point in time, developed right from 2002 to end of 2005, one would realise that his adminstration was standing on thin ice.

In short, this is a “risky buy” instead of a “good buy”. If Temasek Holdings has done its homework, it would come to the same conclusion as well. Not that it is going to be really a “bad buy” (well, basically nobody has 100% hindsight) from the commercial perspective, but for a government investment arm, is it wise to take such high risks at all?

Singapore PAP government has always put emphasis on “political stability” so to attract foreign investment. It is so obsesses with the term “political stability” so much so that it would always “warn” voters that if voters voted in more opposition memebrs into parliament, it will send “the wrong signals” to foreign investors and they would not invest in us. But it makes us wonder why its investment arms like Temasek Holdings would do exactly the opposite of what it preaches, investing in a country that is a potential political hotspot like Thailand? Well, for private companies, they are accountable for their risky choices but in government investment arms, who will be accountable for such risky decisions?