Biggest Cover-up in Singapore ? ?

By Bernard

Jurong Island Theft: 100kg of Jet fuel additive STOLEN ! I was shocked to see this piece of news in The New Paper (29th December 2006). It is reported that thieves had made off with 100kg of Stadis 450, a jet fuel additive. Stadis 450 is classified as a flammable liquid and hazardous material. The New paper understands that the jet fuel additive was left in six sealed pails which later went missing. I was even more surprised to read that the jet fuel additive has been missing ever since 4th December 2006. The police was subsquently informed of the theft two days later, on the 6th. According to the Phillipine Daily Inquirer, the incident was serious enough for Singapore authorities to alert a bomb data centre in the Philippines. Mr Joe Moreira, a security and explosive consultant, doubts that the fuel additive will be a threat. He said, “Jet fuel furns quickly in the air and you can’t sustain it for long. You need diesel to sustain the fire. So, you’ll be wasting jet fuel on a bomb.” “Being flammable, the additive can be used as fuel oil together with an improvised explosive device for incendiary effect,” the Singapore police said. According to the Philippine Inquirer, “The Singapore police have alerted their counterparts in the Philippines about the disappearance of six pails of jet fuel weighing about 100 kilograms from an oil storage facility in the city-state, which they said could be used as a component for explosives, an alert bulletin obtained by the Inquirer said. The bulletin came as Metro Manila police were recently placed on full alert in the run-up to the sixth anniversary of the Rizal Day bombings. “ Is it arrogance on the part of the Singapore police that they believed that the stolen Stadis 450 would not be made into bombs which would be used in Singapore? Maybe that’s the reason why the public wasn’t informed as soon as the threat was established. No threat I suppose. Just another case of robbery? Hopefully. I am puzzled, worried and angered at the same time. 1. Why wasn’t Singaporeans informed of the theft until exactly more than three weeks later? On top of that, why wasn’t there any statements made by the Co-ordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Law, Prof. S. Jayakumar at the point of the theft? Did he deemed it insignificant to warrant notice by Singaporeans? 2. How did the entire theft happen inspite of the tight security on Jurong Island? How can someone go in past all the access controls, and come out with stolen goods?(Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, security on Jurong Island has been stepped up and it has also been gazetted a Protected Area. Armed soldiers and police officers are involved in its security. In November 2003, the chemical hub opened a new securtiy checkpoint featuring X-ray scanners to detect explosives and weapons, as well as three-tier vehicle barriers to bar intrusions. On top of all that, visitors must exchange their identity cards for a pass and all incoming vehicles are searched before being allowed entry). 3. If it is proven that there is a laspe in security on Jurong island, who is going to be held acountable? The Commander in charge of security on Jurong Island or even Wong Kan Seng & Prof. S, Jayakumar? 4. More signficantly, if the100kg of jet fuel is made into a bomb with diesel and is made to be detonated during the year-end countdown parties at Marina Bay, Vivo City, Siloso Beach, Expo, National Museum, who is going to take responsibility for the enormous death toll and subsquently, economic and social damages. PM Lee possibly? I’m not trying to make a fuss out of nothing. I’m just concerned about the authorities’ attempt to hide information from the people. The authorities should alert the people once any breach of security or terror threat is discovered. At least, Singaporeans would not take their peace for granted. Despite all these, why is there still a media blackout on this theft, insignificant it may seem. So does this mean that in future, the authorities would only inform the people once a bomb has went off, or people are killed? I guess it’s a national security issue, thus it should remain secret. Is that the logic of the authorities? I need answers from the top authorities now and when the investigations are done. This is my country, my home. I do not want anything to happen to it and I placed my confidence in the security apparatus to ensure that such incidents do not happen again. I would like to see a transparent and open attitude towards such breach of security issues. For now, I need an open and transparent answers to my questions. Singaporeans deserve to know what happened. Be accountable to all Singaporeans. At least inform me of how jet fuel look like so I can help the police spot it. Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

Strangers ‘expect me to have views on everything’

From the Straits Times

29 Dec 2006

WORKERS’ Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim found herself being stopped in the street by strangers more often this year.

They chat to her about issues like estate upgrading and about parliamentary debates, and ‘expect me to have views on everything’, she says.

She came into prominence during the general election, where she led her party’s ‘A’ team against the People’s Action Party incumbents in contesting Aljunied GRC.

More Transparency! Great!

by Perry Tong

TODAY, page 7, 28th December 2006 ….. Somebody gotta teach me how to put pictures into my blog.

Anyhow, there was a ‘full’ page ad taken out in today’s TODAY. Where Singapore Power announced a surprising drop in electricity surcharges. Great news to kick of the new year if any!!

What was more amazing was that the full page ad listed the historical (back to 2001) prices and how there were pegged relatived to raw fuel prices.

The level of transparency is great. Applause!! Credit given where it is due.

WP Youth Wing Press Statement

22 Dec 2006

Half Frozen Half Helpful

The article “Govt to freeze fees for one year after GST hike” (ST 1 December 2006) gave much hope for the people that costs will remain affordable. The first paragraph of the article wrote:

“ALL government fees will stay frozen and not be raised for one year when the goods and services tax (GST) goes up from 5 to 7 percent”

These hopes were changed when the article “Government spells out fees to be frozen” (ST 13 December 2006) produced non-exhaustive lists of inclusions and exclusions to the fee freeze.

The Workers’ Party Youth Wing would like to express its disappointment with the government having failed to take into account the need to freeze fees for basic amenities such as transport, utilities fees and polytechnic and university fees.

Shape WP 50th Anniversary Magazine Publication!

By Yaw Shin Leong

Make Your Mark in History

Shape the Milestone Publication of The Workers’ Party

As it Progresses Towards its 50th Anniversary

Play Your Part to Create an Empowered Society

Where Singaporeans Enjoy Freedom, Choices and Equality

Click here for more details.

Singapore flames ‘uncaring elite’ – really ar? But 66% says otherwise methinks ….

By Perry Tong

{me in blue}

SINGAPORE (Reuters) — When Wee Shu Min, the teenage daughter of a Singapore member of parliament stumbled across the blog of a Singaporean who wrote that he was worried about losing his job, she thought she’d give him a piece of her mind.

She called him “one of many wretched, undermotivated, overassuming leeches in our country” on her own blog and signed off with “please, get out of my elite uncaring face”.

Wee was flamed by hundreds of fellow bloggers, but when her father Wee Siew Kim — an MP in Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s constituency — told a Singapore newspaper that “her basic point is reasonable”, the row moved well beyond the blogosphere.

The episode highlighted a deep rift in Singapore society and was an embarrassment for the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and prime minister Lee, who has made the reduction of the income gap one of the priorities of his new government.

“Coming from an MP in the prime minister’s constituency, these comments really were political dynamite,” political commentator Seah Chiang Nee told Reuters. “If the political arrogance and elitism get any worse, the PAP will lose more electoral ground,” he added.

Remnants of retrenchments

By Melvin Tan

Author: Wilson Ng
Contributors: Melvin Tan and Perry Tong
August 2006

On 16 August 2006, NTUC chief Lim Boon Heng, referring to the recent retrenchment exercise at Maxtor, said that the company “had announced their retrenchment plans more than a year ago and was now carrying out what it said would be done” (CNA, 16 August 2006).

Despite the fact that retrenchments have scaled down since the pre-2000 years, there are still a number of them in Singapore.

To these retrenched, the increased transport fares and other “typical” price hikes, which have become a “post-GE tradition”, will affect them.

Hopefully, they will have sufficient monies from their Progress Package and retrenchment packages to tide them over the increases in public transportation prices, especially with Singapore’s poor record in strong labour laws.

Possibly, who knows, increases in GST, utilities and home loans will follow soon.

Workers in Maxtor who drew a fairly good salary for their many years of loyalty may not get the same when they land in another job and given Singapore’s high cost of living, any pay reduction will be significant.

Also, not all staff will get a decent retrenchment package.

While there is no denial that job re-designing and re-training is one way to go for the future, the PAP Government should realise that this usually means a lower starting salary as re-trained workers do not have the years of experience required by employers.

Moreover, job re-design places costs on the employer which could be passed on to consumers in terms of higher prices of goods and services or workers in terms of lower wages.

These are issues to look deeper into and ponder over.

Admittedly, through NTUC’s effort, more firms are hiring older workers today.

However, taking care of workers of Singapore needs to factor in not merely job availability and salaries but also the increasing cost of living relative to the wage earning abilities of workers.

The timing of Maxtor’s retrenchment exercise following the recent announcements of transport fare increases by operators is certainly not too disgestible news.

Wilson Ng, the originator of the article, is a Workers’ Party member who joined after the General Elections 2006.

WP’s “flounder” and the media’s clangor

By Melvin Tan

Before I begin, I wish to pay a warm tribute to two of my former Workers’ Party colleagues, Goh Meng Seng and Chia Ti Lik, who recently submitted their resignations as members of the Party.

Through the Party, I became acquainted with them and over the years, we became close friends.

I reminisce the days where Meng Seng and I, along with other Party members, would spend long hours engaged in political discussions over cups of coffee and tea.

As one of the five candidates in the Party’s Aljunied GRC team in the 2006 General Elections, Meng Seng’s Mandarin-speaking skill was an asset and added robustness to the colourful highlights of election rallies where he made speeches.

Ti Lik and his wife are close friends of my wife and me and we would spend time chatting, in this instance more diverse subjects beyond politics, during dinners and gatherings whenever the opportunity arose.

Being the anchorman of the Party’s East Coast GRC team in the last GE, he played a pivotal role in rolling the team with a competitive edge towards a tough electoral battle.

I wish them both all the best in their future endeavours and they will be missed.

Herein ends my tribute.

In my view, although losing any member at any level is a loss per se, two resignations out of an Executive Council of 15 members is far from setting the party backward beneath recoil.

After the 2006 GE, the Party saw an influx of new members of which future potential leaders have been identified and the process continues to date.

I have faith that given some time, this will not only be more than ample to replenish the vacated spots but also new responsibilities yet to be fulfilled.

According to Meng Seng, he shares the same view; he believes he is not indispensable and the Party will continue to grow with or without him.

Far from being indignant at their resignations, I was indignant of the article in The Sunday Times (ST) dated 12 November 2006 that narrated the accounts as if there was some imminent split within Workers’ Party.

The illustration with a hammer chipping away the Party’s ring of unity was also done in bad taste, as though the “hammer” was cracking up the “unity”.

Nonetheless, I have never relented to any local media journalist and this incident reinforces my viewpoint that they are probably subjected to editorial constraints, even one who has established a “record” for being on the receiving end of an admonishment by a greying former Prime Minister for asking tough questions.

On another matter, the same news piece reported that another Party colleague, Abdul Salim Harun bought “cheng tng” for the protestors at Hong Lim Park two months ago, during the IMF meeting in Singapore.

This sound bite was picked up by Mr Seah Chiang Nee in an article in his website at Littlespeck.com.

This was acutely and grossly erroneous information that the ST should have verified before publication.

In reality, the “cheng tng” was bought by me and another Party member who helped me as my election agent in the last GE.

We bought a total number of ten bowls – five hot, five cold from the upper storey of Hong Lim hawker center and they cost $1 each, plus a pandan cake from a nearby cake shop.

Ask Salim and he will probably be clueless about the above details.

A donation of food or drinks is not by any means a declaration of support for any protest, especially not an illegal one.

Years ago when I was with Think Centre, a political non-government organisation (NGO), the management of both sides cooperated on several joint activities and I became friends with them.

I believe most people who see their friends sweltering under the hot sun and dousing under the rain would present a token gesture.

In addition, I learnt that the person who was assigned to buy dinner for them did not arrive by 8.30 pm.

To use an analogy, if a friend makes up his mind to skip an important school examination to play in a soccer tournament, one may not agree with his decision but if he buys a drink for his friend after the match to quench his thirst, it does not change the fact that he did not agree with his friend’s decision.

Salim has since written a letter to ST to clarify the matter; whether they will publish it or otherwise remains to be seen.

Finally, it is also far from the truth that Salim “received an icy reception from the WP leaders”.

If the Party leaders were indeed petty and autocratic as portrayed, I would have received an “icier” response over the matter.

I have explained fully the reasons to the key personnel of the Party’s Executive Council after the incident and they gave me their understanding.

I believe to them, it was not an issue worth raising further and it would make no sense to begrudge their own member doing a kind deed for some friends.

In my view, Workers’ Party is a progressive party and will continue to be under the present leadership.

Ensure GST increase of 2% truly benefits the people

By Melvin Tan

The impending increase in Goods & Services Tax (GST) by 2%, announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in Parliament on 13 November 2006, is not without my expectation.

During the General Elections in April – May 2006 at an election rally speech in Ang Mo Kio GRC, I expressed that “I will not be surprised that by the next elections, GST would have gone up”.

By the next GE, with four to five years from now, GST would stand at 7%, up from the present 5%.

This time round, the PAP government marketed the justifications for the increase in a more appealing fashion and in my view, more digestible compared to the last round when GST was raised from 3% to 5% in 2003 – 2004.

PM Lee said, “… the hike was necessary to finance the enhanced social safety nets needed to help the lower income group…” and he added “… the offset package would more than counter the rise in GST…”.

While no one knows yet as to what this offset package will encompass, expected to be introduced at next year’s Budget, this statement could have caught the attention and interest of those struggling in the midst of Singapore’s high living standards, hoping for some relief.

I believe the PAP government should allow the benefits of the increase to filter down to those in need in a concrete rather than in an abstract way, as a display of dedication to aid the lower-income.

My idea is to set aside the 2% from the 7% GST into a fund and disbursed to Members of Parliament, factoring proportionately the number of constituents below a certain income bracket, who will channel these funds appropriately based on the needs of residents who see them at Meet-the-People’s sessions.

This will ensure the PAP government is committed to earmarking the added surplus towards truly helping the people.

Without an institutionalised avenue in place, there is no guarantee that the PAP government will not redirect this investment elsewhere at a later time as it deems fit, giving an explanation along the lines that times have changed.

In addition, if the offset package turns out to be nothing more than a one-time NSS, ERS or Progress Package-style measure that probably lasts a needy family no more than six months, the purpose would be defeated.

After all, I believe the GST rate will be a permanent fixture and any form of assistance to those in need should not be one-off.

A couple of other noteworthy points also came to my mind.

Firstly, whether the GST increase will be implemented in two phases over two years, similar to what was done the last round after some murmurs of disenchantment, remains uncertain.

Expectedly, the same disenchantment has surfaced again, except this time, an imminent GE is a further distance away.

Secondly, when the PAP government first introduced GST at 3%, a comparison was made between the GST rate of Singapore and that of other countries; back then, it was indeed relatively lower.

However, since the rounds of GST hikes over the last three years, this comparison methodology has ceased to make an appearance.

Do away with elections or accept the outcome

By Melvin Tan

Letter to The Straits Times Forum [NOT PUBLISHED]

I refer to the comments by Minister Mentor Lee at a National Day dinner and former PAP Member of Parliament (MP) Mr Teo Chong Tee during an interview with Insight (ST, 19 August 2006).

MM Lee warned Singaporeans against the consequences of voting for opposition party candidates and said “opposition wards would not be treated in the same way as PAP constituencies”.

To me, it has always been a uneasy experience to hear that PAP constituencies will have priority over certain national services despite the fact that all MPs, including those from Workers’ Party and SDA, were elected at a national level.

By using national funds to increase their electoral chances, the PAP has turned elections into a choice between a “correct” and “wrong” answer rather than a choice between different parties and their programmes.

In this case, I feel there is no point holding any general elections since most people will naturally “choose” the “correct” answer.

The electorate votes a political party into power with the expectation that it rises above partisan politics to a national level and takes care of everyone after the elections are over.

Furthermore, there are PAP voters in non-PAP constituencies and vice versa.

Should the PAP abandon its supporters who gave them hope in Hougang and Potong Pasir and upgrade the flats of opposition voters in PAP constituencies instead?

Otherwise, what is the surest way to be fair?

Mr Teo, who obtained 53% of the votes in Changi in the 1991 General Elections despite years of work, lamented that “people would cast their votes for someone who hasn’t done anything for them”.

With due respect, I feel that Mr Teo should not compare his results against his opponent’s but against his other party colleagues.

In the same election, many PAP candidates did better than him, with one – Dr Tan Cheng Bock, former Ayer Rajah MP – scoring 75.2% of the votes.

Dr Tan’s votes in Ayer Rajah had never dipped below 69% after having contesting six elections and Mr Teo should ask himself what the reason is.

Perhaps he did not work as hard and if not, he should have tried to “catch up” by working even harder.

Going by Mr Teo’s definition, Mr Low Thia Khiang, Workers’ Party chief and Hougang MP, who obtained “only” 62% of the votes despite his hard work, should be disappointed instead of being grateful to the voters.

At the end of the day, if a government sincerely wants to hold democratic elections to allow citizens to express their wisest choice, it should avoid pouring cold water on them.