The other burning flame

From Agence France Presse

A NEW political party in Singapore may have to resort to 'civil disobedience' in a bid to get its message across, a party official said yestersay.

Political veteran JB Jeyaretnam, secretary general of The Reform Party, said he does not expect Singapore's pro-government press to carry the party's views, meaning it will have to use other means.

"We are hoping to get to the people through the Internet, and also by our actions", he told the Foreign Correspondents' Association of Singapore.

"One of the things is trying to organise peaceful marches on issues", he said, agreeing that Singapore's strict laws against public assembly make such an approach difficult.

Scarred by racial riots in the 1960s, the city-state requires a police permit for a public gathering of five or more people, meaning that demonstrations are rarely seen.

Mr Jeyaretnam, 82, said that when he decides to hold a rally he will apply for a permit and, if it is denied, one option would be a court challenge.

"And if everything else fails then I suppose there might come a time when we have to talk about civil disobedience. But I don't know if we have to resort to that immediately".

He said it will be 'a bit difficult' to prepare people for such actions in a country where citizens 'feel they can't do anything'.

The opposition plays only a marginal role in Singapore, where the People's Action Party (PAP) has been in power since 1959 and has all but two elected seats in the 84-member parliament.

Mr Jeyaretnam, then with the Workers' Party, made political history in 1981 when he became the first opposition politician elected to parliament.

He was declared bankrupt in 2001 after failing to pay libel damages to members of the PAP, including a former prime minister. Last year Mr Jeyaretnam, a lawyer, cleared the bankruptcy, which had prevented him from running for political office.

His new party held an inaugural dinner earlier this month. (AFP)

Move politics beyond a spectator sport

Aug 1, 2008
FRIDAY MATTERS Move politics beyond a spectator sport
By Chua Mui Hoong, Senior Writer
IS POLITICS a spectator sport or a participatory sport? The People's Action Party Government has traditionally preferred a circumscribed definition of politics, claiming for itself and other political parties the sole right to enter the political arena. This, in essence, leaves citizens in the role of spectators with voting rights. This issue was much debated in the 1990s. Then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong said in 1999: 'Meaningful political participation must mean joining or supporting a political party, advancing its course and work, attending to constituents and, if invited, taking part in elections, winning and serving as an MP.' That same year, Minister George Yeo weighed in on the issue. He said civil society groups should stay out of politics, citing Singapore's past when radical elements used 'seemingly innocuous activities to achieve political ends'. 'Invisible dalangs pull strings and make things happen on the wayang stage. 'What we have done over many years now is to make it clear that if you wish to involve yourself in political activism, declare it, come forward and appear on the stage, for everyone to see, such as in a political party.' In recent years, some pronouncements on the subject may have led Singaporeans to think the PAP Government has softened its stance. The Harvard Club speech by then-deputy prime minister Lee Hsien Loong in January 2004, seven months before he became Prime Minister, is read as a statement of his political intent and aspiration. In it, he spelt out the rules of engagement between the people and the Government on matters of public interest. From the Government, he promised that it would clarify, give out information in a timely manner, allow time for proper debate, promote diversity of views and close the loop with the public to account for decisions taken. On encouraging diverse views, he said: 'To gather the widest range of views, the public consultation exercise needs to be inclusive. In particular, it should include those most likely to be affected or who have the most to contribute.' So, just how much has changed, from the 1980s and 1990s, compared to today? The issue of whether interest groups have a role in politics is brewing again, this time over a 1986 legislation that curtails the Law Society's ability to submit proposals on law reform to the Government on its own initiative. The rules were introduced after the society questioned laws curbing foreign publications that commented negatively on Singapore's domestic politics. The Law Ministry said two weeks ago that considerations for amending the legislation in 1986 'remain valid', and that it did not want the Law Society to behave 'like a political pressure group'. That drew a line in the sand: It is fine for lawyers, or other professionals, to speak up on political issues as individuals. But they cannot do so using the auspices of the professional association's name. Suspicion of organised groups remains hard-wired in the PAP DNA, left over from the bruising political tumult of the 1950s and 1960s when 'united front' tactics became a Trojan horse for communist radicals to manipulate their way into mainstream parties. There are two ways to respond to this fact. One is to accept the limits. Pragmatic Singaporeans know that in politics, change takes place at a trishaw's pace compared to the Ferrari speed of economic transformation. Activists learn to dig in and play by the rules - and bide their time. This may be a good modus operandi for today, but nothing much will change in Singapore politics in the long run, unless there is a vigorous probing of current mindsets among those in power. One of those mindsets which needs probing is the underlying value system which says only political parties have a legitimate role in political participation. That mindset springs from a belief that the Government is the ultimate referee of political debate and participation and has final say on what is legitimate for discussion, and which players can enter the arena. This is in line with the worldview of the PAP of itself as the dominant party in Singapore, and consistent with the stated claim of this Government to both political and moral leadership. In this worldview, other groups and individuals enter the political arena on the sufferance of the PAP Government, like in a patron-client relationship. Hence, citizens are 'consulted' by the Government for their views, and the Law Society and other professional bodies may be 'invited' to give their views. To be fair, the Government has been active in promoting non-partisan channels for political participation. Interest groups engage the state on issues from nature and heritage conservation to sports management and medical practices. But in the Law Society's case, barring it from comment on legislative change unless invited may be seen as running counter to Mr Lee's statement of intent in 2004, that views should be sought from 'those most likely to be affected or who have the most to contribute'. Lawyers are in a good position to add value to debates on legislative change, especially if they touch on constitutional or civil liberty issues. By arrogating to itself the right to determine which group gets to participate in political debate, the Government sees itself as the referee in the political arena. The mental model remains that of control, via a vertical regulatory relationship: The state controls access to political participation and allows only prescribed parties to enter the arena. But there is another way of seeing things. The state could be a horizontal regulator, facilitating competition among different parties, and encouraging robust debate among different groups. Instead of being a referee determining who can take part in a sport while others remain spectators, the Government would then become the person maintaining the conditions of the field necessary for a good game involving many participants to get under way. muihoong@sph.com.sg

Medical veteran backs relook of abortion law

July 28, 2008
Medical veteran backs relook of abortion law
I WRITE to support Thursday's view, 'Time for Singapore to relook abortion law'.

An important medical reason is that allowing abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy without restriction puts the mother's physical and mental health at risk.

Readers may be interested to know that the Singapore Medical Association (SMA) actively debated the Abortion Act in 1969 and held several discussions with then health minister Chua Sian Chin. I was closely involved as president of the SMA.

Many doctors felt it inappropriate for the medical profession to support the change because we were taught it was criminal to perform abortion. A doctor could be jailed for 20 years for performing an abortion and, if the patient died as a result, it was considered murder.

When Mr Chua said he was disappointed as he had expected the SMA to produce a learned paper rather than come up with contradictory statements, my response was:

'Is it not good that the doctors did not change their views on an important issue overnight without debate?'

Singapore is undergoing extensive changes and these are influenced by professionals - their ideas, their thoughts. All the more reason professional bodies should be encouraged to voice their opinions on national issues.

I was therefore concerned to read that the Law Society is not encouraged to present its views on legal matters unless invited by the Ministry of Law.

Is it not important in a rapidly changing world that the views of professionals should be encouraged and welcomed? Their views are only opinions. The Government has other views and is free to ignore and reject these views.

No government will take a professional organisation seriously if it is interested only in the welfare of its members and disregards the interests of the nation.

Let us create effective medical organisations via which doctors can sway the Government's thoughts with logical and determined arguments.

Prof Arthur Lim
President, Medical Alumni Association
Past President, Singapore Medical Association

Banning abortion won't mean more babies

DECLINING BIRTH RATE Banning abortion won't mean more babies

By Lynn Lee, Correspondent

ANTI-ABORTIONISTS will have us believe that by embracing their cause, we can ensure the stork will come. Want to boost baby numbers? Limit access to abortion, ban it even, and Singapore's depressing birth rates would be history. Assistant Professor Tan Seow Hon is among proponents of this view. In these pages last week, the law professor suggested that since Singapore wants more babies, it would be timely for Parliament to review the law on abortion, with a view to banning it. Abortion has been legal here since 1970. The law was further liberalised four years later and has stayed roughly the same since. A woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy of up to 24 weeks without restriction. It is simplistic to believe that removing this right will have a positive and lasting effect on Singapore's baby numbers. Firstly, abortion is a tool to terminate pregnancies; it does not cause people not to have children. Prof Tan confuses an effect of abortion (fewer babies) with the cause of falling birth rates (couples not wanting babies). Banning abortion will not lead couples to want more children. The reasons couples give for rejecting reproduction or opting for minimal baby-making have been repeated ad nauseum. They range from not wanting to raise children in an overly-competitive society to a lack of financial resources to bring up more than one or two children. The Government is correctly trying to address these concerns through a slew of schemes. How successful they will be remains to be seen. Secondly, banning abortion may cause a temporary spike in births, but at a terrible cost. If abortions were banned, with women having no other choice but to deliver children they don't want, Singapore would boast an average of 12,000 more infants each year, according to abortion statistics from the last five years. This is not a small number, certainly. It would mean over 50,000 babies born here each year, bumping up the total fertility rate (TFR) from the current abysmal 1.29 to roughly 1.7, a somewhat less abysmal figure. For a population to reproduce itself, the TFR needs to be at least 2.1 But what price are we prepared to pay to temporarily increase the TFR? How many teen parents would we be prepared to accommodate - for an average of 1,300 abortions were performed on women below the age of 20 in 2005 and 2006? How many babies suffering from birth defects should society be prepared to look after? Prof Tan asserts that the reasons the Government gave for instituting the Termination of Pregnancy Act some 40 years ago are no longer valid. She is right on one count: Population control for economic advancement is no longer necessary. Singapore now needs to expand, not decrease, its population to ensure economic growth. But it would be heartless to see babies as just potential cogs in the proverbial wheel. Every child deserves a chance at the best possible quality of life - one they are more likely to have if they are wanted by their parents and they are healthy. Allowing women the option of abortion helps ensure that as many babies as possible are wanted and healthy. Prof Tan suggests counselling women to welcome unwanted pregnancies, and programmes to help women deliver unwanted babies to be given up for adoption to couples unable to conceive. These are sound suggestions. They can be instituted by the state or anti-abortion civic groups - without having to remove the option of abortion. What is unsound is Prof Tan's labelling of abortion as a criminal activity. Clearly, it is not; the law allows for it; it is legal. So why such emotional language? The choice of words suggests an argument impelled more by religious conviction than by concern for Singapore's fertility rate. Many look at abortion through religion-tinted lenses. They see it as 'criminal' because they consider it murder; and they think it is murder because they believe life begins at conception. They have every right to hold such views. But we should be clear about the source of their views. As the American philosopher Robert Audi points out in his book, Religious Commitment And Secular Reason: 'the reason for (the) belief that personhood begins at conception may be less what the arguments for this show than a confidence in authority, say papal or clerical authority, or a sense of intuition on the matter, perhaps a sense of intuition taken to be religiously inspired'. It is to be expected in a multi-religious society like Singapore that religious (or even non-religious) convictions of all kinds will undergird views on social policy. And we should welcome and encourage citizens to explain their stands, regardless of whether religion (or the lack of it) has shaped their views. But the rules should be different when it comes to advocating for or against a particular public policy, a point Professor Audi also makes in his book. Citizens, he says, must feel obligated and be willing to offer adequate secular reasons, especially when they support laws or public policy that restrict the liberty of others. Prof Tan herself made this point in a commentary last year on how both religious and non-religious arguments have a place in society. She cited as 'attractive' American philosopher John Rawls' idea of public reason: that citizens should offer reasons in public debate that they think are reasonable for others as free and equal citizens to accept, even if the positions they are advocating are undergirded by religious convictions. This must mean that anyone who advocates laws that restrict the rights of others must be transparent about his or her motivations: Do the secular reasons he advances stand on their own or are they a camouflage for religious convictions? In Singapore's case, no adequate secular reason has been advanced in the recent calls to ban abortion. The reasons Parliament advanced some 40 years ago for the Termination of Pregnancy Act remain reasonable. We would pay a dreadful price if we were to allow unreason to unravel this law. lynnlee@sph.com.sg

Young doctor's account of abortion in the heartland

Aug 1, 2008
Young doctor's account of abortion in the heartland
I READ with interest Ms Tan Seow Hon's article, 'Time to relook abortion law' (July 24), Professor Arthur Lim's response on Monday ('Medical veteran backs relook of abortion law') and the recent proposals on government measures to increase the birth rate in Singapore.

I write from the perspective of a doctor who started the first half of her medical career in a polyclinic in the HDB heartland. As a young doctor, I was surprised to find at least three or more young women walking through my door every week seeking a subsidised referral to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.

What was even more surprising was the cavalier attitude exhibited by many of these young women. Most already knew what they wanted. For 'first-timers', friends have perhaps told them the cheapest and easiest way to 'get rid of it'. Hence many displayed barely concealed impatience and irritation at the doctor's attempt to counsel them.

Those who had already gone through several abortions did not see why they even had to listen; after all, the polyclinic doctor was just the 'letter-writer'. Many did not see the reason for contraceptives. Those in their teens had no doubt gone through some rudimentary form of sex education in school. Yet, many told me they never thought they would become part of the unwed mother statistic.

And then we have married women seeking an abortion. Many of these women have the resources and maturity to bring up a child. During the economic slowdown post-Sars, financial constraint was given as the main reason for aborting an unwanted pregnancy. Yet many others gave flippant reasons such as an older child having PSLE, an impending overseas trip or a new job to justify terminating a pregnancy that could have been easily prevented.

Speaking to my older patients who have had unplanned pregnancies but chose not to abort (even if financial strain was the result) further accentuates the differences in attitude our generation has towards unborn children. The older generation tend to view pregnancies, even unplanned ones, as an unexpected blessing. Such respect for the sanctity of life seems sorely lacking in youngsters I have encountered. Many have been conditioned by their peers to view an unplanned pregnancy as somewhat of a nuisance, an impediment to their enjoyment in life.

What further saddens me is the fact that at the primary care level, resources were not deployed to counsel such would-have-been-mothers. The few of us who try to take the time to at least help them see the enormity of their decision and perhaps explore other viable alternatives risk the wrath of other waiting patients. The disincentive of our heavy patient loads has pressurised many colleagues to just refer them, even if they wanted to counsel them.

I venture that a sizeable number of Singaporean women and girls get pregnant each year. Sadly though, they are not the kind of would-be babies society desires or is prepared to help support. I also humbly suggest that a newfound respect for the sanctity of human life and foetuses should be nurtured in order to change the present cavalier attitude many young women face in the aftermath of a night of foolish passion. If we can reduce the abortion rate among women who are able but view unplanned pregnancies as nuisances and inconveniences to their hectic lives, we may begin to reverse the tide and edge towards replacing our population.

Dr Hoe Wan Sin

Banning abortion will create more problems

Aug 1, 2008
RE-EXAMINING ABORTION
Banning abortion will create more problems
I REFER to Ms Tan Seow Hon's comments in 'Time for Singapore to relook abortion law' (July 24).

Although it is true that some legislation should be examined periodically to assess its current relevance, Ms Tan's arguments as to why we should relook the abortion law is one sided. She acknowledged that backstreet abortions are dangerous but stated that this reason does not justify legalising abortion. I would like to point out that the danger of backstreet abortion is one of the central issues in legalising abortion.

Backstreet abortions are done using dangerous techniques or oral ingestion, and they often result in injuries or death to the woman. If medically supervised abortions are banned or made difficult to access, women who want or need an abortion and are unable to travel overseas to do it, will inadvertently turn to backstreet abortions. The result will be tragic.

While there is evidence to suggest that life begins at conception, and various major religions hold similar views, we cannot justify endangering the life of a woman by forcing her to seek backstreet abortions, just to protect the life of the foetus. Similarly, the life of the foetus needs to be protected.

Hence, I would argue that the decision to go for an abortion or not, should be left to the woman and the woman alone. This is because she is the one who has to bear the emotional and physical burden, and responsibility of either the pregnancy or abortion. It is not anyone else's place to decide for her, as long as she is mentally competent to make such a decision.

The rational approach to the dilemma of abortion is not to disallow women to make their own choice, but to educate the public on proper methods of birth control, and alternative avenues other than abortion in an unwanted pregnancy, for example, adoption. The approach to reducing abortion rates is in education and not legislation.

Finally, I would like to add that relooking the abortion law is not the method we should adopt to increase the birth rate. The idea is to make people want to have more children and enjoy having more children. Making abortion illegal or difficult to access certainly does not increase the desire or enjoyment of having more children.

Dr Phua Dong Haur

New political party may resort to 'civil disobedience', says its chief

July 31, 2008
New political party may resort to 'civil disobedience', says its chief
Mr Jeyaretnam (above), 82, said that when he decides to hold a rally he will apply for a permit and, if it is denied, one option would be a court challenge. -- ST PHOTO: ALPHONSO CHAN A NEW political party in Singapore may have to resort to 'civil disobedience' in a bid to get its message across, a party official said on Thursday. Political veteran J.B. Jeyaretnam, secretary general of The Reform Party, said he does not expect Singapore's pro-government press to carry the party's views, meaning it will have to use other means. 'We are hoping to get to the people through the Internet, and also by our actions', he told the Foreign Correspondents' Association of Singapore. 'One of the things is trying to organise peaceful marches on issues', he said, agreeing that Singapore's strict laws against public assembly make such an approach difficult. Scarred by racial riots in the 1960s, the city-state requires a police permit for a public gathering of five or more people, meaning that demonstrations are rarely seen. Mr Jeyaretnam, 82, said that when he decides to hold a rally he will apply for a permit and, if it is denied, one option would be a court challenge. 'And if everything else fails then I suppose there might come a time when we have to talk about civil disobedience. But I don't know if we have to resort to that immediately'. He said it will be 'a bit difficult' to prepare people for such actions in a country where citizens 'feel they can't do anything'. The opposition plays only a marginal role in Singapore, where the People's Action Party (PAP) has been in power since 1959 and has all but two elected seats in the 84-member parliament. Mr Jeyaretnam, then with the Workers' Party, made political history in 1981 when he became the first opposition politician elected to parliament. He was declared bankrupt in 2001 after failing to pay libel damages to members of the PAP, including a former prime minister. Last year Mr Jeyaretnam, a lawyer, cleared the bankruptcy which had prevented him from running for political office. His new party held an inaugural dinner earlier this month. -- AFP

cities sell themselves to the world, on whose sufferance?

http://chasingidledreams.blogspot.com/2008/07/cities-sell-themselves-to-world-on.html

A chance to host a internationally acclaimed event can reverse the attitudes of officials overnight.

While authorities had been in no hurry to curb pollution in the past despite feisty criticisms and concerns for their fellow countrymen's health, it is almost laughable to watch government officials' recent attempts, scrambling to curb pollutions surrounding the city.

Given in the recent hype surrounding Beijing's hosting of the Olympic games, it is easy to turn a blind eye to the flip side of the story.

While Beijing sells itself to the world, and elicits praises from the international community for a series of measures to iron out the Olympic preparations, one can be forgiven for failing to flip the side of the coin and ask: At whose expense?

Factories are forced to a closure, jobs of factory workers have been temporarily cut off- Will the government eventually compensates for the workers' loss of earnings?

New traffic rules are implemented, with millions of common people on the streets inconvenienced and left to their own devices- Did the officials listened to the concerns of the people and investigated the impact upon them before taking such drastic measures?

I'm not suggesting that world-acclaimed events shouldn't be showered with all the attention they deserve. But it is pathetic that in a attempt to do so, the basic rights of the countrymen have taken the backseat or even disregarded.

Now, recalling what is close to home, it has always been fascinating to hear Singapore's elder statesman Mr LKY, wax lyrical about Singapore's coming of golden period ad nauseum.

But what does this mean, for a 70yr old lady working her butt off, clearing the tables in coffee shops for hours and hours while Singapore boast its international profile, and the government perpetuates to dwell on its successes?

Is she, a unskilled worker going to have her income raised? When is it ever going to be her turn to get a respite from the relentless cost of living?

Are the elderly, unskilled and less abled poor going to receive more then $280 per month for what they laboured through in the past, to bring the country to where it stands today?

Has the country, in its obsession to accomplish the bigger scheme of things and move ahead, left them in the wake?

Why must the old and less abled continue to slog it out while the nation progresses into its golden period?

When will the country's progress ever translate to benefits for the less fortunate?

When our government spew the words; "growth at all cost", what does "cost" really mean?

The country is moving ahead, but many in the lowest rungs of the societal ladder aren't following suit.

Sometimes the government forgets the primary purpose for which the people put them in the governing seat for; that is, to take care of the welfare of its countrymen right down to the last man on the streets.

Are the little people negligible as our efficient government strives to reach new heights on the global front?

In countries where democracy does not thrive, the rights and worth of the man on the streets cheapen.

Voices of the people are often overlooked as ruling elites do not keep their nose to the ground.

Hougang residents keeping me on my toes: Low to SM Goh

July 31, 2008
Hougang residents keeping me on my toes: Low to SM Goh
OPPOSITION MP Low Thia Khiang shot back a terse response last night to recent remarks by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong. The Workers' Party (WP) chief said he was already kept on his toes by the residents of Hougang. There was no need for grassroots leaders of the ruling People's Action Party to do the same, he told reporters after his weekly Meet-the-People session. Said the Hougang MP: 'All my residents are keeping me on my toes so far. They are very kind, they give feedback and I take that as positive.' Mr Low's retort follows SM Goh's call to grassroots leaders at a National Day dinner in Hougang last Saturday. Keep the MP on his toes, he told them then. He suggested that, among other things, they scrutinise the town council's accounts and check on the maintenance of the estate. Last night, Mr Low was unable to resist injecting a dose of sarcasm in his reply. 'I wish to thank the residents of Hougang and also many Singaporeans who support the Workers' Party for giving feedback constantly on the work of Hougang Town Council, without the need for the reminder from SM Goh. 'For the information of the Senior Minister, the Hougang Town Council's accounts are on the website. He may want to take a look himself.' Mr Low also said that SM Goh had forgotten his $100 million promise made during the 2006 general election. Referring to Mr Goh's presence in his ward last weekend, he said, 'I thought maybe Senior Minister wanted to...provide some good news, and provide some funds after so many years. But to my disappointment he did not.' SM Goh had promised $100 million to improve Hougang, but only if the PAP candidate Eric Low won the poll. Last night the WP leader also defended his check-and-balance role in Parliament, a philosophy SM Goh had described as narrow. Mr Low argued that if the PAP wanted more from the opposition, it should give them more political space. 'The PAP should allow the opposition more space in political participation, and not anyhow redraw the (electoral) boundaries,' he said. While any political party would aspire to form the government, he said the WP is realistic. 'Being in a political environment like Singapore's, and given the party's resource constraint...we can't.' He also said he was disappointed with the way the Government had moved to tear down nine blocks of flats in Hougang. He stressed he was not against development but was dismayed the residents would be moving to different parts of the island. Also, his town council had done a lot of improvement work on the blocks, he said. 'Are they going to reimburse us? If they told us earlier, we could have saved some money.' JEREMY AU YONG

Doing what's right without fear or favour

Doing what's right without fear or favour

Lee Wei Ling
Wed, Jul 30, 2008
The Straits Times

I WAS born and bred in Singapore. This is my home, to which I am tied by family and friends. Yet many Singaporeans find me eccentric, though most are too polite to verbalise it. I only realised how eccentric I am when one friend pointed out to me why I could not use my own yardstick to judge others.

I dislike intensely the elitist attitude of some in our upper socio-economic class. I have been accused of reverse snobbery because I tend to avoid the wealthy who flaunt their wealth ostentatiously or do not help the less fortunate members of our society.

I treat all people I meet as equals, be it a truck driver friend or a patient and friend who belongs to the richest family in Singapore.

I appraise people not by their usefulness to me but by their character. I favour those with integrity, compassion and courage. I feel too many among us place inordinate emphasis on academic performance, job status, appearance and presentation.

I am a doctor and director of the smallest public sector hospital in Singapore, the National Neuroscience Institute (NNI). I have 300 staff, of whom 100 are doctors. I emphasise to my doctors that they must do their best for every patient regardless of paying status. I also appraise my doctors on how well they care for our patients, not by how much money they bring in for NNI.

My doctors know I have friends who are likely to come in as subsidised patients. I warn them that if I find them not treating any subsidised patient well, their appraisal - and hence bonus and annual salary increments - would be negatively affected. My doctors know I will do as I say.

I remind them that the purpose of our existence and the measure of our success is how well we care for all our patients - and that this is the morally correct way to behave and should be the reason why we are doctors. In NNI, almost all patients are given the best possible treatment regardless of their paying status.

My preference for egalitarianism extends to how I interact with my staff. I am director because the organisation needs a reporting structure. But my staff are encouraged to speak out when they disagree with me. This tends to be a rarity in several institutions in Singapore. The fear that one's career path may be negatively affected is what prevents many people from speaking out.

This reflects poorly on leadership. In many organisations, superiors do not like to be contradicted by those who work under them. Intellectual arrogance is a deplorable attitude.

'Listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story,' the Desiderata tells us. It is advice we should all heed - especially leaders, especially doctors.

I speak out when I see something wrong that no one appears to be trying to correct. Not infrequently, I try to right the wrong. In doing so, I have stepped on the sensitive toes of quite a few members of the establishment. As a result, I have been labelled 'anti-establishment'. Less kind comments include: 'She dares to do so because she has a godfather'.

I am indifferent to these untrue criticisms; I report to my conscience; and I would not be able to face myself if I knew that there was a wrong that I could have righted but failed to do so.

I have no protective godfather. My father, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, would not interfere with any disciplinary measures that might be meted out to me.

And I am not anti-establishment. I am proud of what Singapore has achieved. But I am not a mouthpiece of the government. I am capable of independent thought and I can view problems or issues from a perspective that others may have overlooked.

A few months ago, I gave a talk on medical ethics to students of our Graduate Medical School. They sent me a thank-you card with a message written by each student. One wrote: 'You are a maverick, yet you are certainly not anti-establishment. You obey the moral law.' Another wrote: 'Thank you for sharing your perspective with us and being the voice that not many dare to take.'

It would be better for Singapore's medical fraternity if the young can feel this way about all of us in positions of authority.

After the Sars epidemic in 2003, the Government began to transform Singapore into a vibrant city with arts and cultural festivals, and soon, integrated resorts and night F1. But can we claim to be a civilised first world country if we do not treat all members of our society with equal care and dignity?

There are other first world countries where the disparity between the different socio- economic classes is much more extreme and social snobbery is even worse than in Singapore. But that is no excuse for Singaporeans not to try harder to treat each other with dignity and care.

After all, both the Bible and Confucius tell us not to treat others in a way that we ourselves would not want to be treated. That is a moral precept that many societies accept in theory, but do not carry out in practice.

I wish Singapore could be an exception in this as it has been in many other areas where we have surprised others with our success.

The writer is director of the National Neuroscience Institute. Think-Tank is a weekly column rotated among eight heads of research and tertiary institutions.

NSP wants to rejoin Opposition alliance?

Wednesday • July 30, 2008

Loh Chee Kong

cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

EIGHTEEN months after it broke away from the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA), the National Solidarity Party (NSP) has made overtures to rejoin the grouping.

According to sources, the NSP made the unofficial approach last month to SDA chairman and veteran Potong Pasir MP Chiam See Tong. Said an SDA source: “We don’t know what’s their intention, so we are quite wary.”

Mr Chiam declined comment when contacted on Friday, but NSP president Sebastian Teo conceded that his party has broached the idea for NSP and SDA to “come together as one”.

While details are still sketchy, Mr Teo insisted the latest move, if it materialises, would not be a U-turn.

Saying it was “the people’s wish” for Opposition parties to band together, Mr Teo said: “Pulling out is pulling out. What I’m thinking of is whether we can come under one party.”

Whether or not either party will subsume the other “has not come under discussion yet”, said Mr Teo, who reiterated that an alliance structure was less efficient and “makes it hard for the component parties to move together”.

Since it broke away from SDA, the NSP has been conducting activities in areas that include Kallang Bahru, Choa Chu Kang and Tampines.

Sources claim that NSP was finding it hard to cope on its own, not just in terms of logistics but also in its ability to recruit new members without Mr Chiam’s iconic appeal.

But Mr Teo dismissed such suggestions, adding that NSP has “increased in strength” although he did not reveal numbers. “We are working well but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look for greater synergy.”

One familiar face seen at many NSP activities is former Non-Constituency MP Steve Chia, who reportedly stepped down from politics two years ago after his second failed attempt to win a seat in Choa Chu Kang in the 2006 General Election.

When contacted on Friday, Mr Chia said he was misquoted by reporters then and had no intention to throw in the towel. But he was tight-lipped on whether he intends to run for the next elections, due by 2011. “We’ll wait and see”, he said.

Law Society replies to letter from activists

July 29, 2008
Law Society replies to letter from activists
By Jeremy Au Yong
THE Law Society has advised a group, charged with taking part in an illegal assembly, to get the help it wants from its legal aid scheme.

The society's president, Mr Michael Hwang, brought the scheme to the group's attention in a reply to its letter asking the society to arrange legal representation for the members.

Mr Hwang also told the group of 18 that the society 'expressed no views on the specific complaints that you and your colleagues have against the Government'.

'The society is concerned that all citizens should have access to legal representation, particularly in criminal cases,' he said.

The letter, dated last Tuesday, is on the websites of the Law Society and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), whose leader Chee Soon Juan is among the 18 charged.

When contacted yesterday, Mr Hwang said he did not want to add to the 'carefully crafted' letter.

The society's Criminal Legal Aid Scheme offers help to those who cannot afford regular lawyer fees and have claimed trial on criminal charges.

It covers 15 Acts in the Singapore statutes, including the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act under which this particular group is charged.

The scheme is separate from a similar one the Government runs. Its Legal Aid Bureau extends help for specified civil cases such as divorces and road accidents.

The letter was presented to the Law Society on July 16 by lawyer Chia Ti Lik, who is also among the 18 charged. Others include Chee's sister Siok Chin, blogger Ng E-Jay and film-maker Seelan Palay.

They are accused of taking part in an illegal assembly outside Parliament House on March 15, when they protested against rising prices.

They also began a march that the police stopped outside Funan DigitaLife Mall in North Bridge Road.

The group had asked the society to step in as it felt the members' fundamental civil liberties had been restricted.

'The Law Society of Singapore, being the body that represents our defenders of justice, must assist citizens who are prosecuted by the state for exercising their fundamental liberties and cannot just stand idly by and be content to do nothing,' the 18 wrote.

Chia could not be reached for comment yesterday.

He and the others are due in court on Aug 18 for a pre-trial conference.

Monday manifesto: is Singapore the canary in the mine?

From The Times
July 28, 2008
Monday manifesto: is Singapore the canary in the mine?
The city-state’s Finance Minister argues that it is a barometer for all of Asia and will be uniquely tested by the credit crunch
Leo Lewis

It was the night before Singapore's Finance Minister was due to talk to The Times and a more internationally recognisable voice of the city-state was out and about in full, hectoring flow.

Lee Kuan Yew, the octogenarian statesman who looms over the Singaporean Government as its “Minister Mentor”, was opening an event at one of the city's swish hotels. If voters were ever gripped by the “sheer madness” of electing a member of the opposition, Mr Lee said, in a typical bit of carrot-and-stick politicking, it would take “only five years” to ruin Singapore completely.

It is tempting to believe that the old man must be wrong and that there is far more resilience in Asia's smallest country than its patriarch suggests. Singapore's affluent skyline bears every sign of the city-state's sustained economic vibrancy. Where there are not recently finished skyscrapers, there are cranes building more.

There is a fledgeling biotechnology industry and a fourth university has just opened. The host of expatriates, sucked first towards the city's financial district for work, cram a swelling new ghetto of clubs and bars after hours. Even Cabinet ministers admit that the place is much more interesting than it used to be. Singapore appears, at least on the surface, to be a country with enough momentum and vivacity to survive the election of a few MPs from outside the monolithic ruling party.

But there is little doubt that Singapore's business model is under threat. According to the Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, it always has been. And now it has a number of hungry, growing cities in India and China breathing down its neck as viable financial hubs. Because of Singapore's minuscule size, the openness of its markets and its dependence on exports and the financial services industry to drive growth, a country that appears to have prospered through doctrinaire social manipulation is, in reality, disproportionately at the mercy of monetary and fiscal policy.

“I would say that starting from the premise that we are vulnerable is not a bad thing in a whole sphere of policies,” Mr Tharman said. “The fact is that we are vulnerable ... psychologically, it is both a liability and an asset.”

He describes the need for a place such as Singapore to build resilience to the “unknown unknowns” that the global economy may throw in a finance minister's path. In the 21st century, he argues, unpredictable shocks are becoming more frequent.

Latitude in monetary and fiscal policy is crucial - and yet when the softly spoken, British-educated Mr Tharman talks of Singapore's striking economic vulnerabilities, he emphasises the need for social cohesion, a force, he says, that has helped to make his country so attractive for investment and without which one of South-East Asia's most impressive economic stories would surely unravel.

Although that emphasis on social cohesion as economic panacea is textbook Singapore stuff, Mr Tharman believes that the Government's attitudes are too readily simplified. It is easy, he smiles, to parody Singapore - and the farther from Singapore you go, the easier it is. Instead, Mr Tharman sees himself as being in charge of the finances of a complex society with a “surprising amount of fringe”.

Nor does he see paradox within the Government as it struggles to ferment new ideas and a “fertile crescent”

for business and science. When he returned from a recent visit to Israel, Mr Tharman remarked on that country's ability to nurture innovation within what he called an unruly democracy. It is not outside Singaporean culture to be questioning people, he said, but there was more evolving to do. He adds his belief that the Government should not try to control the internet because of the impossibility of doing so effectively - a comment at odds with a continuing legal action against a foreign blogger critical of Singapore's justice system.

“It is not every man for himself and every idea for itself and we all live happily ever after,” Mr Tharman said. “We have to preserve this compact, but never be trapped by our past.”

Singapore's need for social cohesion, Mr Tharman believes, arises from its size. If Singapore were like London or San Francisco and other cities within larger economies, he argues, it could afford to be more of a free-for-all. “In those cities you have the weight of a middle country out there where established norms are sustained and persevered with and values evolve only gradually,” he said. “Our middle country is two or three subway stops from the centre of the financial district. Everyone is part of the same neighbourhood. You have to look after not just your software programmer, your financial derivatives trader and your creative class, but the people who are clearing the refuse and serving in the McDonald's outlets, the technicians, secretaries and engineers.

“That is why you need a certain degree of consensus-building, a degree of constraint in your social norms.”

Cohesion, therefore, remains the stated goal and Mr Tharman insists that the global economic tide has made securing it even more vital. The balance of policy-making, he says, is even more delicate. Singapore's traditional use of exchange-rate policy to respond to the economy's various headwinds faces limitations in the current climate, he feels. A dramatic strengthening of the Singapore dollar might bring some temporary relief from $120-a-barrel oil prices, but it would hurt the country's already slowing exports.

Singapore's extraordinary rise was crafted in an era of far more favourable terms of trade. With that era over, the burden on the monetary and fiscal navigators is even heavier. With the exception of eggs, Singapore imports all its food and energy, so it has found itself in the front row for soaring commodity prices and the resultant inflation. Mr Tharman says that the most critical task he faces is ensuring that corporate Singapore does not unleash a second, more destructive, spiral of inflation via wage rises.

The tripartite tradition of annual pay talks, which puts the Government at the same table as employers and unions, goes a long way to ensuring that the State's views on the matter are heard.Morever, Singapore's wrestle with inflation is teaching lessons that should be heeded abroad. Singapore's unique catalogue of exposures, Mr Tharman says, means that it is behaving like an ultra-sensitive barometer for the rest of Asia. With very little in the way of padding from price shocks, Singapore is facing in the immediate weeks what others will be forced to cope with in coming months.

Mr Tharman said: “We have not had the luxury of even contemplating insulating ourselves from global prices. We are a small, highly open economy, a textbook case of a country that cannot insulate itself from global prices and trends. How we behave and how we respond to the crisis is, in a sense, something that all countries will have elements of. Ultimately, as you are finding across Asia, sustaining subsidies is an expensive proposition.”

Given Singapore's reputation as a land of strict rules with a top-down vision of how the state should look, many people would expect its Government to dictate its way through any given crisis. Mr Tharman is adamant, though, that Singapore's response will bear no such hallmarks. “It's really not an economy that can be characterised in any sense as having command features,” he said. “If we are interventionist, it is in the social sphere in the way we shape our housing policies ... in the effort to achieve social cohesion and ethnic cohesion in our neighbourhoods.

“Singapore is one of the freest economies in the world. We make no bones about the fact that we do intervene in the social sphere to ensure a degree of mobility and cohesion that would not naturally come about through the free workings of the market.”

Tharman Shanmugaratnam CV

Born: 1957

Education: Obtained undergraduate and masters degrees in economics from the London School of Economics and Cambridge University. Later obtained a masters degree in Public Administration at Harvard University

Career: Politics: Singapore's Minister for Finance. Previously served in various positions in the Economic and Education ministries since his entry into politics in 2001, including Minister for Education between August 2003 and March 2008. He was appointed Minister for Finance in December last year

Finance: Spent much of his earlier professional life at the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), Singapore's central bank and integrated financial regulator, where he was chief executive before he entered politics. At present, he is also deputy chairman of the National Research Foundation and serves on the boards of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation and the MAS. He is chairman of the Ong Teng Cheong Institute of Labour Studies and chairman of the Council of Advisors of the Singapore Industrial and Services Employees' Union. He is a life trustee of the Singapore Indian Development Association

Family: married to Jane Yumiko Ittogi, a lawyer. They have four children, three boys and a girl, all school age

Andrew Loh (TOC): A gracious society? I’d settle for a gracious government

A gracious society? I’d settle for a gracious government

Wednesday, 9 January 2008, 11:23 am | 313 views

Where is the graciousness in govt?

By Andrew Loh

At a dialogue marking the 40th anniversary of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (Iseas), Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said that Singapore “will take more time to develop and mature culturally as a people” before we attain the status of a ‘gracious society’.

He also believes that Singapore will not achieve this in his lifetime. (Straits Times)

While MM Lee may perhaps be right in his assessment, he failed to mention what could be another contributing factor – perhaps the most important one – which sets the tone for Singapore society.

This is the public words (and behaviour) of leaders in government.

Sunday July 27, 2008

Armed for a fresh battle

By NELSON BENJAMIN

At 82, Singapore’s veteran opposition politician J.B. Jeyaretnam has overcome the odds and a bankruptcy suit to continue his battle. Armed with a new party, his political convictions are as strong as ever.

VETERAN Singapore opposition figure J.B. Jeyaretnam created history in 1981 when he became the first opposition MP in the island republic. The former magistrate, regarded now as Singapore's old political warrior, has paid a high price for his political convictions: he has had to sell off his properties and peddle his books along five-foot ways to help raise over S$1.5mil (RM3.45mil) to pay for at least a dozen defamation law suits against him during his 30-year political career.

The 82-year-old has now formed a new party, the Reform Party, and he hopes to continue with what he is doing as long as he is strong and healthy.

You were prohibited from active politics between 2001 and last year due to a defamation suit against you. How was it for you during this period?

I was angry, I suppose. The reason was obvious, as the reason for commencing bankruptcy procedures against me was to take me out of Parliament. I tried to resist but I did not succeed. As a bankrupt I was not allowed to leave the country without getting permission from the official assignee. Even to come to Johor Baru over the weekends, I had to make an application. So there was a complete restriction on my travel. Apart from that, there were all the other little things, like you cannot have a bank account when you are a bankrupt. I was not even allowed to assist other candidates in the elections. They said I was not to go anywhere near an election rally. I was not allowed to go and speak. I was not to go and even assist any candidate because they said that was election activity and as a bankrupt I cannot do that.

The right measure: Jeyaretnam believes one should measure a country by the quality of people’s lives and not by the roads, buildings and services provided.

How did you raise the final amount to settle your defamation suit?

In the end my two sons bailed me out. The lion's share came from them. There were some small sums from others. This is because Singaporeans, for some reason or other, are frightened to give any money. Because of the climate of fear, Singaporeans did not give me much money although many sympathised with me. Most of the sales of my two books went towards my living expenses. My first book titled Make it right for Singapore is a compilation of all my speeches in parliament. The other, The Hatchet Man of Singapore, was after the 1997 elections. These books kept my body and soul together; they gave me something to do as besides writing them, I also sold them by the five-foot way in several areas three times a week together with a friend who has been with me since my time in the Workers Party.

Many Singaporeans were hoping you would contest in the 2006 elections. How much were you short of settling your bankruptcy amount?

That was my desperate hope. If the courts had agreed to fix the amount, I could have raised it. This is why I was disappointed with the courts. If the courts had fixed the amount and I knew what I had to raise, then I might have raised it through my sons. I do not know for sure whether it was a delaying tactic.

Have you started practising since the bankruptcy order was lifted?

I am doing one or two civil cases at the moment. I am operating on my own from my office off South Bridge Road. The person who was selling books is working with me now. I am here (Singapore) during weekdays.

The first thing you did after paying up your bankruptcy amount was to register a new party, the Reform Party. What was the main aim behind the formation of the party?

The main thing is to restructure the way we are governed in Singapore. Call it a “system” if you like. At the moment, the way we are governed is we have the executive (the ruling People's Action Party) at the top. And it's a law unto itself. The executive makes decisions and policies without any consultation with the people. And what is worrying is that there's no check on the executive, partly because Parliament is in the control of the PAP.

And even now, with just two opposition members in parliament, Parliament passes laws and abrogates the powers of the court. The courts cannot enquire into the merits of anyone detained without trial. A number of decisions made by ministers are kept outside the courts' jurisdiction, especially decisions affecting peoples' lives. So the courts are not protecting the rights of the citizens.

There is this question of freedom of speech in assembly. The constitution grants it, but government says no. Elections in Singapore are not free and clear, as there is no election commission in Singapore. Parliament is no longer a body that is separate, independent and able to control the executive. This is what I think is the urgent priority for Singapore.

Many people retire by the age of 82 but you seem to be eager to get back in parliament this year. Why?

I do expect to get back in parliament. But it's not for personal power but because I genuinely feel sorry for the people in Singapore. I am talking about the dispossessed, the underprivileged people, which make up a huge number. I am not talking about our bankers and wealthy people who are perhaps not interested in human rights. There is quite a bit of poverty in Singapore, even though the world does not seem to think so because of the propaganda machinery of the Government.

So you have no plans to retire soon?

It depends on my health, but I thank God for giving me health and strength. In that sense I owe it to Him to do something.

Are you not tired of being in politics since you started in 1971 with the Workers Party (WP)?

At times I feel tired and say to myself: “Don't you think you should give up now?” But that is only momentary. It is followed by the thought that if I have started on a job and as long as I have the health and strength, I will have to go on with it. And there are people who look to you especially when you walk the streets of Singapore. It is just my conviction that when things are wrong, and if there is anything I can do to put them right, then I should do that. I think every citizen should feel like that. It is a citizen's duty.

Being in the opposition in Singapore all these years has cost you dearly and you even had to sell off your properties. Any regrets?

I did not have many properties but I had to sell a bungalow in a very fashionable area in Singapore to pay the judgement obtained by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. Having sold that, three years later I bought a small apartment, and then I had to sell that too. All in, I had easily about 12 to 13 suits to pay off. Some people say I was a fool. All I can say is I do not regret it because, to me, life is not all about making money and acquiring wealth. Life is doing something for the people around you.

What do you think about the recent political tsunami in Malaysia?

It is good that there is a strong opposition in Parliament. This is what I am standing up for in Singapore. I want that for Singapore too.

Do you think such a political tsunami is possible in Singapore?

You never know, especially if Singaporeans take to heart what has happened in Malaysia. It is good to have a strong opposition.

As you can see, former Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is widely regarded as the person who united the opposition. Are you planning to play the same role?

This talk about uniting the opposition parties in Singapore is not new. It has been talked about for many years. When I was in the WP, we managed to unite the Barisan Sosialis and another political party into one party. But before you can unite into a group, you must have similarities in ideals, objectives and values. And as I have said, even the WP now does not share my objective. Neither do the other opposition parties. So I do not see how we can really talk about coming together as one party.

In the Malaysian elections, blogs, SMS, and the Internet played an important role in getting the message across to the voters. What do you think?

It goes without saying. We cannot ignore the value and importance of the Internet in Singapore. If you access the blogs in Singapore, you will see the debate that is being carried out. So, of course, it will be foolish of us if we do not resort to the Internet to convey our messages to the people.

Many Singaporeans feel that the PAP has developed the country and, as such, there is no need for an opposition. What do you think about this?

Those who say this have swallowed the PAP's propaganda. No government, anywhere in the world, can be so good that there is no need for an opposition. It is only in dictatorships where one man rules the country without an opposition. And I differ (from the view) that PAP has done a lot for Singapore.

When you come to measure a country, you do not just look at the roads, the buildings, and the services provided. What you will be looking at is the quality of the peoples’ lives, whether they are allowed to live as human beings with dignity.

Singapore ranked at the bottom in a survey carried out to rank peoples’ happiness. The quality of life is poor. It is no good boasting about your efficiency, boasting about your airport, or boasting about anything else when the people are not happy.

Many say you are in constant loggerheads with the PAP and especially with the Lee family maybe because you have a personal grudge against Lee Kuan Yew.

This is a load of nonsense. I am opposed to the PAP policies not because I have something against Lee personally. But he happens to be the head of the PAP, so people try and equate my dissatisfaction with the PAP with some personal animosity against Lee Kuan Yew. I am clearly opposed to all that the PAP stands for. I am against the system, not the person.

Are your sons into politics?

No. They are not joining me and they have not joined any political party. But that does not mean they are not interested in political affairs and at the moment, I do not hope for them to succeed me.

SM: Tweaks to system yes, but the core must remain

July 27, 2008
SM: Tweaks to system yes, but the core must remain
Politics here must evolve but not in a way that leads to division or chaos
By Jeremy Au Yong
The immediate task for the ruling party is to look for good candidates, said SM Goh, speaking at the National Day dinner in the opposition-held Hougang ward. 'I hope the opposition will do likewise.' He is seen here with Mr Eric Low, the PAP's candidate for the ward in the 2006 General Election. -- PHOTO: LIANHE ZAOBAO Singapore's political system must change to keep pace with an evolving society, said Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong last night. While conceding that the 'status quo cannot last forever', he noted that certain things must not change even with tweaks to the system. 'Whatever the refinements we may make to our political system down the road, some core principles must remain the same,' he said. 'One, any changes must be fair to all parties and give them an equal chance to contest and win; two, they must not lead to democratic chaos and politics of division; and three, they must not put Singapore's unity and harmony, growth and prosperity and long-term interests at risk.' He was speaking at the National Day dinner in the opposition-held Hougang ward, returning there for the first time since the 2006 General Election. 'Ideally, our political system should facilitate the emergence of a strong, effective government after every election and a responsible, constructive opposition,' he added. Keep Low 'on his toes' in Hougang Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong had this message for grassroots leaders in Hougang last night: Keep opposition MP Low Thia Khiang on his toes. They can do so by being an 'effective opposition', he said at a National Day dinner organised by the Hougang Citizens' Consultative Committee. ... more Singapore-style democracy works Those who believe that Singapore has no democracy are 'wrong', said Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong. Rebutting criticisms, especially from liberal Westerners, on Singapore's style of governance, he said it was not surprising that the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) has such a large share of seats in Parliament. ... more 'But no matter how you design it...there is no guarantee because it depends on whether good, honest and competent people come forward to stand for elections and the wisdom of the electorate when they cast their ballot.' The immediate task for the ruling party was to look for good candidates. 'I hope the opposition will do likewise. Then the voters will be given a real choice.' Noting Singaporeans' 'simultaneous need for a strong government and an opposition voice', he said efforts had already been made to try and fill it. He cited newspapers, TV, new media and the government feedback unit as among the platforms already available for people to express their views. But he also warned that democracy does not guarantee an effective Parliament. 'Taiwan's democracy is more liberal than ours. But it has divided the society,' he said, citing a Taiwanese political commentator who saw its politics as that of 'hatred, not consensus'. He also pointed to how several criminals were elected into office in India, including a convicted murderer awaiting appeal. 'Our politics is not as exciting as those in other countries and I say: 'Thank goodness for that',' he said. 'We do not need coups, demonstrations in the streets, people power, plots and conspiracies, wild allegations and uncalled-for defamatory remarks to make our politics exciting.' jeremyau@sph.com.sg

By-election should be held in Jurong GRC

July 26, 2008
By-election should be held in Jurong GRC
THE group representation constituency (GRC) system was established in 1988. The Government says this ensures that minority races are always represented in Parliament, which is commendable. Under the Parliamentary Elections Act, there are 14 GRCs represented by 75 MPs and nine single-member constituencies. The President has, by law, designated that at least one MP in each of nine GRCs must belong to the Malay community and at least one MP in each of five GRCs must belong to the Indian and other minority communities. The President has also, by order published in the Gazette, declared the group number for each GRC under Section 8A (1) (a) of the Act. The group number declared for Jurong GRC is five but now, ominously, in contradiction to the group number declared by the President, there are only four MPs in that GRC. With this in mind, there are, logically, at least four scenarios whereby a GRC by-election should be held under the law: If in any of the nine GRCs where only one of the MPs belongs to the Malay community and he or she resigns or is no longer a member of the party or is disqualified or is no longer a Singapore citizen or has died, then that GRC ceases to comply with the law. The same rationale applies in the case of the five GRCs where only one of the MPs belongs to the Indian or other minority communities. If all members of a GRC resign and form a new political party or join another party. If at least one MP of a GRC resigns or is no longer a member of the party or is disqualified or is no longer a Singapore citizen or has died (as in the case of Jurong GRC), then that GRC ceases to comply with the group number declared by the President, because, as clearly stated by the Elections Department, 'the President declares the group number for each GRC by law'. In my opinion, the conundrum now faced by Jurong GRC is that it may also not comply with Section 22 (2) of the Act as it does not have 'such number of Members to serve in Parliament as designated for that constituency by the President under Section 8A (1) (a)', unless it co-opts a fifth member and, hopefully, wins the by-election. Tan Keng Tat

Opposition yet to show it can deliver, unlike PAP

July 26, 2008
Opposition yet to show it can deliver, unlike PAP
I REFER to Wednesday's letter by Mr Alvin Tan, 'JBJ must be careful if he wishes to espouse Singapore's cause'. I admire Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam for his fighting spirit. Even though he is 82, he is still actively engaged in politics. I hope he will retire graciously. I welcome an opposition, provided it is constructive and helps Singapore make progress. I have been through six or seven general elections. At each one, the opposition candidates always seem to have the same agenda. They criticise government policies and fight for freedom of speech, but they say nothing about how to help raise national productivity or revenue. The People's Action Party Government has given us a well-run system. Because of this, all my siblings have at least 10 years of education, they own Housing Board homes, and their children can have a tertiary education and hold stable jobs. This is what we want for our future generations. I would like to recount an incident in the 1960s, when I was a secondary student. I had the opportunity to meet then-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew at the official opening of Outram Hill Community Centre. He had walked from Outram Road up Outram Hill. The moment he offered me his hand, I did not hesitate to shake it. I had the feeling then that Singapore was in good hands. Voting for the opposition now, in the light of what the Government has promised and fulfilled, would amount to dismantling what it has achieved, and moving backwards. Lee Choon Wah

SM Goh confident PAP will eventually win back Hougang

SINGAPORE : Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong has said Singapore's political system should facilitate the emergence of a strong, effective government after every election and a responsible, constructive opposition.

Mr Goh was speaking at the National Day Dinner of the opposition-held ward of Hougang on Saturday.

His key message at the dinner was that the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) must continue to produce results which make people's lives better.

He also said the PAP must never lose the people's trust as this is the ruling party's recipe for the continued success of Singapore.

Mr Goh said that is why he is confident of eventually winning Hougang back from the opposition.

Mr Goh was in the thick of action in the opposition-held ward of Hougang during the last general election in 2006.

Returning for this year's National Day celebrations, Mr Goh noted that the opposition parliamentarian for the area since 1991, Low Thia Khiang, believes his job is just to ask questions and check the ruling party, but not to offer solutions to problems.

Mr Goh said this is a rather narrow view of the role of an opposition. And the Senior Minister has thrown a challenge to the advisor and grassroots leaders of the Hougang division - to keep its incumbent Mr Low on his toes.

Mr Goh said, "Amongst the things you can do... I suggest you study the annual accounts of the town council to ensure that the funds are properly used. Check whether the arrears for S&C (service and conservancy) charges are piling up, and eating into their reserves. Make sure that enough money is put aside for cyclical maintenance.

"In your walkabouts, check on the estate maintenance. If Mr Low has done a good job, give him credit for it. If there are deficiencies, point them out to the residents. In short, play the role of an effective opposition in Hougang."

He noted, "Eventually, I believe we will win Hougang back, but whether we do or not, I think (we should) serve the people. That's what we are here for."

Mr Goh noted that the people living in the opposition ward know that they have benefited from government policies. But many also think that there should be an opposition to keep the ruling party on its toes.

The Senior Minister said, "Ideally, our political system should facilitate the emergence of a strong, effective government after every election and a responsible, constructive opposition.

"But no matter how you design it, there is no guarantee, because it depends on whether good, honest and competent people come forward to stand for elections and the wisdom of the electorate when they cast their ballot.

"So there's a natural tendency - which I can appreciate of some people wanting to have a voice, not belonging to the party, not belonging to the PAP - to check and balance the PAP. That's understandable because people want to debate issues, they want to have their views expressed in Parliament."

So Mr Goh said the ruling party's primary task before the next election, which is due by 2011, is to look for good candidates.

He said, "In India, the world's largest democracy, several criminals have been elected into Parliament and some are serving jail terms, including one convicted murderer who is waiting for his appeal to be heard.

"But recently, they were brought out to vote because a confidence motion on the government was hanging in the balance. They were of course then returned to jail. But can you imagine MPs with criminal records holding the future of Singapore in their hands?"

So the Senior Minister hopes the opposition too would look for good candidates so voters will be given a real choice. - CNA/ms

Police threw me to the ground: Nair

July 25, 2008
TRIAL OF EX-S'PORE LAWYER Police threw me to the ground: Nair
CONDUCTING HIS OWN DEFENCE: Gopalan Nair is accused of spewing expletives at police officers and behaving in a disorderly manner. -- ST PHOTO: WONG KWAI CHOW FORMER Singapore lawyer Gopalan Nair told a court yesterday that he was thrown to the ground, with his face pressed against the road tarmac, by police officers. The 58-year-old, facing charges of abusing police officers and behaving in a disorderly manner, raised several issues in the morning before the start of the trial. Among other things, he asked for the full names of the investigation officer, the prosecutor and the judge. He also said that he is now known as Gordon and wanted that name to be used in court documents instead. Nair, a former Workers' Party member who contested the elections here in 1988 and 1991, also objected to the presence of the investigation officer in court. The officer later left the courtroom. It is common for the investigator to sit in court to help the prosecution with documents and physical evidence, even though he is also a witness. Nair, who is now an American citizen and practising law in the US, is accused of spewing expletives at police officers near the junction of Bukit Timah and Race Course roads on July 4. The second charge accuses him of gesticulating and shouting in public. A doctor who examined him at the Police Cantonment Complex a day after said Nair complained of pain in his left shoulder and both arms. On the stand, Dr Gabriel Chong said: 'He told me he was pushed down to the ground during his arrest, and that his spectacles had been damaged.' Dr Chong found superficial abrasions on Nair's wrists and a small patch of abrasion over his right eyebrow. The doctor passed Nair fit to be locked up as he was healthy and had no serious injuries. Under cross-examination by Nair, who represented himself, Dr Chong said he felt that the depth of Nair's wound above his right eye suggested a very minor injury with minimal force. But Nair is claiming that the police caught hold of his hands and body, and pushed and forcibly threw him to the ground. Nair also faces trial in September on charges of insulting two High Court judges. If convicted of using abusive words on a public servant, he can be fined up to $5,000 or jailed for up to a year. Disorderly behaviour is punishable with a $1,000 fine or one month in jail. The case continues next week. ELENA CHONG

Gopalan Nair claims trial to abusing police, disorderly conduct charges

July 24, 2008
Gopalan Nair claims trial to abusing police, disorderly conduct charges
By Elena Chong, Courts Correspondent
The former Workers' Party election candidate (above) told him that he was pushed to the ground during his arrest. As a result, his spectacles were damaged. -- PHOTO: REUTERS FORMER Singaporean lawyer Gopalan Nair went on trial on Thursday for allegedly hurling vulgarities at two policemen and for disorderly behaviour. Gopalan Nair, 58, now an American citizen, pleaded not guilty to abusing Staff Sergeant Kang Wei Chian and Sergeant Noor Azhar Daud by shouting expletives at them near the junction of Bukit Timah Road and Race Course Road on July 4. He is also alleged to have gesticulated with his hands at about 10.35pm that day. Before the trial proper began, Nair asked District Judge James Leong not to let police officers and the investigation officer sitting in court to 'go out and coach other prosecution witnesses.' He also wanted to know the full names of the investigation officer and others, including Deputy Public Prosecutor Peter Koy. The first witness who took the stand, Dr Gabriel Chong, from Raffles Medical Group, said that he went to Cantonment Police Complex on July 5 to examine Nair. The former Workers' Party election candidate told him that he was pushed to the ground during his arrest. As a result, his spectacles were damaged. Dr Chong said Nair complained of pains on his left shoulder and both arms. The trial continues next week.

JBJ challenges Govt to call by-election in late MP's ward

JBJ challenges Govt to call by-election in late MP's ward

By Sue-ann Chia

<A HREF="http://ads.asia1.com.sg/event.ng/Type=click&FlightID=14712&AdID=17915&TargetID=1533&Segments=1,41,81,238,999,1570,1780,1784,1891,2061,2099,2141,2355,2410,2433,2438,2472&Targets=1533,2847&Values=30,50,60,82,90,100,110,130,150,186,196,221,225,266,957,990,1480,1487,2253,2865,2908,2920,4074,4103,4118,4120,4334,4337,4342,5599,5633,5640,5663&RawValues=&Redirect=http:%2f%2fwww.straitstimes.com" target="_top"><IMG SRC="http://adimage.asiaone.com.sg/dot.gif" WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></A> VETERAN opposition politician J.B. Jeyaretnam yesterday challenged the People's Action Party Government to defend the Singapore system by calling a by-election to fill the seat made vacant by the late MP Ong Chit Chung. Dr Ong, who died last Monday at age 59, was an MP for Bukit Batok, part of the six-seater Jurong GRC. Referring to recent criticisms of Singapore's style of governance, and government rebuttals of those criticisms which highlighted what Singapore's admirers said, Mr Jeyaretnam said: 'It is not enough to sing praises. You should show yourself ready to defend the system and its merits against attacks on the system.' And the best way to do so, he argued, is to submit to the ultimate judges - the electorate. The 82-year-old, who had just formed the Reform Party, made his argument in an open letter addressed to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. 'Do not, I urge you, shelter behind the provisions of the law that seemingly do not require you to call for a by-election,' he said. 'All these laws were designed and passed by those who...stand to benefit under the scheme. The laws have only one object - to keep the minority that you represent in power.' Mr Lim Boon Heng, the leading minister in Jurong GRC as well as chairman of the People's Action Party, told The Straits Times last week that there were no plans for a by-election as this is not required by law. The remaining five MPs in the GRC will share the responsibilities for Dr Ong's ward, he said. In his letter yesterday, Mr Jeyaretnam queried Mr Lim's reading of the law, saying he is not sure the law does not require a by-election to be held. He said there was no need to call a by-election for the whole GRC, but just for the ward without an MP now. 'If you do not call for a by-election, you will be seen as someone who is afraid to defend your beliefs and only interested in keeping yourself in power regardless of what the voters feel,' he said.