Death of the Independent Operator

Tight commerce laws and regulations have caused the wealth to accumulate at the upper echelons of the many corporate pyramids here in Singapore. Take the example of Taxi drivers/companies here in Singapore.

Are taxi drivers still allowed to own their own vehicles? Are the independent operators being squeezed out from the field? Or, are cabbies forever tied to a taxi company via a leash, subjected to the whims of the taxi company if they so choose to remain a taxi driver? Its not so bad, if the taxi drivers have strong union representation, but in Singapore, unions are virtually powerless unless union laws are changed.

There is no justification of for the highly paid CEOs of the transport companies whose monthly salary that may feed up to half a dozen families of taxi drivers. Owning his/her own vehicle would benefit the driver in the long run, giving him/her greater responsibility and control over his/her earnings, which incidentally, does contribute to the narrowing of the income gap here in Singapore. Spread the wealth amongst the people, why must everything go upwards?

Taxi companies, as they get bigger, will get “top heavy” with the needs to pay for huge office rentals, exorbitant salaries of senior executives and other resources, to manage the fleet of taxis. Leaving the onus of the taxi maintenance to the driver/owner is one way to go. Taxi companies should remain, to give those drivers who prefer rental a choice. Giving them a choice will then drive the taxi companies to give those who chose to rent, better perks for rental, or even lower rental costs. Also the freedom for taxi owners to rent out their vehicles when they are ill or unable to drive. Why must everything thing here in SG be so tight assed.

But that’s the trend of our country’s economy isn’t it? Somehow, the “comfort zone” is always just an inch away, but still unable to reach it. This phenomenon is extremely prevalent in the middle lower income groups. Co’mon PAP, give the little guy a chance to run his little business, and earn a little comfortable living.

Project manager who is exposed to both working in SG and Australia quoted saying "PMs in SGP have it easy, here in Aust, have to make the staff as happy as you want the customer to be. In SGP, just squeeze, staff have to comply, if not, there is always someone else cheaper to do the job."

Tis the result of capitalism some may assert. Well, there is capitalism and there is the government making amicable polices that level the playing field a little bit. Don't kill the little guy out to make a living.

Public Transport Fee Hike Comdemned by NSP

Press Release - Burden of Fare Hikes on Commuters is Unjustified
Wed, Sep 12, 2007

The National Solidarity Party (NSP) condemns the latest approval of bus fare hike by the Public Transport Council (PTC). Fare hikes have become an annual ritual which highlights the sordid mechanism behind the regulation of standards and fares by the PTC.

The Chairman of PTC Mr. Gerald Ee acknowledged that �the current service frequency was not good enough when 'operational deviation' was factored in�. The tightening of the basic Quality of Service (QoS) by the PTC therefore constitutes a tacit admission that the service standard for buses has dropped below the mark of decent acceptability for some years, even as fare hike applications continue to be favourably approved year after year.

The PTC stated that it was "mindful not to increase the cost of compliance" to Public Transport Operators (PTOs), thus opting to phase in the new standards in 2 years, with fines thereafter of up to $10,000 per month for each instance of non-compliance.

The NSP would like to punctuate the salient point that such punitive fines will unavoidably result in either the passing of the cost liability to commuters, or in an invariable reduction in service standards not directly measured by the QoS such as interior ambience and comfort of ride.

The NSP strongly recommends that fare hike applications by PTOs be dismissed until the basic service standard is first achieved within the stipulated 2 years, and subsequently maintained for at least 5 years thereafter, subjected to a stringent and transparent process of annual assessment.

Mr Gerald Ee�s assumption that Singapore�s economic growth automatically translates to affordability for bus commuters is questionable. In the latest hike, the highest increment was for the shortest trips. This will hurt the heartlanders most as they are often those with low or no income. Affordability is a nonsense reason for a fare hike, especially since public transport is an essential service.

Singapore�s �economic growth� has seen workers in the lower 40% of the population suffering little or no improvement in their salaries. Their misery is compounded by the fact that the inflation rate for the lowest 20% continued to peak well above that of the highest 20% income earners, even surpassing the general household inflation rate. And this is despite the occasional government handouts. Those with �extra� money would prefer to save it or spend in on other essentials instead of �squandering� it on increased bus fares.

In the latest quarterly financial report of SBS Transit, fuel cost decreased by 6.6%, while operating profit increased by 36.9% as compared to the corresponding quarter last year. Profit after tax to shareholders increased by 25%. Manpower cost increased by a manageable 4.4% which was more or less offset by the decrease in fuel cost. For SMRT, cost of staff and fuel decreased, while profit after tax increased by a whopping 38.5%.

The impressive double-digits profits of PTOs far overshadow the meagre pay increment of many citizens. It is hence dishonourable to further fatten the coffers of the PTOs by diluting the citizens� hard-earned gains.

The PTC acknowledged that Singapore has a �restricted number of service providers and an absence of real market competition�. The unchallenged business position of the existing PTOs will allow their businesses to continue to stay attractively profitable for the foreseeable long-term without needing to rip more from commuters. This is evident from the rapid expansion of profitable businesses of the PTOs both at home and overseas.

The NSP would like to pound on the need for improvements to the grotesquely inadequate fare formula, a demand which have been repeated incessantly by the indignant public.

The formula must include elements which incorporate the degree of compliance to the QoS. The PTC must recognise that the lower and lower-middle income group constitute the bulk of public transport commuters. The formula must thus factor in their (low) earning power and relatively higher incurred inflation, and not merely incorporates the national average which skews in favour of the well-to-do who do not generally commute by bus.

Finally, the profits of the PTOs and their payouts to shareholders must be considered in the equation. If necessary, the PTC should oblige these lucrative PTOs to raise extra funds from their benefited shareholders instead of exploiting the lack of viable alternatives for the people through constant fare hikes. It is preposterous for the PTC to safeguard the interest of the shareholders of PTOs at the expense of commuters.

The NSP hopes that the members of the PTC can step onboard public transports more regularly to enable them to empathise with the commuters, and recognise their fair rights and interests.

Central Executive Council
National Solidarity Party

Centrepoint's "Black Saturday".

I arrived at Centrepoint around 3:40pm. Saw SDP's "roadshow" as I drove past, before turning left into the carpark. I did think to myself, "hmm, no surprise they are here, hope they don't hijack the black 'event' tho."

I think SDP was courteous enough to packup their roadshow and change in black at 4pm sharp. Whether the courtesy was intended or not, as one of those in black, I "tip my hat" to you.

As I watched the SDP folks pack up, I overheard a youngish looking female reporter asking someone nearby (in black with a zoom len expensive looking Digi Cam with a companion dressed in white Tshirt) "But you are wearing black, why?" or something like that. The guy just insisted that he was a concerned passerby or something like that.

At around 4:15pm, I was strolling around the 2nd and 3rd stories. There was definitely a slightly higher number of people wearing black at centerpoint on Saturday 8 Sept. I did exchange smiles with some at the entrance, although there was this chap at the entrance in a White England Soccer Jersey who was people-watching with a grumpy look on his face, like he’s weekend was burnt. =P
High enough number of black clothing to call it abnormal, perhaps not. Did they all disagree with the compulsory annuity? I don’t know for sure. But going around spotting the plainclothes did provide some free entertainment while my date went shopping at Mango and Gap. Also some amusement much later, to see Uncle Yap with his cellphone snapping away at “middle aged men” who were loitering in groups or 2’s and 3’s.

I proceeded to the basement to see what were the Chee's up to. From afar, they looked like they are surrounded by reporters at MacDonald's. (Including 2 -3 Caucasians with huge zoom lens cams)

Went back up to the ground floor a while later, spent a short while walking up and down the mall, spotted a plainclothes a the top, with a walkie, who spent most of his time there on a wooden bench, looking down.

It was past 5:20, and I thought of leaving, after watching 4-5 of the plainclothes take a smokebreak (I think only the one posted at the top floor smoked) next to the taxi stand. Oh and Grumpy in the england jearsy was still at the entrance together with his chinese colleague.

So I thought, ok walk through the mall one last time to add my presence. l went through the basement, saw the CNA female reporter, looking somewhat exasperated. Hopefully she did get something to publish. I proceeded upstairs via the escalator, and started walking near or next to people who wore black. Standing next to a guy who was wearing black, just to add to the black presence.

Then I noticed there was a "black presence" in front of the Cultural Musical performance. See pic below. Ok, so I thought, ok I'll watch and add to the "Blackness". Guess what, the plainsclothes taking a break at the taxi stand all came back in, surrounding the "performance". 2 were watching from behind the stage, leaning on the railing at the escalators. 2 were on the right of the audience, on the 2nd floor, leaning on the railings. And a youngish looking skinhead was watching from the mooncake/pastry booths.

When the performance ended, I proceeded to Macs to get a drink, saw a group of like 5-6 black at Macs, thought of taking a photo, but then thought better of it. I then departed CP after that with my date for dinner. All in all, I think, it felt good. Hopefully the press did get something.

Success or not, largely depends on your point of view or expectations. If one expected this event to actually steer Government polices, then its was not really much of a success to speak about.

But then again, steering Government polices is not something that the people (who wore black to centrepoint yesterday afternoon) wanted or expected to achieve isn't it? Taking action to show or pass on a message of disagreement or objection to government polices, is still at its infancy here in Singapore. Even an alien concept to some.

In my opinion, this event is just another milestone in the political maturity of Citizens here in Singapore, where people who actually disagree but more than often, end up saying : "Aiyah, protest also no use. Its the Government leh".

A message of disagreement or objection to a policy or Government decision, does not have to end in violence, or even breaking the Law.

I hope this even will build in momentum, generate more awareness that Singaporeans actually have a say, and can say something, other than “Yes” to the Government, in an ever so slightly more assertive manner.

To all those who came in black, don't give up, even if the press brushes this of as nothing. Even if the government or anyone comes out and call this a pointless endeavour. Do not back down, continue to spread the word. The Government will do all it can to discred it even, do not let negative press of the event discourage you from participating further.

Just as importantly, do not be goaded or baited into more extreme or confrontational practices, in future similar events. Keep it as it is, but help the numbers grow, generate awareness, spread the word. Keep the event peaceful and non-confrontational.

I propose the same thing, same time, same place, same colour on 15/09. Hopefully we Singaporeans can get things moving, and keep the momemtun building.


I was aiming for the Chinese cultural performance on the right, guess my aim was a little off.

Quote from one of the guys who started the idea, from Sammyboy Alfresco Coffeeshop.

Hi everyone.

Please remember this event is to show our displeasure over the forced compulsory annuities that starts payouts at age 85 and forfeits our capital upon death before 85. It is not against the current annuities available.

Please also don't be foolish enough to get identified and marked for life. There are many people here who have many different agendas, please do not in a moment of anger against the government be used by them.

We have to remember why we are going to CentrePoint dressed in black on 8th September 2007.

8th September 2007 is a day we all go shopping in CentrePoint, but dressed in black. When you are there, please don't just stand there - you may get singled out - just go shopping within CentrePoint. There is no need to be fully black from head to toe, just either the top or bottom is black can liao.

I am strongly against any suggestions that will identify the participants. I disagree with wearing a black armband or a black ribbon or anything that will sets us apart, I think it is a very foolish idea as such items will identify us.

It will make it very much easier for the authorities to differentiate who are the real shoppers and who are those against the compulsory annuities scheme.

Being identified is not the name of the game. We don't intend to be martyrs - please make sure you don't become one.

It is a citizens' effort, we don't need people like CSJ because we are not making a political statement. We do it because we love - we want equitable policies for ourselves and our love ones. So, please don't be used by others for their own hidden agendas.

Shopping is not a crime. Shopping dressed in black is also not a crime. We just want to tell the government, please think of us when they come out with future policies. It is not our aim to bring down the government. We just want them to know that we have feelings, we have aspirations and we know how to think and in future, when they come up with policies, they should be equitable policies.

So, just go shopping with friends and relatives - no need for heroics. And for maximum impact, it will be good if all of us can be there from 4pm onwards. Can you just imagine an entire CentrePoint building of shoppers dressed in black? Shopping is a national pastime, so let's just go shopping on the 8th September 2007 dressed in black in CentrePoint for a good cause!

Against Compulsory Annuity

AGAINST COMPULSORY ANNUITY

Date and Time: 8 September Saturday, 4pm

Dress in Black

Center point

(SMS all friends, and have a day out)

We are not armchair critics, as long as there is a great surge of shoppers in Centerpoint at around 4pm on Saturday, we have achieved something.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages?msg=150184.1
http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2007/08/protest-against-annuities-sept-8th-2007.html
http://www.thevoiddeck.org/

Say NO to CPF $60k Rule and Compulsory Annuity

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Failed State Ventures with Public Funds

n January 1998, it was revealed that a US diskdrive maker Micropolis, was taken over by ST technologies, and sank with losses of S$ 575 million. (1)

DBS, 37% percent owned by temasek holdings, lost heavily in acquiring Thai Danu bank, quoted to be an "expensive mistake". (2) The bank indicated the size of its mistake when it said it was raising its stake in the bank from 241mil to 763.4mil SGD

SIA acquired 25% of a troubled Airline, Air New Zealand in April 2001. The carrier's operational and and financial troubles caused its share price to nosedive. The NZ govt was force to bail out and diluting SIA's share to 5 percent. By Oct '04, SIA estimated to have lost over NZ$500 mil, according to investment director for Macquarie Equities. (3)

At the height of the tech boom in '01, SIA showed further ineptitude was revealed when it acquired 49 percent of Virgin Atlantic, for Aus$1.6 Billion. Boss of Virgin, Sir Branson must be laughing his way to the bank as he received top dollar and remain in charge. (4) Paying top dollar for 49% stake, and still leaving Branson in charge... good or bad business acumen?

In 2000, GIC purchased 15 million shares in Australia's Macquarie Corporate Telecom and ~$3 a share, making the GIC the largest shareholder in a company on a downward slide. A year later, the telco announced that it was losing money and share prices fell drastically. The GIC, left with depreciated shares, had to sell 14million shares at 18 cents a share. (5)

Charted Semiconductor Manufacturing, (temasek has 60% stake) bled money from 2001-4. (6) Having inferior technology to their Taiwanese rivals, didn't make any profit in 2000-4.(7)

(1)ST Jan 16 1998
(2)ST March 7, 2000
(3)ST October 6 2004
(4)The Australian, February 16-17 2002
(5) The Age (Melborne), April 11 2001
(6) The Economist, August 14 2004
(7) The Australian, October 28, 2004


Taken from "The Singapore Miracle - Myth and Reality" Rodney King

We can change the nation

Change has to start with the individual doesn't it? If everyone waits for everyone else to start a momentum of change, will change eventually happen?

Do the people of Singapore actually want change? And if change does happen, there will be people advocating and triggering that change right? If if you feel that Singapore needs some change, will you be that person, one among many like minded people, contributing to that momentum of change? Or are Singaporeans narcissistic or apathetic by nature? Have many of us Singaporeans "learned to be helpless"?

Learned Helplessness
Martin E. P. Seligman together with his colleagues discovered this phenomenon in 1965.

If ringing bell or tone is repeatedly paired with this presentation of food, a dog salivates. Later, all you have to do is ring the bell and the dog salivates. However, in Seligman's experiment, instead of pairing the tone with food, he paired it with a harmless shock, restraining the dog in a hammock during the learning phase. The idea, then, was that after the dog learned this, the dog would feel fear on the presentation of a tone, and would then run away or do some other behavior.

Next, they put the conditioned dog into a shuttlebox, which consists of a low fence dividing the box into two compartments. The dog can easily see over the fence, and jump over if it wishes. So they rang the bell. Surprisingly, nothing happened! (They were expecting the dog to jump over the fence.) Then, they decided to shock the conditioned dog, and again nothing happened! The dog just pathetically laid there! When they put a normal dog into the shuttlebox, who never experienced inescapable shock, the dog, as expected, immediately jumped over the fence to the other side. Apparently, what the conditioned dog learned in the hammock, was that trying to escape from the shocks is futile.
http://www.noogenesis.com/malama/discouragement/helplessness.html

Learned helplessness is a psychological condition in which an animal has learned to believe that it is helpless. It has come to believe that it has no control over its situation and that whatever it does is futile. As a result, the animal will stay passive in the face of an unpleasant, harmful or damaging situation, even when it does actually have the power to change its circumstances.

people in a state of learned helplessness view problems as personal, pervasive, or permanent. That is,
* Personal - They may see themselves as the problem; that is, they have internalized the problem.
* Pervasive - They may see the problem as affecting all aspects of life.
* Permanent - They may see the problem as unchangeable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

So have many of the apathetic Singaporeans learned to be helpless? Have Singaporeans been conditioned just like the dog in the above paragraph?
"aiyah what can we do, just follow gahmen loh" A common line used by many Singaporeans, even if they are unhappy with the polices made by the ruling party.

What is learned can be unlearned and we as Singaporeans need to unlearn this form of helplessness or helpless mentality.

“Peasants don’t care for much else except a bowl of rice on the table, a roof over their heads, and the chance to go out to the rice fields to do the daily back-breaking chores day in day out.”

If you are voting with only your rice bowl occupying your thoughts, does that make you a peasant? Understandable mindset for a developing country, but for a government that claims to be first world, shouldn't the people be thinking citizens with 1st world mentalities?

If we are a first world nation, should the prevailing standard of living be on par with other 1st world nations if not better?

SDP: Give us back our CPF savings

Something from the SDP that I totally agree with, hence I'm pasting it here.

"Media Release: Give us back our CPF savings
21 Jun 07

And the scheming continues.

The raising of the CPF withdrawal age to 65 is nothing more than another ploy to delay returning the people’s hard-earned savings.

The reason advanced for the change, that Singaporeans are living longer than before, is as lame as it is ludicrous.

When workers retire and need a source of income, telling them that they cannot use their savings because they are living longer makes as much sense as telling a man dying of thirst that he can’t drink his water because he’ll need it later.

Whether they are in their 60s, 70s or 80s senior citizens need their retirement savings. How they budget their funds to last them through their remaining years is none of the PAP’s business.

Worse, with the way the political system is what's to stop the PAP from raising the withdrawal age to 70 and beyond?

Think about it: The elderly are told that they have to continue to work – and for less pay, the GST is raised to 7 percent, hospitals and polyclinics raise their charges and now the withdrawal of the CPF savings is further pushed back.

With a government like this, who needs robbers?

This continual change of the withdrawal age coupled with the Minimum Sum Scheme, which allows the Government to return the savings to retirees in small monthly instalments, effectively means that Singaporeans will never fully get back their savings.

This has a pernicious side-effect. Seeing that the Government has no intention of returning their CPF savings, Singaporeans will resort to using whatever funds they have in their Ordinary CPF Accounts to pay for their HDB mortgages.

In other words, the sizes of their flats they buy will depend on the size of the monthly CPF contributions, not on whether they can afford it.

As it is Singaporeans are already putting in a worryingly high percentage of their income into housing, not by choice it should be added, compared to people in other countries. This leaves them little or no savings for retirement.

Of course the Government loves such an arrangement, it further engorges the its already corpulent pockets.

A recent survey conducted by the AXA Insurance Group revealed that while Singaporeans are the world’s biggest savers, they have the least amount of funds for retirement. Now we know where all the money is going to.

With a system as opaque and unaccountable as the one that presently exists, continuing to allow the PAP to retain our CPF savings is a dangerous arrangement. It is, however, one made in authoritarian heaven.

The people need to fight back.

Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General

Singapore Democratic Party"

What happens to me when I come of that age, provided I do live that long. Will the age of CPF withdrawals be raised to 80 by then? I'll be 80 in 50 years, what happens then? Do I keep the faith that I will be well taken care of? And that me and my peers will be taken care of?

Do I stick around to find out or should I seek greener pastures? Or do I stay, and advocate change? Well, watch this space, in which I will post my next topic, advocating change in Singapore.

The more I try to love Singapore, the harder my heart aches.

Is this how some of you feel? Is that the reason why some of our fellow Singaporeans choose to leave for greener pastures? We work hard or even struggle to maintain a certain quality of life, to only realise that we have to work even harder, as the quality of the life we have attained begins to require more from us, as part of the national workforce? A government that continues to squeeze the only main resource this nation has? Its people?

Are the majority of Singaporeans living a life that revolves around working paying off for a HDB flat, paying off a car loan, paying off study loans for tertiary education? Where the same amount of effort, in another place or nation, could very well yield a life with a humble home, car, with healthcare and education for the kids taken care of. Are the majority of middle income earners in Singapore even home owners? In a nation where costs of living are beginning to go up across the board. Do we actually have something in this nation to live or strive for?

It has only been what 13 months since the last General elections. We have seen, public medical costs go up. Public transport rates going up. NETS cost due to be increase. Goods and Services Tax due to rise. Minister's getting super pay increases. Property prices going on a roller coaster ride. So how have the majority of Singaporeans(lower middle working class) benefited from this recovery of the economy?

Extracts from Wikipedia
"Patriotism denotes positive and supportive attitudes to a 'fatherland' (Latin patria <> Patriotism covers such attitudes as: pride in its achievements and culture, the desire to preserve its character and the basis of the culture, and identification with other members of the nation."

"Patriotism has ethical connotations: it implies that the 'fatherland' (however defined) is a moral standard or moral value in itself."

Love for the country, to preserve a way of life, but the way of life we seek to preserve, has been ever so gradually, shifting. Shifting away from a more balanced work life balance. The values of society have been slowly conforming to being part of PAPs GDP machinery. The influx of "Foreign Talent" isn't doing anything to help the job security of the average Singaporean either. What choice is there left to a Singaporean who is yearning for a better quality of life?

Singapore Justices Just?

Is there a problem with our legal system? Or the values of the Judges within the system? Its not about the PM having influence over the appointment of judges, or the executive having the power to appoint Judicial Commissioners.

Its about the values of behind the law of the land. The spirit in which the laws were made and enacted. The law created to protect the individual rights. Judges that do what is right, and not just follow the Law to the letter. Isn't the Law a consequence of the rights of an individual, created to protect those rights? Does the law in Singapore protect those rights or hold such values?

In 1995
Chief Justice Yong held that any Law which deprived a person of his life or personal liberty was valid and binding as long as it was validly passed by parliament. The courts, he said, 'is not concerned with whether it is also fair, just and reasonable as well.**

This is the Chief Justice that was appointed by the Executive who was a classmate if Lee Kuan Yew.

Most recently, in the case of Falungong detainees.

Excerpts from Epoch Times : http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-6-10/56345.html

'The Prosecution Ignores Inconvenient Evidence

The defendants raised several points regarding the evidence presented, and also the evidence the prosecution chose to withhold.

The prosecution submitted a series of photographs, which it claimed supported the charge. However, there was no date- or timestamp on the photographs—they could have been taken at any time. Further, only one of the photographs showed definitively the location where it was taken; the rest of the photographs bore no signs identifying the scene, and could have been taken in a number of places.

None of the defendants appear in the one photo that was identifiably taken at the scene of the alleged violation. The prosecution submitted no photographic evidence placing the defendants at the scene when the alleged violation occurred.'

'Judge Tung said, "The accused say that if the video were shown in the courtroom, everyone would see how peaceful and harmonious the scene really was. This shows that the defendants were indeed at the scene.

"I agree with the prosecutor that you have done great things. But I am not here to judge whether you are right or wrong; my only concern whether you have permits. You committed an offence because you did not have permits."'

Judge Tung: "But I am not here to judge whether you are right or wrong"

So the law does not protect what is right or does it?

Chief Justice Yong "(The court) is not concerned with whether it is also fair, just and reasonable as well."

We have a Chief Justice that is not concerned whether the a law or Judgement is just?

The Definition of justice

1. The quality of being just; fairness.

2. The principle of moral rightness; equity.

3. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.

4. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward.

5. Law The administration and procedure of law.

6. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason:

If you agree that with the above definitions of justice, do our courts then deliver justice when our judges words contradict most of the above definition of justice?


**Introduction to Singapore's Constitution - Kevin Y.L. Tan

Sure or not Mr Lee?

"You can get anything you want in Singapore. You can travel, you can bring it in. You can - you can organize what you want. You can say anything you want, and all sorts of things are said and debated in Singapore."

- Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, interview with Charlie Rose, Aug 2005

Ok so the PM can say something like this, in another country. Right here at home we get protesters being called in for questioning by the police force for a non-violent protest. Furthermore, the police were right there at the protests, they were witnesses to everything that transpired at those 2 events. Is there even a need to haul them in for questioning? Its bloody ludicrous. If actions speak louder than words, then words of our PM will then be worth not more than Bullcrap.

Salute to CSJ and company

Kudos, to Chee and friends.

Over the past few weeks, about 15 human rights activists were called in by the Singapore Police Force for questioning. They are under investigation regarding protests conducted on 2 separate occasions.

One on IMF world bank meeting in Sept 06, when seven activists participated in a protest at Hong Lim Park, calling for freedom speech and expression. The police came down on them, and the protest subsequently became a standoff with the police, that lasted 72 hours.

The other on human rights day on 10 Dec 06. Several activists conducted a freedom march along orchard road to commemorate Human Rights Day.

The police are investigating them for some rather ludicrous allegations, like "counseling disobedience to the law", "holding an assembly and procession without a permit", and "incitement to violence". Amazing really. As far as I know, Chee SJ vehemently promotes non-violence-even when faced with violence from authorities.

The courage and resolve of these patriotic Singaporeans are unmatched at this point. Steadfast in their beliefs, who not only talk the talk, but walk the walk. They have called upon all Singaporeans to do their part in upholding the Singapore Pledge. Especially this line: "To build and democratic society based on justice and equality".

In the past, just the threat of a law suit or legal charges would cause a dissident party or organisation to capitulate. Not this time, these brave Singaporeans have stood fast and firm, held their ground, and perhaps even placed the ruling party in a spot.

These people are not professional politicians with the exception of Chee. They are ordinary people you see everyday on the street, just like you and I. Again, I salute all of you.




Show your support =), write a message of encouragement to these brave people.

speakup@ singaporedemocrat.org

It is our duty to speak up

We, the undersigned, are being questioned by the police for taking part in political activities on 16 September 2006 and 10 December 2006.

We are Singaporeans exercising our sacred rights and speaking up for the rights of our fellow citizens.

We object to being harassed by the Singapore Government and reiterated our stand that as citizens its is our duty and responsibility to speak up and hold our Government accountable. These rights are enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We oppose the repressive measures of the ruling Peoples’ Action Party which continues to use laws to prosecute citizens for exercising our freedoms of speech and assembly.

We call on democracy defenders to denounce the anti-democratic stance of the Singapore Government and to support the cause of democracy in Singapore.



Signed,

Gandhi Ambalam
Chee Siok Chin (Ms)
Chee Soon Juan
Chong Kaixiong
Jeffrey George
Johnny Hoe
IsrizalKirat Kaur (Ms)
Monica Kumar (Ms)
Priveen Suraj
Gerald Sng
John Tan
Charles Tan
Tan Cheng Poh
Teoh Tian Jing
Yap Keng Ho
Francis Yong

Independent Judicary? In Singapore?

Extracted from our Constitution

Article 94 Constitution of Supreme Court

(2) The office of a Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be abolished during his continuance in office.

(4) In order to facilitate the disposal of business in the Supreme Court, the President, if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister, may appoint a person qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court to be a Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court in accordance with Article 95 for such period or periods as the President thinks fit; and a Judicial Commissioner so appointed may, in respect of such class or classes of cases as the Chief Justice may specify, exercise the powers and perform the functions of a Judge of the High Court. Anything done by a Judicial Commissioner when acting in accordance with the terms of his appointment shall have the same validity and effect as if done by a Judge of that Court and, in respect thereof, he shall have the same powers and enjoy the same immunities as if he had been a Judge of that Court.

(5) For the purposes of Clause (4), the President may appoint a person qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court to be a Judicial Commissioner to hear and determine a specified case only.

So the PM has the power to appoint or rather, influence the appointment of Judicial Commissioners who have the full authority of Judges but the tenure is limited to the period that the President "deems fit". Hence also the giving power to the Executive to remove the Judicial Commissioner when he "deems fit" to do so.

Article 4 can easily be used to circumvent article 2, and put judges' appointments at the mercy of the PM. Maybe to ensure their obedience? Anyone knows for sure, how many of our judges are judicial commissioners at the moment? I heard the Chief Justice is or was a judicial commissioner, can anyone confirm this?

No Poverty in Singapore? Think again..

Lee Hsien Loong: “We have helped those who needed help...no one will be left behind.”

Lee Kuan Yew: “You go down New York, Broadway. You will see the beggars, people of the streets...Where are the beggars in Singapore? Show me.”

Goh Chok Tong: “Your worries are mine too...we are one big family.”

Yeah right!!

Legal minimum wage in Singapore

Would a legal minimum wage law help the poverty situation in Singapore? We have the lowest 20% of income earners suffering a drop in average income for the past 10-15 years. While the top 10% of income earner continue to receive income increases. There are households with breadwinners but still struggling to make ends meet.

Australia has a minimum wage law of about Aust$511 per week. USA about USD5.15 per hour, UK about 5.35 pounds/hour.

According to the Singapore Department of Statistics, The average wage for the lowest 10% of households with income earners was S$459 in year 2000. Bear in mind that 2000 was before SARS and 9/11. For some reason I can't find data on income distribution on the Stat Dept website newer that year 2000. But I figure there will not be a huge difference in the 2006 Data.

Click here for full article.

Some Benefits with implementing a minimum wage law (from wikipedia)

1. Increases the average living standard
2. Creates incentive to work.
3. Minimum wage is administratively simple; workers only need to report violations of wages less than minimum, minimizing a need for a large enforcement agency
4. Stimulates consumption, by putting more money in the hands of low-income people who spend their entire paychecks
5. Increases the work ethic of those who earn very little, as employers demand more return from the higher cost of hiring these employees
6. Decreases the cost of government social welfare programs by increasing incomes for the lowest-paid.

Maybe we should get an MP and lobby for minimum wage laws here in Singapore.
Are you one of those that starts thinking "As long as I give my 10% of my paycheck" or "I donate to charity every month"? Are we, Singaporeans that narcissistic? Do we start ignoring the very real situation about poverty here in Singapore? As long as there is a roof over your head, you got a job, a comfortable life, you children go to school, they are safe, PAP is fine?

Has narcissism and materialism infected the majority of Singaporeans to such a degree, that they think only of their own households, and choose to believe or play along with whatever the PAP says, as long as status quo is maintained?

The poverty here in Singapore is just the symptom of a larger problem (but thats another post of another day). With a fully controlled press that practices self censorship, Singaporeans who are not exposed to foreign press, are only getting one side of the whole story.

Get the government to do something about the high influx of foreign workers, get the government to do something about the minimum wage, and the poorest of the poor here in Singapore. Make them bloody work for their still unjustified multi million dollar salaries.

Singapore's Progress Package wins UN award

CNA article here

This is really disgusting, is there still justice in this world?
The progress package payout was on 1st May 2006. Polling Day was on 6th May 2006. Instead of being slammed with vote-buying, they get an award... this really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Another thing that doesn't sit really well....

Quote from the article linked above

"Mr Tharman said this open-ness, together with trust, is also extended to people, enterprise and ideas from all over the world.

And these qualities are helping with Singapore's branding.

He said that although Singapore should monitor the negative aspects, it does not have to be defensive about them."

If Mr Tharman claims to be on the same page as the rest of the PAP, or this is the general consensus of the rest of the PAP, especially at the upper echelons... then

This is a bleeping bloody frickin busload of bullcrap... especially coming from a PAP minister...
How many times have we heard "mind your own business" from the Govt when Singapore gets negative press?
How many occasions have we seen the Govt get fiercely defensive with negative criticism about being draconian, lack of independent press etc?
How many times have foreign publications been sued by Govt leaders? Most recently the case with the Far Eastern Economic Review last Aug. is one classic example.

Voting for Opposition a bad move? What about Checks and Balances?

Fearful of supporting the opposition? I think, firstly its probably due to the government swinging the Sledgehammer, with "ISA" engraved on its side so prominently in the past. Every time I talk about how much I respect people like Jeyaretnam, Chiam See Tong and about how much I root for the opposition parties... it really saddens me, to the point my heart aches, to hear my loved one tell me " Please think of your future, don't get into trouble". Opposition politics is synonymous with trouble? It really saddens me, it is a very real sign, to me, that there is an acute need for political reform. To quote the venerable Mr Jeyaretnam "A complete and thorough reform of the system" "no more tinkering".

Then there is another kind of fear, As Mr Lee Kuan Yew had once said - paraphrase "Elections are about your futures and your children's' futures" It really does make one, standing in the voting booth stop and think doesn't it? Especially those who have families or kids to raise. He does seem to have a talent for it doesn't he? Striking fear in the hearts of people... one way or another.

Many people worry, or fear, that voting the for the opposition will threaten the security of this country, both civic and economic security, if indeed, the PAP is to be ousted from its entrenched seat of power. The operative word being "if". yeah, I know it sounds kinda pessimistic.

A thought I was toying with, there are many people whom I have come across, see the sledgehammer of the PAP and don't really like it. Some would like to see more transparency and accountability from the government. Some feel that more press freedom is in order. But if these people still voted for PAP, why do they?

My take? I think this is where they trip. They are not willing to risk the economic future for the checks and balances in government. At the moment, they don't see the perceived "required calibre" within the opposition at the moment, so "hmm ok I'll vote PAP for now till WP/SDA get better people" becomes a common self justification line they use, and then end up voting for the incumbents or PAP. But its not impossible to find capable people isn't it? For instance, even in a coup de'tat like in thailand very recently, they still found people to run the country. But thats far from what we should be doing tho, just saying that its not impossible to find capable people outside the ruling party.

So how will Singapore get a credible opposition in Parliament?

Firstly, a credible opposition doesn't equate to overthrowing the government, or even a revolution. A credible opposition does not mean destabilizing the Government, which what some people fear. Overthrowing the government is not the objective here. Placing a credible opposition in parliament has to start gradually, by taking small steps....

Firstly, the opposition has to build up strength.... which so far, WP is ahead among the opposition parties, but not enough, yet, still its a rather significant step. They(the opposition) do not have to match the PAP, man for man. The people they have at the moment is already a big step, considering 15-20 years ago or even 5 years ago, if a graduate were to openly join an opposition party, chances are, that there was actually a social taboo attached, or even regarded as insane by some. But I digress, what I'm saying is that they first have to get enough talent, win a GRC, or even 2. Establish a foothold. Which I think they have amost done in the 2006 GE with Aljunied GRC.

Then the 1st real step of the main objective to establishing Checks and Balances. Something I'd like to consider the Achilles heel of the PAP, hard to get to, but when you get to it, its the key to everything.

What is the most important key to rule a nation? Its the absolute power and control of the law.
And what is the supreme law of the land? It is the Constitution of The Republic of Singapore.

So the first step is to wrest away total control of the constitution from the PAP. As many of you already know, 66% votes in parliament gives them(PAP) the right to amend the constitution, and thats where the PAP gets its power. Having all but 2 out of 84 seats in Parliament, needless to say that the PAP has absolute control over the constitution. Amendment to this act, introduce that act, amend this act, introduce that act, easily done to entrench themselves. Like what they did to the elections act, and also amended the constitution to give the PM the power to appoint Judges and CJs, on short term contracts, which means, also gives him the right to "not renew" those contracts on "unsatisfactory performance" and I leave the definition of "unsatisfactory performance" to your imagination.... I think it has got something to do with Lee and son and all their libel suits....

So the first major objective, is to gain perhaps 40% of the seats in parliament. PAP will still be in power, with most of their ministers still in cabinet, just that their absolute power over the law will no longer be absolute. And when that happens, the opposition parties will start to have more credibility and may begin to attract more candidates of higher calibre. When that happens joining the PAP will no longer be a "nobrainer" for potential/aspiring politicians. And voting, will then really involve serious deliberation on the part of the voters. Bear in mind, the first step is to wrest absolute power from PAP's hands.

Competition can breed quality.... absolute power can breed stagnation, and then corruption..

The ultimate goal, is to win at least 66% and then remove all entrenching amendments from the constitution. Relinquish the power from the Executive to appoint judges. The police force to become a corporation, answerable to the whole parliament, not just 1 minister. These are things to watch out for when a new party does take over as the ruling party. If a new party takes over, and still retains all the entrenching laws, we might just get another PAP, if only by another name.

Think about it, lending your support to the opposition may not be such a big a risk as the PAP may have you and I believe. Do you honestly think that Singapore will crumble if PAP has 60% seats?

Well thank you for reading this longish essay, if 1 out of 20 people who read this, begins to lend his or her support to the alternative parties, I would be glad to have been able to even make a small difference.

Competition can breed quality.... absolute power can breed stagnation, and then corruption.

Congratulations to MR JB Jeyaretnam

I should have posted this earlier, right when I got back from the press conference on the 20th.

Congrats to Mr Jeyaretnam with his discharge from bankruptcy.

Key point IMO was the decision of form a new party, tentative name, called the reform party. The main platform of the party is the pursue the complete and thorough reform of the government system here in Singapore. Found videos of the event on youtube.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJCpCzgbdk8
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7RKQzxFQGw

Some Pics, I'm no professional Photographer tho, taken with my cell phone

I wish MR Jeyaretnam all the best and every success in his endeavours to come.

Privacy in Singapore?

Ok so its been year since my last post... maybe I should use this blog as a personal collection of information or links to information that show how draconian and opressive the PAP can be here in Singapore. Like my own little collection of notes.

Recently a quote by MM Lee can come to my attention via the human rights forum held here in April.

"I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yet, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters – who your neighbor is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right, never mind what the people think. That’s another problem."

CSJ : paraphrase - "If you are going to interfere with the lives of citizens to that degree, how can you then turn around and say that the poverty situation in Singapore today is not the business of the government?"

Is this what the leader of our nation thinks of our privacy? Isn't it akin to a CEO who attempts to micro manage his company?