Category: Politik

NSP To Contest Macpherson SMC, Acting Sec-Gen Hazel Poa Resigns

The MacPherson single-seat ward is set for a three-cornered fight after the National Solidarity Party (NSP) yesterday reneged on an earlier promise to stay out of the constituency and allow the Workers’ Party (WP) to take on the People’s Action Party in a straight contest.

The NSP’s announcement exposed cracks not only within the Opposition ranks, but in the party as well: Its acting secretary-general Hazel Poa quit the party — only two months after she returned to her old role on an interim basis — after disagreeing with the central executive council’s (CEC) decision to support CEC member Steve Chia’s request to contest in MacPherson.

“It was a decision I strongly disagreed with and, hence, not one I can implement. As the direction that the party has decided to pursue deviates greatly from my own, I see no choice other than to resign from the NSP,” Ms Poa said in a press statement issued less than one and a half hours after the NSP made its announcement.

On Aug 10, the NSP said it would not contest in the Marine Parade and MacPherson constituencies — which were both eyed by the WP. Ms Poa had said then that the NSP was looking at the “bigger picture” and a three-cornered fight would make it less likely for an opposition party to win.

But the NSP said it changed its position on MacPherson after lengthy deliberations, to “keep faith with our supporters”. “In recent weeks, NSP leaders have been receiving feedback and pledges of support from many residents in Marine Parade and MacPherson,” the party said, noting it had received about 43 per cent of the votes when it contested in Marine Parade Group Representation Constituency (GRC) in the 2011 General Election (GE). MacPherson has been carved out from Marine Parade GRC for the coming polls, following changes to the electoral boundaries.

The NSP said: “We have decided to give up contesting in Marine Parade on the merit that Joo Chiat has previously been contested by the WP. As for MacPherson, the CEC strongly supports the decision to proceed with contesting in the SMC where considerable outreach has been done before the 2011 GE.” The party said this decision is “final”. “(It) reflects our view that maintaining opposition unity requires mutual respect and a spirit of compromise on the part of all parties,” it added.

The party reiterated that it had reached out to WP after talks to resolve conflicting election plans among opposition parties failed to yield a compromise between the WP and NSP over Marine Parade GRC and MacPherson. The WP, which did not attend the second round of talks, also did not respond to the NSP’s subsequent attempts to open discussions.

Opposition watcher Wong Wee Nam, who contested in the 1997 GE on the NSP ticket, said the NSP was “destroying itself”. “First of all, you never keep your promise, then your acting secretary-general has resigned because of that,” he said.

He felt that the NSP’s move would backfire, even in other constituencies where the party is contesting. “It just shows that they don’t keep their word … People won’t trust the party anymore,” he said.

Associate Professor Alan Chong from the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies noted that there is a rational explanation for the NSP’s U-turn. “You don’t give up what you cultivated on the ground in 2011,” he said. As to the impact of the NSP’s move, Assoc Prof Chong felt that while some voters could lose trust in the NSP, others in MacPherson might actually be really grateful that the NSP has not forgotten them.

In June 2011, Ms Poa was first appointed NSP secretary-general, becoming the first female secretary-general of a political party here. About two years later, she resigned because of health reasons. In June, she reprised her old role on an interim basis after Mr Tan Lam Siong resigned as secretary-general after only five months in the post. Ms Poa’s departure means the NSP would be looking for its fifth secretary-general since the 2011 GE.

Singapore Management University law don Eugene Tan said the resignation of Ms Poa would weaken the party’s “A” team slate for Tampines GRC. “The leadership musical chairs continues. This points to the party being in a state of flux … They urgently need to be cohesive and with clear directions going forward or their campaign is going to be ineffective,” he said.

While Assoc Prof Chong said Ms Poa might end up with the WP or the Singapore Democratic Party, Ms Poa made clear in her statement that she would not be contesting in the coming GE.

Wishing the NSP well, she reiterated that the leader of NSP is its president Sebastian Teo. She added that she respected the right of the CEC as the decision-making body of the party. “I apologise to all whom I have disappointed. My own disappointment is no less. For me, the coming months will be a time for reflection,” she said.

Mr Teo told TODAY that he was also of the initial opinion that the NSP should not contest in MacPherson: “Personally, I think to avoid three-cornered fights should be the way, but we got to respect the majority.”

Source: www.todayonline.com

August 20, 2015
M Ravi Should Reconsider Decision To Not Run

There was some speculation last week that human rights lawyer, M Ravi would run in the upcoming General Elections as a Reform Party candidate. However he poured cold water on that idea issuing a statement announcing his decision not to run. In most cases I would have left it at that – a candidate wishes not to run for personal reasons, however after reading that statement, I think otherwise.

In it he cites 2 things – a calling and service. Indeed politics like lawyering, is a calling and similarly it’s about service. Mr Ravi may want to focus on his legal duties and service to his clients, but I do believe that he should also consider a greater calling and service – to the nation. If he had stood as an independent candidate in of all places – AMK GRC, I would not support the idea. I think to be an MP in Singapore, you need the support of a party behind you. There’s a lot of things behind the scenes that one must have or need to do. From the logistics of an MPS, to identifying residents’ problems and even gathering data to speak in the House – you can’t do it alone or with limited resources of an independent candidate.

M Ravi has extensive experience as a lawyer – 18 years in fact. He’s handled the most serious of cases – ranging from those involving capital punishment to those that involve the rights of persons. He does not shirk from asking tough questions and raising arguments. I think there’s a shortage of politicians prepared to ask tough questions especially on the issue of our Laws. Far too many Laws have been enacted that are restrictive and unnecessary – the latest being the island wide alcohol ban after 10.30pm. Is it really necessary to have such a prohibitive law when the problem was basically restricted to Little India and parts of Clark Quay?

What about Laws on basic freedoms? What about Laws on sentencing? Or even the system of justice and composition of the Legal Service and appointment of judicial officers? Is it prudent to have District Judges jumping back and forth from the AG’s Chambers to the Bench? A prosecutor can of course become a Judge and vice-versa, but that should be that. You choose 1. This frequent interchanging of roles in my view tends to produce legal officers with narrower leanings or gives an impression of retaining ties to the AG’s Chambers. We need someone to ask hard and relevant questions.

Next we have to look at upbringing and interaction with the common man. Although he’s a lawyer, M Ravi has always been associated with the common man. He isn’t aloof, he lives his life in a HDB estate, dresses and talks like a common man and crucially mixes with them. He doesn’t need to put an act. He takes public transport and witnesses the plight of ordinary Singaporeans daily. He can speak well, can ask questions and is not afraid to, he has the qualifications and places a premium on the value of service to his fellow man and nation. He ticks all the boxes that 1 should look for in a candidate.

I understand that the Law Society will press on with some charges they have laid for him. But the charges are so ridiculous to begin with. He was diagnosed as having another episode of bi-polar disorder and has apologised for it. Moreover why should the Law Society get involved in matters where 1 person says things about another? The legal recourse to those parties is of course to commence a lawsuit, why is the Law Society playing judge? If the Law Society itself cites that it does not have any standing to deal with PAP MP Alvin Yeo for over-charging, that is a matter solely for a sub-committee, then pray tell why are they going after M Ravi, where evidence exists that this is a personal matter between 2 parties and that he has a solid statement from Dr Winslow that he was suffering from a major relapse at the time?

I also understand that Dr Winslow has implemented a strict regime to ensure that such relapses will become a thing of the past or occur very very rarely. He has the support, he has the ability and he understands the issues facing the ordinary Singaporean, because he’s always been 1 of them. He will champion the cause of his residents, fight for them, serve them and most of all, he’ll be an MP who’ll go to the House, unafraid to speak up and ask the tough questions.

I strongly urge him to reconsider his decision and to give it his all in the campaign. His service to his clients will not be affected, rather it’s a calling to serve the larger interests of community and nation. Finally we have so few Indians in Parliament prepared to ask questions and raise issues that the community are facing. When have we last seen a Tamil MP asking questions or speaking in Tamil? The influx of Indian nationals have severely affected the community – it’s time someone from their community spoke up for them and for other minorities in the resident Indian population in Singapore. M Ravi can be such a champion for them and for Singaporeans as a whole. The time is now – the calling is now – your nation needs you – you must run, M Ravi.

Source: http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg

August 19, 2015
PAP Vs SDP: Which Video Is A Party Political Film?

On 17 August, the Singapore Democratic Party video, entitled “Pappy Washing Powder”, was classified a party political film by the Media Development Authority (MDA) and is therefore prohibited under the Films Act.

The MDA, however, has decided not to take further actions against the party as the video is considered the first party political film. The MDA said that as such the parties might not be fully aware of the requirements under the Act.

The MDA reminded the political parties to abide by the Films Act and to “ensure that political debate in Singapore is conducted in a responsible and dignified manner, and not by using the film medium to sensationalise serious issues in a biased or emotional manner”.

The Films Act defines any film which is an advertisement made by or on behalf of any political party in Singapore, or any body whose objects relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore, or any branch of such party or body; or which is made by any person and directed towards any political end in Singapore.

In May 2014, the youth wing of the PAP, Young PAP, released a video entitled, “Re-ignite the Passion of Servant Leadership”, was cleared by the MDA and given a PG rating.

The MDA said the video “does not fall under the category of political films”.

The Straits Times reported:

“This is because it does not have animation or dramatic elements. The video is also made by a political party and comprises its manifesto and ideology, on the basis of which the party’s candidates will seek to be elected.”

The video seems to have been made private since then, after it drew widespread ridicule for being “robotic”. (A copy of it has been uploaded online by another Facebook page, and a parody of it emerged soon after. Please see below.)

On Monday, the MDA classified the SDP video as a party political film.

Can you tell why one is classified as such while the other is not?

The Young PAP video (from another Facebook page) – “Re-ignite the Passion of Servant Leadership”:

Parody of the PAP’s “Re-ignite the Passion of Servant Leadership”:

SDP’s “Pappy Washing Powder”:

Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

August 19, 2015
Reflect On The Death Of Our Own Singaporean In Bangkok, Violence Must Be Condemned And Delegitimised

Rilek1Corner,

A Singaporean Ms Melisa Liu Rui Chun just lost a life in a terror attack in Bangkok and here we are carrying on with life as per normal. No one-minute silence, no mark of respect. Very little reflection. The government will tell you that it is a good sign that the community can carry on depite such a tragedy but is there really no room to think about what happened?

Thai Police still have not identified the culprit and the motive. Whatever it is, this is a terror attack not just on Thailand, but also other countries whose citizens have been a victim of this attack. The perpetrator does not have be a bearded, AK-47 wielding mad man for this to be called a terror attack. This is someone using violence to force authorities to submit to them. Selfish people who only think about their self-interest.

Violence, for whatever reasons cannot be justified. If there is no rule of law and everyone who doesn’t get their way resort to violence to achieve their objectives, how iwll the world turn out?

What was supposed to be a happy occasion for her turned ot to be a nightmare for her friends and family. Within seconds, lives were changed. Lives were destroyed and may not recover even after years.

Even as we go on with our busy lives, let’s reflect about what happened. Reflect on why the Singaporean life is lost bcause of an act of senseless violence. Do not let her death be in vain.

Singapura Son

[Reader Contribution]

August 19, 2015
The Fear Perpetuated By The Urban Myth About Voting In Singapore
By Jamal Ismail

At a recent dinner with some friends, I was surprised to hear a friend remark that she had no choice but to vote for the PAP because she is a teacher. On another occasion, I heard a similar remark by an office colleague who is convinced that she must vote for PAP or else her son may not get into the right school, and her application for a new HDB flat will be rejected.

Both assume that their votes are being recorded, and they will be somehow penalized if they don’t cast a vote in favour of the PAP. Surprisingly, these are highly educated people and I realized then that the fear of voting for parties other than PAP is more prevalent than I initially thought.

During the 2011 General Elections, I volunteered as an Election Agent and saw the entire campaigning and voting process from start to finish. Please allow me to share my experience and guide you through the voting system, one step at a time.

Acknowledging the issue

There is a perception among many that the Singapore Government is an all-knowing, vengeful entity. Understandably, these fears are rooted in basic survival issues, concerning their career and daily livelihood ‘bread and butter’ issues like housing, healthcare and their children’s education.

Many Government employees could even relate rumours of some people who had their career destroyed for voting in favour of the Opposition.

Rumours like these have been passed around for so long, it achieved urban myth status; where everyone has heard of them but no one has been able to prove that it exists. A crucial way to overcome the fear is to learn the facts.

Is my vote a secret?

YES, your vote is secret. The plain and simple fact is: No one knows who you voted for, unless you tell them. The proof is in the voting process, and you can read about it on the Singapore Elections Department’s webpage.

Here is the eight-step process that safeguards the secrecy of your vote.
1. The maintenance of secrecy is mandated by law under Section 56 Parliamentary Elections Act, which states that everyone manning the polling or counting centre must maintain and aid in maintaining the secrecy of voting and anyone who contravenes Section 56 will be guilty of a criminal offence.
1. Every voting slip has a serial number that is matched to the Electoral Roll. The purpose of a serial number to ensure that you get only one voting slip. Note that your name is NOT on the voting slip.
1. Each voter has their name and voter number called out for another official to cross out your name from the Electoral Roll, to prevent anyone from voting twice, which would be unfair.
1. Then you go into a private booth and mark the voting slip. After you mark the voting slip, you are required to fold it in half and drop it into the ballot box. As only one person can use the booth each time and your voting slip was folded, no one can see who you voted for.
1. Your voting slip goes into the ballot box along with thousands of others. At 8pm, all the ballot boxes containing the voting slips are sealed. The officials use a serial-numbered tamper-proof sticker, signed off by Opposition and PAP representatives. The sealed ballot boxes are sent to a Counting Centre, guarded by a police officer.
1. At the Counting Centre, the tamper-proof sticker serial numbers are checked by Opposition and PAP representatives. The ballot boxes are then opened and thousands of voting slips are dumped into a big pile on a table. The voting slips are counted, but their serial numbers are NOT RECORDED. This is witnessed and verified by Opposition and PAP representatives.
1. After the voting slips are counted and verified, all the voting slips and count records go back into the ballot boxes and aresealed again with another set of serial-numbered tamper-proof seals. This is again witnessed by Opposition and PAP representatives.
1. The sealed ballot boxes are then transported with police escort and locked in a high-security vault at the Supreme Court. No one can open the vault without a court order, and so far the court has never issued such an order.
1. At the end of 6 months, the same ballot boxes containing the voting slips are burnt. They are transported to the incineration plant under police escort. The Opposition and PAP representatives check and ensure that the same serial numbered tamper-proof seals remain intact, before dumping all the voting slips and records into the incinerator.
The fact remains, your vote is secret. No one can gain access to your voting slip once you have marked it.

Can someone be punished for not voting for PAP?

The plain and simple fact is that no one can be or has been punished for their votes. Who you vote for your RIGHT as a Singapore citizen, and voting is mandatory.
1. No one can force you to vote for anyone, because they would be guilty of Section 59 “Undue Influence” of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218).
2. No one can anyone incentivize you to vote for anyone because they would be guilty of Section 60 “Bribery” of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218).
To give you a scale of how Singaporeans voted in the last General Elections in 2011, a total of 1.9 million votes were cast. About 40% of the votes were NOT in favour of the PAP.

That means, over 761 THOUSAND people did NOT vote for the PAP.

If the Urban Myth rumours were true, almost half of the population of Singapore would be unemployed, evicted from their HDBs and their children rejected from schools.

When GE2011 ended, Opposition Party candidates and thousands of their supporters like me simply went back to our jobs and families; lead productive lives, working and conducting business as usual. I continued serving my reservist as an officer.

Although many of my friends and I are openly in support of the Opposition for many years, none of us were investigated, arrested or penalized in any way. We did walkabouts, organized and attended Opposition party meetings and rallies, and participated in the democratic process lawfully. So please be assured that you too can do the same without fear of reprisals.

Overcome the fear

Please find out more about our electoral system, read from a wide variety of sources or even participate in election rallies. Some recommended reading and video on this subject are:

Your Vote is Your Voice By Maruah (With Video)

Singapore Elections Department – Ballots Secrecy

Take the opportunity to see for yourself how the voting process is conducted by volunteering to be a Voting or Counting Agent and see for yourself the whole voting and counting process from start to finish.

Your vote is very important. It is your chance to decide on our future. You are not obliged to vote for anyone and no one can force you to choose, even if you are a PA or grassroots member or work in a Government statutory board.

This coming General Elections, please vote without fear.

Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com
August 19, 2015