Category: Singapuraku

What Next, Workers’ Party?

WP did not do as well in GE2015 as they would hope to. They were looking to increase the number of WP MPs to 20. Before polling day, judging by the comments online and the massive turn out at their rallies, one would be forgiven for thinking that WP did have a decent chance of achieving their goal. Instead, on polling day, they lost one MP and the number of WP MPs was reduced to six. They saw their vote share drop from GE2011.

While the reasons for WP losing ground was probably due to a nationwide swing toward PAP, this loss of ground does have very real practical implications about the future for WP. It cannot keep depending on Hougangto send its members into parliament. What can WP do to keep it a viable opposition party? I suggest the following seven ways

Be good town councillors

While it is true that the primary duty of MPs in most other countries is to make laws, the reality in Singapore is that MPs are also expected to manage municipal issues. WP may hope that this is not the reality, but, for whatever reasons, that is what Singaporean voters have come to expect. No point trying to argue against this reality. Better to accept it and perform the tasks of being town councilors well.

This means that WP will have to sort out the accounts of the town council as best as possible. I think most Singaporeans do understand that there may have been some issues during the handing over in 2011 and may forgive the WP for not being able to sort out the accounts because of those handing over issues.

That said, I think Singaporeans expect WP to be completely above reproach regarding related party transactions. I think Singaporeans expect WP to have proper systems in place to handle cheques, get the best value for money when awarding contracts, and transfer money to the sinking funds promptly. Other than the opening statements of the accounts, which, as Low ThiaKhiang pointed out in his rally speech, I think Singaporeans expect every other aspect of the accounts to be clear and beyond question.

Bread and butter issues matter to Singaporeans. And one of the bread and butter issues is precisely the condition of the estate we live in. Therefore, for municipal issues (e.g. estate cleanliness, corridor lights, lifts), WP must ensure that things are working well. If possible, bring about some estate upgrading. Keep the residents in the area they are MPs of happy with the estate.

Be master social workers

In addition to being good town councilors, Singaporeans expect our MPs to be master social workers. I cannot emphasize enough that most of us do not care much for abstract notions of democracy and human rights. What we do care about are tangible bread and butter issues.

When we face issues such as having bills that we cannot pay, having difficulty finding jobs, not being able to get into the schools of our choice, we expect our MPs to be able to put up credible effort to help us. We expect our MPs to sort out our issues with our neighbours, and even our families. When we see elderly or less advantaged people in our neighbourhood facing whatever difficulties, we expect our MPs to extend a warm, gentle helping hand.

It does not matter that PAP, with its control over various government institutions (e.g. PA, grassroots organisations), may have put numerous obstacles in the way of WP. Singaporeans still expect WP MPs to be master social workers and help solve their bread and butter issues.

Do a great job in Parliament

In parliament, the WP MPs should ask hard questions. It is not enough to have high attendance rates. It is not enough to have spoken up a lot. Quality does indeed matter more than quantity. WP will need to get together teams of people to research and draft speeches. Ensure that speeches are consistent and cannot be perceived as flip-flopping. Anticipate the reactions and questions from PAP MPs and work out reasonable responses.

More than just asking questions, WP MPs should move motions for debate on important issues. Even then-NMP Mr Viswa Sadasivan has done so. His motion got a heated discussion in Parliament, getting even the late Mr LeeKuan Yew to speak in Parliament. In so doing, Mr Viswa Sadasivan gained much respect from Singaporeans.

Lastly, WP MPs should introduce a (few) Private Member’s Bill. Ideally, these bills should benefit Singaporeans in a tangible way. If that is not possible, at least these bills should be seen to be beneficial for the long-term interests of Singapore. These could include bills for electoral reforms (e.g. getting rid of the GRC system). Even if the chances of these bills passing are slim, it shows that at least WP MPs are willing and capable of introducing bills.

Focus on one more GRC and a few SMCs

I believe that WP was too ambitious in GE2015. It overstretched itself by aiming for Marine Parade GRC and East Coast GRC at the same time. By doing so, it had spread its talents too thinly. It also reflected what some people think to be arrogance.

In the next GE, unless for whatever reasons, there is palpable anger against the PAP that is stronger than those in the lead up to GE2011, WP should focus keeping Hougang and Aljunied and aim for one more GRC and perhaps a couple of SMCs. This concentrates the talent and resources of WP. Also, it avoids a “by-stander” effect, where voters in one GRC think that it is ok for them not to vote WP because voters in another GRC can do it to send WP candidates into parliament. In fact, I believed that this is precisely the strategy that helped WP win Aljunied – voters then believed that if they had not voted for WP, then there really may not be any opposition MPs.

Walk the ground early

For the areas that the WP wants to make some headway in, their potential candidates need to start walking the ground early. Yes, there is a possibility that the electoral boundaries may be redrawn, SMCs disappear and GRCsbroken up, and all the hard work of walking the ground early may go down the drain. But it is wishful thinking to expect Singaporeans to accept someone they have not seen, have not gotten to know, have not gotten to like as a person, as their MP.

So WP should go out and knock on doors starting from now. WP should start talking to people in other constituencies. WP should find creative ways to organize events that benefit people in the constituencies that it wants to make headways in. Get to know the people in those constituencies. Let the people get to know and like WP and WP’s potential candidates as early as possible.

Retain and continue to attract good members to put up as candidates

WP has managed to attract great candidates so far. He Ting Ru, LeonPerera and Daniel Goh have gained much traction amongst Singaporeans. I hope these candidates will continue to stay in WP and keep working the ground.

In addition to these very capable candidates, I would hope to see WP attract two other groups of people to be candidates.

Firstly, I hope to see WP attract candidates who have significant NGO/VWObackground. PAP did well in attracting Louis Ng as a candidate. It breaks the stereotype of PAP candidates. That really helped PAP improve its image. Having a candidate of this sort of background would be helpful because this person should have the track record of galvanizing people to help out certain segments of society in different ways that could inspire trust in people.

Secondly, I hope to see WP attract candidates who are not well-educated but are successful businessmen nonetheless. It seems that our parliament is short of such people to represent a segment of Singapore who took an alternative route to success. I believe that this type of candidate can offer very useful perspectives on policy making.

Be humble and gracious

For whatever reasons, Singaporeans have come to perceive WP to be arrogant. In 2011, people voted for WP because they felt that the PAP was getting too big for its britches. In 2015, it seems that people felt that WP was suffering from the very syndrome that turned them away from the PAP. I know of voters who voted for WP in 2011 and voted for PAP precisely because they wanted to send a signal to WP to not be arrogant. WP should think of why people consider this way and how it can rectify this issue.

WP and its supporters also need to learn to be gracious. The jeering at the nomination centres and the vitriol hurled at PAP at the WP rallies turn swing voters off. To win over swing voters, WP will need to stop appearing to be divisive and fear mongering. Daniel Goh’s post GE Facebook post was a prime example of what needs to be done.

Conclusion

WP has its task cut out. It faces considerable headwinds. But for the long-term interests and viability of Singapore, I hope that WP will rise to the challenge and come back even stronger in the next GE.

Source: https://crazyrandomchatter.wordpress.com

September 23, 2015
Sending Edz Ello To Jail Won’t Fix Discrimination In Singapore

Ello Ed Mundsel Bello, formerly a nurse at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment on Monday after being convicted of sedition and lying to the police.

The whole saga began when he wrote a Facebook post on The Real Singapore calling Singaporeans “losers” and saying that Filipinos would take over the country and take Singaporeans’ future, women and jobs.

“REMEMBER PINOY BETTER AND STRONGER THAN STINKAPOREANS,” he said.

The episode ignited an uproar. Some Singaporeans filed police reports, while others countered with angry insults directed at both Bello and Filipinos in general. Bello was also sacked from his job at the hospital.

In delivering the sentence, District Judge Siva Shanmugam noted that local-foreigner relations had become a fraught issue in Singapore, and that “[i]n a nation whose only resource are its people, we simply cannot afford to condone any act which poses a threat to our social stability and security.”

“(His) provocative conduct, if left unchecked, could possibly result in discrimination against the innocent and law-abiding minority Filipino residents in Singapore,” the judge also said.

It’s encouraging that Shanmugam recognises the vulnerability of Filipinos in Singapore when it comes to discrimination, but the logic of having to severely punish Bello so as to prevent other Filipinos from becoming victims of prejudice doesn’t quite hold up.

Filipinos – and many other immigrants from developing countries such as Bangladesh or Myanmar – have been subjected to racist, classist and xenophobic discrimination and exploitation long before Bello even posted his first word on The Real Singapore.

Foreign domestic workers, many of them Filipino, are vulnerable to exploitation. They take on large debts to work in Singapore, and the live-in aspect of their employment places them in a position of disempowerment that leaves them particularly open to abuse. These domestic workers are further discriminated against by their exclusion from the Employment Act – which stipulates maximum working hours and gives workers to right, in theory at least, to challenge unfair dismissal – and are even prohibited from falling pregnant, which encourages employers to behave in ways that completely infantilises the worker.

Filipinos have also been the subject of xenophobic abuse online, at least just as bad, if not worse, than what Bello himself had said. I wrote about the use of fascist and dehumanising language during the controversy over a proposed Philippine Independence Day celebration on Orchard Road. The Philippine Embassy also had to ask the Singapore government to investigate a blog post thatsuggested ways to discriminate against and abuse Filipinos in Singapore, such as buying insecticide in the presence of a Filipino and suggesting it be used on them. (Whatever happened to that investigation?)

I raise these issues not to place all the blame of discrimination and prejudice on Singaporeans while absolving people like Bello of responsibility. He said a remarkably stupid thing on Facebook, and did an even stupider thing by lying to the police during their investigation. I don’t have a problem with him being charged and convicted with telling falsehoods to the police. But I don’t believe slamming Bello, or anyone for that matter, with a jail sentence for sedition will help us deal with the challenges of a local-foreigner divide.

The Sedition Act is not a good tool when it comes to dealing with fault lines in society, be they along race, religion or even nationality. While it is purportedly there to shield us from comments like those made by Bello, it also effectively shuts down rational and mature conversations by making certain subjects too sensitive to be broached with any openness and honesty. It hauls people to court and sends them to prison in the belief that such actions will be a deterrent to irrational, emotional things like racism, xenophobia and prejudice. But while such punitive action does – occasionally – remove visible elements of such sentiment from public platforms, it does little to actually address the inequalities, power imbalances and value judgements that lead to discriminatory attitudes.

Fault lines in society cannot be erased by criminalising speech. We need to go far deeper than that, to address the lack of rights and protections for foreigners and locals alike, as well as the existence of discrimination in our society, even in state policy.

Kirsten Han is a Singaporean blogger, journalist and filmmaker. She is also involved in the We Believe in Second Chances campaign for the abolishment of the death penalty. A social media junkie, she tweets at @kixes. The views expressed are her own.

Source: https://sg.sports.yahoo.com

September 23, 2015
International Student In Singapore Can Wear Hijab In School, Why Can’t Singaporeans In Singapore Schools?

I was on my way to work this morning. ..and something caught my eye….a student from one of the international school in Singapore was participating her school P.E lesson and guess wat she wearing Hijab…

I am happy and at the same time confused. ..

International School in Singapore allowed her student wear Hijab which I am happy to see but our normal school in Singapore prohibited it…..

Shame on you MOE….n also Yacob Ibrahim. ..

Source: YatiMimi Black

September 23, 2015
Gilbert Goh: Official Complaint To UN – Unfair General Election Ethics In Singapore 2015

To:

United Nations Bangkok

12th Floor, United Nations Building,
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue, Pranakorn
Bangkok 10200, Thailand

Dear Sir/Mdm,

I want to formally lodge a complaint to the United Nations for our country’s recently-held general election.

For the record, I also stood for general election twice – Tampines GRC in 2011 and Ang Mo Kio GRC this year.

For the recent election, the ruling party PAP won by a landslide majority percentage of 70% – a huge increase of 10% over the previous GE 2011 result of 60%.

Many opposition parties suffered from bad losses – right down to the unprecedented 20s percentile mark.

My fear is that if the following unfair unethical practices are to go unchecked, it will be the accepted norm and we may see a one-party rule for a very long time – something which many Singaporeans are uncomfortable with.

Many are willing to accept the mandate of the majority but if the ruling party won it unfairly then the international community such as the United nations needs to step in so that future elections can be conducted ethically and above board.

We hope that independent assessors be sent in by the UN so that the population is ensured of a fair and ethical election from now on.

Moreover, Singapore is a internationally-renowned economic powerhouse with a huge multi-national presence but it is seriously lacking in democratic rights and freedom of speech.

Those who spoke out against the authorities were frequently questioned by the police with some facing lawsuits and jail sentence.

I have listed down the following unfair unethical ways in which our government has won the recent election:-

1. Injection of new citizen voters

New citizens were injected yearly so that they can usher in to vote for the ruling party out of loyalty.

They were mostly hailed from third world countries such as Philippines, Malaysia, China, India and Indonesia and know no other party besides PAP.

An average of 25,000 new voters are added in annually since 2006 and by this election, more than 200,000 new citizens are eligible to vote – mostly for the first-time.

Though we acknowledged that voters are swayed by the SG 50 jubilee celebration and the death of patriach Lee Kuan Yew to vote for the ruling party, new voters from third world countries will be the new force to be reckoned with.

New-citizen voters is the main reason why our government allows in so many foreigners on the pretext of economic expansion but behind there lies a more sinister motive to stay in power forever as they are loyal to the ruling party.

We urge the government to consider that new citizens can only vote after staying with us for 5 years and beyond so their votes can never be manipulated at the onset to help the ruling party.

2. Boundary changes

Boundary changes is the norm of every election but for this recent election it is more pressing as the ruling party faces some unresolvable national issues such as transportation and over-crowding.

It’s share of the crucial majority votes have been slipping since two elections ago.

For this election, boundary changes is also more critical as it allows the government to flood certain opposition-held wards with new citizen voters. It is almost a sure-win way to ensure that they can hold on to their own constituencies and yet able to possibly remove a opposition-held ward or reduce its winning margin.

WP’s Aljunied GRC is one such ward as it saw the winning margin reduced from a five-figure majority victory in 2011 to a narrow 1900 votes (50.95). There is a 3.7% swing against the opposition giant.

In 2011, Aljunied had 143,000 voters whereas for the recent election it has 148,000 voters – an increase of almost 5000 voters.

In 2015, it polled 70,000 votes against the 2011 election’s 72,000 causing it to slip 3.7% to 50.9% of majority votes or 12,000 winning votes in 2011 to the current 1900 votes after counting in the PAP’s share of the votes.

The PAP’s share of the votes, on the other hand, jumped from 59,000 to 67,000 – probably a combination of new citizen voters (5000) and swing voters (3000).

There is thus this fear that WP may not be able to hold on to Aljunied GRC in 2020 when the ruling party pours in more loyal new citizen votes with all things remaining equal.

The government roughly knows whether certain precinct is pro-government or pro-opposition according to the polling station and this is public knowledge by now.

By removing or adding certain precinct from a constituency, it can ensure that the area has a majority of government voters with the awful unfair boundary change that comes with every election.

We urge that any boundary changes in future be effected in consultation with the opposition to ensure that the playing field is levelled.

3. Demarcation of PA from PAP

The heavily-funded People’s Association (PA) is the arm and leg of the ruling party and its reach into the masses is one main reason why it won so handsomely.

It is also unfair as PA is a statutory board which is supposed to be non-partisan but its activities is all along very pro-PAP.

It has a yearly funding of $500 million and its budget is going to be ballooned to $1 billion soon. Its accounting practice is also suspect and is one of the many statutory board that is flagged by our Auditor-General’s office for malpractices.

This is unfair to the opposition as the government is using our tax payer money to fuel it’s own campaign by using unethical means.

Moreover, the chairman of PA is none other than the Prime Minister himself.

We urge that the PA be disbanded or distance itself from the ruling party in everything that it does to ensure that the playing field is levelled.

4. Election Department falls under the Prime Minister Office (PMO)

The Election Department now falls under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister Office (PMO).

This is most unfair as it gives the ruling party a huge advantage especially when the ED can influence significant boundary changes and when it can call for a election after consulting the PM giving little time for the opposition to prepare it’s ground.

We urge that the ED will be independent of the PMO so that it is impartial and just.

5. Control of mainsteam media during election

Our press rankings have been slipping down yearly with the latest rating at a historic low of 153 out of 180, according to Paris-based watchdog Reporters Without Borders.

The government has controlled our press and TV so that it can influence the masses especially during the crucial general election. Information is mostly slanted to benefit the ruling party and this press behaviour is not unlike that of communist bloc countries like China or Russia.

Propaganda messages were played and re-played again during the recent election so that the large middle ground is influenced to vote for the ruling party.

We urge that the government frees up our mainstream media so that the population has a balanced access to information on a impartial basis.

Let the public decide what kind of government they want without improper propaganda through unfair means.

Conclusion

I am willing to speak with the United Nations personally on all the above mentioned matters so that our country can have a fair and ethical election in GE 2020.

We also welcome independent assessors into our country for the next general election to ensure that the best political party wins – on its own merits!

Thanks & Warmest Regards,

Gilbert Goh

Source: www.transitioning.org

September 23, 2015
Lenders Bypassing Car Loan Curbs

The motor industry has found ways to get around car loan curbs – a development that is keeping vehicle demand and certificate of entitlement prices buoyant.

Checks revealed that used car dealers, parallel importers and credit companies offer financing that is effectively 80 per cent to 90 per cent of a car’s purchase price, with repayment of up to 10 years.

This exceeds the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s (MAS) 2013 curb, which restricts loan quantums to not more than 60 per cent of the purchase price and a repayment period of up to five years.

The curb is breached by offering one or more of the following:

• Overtrade – a practice of offering a buyer substantially more for his trade-in vehicle. This is practised mostly by authorised agents.

• Disguised leases – in a lease agreement, the car is registered under the lessor’s name, and the monthly rental is substantially higher than instalments in a hire-purchase. But dealers are readily offering “leases” that allow the car to be registered under the end-user’s name and with relatively low monthly payments via a buyback offset.

• Invoice inflation – if a car costs $170,000, the seller will inflate it to, say, $270,000, so as to secure an 80 per cent loan from the bank.

• Balloon scheme – a seller subtracts the car’s scrap value from the instalment calculation, resulting in lower monthly payments. At the fifth year, the consumer “scraps” the car to settle the outstanding amount, or refinances the car.

All the schemes come with higher interest rates, but consumers who cannot afford to fork out a hefty down payment under the MAS ruling have been snapping them up.

An MAS spokesman said: “As part of MAS’ supervision of financial institutions (FIs), we check on their compliance with the rules. If an FI breaches the rules, MAS will not hesitate to take regulatory action.”

The MAS, however, would not say if any lender has actually been taken to task for any of these schemes. It added that it expects lenders “to take reasonable steps to ascertain the veracity of the purchase prices of cars quoted in loan applications”.

Mr Ron Lim, general manager of Nissan agent Tan Chong Motor, said the various schemes that bypass the loan curb show that “there is a lot of grey areas”.

“We hope MAS can enforce it better,” he added. “Then we can have a more level playing field.”

A businessman who bought a used Bentley Flying Spur recently told The Straits Times that the invoice for the car – which was selling for $400,000 – was inflated to $700,000. Mr Y.Z. Liu, 66, said: “It was blatant cheating. If the car was indeed $700,000, then the first owner should be compensated.”

Mr Michael Lim, president of the Singapore Vehicle Traders Association, said the association of used car dealers and parallel importers has been appealing to the Finance Ministry for the loan limit to be raised.

He played down the high financing deals and said: “Most of these are rental and leasing packages.”

However, classified ads in The Straits Times and car portal sgCarMart are rife with offers of “low down payment”, “80 per cent loan” and repayment over 10 years.

One credit company, Century Tokyo Leasing, has been advertising a balloon scheme that promises a monthly instalment of about $800 for a Honda Vezel – nearly 40 per cent lower than the $1,250 required for a normal hire-purchase deal.

Mr Anthony Lim, a veteran car financier, said: “These companies are flush with foreign funds and they are eager to do business here. But… if a loan contract is in breach of the law, it is not binding. So the lender may have no recourse if the borrower decides to stop paying.”

Source: www.straitstimes.com

September 23, 2015