The SDP expresses our deepest sympathies to the family of Benjamin Lim. His suicide is a tragedy that could have been avoided.
There is a reason why the law and society treat minors differently from adults: They are presumed to not possess the full maturity in thought and deed as adults. Common sense would have indicated to the authorities to proceed with caution when dealing with minors. Yet, five police officers were dispatched to arrest the boy.
Even if the police were concerned that Benjamin would not be co-operative and could overpower the officers and escape, how far could he have run? And even if he did make a getaway, did the police not have his family, school and classmates that they could contact?
Also of concern is whether the number of officers sent to arrest Benjamin signaled an aggressive police mindset that was carried over into the interrogation room.
School officials must be aware that their duty is, first and foremost, to protect students’ welfare as well as their families’ interests. Doing this would not impede law enforcement officers from carrying out their duty. It would, on the other hand, help to prevent tragedies like Benjamin’s suicide from taking place.
But there is something else that is equally disconcerting. The Ministers for Law, Education, and Home Affairs have kept silent on the matter. Given that a teenager has committed suicide resulting from a series of actions involving the police and the school, it behooves the Ministers to, at the minimum, address the situation and see how the matter is resolved and future incidents prevented.
Instead of looking into the matter, Todayonline runs a headline saying: “MPs, experts laud police review of interview process involving minors”. Why are MPs and the media not speaking up on investigating the circumstances that led to a 14-year-old committing suicide after police interrogation? Instead, they are lauding the review of a procedure that should not have been in practice in the first place.
In any developed country, the standard operating procedures (SOPs) would require minors to be accompanied by a parent, guardian or lawyer during interrogation. Its SOPs would also require video recordings of all police interrogations. Without these protections of minors’ rights – indeed the rights of all persons under interrogation – we will never know the treatment meted out to Benjamin during the three hours or so in police custody.
The public is upset over this incident and deserves full accounting from the Government.
Dr Wong Souk Yee Chairperson Singapore Democratic Party
This is the SDP’s response to media queries about Mr Lee Hsien Loong’s proposal to increase the number of NCMPs:
The proposals by PM Lee serve only to distract the people from the real problems that plague elections in Singapore. A democratic election system requires a free media, freedom of speech and assembly, and a transparent electoral process. If the PAP is genuinely interested in a democratic system, it should take the following measures:
1. Amend the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act and the Broadcasting Act. The control of the media by the PAP is what has kept it in power all these decades.
2. Abolish the GRC system. The GRC system has enabled the PAP to draw constituency boundaries to its advantage.
3. Repeal the Public Order Act. The police stop the opposition from speaking and meeting freely with the people while PAP MPs have free access to the electorate.
4. Lengthen the campaign period. The election period should be lengthened to at least 3 weeks. The short campaign period makes it unnecessarily difficult for the opposition to mount a meaningful campaign.
5. Remove the Elections Department from the control of the PMO. A genuinely free and fair elections can come about only if there is an independent body to conduct and monitor elections
I am a Singaporean living in Australia. I am married to an Australian and live here with our family.
I followed closely both GE2011 and more recently GE2015 from afar, which has been made possible by the Internet in current times. Needless to say, given that I am writing this letter to you, I am supportive of having strong and credible opposition voices in the current political climate in Singapore.
Since GE2015, 9/11/15, I have been left somewhat broken-hearted, and to be honest, a little shell-shocked. It is not my intent to go into a political analysis here – I am not a political commentator, neither am I au fairewith the intricacies of politics in Singapore – I am sure that you all would have done/ will do a post-mortem of the outcomes from GE2015 and are in a much better position to do so that I am.
However, I would like to give my gratitude to ALL OF YOU, candidates and volunteers alike, at the SDP (and all other opposition parties) for putting yourselves forward in a bid to secure an alternative, and equally as good if not better, future for the country and people of Singapore. Thank you. You are all courageous and progressive people that Singapore should be proud to call sons and daughters.
In my opinion, GE2015 saw the fielding of the strongest pool of opposition candidates that Singapore has seen since Independence. Not just in formal qualifications, but also in personality, character and voice. It was because of this that I was so heartbroken that the ground did not show the support that I had wished it to. It was never a question for me that the incumbent party would still form government at the end of this round of GE based on numbers alone (and dare I say, so should they as they are probably the most adequately resourced to do so at present), but I had felt that the opposition field this time would have been able to provide the much-needed alternative and credible voice in Parliament, to challenge both the incumbent and people of the nation to think outside-of-the-box, be more progressive and dare to dream beyond our backyard as a nation. I would have been happy even with a stronger margin for the opposition than what GE2015 delivered, for a more promising GE2020. Alas, that wasn’t to be so.
So it leaves, I guess, the opposition parties and their supporters to re-evaluate their positions, as they face the cross-roads post GE2015.
In any case, please accept my gratitude again for a campaign well-run for GE2015. Onwards and forwards to the next milestone!
Ever since it kick-started its general election campaign in January this year, the Singapore Democratic Party has made it a point to pack its calendar with something every month. As a publicity campaign, it has surely drawn a lot of attention, but also the negative kind from the ruling People’s Action Party.
The name-calling and character assassination that secretary-general Chee Soon Juan suffered in his time as a politician has only intensified, as PAP politicians spared no time in launching fresh attacks against him. The media, too, was eager to report on these attacks.
The biggest losers, however, would be citizens, who hardly have any chance to hear the SDP on its entire slate of policy proposals – the most wide-ranging and comprehensive by far among any political party.
Did such efforts help to drown out the SDP? The reverse might be true. Crowd sizes and the vocal support at the rallies, not to mention the long queue of rally-goers for Chee to sign the books they purchased, suggests that SDP’s traction has increased, either due to Chee’s personal brand, or what the party has been rolling out and engaging residents with in walkabouts.
The question now is whether the SDP would be able to build upon its success at GE2011 – although not winning any seats, the party scored the highest in terms of vote percentage increase since the last election – or whether the refreshed attacks might blunt its voter appeal compared to other opposition parties, as the real risk for this GE could be political oblivion.
Does SDP have the credible slate of candidates it needs to face off against PAP? Will the beleaguered reputation of Chee cause more harm than good for the party? Will its many policy proposals finally fall on deaf ears if it cannot produce any Members of Parliament to have them discussed in the House?
New blood, new attitude
The launch event for SDP’s “Your Voice in Parliament” campaign went out with a bang in January 2015, and it has surely shook the PAP, particularly with the side announcement that it was keen to contest Tanjong Pagar GRC. Hence, it was hardly surprising that the first blood drawn for GE2015 was by Tanjong Pagar incumbent Chan Chun Sing, who went on national media tocall Chee a political failure.
But Chee’s initial reaction was surprisingly measured, if not downright humbling. “I want to tell my fellow Singaporeans, especially students, that we must not be afraid to fail. It is from our failures that we learn and become better persons and go on to achieve great things.” Such words speak of a man with great fortitude, and solidifies the SDP’s brand and goals.
Chee, it seems, have found the right public relations mix to rebuild his battered image as an opposition mad man, caused by his ideals (which were often perceived or painted to be extremist) and actions (hunger strikes and shouting at then PM Goh Chok Tong during walkabouts).
To add to that, Chee seems to have found a more credible and measured slate of candidates to run, including Paul Tambyah, Chong Wai Fung, John Tan, Bryan Lim, and Jaslyn Go. It would appear that SDP is eager to get on a more professional footing, contrary to the “rabble-rouser” image that it has been smeared with. In particular, Dr Paul Tambyah comes across as possibly the most distinguished among opposition candidates this GE. His demeanor – as someone who cares for the people, knows exactly what he says and will not pull punches to say it – pinpoints exactly what a constructive opposition should really be about.
Chee Soon Juan and Lawrence Wong (image – CNA)
The PAP, however, has been less than admirable in how it approached SDP. The incumbent has either written SDP off as irrelevant or treats Chee like a convenient punching bag, as the volleys of insults filled media space. Following Chan, Lawrence Wong exploited a live broadcast to attack Chee’s character by dredging us the latter’s fumble with figures in his Parliamentary select committee speech. Chee’s opponent in Holland Bukit Timah GRC, Vivian Balakrishnan, also attacked the SDP’s policies as “tax and spend” programmes that would turn Singapore into Greece. Balakrishnan’s GRC team mate Sim Ann also slammed Chee for his earlier dispute with Singapore People’s Party’s Chiam See Tong, and recently chastised Chee as someone who likes to “chut pattern”.
Chee, again, responded to Wong with class, reminding the PAP “not to indulge in the destructive politics of old” and instead re-focused the debate back to the SDP’s proposals and how it has raised issue with government policies. And thus far, he seems intent on ignoring Sim’s frivolity.
Similarly, Chee’s response to Balakrishnan was equally focused, if not a lot more hard-hitting, going back to policy issues. Chee has demonstrated an eagerness to focus on policy issues rather than take broad swipes, as what the PAP has done. What the PAP has not done in making GE2015 a clean fight, SDP has done by focusing on the issues that matter.
The direction is sound. SDP is projecting itself as a credible alternative, giving voters a reason to vote for the party, not just against the incumbent, as Chee often says. These policies, previously nothing more than thorns in the side of the PAP, are starting to turn into festering wounds, as the incumbent appears to be struggling to find proper counters to the proposals other than “cautions” and “tax and spend” statements.
SDP’s policy papers, plotted out over the past few years, have highlighted precisely how inadequately the PAP has prepared for this campaign, as the PAP has thus far done little to demonstrate its policy direction for the future, beyond its current “trust us and we will sort it out later” mantra. The PAP comes across as a lumbering machine slow to respond to the concerns of citizens, while the SDP has expressed connection and determination to chart a way forward.
Chong Wai Fung and Jaslyn Go
To note, SDP’s proposals are not watertight, and Chee has also indicated so himself at his policy launches. He has maintained that he welcomes criticism and debate on SDP’s proposals, if only to make them better at answering the needs of Singaporeans. This open and consultative approach bodes well, and would likely serve as the SDP’s election promise to citizens.
A drop of red in a sea of white and blue?
The SDP has thus far projected itself as a credible alternative to Singapore politics, if not public policy. It has gamely taken up the challenge to put ideas to paper, with the hope that citizens would put faith in turning those ideas into reality. Chee, as party leader, has done a lot more to restore his public image, and if the response of the audience to his recent rally speechesis anything to go by, Singaporeans are starting to get the sense that he is not the crazed and deceitful bag of political cunning that he has been painted to be.
It was also apparent at rallies that Singaporeans are listening more to the SDP’s policy proposals, finding resonance with the ideas and looking beyond the far-left, human-rights-or-nothing-else mandates that they were made out to be (in reality, they never were – you can never divorce social and economic progress from a firm grounding in human rights).
Would it be enough to secure Chee and the SDP a place in Parliament? While the likes of Dr Paul Tambyah and Chong Wai Fung are immediately electable, we should also not discount Chee as a potent force whose support from the people has only grown in past years. Only time will tell if he will be seen in a different light from yesteryears, and secure the people’s trust.
Nevertheless, as we edge closer to polling day, the SDP is turning out to be the PAP’s weakest link. In the face of uncertain times and lacklustre policy direction, the SDP is shaping up to be the party that many want the PAP to be, but for some reason never found the courage to be. And courage would be Chee’s and the SDP’s greatest ally this week.
He was once described as a “near psychopath”, but is now received at political rallies like a rockstar. The Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) rallies are now drawing larger crowds; ever since his first rally speech in 15 years was shared around on social media, people have been turning up just to hear Dr Chee Soon Juan speak.
It’s been a sea change to behold – the man who once shuttled in and out of prison, who was bankrupted, demonised and totally written off as unelectable, is now the biggest draw at rallies every night, and even at a lunchtime rally on Monday afternoon. His speeches have been described as rational, emotive and passionate. Coming back to the rally stage after 15 long years of being barred from three general elections, no one can say that he hasn’t shown grit and determination.
“If I leave, there will be one less voice against the government,” he said at one rally. “If PAP wins, the people will lose. …I was born Singaporean. I was raised Singaporean. And I will die Singaporean.”
People might not agree with everything he says, or even approve of all of the SDP’s policies in their current form, but Chee has nevertheless made an impact on rallygoers and even beyond, as recordings of his speeches pass from one Facebook timeline to another. Twitter has reported that he was the second most mentioned politician in the first week of the election campaign, behind the incumbent Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. Every night after the rally he autographs books and takes photos with admiring Singaporeans – volunteers of The Online Citizen reported that it took him one-and-a-half hours on Monday night to complete his book-signing session.
His calm demeanour and impassioned speeches are also being compared favourably to the performance of his opponents, who have occasionally resorted to fear mongering and personal attacks.
Vivian Balakrishnan, the leading People’s Action Party (PAP) candidate for the four-member Holland-Bukit Timah team, claimed that the SDP’s policies would put Singapore on the “road to Greece” by increasing social spending without being up front about how the money would be raised.
But at least that criticism was engaging in some way with policy; many of the other comments made by Balakrishnan and running mate Sim Ann simply veered into character assassination.
“The impression that this Dr Chee gives me is that they are very good at ‘chut pattern’ [putting up a show or pretence],” said Sim Ann in a Mandarin speech on Monday evening that was described as having “dripped sarcasm”. “I feel that in the whole of Singapore, if Dr Chee claims to be second-best in “chut pattern”, no one would dare claim to be number one.”
At the SDP’s lunchtime rally in UOB Plaza on Monday, Chee played to the demographic by focusing on the lack of accountability for poor investment choices made by Singapore’s sovereign wealth funds.
“The Government accuses us (SDP) of coming up with policies of tax and spend, but what they will do is take our reserves and make failed investments,” he said, pointing out large amounts that had been plowed into companies like the debt-ridden Olam International and Thai conglomerate Shin Corp, as well as banks like Citigroup, Merill Lynch and Barclays during the 2008 financial crisis.
Standing directly under towering bank building in the heart of Singapore’s financial centre, Chee called out wealth inequality and described the widening income gap as a problem that “harms the common good, erodes cohesiveness, and corrodes the values that fosters social cohesiveness”.
“Priorities!” he declared, echoing his party’s message of adjusting state expenditure to focus more on social goods such as healthcare and education to cheers and applause from the crowd.
It is unclear how many of those who gathered in UOB Plaza on Monday afternoon were persuaded by the SDP’s arguments, or how many of them would actually be voting in areas contested by the party. While Chee expressed the belief that even the well-to-do in the Holland-Bukit Timah constituency – where he is contesting – care about redistributive policie and social justice, the fact remains that the SDP only polled 39.9 per cent in the last election, meaning that they now have to convince about 16,000 people to vote differently from before. It’s a daunting challenge with no guarantees.
But win or lose in Holland-Bukit Timah – or any of the other constituencies in which the SDP is contesting – one victory has already been won: after years of being slammed, criticised and demonised in public and the mainstream media, Chee has succeeded in rehabilitating his image, and cannot be described as an unelectable “psychopath” any more.
![Prof Paul [Photo: Yee Kai, TOC]](http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Yee-Kai-Paul-Tambyah.jpg)
