Tag: one-party

For Singapore’s Future Survival, Multi-Party System Must Replace One-Party Rule

Education Minister (Higher Education and Skills) Ong Ye Kung’s suggestion that the PAP’s continued one-party rule is the best course for Singapore’s future is at complete odds with reality.

It is precisely the lack of a democratic, checks-and-balance system that has gotten the country into the current sorry state of affairs in the first place. More worryingly, it clouds the out-look for our nation’s future.

For example, it is the PAP’s self-interested and unchecked policy of importing excessive numbers of foreign workers that has caused Singaporeans much pain and hardship.

Jobs of locals have been displaced and wages depressed because of the mass and sudden influx of foreigners. The cost of living for citizens have also increased as a result while productivity growth has remained at near zero percent.

There is no mistaking that the policy has lowered the quality of life for our people, harmed the overall economy and made it difficult for our nation to progress.

But bringing in foreigners has allowed the ministers to engineer high-GDP growth through the collection of foreign workers’ levies, housing expenses, GST, etc. As ministers peg their pay to GDP growth, they have rewarded themselves handsomely with annual salaries to the tune of millions of dollars.

All this could take place because there was no opposition in Parliament to keep the PAP in check. The party did as it pleased leading to the dangerous situation in which Singapore finds itself today.

Another horrendous situation that Singaporeans are stuck with is the retention of our CPF money. It is the unchecked one-party rule that has allowed the PAP to blatantly rescind its promise to return us our CPF savings in full. This has resulted in retirees left out in the cold with little or no income.

Without political opposition, the PAP is also able to immerse itself in the commercial sector leading Singapore to become one of the most, according to the Crony-Capitalism Index, cronyistic economies in the world.

The government’s domination of the domestic commercial sector through unproductive GLCs has stifled the growth of the private entrepreneurial sector and the development of an innovative culture – areas that Singapore depends on for its future economic survival.

It has also led to the crushing of workers’ rights, allowing GLCs like the Surbana Jurong to terminate its workers without accountability.

It is frightening that at this juncture of Singapore’s development and with a rapidly changing world we face, PAP ministers like Ong Ye Kung still cling on to the out-dated and reality-free view that a one-party rule is the way forward.

Singaporeans must awaken to the fact that without a vibrant and democratic society where open exchange of ideas and freedom of expression are valued, the future of Singapore is bleak. For the sake of our nation, the PAP’s one-party rule must end.

Source: http://yoursdp.org

January 27, 2017
Damanhuri Abas: Minister’s Flawed Arguments Must Not Be Allowed To Perpetuate

The flawed argument from a Minister must not go unchallenged. It is a betrayal of our collective intelligence for simplistic logic to be given public space with no rebuttal. At the very least, a fact-check is warranted. After all, he is in charge of Higher education, a place where you can get a D grade for unsubstantiated conclusion based on shallow arguments.

The flawed logic begins with the notion that a dominant one party government for our collective greater good stems from the unique conditions of our country’s formative history and society, held as irrefutable evidence to justify it. What a sweeping lazy conclusion. It assumes a convenient self-benefiting starting point for our history and casts aside the rich part of history detailing the struggle of our people to rid us of the colonial master who was instrumental for imposing authoritarian rule upon us.

Our forefathers fought the colonial masters to dismantle the dangerous dominance of power in one hand. History is littered with the inevitable abuse of power that dominant single party or authoritarian rule brings to the people. History also shows the inevitable demise of such arrogant dominant power with no exception. And today we instead hear such dismissive rhetoric advocating for perpetual existence of one with justification that are as porous as sand in the desert landscape.

Power, more so absolute power, is potentially destructive whatever that power is. With skills of fine human mastery, power is harnessed for our collective human benefits. Man has shown his ability to tame the power of nature transforming it into beneficial service for humanity. A testimony of the achievements of man, a collective maestro stroke born out of the best of minds engaging and challenging one another through wit and ideas to seek the best solutions for humanity.

Likewise, the power bestowed on man is ripe for abuse less that power is tampered with checks and balances to ensure power is beholden to people and not the other way around. Democracy is not ideal but it offered a way to check power by the people. It assumes the conditions are set to facilitate the rigor of the democratic process but it too is vulnerable to manipulations by powers that came to be from it.

Instead of trying to justify the idea of one dominant rule by the Minister, he should be foremost in advocating the spirit of intellectual discourse and debates with persuasive factual researched ideas and wit, the very rudiments essential towards excellence in higher education. Has he somewhat forgotten his Ministerial portfolio.

Herein lies the fallacy of this idea that in truth has been consistent of the PAP. It has been progressively practicing and institutionalising the instruments of control and dominance in society since our independence in 1965 against the fundamental articles of our constitution that were ironically written precisely to ensure this, that they have been doing, do not happen.

Having been successful in ensuring compliance of its citizen through undermining the growth and development of our democratic society, they now are bold enough to go the next step by openly advocating the half-truth of their arguments that they will ensure little or any space for rebuttal in public, guaranteed by their current dominance of power on almost all public institutions from media, schools and education, public finances, controlling authorities, grassroots bodies, community organizations, etc.

While other countries mature and grow wider spaces in society for advocacy and strengthening of public institutions and the civil society to function as neutral honest arbiter, we in Singapore instead continue to be doing the reverse. Why is open public debate on issues of public concern not a good thing? Imagine what quality of leaders we will have over time if each prospecting candidate is subjected to rigorous processes of debates exposing their quality of arguments or otherwise. But instead we the people are constantly deprived of real access to who our leader is in person and in terms of genuine believes and advocacy of ideas. Are they simply chosen to parrot the government line and are justified based on carefully crafted public information exercise by the compliant media ranked below Afghanistan, which has been a shameless instrument of power.

Progress of Singapore as a society is determined by the choreographed image of artificial smiling postcard faces in the midst of facades of glittering lights and made-made structures and artifacts, all of which are designed to hide away the things that we are not to speak about nor bother asking. The modus operandi are to leave those things to the ‘wise elite’ that in truth are dependent on the façade to look good, as on their own, they are not prepared to withstand the rigor of public discourse and debate. The maxim accorded is to let matters be settled behind closed doors. Echoes of the colonial past made current by a ruling elite that seems ever more afraid of the natural process of losing power one day.

The colonials in the past treated the locals with disdain and adopted a superior afront and framed what they want the locals to know and see in the lenses of half-truths, misleading information, manufactured fear and gross suppression of freedom on the grounds of the greater good, to ensure dominance of power. Are we seeing the re-emergence of a new form of colonial mindset with a currency that disguised the desperate attempt to ensure continued dominance of power in the hands of the new naturalized aristocrats that they justified themselves to be.

This Minister must be checked for the sake of our future. His piece will probably be exposed for its sloppy plagiarism from dusty textbooks of authoritarian gone by on Turnitin.

Source: Damanhuri Abas

January 27, 2017
Surbana Sackings An Example Of Weak Unions In One-Party Rule

I read with sadness about the Surbana’s sacking of 54 workers. As an HR practitioner for 10 years, I’ve gone through many firing exercises.

Businesses will always place its profitability above everything else. That’s nature.

But what is not acceptable is that when it terminate employees under the guise of poor performance.

From news reports, we know that the terminated workers weren’t given the due process for the termination.

I believe this happens because our labour laws are inadequate such that a company as big as Surbana has the temerity to act in such a manner.

From this episode, I hope Singaporeans start to realise that a strong union with bite is necessary.

We need to start looking at matters that govern our lives and not allow politicians to dictate what is best for us.

To a certain extent, a weak Union is the result of a one party rule which is bad for any nation as opposed to what Mr Ong Ye Kung recently espouses.

Source: Khan Osman Sulaiman

January 25, 2017
Leon Perera: One-Party System Cannot Last Forever

In the coming century, I hope that my children and grand-children grow old and raise my great-grandchildren in Singapore long after I’m gone. But I fear that the government in our one party dominant system may fail one day. I fear that there will be no able, responsible and electable Opposition to take its place if that happens.

A one party system makes it very hard for such an alternative party to exist. A one party system makes it likely that the ruling party – facing no viable competitors – will eventually lose its way. A one party system makes it likely that the ruling party will get away with changing the Constitution and changing Singapore to something other than a democracy, to keep itself in power forever. So that the system becomes practically uncontestable. What would stop them?

Minister Ong’s recent comments are consistent with DPM Teo’s confirmation in Parliament on 9 November 2016 that the ruling party hopes to win 100% of all fully elected seats at the next GE.

But can one party solve all of Singapore’s problems today and tomorrow? Can one party generate all the good ideas Singapore needs to keep going? Has any one party state on earth thrived for 100 years or more as a developed country?

If a one party system cannot last forever, will there be another good party around when Singapore’s time for change comes, as it inevitably will? Or will a new, extremist party fill the political vacuum when a crisis hits and steer Singapore into the abyss?

We can ignore these inconvenient truths and keep kicking the can down the road. Because it’s always easier to go with the flow.

But I hope we won’t.

The onus is on all of us who share such ideals to convince our fellow Singaporeans of these truths and inspire them to act. So that your great-grandchildren and mine will still proudly pledge themselves “to build a democratic society based on justice and equality”…and remember us for having done our part.

Source: Leon Perera

January 25, 2017