Rilek1Corner

Tag: Workers Party

  • Pritam Singh: In The Interest Of Fairness, Let Lee Wei Ling And Lee Hsien Yang Speak In Parliament Too

    Pritam Singh: In The Interest Of Fairness, Let Lee Wei Ling And Lee Hsien Yang Speak In Parliament Too

    Some Singaporeans have asked about Parliamentary Select Committees. What are they?

    Parliament hosts powers to appoint Select Committees of MPs to look at issues in depth, including calling for evidence and summoning witnesses if necessary. My WP colleagues and I have filed a number of parliamentary questions that relate to allegations of the Prime Minister abusing his powers in the matter of 38, Oxley Road. The Prime Minister has announced he will make a statement in Parliament and welcomes vigourous debate. There is one problem though. Unlike the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and those who support him will have no opportunity to clear the air on 3 July 2017.

    In the interests of fairness, Mr Lee should be allowed to tell his story to Parliament too. A Select Committee would allow MPs the opportunity to call up any witness, including the Prime Minister or anyone else to get to the truth of the matter behind the allegations of abuse of power.

    By way of a parliamentary question, I have asked the Prime Minister to support the setting up of a Select Committee to look into the serious allegations made against him. The use of Select Committees for such a purpose is nothing new. The PAP have used Select Committees to look into allegations made against the Government in the past.

    On 21 Mar 1996, Parliament resolved to appoint a select committee to verify the Government’s healthcare expenditure, amongst other reasons, to verify statements made in the Singapore Democratic Party publication, The New Democrat and in a speech made by SDP MP Ling How Doong in Parliament where he said, “healthcare costs are not subsidised at all.”

    One submission to this Select Committee defined the role of Select Committees perfectly:

    “The public has every right to know the facts and to receive from the Government the fullest possible information….The Select Committee serves a useful and informative field of public education and members of the Select Committee would seek to produce agreed reports in the best interest of the public.”

    In a voluminous report (hyperlinked below), the Select Committee on Healthcare Subsidies published all the questions MPs put to various witnesses who were asked to give evidence to the committee. But things did not stop there. In view of the replies given to the Select Committee by Mr Chee Soon Juan and other witnesses, then Minister of Health George Yeo filed a complaint of contempt of Parliament to the Committee of Privileges against several witnesses arising out of the Select Committee hearings. I remember watching clips of the Select Committee hearing on TV, with PAP MPs relentlessly questioning Chee Soon Juan.

    Like many Singaporeans, no one knows how long the current episode is going to drag on for with new information and allegations coming out almost on a daily basis, and perhaps even after 3 July 2017.

    The allegations of abuse of power by the Prime Minister need to be looked into. A Parliamentary session as a forum to hear only one side of the story will just not do. After all, it was the late Lee Kuan Yew who said:

    “No government in this part of the world will open willingly when it need not open a problem like this and take it out, whether a Commission of Inquiry, debate in Parliament, Select Committee, or even a prosecution if a case could be made out.”

    Useful links:

    30 Sep 1996 – Report of the Select Committee on Verification of Healthcare Subsidy of Government Polyclinics and Public Hospitals: goo.gl/zgk6ie

    22 Nov 1996 – Report of the Committee of Privileges: Complaint against Representors from the Singapore Democratic Party: goo.gl/xG6ER3

     

    Source: Pritam Singh 

  • Local Author Tells Lee Wei And Lee Hsien Yang What To Do To To Gain Upper Hand In OxLee Drama

    Local Author Tells Lee Wei And Lee Hsien Yang What To Do To To Gain Upper Hand In OxLee Drama

    What LWL and LHY should’ve done:

    1. Leak a huge cache of documents to WikiLeaks. It must contain stuff relating to 38 Oxley Road but also rubbish like birth certs.

    2. Anonymously inform The Guardian about the leak. Add that there is enough evidence to bring down PM Lee.

    3. Let The Guardian’s investigative journalists do the work for you. If they own the story and it’s a scoop, they will chase it harder. Plus, of course, the paper has more credibility internationally than ST.

    4. When the story breaks, issue a press statement that your computers have been hacked.

    5. Watch quietly as your sibling tries to wriggle out of the trap.

    Facebook – social media in general – is not the proper platform for expose. It might excite people for a few days, set tongues and tales wagging, but it is an ephemeral medium. Like invisible ink, it is read once and disappears.

    Your strategy was all wrong from the outset.

    BONUS:

    The logical thing for LHY and LWL to do now is work with the Workers Party MPs. Feed them inside information, documents etc. Let them do the hatchet job for you in Parliament on July 3.

     

    Source: Felix Cheong

  • Watergate: MIW Caught With Pants Down

    Watergate: MIW Caught With Pants Down

    PAPpies and their running dogs in the constructive, nation-building media and academia and on social media say that the price of water hasn’t been changed for years, so we shouldn’t be getting worked up about the 30% hike (peanuts, really).

    But 18 months ago, Vivian B said (see below) there was no need to change the price because PUB has improvements in membrane tech and productivity and that the water tariff and WCT reflect the scarcity of water.

    So what has changed in 18 months?

    Either in 2015 (before GE) the PAP administration didn’t do their homework leading a minster to mislead S’poreans and parly, or in 2017 the cabinet didn’t read what the then minister said in 2015 when making the decision to raise prices.

    But then maybe before GE 2015, PAP wanted to get rid of its “Pay and Pay” tag?

    Kudos to whoever originally dug this up. I think it is Chen Jiaxi Bernard, a WP man. Well done.

     

    Source: https://atans1.wordpress.com

  • Leon Perera: Abandon Reserved Elected Presidency, Return To Appointed Presidency

    Leon Perera: Abandon Reserved Elected Presidency, Return To Appointed Presidency

    We all want a President who can be a unifying symbol for all Singaporeans. But we disagree about the best means to achieve that end.

    In Parliament on 6 Feb 2017, DPM Teo suggested that in November 2016, I had supported measures to depoliticise Presidential Elections (PEs). In fact all the Workers’ Party MPs and NCMPs, including myself, had argued in Parliament for not having an elected President at all and reverting to appointed Presidents.

    DPM Teo alluded to my comments about a PAP MP who suggested political safeguards in PE campaigns. In fact, I said that it was to her credit that she attempted to address the politicisation risk issue, not that I agree with her proposed solution. I had argued earlier that day that Presidential elections inevitably become politicised.

    DPM Teo went on to say that because I am “not shy” to speak in debate and since I had not challenged his characterisation of what I said, that means I agree with it. It does not. Nowhere did I say that I supported an elected President with politicisation safeguards. I did not raise my hand a second time to challenge his characterisation of what I said because my colleagues and I had already made our views emphatically clear during the three days of debate – we support an appointed Presidency, not an elected one, safeguards or no.

    I reiterated my views in Parliament on 6 Feb 2017. For those who are interested, please scroll down below to read the excerpts, watch the clips and judge for yourself.
    —————————————————————————————-

    What I had said in Parliament on 9 November 2016 referring to a PAP MP’s speech was:-
    “My second question pertains to a question we have repeated a few times – what are the strategies that the Government has to mitigate the risks of politicising the unifying office of the Presidency? No doubt, that politicisation may not have fully materialised for the past EPs that we have, but there is good reason to believe in future Presidential elections, if let us say there are 10 candidates, and let us say the winner gets 5% of the votes or let us say the campaign ends up becoming bitterly partisan, the Office of the President could be politicised. I have not heard any strategy from any Member of the PAP on how this can be managed. I think Ms Rahayu Mahzam came closest to that. To her credit, she talked about tightening up the rules for partisanship during the Presidential election campaign. So, what would be the Government’s strategy to mitigate that? That is my second question.”

    This was DPM Teo’s reply to me at the time:
    “Turning to the risk of politicisation and the possible tightening of rules for the Presidential Elections. The risk of politicisation is there. I have addressed it explicitly just now in my answer. But I think what Mr Leon Perera suggests, and what the Commission suggests also, is to look at rules and the way that the Presidential Elections are conducted. I think there is merit and I agree with Mr Leon Perera there.”

    https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp…

    In my earlier speech on the Bill delivered that very same day, I argued for reverting to appointed Presidents. Here is an extract from that speech:-

    “Mdm Speaker, the Presidency, and I concur with Members who have talked about the importance of the Presidency, is the one precious unifying symbol of our national unity, above party politics. As a National Serviceman, I pledged my allegiance, as did many Members here, to the President and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, proudly. When we elect this office, inevitably, it becomes a proxy General Election…The Constitutional Commission, the Menon Commission recognised this. They had the courage to do so, and suggested that we cast our eyes back to the time when Presidents were not elected.”

    https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp…

    Here is the video clip of that speech. It makes clear that I am not calling for rule changes to Presidential Elections but for a reversion to appointed Presidents.

    http://www.channelnewsasia.com/…/leon-perera-s…/3275492.html

    On 8 November 2016, in responding to PAP MP and MOS Dr Janil Puthucheary, I said:

    “Firstly, and most importantly, we have argued that subjecting the office of the Presidency to an election runs the risk that that election will inevitably become a proxy General Election, will become politicised. As a result of that process, the Elected President that emerges from there with a mandate that is less than 50% will be seen in a political light and will, therefore, have his or her ability to unify the entire country severely curtailed…Can the President be a unifying figure, after being subject to an election that is vulnerable to the tinge of partisanship? …Our proposal actually saves the Presidency from the risk of this kind of politicisation.”

    https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp…

    Here is the video clip of my exchange with DPM Teo in Parliament on 6 Feb 2017:

    https://youtu.be/1Isvb5773MU

     

    Source: Leon Perera

  • Pritam Singh: Stronger Sense Of National Identity Bulwark For Singapore In Spats With Big Countries

    Pritam Singh: Stronger Sense Of National Identity Bulwark For Singapore In Spats With Big Countries

    Numbers, sometimes, tell the best stories – whether they are about foreign policy, trade or the economy in general. These latest tables published by the Singapore Department of Statistics reveal that the United States and Japan are the biggest foreign investors in Singapore, their $250b accounting for almost 25% of all our foreign investments (Table 1). These countries have a vested stake to defend in Singapore and their investments – to a varying extent – create opportunities here. Table 1 also tells us why the Trans-Pacific Partnership, in principle, is of strategic importance to the Government. Countries like Norway, the Netherlands, and a host of tax havens make the list. But China is conspicuously missing.

    singapore-fdi

    Flip things around however (Table 2), and one sees that the overwhelming bulk of Singapore’s foreign investments are in China – about $110b to be exact. The US comes in at number 14. India and our immediate neighbours feature, but this table emphasizes how important China is to Singapore as a destination for our investments.

    fdi-out

    Broadly speaking, both tables are indicative of Singapore’s overall foreign policy posture, the imperatives behind our relationship with China and the US, the Government’s perspective on protectionism and global trade in general, amongst many other things.

    While numbers are helpful in personifying foreign policy, big powers and bigger countries usually have a wider scope and spectrum for action. For a major power like China, the ongoing diplomatic spat with Singapore over the impounded Terrex fighting vehicles (and before that, over allegations of diplomatic impropriety by Singapore in China’s Global Times), is but one manifestation of statecraft insofar as China’s national interests are concerned, and how it wishes to express and exercise those interests. It knows what is at stake for itself (and for Singapore). Compound this with Singapore’s small size and our near total reliance on our neighbours and countries further afield like China for our economic well-being, it should not surprise anyone how delicate things can be for a small country in Singapore’s position. Add our racial demographics and population imperatives, and the conflagration becomes even more complex, something our neighbours, competitors and friends know all too well.

    There must always be space to question our foreign policy or to find our more about its roots and imperatives, and to even disagree with it. But these tables tell us that one-dimensional conclusions about the Government’s strategy, whether one opines them to be right or wrong, are of limited utility, for an underlying question remains central – how differently would it be done, if someone else was in charge?

    When Singapore is pushed around in the international realm, or belittled unceremoniously usually as a result of our size, our opponents do so with their interests in mind, and for those with more nefarious intentions – to drive a wedge among Singaporeans. Rather than to curse our misfortune or those seemingly in charge of our fate, a stronger sense of nation and identity should be the only take-away for Singapore and all Singaporeans as a result of this drawn-out diplomatic spat with China. For it is in our destiny as a small state that similar spats will inevitably come to fore again in future. But is far from inevitable that Singaporeans are destined to be divided.

     

    Source: Pritam Singh