Reform not Repeal the ISA
Reform the Internal Security Act in The Online Citizen is a good read. The argument on the need to have exceptional laws in exceptional circumstances is a balanced one. Very often we come across very extreme views on the ISA where there is the rabid anti-ISA mob on one hand, and the deranged ISA apologists on the other, both citing boring shallow arguments.
Donaldson’s thesis that the ISA is good only when it is not abused brings activists, lawmakers and the state to the table. Post-911, while most people buy the idea of the ISA used on the Jemaah Islamiah militants, the ghost of the 1987 Marxist Conspiracy still haunts Singapore. From the comments in his article, most people are rightfully cynical and fearful of the powers of detention the Singapore government has and they are unconvinced that the ISA would not be abused.
ISA detainees already have legal representation e.g. prominent criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan defended one Jemaah Islamiah militant. Despite the freely used criticism of “detention without trial”, the ISA hearing is actually already a closed-door trial presided over by a Supreme Court judge. Hence, even though those detained under the ISA have rights and subject to due process, people choose to see it as a kangaroo court maybe because they want to see it as a kangaroo court. The relevance of the ISA as an exceptional law therefore hinges on whether people perceive the ISA to be justly used. Any law can be abused but yet we don’t call for the repeal of every law simply because they can be abused. Instead, the parts where the law can be abused should be reviewed and amended while the spirit of that law to protect people and property is intact.
The selling breakthrough idea brought up along the way in Donaldson’s article is that the ISA should be for an arbitrary maximum of 6 months for locals and 2 years for foreigners, and in that time, the government has to build up a case for a court trial. The different time frame is to deter foreigners from conducting activities threatening Singapore. Furthermore, if no evidence is gathered and witnesses still not persuaded to take the stand, then those detained under the ISA have to be released. This debate over detention and trial technicalities sounds like a good starting point for the pro and anti-ISA stakeholders to retain but reform the ISA.
Imitation is the Best Form of Flattery
Bloggers would have known by now that NMP Siew Kum Hong was under ferocious attack in the Internet because of his involvement in intra-Aware politics. His critics have continued the skirmishes even after the EGM early this month when the Aware Exco led by Josie Lau and masterminded by Thio Su Mien was shown the door. Lately, the NMP who was wrongly labelled as a gay issue-only MP, implied embarking on bringing his more ridiculously rambunctious critics to court for defaming him.
There is a need for slander and libel laws even in an utopia of freedom of speech. But when such legal batons are brandished in political and semi-political contexts, any local political watcher would immediately think of the PAP. A political figure is, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, expected to be a lightning rod for rumours, scandals and criticisms by both the public and competitor political personalities. Whether to ignore the attacks or dignify them with a response is a difficult tightrope to walk. Nevertheless, it is a shaky tightrope that politicians have to walk in the big top and all eyes are watching to see if he would fall. On using defamation laws rather than wit, rhetoric or ironically silence to silence critics, imitating the PAP is the best form of flattery.
NMP Siew Kum Hong makes police report against netizens
18 May 2009
SINGAPORE: Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong has made a police report against netizens posting defamatory comments about him. He revealed this in his blog. He has also requested forums which hosted such remarks to take them down.
When contacted, Mr Siew refused further comment, saying the matter is now with the police.
The latest attacks have alleged or insinuated that he had asked for and is receiving foreign funding from a Swedish politician who allegedly funds the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) as well.
They have also alleged that he is involved or associated with the SDP and may be their representative or “mole” in Parliament.
Mr Siew has issued a strong rebuttal to these allegations on his blog. He said both of these allegations are untrue and false.
He considered them extremely defamatory and criminal in nature and goes beyond anything that a reasonable person could possibly perceive as being a valid or legitimate exercise of the right to free speech.
Mr Siew stressed that he did not at any time ask for and have not at any time been offered or accepted any sort of funding from any local or foreign entity.
He said the only sources of income or funding that he has are from his employer and the government in the form of his monthly NMP allowance.
He also said he is not involved or affiliated or associated, whether directly, indirectly or in any other way, with the SDP, and certainly not their representative or “mole” in Parliament.
The attacks on Mr Siew first started in the aftermath of the extraordinary general meeting of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE). They have culminated in a campaign to sabotage his re-application for a second term of NMP.
A week ago, netizens flooded the REACH portal with comments about why he should not be given a second NMP term.
REACH chairman Amy Khor confirmed that the feedback unit has received Mr Siew’s request to take down defamatory comments about him.
As a general policy, while “always mindful that over-regulation could stifle participation and engagement of contributors”, Dr Khor said that like other online platforms, REACH would not hesitate to remove postings “deemed sensitive or offensive”.
As at 8pm on Monday, the discussion thread involving Mr Siew had almost 13,900 page views and more than 900 postings since it was initiated on May 1.
On one occasion last week, REACH administrators urged Netizens to refrain from personal attacks and offensive postings. After growing feedback from users and as the discussion “became heated”, said Dr Khor, REACH had removed some of these postings.
Meanwhile, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has referred to the Law Society the issue of Mr Siew’s role in the AWARE saga.
Earlier this month, corporate counsel Tongel Yeo had emailed the AGC and three other legal bodies, including the Law Society, to ask if Mr Siew had breached the Legal Profession Act by advising the AWARE “Old Guard”.
When contacted, a Law Society spokesperson said that under the Act, it “cannot comment on any complaint or disciplinary matter”.
Shadow Cabinet, When?
Gerald Giam brought this up about Gregory Hunt, a Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water from Australia who is visiting Singapore. Unfortunately for Singapore, there is not enough opposition in parliament to create a real shadow cabinet to rightly or wrongly challenge the existing policies of the various ministries. There are only 2 opposition MPs and one opposition NCMP, the consolation parliamentary prize given to the opposition. Why is this so? Simply because citizens did not vote in enough opposition.
Something else about our Westminster parliamentary roots that did not take root in Singapore. The quaint gracious official title of the opposition in the UK i.e. the losers of the last election, is “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition”. The word “Loyal” is to remind parliament and the people that the opposition’s cabinet is a shadow one, not a shadowy one. This is also something that the PAP should drum into their heads.
Kirkpatrick Fined
Did we think that there would be any other conclusion? The surprising twist was that the AGC decided to drop charges on 2 other editors, Mr Daniel Hertzberg and Ms Christine Glancey. The government has some sense after all despite their decision to send a message to the repeat offender, Melanie Kirkpatrick. They already made their point by fining Dow Jones Publishing for contempt of court.
Philip Jeyaretnam was the lawyer for Melanie Kirkpatrick. Maybe one day Philip might go into politics after all.
WSJ deputy editor fined $10,000
Friday March 20, 2009
Leong Wee Keat
weekeat@mediacorp.com.sg
AS A features editor of The Asian Wall Street Journal, she was fined $4,000 for contempt of court in 1985.
Twenty-four years on, Ms Melanie Kirkpatrick — now a deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page — was fined $10,000 yesterday after she was found guilty of the same offence again.
Ms Kirkpatrick took editorial responsibility for three articles published in The Wall Street Journal Asia (WSJ Asia) between June 26and July 15 last year.
Last November, the Journal’s publisher, Dow Jones Publishing Company (Asia), was found to be guilty of contempt of court and was ordered to pay a $25,000 fine.
At yesterday’s hearing, Ms Kirkpatrick did not contest against the High Court’s application of the meanings accorded to the three articles. Principal Senior State Counsel David Chong, who represented the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), argued that Ms Kirkpatrick was a repeat offender who played “a significant part” in last year’s contempt case.
But Ms Kirkpatrick’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Philip Jeyaretnam, argued that his client “had no intention or desire to undermine any institution in Singapore, including the Singapore judiciary and its individual judges”.
Senior Counsel Chong countered that Ms Kirkpatrick “has not apologised nor stated explicitly that she accepts that the courts of Singapore apply the law of Singapore without fear or favour”. She should be fined $25,000, he argued.
While he noted that she did not offer an apology, Justice Tay Yong Kwang said there were two differences between Ms Kirkpatrick and Dow Jones Publishing Company cases: First, she was a second-time offender while the publisher was a third-time offender. Second, she did not contest the articles were in contempt of court, unlike the publisher.
Ms Kirkpatrick, who is now based at the Journal’s head office in New York, was also ordered to pay $10,000 for legal costs.
Mr Chong informed the Court that the AGC would discontinue contempt proceedings against two other WSJA’s Hong Kong-based editors, Mr Daniel Hertzberg and Ms Christine Glancey.
Another WSJ Opinion, Another Court Case, Another Farce
The government is taking WSJ to court again, rather than let their hollow victory rest and move on. Singapore’s court already fined WSJ $25,000 last November for contempt of court over its blatant pro-Chee Soon Juan articles. In the latest twist of the perennial FEER or WSJ vs PAP battle with Chee Soon Juan as the provocateur and pawn at the same time, the court is now zeroing on the editor of the WSJ, Melanie Kirkpatrick. If it is any comfort to Melanie, the politicised legal attacks are also being dropped on international editor Daniel Hertzberg and managing editor Christine Glancey.
Sure do whatever is Machievallian to “punish” the foreign media for their biased support of only Chee Soon Juan and not the other opposition giants in Singapore, however spiteful that so-called punishment is. Nevertheless, singling out individuals in WSJ for further raps on the hand is overkill, and therefore rather counter-productive in terms of Singapore’s political image. Another sign that the PAP is clueless about how to stay on in power.
March 14, 2009
WSJ editor to face contempt
A-G taking action for articles that ’scandalise the Singapore judiciary‘
By Zakir Hussain
THE Government is taking a senior editor of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) to court, accusing her of being in contempt of court in three articles published last year.
In the High Court yesterday, Justice Tay Yong Kwang granted an application by the Attorney-General to start proceedings against Ms Melanie Kirkpatrick, the deputy editor of the New York-based financial daily’s editorial page.
In court documents seen by The Straits Times, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) said it was initiating proceedings against her for ‘actions which resulted in the publication and distribution’ of articles that ‘contained passages that scandalise the Singapore judiciary’.
The articles were published in June and July last year in the editorials and opinion section of the WSJ Asia – which is the WSJ’s sister paper.
In the court documents, the AGC noted that the publisher informed it that Ms Kirkpatrick supervised and had oversight of that section. It understood this to mean she had ultimate editorial responsibility for the section.
The AGC’s move comes three months after Dow Jones Publishing (Asia), which publishes the WSJ Asia, was found in contempt of court for the same articles.
The first article was an editorial on Singapore’s democracy, arising out of a hearing in May last year to assess damages that Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan and others had to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew for libel.
The second was a letter from Dr Chee in reply to a rebuttal of that editorial by MM Lee’s press secretary.
The third article was another editorial, on the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute’s report on the Singapore judiciary.
Last November, Justice Tay found, among other things, that the articles alleged bias and lack of independence on the part of the judiciary.
Singapore Law Society: A Crippled Tiger?
Imagine what persuasive power it could yield in challenging bills and acts? The recent law on “moving on” arrest powers is an example. What if the Law Society habitually takes more interest in such topics?
Co-opt, control or even coerce, baring the overlaps, is how governments, here and elsewhere, conduct their business of politics, and sometimes also the politics of business. As far as the Law Society of Singapore is concerned, the government seems contented in controlling it as pressure group, rather than co-opting it en masse like the media. By co-opting, it makes the Law Society just as culpable as the government when there is political unpleasantness looming. It is “soft” rather than “hard” power. As this TOC article explores, outright control like the Law Ministry’s appointment of the Law Society’s exco only does more damage to the government’s image. Or is it that the Law Society is allowed to be seen as supposedly independent to show that there is space for (toothless) dissent in Singapore still.
Assertions are ‘untenable’
Law Minister responds to comments by Law Society president
Tuesday • January 20, 2009
Ansley Ng
ansley@mediacorp.com.sg
SINGAPORE lacks detailed statistics on crime and punishment? How about the recidivism, or crime relapse, rate of 24.2 percent — “one of the lowest in the world” — Law Minister K Shanmugam offered yesterday in Parliament.
It is a measure of how, while the Government takes a tough stand on crime, it believes in compassion and rehabilitation, said Mr Shanmugam, in a rebuttal to “assertions” made by Law Society president Michael Hwang.
The latter had written in the Law Gazette that the Singapore system lacks a “principled and transparent” policy in punishing crimes, which is reflected in the lack of data in this area.
But Mr Shanmugam, who questioned Mr Hwang for not specifying which data he was referring to, disputed these “untenable” comments.
The Minister said that law enforcement agencies do publish crime and drug offence statistics regularly, while departments in the Home Affairs Ministry undertake research, “often in collaboration with independent researchers”, and also offer assistance to researchers, including students.
There have been several papers written by researchers allowed into the prisons to interview offenders. In 2007, the Prisons Department worked with the National University of Singapore to study the needs of aftercare services for ex-offenders and their families.
Last year, it worked with the University of South Australia to gauge the effectiveness of treatment programmes conducted by the prison service.
Non-constituency Member of Parliament Sylvia Lim, however, asked why she was told that the ethnic composition within Singapore’s penal institutions could not be revealed publicly, in response to her parliamentary question in 2007.
Mr Hwang had also alluded to ethnic data in his article.
Mr Shanmugam replied, “How in the world would publishing details on ethnic composition on an aggregated basis help in such penological research?
“If anyone wanted to do a study … the number of prisoners by ethnicity would be made available and they can go down and do their research,” he said. “But it’s an entirely separate question as to whether these have to be published as a matter of general practice. It sometimes could lead to a misinterpretation of data.”
The Minister told the media later that the relationship with the Law Society has always been “constructive and professional”.
“(But) sound bites and sweeping statements which are contrary to the facts and which show a basic lack of understanding over our criminal laws and procedure and approach to sentencing is not really constructive or helpful,” he said.
Where are the statistics?’
Law Society head criticises Government for lack of detail, Law Minister to respond on Monday
Weekend • January 17, 2009
Derrick A Paulo
derrick@mediacorp.com.sg
LAW Society president Michael Hwang has criticised the Singapore system for “lacking a principled and transparent” policy in punishing crimes.
For example, the Government “has not published detailed statistics of crime and punishment so that social scientists can undertake adequate research on the causes of crime and the effects of current penal policies on prisoners”, especially repeat offenders.
As a result, the local law schools “barely cover the study of criminology”. There is “even less” focus on “the more important study” of the punishment of crime, he wrote in his latest monthly message to the legal fraternity. According to Mr Hwang, a SeniorCounsel, one “traditional justification” for the lack of such statistics is that “these are sensitive figures”.
This, he said in this month’s issue of the Law Gazette, “could be interpreted as indicating that certain communities might be more prone to commit certain crimes”.
“But we cannot continue to put our heads in the sand and hide important social facts which need serious study by objective scholars in order to improve our society,” he said.
On Monday, his message will be discussed in Parliament after a parliamentary question was filed by MP Lim Biow Chuan (Marine Parade) on whether there is a need to review Singapore’s penal policy in the light of Mr Hwang’s statements.
Mr Lim, a lawyer, told Weekend Today that to say Singapore lacks a clear policy is a “very wide statement to make”. He said: “As president of the Law Society,Mr Hwang’s words carry a lot of weight … To me, it’s important enough for the Minister to give his views on whether he agrees with them.
Law Minister K Shanmugam will reply on Monday.
In his message, the second in a two-part series on crime and punishment, Mr Hwangalso said that “rigorous” research is needed to tackle issues such as whether the death penalty is effective in preventing murder and other capital crimes, or if corporal punishment (caning) is an effective deterrent against crimes for which it is imposed as a penalty.
The question of effective deterrence should also be asked of “strict liability” offences, which refer to “offences that do not require a guilty mind on the part of the accused”, Mr Hwang, 65, explained to Weekend Today .
He gave the example of customs offences and how some individuals might not know what to declare.
“There’s always an argument about customs offences,” he said.
Another possibility he raised was on whether Singapore should follow the United Kingdom in adopting “indeterminate sentences” for certain offences to incentivise offenders.
“So, you give a person a jail term of not less than X years and not more than Y years, and how long it actually is depends on the assessment of rehabilitation,”Mr Hwang argued.
A Protest Misfired
Yesterday, Seelan Palay and Chong Kai Xiong were arrested for protesting outside the Ministry of Manpower. It was the usual scene acted out, but this time instead of SDP Chee Soon Juan and SDP members being those arrested, it was his friends and familiar faces to the civil disobedience game show.
The storyline is getting stale actually. Whenever SDP and its affiliates make their move, the police would react by arresting them. From the Four Person CPF Protest to the Tak Boleh Tahan protest to yesterday’s MOM arrest, the police would swoop in regardless of the number of activists. Nevertheless, this MOM protest was slightly different under the surface.
The CPF and Tak Boleh Tahan protests were concerned with the plight of Singaporeans. But the MOM protest was instead a show of solidarity with the Burmese activists who are being shipped out of Singapore for their protests here against the Burmese junta in 2007. Herein lies the calculated tactical risk that might not reap the expected returns for the civil disobedience activists.
With unemployment, high cost of living, a senior civil servant showing that he is redundant by playing French chef for weeks, amongst other pressing worries brought about by the economic crisis, the two activists chose to protest the treatment of foreigners rather than their staple fare, to be a voice for Singaporeans.
Objectively, the civil disobedience faction shaped by SDP already does not seem to have a huge support base in comparison to the turn-out at Hong Lim Park whenever Tan Kin Lian takes the stand. This sort of misguided or rather badly timed support of Burmese civil disobedience activists only makes Seelan and company miss their mark even more when Singaporeans are xenophobic about foreigners from China, India, Burma or whereever who are working here and taking away jobs from heartlanders.
Two activists arrested for protesting at MOM
Tuesday January 13, 2009 Today
TWO Singaporean activists were arrested yesterday after they staged a protest :at the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) against the non-renewal of work permits of several Myanmar nationals.
In a statement, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said Mr Seelan Palay and Mr Chong Kai Xiong had entered the premises at around noon and “repeatedly defied orders” from MOM’s security personnel to leave. The duo was then arrested. Police are investigating them for criminal trespass; they have been released on bail.
The pair are no strangers to protests here. Both have taken part in protests organised by the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and have had brushes with the law.
They have been arrested previously for protesting against rising consumer prices outside Parliament and also for protests linked to the 2006 International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings here.
In January last year, Mr Palay also held a fast outside the Malaysian High Commission here in support of five detained Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) leaders, while Mr Chong has taken part in May Day and World Press Freedom Day protests.
Yesterday, the pair was protesting in support of two Myanmar nationals,Mr Moe Kyaw Thu andMr Win Kyaw, whose work permits have reportedly not been renewed.
The Myanmar pair were among a group of 40 who took part in a protest against their country’s ruling junta during the Asean Summit here in November 2007.
In response to media queries, the MHA said Myanmar nationals are welcomed to work, study or reside here. They “are also free to organise and express their political views” if pursued within Singapore’s laws.
But the MHA noted that “a handful” of Myanmar nationals here have “decided not to observe this basic obligation”, and have shown in their actions and attitude “a wilful disregard and contempt for the law and the Singapore authorities”.
“In fact, some of them who have acted in this manner, notwithstanding their having benefited from education subsidies and the hospitality of Singaporeans, even demand the right to stay in Singapore as if it is a matter of their personal entitlement,” said the MHA.
“They threaten to lobby political pressure through the media and agitate foreign public opinion against the authorities so as to compel them to concede to their demands. These persons are not welcomed in Singapore. They should leave Singapore once their existing passes expire.”
The Ministry reiterated that Singapore’s laws “apply equally to every person”. “No one is allowed to break the law with impunity regardless of how morally superior he thinks his cause is,” it added.
Who is Lee Wei Ling
The answer is obvious if you are talking about who her family members are. But is her identity anchored to who her dad and brothers are?
As time goes by, Lee Wei Ling appears more and more in the media with her frank and relatively balanced insights. Her father and brother are typecast already and whatever they say is clouded as politically biased. I always wondered if she is the unofficial moral signpost for the Lees on social issues from thrift (below) to being egalitarian to her critique of Singapore’s biomedical industry under Philip Yeo’s watch. Even if she is, does it matter? Do we judge the message or the messenger?
Lee Wei Ling: My house is shabby, but it is comfortable
Written by Lee Wei Ling, for the Sunday Times, 04 Jan 2009
ST link
In 2007, in an end-of-year message to the staff of the National Neuroscience Institute, I wrote: ‘Whilst boom time in the public sector is never as booming as in the private sector, let us not forget that boom time is eventually followed by slump time. Slump time in the public sector is always less painful compared to the private sector.’
Slump time has arrived with a bang.
While I worry about the poorer Singaporeans who will be hit hard, perhaps this recession has come at an opportune time for many of us. It will give us an incentive to reconsider our priorities in life.
Decades of the good life have made us soft. The wealthy especially, but also the middle class in Singapore, have had it so good for so long, what they once considered luxuries, they now think of as necessities.
A mobile phone, for instance, is now a statement about who you are, not just a piece of equipment for communication. Hence many people buy the latest model though their existing mobile phones are still in perfect working order.
A Mercedes-Benz is no longer adequate as a status symbol. For millionaires who wish to show the world they have taste, a Ferrari or a Porsche is deemed more appropriate.
The same attitude influences the choice of attire and accessories. I still find it hard to believe that there are people carrying handbags that cost more than thrice the monthly income of a bus driver, and many more times that of the foreign worker labouring in the hot sun, risking his life to construct luxury condominiums he will never have a chance to live in.
The media encourages and amplifies this ostentatious consumption. Perhaps it is good to encourage people to spend more because this will prevent the recession from getting worse. I am not an economist, but wasn’t that the root cause of the current crisis – Americans spending more than they could afford to?
I am not a particularly spiritual person. I don’t believe in the supernatural and I don’t think I have a soul that will survive my death. But as I view the crass materialism around me, I am reminded of what my mother once told me: ‘Suffering and deprivation is good for the soul.’
My family is not poor, but we have been brought up to be frugal. My parents and I live in the same house that my paternal grandparents and their children moved into after World War II in 1945. It is a big house by today’s standards, but it is simple – in fact, almost to the point of being shabby.
Those who see it for the first time are astonished that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s home is so humble. But it is a comfortable house, a home we have got used to. Though it does look shabby compared to the new mansions on our street, we are not bothered by the comparison.
Most of the world and much of Singapore will lament the economic downturn. We have been told to tighten our belts. There will undoubtedly be suffering, which we must try our best to ameliorate.
But I personally think the hard times will hold a timely lesson for many Singaporeans, especially those born after 1970 who have never lived through difficult times.
No matter how poor you are in Singapore, the authorities and social groups do try to ensure you have shelter and food. Nobody starves in Singapore.
Many of those who are currently living in mansions and enjoying a luxurious lifestyle will probably still be able to do so, even if they might have to downgrade from wines costing $20,000 a bottle to $10,000 a bottle. They would hardly notice the difference.
Being wealthy is not a sin. It cannot be in a capitalist market economy. Enjoying the fruits of one’s own labour is one’s prerogative and I have no right to chastise those who choose to live luxuriously.
But if one is blinded by materialism, there would be no end to wanting and hankering. After the Ferrari, what next? An Aston Martin? After the Hermes Birkin handbag, what can one upgrade to?
Neither an Aston Martin nor an Hermes Birkin can make us truly happy or contented. They are like dust, a fog obscuring the true meaning of life, and can be blown away in the twinkling of an eye.
When the end approaches and we look back on our lives, will we regret the latest mobile phone or luxury car that we did not acquire? Or would we prefer to die at peace with ourselves, knowing that we have lived lives filled with love, friendship and goodwill, that we have helped some of our fellow voyagers along the way and that we have tried our best to leave this world a slightly better place than how we found it?
We know which is the correct choice – and it is within our power to make that choice.
In this new year, burdened as it is with the problems of the year that has just ended, let us again try to choose wisely.
To a considerable degree, our happiness is within our own control, and we should not follow the herd blindly.
The writer is director of the National Neuroscience Institute.
Change from Inside and Outside
PM Lee is not totally wrong that change must come to Singapore and that it should be from within the ruling party. The PAP must change fast if they wish to retain their glamour over Singaporeans. Speakers’ Corner turning into a protest corner, the ISA no longer used to contain opposition leaders and the lighter touch in the Internet are modest attempts at change.
However, this change would not have come about if the opposition and the people were not vocal about these demands directly and indirectly. I would think that if there is another strong contender for our votes, the PAP would change even faster and more aggressively. Likewise, the other contender would also react to the PAP’s changes to win our votes. Brinkmanship in politics between parties to court voters sounds excellent for us. There should always be space for another main party in Singapore politics. Give our inherited parliamentary system a chance to flourish, and Singapore to really break out of the spell that only and only the PAP alone is good for Singapore.
Nov 16, 2008
PAP cadres conference – Change must come to PAP
CHANGE must come to Singapore – but within the ruling People’s Action Party rather than in the form of having a two-party system.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Sunday stressed that the PAP must constantly evolve to keep up with the times. This means renewing its membership and leadership ranks, and coming up with fresh ways to engage Singaporeans.
Mr Lee, who is secretary-general of the PAP, said: ‘Change has to take place in Singapore but change must take place not (between parties) but within the PAP.
‘As long as the PAP changes itself, and continues to provide clean and good government, and the lives of Singaporeans improve, the country is much better off with one dominant, strong, clean, good party.’
Addressing over 1,000 cadres at the annual PAP Conference at the Toa Payoh sports hub, Mr Lee acknowledged the desire for change among electorates across the world.
‘It has happened in Australia, it’s happened in New Zealand recently,’ he noted. And most notably, in the United States too, where Democratic candidate Barack Obama swept to victory on his campaign platform of change.
Observed Mr Lee: ‘So the country is set on a new direction. And if Obama succeeds, that’s good.
‘If he doesn’t succeed after four years or eight years, the Americans will try again with a new President, change party, the Republicans set a new direction.’
But while the US is a big country with a big pool from which to find political talent, there is no such guarantee in smaller countries, he said.
‘In Asia, it very seldom works because having two or more parties has not guaranteed good governance or progress,’ he added, citing Taiwan as an example.
In the last decade, its unhappy voters had swung from the Kuomintang (KMT), to the Democratic Progressive Party, and back to KMT again.
‘By Western definitions of democracy, Taiwan qualifies because it’s got two changes of government – in, out, in.
‘But it is not a political system which is working properly. And I don’t think you want that kind of political system in Singapore,’ he said.
He added however that this doesn’t mean that the PAP has a blank cheque: It has to account to voters at the polls every five years. New parties will emerge quickly to take it on if ’something goes wrong with the PAP’, he said.
Neither did it mean it was the job of the PAP to build up the opposition, he added. ‘It’s hard enough to find one team to look after the country. How can you find two? As a small country, we must have a first division team, an outstanding group of people who can make up for our many limitations,’ he said.
The PAP has managed to survive more than 50 years because it kept itself ‘vigorous, lean, relevant, able to win elections’, and adjusting its leadership styles to ’suit new generations of Singaporeans,’ he noted.
He cited initiatives such as the PAP Policy Forum in which younger party members discuss policy making issues, intra-party elections to district committees, and establishing a presence in the new media.
It is difficult for political parties to stay vigorous, he allowed.
In Japan for instance, the Liberal Democratic Party has been in power for half a century, but ‘has not sustained its vigour’. With no nurturing of younger talent, there is a loss of energy and fresh ideas, observed Mr Lee. ‘So for more than a decade Japan has had a series of weak governments.’
China’s Communist Party, on the other hand, is trying to keep itself strong, vigorous and tied to the ground. This was why it was very interested in Singapore’s political experience, and sent many study teams here.
Mr Lee cautioned however that this did not mean the PAP had found the magic formula to keep itself strong. ‘It is always difficult to carry out self-renewal, to respond creatively to new challenges, to reinvent ourselves. But it is vital for the PAP to make every attempt,’ he said.
The Romanticisation of JB Jeyaretnam and the Eulogy Meme
With JB Jeyaretnam sadly out of the picture, what would the opposition scene be like? The Reform Party, rhetorical old wine in new bottle like it or not, would have provided an interesting renewed challenge to the PAP in the coming elections.
Even in his death the vindictive PAP were not gracious enough to acknowledge fully his contribution to the discourse and tried to distastefully politicise the letter of condolence to JB Jeyaretnam’s family. Their political folly resulted instead when a genuine dignified condolence would have won them respect grudgingly. But the temptation of politicising his death was maybe not restricted to the PAP. The SDP have shamelessly propped him up as a rallying banner, just as El Cid’s body was in the battle for Valencia in 1099.
Nevertheless, the outpouring of kneejerk heartfelt euologies with the passing of JB Jeyaretnam and the posthumous decoration of a stalwart to the point of him being a de facto national legend is perhaps a bit too much, or perhaps it is just more convenient to do so in this social networking media age. I don’t remember David Marshall or Devan Nair having this sort of this Che Guevarisation . Nevertheless, one explanation is that JB Jeyaretnam more than any person romantices the idea of never surrendering despite being cornered and cracked at every political turn. He certainly deserves tremendous respect and recognition for his steadfast determination to offer change to Singaporeans. Sadly not enough of us bought his vision although Don Quixote he was not.
The late Devan Nair aptly described him, likely with a bit of dramatic flourish, and Lee Kuan Yew’s irate frustration with the man who demolished the notion that the PAP cannot be defeated until 1981 -
“Look,” he said, “Jeyaretnam cant win the infighting. I’ll tell you why. WE are in charge. Every government ministry and department is under our control. And in the infighting, he will go down for the count every time.” And I will never forget his last words. “I will make him crawl on his bended knees, and beg for mercy.”
Jeyaretnam was made of sterner stuff. To his eternal credit he never did crawl on bended knees, or ever begged for mercy.
The late JB Jeyaretnam was indeed made of sterner stuff. Sued, slandered and often silenced by the local papers until lately, he still held on and bounced back, as we can see in the eulogy meme by bloggers these few days. Unlike some opposition members, he insisted on a confrontational robust style in parliament. Unlike some opposition members, he did not court foreign organisations for support. That is why we like JB Jeyaretnam so much in retrospect. He was the best of the opposition in this heroless age, and I mean no disrespect to the current cohort of opposition parliament members intended.
Absence does make the heart fonder.
