TR EMERITUS

The PAP regime has launched a new Facebook to reach out to netizens and young Singaporeans in addition to the REACH and YPAP Facebooks. The Ang Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang Facebook page was launched officially by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong during a community event at Teck Ghee today. He also called on netizens to "participate" actively and post messages on the page. The page will feature an exhibition showing the transformation of the seven estates in Ang Mo Kio and Yio Chu Kang over the last few years. Ang Mo Kio GRC is helmed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong who won only a disappointing 66.6 percent of the votes in the 2006 general election against a team of rookies. It is not known if the Ang Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang Facebook will censor comments critical of the PAP regime or its leaders like the REACH and YPAP Facebooks while condoning the use of derogatory remarks by YPAP leaders and members. YPAP leader and new citizen from India Sinha Shekhar sparked a massive outcry this year by posting a comment on the YPAP Facebook calling Singaporeans "DOGS". His comment remains to this very day, a sign that it may be endorsed by the YPAP. Another YPAP leader Jack Lin Xinli caused a stir as well when he denounced Singaporeans as "third class citizens" on the same Facebook page. Netizens should be extra vigilant when posting on the new Ang Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang Facebook run by the PAP regime and refrain using any metaphors which may be remotely misconstrued by some uneducated goons to be "inciting violence and public disorder."   Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →

By Yoong Siew Wah Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) had already decided to stop its shuttle bus services to the heartland areas at 11 pm on Sunday 12-9-10 and the directive from the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) for both the RWS and Marina Bay Sands (MBS) to stop their services abruptly in the early Friday afternoon is mind-boggling. The decision appeared to have been made impetuously by the CRA as it gives the public the impression of fluster at the top (including the MCYS Minister) over what adverse effect this problem could have on the PAP's election prospects if left doing nothing about it. There was apparently no thinking through on what consequences such abrupt stoppage of the shuttle services could have on the heartlanders, the bus operators and the fate of the hundreds of staff (including drivers) who will become jobless. Almost all the buses were newly bought with banking loans and the owners are now in a fix as to what to do with their buses and how they are going to service their loans. Long before RWS was opened, the company had already planned to include shuttle bus services to the IR. This was with a view to encouraging car owners to use the shuttle services to the IR, thus not contributing to traffic congestion. The other objective is to provide free transport services to heartlander families to visit the IR as a form of requittal to society. There are amenities like the Universal Studios theme park, numerous shops and food outlets in RWS for the enjoyment of the families. They make it a family outing taking advantage of the convenience of the shuttle bus services. Now a so-called benevolent government has with a stroke of the pen deprived these deserving families of the enjoyment of the attractive amenities in RWS. Does the PAP government believe that such impetuous action will endear it to these families? Is it logical to contend that prospective gamblers would take advantage of the free shuttle bus services to visit the casinos which would save them only a few dollars when a hefty $100 entry fee does not present any deterrence? They would still be visiting the casinos even without the free shuttle bus services. So just because of some misplaced notion on the part of the relevant authorities, heartlanders are deprived of the means of bringing their families on enjoyable outings to RWS. Perhaps it may occur to our enterprising functionaries that depriving would-be gamblers of the free means of trnasport would not deter them from visiting casinos. There are already measures in place such as education to rehabilitate Singaporean gamblers to get them to eschew their gambling habits. Maybe the answer is to re-inforce these measures with more innovative ideas and not to look for fall guys to justify some bizarre action. Anyway, inveterate gamblers are a lost cause.   Related articles: >> Rebuttal to reasons offered by MCYS for termination of RWS shuttle bus service >> MCYS stopping of IR shuttle bus service is a conspiracy >> Singaporeans pissed off by stopping of RWS shuttle bus service     Please join our Facebook discussion on this article here and invite your friends to do so as well to raise awareness among fellow Singaporeans.  Read More →

Author: Dr Wong Wee Nam 29 May 2009 When the President opened the new session of the 11th Parliament last week, he said, “Our political system is not set in stone. Singapore politics must evolve over time, as the world and our society change. It must respond to new circumstances and goals and continue to deliver good government to Singapore.” For the optimists, this statement gave a glimmer of hope that our political system is evolving for the better. A few days later, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong gave a glimpse of what is to come when he outlined three principles that will guide the changes to be made to the political system. One, they must be fair to all political parties. Secondly, they should result in a strong and effective Government after an election; and thirdly, they must ensure that diverse views are represented in Parliament. Without the details, all these sounded reasonable. However when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong fleshed out the details in Parliament, anyone who had wished for a more democratic system and a system that could produce better political leaders ended up with nothing to celebrate about. True, the number of seats for the opposition would be increased to nine with the extension of the NCMP scheme, 3 more single seats will be up for grabs, and the size of some 6 member GRCs would be reduced. But these are not drastic changes. They are mere tweakings of the existing system. However, the media and the PAP would like Singaporeans to see these as huge concessions. Why the Change? On the surface of it, the PAP government appears very magnanimous. Losers now get to have 9 seats when previously they could only have three. Smaller parties and independents now get to contest 3 more single seats. And the sizes of the GRCs are going to be reduced when all of us thought that they would be increased. Nevertheless, all these are nothing but to tell the skeptics to stop complaining about the unevenness of the playing field since the PAP has become so generous. The PAP has never been known to give concessions to the opposition. With draconian laws still in place and demonstrations by even one person now illegal, and filming of such acts could lend one into trouble, it is obvious they are not becoming more democratic than what they were before. However, recently there has been a lot of public discontent on various issues and the grumbling citizens feel that their problems are inadequately aired. People now feel that there is the need for more opposition voices in Parliament. The PAP is probably thinking that by giving all these token concessions, the voters, particularly the younger generation, who are now more outspoken and more ready to make changes, would be appeased. Whether the voters will buy into this or not is left to be seen. Recently, there too has been talk of opposition unity and a lot of discussions on the ground to get the opposition parties to come together and contest the election as a united front. In fact the focus of many opposition members has been on winning a GRC in order to make a psychological breakthrough. The opposition parties realise they are too small in terms of resources, manpower and candidates to take on the PAP effectively without coming together. Now with these changes, it is probably the PAP’s hope that all the small parties would stop talking about opposition unity and go it alone. Perhaps the stronger candidates from the various opposition parties will now go for the single seat wards, leaving the GRCs to be contested by weak teams. It is better for the PAP to have nine fragmented NCMPs in Parliament than to have five strong, duly-elected, unified opposition Members of Parliament. Will these changes halt all the talk about opposition unity and send the opposition parties back to their fragmented stage? It is difficult to say. What the Opposition Parties Need To Realise However one thing is clear. The opposition parties must realize that they are like small market stalls struggling to make a living by scrambling against each other for morsels and yet have to compete against a giant hypermarket at the same time. With such an uneven contest, it is inevitable that Parliament will end up overwhelmingly dominated by the PAP with a motley bunch of 9 opposition MPs/NCMPs each with his/her own disparate views acting as discordant accompaniments — just like bells and cymbals in an orchestra. In such a parliamentary composition, the PAP will always look like the only party capable of governing and the opposition will always look fragmented and not capable of providing an alternative. No matter what, NCMPs and NMPs will always be seen as objects of PAP’s creations. They will never have the status and dignity as elected members of Parliament. The last Malaysian General Election should serve as a good lesson for our opposition parties. In the past, they were fragmented and bickered against each other and did not make much headway against the ruling party. Then in the last GE, they decided to fight the Barisan Nasional as a united front. Now they are truly an alternative, capable of ruling the country should the time come. Thus, these changes that the PAP intends to introduce will not change the status quo. In fact, it will entrench the PAP even more. Unless the opposition parties realize this and get their act together, they would be consigned perpetually to the role of political bridesmaids. The Change that is Needed Sadly for Singapore and Singaporeans, the changes proposed will do nothing to improve their democratic aspirations. The lives of Singaporeans will not be less controlled, the climate of fear will not go away, and our citizens will remain politically immature and apathetic. Rather than tweaking the electoral process to appease voters as opposed to giving them a choice, what Singapore needs is a system that can help us produce plenty of good political leaders and not worry about the dearth of it all the time. Instead of constantly stressing of the need for “our leadership team” (read PAP) to continually self-renew by inducting new leaders and mollycoddle their entry into Parliament, we should create an environment where young people with leadership qualities can bloom and come forth naturally. For Singapore to succeed in future, we need to have strong political leaders, and strong political leaders can only be forged and emerge by fighting the electoral battles by themselves. Strong leaders will provide strong governments. For this reason, GRCs should be done away completely. Any political worth his salt should not be afraid to face the electorate and try to carry the ground by himself. The right change to be made then is to provide an environment where the young are taught to have a sense of service to the country, to have a sense of justice, to have an independence of mind and to be imbued with a spirit to right wrongs and to allow ideas to contend so that leaders will naturally surface. The right change to be made is to remove the climate of fear that discourages political participation so that all these idealism can be expressed freely. To ensure political participation, we need to make sure that people with leadership qualities will be able to fight an election fairly and also not ostracized for his political conviction. For this you need a free and fair press, a civil service that is seen to be neutral and an electoral process that does not catch a candidate by surprise by not giving him ample time to prepare. How about fairness to the young candidates who wish to contest the general election? Would the hefty election deposit required be reduced to allow more young people, who are yet to be settled in their career to join in the fray? Would the government set up a Political Arbitration Court, so that employees who are victimised by their employers for their political affiliations can get their problems redressed? How about the Political Donation Act? Not only is a young candidate hampered by hefty deposits, victimized by employers, he would also will have difficulty getting donations. It does not need a clever man to know which party’s candidate will get donations easily now that donors can no longer remain anonymous. We should be fair to all candidates who are willing to come forward to serve in what I consider to be the highest form of national service. If we can encourage the growth of political talents by treating everyone of whatever political affiliations fairly, there would not be any need to feel anxious about strong political leaders not emerging in future. Then there would not be any need to keep thinking about how to keep the PAP entrenched in perpetuity in order to save Singapore. Source: http://www.sgpolitics.com  Read More →