TR EMERITUS

By Fang Zhi Yuan, Chief Editor [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHXVrxWL-zU&hl=en&fs=1] For the second time in a week, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong broached the impracticability of having a two-party system in Singapore, a reflection of how close the topic is to his heart. A TWO-PARTY system cannot work in Singapore, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on Sunday as reported by The Straits Times. This is because it is adversarial and guarantees neither good governance nor progress. As long as the People's Action Party (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 party, he said. Mr Lee must be concerned at the rising anti-PAP sentiments among the younger generation and the winds of change, facilitated in part by the new media, which have swept through Malaysia and the United States of America. I am most truly amazed at the unique talents of our First World Prime Minister including clairvoyance which enables him to foresee what will happen in the future if Singapore has a two-party system. Since the PAP has dominated Singapore's politics ever since independence in 1965, how can we know for sure that a two-party system will not work in Singapore ? Going by the current political situation on the ground, Singapore is still far away from having two equally strong parties in Parliament like the Democractic Party and Republican Party in the United States and the Kuomintang and Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan, if this is what he meant. Mr Lee is taking a leaf out of his father's book by resorting to the usual PAP-style scare-mongering tactics again to frighten Singaporeans from voting for the opposition out of fear that the emergence of another political party will result in political instability. The PAP has 82 out of 84 seats in Parliament. The opposition will need to win at least 40 seats in the next General Election in order for a two-party system to materialize and we all know this is a tall order given the gross disparity in strength between the PAP and the opposition now. The PAP can afford to lose one, two or even three GRCs in the next General Election and still maintain its dominance in Parliament where it can pass its bills unrestrained under the "dominant party" system advocated by PM Lee. There will be no changes in the status quo. Why does the PAP needs all 84 seats in Parliament to ensure good governance and progress in Singapore ? Or is because Mr Lee will be spending his time fixing the couple of opposition MPs in Parliament as alleged by him during an election rally in 2006 ? In fact, it is better for the whole of Singapore to have more opposition MPs running Town Councils as proven by the minibond fiasco in which the two opposition-controlled Town Councils have demonstrated adequately their foresight and capability by not putting their sinking funds into high-risk investments like the 8 PAP Town Councils which are expected to lose a significant portion of their funds exposed to the structure-linked products. Politics is inherently confrontational and adversarial in nature and there is no need to shun it. The nature of a nation's politics depend more on the personalities of its leaders rather than the political system. Though Singapore is a one party state, its politics is more adversarial than that of the United States or Taiwan. In both countries, politicians bickered and fought with one another pretty often, but they seldom end up destroying their political opponents' life unlike Singapore. Have Mr Lee forgot about Mr Jeyaretnam, Tang Liang Hong and Dr Chee Soon Juan, whose lives were destroyed by the crippling defamatory lawsuits filed against them by PAP leaders ? In the United States, leaders on both sides of the political divide can sit down and drink a cup of coffee together like Obama and Bush. Can we ever envisage PM Lee doing that with Dr Chee ? Our dear Prime Minister is so unforgiving, ungracious and vindictive that he will go to great lengths even to attack a just deceased political opponent as evident in the "condolence letter" he sent to the sons of his father's nemesis, Jeyaretnam alleging that the latter had tried to "destroy Singapore." Mr Lee should learn some basic humility from Mr Obama and Mr Ma Ying Jeou before opening his mouth to criticize other countries. Using the population size of a country to gauge if it is able to withstand a transition in government does not make any sense at all. Changes in government takes place frequently in modern democracies like Denmark, Finland and New Zealand with similar populations to Singapore and we do not see their economies collapsing and societies plunging into chaos. A smooth hand over of government between two political parties is dependent chiefly on the incumbent to step admit defeat and step down gracefully. If you have an octagenarian who openly threatened to "call in the army" should the opposition gain power via a "freak election", then it is going to be very problematic and messy. In a separate article on Channelnewsasia, PM Lee said: "If the party doesn't work, if something goes wrong with the party, you can be sure new parties will come, new contests will come. People will spring up to take on the government in no time at all. "But it is not our job to build up the opposition or split the party into two, because it is hard enough to find one team to look after the country. How can we find two?" I am afraid that should Singaporeans realize one day the PAP doesn't work for them, it will be too late for us to revive Singapore because there are no alternatives politicians with experience in governance to rebuild the nation again. Precisely because the state and the party is so intimately interwined in Singapore it becomes imperative that an alternative center of power be allowed to emerge and develop to replace the PAP should it becomes corrupted. It is not the job of the PAP to build up the opposition, but it is both their moral and fudiciary duties to Singaporeans to remove the barriers placed in the path of the opposition so as to level the playing field. For a start, I propose the PAP make the following changes to reform the electoral system: 1. Transfer the Election Commission from the Prime Minister's Office to the Civil Service College. 2. Reduce the number of GRCs or abolish GRCs altogether to encourage more political competition. 3. Give the opposition sufficient time to prepare for the election by announcing the polling date at least a month in advance. PM Lee ended his speech by saying that "The progress of leadership renewal in the PAP determines whether Singapore will continue enjoying stability and good government in the long term, he said." How wrong and arrogant this statement is ! The continued stability and prosperity of Singapore depends on whether there are honest, capable and visionary leaders to step forward and serve the nation and they can come from any political parties besides the PAP. Let us not forget that the PAP is NOT Singapore. It is merely a political party which has to obtain the mandate of the people every five years in order to form the government and govern. Ultimately, it is the citizens of Singaporeans who decide who runs the country, and not the PAP.  Read More →

By Fang Zhi Yuan, Chief Editor Two weeks ago, I wrote a series of article warning that the regime's tolerance for Mr Tan Kin Lian is reaching its limit. It appears that my worst fears have materialized: the official state-sponsored character assassination of Tan Kin Lian has begun. After 5 weeks of near total silence on the minibond rallies in the Straits Time Forum, a letter appears from nowhere from a Chua Sheng Yang castigating Mr Tan for organizing the rallies. In his letter "Questions on investment products rally", Mr Chua questioned the hidden motives of Mr Tan for "politicizing" the matter now when he did not stop his agents from similar practices when he was the CEO of NTUC INCOME. This is what Mr Chua said: "It was not too long ago that Mr Tan was the chief executive officer of NTUC Income and his own agents adopted the same practices which he now deems unscrupulous. Why did Mr Tan not tell his agents to practise more ethics then, when he was CEO ?" Will Mr Chua please provide us with documentary proof to substantiate his allegations ? We have checked with a lawyer and confirmed that the above allegations made against Mr Tan and NTUC INCOME are potentially defamatory in nature. The words used contains veiled insinuations that NTUC INCOME has been mis-selling and mis-representing its policies to its clients when Mr Tan was its CEO. It has also definitely cast doubts on Mr Tan's moral character by suggesting that he is a hypocrite in stepping forward now to assist the investors. Who will dare to write such a letter containing defamatory content against NTUC INCOME ? Instead of proof-reading and omitting this portion, the Straits Times actually publish it knowing well the irreparable damage it can cause to Mr Tan's reputation and public stature. In fact, the gist of the entire letter lies in the above sentences: it aims to attack Mr Tan's character in order to diminish his standing among the investors and ordinary Singaporeans, many of whom have now regarded him as a people hero and champion of the underdog. Without backing from somebody or some group higher up in the establishment, this letter will never be published with the Straits Times' "blessing". Mr Chua's blanket statement that "too many people are taking advantage of the situation to get back money from what they knew was a risky investment." is a replica of MM Lee's remark that "most investors walk in with their eyes open." Does Mr Chua know the exact number of people who are "taking advantage of the situation" as alleged by him ? Did Mr Chua attend the minibond rallies to see the number of ah peks and ah mahs there, some of whom don't even understand a single word of English. The profile of investors come in many sizes and shapes. Being young and educated doesn't automatically make you a financial wizard. If investigations show that these investors are misled and duped by the bank to purchase the structure-linked products, they should receive their fair share of compensation too. Mr Tan Kin Lian has never intended to politicize the minibond fiasco. Had the government stepped in earlier to assist the investors, Mr Tan would not have to step forward to give timely advice and assistance to the victims, many of whom are completely lost and clueless as to what to do next. As I have explained very clearly in my article "Why the minibond fiasco was never politicized by any parties" , the definition of "politicizing" as used in the context of the minibond crisis infers to a third party making use of it to promote a political personage or cause without truly having the real interests of the investors at heart. Mr Tan had made his intentions known in two interviews with the media that he has no political ambitions. In fact, it is Mr Chua who is politicizing the matter by urging "the Government and the banks not to cave in to the political solution of reimbursing all investors." In the first place, the investors never expect the government or banks to compensate them fully. What they requested is for an independent committee to be appointed by the government to investigate into the claims of mis-selling. Instead of showing empathy to the distressed investors and moved in to lend them a helping hand like what the Hong Kong government did, the response of the Singapore ministers have been rather nonchalant, insensitive and unkind. Had not Mr Tan stepped in to fill the void, it is possible that some investors may be forced to the brink of suicide as what happened in Hong Kong. The Straits Times has done Mr Tan a grave injustice by publishing this piece of hogwash full of malice and ill-will to impugn the character of Mr Tan through unsubstantiated allegations. This is only the beginning. We should expect more ghost writers like Mr Chua appearing out of nowhere to cast aspersions on Mr Tan's morals and motives including ex-NTUC colleagues, subordinates and even minibond investors themselves. The regime is becoming increasingly concerned at the large turnout at Hong Lim Park in spite of its exhortations to the investors to go through proper channels to settle their claims. Not since the days of Barisan Socialis did Singapore witness such a large assembly of people in a public area. The blogosphere should stay on guard to repulse any more character assassination of Mr Tan. Expect more lame tactics and dirty tricks to demolish him. Have we forgotten about Dr Chee, Tang Liang Hong and Andrew Kwan, a PAP cadre himself ? The mainstream media has destroyed the lives of too many selfless, courageous and patriotic Singaporeans who would be serving the nation faithfully now if not for the malicious smear campaigns conducted against them. It is time we, the new media, put a stop to this nonsense. Read Mr Chua Sheng Yang's interview with Wayangparty Club's Eugene Yeo here EDITOR's NOTE: I wrote this article before the interview and I remain unconvinced that Mr Chua has no personal vendetta against Mr Tan Kin Lian.  Read More →

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkEwN_0--tY&hl=en&fs=1] Background: This is a touching story of a family of three Singaporeans. The Wangs live in a sparse three room flat in an estate in the west of Singapore. Mr Wang had a right knee amputation 6 years ago due to diabetes and is now selling newspaper for a living. Mrs Wang had a fall soon after giving birth to her daughter and has been paralyzed from waist down since then. They have a daughter, Chunfang, aged 9 who is an excellent student in school. She cooks meals for her mother and help to clear her waste. Mr Wang earned a monthly meagre income of $200 to $300 by selling newspaper by the road side. Life has been a daily struggle for them. Mr Wang said he once contemplated suicide, but decided to live on for the sake of his wife and daughter. Watch for yourself their living condition. Are they living above or below the poverty line as defined by the government ?  Read More →