TR EMERITUS

DPM Wong Singapore will refresh its measures to support lower-income groups, seniors and young families, said DPM Lawrence Wong, reported the ST on 10 October. DPM Wong said the most important and hardest gap to narrow is not defined in terms of income or wealth, but in respect and status. "How do we shift attitudes and mindsets, so that the contributions of every individual and every worker across all professions are valued and appreciated," he said, adding that he would speak more on this topic at another time. I have no doubt that DPM Wong sincerely intends to help the poor and really hope his new measures will actually significantly do so. However with all due respect to DPM Wong, I completely disagree that the most important gap to narrow in this regard is that of respect or status. To put it bluntly, the most important gap the government needs to fill in helping the poor is the money to meet basic needs. First the Workfare Income Supplement ( WIS ) needs to minimally give out an additional $600 a month in addition to the current paltry $300 a month to help the working poor make ends meet. Second the Silver Support Scheme ( SSS ) similarly needs to give another $600 a month in addition to the current miserly $200-300 given to our elderly poor to enable them to keep body and soul together given recent sharp rise in food and energy prices. Finally a basic unemployment insurance support for the poor is also badly needed. The total cost of these three measures is around $5bn a year or 1% of GDP but it would permanently and systemically lift some 250, 000 citizens out of absolute poverty in an automatic dignified manner which current schemes only partially do. This is eminently affordable and should have been done long, long ago. In terms of the need for respect, the biggest need of the poor is rather for dignity in receiving assistance. In this regards WIS and SSS are automatic payouts once means tested, rather than the indignity of having to constantly re-apply and justify eligibility for many of the other support schemes. Perhaps then, the biggest gap in attitudes and mindsets needed to help the poor that DPM Wong referred to is that of our policy makers themselves.   Yeoh Lam Keong      Read More →

Sitting on my desktop for a very long time is the attached notice requesting the Law Society to convene an extraordinary general meeting with regard to the amendments to the Legal Profession Act. I have forgotten those exciting though depressing days when I was able to balance work as a lawyer managing a small firm and activities of the law society. Little did I anticipate that the government would make a mountain out of a molehill and resort to mass arrests of non- violent idealistic Singaporeans who were simply interested in small changes for a better and more humane society. The group of 22 who later became 24 were doing a bit of work outside their working hours. What big disaster could come out of them or their spare time work that the People’s Action Party (PAP) government under the leadership of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew could view them as a threat and “nipped them in the bud?” Take a look at the Notice calling for an Extraordinary General Meeting (EOGM). I agree that the language is not polished. It is direct and reflects a tinge of anger. It appears quite fearless or rather resigned. As my memory has faded, I referred my book, “Beyond the blue gate” to help me refresh on how and why the meeting took place. I read parts of my representation to the advisory board. Strangely, I did not even mention the incident involving me being subpoenaed as a witness before the Select Committee on the Amendment to the Legal Profession Act which was led by no other than the late first prime minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. It was soon after my legislation sub-committee presented a report on the bill pertaining to Amendments to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act in 1986 that I suspect the government decided to act. The bill sought to restrict the sale of foreign publications which comment on “domestic politics”. It was an extremely effective bill to curb criticisms of the Singapore government, though I must say that even before the bill was tabled, foreign publications rarely carry any article about Singapore. They were definitely hit very hard with the passing of the new law. Not one of the foreign publications was spared of the severe restrictions imposed on their publications. Several went to court but failed in their bid to lift the restrictions. The right to appeal to the Privy Council was demolished just to prevent one newspaper from reaching Singapore’s highest court. My sub-committee opposed the Amendments to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Bill. We presented a report to the Council of the Law Society. The council subsequently issued a mild press statement explaining the law. The thin-skinned leaders of the PAP were unhappy even though they knew they would soon finish the foreign publications. It turned its venom on the popularly elected president of the Law Society, the late Mr Francis Seow. And so the bill to tame lawyers was tabled to ensure that Mr Francis Seow vacates his seat as president even before his two year term ended. I recall those uncertain and depressing days. Lawyers were mostly unhappy and wondered if the Council would call a meeting, whether formal or informal, to discuss the bill and action to be taken. Nothing happened. We were let down. It was a long time afterwards that I discovered that the council did discuss holding an EOGM on the bill but the majority voted against that. On hindsight, I think the council should have done something because the bill was clearly grossly unjust to lawyers especially to its president who was forced to vacate his seat. It was strange of the majority of members who failed to speak up for lawyers. Was it the common reason that by being “confrontational”, worse things could happen? Worse things however did happen when 62 lawyers called for an EOGM to discuss the bill. In an attempt to scuttle the EOGM, the government announced that it would refer the bill to a parliamentary select committee. Whether it was deliberate or by coincidence, that announcement was made just a couple of days before the meeting. Several members advised me to abandon the meeting, saying that the government was now willing to listen to lawyers. I don’t know and don’t want to speculate if abandoning the EOGM would have “saved” the Law Society. But I did research on the purpose of convening a select committee and concluded that such a committee could not make material change to the proposed bill. Certainly, it could not ask the government to withdraw the bill which was our intention! What then was the purpose of abandoning the EOGM? Slightly over 400 lawyers or one third of the Bar attended the EOGM and voted for the unequivocal withdrawal of the Bill. The meeting was short. It perhaps reflected the mood of members who were extremely frustrated with the action of the government. I remember Senior Counsel Mr C.C. Tan standing up and speaking in a clear voice when some members quibbled over the wording of the resolution. He told members that what was important was the spirit of the resolution. Yes, that spirit was to voice our unhappiness over the unjust amendments. In less than a month, members of the Council of the Law Society and Legislation Sub committee were subpoenaed to appear before the select committee. Selected parts of the hearing were broadcast over prime time news over two days. I heard from a television crew that Lee Kuan Yew was very angry when he questioned Mr Francis Seow and me. His face was red each time his anger rose. I asked the person if he was more red when he questioned Mr Francis Seow or me. She replied “you”. The crew had a hard time blushing off the redness on his face.   Teo Soh Lung      Read More →

If You Believe This,You Will Believe Pigs Can Fly! How Long has Lawrence Wong been in government and for that matter Indranee Rajah? Why is it that when these 2 have been in government for well over a decade, Singapore’s Total Fertility Rate has plunged to 1.1 - one of the lowest in the World? And wasn’t Lawrence Wong the Minister for National Development quite recently? Wasn’t he the one who told you that your HDB will reduce to zero at the end of 99 years? And now as the Deputy Prime Minister and the presumptive Prime Minister, why is it that the majority of Singaporeans think that HDB is unaffordable? Their parents were home owners but the majority of our Young People now think they will have to rent or share homes in future. What makes him think that he can change Singaporean lives for the better when he is PM when Singaporean lives have become progressively worse in the last decade ever since he became part of the government!   Lim Tean      Read More →