TR EMERITUS

Ms Raeesah Khan My intention was never to cause any social division, but to raise awareness to minority concerns. I apologise to any racial group or community who have been hurt by my comments. My remarks were insensitive, and I regret making them. I feel passionate about minority issues, regardless of race, and in my passion, I made improper remarks, and I have to be accountable for them. I will fully cooperate with police investigations.   * Facebook post by Ms Raeesah Khan.   Related: Police investigates Ms Raeesah Khan of Workers’ Party for comment made 2 years ago    Read More →

The Court of Appeal on Tuesday (30 June) affirmed the constitutional right of citizens under the Singapore Constitution to vote in the country’s elections. The court, however, dismissed Singapore citizen Daniel De Costa’s application to prohibit the Returning Officer from conducting the next general election under current circumstances. Mr De Costa’s counsel, M Ravi of Carson Law Chambers, said that the total cost ordered by the court against his client stands at S$23,000. Mr Ravi called on members of the public to kindly support their legal process by donating to the following account: DBS Savings 052-8-020501. Yesterday, the High Court dismissed the constitutional challenge brought by Mr De Costa against holding the general election under present circumstances. Justice Chua Lee Ming, who heard the case in chambers, said there is no basis for the Prohibitory Order that Mr Ravi was seeking to stop the Returning Officer from holding an election now. The role of the Returning Officer — a public officer appointed by the Prime Minister to oversee the election — is a “matter of duty, not discretion” under Section 24(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA), said the judge, adding that such a duty is non-justiciable. Justice Chua yesterday ordered Mr Costa to pay S$8,000 in costs to the Attorney-General. Mr Ravi submitted on Monday that the key provisions under the Parliamentary Elections (COVID-19 Special Arrangements) Act will disadvantage citizens on quarantine orders or stay-home notices at home, as they will not be able to cite their right to vote as a defence against their orders or notices. The Returning Officer, he added, as well as the director of medical services have powers to prohibit a citizen from casting their vote if they demonstrate acute respiratory symptoms or a fever, or if they have been exposed to the risk of being infected with the virus. He also argued that alternative parties in Singapore “are grossly disadvantaged” this election, as “there is late guidance as to organising rallies and campaigns, which directly affects the votes that can be garnered by the Opposition.” “The fundamental right to vote and/or free and fair elections of citizens is unduly derogated,” he continued. Noting that 66 countries have opted to postpone their elections due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Mr Ravi said that only 36 countries have decided to carry on with their elections despite the circumstances — 21 of which were either national elections or referendums. 22 countries out of the 66 that postponed their elections did so for either national elections or referendums, he added. Deputy Attorney-General Hri Kumar Nair, however, argued on behalf of the Attorney-General that South Korea, Australia, France, Germany, Japan and Israel “have held elections safely” during the pandemic, which proves that the same can be done in Singapore. He also stressed that now the 13th Parliament has been dissolved, the next general election must, by law, be held within the stipulated time frame — three months after the dissolution of Parliament, as stated in Article 66 of the Constitution. This means that the next general election must be held by 22 September this year, he argued, adding that delaying the election to 2021 “would flagrantly violate this constitutional deadline”. Mr Nair added that Members of Parliament (MPs) cease to be MPs and citizens are not represented as a result, which makes it “imperative for the electoral process to be set in motion, so that citizens can elect their representatives afresh, and representative government can resume”. Touching on Mr Ravi’s arguments on how holding an election under present circumstances would go against the constitutional rights of citizens to have free and fair elections, Mr Nair said that Mr De Costa’s factual case on alleged unfairness in the coming election “is essentially a partisan, political rant, based on outdated information, misconceptions, speculation and outright falsehoods”. The plaintiff, he added, did not succeed in “ground the putative right to free and fair elections in any provision of the Constitution”. Mr Nair argued that there is “no real controversy for the court to resolve” in Mr De Costa’s case, as the issues raised in the latter’s affidavit “are all about campaigning and timing issues for opposition parties in relation to the General Election”. Mr De Costa, he added, also did not challenge President Halimah Yacob’s dissolution of Parliament and her issuance of the Writ of Election. Mr Ravi’s client is also not challenging the constitutionality of any provision of the PEA, said Mr Nair. Mr Nair further argued that there is no evidence present that COVID-19 will subside between now and next January. Citing the Ministry of Health’s Dr Vernon Lee Jian Ming’s affidavit, Mr Nair noted that “the scientific consensus is that the pandemic would still be around by then” — a consensus shared by MOH. Dr Lee also predicted that there is “a risk of resurgence of community infection cases and clusters later on” in Phase Two following the circuit breaker period, “especially when Singapore decides to open up its borders”. Mr Ravi, in his clarification on the immediate point, however, argued that the figure of 4.6 cases a day cited by Dr Lee “is derived from conditions under normal daily life and it cannot be representative of Polling Day as there would possibly be every adult Singaporean out in public to vote”. “4.6 cases a day is regardless, a significant number because each and every one of the voters are humans with names and they cannot be merely reduced to a statistic. Citizens cannot be subject to physical suffering for political expediency,” he stressed. Mr Ravi also argued that the court must not “unquestioningly accept unchallenged medical evidence”, and added that the opinion endorsed by Dr Lee “has been challenged by medical experts and epidemiologists elsewhere”. While noting Mr Nair’s point that the Elections Department has released “a set of safe management measures for voting” in collaboration with MOH, Mr Ravi argued that despite such measures, “the risk of transmission of COVID-19 cannot be completely reduced as it is known that the virus can adhere onto surfaces for a few hours”. Voters are also required to remove their masks for identification. Given how the virus is transmitted through water droplets from the nose and mouth, Mr Ravi argued that polling agents and voters “would still be unduly exposed to such risks”. * Editorial by Online Citizen Asia.      Read More →

这个大选年，新加坡涌现了许多可靠和能干的在野党选人。这群候选人不但有爱心，而且也很真实。他们拥有高尚的品格与资历。更重要的是，他们已全力以赴准备为新加坡国人，无畏地表达他们的需求。 相对于成为人民行动党（PAP）的候选人，成为反对党候选人需要品格和勇气，后者体现的是为国家牺牲的意愿。反对党候选人经常成为不公平对待、人格抹黑的受害者，而且也必须面对亲朋戚友的打击。然而，这些候选人选择站出来，为全民追求公正与平等。他们选择为人民发声，因为他们关心我们国家的未来。 与他们相反的，正正是苍白无色的PAP竞选人。他们当中，许多把从政视为职业生涯规划。他们有巨大的竞选机器为后盾，并有团队帮忙粉饰形象，还可以利用部长的声望空降至国会。 我们真的要一个由新加坡武装部队（SAF）或公务员或政府机构高官组成的国会阵容吗？对他们而言，国会只是谋取更高官职的垫脚石。纸上文凭和多年来的塑造粉饰是否造就了更优秀或更强大的领袖？PAP系统是否有助加强4G领袖的表现？我们是否还要继续拥护PAP的“天生贵族”机制？ PAP国会议员的政途都一帆风顺，有者获得进入内阁、有者获得非常高薪的政治职位，而另一些则获颁董事职位及各种其它职位。 他们不会在国会上针对重要的课题发出质疑的声音。有党鞭在背后推动，加上他们对党也有义务，所以他们根据党的指示投票也是意料中事。对于他们而言，忠心换来的是各种回报，参政是有一项有规划的职业生涯，而不是为民服务或为国牺牲。 他们的从政路线，没有一个像陈清木医生，陈医生一直都独立自主，是少有发表有主见言论的国会议员。反观PAP，其中比较中立的国会议员，也可以被视为党集体思考的一份子。 反对党国会议员会质疑一些不受欢迎的政策。他们会反对PAP有意提高消费税的行动。他们会质疑高到离谱的部长工资，以及淡马锡控股和其它机构的利益冲突。他们将继续质问压制自由发言和公开聚会权利的压迫性法令。他们会表达有思维有主见的言论并提出合理的质问，他们将保护我国避免出现滥权，协助打造透明和问责环境。“自己检查自己”（ownself check ownself）是行不通的。 工人党国会议员查出，政府推出的220亿新元新冠肺炎大流行振兴配套，其实是来自贷款资金。他们挑战政府针对总统选举进行的修宪。他们提出的课题非常广泛：政府关联机构 (GLC) 腐败、政府组屋 (HDB) 租赁、捷运 (MRT) 故障、我们的公积金 (CPF)、司法行政法、防止骚扰法案和防止网络虚假信息和网络操纵法（POFMA）。 在问责方面，我们需要选出愿意为民发声，并发掘PAP言论背后的真相的国会代表。我们需要他们成为我们的喉舌，为我们在国会中投票。 让您的声音在国会中真正地被听到。 请投反对党一票.   李显杨      Read More →