TR EMERITUS

Singapore citizen Daniel De Costa has filed a constitutional challenge against the decision to call for an election under current circumstances. In a Facebook post on Tuesday night (23 June), Mr De Costa — who is represented by M Ravi of Carson Law Chambers — sought court declarations that “the right to vote and the right to free and fair elections are fundamental rights guaranteed to all citizens of Singapore under the Constitution”. “I have just filed a constitutional challenge on behalf of Daniel De Costa that he be granted a Prohibitory Order enjoining the Returning Officer from proceeding with the holding of the general election as per section 24(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act,” said Mr Ravi. “The application is premised on the ground that the calling of the election is in breach of the right to free and fair elections under the current circumstances,” he added. The court has accepted the application and the application has been served to the Attorney-General’s Chambers. Mr Ravi noted that a case number has been assigned. Mr Ravi’s application came after the announcement on the dissolution of the Parliament by President Halimah Yacob earlier today at the request of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The dissolution of Parliament comes three months after the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) released its report on the modified electoral map on 13 March. Mr De Costa, alongside TOC editor-in-chief Terry Xu, was charged with criminal defamation over an article alleging “corruption at the highest echelons” among members of the Singapore Cabinet.   * Editorial by The Online Citizen Asia.      Read More →

On Tuesday 23rd June, Singapore Parliament was dissolved, and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong called for an early General Elections. Nomination Day is on 30 June 2020 and Singapore goes to the polls on 10 July 2020. Let GE2020 begin. Without missing a beat, the Prime Minister’s brother Lee Hsien Yang announced his party membership in the Progress Singapore Party helmed by Dr Tan Cheng Bock in the Tiong Bahru Market the next morning at 8:00 am.  This is followed by the release of a video later in the day (LINK) in which Lee Hsien Yang emphasises that it is possible to love Singapore, be a Singapore patriot, but not vote for PAP. This idea is not contentious at all internationally. In fact, it is a “no brainer” statement. In the United States, one is a patriotic American, no matter if he votes a Democrat or Republican President. However, in Singapore, after years of propaganda manufactured by the ruling party, equating the Singapore state with the PAP government, most Singaporeans are unable to see the dichotomy. There are important issues that the current PAP leadership has failed to tackle such as the CPF scheme and HDB leases. LHY also criticises the Presidential Elections in 2017 that is seen by many Singaporeans to lack in legitimacy. Mr Lee Kuan Yew once said: “there will come a time when eventually the public will say, look, let’s try the other side either because the PAP has declined in quality or the opposition has put a team equal to the PAP and they say, let’s try the other side.” It is unlikely that LKY could have foreseen that the dragon slayer would be his own son, Lee Hsien Yang. LHY’s decision to enter politics by joining an opposition party is perhaps the catalyst that the opposition camp needs. This is not to discredit the hard work of the likes of Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam who fought bravely and steadfastly, devoting a significant part of their life span to fighting for a better Singapore, but the fact that LSY is an insider, and more remarkably, he is LKY’s son, may be the game changer in opening up the hearts and mind of an electorate that is entrenched in the notion that Singapore is equal to PAP. International news outlets have already picked up the Lee vs Lee flash point as a decisive factor in GE 2020. Some examples are Washington Post: How a House Provoked a Feud in Singapore’s Lee Family: QuickTake Reuters: Explainer: Why are Singapore’s first family feuding? AFP: Singapore PM’s brother joins opposition before polls Bloomberg: Singapore PM’s Brother Joins Opposition Ahead of Election Nikkei Asian Review: Prospect of Lee vs. Lee election has Singapore buzzing Australian Financial Review: Singapore’s COVID-19 election a Lee family affair Canberra Times (Australia): Singapore PM’s brother joins opposition City News (Toronto, Canada): Singapore PM’s brother joins opposition party ahead of polls Sina News (China): 新加坡大选在即，李光耀次子李显扬加入反对党 Jakarta Post: Singapore PM’s estranged brother joins opposition party as election looms Politiko (Philippines): Singapore PM’s brother joins opposition before polls Taiwan News: Singapore PM’s brother joins opposition party ahead of polls SCMP (HK): Singapore PM’s brother Lee Hsien Yang joins opposition party ahead of July 10 election The Star (Malaysia): Singapore PM’s estranged brother joins opposition party as election looms Hindu Times (India): Singapore PM’s estranged brother joins opposition party as election looms Times of India: Singapore PM’s brother joins opposition before polls Anadolu Agency (Turkey): Singapore premier’s brother joins rival as polls loom New Castle Herald (Australia): Singapore PM’s brother joins opposition RTHK News (Hong Kong): Singapore PM’s estranged brother joins opposition France 24: Singapore PM’s brother joins opposition before polls British Herald (UK): Singapore PM’s Estranged Brother Joins Opposition Party Ahead Of Election The Standard (HK): Lee Hsien Yang, Singapore PM’s brother, joins opposition Fiji Times: Singapore PM’s estranged brother joins opposition party as election looms US News: Singapore PM’s Estranged Brother Joins Opposition Party as Election Looms Singaporeans are eagerly waiting for LHY to announce that he will be running in GE 2020. In fact, there is speculation that he will contest in Tanjong Pagar GRC, LKY’s old stomping ground where he served as a Member of Parliament until his death on 23 March 2015. The memories are still fresh in the residents’ mind, and we wish LHY all the best if he does contest as a candidate in the elections.      Read More →

Just received an op-ed from the New York Times in my email. The story is entitled “Tech Goliaths Act Like Davids,” and the main thrust of the story is that the tech giants like Google, Apple, Facebook, Uber and so on have become the corporate bullies that they once fought against. The story can be found at: [LINK] If one studies history, one will notice that this isn’t a new story. History is filled with examples of young, vibrant revolutionaries who fought to overthrow an overbearing power and once they had succeeded, they proceeded to behave as the power that they overthrew. As an ethnic Chinese, I think of Mao, who lead a peasant army to overthrow a corrupt regime that was oppressing the poor. However, once in power, the communist proceeded to enforce an iron grip on power and proved to be as nasty if not more so than the nationalist that they overthrew. There are other examples. In the Middle East, there’s the example of Naser who overthrew a corrupt and repressive monarchy, only to replace it with another form of dictatorship that has stifled progress. I think of Singapore, the country that has been my home for the last two decades. We’ve been run by the same party since our independence in 1965. While the party has delivered prosperity and done well by the citizens for the most part, they’ve moved a long way, as in a very long way, from the party that was a plucky upstart fighting to rid us from the yoke of colonial rule and later race-based politics of the Malaysian Federation. The part that once wrote a national pledge of “Regardless of Race, Language or Religion,” now stresses the fact that “The population is not ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister,” and delightfully uses every trick in the book to ensure that it wins more than 60 percent of available seats in parliament (it remains an achievement for our rag-tag opposition to contest let alone win seats). Why is this the case? The answer is as simple as this fact – power is exceedingly addictive. The people who get power tend not to want to lose it. Young idealist who become revolutionaries to get rid of entrenched powers becoming the very entrenched powers that they overthrew. This remains true in business and politics. Some systems have found a way to survive this. In America, the political system was designed to limit the damage a bad leader could do. Presidents have to share power with Congress and a Supreme Court and much of the power over citizens is devolved to local governments. Furthermore, Presidents are limited to two terms of four years. Thus, you only put up with an incompetent leader for eight years at the most and no individual has to chance to hang on for years until they get drunk and senile with power. This system works in America because there’s a reverence to the constitution and laws and there’s a press to keep the powers that be on its toes. In places that don’t have this, there is a real danger that the man in charge can merely change the laws. China is a case in point. Prior to President Xi’s ascension, it was understood that a generation of leaders would step down after a decade. While China didn’t have elections, it had some form of leadership renewal. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case and one cannot assume that President Xi, may enjoy his power a little too much, even at the risk of the wealth that the Chinese people have grown used to. The same is true in business. The story in dynamic economies is that of plucky start-ups with a bright idea or a new technology taking on and taking market share from established firms. The problem is that once the start-ups become big firms with deep pockets, the game no longer becomes about coming up with new products that delight consumers but about enhancing market share and getting consumers to continue buying what you’ve been selling them. As I was once told, “Big firms don’t innovate, they just buy small firms that do.” While the dangers of minimal competition for businesses are less obvious than that for political leaders, they are non the less very present. Businesses that become too interested in their market position tend to forget that consumers can find and will find alternatives. I think of Singapore’s media scene, which could not accept competition and kept peddling the myth that Singapore was too small for media competition. The established media powers were so busy defending their turf that they failed to see people moving away from printed newspapers and terrestrial television. They even got the government onto their side in branding online media as “anti-establishment.” There was one small problem. Consumers stopped reading newspapers and the advertisers noticed. Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) has had to diversify into old folks’ homes to keep shareholders happy and more recently had to suffer the indignity of being kicked off the stock exchange index. Successful big firms are the ones that find a way of growing big but keeping their units running like start up enterprises. Big law firms are trying to do that, working as a big unit in the centre for things like branding and HR policy but getting their respective practices to compete for business like sole proprietorships. In theory this should prevent the groups from becoming immune to market forces. The other factor for businesses is law. Laws that prevent companies from becoming monopolies should be made stronger. Let’s go back to tech as an example. Microsoft was once a start-up that had a clear goal of having a desktop on every desk running its software. It became a monopoly and defended it tooth and nail. Unfortunately, Microsoft was late into the internet and thus lost ground to Google. Microsoft has only become a dynamic player under its current CEO, Satya Nadella, who moved it away from defending its old business market. Limits on power are not just good for consumers or voters. They are actually good for incumbents as it keeps them on their toes and forces people to innovate. The Goliaths of the day should remember that they had their best victories as Davids and trying to crush today’s Davids will only lead to them sharing the fate of Goliath.   Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be.      Read More →